Talk:Anthroposophy

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors of this are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them. For further information see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

---

First, people get upset for me removing non-NPOV criticism from this page, and now an anthroposophist sent me a long and lingering sob-letter for removing his redesign of the same page into ouright anthroposophical evangelism.

Please, if you do not like the Wikipedia NPOV policy (and read it!), then don't contribute. Start your own wiki instead.

To all others that have helped out in making this entry great, thanks for your tireless work. Nixdorf 19:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

This page reads like a missionary pamphlet for antroposophy. Sad really, for an article in an encyclopedia that aims to present things from a neutral point of view. The truth is outside of antroposophy and antroposophy-critical circles, Steiner, biodynamics, eurythmy etc. are largely unknown, but this page (and the page on Steiner) reads like Steiner was some kind of genius philosopher. There is probably a lot more antroposophy critical stuff than positive material on the net. /Emanuel Landeholm

Added a \{\{POV check \}\} template. I will expand on my criticism of this article tomorrow. /Emanuel Landeholm

I didn't write that Anthroposophy is a cult, but that Critics have called it a cult. Which is a fact, see for example http://www.waldorfcritics.org. So where do I break NPOV?

Linards Ticmanis, not a registered Wikipedia member as of yet.

The current wording is more nuanced. What I want to see is:

1. Names. Who are these critics? If you use the plural form critics you must name atleast two people or organizations by name or simply write "The Site Waldorfcritics.com claim that..."

2. Criteria these people or organizations have used for defining "cult" and "New Age". These are blanket terms and not informative as such. The part about uncritical praise of Steiners person looks good though.

A heading with collected critical views would also be nice. Nixdorf 13:46, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

The following was removed by me from the article page for breaking the NPOV:

Critics have called Athroposphy an occultist cult within the larger New Age scene, which uncritically elevates Steiner's personal opinions to the level of absolute truth.

Nixdorf 21:10, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

VWS, would you mind correcting the original article? Wesley

I'm sorry for not having been in touch - as Dreamshade correctly said below, I'm not a regular Wikipedian. On a first reading, I find the new entry on Anthroposophy quite all right. I'm going to have it printed and study it carefully. I also don't object leaving below my comments to the early version; I think they add additional information to the new entry; moreover, it's good to have some comments on what Anthroposophy _is not_. For this, please look at the section Anthroposophy on http://www.sab.org.br. Please write directly to me at vwsetzer@ime.usp.br. Valdemar W. Setzer (male...), on April 21, 2005.

I don't think she's a regular Wikipedian: should we try to contact her (vwsetzer at ime.usp) and ask her if she wants to? Or wait for someone else to do it? -- Dreamyshade

Either way. I don't know anything about the subject, but it looks like VWS at the least has a well-researched view. But it should be presented as straightforward statements. In its current form, it would be more appropriate for this page. Unfortunately, I'm not volunteering, just offering a suggestion. :-/ Wesley

---

The following text was moved from the article page olivier 04:10 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)

Contribution by Valdemar W. Setzer, http://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer , based upon an early version of the entry above (as it was changed, some of the observations do not apply to its present version):

1. Anthroposophy is NOT based on Theosophy. Its creator, Rudolf Steiner, was a philosopher and editor of Goethe's scientific works until the beginning of the 20th century. Then on request of a group of Theosophists in Berlin, he began to give public lectures on spiritual subjects. In his autobiography, he said that Theosophists were the only people that were opened to hear the results of his spiritual research. He eventually joined the German Theosophical Society, and lead lead it for ten years, but had always stressed that his ideas were original, and were not based on previous writings by other authors. He repeatedly said that, after having done some of his own research, he would check to see how much his findings were in accordance with other texts, as for instance the Bible. In 1913, due to differences in opinions, he left the Theosophical Society and founded the Anthroposophic Society, which has its headquarters at the Goetheanum, in Dornach, Switzerland.

The reader is urged to read some of his writings to verify these statements. For those with no inclination to spiritualism, start with a book that he considered his most important one, and which was a development of his Doctoral Thesis at the University of Rostock: _The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity_. Some translations have used a titled which is a transliteration of the original German: _The Philosophy of Freedom_. It contains a very important and original analysis of perception, thinking and consciousness.

2. The statement "reality is essentially spiritual" should be clarified. In Anthroposophic terms, a more precise formulation could be "behind any reality there is something spiritual." Physical reality is absolutely essential from the Anthroposophic point of view.

3. The subdivision of the human being in body, soul and spirit is just one of the human structures used in Anthroposophy. There are others, which help e.g. to understand why developed plants are different from minerals, why animals are different from plants and why humans are so different from animals. Obviously, there are concepts connecting each possible structure to others. Steiner gave clear concepts on the various constituents of the human being, e.g. clearly separating what he meant by "soul" and what by "spirit."

4. The aim of Anthroposophy is NOT to reach higher levels of consciousness. In a lecture of Nov. 13, 1909 (he gave more than 6,000 lectures, all published, and wrote almost 30 books - Anthroposophy has absolutely nothing secret or sectarian) he said that understanding the spiritual word was more important than observing it. He was absolutely against observing the spiritual word through mystic visions, which are characterized by lack of conscious thinking accompanying the observations. In general, mystics direct themselves to feelings, and not to reasoning, and do not transmit their observations through clear concepts, as Steiner did.

5. The phrase "The movement is adverse to earthly pleasures - if the spirit enjoys earthly pleasures it will be reincarnated in a new body and will not reach the higher spirit world." is absolutely wrong from the Anthroposophical point of view. According to the latter, reincarnation does not depend on "earthly pleasures." I challenge the anonymous author of the text to cite one of Steiner's passages - or of any of the thousands of works written by Anthroposophists - where such an absurdity is found. This phrase reveals that the author has at best "heard" about Anthroposophy, and has not studied it.

6. Steiner inaugurated a new form of Medicine, called Anthroposophical Medicine, which he insisted to call an "Erweiterung," an extension of academic medicine. Among others, it uses homeopathic drugs, but their preparation differs from classical Homeopathy. The statement of a part of a plant looking similar to an organ is not correct. Furthermore, in the Anthroposohic terminology, plants do no have what it calls "astral body." Only humans and animals have it. This is one further demonstration that the author of the text is not familiar with the basics of Anthroposophy.

7. Besides a new form of medicine, Steiner renewed many other fields: Waldorf Education, now with more than 100 schools in the USA, and more than 800 in the world; Biodynamic Farming; Organic Architecture; and social renewal, the so-called "Threefold Social Organization." He also introduced two new forms of art, Eurithmy and Speech Formation. A new kind of curative education was developed following his ideas, of which the most popular initiative is the Camphill Movement.

For further information on Anthroposophy, please visit the site of the General Anthroposophic Society, http://www.goetheanum.ch . I am the webmaster of the Anthroposophic Society in Brazil; its site contains some material in English, including a chronological biography of Rudolf Steiner, at http://www.sab.org.br ; maybe it would be interesting for the reader to give a look at its section "Anthroposophy."

End of VWS's contribution.

---

I don't understand the relevancy of the external link on "Audio McCarthyism" to the subject of antroposophy. Is it just a lame attempt at discrediting a critical voice? -Emanuel Landeholm

Not a Science

Anthroposophy is not considered a science by any scientific authority whilst psychology is. Also it does not fit any modern model of what science is. To compare the two is to try to give anthroposophy a level of acceptance and authority it does not have and is misleading to the reader. This is an attempt to promote Anthroposophy rather than fairly report on it. Lumos3 13:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What is a scientific authority?

