Talk:Rudolf Steiner

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived to Talk:Rudolf Steiner/Archive2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives:

• Archive
• Archive2
• Steiner and theosophy

Merging Articles

I support the merging of the articles. There are about 20 articles on this and similar, related subjects already. Much of the information on Steiner is also in the article about Anthroposophy. Merging the race and ethnicity article with this one would be very appropriate as it never should have been split off in the first place. Pete K 01:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is being discussed here. — goethean ॐ 16:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging of articles can be a good thing, as long as each article isn't too long and is proportionate. Currently, the article "Steiner's views on race and Ethnicity" is way, way too long. Someone needs to cut it down. Steiner's views on race and ethnicity comprised about one-millionth of everything he said, yet it takes the bulk of the article. 64.185.4.7 18:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well proportionate shouldn't just reflect a balance of the articles, but a balance of what Steiner said. I agree with what you said on race and ethnicity only being one-millionth of what Steiner said. You really have to look closely to find any talk about race. I don't even know if it should be on the article myself, although people in today's world seem intrigued. Perhaps there should be a seperate article, one on PLANS or Steiner critics. Afterall, I've never seen anything on Steiner's racial views in Britannica. Perhaps that's because: (1) either the arguments aren't valid to the scholars who wrote the article and (2) there is simply too much other information about Steiner's contributions and beliefs to even print a blip. Egamirorrimeht 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Egamirorrimeht. Just so everyone knows, Wikipedia administrators have the ability to check the IP addresses of accounts to see if people are using multiple accounts as sockpuppets. Do not do this. — goethean ॐ 20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The section is indeed controversial, but simply wiping it out is no solution right now. Please help us find a balanced presentation! Hgilbert 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe it's a fellow friend of mine who shares an interest in Steiner and we go to the same school and use shared cpu's.

And Hgilbert- I wasn't wip[ing it out by any means. Like it has been said: IT TAKES UP THE BULK OF THE ARTICLE. ANd, no, I didn't wipe the article out. I left an argument as to what Steiner said concerning the individual being greater than race, and also left an argument up as to the fact that his racial comments can sometimes be controversial. I think there is equal representation of both sides left up there. I cut out a ton of (on both sides) of the details. I think if anyone cares to read those they should click on the link. Egamirorrimeht 20:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey-wait-I've got an idea!!!! Why don't we just insert the entire article from "Rudolf Steiner's views on Race and Ethnicity!!!" All 45 pages of it....we can put it in this article since nobody else here cares about balance of topic. Egamirorrimeht 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And another thing, HGILBERT- You simply saying "Please help us find a balanced presentation!" is nothing. You're not helping discuss. Yopu're not contributing here. You're just criticising and tearing down.

Plus, IT WAS BALANCED! Like I said, I left equal representation of both sides up. I took out the filler that can be seen in the bloated article on Steiner's racial views. I'm not arguing that article. I'm simply trying to pop the bloat of this article.Egamirorrimeht 20:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to discuss such wholesale edits before making them. This sort of thing is what got the articles locked up in the first place. Just because you have a good idea doesn't mean everyone here will agree with it. Pete K 20:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I feel the same way you do about the imbalance in the presentation. But we have had serious edit wars over this, and it would be helpful to come to an agreement before making major changes. Let me repeat; I agree that the section is bloated and one-sided. Hgilbert 20:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, now that there is agreement that the section is bloated, let's come up with a way to edit it down. What does everyone think about what I did? I edited alot of the details, as people can see those within the large article. I left two paragraphs--one giving a broad general argument informing of Steiner's beliefs concerning human individuality being greater than that person's race. The other paragraph informs readers to the fact that there is indeed controversy and the reasons why. Each of those paragraphs are essential to the main points regarding Steiner's beliefs concerning races. The details (all of them) should be in the article, not on Steiner's page.Egamirorrimeht 21:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus I think it's particularly funny that Stiner's views on Christianity (which take up book after book, lecture after lecture) comprise one sentence here in his article, while his views on race and ethnicity, which has been said to be one-millionth of what spoke about is the largest article on his page. Egamirorrimeht 21:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There has been a claim made that you are a sockpuppet. Should any of us be satisfied with your suggestion that you are not and simply sharing a computer with someone else? I know I'm not - no offense intended. If you are sharing a computer with someone else, can you please let us know who they are so we won't think you are one person using two accounts? Thanks! Pete K 21:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My claim was only based on the fact that is a new user with no edits prior to posting here, that he/she has a detailed understanding of the debate, and that immediately before, another anonymous poster commented. I have do not have his IP address information. Maybe he is the same user as User:64.185.4.7 (who commented above). — goethean ॐ 21:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Could be - but the comment about using a roommate's computer seemed a little curious to me. Pete K 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, first off it wasn't my roomate who posted, nor was it done from the same computer. The other is a friend of mine, or more like a mutual aquaintance who I briefed on everything that was happening on Steiner's page this past week. He has a very clear opinion of the matter and has wanted to past something for some time, but only yesterday we were at the library and I saw him, actually, in the Steiner section at the library (Texas Tech is fortunate to have an extensive Steiner collection....some 500 books, so we're both very well read on the subject.) I told him I posted just a minute ago downstairs and, like I said, he's wanted to post for some time and share his views. I told him to make an account and told him how to edit, etc. and this is how all this started.

