Talk:Anthroposophy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Karma and Reincarnation

. . . are central topics in anthroposophy. Why has all mention of two central beliefs in anthroposophy been removed from this article? The only mention of reincarnation is a derisive reference to Annie Besant which reads as if Steiner would have had no use for such nonsense LOL. Why don't the anthroposophists who control this article want to explain their belief system fully and clearly?DianaW 02:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a short description including reincarnation and karma on this page. Erdanion 06:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Big improvement. Who'd like to take bets on whether it'll be there a month from now? (Anthroposophists control this page and fought determined battles to keep it that way.)DianaW 11:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Category pseudoscience

Since there are questions as to the scientific legitimacy of this subject, I have categorized the article with pseudoscience. Note that this does not necessarily mean that the subject actually is objectively pseudoscience, only that some have considered it to be such. --ScienceApologist 14:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

if that is general policy of handling this category, then there is something wrong with it. i am sure that to the casual reader it does not come across like that but rather that anthroposophy is classified as pseudoscience. i don't even have a problem with that assesment in general but nevertheless i found it just a cheap grafitti kind of way to popooh anthropop. i'd prefer if you could rather introduce a section that argues where anthroposophy is not in line with science and where it has antiscientific aspects. not being able to argue that through and just stick on the label pseudoscience is not good enough. if you don't have anything better to show i will remove the cat. but i would support a section as i described. but something more elegant than 'however many consider it...'trueblood 13:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That is the general way the category is handled, trueblood, and since there is ample evidence that people consider it a pseudoscience, I ask you to leave the tag alone. I am in favor of a new section outlining the pseudoscientific nature of anthroposophy. --ScienceApologist 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

well, can you elaborate a little on the it is the general way to be handled theme. where can i see that it is how you say it. because on this talk page the issue already popped up but without the result that the tag would be appropiate.trueblood 16:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally considered pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 16:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

at wp:words to be avoided i found three categories that might apply to the term:

• Are derogatory or offensive.
• Imply that Wikipedia shows support or doubt regarding a viewpoint.
• Are condescending towards (that is, "spoonfeed") the reader.

trueblood 16:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not spoonfeeding if the concept is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community (which this subject is). See List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. --ScienceApologist 16:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

followed your link to the abitration, and found that your statement "that some have considered it to be such" in conflict with that.trueblood 17:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC) for instance: Questionable science 17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.

trueblood 17:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A "substantial" following? Anthroposophy has no substantial following. Psychoanalysis has a substantial following. Anthroposophy has 50,000 followers world-wide. And maybe half of those consider it to actually be "science". That's not a "substantial" following of the type the psychoanalysis example is and Anthroposophy certainly does not have the support among scientists that psychoanalysis has. This is grasping at straws. Pete K 17:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Equating the acceptance of anthroposophy with that of psychoanalysis is highly inappropriate. I think if you disagree you should try to get a third opinion or file an WP:RfC. --ScienceApologist 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Trueblood, but see it as part of a much larger problem; the category 'pseudoscience' is being widely applied for fields which anybody citable considers to be pseudoscientific. This is an example of systemic bias in Wikipedia that needs to be addressed. Hgilbert 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"This is an example of systemic bias" in the generally valiantly NPOV Wikipedia "that needs to be addressed." yes, absolutely! The curiosity is that NPOV reaches towards an intensity of neutrality that Rudolf Steiner actually taught me even more about than I learned in Science or in Psychology - and I'm a good scientist and a trained counsellor - and studying "Philosophy of Freedom" was the key to this for me, taken in context of studying Steiner's work overall and seeing, yes, here is a genius who has not been properly recognized. I've lived 40 years (outside Steiner communities) since discovering Steiner, and have almost never found a genius to equal him. The problem with Wikipedia (and I don't want to change its setup because usually it works) is that it would not be NPOV as normally understood to gather together similar character references to Steiner from suitable people like Canon Shepherd. Lucy Skywalker 22:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And conversely, the label of science is being equally sought by anybody who wants to apply it to any mumbo-jumbo they consider "scientific". Anthroposophy is NOT science, it's philosophy mixed with a little religion and occultism. Pete K 02:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

scienceapologist i was not convinced by your argument and you gave the link for the abitration process, which did not convince me either. i don't like your if you don't like your if-you-don't-agree-with-edits-you-better-leave-it alone-or-try-a-rfc. why don't you try a rfc. i invite you argue the case here and in the article, improve the anthro and science section. say where or why anthroposophy conflicts with science. i'd support that. until then i remove the pseudoscience cat. just the cat is graffiti or territiorial pissing.trueblood 21:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This kind of advocacy is highly inappropriate. The article already illustrates in its very text the problems this subject has had with reception in the scientific community. There is no reason to violate spade clauses. I'm more than willing to help develop the article, but I'm not willing to have anthroposophy-cheerleaders assert article ownership. Pseudoscience categorization is not controversial when the scientific community considers it pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 22:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

i am not trying any kind of advocacy or cheerleading here but i find your editing too confrontational. to just put in the cat to me is teritoiral pissing. i thought on of the outcomes of the abitration was a recommendation to you to avoid this kind of stuff.trueblood 11:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

pseudoscience is something that pretends to be science but is in conflict with modern science and does not hold up to basic scientific standards. so when anthroposophy is pretending to be science that is in fact pseudoscience. but it is more, it is about education, agriculture, art etc; and as pete put it it is it's philosophy mixed with a little religion and occultism.

i have a problem with this whole category. is catholicism pseudoscience or tai chi, yoga... can i put the cat in the article on plato or c.g. jung or how about philosophy in general? why should anthroposophy carry the labem pseudoscience but not theosophy for example?trueblood 12:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the category, talk about it at Category: Pseudoscience. If you think theosophy has been verifiably labeled a pseudoscience, go ahead and categorize it. --ScienceApologist 13:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Unlike catholicism, tai chi, yoga, plato or jung, Anthroposophy was stated by Steiner to be a "Spiritual science". A way of investigating the world of the spirit using the methods of science. This is clearly reported in the opening line of the article. Its not actually a science so its a pseudoscience. Lumos3 13:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether anthroposophy applies scientific methodology (e.g. the systematic application of reason) to spiritual experience, as Steiner claimed. He did not claim it was a natural science. Geisteswissenschaft, Steiner's word in German, is normally applied to history and anthropology in their broadest sense, for example (not just as empirically-based sciences).

Not everything that is not a natural science is a pseudoscience. Hgilbert 17:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

True. Some things are neither science nor psuedoscience. Some ideas are philosophy, others are just BS. Anthroposophy does not apply scientific methodology - and scientific methodology consists of much more than "systematic application of reason". In fact

the "systematic application of reason" is exactly philosophy. But Steiner's systematic application of reason left no room for peer review. In fact, he specifically excluded himself from peer review by stating that the only people who could evaluate his were were, essentially, Anthroposophists. This, from the outset, excluded scientists (not that any serious scientist would be interested in examining the set of ideas Steiner postulated. You are trying to change the definition of science so that Steiner fits into it. This is nonsense. Pete K 17:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You say that "Anthroposophy does not apply scientific methodology" but I would challenge the accuracy of your observations on which you make this claim. It is my careful and extensive and informed observation, over 40 years, that Anthroposophy is not at odds with scientific method, which relies on a) consistently careful observation; b) drawing reasonable hypotheses from the observations; and c) being open to further evidence that might challenge the hypotheses. Now Steiner himself asked people NOT to believe what he said but to test it for themselves. The fact that Anthroposophists sometimes choose belief over testing does not mean that this is what Steiner encouraged. He did not say, as you claim, "the only people who could evaluate his were, essentially, Anthroposophists"; what he said was that he spoke of what he had himself experienced and that if another did not experience the same thing, this was no proof in itself that what he had said was untrue. It is a delicate matter to grasp the different scientific validities of both positive proof and negative absence of disproof. One analogy is that I do not claim that Australia does not exist because I have not been there. I have examined the matter, and have found it reasonable to take the evidence of others as a working hypothesis. Which is what I have done with Steiner, and have sometimes arrived at different conclusions. But he taught me the method - to observe what was going on "within" with the same very great care as one would apply to conventional scientific observations, and, indeed, as the whole of modern psychology has taught us to begin to do with our inner realities. There is a growing number of scientists who see that certain factions in the scientific world claim objectivity where they, as equally respected and qualified scientists, disagree with such claims to "objectivity", see for example [[1]] I hope this helps the discussion Lucy Skywalker 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is just a problem of translation, why do Anthroposophical societies continue to mistranslate the term into the English word Science [2], [3]? This looks like an attempt to draw on the authority of western science but without subscribing to its rigour, which is the precise definition of a pseudoscience. Lumos3 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the English word science is also not limited to natural science: the OED's definitions, for example, include 1) "Knowledge of cognizance of something", 2) "Knowledge acquired by study", 3) "A particular branch of knowledge or study", 4) "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified...and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain", 5) "The kind of knowledge or of intellectual activity of which the various 'sciences' are examples". Definition 5b is the only one that is more particular; it states: "In modern use, often treated as synonymous with 'Natural and Physical Science', and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws..." What you (and many others) think of as science is only one of its many meanings - not even a particularly prominent one (5b in a list of 6) in the view of the OED editors! Hgilbert 19:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

it is not a problem of translation, when talking about geisteswissenschaft, steiner did not mean the humanities, what the german term also stands for, but as hgilbert put it A way of investigating the world of the spirit using the methods of science. so spiritual science is an accurate translation. but i thought that is somewhat beside the point, investigating the world of spirit is outside science. i thought the pseudoscience label was more about conclusions or observations by steiner that are in contrast with science but concern wordly matters, like vitalism, biological transmutation,... the category is a detail, and i will stop to hassle about it, i found more important that those contraction of modern science are reflected in the article. "Some ideas are philosophy, others are just BS", pete you are wrong with that i think, a lot of philosophy would be considered pseudoscience if uttered today, using the standards that are used here. that is one reason why i don't like the category,, for instance lamarckism is in it. poor lamarck, lamarckism is just a superseded scientific theory. but at the time it was cutting edge science. but that is out of context here.trueblood 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, then we have to get into the debate about whether ever word that Steiner uttered represents Anthroposophy. I don't think it does and there is a debate currently at waldorfcritics.org that suggests that Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom should not be included as part of his body of work that is regarded as Anthroposophy. Regardless of what you think of poor Lamarck's work, if it were presented today as fact would be considered psuedoscience. Anyway, are you no longer disputing that the psuedoscience tag is accurate? Pete K 20:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know what edition of the OED you are using but mine clearly labels the other, more generalised meanings as archaic. The Anthroposophy sites make no effort to show they are using the word in an archaic way. This article itself states right at the start that Anthroposophy uses the methodology of science. There is no ambiguity here. Anthroposophy tries to lay claim to being a science in the modern sense and in so doing makes itself a pseudoscience. Lumos3 12:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

1978. In this edition, none of those I list above are labeled 'archaic'; #1 is listed as being used chiefly in a theological and philosophical sense nowadays, however. Definitions #2, #3, #4, #5 are listed without qualification in my edition. Check again and note that subdefinitions (such as 3d) are separately defined and categorized from the main definitions. I'd be surprised if four definitions have become declared archaic in a quarter-century. Hgilbert 16:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What might surprise you is not relevant to this discussion. If you have a copy that isn't 30 years old, maybe you should check that one and WP:AGF before disputing what another editor has posted. Pete K 16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sven Ove Hansson as pseudoscientific author

Lumos3, you have introduced a reference to an article by Sven Ove Hansson from 1991 at the beginning of the article as seeming "proof" that anthroposophy is not a science. As you know since long, the article by Hansson is an especially bad exemple of pseudoscientific writing and argumentation, as documented by this. If you want to cite a "proof" for your view, you need to find some other citation, otherwise your insertion lacks standing. Thebee 22:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait... you believe your COMMENTS by Sune Nordwall page (i.e. original research by YOU) has any business refuting ANYTHING here? Boy, talk about lacking standing... The citation by Professor Hansson is absolutly appropriate here - YOUR original research is not. Pete K 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the citation to Sven Ove Hansson's 1991 article but without the link to Waldorf critics. The citation is absolutely of the right kind for Wikipedia and its the right place to put it. I would like to link to the full copy of the article held on the Waldorf critics site. The article is quoted in full there without any editorial from the host. I cannot see why this is objectional. I will restore the link to the full text when I've heard responces here. Lumos3 11:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Links to a trial transcript made available on WaldorfAnswers were deleted because of editor's problems with the hosting site. Similar problems exist with the critics' site. We need to find common rules that apply to both sides here, so long as there are sides lined up the way they are. Hgilbert 00:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

thebee i cannot believe that you are still playing the same tricks, why don't you at least point out when you quote yourself.

- i think there should not be any doubt whether the scientific community (i.e. the majority of scientists) considers anthroposophy a science or not. unfortunately not many scientist consider it necessary to point that out. on the other hand one can probably find scientist to quote that are open for certain aspects of anthroposophy. could we not as a compromise try to do it without the label pseudoscience and instead point out that anthroposophy does not comply with basic scientific standards (f.e. reproducibility of results) and that many of steiner's findings are in conflict with modern science (geology, evolution). i know if noone has said this in a published text it's like original research. on the other hand for a strong statement as 'many scientists/ the scientific community regards it a pseudoscience', i would like to see more references. if it is true it should not be too hard to find them trueblood 14:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood, I think you've touched on the issue here - "unfortunately not many scientist consider it necessary to point that out." - there is, indeed, no reason for scientists to refute Anthroposophy as science. How many scientists make the effort to write a paper refuting the scientific merits of voodoo? And voodoo doesn't have a lobby of people who are willing to defame anyone who says anything against it (like Anthroposophy does). Why would any scientist find it necessary to point out that, no, the brain is not essentially like the intestines (as Steiner suggested - Elephants to Einstein p.146)? So yes, I suggest it WILL be hard to find scientists who have taken more than a glance at Steiner. Where would one start in refuting this? And then, would one be faced with the challenge of Anthroposophists claiming they haven't done "the work" and therefore cannot know what Steiner meant when he said the brain was excrement. What scientists would be interested in opening *that* can of worms? This is the kind of thing skeptics are good at, and are willing to endure. Scientists, generally speaking, don't have any reason to refute Steiner's work - it really refutes itself. Pete K 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether anthroposophy is in consonance with a serious scientific strife or not is not possible to determine on the basis of Hansson's article. A closer look at it from the perspective of the Philosophy of Science points to that it is. The article by Hansson was published, when he (probably) still was PhD student in 1991, nine years after he had been one of the main founders of the ideological sceptical anti-New age organisation "Association Science and Education of the People", and its chair person (probably) since then. His bias is shown by the way he distorts the argumentation in the source he refers to, and the way he does not take into account the difference between theosophy, and anthroposophy as developed by Steiner, separate from theosophy. As such, his article constitutes a prime example of pseudoscience in the basic sense of trying to stand out as scientific, while seriously misrepresenting the published original sources is refers to as basis. Wikipedia should strive to be serious, and use serious sources for what it publishes. The article by Hansson is not a serious source. Thebee 11:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

HGilbert wrote:"Links to a trial transcript made available on WaldorfAnswers were deleted because of editor's problems with the hosting site. Similar problems exist with the critics' site. We need to find common rules that apply to both sides here, so long as there are sides lined up the way they are." No, I don't think WaldorfAnswers is comparable to WaldorfCritics which is not a single-opinion site. TheBee single-handedly positioned his websites as a defamatory sites and this disqualifies them. I will, however, support warehousing the material at a neutral site.

TheBee wrote: "The article by Hansson is not a serious source." and once again, you link to your own original research websites - Thank goodness we don't rely on YOU to determine what constitutes a "serious source" for Wikipedia. The Dutch Commission is not a serious source in my view (and probably the view of any objective reader) but you guys don't seem to want to see this. Please don't waste everyone's time trying to deflate critical viewpoints. The Hansson source is not only qualified, but the list of his credentials you have provided above are impressive to say the least. Pete K 15:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"many scientists"

That anthroposophy is contested as a science is clear, since a professor of philosophy does so contest it. A professor of philosophy is a little different than many scientists. In any case, Hansson is cited later in the article.

After the many arguments by various editors, especially Pete K, that websites that have original research or are otherwise not up to Wikipedia verification standards should be excluded from citability - aimed at Waldorf Answers, etc. - it is once again remarkable that a website not meeting these standards should be included here. We are back to the old discussion: either Waldorf Answers and similar sites are suitable for citation (to pages on these sites that are not original research), and then the critics site is, too; or else neither should be cited. Let's stick to one set of objective standards for all. Hgilbert 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No, let's not. Waldorf Answers is intended to be defamatory. It was created for the purpose of defamation of those critical of Waldorf. It is the work of a single author. There is no other site referenced here that fits those criteria with the exception of other sites by the same author. Pete K 02:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On

"Waldorf Answers is intended to be defamatory."

You're probably referring to your view of the section at American4Waldorf.org, informing the public about PLANS. As for P. Staudenmaier, that you have added as citation in the article, as "source" on anything related to anthroposophy, in spite of all earlier discussions about the lack of qualification regarding the WC-site as citable source here at Wikipedia, as pointed out by Hgilbert, see On the Stories by P Staudenmaier.

As for the two (not one) authors behind Waldorf Answers, they're described at the site.

PeteK suggests not applying standard Wikipedia criteria regarding sources for material in articles. You sure advocating NOT applying standard Wikipedia criteria is a good thing to do?

Thebee 11:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, BTW, for cleaning up WaldorfAnswers a bit during this arbitration and investigation. PLANS, as you yourself pointed out in the article, has a membership of 44 people, not two or five. The PLANS website could hardly be compared to the original research diatribes of a single editor. Anyone comparing the two sites will notice the difference. Pete K 15:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On:

"thanks, BTW, for cleaning up WaldorfAnswers a bit during this arbitration and investigation."

I checked the latest dates of the files uploaded to the Waldorf Answers site. The latest new date of a file was 21 Oct. The arbitration started one month later. What do you refer to?

On:

"as you yourself pointed out in the article, has a membership of 44 people"

In one editing effort of the article on PLANS, I told that the group, according to its bylaws is a corporation that shall have no members. That was deleted by someone. The "44" people, in the article described as "members", were the number of people, that according to the secretary of the group had paid at least 15$ as gifts to the group for 2000 at the end of the year. After that, I have seen no updated figure on the number of donors of the 15$. Mid 1997, I think it had received 55$ so far during the year, as far as I remember.

At present, its board, being its only proper "members" with any influence, according to the article on WC, numbers seven people, two more than Americans for Waldorf Education.

On:

"The PLANS website could hardly be compared to the original research diatribes of a single editor."

Waldorf Answers has two editors, not one. AWSNA, the Association of Waldorf Schools in North America, the central organisation for appr. 170 Waldorf Schools in North America recommends it at its site (third from top at the page of 16 recommended sites) as

"A site dedicated to providing in depth answers about Waldorf education for parents and prospective parents. This site also serves to clear up some of the misconceptions that may exist about Waldorf education."

It points to that the view of Waldorf Answers as a "diatribe" probably lies in the eye of the beholder (you). You have never at any time substantiated your "description" three months ago here at Wikipedia of the site as a site "replete with defamation and non-verifyable (outright lies) information."

Thebee 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"I checked the latest dates of the files uploaded to the Waldorf Answers site. The latest new date of a file was 21 Oct. The arbitration started one month later. What do you refer to?" OK, so you cleaned up your site during the mediation process (sorry, I don't check your websites daily to see which nonsense is being added or deleted on a daily basis). My mistake. The fact remains, you recently altered your WaldorfAnswers website considerably when it became a point of criticism during these proceedings. This alteration of the evidence might not seem dishonest to you.

"The "44" people, in the article described as "members", were the number of people, that according to the secretary of the group had paid at least 15$ as gifts to the group for 2000 at the end of the year." So you are now admitting you dishonestly inflated the number yourself, right? Obviously, an article about a 7-member group wouldn't fly here at Wikipedia and you YOURSELF decided to use a $15 contribution as "membership". With 44 "members", the article wouldn't qualify for swift deletion and you could continue your defamation campaign on Wikipedia. Now that this strategy has backfired, you want to come clean.

"Waldorf Answers has two editors, not one." Can you point us to the content that is provided by each editor then?

"AWSNA, the Association of Waldorf Schools in North America, the central organisation for appr. 170 Waldorf Schools in North America recommends it at its site (third from top at the page of 16 recommended sites) as

"A site dedicated to providing in depth answers about Waldorf education for parents and prospective parents. This site also serves to clear up some of the misconceptions that may exist about Waldorf education". All this proves, really, is that AWSNA is as intent about covering up criticism as you are. AWSNA isn't exactly famous for its honesty now, is it? Critics have been trying to get AWSNA to provide accurate information on its FAQ list for years. That your efforts are supported by AWSNA is not surprise.

"You have never at any time substantiated your "description" three months ago here at Wikipedia of the site as a site "replete with defamation and non-verifyable (outright lies) information." And you say this after admitting you altered the site in October? This is a remarkably transparent ploy. I doubt that anyone here at Wikipedia doesn't see through it. For a sample of what used to be on WaldorfAnswers, I believe the clone site AWE still has some of the material that was available on WaldorfAnswers. Everyone should judge for themselves. Pete K 16:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got a couple of minutes to address TheBee's comment above - despite that it has been overhauled since the mediation dispute, there is adequate evidence of blatant lying. This page for example, produces nothing but strawman arguments and "dispels" the myths surrounding them. It creates the "myths" and then makes them look silly while not addressing the underlying issues that are related to each "myth". Here is one of my favorites. First, note how it takes a jab at "small groups of secular humanists" which is what TheBee perceives PLANS to be. But more importantly, it is a blatant lie covering up the truth - which is that Anthroposophy IS taught to students, but not as a specific subject - it is taught in every subject. Notice how the strawman argument is set up by slipping in the words "as content". The complaint is that Waldorf schools teach Anthroposophy, - not "as content" (although there is some Anthroposophical content that slips in to the curriculum) but indirectly as they do with other subjects. Notice part two of the myth "and want to make the pupils into 'anthroposophists'". It sounds pretty ridiculous the way TheBee states it. But in reality, students are bombarded with Anthroposophy from kindergarten (with birthday stories about the rainbow bridge - representing reincarnation and karma) and by high school, the intention is for teachers to legitimize Rudolf Steiner (my own kid had assignments about comparing Steiner's ideas to those of "other prominent" philosophers). The fact that kids are exposed to and immersed in Anthroposophy is absolutely an attempt to open Anthroposophy (something most kids will NEVER hear about) up to them. To suggest that Waldorf schools don't do this is a blatant lie.