A science department at a University, a peer reviewed journal, a learned society of scientists. If you can find an example of any of these calling Anthroposophy a science I would be interested to know.Lumos3 08:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Outright slander

One of the primary links on the Stelling page has outright slander on it (reference to the O.T.O.). I am removing the link to this page. Hgilbert 02:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The SIMPOS page contains over 100 links to articles which comment on Anthroposophy. You claim that one of these onwardly links to a page which you say contains a slander. This is a poor argument for removing the link to a sober and useful resource and feels like censorship. You cannot protect the reader from accessing sites you disapprove of. Lumos3 11:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The link is the second on the list. It is to a discredited source (there have been law suits over these matters; it is not a matter of opinion but of established fact). Neither false information nor links to false information belong in an encyclopedia. It is not censorship but honest standards; would you wish false information about you to appear in or be linked to by the Wikipedia? Hgilbert 02:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A secondary link, not the one in Wikipedia but an onward link leads to a page which you say contains slanderous remarks. I don’t believe this is sufficient grounds for removing the link to the intermediate page. The SIMPOS page is not itself a problem. We cannot prevent a reader exploring the www by trying to close doors. Which court cases are you referring to can you give details? Lumos3 21:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes to the latter; a book was published in Germany called the Schwarzbuch Anthroposophie with the claim about the OTO (amongst other claims that appear on the SIMPOS page/links) and a court case was brought against it due to the libelous contents. The case was successful and the book was withdrawn from sales. For a reference to this case see an article which was originally printed in an official Swiss government journal, Bulletin der Eidgenössischen Kommission gegen Rassismus EKR, Bern: the link is http://www.infosekta.ch/is5/gruppen/anthroposophie1999.html

The SIMPOS page is a problem if it does not ensure that its links are respectable; in the last month, Science magazine has publicized heavily problems with reports on cloning it had published that turned out to be falsified, though it was the authors of this journal, not the magazine, that had falsified material. A page that does not work to ensure accuracy should not be linked to, plain and simple. If they want to ensure that they have accurate material on their site, a bare minimum for scientific (or encyclopediac) respectability, they can be linked to. Wikipedia is implicitly recommending its links for their accuracy.

Please, can we stop the revert war. I agree the link following the link is of dubious nature, but that disputed article ([1]) in turn also links its own critics ([2] by Peter-R. Koenig) at the bottom. I think that the link can stand since Wikipedia readers are highly capable of critical thinking and can evaluate facts and slander alike themselves. Nixdorf 23:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you give examples where other Wikipedia articles link to pages with links to slanderous, or simply false, information? I think of Holocaust deniers, for example, are they given a chance to make their voice known? The Flat Earth society? People can obviously evaluate these facts and slanders equally well. Are there any examples at all to establish that this is Wikipedia policy?

Are you trying to argue that Wikipidia can only link to sites which are 100% bone fide , because there is no such thing. All sites contain errors and omissions. The Science (journal) site still has credibility and is linked to in articles, its up to the reader to treat any information with caution. Lumos3 13:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert, there are several such links actually. For example see entries for Majestic 12 or Flat Earth Society which you mentioned yourself. Readers obviously have to evaluate all information, even that which is on Wikipedia, linked from Wikipedia, or linked 2 degrees away from Wikipedia or whatever. Please turn down your belligerent tone, it does not add to the discussion. Nixdorf 11:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for any mis-tones.

The Science journal (and its site) have credibility because they have immediately reacted to the accusations of falsifications; the top headline on their site is South Korean team's claim demolished. I looked at the links from Flat Earth Society; they are well-balanced discussions not entirely sympathetic to the idea of a Flat Earth, not polemical supports of this. In a second section titled 'External Links' there is a link to the Flat Earth Forum, which is a discussion group, and as such does not pretend to be anything but obviously personal opinions of not necessarily qualified participants. I would personally say that this is a radically different solution; the PLANS web-site has this character, for example.

OK, I understand your concern, but can you be precise on the demarcation line between "highly critical" and "slanderous"? I would be inclined to say that sites spreading verified lies are "slanderous", and if that article about the Ordo Templi Orientis was linked directly, I could understand if it was removed. However, I think it's still a bit of a special case since they link their critics (Mr. Koenig), this means they recognize the need for debate and critical thinking. But I don't think that unlinking a portal resource can be supported by this fact, I think it's too weak. I think we need more voices than just the three of us so we can reach some broader consensus before this is resolved. Nixdorf 19:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say there are several distinct stages that might help: neutral, critical, polemical and slanderous. Under neutral I would include simply informative sites, as well as discussions that include positive and negative aspects, pro and contra reasons and stances. This would be my preferred category for anything under general links. Critical approaches would be unsympathetic but relatively objective discussions; both sides of issues should be included, but a critical bias might be apparent. Polemical discussions simply ignore positive features and seek out negative ones; they may distort facts, are clearly unbalanced and should really only appear when there's room for a rebuttal as well (this is what journals do with such contributions; they ask for a response from the original author or a representative of the other side -- the Swiss governmental site I mention on this discussion page does exactly this). Polemics are not normally included in encyclopedia links; they might be referenced by researchers who already have a background in the subject and can see through the polemic while looking for any valuable nuggets buried in the bias. Slander (or simply erroneous information) is found when there are provably false statements made. These do not belong anywhere near a respectable site, or if they creep on, they are corrected immediately.

That would be my off-the-cuff suggestion for a nuanced policy; I would welcome others help here, as I am sure that I've left out important aspects. I do think it important that Wikipedia finds a clear and consistent approach (and perhaps all this has already been worked through somewhere). Hgilbert 19:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Should the SIMPOS site entitled "Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner, Waldorf schools; and their critics" be linked

The SIMPOS site is a resource containing links to (mainly critical) information on occult tendencies. User Hgilbert is arguing that because this site's Antroposophy page contains 1 link out of 100 that onwardly links to another site that contains material of dubious quality the whole SIMPOS site should be excluded from this articles external links section. SIMPOS is merely a collection of links. It is a key resource for those wishing to find views on Anthoposophy that don't originate from inside the movement. The SIMPOS site is http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/anthroposophy.htm , for those wishing to follow this conversation but without the benefit of a link on the article page. Lumos3 13:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the link is placed in the highly prominent position of being second in the list, not buried somewhere amongst the 60 or so actual links. Second of all, it is not just dubious; it is slanderous. Third of all, there are other problematic links on the site; I mentioned only the one that contains verifiably slanderous material (because there has been a court case over this, the evidence is clear). Many or most of the other links are written by polemicists (as opposed to historians, objective journalists, or experts in any field) and several of them have also been described publicly as false or slanderous; there are published, hot discussions about this. Above and beyond this, many of the respectable-appearing links are actually dead; they no longer function. To have contentious or highly-debated material is one thing; to have outright slanderous material is another. Having both gives credence to the accusations of slander or error against the 'only' dubious material, as well. There are surely balanced discussions and expert opinions that would better serve an encylopedia. I will try to find something that gives the questions that are being publicly debated without themselves entering problematic territory! Hgilbert 01:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion here is should we link to a Portal site which links uncritically to a range of material on this subject. I think we should.

I don’t think we should directly link to sites which tell lies, but all the others are fair to use as references if they illustrate a point of view or serve as a resource. It is the Wikipedia article which allows the reader to make sense of the range of sites by putting them in a broader context. Its part of Wikipedia’s scope to tell the whole story about a subject including all sides of arguments past and present and to report on the untruths which might have circulated and how these were repudiated.

NPOV means a reader gets a look at all points of view in circulation. Libel cases are just another part of the story to be reported in the article. Lumos3 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Critical views

I have tried to rewrite the 'critical views' section that incorporates the suggestions above (giving an overview to put the linked pages in context). Please extend this as appropriate! Hgilbert 18:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

Wikipedia policy is to name particular people if quoting. I am modifying the added sentence about 'mainstream philosophers' appropriately.

Mistletoe

I looked at one of the links just added and it says, in part: Findings from laboratory studies have suggested that mistletoe may enhance the activity of immune system cells so that they release more of the chemicals that damage cancer cells.

