Talk:Rudolf Steiner

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 23:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Archives
Steiner and theosophy, Archive 1, Prior to October 8, 2006, Archive 2

Race and Ethnicity

The article currently states:

Steiner believed that humanity is made up of individuals first and foremost, each of which exists sui generis: as a unique entity unto him- or herself, and that each individual passes through incarnations in changing settings. For Steiner, race and ethnicity are thus transient characteristics, not essential aspects of an individual. In addition, even in a given lifetime these are minor influences compared to more individual factors. Steiner also emphasized that race was rapidly losing any remaining significance for human development. One of his central principles was to battle racial prejudice; "any racial prejudice hinders me from looking into a person's soul".

I don't believe this to be correct. I don't believe we are making it clear enough that when we say Steiner believed an individual passes through incarnations - that only some aspects of the individual pass from incarnation to incarnation (and the periods inbetween). The statement above makes no distinction between the individual who had incarnated in a physical body (and an etheric body - and a race - and had abstract thoughts and scientific thoughts that cannot be retained after death) and the "individual" Steiner describes as the "inner kernel of our being" (what some of us might call the soul or spirit) having impulses and habits and desires - the part that DOES reincarnate. When we discuss things like race, it is easy to incorrectly suggest that Steiner meant "individual" when he indeed meant "spirit". The statement above, about racial prejudice is correct - Steiner was attempting to look past the individual into the soul behind the individual. I would like to adjust the above paragraph to read as follows:

Steiner believed that humanity is made up of individual spirits first and foremost, each of which exists sui generis: as a unique entity unto him- or herself, and that each individual spirit passes through incarnations in changing settings. For Steiner, race and ethnicity are thus transient characteristics, not essential aspects of an individual spirit. In addition, even in a given lifetime these are minor influences compared to the "deeper being". Steiner also emphasized that race was rapidly losing any remaining significance for human development. One of his central principles was to battle racial prejudice; "any racial prejudice hinders me from looking into a person's soul".

Pete K 03:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone has a better term than "individual spirit" - I'd be happy to use it. Pete K 03:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Steiner nearly always uses the term "individual" (Individualitaet) when speaking about the incarnating being. He occasionally uses "soul-spirit", but this only when comparing it to the bodily-etheric. When speaking about human beings in their essential being, as in the quotes I have added to the references now, he also speaks about the individual. He was not a gnostic, i.e. he did not believe that the spirit was the true reality and the soul and body mere maya; he repeatedly emphasized that he was in fact a monist, i.e. he believed that spirit, soul and body were all interconnected revelations of the individual being. (See the added references in the article for detail.) I have tried to incorporate the distinction you are indicating here in a slightly different way,which I hope meets what you are trying to indicate. Hgilbert 10:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Harlan - I hope you see my point. I'll have a look at what you've come up with. As I said, I was having trouble wording it right because Steiner didn't use the term "individual spirit". Pete K 13:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles

I have given a reference to Steiner's articles against anti-Semitism; they appear in the complete works, with exact page numbers given in the footnote in this article. Previously, when the article was locked, this documentation was on the talk page. That articles have not been translated is completely irrelevant to their existence. This is sufficient documentation by any standard. Hgilbert 10:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that the articles are not in English, and you know it. This is such despicable behavior, always hiding behind your false professorial manners. A reference for articles published in a journal includes the journal title, year, volume, and page numbers. The objection regarding a foreign language was in reference to the discussion on some other web site that supposedly discussed these articles. You've removed that, so that's not what this is about. The further objection is that EVEN if these articles APPEAR in a "journal devoted to combatting antisesmitism," this is classic "weasel words" definitely frowned on at wikipedia. It's being used to suggest Steiner was opposed to anti-semitism, yet the fact of these articles can't be used to show that. They probably DON'T show that - and my suspicion of this is further strengthened by the fact that you don't actually bother claiming that they do. That's exactly what weasel words are. This citation should be removed. We've discussed it at great length and your sticking it back in now, pretending none of that happened, violates good faith.DianaW 11:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

One solution might be for you to quote some passages from these articles for the rest of us, if you think it's fair that they suggest he was writing in opposition to antisemitism. If we can see that they say what you suggest, others might agree to them. This shouldn't be a problem for you since you can read them in the original.DianaW 11:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana, the only way to ensure discussion, that I have found, is to remove the reference (as you did originally). As long as the article remains in the form they prefer, editors tend to avoid discussion. I hope I'm wrong in this case. Pete K 13:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete and Diana, this is aggressive and unfounded. Verification was requested. Two references have been provided, one to the original text - which is itself sufficient - and one to a citation that verifies this. This is all that is needed. I am not a translation service, nor does Wikipedia require translation of supportive documentation. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English; in particular "there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation."

You can look at the table of contents here, but you may need to first login to the site here as a "Neuer Benutzer"; this is free. The article says that Steiner wrote six articles for the journal in question; the table of contents cites that they were indeed published in this journal. Hgilbert 15:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, you are perhaps not understanding the issue here. I can write articles for Mothering magazine, that doesn't make me a mother. If your claim is that he wrote articles that appeared in a magazine about anti-semitism, that's one thing... if it's that this proves he was against anti-semitism, that's quite another thing - especially in the light of substantial information to the contrary. Pete K 16:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The sentence in contention in the article states that Steiner "wrote articles for various journals, including a series for the Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus, a magazine devoted to combatting anti-semitism." I have documented this; it is a biographical fact. It does not, as you seem to think, assert a claim that this proves he is against anti-semitism. So yes, the article's claim here is simply that he wrote articles that appeared in the magazine.

Though this is not relevant to this particular part of the article, statements by him documented in the sub-article do prove that he was against anti-Semitism, however:

1. He speaks of anti-Semitism being a "danger for Jews", but also "for non-Jews";
2. he considers anti-Semitism a sign of twisted thinking, stupidity, inferiority of spirit and showing a lack of ability to make ethical judgments.
3. "It really doesn't matter whether someone is a Jew or a German...That's so obvious, that one is almost dumb saying it. How dumb then must someone be who says the opposite!"

At the same time, his judgment of Judaism itself was complex. He seems to have classed all religious or cultural orientation to an ethnic or racial basis as out-dated, and brought Judaism as a key example of this, for example. And he also seriously underestimated the power of anti-Semitism. All this is also documented in the article about his views on race/ethnicity, as it should be. Hgilbert 18:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Again Harlan: scoldings will not slow anyone down so I suggest you desist. Nobody is being "aggressive" in pointing out that this reference is not kosher. You write: "It does not, as you seem to think, assert a claim that this proves he is against anti-semitism. So yes, the article's claim here is simply that he wrote articles that appeared in the magazine." Yes, Harlan, that's the problem. (One of them.) That's what wikipedia calls "weasel words" and they're strongly discouraged. This couldn't be more transparent, Harlan: You probably don't even know what the actual articles say, and don't care. If you knew that they said something against antisemitism, you'd *quote that*. What on earth is stopping you if these articles contain Steiner speaking against antisemitism? But you know you can't possibly make such a claim. You're hoping that the suggestion he *wrote for this magazine* will suggest this in and of itself. It doesn't. That's weasely. It's poor scholarship, at best, and most likely outright dishonest. I strongly suspect you have no idea what those articles say. And please spare us: we all know the next thing you will write to be an accusation that I don't assume good faith. I don't think, however, that there's a requirement we go on assuming good faith from someone who's already violated it.DianaW 20:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The WP:Assume good faith policy is non-negotiable if you wish to edit here; any failure to do so is obnoxious and aggressive. In addition, assuming you know what others would do and must have read is always doubtful; here you are simply wrong. Finally, there is nothing weasely about the statement that Steiner wrote these articles for the magazine mentioned; it is simply factual. Look up the WP policy on weasel words. Hgilbert 20:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, you wrote:

1. He speaks of anti-Semitism being a "danger for Jews", but also "for non-Jews";
2. he considers anti-Semitism a sign of twisted thinking, stupidity, inferiority of spirit and showing a lack of ability to make ethical judgments.[1]
3. "It really doesn't matter whether someone is a Jew or a German...That's so obvious, that one is almost dumb saying it. How dumb then must someone be who says the opposite!"[2]

Putting these into context would ge a good idea Harlan. These are quotes I like to call "snippets" - taken out of context (as they always are) to make a point that is inaccurate (in these cases really the opposite of the point you are supposedly making). The fact that Steiner was in favor of assimilation rather than extermination doesn't make him less guilty of antisemitism. We've had lots of racist quotes here already. Do you really want the antisemitic quotes here too Harlan. That's fine with me - but I've been avoiding that whole issue. Since you want to make the claim that is opposite of the truth (yet again) we'll just do it your way. Pete K 20:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, get over yourself, Harlan. The "assume good faith" policy does not apply to people who have *violated* good faith - obviously. What kind of idiots do you think the rest of us are? I think it's downright uncivil of you to act this way with other adults. It's like nursery school and you think you're the teacher. Talk about obnoxious. You call anybody who disagrees with you a bunch of pompous names. Okay - so you're implying clearly that you *have* read these articles. What is making it so difficult for you to provide some actual quotes, then - the stuff that would show whether there's a reason to believe these articles show Steiner speaking against antisemitism? And if they *don't* show that, then I think it's up to you to justify why this material is included at that point (or any point) in the article. What is the point of referencing the material at all? Any idiot can see it's an apology-in-advance for the criticisms, the suggestions that Steiner *himself* was an antisemite, that are going to appear later in the article. I did look up the policy on weasel words, Harlan, and I suspect (ooh, naughty of me) that you did too. This is the most classic conceivable case. In fact, I may submit it as a good example for wikipedia to use to illustrate the policy.

Weaseling is when you don't have anything that will really make your case; so you stick in something that doesn't really quite do it but sounds, offhand, like it might. You can't, therefore, explicitly claim that it does, but since it's kinda related you hope nobody will notice. And if somebody does complain, you protest that you "never said that anyway," and technically, you're right - but ethically, it's a bit of a scummy trick.DianaW 20:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What the bleep are you talking about? What case? The passage mentions Steiner's early articles; it is not trying to make a case for anything. You are the one projecting all sorts of things here, claiming I or the article said or is trying to say things that neither is saying and then objecting when it is pointed out that it and I are not saying that. Ethically, this is surely a scummy trick, if it is a trick. Why don't you settle down? Hgilbert 01:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's the best possible example because in this case - the material being cited is in a foreign language. Pete K 23:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Horrors! The material is in a foreign language! Why? Because the reference is to Steiner's writings, and he had the temerity to write in a foreign language. Highly suspicious, you think? Hgilbert 01:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

{Sigh} OK Harlan... again, if you insist... here's an article that I will reference that discusses the very articles you mention. [1] - It isn't pretty and in fact shows that indeed Steiner was an extreme nationalist and held an antisemitic political view. Here's a passage from the article:

"Steiner consorted with notoriously bitter antisemites and was by his own account on entirely friendly terms with them. The passages in Mein Lebensgang on his relationship with Heinrich von Treitschke, for example, are straightforwardly admiring of this towering figure on the German right, who was the foremost intellectual ally of militant anti-Semitism (Treitschke coined the Nazi slogan "The Jews are our misfortune"). Steiner never so much as mentions Treitschke's infamous stance on the "Jewish question." The same is true of Steiner's appraisals of Haeckel and Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, among others. In fact it is abundantly clear from Steiner's own writings on the subject that he had an extremely rudimentary understanding of anti-Semitism and that he was himself beholden to a wide variety of antisemitic stereotypes, which he frequently broadcast to his followers.11) On more than one occasion he expressed the wish "that Jewry as a people would simply cease to exist" (Steiner, Geschichte der Menschheit, Dornach 1968, p. 189 and elsewhere). This wish was consistent with Steiner's categorical rejection of the Jewish people's right to existence: "Jewry as such has long since outlived its time; it has no more justification within the modern life of peoples, and the fact that it continues to exist is a mistake of world history whose consequences are unavoidable. We do not mean the forms of the Jewish religion alone, but above all the spirit of Jewry, the Jewish way of thinking." (Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur, GA 32, p. 152)"

Again, have it your way... I'll put this reference in tomorrow sometime. Pete K 03:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The articles I mentioned, in the journal against anti-Semitism, are collected in GA31. None of these are referenced in the above quote; you are mistaken here.
2. Steiner was friends with and/or acquainted with an amazing range of people, from wildly left-wing anarchists such as MacKay (a friend) to Treitschke (a distant acquaintance). He had a hostile relationship with Förster-Nietzsche (see his autobiography).
3. The quoted article is correct that he saw the Jewish religion and "way of thinking" - by which he seems to have meant religion that prescribed external laws of behavior rather than a path of inner transformation - as outdated, and that he severely underestimated anti-Semitism. This is rightfully seen as problematic, especially in a historical retrospect that can see how anti-Semitism became a terrifyingly powerful force in Germany some 20-30 years after his comments disparaging it.
4. He was nevertheless a vocal opponent of anti-Semitism and of German nationalism; in an article that is drawn from the journal in question, he spoke about Adolf Bartels, a German nationalist as follows: "It wouldn't occur to me to equate Mr. Bartels with the banal factionalists who invented the 'German man' in order to have as euphonious a phrase as possible to justify their anti-Semitism....But one thing seems certain to me: Bartels remarks about the 'German man' originate from the same source as the senseless prating of the anti-Semites."(Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus Nr. 37, 11 Sept. 1901)
5. Or: "There was never a 'Jewish question for me....as part of Austria's national student body became anti-Semitic, this appeared to me as a mockery of all the cultural achievements of modernity. I have never been able to judge a person on the basis of anything but the individual, personal characteristics that I became acquainted with in that person....I have never been able to see anything in anti-Semitism but a view that indicates the mental inferiority, deficient ethical judgement and poor taste of those who hold it."(GA31, pp. 278ff)

I am not trying to avoid the complexity of his position, but you are vastly oversimplifying it by ignoring his numerous comments directed against anti-Semisitism and anti-Semites. Hgilbert 09:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to avoid the whole issue here Harlan. Your insistence in trying to imply Steiner was a champion against anti-semitism is what's bringing this discussion here. He definitely was not. We can open up this can of worms if you like - I personally would rather ignore it and simply take out the suggestion that Steiner opposed anti-semitism. Again, it's your call. Pete K 16:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have checked a number of things the author of the article, that Pete mentions, writes against the original published sources he refers to as alleged support of what he writes. This has shown that he repeatedly is completely unreliable in relation to the sources he refers to and has made me completely lose confidence in the truthfulness of ANYTHING he writes down to the last comma regarding anthroposophy until I personally have checked the sources he refers to. The unreliability of the author turned up already when checking the very first paragraph of his first article as solo author on anthroposophy against the source it refers to.

For a comparison of what the author writes as "The passages in Mein Lebensgang on his relationship with Heinrich von Treitschke, for example, are straightforwardly admiring of this towering figure on the German right, who was the foremost intellectual ally of militant anti-Semitism (Treitschke coined the Nazi slogan "The Jews are our misfortune")." against the actual source it refers to as "support" for what he writes, Steiner's autobiography, see here. Was Steiner in his autobiography "straightforwardly admiring of Treitschke" as a person or as a writer this author writes?

Steiner in his Autobiography

"Men like Treitschke, who stick so fast in their own personalities, can make an impression on other men only when the personal element is at the same time both significant and also interwoven deeply with the things they are setting forth. This was true of Treitschke. When he spoke of something historical, he discoursed as if everything were in the present and he were at hand with all his pleasure and all his displeasure. One listened to the man, one received the impression of the personal in unmitigated strength; but one gained no relation to the content of what he said."

For another comment on Steiner's view of Treitschke, see Rudolf Steiner and Heinrich von Treitschke by Daniel Hindes. Or here for some comments on Steiner as alleged anti-Semite. For some comments on the last quote from Steiner, see here. It shows that quoted statement was made in the historical context of the late Jewish Enlightenment Haskalah, that like the Enlightenment in general, considered religion -- in the case of the Haskalah, the Mosaic religion -- to be an outdated basis for human culture, thinking and action. On this, the Russian Zionist Leo Pinsker, wrote in 1882 in his book Autoemancipation wrote, expressing himself in much stronger words than Steiner, that in the Jews, the world could observe a people who resembled a living dead.

For a description of Steiner's view of Jewry, see here, Rudolf Steiner - an active opponent against anti-Semitism by Lorenzo Ravagli, or Anthroposophy in the time of Nazi Germany by Uwe Werner, author on the most thorough work on the issue ("Anthroposophy in the Time of Nazi Germany", Verlag R. Oldenberg, Munich, 1999.).

It shows that the author mentioned by Pete does not qualify as a WP:Reliable_source for anything in an article at Wikipedia. Insertion of anything based on him in an article at Wikipedia would violate Wikipedia requirements on WP:Reliable_sources. --Thebee 12:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sune, nobody really cares if you think an author you don't like is "unreliable" - you've cried "wolf" too many times. That source will be used here over your objections. You seem to think EVERYBODY who doesn't represent your POV must be "unreliable". Sorry to be so blunt, but that's nonsense, once again, and not worth the effort to address your objections that are summarized in links to your own website. Pete K 16:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

On "You seem to think EVERYBODY who doesn't represent your POV must be "unreliable".". No, I think people who write things that are not supported by the sources they refer to as alleged support for what they write are unreliable. It's very simple. Your statement that you do not care about this contradicts the strife by Wikipedia to only use reliable sources, and - if you implement it - would violate it. --Thebee 16:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"No, I think people who write things that are not supported by the sources they refer to as alleged support for what they write are unreliable." Um... that would be YOU. Thanks for making my case. Pete K 16:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

On your: "you've cried "wolf" too many times". You mean my description of the WC as a site that publishes argumentation characteristic of criticism-hate type of groups, like its publication of an "Anthroposophical World Conspiracy" myth, a "Protocol of Steiner" myth and allegations of the type that Waldorf schools want children to suffer by opposing to immunization and exposing children to child diseases, in discussions described by Diana as "life threatening illnesses"? (For the argumentation by and answer on this to DianaW (later on the WC-board) see here).

Diana adds: Yes - on your "description of the WC as a site that publishes argumentation characteristic of a criticism-hate type of groups, like . . ." etc. Yes - that. Your documentation for that please? The above contains no links documenting, for instance, that PLANS publishes an "Anthroposophical World Conspiracy" myth. If PLANS publishes such a thing, giving the link to it should be very straightforward. But the links you give merely lead to your own writings. You've been asked to document these scandalous claims how many times now? Why do you ignore these requests?DianaW 12:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just checking - Yup - the link above that the reader is to believe will lead to a quote from Diana saying something like "Waldorf schools want children to suffer" - DOESN'T go to such a quote from Diana, since there isn't such a quote from Diana. The link goes to one of your bogus "summaries" of mean things people supposedly say about Waldorf. Why are you so loathe to go to actual sources? If I'm SAYING that somewhere, why is it so difficult to show this? Maybe becuz last time you quoted me, it was a simple matter to expose your deception - I was literally saying the OPPOSITE of what you claimed I was showing. I was actually quoting an ANTHROPOSOPHIST saying what you wanted to quote ME saying! Surreal. So go for it - or continue ignoring me? Where's the quote from me saying, "Waldorf schools want children to suffer"? You know that if you link to one of my posts on this subject, a much more complex discussion will be revealed, and people might get interested in what anthroposophists actually DO think regarding childhood illness, vaccines, and karma. Can't have that can we! Best if people think Diana says "Waldorf schools want children to suffer."DianaW 12:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents you four days ago asked an admin to look at and take action against this. (For some reason you seemed to forget my first more detailed description of the site of the WC here in a discussion at Wikipedia.) In an answer at your personal Talks page, an Admin (User:Durova) has answered that he or she will take no action on the basis of what you write, diplomatically describing the issue as a not a black or white one, that is, that it is not obvious that my description of the the WC is untrue, even based on the links you try to give in support of this, and leaves it at that.