Anyways, I'm tired of nothing getting done here. My argument is that the current "Steiner's views on Race and Ethnicity" is way too long. Something needs to be done to shorten it. Nobody else is willing to discuss shortening the bloated article, and it appears that there are no dissenters. The only reason it was retracted was that it was done before people had a chance to debate it, and now everyone's obviously had that chance. So I'm going to shorten it to the version that it was yesterday, because there is definate agreement that it is bloated. Now is will at least have balance. 64.185.4.7 15:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who is speaking here - it would be helpful if you sign in. From the spelling and grammar, it appears to be Sune. So, you admit, it wasn't a sockpuppet - it was a meatpuppet. Fair enough. You can shorten it to yesterday's version and I'll repair whatever you do. It makes no difference to me. Better, however, to discuss the issues here and not go making wild edits that will be reversed. Thanks! Pete K 23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'm happy to discuss shortening the bloated article. I think all the apologetic stuff should come out and his actual views - i.e. quotes from his books and lectures - should make up this article. It is, after all, about his views. Nobody can describe his views better than Steiner himself. Pete K 00:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The articles should not be merged. They're both long already. At Wikipedia, subarticles are preferred for 'in-depth' descriptions of particular sub-topics. Definitely the biography of Steiner is more to the point in this article. The biography is valuable, and it's strange to propose a solution that would remove the biography here just to make room in this article for material already covered in the other article. Venado 20:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Venado. — goethean ॐ 22:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, welcome Venado. You're just in time to vote... LOL! Pete K 00:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, Steiner's biography is of very minor interest to the world. Much of what is here is already covered in multiple sub-articles about his initiatives. Most of what is on this page is redundant. Pete K 23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just talking about the biography section here. Most of it would interest a lot of people. The discussion about his involvement in the Theosophical Society duplicates much from the subarticle. It should be revised. Venado 00:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL! OK, if you say so. I find it pretty boring personally, and believe it could be snappier and condensed without losing the main points which are, IMO, he was born, studied philosophy - eventually got his PhD, edited Goethe's scientific works - published Theory of Knowledge, wrote POF, joined the Theosophical society, got married, Pres of Theosophical Society in Germany, wrote Theosophy, KOW, OS, broke off from the TS and started Anthroposophical Society, remarried, etc. Meeting herb gatherers is the type of stuff that belongs in a book - not an encyclopedia entry. Pete K 00:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We know Pete. The only thing you think is interesting and should be included in the article is reams upon reams of quotations exposing Steiner's racism. That's not really what Wikipedia is about. — goethean ॐ 14:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it IS what Wikipedia is about. Steiners own VIEWS are what Steiner was about and his VIEWS are what Wikipedia needs to examine - not whether he met an herb grower. So yes, Steiner's racism is absolutely relevant and far more important than all the puff-piece nonsense that is currently here. Steiner took a political stance, he started a religious movement, he started a school system, he motivated people. Of course his views are important - far more important than his father's work history. Pete K 16:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I urge you to learn more about Wikipedia's policy and mission. Please ask administrators. This is a biographical article. It is appropriate to describe Steiner's biography, whether superficially or in depth. It is also appropriate to describe the controversy around Steiner's views on race. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to take a side on a controversy. — goethean ॐ 17:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing these things. Here's what some people are arguing - that due to lack of space on this article, we shouldn't merge the "Steiner's views on race and ethnicity" article. They believe we should separate out Steiner's views, and leave here his extensive but rather boring biography. I'm arguing that his views are more important than his biography. If you want to make a separate article about his biographical information, that's fine - but what defines Steiner is not his biography, but his accomplishments, philosophy, viewpoints and political activities. Those are the topics that should be covered in the main article - as well as an edited biography. An extensive biography is not required here. Pete K 18:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit Wars Starting Again

Are we going to get this article locked up again over the Dutch commission? They're ALL ANTHROPOSOPHISTS. If you want to include the report, you have to say so. I'm pretty sure we've agreed to this. Pete K 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You started it by deleting a section. — goethean ॐ 21:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The section is either going to be truthful or it's going to come out. Have a look at the Race and Ethnicity page - the Dutch Commission stuff is repeated there. It doesn't need to go in both articles - and when we merge the articles, it will be there. Pete K 21:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no untruthful information. Sabotaging sections of articles because one item of information you'd like included is not there is inappropriate; work it out on the talk page. I support the information being included, however, now that a citation has been provided to support this (is this citation currently in the article, BTW? It should be.)

