Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner

Could everyone adding to this discussion please add to the end of each person's comments and sign your name? This page is almost impossible to read after less than 24 hours. Thanks!

Comments on the mediation proposals from DianaW

I have pasted DianaW's response from the Steiner page here - in case anyone wants to discuss these issues:--Pete K 16:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've not agreed to the list of mediation issues as formulated by (presumably) () et al. My reasons are as follows.

I can’t even agree to most of these “issues” as they are phrased prejudicially in favor of protecting the anthroposophical contributors' approach to these articles. Many of these don’t address real issues – they’re a stacked deck, phrased simplistically and benignly to sound like anyone who might disagree is just argumentative.

• Exclusion of works by members of the Anthroposophical Society as sources on anthroposophy; in particular a report by a Dutch commission on Steiner's comments about race. (This is at issue in two articles)

• Consistency of a policy on identifying authors' affiliations (should authors not members of the A.S. be protected from any identification of their background or affiliations).

Diana says: The “exclusion of works” is not the issue, nor is “protecting” anyone nor “consistency.” This is an attempt to make it sound like critics aren’t being fair, like “If our guy has to have his affiliations disclosed, then so does yours.” That’s not how scholarship works. The relevant issue re: the Dutch Commission and the material by Sven Hansson is that the former source is an *inappropriate* source to comment neutrally on anthroposophy in the first place, and the latter is an appropriate source, by scholarly standards. The nonneutrality of a source cannot be disguised simply by omitting the authors’ credentials and affiliations. That is why critics argued for their inclusion. Authors who are indeed neutral and fully appropriate sources, as is Hansson, do not need to have exactly where they got their PhDs or what their undergraduate thesis was on etc. discussed or even mentioned in the body of an article, and they certainly do not need to have their religious beliefs discussed in the article. No academic paper would ever do that. (I edit academic papers and I can tell you the various affiliations of the authors cited in the reference list are not discussed in the body of a paper – ever. The only time this could happen is in the anomalous situation where “response to criticism” on a particular issue was itself the SUBJECT of the paper. Then, it might be appropriate to explain from what quarters a particular response was issuing.) If the Dutch commission’s report on accusations of racism in anthroposophy is to be included in an article on Steiner’s racial views, it would have to be as an example of anthroposophical response to accusations of racism against anthroposophy – NOT as a supposedly neutral academic assessment of that racism - because it is not that, by academic standards. This is not difficult to understand but in particular it is not something that academics "negotiate" or "mediate" for particular articles. It just IS. An analogy in medicine is the way authors must now disclose if they are receiving funds from pharmaceutical companies, which impacts their neutrality if they are involved in research on agents made by those companies; these disclosure statements are now often printed right under authors’ names. *Irrelevant* affiliations, or other activities the author may be involved in that are not pertinent to the topic of the paper, are never mentioned, let alone discussed, in the body of the paper. I have very little doubt that this issue is clear to (), () etc. The “issue” as stated above is formulated falsely, and IMO deliberately so.

The credentials of the commission's members are flawless and have never been at issue. The only thing that has been at issue has been their affiliation with anthroposophy. You are taking "your" critic and suggesting he is above all question, that no one should look at his credentials or affiliations, and taking a different point of view and excluding it simply because it is a different point of view than yours ("and thus not neutral"). Wikipedia assumes that no one's view is neutral; an article is neutral when it includes all points of view. You are attempting to bias the article.

Diana says: Once again someone has interspersed comments, so I don't know who I'm talking to. I've laid this issue out clearly and have nothing to add. What I've said regarding how sources are normally cited in academic papers is correct. What you say I've said above isn't what I've said; what I said was clear, and correct. I will refer you to it, as you apparently aren't familiar with what makes a source a credible academic source.DianaW 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Extent and number of quotations by Rudolf Steiner on race/ethnicity related topics in the main article Rudolf Steiner when an entire sub-article Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity is devoted solely to this question, and provides room for all such quotations.

Again flatly dishonestly formulated. Clearly, “all such quotations” would have to be defined, or there is nothing to mediate here. What would “all such quotations” be, some specific number? Real scholarship would absolutely never proceed on such a basis. Absolutely never. “You may have 5 quotations as long as we can also have 5” etc. Absolute rubbish. I would never participate in that. The author can either write about what she believes is the relevant material, or she doesn't write the article – authors never negotiate about *how many quotes* they can include from a source with antagonists in the wings saying “You can have four, but not five” because they disagree with this author’s interpretation of the material. No reputable scholar would agree to such a project, and for wikipedia to allow hacks to do it just lowers wikipedia’s value.

The sub-article offers room for extensive quotation, all those that editors wish to include. Inclusion of large numbers in the main article makes for an unwieldy article, distorts the relative significance of the topic in Steiner's life and work, is contrary to Wikipedia policy on Quotes, and is being used as a vehicle to promote a particular point of view.

Can't agree; definitely won't agree. This isn't how articles are developed, with people "negotiating" how many quotes can be included on a particular topic. That's what we're discussing here: whether the number or nature of quotes can be "mediated." Certainly not.DianaW 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Use of links to pages including original research, or use of such pages as sources.

o Use of links to pages not including original research (transcripts or articles) residing on websites that do include original research

Shamelessly dishonestly formulated. This refers to ()’s attempt to cite (first) FIVE VOLUMES of Steiner’s complete works as a proper citation for a claim that Steiner wrote a series of articles for a magazine combatting antisemitism. When I protested this, he replaced the reference with a link to a web site, in German, that – as far as I can tell considering I don’t read German very well – includes *mention* of the name of this periodical, and perhaps even asserts that Steiner wrote this supposed series, but *still* doesn’t include a citation to the article itself. If it includes the citation, () could point it out, but he did not reply to this question from me, but has moved to “mediation” of his supposed “right” to link to such a page, with the context of the discussion removed. It would be a travesty to redefine this issue as “use of links to a certain type of web site” and then for him to be able to point to this point in the mediation and say it had been agreed to. It is absolutely not an appropriate academic citation, and I will certainly not agree to it. The issue is NOT whether it is ever appropriate to include a link to a particular type of web page. This is an attempt to redefine and thus dishonestly work around a REAL issue which is simple: the reference is bogus, and a “series of articles” cannot be cited unless the series of articles is going to be cited.

The sentence in the article -"Steiner also wrote articles for various journals, including a series for the Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus, a magazine devoted to combatting anti-semitism, during this time" states that Steiner wrote many articles (major clause); the citation that stood there always identified where these are to be found in Steiner's works. The sentence also states that some of these articles were for a journal combatting antisemitism (minor clause). There was no citation for these journal articles before Diana requested one in her inimitably aggressive style; I thus added a citation that supports the fact of the articles and does in fact mention the name of the journal in which they were published. I also added the journal's name to the article. Both the new citation - to a web version of a published document - and journal name were added before the above comments, incidentally. I am happy to add other citations that demonstrate the fact of these articles, if this is desired.

Nope. Bogus from start to finish. You either provide the reference for the "series of articles" Steiner wrote for this "journal combatting antisemitism" or you take the reference out. Simple academic honesty is never open to "mediation." It is flat-out incorrect to say that "the citation that stood there always identified where they are to be found in Steiner's works." It does not identify where this mysterious article, no, series of articles, is to be found. It refers the reader to 5 full volumes of Steiner's collected works. That's not an acceptable academic reference. If you're happy to provide the correct reference I'm unclear why you haven't yet done so. (If this is "aggressive" this is why I am not agreeing to mediation. It is not "aggressive" to insist on proper references. What you mean by "aggressive" is that I keep saying it.)DianaW 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Inclusion of editorial commentary on sourced material ("This conclusion is not surprising given the author's obvious bias...", etc.)

Also dishonestly formulated. That’s not what happened. “This conclusion is not surprising . . .” was not editorial commentary an editor added to the wikipedia article – it was a quote *from* a legitimate source.

If so, why was there no citation given for any of these editorial commentaries? They appear to be the editor's own comments. See [1], section on the Dutch commission.

This refers to a discussion on the article's Discussion page. It doesn't refer to material *in the article*. The whole issue is bogus. It was meant to demonstrate that the authors of the Dutch report were anthroposophists, and why this made them a nonneutral source - which at the time you were (disingenuously) disputing. (At least I hope you were being disingenuous. If you really knew this little about the subject, that's rather alarming. Certainly Sune knew.)DianaW 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Appropriateness of biographical information in the article about Rudolf Steiner (this is contested)

Formulated either deliberately dishonestly or completely idiotically. Who in the world would try to claim that it isn’t appropriate to include biographical material in the article about Rudolf Steiner? The question is WHAT biographical material. I made a strong case that a lot of irrelevant material could be deleted. No one replied to that discussion other than to say inane things like "It's his biography." This right here is enough to disqualify your attempt at mediation. You're supposed to have attempted to work through issues prior to mediation. That means you need to *reply* to issues raised. I pointed out (for instance) that a goofy story about Steiner meeting a "simple herb gatherer" is inappropriate encyclopedia material. No one have given a justification for the inclusion of this fairy tale; no one replied at all. I suggested a silly discussion of Steiner being "deeply moved" in the presence of a comatose Friedrich Niezsche and then writing a book about Nietzsche be removed; in Nietzsche scholarship, no one pays any serious attention to Rudolf Steiner. If you would like to argue to include this material, then do so. Explain Rudolf Steiner's role in Nietzsche scholarship; justify the inclusion. Running to "mediation" saying "They want to cut Steiner's biography!" is silly childishness.

This is a fine sample of Diana's style,

Thank you.DianaW 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

and demonstrates the appropriateness of the "tone of comments" point that follows. The herb gatherer was important in Steiner's biography. It is not a fairy tale;

Okay then document it. I hope it is a good example of my style. It asks you to explain and justify what you are trying to do, I have pointed out that you didn't reply, and I have told you a number of things that would make your article more credible. I apparently broke the news to you that Steiner was not a Nietzsche scholar. What a bitch I am!DianaW 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A clarification - my comments on the "simple herb gatherer" lore from Steiner's childhood aren't really on whether this particular incident happened, but on its biographical significance and appropriateness in an encyclopedia article. As explained on the Steiner discussion page, the point was cutting out fluff - not challenging small and silly details about the man's childhood. The language "simple herb gardener" gives this away as fond lore of questionable factualness. Of course I couldn't know if Steiner ever met an herb gardener; I was pointing to the lack of perspective of the zealous defenders of the guru, who hang on every quaint story and don't have the objectivity to notice when some detail that is personally meaningful to *them* as devotees is not really that interesting or useful to the public reading an encyclopedia entry to get the basics on who was Rudolf Steiner and what did he accomplish in life. The reaction of the defenders - alarm and outrage if you suggest cutting the most trivial details - is indicative of the overall problem dragging some kind of credible article out of this mess.DianaW 00:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Steiner describes the meeting in his autobiography and numerous other times and emphasizes its importance. There can be no justification for cutting it. Calling material "goofy" is purely a subjective evaluation; unless verifiable biographical material is inaccurate, there would rarely be a reason for cutting it over other editors' objections.

All my reasons were outlined, and they're good ones. I'm not dragging the whole conversation back over here; see the Steiner article discussion page. The material presently under Steiner's biography is definitely goofy from the standpoint of writing a quality academic paper. There are lots of complaints about the poor writing on Wikipedia; you aim to continue this tradition? Nevertheless, I should point out that I wrote the long list of suggestions for shortening the biographical section to point out, in direct reply to your complaint that the article was getting too long, how it could effectively be cut.DianaW 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You have never offered any reasons.

See the Steiner discussion pages. I offered quite substantial reasons.DianaW 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether the book Steiner wrote is important for Nietzsche scholars would be an important issue in an article about Nietzsche; in an article about Steiner, the fact that he met the already comatose Nietzsche, and was moved to write a book about him is relevant biographical information.

How so? I think you're saying you have no idea if any Nietzsche scholars are actually interested in Steiner's work on Nietzsche. You might want to check this out *before* you list this as an achievement of Steiner's. I could give you some tips, but you ought to have done this homework already before throwing this in the article. Much of the material on Steiner is very poor because it's written from anthroposophists' very rose-colored views of Steiner. You want to throw *everything* in because you genuinely believe everything he wrote was important. That's not the way the rest of the world sees it.DianaW 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Objectivity of information in and tone of Waldorf education article

Either come up with a real, definable issue or don’t waste people’s time. Obviously we’re all concerned with the objectivity of information and the tone of the Waldorf education article.

I actually included this only because I thought it was an issue you and Pete were raising, and I was trying to raise all the contested issues, so far as I can see them. If you are happy that the Waldorf education page is objective and has a balanced tone, then we'll assume this point is moot. Hgilbert 21:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I was "happy" about the tone of the article. I said it is an absurd point to try to "mediate." You can't mediate people's tone.DianaW 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Tone of comments on talk pages, including the question of whether Wikipedia policies such as the assumption of good faith and avoidance of personal attacks are being followed.

Again a non-issue. What do you want people to agree or disagree with here? How can we mediate the “tone” of something? We want you to stop fawning and slobbering on Steiner; you want us to stop pointing out this nonsense and insisting on simple facts and objective assessments. You don’t agree, obviously, that our assessments are objective. This can’t be resolved by some kind of fiat regarding “tone of the article.” Either come up with some issues we can *actually* discuss or don’t waste people’s time.DianaW 13:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am not refusing to mediate, only refusing to agree to the list of issues as presently worded. I may suggest a revision of the list but it probably won't be for another day or two. I am objecting to the weighted and biased way the issues have been framed. Much of it is inane: who could dispute that biographical material on Rudolf Steiner belongs in the Rudolf Steiner article? The anthroposophists, I'm guessing, think if they can get such a point "mediated," anyone then changing, removing, or adding material to the biography section that they don't like can then be told to get lost, that they're violating the agreement etc. Obviously just *what* is going to be mediated has to be agreed before you can expect people to blithely agree to abide by mediation. The language is, at best, far too vague. Some of it is outright nonsense: you can't ask people to change their "tone" on an article's discussion page in "mediation," for instance. If you don't like someone's "tone," don't talk to them; that doesn't mean their views are less worthwhile than yours or they have less right to contribute to the article. You cannot expect Steiner's critics to maintain the same reverential tone toward the man that his defenders display. This sort of vague, behavioral type requirement has to be altogether deleted from a list of points to mediate IMO. I'll go post this at the case page too.DianaW 15:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the discussion from my own talk page: --Pete K 16:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Hgilbert 02:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding right? The four of you want to attack me in mediation? I've been to such ambushes at the local Waldorf school - I'm not walking into this. If you want to mediate this, let's not start by stacking the deck. Pick two of you and I'll ask Diana if she wants to participate. Four against one is an ambush. Two against two will be more acceptable. --Pete K 02:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

PeteK, have a little faith in Mediation. If your points are valid, then mediation will hopefully hear you out and decide as an uninvolved party on the best outcome. All parties involed in the dispute should be listed however, and that includes Diana and other editors who drop in from time to time such as Fergie. If mediation fails, you can always take it to the Arbitration Committee. -- Longhair\talk 03:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Longhair. I have faith in mediation - but I also have faith in the fact that Waldorf people will play dirty (sorry to say this but I've had more than a lifetime full of very nasty encounters with them at my kid's Waldorf school). So, I'm not too keen on the way this is shaping up. Some of the items on the list for mediation aren't necessarily on the table for discussion. They (the Waldorf team) are going for broke here - hoping to get original research sites referenced in the articles. There's no reason to discuss this or have it mediated - it's not allowed in Wikipedia. This is somebody's personal agenda.

I don't think mediation is necessary and I trust both sides will be more willing to come to the table and work these things out while the articles are locked. I will, however, if mediation is presented in a fair way addressing only the issues that are in contention, expect an even balance of editors participating. I saw the results of the ill-fated Waldorf project first-hand, and it was a huge waste of time for me to try to be involved in that because of the one-sidedness of the opinions. Speaking of which, I see Wonderactivist on the mediation list, despite that she hasn't been active on the Steiner pages. I am not aware that any mediation is required for the Waldorf Education page as it is currently unlocked and we are all waiting for the project team to produce something with an NPOV. Are there issues on that page that will be resolved from the mediation here? I don't see anything that applies to that page and I don't see any benefit of having her participate in this mediation except to weigh in on the side of the Waldorf team. So, I'm not saying mediation is out, but I *am* saying it needs to at least start out balanced and fair. This way, all parties will be more likely to abide by the results. --Pete K 03:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch Report and the Hansson article

DW: "The relevant issue re: the Dutch Commission and the material by Sven Hansson is that the former source is an *inappropriate* source to comment neutrally on anthroposophy in the first place, and the latter is an appropriate source, by scholarly standards." "No academic paper would ever do that. (I edit academic papers and I can tell you the various affiliations of the authors cited in the reference list are not discussed in the body of a paper - ever. The only time this could happen is in the anomalous situation where “response to criticism” on a particular issue was itself the SUBJECT of the paper. " "If the Dutch commission’s report on accusations of racism in anthroposophy is to be included in an article on Steiner’s racial views, it would have to be as an example of anthroposophical response to accusations of racism against anthroposophy - NOT as a supposedly neutral academic assessment of that racism - because it is not that, by academic standards." "Authors who are indeed neutral and fully appropriate sources, as is Hansson, ..."

Both the Dutch investigation, documentation and commenting of all comments by Steiner on the issue of race as it was understood during his time, and Hansson's article were undertaken/written in response to criticism. In Holland, this had the form of one or more articles in the press, alleging racism in Waldorf education and anthroposophy. In Sweden (where Hansson lives), this had the form of criticism of an anthology on anthroposophy in 2003, published by the Swedish branch of CSICOP, founded in 1982. Anthroposophy is one of the main targets of ideological criticism from the group since its foundation. Hansson was one of its central founders of the group, its first chairperson, and has published a number of critical articles on anthroposophy since its foundation. One of the articles published in the anthology was a somewhat shortened version of a paper by Hansson from 1991.