Animal studies assessing mistletoe's ability to stop cancer cell growth have had different results depending on the extract used, the dose, how it was given, and the type of cancer studied. Results of a few animal studies have suggested that mistletoe may be useful in decreasing the side effects of conventional cancer therapy, such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy, and that it may counteract the effects of drugs used to suppress the immune system.

A heading 'mistletoe references showing it to be largely ineffective' is inappropriate for a reference that contains a differentiated range of results. Also, there is already a 'references section. I am merging the two and retitling the added references. Hgilbert 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

There has been a lot of work to make this article neutral, and a lot of discussion about what needs work has gone over the bridge on this page. At this stage, before a NPOV check is put into place, any remaining problematic areas should be mentioned here (and worked on). Most of the article is purely descriptive at this point.

I am removing the NPOV check; please go through the above process before deciding if it needs to be restored. Hgilbert 20:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Emanuel Landeholm: you have commented about the lot's of stuff on the net that is not included in this article. Please read Wikipedia's standards for inclusion for external links, especially the section titled Links to normally avoid, and using online sources. Like any encylopedia, only original source material, work that is written by knowledgeable authorities, work published in peer-reviewed journals, and similar authoritative sources are suitable. Web-postings on newsgroups, for example, are not generally considered reliable encyclopedia sources. We would all welcome expansion of this article to include more points of view so long as Wikipedia standards for sources are held to!!

I also strongly recommend that you register as a Wikipedia user and login as such when editing; this eases communication and helps identify who is editing what. Hgilbert 01:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of this article.

1. Anthroposophy is not a science, "spiritual" or otherwise. Not by any stretch of imagination. That RS himself asserted it is doesn't count for much. RS asserted lots of things and many of those assertions where completely looney, if you pardon my expression. L Ron Hubbard called his brainchild, dianetics, a science. Notwithstanding, the Wikipedia page on dianetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics) rightfully identifies it as a pseudoscience.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

The article does not claim that anthroposophy is a science, but that RS called it this. This is simply accurate. The introduction clearly states that anthroposophy is not one of the natural sciences.

See this link [3] for one small example of the scientific basis for anthroposophy.

I know the article doesn't say it but my point is the Dianetics article doesn't say LRH thought it was a science and neither should this article.

2. The new-agey woo-woo about QM having said anything negative about objective study and the naive musings on the reality of the number two and the imaginary unit is complete bollocks and totally irrelevant to the subject of anthroposophy's relation to science. Again, pardon my french, and I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Mechanics

Quantum mechanics does assert exactly what is said in the article, especially in the Copenhagen interpretation. Mathematics has often been called a non-empirical science, as it is in the Wikipedia article Science, for exactly the reasons cited in this article referring to 2 and i. It is not irrelevant; the discussion is about the meaning of nonempirical sciences.

Excuse me, but you're making a fool out of yourself.

3. Anthroposophy is not philosophy. It is not recognised as such by professional philosophers. Philosophy (good philosophy at any rate) is based on arguments while anthroposophy is revelational and authoritative at its core.

Several of Steiner's books, including his [[Philosophy of Freedom], are philosophy by any standard. They use standard philosophical methods of discussion and offer no revelations whatsoever. They are very rarely (but sometimes) dealt with in university courses, as Steiner is not generally considered an important philosopher in the academic world. Feel free to add a mention that his philosophical works are not valued by most academic philosophers, but please support this with more than my own impression.

Did you know that Steiner had a PhD in philosophy? That he is listed on the Earlham University list of philosophers, for example?

So what? Anthroposophy is still not philosophy.

4. The "critics of anthroposophy" section is laughable. There is a lot of real critical material around and it's not as if it's hard to find. I urge the editors to do their homework! See http://www.skepdic.com/steiner.html for a start.

The skepdic.com article you mentioned has always been cited on this page. I have looked about for more material; there is an article by a pharmacist, basketball coach and punk rock fan (Bendz) that is often cited, but there are six serious errors of objective fact in his short (one-page) article. The Stelling page has the same problems; Wikipedia standards explicitly say that pages with erroneous information should not be cited, nor should chat rooms, forums or other mail-in cites. Please add any serious critical references. Remember that Wikipedia standards are there to ensure that the article (and its links) are accurate.

Wikipedia standards don't seem to ensure anything. Not that I'm surprised.

Wow, that's the way to NPOV an article, dismiss any criticism as wrong and thus not worthy of citing!--Prosfilaes 18:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you suggest that we include errors of fact in Wikipedia articles to ensure that no one's opinion is left out? I am not talking about divergent opinions here; I am talking about the basic facts themselves being totally erroneous. The article in question averages significantly more than one demonstrably false statement per paragraph, which is pretty bad. Hgilbert 01:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

5. No mention of central occult "wisdom" such as the Ahriman demon that lives in your TV, reincarnation, karma, the not-so-PC "theory" of root races, astrology, the use of a pet's head in the preparation of biodynamic fertilisers etc. Gee, I wonder why...

Reincarnation and karma are mentioned in the site. No pet's head is used in the preparation of biodynamic fertilisers,

Mentioned very briefly. Pet's head: semantics. Pet, domestic animal, who cares? It's still completely looney and not mentioned in the article.

but see the article on biodynamic agriculture and feel free to add more (accurate) details of the biodynamic preparations there.

Steiner's complete works total about 330 volumes, 13 buildings, thousands of drawings and paintings and several sculptures.

Yes, and L Ron Hubbard wrote 50 million words. Who cares? Most of them were false.

Not all this can be discussed here. It would be good for something about spiritual beings to appear here; I will try to get to it (or someone else can do so). Incompleteness, especially in the case of such a vast corpus, is not a violation of POV, it is a sign that yet more could be done.

I recognize that you are concerned, but ask that you provide objective material to the article to balance it. POV checks are normally used where an effort to do so has been made but a balanced presentation is not possible (because of revert wars, for example). No one has removed any of your material; I don't believe you have added any, in fact. I am removing the POV check tag. I ask that you respond to the above remarks before adding it back.

Provide it yourself! It's your bloody responsibility as an editor.

I again urge you to register as a user if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia; this is generally considered good manners here.

Hgilbert 12:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I did register!

I will be back with more vitriol, believe me you!

If you have registered, than use four tildes (~) at the end of your contributions to sign and date them.

You assert that anthroposophy is not philosophy. Some areas of it (such as Steiner's philosophical work) are and are taught as such in bona-fide universities; I have already demonstrated that he is regarded as a philosopher by bona-fide academics. Have you ever read any of Steiner's philosophical works (Truth and Science, Goethe's Conception of the World, Philosophy of Freedom)? One glance at these would dispel the idea that they are not philosophical works.

I'm sorry that we disagree about the significance of quantum mechanics and the non-empirical nature of mathematics. Notable scientists and mathematicians agree with what I say here, such as Niels Bohr, Schrodinger, Anton Zeilinger, and Henri Poincaré. NPOV means that you cannot assert your own POV and deny other, accepted (and even majority) POVs.

I am happy to add more material to the article. The article on biodynamic agriculture already covers the biodynamic preparations in detail. A section on spiritual beings and more material on reincarnation could be added to the present article, and I am happy to do so. I repeat: the field is vast, and it is not a violation of neutrality to not have every aspect of a field covered.

If you will list what you feel is missing in terms of neutrality (not just completeness), including citations of references you wish to have added, I am happy to do the work of adding new material. Hgilbert 14:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Anthroposophy and science

There are many documented research results of anthroposophical science that have been confirmed by scientific testing. There are none that qualify as pseudosciences. In fact, there is a chair of anthroposophical medicine at the University of Bern!! Convince them to give up this chair before adding this category, please.