I do not support merging the articles, however; the section is already too long as it stands, by any standard whatsoever. We should be looking at condensing it to what Wikipedia recommends, a NPOV summary/overview with a link to the detailed article. Hgilbert 15:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone has just provided such a summary/overview; this was not done with my knowledge but I find it quite appropriate. Hgilbert 15:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"There was no untruthful information. Sabotaging sections of articles because one item of information you'd like included is not there is inappropriate" You've GOT to be kidding Harlan. "One item of information" - what insanity is this? THE DUTCH COMMISSION WAS COMPRISED EXCLUSIVELY OF ANTHROPOSOPHISTS. You can't really be a Waldorf teacher and be so dense, can you? It is the most significant item of information about the report. "work it out on the talk page" We've talked about this for weeks - you were involved in the discussions. Here's the bottom line - you will either include the fact that Anthroposophists comprised the commission, or (and if I were you I would consider this) remove the Dutch commission section completely. It is meaningless when the facts are presented. You do not get to hide the make-up of the commission (I'm talking more to the other slash-and-burn editors here). "I support the information being included, however, now that a citation has been provided to support this (is this citation currently in the article, BTW? It should be." Yes, the citation and a quote from it has been added to the article. This apparently struck some Steiner defenders the wrong way and they continue to yank it out. Pete K 15:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"It is the most significant..." - To you, yes. Yet it is one piece of information in an article. It is sabotage to remove whole sections because they do not include your favorite piece of information. IF THE REPORT APPEARS, I SUPPORT INCLUDING THAT PIECE OF INFORMATION WITH A CITATION, PETE. But it's still sabotage to do what you did. Hgilbert 15:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No Harlan, not to me, to EVERYONE who reads this report. The bias of the commission - that they were all Anthroposophists, all followers of Steiner - is the most important piece of information to everyone. Please stop trying to hide this fact. I don't care how you characterize my edits. I think yours and some of the others who have edited this article have been dishonest. The attempted change of the wording to "Anthroposophical academics" for example - is not the same as saying "all Anthroposophists" - it's like saying someone is a "Jewish scholar" - it implies they are scholarly on the topic of Judaism, not that they are Jewish. So your sleight-of-hand is not going to work here Harlan. Tell it like it is or remove it completely. There are no other choices. Pete K 15:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete, I'm getting tired of this. I haven't hidden the fact. I've asked you to document it. THIS IS NORMAL. You documented it. Someone else has changed the wording, not me. OK? There are several people in the world, Pete, not just YOU and NOT-YOU. I have said above that I agree with your wording now that you've documented the attribution. Your accusations are totally out of place. Hgilbert 16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

When you pasted in the report, after it was discussed for two weeks and no agreement arrived at, did you modify the paragraph at all to indicate that the commission was comprised entirely of Anthroposophists? No, you didn't. You say you agree with me, but no effort was made to make this simple change. Pete K 17:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And you noticed it and made the change. Thank you for noticing what I missed. Hgilbert 00:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, whatever Harlan. It seems a little hard to believe you "missed" it when we had discussed exactly this issue for two weeks prior to the unlocking of the articles - but at the risk of sounding EXTREMELY GULLIBLE, I'll consider the unlikely possibility that it was an honest mistake. So, on a different subject. How about if we lose the chalkboard drawing. It's impossible to see what it depicts and even enlarging it (which doesn't do much) doesn't show anything. Do you have something you really want to replace it with? Or can we just remove it and gain some much-needes space? Pete K 00:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete, I myself am an anthroposophist, and anthroposophists agree that it is a matter of misunderstanding, not a matter of misinterpretation. Afterall, the sentence reads "Anthroposophists assert..."

Besides, understanding comes from full awareness, whereas interpretation from however you want to see it. But that's besides the point because, like I said, "Anthroposophists assert..." I will allow you to put a "citation needed" there, though, if you want to make the refrences even more encyclopedic.64.185.4.7 01:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. You can't use yourself as a reference. I'm fully aware, and I understand Steiner, I studied Steiner for 15 years. It isn't my understanding that is at issue - it is my interpretation. I've changed the sentence back. If you want to provide a legitimate reference go ahead. If you insist on changing it back - I'll just delete the sentence. It's meaningless anyway. Pete K 01:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please state your position

• For a summary of the race issue with a link to the article Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity

Hgilbert 15:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Obviously, me 64.185.4.7 15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• For an extensive discussion with a link to the article Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity

• For a merger, incorporating the above article

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)

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).