The above has no relevance. What I said above is correct. Hansson is a neutral source because he is *not an anthroposophist*. We understand that you don't *like* that people outside anthroposophy sometimes criticize anthroposophy, but that is irrelevant here. From an academic standpoint (which aims for objectivity), the key to obtaining a neutral, NPOV assessment is to go outside the controversy. Hansson is outside the controversy because he is not an anthroposophist. You seem to feel that if you point out that Hansson has written "critical" articles on anthroposophy that this disqualifies him. The opposite is correct.DianaW 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting definition of *neutral source*. That would mean that you, who in discussions have accused the Waldorf movement of applying a hidden cabal of fighting black magic when Waldorf teachers at times in some cases in early elementary school work towards switching handedness of pupils, or the vice-President of PLANS, who has cultivated the myth that the Waldorf movement has a hidden cabal of training the future leaders of the world, and Pete, must be considered *neutral sources" with regard to anthroposophy, because you and they are not *anthroposophists*. Your definition also would mean for example that anyone who is not a Jew, including probably most members of anti-Semitic hate groups must be considered a *neutral source* on Jews and Judaism, because they are not Jews. I doubt many would agree to that.

Is Hansson, as you write *outside the controversy*? No, he a central party in what you call *the controversy*, and his article, that you and Pete want to include as *neutral source* in the article was written specifically in response to criticism of the group, of which he was one of its main founders and first chairperson ('Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning', 'Association Science and Education of the People'), one of the main anti-anthroposophical and anti-Waldorf organisations in Sweden, for publishing an anthology on anthroposophy, that contained a somewhat shortened version of Hansson's unreliable article "Is anthroposophy Science", and Staudenmaier's also unreliable first article on anthroposophy. If anything, Hansson is one of the most partisan parties in what you call the "controversy*, and also this article by him is repeatedly unreliable in a similar way as his article on anthroposophy from a philosophy of science perspective. --Thebee 08:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What a mangled mess the above is, as usual, Sune. No - I've definitely never accused anyone in Waldorf or anthroposophy of black magic. Nor of fighting a cabal (edited later to add: that should read, I've never accused them of *being* a cabal.) I've never written anything even remotely resembling the above. You're misrepresenting me, and this is typical. It is much easier to argue against ludicrous things no one ever said in the first place. I've certainly accused Waldorf schools of forcing left-handed children to switch to the right hand, as this continues in Waldorf today, and it's the sort of thing I believe requires reform. Certainly the Waldorf movement hopes to be training future leaders of the world. Your comments about Jews and antisemitism are hopeless - simply hopeless, and I won't bother trying to reply to such ignorance.

Nor do I claim to be a "neutral source" on anthroposophy. That has never been under dispute. Neither you nor I are a neutral source on Waldorf or anthroposophy. The issue is sources cited in the articles, and the fact that you and I aren't neutral sources is why we're required to find neutral ones. Everything I've said regarding appropriate neutral sources for academic articles is correct. You see someone who represents something called "Association for Science and Education of the People" as problematic? I rest my case. That sums up the problems in Waldorf today. (They're not about educating the people - they're a small religious sect with a hidden agenda.) There's nothing to be "mediated" regarding what is an appropriate academic source. The standard wikipedia policies are academic standards, and they're not negotiable.DianaW 10:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You dispute what I write as

...you, who in discussions have accused the Waldorf movement of applying a hidden cabal of fighting black magic when Waldorf teachers at times in some cases in early elementary school work towards switching handedness of pupils, ..."

On this, you write "What a mangled mess the above is, as usual, Sune. No - I've definitely never accused anyone in Waldorf or anthroposophy of black magic. Nor of fighting a cabal (edited later to add: that should read, I've never accused them of *being* a cabal.) I've never written anything even remotely resembling the above."

You make it necessary to document what you have written in discussions, documented on the net. As you have written that I may quote you anywhere, anytime I like, I take the liberty of doing it with regard to the basis for what I wrote, regarding switching handedness of pupils from left to right at times in the early grades in WE (at least earlier) and an insinuation by you that this is done as an expression in Waldorf education of a wish to fight black magic:

"Diana Winters, Mar 28, 2002 06:00 PST

Left-handedness and black magic

Here is some possible insight into why Waldorf teachers, unlike any others today, continue to feel left-handed children need to be forced to write with their right hands. This is from [...]

A brief summary if you don't wish to read the whole excerpt:

Right-handedness is associated with white magic, left-handed with black magic. With right-handedness, we have moral purity, advanced moral and spiritual development, selflessness, patience, endurance, and association with the "Christ impulse." With left-handedness, you have . . . the opposite of all that. The right-handed initiate has spent many lifetimes getting there, so I guess it seems actually charitable to try to help lefties along a bit on their spiritual path by switching their handedness."

--Thebee 22:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Diana checks back on her own post. The brief summary is my summary of *someone else's* views. Sune conveniently left that out, to make it look like it's *me* spouting off that left handedness is associated with black magic! What a hoot you are, Sune. The stuff you're quoting me summarizing comes from Tarjei Straume, an anthroposophist.DianaW 01:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a link in here somewhere Sune? What is the source? Are we supposed to take YOUR word for this? Please provide the link so those of us following this discussion can verify what you have written here is not taken out of context. Thanks. --Pete K 22:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's at: http://waldorfcritics.org/active/archives/WCA0203.2.html Sune gives the title of the post; you have to scroll down to find it. Sune gives "This is from [...]" but not WHAT it's from since that would make clear I was quoting an anthroposophist.DianaW 16:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, so Sune once again misdirected the readers here, and when asked to provide the reference, he took another "break" from editing here - no doubt because this fighting back and forth is "killing" him (as he describes it to one administrator). Now I am hoping neutral readers here will understand - when wild statements are made and references to articles printed in a foreign language are produced, why I tend to question the referenced articles. The use of shabby references is very common here and when those references are unreadable (foreign) it makes them impossible for some of us to verify. I don't suppose Wikipedia has unbiased translators who will be willing to do the fact-checking - right? Pete K 16:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana says: Sune, I’ve noticed you are rapidly changing the subject every time one of your points is shot down. The point was what is a neutral academic source. You’re busily trying to show that *I’m* not one, or otherwise paint me as a Mean Bad Person, but no one’s claimed I’m a neutral source who should be cited in these articles. I’m not trying to get myself quoted in the articles – remember? You’re the one doing that, trying to get your own web sites vetted as legitimate sources, which they’re not, as well as have anthroposophical authors admitted as neutral sources on anthroposophy, which they’re not. (But thanks for reminding me that the question of switching left handers should probably be added to the article on Waldorf education.)

Are we clear on this yet, or how many more tangents do we need to discuss? The question of switching left-handed children to use their right hands is entirely a tangent to the questions suggested for mediation and probably most people aren’t interested, but I’m going to start a new section below for anyone who is.DianaW 01:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Switching Left Handed Children in Waldorf

Switching left handers continues in some Waldorf schools although it is long since abandoned in other schools, because it is pointless as well as abusive. I was not, btw, suggesting Waldorf teachers are practicing black magic. If anything, as the post states, the origin of such a practice might be related to *protecting* people from black magic. They are *not* into black magic and don't want to be associated with it.

Forcing left-handed children to switch has its roots in ancient superstitions and occult associations that associate “left” with inferiority, evil, the dark, fear, dirtiness, and various other prejudices, and “right” with goodness, truth, rightness, the light, etc. If you’d quote the whole post – which as I've said you always have my permission to do, Sune – this context is clear. Anthroposophy draws from occult traditions and some of these unexamined prejudices linger. Some find fertile ground in the minds of teachers who “reverence” Steiner uncritically and believe anything he said. Steiner stated that left-handedness was a sign of karmic weakness, or possibly resulted from a previous lifetime of hard menial labor. I believe that fewer and fewer teachers will switch left handers, but there are still Waldorf schools that won’t give up the practice. Abusive practices linger when their roots are not examined. Most Waldorf teachers are themselves likely unaware of where the bias against left handers comes from, and some are so poorly trained they’re unaware that forcing children to use the right hand is no longer done elsewhere.

Anthroposophy, and various rituals that survive in Waldorf, certainly have connections to magical traditions, but I’ve never seen any evidence they derive from black magic as opposed to white. Waldorf is heavily ritualistic; some teachers barely talk to young children at all, but mostly chant and sing anthroposophical verses. Anthroposophists aren’t trying to hurt anyone with their rituals; this is not about hexing or cursing or casting spells or something. But things like making left-handed children write or eat with the right hand are definitely abusive, and a real torment to some children. Anyone who wants more information on this, I’m happy to provide it. I don’t accuse Waldorf teachers of practicing black magic, or anything sinister. I do accuse the entire movement of failing to examine and discard various outdated prejudices. The prejudice against left handers is one; they should have quit this practice a *long* time ago. Most parents today won’t stand for it, and are stunned to find a teacher suggesting their child be switched.

I do appreciate, Sune, that you admit switching left handers is still done; often I get enraged denials that it still occurs at all.DianaW 01:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is some more context for understanding why left-handed children are still sometimes harassed to use the right hand in Waldorf schools.

From: Conferences with Waldorf School Teachers (GA 300a,b,c) Translated by Robert F. Lathe and Nancy Parsons Whittaker

June 14, 1920

"A teacher asks about left-handed writing.

Dr. Steiner: In general, you will find that those children who have spiritual tendencies can write with either the left or right hand without trouble, but those children with materialistic tendencies will become addled if they are allowed to write with both hands . . ."

May 25, 1923

"A teacher: Should the children be broken of left-handedness?

Dr. Steiner: In general, yes. At the younger ages, approximately before the age of nine, you can accustom left-handed children to right-handedness at school . . .

The phenomenon of left-handedness is clearly karmic, and, in connection with karma, it is one of karmic weakness. Allow me to give an example: A person who was overworked in their previous life, so that they did too much, not only physically or intellectually, but, in general, spiritually, within their soul or feeling, will enter the succeeding life with an intense weakness. That person will be incapable of overcoming the karmic weakness located in the lower human being . . . If you give into that too much, then that weakness may perhaps remain for a later, that is, a third Earthly life. If you do not give in, then the weakness is brought into balance." (posted by Diana)DianaW 01:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Diana. As usual, Sune has apparently completely misunderstood what was said in the source he was quoting from. He still hasn't provided a link so that we might check the accuracy of his "summary" ourselves... and I suspect he won't. Funny how some people can build a house of cards elsewhere on the internet, but when they actually have to support their wild-ass claims with citations, their nonsense is shown to be what it is. Pete K 02:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Back to discussion of the Dutch Commission of Biased Anthroposophists

You also write as comment on the Swedish branch of the CSICOP, (Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning, "Association Science and Educatio of the People), of which Hansson was one of its main founders in 1982, and then has been a Chairperson of for very long, you know he who has written the Hansson article, that you praise as written by an "indeed neutral and fully appropriate sources" ...:

"They're not about educating the people - they're a small religious sect with a hidden agenda."

Maybe I would not agree with you completely on this, but with a small edit of it, I'd agree basically completely:

"They're not about educating the people - they're a small anti-religious sect with a hidden agenda."

--Thebee 22:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And the above is a fine example of why "mediation" seems difficult or impossible with these people. They are so confused you can't even get them to stay on the topic. Sune stops disputing that the Dutch commission is a "neutral" source and starts talking about whether *I'm* a neutral source. Of course I'm not a neutral source on anthroposophy (I didn't say the things he says I said above, but that's just thrown in as a distraction.) But even if I had said all kinds of ridiculous things about anthroposophy ("black magic" etc.), I'm not trying to quote myself in the article, am I? I don't have personal web sites on anthroposophy that I'm trying to insert as academic sources in this article. Sune's the one doing that. If he's trying to somehow disprove by this the descriptions of "neutral source" in an academic context that I've offered, he's simply wrong, and I truly believe everyone here knows what an academic source is. This is why I would refuse to "mediate" this. Academic sources simply are what they are.DianaW 13:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

On "Sune stops disputing that the Dutch commission is a "neutral" source and starts talking about whether *I'm* a neutral source. Of course I'm not a neutral source on anthroposophy"

Can you point to anywhere, where I have stated, or for that case "disputed"(?) that the Dutch Commission is a "neutral" source on the issue of its report?

According to your definition of "neutrality" with regard to anthroposophy, you have written: "Hansson is a neutral source because he is *not an anthroposophist*." According to that definition of "neutrality" anyone who is not an *anthroposophist* would be a "neutral" source on anthroposophy. That would include you, who probably do not consider yourself to be an *anthroposophist*. I have tried to show that you are not "a neutral source" on anthroposophy, and you have also admitted that this is not the case. This means that your original definition of "neutral source" lacks substance, and that it cannot be used as argument that Hansson is a neutral source on what he writes, and that you need another argument for his neutrality, than the one you have used so far. That's basically all I have tried to show here.

With this, I end my discussion with you and Pete on this discussion page, as you seem to apply the same tactic of raving and ranting now, as you yourself have described as applying during your first session here at Wikipedia. For further comments, see other discussion pages. --Thebee 23:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Can you point to anywhere, where I have stated, or for that case "disputed"(?) that the Dutch Commission is a "neutral" source on the issue of its report?" - Huh? It's under mediation, silly!

The rest of this is more non-issues. I haven't claimed that the only thing reuqired to be a neutral source is to be "not an anthroposophist." I haven't claimed, either, that *I'm* neutral. I've claimed the opposite. Any time you want to discuss the issues that *are* under mediation, let me know. I need no "other argument" for Hansson's neutrality; he meets any reasonable criteria for a standard academic source, and since he's not an anthroposophist, he's neutral regarding anthroposophy. I suppose if you could show he had some *personal* involvement that biased him, that might be pertinent, but there's no problem like that that I'm aware of. So any time you'd like to apologize for trying to make people think that I've accused somebody of black magic, be my guest.DianaW 00:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Can you point to anywhere, where I have stated, or for that case "disputed"(?) that the Dutch Commission is a "neutral" source on the issue of its report?" So, am I to understand that now you admit that the Dutch Commission of Anthroposophists is a biased source? "According to that definition of "neutrality" anyone who is not an *anthroposophist* would be a "neutral" source on anthroposophy." Yes, when it comes to judgment, one must be outside of Anthroposophy to judge Anthroposophy. Otherwise, it isn't judgment, it's self-judgment. "This means that your original definition of "neutral source" lacks substance, and that it cannot be used as argument that Hansson is a neutral source on what he writes, and that you need another argument for his neutrality, than the one you have used so far. That's basically all I have tried to show here." Unfortunately, we are not trying to define "neutral" - we are trying to define "biased". A source here does not have to be neutral - but it cannot be biased (or if it is, that bias must be clearly identified). If someone is without bias, i.e. doesn't belong to the religious group he is evaluating, then there is no problem. Are people who are critical of Steiner neutral? No. Are they biased? No. It's really pretty simple. Pete K 23:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hansson remains a neutral, objective source on the question of whether there is racism in anthroposophy. He's a qualified academic source, with scholarly publications on the topic, and he's not an anthroposophist.DianaW 13:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A closer look at it and comparison of what he writes with the original sources he uses, shows that Hansson's way of using quotes from different works by Rudolf Steiner seriously misrepresent anthroposophy as developed separate from theosophy, and distorts the argumentation in the context from which quotes from works by Steiner are taken.

Yes, Sune. You love to declaim on "how this person uses quotes from Rudolf Steiner" and claim that your web sites show that the person didn't do it right, from an anthroposophic POV. *That's the point*. The summaries from your web site have been disqualified, and that's how it's going to stay. They're *biased*. This issue is simple: Anthroposophists, including you, don't want to think Steiner ever said anything racist, 'cus you like the guy, he's the leader of your movement. *Outside* analysts do not always see it your way. I know you do not like to hear about this but it is reality.DianaW 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It also shows that the discussion of the three examples used by Hansson to argue against the reliability of alleged predictions by Steiner partly is based on careless mistranslation, non-consideration of the social, conceptual and historical context from which the examples are taken and superficial to the extent of bordering on pure rhetoric.

Nice try. Hansson is a neutral, credible, non-anthroposophical academic source, unassailable in this regard, and that's the problem you have with it.DianaW 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Both factors deprive the discussion in a large part of the article by Hansson of its possible scientific value regarding the subject it purports to be a discussion of.

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

In other words, you disagree with him. Someone does not become "not neutral" because he writes things you disagree with. There are actual criteria for determining this, and I've laid them out.DianaW 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

His paper in 1991 also indicates that he is an unreliable author on anthroposophy.

According to you. Do you have *nonanthroposophical* sources that would support this claim? Yes, we understand anthropposophists didn't like it.DianaW 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to. It has nothing to do with liking or not liking, but with elementary textual analysis of an article with the sources it refers to as basis for what it writes, quoting both in detail for comparison. My analysis of Hansson's article from 1991 in full quotes the first part of his article, and the published sources he refers to (both found on the net), and shows in what way he distorts them. Simple text analysis is completely enough to demonstrate that Hanson in his paper gives an unreliable and distorted description of the sources he refers to. --Thebee 23:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sune, I'll break this to you in the nicest way I can - NOBODY gives a FLYING FIG about your analysis. I believe you to be the Grand Master of distortion - you have NEVER, to my knowledge, produced even one credible report, review or article - and so far, the vast majority of your posts here have been refuted as well. Continually refering people to your website for your "analysis" of these issues is, in essence, assuming we are all idiots. Your "analysis" of Professor Hansson's report (or any other document) doesn't qualify for ANYTHING here - other than something that will give some of us a good laugh at your delusions of grandeur. --Pete K 23:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as a side note, you're probably aware that what you write as "your delusions of grandeur" above qualifies as yet another of your numerous personal attack according to the criteria of Wikipedia:NPA. --Thebee 08:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, my friend, I just call 'em as I sees 'em. Are you saying you are actually GRAND? --Pete K 13:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Have to agree. Sune, surely you are not so naive as to think your own self-published "textual analysis" of Hansson discredits him. How long will this take to sink in? The problem is that you are partisan regarding anthroposophy and he is not, because he isn't an anthroposophist. Continuing to repeat that you think he is not credible because you don't like his interpretations of Steiner will not change this. "Distortions" will always turn out to mean, you don't like what he says about Steiner. You clutch at straws, "Aha! He's distorted the meaning!" whenever someone has painted the guru in a light you feel is unflattering. On your own web sites, nobody can argue with you. I think you can see that elsewhere, there will be ongoing and very vigorous resistance to your promoting your own agenda with no other backup than repeated reference to your own web sites.DianaW 00:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

People should probably know that Sune Nordwall has gone so far as to accuse authors critical of Steiner of "forgery." No one ever forged an article by Steiner; Sune could never produce any credible accounting of this supposed forgery, let alone evidence for it; the accounts of the alleged forgery are absolutely unintelligible, as is much of his writing. This mistake would have embarrassed a less fanatical Steinerite, but not Sune.DianaW 00:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What you refer to is found here: On the stories by Peter Staudenmaier. Like with Hansson, it is based on a simple comparison of what he writes with the sources he asserts that he describes. For more on Staudenmaier, see the analysis by Daniel Hindes. --Thebee 08:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes - what I refer to is found there. As you like to say, this is a good sample of your writing. The "forgery" accusation is false, defamatory, and libelous, and you know absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peter Staudenmaier never forged anything. When someone disagrees with you on Rudolf Steiner, you begin a campaign to damage the person's reputation and career. (Later Sune began to describe Peter's alleged infraction as a "spiritual forgery" rather than a literal one, but he has never retracted the accusation.) Forgery is a criminal accusation, false, and Sune knows that it is false. This is a good example of how this individual will play things, and this is the reason he's taken to compiling pages on other users with long details on their supposed violations of various rules. The individual whom his web site is largely devoted to defaming (Peter S.) just laughs at his antics, which is certainly the right attitude when dealing with someone like this, but others should be aware this sort of thing is Sune Nordwall's preferred way to deal with anybody who would point to the skeletons in Rudolf Steiner's closet. He's never gotten anybody, even within anthroposophy, to publish his allegations of "forgery" against Peter S.; all he can do is broadcast them on his own multiple web sites. You won't even find any other *anthroposophists* willing to talk about the "forgery" thing, at least not publicly. I do think administrators should be clear that this sort of history is why the repeated calls for "assume good faith" will not work with people here who have a history like this.DianaW 12:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You write on me "He's never gotten anybody, even within anthroposophy, to publish his allegations of "forgery" against Peter S."