Name one, including peer reviewed references. Emanuel1972 07:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How about mistletoe extract as an agent against cancer, suggested by Steiner in the 1920s and developed by his co-workers at that time; since then further developed by an array of anthroposophical researchers. Peer-reviewed references include (I can only list a small sample here):

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]
5. [8]
6. [9]
7. [10]
8. for background

NPOV

A 36k article on a controversial subject with a 1k criticism section that devotes more of its time to supporting the topic than the actual criticisms? How can that be NPOV?--Prosfilaes 18:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked for contributions to the criticism section that conform to Wiki policy, i.e. are not discussion lists or personal opinions. There has been no attempt to exclude these; rather the opposite. Please add appropriate material rather than assume that any POV has been pushed out. Hgilbert 19:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of personal opinions here, all Steiner's, and other positive opinions. Anything The criticism starts by listing [i]supporters[/i] of anthroposophy, a clear attempt to poison the well. "Natural science even includes non-sensory phenomena as the content of its study in the special case of mathematics. Is the number two purely non-sensory? What about 'i', the square root of negative one? Mathematics provides a doorway through which we can see how a scientific treatment of nonsensory phenomena may be valid." isn't an NPOV look at anything; it's a horribly POV argument for the subject. This is a horribly POV article in pretty much all ways. --Prosfilaes 19:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Anthroposophy, and therefore will include a lot of purely descriptive material on the subject. Steiner was the founder and hitherto most prominent voice of Anthroposophy; to describe the latter requires including his ideas. This article has been through a long period of development, but please suggest or execute improvements.

The Wikipedia Mathematics article begins by mentioning that mathematics is a non-empirical science. Is this a narrow POV? It is arguably simply a fact; mathematical truths are by and large not based upon sensory evidence, yet we can have confidence in them. Why can we have confidence in them? The answer to this question leads one into an epistemology of all science (knowing): that which is dependent upon logical reasoning applied to sensory data as well as that which is independent of sensory data (logic and mathematics). This line of reasoning does not represent a special POV, or rather, the point of view it represents is that of philosophers of science rather than applied science; the latter usually ignores the question of what we are doing when we do science and why it works).

I agree completely about the beginning of the criticism section and am happy to change it (and have done so). Hgilbert 21:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics doesn't say that mathematics is a non-empirical science. All the intro says about science is "Mathematics is used throughout the world in fields such as science, engineering, surveying, medicine, and economics." and "The word "mathematics" comes from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma) meaning science, knowledge, or learning...", neither of which say math is a science. In fact, there's a section called "Is Mathematics a Science" that says "Karl Popper believed that mathematics was not experimentally falsifiable and thus not a science" and "The opinions of mathematicians on this matter are varied. While some in applied mathematics feel that they are scientists, those in pure mathematics often feel that they are working in an area more akin to logic and that they are, hence, fundamentally philosophers." So a leading philosopher of science (Karl Popper) believes that math is not a science, as do many mathematicians.--Prosfilaes 03:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; my memory is at fault; it's the Science article that says:

The scope of this article is limited to the empirical sciences. For mathematical sciences, see mathematics.

That's exactly the point; that mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable; that there exist truths independent of any external reality. Hgilbert 16:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

But one line in science doesn't compare to a detailed discussion in mathematics. The identification of mathematics as a science is clearly controversial. --Prosfilaes 17:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have looked at one much quoted website's list of sites critical of anthroposophy. There are four links:

1. One claims to be in Swedish but is in any case a broken link.
2. One is actually pro-Steiner (showing he was never a member of the OTO).
3. One is the skeptics' dictionary, which has always been linked to from this article.
4. The fourth is a web forum; Wiki policy is not to use web forums as sources or links for Wikipedia articles.

Hgilbert 01:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth the Popper remark in Mathematics is a recient and controversal addition, see Talk:Mathematics#Popper remark 2. We don't have a a good source for what Popper himself though of mathematics. I hope you guys don't beleive what you read in Wikipedia! --Salix alba (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the NPOV label; there is now an unusually extensive section of critical views. Hgilbert 14:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is not about the presence or otherwise of a crticism section. I still suspect that there is POV in much of the article. It would be an error to remove the tag at this point. Jefffire 14:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is about the inclusion of multiple points of view. These are rather obviously being represented given the edit history of this article. There are widely divergent viewpoints contributing; the edits are supplementing, complementing and correcting one another (rather than reverting one another); there is no one whose edits are being suppressed. The tag is simply inaccurate and inappropriate; otherwise, concrete issues should be articulated.Hgilbert 00:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not what NPOV is about. Jefffire 00:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire: There are no actual issues that you or anyone else has detailed that have not been dealt with. Please either get concrete so any problematic passages can be corrected or stop adding the label; it is particularly difficult to understand your behavior when you admit that you know nothing about either of the subjects. Hgilbert 00:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A handful of particular POV concerns:

Criticisms section is badly writen

Many of the claims of the influence of Steiners work are dubious and not sourced.

Over whole article there is a general usage of POV terms to imply the Steiners weird beliefs are true.

Overall there are too many concerns to remove the tag. Jefffire 00:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please feel free to improve on the criticism section; note that it is actually quite difficult to find citable critical views (i.e. according to Wikipedia policy: no blogs, etc.).
• Vis a vis sources: there is an extensive bibliography, but I have added a footnote with three specific sources (including Encyclopedia Brittanica) to the practical work section. *Are "believed", "said", "wrote" and the like POV terms? The article is quite consistent in using these and not claiming any of them are true or accepted.
• I am generally a bit at a loss to follow what you are seeing that I am not; it doesn't help that you continue to be pretty unspecific ("over whole article", "overall", "many claims"). Perhaps one concrete example in each case would help. Hgilbert 00:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wording of section Practical work arising out of anthroposophy and conclusions vary from WP:NPOV and some references are not RS. Criticisms section remains a complete mess and is probably the biggest obstacle to removing NPOV tag at the moment. Jefffire 00:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

POV or fact?

I'm finding a LOT of POV in this article. There needs to be a substantial amount of editting to make this article conform to WP:NPOV. Jefffire 12:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Vis a vis the introduction: one of the world's largest educational systems grew out of anthroposophy. So did much of organic farming (biodynamics is one of the two sources of this movement). These are not POV, they are facts. And so on; the introduction as it stands is factual...whatever your POV on Waldorf, biodynamics, etc., they are effective and widespread movements that grew out of anthroposophy. Hgilbert 18:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiabilty. If these are facts, which I doubt, then you must substantiate them from a reliable source. Jefffire 19:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I did find much of Jefffire revision to be too skewed the other way. But it does seem like Anthroposophy has been verifiabily criticised as a cult, does not mean to say it is a cult but it has been criticised to that effect. This is a different criticism to the one which cult status deleted and they should both go in.

It is very verifiable that Steiner Education and Biodynamics share the same roots as anthroposophy, they all have Steiners name all over them. Whether Steiner Schools are one of the world largest, is debatable. Its also debatable as to the impact of biodynamics to organic agriculture, today these are largely seperate movements. --Salix alba (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Some anonymous edits got mixed in with mine. I'm working hard at the moment to remove pro and anti POV from the article at the moment although pro POV seems to be very much in dominance. Jefffire 20:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeffire -- The three MAJOR figures in Anthroposophy are Lucifer, the god of light, Ahriman the god of darkness, and Christ, the sun god who was sent to earth to balance these opposing figures. There is nothing in this whitewash nonsense about this. Or what about the fact that Michaelmas is Anthroposophist biggest holiday because they believe that St. Michael was the spirtitual ambassador of the "christ being" and the Steiner was the "earthly" ambassador of St. Michael? Or what about a major theme of Anthroposophy: that modern Aryans are from the advanced people of Atlantis? Or what about another major anthroposophic activity: the advent spiral, where they act-out (usually with children) the act of being reincarnated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.127.170 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is nonsense. But it is POV to call it nonsense. In an encyclopedia we list what they believe (making it clear these are beliefs). If they make a scientific claim then a scientific responce in appropriate. It is POV to call the beliefs rascist, what we do is accurately describe them and if people think they are rascist or not that is their judgement to make, not ours. Jefffire 12:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeffire -- My point is NOT that that anthroposophy is nonsense. My point is that the this presentation of anthroposophy has little resemblence to anthrposophy. The same misleading presentation is made to thousands of parents every day worldwide that are enrolling there children in a Waldorf school (that is if they are one of the lucky parents that are actually told that Waldorf schools teach Anthroposophy!) It is not a "critical comment" to say that anthroposophists believe in high fevers for children anymore that is a "critical comment" to say that catholics do not believe in the use of birth control -- both are facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.127.170 (talk • contribs)