Here is another example of a blatant lie, one that is supported by almost all Waldorf teachers who describe Eurythmy in this way. I've written about Eurythmy in the past pointing to Steiner's own descriptions - Rudolf Steiner described it in this way:

"I speak in all humility when I say that within the Anthroposophical Movement there is a firm conviction that a spiritual impulse of this kind must now, at the present time, enter once more into human evolution. And this spiritual impulse must perforce, among its other means of expression, embody itself in a new form of art. It will increasingly be realised that this particular form of art has been given to the world in Eurythmy. It is the task of Anthroposophy to bring a greater depth, a wider vision and a more living spirit into the other forms of art. But the art of Eurythmy could only grow up out of the soul of Anthroposophy; could only receive its inspiration through a purely Anthroposophical conception." From Rudolf Steiner's "Lecture on Eurythmy" August 26, 1923 [4]

So really, Eurythmy is a spiritual lesson in Anthroposophy. One could reasonably ask the question - why is a spiritual (according to Steiner), Anthroposophical activity so heavily entrenched in the Waldorf curriculum that claims not to teach Anthroposophy? TheBee is in the business of covering up the truth if that's what it takes to support Waldorf enterprises.

Here is an interesting answer to the question "Who was Rudolf Steiner". I suppose when a parent asks this question, this response would be adequate to hide Steiner's influence in Waldorf.

There is very little on the site that is objective, or even remotely close to a truthful representation of Waldorf. That's why AWSNA ranks it highly - it's basically a brochure for Waldorf and a place where critics of Waldorf are attacked without AWSNA's fingerprints. It is ALL original research and the term "research" in this case is very loosly applied. No sense in overstating the obvious, the site is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Pete K 17:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

PeteK:

"The fact remains, you recently altered your WaldorfAnswers website considerably when it became a point of criticism during these proceedings. This alteration of the evidence might not seem dishonest to you."

Please tell what you think has changed at the site since August? Thebee 20:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

PeteK:

"you are now admitting you dishonestly inflated the number yourself, right? Obviously, an article about a 7-member group wouldn't fly here at Wikipedia and you YOURSELF decided to use a $15 contribution as "membership". With 44 "members", the article wouldn't qualify for swift deletion and you could continue your defamation campaign on Wikipedia. Now that this strategy has backfired, you want to come clean."

What you write about me telling an untrue story about the number of "members" of PLANS being "44" to prevent an admin from at one time deciding not to delete the page, seven minutes after the secretary of PLANS at one time 23 August 2006 requested this, is a total fantasy.

At one time, 26 Dec 2000, I asked the secretary of the group on his mailing list how many members PLANS had, as I was curious about it. He answered the same day: "Forty-four. Please join. ..." That's the origin of the figure. It is a basic aspect of the group. That was long before I found out that its bylaws state that it is a corporation that shall have no members.

When I contributed to the editing of the article on the group, I added this info on 8 July 2006, writing:

"In 2000, it claimed to have 44 members."

As can be seen from the diff for the edit, I did not write that the group had "44 members". I wrote it claimed it had. Someone else did not like the formulation and later has changed it to "reported".

What I wrote had nothing to do with your fantasy about my intention for adding the info to the article to prevent it from being deleted. That is a false and unfounded accusation, as is your allegation, that the "WaldorfAnswers website [was altered] considerably when it became a point of criticism during these proceedings".

Thebee 00:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"What you write about me telling an untrue story about the number of "members" of PLANS being "44" to prevent an admin from at one time deciding not to delete the page, seven minutes after the secretary of PLANS at one time 23 August 2006 requested this, is a total fantasy." Yes, it is. I didn't say this, you did. Another strawman argument. Pete K 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please tell what part(s) of what I write, that you consider to be a strawman, that does not do your claim justice. Thanks, Thebee 01:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WaldorfCritics website

I've reverted HGilbert's last revert. The referenced cite, WaldorfCritics (PLANS) is not the same as WaldorfAnswers or AWE sites - it isn't the work of a single author (or two or three) - but contains the contributions of many, many authors. It was not created to defame anyone (unlike WaldorfAnswers and AWE) and the document referenced is appropriate. There was no agreement (at least not recently) that said this site couldn't be referenced. There has been an ongoing link war that I am aware of. Please don't confuse this site with the problematic WaldorfAnswers and AmericansforWaldorfEducation sites. It's not the same thing. Pete K 01:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd advise you to discuss this recent string of edits HGilbert. You KNOW the Dutch Commission cannot be referenced without producing the information about their bias. Why start an edit war in the middle of arbitration? Pete K 02:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

pete why do you have to start over with the same edits, the same quoted websites and and same arguments again. why do you repeat arguments that you know the other side did not agree to but pretend that they were consens? why do you revert hgilbert and then cry out afterwards: you started. i remember you sneering at thebee for making lists of your insults, but now you do the same thing at the evidence page. it's pathetic.

trueblood 13:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood, I didn't start anything here. Go have a look at the history. I don't believe I have listed anything on the evidence page that is a list of insults. Can you point me to this? Thanks! Pete K 16:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry i was not clear, you are whining.trueblood 17:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So, you think it's appropriate for HGilbert to start edit wars during arbitration? Are you sure you want to weigh in on this side of the discussion? I'm not whining about anything - I think the edit wars are one of the issues the Arbitration Committee are examining. Pointing out that one is happening during the arbitration is not whining, it's evidence that should be presented. I'm sorry that you need to take everything I am representing here personally and that you feel comments about me personally are justified somehow. But I've got pretty thick skin - so if the namecalling makes you feel better, go for it. Pete K 17:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

i don't think it is appropiate for hgilbert to start or for you to join in. i weighed in rather on his side because you already provided this montain of evidence. but i think a big chunk of it is onesided and even manipulative. i weighed in because you already presented a picture that he is not fit or objective enough to edit these articles and i think the same goes for you. here you are again with hgilbert and thebee repeating the old arguments. what is it for? just fills up the talk page...trueblood 19:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm only trying to keep the views balanced. It may not seem that way for you, and maybe my approach isn't the same approach you would take - but I feel like I have to push my POV very strongly to get any compromise from them. IMO, HGilbert and TheBee are intent on maintaining their disinformation campaign - forever - and it really is disinformation and their behavior has been dishonest (disguising biased sources for example). It serves them to do this because they are heavily connected to Waldorf and they are doing Anthroposophical missionary work. I don't think it's a good thing because, as Waldorf teachers, their behavior here makes all Waldorf teachers look bad. The "mountain of evidence" I presented didn't create itself. It was the product of a long and determined effort by HGilbert to establish a dominant presence on Wikipedia for Waldorf and Anthroposophy and to fend off anyone who challenged his biased POV. And there have been many, many editors who have tried to make the articles read NPOV and who eventually gave up because of HGilbert's POV pushing. Whenever they would make an undisputable point, HGilbert would go silent. Even when some NPOV edits make it into the articles, HGilbert has been able to wait out the editors and re-insert the same POV edits after they have moved on. I wish I had unlimited room here to present another mountain or two of examples of HGilbert doing this. It may be more blahblah to you, but really, nobody is forcing you to read it. HGilbert and TheBee are quite capable of defending themselves, here. Pete K 00:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

PeteK:

"... and TheBee are intent on maintaining their disinformation campaign - forever - and it really is disinformation and their behavior has been dishonest (disguising biased sources for example)."

Please document that I at any time have tried to, as you write, "disguise biased sources". I assume you mean "bias of sources".

And that untrue thing you have claimed, but not documented either in any form:

"The fact remains, you recently altered your WaldorfAnswers website considerably when it became a point of criticism during these proceedings".

Thanks, Thebee 01:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

positivism

can anybody explain how 'Steiner's ideas have their roots in a positivistic and romantic stream of German thought'? i would have thought that positivism is the opposite of anthroposophy...trueblood 10:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Steiner was positivist in the worst sort of way, applying scientific methodology where it suited him and abandoning scientific consensus when he disagreed with it. Goethe did similar things and based much of his claims of humanity on Auguste Comte and Hegel. --ScienceApologist 16:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Racism in Anthroposophy

HGilbert, we seem to be having another issue with (big surprise) racism in Anthroposophy. This usually takes, and has again taken, the form of critics being allowed to have a reference while supporters are allowed to quote selectively and distort what Steiner had to say. Unless both sides of this issue are quoted, neither side may be quoted. The continuous attempts by Steiner supporters to paint critics as if they are less able to comprehend Steiner is obvious and ridiculous. Please discuss these types of verbose edits beforehand and we can avoid the edit wars. BTW, there are a lot more edits that need to be made to this article to bring it to a NPOV. It would probably be better if the types of agressive edits generated today waited until after the Arbitration Committee has an opportunity to rule on the issues of WP:COI and WP:OWN. Thanks. Pete K 02:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

concerning the staudenmeyer quote. it is exactly this anthropop=nazism that i think is inappropiate and way over the top. why does it need to be here? quote: The affinities with Nazi discourse are unmistakable. Wolfgang Treher makes a convincing case that Steiner's racial theories, especially the repeated scheme of a small minority evolving further while a large mass declines, bear striking similarities even in detail to Hitler's own theories. He concludes: "Concentration camps, slave labor and the murder of Jews constitute a praxis whose key is perhaps to be found in the 'theories' of Rudolf Steiner."

by the otto schily former german minister of interiour is not an anthroposophist, as claimed in the (staudenmeyer) article, his brother konrad schily is. please, why is it so difficult to get something more serious on anthroposophy and racism. trueblood 21:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you here Trueblood (even though you know I agree with Staudenmaier about what he says above). The problem is, if the sentence in the article goes unreferenced here, somebody will come along and either {fact} tag the sentence for a reference or remove it completely. I'll look for a different reference later tonight that supports the claim. OK? Pete K 00:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, well, I'm not having much luck finding references that support the claim *that are more gentle* about Steiner's racism. I've found many that are considerably more harsh than the quote above by Peter Staudenmaier. Maybe someone else can find a source that claims Steiner was a *nice* racist. I'll keep looking, BTW, but don't get your hopes up. Pete K 01:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As PeteK knows well since long, Staudenmaier is a repeatedly unreliable author on anthroposophy. In the article used by PeteK as reference, published since 2000 at the site of the WC, Staudenmaier at the beginning makes untruthful assertions about among other things the first lecture in a series held by Steiner in Oslo in 1910. The lecture is a published historical source, found at among other places here: 1 but also at other places on the net. It shows that Staudenmaier's description of it is untruthful, that Steiner says nothing of what Staudenmaier asserts in the second part of his introduction, and that Staudenmaier thereby is an unreliable author on the subject. ON THE STORIES BY PETER STAUDENMAIER describes and discusses the article by Staudenmaier more in detail, and also quotes Staudenmaier as well as other sources 3, 3, allegedly described by him for comparison of what he writes about them. They confirm that Staudenmaier is an unreliable author on anthroposophy.

All three cases (1, 2, and 3) only constitute simple source critique by in full documenting the published historical sources allegedly described by P.S., and none constitute "original research" in the sense prohibited by Wikipedia (WP:NOR), in terms of

1. introducing a theory or method of solution;
2. introducing original ideas;
3. defining new terms;
4. providing or presuming new definitions of pre-existing terms;
5. introducing an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
6. introducing 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.
7. introducing or using neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

Wikipedia should restricts itself to using reliable sources as basis for what it publishes. Staudenmaier is not a reliable source. I have therefore removed him as reference in the article. Thebee 12:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The only author I know for sure to be unreliable is the one making the claims above. Peter Staudenmaier is more knowledgable about this subject than both TheBee and HGilbert, and he has no conflict of interest or religious missionary agenda to promote. He's a historian who is an expert on Anthroposophy. TheBee is not. Pete K 15:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Peter Staudenmaier has no degree in history, nor any academic position. He himself calls his approach to writing history "polemical". That alone makes it implausible to call him unbiased. Hgilbert 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing beats direct relevant evidence, regardless of what academic title someone might have formally or not. The direct evidence of the unreliability of P.S. are the published lectures by Steiner, that P.S. asserts that he describes, as historical sources, published on the net, as also in printed form. The published lecture that P.S. at the beginning of his article asserts that he describes is found at among other places here.

It immediately reveals that P.S. does not tell the truth, but some wholly other story about it that he has made up, only existing in his own mind. Only last year, after repeated criticism of it, five years after its first publication, and his repeated defence of the "truthfulness" of what he has written in his "story", did he, as a "serious historian" slightly edit it to remove the most obvious evidence of his unreliability, while keeping as much as possible of it as a mind game for the readers to sort out. For more on this, see here and here. Thebee 15:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your original research. It doesn't mean a thing here. Pete K 15:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To be able to call the direct evidence of the unreliability of P.S.' article in the form of the published historical source he asserts he describes, on the net, "original research" in the sense and spirit described by Wikipedia, you need to demonstrate that it falls in one of the seven categories that WP:NOR lists as criteria for "original research", quoted above, prohibited to use as basis for writing things, and using as citation, at Wikipedia. If you can't, I'll remove it again.

You have also in violation of WP policies arbitrarily removed the citation of a completely correct reference from the article:

"We want to found a culture that spans the earth's sphere, without differences of race, gender, profession and religious belief", Rudolf Steiner, GesamtAusgabe 54, pp. 276-7

in addition to what is is used as basis for writing in the article:

"Though Steiner advocated the equality of all races ..."

You think the arbitrators will consider this something that speaks in favor of your status as serious editor here at Wikipedia?

Thebee 16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The source provided by HGilbert goes nowhere. That's why I removed it. How hard can it be for you guys to provide a legitimate source that supports what you claim? If Steiner advocated equality among the races, certainly somebody must have thought to write this down somewhere. Why not stop with the nonsense of sending people on wild goose chases and provide a legitimate source for your claims? Pete K 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Point to an exact book title and the page in that book. The source by HGilbert seems to cover three books at least. Pete K 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference (Steiner, GesamtAusgabe 54, pp. 277) is to a single book, and the exact page in that book, narrowed down from the two pages on which the relevant paragraph occurs. Please respect valid citations. Hgilbert 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the text in German? Who translated the text? You? Pete K 20:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the same reference [5] #54:

"Each person proceeds through race after race. Those that are young souls incarnate in the races that have remained behind on earlier racial levels. In this way, the races and souls that live around us take on a physical and spiritual structure. Everything makes sense, everything becomes clear and explicable. We are moving closer and closer to the solution of this puzzle and we can realize that in the future we will have other epochs to go through, we will have other paths to follow than the ones made by race. We must be clear about the difference between soul development and racial development. Our own souls once lived within the Atlantean race, and they then developed themselves upward to a higher race. That gives us an image of the evolution of humankind up until our time. In this way we can comprehend how to justify the principle, the core principle of universal brotherhood without regard to race, color, status, and so forth. I will explain this thought in particular later. Today I simply wanted to show how the same essence appears in different forms, and in fact in a much more correct sense than natural science would have us believe. Our souls march from one level to the next, which is to say from one race to the next, and we come to know the meaning of humanity when we examine these races." (Steiner, Die Welträtsel und die Anthroposophie pp. 153-4)

It's clear to see that Steiner is NOT saying all races are equal - but that souls progress from one race to the next. He talks explicitly about "higher races". This is incredible nonsense you are presenting here HGilbert. You should really try to stop putting up selectively harvested quotes to try to present an image of Steiner that wasn't there. I'm removing your claim. Please stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. Pete K 20:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is any question about whether the above is an isolated quote, here are a few from the SAME source that HGilbert attempts to cite as a source that Steiner "advocated" that the races are equal:

"We carry within us the consciousness of a unified nature and essence that lies within all people. But what is the relationship of this unified nature and essence to the myriad forms and physiognomies that we encounter in the various races? This question arises for us especially when we consider how different the natural abilities, how different the talents of the individual races are [wie verschieden veranlagt, wie verschieden begabt die einzelnen Menschenrassen sind]. The one race stands at the level of what we call the highest civilization, while the other stands at what appears to be the most primitive, subordinate level of civilization. This may make it seem odd to us that the human being, who after all has a unified nature, can appear in such a different and imperfect form. People often feel that it is an injustice of nature that some are doomed to an existence in a race that stands far below, while others are raised up to an apparently perfect race." (Rudolf Steiner, Die Welträtsel und die Anthroposophie p. 132)

"And when we examine the issue more closely, we see that human souls proceed through the different races. In this way the variety of races becomes sensible and reasonable. Thus we see that one is not condemned to live only in a primitive race while another stands at the highly developed stages of racial existence. Each of us passes through the different racial stages, and the passage signifies a progressive development for the individual soul. One who appears today as a member of the European race went through different races in earlier times, and will in later times proceed through races other than ours. The races appear to us as steps in a teaching process, and this variety takes on coherence and purpose." (Steiner, Die Welträtsel und die Anthroposophie p. 133)

"When we look at the people of today we can see that they have developed themselves forth out of those earlier stages of existence. That which is primitive does not always disappear immediately when the higher appears. The primitive preserves itself initially and modifies itself in various ways. Thus we can say: a portion of the earlier Atlantean population migrated from Atlantis to Europe and then on to Asia and founded colonies, while another portion remained behind, such that we now have the most diverse stages existing side by side." (Steiner, Die Welträtsel und die Anthroposophie p. 142)

"But if you contemplate the past from the perspective of spiritual science, you will gain a very different view. You will find that our white civilized humankind [unsere weiße Kulturmenschheit] originated because certain elements segregated themselves from the Atlanteans and developed themselves higher here, under different climatic conditions. Certain elements of the Atlantean population remained behind, at earlier levels; thus we can see that the peoples of Asia and America are remnants of the various Atlantean races." (Steiner, Die Welträtsel und die Anthroposophie p. 145)

I would suggest that HGilbert is grasping at straws when he attempts to cite this reference as evidence that Steiner advocated equality of the races. Pete K 00:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Above, I have pointed out that what Staudenmaier writes in the introduction to his article is untruthful, and that this is revealed by a simple, direct comparison of what he writes with the historical source, published on the internet: [6] and [7] that he asserts that he describes. What is written in articles at Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources, and only such sources should be cited in articles. The article (and thereby its author) you repeatedly insert a link to, while repeatedly removing all well referenced citation to other published sources, that contradict what you write, is not a reliable source. For you to show that a direct comparison of a text with the original, published in full on the internet, that it asserts that it describes, constitutes "original research", you need to show that such a comparison falls in one of the seven categories, described by Wikipedia as defining "original research". I asked you four days ago to do this (see above), and you still have not done this. I have therefore removed the citation you give for your statement. Thebee 16:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your "research" is invalid here. You've been making these claims for years and they have been refuted for years. There was even a wager of $100 about one of these claims and, indeed, Mr. Staudenmaier proved it was false. You guys never paid up. I'll revert this edit back until the issue about Mr. Staudenmaier has been decided by the arbitrators. Please avoid these controversial edits until the arbitration is completed. Thanks. Pete K 17:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable source

Only, you've made a mistake. In your citation, you link to the actual original article published in 2000 by PLANS, that reveals the dishonesty of P.S. from the very start in what he writes, not the version with which he replaced it after having had it published for five years at the WC-site, where he - last year, after five years - to cover up for his repeated unreliability, edited out the most obvious untruth in his first version, the reference to the first lecture in the series he asserts that he describes..., about which he at one time - after he actually had bought the lecture series - then *told* in a posting on the WC-list on 1 oct. 2001: "The published version of the lecture doesn't contradict my description of it. The sole discrepancy is the word 'sub-race'." ... That is what you call a "reliable source" and repeatedly insist on citing, while repeatedly removing all fully referenced citations by Hgilbert, that contradicts your "reliable source". Thebee 23:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

None of this is accurate from what I can discern. Why don't you actually discuss this, if you really need to, instead of producing these pre-packaged defamatory arguments that have already been refuted countless times. Maybe someone else here finds this tail-chasing interesting. If you actually have something that represents that Mr. Staudenmaier is not a reliable source, and that comes from someone other than an Anthroposophist, I'd love to see it. It is my understanding that Mr. Staudenmaier is a candidate for a PhD from Cornell and his dissertation is on Steiner. If he's lying about Steiner, it seems to be pretty bad luck for Anthroposophists. Pete K 00:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In the introduction to the paper by Mr. Staudenmaier, that you insist on citing as a "reliable source" on anthroposophy at the end of the Wikipedia article on it, he writes:

"In June 1910 Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience in Oslo. The lecture was titled ‘The Mission of Individual European National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology.’ [...]

The ‘national souls’ of Northern and Central Europe were, Steiner explained, components of the ‘germanic-nordic sub-race,’ the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of the highest of five historical ‘root races.’ This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the ‘Aryan race.’“

The actual well documented lecture as a historical source that he asserts that he describes is found here. It says nothing of what Mr. Staudenmaier writes in the second part of the quote from his article, but describes the nature of and relation between the basic beings of the spiritual world and the human being as a spiritual being from the perspective of the Jewish esoteric tradition in the spirit of Thomas of Aquino and Steiner's view of how we as humans and the beings of the spiritual world, as described by the Judeo-Christian tradition, have interacted in some respects through history, in Steiner's view.

On 1 October 2001, more than one year after he wrote the article, Mr. Staudenmaier, after actually having bought the lecture series on a visit to Germany during the summer, and seemingly read it, he writes:

"The published version of the lecture doesn't contradict my description of it. The sole discrepancy is the word 'sub-race'."

Is this an insult to historical scholarship? Yes.

Is he a reliable source on anthroposophy? No.

Is he acceptable as citation in articles at Wikipedia? No.

Thebee 01:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not see this page's latest edit history when I removed the Staudenmaier link; this was while removing other citations, including to the Dutch commission, to implement the arbitrators' discussion about verifiability. I see now that this has been a hot issue recently here. Sorry to have added oil to the flames! I'll await a final decision...Hgilbert 19:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your claims don't become more accurate through repetition, I'm afraid. Pete K 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Question to other editors

Above, I document why I think Mr. Staudenmaier (P.S.) cannot be considered a reliable source with regard to anthroposophy. The basis for this view is - among other things - the way he for five years (2000-2005) has misrepresented the content of a lecture by Steiner in 1910 in the introduction to the article, that PeteK insists on repeatedly adding as citation at the end of the article on Anthroposophy. Last summer, Mr. Dugan, webmaster of the WC-site added a slightly revised version of the article to the WC-site. In the 'revised' version, M. Staudenmaier has reworded the introduction and removed the specific reference to the first lecture in the lecture series he asserts that he describes. But Mr. Dugan forgot to remove the original article from the WC-site, as shown by PeteK's link to it.

The misrepresentation is documented by the actual on the net published lecture by Steiner, that P.S. in the introduction to his article asserts that he describes. The lecture is published here and here. It is also published in German somewhere on the net.

On 1 october 2001, P.S. in a posting on the WC-discussion list asserted, after having read the lecture, that he had not had access to when he wrote the article:

"The published version of the lecture doesn't contradict my description of it. The sole discrepancy is the word 'sub-race'."

This statement can be compared to the actual published lecture, published on the internet (at two sites linked to above), that he refers to.

Do you think this is relevant and valid with regard to judging the reliability of P.S. as author on anthroposophy?

I'd be interested in hearing how you view this (except for PeteK, who has already told his view of this, and acted on it by repeatedly again adding a link to the article by P.S., after the citation has been removed by Hgilbert).

Thanks, Thebee 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting he wrote an article about a lecture he hadn't read? Really? If this were actually true, I'd be the first to denounce his work. The problem is - it's not true. Pete K 20:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ask him. The article as such is not about the lecture. It's just mentioned in passing in the introduction. That was a mistake by P.S., that he has spent much time trying to cover up for, to save his credibility as "historical scholar". But he had not read the lecture series either, just read about it. For some of this history, see here and onwards. In his posting on 1 Oct. he tells that he just added the introduction as an "inventory device" "for the Norway hook" (where his article was first published):

"I used it merely for the Norway hook and to introduce Steiner's terminology."