On the basis of this, you would not consider the decision by the admin to be a judgement that your "Look, a wolf!" to be not that founded? --Thebee 17:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. I know your writings to be dishonest, deceptive and untruthful... And I know your claims of "hate group" are outright lies. There are certainly other administrators who will take this issue more seriously. In the mean time - I hope you are comfortable in the knowledge that you have made a fool of yourself and have basically damaged the credibility of Anthroposophists in general with your false and ridiculous claims. You hurt Anthroposophy and the Waldorf movement much more than you help it - and many Anthroposophists agree with me. Pete K 23:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Is PLANS a criticism-hate type of group? Check the Wikipedia article on the history and criticism of the group, by others, who had to deal with it locally when it started. Thebee 13:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Um - no, Sune. To show that PLANS is a hate group, you need to link not to other pages on wikipedia where you are making the same charges - but to DOCUMENTATION of PLANS' actions or statements that meet this description. Where is this material? Please post it very soon, as I've asked a number of times.DianaW 13:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

LMAO - Yes, Wikipedia is a solid source for good information - I have learned this (not) after editing here. You have put a lot of crap in the PLANS article and now refer me to it for information? That's rich. I'll be removing whatever you put in there Sune - trust me. But thanks for the laugh. Unbelievable!!! Pete K 15:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's typical. That is his long-term strategy here. He put up the AWE and WaldorfAnswers web sites so that he could quote them on wikipedia; soon, he hopes, if he can get the pages stable enough, he can then quote wikipedia on AWE and WaldorfAnswers! It's beautiful!DianaW 13:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the opinion from administrator Longhair regarding the linking to articles written in German - from HGilber's talk page:

"All external links should be in the English language for the English Wikipedia. I know if I came across an article with external links in German, I'd delete them. -- Longhair\talk 21:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)"

So, Harlan, would you care to delete them now, or shall I? Pete K 23:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that external links are not allowed to foreign language sites, but citations for purposes of verification are not considered external links. The Wikipedia guidelines for citations suggest that it is preferable to use English language translations if these are available. It does not say that foreign language citations are not appropriate. Hgilbert 21:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's great news. So I can use the 8 articles I found as citations. Cool! You never answered me about them. Did you have a chance to read them? Pete K 02:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

antisemitism

this [2] leads directly to an article that steiner wrote for the mentioned magazine. the first sentences translate (roughly) as 'Antisemitism is not particulary rich in original thoughts, not even phrases and slogans. Again and again one has to listen to the same old platitudes when followers of this 'philosophy' express their dull emotions.'

he goes on in the article to criticise antisemitic statements by known intellectuals of his day such as Friedrich Paulsen and Eugen Duehring. in the [3] part of the article he describes how people steiner knew in his days as a student in vienna turned from democratic and liberal thinkers who'd talk about humanity, freedom and the dignity of man into nationalist antisemites, who's company began to embarass him. if in doubt find someone who understands german. these articles show somebody speaking out against antisemitism clearly and courageously. i still find it perfectly possible that steiner also said things that would be considered antisemitic elsewhere. as with the racism it is a little more complicated, just putting on a label 'racist' or 'antisemite' will not do. trueblood 12:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood, you're right - this is complex. I'm not trying to put the label of "antisemite" on Steiner. I never have. With regard to what you say above, certainly someone can be a racist and still denounce the actions of the KKK. Denouncing some of the worst antisemites does not excuse Steiner from his own antisemitism. It's a can of worms that will certainly require the spawning of a new article discussing Steiner and Antisemitism if we go down this slippery slope. So what I am suggesting is that we stop trying to suggest that Steiner was a champion for the Jewish people (he wasn't) and leave it at that. When people try to claim that Steiner was against antisemitism, they are begging for material to show up here that shows exactly the opposite. And there is plenty of material that does this. Pete K 16:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

well, i repeat myself at risk of being rude, he was on several occasions speaking out against antisemitism clearly and courageously. i would exactly claim that what you said: he was against antisemitism.trueblood 17:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about being rude - I'm not as sensitive about these things as some people. Anyway, we can have this discussion if you like - there is lots and lots of information documenting Steiner's anti-semitic position - and really only snippets that suggest otherwise. So you think the article is the best place to have this battle? Pete K 18:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

no, not just snippets, 6 whole articles in a magazine that was completely devoted to fighting antisemitism, i am sorry i don't have the time to translate them all for you. but that you of all people talk about snippets, quotes taken of context, that just takes the bisquit. again i don't feel competent to jugde about the rest, but i think it was criticised by you and diana that the article suggested that steiner spoke out against antisemitism. you were doubtful if he might have talked about something else. he did not. he talked about antisemitism and denounced it. now you just speak mysteriously about your antisemitic snippets. let's both have a look again what you said to hgilbert earlier.trueblood 18:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana interjects (and hopes she won't give offense, as this discussion is so very long now, to post this at the end would be too confusing). Thanks for posting this, trueblood. I didn't imagine these articles could actually be found online. Seems amazing that HGilbert couldn't find this, then. For the record, I did not suggest (and this is NOT my take on the question) that I was "doubtful he might have talked about something else." I am doubtful as to why these articles haven't been translated into English; I very strongly suspect that if I could read them in English, I would then understand why. Quite often, Steiner's comments on various races are very deeply ambivalent, and while anthroposophists want to read lovely things into glib statements about loving everybody and unity and brotherhood of man yada yada, those with a critical ear hear something far more nuanced and not open to nearly such unequivocal interpretation. One of Steiner's favorite tricks is to damn with faint praise, for instance. My view is that, in general, anthroposophists DON'T WANT TO HAVE those conversations. They don't want this material to be examined. They want to *suggest* as Harlan tried repeatedly to do, that "Steiner was opposed to antisemitism." The material overall on which this claim is based is very, very contradictory. They will resist fiercely any nuanced discussion of it. This was my opposition to the mention of these articles in the wikipedia article. I don't think I'll get involved in the assimilationist arguments; I more or less agree with Pete. Assimilationist arguments are NOT straightforwardly or unambivalently anti-antisemitic. To claim that Steiner was opposed to antisemitism on this basis is no less problematic. The point that remains of great interest is why anthroposophists so fiercely resist seeing the material examined in public.DianaW 13:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I will look for translations of the articles. Fair enough? But a quick peek on the web reveals that the ONLY people who are suggesting Steiner opposed antisemitism are Anthroposophists. No historians, no non-biased persons that I can find. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Have you got a link to a non-Anthroposophist who makes this claim? I'll keep looking - but I can tell you, sites like Defending Steiner, Waldorf Answers and TheBee and stuff like that aren't going to convince me. So fine - we can leave in the reference to the articles you say suggest Steiner was an opponent of antisemitism, and I'll present the case that he promoted the opposite. It doesn't matter that much to me. Pete K 18:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Steiner was an extreme assimilationist regarding the Jewish people, as were many people of his time, including many of Jewish heritage (e.g. the composer Felix Mendelssohn!) His own writings make this very clear, as they also make clear that he spoke against anti-Semitism and racism time and time again.

By the way, your own primary source, P.S., is not a historian, nor is he unbiased by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are founding members of the Skeptical Humanists. Come off your high horse; look down and you'll notice it's a braying donkey. Hgilbert 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You're the one braying here, not me. Are you joining Sune in the attempted defamation campaign? Big surprise. Nobody claimed ANYONE was unbiased. But again, claims excusing Steiner have to come from somewhere other than Anthroposophists. Otherwise, they are more of the same bull. Your house of cards is tumbling down Harlan, and your revisionist history along with it. You don't need to tell me Steiner was an assimilationist - I've explained that to you many times right here. He wanted and expected the Jews to dissolve - he didn't like their "Jewishness". I don't need history lessons about this from you and other revisionists. In case you haven't noticed, my high-horse doesn't care for your bull. Pete K 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

no, pete, not fair enough. quick peeks on the web are not enough, just get somebody who understands german, you were wrong but now it does not matter much to you. and tell me again, about this snippet theory of yours. were you indicating that quotes taken out off there context don't tell much? and then the dutch commission's position has to be evaluated but this peter staudenmeyer person does not.

i wish you could come up with some real objective historian or journalist writing in a real magazine or newspaper, not some cranky antireligious fanzine, can't be so difficult. but all your ranting has not change a little bit to this article in terms of making it more neutral. you just managed to get on some people's nerves bigtime. trueblood 22:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - quick peeks are not enough. Reference the articles then - not a table of contents to them. Let's see the articles themselves and I'll get them translated. Meanwhile, here are some I have tried to translate using Google. Have a peek:

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-2.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-4.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-5.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-6.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-7.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

I'm taking this very seriously - but the automatic translator doesn't do a very good job. I will continue to look into this - but maybe you would like to read these in German.

http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner.htm http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-2.htm http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-4.htm http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-5.htm http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-6.htm http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-7.htm

Pete K 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

when you say this: "his type of dishonesty doesn't seem to bother these people and is, as some of us know, representative of Anthroposophists and Waldorf in general. This type of dishonesty is what critics of Waldorf continue to claim exists - and it is being demonstrated here - right before our eyes. Good job guys!!!" are you actually talking to me?

because you come here, make all these wild claims, insult people, scream 'bias', but all the evidence you can come with, are people affiliated with PLANS or sceptical organizations, that seems to show cultish behavior themselves. you don't have any unbiased references, do you. all this PLANS stuff is equally unconvincing as defending steiner or americans 4 waldorf ... and then you talk about your experiences with 'these people'. you are so blind that you don't notice that the people editing here have quite different opinions. if they don't agree with you they are part of this anthro conspiracy, part of 'these people'. man you've got personal issues. but nobody here is interested in that. this is not the place to conduct a personal vendetta. stop dragging in you personal business, stop being impolite, stubborn to the degree of fanaticism. trueblood 22:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see it this way - but you couldn't be more wrong. "People affiliated with PLANS"? Who would that be? What reference have I produced by someone affiliated with PLANS? And who gets to decide who is "affiliated" with PLANS? You? PLANS is an organization just like the Anthroposophical Society - so if you are suggesting that any of my references belong to the organization PLANS, you are mistaken. If you want to make loose associations in order to discredit people - that's something you can do to amuse yourself - but it doesn't amuse me and I suspect most people reading this are intelligent enough to see right through it. So what PLANS stuff are you talking about? It seems you may be the one falsifying associations here. Nobody I have referenced is from PLANS. So then you want to include all "sceptics" - which would be anyone who doesn't buy into Steiner's nonsense - right? I mean, if they don't believe it, they certainly must be skeptical about it - right? So again, you've got nothing here - just more smoke and mirrors trying to discredit me. The house of cards is in jeopardy - it may only take a little more smoke to knock it down. The only thing holding it up is the Commission of Anthroposophists - and mysterious articles in German. Let's see how long those will keep things together for you. Pete K 23:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

plans might be an organization like the anthroposophical society. but i seem to remember to have read something about 40 members. did you say something about a figure of 50000 anthroposophists? so an anthro could have much better reason for saying something general about 'these people' when speaking about plans. peter staudenmaier participates at discussions at a plans online forum does he not, in my book that could pass for affiliated. with sceptics i mean organized sceptics. don't be so slow, you know what i mean. i'd consider myself a sceptic in the general sence of the word. but i am sceptical but organized sceptics. take a peek at this, it sums it up. but your new german links are different. they are in depth, and present a differentiated view. put them in.trueblood 10:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood: "peter staudenmaier participates at discussions at a plans online forum does he not, in my book that could pass for affiliated." HUH??? If participating in that forum makes him a PLANS affiliate, then Harlan Gilbert and Sune Nordwall are also affiliated with PLANS. At least try to make sense!DianaW 13:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"peter staudenmaier participates at discussions at a plans online forum does he not, in my book that could pass for affiliated." I get that "affiliated" to you means you can paste that label on whoever you please. So, let me see - here from our group, of the people I actually know, Harlan Gilbert (HGilbert) must also be affiliated with PLANS, and Sune Nordwall (TheBee) too is affiliated with PLANS. Correct? Because participation on a discussion list means an affiliation to YOU. That makes sense since you apparently agree to affiliate Steiner with opposition to antisemitism because he wrote articles for a magazine that opposed antisemitism. Boy, I'd hate to think of all the lists I've posted on that I might be "affiliated" with - by YOU. So, anyone who is critical of Waldorf or Steiner, according to you, and who has participated on a list that is critical of Waldorf or Steiner must be affiliated with the organization that sponsors that list. Incredible. "with sceptics i mean organized sceptics. don't be so slow, you know what i mean. i'd consider myself a sceptic in the general sence of the word. but i am sceptical but organized sceptics."

"Organized sceptics"? They don't get to have a say here why? That's a lot of what organized skeptics do, debunk nonsense - and that they turned their attention to Steiner people who claim no racism and no antisemitism in Steiner's works is pretty natural. They aren't skeptical of ALL claims of ALL people who opposed racism or antisemitism. Those are valid POV's because, well... Steiner was a racist and an antisemite, AND skeptics don't make up Steiner's own society. We're not talking about an anti-Steiner group, we are talking about people who are skeptical, and sometimes they are organized in groups, and have identified Steiner as something to be skeptical about. I don't see that skeptics are skeptical about Thomas Edison and his wacky ideas about electricity. Skeptics look to challenge something that is skeptical. Re the articles, I won't be putting them in until I have them translated because, well, I'd like to know what they say before referencing them. But I'm quite sure I will be putting them in eventually. Thanks. Pete K 15:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Claims

Pete: a little summary of the last developments:

• You and Diana denied that Steiner had written articles in the Journal of an organization opposing anti-Semitism; you claimed that anyone putting a statement to this effect in the article was "dishonest", in bad faith, and a host of other accusations. You now have been shown that he had; in fact, your accusations were totally out of order.
• Then you and Diana claimed that the wording used "weasel words"; the wording was quoted and you were asked to find any ambiguous or uncited wording. You could not for there are no ambiguous words, everything claimed is cited.
• Then you claimed that the statement in the article somehow implied that Steiner's articles in question were against anti-Semitism - when it just stated that he had written the articles. This was, according to you, completely false, again a breach of good faith, more baseless accusations. In reality, however, it is not in the wording - you could find nothing there - but in the fact that he wrote those articles that this implication may be found. The fact is a fact, however. Now I've quoted from one of the articles and there is a link provided by another user to a copy of a whole other article, both of which prove that the articles are in fact against anti-Semitism; any inference that the articles were against anti-Semitism - if a user did in fact draw this - would be completely justified because the articles are of course against anti-Semitism. All of your accusations are false.
• Finally, you continue to employ these accusations though all of them are totally baseless and have been proved so. You have provided no evidence of any kind throughout about the articles in question. All of your claims have been disproved. Please withdraw them or show evidence - and the fact that you can't read German is not evidence of anything but the fact that you've not read what we're talking about. Hgilbert 22:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, you're not often right, but you're wrong again: * You and Diana denied that Steiner had written articles in the Journal of an organization opposing anti-Semitism; you claimed that anyone putting a statement to this effect in the article was "dishonest", in bad faith, and a host of other accusations. You now have been shown that he had; in fact, your accusations were totally out of order. Nope. Diana pointed out that you hadn't referenced the articles themselves - you referenced a table of contents that said the articles existed. As a professional editor, Diana pointed out to you that this does not constitute a proper reference. You still haven't provided the articles as a reference - so this is definitely not out of order.

* Then you and Diana claimed that the wording used "weasel words"; the wording was quoted and you were asked to find any ambiguous or uncited wording. You could not for there are no ambiguous words, everything claimed is cited. Again, you are wrong. The ambiguity is in the improper reference itself as I noted above. You still don't get it apparently.

* Then you claimed that the statement in the article somehow implied that Steiner's articles in question were against anti-Semitism - when it just stated that he had written the articles. This was, according to you, completely false, again a breach of good faith, more baseless accusations. In reality, however, it is not in the wording - you could find nothing there - but in the fact that he wrote those articles that this implication may be found. The fact is a fact, however. Now I've quoted from one of the articles and there is a link provided by another user to a copy of a whole other article, both of which prove that the articles are in fact against anti-Semitism; any inference that the articles were against anti-Semitism - if a user did in fact draw this - would be completely justified because the articles are of course against anti-Semitism. All of your accusations are false. I've discovered in your recent comments that your idea of "anti-semitism" is more like "extermination". Assimilation is anti-semitism Harlan. Steiner wanted the Jews to disappear - he wanted the Jewish culture to disappear. That he didn't side with the people who wanted to exterminate the Jews does not make him a champion against anti-semitism. {sigh}

Thank you. I've responded to some of the above erroneous slop on my talk page, where it was also pasted in, and won't make a further mess here.DianaW 13:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

* Finally, you continue to employ these accusations though all of them are totally baseless and have been proved so. You have provided no evidence of any kind throughout about the articles in question. All of your claims have been disproved. Please withdraw them or show evidence - and the fact that you can't read German is not evidence of anything but the fact that you've not read what we're talking about. No, I think I'll hold off on that. Your quote is a "snippet". I'll start by having the articles translated - I know someone who might be able to do this for me. Then, I'll see if, as I suspect, they talk about assimilation - I would, of course, expect them to as that's what Steiner promoted. But if they don't (highly doubtful), I will at least know what THOSE SPECIFIC ARTICLES talk about and will be in a better position to produce evidence to refute them - because, after all, Steiner WAS antisemitic. In and of themselves, six articles don't change or excuse a lifetime of antisemitism anyway, but I'll have a look at them. That you think my position is baseless should make for some interesting discussions here Harlan. I'm glad you think you can defend your position. I can't wait. Pete K 23:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete's claims

• On October 20, 2006: "I'm not trying to put the label of "antisemite" on Steiner. I never have."
• On October 20, 2006: "The fact that Steiner was in favor of assimilation rather than extermination doesn't make him less guilty of antisemitism. "
• On October 21, 2006: "there is lots and lots of information documenting Steiner's anti-semitic position "
• On October 22, 2006: "Steiner was a racist and an antisemite"

Posted by Hgilbert 17:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC) (according to the diff for the posting.)

Do you intend to sign this Harlan? Let me explain the above for you. I started in on this issue in the hope that you would see the dishonesty of claiming Steiner was opposed to antisemitism. You maintained - behaving in a dishonest fashion - that this is the case. Furthermore, I have never made the claim publicly (that I know of - you're welcome to look anywhere you like) that Steiner was an antisemite. So the first statement was absolutely correct and truthful at the time I made it. I was not trying to put the antisemite label on Steiner - you insisted, however, by continuing to make the claims you have, that I get involved in this discussion - so the situation has, of course changed since my statement. I never said I didn't believe Steiner was an antisemite - in fact, he WAS an antisemite - I only said I was not here to make that claim and that I have never made that claim (again, you are welcome to search the web for me making that claim sometime before Oct 20, 2006). I have been very busy on the web since about 1988, so you have lots to choose from. None of the statements you have posted above disagree with each other. In fact, it seems pretty dishonest of you to make the implication (as your edit summary claims) that I have been dishonest in any way. But then, this is the type of thing I have come to expect from you. Good luck in your search. Pete K 18:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Steiner against anti-Semitism

PeteK: "In and of themselves, six articles don't change or excuse a lifetime of antisemitism anyway, but I'll have a look at them."