I have never tried. Why should I? I've published it at my site. If you search on his name at Google.com, my article on him is listed as top search result of 44.600. For a more detailed documentation of the intricacy of his mind, revealed by discussions with him, see http://www.americans4waldorf.org/MrStaudenmaier.html http://www.americans4waldorf.org/MrStaudenmaier2.html and the following pages.

--Thebee 22:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"For a more detailed documentation of the intricacy of his mind, revealed by discussions with him" I'm sorry I ever doubted you Sune. You know the intricacies of the man's mind because you have had discussions with him. This is amazing. Of course you have had (perhaps even more) discussions with me too, so I suspect you have mapped the intricacies of my mind as well. This is starting to feel so intimate. Let me ask you - how does someone with a gift like yours feel about dealing with people who don't have such gifts. I can imagine you must feel it is your duty to explain the intricacies of other people's minds for them. It's great that you have websites specifically set up for explaining the intricacies of the minds of your enemies. How frustrating it must be for you to have all that knowledge, and all that documentation ready to link to - on any given subject, and to have people like me suggesting that it shouldn't be linked - at all... EVER. Now I'm starting to see why you are so interested in having me removed from Wikipedia. You certainly have a lot to say, and wouldn't it be so much better if nobody doubted the validity of it? --Pete K 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"You certainly have a lot to say, and wouldn't it be so much better if nobody doubted the validity If it?" I leave it to people to choose if they want to read what I have written or not, and make their own judgments about whether what I write is valid or not. As to reliability, I try to provide the sources for what I write in such a way as to make it possible for anyone interested to check for themselves if it is reliable or not. --Thebee 00:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Great! Then you will address my request ABOVE to supply a source or link to the page where you appear to be quoting DianaW about black magic and lefthandedness. You've provided us with the date and her name, and a few snippets of what she supposedly wrote. How about linking to the page where you found it - so we can verify the source ourselves. Thanks! Pete K 01:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have trouble copying links or I'd supply it. See the critics archives at waldorfcritics.org. It's organized by year and can be found in part 2 of the March 2002 archive. Sune quotes me in such a way as to make it appear I believe the opposite of what I believe. I do not believe that use of the left hand is associated with black magic. I don't believe in things like "left-handed magic" at all. The post I wrote summarized a post written elsewhere by Tarjei Straume, an anthroposophist, in which Tarjei expounds on things like "left-handed magic" which is allegedly black magic, while "right-handed magic" is white magic. I don't hold that such practices, whether "black" or "white," create real effects at all; I'm not a believer in "magic." I'd never try to smear someone by saying they're involved in "black magic." To me, such things are silly - not evidence of evildoing. The post I wrote on critics points out that the prejudice against left handers in Waldorf may stem from this sort of superstition. Sune quotes me out of context to suggest that I associate black magic with Waldorf. Hope that clarifies, and gives a good insight into Sune's smear tactics.DianaW 02:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I took a cursory look and couldn't find it. Of course it is up to Sune to provide the link or admit he misunderstood what he read and withdraw his claim. I'll bet he does neither. Pete K 02:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

On "As you like to say, this is a good sample of your writing.". That's not me. You may be referring to a comment by ()G on something you've written.

On "The "forgery" accusation is false, defamatory, and libelous, and you know absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peter Staudenmaier never forged anything." I'm Swedish, not American or English. I use English in a simple way and replaced "forgery" with "spiritual forgery" with regard to what I discuss in my documentation of what P.S. writes about a lecture series by Steiner, after polemical comments about my use of the word "forgery". The historical forgery by P.S. that I describe and discuss in my analysis of it constitutes a false description of a published historical source, putting words in Steiner's mouth, that he did not say. It is in this sense I have used the term "historical forgery". This is probably not very difficult for most to understand. --Thebee 09:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We understand perfectly. You know very well what the word "forgery" means. Outsiders should be aware this has been raging for years; Sune didn't learn yesterday what the word "forgery" means, and he repeated the "historical forgery" accusation just yesterday. Nobody's forged anything, and he knows it.DianaW 10:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I must remark on just how craven the above is, this ludicrous claim that he "uses English in a simple way" and isn't aware of the meaning of the criminal charge he's leveled against someone. He's, um, been told what it means, a few times.DianaW 13:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I have asked the question - if the mediators are going to consider the content of what is being mediated, or the behavior of the participants. It really will be several months worth of work on the part of the mediators to sort this out. When someone who is a compulsive liar (not naming any names here - Sune) continually points to his own websites for verification of his lies, what chance do the moderators have of arriving at the truth behind the content they are examining? There is no "good faith" being demonstrated here, just personal vendetta being waged by a very corrupt religious fanatic. --Pete K 15:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at this: This is really wild stuff. Flip to his "Stories of Peter S." page and note that it opens with the following quote: "Rudolf Steiner 1904 on evil "blond beasts" to come: 'Evil will be openly present in a large number of people as an attitude, a way of thinking, not any more covered up or hidden. The evil ones will praise the evil as something especially valuable. A certain sensual pleasure in this evil, this demony ... can already be seen in many people ... Nietzsche's "blond beast" is for example only an early ghostly picture, pointing to it.'

Yes - this is how he opens discussion of his disputes with Peter Staudenmaier. This is how this person wants to argue history, with sicko threatening sounding pseudoreligious crap about scary sensual evil 'blond beasts'. Expect rational dialogue with this person? I don't think so.DianaW 12:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL!!! Was the point supposed to be that because the evil demons are blond, Steiner must not be antisemitic? That's incredibly... can't type - laughing too hard... um... "intelligent". --Pete K 15:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Appearently the quote at the top of the page of the article on Staudenmaier's writings on Steiner is too subtle for a number of people, including you, requiring some hunch about the use of the term "blond beast" by Nietzsche, known to some, but appearently not all. It is an introducing comment on the allegation by "critics", as exemplified further down in the article in the quote from and discussion of the introduction to the article by P.S., trying to "prove" with a made up untrue story about a well documented and published historical source, that Steiner was a pro-Aryan proto-Nazi, promoting the superiority of "Aryan*", "blond and blue-eyed Nordic heroes", among other things during a lecture tour in Norway in 1910.

What Steiner mentions in the quote from 1904 at the top of the page on the article on him is that the "blond beasts", described by Nietzsche in his On the Genealogy of Morals (1887), and described as "the conqueror and master race, the Aryan" was something Steiner foresaw as something that actually would come in the future (from the perespective of 1904), and that these "blond beasts" openly would present evil "as an attitude, a way of thinking, not any more covered up or hidden" and praising "the evil as something especially valuable", with Steiner in 1904 describing it as an "evil" and "demony" that he (in 1904) already saw coming "in many people", and describing Nietzsche's "blond beast" from 1887 as "an early ghostly picture, pointing to it".

History just a few decades after Steiner's comment, with the Nazis and the Holocaust, provided one example of what Steiner pointed to 30 years earlier.

The bottom line of the lecture series from 1910, (a historical source, about which P.S. gives a false description, making it into a false description of a historical document, and in this sense constituting a "historical forgery") is that Steiner in it described that he foresaw that an increasing number of people from the middle of the 20th century and onwards would have a similar experience of Christ as Saul had at Damascus.

Steiner's view of the nature of evil "blond beasts" to come, and the culminating core of the lecture series, to some probably could indicate that the by P.S. given "description" of the lecture series is not, well, actually that true .... The article on P.S.' article tells and demonstrates that they are right. --Thebee 14:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh. And we're supposed to connect the blond beast prophecy with Peter Staudenmaier, yes? Do you suppose he's blond? I don't think this is exactly "subtle." You put up an "analysis" on your web site purporting to show what a rotten individual you think Peter Staudenmaier is, and you introduce your topic with Steiner's predictions of "evil blond beasts." It won't be easy for most people to get past the self-evident nuttiness of this stuff.DianaW 15:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You write: "Uh-huh. And we're supposed to connect the blond beast prophecy with Peter Staudenmaier, yes?".

No, not with him as a person. With his argumentation.

The title of the page is "On the stories by Peter Staudenmaier". Appearently even my spelled out explanation above was too difficult to understand. It seems I have to write this on the nose of some reading the page. "NOTE! I have put the comment by Steiner above as a comment by this author (S.N.), not on Peter Staudenmaier, but on what he writes, that is the main issue of this page, discussing what he writes ..." --Thebee 16:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Holy tamale, you've blown my mind, you've actually admitted the connection. I admit I wasn't expecting that!DianaW 19:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't "discussing" what he writes require a "discussion"? You are not discussing this with anyone else (and I say this not knowing exactly how many people are actually in your head) - you are *stating* what YOU BELIEVE. I think everyone here gets that this is all just your opinion - except, perhaps, YOU. Regarding your commentary being "difficult to understand" - maybe you should try a little harder to make it intelligible... just in case anyone is actually trying to read it, which I seriously doubt. --Pete K 16:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is, of course, all predicated on the FACT that Rudolf Steiner could SEE the future. This is an encyclopedia, Sune, not the Cronicles of Narnia. (Still laughing too hard to participate here). --Pete K 15:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is not an article on Wikipedia. It is a page discussing among other things the credibility of people, (in this case earlier) mentioned in a note in an article. Diana introduced him in this discussion, not me. I've just answered her. --Thebee 16:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's why your opinions about the credibility of people are not allowed in Wikipedia articles... basically, because you don't have any credibility of your own. --Pete K 16:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is some more. I think administrators and all interested parties should be clear on the tactics of Sune Nordwall. Following the freaky 'blond beast' intro to describing his disputes with Peter Staudenmaier, Sune launches in as follows: "The main criticism in English on the Internet for an alleged anti-Semitism and racism in anthroposophy can be found in a number of articles by a Peter Staudenmaier. They are published by the small anti-waldorf fringe group "PLANS Inc" in San Francisco at its site and at other places on the Internet. While not as extensive in its demagoguery, the group has a similar relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy as its main philosophical basis as the anti-Semitic hate site Jewwatch.com in relation to Jewry and Judaism." Now, Sune, in addition to the quote that's three sentences I've quoted, so can I now expect you to sue me for copyright violation? anyway, this is pure defamation, clearly actionable in court if the individuals being defamed were so inclined. PLANS is not the "publisher" of Peter Staudenmaier anyway. (All the articles by Staudenmaier that are on the PLANS site are published in scholarly journals or other periodicals; Staudenmaier is a PhD candidate at Cornell.) The attempt is a round-and-round smear technique: Imply that Staudenmaier is only published by some weird little web site. Suggest that the web site is the work of a hate group like like "Jewwatch." A defamatory statement against PLANS as well as Peter Staudenmaier, a shocking accusation that he's never made the slightest attempt to back up. He's been forced to remove it from wikipedia articles, so I'm making it available here to be sure people understand this person's modus operandi. A very cynical, deeply disturbing approach: Steiner's own writings contain antisemitism: so turn the tables and accuse his *critics* of being "like Jewwatch."DianaW 13:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, thanks for the memories, Diana. And this is why Sune believes these to be "personal attacks" on him - exposing him as dishonest would be a personal attack IF HE WASN'T DISHONEST. So, now the question is - If we enter into a mediation process with a dishonest person, are the mediators going to go to the trouble of verifying everything that is claimed? Or are they going to judge the dishonest accounts with the honest ones? I assume they are going to want to "settle" things fairly, but for those of us who know how dishonest some of these claims are, how do we stand our ground without seeming stubborn? It would be great if someone familiar with the mediation process could answer this. Do mediators care about the integrity and verifiability of the information presented, or just the behavior of the participants? --Pete K 00:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Diana adds: Let's just parse the above analysis. You are claiming with a straight face that the fact that your self-published "analysis" of Hansson's 1991 article was completely and totally ignored by everybody, and the article reprinted in 2003 without any regard for your opinions of it, discredits Hansson. It discredits you, Sune. I'm sorry if this sounds aggressive, but it discredits *you*. This is preposterous, perverse reversed logic. You honestly seem to believe that the fact that they carried on without you makes them less credible, and even discredits stuff the guy wrote later. Not in the real world, Sune.DianaW 03:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It indicates nothing of the sort. He is a very good source for wikipedia. You've said nothing that would contravene this.DianaW 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It says "This [Steiner's comments on race] is an important part of his writings on the progress and development of humanity." This is not correct.

That's a matter of opinion. You're well aware many critics of anthroposophy consider his racial views significant. Hansson isn't the only one, is he?DianaW 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Only appr. five of the published 3,000 lectures by Steiner have race as it was understood during his time as their main there,

That's a naive and ahistorical understanding of anyone's racial theory, as has been pointed out to you before. No one counts up the number of lectures or remarks a person made that might have been racist and tries to claim that other things the person said that *weren't* racist outweighs them - only an apologist for a racist would do that. Even racists make lots of nonracist remarks in their lifetime, too. The racist material remains to be dealt with, after the apologies and excuses have been made.DianaW 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana adds later: As someone else has pointed out, this "Only 1% of Steiner's works are racist" argument is like if you say, "Ted Bundy was a serial killer," and someone replies, "Yes, but there were lots of people Ted Bundy *didn't* kill."DianaW 15:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

and the in total 245 comments on the issue represent probably less than 1% of his total works.

Even the administrators have pointed out to you that you are embarrasssing yourself and doing no credit to anthroposophy by trying to come up with what percentage of his theory was racist, and then claim it is too small a percentage to be concerned with. That's laughable. You'd do anthroposophy far greater credit by trying to deal with reality.22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If the issue had been important to him, he reasonably would have dedicated more of his works to it.

We aren't here to assess "how important" his racial views were to him. Consider that the issue is important to *other people*? We can only deal with what he wrote, and its continuing repercussions.DianaW 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The article, according to the description of it at the Wiki page also says: "Steiner, [...] did not believe in biological Evolution" This is untrue. Steiner praised Haeckel (one of the earliest writers on biological evolution) and spoke of the importance of the principle of biological evolution frequently. (See for example Steiner: GA262, p. 49)

Well, this is an issue that I don't recall being disputed in the mediation request, but the same considerations would apply as apply to the racial material. What would need to be dealt with then is the many contradictions in what Steiner wrote. His own theories completely contradict evolution. His far-fetched cosmology and the Darwinin account of evolution cannot both be true. I have in front of me a Steiner volume on which the back-cover blurb asserts that Steiner's views represent an "alternative" to Darwinian evolution. That, at least, is honest.DianaW 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana adds later: I shouldn't have replied to the above, however; this page is not for discussing Steiner's views on evolution. The above was just part of Sune's preposterous claim that because he doesn't think Hansson understands Steiner as well as he does, Hansson isn't a good source. The misunderstandings about Steiner's views on evolution are not at issue. Tthey would make a very useful addition to the article, though, as I increasingly think parents considering Waldorf need to understand that these schools are unlikely to teach evolution properly, since Steiner didn't believe in it.DianaW 03:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The article, also according to the description of it in the Wiki article, writes: Stiner's "spiritual science showed that 'historically, the racial characteristics came from where people were born'." This refers to Cenozoic time, today dated as starting appr. 65 Million years ago, that in Steiner's view corresponds to what in the esoteric tradition is called "Atlantean" time.

Don't bother trying to baffle people with this stuff. Your timelines aren't going to impress anyone. This angle is also embarrassing: all this stuff was a long, long time ago? (Except that with reincarnation, the same people reincarnate repeatedly over the course of the millennia anyway.)DianaW 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

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

I totally understand this. It is racist to say that racial characteristics *ever* determined people, whether it is today or last year or several eons ago - especially when karma and reincarnation mean that we are all reincarnating over and over, and if your race *used* to determine you then it clearly *still* determines you. Why don't you take your own belief system seriously? And when Steiner says race will fade away eventually, he meant thousands or even (according to some translators) millions of years from now. Not like, next year.DianaW 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And just to mention one more thing: According to the Wikipedia article "Elsewhere, he stated that 'the most mature characteristics are found in the European area. It is simply (a natural) law.'" This is an untrue description of the source. What the source refers as a 'natural law' is not the "characteristics of people found in the European area", but the global pattern of the distribution of people, when the differentiation into the 'five main varieties' of humanity took place with regard to bodily characteristics of man in Steiner's view far in the past. The source also shows that what seemingly is described in the present tense repeatedly refers not to the present, but to the time far in the past, when what he describes took place in his view.

Yes, see above.DianaW 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

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

It the description of the Dutch report describes its background, the affiliation of the Commisison members, and the (Dutch) criteria it used to find anthroposophy not to be racist, it in full meets Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources.