(The theosophical terminology of "root races" and "sub races of root races", that Steiner explicitly critizised among other 1909, abandon and did not use when in 1909 writing "Occult Science", just meaning "esoteric" science about what is "hidden" in the sense not immediately obvious, not anything sinister, as immediately becomes clear, if one reads it.

If he denies not having read the lecture when writing the article, I'll find the documentation, telling he had not.

If he had, why would he simply not have told the truth of what Steiner actually said in the lecture in the first place? And why did he then 23 months later (1 Oct 2001), when he actually probably had read the lecture judging from what he then writes about it (he had bought it during a trip to Germany during the summer), again (this time) actually lie about what it said (not just tell the untruth he himself "believed" and was convinced was true)? (And Steiner did not go on a lecture tour of Norway in 1910, as stated by P.S., writing as if Steiner only held the first lecture of the series in Oslo. He held all lectures in Oslo...)

Any other comments, by others? They would really interest me.

Thebee 22:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So, you're saying he "mentioned in passing" a lecture that he hadn't read. Big deal! Pete K 23:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The deal is not that he mentions it in passing. The deal is what he writes about it, and then sticks to, the way he has continued to stick to in different forms up to this day, when challeged about it and all the stories he has made up to cover up for the untruthfulness of what he writes. This holds also for the whole lecture series. Try this and onwards. It tells the *latest* version of his story is: What he is mentioning and referring to as the first lecture in the series in the introduction is not the published first lecture in the series, but, sort of, the sixth lecture in the series, but not actually that either, at least not the actual published sixth lecture in the series, but that Steiner actually held on the day of the sixth lecture, but only used by Steiner as basis for what later was published as the sixth lecture in the series. At no time has he given any citation for that, however, or quoted from it in a way that would support his story about it. Chew on that. Thebee 23:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I just clicked on your link and saw the word "forger" on it. That's a libelous claim that you haven't backed up. I thought you might want to know. Pete K 00:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestion for a better word? Thebee 00:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

At the very, very worst, it sounds like you are claiming the guy made the mistake of confusing one lecture with another. Frankly, I'm not convinced that happened, and I'm leaning heavily toward the possibility that you are confused about the facts. Pete K 00:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. Staudenmaier had not read any of the lectures in the lecture series he asserts that he describes in the introduction to his article. Neither the first lecture, nor the sixth lecture, nor any other lecture, nor the fantasy lecture (the "actual" "not published" "actual" sixth lecture of the series, that Staudenmaier in his mind has made up the existence of to save his credibility as "historical scholar" from dropping dead ...). Ask him. Also, ask him to quote from the "actual", in 1922 not published sixth lecture in the series he has in his mind. That would be from the transcript of the series, published in 1911, the year after it was held.) I very much doubt he can, as he (probably) has not read that either. If he had, he would have quoted it. He never has. Is he an insult to the concept of "historical scholar" in any serious sense? Yes. Thebee 09:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've looked into this a bit. This is a VERY OLD discussion that was completely dispelled years ago. The issue at hand was that Peter Staudenmaier referenced an Anthroposophical source which contained mistakes. He later corrected his own mistake which was to reference the Anthroposopical source in the first place. The question about the 1st or 6th lecture is there because of different numbering schemes used by different people. It's like people have trouble agreeing on the correct order for the Chronicles of Narnia. The lectures have been shuffled by various people.

You're wrong. No lecture has been shuffled from holding it to its publication. The were all held consecutively and then published in the same order as they were held, with the publication telling which date and where they were held. Lecture six was always lecture six, both in the series of lectures held in June 1910 in Oslo, and later in the publication of them through a number of editions up to this day (last year). Thebee 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also try reading again his statement in discussions on 1 Oct 2001, when he actually had bought the published lecture series, and, referring to the published first lecture in the series (not his fantasy lecture), stating, indicating he actually has read it, as he comments on its content:

"The published version of the lecture doesn't contradict my description of it. The sole discrepancy is the word 'sub-race'."

Yes, so what? As an historian, Mr. Staudenmaier works with lots of sources, some of them original texts, some published in German, some later published in English, sometimes multiple versions are translated by different translators, and so forth. Are you saying that he didn't read this lecture until he purchased it in the form he talks about? Frankly, this sounds like you blowing a lot of smoke. Again, this has all been discussed many times in the past and your claims have been proven to be false. Why bring them here?

"So what?" He's talking about a lecture, repeatedly republished at different times, that anyone interested can find and read on the internet in English, and anyone can check if he's telling the truth about the specific lecture he refers to (the first lecture, also here in the published lecture series, nothing else.) It does not say a word of what he says it says in the second part of his introduction (see above) says. Only, the next day (2 Oct.), he asserts that he hasn't been talking about the first lecture in the series that he has been holding in his hand, asserting that that specific published lecture (the first in the published lecture series) does not contradict what he has written about that specific lecture. That's con artistry. He's a master at it.

Nothing indicates that he read any of the published lectures in any language before he wrote the introduction to his article, making up his stories about them. He only read them after he had written his article. None of my claims with regard to Staudenmaier's article have been proven false at any time. Your "mistake" here in actually linking to the original version of the article by Staudenmaier, instead of the five years later "corrected" version reveal his original untruthfulness. Thebee 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, the following day, 2 October 2001, after he the preceding day had asserted that the published, first lecture in the series "doesn't contradict my description of it", he has changed his mind, telling he actually had not referred to the first published lecture in the series in the introduction, but the sixth lecture, but then, of course, not the actual published lecture in the series either, but the fantasy "lecture" he has in his mind, and that only - according to Staudenmaier - is published "in revised form" as lecture six in the series ...

"The lecture is included, in revised form, at the site you point to above. It's chapter six in the book version, based on Steiner's lecture of June 12, 1910. ..."

Again, this is a numbering issue, nothing more.

No, it's not a numbering issue. If P.S. actually had read the lecture series he has made up so many different untrue stories about, he would have known wich lecture is which, as they are published in chronological order in the published lecture series. Thebee 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does he need to change his reference, if the published first lecture, as he writes on 1 Oct, does not contradict his description of it, except on the "small" point of - according to Staudenmaier - not mentioning "the word sub race"? He sees that what he writes about it on 1 Oct 2001 is not true, and realizes it is not a good idea to stick to it. So, the next step is to invent a "real" lecture, that in his fantasy corresponds to what he writes in the introduction to his article, and telling, not that his fantasy lecture is the "basis" for the published first lecture, but the "basis" for the published sixth lecture, without in any way documenting this, or quoting from it ... For more on this, see here.

This just to give hint about the reliability of what he continues to write in the article, and has continued to write in further articles.

Thebee 10:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So your claim here is that he "invented" a lecture because the information he cited from the first lecture (which was renumbered as the 6th when it was published) was actually contained in the 6th lecture. My God man, you're right... a clear case of forgery - lock him up and throw away the key. Incredible... Pete K 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge no lecture in the lecture series was ever renumbered at any time, from the time it was held to its publication. Nothing points to that the lecture P.S. has invented the existence of and made up a "description" of in the introduction to his article (that you repeatedly insist on giving as "citation" at the end of the article) ever existed anywhere outside his own fantasy. At no time has he told where it has been documented with the content he ascribes to it, given a proper citation for it, or quoted from it in a way that would support what he writes about it. The issue is not whether he should be locked up or not, but if he is to be considered a reliable "historical scholar" or not.

The issue is: is P.S. someone one can rely on as a reliable source on Steiner and anthroposophy. The introduction is just one of many examples showing he isn't.

I'd interested in hearing from other editors how they understand the reliability of P.S., as documented by the above.

Thebee 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"To my knowledge no lecture in the lecture series was ever renumbered at any time" - This is weasel-wording. Your "knowledge" doesn't encompass everything, does it? Are you omnipotent, clairvoyant, reading from the Akashic record? So, why does your limited knowledge give you premission to produce what you have above - in an attempt to discredit an author who you don't like? The only way you have of substantiating it is - it doesn't agree with YOUR knowledge. "At no time has he told where it has been documented with the content he ascribes to it, given a proper citation for it, or quoted from it in a way that would support what he writes about it." How could you know this? Does all information in the universe flow through you? "The issue is not whether he should be locked up or not, but if he is to be considered a reliable "historical scholar" or not." And the criteria for deciding this is going to be your personal knowledge about whether events have or haven't happened as you say they did. This is an absurd waste of time and an obvious smoke and mirrors attempt by you to discredit an author just because you don't like what he writes about. Pete K 19:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

""At no time has he told where it has been documented with the content he ascribes to it, given a proper citation for it, or quoted from it in a way that would support what he writes about it." How could you know this?"

Ask him for an exact citation for the fantasy lecture he refers to, telling when and where it has been published, and ask him to quote from it (Title, publisher, publication year, pp. quoted) in a way that substantiates what he writes about "it" in the introduction to his article, so other can check it too. Thebee 20:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So, to dispel your invented claim once and for all (not that I have any dillusions that it would be once and for all) you expect me to contact Mr. Staudenmaier directly and ask him about your misunderstandings? Why in the world would I be interested in doing this? Pete K 20:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I just took a quick peek here and Mr. Staudenmaier explicitly states that what you are describing is incorrect. From that post:

"My personal favorite of Tarjei's denials of history is his post from September 2001 where he claimed that I had made "three factual errors" in the first two sentences of my article on anthroposophy and ecofascism. All three of these "errors" turned out to be his; he didn't even bother to look up the easy ones before spouting off about them, and made a complete fool of himself. Even after we caught him red-handed he continued to deny the simplest historical realities. Indeed I can't think of a single substantive historical issue where Tarjei didn't shoot himself in the foot, whether the question at stake was Steiner's father's job or the specifics of the Nazi versions of the Aryan myth. In other words, Mike, if you're looking for reliable support for a pro-Waldorf stance, for goodness sake don't look to Tarjei."

Pete K 20:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What you write is irrelevant to the issue discussed here. If Mr. Staudenmaier at any time from 2000 up to 2005 had found any citation for what he claims is the (first the first, then) the "actual" sixth lecture in the lecture series, as he purports to "describe" it in the introduction to his article, one can assume that he - after five years - would had added it, when he "revised" the article for the sites where it is published. He hasn't.

Instead he has just dropped the reference to the "first"/"sixth" lecture in the new version, after he has spent much time during a number of years, first defending the fantasy he has made up about it as true, up to 1 Oct., when he asserts that the first lecture in the published lecture series "doesn't contradict" what he writes about it in the introduction to his article (except with regard to one word.

Then, the following day he tells he has not - actually - been talking about the first, but the sixth lecture in the series, but not the published lecture, but something else, not possible to document in any form as he describes it, except in the mind of Mr. Staudenmaier himself. And then, when he publishes a "revised" version of the article, he has just dropped the reference to any specific lecture in the series.

Does this tell he's a reliable source on anthroposophy, or does it tell he's not a reliable source on anthroposophy?

I'd REALLY be interested in hearing what other editors think of this.

If noone has a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy between what P.S. writes abut the "first" lecture in the series he asserts he describes, and the "lecture" as such in any documented form, I'll delete the reference as citation in the article.

Is that OK?

Thanks, Thebee 09:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The "reasonable" explanation here is that you are completely mistaken about this, and you have no influence over whether Mr. Staudenmaier edits his article in accordance with your wishes or not. You have not shown here, in any way whatsoever, that this constitutes unreliability in any case. The citation stays until someone with authority says Peter Staudenmaier is an unreliable source. Nobody has said this. Pete K 15:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Just words with no citation are of little value here at Wikipedia.

Why not ask Mr. Staudenmaier once and for all for a full citation of the lecture he refers to in the introduction to the article you repeatedly insert as a "source" on anthroposophy, as he describes it (Title, pp. referred to, publisher, publication year). Also, can you ask for some quotes from the lecture in support of what he writes about it? You both participate on the same WC list almost daily. It should be no problem and will immediately settle the issue of his reliability. If he has one, can produce it, and you can tell about it here, go ahead and stick to him as citation.

If he has no such citation and you can forward it, I'll remove the citation of him as source.

Also, again, I'd be REALLY interested in hearing the views of other editors on this, and if anyone except PeteK finds my suggested action unreasonable.

Thanks, Thebee 16:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think I have an on-going dialog with Peter Staudenmaier? Your request is unreasonable. I already posted a link to his answer on this issue. You want me to bother this man with YOUR questions? I don't know why I'M bothering to answer your questions here... You think I should write to him and say "Sune doesn't understand, again, about something you have already explained very clearly. Please take time out of your day to try to explain the obvious to Sune, once again." You've got nothing to base any claims of unreliability on - and that's that. I'm done with this conversation. Pete K 16:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Do you think I have an on-going dialog with Peter Staudenmaier?"

You last posted on the same (WC) mailing list as Mr. Staudenmaier on Sunday and Monday. Since then he has made about 14 postings.

I can understand that you do not look forward to the prospect of asking and getting the final proof from Mr. Staudenmeir himself that he is unreliable, as reliability of sources is one of the main pillars in the articles at Wikipedia.

But he need not explain anything at all. Just give a simple exact citation for what he refers to as the first lecture in the lecture series he refers to in the introduction to the article you give as citation at the end of the article on Anthroposophy, in a version that corresponds to his description of it. That's all. Very simple. I'm not allowed to post on the list, as its owner did not like that I at one time told of the untruthfulness of Mr. Staudenmaier. You need not tell him he's untruthful. Just give a link to this discussion and ask him for the exact citation as described. No serious historian has a problem providing exact citations for what they write or have written. Thanks for your help. Thebee 20:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... this, I'm certain, will open another hornet's nest of complaints, more unfounded accusations, and retaliation, but I'm only posting this in case anyone is following this soap opera. Sune, this should satisfy you 100% but I suspect it won't. Other readers, I think, will be more than satisfied. This is from a dialog between Mr. Staudenmaier and YOU where he explains in great detail and with great patience how YOU have completely misunderstood exactly what you are talking about here. The post is from May of this year but he refers to a dialog he had with you in September of 2005. The man went to great effort to explain your own misunderstandings to you and you continue to make this ridiculous claim that YOU KNOW is unfounded - and it's still on your website as if it's true. You have asked me to pester him about it again, but the link above demonstrates once and for all that this has been explained to you ad nauseum. You are wrong. There's really nothing more to say. The only one who is being untruthful and unreliable here is YOU. Pete K 02:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hierarchy between sequential 'root races' and 'sub races of Atlantis', but not between the 'five main races of humanity'

From the sentence "Our own souls once lived within the Atlantean race, and they then developed themselves upward to a higher race." it is clear that he is talking of what in theosophy are called "root races", not "the five manin races of humanity". They refer to the stages of humanity from the beginning to end of our present solar system. For a closer description of the issue, see Three misleading concepts. In ever more developing anthroposophy, separate from theosophy, he used the more proper term "Earth epochs". What is referred to as "the Atlantean root race" in theosophy, in the lecture above referred to as the "Atlantean race" in Steiner's view refers to mankind during Cenozoic time (ref: one of the conferences with teachers), that is Tertiary and Quaternary.

It probably appears clear to most, that the human forms developing during (Tertiary and) Quaternary developed from 'lower' to 'higher' forms, and that the human forms that started to develop during the end of the glacial ages and later developed into modern humans are more 'highly' developed than those human forms that preceded them. That is what the text bloc refers to, not what later - from the time of Blumenbacher at the end of the 18th century - has come to be referred to as the 'five main races of humankind'.

You must distinguish between the at least three different senses in which he used the broad term and concept 'race' at different times. When Steiner spoke of the "equality" of races, it clearly referred to the 'five main races of humankind', not the 'sub races of Atlantean time', being the successive human forms that developed during Tertiary and Quaternary, and also not the 'root races of humanity', starting with the in the main spiritual form we - in Steiner's view - had from the first beginning of our present solar system, when - in Steiners' view - the different planets had not yet forme as planteray bodies, separate from the developing (contracting) Sun.

While what in theosophy is referred to as 'root races' and 'sub races of Atlantis' in one sense can be described as having a 'hierarchival' relation to each other, in having develope sequentially from 'lower' to higher' forms, that is not the case with the 'five main races of humankind', and Steiner never, as far as I'm aware of, referred to one as 'higher' than the other. is Steiner 'difficult' and takes time to understand? Yes.

Thebee 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for more original research - and, BTW, Wikipedia is not a soapbox - nor is it a place to advertise your websites and your original research. Do you really want to make the statement that Steiner never referred to one race as higher than another? I'll give you some quotes:

"The relation between soul-development and race-development is preserved to us in a wonderful myth. Let us imagine race following race, civilization following civilization. The soul going through its earth mission in the right way is incarnated in a certain race; it strives upward in this race, and acquires the capacities of this race in order next time to be incarnated in a higher one. Only the souls which sink in the race and do not work out of the physical materiality, are held back in the race by their own weight, as one might say. They appear a second time in the same race and eventually a third time in bodies in similarly formed races. Such souls hold back the bodies of the race. This has been wonderfully described in a legend. We know, indeed, that man progresses further in the fulfillment of the mission of the earth by following the great Leaders of humanity who point out the goals to be attained; if he rejects them, if he does not follow them, he must remain behind with his race, for he cannot then get beyond it. Let us think of a personality who has the good fortune to meet a great Leader of humanity, let us suppose such a personality confronting Christ Jesus himself, for example; he sees how all his deeds are evidence for leading humanity forward, but he will have nothing to do with this progress, he rejects the Leader of humanity. Such a personality, such a soul would be condemned to remain in the race. If we follow this thought to its conclusion such a soul would have to appear again and again in the same race, and we have the legend of Ahasuerus who had to appear in the same race again and again because he rejected Christ Jesus. Great truths concerning the evolution of humanity are placed before us in such a legend as this." (Rudolf Steiner, The Apocalypse of St. John, pp. 80-81)

"Each person proceeds through race after race. Those that are young souls incarnate in the races that have remained behind on earlier racial levels. In this way, the races and souls that live around us take on a physical and spiritual structure. Everything makes sense, everything becomes clear and explicable. We are moving closer and closer to the solution of this puzzle and we can realize that in the future we will have other epochs to go through, we will have other paths to follow than the ones made by race. We must be clear about the difference between soul development and racial development. Our own souls once lived within the Atlantean race, and they then developed themselves upward to a higher race. That gives us an image of the evolution of humankind up until our time. In this way we can comprehend how to justify the principle, the core principle of universal brotherhood without regard to race, color, status, and so forth. I will explain this thought in particular later. Today I simply wanted to show how the same essence appears in different forms, and in fact in a much more correct sense than natural science would have us believe. Our souls march from one level to the next, which is to say from one race to the next, and we come to know the meaning of humanity when we examine these races." (Steiner, Die Welträtsel und die Anthroposophie pp. 153-4)

"For peoples and races are but steps leading to pure humanity. A race or a nation stands so much the higher, the more perfectly its members express the pure, ideal human type, the further they have worked their way from the physical and perishable to the supersensible and imperishable. The evolution of man through the incarnations in ever higher national and racial forms is thus a process of liberation. Man must finally appear in harmonious perfection." (Steiner, Knowledge of Higher Worlds p. 207)

"People who listen to the great leaders of humankind, and preserve their soul with its eternal essence, reincarnate in an advanced race; in the same way he who ignores the great teacher, who rejects the great leader of humankind, will always reincarnate in the same race, because he was only able to develop the one form. This is the deeper meaning of Ahasver, who must always reappear in the same form because he rejected the hand of the greatest leader, Christ. Thus each person has the opportunity to become caught up in the essence of one incarnation, to push away the leader of humankind, or instead to undergo the transformation into higher races, toward ever higher perfection. Races would never become decadent, never decline, if there weren't souls that are unable to move up and unwilling to move up to a higher racial form. Look at the races that have survived from earlier eras: they only exist because some souls could not climb higher." (Steiner, Das Hereinwirken geistiger Wesenheiten in den Menschen p. 174)

This is far too easy. TheBee has either not cracked a book on Steiner, or is pulling eveyone's leg here. Pete K 00:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Have I not cracked a book by Steiner? Clearly I have, and I'm not trying to pull anyone's leg either. But you seem - pardon me for saying it - so obsessed with trying to show that Steiner a number of times described human groups as lower and higher, that you you don't seem to care what he actually was referring too with the word 'race' at different times, the theosophical 'root race' sense (the sequential human groups developing from beginning to end of our present solar system), the theosophical 'sub races of Atlantis sense' (being the from at first not very human to later ever more human forms developing from beginning of Tertiary to the end of Quaternary time), or the way it normally is understood today, being the 'five main races of humanity', as long as you can bolderize the word 'higher', higher, higher, higher in one or other quote from Steiner without trying to understand what he actually meant with the broad word "race" in the different contexts he was discusing and in what sense he used it at different times, in two of the three cases using 'higher' in a justified sense, and in the third clearly not (which I also never have seen him do in an explicit way), with your primary purpose to push for a simplified POV of the issue.

Thebee 01:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As always, these discussions with you seem to go nowhere and are a waste of time. What you present is nothing but an apology for Steiner. The man deserves much more. He truly believed in higher and lower races. That you seem embarassed by this is not my problem. That you try with your pretzel-twisted logic to make it seem like he's saying something else is no longer a surprise. The quotes are from all over the place including Knowledge of Higher Worlds and The Apocalypse of St. John. This same terminology and the same concepts are EVERYWHERE in Steiner's works. That man works from lower to higher races (the white race being the highest) is one of the foundations of Anthroposophy. I really don't care if you think my POV on this issue is "simplified". If you think the nuances of evolutions on different planets, and formless beings on Lemuria and Atlantis in Steiner's racism need to be expressed, write a book. This is an encyclopedia article and it requires simplification. Steiner said these things - and he meant them exactly in the way they read. He lectured to lots and lots of different people and it is unreasonable for you to presume or to ask anyone to believe that the members of his audience, not to mention everyone who purchased his books, garnered a particular level of understanding of his prior works. He spoke to a new audience every night - and he went from town to town. Therefore, a reasonable assumption would be that he actually meant what he said. Now if you are suggesting, as I believe you are, that Steiner never elevated, say, the white race above the black race - then I'll have to produce more quotes for you. Is this what you are claiming? Pete K 02:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Libertarian communist

Peter Staudenmaier is a self-described libertarian communist. This is an unbiased source? Nevertheless, he should be citable if we can reference his article located on a neutral site. Hgilbert 14:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. The article you refer to is a clearly unreliable source, as is easily documented by simple source critiqe, using not-original research in the sense prohibited by Wikipedia, just comparison what he writes with the original published historical source/s here refers to, found on the net.