"... a lifetime of antisemitism"?

• In 1881, at age 20, Steiner condemned the philosophy of Eugene Dühring, one of the most prominent German anti-Semites of his time, who argued for the physical annihilation of the Jews, as "barbarian nonsense". Rudolf Steiner: Briefe I (Letters I), pp. 44-5. (GA 38)
• Steiner also expressed his vehement opposition in the 1890s (during his 30s) to what he described as the “outrageous excesses of the anti-Semites”, and he denounced the “raging anti-Semites” as enemies of human rights. Rudolf Steiner: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1897-1901 (Collected Essays on Cultural History and Current Events), pp. 198-9. (GA 31).
• His criticism of anti-Semites as enemies of human rights indicates that he fully supported the complete legal, social and political equality of Jews in the same way as for everyone else, as the only solution to what at the time wass called the “Jewish question” (also by Theodor Herzl in 1891, the main initiator of political Zionism). The achievement of equality was something that only in stages was becoming a reality in large parts of Europe during the second part of the 19th century.
• At 36, he wrote:

"Value should be attached solely to the mutual exchange between individuals. It is irrelevant whether someone is a Jew or a German ... This is so obvious that one feels stupid even putting it into words. So how stupid must one be to assert the opposite!". Rudolf Steiner: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1887-1901 (Collected essays) September 1897. (GA 31).

• As an active participant in and supporter of the "Association against Anti-Semitism" in Berlin at the turn of the 20th century, Steiner again criticized the anti-Semitism of the time, writing (at 39) in 1900:

"I have never been able to see anti-Semitism as anything except a view that indicates in those who hold it an inferiority of spirit, a lack of ability to make ethical judgments and an insipidness […], that is a blow in the face for every person with a normal way of thinking.". Rudolf Steiner: Review of the novel Ahasver by Robert Jaffé. In: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1897-1901 (Collected Essays on Cultural History and Current Events), pp. 378-9. (GA 31).

For more on the issue, see an overview of his views on Jewry and Judaism and their role in human culture.

It does not quite support what you write. --Thebee 09:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"As an active participant in and supporter of the "Association against Anti-Semitism" in Berlin at the turn of the 20th century, " - LOL. Diana felt the need to see where this link goes. It goes, of course, to Sune Nordwall's web site.DianaW 13:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That YOU don't understand that "assimilation" is antisemitism is the problem here Sune. Assimilation in Germany is called Germanization. Here's a bit from the Wikipedia article (giggling) about Germanization:

In the Nazi era, the days of certain minorities in Germany were numbered. "Racially acceptable" children were taken from their families, in order to be brought up as Germans[12]. In German occupied Poland it's estimated that a number ranging from 50,000 to 200,000 children were deprived of their families in order to be Germanised[13]. It's estimated that at least 10,000 of them were murdered in the process as they were determined unfit and sent to concentration camps faced brutal treatment or perished in the harsh conditions during their transport in cattle wagons, and only 10-15% returned to their families after the war[14]. Obligatory Hitlerjugend membership made dialogue between old and young next to impossible, as use of languages other than German was discouraged by officials. Members of minority organizations were sent to concentration camps by German authorities or have been executed.

This, my friend, is what Steiner was promoting - the assimilation of millions of Jews into Germanic culture. Of course Steiner was a decade before Hitler came to power, but the concept of assimilation/Germanization had been around in Germany far earlier than Steiner or Hitler. Steiner wanted the Jewish culture to die away - to be assimilated into Germany. I don't think he would have approved of the methods used above during WWII, but the concept he had was indeed about removing the "Jewishness" of the Jews - separating them from their culture, which he believed had "outlived its time". In fact, here's the quote from GA 32:

"Jewry as such has long since outlived its time; it has no more justification within the modern life of peoples, and the fact that it continues to exist is a mistake of world history whose consequences are unavoidable. We do not mean the forms of the Jewish religion alone, but above all the spirit of Jewry, the Jewish way of thinking." (Steiner, GA 32, p. 152)

So your list of stuff taken out of context and referring back to your own websites (again) is of no interest. The historical fact is that Steiner was an assimilationist. This may have been better than an exterminationist - and that may, in YOUR view make him opposed to antisemitism, but really, that's a crock that doesn't hold water. In Steiner's article, we will be making his views clear - and not whitewashing what he said and believed. Pete K 15:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

On guilt by association argumentation

"This, my friend, is what Steiner was promoting - the assimilation of millions of Jews into Germanic culture." What rubbish, based purely on an invalid guilt by (bad) association argumentation. Steiner was for assimilation, like large groups of Jews in the West during his time. The nazis were for assimilation too, you write, not of Jews (but who cares, sounds good as defamatory guilt by association). And we all know the Nazis were Germans, don't we, trying to create a second guilt by association, building the association Nazis-Germans, Steiner ... Germans ...Nazis. Good one, Pete.

On "Jewry as such has long since outlived its time; it has no more justification within the modern life of peoples, and the fact that it continues to exist is a mistake of world history whose consequences are unavoidable. We do not mean the forms of the Jewish religion alone, but above all the spirit of Jewry, the Jewish way of thinking." (Steiner, GA 32, p. 152)

You say you like context (well at times at least), try Some comments on a libelous article on Waldorf education in Salon.com two years ago, somewhat edited

The context from which the quote is taken, a review by the 27-year-old Steiner, as a literary critic in 1888 of the drama "Homunculus" by Robert Hamerling, indicates that it was made -- not as an anti-Semitic statement, which a superficial glance might seem to indicate, but in the historical context and spirit of the Jewish Enlightenment (the Haskalah).

The Haskalah, as a movement of Jewish Enlightenment, developed from the end of the 18th up to the end of the 19th century, as part of the general development of the Enlightenment. It later led to the development of Reform Judaism.

Like Enlightenment in general, the Jewish Enlightenment considered religion -- in the case of Haskalah, the Mosaic religion -- to be an outdated basis for human culture, thinking and action.

Instead it argued, like Steiner, for the emancipation, integration and assimilation of Jewry into human culture in general. And its representatives at times expressed themselves far more radically than Steiner.

On one of them, the socialist Moses Hess, historian Walter Laqueur in his History of Zionism (1972) (18) writes:

“... like almost all his contemporaries, Hess turned his back on religion; the Mosaic religion (as he wrote in his diary) was dead, its historical role was finished and could no longer be revived. [...]

"In his first book (The Sacred History of Mankind) he said that the people chosen by their God must disappear forever [...]” (19).

No one would accuse Hess of anti-Semitism for the unreserved declaration of his belief at the time (1837) in the assimilation of the Jews, much as Steiner later proposed.

The same applies to the Russian Zionist Leo Pinsker, who in 1882 in his book Autoemancipation wrote, expressing himself in much stronger words than Steiner, that in the Jews, the world could observe a people who resembled a living dead (20).

These examples and Steiner's repeated and vehement argumentation against the anti-Semitism of his time indicate that his comment about Jewry was not, as one at first glance might be led to think in today's context after the Holocaust, part of an argument calling for the annihilation of the Jews, as the placement of the quote on the home page of the anti-Waldorf group tries to imply.

Instead, Steiner argued for the complete opposite of this, namely the complete integration and assimilation of Jewry into society and culture in general. This view was also a common view among Jews in the West at this time, when Theodor Herzl started to argue for the opposite.

A thorough investigation of Steiner shows a completely opposite picture to what the limited quote used in anti-Waldorf demagoguery tries to indicate.

Throughout his life, Steiner rejected anti-Semitism, arguing that no one should be judged on the basis of their belonging to any sort of group, that is, as something more important than their qualities as individuals.

(I wrote that, have the copyright to the text, and republish it here on this basis. Thanks for the opportunity to do it.)

Thebee 19:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Instead it argued, like Steiner, for the emancipation, integration and assimilation of Jewry into human culture in general." Cool! The Jews could join the world of humans. How nice. Please don't try to convince me Sune - your arguments are, as usual, the same nonsense supported by more nonsense. If you can support your position with real references, please feel free to do it. If you're just going to point to your own personal summaries, please don't bother - it's a waste of my time to even read it. In the mean time, I will make my case and we will have the same issue as we do with racism - you trying to hide everything I say, and me trying to reveal the truth. Good luck to you in this, the latest of edit wars. Pete K 20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Restoring two removed comments

On "Instead it argued, like Steiner, for the emancipation, integration and assimilation of Jewry into human culture in general." you comment:

"Cool! The Jews could join the world of humans. How nice."

"... human culture in general" meant "Human culture not bound to any specific national identity", not your twisted description "the world of humans". The fertilization of all sorts of cultures by people of Jewish origin and/or faith, contributing to their development, has also developed since the beginning of the Diaspora, not least the last century of all sorts of anthroposophically based activities world wide, including the U.S. Thebee 01:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC) (source)

Great - now you characterize Jews as fertilizer. You should quit while you're way behind. Pete K 02:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the one who comes across as crazy here is not primarily Thebee. --Vindheim 19:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for weighing in on this one big guy... Pete K 20:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sune: "Instead it argued, like Steiner, for the emancipation, integration and assimilation of Jewry into human culture in general." And you can't tell the difference between *Jews* considering the question of their own assimilation - and other people urging them to get on with assimilating?DianaW 13:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sune: "These examples and Steiner's repeated and vehement argumentation against the anti-Semitism of his time indicate that his comment about Jewry was not, as one at first glance might be led to think in today's context after the Holocaus part of an argument calling for the annihilation of the Jews..." No one has ever, to my knowledge, argued that Steiner advocated the annihilation of the Jews. Try arguing the actual points raised, and you'd improve your own credibility!DianaW 13:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Big surprise - this came from Harlan. Pete K 02:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Geeze, Pete. For days the discussion page was nothing but personal attack after personal attack and nothing here was getting accomplished. Now someone simply posts a reminder as to the purpose of these pages and you issue a personal attack by being condescending. Egamirorrimeht 23:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is actually a Wikipedia standard message reminding people about the purpose of these articles and Wikipedia policy. Hgilbert 02:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Shove your reminders Harlan. This is a controversial issue, and people here are behaving like children. You loaded up DianaW's talk page with these reminders last week while she was out of town. That's childish nonsense and you are using Wikipedia policy to intimidate people. Again, these articles are controversial - there's a reminder on the top of every page. We don't need your daily reminders as well. Oh, and thanks to the sockpuppet for weighing in. Pete K 15:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If following Wikipedia policy intimidates you, are you in the right place? "We don't need your daily reminders..." Well, walk your talk. Hgilbert 19:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete, I certainly understand that it must be frustrating for you. You're trying your best to spread your views onto Steiner's pages, and you're constantly being rebuffed by people who also have good viewpoints, and alot of times theirs win out... so that's certainly frustrating. And sometimes you're harrassed, and that's got to make you angry. But Wikipedia is no place to let your frustrations mutate into attacks. You're a smart guy, I don't need to tell you that noboody likes to be insulted. I mean you write children's books, I'm sure you know many life-lessons and could probably teach everyone else a good many things about how to deal with others.

And regarding the personal attacks, you're not the only one here who is guilty of this. Notice how Hgilbert didn't address you specificaly with the posting of wikipedia policy. TheBee is obviously guilty of this too, when he posted that he could punch you for your insults. I just don't think anyone here wants to read insult after insult, or be in fear of being insulted for posting their views, or be frustrated for being harrassed. Boogafish 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Boogafish, I wanted to correct that I don't write children's books - I write technical books and I'm currently writing a book about Waldorf education. Pete K 23:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

racism again

after all this heated debate i added a sentence with references stating that steiner attracted criticism for being racist. i am sure the wording could be changed. but the controversy is notable and the charge was alleged racism. in germany and the netherlands and probably elsewhere it attracted a lot of media attention. five minutes after i finished my change user boogafish already starts reverting and stops only short of breaking the three revert rule. did not take time to look at the references. trueblood 21:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of this well-referenced description. (I have changed the wording slightly for clarity; I believe this has not taken out anything.) One of the references Trueblood added is to an article by Robert McDermott, an anthroposophist, calling for a hard look at Steiner's views on races; I have incorporated a reference to this in the text, as well. I do not know about the TV-program reference commented on below. Hgilbert 21:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

alleged racism again

For some comments from the Waldorf schools in Berlin-Brandenburg on the German TV-program from 2000, that you added a link to as reference, trueblood, see http://www.thebee.se/comments/Germany/Germany.htm and http://www.thebee.se/comments/Germany/report-with-comments.htm Did you get the link from the WC-site? As for Pete, at present he's on a 24-hour block until 22:57 for Edit warring of one article, Boogafish. On the 3rr rule: Boogafish reverted your links two times, trueblood. Violation of the WP:3RR rule only takes place with the fourth revert. Thebee 21:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern... I'm back apparently... Pete K 23:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

i did not allege racism, i just stated the fact, that anthroposophy was heavily attacted and criticised for being what was perceived as racist. this is what is notable and what should be in the article. that is different from trying to prove in the article that steiner was racist. got all those links from a google search steiner racism. i thought boogafish impolite because he reverted right away, a referenced edit without really discussing with me. that is exactly the sort of behavior that starts edit wars and i would have tried to get him blocked had he reverted another time for edit warring.trueblood 11:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I've fixed the problem, I think. There really were far too many examples within the article and that was the problem with it when it was bloated. Now there are only generalities and that's where it's at its strongest. What I did was take out ALL the examples and I think it is a much more appropriate article now.

And Trueblood, I could very well say the same for you. You added to the article without coming here, to the talk pages, first. Everyone knows that the "race" section is constantly being fought over and any changes would ignite controversy. But in the future I won't make any changes without coming here first.

As for the comment on Robert McDermott, I'm very well aware of his work and respect his opinion a great deal. However, I don't think his arguments nor anyone else's belong on Steiner's main page. The rubric I'm using for this is "Would that ever show up in Encycolpedia Britannica?" Absolutely not. If it were, it would be in a seperate article. Boogafish 16:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Boogafish, I'm worried we might be butting heads on this one. I believe the "generalities" are not going to accurately represent what Steiner wrote or meant. Some of the things I've noticed, for example, was how the word "individual" was used incorrectly - as it meant to Steiner an "individual soul" - not an individual incarnate person. So when we speak in generalities, we have to be very careful to accurately represent not just what Steiner said, but why he said it, and what he meant. There are too many people here trying to change what Steiner said into what *they think* Steiner meant. This is, of course, a matter of interpretation and support for each interpretation can only come from what Steiner *actually* wrote. Pete K 16:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete, I see what you mean and think that's a very good point. I think "invdividual spirit" might even be the most accurate term here.

My only point really is that I don't think the examples (refrences or specific arguments, to be precise) should be on the main page simply because we know that the page can easily get enormous and disproportionate, quickly. Afterall, Steiner wrote volumes on Christianity and its section on his main page is actually much smaller than his section on 'race.'Boogafish 16:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC) i see this keeness again to sweep things under the carpet. i say this again, there has been a lot of discussion and criticism for the alleged racism in several countries. i think that is very notable. all the links that i added where to reference this, not to bring in this or that argument. trueblood 18:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC) you have not really told me why we should not mention this controversy. as for the encyclopedia britannica, it is a healthy approach but wikipedia is different. this article is probably 50 times longer than any article in any encyclopedia on steiner don't you think? just because the racism question pops up again and again, it will make the article more stable to put this in. i think i am gonna side with pete k in thinking that it is only when discussing this section that people get worried about the overall size of this article. but then for months it seems this section was the only one that got discussed.trueblood 18:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe it's because it's the only section that is so controversial. Fact is, I don't think anything needs to be added to this section whatsoever until the section on Christianity becomes much, much larger, the section on Anthroposophic Medicine becomes much larger, etc. Thing is, it needs to be proportionate to whom Steiner was. People who are new to Steiner see this article on race, and immediately they think one of Steiner's main contributions to the world was his views on race. Obviously, that is absurd. It's like having a large section on Tom Cruise's page describing all the rumors that he's gay, while the section on the movies he's been in is small. But the difference there is that everyone knows who Tom Cruise is, when they see his page and how disproportionate it is, they easily recognize that fact. Few know about Steiner and, for those reasons, the subarticle Race and Ethnicity on the main Steiner page is too long even at one word, much less two paragraphs. Boogafish 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And Trueblood, I want to also complain that I don't agree with you adding an additional refrence, specifically the one about 'self-criticism' after I have so obviously objected to your prior editing. And Hgilbert's support hardly is a consensus. Boogafish 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the issue here, that we should be discussing is how much race actually WAS part of who Steiner was. Speaking in very general terms, Steiner was interested in making spiritual associations and based some of those associations on the races. It wasn't as if race was as insignificant to Steiner as say, eurythmy. Race was what he built much of his philosophy on - directly. He embraced Theosophy and the root-races, then he moved on but still continued to bring racist ideas into Anthroposophy. It wasn't just a side-note for him - it was a cornerstone of his work. When he became a little more famous, his political positions reflected a racist stance as well - his comments about blacks being housed in France after WWI were (along with many Germans of the time) very racist - suggesting that spiritually, the French would destroy their own blood. Race and the mixing of blood was something Steiner felt very passionate about (unlike eurythmy) and so he spoke out. I agree, Christianity also needs to be addressed more thoroughly, but - as with your example above Steiner's connection to racism is more like Tom Cruise's connection to Scientology. They are documented, and not "rumors" - and they are a part of what identifies Steiner today - unfortunate as that may be. BTW, there were rumors that Steiner remained celebate throughout his entire life. Nobody is bringing that kind of stuff here. Racist ideas are a major part of Anthroposophy, however, and belong here as part of Steiner's legacy - IMO. Pete K 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete, I've always seen the topic of race to be a really a major issue to critics of Anthroposophy, but not to Anthroposophists themselves (or at least very, very few.) What becomes clear after really absorbing Steiner, not just reading Steiner, is that race is really no more important to an individual than, say, temperament.

No doubt most scholars agree, which is why major encyclopedic refrences to Steiner never mention his racial views. Boogafish 20:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And I also want to say that, yes, Steiner did have something to say about how races, in particular root races shaped the world today. In that regard you are quite right. But he also said that, at the time of root races the ego was still developing and, in those times race played a pivotal role. Today, it really doesn't.Boogafish 21:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to add this reminder as to what, exactly, constitutes neutral point of view...... Boogafish 21:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, doesn't it always boil down to *my* understanding of Steiner is better than *yours*? Let's try to do this without talking down to each other - OK? I don't think you can speak for "most scholars" any more than you can speak for "most Anthroposophists". The important issue, regardless of whether this is an "issue" to Anthroposophists, is that Steiner, himself, put the age when race *doesn't matter* far, far into the future (like 1500-2000 years from now). So, no, we haven't *outgrown* race - not in Steiner's view. That's why Steiner put so much effort into describing the differences in the races - not because they are no longer important - but because they *are* important right now. This is not an insignificant issue that critics like to bring up - it is a significant issue that Steiner defenders like to play down. Pete K 22:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced.

woa, now you are getting into a discussion with pete k whether anthroposophy is racist or not. it's has been discussed extensively. leads to nothing. i just remind you that i try to proove nothing here, just stated a fact and referenced it. the length argument does not convince me, we are talking about a very long article and i added one sentence. but i take it you are not talking for my benefit, since you did not really reply to my arguments.trueblood 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood- My whole point is that it was too long before you even added to it. It doesn't matter how well refrenced it is. Read what I posted previously, on neutrality. Wikipedia isn't the place for minor viewpoints (like the example of some people believing the earth is flat and posting their views on "Earth.") It can be reflected on a page all to it's own, but not on the main Steiner page.