Repeating this will not make it so. Review the discussion regarding appropriate academic sources.DianaW 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As documented about, this is not the case with the Hansson report. --Thebee 21:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

See above. Your arguments are not credible.DianaW 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sune, you will NEVER understand this, apparently. What's the point of mediating this issue when you, in all likelyhood, won't abide by the decision if it doesn't go your way? AND, chances are, you will continue this silly argument with ridiculous links to your own personal, original research website - thinking everyone just needs to be informed (to death) until they can agree with your POV. It's a waste of everyone's time. The sources are either acceptable or not. None of your sources are. --Pete K 22:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated - Worksheet

I think the issues to be mediated are a stumbling block to the process. Maybe we should iron those out here. I've added my comments. Please, if you are going to add comments, indent them and sign them - and add to the end of each set of comments:

*Exclusion of works by members of the Anthroposophical Society as sources on anthroposophy; in particular a report by a Dutch commission on Steiner's comments about race. (This is at issue in two articles)

At issue here is whether a hand-picked commission of Steiner's own followers excusing Steiner of racist speech is anything more than predictable - and whether the addition of this information and the information and articles that point out the absurdity of this committee is a reasonable use of space in an article where adequate space for Steiner's own views is limited. Chances are, the Steiner support group who insists they would like to include this article will want to retract it in the full light of who the members of this commission were and on what they based their conclusions. The Steiner support group wanting to produce this commission's findings only want to do so if they can disguise the affiliations of the commission (and their associated biased POV) and if they are forced to reveal them, want to extend this policy to those with critical viewpoints in order to cast doubt on their neutrality (see below). --Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this same tactic was tried regarding the accusations that PLANS, an organization critical of Waldorf, is actually a "hate group." Once they were persuaded that the fact that their source was *anthroposophical* needed to be made transparent to readers of the article, they were no longer interested in including it. This is pretty good evidence of lack of good faith. When you're forced to make your source transparent, and right then you suddenly announce that it's not a useful source to you anyway, this is good evidence that the exercise was dishonest to begin with.DianaW 04:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to exclude Catholic authors writing about Catholicism, authors who are members of the Democratic party writing about the Democratic party, U.S. citizens writing about the United States, or generally people writing about groups of which they are members. It is natural to mention affiliations when they are relevant, as in this case, but not to exclude a valid point of view. (Surely anthroposophists' ideas about what anthroposophy is saying is a valid point of view!) Hgilbert 18:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting Anthroposophists shouldn't WRITE about Steiner. Or that their point of view isn't valid. But that's not what we are talking about here. This is a "Commission" of Anthroposophists supposedly handing down a "verdict" that Steiner's speech was NOT racist. Do we allow Catholics to come here and state "Jesus was Catholic"? If a commission was cited declaring that Jesus was Catholic, wouldn't it be the responsible thing to point out that the commission was the Pope and several Cardinals? --Pete K 19:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(), there is nothing negotiable about this and there is never going to be. A qualified, academic, neutral source is what it is. Of course a Catholic author can write about Catholicism. That is not the point, and you know it. If there were an inquiry into racism in Catholicism, a Catholic apologist claiming there wasn't any racism wouldn't be an unbiased source. They could be cited as weighing in on the question, certainly; but only as a means of demonstrating the *Catholic response to criticism of Catholicism* - not as an unbiased assessor of whether there was any racism in Catholicism. They certainly could not be cited with their credentials concealed in order to dishonestly claim that all allegations of racism in Catholicism had been disproven. An even better analogy would be asking Catholic priests to watch out and make sure there weren't any pedophiles among . . . Catholic priests. See how well that's worked? It's asking the fox to guard the henhouse.DianaW 20:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your point seems to be that a report on Jesus written by a group of rabbis would be inherently objective, whereas any report written by a Christian shouldn't even be mentioned. — goethean ॐ 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish you folks could at least follow the discussion. How in the world can you expect "mediation" to work when you apparently don't have any idea what you've even asked be mediated? Nobody has ever said, ever, ever, ever, ever that "any report written by a Christian shouldn't even be mentioned." I believe I'm about talked out on this topic. This is just endless bullying from people who think wikipedia should provide free advertising for their products, and a free soapbox for their nutty ideas, and anyone who points to their lack of validity must be silenced. *READ* what has actually been stated by Pete K and myself if you'd like to dispute it, goethean. This is ridiculous. Do you have the faintest clue what arguments have been raised, goethean, regarding what makes a neutral academic source?DianaW 20:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

*Consistency of a policy on identifying authors' affiliations (should authors not members of the A.S. be protected from any identification of their background or affiliations).

In this case, the Steiner support group feels they want to spin the report of Professor Hansson by producing his affiliations and background (skeptic/humanist) and to suggest that this background disqualifies him from an unbiased viewpoint. No mediation required - only an understanding by them about what constitutes bias. --Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should organizational affiliations not be mentioned if these are relevant to the viewpoint presented? Hgilbert 18:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The "if these are relevant to the viewpoint presented" part is what you're not getting. --Pete K 19:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

*Extent and number of quotations by Rudolf Steiner on race/ethnicity related topics in the main article Rudolf Steiner when an entire sub-article Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity is devoted solely to this question, and provides room for all such quotations.

I don't believe there is any limit on this sort of thing. Additionally, the fact that the sub-article is also being contested here, is evidence that the quotations are not making it onto that article. The ones that are, are not welcomed. This does not require mediation - it requires that some editors stop pushing their POV and allow valid, fully-cited quotes from Steiner to appear on these articles.--Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

One glance at the length of and number of quotes in the relevant section in the main article, and the number of quotes already entered into the sub-article (and their presence there is uncontested, Pete, this is misleading), will illustrate the problem here.

First of all, it is not Wikipedia's policy on quotes to simply pile them up in the body of the article (I refer to the main Rudolf Steiner article here.

Second of all, the section on Steiner's views on racism is complex and should be treated fully; this is being attempted in the already very long sub-article.18:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, whoever wrote this, the piling of quotes is because any word by me that isn't a direct quote from Steiner, you guys have called "editorializing". You guys wrote the article - and yet if a single word from me enters this holy space, you find that as a reason to delete it. So the best I can do is to add "He also said:" and then add a quote directly from Steiner. If you guys didn't try to whitewash everything "negative" about Steiner, the article wouldn't read like such a fantasy. The junkyard dogs are also watching over the Steiner's views on racism sub-article - making sure his ACTUAL words aren't permitted there either. I have had to fight tooth-and-nail to have a few quotes put in. It is, for the most part, Steiner supporters spinning Steiner's own views. All one needs in order to get what Steiner's views were are a balanced set of actual quotes FROM STEINER. Saying stuff like "Steiner felt" doesn't make sense - nobody can describe what Steiner felt better than Steiner. We have 40 books and 6000 lectures of his own words. There's plenty to pick from. --Pete K 19:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Devotees of Rudolf Steiner are NEVER going to write an article that treats Steiner's racial views in an unbiased fashion. It is simply impossible. I for one don't care to play games and get chided over whether I'm "in good faith" etc. These people will drag their critics through the mud in a heartbeat if they think it will help their cause. There is no good faith. I don't care to contribute to an article where every racist quote has to be "balanced" with "But he also said such nice things. Look, here's more nice things he said!" You can't negotiate with fanatics. Steiner's views are always going to be "complex" to these folks and that's all they'll ever admit. My goal is that they not be allowed free advertising and a free soapbox on wikipedia without vigorous resistance duly noted.DianaW 20:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, "Steiner felt." Who cares what Steiner felt? We've heard everything. We've heard that the racial theories "weren't important" to Steiner. (So why did he expound them?) We've heard they were a joke. We've heard (Sune Nordwall) that once, a stenographer was hiding behind the curtain, and Steiner didn't know he was on record. We've heard the comments are mistranslated, the transcription was bad, the stenographer's pen slipped, every excuse known to man has been presented for Steiner's unfortunate racist remarks. "Negotiating" with these people, "Well if you can have one racist quote we can have one non-racist quote" is absurd.

Certainly the anthroposophist camp here is biased, but just as certainly they are not the only ones. I really wonder why a couple of ardent editors think it is so important to hang the label "racist" on Steiner. If such a label is appropriate it would at least have to come with a discussion not only of what this label signifies, but also of what "race" signifies within an anthroposophical worldview. It is ridiculous to claim that anthroposophists cannot take part in such discussions, or that opinions from anthroposophists are irrelevant for the subject. --Vindheim 20:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Vindheim wrote: "I really wonder why a couple of ardent editors think it is so important to hang the label "racist" on Steiner." Because of the racist things Steiner said.70.20.231.150 20:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC) that's DianaDianaW 20:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"It is ridiculous to claim that anthroposophists cannot take part in such discussions, or that opinions from anthroposophists are irrelevant for the subject." Not irrelevant - just biased. Absolutely both sides should be heard on such discussions. As to why this discussion is important today... That has to do with Steiner's Anthroposophical induction centers, Waldorf schools. At issue here is that Steiner's views are racist, and those same racist views are TODAY being taught to new Waldorf teachers - and passed on to Waldorf students. Preposterous, you say? Not at all. It happens today in Waldorf schools, in the way Waldorf teachers treat children of various races as stereotypes, whether they deal with them intellectually or emotionally, what they expect of them, etc. These are very subtle things that are directly rooted in Steiner's views. That's why they are important in these discussions. I agree that we should be discussing these things fully, and using references from Steiner - and not being told by Anthroposophists what Steiner thought with a passage that is supported by two snippets of quotes that came 10 years apart. --Pete K 20:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

*Use of links to pages including original research, or use of such pages as sources.

There's a NOR policy in place. This does not require mediation.--Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

**Use of links to pages not including original research (transcripts or articles) residing on websites that do include original research

This, again, does not require mediation. It is simply not allowed - and it has been agreed already by the participants here that warehousing of information on original research sites is inappropriate.--Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

*Inclusion of editorial commentary on sourced material ("This conclusion is not surprising given the author's obvious bias...", etc.)

The above is somebody's misunderstanding. Nobody is interested in including editorial commentary. Indeed, some of us would like to see far less editorializing on these articles. No mediation required here.--Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The line above ("This conclusion...") was a direct quote of text you, Pete, inserted into an article. Mediation is required because certain people are inserting texts like this... Hgilbert 01:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This popped up on my watch-list. I don't know why you feel compelled to comment a month later on the talk page of a mediation request that was rejected, but once again, you are wrong in what you say above. It has been pointed out to you several times that the article that was being referenced was the source of editorial commentary just like what you have quoted me as saying - above. I guess you figured enough time has gone by that nobody else will remember that fact. If you were really interested in mediation, you wouldn't have produced such a problematic mediation request - and you would have engaged in the six days of discussions that attempted to get the mediation request adjusted so we could proceed. At this point in time, it's a little late to be crossing T's and dotting I's. Pete K 03:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

*Appropriateness of biographical information in the article about Rudolf Steiner (this is contested)

Again, this is someone's misunderstanding. Steiner's biography, however, needs some serious editing. Nobody is suggesting it's inappropriate to have Steiner's biographical information on this article (the Steiner article). But editing is what editors do - and some editors here don't like other editors tampering with what they perceive to be biographical "information" much of which is not informative in the least. Again, no mediation required for this. It's part of the editing process.--Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

*Objectivity of information in and tone of Waldorf education article

The Waldorf article doesn't belong on this list at all. It is unlocked, no edit wars are occurring, and there is a team of experts working on producing a NPOV article. If it requires mediation in the future, we should look at it then. No mediation required at this time.--Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

*Tone of comments on talk pages, including the question of whether Wikipedia policies such as the assumption of good faith and avoidance of personal attacks are being followed.

This is a ridiculous request. People read whatever tone they like into people's words. That is one of the drawbacks of the internet - you can't articulate tone. Perhaps, if Wikipedia would invest in some smiley faces that we can use in the talk pages, it might help with this issue. This is definitely not a subject that requires moderation.--Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Items to be ADDED to the Mediation Request

I'd like to add a couple items while I'm at it:

*Repeated referencing of defamatory original research websites withing the discussion pages.

This is somebody's personal self-promotion. Many of us can do this sort of thing, but we all seem to be able to restrain ourselves except for one user, TheBee, who seems uncontrollable in this regard.--Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

*Excessive whining and complaining to administrators

This seems to be a problem with many of the editors here. I'm not sure I understand what they hope to accomplish, perhaps a restraint or banishment of some editors who don't agree with them. Wikipedia benefits from multiple points of view. Many of these same editors have been seen bullying people (often new people) who come here with a simple edit or discussion item. Indeed, a couple tried to bully me when I arrived here - and of course the first thing they start doing is quoting Wikipedia policy. For a newcomer, this is quite intimidating and I'm sure many people leave because of this. Now, these same bullies have been seen fabricating "personal attacks" or "3RR's" or "administrators are choosing sides" or any number of things they have chosen to complain about. And the end result of all this whining and complaining is a mediation request which is one-sided in its topics for mediation.--Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree this business of carefully compiling records of grievances against other people is stupid crybaby stuff. Can't adults talk among ourselves as adults, and not stalk around after each other looking for opportunities to accuse someone of something and whine to authorities.DianaW 04:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

*Mentally Unstable Editors

Yes, sorry, I didn't know this was going to be an issue, but it has come to my attention that one of the editors listed here has devoted an entire page on his talk page to me - and has been compiling a pagefull of complaints. While I understand how frustrating this can be for some editors, I think this shows mental instability and, coupled with his frequent wild accusations and unintelligible rantings, this hate page makes it clear that our mediation team would have to look at this activity very carefully and determine the stability of the person compiling these complaints and a decision should be made if, indeed, he should be allowed to participate here. This kind of thing is extremely creepy and demonstrates the personal vendetta that editor has against me. I think banning this person from Wikipedia would be a wise decision for everyone involved as he seems to be at the bottom of many of the edit wars we seem to be having anyway. --Pete K 04:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing special about the page you complain about. After you had made a number of personal attacks on me, I got tired of them and just set up a page starting to document them, without any special comment on them, beyond registering them, just for the record. That's all. As I was used to them coming from you, I did not complain about them at first. When I did, you got a warning. After that, I haven't kept a record of them, though you have continued to make a number of further personal attacks. On the issue of mental stability: If the page had been left, any reader of it would have been able to judge for themselves where maybe a problem with mental stability lies. And, by the way, the above comment by you constitutes yet another personal attack. Wikipedia does not approve of personal attacks. --Thebee 07:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, your method of putting the blame on the victim of your repeated personal attacks for starting to keep a list of them when they got excessive is interesting. --Thebee 07:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we also usually blame the "victim" who claims Martians are speaking to him through his ipod. When that "victim" starts to make a list of all the dates and times the Martians have spoken to him, and what he thinks they said, it's really hard to blame the Martians.--Pete K 20:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a page on me too? If you do, please remove it, or I will ask an admin to. I don't think it's appropriate to keep files on other people, at least not in a public location like wikipedia. If somebody is causing you a real personal problem, please take it to admin, and don't start your own vendettas. What you keep on your own computer I can't complain about, but please get it off wikipedia.DianaW 12:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, besides being incredibly creepy, this is incredibly anal. Who do you think you are this time, the FBI? This is not "nothing special" it is VERY special. Other people here don't keep lists like this. I could fill a couple of pages with links to warnings from () that I've committed one Wiki-sin or another. That's called intimidation. I could fill another page with links to your incoherent blatherings, and still another with links to your attempts to promote your own websites. And I could make (and will make) a strong case for you guys working as a team to undermine Wikipedia policy, revert edits endlessly and game the system. What you are doing is creepy, and as I said elsewhere, is much like plastering my picture all over your gym locker creepy. It's sick vendetta stuff that only a person as wrapped up in his righteousness and hatred for me as a person - as you are - wouldn't see for what it is. Get some professional help - please. --Pete K 14:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, apparently, I'm wrong about "other people here don't keep lists like this." It turns out HGilbert is also keeping a list like this - so now we apparently have two Wiki-stalkers, not just one. In HGilbert's case, however, it appears an administrator looked through the first dozen entries and got bored with the fact that they all represented false claims. Is there anyone from the Steiner/Waldorf side of this issue willing to behave like an adult and address these issues honestly? Just curious... --Pete K 18:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be unaware that Wikipedia complaint procedures actually require the compilation of such lists of occasions when users have violated Wikipedia policies. I'm sorry you feel intimidated when people mention that they believe you are violating guidelines and policies; how do you suggest this problem be approached then? Hgilbert 18:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you wanted to consider how to deal with "this problem", you could start by following the recommendations at the top of each of the pages that are locked - and actually DISCUSS edits before deleting or reverting them. This is what you guys haven't done and what has led to many of the grievances you guys have with me. I have tried to bring each edit onto the discussion page and YOU guys refuse to discuss it - you just want to restore the page to your POV. You don't like that I am here and would like to see me removed from Wikipedia. And so you are compiling lists of your impressions that you believe constitutes "this problem".