Wikipedia should restrict itself to publishing what can be refenced by reliable sources. Staudenmaier's article clearly is not. How would you motivate violating the strife only to use reliable sources as basis for what is published at WP? Thebee 14:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Peter Staudenmaier is a Martian, as long as he's not an Anthroposophist, he is an unbiased source. Pete K 15:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: HGilbert's last edit, you should consider using it (without the quotation in the reference) and replacing the reference for the Staudenmaier article. "Advocate" is still problematic as, well, for one thing, it isn't true - but you seem to have found a momentary lapse where Steiner appears to be advocating this. It's the typical misleading stuff your edits are becoming famous for. I'll try to check out the reference you have provided. Pete K 15:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, well never mind. It seems the reference, once again, goes nowhere. Can you point me to something specific (not a list of articles by various authors - Steiner is not among them) that includes the text you have quoted by Steiner? Pete K 15:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference was exact. I have added a link to the page so you can be sure. Hgilbert 16:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note: 20 minutes after the central arbitrator in Waldorf arbitration case has expressed the view that Staudenmaier seems to be a good example of an unreliable source, after looking at the evidence for it, and therefore implicitly impermissible source as citation in articles at Wikipedia, Pete again has added Staudenmaier as citation in the article. Thebee 18:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. No decision was made, only a comment. Additionally, the sentence about racism in Anthroposophy will be challenged without a reference. This is a valid reference until the arbitrators decide otherwise. Pete K 18:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

False accusation of dishonesty

Pete K writes above (16:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)):

"The fact remains, you recently altered your WaldorfAnswers website considerably when it became a point of criticism during these proceedings. This alteration of the evidence might not seem dishonest to you."

He also writes:

"For a sample of what used to be on WaldorfAnswers, I believe the clone site AWE still has some of the material that was available on WaldorfAnswers."

What he writes is false on all three points (considerable alteration of Waldorf Answers, alleged dishonesty in doing this, and that the AWE site still has some material, that - before the alleged recent considerable alteration - was found at the Waldorf Answers site, but that now only is found at the site of AWE).

The false accusation constitutes a serious, unfounded personal attack.

It seems to be rooted in the discovery by PeteK, that an earlier allegation by him that the sites Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf Education are "clones" of each other, has not been true. He has stated (2 Sept.) that the site of Waldorf Answers is is a site "replete with defamation and non-verifyable (outright lies) information." [8].

He now has found out that he cannot show that what he has written has been true and makes the personal attack to be able to stick to his description of Waldorf answers from 2 Sept.

The last time something was edited slightly at the site of Waldorf Answers was on 21 Oct, when this page was updated. For the latest former version of the page, documented on the net, from 27 April, see here. All the other pages at Waldorf Answers, updated 1 Aug. or later are:this (updated 1 Oct.), version from 26 Dec. 2005: here, this (uploaded 4 Sept, no former version documented by archive.org), this (uploaded 4 Sept, no former version documented by archive.org), this (uploaded 4 Sept, no former version documented by archive.org), this (uploaded 18 Sept, no former version documented by archive.org), this (uploaded 18 Sept.), latest former version from 19 Feb. documented by archive.org here, this (uploaded 22 Sept.), latest version from 6 May documented by archive.org here, and this (uploaded 10 Oct), latest version documented by archive.org from 10 May here.

All pages at both sites have been documented regularly by archive.org from 7 Jan 2004, resp. 20 Dec. 2005. None of the documented versions of the sites supports PeteK's allegation that I have changed any of them considerably, that I have altered any of them as "evidence" in these proceedings, or that I have been dishonest in (allegedly) doing this.

Thebee 17:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage in this discussion and will attempt not to engage TheBee in any discussions not directly related to edits in the articles themselves. Pete K 17:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You falsely - in this discussion - accuse me of considerably having altered what you would have expected to be evidence that you had been right in describing the sites of Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf Education as "clones" of each other. When I then document by using the copies of the sites at archive.org that your accusation has been false and unfounded, you answer that you will not address this, as it is not directly related to the edits in the articles themselves. I assume you refer to this discussion of the article on anthroposophy, where you have published the false accusation. Can you explain the logic of this? Thanks, Thebee 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What part of what I said above don't you understand? The accusation is not false. I've read your websites in the past, and they have changed considerably. Since you have control over those changes, there is no point in arguing this with you. It's not important enough for me to waste my time tracking down what changed since you are in control of the evidence. Is that logical enough for you? Pete K 00:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The "logic" referred to is your reason for not adressing issues at this page, that you yourself have raised at this page.

And I'm not "in control" of the evidence, in the sense you seem to imply. The evidence of what has been published at the sites of WA and AWE at different times is all found at the site of archive.org, of which I'm not in control: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.waldorfanswers.org and http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.americans4waldorf.org

What you write is that a considerable part of what is found at the archived pages of WA at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.waldorfanswers.org not any longer is found at the site today, and that what is lacking today still is found at the site of http://www.americans4waldorf.org

If you want to re-assert your accusation that I have "considerably" altered the site of Waldorf Answers during the "proceedings", can you tell specifically what period you refer to, and then demonstrate, using the copies of http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.waldorfanswers.org what was there before, and that not any longer is found at the site today (http://www.waldorfanswers.org).

Thanks, Thebee 00:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to "re-assert" my accusation. But thanks for the offer to follow you down the next rabbit-hole. Pete K 01:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

mcdermott

If we quote McDermott, we need to give a full and unbiased picture of his comments. Editorializing is inappropriate. --- unsigned comment by 14:27, December 22, 2006 User:Hgilbert.

Then stop editorilaizing. The section is about racism in Anthroposophy - not the lack of it. If every time we broach the subject of racism, you fill the page with apologetic snippets, the point is never covered honestly. Let the subject be discussed. Pete K 16:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Fred Bauder's comment here. The source is OK. Please stop removing it. Thanks! Pete K 18:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars continue

This article went to arbitration to cool off the edit wars, but the reverts haven't abated. Nothing's accomplished with edit wars. Was this Staudenmaier article published by a real publisher? If so, why isn't that the reference that should appear here? Venado 03:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally. One comment on the issue of Staudenmaier. Thanks. While the point you mention is relevant to the discussion, it is secondary to the actual issue - if what Staudenmaier writes in his article, as exemplified by its introduction, actually is truthful in relation to the source he asserts that he describes. Both his article and the published historical source he asserts that he describes in the introduction to his soup are published on the internet. This makes it possible and easy for anyone who can read (and has a computer with internet access) to check and come to a judgement on the issue, which is very simple.

I have extensively tried to document both the published historical source, that P.S. asserts that he describes (a lecture series held in Oslo 1910, and his comments in discussions about what he has written on it in the introduction to his article. Both a simple comparison of what Staudenmaier writes abut the lecture series, where he - without having read the lecture series - made the mistake on including a reference to the first lecture in the series in the introduction to his article, and his following insistence, using a number of unsubstantiated and untrue transitional stories to try to save his credibility as author on anthroposophy, and the actual published historical source in full reveal the completely unpredictable unreliability of what he writes, which makes what he writes in the article and himself into an unacceptible source in articles related to anthroposophy at Wikipedia.

(I have focussed on the first lecture in the series to keep the issue simple and is so revealing with regard to the reliability of Staudenmaier's writings on anthroposophy. I could have used many other examples, that however would have been more difficult to penetrate for the general internet user, as they refer to sources, not published on the internet. I have however mentioned two more examples 1, 2, of Staudenmaier's "scholarship" at my personal page on his many stories, as they refer to a source that also is published on the internet - Steiner's autobiography.)

In relation to this, it is quite uninteresting if he has published anything else in one or other peer reviewed journal. So have all the author of the major scientific frauds the last years.

I have tried to in full and in detail motivate a removal of Staudenmaier as unreliable source on anthroposophy for almost two weeks before now taking it up again, after repeatedly asking for comments by other editors, and noone has answered. Noone except PeteK has opposed to it, while evading the central issue, the simple point in the citation, that PeteK repeatedly insists on adding to the article, that reveals Staudenmaier's unpredictable unreliability as source on anthroposophy.

PeteK's new mentor suggests that he gives up P.S. as citation, and that the section he has added and worked at building in the article be reduced to a reasonable size.

Thebee 06:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thebee, I would take extreme care in paraphrasing any of my advice to my mentees, in the future. I have suggested that it may be a possibility to give up the Staudenmaier reference and seek other notable references, but I have given a range of other options including - keeping it, using Staudenmaier references with care, when using some Staudenmaier ref state that they are opinion, never using Staudenmaier ref, asking for a WP:RfC on inclusion Staudenmaier references etc etc... Remember this is all advice and opinion - not an authority decision on the the question at hand.

I would respectfully ask that all users, including my Mentees do not link to the discussion above to help support their arguments. This page for mentoring purposes only. Thanks Lethaniol 17:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In relation to this, it is quite uninteresting if he has published anything else in one or other peer reviewed journal. So have all the author of the major scientific frauds the last years. --> Peer review is one of the primary ways to establish notability, reliability and verifiability in subjects that ostensibly or actually deal with science and topics related to science. As such, denigrating the peer review process for its perceived inadequacies as you have done will get you nowhere. Works that have not been subject to critical review are simply not well-considered and should be carefully considered for (and may even be omitted from) Wikipedia articles. See WP:FRINGE for more. --ScienceApologist 13:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Was this article ever published any where or not? The latest link to the article is to a self-published blog article--not worthy at wikipedia, Pete K. If the article was published by a respectable publisher then it requires more then original research by you, thebee, or any other contributor to wikipedia to disqualify it. I also suggest that you two stop looking over each others shoulders and get straight how to better the article. That means using wikipedia's rules instead of making up your own. Venado 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The latest link was to quiet the concerns of TheBee about the location of the citation. I don't need this particular article to support the claim made anyway. It is supported in the next paragraph with the McDermott paper. Pete K 17:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a solution, because edit wars don't make sense. The sentence in the article here should be edited a little bit to be more on point though. Venado 17:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I took it a bit more on-point than you did. Pete K 19:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This article can report on the controversy without taking one side or the other in it. Your change sounds more like a conclusion rather than what should be here, i.e. a description of some of the critiques. Venado 19:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, good point. I've reverted it to the language you suggested. Pete K 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the rest of the discussions by TheBee and Pete K from here as not about the article in question. I suggest that it does not be replaced and that the discussions stick to the issues at hand. For more information I have left a message here. Cheers Lethaniol 15:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing Racial Bias

Hi there everyone,

Before people bite my head off for these edits, when I should be mentoring - [9], as I have read and reread this bit of the page many times it was really bugging me - so cleaned up a little.

Explanation for using blockquote found here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations should ideally use blockquote for quotes - as many in these articles thought I would give an example edit. You do not have to use it - but thought I would mention it early as I have a feeling a lot of quotes will be looked at over coming days. Cheers Lethaniol 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Anthroposophical publication

The McDermott article was only published in a Waldorf research journal, an anthroposophical source unchecked by third-party verification. It is thus explicitly excluded by the rules set down in the recent arbitration. Hgilbert 17:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the intention of the rules here. Anthroposophical publications are not permitted to tout Anthroposophical concerns. In this case, the publication reveals the true presence of racism in Waldorf schools. It should not be disallowed for this reason. Pete K 18:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The relevant parts of the Arbitration decision here, concerning Verifiability, seem to be:

"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."

and, from the general decided remedy section:

"Editors of these articles are expected to remove [...] all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications."

None of them says anything about the nature of the controversial information. But you suggest that when it seems to support your view, such controversial information should be allowed to be quoted (extensively) and cited in the article, while - when it contradicts your views - it should not be allowed to be quoted and cited in the article. Is that correct? Thebee 10:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to explain things to you throughout this process, but rather than risk more edit wars by you, here is the issue. The report was an independent report by independent, not-Anthroposophists. It was published in an Anthroposophical source. This is NOT what the arbitration committee is talking about - the committee is objecting to Anthroposophists whose work is published in Anthroposophical sources. The second example is the definition of bias, the first is not. Pete K 15:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The verifiability issue is treated here. Quote: "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." This material is published in such a source. McDermott is also involved in the movement. It seems clear but I have asked for an administrator's opinion.

P.S. Note their use of the term "movement". A nice touch. Hgilbert 16:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes thanks for asking instead of - as Sune did - just ripping it out. Hopefully, Fred will clarify this for us. Pete K 16:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fred did; see [10]. Please respect this independent judgment. Hgilbert 18:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Situation: Fred Bauder advised against using such an article, then in response to your question said that he thought this might be the article in question. This appears to me that he indeed meant that the article should not be used in this context. He suggests including it as an external link, however. I have asked for further clarification...

Even if it should be judged acceptable, it is a POV violation to include huge excerpts from a single article ... and then to add a second long introduction dedicated to the same source at the top of the section. Hgilbert 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a POV violation at all. It's an INDEPENDENT view - get it... NPOV. I'll look at cutting down what is there, but only if you will give me some opportunity to do so - instead of removing the work YOU MADE me do when I asked you to leave this section alone with a single sentence. Now it has blown up in your face and you want to clear the slate. Fred is making suggestions - not giving orders. I'm as capable of interpreting his suggestions as you are - and acting on them. Why not calm down instead of ripping everything apart. I promise, I'll have a look at it fairly. Pete K 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the bad faith edit warring going to continue?

The Pifer book most definitely verifies the statement, and Pete K removed the reference without legitimate reason. quote "In The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, Steiner lays out with philosophical rigor the tenets of his epistemology which serves as the foundation for his later anthroposophical texts." Page 136. Venado 18:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That statement is correct. In PoF, Steiner talks about thinking and how to approach it. He does NOT talk about Anthroposophy and thinking is no more related to Anthroposophy than is eating or sleeping. PoF was not a pre-cursor to Anthroposophy. One does not follow the other. There is NO Anthroposophy contained in PoF... NONE. Pete K 18:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not an authority in wikipedia. Steiner wrote that the basis of anthroposophy is in the Philosophy of Freedom, so do anthroposophy writers, and so does this source. Venado 19:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter AT ALL if Steiner made this claim AFTER he wrote Philosophy of Freedom... For Philosophy of Freedom to be a pre-cursor to Anthroposophy, Steiner would have had to have made this claim BEFORE Anthroposophy was conceived - in your case, before 1894. The claim was made afterward - long afterward - long after PoF and long after Anthroposophy. He connected the two later - not before. That's a big difference and one can look at his writings and discern a distinct difference. It isn't up to you, or other Anthroposophists or even Steiner to decide after the fact whether Anthroposophy is contained in PoF. It was written before Anthroposophy was invented and this is clearly visible in the historical record. I'm not interested in what Anthroposophists have to say about the subject. Pete K 19:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For it to be a "precursor to anthroposophy", Steiner would have to have made the claim before there was anthropsophy? That makes no sense at all. Precursor to anthroposophy means the PHilosophy of Freedom came before it, not that any official pronnouncement equating the two came before it. If the author of the philosophy and the people who follow the philosophy believe the two are related, how is that not relevant? What ideas and texts adherents to a philosophy follow pretty much define the tenets of the philosophy.Venado 20:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Pete K, you've rewritten the sentence in the article to now say: "The epistemic basis for Steiner's pre-Anthroposophical work is contained in the seminal work, The Philosophy of Freedom". The source actually says, "In The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, Steiner lays out with philosophical rigor the tenets of his epistemology which serves as the foundation for his later anthroposophical texts." No "pre". The sentence as you've re-written it isn't accurate to the source. Madness. And you lectured me about the need for "EXACTLY" representing sources, and at the same time in a new POV sentence about "most medical practitioners" judging Steiner medicine as "quackery" or "fraud" by adding a source that doesn't say this. The author himself thinks it's quackery, but you change it to "most medical practioners". If anything, the reference is a complaint against the preety long list of officials, academicians, journalists, and others who don't associate alternative medicine with quackery.

Is the ink dry on the arbitration decision? I don't think the proposed remedies are going to help. Stronger medicine is needed around here. Venado 20:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, "Foundation" - means "pre" - it sets up the "thinking". The source you have provided doesn't say PoF was an Anthroposophical text - in fact it says the opposite - that it set up the "later" Anthroposophical texts. I don't see how two people can read the same sentence and find it saying two different things. Please re-read your OWN reference. Also, please don't lump Anthroposophical medicine with Alternative medicines in order to mainstream it... it is different than alternative medicines that have been accepted by mainstream physicians - a lot different. Most physicians DO NOT support Anthroposophical medicine - we shouldn't have to take a vote here, but are you suggesting that 51% or all physicians buy into AM's nonsense? I'll go back and re-write the "most practitioners" part but to suggest there's a long list of mainstream practitioners who accept AM is nonsense. Pete K 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You're interpretation is meaningless. The sentence in the wp article says Philosophy of Freedom is a "seminal" work to anthroposophy...that means "seed". The wp article describes it as the "basis", which is a synonym for "foundation", which is the word used in the source. And just conform to reference sources for claims you make in the article. It doesn't say anything at all about how many mainstream practioners view anthroposophical medicine as quackery. Read your sources before you put them in. (Just the same, read other references before you take them out.) Anthroposophical medicine is considered an alternative medicine by your own source. It's not my "confusion". Alternative medicine is what the article is about, it's even in the title, anthroposophicl medicine being just one among all the rest he's talking about. Anthroposophical medicine in this article is given just the barest passing mention! Venado 22:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I get that you're upset. Don't be. PoF is not Anthroposophy - it never was, and it never will be. Trying to redefine terms isn't going to get you anywhere. You are trying to alter the truth and that is always a losing proposition. PoF pre-dates Anthroposophy and contains no Anthroposophy. The only "seed" it sets is internalized thinking - not exactly breaking new ground for philosophy. I provided sourced for Anthroposophical medicine. One is supportive of it and is used to demonstrate that non-MD's can gain professional status in Anthroposophical medicine. In the other two - one calls AM quackery, the other calls the iscador treatment for cancer quackery. Pete K 15:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a paid-up anthroposophist. I'm in the strange position... that Steiner gave me the scientific integrity of method... to reach further than Steiner on occasions... to end up disagreeing with some of Steiner's conclusions! Thebee wanted help with the "geting" I think. I hope I can help. I put two replies in today, to points much earlier in the discussion. I felt what happened several times just before it happened. I think my paragraphs bear repeating here. The first is in response to Hgilbert:

"This is an example of systemic bias" in the generally valiantly NPOV Wikipedia "that needs to be addressed." yes, absolutely! The curiosity is that NPOV reaches towards an intensity of neutrality that Rudolf Steiner actually taught me even more about than I learned in Science or in Psychology - and I'm a good scientist and a trained counsellor - and studying "Philosophy of Freedom" was the key to this for me, taken in context of studying Steiner's work overall and seeing, yes, here is a genius who has not been properly recognized. I've lived 40 years (outside Steiner communities) since discovering Steiner, and have almost never found a genius to equal him. The problem with Wikipedia (and I don't want to change its setup because usually it works) is that it would not be NPOV as normally understood to gather together similar character references to Steiner from suitable people like Canon Shepherd. Lucy Skywalker 22:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The second is in response to Pete K:

You say that "Anthroposophy does not apply scientific methodology" On what scientific basis do you yourself say this? It is my careful and extensive and informed observation, over 40 years, that Anthroposophy is not at odds with scientific method, which relies on a) consistently careful observation; b) drawing reasonable hypotheses from the observations; and c) being open to further evidence that might challenge the hypotheses. Now Steiner himself asked people NOT to believe what he said but to test it for themselves. The fact that Anthroposophists sometimes choose belief over testing does not mean that this is what Steiner encouraged. He did not say, as you claim, "the only people who could evaluate his were, essentially, Anthroposophists"; what he said was that he spoke of what he had himself experienced and that if another did not experience the same thing, this was no proof in itself that what he had said was untrue. It is a delicate matter to grasp the different scientific validities of both positive proof and negative absence of disproof. One analogy is that I do not claim that Australia does not exist because I have not been there. I have examined the matter, and have found it reasonable to take the evidence of others as a working hypothesis. Which is what I have done with Steiner, and have sometimes arrived at different conclusions. But he taught me the method - to observe what was going on "within" with the same very great care as one would apply to conventional scientific observations, and, indeed, as the whole of modern psychology has taught us to begin to do with our inner realities. There is a growing number of scientists who see that certain factions in the scientific world claim objectivity where they, as equally respected and qualified scientists, disagree, see for example [[11]]

I hope this helps us move on. Lucy Skywalker 01:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lucy. You wrote "You say that "Anthroposophy does not apply scientific methodology"" On what scientific basis do you yourself say this? On the scientific basis that he made stuff up. One of my favorite examples is when he talks about dogs who are separated from humans for one or two generations lose the ability to bark. A scientist confronted with this idea would challenge it by conducting experiments to see if it were true. Steiner had no problem addressing large audiences and making ridiculous claims. Regarding your a), b) and c) above, a)"careful observation" is not something Steiner employed, or he would have noticed that dogs continue to bark even when withhelf from human contact. b)Drawing reasonable hypothesis is something he was also unable to do because of a number of reasons, not the least of which was a reliance on spiritual influences. c)Being open to further evidence that might challenge his hypothesis - I don't know how much Steiner you have read, but he was NOT open to further evidence on matters and even chided people like Einstein. You wrote "He did not say, as you claim, "the only people who could evaluate his were, essentially, Anthroposophists"; what he said was that he spoke of what he had himself experienced and that if another did not experience the same thing, this was no proof in itself that what he had said was untrue." Big deal! I could make the same claim. He talks extensively on this very subject in the preface to Occult Science. It is clear that evaluation of his work, must come from those who had undergone the process and reached the same conclusions he did. Pete K 15:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have altered the presentation of your last post so that, in my browser at least, it is clear who is saying what - because as I first read your quotes of me, the meaning of my original wording had become inverted. Now it is at least clear. I'm not going to answer your actual points because it would only further overload this overheated thread, trying to respond to someone who it seems is already under arbitration for having been unreasonable. But I could answer you, if I were sure you listened with courtesy. It is interesting meeting you, you are quite a challenge. Thank you.