Some Catholics do believe in the use of birth control. You can say that the Vatican has declared that this is contrary to Catholic faith; you should then also mention that birth control is nevertheless used by many Catholics. There is no equivalent to the Vatican for anthroposophy, but neither the Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society nor any other authoritative body within anthroposophy has ever made a ruling on high fevers. It comes down to individual doctors' recommendations.Hgilbert 08:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Religion is defined as a belief in the supernatural. Anthroposophy contains a belief in the supernatural. The Californian legal system does not define what universaly is and is not a religion. Antroposophy is a religion regardless of the opinions of the Californian legal system. By American law tomatoes aren't fruit, but we don't change the definition on Wikipedia because of that. Jefffire 10:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeffire -- The California Court's decision can't reasonably be interpreted as a ruling on whether or not anthroposophy is or is not a religion. The issue was whether PUBLIC waldorf charter schools were in anyway religious because of the thinly veiled anthroposophic practices at the schools in question. to Christianity and other religions. The plaintiff attorneys in the case did a shotty job of admitting evidence and witnesses and much of their case was thrown out purely on technical grounds and not on the merits of the case. That said, it is fairly easy --as we see in other public schools -- to find church and state loopholes by not being overtly religious, changing the names of religious celebrations, ect.

In a nutshell, Steiner recognized that convential religion were destructive and devisive -- a positive thing. So, Steiner created a "spiritual science" that he said was not a religion. This spiritual science incorporate the world's other major religions into Christianity by having Christ reincarnated several times and coming back as religion x's central god. So, instead of wandering how so many different religions can have different Gods and come away from it that religion is absurd, his conclusion was that all religions have the same god -- Christ. (I don't see anything about that view that is not religious.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.127.170 (talk • contribs)

Steiner speaks of Christ having come to Earth only once. He recognized the essential unity of all religions, but did not say that their gods were identical. (See Steiner, Christianity as Mystical Fact.) Hgilbert 08:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The supposed quotation added to the introduction: "Christ is the central figure, but other religions and philosophies are incorporated as well." (Steiner, 1914) does not occur in the cited source; it is not clear where it comes from. Hgilbert 13:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert -- As of Friday, that quote was in the Steiner archives in the place where I cut and pasted it from -- but has since been removed. However, as you know, Steiner made similar quotes, including in the Gospel of St. John Lecture, where he said "Thus, for Anthroposophy, the central figure in the whole tableau of reincarnation, of the nature of man, of the survey of the cosmos, is the Being whom we call the Christ." http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GospJohn/19090630p01.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paka33 (talk • contribs)

It would be good practice to ensure that material set in quotation marks is exactly, not just similar to, what the person said.

I am moving one section of the introduction focusing on Steiner's ideas about Christ to the section on religion. The majority of Steiner's 40 books do not mention Christ at all, and in only two, I believe - Mysticism and Christianity as mystical fact (both relatively early works, from 1901 and 1902) does Christ or Christianity play a major role.

This is not to say that Steiner did not consider the Christ being of great importance, but in both his books and lectures this is one theme of a great many others, equally important. Should we include all these themes in the introduction - and that would be the honest alternative - it would be pretty top-heavy. Hgilbert 01:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to seem some more information about Steiners ideas about Christ because at the moment I am not convinced. It certainly seems from the quotes be had some special views on "the Christ" but I'm not sure how important these were to his beliefs. Relevent quotes here please. Jefffire 09:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction should be a balanced presentation of the subject. A paragraph on Steiner's relationship to the Christ impulse (as he called it) that is longer than the two brief paragraphs previously present is inappropriate; there is an entire section on this later on. I have moved the introductory material down.

If there is a desire to have material on his relationship to Christ, then there should be material on other special topics as well, and the introduction becomes an essay. I know that one or two editors have a special focus on this part of his philosophy, but the article should reflect anthroposophy's distribution of activity and interests, not any particular editor's. Hgilbert 15:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The material is fine lower down unless it can be established that Christ played a much more major part in Steiners religion than you propose. Jefffire 16:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Separate page on race and racism

In an effort to clear up the criticism section (see Jefffire's request above), I am moving the bulk of the discussion on race and racism to a linked page, Rudolf Steiner's views on races. I hope that this is satisfactory to all; the link is prominent and easy to follow. Hgilbert 09:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is altogether very much basis for accusations of rascism in Anthroposophy to warrent a ne wpage. If you give me a few days I'll try an rewrite the criticisms section so we can remove the NPOV tag. Jefffire 13:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Great; thanks, Jefffire. I know the section is a mess as it stands... Hgilbert 21:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we probably got off on the wrong foot. I hope to have a draft of the criticisms sections by friday. If it goes well I will remove the POV tag with it. Jefffire 22:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

With my apologies, I have had less time than I invisioned. I will not be able to rewrite the criticisms section until next week. Jefffire 20:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism on Steiner's work on grounds of racism has prominent academic support, yet it has been sidelined from the article to a sub page, linked from an italicised note. I have restored this to a sub section linking to the sub page. It deserves to be treated equally to the other lines of criticism. Lumos3 21:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I did not delete this category, but I think it is arguably a misnomer to call anthroposophy a pseudoscience. It does not pretend to be a natural science, but rather attempts to apply systematic research principles similar to those developed for natural science in the realm of inner or spiritual experience. An argument for calling it a pseudoscience would be that this is not possible; inner or spiritual experience is wholly subjective and thus an inappropriate object of scientific methodology. An argument against calling anthroposophy a pseudoscience is that it does not pretend to be doing natural science. Just as social sciences such as economics and political science are arguably "soft", i.e. not firmly based upon an empirical and experimental basis, yet are not considered pseudoscience because they clearly identify their objectives - and are not operating under false pretences - so the same could be claimed for anthroposophy.

The term "pseudoscience" has the perjorative connotation of a false presentation that seems unwarranted. Perhaps a less perjorative term could be found. Hgilbert 00:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Anthroposophy presents itself as a science however. Is anouther name for it not spiritual science? I'll do a review of this when I rewrite the criticisms section anyway. You might have a point but I disagree at the moment. Jefffire 13:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Philosophers such as Dilthey and Husserl advocated recognizing that there can be sciences (they used the term "Geisteswissenschaften", sciences of the mind/spirit/human being) that are not empirically based in outer perception, and yet are fully scientific. (The Wikipedia article on Dilthey mentions this briefly.) Steiner certainly was part of this (largely Germanic) philosophical tradition, and called anthroposophy a "Geisteswissenschaft" (humane science), not a "Naturwissenschaft" (natural science). Philosophers grounded in the German tradition would certainly have comprehended the distinction.

Geisteswissenschaft is the standard German term for what English-speaking peoples call the humanities. Steiner was thus calling what he did by the same name as the humanities generally go by in German, and what Dilthey defended as the "humane sciences": though neither quantitative nor empirical in the same sense as the natural sciences, yet qualitatively exact and rational. In his late period (cf. The Crisis of the European Sciences), Husserl used the word Geisteswissenschaft much as Steiner did: to refer to an explicitly spiritual science, not just the humanities generally. All of these thinkers believed that the natural sciences should not claim a monopoly on scientific approach; though the humane sciences would not copy their quantitative empiricism, they would still have a valid claim to the term 'scientific'.