Boogafish 21:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC) but my addition is completely neutral, it just states the fact, steiner's teachings attracted media attention for criticism of racism. did not make headlines but considering the general media attention that anthroposophy gets it was notable, on tv, in news papers, whole books were published and some taken off the market as the result of law suits. the german article on steiner is probably 30% criticism. i am not proposing that. your space argument seems dishonest to me. there are a lot of things in this article that would be in no other encyclopedia. why don't you shorten somewhere else and not in a controversial section?trueblood 21:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Trueblood- Please, I don't want to have to keep repeating myself here. Please read the Wikipedia policy I posted! Weight matters as regards neutrality. Boogafish 22:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Boogafish, please don't even try to suggest that the view of Anthroposophists represents any kind of majority view here. There are only 50,000 Anthroposophists on the planet - a very tiny minority of people who have accepted Steiner, vs a huge majority of the world population who have not accepted Steiner. There are certainly millions of people who read Wikipedia. The viewpoint of Anthroposophists is the minority viewpoint here, not the majority. There are, for certain, more people who believe the earth is flat, than people who believe all of Steiner's wacky beliefs. So you are barking up the wrong tree here. Pete K 22:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Call for Meat Puppets

Now, our friend Boogafish has put out an advertisement soliciting meat puppets:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/29567

Attention everyone, on the Rudolf Steiner page on Wikipedia.org, there

is a great deal of controversy regarding race (and many, many other

issues)

Currently, there is an subarticle on Steiner's "racial views" that is

even longer than the subarticle on his contributions to Christianity. There's a fierce opponent of Steiner on wikipedia named Pete K who reminds me alot of Dan Dugan and he is attempting to totally pervert Steiner's legacy. Many people believe Wikipedia to be somewhat of a credible source and I, therfore, don't want to see many newcomers recieve a distorted view. So I've been working hard over there trying to get things done, but there's only one of me.

Anyways, regardless of anyone's position on the issues over there,

your presence would be MOST welcome. We just need more activity over there so that a distorted viewpoint doesn't become "the viewpoint."

Warm Regards,

Boogafish

I'm not inclined to visit the other Anthroposophical websites to see if it appears there too - but I would suggest that new visitors who jump in here to make edits might be viewed with some scrutiny. BTW, Boogafish, people who are trying to distort what Steiner actually wrote and professed are the ones who are perverting Steiner's legacy. Pete K 18:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The Deletion of the Section: Race and Ethnicity

Trueblood- Look, you are not getting it. This has nothing to do with whether or not what you posted was neutral. The subsection on race should not even exist. Its very existence makes the page un-neutral. (re-read the Wikipedia policy I posted in my previious "incarnation.")The FACT is that the section on race should not even exist. It is a minority view, much as the flat-earth society is a minority view of geography. The example in the wiki policy states that the flat-earth society posting their views on the main article for "Earth" would make the page slanted. Wikipedia is not the place for minority viewpoints, no matter how correct they think themselves to be. Those viewpoints can be expressed in their own article, but not in the main article. Again, read what I posted earlier before you had me blocked. - - I tried posting this earlier, but Trueblood had me blocked before I could get it up onto the discussion page. I chose to delete the section "Race and Ethnicity" because, after looking at the wikipedia standards a bit more, I believed it to make the article biased. At the very least, it makes it disproportiate. I think we're all losing sight of the article as a whole here too, because of this one section. So I wanted to delete it for the time being, until we decide whether or not it should even belong. Meanwhile, we should expand the other sections so that, if we decide the Race subarticle does have a place, then at least at that time, it wouldn't be disproportionate. - - I'm not going to post here anymore until my block is up because I respect wikipedia's blocking me. I just wanted to post what I was in the middle of writing at the time I was blocked is all....Boogafish2 23:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The claim that the subsection on race should not exist is ridiculous Boogafish (or Boogafish2 as the case may be). I think you need to get a handle on what you are trying to accomplish here. If it is to eliminate all traces of the race issue with Steiner, you should be aware of the fact that your opinion about this is the minority opinion - even among the Anthroposophist editors here apparently. Nobody before you, that I know of, has suggested that the entire topic should be deleted completely from the article. Please know, for certain, that it will never be completely effaced from this article. Pete K 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe there are alot of people out there who believe this should be the case but they've never thought about it. That's why I'm bringing it up.Boogafish2 23:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Boogie wrote: "The subsection on race should not even exist. Its very existence makes the page un-neutral." Say what? Come again? Please try to make sense. The very existence of a subsection in the Steiner article discussing Steiner's views on race makes the page un-neutral only if you believe that the facts of his views on race are not fit for public consumption, and the public should be shielded from learning of them. Is that what you believe? Considering you're on at least one anthroposophical mailing list at the moment trying to recruit people to come over here and support your position, I'm guessing that *is* what you think. Look: face facts. Getting any mention of Steiner's racial views deleted from the Steiner articles on wikipedia is going to be a losing proposition. There are a number of us who will fight a whitewash very vigorously. You can always hope one or the other of us will go away for a few days - but we'll be back, and we aren't the only ones. Give up attempts to REMOVE Steiner's racial views from the Steiner articles here - there's literally no chance of succeeding at this.DianaW 02:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"So I wanted to delete it for the time being, until we decide whether or not it should even belong." Hysterical! Let's just delete it for a little while! Okay - how's five minutes?DianaW 02:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The section is relevant and accurate. It should not not take up a disproportionate portion of the article; its present length is probably close to a maximum in this regard. It should, however, be NPOV; the initial overview should not be minimalized. I have therefore combined the brief substitute version into the more complete overview. WP:Criticism also suggests speaking about 'reception' of an author in a balanced way rather than focusing solely on 'criticism'; I have changed the final sentence to reflect this. Hgilbert 11:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

i think the section is good as it is, maybe we could move on to other things. i corrected the title of archati's book, without knowing the exact title, just guessing...trueblood 12:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that I'm able to post, here's my take:

First, would the people here please educate themselves on wikipedia standards as to what neutrality means in its entirety. Please, I've asked others to read what I posted from Wikipedia's own page and nobody seems to be doing it. Your reading this precedes any sort of intelligent discussion on this matter. In fact, please don't even continue reading this post until you've done so.

OK, now, you will have seen that neutrality isn't so simple an issue. It doesn't merely mean both sides must be equally covered. It also means that refrences and comments on an issue that only a very minority of people share can actually make a page un-neutral simply because it distorts the content of the page itself. It contributes to a lack of balance because, being so small of an issue it's mere presence blows this issue itself out of proportion.

Here's my proposed solution to this problem:

Under reception of Steiner, why not have simply sentences referring to his racial views, not an entire subsection. True, his views are complex and warrant more than mere sentences will allow. However, that's why there's a link to the main article on this subject.

In the meantime, I have been expanding certain sections that greatly need it. This also will help to properly contribute to proportion.Boogafish 00:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The claim that the subsection on race should not exist is ridiculous Boogafish (or Boogafish2 as the case may be). I think you need to get a handle on what you are trying to accomplish here. If it is to eliminate all traces of the race issue with Steiner, you should be aware of the fact that your opinion about this is the minority opinion - even among the Anthroposophist editors here apparently. Nobody before you, that I know of, has suggested that the entire topic should be deleted completely from the article. Please know, for certain, that it will never be completely effaced from this article. Pete K 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if all 50,000 Anthropops believed this should be the case (and they don't) - it still would be in the article. Pete K 23:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Pete, I think things should always be open to debate. The reason I think so is that webpages quickly turn into nonsense when your typing method is called 'putting your foot down.'

And since you mention it I do recall several individuals questioning its existence as a subarticle some time back.

And no, Pete, it's not to eliminate all traces of race and Steiner. The large article existing, I'm not disputing. It should exist. I even think the main article should link to it, and I'm not scared of such a link because I think the facts speak for themselves so long as the people who read them are reasonable and non-hysterical. But the only person who believes one of Steiner's main contributions was race seems to be you. And I'm shocked you're questioning my motives because your motives clearly seem to be to pull down dead Steiner's shorts and expose him to the world.Boogafish 00:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Boogafish, thanks for taking a look at this issue. Race was and is a major part of Steiner's philosophy, not minor, not insignificant, major. It permeates every aspect of Anthroposophy including reincarnation and karma, education, eurythmy, all the stuff about Atlantis and Lemuria, nationalism, esoteric Christianity and so forth. It's a big part of Anthroposophy - not insignificant. Furthermore, racism and antisemitism were very much a part of Steiner's own biography. His racist and antisemitic remarks drew attention to him even in his own time. Many of his followers, leaders of the Anthroposophic movement, repeated and expanded Steiner's own racist views. So no, we're not going to have a sentence or two devoted to racism here - your feelings that it seems overemphasized notwithstanding. While I appreciate your expansion of the other sections of this article, topics like biodynamic agriculture also have their own articles. Maybe a sentence about this and referring to the separate article would be enough. Steiner, after all, was not a proponent or activist for biodynamic agriculture, or eurythmy, or Anthroposophical medicine any more than he was a proponent for racism. In fact, those topics don't run as a theme through Anthroposophy like racism does. Pete K 01:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said before, I think your viewpoint of Steiner is unsubstantiated from a scholastic point of view. I hope you don't choose to take that as an insult again, because I don't mean it to be. But the mainstream scholastic work that exists simply does not justify such a viewpoint.

And, just so you know, I'm very well read on these issues (and your viewpoint). I'm no newcomer here so you don't have to type as much on your viewpoint of race within Steiner's thought.Boogafish 01:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think my viewpoint is absolutely valid. I'm not taking offense at this - we have a difference of opinion. I take offense, sometimes, when people suggest they have read more or understand better than I do. I get that some people deny Steiner's racism... and like you are with mine, I'm aquainted with their viewpoint. I just don't agree with it and really can't see how they can justify it scholastically. I guess it's like the Anthroposophical Dutch Commission's report - believing it is a matter of faith. Pete K 02:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Pete, it is justified scholastically because mainstream scholars have never accused Anthroposophy of being founded on rascist principles. Mainstream encyclopedias never accuse Steiner or Anthroposophy of rascism. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it: "In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof."

This is why I believe that the section on racism should not be a section. A mere couple of sentences is, in my opinion, too much, but I would be willing to compromise with that. Because the presence of race as a section on Steiner's page gives the article undue weight. Boogafish 21:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's getting closer to voting time on this. Boogafish 21:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Pete, it is justified scholastically because mainstream scholars have never accused Anthroposophy of being founded on rascist principles." That's just not true. "Mainstream encyclopedias never accuse Steiner or Anthroposophy of rascism." I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with it (even if true). Regarding the Wikipedia guideline - the point you are making is completely false. It is not a minority viewpoint, it is not something nobody currently believes, it's a major part of Steiner's biography (as I have said to you at least twice now). I get that you don't agree. So what? "I think it's getting closer to voting time on this." No need - this place is crawling with Anthroposophists who would love to remove any mention of racism in this article. That's not going to happen, as I said. That Steiner didn't produce racist remarks is the minority view - and even the Dutch Commission of Anthroposophists refute this claim. So the race and ethnicity section stays. You can hold kangaroo court if you like, but it won't matter a bit (meaning no disrespect here) - your opinion is not the majority opinion - even if it's the opinion of the majority of editors concerned with Steiner's article. Pete K 22:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, YOU and DIANA and a handfull of other people accuse Steiner of racism, that's all. That's why it is a only a tiny minority viewpoint, and that's why it should not be represented. I'm not saying represented at all, I'm saying not represented as a subarticle. It gives that article undue weight.

And the reason that it DOES matter as to the point I made about other encyclopedias not accusing or even mentioning Steiner's racial views is that these encyclopedias are the mainstream academic viewpoints. This is important to establish because Steiner can only be grasped with careful reflection and research. I know you read Steiner for 15 years, but I would question the reflectiveness and careful research on your end, not because your views are differnet from mine, but because your views are different from these mainstream academics. That's why I believe that your view of Anthroposophy being founded on racism is, like the example of the flat-earth society, the opinion of the tiny minority. And, again, what Wikipedia has to say on that issue is this: "Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all." So, honestly, I think you lost this one Pete. I'm prepared to edit the section down to Wikipedia standards unless you can convince me otherwise. And that means convince me using Wikipedia guidelines, not your opinions.Boogafish 01:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I would go somewhat easy on this person - I think this is a teenager.DianaW 02:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree Diana. OK Boogafish, I appreciate what you are trying to do here. So let's not get in a pissing contest about it. Let's discuss your reasonable edits calmly and see where they take us. If they are reasonable, I will agree to them. If they are a whitewash of Steiner, I won't. I will not concede the point, however, that Anthroposophists are the minority opinion here - and that the world's view of Steiner is different than the view of Anthroposophists. You've already seen in this article how it has been impossible for Anthroposophists to produce an unbiased source that suggests Steiner's work is free of racism. But I will, as I said, consider reasonable edits that we have discussed first. I look forward to these discussions, BTW, as it will give us both an opportunity to examine our positions carefully. Fair enough? Pete K 04:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Pete, you don't have a right to revert simply because you disagree with my edit. I think the change speaks for itself. If you have a problem with it, then let's work it out on the talk page and get to a solution.

I've already explained why I felt this change needed to be made and you simply didn't argue the point. Boogafish 17:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Um... that doesn't mean you get to make it - just because you can explain it. We discuss things here and attempt to come to an agreement. You are spinning your wheels if you think simply explaining your position is enough to wipe out or add in huge sections of text. Some actual discussion has to transpire. When there is disagreement, that's a good sign that you still need to discuss your points. When someone hasn't responded, that's a good sign they haven't had time to respond. Pete K 18:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So far, BTW, it appears four editors have weighed in here and disagreed with your intended edit. Pete K 18:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Boogafish, I'm here ready to discuss this edit with you and you have been silent. So far, you seem to insist on the approach of just wiping out other work - most of it is language that took months of discussion and debate to arrive at - and expect everyone here to accept your proposed edit. This seems a little naive on your part, and bullying isn't going to get you very far. Lots of editors have lots of time invested in this article - and you show up expecting to ram your POV down everyone's throats? I don't think so. If there is something of your edit that you would like to ADD to the article, without removing the work of the other editors here, we should discuss this. If it is still your intention to destroy the work of others without discussion, so that you may push your POV, you may find that more difficult to accomplish. Pete K 01:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

i am getting tired of this game, *on one hand you are adding to the article, on the other you are reasoning this section should be shortened.

• you are talking about encyclopedia britannica, but this article already contains so much that would be in no other encyclopedia.
• you are saying that the presence of this section makes the whole article non neutral, without explaining. we are not even presenting a minority opinion, only the referenced fact that the racist allegation got a lot of media attention, got discussed on tv and in major german and dutch newspapers. why is that pov or non notable? i also mentioned before that chriticism takes up 30% of the german article on steiner. having said that, i hope that makes it clear why i think that your quote on undue weight does not apply here.
• no one stops you from expanding the section on christianity
• looking at your contributions it seems your only reason for being here is deleting this section, now you called in some buddies to help you editing or even voting.

i have said all this before but you keep on saying that noone replies to your arguments and then ignore what we say. that is kind of frustrating. trueblood 13:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the use of sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets is of some concern here too. Boogafish, I think we are wise to this tactic so I'd suggest you save your friends the effort - it's not going to get you anywhere. Trueblood, I understand about the frustration. Hang in there. Frustration is what POV editors count on. Patience and diligence will win the day. Again, I invite Boogafish to discuss these proposed edits before making them (or having his friends make them for him). Pete K 16:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not Quite a Nazi

Wow, I can't believe the latest link comment "The Nazi movement in Germany repeatedly investigated Steiner's ideas and found them absolutely incompatible with racist ideology" - cool! So the Nazi's give Steiner's ideas a look and claim they don't measure up to the Nazi's view of racist ideology. This shows how deep Anthroposophists have to dig to find someone outside of Anthroposophy who doesn't think Steiner's ideas were racist. It's mazing to me that they would want to include this reference. Pete K 17:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It borders on the surreal. This is cited in order to show that "reception of Steiner's ideas about race has ranged from sharp criticism of these as racist to warm praise of his uncompromising stance against racism" - in support of the latter, in case you're in any doubt; this shows that some people - er, some Nazis - have responded with "warm praise" to Steiner's antiracism. Sometimes, Pete, it is better to let Steiner's defenders shoot themselves in the foot. This is spectacularly bizarre.DianaW 18:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

breadth of activity

something else for a change: could we not move this section above practical activities, since it is kind of a summary of all these and then shorten it a bit, since a lot of it is redundant information? incidentally, who knows how to add an empty line in section architecture and sculpture to fix the following heading? trueblood 12:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Steiner - Against the Antisemitism of his time

==Steiner Dreyfus HGilbert - you want to leave this in the section about Steiner's written works. "Steiner was one of the defenders (with Emile Zola) of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish Captain in the French army falsely accused of treason.[6]" Can we please, if you insist on leaving this in, say something like "Steiner wrote articles in defense of..." - otherwise, it sounds like he was on the defense team. Thanks! Pete K 00:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• An important event which took place in Steiner's time and which drew a lot of public attention should also be discussed: the Dreyfus affair in France, in which in 1894 a Jewish French army officer was accused of having betrayed military secrets. Like others, Steiner also took a passionate public stand in favour of Dreyfus, who was rehabilitated in 1898/99,62 as the accusations demonstrably had been based on falsifications.

• Steiner's discussion of the Dreyfus affair referred mainly to Zola. Steiner has been criticised for not having explicitly mentioned the anti-Semitic aspects of the case, as they have been shown by a number of historians 63 We can accept this criticism insofar as it shows that Steiner's judgement was inadequate and unhistorical, seen from the perspective and the mood of today.64 For at the time these aspects were not even acknowledged by the French Jews. Laqueur writes on their behaviour:

"The hesitance of French Jews to take collective action during the Dreyfus trial showed that they wanted to believe that the affair had no specifically Jewish aspect."65

Reference notes:

62) Dreyfus was granted amnesty in 1899, but only fully rehabilitated in 1906.

63) See the three essays by Steiner in the Magazin für Litteratur (Magazine for Literature): Die Instinkte der Franzosen (The Instincts of the French), 11 December 1897, Emile Zola an die Jugend (Emile Zola Adresses the Young Generation), 19. February 1898, and Zola's Oath and the Truth About Dreyfus, 5. March 1898, in GA 31, ibid. p. 221.

64) An example of this criticism is the not very qualified essay by Julia Iwersen in Nr 16/17 of the journal Babylon, Frankfurt 1996. See our analysis in Rudolf Steiner als aktiver Gegner des Antisemitismus (Rudolf Steiner - an active opponent of anti-Semitism), Stuttgart 2000. Can be ordered from the Association of Free Waldorf Schools in Stuttgart (Bund der Freien Waldorfschulen).

65) Laqueur, A History of Zionism, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1972, p. 35.

You can separate the statements; they are roughly contemporaneous and appear together for this reason (it is a chronological narrative). Steiner came out strongly for Dreyfuss in the same year as Zola, long before the tide had turned in the former's favor.

There are numerous condemnations of anti-semitism in the articles published in the journal mentioned here. See the sub-article link for many of these. The only mention of assimilation is the following: "If the process of assimilation had not been artificially held up, the Jews would certainly not suffer from more exclusivity than, say, the Slavs in German lands." Are you personally anti-Semitical - do you believe that the Jews should have been excluded from European civilization? Steiner is merely saying that they suffer needlessly from exclusivity, that were prevented from assimilating into European culture to the extent that they wished. The sentence does not say that assimilation is a good thing, merely that it had been artifically held up. He later promoted assimilation, but not here.