Looking at your own list or grievances, where administrator Golden Wattle has reviewed your complaints, your list was, for the most part, bogus. In fact, it appears he became frustrated with your diffs and stoped the review after the first dozen which he marked with the notation that they DO NOT violate Wikipedia policy. So, it's very likely that most if not ALL of them are bogus and part of your campaign to cause trouble for me. They are the kind of heavy-handed bullying and whining I'm accustomed to from you guys on other lists, so it doesn't really surprise me. But the "problem" here is that there is NO problem - only a fantasy by you guys that you have been insulted and are shocked and that some wikipedia policy has been broken. Here's the policy and please read the following carefully: If you find yourself using this remedy frequently, you should reconsider your definition of "personal attack." The administrator who reviewed your nonsense didn't find merit in it. So to deal with "this problem" the best thing to do would be to grow a little thicker skin, or go play somewhere else. I don't think it's really that you believe these to be "personal attacks" - but rather you hope you can convince some administrator that they are, so that you can have me bounced from Wikipedia. That's what this is about. Do you remember why I showed up here at Wikipedia in the first place ()? Something about not having custody of my own kids? - I'm here because of a personal attack by YOU before I was on this list. So don't EVEN get me started here. Calling your arguments "nonsense" does not constitute a personal attack. Read the guidelines and do some self-evaluation before submitting this ridiculous list. --Pete K 19:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has added these:

• Whether allegations of defamation by Wikipedia editors should invalidate a given external source
• Whether external sources can contain what Wikipedia policy calls 'original research'

These are non-negotiable. Agreements have already been made by the editors here regarding the particular websites that are being referred to here. Suggesting now that the inclusion of these websites has to be mediated when they have already been agreed to and the websites excluded for more than a month now (for good reason) is abusing the mediation process. It's PORK being added to this request. IOW, they're dealbreakers that are not on the table. Whether or not Wikipedia policy permits linking to such websites (I'm pretty sure it doesn't) - is not a mediation issue it's a Wikipedia policy issue that can't be resolved by mediation. Pete K 00:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Another Example of the BIASED Wording in this Mediation Request

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy

Which reads:

Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity - Should multiple points of view be included, in particular that of a Dutch commission that viewed Steiner's work positively? See Talk:Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity#RfC. 00:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Should multiple points of view be included, in particular that of a Dutch commission that viewed Steiner's work positively? WTF is this person talking about? Did the person who wrote this really misunderstand the issue so completely after multiple pages of discussion, or is the person who wrote this RfC intentionally being dishonest in representing the issue? --Pete K 04:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The above. It's phrased intentionally dishonestly. Yes, we've talked ourselves blue in the face. I won't agree to "mediate" whether it's okay to "include a work which views Steiner's work positively," or whether we want "multiple points of view" in the article, as that has never been under dispute .DianaW 10:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

getting so bored with this

i think contributing to steiner related pages is getting to hard work for me. everything seems deeply entrenched, people on both sides seem to know each other from other internet sites. discussions are highly emotional, almost hysterical and to long. i don't want to read all this.all arguments have already been brought forward and are just getting repeated, spiced with the occasional insult. readability does not seem to be an issue for some editors, neither in discussion nor in the article. i find the article rs views on races completely unreadable, which means that neither party gets their point across and the article is just useless. discussion seem pointless because no party will convince the other of their point of view. with that in mind everybody should ask themselves what they want to accomplish. if the two sides will not find a way to include both views without making the article endless and incomprehensible these articles are just going to get worse and worse. i guess i will check this out in a year or so and see if you guys are still at it.trueblood 18:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Trueblood. I'm not quite sure you were subpoenaed here in the first place. I appreciate your efforts. --Pete K 20:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think trueblood is quite right that the views are deeply entrenched. The chances of any decent wikipedia articles coming out of this process are slim. What I want to accomplish at wikipedia is to ensure that these folks cannot use this site (the 14th largest web site in existence) as free advertising for Waldorf education, a free pulpit to proselytize from (anthroposophy, threefolding, etc.) without criticism being voiced and dissenting views of these doctrines given equal time. Every time Rudolf Steiner's views and accomplishments are misrepresented in order to draw in new customers for their projects and new recruits to their cause, the listening audience deserves to hear alternative views of this subject.DianaW 20:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are overestimating wikipedia's impact on the anthroposophical movement. your comment still shows to me, that you consider 'the other side' not just as people with a different point of view but as almost 'enemies' and yourself as being on a mission.that is part of the problem. they are not going to go away, you are not going away, so what are you going to do? i haven't payed attention to your editing but pete k., your editing is very confrontational. it almost seems to me you need somebody to go against. maybe this mediation could be a way of getting an outside opinion. somebody who could look at this conflict and tell you how he/she thinks how could change your editing so you can accomplish something with people with points of view contrary to yours. that in my mind is what is wikipedia is all about. of course i would argue somewhat different on a discussion page about say holocaust denial. so it's a slippery slope. anthroposophists are trying to write related articles in a positive light. big deal. any kind of group, club, cult,... will do that. of course criticism should be included, but why being so emotional about it? again why not take this mediation as a chance to get in somebody neutral and instead of trying to draw them to your side have them look at your stuff and see what they say.trueblood 13:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The critics tend to be people with long experience in these schools. You're picking up correctly that the disputes have a very long history. PeteK is a 15-year Waldorf parent. Neutral people aren't likely to have a clue what we're talking about, and to take the smooth Waldorf/anthro sales pitches at face value. We understand that to people unfamiliar with any of the issues (or the histories of things like criminal accusations, rumors that we're people who've lost custody of our children, that we accuse anthroposophists of "black magic" - we don't), we are always in danger of coming across "hysterical" etc. for even continuing to bother with the whole mess. Why not move on? Yeah, we know, we look "anti" or "negative." They don't look hysterical, overemotional, "on a mission", etc. for putting 20+ articles on Steiner/anthroposophy etc. in wikipedia, do they? There are 1000 schools world wide, and you bet they're on a mission. But we look hysterical for disputing with them. Just a reality.DianaW 13:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My eldest son went to a steiner (waldorf) school from age 7 up to age 19. As a non-antroposphist I was looking out for any signs of preaching. None came to my attention. --Vindheim 14:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly why the work of critics is so important. Many, many people don't see the "signs of preaching" - because there is no preaching going on. If you are expecting "preaching", of course you will think none of that has taken place. The influences of Anthropsophy are much more subtle - and that is exactly how they are intended. Steiner went to great lengths to lay down for teachers exactly how this process was to take place. Read Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner - it has been washed down over the years and the name changed from the more potent Conferences with Waldorf Teachers, but it still has enough that the reader can glean what is really being attempted. It is required reading for Waldorf teachers. Not intending to give you homework assignments, BTW, but because people discard criticism simply because they haven't *seen* what the critics have seen, critics have to work harder to make their points. --Pete K 16:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously a real fanatic about this. If I see no evidence of wrogndoing, it is - in you opinion - just because I havent looked hard enough. Think about what you are actually saying here. --Vindheim 17:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, you're right - I've been criticizing Waldorf for years now and I've never really stopped to think about what I am saying <adding that this was sarcasm>. Maybe you have misinterpreted what I said. It's not that you haven't looked hard enough - it's that, perhaps, you don't know what to look for. This is something I think I can help you with - but first your mind has to be open to the possibility. Pete K 19:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood, I think you are overestimating the impact Wikipedia's mediation will have on Waldorf supporters. If they lose this mediation, which I am quite sure they will, they will just recruit others from their ranks to come here and do the exact same things. It is an endless edit-war and this mediation process is just a small, soon-to-be-forgotten battle in that edit-war. Sorry to talk like this, but it is the truth. That's why the Sune's of the Anthroposophical movement have an arsenal of pages where their arguments and discussion have already been prepared. For them, it is not about having an honest article, it is about PROMOTION of their cause. Why else would they seek to mediate their right to disguise the bias of sources? An honest article doesn't serve THEIR purpose. As you implied, it's the work of cult-mentality people. And even if we arrive at an honest article at some point, they will continue to slip in dishonest material - forever, and these articles will need to be watched - forever. This will never end... ever. If Wikipedia had any sense, they would lock up or delete the articles for good. But they can't. I've only been involved in these edit wars for a couple of months now. Whether or not we mediate this process today, I guarantee the edit wars will continue to be waged two years from now. Mediation is pointless. --Pete K 14:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

good pete, i take that as a mission statement. the fact that you are talking about LOSING the mediation is very TELLING. please don't SHOUT at me. i can read. oh and btw i think a honest article is going to serve THEIR purposes perfectly, because it comes across differently to the reader. the readers can think too you know, and an obviously biased article would make me try to find information elsewhere. nowhere did i imply a cult mentality. i do think that about some anthroposophists, nevertheless you are putting words into my mouth.

diana, surely i think that thebee is on a mission too, probably hysterical and overemotional too. i consider myself as relativly neutral on this issue. i am really not an anthroposophist. i would probably not send my kids to a waldorf school. but trust me i have seen i good deal of steiner schools, bd farms and camphills, have seen things i found weird, don't like etc, but still don't come to the same conclusions as you guys. when i talked about getting an outside opinion i thought it might by helpful to have somebody who has no clue look at this and tell you and the other side how you can change your editing style, so you can get to the point that you can work out a compromise. just read pete K last entry. to me and i bet to a lot of people it shows that he is in the wrong place here. it is contrary to what wikipedia is about trueblood 15:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for putting words in your mouth. Here's what you actually said "anthroposophists are trying to write related articles in a positive light. big deal. any kind of group, club, cult,... will do that." Mission statement? Naw, just a good reality check based on a decade of experience with some of these people. I'm sorry but I didn't get the memo that we're supposed to check our past experiences at the door. Assume good faith, in this case, is to assume the same dog that bit you every day for ten years won't bite you today. You're asking me to hold out my hand. Not going to happen - sorry. My attitude is not what this tribunal should be discussing - my contributions are what it should be discussing. If I have attempted to discuss these issues, however heatedly, on the discussion pages and if others have simply reverted edits endlessly without discussion, I think that demonstrates that *they* (do you like asterisks better?) are the ones who have undermined this process. There is nothing wrong with describing these edit *wars* in terms of win or lose - they are *wars* - and both *sides* are fighting them. Pretending it means something other than that to some if not all of the participants who have been engaging in the edit *wars* is not something I am foolish enough to do. --Pete K 16:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

i actually think that your 15 years of experience with your kid's waldorf school (why do i even know this) does not qualify here at wikipedia. it seems to me that you are dragging your personal issues into this place. if people don't come to the same conclusions as you do that does not mean they have no clue or no experience with anthroposophy. if someone would edit the article on catholicism based on his experiences at his local church or going to a catholic school i would not be convinced.trueblood 17:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood said: "i actually think that your 15 years of experience with your kid's waldorf school (why do i even know this) does not qualify here at wikipedia." Of course it does, but that's not the point. The point was neutral academic sources. Pete's not trying to get himself quoted in these articles. Sune is. You asked what critics were so emotional about, and I told you. Remember: The person trying to get *himself* quoted as a neutral source is Sune. Not Pete, and not Diana. Diana and Pete are fun to take shots at but Diana and Pete don't have web sites that we are trying desperately to get inserted in the article. Try to focus on this!

Do you, trueblood, or anyone, have any further comments on this or the other *issues* raised for mediation? These are just cheap shots at Diana and Pete now. Sune isn't going to press his phoney "black magic" thing any further. We are not here to discuss why Diana and Pete are "emotional." I have written literally hundreds of words on the *issues under mediation* and I don't see even one comment on them from trueblood or vindheim, all I'm hearing is that I'm emotional, and desperately stupid, phoney accusations from Sune. What about the issues y'all supposedly wanted mediated?DianaW 18:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not editing any articles based on my experience at Waldorf (what an odd thing to say). I have brought up the subject of my "experience" with the people who are debating these issues here - sure. I'm explaining that my experience justifies (for me) WHY I am here. My edits, just like everyone elses, must be cited and verified in each and every case. I'm not trying to insert my Waldorf experience into these articles - but my experience tells me when people are writing something truthful, fluffy, or an outright lie. I've been able to point out some of the lies here, BTW, but again, I haven't used my experience of Waldorf to do this, I have used my experience of the people here to know when they are, let's say - stretching the truth. Does my years of experience in these types of discussions allow me to immediately spot when a Dutch Commission that is being referenced is a bogus story if it doesn't include the fact that the commission was all Anthroposophists? Sure. Do I use my experience, a dozen years of reading (and actually understanding) Steiner - to know if somebody has taken a quote out of context (like the people who pretended Steiner was talking about brutality to blacks when they were "forced" into Europe)? Of course. My experiences are not being related in any of these articles - they are, however, responsible for my viewpoint - sure. Are you, or does anyone deny that their personal experiences don't contribute to their own personal viewpoint about anything? Pete K 19:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, vindheim, trueblood: What are your views on the issues raised? Do you know what the discussion about the Dutch Commission's Report is about? Do you think that this report should be cited as a neutral academic source showing that allegations of racism in anthroposophy have been disproven? They were a commission consisting entirely of anthroposophists (every member), and they ended up deciding there was no racism in anthroposophy. (They also simply ignored - chose not to comment at all - on certain material that is clearly racist to others. Even using these limited and self-serving selection procedures, they found a famous "sixteen quotes" that they acknowledged would sound discriminatory today.) Pete K and Diana W are pointing out that this is not a legitimate neutral source. They are foxes in the henhouse. These guys, Sune, () et al., actually tried to pretend they didn't know the authors were anthroposophists. You may have missed that. They have known all of this for years. Then we are beseeched to act "in good faith." The Dutch report is one of the issues under mediation. Another is whether Sune Nordwall's multiple anthroposophical web sites can be cited as neutral sources.

I would ask you to keep this in mind: Pete and Diana do not have web sites, and we do not have pet authors, that we are trying to insert as (bogus) neutral sources in the articles under dispute. Do you understand that? It is Nordwall and friends trying to insert material that others (Fergie for instance) long ago acknowledged were inappropriate sources for wikipedia. They simply aren't legitimate sources for wikipedia - Sune's web sites are self published, the material there is simply his opinion and also full of defamation of individuals. He's falsely accused one historian of "forgery," for instance. He can't point to his self-published web sites and say, "This or that author has been discredited, see here" just because he's got a rant about that person on his own web site. Do you have a point of view on any of this?

There are quite a few other unacceptable elements in all of these articles. See for instance the Steiner discussion page for my repeated requests that they document the claim that Steiner once wrote a series of articles for a magazine that combatted antisemitism. They can't document it; () said a couple of times that he did have the reference, but now has fallen silent on this. So this point gets listed for "mediation" as something like, "Is it ok to cite a source that speaks positively of Steiner" or "Is it okay to cite discussions of Steiner on other web pages." Is anyone who is *really* neutral following what is going on here?DianaW 20:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I see he has given GA page numbers, so we seem to be trying to home in on these articles, if they exist. They're in German, conveniently never translated to English, and there's no way to confirm what they say, or whether they were published in the periodical () claims they were published in. I don't view it as an acceptable reference; and the claim on *somebody else's web site* that they say what () says they say, is exactly they type of thing we've got to be clear doesn't belong in these articles. This is the usual stuff; anthroposophists assuring each other that it's true, of course it's true, that Steiner was a good guy. This sort of thing you can't "mediate." It's a bogus reference; any periodical I've ever edited, it would be deleted on sight. Either you can support the claim, or you can't; you don't say "My friend told me," which is what this amounts to.DianaW 20:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: if those articles unequivocally opposed antisemitism, anthroposophists would have had them translated in a heartbeat. Heck, () could translate them; what a service he'd be doing to anthroposophy.DianaW 20:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

i am actually arguing with you guys because we have something in common. but it is your 'there is no way i could be wrong' attitude that is just lost on me. if feel like it is impossible for you to accept that someone contradicts you. for you he immediately belongs to the anthropop conspiracy, or otherwise does not have a clue of what he is talking about. you don't even realize that you are alienating people (i guess vindheim too) that would have been potentially on your side. i did not at all follow what happend on the waldorf article, but i just checked out the article out did not find it so bad. it has a big criticism section.

btw i think it is in line with wiki guidelines to have references in other languages (i thought you are editing scientific papers). i think steiner talks about his antisemitic efforts in his autobiography but mentions that a jewish aquaintances that understood them wrongly (as steiner put it) as being antisemitic. but that would also mean that steiner at least acted in 'good faith'. i was unhappy with the way that the article put as if steiner was out there together with zola fighting antisemitism. but i have no doubt that he thought he did spoke out against antisemitism.

i know that they knew the commission was consisting of anthroposphists. i was here before you. show me a diff where thebee or hgilbert pretends to not know and i am a little bit more on more side. otherwise if you guys keep at it the way you do, if there was a way to block you guys from editing sooner or later i would support it.trueblood 18:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood said, "it is your 'there is no way i could be wrong' attitude that is just lost on me. if feel like it is impossible for you to accept that someone contradicts you." Trueblood, I am sorry if it comes across wrong. There are plenty of things I can be wrong on, and often I am wrong. Aren't we talking about wikipedia policies and what is a legitimate academic source? I'm sorry if it rubs you the wrong way and alienates people, but I'm not actually wrong on those points. I don't know any nicer, sweeter, friendlier way to put it. There's a saying about you can be right or you can win friends (something like that) - let's face it I am not here to win friends. The points that are basic wikipedia policies cannot be mediated, and I am not going to mediate them.

I'm not arguing, btw, that we can't have a reference in another language. There are so many things wrong with the reference () wants to include I don't know where to start. One of them is that the rest of us have no way of knowing if it says what he says it says, and we're *way* past accepting it on "good faith." And no, I'm not going back through those hellish pages to drag up where they pretended not to know who the authors of the Dutch report were. Frankly, I don't know what else to say to you. This takes hours and hours of everybody's time, and it is not worth mine to go find that whole discussion for you. It's on the Steiner page and the Steiner's racial views page (the discussion pages). I know it's difficult to follow, but it's there. I haven't heard you YET state an opinion on the subjects being mediated. Do you have an *opinion* on whether the Dutch report should be cited? I don't really need to hear any more of your impressions of me as a person, but I would still like to hear your opinions on the subjects we've been asked to have mediated if you care to share them.DianaW 21:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood also wrote: "for you he immediately belongs to the anthropop conspiracy, or otherwise does not have a clue of what he is talking about." Trueblood, we know these people, have known them for years. I have no doubt it comes across like immediately confrontational, it has a history that you're probably not aware of.DianaW 21:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Trueblood. You're right - if this were a popularity contest, instead of an encyclopedia, Diana and I would probably lose this mediation process. Fortunately that is not the case. So, let's put aside the interpretation of "attitude" and just get right to the academic integrity of this encyclopedia. Because really, your personal feelings about any of the editors here doesn't mean squat. What is meaningful in this process is whether there is a legitimate effort on my part and Diana's part to produce good articles - and whether our efforts, and the efforts of others have been systematically blocked by Waldorf/Steiner supporters working together. Wikipedia is replete with vandals and people who have no interest in producing good articles. Diana and I are not such people. Diana is a professional editor. I am a published author. We actually get paid to do this sort of thing - so your personal impression is just that and nothing more.

I'm not going to discuss Steiner's well-documented anti-semitism here because there are only a very few people reading this and that discussion needs to be visible on the discussion pages of the articles - where other editors not involved in this mediation process can participate. I'm glad you don't find the Waldorf article so bad - but others do, and have been saying so for quite some time, long before I arrived here. Looking back in the archives, there are many, many people who have voiced their objection to the whitewashing of Waldorf, Steiner's racism and so forth - and they have been shot down by the same editors who have been safeguarding these articles from any "negativity". So others have complained about what has been going on here. If that means, for you, I have an attitude of "I can't be wrong" - then that is really not my problem. It's not like I'm making statements I can't support. I have absolutely supported everything I have put forth here, and will continue to, whether you personally like it or not. Pete K 19:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana adds: Perusing the discussion pages of various other controversial organizations and groups, particularly religious ones, can give a sense that what is happening here is not unusual. Many groups like anthroposophy quickly realized wikipedia was a gold mine - a huge sort of untapped virgin audience. When you type "Rudolf Steiner" into google, Wikipedia is the FIRST hit. They knew they'd have to set watch dogs out to keep out critical perspectives, of course. They have various strategies. One is putting dozens of articles up. Check out the pages related to Scientology, for instance. I've been trying to count them - there must be 30 articles on Scientology. A separate article for "Scientology beliefs and practices," and "Church of Scientology etc." Then specific articles on specific practices. "Silent birth" gets its own article, "clearing" or whatever it's called. Major personalities in the church get their own article. Opus Dei has done the same sort of thing. Check out "Mortification" or "Criticism of Da Vinci Code." Try Christian Science, or Jehovah's Witnesses. Try reading about Mormon polygamy. Anthroposophists are just as smooth, and are endlessly experienced in promoting themselves. They *expect* to have these fights, it's the price of doing business. (They're quietly cheering when people like trueblood pop in briefly and tell us we are coming across as kind of unpleasant people.) In real life, we're very ordinary people . . . many, many, many people have had the experiences with anthroposophy that the critics report. Many very ordinary people - we really are not nasty people in real life, we are families you would meet in any Waldorf school.