Perhaps a completely different terminology would have to be found in English for this to be readily comprehensible to English-speakers. In any case, Steiner was speaking in the tradition of the Geisteswissenschaften and to declare his work pseudoscientific is badly to misconstrue his cultural context. Hgilbert 00:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I sort of agree now. However, I do think that category:religion should return. Jefffire 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We normally differentiate religions and spiritual movements, for good reason. Religions have, generally, rituals, dogmas, hierarchies, and places of worship; anthroposophy has none of these.

There is a religion started with Steiner's help, incidentally, called The Christian Community; he explicitly and carefully delimited this from his anthroposophical work. Hgilbert 02:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I do believe you are right. Jefffire 16:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

However on a slightly different strain, perhaps it would be appropriate to tag certain practical outlets of anthroposophy as pseudoscience, like the medicine article. Thoughts? Jefffire 16:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I have to scream it from the hills to all connected with the pseudoscience article and categorizing scheme: we are not here to do our own creative philosophizing on what is and what is not pseudoscience, though this makes for prolix and never-ending discussions of the most interesting, albeit totally fruitless kind. Our questions should be: Are there citable sources for making the claim? Are there citable sources against the claim? If there is a sufficient imbalance between the pros and contras, we can claim conclusive (or pretty conclusive) unanimity; otherwise we should report the two sides. If there are no citable sources, why are we even talking about making the claim?

Secondly, and this is for the benefit of the prolix and never-ending discussions, because of the length of this talk page, I am pasting a list of journal articles about the use of mistletoe extract as an agent against cancer, suggested by Steiner in the 1920s and developed by his co-workers at that time; since then further developed by an array of anthroposophical researchers; presently used successfully far and wide outside anthroposophic circles, by many, many mainstream doctors, chiefly in Europe. Peer-reviewed references include (I can only list a small sample here):

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]
5. [15]
6. [16]
7. [17]
8. for background

I would say that this alone weighs in pretty decisively against any hasty categorization, even if we were to raise this forbidden (¡original research!) topic.Hgilbert 19:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Racism in anthroposophy

I am merging this section into the criticism section of the Rudolf Steiner article, as it refers to individual comments by RS, not to anthroposophy generally, or to other anthroposophical authors. Hgilbert 09:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you have also renamed the article Anthroposophy/Steiner's views on races to Rudolf Steiner's views on races. It looks like you are trying to distance the accusations of racism in Steiners work from Anthroposophy itself , yet Anthroposophy is mostly Steiner’s work. The link was also in the See also section not the article itself. This appears to be a public relations exercise. A link from this article would be justified or at least an explanation distancing the movement from the work of Steiner. Lumos3 09:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; I saw the See also section becoming a collection of items that belonged elsewhere, and also thought that I had already changed the article 'Steiner's views on races' to a sub-article of the Steiner article (where it obviously belongs). There should be a link to this somewhere on the anthroposophy page, of course...and we just need to figure out where. It's a little tricky because anthroposophy is ever less and less "mostly Steiner's work"; look at a catalogue from an anthroposophical publisher, [18] for example, and you will see Steiner taking backstage to a large number of more recent authors. The accusations of racism in Steiner's work are pretty particular to him, rather than to the literally hundreds, perhaps thousands (in various languages) of other anthroposophical writers. I'll try to find an appropriate context for the link. Hgilbert 11:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the links, pages and added a reference in this article. Hgilbert 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hansson reference went with all the rest of the material onto the referred-to page. The treatment grew extremely long and the editors at the time (including Jefffire, if I remember rightly) agreed that it made sense to put it all in an easily findable location. It would violate NPOV to only put one side of the argument here and leave the other side on the other page. What is the problem with the link? Sub-pages of articles are an approved of way of including important information that would be too full for the main page.

An alternative would be to produce a balanced summary for this article. If you want to try this, go ahead; please look at the full treatment and give equal weight to all referenced material. Otherwise, the link seems a good solution.

I'll revert, but do feel free to place a balanced summary on the page, OK? Hgilbert 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Your revision of the text is fine.Hgilbert 22:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe what needs to be explored more thoroughly here is whether or not Anthroposophy itself is a racist doctrine. If Anthroposophy is the collection of Steiner's teachings (it is) and Steiner's teachings made assumptions about the races that elevated one race over another (they did) then what argument can be produced that denies Anthroposophy is a racist doctrine or at least based on a set of racist ideas? --Pete K 16:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum for your suggestion and question. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Talk_page#Wikipedia_help

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject, even though they may seem inextricably linked." --Thebee 20:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is English your second language? When I said "I believe what needs to be explored more thoroughly here is..." the word "here" refers to THE ARTICLE. The article needs to explore this the topic of racism in Anthroposophy more thoroughly - as it is quite obvious, to me at least, that Anthroposophy is a racist doctrine. Unless you can provide some evidence that Anthroposohists have rejected Steiner's racist doctrine (you can't because they haven't), I think it needs to be mentioned prominently in the article. If we are going to have an article about Anthroposophy, it should certainly talk about what constitutes Anthroposophy. It's not just angels, you know. --Pete K 23:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides having a section on racism, which I think should be added, there are many racist statements about karma and reincarnation that Steiner has made that should be discussed here (in the article). Steiner's views about how man reincarnates through the races, for example, and man's physical development, the hardening of the body at verious stages of development causing the various races, man's evolutions through Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, etc. and how these are articulated in the races. There's lots of stuff that has been left out of this article that belongs here. --Pete K 23:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I see we're going to play the silence game here. OK, this week I will insert a section on Racism in Anthroposophy and include quotes from Steiner to support it completely. --Pete K 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If what you mean by racism in anthroposophy is alleged racism in Steiner's work, then this belongs in the Steiner article or the article devoted wholly to the topic of Steiner's views on race. If you have documentation of issues in anthroposophy beyond Steiner, they belong here. Hgilbert 15:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about racism in Anthroposophy - in subjects like reincarnation and karma - the foundations of Anthroposophy. This is not a Steiner issue, it's an Anthroposophy issue. Pete K 15:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not viable to add a section claiming racism exists in Steiner's works, representative of one point of view, and exclude any representation from another point of view. Feel free to supplement the point of view you already established, but please do not simply delete all representation of other points of view. It's up to the reader to decide whether Steiner's own words make it seem that critics have misinterpreted him. Hgilbert 17:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Or, of course, whether the Steiner supporters have misrepresented him. So, you're sure you really want to have a lot of quotes presented here? Not that it's really up to you - but if you insist, I'll start digging out the negro novel and French language quotes again. The article would be much better with the simple statement as I have tried to keep it. You are insisting on making this a big deal, not me. But again, you're in command here - so go for it. Pete K 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit again. "Racial bias has been identified in Steiner's work and the concept of racial hierarchies is present in Anthroposophy" is all it needs to say and this is very NPOV. A POV version of this would be "Racism is the foundation of Anthroposophy and Steiner believed the white race to be the race of the future while the "yellow" race was considered adolescent and the "black" race childish. Additionally, Steiner believed some races, native Americans and Semetic races, had outlived their usefulness." The sentence that is currently in the article talkes about racial hierarchies being present in Anthroposophy - that's really pretty tame by comparison. If you really, really don't agree that the article is better with a simple statement about racial bias found in Steiner's work, you should really take a deep breath and let someone else deal with this issue. That you continue to do this dispite the overview of the Arbitration Committee is amazing to me. Pete K 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the question of whether racial hierarchies are found in Steiner's work has been variously answered, to provide only one answer is clearly not NPOV. In addition, to mention the apparent racial bias of his characterizations of particular races without mentioning that he repeatedly and emphatically spoke out for the principle of racial equality is clearly a choice prejudicing the reader's impressions of the man's thought. I believe the present summary gives a brief but balanced picture of uncontroversial nature: it includes his general picture of racial equality and the bias apparent in his particular characterizations. Hgilbert 19:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You're not suggesting racial hierarchies are not found in Steiner's work are you. This would be absurd as his work is filled with this. In light of your attempt at a compromise, however, I've left a good portion of the ammended statement. He was not an "advocate" for equality among the races, Harlan, he was the opposite in fact. He felt very comfortable pointing out that the races are NOT equal. So I've removed this cheerleading term from your wording as it is neither correct nor NPOV. It shouldn't be this hard to get one sentence to work. I just noticed you removed the citation that you asked me to provide. I assume this was an error. I'll add it back in. Thanks for compromising on this. Pete K 20:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The two cited persons (Waage and Bauemler) are not anthroposophists; the AS statement on diversity has an obvious relevance. Hgilbert 16:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, are you sure you want to expand this section? Because you know the minute you claim racism is NOT in Anthroposophy, we're headed back down a slippery slope. It's your call. In any case, doing this (as you insist on doing) during arbitration is probably not too smart. Add what you need to and I'll be back to add my stuff - and then the racism section can overpower everything else. It's up to you - but I really think you're better of with what was there before your edit. Pete K 16:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that the author of your latest addition (McDermott) also said: "Steiner’s thought, at its heart and in its spirit, is not at all racist.This is not to say that Steiner (or his transcribers) did not make mistakes, but it is to say that careful reading of the work would lead one to an appreciation of Steiner’s love of all children, regardless of race, creed, or color."[19] This is not to say that Steiner (or his transcribers) did not make mistakes, but it is to say that careful reading of the work would lead one to an appreciation of Steiner’s love of all children, regardless of race, creed, or color. Hgilbert 19:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The author, McDermott, produced an honest report. Later he was hounded by Anthroposophists who claimed his report was being used in devious ways and he was pressured into back-pedaling. Wouldn't be the first time Anthroposophists have done this [20]. I've read his work carefully - it says what I claim it says, and the quotes were not one-liner's, they were significant for the very reason that I suspected you would object to them. This is a valid quote and reference. Remember who decided we need to expand this section, Harlan? Pete K 01:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