"Are you personally anti-Semitical - do you believe that the Jews should have been excluded from European civilization?" I'd like to know where you get off asking me a question like this? Steiner's position was very clearly stated... and I really don't need you to explain what Steiner was saying to me. Neither do the readers of Wikipedia. His words speak for themselves - and that you apparently don't understand what he said displays, perhaps, a marginal understanding of Steiner's works and history in general. How many quotes directly from Steiner would you like me to produce that support exactly what I have said here? You say "he later promoted assimilation, but not here" - and yet 10 years BEFORE the Dreyfus affair Steiner writes:

Then stick to quotes, not doubtful interpretations.

• "It certainly cannot be denied that Jewry today still behaves as a closed totality, and as such it has frequently intervened in the development of our current state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable to European ideas of culture. But Jewry itself has long since outlived its time; it has no more justification within the modern life of peoples, and the fact that it continues to exist is a mistake of world history whose consequences are unavoidable. We do not mean the forms of the Jewish religion alone, but above all the spirit of Jewry, the Jewish way of thinking." (Steiner, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur p. 152)

This does not occur in the mentioned articles (in the Journal against Antisemitism), but in other articles. I removed your indication that it occurred in articles in which it did not. You can add that he promoted it elsewhere; I have mentioned this in the sub-article. Hgilbert 01:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added it back. Stop trying to distort his viewpoint. Pete K 01:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing key sections of the deposition testimony taken of PLANS' most vocal spokesperson, Dan Dugan, the judge expressed "grave doubts about any reliance upon his opinions about anything that has to do with any intellectual endeavor, including Anthroposophy" before ruling that Dugan would not be allowed to give testimony in the trial.

Your beliefs and Dugan's are identical. If Dugan's radical misconception was enough for a judge to scoff at the possibility of the court entertaining his opinions, why should Wikipedia tolerate identical beliefs from you?Egamirorrimeht 04:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

themirrorimagE, are you suggesting I am Dan Dugan? I think we've already established that you are a sockpuppet - your suggestion that you are sharing a computer with another member who shares your exact viewpoint notwithstanding. I sign my name to who I am... my taunting little friend. I think this article has been protected from editing by other than established editors. I'm sure your one or two posts here, arriving at a time when "another" user suggested a vote on an issue - wouldn't qualify you. You and your alter ego wouldn't be attempting to game the 3RR rule here would you? Pete K 17:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents- I think you might have misread themirrorimage's post, which I found to be a very good point. He didn't say that you were Dan Dugan, he said your beliefs were identical to Dugan's. And if those beliefs are too unfounded for a jury to hear, then why should they be on Wikipedia for everyone in the world to see? Rottentomatoe

Oh I get his point. It's B.S. and more dribble trying to exclude me from editing. Would you guys really want to risk getting yourselves kicked off Wikipedia for sockpuppetry? Just curious. Pete K 18:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Those are accusations which I find to be personal attacks since they are entirely unfounded. Do you want to get kicked off Wikipedia for making personal attacks?

Wow... now THERE'S a surprise... Pete K 18:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't bite the newcomers.

Please get in the habit of signing your posts. Thanks! Pete K 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about your last edit Pete. First the exapmle you gave was far too long as well as out-of-context. So I trimmed that exapmle off and put a refrence. Even still, I think the statement is out of place. It makes Steiner's time as a philosopher seem entirely devoted to his views of Jews, which is clearly not the case.

Oh, and since you are accusing Steiner of being an anti-Semite, have you ever considered that he was Jewish? I mean racially Semitic, not religiously, of course.

And before you brush aside the suggestion about www.waldorfanswers.org, I think it would be worth checking out. It's a pretty educational site. I've learned quite a bit from it and maybe you could as well. Rottentomatoe 19:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Somebody else saved me the trouble of reverting your edit. If you want to take something out of the article, take the "attacked antisemitism" stuff out. It isn't truthful anyway. Steiner was not Jewish. I don't know where you're getting your information, but if it's Waldorfanswers, you should check out a few other sites... The truth cannot be found there. Expand your horizons a bit, you might learn something. Pete K 19:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

TheBee, you have slashed away an ample section of the article a few times now. You seem to claim that some agreement has been achieved to remove the portion you want to remove because some other portion you want to keep has been removed by another editor. The portion that was removed was, I believe, produced by HGilbert - who may or may not want it removed. We will have to wait to hear from him if he's going to fight to keep that material. The material you want to remove now, apparently based on the removal of Harlan's material, is material I have introduced in response to the material that is now gone. While I get that you believe this is unfair, I would suggest you wait until Harlan has had a chance to chime in before escalating this. The editor that removed Harlan's material and kept my material is probably going to want to justify his edits as well. Let's let everyone speak on the subject, shall we? Pete K 00:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Pete, let's leave it as is until Hgilbert has a chance to weigh in. Because nobody likes the version you're putting up. Rottentomatoe 01:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And here's my 2cents: None of the entries on Antisemitism on either side has much relevance to Steiner as a philosopher. Both of the sides always stuck out and seemed out of place all along. But we'll see what Hgilbert thinks. Rottentomatoe 01:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

HGILBERT- When you see the large abomination on the Steiner page, would you look at the history? Pete is willing to get rid of it if you get rid of the antisemitism stuff you added in. Personally, I don't think either one has its place in the article. Nor does TheBee or Pete and most likely his two recruits don't think either edit has a place either. I think they are just trying to muscle the whole situation. Rottentomatoe 01:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I take objection to the "two recriuts" comment. With the exception of Diana, I don't know who anybody is on this side of the argument. Oddly, I know most of the people on the Steiner side. I have not recruited anyone here - and that includes Diana. Second, I didn't produce the version I am defending. Someone else did. So obviously, so someone else apparently likes like this version. Third, people in glass houses and all that... you're a bit of a Johnny-come-lately here yourself. You've been here, what, three days - and accuse me of recruiting others? Who recruited you? Even if HGilbert says he likes the idea, it doesn't give any of us the right to keep other editors from changing it again - so I would suggest to you, these kinds of bargains set a bad precident. I'm inclined to just fight to keep the stuff I like it in, rather than make some back-room deal as if I represent anybody but me. Pete K 02:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of this question, though quite balanced, has become disproportionate. I am archiving it here in case it is needed. I hope this is a satisfactory solution; otherwise it should be placed outside the biographical section as it is not in chronological and thematic sequence with the rest of this section. Hgilbert 06:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

anti-Semitism

There is no justification for adding "extreme forms"; Steiner criticized anti-Semitism generally: see: (from Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus).[4]) Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus).[5], Steiner wrote the following critiques of anti-Semitism

• "the banal factionalists who invented the 'German man' in order to have as euphonious a phrase as possible to justify their anti-Semitism"
• "...the senseless prating of the anti-Semites."
  • "Anti-Semitism doesn't exactly have at its disposal a wide range of thoughts, or even of clever clichés or slogans. When the adherents of this 'view of life' express their hearts' dull feelings, one has to hear the same worn-out platitudes over and over."
• "Those dull feelings out of which anti-Semitism, among other things, arise have the unique quality that they undermine all directness and plainness of judgement....Through anti-Semitism, logic is dethroned."
• "Whoever keeps his eyes open today recognizes that it is untrue to say that that the sense of unity between the Jews themselves is greater than their sense of unity with modern culture. If it appeared to be so during the last few years, then anti-Semitism has contributed a significant part of this. Anyone who has, as I, seen with horror the devastation that anti-Semitism causes in the hearts and souls of noble Jews must come to this conviction."
• "Anti-Semitism is not only a danger for the Jews, but also for the non-Jews. It comes out of an attitude that is not compatible with healthy, honest judgment. It encourages such an attitude."
• [A writer, Kunowski] "shows how an idealistic human being must think about this 'question'. Namely, Kunowski rejects all anti-Semitism definitively....Kunowski formulates the concept of a 'people' so that every anti-Semitism is incompatible with his formulation.... Kunowski wishes to lead what is significant in all races into the civilization of the future: 'The morality of the Jews, the government of the Romans, the art of the Greeks, the pyramids of the Egyptians' must unite themselves in us....'On our altars rest cross, sickle and Ark, in our forests wander Zarathustra, Moses, Socrates, Dante, Rousseau, in our fields grow anew Jerusalem, Athens, Sparta, Florence and Paris.' Kunowski sets his own standpoint against the petty racial standpoint with these words: 'The goal...is to generate a new civilized human being, who is neither German, nor Roman, nor Semite.'"</ref>
• In his 30s, he continued to criticize what he described as the “outrageous excesses of the anti-Semites”, and denounced the “raging anti-Semites” as enemies of human rights. He strongly supported full legal, social and political equality for Jews — advocating their complete assimilation, and questioning the justification for founding a separate Zionist state.

Connecting two quotes

TheBee, your latest edit strings together two quotes as one. The source I have them from shows them as two separate quotes - both from the same reference and page, but not necessarily attached as you have attached them. I believe they should be separated again. If you can confirm that they are contiguous, please do. Meanwhile, I'll separate them again. Thanks. Pete K 03:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments

I've added this article to the artcle RfC page. Let's get some neutral editors in here who know WP policies. —Hanuman Das 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, especially ones who know what a revert is. Rottentomatoe 02:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to go argue your case here. You'll simply reduce the amount of time it takes to get blocked. :-) —Hanuman Das 02:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know that I qualify as an expert on Wikipedia law, but I see no issue whatsoever with the inclusion of the material on Jewish assimilation. He said it, we report it, it is properly cited, given just enough weight so as not to unbalance the article, and it is of interest. Haiduc 02:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem, neither of the arguments supporting Steiner's promotion of Anti-Semitism nor the arguments on assimilation have any place in his life as a philospher since they don't have enough weight to even make an appearance. These were MINOR details. Rottentomatoe 02:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Nobody made any such assertion. They are, imo, notable. —Hanuman Das 02:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong about this RottenTomatoe. Racism/ethnicity/assimilation - those WERE Steiner's philosophy. They are cornerstones of Anthroposophy - whether you acknowledge this or not. Anthroposophy is founded on ideas like some races are more evolved than others, some are childlike while others are the race of the future. Races come and go - some races, Native Americans, for example, were spiritually ready for extinction. Other races, like the Semitic races, were to be assimilated after they had fulfilled their purpose. Steiner believed the races evolved separately. These are basic Anthroposophical tenets. They are part of Steiner's beliefs - not just a belief system he held - but a belief system he created and promoted - one that is being promoted today. And promote Steiner did... in many written works, the ideas of assimilation. Steiner was involved in the political unrest of his time. And what he believed, and what he promoted ABSOLUTELY belongs in this article. Pete K 02:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's another perspective on Pete's viewpoint that I'd like to share. Another editor posted this and I think it's also appropriate to post it here:

"After reviewing key sections of the deposition testimony taken of PLANS' most vocal spokesperson, Dan Dugan, the judge expressed 'grave doubts about any reliance upon his opinions about anything that has to do with any intellectual endeavor, including Anthroposophy' before ruling that Dugan would not be allowed to give testimony in the trial."

Pete's viewpoint, which is that racism and antisemitism and even witchcraft are each a fundamental part of which Anthroposophy was built upon is the same viewpoint that Dan Dugan shared. Many people are entirely unaware of what Anthroposophy is, and honestly it takes quite a bit of investigation and reading to make sense of what it's all about.

Well, the judge, presented with a great deal of information regarding Anthroposophy but also Dugan's opinions and way of thinking (and those who think like him) decided that his views were far too extreme and unfounded to make their appearance in the courtroom.

So, what does this mean for the current article? Well, race, the Jews, the stance on antisemitism (which Steiner is clearly an opponent of, btw)...it's all minor, minor details. Steiner gave thousands and thousands of lectures and wrote many books and Pete has compiled almost everything he's had to say on the subject of race that seems to lack propriety. So he is giving the subject of race a great deal more weight than it deserves. It doesn't matter so much if it's refrenced. It's mere existence tips the scales far too much.

Furthermore, every quote Pete places into the article concerning race is taken out of context. There is an entire article (and it's very, very large) devoted to Steiner's views on Race and Ethnicity. Many other people who believe, with grounded convictions, that Steiner was not an ugly antisemite or racist have placed the "rest of the story" in that article.

So, in my opinion, it's not a matter of making sure it is refrneced or not. Weight is the clear issue. And, in regards to weight, I'd like for everyone to examine the key piece of evidence I presented you with earlier: The judge's decision. He didn't want his juries to even hear Dugan's arguments (or anyone else with Dugan's convictions). The reason is that he didn't want one-billionth of what Steiner said (and was clearly arguable at best)to give undue weight to the issue that was at hand. Wikipedia should clearly follow in the path that has already been cleared with an esteemed precedent.Rottentomatoe 15:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Tomato wrote: "Well, race, the Jews, the stance on antisemitism (which Steiner is clearly an opponent of, btw)...it's all minor, minor details. Steiner gave thousands and thousands of lectures and wrote many books and Pete has compiled almost everything he's had to say on the subject of race that seems to lack propriety." Lame. You should be ashamed. It doesn't matter how many thousands and thousands of lectures a person gave - that has no bearing on whether he said racist things. He did or he didn't. And he didn't just pop off questionable comments showing common prejudices of his day to friends in private or something - he systematically built a belief system about racial destinies into his theology. Races have their own karma and their own archangels; skin color shows how far you have progressed spiritually. It's not the only part of anthroposophical doctrines that is pernicious but it's a very important piece. This philosophy is promulgated today through many anthroposophical institutions. And no, tomato, racist statements don't "lack propriety." Racism is dangerous and harmful. The fact that you believe this argument is about "propriety" suggests to me we would be world apart in even determining how to assess whether something is racist. You've shown your cards here: you want Steiner cleaned up for public presentation, without "improprieties."DianaW 17:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Tomato again: "The judge's decision. He didn't want his juries to even hear Dugan's arguments (or anyone else with Dugan's convictions). The reason is that he didn't want one-billionth of what Steiner said (and was clearly arguable at best)to give undue weight to the issue that was at hand." Oh, now it's one-billionth of what Steiner said. LOL! Your comments about the judge are pure nonsense. No one presented anything regarding Steiner's racial views in the trial anyway - you apparently haven't a clue what the case is about. "Wikipedia should clearly follow in the path that has already been cleared with an esteemed precedent." The judge didn't say anything with the slightest relevance to what can be discussed on wikipedia. Because someone has filed a lawsuit, and won or lost, does not determine whether the plaintiff's or defendant's views can be cited on wikipedia. And the case is not over anyway, it is under appeal. The judge didn't not "want his juries to even hear Dugan's arguments," btw. Judges don't decide whether material will be introduced based on what they personally want a jury to hear. The question of what evidence could be introduced came down to technicalities - a claim from the defendant that something was not disclosed properly, and a dispute from the plaintiff's side that incorrect rules were being applied to determine this. That's what's being appealed. And the issues being discussed in this article have no relevance to the PLANS lawsuit - none.DianaW 17:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Tomatoe wrote: "Pete's viewpoint, which is that racism and antisemitism and even witchcraft are each a fundamental part of which Anthroposophy was built upon is the same viewpoint that Dan Dugan shared. Many people are entirely unaware of what Anthroposophy is, and honestly it takes quite a bit of investigation and reading to make sense of what it's all about."

I've invested 15 years studying Anthroposophy. How about you? I challenge you to find me supporting the idea that witchcraft is a fundamental part of Anthroposophy. In fact, I challenge you to find Dan Dugan supporting that notion. It would be great if you had the integrity to either provide evidence or retract the statement.

More from Mr. Tomatoe: "So, what does this mean for the current article? Well, race, the Jews, the stance on antisemitism (which Steiner is clearly an opponent of, btw)...it's all minor, minor details." Anybody with the slightest understanding of Anthroposophy would understand that this is not the case. I'd be happy to provide quotes directy from Steiner. Shall we go through this again, or would you like the opportunity to examine the archives of this and the Race and Ethnicity article?

"Steiner gave thousands and thousands of lectures and wrote many books and Pete has compiled almost everything he's had to say on the subject of race that seems to lack propriety. So he is giving the subject of race a great deal more weight than it deserves. It doesn't matter so much if it's refrenced. It's mere existence tips the scales far too much." This is completely wrong, and - again, has been argued in the archives. Please read them.

"Furthermore, every quote Pete places into the article concerning race is taken out of context. There is an entire article (and it's very, very large) devoted to Steiner's views on Race and Ethnicity. Many other people who believe, with grounded convictions, that Steiner was not an ugly antisemite or racist have placed the "rest of the story" in that article." Finding someone who isn't an Anthroposophist who believes Steiner wasn't a racist is proving to be difficult for you guys. Nothing I have produced here is taken out of context... in fact, if you look at the quotes Steiner "supporters" are using in defense of his non-racism, they are snippets and quotes patched together from lectures that are decades apart. I provide full citations for all the quotes I provide. You are free to demonstrate here how ANYTHING I have quoted is taken out of context.

"So, in my opinion, it's not a matter of making sure it is refrneced or not. Weight is the clear issue. And, in regards to weight, I'd like for everyone to examine the key piece of evidence I presented you with earlier: The judge's decision."

This in incredibly lame, no offense Mr. Tomatoe, (I suspect you're a Waldorf student) - but this is not a "key" piece of evidence, it isn't even evidence, it's nonsense.

"He didn't want his juries to even hear Dugan's arguments (or anyone else with Dugan's convictions). The reason is that he didn't want one-billionth of what Steiner said (and was clearly arguable at best)to give undue weight to the issue that was at hand. Wikipedia should clearly follow in the path that has already been cleared with an esteemed precedent."

LMAO... Why? Why do you believe a judge's decision in a court case should stifle debate on an issue? Pete K 18:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Diana- It sounds like you're still upset that PLANS lost and also that nobody was allowed to testify. Since they weren't allowed to argue their distorted perception of Steiner and Waldorf education in the courtroom, they are attempting to argue their distorted perception on Wikipedia.

And I am entitling you the new queen of spin after that last post of yours. It's funny how you distort my arguments in the same fashion that you distort Steiner.

And Pete, I'm presenting the judge's comment about his "grave doubts about any reliance upon his opinions about anything that has to do with any intellectual endeavor, including Anthroposophy." This is the opinion of a mainstream and esteemed individual after encountering PLANS's distorted perception.

And yeah, you've spent 15 years studying the subject. You say it like it makes you an expert. Well Bin Laden spent his entire life studying American international politics, so I guess he understands them as well.Rottentomatoe

Um... yeah, I'll bet Bin Laden absolutely understands American international politics. And yeah, studying Steiner for 15 years makes me something like an expert. Generally, people who study a subject for 15 years tend to know what they're talking about. I'm not giving your argument any creedence - it's sour grapes. Nobody is listening to it - so keep rambling away. Pete K 19:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly - let's go easy, they're apparently students.DianaW 20:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right - and I guess that says something about the brainwashing that goes on in Waldorf <G>. Pete K 01:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden is like Hitler. First one to mention him loses the argument. :-) —Hanuman Das 01:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Good to know - I'll cut down on my Hitler comparisons... Pete K 01:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

See Godwin's Law. —Hanuman Das 01:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. So as long as the comparisons are valid, I'm OK. <G> Pete K 02:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But be careful of Reductio ad Hitlerum. —Hanuman Das 02:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. that one even mentions Reductio ad Binladenum at the end. :-) —Hanuman Das 02:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

" may also be described as argumentum ad nazium" ROFLWMP... Great!!! Pete K 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

RT: You are right that most anthroposophists and sympathetic observers of the movement and its institutions find that there is much, much more positive involvement in overcoming racial prejudice and barriers than negative experiences - and that the former are systematic and tend to take hold, while the latter are erratic and tend to die away (or be booted out of the society, in the case of several ex-members who promoted racial attitudes). The anthroposophical work in South Africa, Ireland, Sao Paulo, Israel, inner-city Milwaukee and Baltimore, and the jails of the United States, as well as many, many other places, is extraordinary in this regard.