Anyway, if you look at the "talk" pages on any one of these other groups, you will find EXACTLY what you find here. Exactly the same accusations, exactly the same disputes over biased sources, what constitutes NPOV, whether the other side is trying to "hide" or "bury" stuff, whether the web sites of critical groups can be included, how to discredit the people on the other side personally, it's all there - the same tallying up of grievances to report to admins, the same gruesome "mediation" debacles. And exactly the same "Yes but why do you have to be so hostile about it." Check it out.DianaW 21:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And have mediations helped any of those pages? Some of them have certainly gone through a mediation process. Have the mediations stopped the edit wars? Altered the tone of the participants? Sorted out which material can be referenced on personal original research websites? I'd really like an honest answer from one of the administrators here - if mediation hasn't worked on groups like Scientologists, or Mormons, or Opus Dei, why would anyone expect it to work with Anthroposophists? Pete K 07:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible for an outsider to tell - the discussion pages are a train wreck like this one. It's just these hideous feuds and people figuring out ever new ways to game the system. Here for instance is some typical stuff from the (many) pages disputing an article on Mormon polygamy:

"When people arrive at this TALK page, they need to know firsthand that there is a dispute going on. Burying it deeper in the TALK page amounts to an aggressive act of trying to hide it from new arrivals here . . . To continue to advance the "outline" idea on this TALK page here, while knowing that we are still in the process of finding resolution (and that I am conversing with AMAs) is another extremely aggressive act by . . . Your edit summary, "placed back at top where it belongs" is your opinion only . . . XXX decided against mediation again . . . This entire TALK page is not valid, being the result of an unapproved takeover . . . " etc. into the night. Sound familiar?DianaW 10:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Diana. It very well may be some of the editors here took lessons from those pages and learned how to game the system, hide controversial material in sub-pages and sub-articles, intentionally archive meaningful discussion and abuse processes like mediation. It seems that controversial topics elsewhere have been a template for what we have seen of their activities here. No wonder some people here are "getting so bored with this" - it's a repeat of what happenes here whenever fanatical groups want to control the Wikipedia content about their religion. Pete K 14:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just how controversial groups that feel they are being persecuted respond. They're quite used to having to "deal" with ex-members who want to tell a story a bit different from the official version, who have to try not to gag reading the usual reverential descriptions of the leader, etc.DianaW 16:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

there is no article on mormon polygamy, there is one called plural marriage, but no controversy, the one on scientology has a huge criticism section, and i think words like pseudoscientific or cult in the intro... what are you on about, anthroposophy does not have so much in common with any of these. it seem cultlike or hierarchical, but it does not have a central leadership, as does opus dei or scientology, it does not recruit like them. you are just concluding from your private school experiences that the whole thing sucks. point taken thebees very first edit is very telling. but whatever. solong and thank you for the fish.trueblood 18:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. It's the article simply titled "Polygamy." The talk page is mainly about Mormon polygamy. Sorry to mislead you. Obviously, though, this is not the point. The point is - what? I think your statement "You are just concluding . . ." is unjustified - you don't know on what basis I conclude anything, or even what I conclude. What I inferred was common between anthroposophy and Scientology and Opus Dei is that they are all controversial religious groups, anthroposophy simply with a lower public profile. They'd like to keep it that way, while continuing to recruit in their discreet way.DianaW 02:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Trueblood - I agree, you wouldn't be much help in this debate. Pete K 18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana - must you ALWAYS be on top... this is getting so boring <G>... Pete K 03:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

hmm, diana, since you asked and i did not answer, i think the report by the dutch commission is notable but of course it should be mentioned that it consisted of anthroposophists. is there a controversy about that? it used to be in the article. likewise if this staudenmeyer or whatever his name is is an outspoken critic of anthroposophy that should be mentioned too when he is quoted. btw in germany and maybe in holland too anthroposophy actually has a higher public profile than scientology and opus dei (i really dislike this comparison but whatever). at least all through the nineties there was very strong criticism mostly from the left, but later it became a mainstream issue, that was discussed on tv, in magazines and newpapers. i a familiar with most of pete's quote from an anthroposophical magazine called flensburger hefte, that had an issue on steiner and racism, they also had on anthroposophy during the third reich. so say , concentration camp dachau had a biodynamic herbgarden, so what, it's out in the open, no secret.trueblood 12:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Trueblood wrote: "likewise if this staudenmeyer or whatever his name is is an outspoken critic of anthroposophy that should be mentioned too when he is quoted." This sums it right up. It is not necessary to pointlessly and redundantly mention that "By the way, Peter Staudenmaier is a critic" when quoting him. The quotes will be CRITICAL. His viewpoint, his stance, his agenda etc. are right on the table. Nobody's gonna miss it. The anthroposophists here want to cite the Dutch report WITHOUT making the bias and agenda of its authors clear to the reader. () et al. are busily stuffing all this crap right back into the article as we speak. So much for "good faith."DianaW 03:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this has happened in both the Steiner and the Steiner's Views articles. The same group of POV pushers who pretended to be interested in mediation were only interested in getting the articles unlocked so they could continue to force their POV down everyone's throats. This type of dishonesty doesn't seem to bother these people and is, as some of us know, representative of Anthroposophists and Waldorf in general. This type of dishonesty is what critics of Waldorf continue to claim exists - and it is being demonstrated here - right before our eyes. Good job guys!!! Pete K 04:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like NO Mediation

Valid points have been raised here about the nature of the mediation and the validity of the items being mediated. Both Diana and I have indicated we would like to mediate this overall issue but disagree with the individual points on which this mediation is being based. These objections were made on day number 1. Is it the intention of the group here not to even discuss the points that are being contested? It is my hope that if this mediation request falls through, a new mediation request with legitimate points that are actually being contested can be started. Of course we will have to wait another seven days for that one. Wouldn't it be better to address the issues now and get this process moving? Pete K 20:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have only skimmed most of this page because it doesn't sound like it has any bearing on the mediation. It seems like the issues should be discussed in the mediation process, and instead the talk page here looks simply like a continuation of the same arguments that have locked up the articles. If the issues raised such as the need for a halt to personal attacks aren't true, then the mediation should determine that easily enough. Obviously some people think personal attacks are an ongoing issue, and some don't. Some think certain sources are improperly censored. Others don't. That's the point to mediating. If everybody agreed on every issue, there wouldn't be any disagreement to mediate. Professor marginalia 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"I have only skimmed most of this page because it doesn't sound like it has any bearing on the mediation." The actual points that are being mediated don't have any bearing on the mediation? How so? Personally, I don't have the time (or energy) to go through a mediation process that involves a lot of whining and complaining about the personalities here. You, Diana and I had no problem working out one of the PLANS difficulties - without mediation. Did you find the process unreasonable? The participants unreasonable? When we worked on this, we took the actual issues to the discussion page and worked through them. Now there will still be an issue when the PLANS page is unlocked because some people will come back in and try to revert the work we did, stuff their personal websites into the references and so on, but what we accomplished together made for a better article didn't it?

It is incumbent on the participants of these edits to discuss items on controversial pages before inserting or deleting them. It says so right on the top of the pages. I, for example, have a lot of material ready to add to the Anthroposophy article. I have had a notice up on the discussion page for many days now, and nobody has chosen to discuss it with me. As soon as I introduce my material, I suspect it will be removed. This is why we have edit wars. Some people don't want to be bothered with discussing edits like you and Diana and I were able to do on the PLANS page. They want to rip them out and keep the articles as they believe they should be. Sune (TheBee) even tried to get an administrator to lock up the Anthroposophy page so that I couldn't add my intended edits - without even seeing what those edits were. This is, of course, an unreasonable position for him to take, but I'm sure he feels justified in taking it - in his mind. For those of us who are trying to work in a level-headed way, however, discussion of edits is primary to the work we do here. If people would take the time to do this, instead of wasting everyone's time trying to mediate issues they have misunderstood, we could all enjoy our time here much more. Pete K 21:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think this is where editors present their case to the mediators, so I don't understand why the old familiar arguments are being repeatly traded with the familiar adversaries.

The page where we've reached a consensus is still locked. I think it was locked less than one day after I raised issues there. I experienced the same kind of impasse in arguments on the Waldord education. This mediation seems like the only way to cure the edit war problem that seems to result from every edit to certain articles where there's an existing feud between some of the editors.

I also see that you have added issues to mediate. I think that's perfectly fair, but then why aren't you agreeing to the mediation?Professor marginalia 03:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As both Diana and I have said - mediation is not the problem - the points to be mediated are what's holding up the process. There should be a consensus on which items actually should be on this list and which items are just BS. I'm saying several items are BS that don't belong here and there's no point in agreeing to mediating them - or clogging up the process with them. Let's get to the real issues and mediate those. Otherwise, we're just wasting everyone's time. And, off the record, I don't think mediation will slow down the edit wars at all. Pete K 06:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Many of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines have been violated throughout this talk page, including "assume good faith", and "no personal attacks", and "misuse of talk pages". This creates more of the kind of disruptive divisiveness that has resulted in edit wars and locked articles. I think it illustrates why mediation is necessary. Wikipedia requires a collaborative process to the creation of the encyclopedia, and it seems like there is no possibility of getting there in most of these articles listed unless editors are willing to use the tools wikipedia provides to resolve disputes. Professor marginalia 16:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And so what are your views on the issues under mediation?DianaW 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, I think that it is because there appear to be strong disagreements about the issues listed that mediation is important. That's the point to bringing them to mediation. Professor marginalia 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Many of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines have been violated throughout this talk page, including "assume good faith", and "no personal attacks", and "misuse of talk pages"." So, you can identify these? This is your opinion, perhaps. Whether someone assumes good faith or, for that matter, whether someone "assumes" anything is pretty much up to the person doing the assuming. The "assume good faith" is only good until good faith has been shown not to exist. Once someone shows there is not good faith, there's no point in assuming it exists. "No personal attacks" is again something that requires some judgment on your part. You cannot read tone from these pages, you cannot read the person's intent, and then a lot of what people here are calling personal attacks is permissible - i.e. they are "attacks" aimed at the argument and not the individual. "Misuse of talk pages" again is not something you get to decide either. The talk pages are exactly for talking things out - there is very little that could be considered "misuse" of them except the obvious examples of spamming to advertise one's personal websites. Any of these issues are something the administrators provide guidance for - when somebody bends Wikipedia policy, there are administrative steps that are taken. These types of petty issues are not what mediation is about - that's why I'm suggesting people are abusing the mediation process. If someone is not assuming good faith, personally attacking editors, or misusing the talk pages, administrators should take steps to see this doesn't happen again. The real issues here are far more significant - groups of people organizing to control content of the articles, to intimidate new users, to game the system's 3RR rules and to frustrate and overload the administrators with petty complaints. Those issues are the issues that need to be mediated here. Everything else listed here is nonsense that Wikipedia policy provides solutions for. Pete K 18:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't want editors like me to form any judgements, you don't want to participate in a mediation so that mediators can help us to forge agreement in these judgements, and you don't want editors to submit such issues to administrators for them to be judged by them either. (You've complained about it here and you've added this problem in two or three items you added to the list of "Additional issues" on the project page.) Assuming good faith is not a "petty issue", it's one of wikipedia's few inviolable policies. It's like a circle--you say 'that's what the policies are for', but you won't agree to any of the means available to see them implemented. Professor marginalia 19:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"You don't want editors like me to form any judgements," - Not true - form any judgments you like. "you don't want to participate in a mediation so that mediators can help us to forge agreement in these judgements," Again, not true - I want to mediate the actual issues, not why some editors got their noses bent out of shape. "and you don't want editors to submit such issues to administrators for them to be judged by them either." Again, not true (not quite sure what you mean but I get the gist of it). Let them whine to the administrators all they like, and let the administrators do what they need to do. We don't need to mediate whining. "(You've complained about it here and you've added this problem in two or three items you added to the list of "Additional issues" on the project page.)" I'm not complaining about the whining, they're not whining to me, I'm pointing out the intent behind the whining, to get a controversial editor banned in order to eliminate his (my) point of view. "Assuming good faith is not a "petty issue", it's one of wikipedia's few inviolable policies." And who here has not shown good faith initially? I've shown good faith. I signed up for the Waldorf edit project. I documented my edits accurately and discussed them on the talk pages. So I have nothing to worry about this. Nonetheless, assumption of good faith cannot be mediated - and it's a waste of time to try. "It's like a circle--you say 'that's what the policies are for', but you won't agree to any of the means available to see them implemented." There's absolutely a means available to see them implemented - and I have agreed to them. I've seen administrators ban people from Wikipedia for breaking Wikipedia policies - lots of times. That's a very good means to ensure that policy violators are not continuing their policy violations. It's not as if administrators are powerless. So mediation is not really for policy violations, it is for the types of activities I have described above. When our list of items to mediate starts to resemble actual issues that require mediation, then I will agree to mediate those issues. As long as it continues to look like an attempt to circumvent Wikipedia policy, I'm not interested in wasting my time. Pete K 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The mediation process doesn't circumvent WKP policy. The objections you've raised to mediation don't make sense, and at wikipedia the culture is for editors to collaborate rather than to go running to administrators to resolve every dispute. Mediation tries to facilitate the collaboration when it becomes locked in disputes, which is the case here. There has been so much time wasted in arguing on talk pages that would be better spent on improving content, structure and readability of the articles. The mediation can't possibly hurt, it might help, so can't we please get on with it? Professor marginalia 16:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That my objections don't make sense to you is, perhaps, part of the problem. Absolutely, collaboration is what Wikipedia is about, and certainly running to administrators to resolve every disupte is counterproductive. Actions like you have described above fall either within Wikipedia policy or outside of Wikipedia policy. What needs to be mediated here is the overall picture, not the individual instances of edits or comments people have objections to. The overall picture/landscape of these pages is that editors here have gone to extreme measures to control the content and preserve their POV on these pages. Among those extreme measures are:

• Infusing original research and defmamtory statements in articles and talk pages
• Endless unwarranted complaints about individual users with opposing POV's
• Disguising the sources of information/reports
• Redirection of content to defamatory websites - including housing of documents on those websites
• Repeated deletion of links to critical websites without discussion or explanation
• Repeated deletion of properly cited quotations that are critical of Steiner or Waldorf without discussion or explanation
• Repeated selective citing of Wikipedia policy to intimidate new users

Those actions represent the overall landscape of what is going on - and those are the only actions that require mediation. Nobody is going to be able to mediate the assumption of good faith. When these issues are the topic of the mediation procedings, then I will agree. The rest of the crybaby stuff is BS - again intended for the purpose of intimidation. Pete K 17:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the Assume Good Faith page:

This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith.

Pete K 15:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As it appears the Mediation Request will have failed in its former condition, I have edited the list of topics to what I would agree to have mediated. If this edit survives until tomorrow, I will sign my name in agreement. If people intend to add back items I have not agreed to, I will remove my name, of course. I will, of course, understand if others wish to remove their names or disagree with this amended request. Pete K 17:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm out. You've turned this mediation into a direct attack against another editor, and at the 11th hour when most editors who have earlier consented to the mediation would likely be unaware that you've totally rewritten the agreement after they signed it. I think it's outrageous behavior. If you didn't want to participate in a mediation, then just say so. But this trick simply goes too far.Professor marginalia 01:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If you will read this ENTIRE DISCUSSION PAGE - you may notice that I said maybe a dozen or more times I would not participate in mediation of the points that were on the original request. This is no trick - I didn't sign this request in an attempt to slip it by anyone - I didn't sign it at all - and I posted above that I wouldn't if anyone objected - and I'm not going to sign it now that somebody (you) has voiced an objection to mediating the actual issues. I completely understand why you wouldn't want to mediate the things I would like to have mediated. That you accuse me of *anything* sneaky here is dishonest. I have tried, from day 1, to discuss the problems with the mediation request. A great portion of this page is ME discussing this. I waited 6 days and nobody addressed the issues I brought up. I wasn't about to sign it the way it was. So at the 11th hour, I changed it to something I actually WOULD sign. I'm just as happy to pocket-veto the original request.

I'm not required to mediate *your* points - which were slanted toward your issues and basically a witch-hunt against me. And, regarding naming the editor in question - while the previous request didn't name me *by name* it was very clear who was being charged with crimes against the state - and who was making a list and checking it twice. So, I'm quite happy you had the reaction you did to my amended request. It's the same reaction I had to the original request. Maybe this will give you a better understanding of what it feels like for me than any mediation process could have accomplished. Pete K 01:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, feel free to restore the original mediation request. I tried harder than anyone else here to make this mediation request work. Just like ALL the articles that are locked up - I'm the one here discussing the problems and you guys are the ones that want to push your POV without discussion. I guess if you guys can produce a mediation request like the one you produced, there's no reason why I shouldn't produce a new one exactly like this one when yours goes down in flames. Let's see if you guys sign up for that one. Pete K 02:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

like professor marginalia i'm out. the changes you, pete k. made are like all your other edits. changing it a bit to include your view is perfectly okay, changing it completely to include only your view is not. trueblood 07:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the pendulum has to swing both ways before it can come to rest. Pete K 13:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Last minute alteration of mediation issues

Two editors have withdrawn from mediation due to a last minute complete revision of the mediation issues list; the old list, to which they had agreed, was completely deleted and a new list substituted.