I assume the above was Lucy. Please don't alter my posts at all - ever. Thanks. If they read differently than you would like them to read - if I have misquoted you in any way, please take care of it in your response. Thanks again. For the record, there has been no decision that I have been unreasonable - only agressive in my editing. Scientists shouldn't jump to conclusions. Pete K 16:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

well nice to meet you online, I'm still learning protocol and next time I'll hopefully get it right but I do dislike it when what appears doesn't even look like what I said. I was concerned because my meaning, as it read, had got inverted. I did say "it seems" because I wasn't quite sure of your exact status but I realized that you were under the wing of someone... and yes, I'd returned to do the tildes Lucy Skywalker 16:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume by "under the wing of someone" you mean the arbtitration committee and not mentorship (which is completely voluntary, neither recommended by the arbitration committee nor an indication of any unreasonable behavior on my part). I am free to respond to you and not under anyone's wing. Pete K 16:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Anthroposophy

I'm inclined to remove lots of stuff from this section that is redundant in Steiner's biography. This section is supposed to be the history of Anthroposophy - and it should talk about Theosophy, briefly, and the break-off of Anthroposophy, the off-shoot initiatives to some degree, and the people who (claim to have) moved Anthroposophy forward. Included in this should be, I'm sad to say, the Nazi-era treatment of Anthroposophy and prominent Anthroposophists who represented the movement at that time. Pete K 16:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently the arbitration decision has given us the responsibility of finding non-anthroposophy published sources and removing original research. Instead of working to add new stuff, could you maybe give a hand finding good sources we know we need there now? The Sampson reference you added yesterday isn't good because it doesn't make the claim you added to the article. When I pointed this out to you, you "softened" your claim but it still isn't in the article. This kind of editing is in effect original research which is disguised as a published point of view. You've done the same thing with the "some" you added today. This is not doing research, this is putting in your own pov. You can't do that. Can't you see that? Use SOURCES! And accurately report the statements as given by the author. Don't replace them with your own. Venado 17:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Good" sources have always been needed. This is nothing new. I look at this as an opportunity to improve the articles that have been "owned" thus far by Anthroposophists. A good place to start is to look at the information in the articles themselves and treating several articles together - so the same information (Steiner's biography for example) isn't repeated in article after article. Regarding what you are talking about above, you are attempting to introduce a lie into Wikipedia - that PoF was the pre-cursor to Anthroposophy. It just isn't true but clearly it's a claim Anthroposophist cheer-leaders like to make. There has been extensive discussion on the Waldorf Critics list for weeks now about this very subject. Re: using SOURCES!, I'm using the source that you have provided. You haven't been able to read your own source accurately and this is frustrating for me - but I'm letting it go. It isn't my POV that Philosophy of Freedom does not contain anything about spiritual hierarchies, about the paranormal, about spiritual activities underlying the physical world. All that came later after Steiner accepted Theosophy and later yet produced Anthroposophy. Anyone can read PoF and discover this. Your own source says that. You don't seem to want to accurately represent this. Why not?

Meanwhile, I'll continue trying to improve the articles the way I feel is necessary - and please forgive me if I don't accept homework assignments from you. Finding reliable sources for inaccurate claims does not sound like a very productive use of my time. Pete K 18:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The book is published in English with the title "Philosophy of Spiritual Activity". Of course it is concerned with the spiritual nature of man. The Waldorf Critics list is not a source. You need a real one. My source, swhich you didn't even read, says nothing of the kind what you have said. You're making it up. Venado 19:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh great... let the book title decide what's in the book. What kind of thinking is this? Anthroposophists change the titles of Steiner's books all the time anyway. They've changed "Occult Science" to "Esoteric Science" even though Steiner discusses the reason for the original title specifically in the preface to the book. If you think this sort of logic is going to change the CONTENT of the book, you're wrong. And I really don't need a source that says a book written 10 years before a new idea was created doesn't pertain to that idea. Is there any chance Anthroposophists will stop wasting everyone's time with this sort of nonsense. YOU quoted from your source - and it said exactly what I have said. I'm not making anything up - and I'll thank you to be more civil in the future. Pete K 19:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I've deleted the Sampson reference - you're correct - it was added in error (too many browser windows open at once). Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Pete K 19:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I take it back - I deleted a reference to a different article.Pete K 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think you will like it better now. I'd prefer to take the part about the cancer treatment out, personally, but if you guys insist on it being there, we can't really pretend it works - right? Pete K 20:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone show me the support for the claim "Though an accepted and widely used medical treatment in Germany and the European Union,"? I've looked at all the referenced material and I don't see anything that indicates that iscador or mistletoe is either accepted or widely used - anywhere. I'll give it some time before removing the claim. Pete K 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia guideline on citation of sources - say where you got it:

"It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear."

and according to the main arbitrator, Fred Bauder,

"...any polemical source is considered unreliable."

The two citations from "Quackwatch" are polemical sources. I have therefore deleted them as citations. If you want to refer a study by the Swiss Society for Oncology published in 1984, you can't use "Quackwatch. You need to find a direct citation for the study. Thebee 22:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Pete K 22:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I also question the use of "Quackwatch"; is this a third-party verified publication???? It seems highly unlikely. Hgilbert 16:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't let the name fool you - they have something like 152 doctors on their editorial staff. Pete K 16:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I went back and reverted the last two edits. Vendano, I don't like accusations of plaigerism. I provided three sources that all said the same words. The definition seems to be well accepted. You need to tone it down. TheBee, you don't get to throw out sources just because you believe them to be "polemical" - If there's something wrong with the sources cited, discuss the problem before yanking them out and attaching fact tags to everything. We have an arbitration committee and administrators just waiting around to answer questions about sources for you. The only sources we know for sure we are not to permit is Anthroposophical ones that tout Anthroposophy or it's various enterprises. I realize how frustrating it must be to have sources outside of Anthroposophy saying there's nothing to Anthroposophical medicine. I understand your frustration now that you can no longer control the content of the articles, but yanking out other people's edits is not going to get us anywhere. Since the Arbitration ruling, you guys have complained about every source I have presented. You really need to stand back and let these articles get set back on track. That's really what the ruling said - we need to remove all the unsourced stuff and the stuff sourced to Anthroposophical sources, and replace it with material from other sources. There has never been any intention to leave the articles the way they are and simply find neutral sources to support all these claims (good luck to you if you can do that). Some things in the articles are going to have to change. Pete K 23:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

On:

"TheBee, you don't get to throw out sources just because you believe them to be "polemical":

According to Wiktionary, "polemic" refers to:

"An aggressive debate, attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another."

The sources you have used as citations are not neutral, but polemical sources in the sense described by Wiktionary, and what you have added as text to the article, based on them, constitutes original research in the sense prohibited by Wikipedia. Thebee 23:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Then get an administrator to agree with you. You're interpretation and understanding of what you read is of no interest to me. If someone like Fred agrees with you then you will have your answer. I've already been through this once today. Thanks! Pete K 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K:

"You're interpretation and understanding of what you read is of no interest to me."

You've written similar things a number of times. It does not stand out as very civil. Thebee 12:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, as usual, you have taken personally a statement that is a general statement. But I've learned from you, my friend. I've been documenting your edit summaries - how many have included MY NAME in them? Go back and have a peek. Here is a good one to get you started - but really there are many to choose from. YOUR incivility is what is clear. Pete K 13:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary you link to is a short description of the simple facts pertaining to the edit. Deleting a proper citation constitutes vandalism according to Durova. The summary tells this, who made it, and that the edit I made is a revert, as also that the citation referred to an unncontroversial fact. It's a simple description of the basic facts regarding the edit. Why take it personally? Thebee 14:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the next rabbit hole is ready. Do you get that "vandalism" does not apply to the edit - at all, and is used in your customary defamatory way? Carry on - we'll let the arbitrators sort this one out. Your incivility has been brought to their attention now, as well as your clear intention to defame critics of Anthroposophy - and that should make you a little nervous, I would think. Please don't bother trying to intimidate me with these claims of incivility again - I know it's just you trying to stir the pot. Pete K 14:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Last Edit

I forgot to add an edit summary. I've revised the definition of Anthroposophy to a more accepted one that identifies Anthroposophy as a set of beliefs - and gets away from the misrepresentation that it has something to do with science. Pete K 20:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice going--it's completely plagiarized. How much time is wasted so far fixing these bad fixes? Too much of mine for today. It's New Years Eve, and I'm going to celebrate the rest of it like it should be celebrated. Happy New Year. Venado 21:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Three sources say the exact same thing. I don't know who plagiarized whom. I don't know about you, but I don't consider fixing the articles a waste of time. I do, however, consider much of the back and forth arguing a waste of time. Pete K 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

They're not the plagiarists, you are. All three links point to the same source. They're all mirrors of the same copyright dictionary--Houghton Mifflin. You've plagiarized it from H-M. It's taken word for word, keeping language that isn't even grammatical in sentence form. Plagiarizing isn't allowed at wikipedia. Venado 00:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

By the time the language of this ONE SENTENCE is referenced EVERYWHERE on every free dictionary on the web, it is in the public domain. It isn't plaigerism. But to satisfy you, since you seem to want to stick to a silly point and revert edits over it - I've changed a few words. Talk about a waste of time. Let's see how many sentences in these articles are lifted out of other sources shall we? I don't think I will, because it's a waste of my time, but the whole point is a very silly one. Pete K 01:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It is very frustrating if you won't read what's been explained to you. You are way to quick to revert important and valid edits. You've been told to stop edit warring (but you continue), and plagiarism is way off the charts wrong to do here. The top of every edit window has a sign in big GIANT letters "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." That one sentence you speak of (second time I've told you) is copyright by Houghton Mifflin and identified as "All rights reverved". The three websites where you read it have repeated that sentence because each one has permission to copy it and each has identified it as belonging to Houghton Mifflin. It's your responsibility as an editor to read the material, including who wrote it and who it belongs to, before you use it here. You can easily see it is the same text, not three different texts. You don't have permission to copy it, and you copied it without identifying it as a quote from somebody else. That's plagiarism and copyright infringement both. Don't do it! It's plagiarism to copy, it's copyright infringement lift somebodies written material without permission. Wikipedia makes this clear to everyone who edits by saying don't do this on every one of our edits, top and bottom! Venado 19:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - but I don't need things "explained" to me by you - so that may be where you are frustrated. If you want to be didactic, find someone else. Regarding reverting valid edits, this goes both ways but I don't see any edits I have reverted as being invalid. You continue to accuse me of plagiarism and I think you are way off base here, but I humored you and reworded the sentence. Thanks for the big bold letters BTW, but the statement is meaningless in this case - its a sentence, not a document. You're wasting your breath. Plagiarism is representing someone else's work as one's own. Get a clue, please. Thanks. Pete K 14:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Formating issues/ archiving talk page

(To Pete) My browser only shows Wikipedia in Lucida Sans font, which has no italic, so if you used italic to highlight your quote of me, perhaps this is why I could not see it. Please, for me use Black! Lucy Skywalker 21:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you can select a different Wikipedia font using preferences. Pete K 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to meet you as my record shows, but on this one I cannot. I am not asking much and it would show your willingness to practice courtesy and goodwill. Lucy Skywalker 12:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried changing your preferences and it didn't work? I don't think filling the discussions with bold text is such a good idea as pretty soon, everything everyone says will be bold... People think BOLD makes what they are saying sound important... note my signature --> Pete K 17:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Anthroposophy: science or belief?

(to everyone) This is such a Janus-issue! so appropriate to New Year's Eve! Is Anthroposophy a science or a belief??? Now I know it as a science that I've tested time without number, but I sympathize with those who see it as a belief. I feel that the best NPOV can do for now is to include both perspectives. However, the matter is of such crucial importance that I feel the little paragraph in the article simply does not begin to do it justice. So I've started a daft draft essay on the "Philosophy of Freedom"'s key concept, on my personal page here. Please have a look! I would welcome comments. You need to EXPERIENCE the key concept of "POF" to PROVE that Anthroposophy is a science (certainly an unusual science), and that this core experience of thinking is indeed the foundation of Anthroposophy. But this proof hurts the brain!!! it goes against all one's comfort zones!!! just as Jesus went against all Saul's comfort zones, until Saul was blinded on the Road to Damascus and found that Jesus was ok after all. I hope this helps. Lucy Skywalker 21:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Usually, when you stretch something as much as Anthroposophy requires the brain to stretch, it may very well hurt. I don't see any value in trying to prove Anthroposophy is a science... but have fun with that... Pete K 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You have just said "I don't see any value in trying to prove Anthroposophy is a science... but have fun with that... " Are you not shooting yourself in the foot here, giving evidence of 1) your unwillingness to follow a proof, and 2) your POV not being NPOV? The "proof" I've just outlined at my Lucy Skywalker page is - to my perception - not so difficult to follow (though it may still need "fixing for bugs" and perhaps you can help me here, by continuing to give the kind of criticisms in which you excel, which gives me material to work on). Now I am not living in the world of Steiner as it was when he wrote "POF" and later developed Anthroposophy. My aim, arising out of my life now, is to show that, however many "truly proven" flaws (ie not just CSICOP-type, see Alternative Science/CSICOP) one may find in Steiner, or in Anthroposophy as it has become, this does not invalidate the principle of Scientific Method per se, nor the root principle of Spiritual Science in demonstrating the field of objectivity within the act of thinking. If you are unwilling to go back to the first principles and follow the proof, and if you express responses that come from the emotions and not the mind, then you have not earned the scientific right to dismiss the claims that a Spiritual Science is a legitimate possibility, and that methodology in line with Scientific Method is possible.

Lucy Skywalker has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Please everyone, read my Lucy Skywalker page! TheBee, I did hear your call... Now (naturally) I would like to see the substance of my page put up as a fresh Wikipedia page because I believe it is that important... but even if it does not become a fresh page (I don't feel competent yet to post it up solo) I shall put it on my own website presently. Lucy Skywalker 12:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• This page is overdue for archiving, and PeteK, would you like to do this since you have written far more than anyone else? I'll try and find out how to do it later, if you don't. Lucy Skywalker 14:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucy, last I heard, these pages are automatically archived. We don't have to do it. Re your page, I haven't looked at it. I'll try to have a peek later. I don't think we have an argument really. Science includes thinking. Scientific method can certainly include thinking and drawing conclusions based on thinking. However, one cannot just sit and think and call it science - there is no field of objectivity there - no reproducability. Thinking is a wonderful frontier on its own - and Steiner did some great things - he got people thinking about thinking, and that's great. There's nothing wrong with thinking outside the box - and that can certainly lead to good science, but it doesn't constitute science in-and-of itself. And if what you are trying to demonstrate here is that the definition of "science" has to change so that it can accommodate Steiner, I suspect you are going to have a difficult time with me. Pete K 17:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no auto-archiving, see here [12] Lucy Skywalker 20:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at your page - it's pretty much exactly what I expected. I don't find any substance there that is particularly noteworthy - no offense intended. It's more of the same I've heard for years. You can get some mileage regarding new ways of looking at thinking processes, but you run into potholes when you look at where that took Steiner. And that's what happens when thinking alone is let loose (as science) without the rigorous scientific methods we insist on. You can call the products of this activity philosophy, you can even call them psychology, but you can't call them science. And yes, we all know our thinking is based on our perception which is based on our thinking and yes, it hurts the brain - but we don't all have to take the red pill (or the blue pill) - we can be glorious in our diverse set of ideas and experiences. And while I appreciate the effort you are going to on your blog, know that this is nothing new for those of us who have been around the block on this stuff. But hey, have fun! Pete K 18:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a discussion on this, and on what you consider "scientific method" to be, but not here. Please, use my User Talk page, and please tell me there, where can I find all your arguments together without wasting time trawling pages and pages of forums like where Staudenmaier hangs out? Lucy Skywalker 20:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't collected my "arguments" together in some original research vanity-press website like some here have. While I enjoy debate, I don't really do one-on-one debate privately. If I'm going to take my time to debate issues, it serves me best if the discussions are out in the open where others can see them. Your talk page would not be appropriate for this, of course, as it is yours to control as you like and out of sight of the mainstream who don't know to look there. Since this is the Spiritual Science (redirect) talk page, it might be fine to discuss this here if we don't get too far off the subject. I assume you believe the outcome of the discussion will impact the Anthroposophy article (it probably won't) so that's probably justification enough to discuss spiritual science here. Your slam of Peter Staudenmaier makes me wonder if there is any point in engaging you. If you don't find any value in what he has to say, there is little chance you will find any value in what I have to say either. Pete K 21:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate all you say, but what I have to say is so long to put here, that's why I thought it would be better on my page. Then people can look here (my front page) and here (my talk page) to check. Sorry about my ref. to Staudenmaier, I agree it was bad language - what I meant is that I like to go further than just the references you give, and I got irritated with unfamiliar formats and it took a very long time - it irritates me that forum threads take time to trawl, this is why I like the Wiki format! You say I assume you believe the outcome of the discussion will impact the Anthroposophy article (it probably won't) so that's probably justification enough to discuss spiritual science here and I shall return to this, but after a break which I now need, and it will be on my talk page for the above reasons - at first, at least. A little "please" - could you get this talk page shortened with archiving - it really needs it and I can't do it now for a week probably Lucy Skywalker 11:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lucy - I'm not a big fan of archiving discussions because, well, people bring up the same topics again and again. The archives are filled with the same discussions we see on this page, so leaving this stuff visible, to my way of thinking, is a good thing. Pete K 19:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

False impression

Pete:please stop moving the references to "fundamentally anti-racist" to the end of the paragraph. This creates the false impression that these are to both sides, whereas they are both to the anti-racist question. Also, please stop removing a citation to Waage that fits the verifiability criteria; he is a mainstream journalist publishing in a mainstream journal. Hgilbert 18:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

HGilbert, please stop making controversial edits and then following them with several BS edits. I'm not the one here trying to produce a false impression. Maybe you and I should step away from the keyboard for a few hours. Pete K 19:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

So, what's it going to be HGilbert? Are you going to continue removing any material you don't like without justification? It's just going to go right back in. Please discuss the edits you want to make and let's agree. I suspect the only reason you're not doing so is because you know they will not be agreed to - the way you want to make them. We may have to - God forbid - compromise a little. Pete K 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove material this last edit; if you insist on having the whole quote (against advice), I will live with this. But putting the same material at the beginning and the end is absurd. I am compromising, have already compromised; see my last edit. Can you compromise by combining your two uses of the same material? Hgilbert 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - Let's start here

Racial bias has been identified in Steiner's work.[citation needed]. So you start by making a statement that I need to find a citation for. Nice compromise. Let's just change it to "Racism has been identified in Steiner's work" and I'll cite Staudenmaier. Personally, I think you were better off before. Nevertheless, anthroposophy in general and Steiner's work in particular have been called "fundamentally anti-racist",[51][52] by both critics and supporters, This part gets really goofy. Why remove the fundamentally racist part? Even your Dutch commission (remember them) called some of Steiner's works racist. The whole sentence can go - it makes no sense and doesn't tell the reader anything when it is fairly presented.

and the Anthroposophical Society in America has issued a statement saying: "We emphatically reject racism in all its forms, and embrace the principles of common humanity expressed by the founder of the Anthroposophical Society, Rudolf Steiner: [We] must cast aside the division into races. [We] must seek to unite people of all races and nations, and to bridge the divisions and differences between various groups of people."[53]

Frankly, I think you should remove this one. The division of people into races is not racism. It demonstrates that the Anthroposophical Society doesn't even understand what racism is.

We explicitly reject any racial theory that may be construed to be part of Rudolf Steiner's writings. The Anthroposophical Society in America is an open, public society and it rejects any purported spiritual or scientific theory on the basis of which the alleged superiority of one race is justified at the expense of another race.[54] This one we should keep - it's a good statement (one I wasn't aware of) - and it shows some understanding of the issue.

Can we agree on this? Pete K 22:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This last para "We explicitly reject..." would seem to solve the whole problem. Lucy Skywalker 12:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Both of you should take a breather. This edit warring is ridiculous. First, there is more than one individual who has raised this concern obviously. That fact is verified by the McDermott article, the Dutch school problem for example. No need for more sources, no need to change that first sentence to make it sound like one person alone raised the concern just because there's only one source used for this article.

The anthroposophic society has a real policy against racism. That's a fact that belongs here. If there are other actions taken that go along, maybe that should be here also.

Unless there are published accounts of other racist practices or policies beyond this, end of subject. Move on. Wikipedia editors aren't qualified to say that this or that quote taken from this or that book or lecture is proof one way or another is the "right" interpretation. Take out most of that garbage, for and against. Wrap it up. There's a lot more work to do around here. Venado 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't mind taking a breather... I've still got to take down the Christmas tree... Pete K 22:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete: in my view a distinction needs to be made between racial bias and being fundamentally racist. Steiner's statements against racism are in many prominent places, including his written works. Most people who read his works only encounter his clear position against racial judgments and his statements that race is unimportant compared to individual differences, simply because this is what his well-known works clearly state. In mostly fairly obscure places, often buried in lectures about completely different things or in off-the-cuff talks to workers at the Goetheanum, he talks about various races in a biased way, however.

In terms of verifiability; I know of no citable author that calls Steiner's works or anthroposophy fundamentally racist. McDermott certainly does not. We could lead in with something like:

Racial bias has been identified in Steiner's works. (ref: McDermott) At the same time, his stance has been called "fundamentally anti-racist" by both supporters and critics (ref: Waage, Bauemler)

And follow this with two short subsections of roughly equal length and comparable style explicating both aspects. In the anthroposophy article, the A.S. position should also be quoted. In the Waldorf article, any positions taken by the Waldorf association should be quoted. Hgilbert 13:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Pete: in my view a distinction needs to be made between racial bias and being fundamentally racist. Steiner's statements against racism are in many prominent places, including his written works." Racial bias (elevating one race above another) IS the definition of racism, . Steiner appears to talk "against" racism ONLY when he moves from the physical human form to the spiritual human form. The difference between individual and "individual" that we talked about (and I tried to identify as "spirit-individual". When he talked about the physical human, he was absolutely (fundamentally) racist. When he talked about "individuals" as other people talk about "souls" or "spirit-self" he didn't have the same things to say about them. There is nothing you could say about a spirit-self that has the physical connection - whether it be skin color, hair color, eye color or whatever. Spirits don't have these characteristics. When he talked about physical humans, he was fundamentally racist. I tried to help you make this exact distinction months ago but you kept removing it, preferring to blur the line and let people assume he wasn't a racist - or more oddly, both a racist and not.

I'm not really very attached to the "fundamentally racist" language (and I tried to leave the quotation marks off because I don't have a source that says this). Another editor added the quotation marks for balance. What I know is that Steiner was racist, his racist remarks are abundant and clear and frankly, anyone calling Steiner "anti-racist" has either misunderstood the difference I described above, or assumes the reader will. Why do you think the racist remarks came up when he talked with the workers at the Goetheanum? Do you think it was just a coincidence? It is very clear to me that Steiner, being Steiner, realized he was talking to a different group than normally attended his lectures. I have read enough of Steiner to know he quite naturally felt the need to "dumb-down" his lectures for the workers. So instead of concentrating on more lofty ideas about the spirit-individual, he talked more about the physical individual - and the physical individual's relation to the world. And when talking about physical individuals, he quickly encountered and spoke freely about race, as well as other stuff relating to the physical world - alcoholism, why people wear clothing, stuff like that. He never talked about these things in detail in his formal lectures because his audience was different. His regular lecture audiences were more prepared for information about the spirit-individual - the one that is above racial differences - while the workers were not as ready for such topics. Steiner was not both fundamentally racist and fundamentally anti-racist. He was consistent in his ideas on this. Why confuse the Wikipedia readers? Pete K 16:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Steiner actually says very clearly that even strictly physically, individual differences are more important than racial ones. Race for him is a minor influence physically, which can be described, but is less important than individual differences.