Nevertheless, some of Steiner's comments require some careful consideration, at a minimum; some are clearly wrong-headed as stated. (Sometimes one can second-guess what he might have wanted to say if he had been more alert and thoughtful at the time...but it's only a guess. Sometimes it's hard even to guess where he was coming from that day.) People like Pete and Diana are disturbed by these, while most of us who actually work with anthroposophical ideas see their irrelevance to the flow of that work; if someone did bring one of the more off-balance quotes to my school he'd be laughed out of the room. You have to respect people's allergic reactions to racist-sounding comments; hopefully, these are people who are trying to maintain humanistic standards in their lives. That doesn't mean less energetic editing here; but please try to recognize that at some level there is a genuine concern and justified reaction. Even if it seems that they are excessively emotionally laden, and however much they seem to refuse to look at other sides of the issue, the solution is to avoid becoming emotionally laden oneself and to be willing to look at their side of the issue - also a legitimate one. Hgilbert 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

spirit and terminology

Steiner never calls an individual a spirit, but rather an "Individualität", or individual. See his Theosophy, where he describes each individual as a unity of a spirit, soul and body. It is a falsification of his terminology and world-view to talk of individuals as individual-spirits.

I have also adjusted the terminology; the Dutch commission uses exclusively the term "discriminatory", saying that there is no racism in Steiner's work. Hgilbert 15:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for this. I've reverted your edits. Here's why:

1) What Steiner was talking about when he used the term "individual" is *completely* different than what people reading this article will derive from the use of the term. I've discussed this with you before and we agreed. Now you're removing the term and starting another edit dispute. You cannot call a spirit an "individual" and then use that explain away Steiner's racism. It's dishonest BS. Now the term "spirit-individual" may not have been used as a term by Steiner, but it *does* describe what he meant. That is the purpose of translating his words - to convey what he meant. I removed the quotes because they seemed to imply that he actually used this term - he did not. But the term he used is misapplied - and you are using this misapplication to justify racist speech. That's not going to fly here Harlan.

This is your original research. We did discuss this before (see here) and I explained Steiner's use of the term "individual"; you admitted there and here that he does not use the term "spirit-individual", and gave no evidence (other than your own assertion) that this term has anything to do with what he means. Individualitaet in German means individual in English. In fact, in his Theosophy: An Introduction (and many other works) Steiner uses the specific term "spirit-human" to mean something completely different: one of nine aspects of the human being, one of three aspects of the human spiritual nature. Individualität includes all nine aspects: three spiritual, three soul and three bodily. Where he says individual, he means individual, not the spiritual nature alone. Hgilbert 15:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what word he used in German. What matters is that the correct interpretation is conveyed. "Individual" as it is used in English, does not convey what Steiner meant. So I will fight its use without clarification in the article. Pete K 17:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that this is the "correct interpretation"? Is this your original research?

2) The Dutch Commission found 16 counts of racist speech that would have had Steiner jailed if he had said them today in Dutch environments. You are not being honest here. No whitewashing please. Pete K 16:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch commission report, which I have before me, differentiates between "discrimination" (here defining characteristics of racial or ethnic groups in ways that may lead to discriminatory practical consequences, with or without the intent of causing such consequences) and "racism". It states that Steiner's work is not racist, but that certain comments of his would be judged discriminatory by current law. Hgilbert 15:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So, you have the Dutch Commission report before you and still argued for weeks that the Dutch Commission was not entirely comprised of Anthroposophists. This is a very interesting revelation. You are mincing words here Harlan. And your original research and translation of the Dutch Commission's report is invalid. The secondary source translations we've seen show otherwise. Pete K 17:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just purchased the original report, friend. Citation of a report is not original research. You are replacing cited statements with uncited claims. What justification do you have for this? Hgilbert 12:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Extreme forms of Anti-Semitism

This statement, currently in the paragraph In his 30s, he continued to criticize what he described as the “outrageous excesses of the anti-Semites”, confirms the statement that you are continually trying to remove "Steiner repeatedly criticized the more extreme forms of anti-Semitism of his time". I'll keep removing the whitewash stuff as long as you keep putting it in Harlan. You're just making a strong case that you shouldn't be allowed to edit THIS article either. Pete K 16:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

harlans editing here makes perfect sense, pete. yours does not.--Vindheim 16:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that's pretty much in the eyes of the beholder. Getting to the truth is what matters to me here. If you don't believe assimilation is anti-Semitism, then Harlan's edits would make sense. If you believe assimilation is a lesser form of anti-Semitism than the more extreme forms (extermination and such) then my edits would make sense. So that's where the deadlock is, I suppose. If you think wiping out an entire culture is OK, then you should support Harlan's edits. Pete K 16:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with beliefs. Steiner criticized anti-Semitism in the most general terms imaginable. If you are somehow unclear about this, let's quote what he actually said. Your addition is purely POV-spin.

Criticizing the outrageous excesses of the anti-Semites is very different from criticizing the more extreme forms of anti-Semitism, friend. Hgilbert 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

and once again, harlan makes sense, even to a non-anthroposophist like me.--Vindheim 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Steiner did no such thing Harlan. Steiner criticised only the most extreme forms of anti-Semitism. There is no example, that I am aware of (perhaps you can provide it) where he criticized assimilation. He supported assimilation. We all agree on this. So your contention, apparently, is that assimilation is not anti-Semitism. That's hogwash. Provide some evidence that assimilation is not anti-Semitism. Otherwise, leave the sentence - which is technically and factually correct - alone. Pete K 18:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

i agree with vindheim and hgilbert, you are trying to spin things. support hgilbert's edits and you support wiping out an entire culture. you failure to see anything but in black and white, that is where the deadlock is.trueblood 18:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL... yes, I agree, that was a little over the top. I sometimes like to exagerate for effect. It's pretty black and white though - and it boils down to assimilation. I'm hoping to see evidence from anyone that assimilation isn't a form of anti-Semitism. Pete K 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

you are splitting hairs. this is not how it works. assimilation is a social process, supporting assimilation could be done for different reasons, anti-semitism being one. you should prove that steiner supported assimilation out of anti-semitic motives. taking into account that the sensibilities about what can be said and what not have changed considerably after the holocaust.

oh and :You're just making a strong case that you shouldn't be allowed to edit THIS article either., in my book that is called bullying. trueblood 18:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood wrote: "you should prove that steiner supported assimilation out of anti-semitic motives. taking into account that the sensibilities about what can be said and what not have changed considerably after the holocaust." Diana replies: And rightly so.

That would appear to me to be the true disagreement here. Do we say, it's okay and we shouldn't look too harshly on Steiner's antisemitism because the Holocaust hadn't happened yet - so let's just sweep this stuff under the carpet. Poor fellow couldn't have known how all this stuff he meant so innocently would sound to post-Holocaust sensibilities! Or do we say we need to look quite harshly on all forms of antisemitism that CONTRIBUTED TO AND RATIONALIZED the belief systems that resulted in the Holocaust. And since Steiner claimed to be clairvoyant, he doesn't really have the excuse that he couldn't have foreseen the Holocaust.DianaW 19:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

YES IT REALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE IF THINGS WERE SAID BEFORE OR AFTER THE HOLOCAUST. ANOTHER PROBLEM IS THAT YOU PEOPLE ONLY HAVE A VAGUE UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, AND GET REALLY MUDDLED UP ABOUT WHAT CONTRIBUTET TO BELIEFSYSTEM THAT LEAD TO THE HOLOCAUST AS PETE FOR INSTANCE PROOFS FURTHER UP WITH HIS THING ABOUT GERMANIZATION (MIXING UP ASSIMILATION AND THE NAZI PRAXIS OF germanization. AND STOP SHOUTING, PLEASE. I CAN WELL READ MYSELF AND DON'T NEED YOUR HELP.

trueblood 19:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am reading this over looking for other things, and must have missed this comment at the time. (Speaking of uncivil, what do you mean by replying to me in all caps like that? I apologize for the sloppy use of capitals in my post to you earlier, I realize that should be avoided and I forgot, I generally use asterisks with only the very occasional capital, but good grief, the manner of your response is like getting a slap in the face in return, and obviously a carefully planned one.) I did not say it "doesn't make a difference if things were said before or after the Holocaust." I'm essentially saying the opposite, it's too bad that is lost on you in your zeal, trueblood. I do think your argument about Steiner stumbles in overlooking his self-professed clairvoyance. He absolutely should have been able to see what was coming if he was clairvoyant, and it is absolutely fair to assess his claims in light of this ability which he claimed for himself, and his students claim today for him. He claimed to be able to see what was coming many millennia or eons from now, and the Holocaust was only a few years away! It was one of the central events of the twentieth century, not something trivial we might excuse him overlooking in his busy schedule of seeing into the future. How do you reconcile this? Do you bother reconciling this?

Even without the issue of his clairvoyance, however, my argument is not that the Holocaust "doesn't make a difference" but that it DOES (whoops, excuse me, *does*) and *should* make a difference in how we assess statements made by someone who died in 1925. The fact of the Holocaust a few years later *rightly* causes us to assess antisemitic pronouncements differently than we might be doing today had the Holocaust not happened. (Not that there would, otherwise, be an excuse for antisemitism any more than any other "-ism," but it clearly would not have the import that it has on our thinking today had there been no systematic murder of millions of Jews in the middle of the last century.) It is quite incredible to me that educated people today would dispute this. It is almost a reversed argument, and utterly perverse. "It's okay," or at least less worthy of condemnation, because Steiner didn't know the Holocaust would happen? No - it's even less okay because the Holocaust *did* happen. We have absolutely no choice but to evaluate the actions or views of people in the past in view of their consequences, do we? Maybe someone feeling less snotty and snide than me and less in danger of making testy remarks that these guys can then run to admin with should try explaining this.DianaW 17:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"assimilation is a social process, supporting assimilation could be done for different reasons, anti-semitism being one." And Steiner's statements that Jews have, spiritually, outlived their usefullness in the world is not enough to convince you of anti-Semitism? Here's Rudy again: "It certainly cannot be denied that Jewry today still behaves as a closed totality, and as such it has frequently intervened in the development of our current state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable to European ideas of culture. But Jewry itself has long since outlived its time; it has no more justification within the modern life of peoples, and the fact that it continues to exist is a mistake of world history whose consequences are unavoidable. We do not mean the forms of the Jewish religion alone, but above all the spirit of Jewry, the Jewish way of thinking." (Steiner, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur p. 152) He can't be more plain about being anti-Semitic. Pete K 21:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

your quote is antisemitic, i'd give you that. if you can build your case just on that, i dunno. diana is wrong, though you cannot look at quotes that are from before the holocaust the same way as if there were uttered today. a lot of people talked like that. oh and yes, he could have been a lot more plain about being antisemitic.trueblood 17:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue boils down to whether you believe assimilation (calling for the breaking down and removal of the Jewish religion, culture and "thinking") is anti-Semitic. This is what Steiner promoted, not just in one quote, but in all his material that people here have been calling "against" anti-Semitism. It doesn't matter if it is before or after the holocaust, the dissemination of the Jewish culture (indeed the Jewish people) is doing something contrary to them. Material that says Steiner was against anti-Semitism doesn't consider assimilation anti-Semitism - i.e. it comes from Anthroposophists primarily or other sources that hold that opinion (mostly Anthroposophists though). Sure, we can find lots and lots of stuff that makes this claim about Steiner, but then we have to read it closely to see what it really is saying (notice, everything presented so far is written in German). This sticking point is why Steiner seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth (not just on this, but in lots and lots of stuff). It makes Steiner sound like an idiot when people say he was against anti-Semitism and also had these terrible things to say about the Jews. In reality, he felt that there was nothing wrong, spiritually, with calling for the end of an era, the end of a people, the end of a culture, in the overall spiritual, cultural and social evolution of the world. He really believed these things and no matter *how* it sounds to people today, it is important to describe what he believed. Ptolemy believed the Earth was the center of the universe. There's no point in saying he was just kidding about this - and nobody thinks less of him for not knowing what we know today. Same goes for Steiner. What he believed is important in its flaws just as much as in its truth. Why do we need to sugar-coat it? Pete K 21:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, I'm reverting this again. Your citation which I found here and translated (somewhat roughly, I'll admit) does not say what you claim it says - that is, 85% of the article says the opposite of what you harvested from it. As I am accustomed to your slight-of-word editing from other edits, I'm reluctant to take what you claim at face value - and the only citation you can provide to suggest Steiner was opposed to anti-Semitism is in German. You've used the same citation to support several questionable edits on this page. I'm inclined to keep this controversial edit that I am certain is not in agreement with Steiner's political views out - at least until a reasonable citation is produced or an English translation by a neutral party is provided. You can certainly ask administrators to help you with this one if you like. Sorry. Pete K 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. The phrase "extreme forms of anti-semittism" is pure POV int this context. --Vindheim 17:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say he *supported* extreme forms of anti-Semitism. His form of anti-Semitism, complete cultural assimilation and the call for the Jews to disappear, would also be considered extreme by lots of people including but not limited to the Jews of his time. Pete K 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Pete: you have repeatedly said that we should let Steiner's words speak for themselves. Let's allow them to do so. If you want to add other quotes from these articles, do so. Anything from any of the articles at all. Hgilbert 16:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, not in this case, Harlan. Selective harvesting of the articles isn't going to make your point. His words show he was the worst kind of assimilationist. YOUR words are trying to declare he was against anti-Semitism with that stance. There is no substance to what you have provided. Other editors here have agreed. Pete K 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood: "diana is wrong, though you cannot look at quotes that are from before the holocaust the same way as if there were uttered today. a lot of people talked like that." Um - a lot of people talked like that and look what happened a couple of decades later. Hello? How then do you justify to yourself that you are here putting your heads together with these guys to strategize how to make it less visible, how to make it not so icky to for the public to look at, what kinds of rationalizations can be offered to soften the smudge this puts on Rudolf Steiner's public face. I've just re-read most of this discussion page and it makes me feel like I need a shower.DianaW 19:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

talking with me makes you feel dirty. it seems that your last comment puts me in the fascist corner, for not agreeing with you. whatevertrueblood 08:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I referred to reading over the entire talk page, a several-months discussion with various individuals, not to interacting with you personally, whoever you are. Read it however you like though - I am not sorry to say the effort to defend Steiner against the racism charge stinks to high heaven. The racist material is in Steiner's written works and is not going away. The public discussion of it would end sooner were admirers of Steiner to wrap their heads around it and admit, yes, there is racism there and there is blatant antisemitism there. The guru was a human being and he did make mistakes. Life goes on - anthroposophical institutions need not crumble when the founder's views are reconsidered, in fact they would almost certainly be strengthened by such a process of reevaluation. There are errors in the given doctrine. Get over it! Examining and correcting these errors would give anthroposophy a good name. There are bound to be anthroposophists who will rise to this challenge, eventually. The process going on here most certainly does not give anthroposophy a good name, it is sordid and unadmirable, and yes taking a shower is what felt right to me after taking an hour to re-read the bulk of the material on this talk page.DianaW 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pete: on my user page you agreed that Steiner's words should be used here, as you are always proclaiming should be the case rather than editor's interpretations. I am going to hold you to that agreement. Hgilbert 14:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey you two, I suggest you either call it quits or take this to mediation again. IMO, Pete's version is fine. Everybodies points are made, and clearly. Hgilbert, you keep trying to take the edge off of Pete's point, but the point is valid and NPOV process suggests that you don't get to continually rebut, counter-rebut, etc. Each POV gets to clearly state their position, and that's that. Please stop edit warring. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekajati, thanks for your support. This issue is already in arbitration. Many of us have noticed HGilbert's proclivity to WP:OWN the discussion here. Harlan, I have no problem using Steiner's own words. But words like "individual" carried a different meaning for Steiner and understanding the meanings behind his words is essential to understanding Steiner's words. I don't object to using Steiner's own words but first you will have to agree to stop trying to disguise their true meaning. I think you have taken this ploy as far as you can. Steiner's own words are what clearly place him exactly where I have described him in the passage you object to. Pete K 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Steiner spoke favorably about assimilation. But this is already covered fully in the article. That does not justify falsifying other aspects of his ideas, including his general criticism of anti-Semitism, which was expressed in the broadest possible terms, and in no way limited to extreme anti-Semitism.