HGilbert, again, you seem to want to whitewash what has happened here. In the second paper by McDermott, he says:

"Three, the educational ideas of Rudolf Steiner (the founder of Waldorf schools) are really about the

wonders of all children. In 400 volumes of his thought, there are a handful of pages that to our modern ear sound terribly stupid and racist. This is a better percentage than can be found in American icons such as Thomas Jefferson and Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Steiner’s followers can at least point out that he, unlike Jefferson or Emerson, from within the confines of turn of the century Germany, had little information and no experience with African or African American children."

Gee, haven't we heard those arguments RIGHT HERE by proponents of Waldorf? The wording, even, is remarkably similar to the Waldorf-speak we hear. The comparisons to Jefferson and Emerson, the paraphrasing of the "difficult for modern ears" phrase that is in the Steiner article, the silly argument about the percentage of racist pages... this is all directly from Anthroposophist's de-bunking closet. The first report was the honest report, the second, a letter of apology after Anthroposophical pressure. Pete K 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Overlap with Rudolf Steiner article

(duplicated from Talk:Rudolf Steiner page). For me, at least, there has been some unclarity about what belongs in this article and what in Rudolf Steiner. I would like this to take some form now.

Steiner's ideas initially formed anthroposophy, but anthroposophy has had a rich existence and development apart from Steiner's own thought and work. I'd like to begin moving what is particular to Steiner into his article, and make the anthroposophy article less one-sidedly Steiner-centric.

This is a long-term project, probably. Any contributions or suggestions would be most welcome.Hgilbert 00:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There are very few attributions in Anthroposophical writing to new thinking outside of Steiner, but there are many commentaries on his work. If you can identify new thinkers, not commentators, who have contributed to Anthroposophy and can show they are publicly acknowledged as such then please do this. There is a danger, though, this could become original research , see Wikipedia:No original research. Lumos3 06:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There certainly are such figures aplenty: Steffen, Kolisko, Prokofieff, Schmidt-Brabant, Kranich, Bothmer, both Hauschkas, etc. It's a huge task because of the sheer number of these. The other question, however, is how much to duplicate content between the Steiner and anthroposophy page. I suppose for now there is a necessary overlap.Hgilbert 09:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit POF Reference

I have edited the opening paragraph which seeks to describe Anthroposophy using a reference from Philosophy of Freedom (1894) - which was written almost 20 years before Anthroposophy was conceived. I have replaced it with a reference from 1923 that says practically the same thing. Pete K 01:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a helpful edit, Pete (a novum!). I have made a few changes, however:

1. The important reference to the original source of the word belongs with the etymology; I have put it there.
2. Though the creation of Steiner, Anthroposophy is not solely connected with him - like existential philosophy with Kierkegaard - and the opening paragraph should be correspondingly inclusive.
3. The methodology of the Philosophy of Freedom is that of all of anthroposophy, and Steiner considered this to be his most important work. Both the original quote and the newly added one can stand! Hgilbert 10:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Harlan. I don't mind moving this around. I don't agree with POF as a reference to Anthroposophy. I understand that it was perhaps his most important work - and certainly belongs referenced in the Steiner pages. But this article is about Anthroposophy and Steiner didn't "invent" anthroposophy until almost 20 years later - so I'm not buying that it is a reference AT ALL - that is suitable for the Anthroposophy article. If you want to say when he wrote Philosophy of Freedom, Steiner started formulating ideas that later became Anthroposophy (I disagree with this BTW as I think Anthroposophy wasn't conceived until his Theosophy period starting about 1900), you should reference it. I'll give you a day to consider how to word it before removing the POF reference again. I don't want to start an edit war over this - but the reference really is inappropriate unless you fully describe how it is being applied (does this sound familiar?). Also, I'm going to put "spiritual science" in quotes like we did in the Waldorf article - and for the same reasons. Pete K 13:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the sentence that is referenced in POF. I'll look for another sentence that is similar (even though the one I've already provided as a replacement IS similar) that is referenced to a work that was contemporary to Anthroposophy. Can you point me to a quote from Steiner that says POF represents or IS Anthroposophy? Maybe that will solve this for you. I don't think it's a big deal as the sentence itself isn't outrageous - but it doesn't seem proper to reference something that, say, George Patton said when he was at West Point and suggest he was talking about WWII. Pete K 16:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an understandable question, Pete. I have replaced the quote, adding a reference to a written work by Steiner, in which he states that his Philosophy of Freedom gives the epistemological basis for anthroposophy. I hope that you find this satisfactory supportive documentation. I grant that this may not have been self-evident either to you or to readers of the article, and think it is an improvement to have faced this question. Hgilbert 18:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Harlan. I'll have a look. Pete K 19:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner did say that anthroposophy is based on the principles in Philosophy of Freedom. "Anyone interested in looking for them will find the basic principles of Anthroposophy already enunciated in this book." Steiner first publicly used the term, "anthroposophy", around 1903. Steiner didn't time The Philosophy of Freedom to coincide with the unveiling of a new social movement like it was some kind of a marketing gimmick to peddle to new members, so the timing isn't strange. Nevertheless, the principles outlined in the book served as the philosophical foundation, in Steiner's view. Venado 21:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Nobody suggested anything about marketing gimmicks. There is currently a discussion going on at the Waldorf Critic's list about how unlike KOW, POF does NOT reflect Anthroposophy to a great degree - especially in the occult material. It might be a good read for anyone interested. Here's a link but the discussion starts before and continues after this entry. Anyway, the sentence can stand as it is in the article now as it has been proofed in GA21. Pete K 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Cesnur article external link/citation