He made comments that accentuate supposed differences between the races, and more prominent comments that accentuated the humanity that encompasses all races, and often spoke out directly against racism. To say he was racist is to focus on the one half. To say he is anti-racist is to focus on the other. Both are justifiable reactions. To gain a comprehensive view requires understanding how the two fit together for him. He was consistent in the sense that he was consistently against judging any individual on the basis of race, as well as suggesting that racial influences were concrete, restricted to the physical body, and though less important than individual differences, clear in their effects. That is a more complex picture, and a more accurate one. Why confuse the Wikipedia readers by ignoring the more prominent half of his statements on the subject? Hgilbert 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Steiner actually says very clearly that even strictly physically, individual differences are more important than racial ones. Race for him is a minor influence physically, which can be described, but is less important than individual differences." I think we both know that's nonsense. "He made comments that accentuate supposed differences between the races, and more prominent comments that accentuated the humanity that encompasses all races, and often spoke out directly against racism." No, he really didn't. He didn't only talk about the "differences" in the races, he talked about which races were more advanced and which were in decline. He certainly didn't say, we're all on the same level but some of us are black and others are white. He specifically said white people are on a higher level than black people. "To say he was racist is to focus on the one half. To say he is anti-racist is to focus on the other." No, there really is no "other" half. "Both are justifiable reactions." Only if you're confused about what Steiner said. It isn't reasonable to suggest or expect that Steiner was wishy-washy about the subject, or himself confused. Are you sure this is the picture you want to paint of him - that he talked out of both sides of his mouth about the races? "To gain a comprehensive view requires understanding how the two fit together for him." I've explained it for you and you are, again, trying to muddy the waters. He talks differently about physical individuals than he does about spiritual individuals. That's how the two fit together. "He was consistent in the sense that he was consistently against judging any individual on the basis of race, as well as suggesting that racial influences were concrete, restricted to the physical body, and though less important than individual differences, clear in their effects. That is a more complex picture, and a more accurate one." It's nothing more than a smokescreen. You've again gone to the effort of blurring the distinction and thrown around the word "individual" as if it refers to a physical individual. "Why confuse the Wikipedia readers by ignoring the more prominent half of his statements on the subject?" I think you're the one who is either confused here (or pretending to be). And you're trying to confuse the readers here right now. Maybe this is another good place to step aside - your intention here is clearly to obfuscate the issue with double-speak (or should we just call it Waldorf-speak?). You KNOW I'm not going to buy this nonsense, but I think you are intentionally playing to the audience here. It's not going to fly - and I think even casual readers here will walk away shaking their heads at your apologetic presentation - that he was kinda racist, but not completely racist. It's hogwash. Pete K 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Is PLANS an anti-Waldorf activist group, or just "an activist group"?

In the article, Pete K has replaced the description of the anti-Waldorf activist group PLANS as an anti-Waldorf activist group with just "an activist group". That sounds nice and neutral. Is it true in the sense of doing PLANS justice? Thebee 15:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If Christian churches wanted federal funding, I would be against this as I don't think it's fair for the public to pay for religious schools. It doesn't make me anti-Christian. Pete K 16:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The now extensive Wikipedia article on the group and the defamation of Waldorf education in general used through the history of PLANS' anti-Waldorf campaign and the section on Criticism of the group points to that you are wrong. Thebee 19:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

LMAO... YOU practically wrote the article by yourself. And I haven't gotten around to editing that one yet, but here YOU YOURSELF suggest that you be restricted from editing the article based on your own bias. Gimme a break!!! (still laughing) Pete K 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"LMAO... YOU practically wrote the article by yourself." What you write is untrue. According to the edit history of the page, you're the probably main contributor to the article the last months. Little of what I've contributed is left.

To this belongs a sentence telling that what one Waldorf teacher used to examplify the type of religious experiences he wanted his daughter to have at her Waldorf school was the way the origin and dramatic history of the Jews is taught in grade three in independent Waldorf schools. As far as I remember, you at one time deleted that sentence, just leaving the previous sentence "In Schwartz's view, although Waldorf education is not sectarian, the children are intended to have religious experiences." to try to imply that the "religious" he wanted his daughter to have was an experience of anthroposophy as "religion". Not a very honest edit by you. Thebee 20:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

On

"here YOU YOURSELF suggest that you be restricted from editing the article based on your own bias."

I mentioned the possibility at my Talks page in the same spirit of objectivity that should have restricted you and DianaW from continuing to edit articles related to Waldorf education, based on the profound bias by both of you regarding the subjects of the articles in question. Regrettably, the arbitration in neither case penetrated to such an objective ruling. Thebee 20:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling them "anti-Waldorf" is editorializing, but calling them a Church-State activist group is denying the obvious. PLANS is totally focused only on public schools if they're Waldorf, but they're just as much or more interested in non-public Waldorf and somewhat on other Steiner related activities, but mostly Waldorf. They call themselves "waldorf critics", that's the domain name of the website. They don't come out to be religious experts or constitution experts, they say on page one they are former Waldorf parents, teachers and students, including private. All their press releases say that PLANS was formed out of concern about both public and private Waldorf, not against general religion per se in public schools. They distribute poster and bumper sticker advertising against Waldorf education in general, not other educations and no mention at all about conflict to the constitution or public schools. Their articles are selected for "critical opinions" about Waldorf, it says on the top of the webpage. Only a msmall few of the whole bunch of articles are about public schools. Only one of that short subset of the whole isn't about Waldorf public directly, meaning religion in schools in general. Ninety-nine.point.nine-nine-nine percent of the organization is for activism against Steiner, primarily Steiner based schools, and not general activism against religion in school or the constitution. They criticize against Waldorf, private and public, and I can't find any sign of activist activities on the well-known mainstream church state disputes that church state school activists would ordinarily have an interest in, like Christmas celebration in school, or religious based campus groups, or creationism/evolution, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, religious speech at graduation. Nothing like that. They should should be called "critical" of Waldorf instead of "anti" Waldorf. Venado 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding TheBee's remarks above: "What you write is untrue. According to the edit history of the page, you're the probably main contributor to the article the last months. Little of what I've contributed is left." What I write is NOT untrue. A closer look at the article indicates that YOU put the defamatory stuff in right from the beginning. Your close associate from AWE (I won't reveal who she is) Professor Marginalia contributed more later. A look at the history page shows clearly what has happened and who has put the defamatory comments in. If little of your contribution is left, you might consider asking yourself why so little of what you have contributed is left.

"To this belongs a sentence telling that what one Waldorf teacher used to examplify the type of religious experiences he wanted his daughter to have at her Waldorf school was the way the origin and dramatic history of the Jews is taught in grade three in independent Waldorf schools. As far as I remember, you at one time deleted that sentence, just leaving the previous sentence "In Schwartz's view, although Waldorf education is not sectarian, the children are intended to have religious experiences." to try to imply that the "religious" he wanted his daughter to have was an experience of anthroposophy as "religion". Not a very honest edit by you. " I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. The point was that Waldorf/Anthroposophy is religious and sectarian. The Waldorf Master Teacher, Eugene Schwartz, confirmed this in that lecture - and still confirms this. BTW, I met him last month and we spoke briefly.

"I mentioned the possibility at my Talks page in the same spirit of objectivity that should have restricted you and DianaW from continuing to edit articles related to Waldorf education, based on the profound bias by both of you regarding the subjects of the articles in question. Regrettably, the arbitration in neither case penetrated to such an objective ruling." Um... that's because a conflict of interest does not exist with me as it does with you. And what you suggested would have been a great trade for you because so little of what you have tried to introduce into these articles is NPOV - that's why it gets deleted almost immediately. Sacrificing your biased edits that are always deleted for two editors who contribute energetically and in a reasonably unbiased way made sense for you. Obviously, not for the ArbCom or anyone else. But, I'm happy that you at least acknowledged that your views are biased with regard to PLANS. Pete K 21:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"They should should be called "critical" of Waldorf instead of "anti" Waldorf." That would be accurate, in my view. Pete K 21:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K 19:54, referring to what is found as the present version of the Wiki article on the small anti-Waldorf fringe group "PLANS" in SF:

"YOU practically wrote the article by yourself."

Pete K 21:47 referring to what is found as the present version of the Wiki article on the small anti-waldorf fringe group "PLANS" in SF:

"If little of your contribution is left, you might consider asking yourself why so little of what you have contributed is left."

"You have written most of what is found as the article at present", and "You have written very little of what is found as the article at present". Something seems to have made an illogical leap somewhere during the two hours between the two statements. Thebee 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - that would be YOUR claim that very little of what you have written is present in the article. Do you see the word "IF"? Pete K 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think little of what I have written is left in the article, why do you suggest that I consider why so little of what I have contributed is left? Thebee 23:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that little is left - YOU did. So IF that's the case, you should consider why. There's nothing illogical in any of what I have said. The only illogical thing has been YOUR reference to the PLANS article YOU wrote to support YOUR premise that PLANS defames Waldorf - when all the claims of defamation come from YOU. This is, BTW, typical of all your arguments where you reference your own website and your own research as supposed support for your own opinions. Another rabbit hole. The answer has been given by Venado and agreed to - "critical" is accurate, "anti-Waldorf" is not. Pete K 23:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a reminder for the memory: This thread started as a question if a reduction by Pete K of the description of PLANS as an anti-Waldorf activist group in the Anthroposophy article to just an "activist group" did the group justice.

Pete first asserted that this was the case. When I questioned this, based on the well documented description of the group in an article at Wikipedia, Pete turns the discussion into a personal attack on me, and accuses me of having written most of the article, that he seems to think gives a defamatory description of the group. This would probably refer to the two well cited sections I have mentioned: the History and the Criticism section. In the two sections I only recognize one well cited paragraph in the first as originating from me:

"In a newspaper interview in May, Dan Dugan commented on the independent Waldorf school in Davis: "They believe that there are spirits behind everything. I know there are people who would call that evil. (They) would consider anthroposophy a satanic religion."[9]. When criticized by a supporter for the way PLANS was trying to get support from Christian fundamentalists by using an alleged connection between anthroposophy (the philosophical basis of Waldorf education) and satanism, he defended this on his mailing list: "What I say 'in defense of the Waldorfians' is that 'they don't eat babies.'", "Am I pandering to the prejudices of Christians? Personally, yes I am!".[10]"

In the second section I don't recognize any text as something I have written as it now stands.

Does the term "critical" do the group justice, as suggested by Venadoo?

The first two critical parts of the comments on Waldorf education, supported and published at the site of the group are the two parts that would make it into just a group critical of Waldorf education. The third type of "argumentation", also described here, coached by its secretary and published by him at the site, takes the group beyond the just "critical" category and into a clearly and explicitly anti-Waldorf group, to describe it in soft terms.

Does the neutral term "critical" do the group justice? The third type of "argumentation" against Waldorf education, published by the group at its site tells it does not.

Thebee 00:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Chiming in briefly. "Critical" versus "anti." For the purposes of wikipedia if you want to call them "anti" you'd have to find some "anti" actions or statements from them, and no, summaries on your self-published web sites won't do it. Nobody at all disagrees that PLANS is "critical"; as venado points out, their web site is called "Waldorf critics." "Anti" is the controversial point. So who calls them "anti"? Thebee. How does thebee document it? His own web sites. And the "PLANS" article here - which is still very much under dispute, having barely been touched since the arbitration ended. (Don't assume it isn't going to change, in other words.)

There is nothing "anti" in what PLANS does or advocates unless you believe it is a negative thing to ask the Waldorf/anthroposophy movement to advertise and recruit honestly, state their mission forthrightly and aim to attract the customers to whom that mission is appealing rather than advertise under false premises and unwisely attract those to whom their mission (anthroposophy) is actually repellent. It is not "anti" to ask them to uphold the US constitution and not misuse public funds. I think those things would be good for Waldorf, not bad. I think the schools will benefit from public accountability, increased trust, and increased openness between teachers, students, and families. I know that students and families in them will benefit, and I consider those things positive -not "anti" anybody. The reforms PLANS advocates would help students, teachers, and administrators. I firmly believe enrollments would stabilize if not increase, and avoiding the bitter, poisoned atmosphere that comes with constant organizational crisis, families constantly leaving angry etc., is VERY good for Waldorf schools. I know it is good for children and their families - it would be hard to find anyone who would disagree that children benefit from a positive, open, and collegial atmosphere in a school, from their parents trusting their teachers and believing in the school, rather than constant mistrust, miscommunication, and hostility.DianaW 02:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

""In a newspaper interview in May, Dan Dugan commented on the independent Waldorf school in Davis: "They believe that there are spirits behind everything. I know there are people who would call that evil. (They) would consider anthroposophy a satanic religion."[9]. When criticized by a supporter for the way PLANS was trying to get support from Christian fundamentalists by using an alleged connection between anthroposophy (the philosophical basis of Waldorf education) and satanism, he defended this on his mailing list: "What I say 'in defense of the Waldorfians' is that 'they don't eat babies.'", "Am I pandering to the prejudices of Christians? Personally, yes I am!"."

Diana comments: This is very positive - this is not "anti." Newsflash bee - they *do* believe there are spirits behind everything. (This is, btw, not an uncommon belief in most world religions, and there are lots of disputes as to which spirits, or even whole belief systems, are "evil.") The Waldorf school did not tell these Christian fundamentalist parents what anthroposophy is, didn't bother mentioning that their kids would hear about "spirits" right and left, and this disrespects these families' beliefs and these families' right to raise their children in their own religion. The public schools are for everybody in the United States. The individuals in question did believe there were satanic elements in what they were seeing in their children's schoolwork. These parents were fundamentalists. PLANS is not taking a position on satanism here, any more than anthroposophy or fundamentalist Christianity: PLANS takes a position on these parents' religious rights. This is the reason they oppose public funding of Waldorf schools. Parents of ALL religions have a right to use the public schools; EVEN Christian fundamentalists and EVEN satanists and what-have-you - and to have their children's instruction free of proselytizing - especially the sneaky, stealthy kind Waldorf has perfected. Dan Dugan was right to "pander to Christians" then and I admire him for continuing to "pander." The part you're leaving out is that he'll "pander" to anybody's religious preference, Buddhist, atheist, Hindu, you name it. The heart of the lawsuit is that in the US, we have freedom of religion, and we protect it by separating church and state. This is why Waldorf is ineligible for public funding. (This has been explained to thebee many times; thebee "gets" this fully IMO. He seems to feel that words like "satan" and "witchcraft" make PLANS look bad, and any little write-up on PLANS that he and his team produce puts these terms front and center for their shock value, hoping people won't notice it's a massive non sequitur - and refers to a specific incident several years ago at a particular school, where fundamentalists DID get upset about what they perceived as witchcraft in the school. Then, of course, he can quote his own self-produced material elsewhere, not mentioning that he and his friends wrote it, and claim it shows that it is widely known that PLANS is mean and nasty.)DianaW 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Diana has presented this beautifully, and I just want to comment on TheBee's statements that I feel are a relentless harassment of PLANS. He says: "Just as a reminder for the memory: This thread started as a question if a reduction by Pete K of the description of PLANS as an anti-Waldorf activist group in the Anthroposophy article to just an "activist group" did the group justice." Anyone who has a scroll bar, a page-up button or a mouse wheel can simply scroll up to see how this thread started and to refresh their memory. Nobody needs a recap when the start of the thread is only three inches up on the page.

"Pete first asserted that this was the case." I still do - but compromised on the language by Venado. "When I questioned this, based on the well documented description of the group in an article at Wikipedia," That you have produced, "Pete turns the discussion into a personal attack on me," Wait... so now it's a personal attack if I find it hilarious that your only source for this claim (or ANYTHING else for that matter) is YOU? "and accuses me of having written most of the article," You DID write most of the article. "that he seems to think gives a defamatory description of the group." - NO, YOU pointed to the article that you produced as evidence that PLANS is "anti-Waldorf". That you have produced a defamatory article is beside the point. "This would probably refer to the two well cited sections I have mentioned: the History and the Criticism section." No, I'm referring to the entire article that YOU have suggested supports your claim.

"Does the term "critical" do the group justice, as suggested by Venadoo?" Absolutely. It's a fair description. "Anti-Waldorf" is not.

"The first two critical parts of the comments on Waldorf education, supported and published at the site of the group are the two parts that would make it into just a group critical of Waldorf education. The third type of "argumentation", also described here, coached by its secretary and published by him at the site, takes the group beyond the just "critical" category and into a clearly and explicitly anti-Waldorf group, to describe it in soft terms." That's all nonsense, but I'll make you a deal. If you will be HONEST about what Waldorf is, then I will agree to the term "anti-Waldorf". An HONEST look at Waldorf, of course, would reveal a fair amount of ugliness including, but not limited to dishonesty, threats, deception, hidden agendas, racism being disguised as physiology, Anthroposophy being disguised as science, physical and emotional abuse of children and parents, and a very healthy bilking of the public (there is no exageration in any of this). With an HONEST view of Waldorf, "anti-Waldorf" doesn't sound so bad. It's like being "anti-pedophilia" or "anti-corruption". So at some point when Waldorf is portrayed here with its flaws as well as it's achievements, we can reconsider applying the term "anti-Waldorf" to PLANS.

"Does the neutral term "critical" do the group justice? The third type of "argumentation" against Waldorf education, published by the group at its site tells it does not." Thanks for your opinion. In MY opinion, we should start putting "anti" something in front of the term "Waldorf" too. Like "anti-honesty", "anti-learning", "anti-technology", "anti-science", "anti-Christian", "anti-Semitic" - all of those fit just fine by MY opinion. By MY opinion, YOUR website is far more "anti-Waldorf" than PLANS as it does more to harm Waldorf and limits its potential for improvement. So since the neutral term "critical" fits properly, let's just leave our opinions out of it and stick with the neutral language. Thanks! Pete K 07:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple of other thoughts: Thebee says originally in this thread that calling PLANS an activist group sounds "nice and neutral." I disagree. "Activist" does not imply "nice and neutral." Activists often aren't nice, and they're certainly never neutral. Activism means taking a position on something, by definition. "Activist" thus describes PLANS perfectly.

The real problem with calling PLANS "anti" is that it is not precise. What are they "anti"? They are probably "anti" some things, but to say they are anti-Waldorf is not specific enough and thus not accurate. They are certainly anti some things that pertain to Waldorf or go on in Waldorf schools, but could as easily be described as "pro" on others. Almost everyone at PLANS is on record repeatedly and enthusiastically endorsing certain elements of Waldorf education or various Waldorf teaching practices or aspects of community life in Waldorf, such as stress on the arts, practical work, healthy food, media restrictions for young children, de-emphasizing standardized testing, etc. They are not opposed to Waldorf schools existing, or doing much of what they do. Many things Waldorf does, people at PLANS might well like to see other schools do more of, too. They are only opposed to certain features they see as unfortunately representative of Waldorf as it exists today - such as unethical means of advertising and recruiting.

It might, in fact, be closer to accurate if we were disputing whether PLANS is anti-anthroposophy. There too, of course, they do not dispute anthroposophy's right to exist, proselytize, recruit followers etc., and they don't dispute anybody's right to believe in or practice anthroposophy. They don't dispute anthroposophists' right to run schools. They do oppose unethical actions on the part of the anthroposophical movement, such as misuse of taxpayer funds for this purpose, as well as stealth recruiting. I don't think PLANS takes a philosophical or theological position regarding the doctrines of anthroposophy, but it's no secret many if not all of its members don't care much for the doctrines of anthroposophy. I personally find certain (though again not all) key anthroposophical doctrines repugnant, even deeply repellent. I'm not at all opposed, personally, to being labeled "anti"-anthroposophy in this sense, or to be seen as taking actions or making statements that oppose anthroposophy in this sense. (The sense described in this paragraph; as always we run the risk in making these statements that it will be later quoted without its context.) Just what parts I'm "anti" is off topic here, as it's not about my views, but even if we were to get into what PLANS is "anti" regarding anthroposophy, it wouldn't be on topic regarding whether they're "anti" Waldorf. I'm pointing out that anti-Waldorf and anti-anthroposophy are two different things, and that while anti-anthroposophy may be in some sense relevant, "anti-Waldorf" is simply untrue.

You could argue that to get rid of the anthroposophy would be "pro-Waldorf." It's possible to be "pro-Waldorf" and "anti-anthroposophy." (Not to an anthroposophist, of course; but the key problem we've faced in these articles is getting anthroposophists to understand that they don't "own" wikipedia articles and can't write everything from the POV of anthroposophy.)DianaW 17:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think our hymenopteran friend is just looking to slam PLANS at every opportunity. Pete K 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, just describe it truthfully: The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. "activist group" is an outstanding understatement. Thebee 09:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy on sources

What's the policy in effect in these articles? In the case of controversial material, is original texts from Rudolf Steiner allowed, but no other authors from anthroposophic publishers? Venado 16:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Original texts from Steiner are to be avoided and so are Anthro publishers (according to my understanding). Third-party sources are preferred. Pete K 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. So why do new anthroposophic sources keep going in? It takes the article backwards.Venado 19:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Venado, you have re-archived this stuff. What gives? What you find inconvenient and fixed with your solution has made things inconvenient for me. I'm inclined to revert it again. Can we maybe just archive the discussions that aren't current? Some of the ones archived had discussions that were added to only a week or two ago. Pete K 19:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are the archives that are and should remain current.

The most recent I saw archived are a month old, and most of that just says the repeating the same arguments. Please don't revert. It's easier to look back to an archive if you need to than it is to wade through old messages to get to the current discussions. In the last few days some of my edits to the talk page have taken so much work during edit conflicts, I gave up. The page load in edit conflict is about 3 times bigger than even in the normal edits, which were way to big already. It cost me a big chunk of time with every visit to the talk page. The arbitration decision came the end of December, and the older discussions don't pertain closely now besides.Venado 20:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

PS I got sidelined by another edit conflict when I tried to make the above comment while you added this long old stuff back in the page. If those discussions were worthwhile you guys wouldn't still be edit warring over the issue. A lot of the text isn't even relevant to the article. It's very aggravating. Venado 20:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is aggravating for everyone. It's aggravating when new people arrive to question (or make aggressive edits to) stuff that has already been discussed and worked through by the people most invested in the articles here. And, unfortunately, in the past, archiving has been used as a way to hide discussions that showed Steiner in a "difficult" light. If I'm incorrect that auto-archiving is active on this page, then maybe it would be best just to get a bot to archive these pages automatically - that way nobody can complain about who archived what and when. Fair enough? Pete K 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is open to everyone, and editors aren't supposed to control the articles. How could there be a bot? The talk pages went back to 2004 and there were no archive files. Stop owning the articles and let other people contribute. You revert way too much. It was a lot of work to archive this, and I appreciate it.Venado 22:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There certainly are bots that auto-archive talk pages. There was one on the Steiner Views on Race and Ethnicity talk page. Editors are not supposed to selectively archive material they don't want to have visible to readers (that's what was going on here in the past). Auto-archiving would save everybody a lot of work. And a lot of discussions that are still relevant have been on hold during the arbitration. That period of inactivity doesn't mean they are dead subjects. Regarding "reverting way too much" - that's only because people are adding stuff they know will be reverted. At some point, they're going to point to all my reverts and make a case (big surprise). The directive here was to clean up these articles, not make them worse. I'm reverting material that makes them more biased toward Anthroposophy than they already are. I'm very much trying to do what the directive from the ArbCom said. Like it or not, the POV-pushing Anthroposophists got dealt a blow here and there's no reason to continue to accept POV edits by them. Pete K 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Last chance

I have blocked Pete K and Hgilbert each for 24 hours for edit warring on Waldorf education. The next time these articles are disrupted by edit warring I will fully protect them and no one will be able to edit at all. In order to edit the article you will have to agree on the edit and then put the {{edit protected}} template on the talk page to get an admin to do it for you (assuming you can agree on anything).