Ekajati: you say, and I agree, that all POVs should be expressed. Well, Pete has expressed the one position clearly in the article. He should not then be modifying direct quotes of Steiner presented here in order to reduce them to an interpretation completely unsupported by any verifiable source. His arguments both here and vis a vis his changing Steiner's use of the word "individual" to "spirit-individual" amount to original research impermissible in this setting. It is simply not true that Steiner criticized "extreme forms of anti-Semitism". In every case, he criticized anti-Semitism per se. Anything else is a falsification of what he said. Hgilbert 17:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, That you misunderstand history is understandable, but that you as a seasoned Waldorf teacher, could so completely misunderstand Steiner is unbelievable. You are whitewashing what ACTUALLY HAPPENED, and what Steiner ACTUALLY SAID. You are being incredibly insensitive in this. I have asked you to support your claims about Steiner. You have not been able to do so and have only provided misleading citations to articles that have nothing to do with the subject. Steiner, by his own words, wanted the Jews to "disappear". He wanted them to be culturally annihilated. He didn't want them to have a religion, a culture, a way of dress or even Jewish thoughts. Those are HIS words. We have to wait another 20 years to find a treatment of the Jews that is more EXTREME than this. It really doesn't get any more simple than this. Your edit will NOT stand. Pete K 18:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you believe about him does not justify distorting his words. Why are you afraid of letting these appear? Hgilbert 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one distorting his words. I told you above I translated the material you sourced and it says the opposite of what you claim it says. Selective harvesting of a word here and there does not amount to letting his words speak for themselves, it amounts to letting his words speak for YOU - and what you think they should have said - and what most advances your cause. You are distorting Steiner's own ideas because they don't sound so good to "modern ears". This isn't the Ecumenical council of Nicaea - you don't get to leave in or out whatever you feel best protects your ideas. Steiner only spoke out against the most extreme forms of anti-Semitism, and promoted some very controversial forms of anti-Semitism (even controversial in his day) - forms that were also extreme. Those are the facts Harlan. Steiner's own words support these facts. Nothing you have presented contradicts them. Pete K 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

i think you misunderstood the text. can you point out to me or quote where in the text steiner promoted anti-semitism? trueblood 08:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's quoted above: "It certainly cannot be denied that Jewry today still behaves as a closed totality, and as such it has frequently intervened in the development of our current state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable to European ideas of culture. But Jewry itself has long since outlived its time; it has no more justification within the modern life of peoples, and the fact that it continues to exist is a mistake of world history whose consequences are unavoidable. We do not mean the forms of the Jewish religion alone, but above all the spirit of Jewry, the Jewish way of thinking." (Steiner, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur p. 152)

Here's another very personal quote demonstrating that Steiner didn't believe he was an anti-Semite, but to Jews, he definitely was. Here he talks about the Jewish family where he was employed as a tutor - his own words betray him once again: "The family was Jewish. In their views they were quite free from any sectarian or racial narrowness, but the head of the family, to whom I was deeply attached, felt a certain sensitiveness to any expression by a Gentile in regard to the Jews. The flame of anti-Semitism which had sprung up at that time had caused this feeling. Now, I took an active part in the struggle which the Germans in Austria were then carrying on in behalf of their national existence. I was also led to occupy myself with the historical and the social position of the Jews. Especially earnest did this activity of mine become after the appearance of Hamerling's Homunculus. This eminent German poet was considered by a great part of the journalists as an anti-Semite on account of this work; indeed, he was claimed by the German national anti-Semites as one of their own. This disturbed me very little; but I wrote a paper on the Homunculus in which, as I thought, I expressed myself quite objectively in regard to the Jews. The man in whose home I lived, and who was my friend, took this to be a special form of anti-Semitism. Not in the least did his friendly feeling for me suffer on that account, but he was affected with a profound distress. When he had read the paper, he faced me, his heart torn by innermost sorrow, and said to me: “What you wrote in this in regard to the Jews cannot be explained in a friendly sense; but this is not what hurts me, but the fact that you could have had the experiences in regard to us which induced you to write thus only through your close relationship with us and our friends.” He was mistaken: for I had formed my opinions altogether from a spiritual and historic survey; nothing personal had entered into my judgment. He could not see the thing in this way. His reply to my explanations was: “No, the man who teaches my children is, after this paper, no ‘friend of the Jews.’” He could not be induced to change. Not for a moment did he think that my relationship to the family ought to be altered. This he looked upon as something necessary. Still less could I make this matter the occasion for a change; for I looked upon the teaching of his sons as a task which destiny had brought to me. But neither of us could do otherwise than think that a tragic thread had been woven into this relationship. To all this was added the fact that many of my friends had taken on from their national struggle a tinge of anti-Semitism in their view of the Jews. They did not view sympathetically my holding a post in a Jewish family; and the head of this family saw in my friendly mingling with such persons only a confirmation of the impression which he had received from my paper." (Steiner, The Course of My Life pp. 142-143)

Here's more: :"Actual antisemitism is not the cause of this Jewish hypersensitivity, but rather the false image of the anti-Jewish movement invented by overwrought imaginations. Anyone who has dealt with Jews knows how deep runs the tendency to create such an image, even among the best members of their nation. Mistrust toward non-Jews has completely taken over their souls. ... I consider the antisemites to be harmless people. The best of them are like children. They want something to blame for their woes. ... Much worse than the antisemites are the heartless leaders of the Jews who are tired of Europe, Herzl and Nordau. They exaggerate an unpleasant childishness into a world-historical trend; they pretend that a harmless squabble is a terrible roar of cannons. They are seducers and tempters of their people." (Steiner, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte pp. 198-200 [1897])

Here he describes the Semitic "race": ,"...the Jahve forces from the moon sphere meet and cooperate with the Mars spirits and thus a special kind of modification arises, namely, the Semitic race. Here is the occult explanation for the origin of the Semites. The Semitic people are an example of a modification of collective humanity. Jahve or Jehovah shuts himself off from the other Elohim and invests this people with a special character by cooperating with the Mars spirits, in order to bring about a special modification of his people. You will now understand the peculiar character of the Semitic people and its mission."(Steiner, The Mission of Folk Souls p. 105)

Here are some more: "Thus the greatest tragedy of this 20th century [World War I] has come from what the Jews are also striving for. And one can say that since everything the Jews have done can now be done consciously by all people, the best thing that the Jews could do would be to disappear into the rest of humankind, to blend in with the rest of humankind, so that Jewry as a people would simply cease to exist. That is what would be ideal. This ideal is still opposed, even today, by many Jewish habits - and above all by the hatred of other people. That is what must be overcome." (Steiner, Die Geschichte der Menschheit und die Weltanschauungen der Kulturvölker p. 189)

"Today all aspects of the Jews are dominated by racial qualities. Above all they marry among themselves. They see the racial qualities, not the spiritual. And this is what must be said in reply to the question: has the Jewish people fulfilled its mission within the evolution of human knowledge? It has fulfilled it; for in earlier times one single people was needed to bring about a certain monotheism. But today spiritual insight itself is necessary. Therefore this mission has been fulfilled. And therefore this Jewish mission as such, as a Jewish mission, is no longer necessary in evolution; instead the only proper thing would be for the Jews to blend in with the other peoples and disappear into the other peoples." (Steiner, Die Geschichte der Menschheit und die Weltanschauungen der Kulturvölker p. 190)

Any questions? Pete K 15:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Pete's quotes

I don't have the time to enter a more deep discussion on the appropriateness of describing Steiner's criticism of the antisemitism of his time as only a criticism of its extreme forms, or if his criticism also included anti-Semitism in other forms at his time.

The logic of Pete's argument to a quick and admittedly superficial view looks like: "Steiner himself was an extreme anti-Semite. This means that he could not have criticized just the anti-Semites of his time in general. Logic requires that he only could have criticized more extreme anti-Semites than himself. As that is logical, it must also have been the case." Pete then tries to "prove" that Steiner was an extreme anti-Semite by quoting a number of passages from the published works of Steiner at different times. A closer look at Steiner's work contradicts this extremely simplified and simplifying black-and-white view of Pete.

See for example http://www.waldorfanswers.org/AAntisemitismMyth.htm

On:

"Jewry itself has long since outlived its time"

A look at the time indicates that the statement was not an anti-Semitic statement, but was part of an expression of the Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah) from the end of the 18th and into the 19th century, during which a Zionist like the Russian Leo Pinsker, who in 1882 in his book Autoemancipation wrote, expressing himself in much stronger words than Steiner, that in the Jews, the world could observe a people who resembled a living dead. For more on this, see here.

On

"I took an active part in the struggle which the Germans in Austria were then carrying on in behalf of their national existence."

Thas is a mistranslation. He did not in his autobiography write that he took an active part in the struggle of Germans for their national existense. He wrote that he took a keen (or active) interest in the issue, as he also took a keen interest in many other issues at the time. The proper translation is found here:

"I took a keen interest in the struggle which the Germans in Austria were then carrying on in behalf of their national existence"

According to Lorenzo Ravagli, the statement

"Actual antisemitism is not the cause of this Jewish hypersensitivity, ..."

was made at a time of a temporarily lost importance of anti-Semitism, and similar to a polemic during a Zionist congress against Herzl, the main inititior of political Zionism.

At another time he expressed himself in the opposite direction:

"Anyone who has an open eye for the present, knows that it is incorrect, when it is asserted that the affinity between Jews is greater than their affinity with the strivings of modern culture. Even if it has looked that way during the last years, it to a high degree has been the result of the anti-Semitism. Anyone who, as I, with shudder has seen what the anti-Semitism has accomplished in the souls of noble Jews, must come to this conviction." (GA 31, p. 409)

On Steiner's alleged comments on "The semitic race" and its tasks. The more full context of the quote is found here. A closer look at the original tells that he does not refer to Jewry as a "race", but to it as "Jewry" (Judentum) in the original, and that when he mentions is as one of two races, the Mongoles and Jewry, he adds "so to speak" qualifying it, maybe one reason being that the Mongols were understood to be one of the five main human varieties or "races" of humanity at the time, while Jewry was not.

The lecture can also hardly be described as anti-Semitic, telling also:

"You will now understand the peculiar character of the people and its mission. In a profound occult sense the Biblical writer was able to claim that Jahve or Jehovah had made this people his own. If you add to this the fact that Jahve cooperated with the Mars Spirits who worked principally in the blood, you will understand why continuity of the blood from generation to generation was of particular importance to the Semitic Hebrew people and why Jahve describes Himself as the God who is present in the blood of the generations, in the blood of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and further on. When he declared: "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", He proclaimed that He was present in the blood-stream of the Patriarchs. Whatsoever works in the blood, whatsoever must be determined through the blood - the cooperation with the Mars Spirits - that is one of the mysteries which give us a deep insight into the wise guidance of all mankind."

That's hardly a way an anti-Semite of any known kind would express himself, pointing to how simplified Pete's view of Steiner as an allegedly extreme anti-Semite is, and depriving his - to a quick and superficial view - seeming possible argumentation for a logical necessity(?) for Steiner only to have criticized extreme forms of antisemitism of its relevance.

And did Steiner have a just simple view that Jewry as a spiritual stream "should" disappear, as it had fulfilled its great task (what anti-Semite spoke of a task of Jewry in human history?) to "single-handedly" provide a necessary monotheistic polarity to polytheism in human history? No. During lectures during his "theosophical" time, he not only pointed the importance of Abraham in human history (what anti-Semite would have done anything remotely similar?), but also to the continued importance of Moses, as something that did not end in the past, but will continue into the future.

Did Steiner only criticize the extreme forms of anti-Semitism of his time?

Not according to my memory, when I looked at his writings, like:

"Anti-Semitism is not only a danger for Jews, it is also a danger for non Jews. It arises out of a way of thinking that does not seriously strive for sound, straightforward judgments. Anti-Semitism promotes this way of thinking. And anyone who thinks philosophically should not just observe that passively. The belief in ideas will only return to prevalence if we oppose the contrary unbelief in all areas as energetically as possible." (Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1887-1901 (Collected essays) (GA 31), Dornach 1989, 20 and 27 November 1901.)

But I don't have the time to look closer again at the moment. Thebee 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you should take the time to look closer Sune. Your pre-packaged arguments to these claims may work for you on your self-promotional websites, but not here. Steiner's views are plain for everyone to read and don't require the apologetic pretzel-twisted manipulations you have offered here as explanation. In reality, Steiner did have a short period of time where he was conflicted - 1897-1901 - about the role the Jews should play in the world - and it is primarily from this period that your quotes are harvested. He appeared, for a short period of time, to speak against anti-Semitism while simultaneously maintaining a stance that condemned Zionism - claiming it to be the main cause of anti-Semitism. His position changed when he embraced Theosophy and began working on Anthroposophy - to the position that he maintained for the remainder of his life - the assimilation and disappearance of Jewish culture. He was especially concerned with the race of the ancient Hebrews - only for their significance in preparing the path for the Christ stating "racial continuity through the blood-stream was of particular importance to the Semitic-Hebrew people" (Steiner, The Mission of Folk Souls p. 105). So, if you don't have the time to discuss this intelligently without continually referencing your pre-packaged arguments, please save it for when you have more time. Thanks! Pete K 20:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

assimilation and extremism

Pete keeps repeating the nugget he found to link Steiner and antisemittism, namely the use of the word "assimilation". This word is however a mainstream political expression today, being used by politicians from the soft left to the middler right for the gradual process of adaptation by immigrants into mainstream society. seeCultural_assimilation . In European politics the principle of assimilation is opposed only by extreme groups on the right and left. Steiners thinking on this point therefore places him squarely in the political mainstream of today, at least in Europe, where he happened to spend most of his life . --Vindheim 18:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Steiner's version of assimilation was NOWHERE near what the political mainstream of today considers as assimilation. Additionally, it didn't put him near the mainstream of European thought in his day either. Most people, especially Jews of his time absolutely insisted that assimilation included the Jews holding on to their cultural identity, religion, language and so forth. This is not what Steiner had in mind. Maybe you should get the facts straight before trying to correct me on this. Thanks! Pete K 18:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We obviously disagree on who is spurting nonsense here. The expression "assimilation" is not vey well defined, and is used to cover a wide variety of politcal positions. None of them racist, however. --Vindheim 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding right? Oh wait - you aren't talking about Steiner here - who said: "racial continuity through the blood-stream was of particular importance to the Semitic-Hebrew people" (Steiner, The Mission of Folk Souls p. 105). Here's a bit more from the same source: "the Jahve forces from the moon sphere meet and cooperate with the Mars spirits and thus a special kind of modification arises, namely, the Semitic race. Here is the occult explanation for the origin of the Semites. The Semitic people are an example of a modification of collective humanity. Jahve or Jehovah shuts himself off from the other Elohim and invests this people with a special character by cooperating with the Mars spirits, in order to bring about a special modification of his people. You will now understand the peculiar character of the Semitic people and its mission."(Steiner, The Mission of Folk Souls p. 105) Is there any doubt that Steiner's views toward the Jews are based on their "race"? Pete K 19:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you were interested in finding complex truths, you would by now have acknowledged that "racism" signifies a lot more than belief in the existence of races. --Vindheim 20:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You bet! Racism requires that one race be elevated above another. In Steiner's case, this is easily seen in the fact that he wanted one race (the white race) to remain while he wanted the Semitic "race" to disappear. Forgive me if I disagree with you about the complexity of this situation. Pete K 06:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Therefore Steiner by any NPOV qualifies as a believer in the existence of races, not as a racist.--Vindheim 12:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Steiner was EXACTLY a racist for that reason. Please don't make me dig out all the quotes again. He elevated the white race above others. Your assertion to the contrary, without evidence is not advancing your position on the topic at all. Pete K 15:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"The white race" ? you still dont seem to know what you are talking about. --Vindheim 16:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, here ya go buddy - enjoy:

• "Really, it is the whites who develop the human factor within themselves. Therefore they have to rely on themselves. When whites do emigrate, they partly take on the characteristics of other areas, but they die more as individuals than as a race. The white race is the race of the future, the race that is working creatively with the spirit." [Steiner, March 3 1923, lecture to the workmen (GA 349 p. 67)]

• "We here in Europe call ourselves the white race. If we go over to Asia, wehave mostly the yellow race. And if we go over to Africa, there we have theblack race. Those are also the original races. Everything else living in these regions is based on migration. Thus when we ask which race belongs towhich part of the earth, we must say: the yellow race, the Mongols, theMongolian race belongs in Asia, the white race or the Caucasian race belongsin Europe, and the black race or the Negro race belongs in Africa. The Negro race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course quite absurd that thisrace is now playing such a large role in Europe." Rudolf Steiner, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde.(pp. 52-53) Pete K 16:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) given he used the phrase "the white race" you still have to come up with instances of some form of discriminatory practice to make the point that Steiner was a racist, and not only - like most people at the time - a believer in the existence of races.--Vindheim 17:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Man, are you blind? "The Negro race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course quite absurd that thisrace is now playing such a large role in Europe" quoted just above is clearly and undeniably racist. Ask anybody who doesn't have an agenda of whitewashing Steiner like you do. -999 (Talk) 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the claim of racism is not the same as the claim of bigotry or even racial discrimination. Please, Vindheim, get your facts straight and don't assume something that isn't there. I haven't made a claim of "discriminatory practice", and it is not part of the definition of the word "racism". There were, indeed, some discriminatory practices that Steiner endorsed, but those are not being claimed here. Claims that one race is better, more elevated, or "the race of the future" is unmistakably racism. Pete K 18:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As I'm just about to leave for a month I probably won't see the response, but I'm willing to bet that Steiner never said something like "The White race does not belong in India, and it is of course quite absurd that this race is now playing such a large role in India." -999 (Talk) 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... no, he didn't say anything like that. The closest to it is the quote above, "the white race or the Caucasian belongs in Europe". So, you're sure you don't want to stick around for the Waldorf arbitration <G>... Pete K 19:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

An academic statement

A recent publication by Colin Kidd, professor of Modern History, has the following to say on the connection between theosophy and racism:

Indeed Theosophy proclaims itself a religion of global racial and religious reconciliation. Yet, despite this overt anti-racialist message, Theosophy betrays its origins in the racialist atmosphere of the late nineteenth century and is saturated in the language and ideas of Victorian ethnology. Although Theosophy, it should be clear, was not a racialist organisation, its scriptures contained both a decidedly anti-racist spirituality and a countercurrent of racialist thinking. (Kidd, Colin (2006) The Forging of Races, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 237)

I believe this statement easily can be used to characterize Steiners relationship to racism as well. His theories postulate the existence of discrete races of human beings, and palces them differentlyin an evolutionary chart of humanity, but neither he nor the movements originating in his teachings can fairly be characterized as "racist". --Vindheim 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know you believe this. It's really sad, IMO. Pete K 19:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything to suggest, other than your belief, that the statement "refers to Steiner's relationship to racism as well"? Pete K 20:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your quotation is inaccurate, Pete. I shall, however, refrain from drawing any conclusion from that. Colin Kidds discussion is relevant for anyone who seek a deeper truth than shades of black and white. You figure out if that might apply to yourself. --Vindheim 20:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Deeper truth" is meaningless to me - other than it suggests I need taller boots to wade through it. Pete K 20:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So I gather.--Vindheim 21:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Deep breath, anyone?

This talk page is a pretty awesome piece of work, 43 printed pages, after two archivings; and as someone very interested in Steiner and in assessing his legacy I'm impressed that the Wikipedia mission does seem to persist even through some rancor.

I want to suggest that there is some basic difficulty with this subject, "Rudolf Steiner," which needs to be kept in mind if we are not to go bonkers here. ("We" means I'm not just here for hit-and-run.) I'll sum it up personally by saying that after reading about 140 books of Steiner, and having his ideas in my mind pretty much daily for over 20 years, I would have a lot of trouble summing up and boiling down all of what I know about him; and my reading is about 25% of the total.

Obviously I have a committed interest in Steiner. I eventually joined the anthroposophical society, was president of the New York City "branch" for a number of years. But I came to this interest out of a continuing project, which is to follow up, in book form, Bucky Fuller's "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth" with some kind of intelligent survey of where humanity stands.

Fuller took his perspective back about 500 years, and focused on technology, systems and to some extent economics. The first Steiner book I read, in 1984, went back to the third previous "incarnation" of the planet itself, "before which we cannot really speak about time," and focused on, well, everything. Fuller's concern was to get us to think comprehensively and act "synegetically" so that the resources of the planet, including the metaphysical resources, could be brought to bear on human and ecological needs. Steiner's concern was to create a new center of cultural gravity, to help facilitate a post-materialistic era in which human evolution would accelerate and face unprecedented challenges. The challenge, we can say now, of "human being 2.0".

Pete, noting your fondness for Chesterton, I recall that he saw Aquinas trying to produce a true anthropology, rather than the "science of anthropoids" which currently goes by that name. Steiner, seeing the loss of influence of philosophy, was trying to shift the center around which all knowledge is organized back onto the human being - where, from one point of view, it always belongs. Therefore he settled on "anthroposophy."

Well, if I'm right, then it does matter a great deal if Steiner was a racist, anti-Semite, or anything else like that. Because he was not a library researcher, though he read enormously; he developed recognized human capacities, cognitive and beyond, into research instruments. And so if his own consciousness was out of whack -- and he didn't know it, and couldn't correct for it -- then his results are correspondingly problematic.

So let me start a list of the difficulties we face in "doing Steiner properly" for Wikipedia:

– An extemely large body of work (the article is missing whole categories)
– An encyclopedic range of subject matter (no pun intended)
- Extremely difficult subject areas
– Approach problems: judging his work as intellectual, scientific, artistic, moral, social
– "Esoteric" aspects, frames of reference
– Technical terminology and contexts
– Involvement with other complex persons, movements, situations
– The interaction of all these difficulties together!!

A couple of amplifications. Difficult subject areas include human nature and evolution, human consciousness and the nature of reality. Approach problems: Steiner said that he followed an artistic path from 1888 onward, but "artist" is usually only a secondary label applied to him.

Esoteric aspects include the nature and activity of other beings of "higher" consciousness, like the angelic hierarchies; or the course of human existence between death and a new birth. Involvements -- I mean with persons like Goethe-as-a-scientist, or Blavatsky's "theosophy" which Steiner joined formally, and used the terminology for a time, but was never a "follower" of; or the whole situation of German-speaking culture in the 20th century.