I have restored the original list without removing the new list so that both are visible. Hgilbert 14:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (). There was no intention to deceive anyone or to change the document after they signed. I'm not going to participate in the mediation process based on the old list - so in an attempt to move this process forward at the 11th hour, after discussing the issues (especially the unsuitability of the topics themselves) for six days, I provided a new list that included the topics that I WAS willing to mediate. I think this process is stalled because we can't seem to even agree on what needs to be mediated - and that the bot that provided notice of approval of mediation is incorrectly applied. I'm looking forward to working with you in other ways to clean up these articles and stop the edit wars. Pete K 14:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no intention to change the document after they signed? Yet you stripped away the whole list of issues and replaced it with a completely different one after 10 of the 11 people involved - all but you, in fact - had agreed to the original list? As an editing style, can you see that this is problematic? That a better solution would have been to add the issues as seen from your POV rather than to strip away any other POV? That perhaps this is what is happening elsewhere as well, that you need to accept that the POV you bring can stand side-by-side with others, that you have no right to simply strip away other editors' contributions and other POVs (e.g. the Dutch commission of notable authorities who are anthroposophists and thus represent a significant POV - for both reasons)? Hgilbert 10:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, hello? I did not agree to the original list. Am I talking to the wall?70.20.145.220 15:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)DianaW 15:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This continues to baffle me. Care to reply? Why did you write that 10 of the 11 original people involved had agreed to the original list, when we did not? Why did you write to Pete that a "better solution" would have been to "add to the issues as seen from your POV"? What do you think we have been doing for the past week? Furthermore, you lot have become very smooth with the "wiki-talk" in the past few weeks, constantly parroting rules at people and keeping little lists of things that upset you, but in fact I don't think wikipedia has any poliy requiring that two POV's stand "side by side" when one of them is right and the other is wrong. Excuse me but try as you like to make this sound like a beautiful meeting of the minds, this is bullshit. (Is somebody keeping a list of how many times I've said bullshit?) Policies regarding neutral sources are established here, and can't be mediated. Would somebody please respond to this rather than pretending it's not been said, it's starting to feel like talking into a vacuum chamber.70.20.168.60 18:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)DianaW 18:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me be clearer: the two pov's that I refer to does not mean a sympathetic versus a critical view on Steiner or Waldorf. The question of what is a neutral academic source is not a matter of POV, and Pete and Diana are not required to agree that our take on this can stand "side by side" with yours, in order to pretend we're all good chums here. It is what it is and I will NOT mediate it. It is a wikipedia policy.DianaW 18:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"There was no intention to change the document after they signed?" No - none at all. If you will read - I made it clear what I was doing. I talked for six of the alotted seven days on this discussion page about why I would not agree to the mediation request you produced. On the seventh day, I changed the request and DIDN'T sign it. I pointed out my changes and the reasons I had for making them. The document you produced was derailed - the mediation process was stalled. Get it?

"Yet you stripped away the whole list of issues and replaced it with a completely different one after 10 of the 11 people involved - all but you, in fact - had agreed to the original list?" Once again, what you are saying is not true. Please read Diana's comments above. If you guys can't make your case with the truth, you seem to enjoy descending into half-truths, then complete fabrications. Diana DISAGREED with the mediation request and I DID NOT SIGN the mediation request - and both of us made it clear from day 1 that we wouldn't sign or agree to it as you had presented it. We both discussed right here on this page what we WOULD agree to. That is what I represented in the last minute edit AND I stated that the original signers should look at this if they are really interested in mediating this.

"As an editing style, can you see that this is problematic?" How is that an editing style? Are you confused about whether this is an article? It's a mediation request. YOU wrote it. Do I have to explain to you what it is? Would it have been better just to let it die? Now that mediation is apparently ended, since the parties have not agreed to mediate, what do you suggest we do? Shall I propose MY list as a mediation request? Would you like to shorten YOUR list to just the issues we agree to mediate?

"That a better solution would have been to add the issues as seen from your POV rather than to strip away any other POV?" Do you have some aversion to actually READING? I explained completely, several times why adding to your issues would not work. Please go back and re-read this page. I'm not going to repeat it again here. Most of your issues were non-issues.

"That perhaps this is what is happening elsewhere as well, that you need to accept that the POV you bring can stand side-by-side with others, that you have no right to simply strip away other editors' contributions and other POVs (e.g. the Dutch commission of notable authorities who are anthroposophists and thus represent a significant POV - for both reasons)?" This is complete nonsense. I didn't strip away the Dutch Commission's POV, in fact I tried leaving it in with comments which you have noted in the mediation request. I also tried leaving it in and properly identifying it as an ANTHROPOSOPHICAL commission. Neither of these solutions fit in with the POV promotion techniques being employed in those articles - so at that point I deleted the content. You can't put it up there and hide who it represents, (). You can represent it correctly or remove it. YOU were willing to do neither. That's why it's gone - plain and simple. You (several editors) were trying to deceive people by hiding the make-up of the commission that acquitted Steiner's works of racism. That type of deception is characteristic of your edits here in several articles. Pete K 19:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, here is, again, what I wrote above when I amended the mediation request: "As it appears the Mediation Request will have failed in its former condition, I have edited the list of topics to what I would agree to have mediated. If this edit survives until tomorrow, I will sign my name in agreement. If people intend to add back items I have not agreed to, I will remove my name, of course. I will, of course, understand if others wish to remove their names or disagree with this amended request." Pete K 20:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Complete sabotage of the Mediation process

PeteK, on your list of items you have added to the one provided by (), you specify as the last point:

"One editor's continued implication of and smear campaign against watchdog group PLANS in a related articles - including allegations of "hate group" and "activities characteristic of hate groups" - citing his own self-produced reference."

"One editor" in this case clearly refers to me. Please provide documentation that I have alleged that the WC has involved in "activities characteristic of hate groups"? While the WC does not advocate physical violence against Waldorf education, what I have stated as view is that the WC at its site publishes argumentation characteristic of hate groups. This refers to such argumentation as is published by such groups in their early development. This specifies in what way this is the case, comparing argumentation and material published at the WC-site with that of anti-semitic hate groups against Jews and Judaism on a number of points and giving citation for I think all or them. I put up the cited description as part of an argumentation that the site of the WC-group (PLANS) does not qualify as an external source for further "information" about Waldorf education in the Waldorf education article.

In the main, it is a summary of what is documented at the site of the site of Americans for Waldorf education, of which I am an associated member. It is a summary of the third main part of the anti-Waldorf argumentation found at the (PLANS) WC-site, in part described here. While it is not all visible at first whcn you visit the WC-site, it is published there, and the description of for examples a number of myths about Waldorf education, and answers to them, found here is based on almost 10 years of experience of the group. It shows that what is published by Mr. Dugan at the anti-Waldorf site he has set up goes far beyond any reasonable "criticism" of Waldorf education, and behind the surface, while stopping before argumenation for physical violence, or committing physical hate crimes, moves far into such argumentation as is characteristic of hate groups, as is described by Wikipedia. I doubt Mr. Dugan, who has made a number of edits here at Wikipedia using different accounts, was an editor at the time I put up the description.

Your point refers specifically to one of the articles you deleted from the list of articles involved, when just (), who formulated the request, had agreed to the mediation, the article on Waldorf education. You removed the article from the list, as you did with the whole original description of Issues to be mediated, both in violation of the rule for Mediation at the Requests for Mediation page, that states:

"Non-committee members may not remove anything from this page or accept/reject cases; this may only be done by members of the Mediation Committee".

The article should be added again to the list of articles to be mediated. After professor Marginalia on 8 October, the first day the Request for Mediation was published, also added the locked PLANS article to the list of articles involved, noone has withdrawn an acceptance of the invitation to the Mediation, until after you 14 Ocrober completely replaced the description of the issues to be mediated on with your own list, while continuing to refuse to participate in it, and above address () as someone you

look "forward to working with you in other ways to clean up these articles and stop the edit wars".

Don't you think this looks like an effort by you to completely sabotage the whole Mediation process, to which nine of the invited eleven editors at different times have agreed, including the issues listed by not withdrawing from it - up until you (in violation of the rules for Mediations) 14 October replaced it with your own, and get them all out of the way, then to start another "mediation process" with just you and (), and your list of issues to mediate?

Do you really think anyone except you and maybe DianaW will agree to this, or that an Admin taking on the mediation will let you implement this complete sabotage of the Mediation, requested by ()? --Thebee 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I registered my disagreement with the points listed for mediation the day it was requested, a week ago. There is no "complete sabotage" of anything; I have talked myself blue in the face for days explaining what was wrong with the original list. I haven't had a chance to determine if I agree with the exact wording in the list proposed by Pete to replace it; but you're not going to get away with calling this "last minute" or "sabotage"; my disagreement was noted on 8 October.DianaW 01:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your disagreement, like the rest of our agreements, referred to a particular list of discussion points. Removing this list and replacing it with another without any notation of the change on the mediation page sabotages the meaning of your disagreement as much as that of our agreement. Hgilbert 20:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The mediation process was DEAD at that point (). To mediate, all members have to be in agreement. They weren't and probably will never be. You wrote a set of one-sided confrontational points that you wanted to have mediated. Sorry - not interested. Pete K 20:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the rest of the above at first. Referring to either "activities" or "argumentation" by PLANS as characteristic of "hate groups" is libel. You have nothing to back up this cowardly accusation; you have been asked many times to substantiate this accusation and you produce nothing. Yes, we know your web site is full of "summaries." You "summarize" and you "compare" and you "document" but nobody in their right mind buys it. NOTHING the organization PLANS has ever done or said resembles the output of a hate group, to anyone who knows what a hate group is. I challenge you one more time: Give us an example of "hate group" speech or actions - even one, Sune. Even one. All you demonstrate by repeating this empty accusation is that you don't know what a hate group is, and you embarrass anthroposophy with this political naivete and simple-mindedness. A whistle-blowing group that runs a mailing list where people can question what goes on in Waldorf, discuss and critique the doctrines of anthroposophy (with positive opinions just as welcome as negative), or report negative experiences in the schools (and again, positive experiences are often reported also, see http://www.waldorfcritics.org) is not a "hate group." Some of the opinions voiced there may be valid and some may not be valid; nothing about this is even relevant to making a group a "hate group." Your opinion that anything on that web site "goes far beyond any reasonable 'criticism'" is totally ridiculous. People need to realize that you, as a Steiner devotee, would think it was unreasonable if somebody once criticized a necktie Steiner wore, let alone his doctrines, or the practices of anthroposophical organizations. We understand that for anyone to criticize you or the organizations you belong to OFFENDS you but that is your problem; some day you're going to figure this out.DianaW 02:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sune, you are too much. I thought I'd go through the above and find -so as, of course, to demonstrate their complete inanity - whatever actions you supposedly "document" at your site that show PLANS as a hate group - and I find that now you've started linking to your own writings *right here* on other discussion pages at wikipedia as supposed documentation of your wild claims! Please stop and take a deep breath. Something is not "documented" just because you have claimed it on a Wikipedia "talk" page. You seem to think that if you can put it on the Web *somewhere*, it can then be cited as documented *anywhere*. No wonder you are so excited about Wikipedia. I wouldn't be surprised if you're on other sites claiming now that these things are "documented at wikipedia" and linking to these pages. It must be so nice to have so many web sites that agree with you on every point. Too bad the material is all written by YOU. No wonder you can't understand the problem with the Dutch report!DianaW 02:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And let's get clear on this too Sune. If you persist in repeating the stupid "witchcraft" thing without acknowledging that the entire story has been long since debunked, you can expect me to paste in the other side of that story every time, too. I'm going to refrain from pasting in links to MY version of this as given on these discussion pages, as you have done - but it's there. Anyone interested can see the discussion page for the PLANS article. Sune's version of a fairy tale he calls "PLANS alleges witchcraft" is riddled with distortions. He gets a lot of "persecuted religious minority" public-relations mileage out of the idea that somebody once associated Waldorf with witchcraft (even though it wasn't PLANS; it was parents and teachers at a particular school who resented being forced to switch to "Waldorf methods" and found some of the lesson material to conflict with their fundamentalist Christian beliefs). He was forced to take this trumped-up "witch hunt" charge out of the PLANS article because his "documentation" consisted of an article that doesn't say what he said it says, and an editorial that makes claims that are the opposite of what the news article it is based on says. The phoney "Don't accuse us of witchcraft" thing does double duty as Waldorf PR. They get to cry "Witch hunt!" and appear to be in solidarity with small groups persecuted for their religious beliefs; and at the same time they are actually very happy for the opportunity to publicly disassociate themselves from witchcraft. You couldn't ask for better Waldorf propaganda than Sune has crafted from this episode.DianaW 02:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Argumentation is an activity. So is the misrepresentation of actual sources (the Dutch Commission) and the citing of fabricated sources (your own websites) to promote your distorted, hate-filled POV (as you did when you associated PLANS with hate groups). Those are shameful activities that don't belong here - I suspect they fill most editors here with disgust (except, perhaps, some of the editors listed here that would and do support these activities). That ()'s original request seeks to hide the fact that the Dutch Commission is comprised of Anthroposophists is telling. If I produced anything close to the dishonest edits you have displayed here, I would certainly be embarassed to show my face here - let alone levy unfounded charges of sabotage against respectible editors. Pete K 02:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The request sought two things, both of which are necessary for encyclopediac work IMHO.

1. One of them was that you verify your claim that all members of the Dutch commission were anthroposophists. See WP:Verify. You have done so; thank you. I had previously seen no proof of this, either here or elsewhere, despite your claims that "I must have known this", and your personal insinuations are completely out of place.
2. Second was that we treat the two reports equally; if we report the institutional affiliations of the Dutch commissions's members, we should also report the IMHO also relevant affiliations of the other source, Hansson, who is the founding member of a group that is opposed to all things spiritual and religious, the Skeptical Humanists; this is clearly also a relevant affiliation - IMHO. That you cannot accept the latter astounds me, and if anyone is seeking to hide verified information in this article, it is you, here and elsewhere.

You continually transform objective questions - is this verified information - into attacks on people's honesty, good faith and person (see this whole talk page!!!). This is simply unacceptable, to me personally, and according to Wikipedia's guidelines, to the Wikipedia itself. Hgilbert 10:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"The request sought two things" Oh really? Then what were all these for? Intimidation?:

• Extent and number of quotations by Rudolf Steiner on race/ethnicity related topics in the main article Rudolf Steiner when an entire sub-article Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity is devoted solely to this question, and provides room for all such quotations.
• Use of links to pages including original research, or use of such pages as sources.
• Use of links to pages not including original research (transcripts or articles) residing on websites that do include original research
• Inclusion of editorial commentary on sourced material ("This conclusion is not surprising given the author's obvious bias...", etc.)
• Appropriateness of biographical information in the article about Rudolf Steiner (this is contested)
• Objectivity of information in and tone of Waldorf education article
• Tone of comments on talk pages, including the question of whether Wikipedia policies such as the assumption of good faith and avoidance of personal attacks are being followed.

You are confusing the particular request being discussed above, and the list of mediation points that resulted from a whole network of problems. You have accurately listed the latter above. You have not dealt with the former. Hgilbert 20:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"You continually transform objective questions - is this verified information - into attacks on people's honesty, good faith and person (see this whole talk page!!!)." That sounds like a personal attack to me (). I'll admit I don't know Wikipedia policy as well as you do - so maybe you can help me. When somebody is flatly lying, is it against Wikipedia policy to point that out with evidence and sources? Does revealing that someone is being dishonest constitute an "attack"? I'm not sure which Wikipedia policy is involved. I've read the pages on personal attacks - I don't interpret anything here as a personal attack - just people who are lying about things not liking it when their lies have been revealed. I don't understand why they take this personally, however, as they should expect dishonesty to be revealed eventually. This is, after all, an encyclopedia. Pete K 15:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If that sounds like a personal attack, I suggest you reread your comments above and clarify what they consist of. Hgilbert 20:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So, you don't know what constitutes a personal attack on Wikipedia... hmmm... very interesting. Maybe you should read up on the guidelines (). Pete K 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

DianaW: "Give us an example of "hate group" speech or actions - even one, Sune. Even one." One of the many: try the "Anthroposophical world conspiracy" myth (also here), alleging that the secret agenda of Waldorf education (cabal), not told to the parents, is to "train the future leaders of the world". --Thebee 09:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So Sune, are you suggesting that because you and your friends as AWE don't have a clue what a hate group is, you should be justified in supplying that label to organizations you don't like? Obviously, the two examples you have given - your own personal websites - are NOWHERE NEAR examples of hate speech. I encourage mediators and editors here to examine them. What you have PROVEN here is you don't know what you are talking about - but continue talking anyway. Thanks! Pete K 13:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I rest my case. It's hard not to giggle, Sune. They're a "hate group" because they say (correctly) that anthroposophy wants to train future leaders of the world. And that the Waldorf schools are a piece of this mission.DianaW 14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Casual readers here should realize the links he gives, purportedly documenting his claims, are always to his web sites. That's what the links are - they aren't to PLANS, quotes from anyone at PLANS, or reports of actions by PLANS. If PLANS were a hate group, there'd be either news articles on their activities, or comments on them somewhere from authorities who track hate groups, police records, legal complaints, or some kind of corroborated evidence to show what they've done. (What he means, is that they publish articles, and run a mailing list, that are critical of Waldorf education - sometimes, though not always, as positive comments on Waldorf are also welcome, and are posted on the mailing list practically every day - and where discussants sometimes critique anthroposophical doctrines. If this is a hate group, so are most universities, newspapers, publishers, many writers, most politicians, etc.) There's always time to substantiate a claim, Sune. Better late than never, so I'll ask you one more time. Heck, maybe not one more time - how about if I ask you this every time I catch you at this game?DianaW 15:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And this, of course - and I hope the mediators will take notice of this if indeed they intend to mediate this process without my participation - is why we cannot have nutty websites like Americans4WaldorfEducation and WaldorfAnswers referenced in these pages (which seems to be the focus of one of the mediation questions). False claims referenced to false sources do not make for good honest encyclopedias. Wikipedia represents millions of hours of effort by selfless, hard-working people, and that some people have taken it to mean free advertising space for their own propaganda is a slap in the face to all the work of the honest editors here. Pete K 15:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism -> hate type of groups come along a wide spectrum.The Wikipedia article on the issue probably gives a relatively good introducing picture of the problem, and different hate type of groups. Not all speak in a loud voice all the time or advocate physical violence.

One recent strife has been the "normalization" of hate groups, a strife to "appear as more scientific than hateful" (for example alleging "Waldorf education is anti-Scientific"), has also been applied by the WC with some success since its start. Taken together, this, this, this and this documents something of the nature of the WC as one variant of criticism/hate type of groups.