I changed an external link in the Anthroposophy#Religious_nature section to a citation, since that seemed to be how it was used. I'm not sure whether the site is a valid source or not - someone with more experience in this area may was to double check - but the previous format with text hyperlinked to an external page was awkward, if the site does not qualify as a source, perhaps a note like the following 'as written up in 'link' ' would be more appropriate? Or find a new source or remove the reference altogether. --Spyforthemoon 18:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Category pseudoscience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

trueblood 16:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

trueblood 17:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You say that "Anthroposophy does not apply scientific methodology" but I would challenge the accuracy of your observations on which you make this claim. It is my careful and extensive and informed observation, over 40 years, that Anthroposophy is not at odds with scientific method, which relies on a) consistently careful observation; b) drawing reasonable hypotheses from the observations; and c) being open to further evidence that might challenge the hypotheses. Now Steiner himself asked people NOT to believe what he said but to test it for themselves. The fact that Anthroposophists sometimes choose belief over testing does not mean that this is what Steiner encouraged. He did not say, as you claim, "the only people who could evaluate his were, essentially, Anthroposophists"; what he said was that he spoke of what he had himself experienced and that if another did not experience the same thing, this was no proof in itself that what he had said was untrue. It is a delicate matter to grasp the different scientific validities of both positive proof and negative absence of disproof. One analogy is that I do not claim that Australia does not exist because I have not been there. I have examined the matter, and have found it reasonable to take the evidence of others as a working hypothesis. Which is what I have done with Steiner, and have sometimes arrived at different conclusions. But he taught me the method - to observe what was going on "within" with the same very great care as one would apply to conventional scientific observations, and, indeed, as the whole of modern psychology has taught us to begin to do with our inner realities. There is a growing number of scientists who see that certain factions in the scientific world claim objectivity where they, as equally respected and qualified scientists, disagree with such claims to "objectivity", see for example [[21]] I hope this helps the discussion Lucy Skywalker 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is just a problem of translation, why do Anthroposophical societies continue to mistranslate the term into the English word Science [22], [23]? This looks like an attempt to draw on the authority of western science but without subscribing to its rigour, which is the precise definition of a pseudoscience. Lumos3 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spritual science redirect

After two other editors agreed, I redirected spiritual science to this article. --ScienceApologist 18:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sven Ove Hansson as pseudoscientific author

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"many scientists"

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

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

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

On

"Waldorf Answers is intended to be defamatory."

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

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

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

Thebee 11:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

On:

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

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

On:

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

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

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

On:

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

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

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

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

Thebee 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I speak in all humility when I say that within the Anthroposophical Movement there is a firm conviction that a spiritual impulse of this kind must now, at the present time, enter once more into human evolution. And this spiritual impulse must perforce, among its other means of expression, embody itself in a new form of art. It will increasingly be realised that this particular form of art has been given to the world in Eurythmy. It is the task of Anthroposophy to bring a greater depth, a wider vision and a more living spirit into the other forms of art. But the art of Eurythmy could only grow up out of the soul of Anthroposophy; could only receive its inspiration through a purely Anthroposophical conception." From Rudolf Steiner's "Lecture on Eurythmy" August 26, 1923 [24]

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

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

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

PeteK:

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

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

PeteK:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thebee 00:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

WaldorfCritics website

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

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

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

trueblood 13:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

PeteK:

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

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

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

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

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

positivism

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

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

Racism in Anthroposophy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. introducing a theory or method of solution;
2. introducing original ideas;
3. defining new terms;
4. providing or presuming new definitions of pre-existing terms;
5. introducing an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
6. introducing an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.
7. introducing or using neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thebee 16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Here's a quote from the same reference [25] #54:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Above, I have pointed out that what Staudenmaier writes in the introduction to his article is untruthful, and that this is revealed by a simple, direct comparison of what he writes with the historical source, published on the internet: [26] and [27] that he asserts that he describes. What is written in articles at Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources, and only such sources should be cited in articles. The article (and thereby its author) you repeatedly insert a link to, while repeatedly removing all well referenced citation to other published sources, that contradict what you write, is not a reliable source. For you to show that a direct comparison of a text with the original, published in full on the internet, that it asserts that it describes, constitutes "original research", you need to show that such a comparison falls in one of the seven categories, described by Wikipedia as defining "original research". I asked you four days ago to do this (see above), and you still have not done this. I have therefore removed the citation you give for your statement. Thebee 16:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Unreliable source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this an insult to historical scholarship? Yes.

Is he a reliable source on anthroposophy? No.

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

Thebee 01:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Question to other editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thebee 22:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, this is a numbering issue, nothing more.

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

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

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

Thebee 10:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thebee 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that OK?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thebee 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thebee 01:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Libertarian communist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

False accusation of dishonesty

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

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

He also writes:

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

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

The false accusation constitutes a serious, unfounded personal attack.

It seems to be rooted in the discovery by PeteK, that an earlier allegation by him that the sites Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf Education are "clones" of each other, has not been true. He has stated (2 Sept.) that the site of Waldorf Answers is is a site "replete with defamation and non-verifyable (outright lies) information." [28].

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

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

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

Thebee 17:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mcdermott

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

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

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

Edit wars continue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thebee 06:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lethaniol:

"Thebee, I would take extreme care in paraphrasing any of my advice to my mentees, in the future. I have suggested that it may be a possibility to give up the Staudenmaier reference and seek other notable references, but I have given a range of other options including - keeping it, ..."

Yes. After I paraphrased your first suggestion to Pete K and he complained to you about it, you added more/other suggestions. I think your first ones were good.

So what's your point? My difficulty in dealing with your edits is exactly why I've asked for a mentor. Pete K 02:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is what I write: That I think I paraphrased Lethaniol in a way that did justice to his suggestions to you, that it was difficult at that time to foresee what other suggestions he would make to you, and that I think his first suggestions were good. Thebee 03:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing Racial Bias

Hi there everyone,

Before people bite my head off for these edits, when I should be mentoring - [29], as I have read and reread this bit of the page many times it was really bugging me - so cleaned up a little.

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

Anthroposophical publication

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

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

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

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

and, from the general decided remedy section:

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

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

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

The verifiability issue is treated here. Quote: "except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources." This material is published in such a source. McDermott is also involved in the movement. It seems clear but I have asked for an administrator's opinion.

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

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

Fred did; see [30]. Please respect this independent judgment. Hgilbert 18:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Is the bad faith edit warring going to continue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The second is in response to Pete K:

You say that "Anthroposophy does not apply scientific methodology" On what scientific basis do you yourself say this? It is my careful and extensive and informed observation, over 40 years, that Anthroposophy is not at odds with scientific method, which relies on a) consistently careful observation; b) drawing reasonable hypotheses from the observations; and c) being open to further evidence that might challenge the hypotheses. Now Steiner himself asked people NOT to believe what he said but to test it for themselves. The fact that Anthroposophists sometimes choose belief over testing does not mean that this is what Steiner encouraged. He did not say, as you claim, "the only people who could evaluate his were, essentially, Anthroposophists"; what he said was that he spoke of what he had himself experienced and that if another did not experience the same thing, this was no proof in itself that what he had said was untrue. It is a delicate matter to grasp the different scientific validities of both positive proof and negative absence of disproof. One analogy is that I do not claim that Australia does not exist because I have not been there. I have examined the matter, and have found it reasonable to take the evidence of others as a working hypothesis. Which is what I have done with Steiner, and have sometimes arrived at different conclusions. But he taught me the method - to observe what was going on "within" with the same very great care as one would apply to conventional scientific observations, and, indeed, as the whole of modern psychology has taught us to begin to do with our inner realities. There is a growing number of scientists who see that certain factions in the scientific world claim objectivity where they, as equally respected and qualified scientists, disagree, see for example [[31]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

History of Anthroposophy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and according to the main arbitrator, Fred Bauder,

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

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

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

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

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

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

On:

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

According to Wiktionary, "polemic" refers to:

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

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

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

Pete K:

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

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

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

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

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

Last Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Formating issues/ archiving talk page

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

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

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

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

Anthroposophy: science or belief?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no auto-archiving, see here [32] Lucy Skywalker 20:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

False impression

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

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

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

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

OK - Let's start here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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