I also notice that these articles, despite the article probation, rely heavily on anthroposophy-published documents as sources, in spite of the arbitration ruling determining that they should be removed. Documents originating with anthroposophy, the Waldorf foundation, or Rudolph Stiener are not acceptable as sources either for claims that Waldorf is good, or for claims that Waldorf is bad. Things ranging from the complex (whether Steiner was racist) to the simple (whether Waldorf schools discourage parental communication) can not be sourced to primary documents. They are not considered reliable sources for several reasons. Generally if you are using Waldorf materials to describe the benefits etc., you run afoul of the self-serving limits of the reliable source policy, and if you are citing Waldorf documents to "prove" they have problems, you are violating the "interpreting primary sources to draw a conclusion is original research" limitation.

If you think that reopening the arbitration case will get the other editors banned but leave you safe, I can almost guarantee you are wrong. Clean up these articles. Get the Waldorf sources and all the original research, conclusions and personal experiences out. Rely on what independent third parties have published in reliable sources, and if they haven't published anything about a topic, take it out. Trust me, you do not want the case reopened. Thatcher131 02:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Thebee 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucifer and Ahriman

I have removed a strange citation to a website called doyletics, some sort of esoteric group it appears but certainly sub-standard for Wikipedia. I have also removed one line that I had added to the Waldorf article; I would like to improve this but need to get hold of McDermott's book (the only source I know of for this) again to do so. "Coming soon." Hgilbert 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the section removed by the edit described above. Funny you shouldn't like comments from "some sort of esoteric group" as that would describe Anthroposophists quite well. I suggest that what seems strange to you is not criteria for removing material. Pete K 19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The logic of what you write could seem to be that it is your view that when any sort of group that can seem to be "esoteric" publishes something on the net, that is a a valid and reliable citation source regarding anthroposophy. While the individual behind the site - that seems self published - has written a number of reviews of works or lecture series by RS, the site seems to be dedicated primarily to promoting a version of Neuro-linguistic programming developed by someone who - as far as I have seen (I may have missed it) - does not seem to have anything to do with anthroposophy. Thebee 23:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And when you write "replaced the section", that seems to mean "Reverted edit by Hgilbert", is that correct? Thebee 00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder agree with me that the source is substandard. In addition, I have checked the McDermott source and it does not (contrary to my memory) refer to Lucifer and Ahriman. I have replaced both sources with the Steiner citation (though I would encourage reading books rather than relying on book reviews on bookstore websites for citations!) I have also merged some parallelisms. Hgilbert 01:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The "agree" link does not work in my browser. It seems the last part maybe got lost and the link should have been this. Thebee 10:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I don't know this subject, HGilbert - and that I should read books on it? You guys just have a ball, and I'll be back to clean up your mess later. Pete K 15:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fact tag, racism

From the article:

Although Steiner urged his followers to think for themselves and to adjust his insights for new circumstances, a social study of anthroposophists in England found that many of them considered Steiner infallible (Ahern, 1984). If Steiner's theories do not provide an adequate safeguard from being accepted uncritically by Waldorf teachers, then his writings on race could be dangerous. It is difficult to imagine how his speculations on the evolution of consciousness among different peoples could be applied to individual children from different traditions without being racist. Few theories about how the universe works can be easily applied to the full complexity of individual lives. When any spiritual tradition accepts a multilived, karmic account of an individual child, there is always a considerable risk of misjudgment. When a key category in the interpretation of the child's karmic path through multiple lives is the individual child's skin color or ethnic background, it is more than a risk; it is racism, and it is intolerable. It is time to sound the alarm against the possibility that Waldorf teachers could be using such ideas to guide their thinking about children in their classes.

Whatever Steiner did say, whatever he might say if he were alive today, if only a few Waldorf teachers can nurture what might be a Steiner-derived anti-Semitic or anti-African American prejudice, then Waldorf educators will have to critique themselves before their pedagogy can be of systematic use across the country. The offending texts must be identfied, criticized, explained if possible and disowned if necessary. Appendix II offers an example from Steiner's The Mission of Folk-Souls. More than the passages from the Dutch newspaper quoted in Appendix I, this text is at the core of the Steiner canon. It can be read perhaps by scholars familiar with a wide range of Steiner's writings as having nothing to do with the current arrangements among groups of persons designated by various racial terms either around the world or, now far from the soils that nurtured their races of origin, within American cities. Without an extensive explanation of the text, however, it is much easier to read the passage as simple racism, with black people once again treated as the simple children of the earth, close to their senses and instincts, and no doubt in need of guidance from those less driven by the instincts of the body. A noncritical reading of such texts could have been a source for the Dutch Waldorf teacher investigated for teaching her class about the exceptional sense of rhythm shared by contemporary black persons.

I'll remove the tag again. Pete K 19:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this; I was not aware of this (and would like to read the full article now). 68.193.184.127 02:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Pete, that's from the (excluded) Waldorf Research version of the article...68.193.184.127 02:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization

There were quite a few topics covered in multiple sections scattered throughout the article. I have tried to unify similar topics; this initial result need not be the final organization of the article, of course. I'd welcome ideas about this.

The whole work of providing citations will need to get underway at some point, as well. 68.193.184.127 02:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Racial Bias

Hi there guys - have played around with this section - mostly formatting but have made the following changes:

Title change to Racism in Waldorf Schools - because this is a psuedo criticism section (maybe it should be renamed Reception and Criticism - as most of the sections are criticism) - is does need the Concern in the title. Also used Racism as that is what is discussed in the three research reports.

Title change from Racism to Racial Bias - the opening of this section is based on Anthroposophy where no evidence has been provided that there is racism - the sub section covers racism in the schools and is named as such. So this section is better called Racial Bias as the moment it is a war of quotations, but no research been presented to suggest that Anthroposophy as a whole is racist. Cheers Lethaniol 16:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The articles are talking about racism. Anthroposophy believes, as Steiner did, that some races are advancing while others are declining, that some races have outlived their usefulness and that the white race is the race of the future. That's not a racial bias, it's racism. Now I don't believe in calling short people vertically challenged, and I dont' believe in calling racism racial bias. It is what it is and we shouldn't call it something else. Pete K 17:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops - you are right Pete - the following link Talk:Waldorf_education/Archive3#Final_section_from_Urban_Journal_and_McDermott_report does cover the quote in the Racial Bias section. No I was right, was just getting confused here - sorry. Think first, write later Cheers Lethaniol 17:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The articles are talking about racism - but only really in the context of schools. If we can not find any acceptable sources for racism in the followers of Anthroposophy/Steiner, then maybe we should change the whole section title to Racism in Waldorf Schools? Cheers Lethaniol 17:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The large section exclusively relating to Waldorf schools is already in the eponymous article and should not be repeated here. The one section connecting to anthroposophy is sensible here. Hgilbert 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed but have added a wikilink to that Waldorf Education section - please reword as needed - english getting poor as I fall asleep. zzzz Cheers Lethaniol 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are we again having to prove racism in Anthroposophy? We've had this source [13] for quite some time. Pete K 02:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph to the racism section. Anthroposphists will kick and scream, but we have deleted the entire article "Steiner's Views on Race and Ethnicity" - so some mention of his racist views needs to go here and some in the Steiner article. Anthroposophists won't like that I referenced Staudenmaier's article, but the article indirectly references Steiner's own words, and that's why this was done. Steiner's own words confirm his ideas about race and this should be (and is) the focus of the paragraph. Pete K 02:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Anthroposophical Sources

I'm guessing today might be a good day to remove the Anthroposophical sources from the article. Any objections? Pete K 14:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've gone through and deleted the Anthroposophical sources. I've also requested citations for a TON of material that is completely unsourced and looks to be original research/study of Anthroposophy. We need people OUTSIDE of Anthroposophy to describe what it is for us. In many cases, rather than load the article up with tags, I simply put a {fact} tag at the end of unsourced paragraphs, however within the paragraph, many controversial elements may exist requiring citation. The {fact} tag, therefore, at the end of a paragraph doesn't necessarily appy only to the last sentence in the paragraph. Pete K 16:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K has removed the Anthroposophical Society as citation for what it publishes as position statement on diversity. That of course is absurd. Who knows what the Anthroposophical Society in America says in its position statement on diversity better or is a more reliable source regarding it than the Anthroposophical Societyn in America itself? I have readded the citation, and description of it. Don't remove it and make this into an edit war. Thebee 01:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Who knows what the Anthroposophical Society in America says in its position statement on diversity better or is a more reliable source regarding it than the Anthroposophical Societyn in America itself?" No, the Anthroposophical Society is not a reliable source - sorry. You need a different source quoting the Anthroposophical Society. I'm removing it. The warring part is up to you. The rules by the ArbCom are clear. Please abide by them. Pete K 04:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The ASiA has published a position statement on diversity. That is an uncontroversial fact. The problem with a citation for this does not concern its content, but the simple fact that it has published the statement. For uncontroversial statements in the article, anthroposophical sources can be used. The issue is not whether they are correct or not in their expressed view, but whether they have published it, and how this can be documented in the most reliable way.

Anyone else has any comment on the issue of whether the site of the society can be used as citation for the fact dthat it has issued the position statement, and its content? It is found here. Thanks, Thebee 09:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you can ignore the ArbCom ruling with a popular vote. Maybe you should take it to the ArbCom and let them vote on it. Rules are rules. What I'm pretty sure you need is a source acknowledging that ASiA made this statement. We're not even allowed to quote Steiner (or I would be doing so, believe me). The fact is, nobody really cares about "diversity" in the AS. They are a society that can think or believe anything they want to (and they do). That they have had to published a statement like this is revealing, however. If they believe in Steiner's teachings (which are racist), then that shows they embrace racism - despite what they claim. Gee, ya think Anthroposophists could say something they don't really mean to keep people off their backs? It's the same mentality Steiner demonstrated lots of times - he specifically told them they had to lie about their beliefs to keep the public out of their business. That is why we need a third-party souce. AND, the Anthroposophical Society in America doesn't speak for all Anthroposophical societies world-wide - so a statement by them - even if it were completely true - doesn't mean there is no racism in Anthroposophy outside of the ASiA. Indeed, we had a Dutch commission go into great detail to prove otherwise, yet they were forced to admit that racism exists in Steiner's writings. So, even if the statement is admitted, and I don't believe it will without support, it doesn't say anything substantive or meaningful for the article. Pete K 14:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been made pretty clear on the Waldorf Education article that we cannot use any anthroposophical citations. While that may not make logical sense, it's been implemented to avoid any inherent bias in citations (just as citations that are overtly polemical against Waldorf have been excluded). The same would apply to this article. Henitsirk 21:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Both in the arbitration itself and in subsequent discussions, the limitation on anthro-citations has often been for controversial material, such as "this is well-done, or good". Matters of fact are clearly allowable; in fact, Pete keep putting back in citations to Steiner's work as published by anthroposophical publishers (see the Eurythmy section of Waldorf education) where this serves his purposes. So if this is simply a matter of fact, it is probably completely acceptable to use the source. We need to get a clearer statement from the arbitrators, however. Hgilbert 20:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you consider a "matter of fact"? There is very little that falls in this category. I leave in a quote from Steiner because it falls in this category. I've left other quotes from Steiner that don't "suit my purpose" for the same reason. I agree with you (WOW) that we need a clearer statement from the arbitrators. Pete K 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that an attribution of intent (Steiner intended the following...) is quite obviously not a matter of objective fact. Let's keep to the guidelines.

In addition, Pete, the bit about Manes references two interdependent sources: a quote by Pfeiffer about a remembered conversation with Steiner and a third-hand citation (Lievegoed quoting Pfeiffer quoting Steiner); the actual Pfeiffer source does not say that Steiner began Waldorf education in order to help Mane, but that Mane could only incarnate if both Waldorf education and the threefold social order existed. That is a very different kettle of fish. (I can only go to the movies if there is a film showing, but they are not showing a film so that I personally can attend.) Hgilbert 16:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete, I agree with what HGilbert says here...that's what I meant on the WE talk page discussion about being careful about saying the purpose of Waldorf was to bring about the incarnation of Manes. I think the Lievegoed quote doesn't add much except that another prominent anthroposophist agreed with Steiner! It doesn't "confirm" Pfeiffer's quote, it just reiterates it. Henitsirk 00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still researching exactly who Manes was intended to represent (see some discussion on my talk page). Steiner mentions Manes in GA015 and GA093 at least but seems to have him confused with several people including Menes, Minos, Mani, Manu and Moses (I acknowledge that to Steiner it could well have been the same spirit). I too would like to have a direct quote from Steiner saying this, but it very well may not be available as it seems these could have been private conversations - not unlike Steiner's conversation with the herb grower. For some reason, despite not knowing the content of that coversation, we can apparently draw conclusions about it (I personally think the herbs were the funny kind and that could have been what opened Steiner's eyes to the things he saw). In any case, we have a documented discussion here - the content of which has been related to us. It can certainly be included without overstating what it says or it's impact. There is, of course, tons of this sort of thing in Anthroposophy. It isn't just about looking at science from a spiritual perspective. This particular conversation is of particular interest to me because it mentioned Waldorf specifically. Pete K 00:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Unsourced Material

Lots of the material here has remained unsourced. Since I'll be leaving soon, I want to make some effort to clean up this article before I go. If there are approved sources for any of this, they would have appeared by now (it's been like this for over a month). I'll be removing the uncited statements and as sources are found, they can be re-introduced into the article. I'd be just as happy if someone else would take on this task, but it seems it's always left to me to do this dirty work and then some sinister intention is applied to it. Can anyone support why this material should remain unsourced? Pete K 15:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We have agreed to take on this work article by article. We could make this article our next priority, but should 1) agree to do so and 2) choose a reasonable deadline together. I am happy to turn our attention here, but let's look for some editorial concensus here. Hgilbert 16:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I may not have the luxury of taking too much time - so I'll do what I have to do before I'm gone and whoever is left can sort it out. Some of these cite tags have been on the article since the first arbitration. That's plenty of time - and you have been adding to this article all during the time we were working on the Waldorf article, so it's not as if you have followed your own suggestion above. You can, of course, add the material back in when you source it. The arbcom decision says to remove it. That's what I intend to do, hopefully without your interference. Pete K 16:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit War on Racism Section (again)

Here we go again. You guys can't have it both ways. If you believe Steiner can be selectively quoted to support your assertions, then there is no reason that his views on race cannot be supported in the same way. These are his words and they accurately support his position on race - and the section title is RACISM. It describes racism in Anthroposophy BECAUSE IT EXISTS. It displays Steiner's own words BECAUSE THEY ARE HIS OWN WORDS. Continued efforts to hide this material without any denial of its validity are ridiculous. He said these things because he believed these things - and those beliefs are the foundation of Anthroposophy. Whether or not you personally believe them is irrelevant. Steiner's Anthroposophy professes that people with black skin are retarded in the evolution process - that they stopped evolving at some stage. It is an important FACT that belongs in this article without weasel-worded contradictions. Please face the facts and leave the material. It says what Steiner believed and is supported by dozens of similar statements and entire works in some cases. To continually remove this material amounts to vandalism. Pete K 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Right no more edit warring please - these selective Steiner quotes are obviously not appropriate - I have removed, and even if they are appropriate they belong in the Steiner article (you could then have a link to such a section from the Concerns about Racism section in this article). I have had a quick look but I have not found them yet - can you please highlight the inappropriate pro-Anthroposophical Steiner quotes - I will remove these too. Cheers Lethaniol 15:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is that we are making a content decision here that cannot be made. ALL the material that is supported by Steiner's works is not allowed by the ArbCom. Editors have used Steiner's work to support their views claiming it isn't controversial. This is not the case and we decided early on that everything is controversial (you yourself said this). If the Racism section doesn't deserve direct quotes from Steiner describing racism, then why would any other section be allowed to do this? Either all Steiner-referenced material must come out and be sourced to third-party sources as we have agreed, or ANY Steiner-referenced material must be allowed. We can't decide racism is ugly so let's not talk about it... it is not OUR choice to make for the reader. Pete K 15:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What does "Not Appropriate" mean anyway? Who decides this? Pete K 15:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay to answer the questions directly above: Generally the community decides by consensus what is "Not appropriate" - which means anything that infringes WP:BLP, WP:NOTE, WP:NPOV, WP:V to mention but a few of the policies that have been on our lips recently. In this case the main problem, as is the normal complaint, is that the article is not NEUTRAL - see WP:NPOV.

For starters Steiner's quotes should be used but only in limited amount and only with respect to the founding values of Anthroposophy. For quotes on the up to date Anthroposophy values, more recent quotes from Anthroposophical organisations should be used where possible. These quotes should not be used to to state facts but to state broad opinions and only added when they are of particular note and relevant to the flow of the article. Therefore a quote at the start of every sub-section would be far too much, and make the article sound like an advert. Personally I would like to see only 3-5 quotes from Steiner in the whole article. Some ideas on when to use them include - why Steiner created Anthroposophy, what he saw as its founding purpose and Steiner's view on its past/future. Note these are in the most broadest of terms.

Also such quotes should only be used where there is no controversy e.g. where everyone accepts as fact that Steiner set up Anthroposophy for X and Y reason. If there are criticisms of such a position then the quote should either not be used or a criticism sentence will need to be put in e.g. Steiner says (quotes about why he set up Anthroposophy). Some critics though have suggested that he set up Anthroposophy for reason X (+reference). Note such criticism needs to be notable and from appropriate source.

Okay so that is all about Steiner and quotes. Obviously the situation is different for references of fact/value judgements - then as the ArbCom case has made clear - no Anthroposophy sources should be used including Steiner.

Please note all of the above is my opinions only, and should not be treated as gospel, but I think it gives a good start for discussions. Also the advice above applies this article and would be slightly altered when discussing the other main articles on Waldorf Education and Steiner. I hope it helps Cheers Lethaniol 15:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Community decides by consensus what is appropriate? And again community (4 or 5 arbitrators) decides by consensus (or 4 or 5 arbitrators) what violates BLP and NPOV right? So, when the Wikipedia community (4 or 5 arbitrators) is deciding what constitutes facts - what constitutes reality - it's Wikiality - right? Reality decided by community. The descriptions I have presented are direct quotes - they represent reality and nobody has been able to produce ANYTHING that refutes the reality of what has been presented in the racism section. It should stay in. Pete K 19:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hglibert: I have just reverted these edits = [14]. This is a STEINER ref and IS NOT ALLOWED - please do not continue to add inappropriate sources or I will inform the ArbCom review. You can not have it both ways! Cheers Lethaniol 16:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC) I am now satisfied that these are good faith edits even if I disagree with them. Cheers Lethaniol 17:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also please note after reading through the current citation list - citations 5, 7, 9 - 14 are all Steiner works being used to support factual statements only. Please point out if I am wrong, or give a very good reason why they should stay, otherwise I will remove them within 24 hours and add in fact tags to give people the opportunity to get appropriate sources. Cheers Lethaniol 16:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Factual quotes in anthroposophy article

Note this is a copy and paste from my talk page - I have added it here as it is very important for the discussions on use of Steiner/Anthroposophy to source facts.

Why are you reverting factual material from the anthroposophy article? Hgilbert 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have given explanation on talk page - but suffice to say you appear to be using a disallowed Steiner source. I may be very wrong here, but after reverting Pete's inappropriate addition of Steiner quotes, I am trying to be neutral and remove and inappropriate sources as dictated by the ArbCom. Cheers Lethaniol 16:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Note this is not the only time [15], you have been adding Steiner references to support facts very recently see [16][17][18][19][20],

:I am considering on presenting this all as evidence at the ArbCom review. I await your response. Cheers Lethaniol 16:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC) I am now satisfied that these are good faith edits even if I disagree with them. Cheers Lethaniol 17:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder has repeatedly said that Steiner references may be used to support factual material: On the Waldorf talk page where he said "Waldorf citations may be used for facts that are not in controversy", On my talk page, and at various times in the arbitration. A differentiation between factual material, clearly allowed, and controversial material or opinions and evaluations, clearly disallowed, has been repeatedly made by the arbitrators here. Please let me know if I have inserted non-factual Steiner references, however!Hgilbert 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I believe you are right - and I may have jumped the gun slightly - hence why I did not revert all of the sources added. I suppose you can use Steiner sources for some statements but I am very uncomfortable with it. Some may see this as argument hopping but I hope you see it still very valid:

Steiner is the creator of Anthroposophy, and hence in any article on Anthroposophy use of his work is akin to using primary material. By using his work (or more generally Anthroposophical) to support factual statements we are basically sourcing primary research by an individual/movement that has a vested interest in what they say, which makes very uncomfortable. I do not see why the vast quantity of sourcing can not come from third party neutral sources that seek to explain what Steiner/Anthroposophy is all about. By even using one Steiner/Anthroposophy source we are setting ourselves up for trouble.

Let me give an example: George Bush. Let say he has published an autobiography of his term as US president, and that he has bred a new form of neo-conservatism. Now in that article on this new form of neo-conservatism, we may want to reference from Bush's autobiography. At first we use an odd quote, then we start to use the autobiography to support "facts" about neo-conservatism. But this autobiography is totally primary research, and in many respects COI opinions.

Now I think the same applies to Anthroposphy and use of Steiner and Anthroposophical sources. Of course they can be used for quotes where they are appropraite for the article. But taking "facts" out of them is a very slippery slop. In truth we should be searching very hard for other appropriate third party sources, and only when we do not find them do we think of using Steiner and Anthroposophical sources.

As you had said at Talk:Waldorf Education the strictness of source criteria can make for a better article, and I think it is the same for Anthroposophy. Cheers Lethaniol 17:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification!

It seems to me that in the Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner articles we have been and will be including material about Steiner's work that needs direct referencing, for example, the material in this article on specific exercises he gave. Such literal references are best given by referencing his works.

In other cases, third-party sources should be able to be found for factual material, but we should remember that these are not required here, even if we prefer them (as we should). Perhaps we could agree on an informal policy aiming to replace citations made in these areas with third-party sources, with the proviso that this is an informal aim arising from our general concensus here, not something directly arising from the arbitration, and is not something we are trying to "enforce", just to implement. Hgilbert 18:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing that has been supported by a Steiner reference that is not controversial in one way or another. Third party references must be used here. I'll be happy to, when I find some time today or tomorrow, to demonstrate the controversy associated with each and every statement. Pete K 19:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think a half way compromise between Hgilbert and Pete K here would be good. I do not agree with Pete that everything is controversial, but I do believe that a large amount may have some small bias (and so will add up) if sourced from Anthroposophy/Steiner sources. I agree with Hgilbert that this is not something coming directly from Arbitration (though it is in its spirit w.r.t for driving for neutrality) but that we as editors may wish to arrive at a consensus agreement on how strict to be with sources.

This would possibly need something stronger than just implementation, maybe enforcement with flexibility and common sense. For example is we want to say that Steiner said X and Y, and the best and most obvious source is a Steiner quote and nothing else to back up this statement is easy to hand then we are flexible and allow it. On the other hand if a user (maybe not a regular editor) keeps wanting to add a Steiner source where we feel a non-Anthroposophy/Steiner source is required we may need to stay firm. Either way borderline sources should be discussed on the talk page until consensus is reached.