The sensationalist "Anthroposophical World Conspiracy" myth à la the Protocol of Zion myth, that the actual, hideous secret agenda of Waldorf education - (not told to prospective Waldorf parents!) - is to train anthroposophist to become the future rulers of the world, is just one component of many of PLANS anti-Waldorf criticism-hate type of campaign since ten years. I tried to keep the example simple to - if possible - avoid yet another wave of raves and rantings in response.

The sensationalist myth (that you in an answer in addition assert that you actually do believe in!) seems to have originated from the all-time secretary of the WC since its foundation in 1995. It also seems to have been planted by him for widespread first publication in a Press Release in 1998 from a right wing evangelical legal organisation that has helped the WC in different ways, to implement and finance its failed litigation against two public school districts in California. It was first published on 10 February 1998, the day PLANS filed its litigation against the two public school districts in CA for their support of the use Waldorf methods at two public schools. Later, it has been cultivated on the WC mailing list by especially the person who then has been appointed and still is vice-President of the WC. It is now published as part of the 140+MB of list archives at the site of the group, as part of its "education of the public about Waldorf education" ("giggle, giggle").

Here, you confirm that you actually do believe it is true:

DianaW (above, 14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)): "It's hard not to giggle, Sune. They're a "hate group" because they say (correctly) that anthroposophy wants to train future leaders of the world. And that the Waldorf schools are a piece of this mission."

And the Jews want to rule the world, and their schools, their infiltration of the media, different financial and other power centres are just a piece of this mission ... --Thebee 01:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is shameful, and I too urge wikipedia administrators to censor this person. Yes, his "See here, here and here" all goes to his own web sites - or now he's even started citing *these discussion pages at wikipedia* as evidence! Even from discussions in which he was eventually forced to admit that none of this material could be presented in a wikipedia article because it didn't meet any standard anywhere for verifiable material.

Your comments on the Jews are shocking. It is despicable to use a comparison to persecution of the Jews for your own self-serving purposes. Truly a despicable thing to do.DianaW 02:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I think waldorf schools are looking to train future world leaders. My son's school (which is a Quaker school) makes the same sort of claim. Most schools striving for excellence make such claims, and aim for their graduates to achieve influence in society while spreading the values that they've been educated in. The difference in Waldorf is that the principles derive from a religious ideology, and its specifics are often not detailed to parents consdering enrolling. That is largely the gripe against them. The notion that anthroposophists wish to "rule the world" in the paranoid, conspiracy sense that you imply, in parallel with antisemitic world-conspiracy myths, is not propagated by PLANS, nor any critics I know. It is trite and obvious that anthroposophists aim to expand their influence worldwide partly through their schools, as well as their many other projects, threefolding, biodynamics, anthroposophical medicine etc. An anthroposophist basically stated that this was the original mission of Waldorf schools in America, just a few days ago on the critics list.DianaW 02:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sune wrote: "Taken together, this, this, this and this documents something of the nature of the WC as one variant of criticism/hate type of groups." Sune let me try again to explain to you what you need to do to corroborate this charge. These three links are to YOUR WRITINGS. If the "this," "this," and "this" were to THINGS PLANS DID OR SAID you might achieve greater credibility. Just a tip.DianaW 02:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sune wrote: The sensationalist myth (that you in an answer in addition assert that you actually do believe in!) seems to have originated from the all-time secretary of the WC since its foundation in 1995. It also seems to have been planted by him for widespread first publication in a Press Release in 1998 from a right wing evangelical legal organisation that has helped the WC in different ways, to implement and finance its failed litigation against two public school districts in California. It was first published on 10 February 1998, the day PLANS filed its litigation against the two public school districts in CA for their support of the use Waldorf methods at two public schools. Later, it has been cultivated on the WC mailing list by especially the person who then has been appointed and still is vice-President of the WC. It is now published as part of the 140+MB of list archives at the site of the group, as part of its "education of the public about Waldorf education" ("giggle, giggle").

Diana says: The above is really hilarious, "taken together." Yep, Dan's an all-time secretary all right. From there, the brew of facts and fiction is truly intoxicating. Why would you expect anyone to believe your paranoid delirium? You seem to be claiming that AWE issued a press release in 1999 - um, I don't think so, since they were formed in July 2005. You really need to slow down, and calm down, and you could present your case much better. Yeah - right - it's really credible to believe that Dan "planted" a worldwide conspiracy myth with PJI, um for what purpose? This stuff is so far out there, it just doesn't get any better than this for entertainment, Sune, it really doesn't. As for Lisa Ercolano, "the person who then has been appointed and still is vice-President," it's okay to use her name, it really is. She's not vice-president of the WC, however, but of PLANS. Honestly - just getting the simple facts straight would help your credibility enormously. You have an idea that entertains me enormously that somehow, for supposedly "cultivating a myth," it seems you think Lisa was rewarded for this in some way? You continually repeat that she was "made vice-president" soon after she "cultivated a myth at the WC." Whatever you are trying to imply there it is certainly worth the comedy value. It sounds like Dan rewarded her with a cabinet post or something. Do you think it's a great honor to be vice-president of the WC or something, and we all try to cultivate myths that will please Dan?DianaW 02:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana, I think if we really practice our "myths", some day we can create one where people have evolutions on Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, the moon and the Earth. Those people can start out kinda soft and slowly harden - maybe their head can evolve separately from their body... yeah, that's it... and the Earth can have, like, very heavy air that you can practically swim in when you have a soft body... and then people can harden a little more and stuff... but then some might harden too fast... like a marshmallow that's too close to the fire - let's make those the burnt races of people we don't like, and then there will be some that harden more slowly like a perfectly roasted marshmallow = and those will have the opportunity to develop their brains more completely. Let's make those the races that look like us. Oh, and let's make sure we add lots of other beings too, spirit beings, and stuff - and let's make some of those better than others. And we can even have animals, plants and minerals - and each of those has to have some species that are better than others. Now, once we have our myth in place, we can use it to challenge almost anything - science for example... or medicine. And nobody can argue with us because it's OUR MYTH. Wow - I can't wait to get started - I wonder why nobody has ever thought of this before. Pete K 03:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This must be embarassing for you. "Criticism -> hate type of groups come along a wide spectrum.The Wikipedia article on the issue probably gives a relatively good introducing picture of it, and different hate type of groups. Not all speak in a loud voice all the time or advocate physical violence." The article describes the OPPOSITE of what PLANS does. Do you really expect nobody will actually read the references you post (although, by now, I wouldn't blame them if they didn't)? You're making a good case for someone to claim that your OWN websites are generating hate speech. Pete K 01:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Taken together, this, this, this and this documents something of the nature of the WC as one variant of criticism/hate type of groups." These are ALL YOU!!! This attack and continual false accusations of "hate" is incredibly mean-spirited and I URGE Wikipedia administrators to look closely at this issue and activity. Pete K 02:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

See, Diana, I'm even learning to indent more than I need to so you can jump in front of me. <G>... Pete K 02:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry!DianaW 02:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I: "The sensationalist myth (that you in an answer in addition assert that you actually do believe in!) seems to have originated from the all-time secretary of the WC since its foundation in 1995. It also seems to have been planted by him for widespread first publication in a Press Release in 1998 from a right wing evangelical legal organisation that has helped the WC in different ways, to implement and finance its failed litigation against two public school districts in California."

According to the page linked to from sensationalist myth: "This myth can be documented from at least 1998 in a Press Release from a law firm Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), supporting PLANS in litigation against two public school districts in California for their operation of two Waldorf-methods schools."

You: "You seem to be claiming that AWE issued a press release in 1999 - um, I don't think so, since they were formed in July 2005. [...] Honestly - just getting the simple facts straight would help your credibility enormously."

The original Press release from PJI (Pacific Justice Institute) in 1998 is found (without pictures, except for the background) at http://www.americans4waldorf.org/press_WALDORF3.html Who would have thought to make the PJI put the following myth into its Press Release in connection with PLANS' filing of its lawsuit against two public school districts on 10 Feb. 1998, but the secretary of the WC:

"Waldorf schools were founded in 1919 by Austrian born New-Age guru Rudolf Steiner. After Steiner’s attempt to found a spiritually-oriented party failed, he turned to education as a way to carry out his work by preparing souls for reincarnation as leaders in the next epic of history."

The President of PJI? After that, the "Anthroposophical World Conspiracy" myth was repeatedly cultivated on the WC-list for three years from 2000 up to probably at least 2003. Some more about the myths about Waldorf education, cultivated on the WC-list and republished at the WC-site is found at 10+ myths about Waldorf education, cultivated by "PLANS Inc." --Thebee 07:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"According to the page linked to from sensationalist myth: "This myth can be documented from at least 1998 in a Press Release from a law firm Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), supporting PLANS in litigation against two public school districts in California for their operation of two Waldorf-methods schools.""

So now you admit PLANS never made this claim.

"The original Press release from PJI (Pacific Justice Institute) in 1998 is found (without pictures, except for the background) at http://www.americans4waldorf.org/press_WALDORF3.html Who would have thought to make the PJI put the following myth into its Press Release in connection with PLANS' filing of its lawsuit against two public school districts on 10 Feb. 1998, but the secretary of the WC:"

So because you can't think of anyone else who would have made this claim, you have decided this claim came from the secretary of PLANS. Do you have a shred of evidence to support this?

"Waldorf schools were founded in 1919 by Austrian born New-Age guru Rudolf Steiner. After Steiner’s attempt to found a spiritually-oriented party failed, he turned to education as a way to carry out his work by preparing souls for reincarnation as leaders in the next epic of history." The President of PJI? After that, the "Anthroposophical World Conspiracy" myth was repeatedly cultivated on the WC-list for three years from 2000 up to probably at least 2003. Some more about the myths about Waldorf education, cultivated on the WC-list and republished at the WC-site is found at [http://www.americans4waldorf.org/Myths.html 10+ myths about Waldorf education, cultivated by "PLANS Inc."

The WC list is a discussion list. Anyone can discuss this stuff - it does NOT represent the position of PLANS or anyone else except the persons posting on that list. Did someone claiming to be PLANS make that claim? I hate to tell you but this "myth" is being told by Anthroposophists. The story I heard from a prominent Anthroposophist is that when Steiner's 3-fold social order plan was rejected by the League of Nations, and Wilson's 14 point plan was accepted, Steiner turned to Waldorf education to promote his ideas. In fact, I think this "myth" can be supported historically. But that's besides the point. The point here is that YOU are making claims and referencing your own websites to back them up - and they are claims that simply AREN'T TRUE. Pete K 14:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a claim from the AWE website referenced by TheBee above: "In 1997, believing PLANS' claims that Waldorf schools practice and teach their students witchcraft, the Pacific Justice Institute helped PLANS Inc. get $15,000 from a religious organization to finance the litigation against the two public school districts, accusing them of "advancing religion." And so the witch hunt began." Can anyone support this claim with actual facts? Does someone have a document describing what the PJI "believed" - or that PLANS made this claim? Or is this the sort of nonsense we are going to allow TheBee to recklessly promote in his one-man defamation campaign here on Wikipedia? Pete K 16:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The quote you give is taken from http://www.americans4waldorf.org/Comments.html On your questions: See the excerpt from Application made by PJI in 1997 on behalf of Debra Snell as President of PLANS at http://www.waldorfanswers.org/ADFApplication.html As the application names her as client, was made on her and PLANS' behalf, and as motivation for the application describes alleged activities "required" from the pupils at one Waldorf methods school as "Wicca based religious practices", this indicates that they believed this. Or would you suggest that President of the evangelical PJI writes something he himself does not believe is true? As you probably have read http://www.waldorfanswers.org/ADFApplication.html already and know about this, why do you ask --Thebee 10:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sune, I’m flattered that you’ve taken my advice and at least cleaned your presentation up a bit – it’s much more readable now. However, calling something a “sensationalist myth” and making this clickable so it goes to your list of “Ten Myths” or whatever it is at your web site isn’t progress. Again: “documentation” would mean that those clickable things you insert three or four of in practically every sentence, they need to go to places that AREN’T YOUR WEB SITES.

I don’t believe in a “world conspiracy myth” regarding anthroposophy. Certainly anthroposophists aim to expand their movement, increase their public visibility, and educate future leaders of society. (And as I said, so does my son’s Quaker school, and I don’t think it’s a conspiracy.) In anthroposophy, which includes belief in reincarnation, this would include preparing people to be leaders in future lifetimes, not necessarily the present one. That’s what the Steiner quote that you gave shows (the one you’re upset about because you believe Dan may have shown it to someone at PJI!) I don’t (personally) see anthroposophy as particularly interested in worldly power or advantage, at least not any more so than similar religious sects. They are certainly interested in spreading their views, and they have some wifty ideas about how anthroposophy will help humanity “evolve spiritually" over the eons. (Sexual reproduction will eventually end, for instance, and we’ll reproduce via the larynx. But that’s eons from now when we all have reincarnated on Venus.) I’m unaware of any PLANS statements or claims regarding aspirations to world domination or conspiracies in anthroposophy. (Actually, I remember someone whom several critics used to correspond with years ago who had notions like this; but she went off in a huff when nobody would agree with her.)

I attended an anthroposophical lecture not long ago where a speaker detailed various strategies anthroposophists should consider for spreading their influence, increasing anthroposophy's visibility and prestige (I recall the phrase "making Steiner a household name" -along with puzzlement over why he wasn't already a household name). Heads nodded in agreement all evening, people scribbled down notes . . . I don’t view any of this as controversial, and can’t imagine my saying so makes me a “hate group” type of person.

That was the issue here, Sune - whether someone pointing this out is a member of a “hate group.” The issue is the lameness of the material you put up when challenged to show there is a “hate group” in the middle of this somewhere. (If PLANS is a hate group I guess so are all the anthroposophists who attended that meeting.) The “world conspiracy” thing is lame – let’s face it.DianaW 20:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete: ". . . but then some might harden too fast... like a marshmallow that's too close to the fire - let's make those the burnt races of people we don't like . . ." Okay, but if they have to get burnt, let's let a beautiful white angel hold their hand, so that the palms of their hands stay white, or at least a little lighter. Whaddya think.DianaW 20:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The part about the angel holding their hand is a story a Waldorf teacher told her students to explain why one of their classmates had darker skin than the others. He was burned by the sun, she explained - but an angel held his hand, and this allowed the palms of his hands to remain lighter (apparently implying a small reprieve from the karma of darker skin).DianaW 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your claims are also not adequately documented by simply using paranoid language, either, like Dan “planted” some idea with PJI (a group that contributed to funding the lawsuit). Is planting ideas a hate group activity? You seem pretty keen to plant your own ideas. Claims need to be much more specific if they’re to rise above paranoia, or vague, sinister insinuations. Are you implying the use of force or coercion? Did Dan pull a gun on somebody, assault somebody, threaten somebody, blackmail somebody – what are you claiming? For this sort of thing you’d need news articles, police reports, statements from witnesses, maybe leaked internal memos from one of these organizations? What have you got?

I’ve also long been curious about the claims about Lisa. It all sounds very shady, the way you describe it, but I’m sure a lot of people wonder just what you’re implying. Your theory that she was sort of “promoted” because she “cultivated a myth” is intriguing. This is, of course, your speculation. Probably from comparing statistics from some mailing lists again? Unless you have some documentation? Do you have access to internal memos from PLANS explaining who decided Lisa should be vice president and why? Did Lisa tell you something like this? Can you document this?

We might note that where the “world conspiracy” or “anthroposophists want to rule the world” thing is concerned, there was for a time a contributor to the WC mailing list named Michael Kopp who said things along these lines – that anthroposophists were scheming for greater influence etc. I notice you never link to him, however. I wonder if it’s because he’s not only not a member of PLANS, he’s a strong critic *of* PLANS, and thinks they're too soft on anthroposophists. He’s actually banned from their mailing list (generally for insulting anthroposophists). This is inconvenient for your characterization of PLANS as a “hate group.”DianaW 02:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to be too pushy but any chance you're going to reply with the requested documentation, Sune? How many times now? Where are the alleged statements from PLANS about anthroposophy aspiring to world domination? Where is the material documenting why Lisa became vice president of PLANS, confirming your theory that it was because she "cultivated a myth about a world conspiracy"? Where is the evidence that Dan somehow coerced someone at PJI to believe something about a world conspiracy? Remember now - your "witchcraft" story is dead in the water - last time we discussed it, you quit replying after I pointed out that the news article you had supplied supposedly showing PLANS charged somebody with witchcraft, contained absolutely no mention of PLANS charging anyone with witchcraft - not even a second-hand claim of such, let alone a corroborating statement from PLANS.DianaW 14:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Five postings in a row. Not bad. Do you expect me to keep up with this? --Thebee 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Take your time. I'll be busy over the weekend. Still - with all the "summaries" you've spent so many years constructing, I'd think the actual evidence would be at your fingertips. Remember now: the *evidence*. Not summaries of your accusations, but evidence that *supports* the accusations. You can start with these. 1) How do you know why Lisa Ercolano became the vice president of PLANS. Comparisons of dates and times on mailing lists isn't evidence of why someone became vice president of an organization. 2) Much more important: the documentation of "hate group" activities on the part of PLANS. Another really good tip would be to start by looking up what a hate group is. Each of the things it says (or even *some* of the things it says) that a hate group does, you need to show that PLANS has done it, using criteria that are going to be commonly accepted by others: evidence of actions, or actual quotes. Adjectives describing what *you* think of PLANS ("demonizing" "consistently untruthful" "like Jewwatch" etc.) aren't evidence and don't convince other people. There, that's six postings.DianaW 21:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Five days later - NOTHING? Yet elsewhere, you are still repeating these empty accusations. Despicable, and cowardly.DianaW 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems safe to assume at this point that Sune Nordwall doesn't intend to answer.DianaW 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he took the "take your time" comment to heart. I'm considering moving this entire section to the PLANS discussion page as it throws some light on the subjects discussed there. Pete K 03:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

overload

This "discussion" is impossible to follow. Some people are just giving too much input. --Vindheim 19:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For me, it sometimes helps to just read through the history of each edit. Then you at least get a feel for who said what in response to which. Pete K 19:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would help to read Vindheim's comment again, Pete. There's a message there for those who have ears. Hgilbert 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Caesar is turned to hear... but I suspected he was talking about Sune... Pete K 20:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)