And as for "technical terminology and contexts," both "race" and where on the Earth people "belong" are heavy-duty technical matters in Steiner's work. (You can go here

[6]

and then click the "click here to see schematic" link to get a picture of where root-races come into things. Just so you know, we're in the fifth cultural age of the fifth evolutionary epoch of the fourth condition of form of the fourth condition of life of the fourth condition of consciousness. Races are a hang-over from the fourth cultural age. "Fine, and what does that mean.")

And for all these reasons and more, Steiner is mostly avoided in academia. It's just too much, you could ruin your career trying to deal with all of this.

Nor do I have any brilliant solutions to suggest. I will try to come back with a helpful suggestion on the most vexed issue of the moment, that of biases. I just wanted to applaud your persistence and offer up this much context.

--jb 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome. I'm glad you can see our dilema here - we have to talk about Steiner and not through Steiner. So it is our task to describe who Steiner was without using this as an excuse to push what we think Steiner believed. Pete K 16:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Who Was Steiner?

The article says he was an "Austrian philosopher, literary scholar, architect, playwright, educator, social thinker, and esotericist" and shows no justification whatsoever for any of these claims. Certainly, "architect" and "playwright" take us out on a limb here as he designed a couple of buildings (nothing notable other than the Goetheanums I and II). He had no architectural training, no degree in architecture - nothing that suggests he was an architect. His playwrighting consists of about 4 very mediocre plays that are performed in Anthroposophical venues only. As an "educator" he never educated anyone, he was a one-on-one tutor for some period of time - hardly an educator. He never stood before a classroom and his only training in this field was the tutoring he performed. He had no experience as an educator - at all. If we are going to assign these labels that are meaningful in our society, to someone who hasn't earned them, we may as well call him a race-car driver simply because he drove through Berlin at great haste one morning. Throughout these articles, we see people calling Steiner a "sculptor", a "scientist" and other things simply because he had some association with these things. Next we'll be calling him a physician because of his association with Anthroposophical medicine. We really need to be honest about his accomplishments and his shortcomings and describe who he was accurately. Pete K 00:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The source http://sitemaker.umich.edu/nilsen.356/history__waldorf_education verifies most of it. I'll add the tag. I don't think you really dispute all of the list, right. I think you admit he's an esotericist. An analysis of his dramas was featured in an article a few years ago in CUNY university's theatrical journal, Western European Stages. If writing plays that are continued to be performed for a hundred years doesn't qualify as "playwrighting", what is the official standard to go by? Venado 01:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

While on the subject of good sources, as in the Anthroposophy article, the Wallace Sampson source added today doesn't verify the statement attached it to. Was it to go on another statement some place else? Otherwise it should be removed and a proper source be put there. Venado 01:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well...let's see. He designed some 14 buildings, all of which were built, and several of which are under Swiss governmental preservation orders as significant architectural works. As well as his work as a tutor when he was younger, he was a teacher for many years in adult education (for a workers' night school). He also founded and directed a school, obviously. Hgilbert 16:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Anthroposophical Medicine

The referenced article states: "The organization for non-M.D. health professionals interested in anthroposophical medicine is Artemesia, The Association for Anthroposophical Renewal of Healing." This supports the statement "but avenues exist for non-MD's to become Anthroposophical Medicine professionals " Pete K 16:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Venado, thanks for the edit. Nicely done! Pete K 00:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to take a look at this reference which was just added, but can't get it to open. Anyone? http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://jdc.jefferson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1000%26context%3Demfp DianaW 17:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I got it to open - but try this approach [7]. Pete K 17:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, no big surprise - it's from the Steiner Medical Center. I may have to delete it. Pete K 18:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you don't know what you're talking about. It's published by the Department of Emergency Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University, which has been in existence almost hundred years before anthroposophy existed. They're an independent institution. Venado 18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I got it open, thanks. I am a medical editor. I earn a living managing papers for publication in medical journals. A reference like this would be removed as it is not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Technically, it might be mentioned, but not in the reference list but rather with web address given in the text, and date accessed. Wikipedia, of course, is not a medical journal. The appropriateness of a reference like this is debatable. It would not be included in the reference list of a medical article because it is not a peer-reviewed study - and the reasons it was not and could not be published I'm sure are obvious to all of us - it would not pass a medical peer review. That is why it is a "faculty paper" and not a published article. It makes claims that cannot be referenced in the medical literature (such as the claims for mistletoe, and claims such as, the "mechanistic" model of disease is not "complete" and can't account for psychological causes of illness etc. (Unless you can find a citation for it on Pub Med? I didn't check; I'm assuming if it was ever published you'd give the real citation.) A couple of other things like this have come up here recently, that I haven't had time to comment on. Pages on a university web site are not the same thing as articles published in scholarly or professional journals. We might need arbitrators' opinions on this sort of material. I can tell you (and I am a professional at this) that it is not acceptable in many medical journals. (Electronic references in general are often eligible for citation only if they're from an online-published journal, rather than a web page whose content is not stable. For instance, Wikipedia articles can't be cited.) (Universities put lots of things on their web sites that are not necessarily peer-reviewed research, but merely showcase faculty and student interests or projects etc.) It might be mentioned, but with its unreliable source flagged. Arguing in favor of including it, it is only a citation for a fairly trivial claim. Someone's been doing some very deep digging! Back to work.DianaW 18:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Venado wrote to Pete: "BTW, you don't know what you're talking about. It's published by the Department of Emergency Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University, which has been in existence almost hundred years before anthroposophy existed. They're an independent institution." This is misleading in several ways. Pete is correct that at least one of the authors is from the Steiner Medical Center in Phoenixville, PA. The paper is not "published" by the Department of Emergency Medicine at Jefferson (which is, indeed, an independent institution). It is on the Jefferson web site as a "faculty paper" which is not the same thing as a study published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. If you look for it on Pub Med, you are not going to find it. It is not research.DianaW 18:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Darn it all, I'm going to have to take it back. It is published. It is peer reviewed. The correct citation is: Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice, 24(4): 867-887, December 1997. (This does not mean, however, that pages on university web sites should not receive this kind of scrutiny.) DianaW 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't edited references on wikipedia before. Is there some trick? I've tried to insert this reference and can't do it. Probably Venado will do it. It should give the correct citable reference as I gave above and not a web page.DianaW 18:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Darn It? How is this bad? It's a good source, and this wasn't even a disputed fact prior to my adding this source. I have found an independently published reference that shows anthroposophist doctors must be qualified conventional doctors, and nobody puts uncontroversial background fact statements like that through the trouble of "peer review" panel anyway.

Also - answers.com isn't a source or a publisher, let alone "peer reviewed". This was a bad excuse to reject my source that wasn't applied to Pete K's original source, which isn't good. Answers.com is mostly just a mirror website that picks up whatever trolling the internet, and mostly reviewed by nobody at all. That source doesn't seem to rankle, but use one with "Thomas Jefferson University" and all of a sudden there's a protest that it hasn't gone through a peer review. The only way editors can use answers.com information is to hunt down the reference cited by answers.com. The link to answers.com here originally gave no identification of the original published source except an author's name, no publisher, no publish date. I was unable to find any published article to go with it, so I found more something better to use. The Artemesia site is anthroposophic, but it is not used as a reference for a controversial claim, only to show the examples of therapy providers that they work with. Though it is self-published, it qualifies per wikipedia guidelines:

Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is: relevant to the self-publisher's notability; not contentious; not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing; about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;

It's not going to get better if we waste time arguing about things that aren't really controversial disputes but just bad faith excuses used to create extra work around here. That statement I put that reference on was just fine with everybody here when it came from a no-peer reviewed, non-published answers.com, a really bad source, now I have given it a better one.Venado 19:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we drop this; I don't know anything about answers.com, and hadn't even realized it had been cited. I hadn't read this discussion for many days and only jumped in today. What I said above regarding web pages at universities is all correct, all relevant and important to sourcing wikipedia articles, and not at all a "bad faith excuse." In the future, what I wrote above regarding the distinction between a page on a university web site and a peer-reviewed scholarly article definitely applies, and I think a request for comment or arbitration ruling would likely agree with my take there: that random pages that happen to be on a university web site are not automatically qualified as expert sources; it depends on several things, and they are not necessarily the same thing as published scholarly, technical, or professional sources. What I was wrong about was that that particular article was, in fact, peer reviewed and published elsewhere legitimately. You, let's note, hadn't found the best source for it. I made an error, yes, but OTOH I also improved the article by finding a better source for your claim. I also stated, originally, that the claim itself is so trivial that I likely wouldn't dispute the "faculty papers" source anyway. I don't think we have any further disagreement on this issue. (I wanted to make the point regarding pages on university web sites also because someone used something similar the other day - a source that is definitely questionable - and I can't quite recall where it is. I'll get back to it.)DianaW 22:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I seem to be blocked from editing this article. Hm. Someone who is able please correct the spelling of the author's name: Rosenzweig. Thanks. (And if arbitrators are reading this, somebody please unblock me? Surely I haven't done anything naughty so far.)DianaW 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph clutter

While we clean up the article and find sources, etc., can we come to some kind of agreement about what to footnote where? The opening paragraph has way to many footnotes. Now that it is sourced, can't we agree to just reference these things further in the article? Or list all of it in one long footnote? The way it is now is just ugly, very bad style.Venado 17:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to introduce all the remarkable claims later in the article. Each one has its own section in the article - Steiner the architect, Steiner the sculptor, etc. Why do all these things have to be in the first paragraph? They really don't describe who Steiner was - they describe what he did. Please give some consideration to removing these claims completely. Something like "Steiner was an Austrian philosopher (1861-1925) who is best known for his belief system, Anthroposophy." Why does the first paragraph have to sound like it comes from a Steiner cheerleading section? Pete K 17:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just a list, and there isn't any "cheerleading" language added to it, which hasn't been so in other places. We need to remove the cheerleading adjectives that are still here and there, but this article shouldn't praise his accomplishments or tuck them out of sight. Even critical books written about him give him credit for his varied accomplishments. Published critics have even cheerleaded Steiner for his range of accomplishments, like Peter Washington called him a "polymath" and Anthony Storr characterized him a "saint", but this article shouldn't quote adjectives like that to cheerlead either just because those independent authors did. Venado 18:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, this list is a list with implications that exceed reality. Steiner really wasn't an architect, he wasn't really a sculptor, he wasn't a playwright, he was a philosopher and an author. To attribute these things to him requires the most loose interpretations of those terms - it's like saying because I mow my front lawn, that makes me a landscaper. If I stopped to fix the latch on my gate, that must make me a landscape architect. If I fix my kids breakfast, that must also make me a chef. It's not so bad that these things are in the body of the article because where it says "playwright" it describes that he only wrote four plays that are performed in Anthroposophical venues. Where it says "sculptor" it has a picture that shows he was no Michaelangelo. But someone reading the first paragraph only wouldn't know this. That's why these types of claims are cheerleading when they are made without explanation or references. Pete K 18:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you too personally involved with this subject to be objective? If there are published articles in culinary publications which tell of your accomplishments and influence as a chef, such could also be said about you in an article about you at wikipedia. I'm guessing this isn't the case, so in that case such a claim about you can't be made in an article here about you. Simple. Your opinion doesn't matter. You're an editor. Your not the authority about sculpting or playwriting and you can't use personal judgement to judge who qualifies. Venado 19:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, am I personally involved in Steiner's biography in some whay that I don't know about? I'm not suggesting who qualifies as a sculptor or playwright - nor am I suggesting I am an authority on art. I'm saying the references need to stay in - and referencing claims in Wikipedia is absolutely appropriate. On this my opinion definitely matters. You are the one who asked if the references can come out. The answer is no. I suggested an alternative, because you are interested in the appearance of the opening paragraph (I really don't care how it looks because I'm not personally involved with the subject). The alternative is to move the claims to where they belong - in the body of the article. If you would rather keep them in the opening paragraph, that's fine with me - but again, the references are appropriate - particularly because Steiner is not known for his sculpting or playwrighting. Pete K 20:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I streamlined the link so that it points to all the references with less clutter. I learned that wikipedia doesn't want hyper links in the introduction to articles (in the Form Guide) so I took them off and will try to add the wikilinks back further down in the article like it says in the guide instructions. Venado 23:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I meant to compliment you on your solution when I saw it earlier. This worked well. Pete K 00:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding edit wars

There are three problems with references that are creating more edit wars. Steiner published source materials is one. The arbitration decision forbidded using them as source for controversial statements. I understand that this is a confusing guideline that will take time to sort through, but to avoid edit conflict, try to find other sources first.

Also the constant reference to unpublished stuff on websites. The Social ecology reference added recently is to a self-published blog post, and for that reason not allowed at wikipedia. Real, independent publications only are allowed. To avoid more edit warring about which sites are okay and which have an "agenda", don't link to sites like waldorfcritics.org, waldorfanswers.org, or rickross.com for references. Don't link to sites with unpublished, English translations of foreign language articles either. That is flake research, the articles need professionally published reference sources. If the articles shown there that editors want to use as a reference are published, identify and describe the real published reference only. If it's published in another language, so be it. Don't link do-it-yourself translations. That's how researchers would identify them anyway, not to do-it-yourselfer style websites.

And last is using references that don't validate the statement. Don't add references to a statement that really say something else. Seems like some here think that every single word used is controversial, so make sure that the statement itself in the article hasn't been rewritten by an editor to add controversial statements that go beyond what the author of the reference really said. Venado 19:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add to these recommendations. Talk, talk, talk. Let's discuss this stuff instead of using the article to test our theories. If someone thinks a reference isn't acceptable, let's talk about it. Let's give people an opportunity to find alternatives. It would be great if we could work together on this instead of against each other. Pete K 01:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This comment really belongs in the anti Semitism bit, but I’m adding it here at the bottom of the discussion, because, as a newbie, I’m not sure it would be noticed up in amongst older comments. (hopefully someone will set me straight if my concern is unfounded)

To the best of my knowledge, Steiner saw all religion as rapidly becoming obsolete for the human race. My understanding is that he saw the path of human development as lying in the cultivation of spiritual faculties, leading to direct experience of living truths. When truth is discernible directly, religion, which effectively provides ‘rules’ to live by is superseded.

The comments he made concerning Judaism need to be considered in this broader context. Technically, indeed he could be accused of anti Semitism, but no more than he was anti Catholic, anti Islamism etc.

What would seem to be beyond dispute is that he was vehemently opposed to vilification of people themselves on any basis at all, whether it be religion, race, politics or any other point of view.

I won’t attempt to edit the article, being a newcomer, and undoubtedly not as well read as the established editors, however I would like to see expansion of the article to reflect the broader context of his views on religion generally. Oldvit 12:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Oldvit. We had, at one time, a more expanded article, Steiner's Views on Race and Ethnicity, that went into more detail like you suggest. The problem with what you are suggesting above is that Steiner didn't say Catholics or Christians have outlived their usefulness and should disappear. He said this about Jews at a time and in a place where lots of people were saying this sort of thing about Jews. He said this publicly and frequently. You may discover this as you read more Steiner. Pete K 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Allowed sources

I will repeat my question here. Are Rudolf Steiner authored/anthroposophic published references allowed? I understood the arbitration decided these articles considered that "self published". I have been finding independent articles and it seems like more of the unallowed type references keep getting added. Am I the only one thinking this is what the decision meant?Venado 19:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Which ones are you referring to? Pete K 19:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is one of your additions for an example. [8] Venado 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You find this controversial? Pete K 20:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

More controversial than the rest of the paragraph that you added new fact tags to as if in payback. To avoid new revert wars, I think its best to stick to legitimate secondary source depictions of anthroposophy to avoid fighting here about which Steiner obscure claims in which of his 300 books have which tenets of anthroposophy. Venado 21:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Payback? Please assume good faith here. We were directed to clean up sources to ALL these claims, not just new ones. If you don't want to source these claims, take them out. There's no reason why my inclusion needed to be sourced while others making similar claims in the same paragraph are allowed to remain unsourced. Let's just delete the entire paragraph, and lots of others that are unsouced. Pete K 22:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two baic sources on this problem. One is the Arbitration decision. According to decision, the only one in this case:

"Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. 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.

The other source are some statements by Fred Bauder at the Arbitration workshop page:

"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."

Also Fred Bauder:

"any polemical source is considered unreliable"

I:

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

Fred Bauder:

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

What does this mean with regard to the question "Are Rudolf Steiner authored/anthroposophic published references allowed?"

I think one needs to distinguish between issues related to anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner, for which there exist published historical texts by Steiner, and issues related to practical activities, related to anthroposophy.

For issues related to Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy, his own lectures and produced texts are allowed citable primary sources, as long as the description of them is purely descriptive, and does not create a new primary sources, which means making "no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." in the article, based on them.

According to WP:NOR:

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

SOME CONCLUSIONS:

This means for example that the insistence by PeteK to use the word "to expose" in the article on the WC, instead of the neutrally descriptive "against the use of":

"One of the first steps taken in PLANS' campaign to expose Waldorf methods public schools was to seek the support of members and associates with the Skeptics Society ..."

violates WP:NOR as the word "expose" is interpretive and evaluative.

This holds also for his way of reinserting the text

"("Michaelmas," a key anthroposophic religious festival, becomes a "Dragon Festival"

"Key anthroposophic religious festival" is an interpretative synthetic term, which violates the WP:NOR policy. In his revert Pete also reinserted an outdated citation, that does not exist anymore (as told in the summary of the edit removing it).

It also means that the polemical sources Pete K repeatedly insists on adding as citation in this article are to be considered unreliable, and therefore not allowed. It also means that the writings by Mr. Staudenmaier in general up to his latest paper are not allowed as citations, as they are all clearly polemical.

It also means that for eample the article by Sven Ove Hansson from 1991 on the issue if anthroposophy in some sense can be considered to contain a scientific element is to be considered unreliable in principle, both for the reason that he (as far as I remember) at the time was chair person of an organization, on ideological grounds critical of anthroposophy, and for the reason that his article is polemical.

A direct comparison of what he writes in his article with the published historical source he quotes at the beginning of his article also shows that he distorts the argumentation in the original source, which demonstrates how he distorts it based on an ideological bias.

Anthroposophical sources are allowed for uncontroversial statements.

Is Pete's citation of a type that is allowed in general? In general Steiner texts and lectures are allowed as primary sources. Are they allowed if the statement in this article, for which they are used, is controversial? That may be unclear. If a link is given to the published historical source, as found on the net, like at An Outline of Occult Science, By Rudolf Steiner, GA 13 giving a link to the specific chapter, it can be investigated whether it is a reliable citation for the addition "as well as other planets", or constitutes a violation of WP:NOR. Also, the citation "An Outline of Occult Science, Rudolf Steiner, p109-114" as citation is careless and incomplete, lacking among other things publisher and publication year.

Thebee 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

None of what you write above makes any sense. Pete K 22:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

To add to this "One of the first steps taken in PLANS' campaign to expose Waldorf methods public schools was to seek the support of members and associates with the Skeptics Society" is a perfectly accurate and NPOV statement. It describes PLANS' "campaign" (which, BTW, sounds a little POV) which is, according to their mission statement, to "expose" Waldorf. It doesn't get more accurate than this. Pete K 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

TS and Steiner: Steiners version is biased

The sentence "The Anthroposophists added an artistic element to the intellectual approach of the Theosophical society, and this was not well recieved " is heavily biased. Using Steiners autobiography as a source for describing the differences between himself and other parties, is of course, highly POV.--Vindheim 22:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Pete K 22:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)