I agree with Hgilbert - literal references where Steiner said X, suggested Y or recommended Z could be sourced from Steiner works if 3rd party sources are not easily available. Obviously if such literal references are controversial e.g. Steiner was anti-racist then a higher level discussion and not primary sources must be attained. On the other hand for factual statements about what Anthroposophy is we should strive to our utmost to find 3rd party sources. Only when we can't and there is agreement on the talk page do we add in Steiner/Anthro sources - and we should keep a record of these, so that if at later date a suitable 3rd party resource is found it can be used instead.

I hope people see this as an appropraite place to go, and it would be great to have as many opinions as possible. Cheers Lethaniol 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so we know where we are: PeteK has begun removing what seem to be clearly factual citations again. I have reverted but do not want more edit wars, especially over a policy that has just been clearly articulated again! Please let me know (any objective editor) if there is something here that does not fit our citation policy. Hgilbert 01:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, nothing factual there. Support has to come from third-party sources. You haven't got it. Pete K 15:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Though I totally disagree with the way Pete K has removed these sources (discuss on talk page first please), I do believe that some of content would be better off with 3rd party sources. As said above, if we can't find them then we then may want to resort to Steiner quotes. Cheers Lethaniol 16:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be acceptable to use direct citations from Steiner in specific cases. As Lethaniol said, if we are writing "Steiner said X or Y" then we could cite him directly, though this should be relatively rare. As a professional editor I can say that an article overfull of quotations is not well-written. I think there would be less problem with the kinds of citations if the article were truly written in an NPOV way. Henitsirk 17:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Steiner source example

I would like to point out an example that I am very unhappy with:

The word anthroposophy is derived from the Greek roots anthropo meaning human, and sophia meaning wisdom. The term was first used by philosopher Robert von Zimmermann in his book Anthroposophy. Steiner borrowed this term when he founded his own process of spiritual study.

The reference for this is a Steiner reference. Now IMHO if you are going to use such a reference then as it is primary material we should say. Steiner says he borrowed this term.... Primary sources making comment on themselves should not be trusted - a secondary/tertiary non-Anthroposophy source is so much better. If it can not be found, then change wording so that it reflects that this statement is from a primary source.

Cheers Lethaniol 17:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This passage was not introduced by me, however! I don't know who added it and I'm not sure that the statement that Zimmermann was the first to use the word is even completely accurate. (I have removed the passage. )Hgilbert 17:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

AnthroMedia has a short section in English on the issue. The German version describes the history of the use of the word and concept more in detail. The word and concept first seems to have been used documented in print in 1575, in a work that probably can be ascribed to Agrippa of Nettesheim. For documentation of this from the work it self, see here. Thebee 18:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not the one who entered the recent info on the issue into the article. Thebee 18:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Zimmerman was not the first to use the term Anthroposophy, but it is indeed who Steiner credits with the use of the term - and where Steiner says he borrowed it from. Pete K 19:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete_K put it there in the article originally, where it was wrongly written. Many people had used the term before Zimmermann, just Steiner said thats from who he took the word. I see this problem in many places in the articles, not just Steiner published claims. The editor uses sources but makes claims in the article that arent made in the sources. This is the case in quite a bit of new added material to Waldorf article to.Venado 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Steiner talks about Zimmermann "And thus Robert Zimmermann wrote his Anthroposophy to counter the theosophy of Hegel, Schelling, Solger and others, whom he also treats as theosophists in the History of Aesthetics. It is from the title of this book, Anthroposophy, that I later took the name. I found it exceedingly interesting then as a phenomenon of the time. The trouble is that it consists of the most horribly abstract concepts." The Anthroposophical Movement - Rudolf Steiner p33. Steiner got the name from the book by Zimmermann, and indeed expresses reasons - he liked the idea of a man-centered philosophy. The term may have been used before, but this is who Steiner credits with coining the word and where he says he got the word. But thankfully, we no longer have this information in the article - everyone can just assume Steiner invented it himself along with all the other stuff we're pretending he invented (like eurythmy) - because after all, he was a great man and should get the credit for other people's ideas. To do anything less than revere him as a god wouldn't be "appropriate". Truth without the burden of proof. That's what we have here. Pete K 21:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Steiner did not credit Zimmermann with "coining the word", he said he (Steiner) took the word from Zimmermann's title. That's the first problem, that the "coining the word" idea isn't what the Steiner quote says. The next problem is the same one we have had since arbitration. That is when are Steiner sources allowed? I'm confused what the consensus is, and even you seem to be of two opinions when hours ago you say "everything about Steiner" is controversial and has to have an independent source. But at the least, there is no confusion that the statements have to be accurate to the sources, and even now it keeps happening that new things are going in articles that are inaccurate. Venado 22:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the reference above (The Anthroposophical Movement)? I don't want to type out the whole thing but it seems from the context this is what Steiner is saying. I really don't care one way or the other as it isn't worth arguing over compared to the other inaccuracies in the article. I don't think Steiner may be used as a source for anything - according to the ArbCom decision. I may have misunderstood something, but the last I heard, the ArbCom has said no Anthroposophical references including Steiner. An individual arbitrator may have added or subtracted something here or there, but again the ArbCom decision (not an individual arbitrator's comments) is what has been set down as the law. If the ArbCom has revised its decision, I would love to hear it. I agree with you, I haven't seen anything resembling a "consensus" about anything (with the exception of a few edits and even those have not had a full consensus). So, we aren't working out of consensus, and the edits today have been plentiful. What happened to the notion of discussing edits beforehand. It's back to the same editwarring and people trying to own the articles. So really, this has just deteriorated again into the pushiest editor gets his way. I want accuracy in these articles as much as you - especially because I believe a good portion of what is here is deceptive and unsupportable. I'd rather not reference Steiner directly, but if others are going to do so to push their POV, I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to. It has to be a rule across the board or it's nonsense. Pete K 00:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Overview

The wording should match what the citations actually say: that it has a philosophical basis, methodology of spiritual research, etc., about all which Schneider goes into great detail. I suggest that the "believes it includes" should revert back to "includes" on this basis. Hgilbert 22:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for the last paragraph; there are three citations from independent sources stating that anthroposophy has developed such practical applications. It is appropriate to state that it has, not that it claims to (there are no citations to show that it makes this claim, only citations showing that it has in fact developed these). Hgilbert 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite that this would be impossible? C'mon ... Pete K 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what that last comment means. I suggest we stay with the sources, not introduce our own interpretation. If anything, we could say "A number of independent commentators have stated that anthroposophy has introduced..." Hgilbert 21:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

LMAO... The rest of the editors here have been doing nothing but removing YOUR OWN INTERPRETATIONS from these articles for MONTHS. Incredible! Pete K 00:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny. Elsewhere you claim that the content of the Waldorf education article is back to where it was before the arbitration process. Since all the material is now cited to independent sources, this would imply that these were not my interpretations, but verifiable statements.

In any case, the last paragraph of the overview is ridiculous now. It states that "Anthroposophy claims to have created practical applications", as if this is unsupported, and then there are three citations that talk about these practical applications as objective facts. The UNESCO source is not UNESCO, but an author published by a UNESCO journal. The whole paragraph is a mess. But Pete is willing to edit war over it, and that's that. Hgilbert 01:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Funny. Elsewhere you claim that the content of the Waldorf education article is back to where it was before the arbitration process. Since all the material is now cited to independent sources, this would imply that these were not my interpretations, but verifiable statements." Gee... as if that happened automatically. Do you realize how much work was involved in this process? 90% involved fighting YOU over you continually trying to sneak in Anthroposophical sources. Amazing. And "verifiable" doesn't mean squat to me... Everyone falls for Waldorf before they know what it's about. Anyone writing an article will see exactly what new parents will see - ooo... so pretty. I'm unimpressed with "verifiability" - I'm impressed with the truth. If you don't like the way it sounds, why don't you let others re-write it instead of bullying them. We already know what you want in there - how about letting someone else give it a shot without reverting their edits instantly? People are bothered by the untruthfulness of what is being claimed and that's why they want to edit it. Why don't you relax and give them a chance? They may have sources that conflict with yours for all you know. Give them a chance to provide them. Just because you have a source that says something doesn't make it truthful. Let the truth come out and you will have much less fight on your hands. Pete K 02:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We are still going by Wikipedia's verifiability standards. There have been a whole series of edits around the "practical activities" paragraph of the introduction. There are three citations to show that these activities exist, and that they are effective, all from non-anthroposophical sources; why are editors putting in their own loaded language? I have substituted a direct quote from the UNESCO source to avoid further questions as to what is accurately reflecting the sources. Hgilbert 23:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

View of human being

In view of the criteria for articles published in the Waldorf education article, I have moved out the bulk of the long, and probably not of general interest, 'view of the human being' section to a linked sub-article (see WP:Bold!). Is this generally acceptable?Hgilbert 03:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

{sigh} More article spawning I see. How about DELETING the "long and probably not of general interest" material instead of spawning new articles? Is there ever going to be an end to this nonsense? Pete K 08:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The view of the human being described is fundamental and distinctive to anthropsophy. I disagree that this is "article spawning"; this is exactly what is suggested in summary style. I think it's appropriate to summarize these concepts on the main page and link to a daughter page. Probably something that should happen at the Waldorf Education page as well. Henitsirk 16:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be that the summary you mention, Henitsirk, should be more than the sentence or two I left behind...perhaps you or someone else could extend this a bit (with citations!) - or I'll get to it at some point, not necessarily quickly though...Hgilbert 19:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

About anthroposophical sources

[I have later made some striking off sentences which I said here and clarified with [] brackets. I apologize that I didn't write some other way at the time.] This is a page about anthroposophy and one of its purposes should be telling how anthroposophists think. Anthroposophical sources should be ok to that. It says in Wikipedia policy: "All editors and all sources have biases" (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). I know a little about anthroposophy and I know that it is really difficult to find detailed non-anthroposophical books which would get things about anthroposophical thinking right. And: "We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically." Since this is a page about anthroposophy it is definitely significant how anthroposophists think. Someone might think that anthroposophical publishers are not reliable enough, but actually they are the most reliable sources available to describe anthroposophical thinking. It also says in Wikipedia policy: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them" (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). It is possible to describe those views without asserting anything about their truth. Too positive adjectives of the anthroposofical sources could just be left out, but I didn't see any in the article at the moment. Then there are some details about anthroposophical movement which are probably not documented outside anthroposophical sources. I saw some paragraphs (for example history and practical work arising out of anthroposophy) which didn't have a source put didn't seem disputable either. For example Marie Steiner-von Sivers did work with speech exercises. Why not to use anthroposophical sources for that kind of things. I think at the moment the way this article is being worked on is not neutral enough. I will be back and I will make some changes unless someone else does. I'm not sure what this "arbitration committee" means but no committee should go against Wikipedia policies and discriminate anthroposophical thinking this way.[I didn't understand well what had happened, this wasn't a good way of saying things.] Erdanion 09:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We have worked out, with the help of a team of arbitrators, a standard for the use of sources here. I agree with you that it is in some senses unfair as it systematically excludes the primary source material for certain issues, but it is presently the agreed standard and we should hold to it until it is changed. If you wish to examine, or engage in, the discussion of the standard itself, I suggest you do so at the review page.

The standard, as far as I understand it, allows anthroposophic sources for factual information of a non-controversial nature. The instance you cite above of speech exercises would presumably qualify here. It disallows such sources - or any polemical or obviously biased sources - for evaluative or controversial material. For such material, objective and preferably academic sources are required. We need now to rewrite this article, providing citations according to the material's nature and modifying or deleting whatever cannot be supported by proper citations. Any help in this major undertaking is welcome. Hgilbert 13:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I went to see the page. It was terrible long. Does it really say (and exactly where) that you shouldn't use anthroposophical sources when describing anthroposophical thinking? This is what I find against Wikipedia policy. Some committee may have agreed with it now to prevent edit wars, but how could it last when new editors come in. I wasn't in a committee and I should be free to edit Wikipedia according to Wikipedia policy.[I didn't understand the decision very well, this wasn't a good way of saying things.] You seem to be anthroposophical, do you find that there is enough material for you to make these pages ok with the current "standard"? Erdanion 16:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the policy is unfair. At the moment, I see no alternative but following it. It means relying on objective sources, of which there are many for Waldorf education, few for anthroposophy. It is a problem, but one that cannot be addressed here, unfortunately; the arbitration is dealing with the issue. Sorry that the situation is not better; do help improve the editing here by finding sources that meet the standard, if you will. (You are also certainly welcome to bring your feedback to the arbitrators if you feel this will be helpful.) Hgilbert 23:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I took some time to read the first arbitration page and parts of the review (it seemed to be so full of personal stuff that I didn't read everything). I don't know if I can write anything on those pages because it seems to be for the ”participants”. The decisions made about the sources seem to be against Wikipedia neutrality policy and becoming a ”participant” might mean that I have to agree with them. And I don't.[I didn't understand the decision very well, this wasn't a good way of saying things.] I understand that there has been really big problems with these pages and that is why such extreme decisions had to be made. But books from anthroposophical publishers are not "self-published" and this is the right place to use them. [I guess they would mostly be classified self-published, though it doesn't mean they couldn't be used on this page.] Under the current difficult situation I suggest that anthroposophical sources would be used for those issues which are not especially controversial. There just has to be anthroposophical sources on a page like this, otherwise it's going to look biased. Erdanion 15:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that it is the articles (the entire topic in fact) and not the editors that are under probation. Therefore all editors (new or not) of this topic must remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. There is no ifs, buts or maybes on this issue. If it is controversial fact then it must have a non-Anthroposophical reference to back it up. We have discussed here, and on Rudolf Steiner and on Waldorf Education on what may or may not be controversial - and this is itself controversial. One of the solutions discussed on Waldorf Education was that Anthro sources should only be used quotes/opinions where applicable to the article, and only used as a last resort for "facts" if no other source can be found for non-controversial statements (and to have a quick discussion on the talk pages before adding such a fact). I strongly suggest Erdanion that before you go ahead and start adding Anthro sources you discuss in detail with the current editors, otherwise your time and effort may be wasted. Also if you have an issue on the ArbCom cases with respect to applying it to Anthroposophy I suggest you raise it with User:Fred Bauder. Cheers Lethaniol 15:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is happening here it can't go before Wikipedia neutrality policy.[I could have talked another way.] I'm not suggesting that anthroposophical sources should be used around Wikipedia in other kind of articles, but anthroposophy is a real movement with views and ways of thinking and those should be represented on pages about it. I keep being told to go to some other page to discuss about the matter. Does that mean I should copy some of this conversation somewhere else or aren't those other people watching this page? Erdanion 17:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there is any need to copy this info to another page - you can just wikilink to this discussion by writing [[Talk:Anthroposophy#About anthroposophical sources]]. On the point of using Anthro sources in this article, I understand your concerns, but you really need to raise this with the ArbCom - I suggest the arbitrator User:Fred Bauder. The ArbCom have ruled on the use of Anthro sources here [21] - i.e. they think they are inherently unreliable, and should be only be used to back up non-controversial statements only. Also note that the AbrCom is one of the highest groups in the dispute process - The Arbitration Committee exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes, which may be anything up to and including a ban from editing Wikipedia. Furthermore it clearly works within Wikipedia policies - including WP:NPOV - in fact it interprets these policies and implements them during disputes. Again please raise this issue with the ArbCom itself. No amount of discussion here is going to be able to change their ruling which all users need to abide by. Cheers Lethaniol 19:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Lethaniol, not meant as an offense, but I parts of what you write stands out as somewhat unclear and confusing to me. In an answer to Wikiwag at one time at my Talks page, I tried to sort out the issue and think the ArbCom decision viewed as a totality is unclear on only one point - what is to be considered "controversial".

The Final decision may stand out as unclear and partly maybe contradictory with regard to what is to be considered to be acceptible sources for different statements in the articles. A closer look shows - I think - that it is not. You only need to read it closely.

According to Final decision, Findings of Fact (14.2.1.):

Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and 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.

This is an unclear statement and does not tell if it refers to every statement in the articles. It only states that such statements are found in the articles for which Anthroposophical related sources for verification purposes are to be considered not permitted sources, "self-published (by) the Anthroposophical movement".

The Final decision Principles - Verifiability (14.1.3) is more detailed:

"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."

This is more specific than the Findings of facts point and tells that with regard to controversial information in the articles, material published in Anthroposophy related publications are considered self published and thus not reliable sources. But for information that is not controversial, Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered as reliable sources.

This comes to expression shortly and in an incomplete way in the Remedy - Waldorf education and related articles placed on probation section:

"Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources."

This needs to be seen and interpreted in relation to the first two sections, telling:

- All original research in the articles needs to be removed. To understand this, one needs to look more closely what Wikipedia means with "Original research", defined by one of seven listed characteristics, and is much more limited that what superfifially may be understood with the word, that someone investigates something by him- or herself and tells about the results.

For Wikipedia purposes:

"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."

That is a much more narrow use of the term, than normally probably is understood.

The "No Original research" policy also tells this:

"... 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."

To summarize:

For all information in the articles that is uncontroversial, Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered reliable.

For any information in the articles, that (on an not clearly defined basis) can be considered controversial, Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered unreliable.

What is "controversial"? That is the big, not cleared out point, about which the Arbitration decision is not clear, and that creates the probably largest difficulty in the continued editing of the article.

But for simple statements of facts, of course for example Steiner, who's total works are published on the net in the original language, and to a large part also in English translation at RSArchive must be considered allowed as citation on normally non-emotional issues in the article describing his works and what he wrote or said on different issues. On this point, I think Venado has been over-ambitious in removing such citations, see for example [22], [23], [24]. Though the last one refers to a controversial issue at the time, as such, the direct citation is very simple and uncontroversial for what it is used as citation for.

I think what Hgilbert writes very well summarizes the problem:

"The standard, as far as I understand it, allows anthroposophic sources for factual information of a non-controversial nature." and "It disallows such sources - or any polemical or obviously biased sources - for evaluative or controversial material"

Thebee 21:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think TheBee we are thinking the same point - I 100% agree with these three statements, and I do not believe I have ever wavered in this:

1. For all information in the articles that is uncontroversial, Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered reliable.
2. For any information in the articles, that (on an not clearly defined basis) can be considered controversial, Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered unreliable.
3. What is "controversial"? That is the big, not cleared out point, about which the Arbitration decision is not clear, and that creates the probably largest difficulty in the continued editing of the article.

But as discussed on Waldorf Education, it is extremely difficult to decide what and what is not controversial - hence as I said above (and in numerous other places) that we should IMHO treat nearly everthing as controversial, and only use Anthro sources when no other notable neutral source can be found for an uncontroversial statement, but only after discussion on the talk page of the article concerned. Cheers Lethaniol 22:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

With regard to what Waldorf education as practiced in different places around the world, also seemingly neutral sources can be unreliable, as there exist some 900? schools world wide, which makes the problem even greater. But with regard to anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner, what he himself stated is the primary source on what he said and wrote, and should be allowed as citation, except as citation on controversial issues like racism and anti-semitism, where his views are quite complex, and take quite some reading to penetrate, especially with regard to the at least three different senses in which he used and partly stopped using the concept "race" (in the theosophical sense) at different times [25], and only one refers to the common way it normally has been used. This means I disagree with what you write, to the extent that what you write as

"we should IMHO treat nearly everthing as controversial, and only use Anthro sources when no other notable neutral source can be found for an uncontroversial statement".

refers to the articles on anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner. I'd be grateful if you could motivate that with regard to what RS expressed at different times, except the mentioned controversial issues, as also in general with regard to the two mentioned articles. Are there specific points you think should not be possible to use anthroposophical related sources as citations for? Thanks, Thebee 00:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There's ALWAYS controversy around Anthroposophy. Here and here are links to the latest controversy - 44 ANTHROPOSOPHISTS being ejected from the Anthroposophical Society because they vocalized differences of opinion about the interpretation of Steiner's teachings. "Anthroposophical sources" aren't limited to the lock-step of the Anthroposophical society and there is, as I have said before, lots of desention among Anthroposophists about their own beliefs. EVERYTHING must be sourced from outside the Anthroposophical society and indeed the Anthroposophical movement. Pete K 00:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a wildly unrelated theme, but there were not differences of opinion about Steiner's teaching involved in this decision. Hgilbert 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that according to Anthroposophy, Anthroposophy is the very best thing since sliced bread, it may be very good, even the path to redemption for humanity, but let a third party say that. Fred Bauder 01:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To describe in a fair manner how anthroposophical thinking is like in some basic questions using anthroposophical sources is not going to sound ”brochure language”. I believe there to be quite many questions to write about without getting into a dispute. And when a dispute arises about some question of anthroposophical thinking, third party sources won't really be so very helpful for that. How did they get their information if not from anthroposophical sources? When a dispute is about anthroposophy's effects to larger society, third party sources should be looked for. I think one thing the arbitration committee has suggested should be changed.[I didn't understand the decision very well, so I'm not sure what I meant.] It is not neutral that whenever a dispute arises anthroposophical sources should be the ones abandoned. It is as if to decide beforehand that someone else is right and they are wrong. There is often not going to be completely ”neutral” third party sources. Views of the anthroposophists should be stated using anthroposophical sources. There is no need to decide here whether anthroposophy is ”good”, ”bad”, ”true” or ”false”. That is not Wikipedia editor's job. Erdanion 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia discourages the use of primary sources, and allows them to be used as a reference only with "extreme care". And, "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge."

Secondary sources are the best at wikipedia. "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."

No constancy of agreement about what primary source materials described would ever be found before arbitration decisions. For example one editor said Philosophy of Freedom, one primary source, was not even anthroposophy. Secondary sources are needed. Editors cant make those decisions about meanings in primary sources. Steiner work can be used only rarely.The opposite was done before. Some of the articles are much better now, but still need much work and only few are contributing so it is slow. It will go faster if editors dont waste time arguing with each other or administrators about the rules and go forward working better together. Independent published work is available and editors can find it. I found many. The arbitrations took months already. We should go forward and not get hung up over rules. and the articles and atmosphere for editing are very improved now due to arbitration. Since there are sometimes exceptions for primary or Steiner related published works, it should be discussed on a case by case basis first before trying to use any one as a reference someplace in the article. Venado 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern is not so much whether used anthroposophical sources are from Steiner or some secondary interpretations of Steiner. I think in some central cases Steiner could be used and sometimes other sources. My concern is that neutrality policy is being broken by discriminating against anthroposophical sources on a page about anthroposophy.[I could have talked another way.] It's not so simple with ”independent published work”. First there is not so much sources about anthroposophical thinking in general than about Waldorf schools, because the former has not interested people as much. Secondly "independent published work" is not always neutral. For example many university researchers are biased against spiritual movements. So it is just not going to be neutral writing this kind of page without using also anthroposophical sources. And if you compare with pages about religious movements, it doesn't seem to be considerer wrong to use their own sources, like on pages about Lutheranism or Roman Catholic Church. We should keep in mind that the "neutral point of view" is not the same thing as the "scientific point of view". Anthroposophy should not be asserted as being the truth, but it should have its space in Wikipedia. Erdanion 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)