"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)

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)

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)

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)

kindergarden talk

Just as a reflection: Your endless row of personal insults and personal attacks point to that you don't apply rational argumentation more than spotwise. A minute ago, not now any more, but a minute ago, when I read you latest insult, it made me think: At some time, I'll punch you somewhere for your endless row of personal attacks and insults if we meet. And I'm a peaceful man. The last time I fought with someone was when I - once - in school fought with someone in grade nine. And I'm a Conscientious objector. Just to give some perspective on it. Thebee 20:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a PERSONAL THREAT Sune. Do you want to retract it and apologize - or shall we have the administrators have a look at it? You've crossed the line AGAIN. This one may get you booted off of here. Please think carefully before threatening personal violence. For the record, I think you would quickly change your mind, and probably have to change your underwear, if you saw me in person - but that's not the point. Retract the statement above or it goes to the mods. Pete K 02:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

You describe what I write above on my feeling about your endless row of personal insults and personal attacks for the spur of a moment as a personal threat to you. It isn't. I just formulated my personal feeling for a short moment about them, and told that I did not have it anymore the minute after, when I wrote about it, and that I of course will not implement it. As I told, I'm a peaceful person, and a conscientious objector (last year it made me get a 10-year VISA to the US without even applying for it for that period).

On this you comment: "I think you would quickly change your mind, and probably have to change your underwear, if you saw me in person". I assume that means that you think I'd wet my pants from just seeing you. Do you often tell that to other people or make that impression on them? I don't recall someone has ever had that effect on me, and doubt you would, but will write to someone who knows you and ask if you look as mean as you say you do.

As for your endless row of personal insults and personal attacks (including a number of personal libel, and an instance of unsubstantiated slander, that you have written twice that you will not substantiate as I asked you to, unless I sue you), after I got tired of a number of them, asked an admin to look at them and you were warned about continuing them a first time, also others have asked you to discontinue your agressive editing style here, one descibing it as way out of line here at Wikipedia (to another, I think, you answered "kiss my ass"). I'm working at documenting the ones you've added since your first warning, and will ask some admin to tell his or her view of them. Cheers, Thebee 08:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"You describe what I write above on my feeling about your endless row of personal insults and personal attacks for the spur of a moment as a personal threat to you. It isn't. I just formulated my personal feeling for a short moment about them, and told that I did not have it anymore the minute after, when I wrote about it, and that I of course will not implement it. As I told, I'm a peaceful person, and a conscientious objector (last year it made me get a 10-year VISA to the US without even applying for it for that period)." Hey, Mr. Pacifist, it was a threat of personal violence. Retract it and apologize.

"On this you comment: "I think you would quickly change your mind, and probably have to change your underwear, if you saw me in person". I assume that means that you think I'd wet my pants from just seeing you. Do you often tell that to other people or make that impression on them? I don't recall someone has ever had that effect on me, and doubt you would, but will write to someone who knows you and ask if you look as mean as you say you do." Let's just say - I've seen YOUR picture... LOL! That you want to size me up physically indicates that you might be considering trying to make good on your threat of violence. Very smart Sune.

"As for your endless row of personal insults and personal attacks (including a number of personal libel, and an instance of unsubstantiated slander, that you have written twice that you will not substantiate as I asked you to, unless I sue you), after I got tired of a number of them, asked an admin to look at them and you were warned about continuing them a first time, also others have asked you to discontinue your agressive editing style here, one descibing it as way out of line here at Wikipedia (to another, I think, you answered "kiss my ass"). I'm working at documenting the ones you've added since your first warning, and will ask some admin to tell his or her view of them." Knock yourself out. You've already destroyed your credibility here - and, as with the "kiss my ass" comment above, you have taken almost everything I have said out of context - much of the context is that you have brought it on yourself. So go for it. I always tell the truth, and I always stand behind what I say. And you cannot change this by whining about it. I'm still waiting for my apology. Pete K 13:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

On "Let's just say - I've seen YOUR picture... LOL! That you want to size me up physically indicates that you might be considering trying to make good on your threat of violence." I've described what I wrote and why it was not a threat, just an expression of my personal feeling for the spur of a moment about your endless row of personal insults and attacks.

Am I to understand what you write, and I quote, as a threat, that if I do not apologize for my personal feelings about your repeated insults and personal attacks, you'll beat me up, as you've noticed that you are bigger than me? Thebee 15:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the example above typical of how you misinterpret EVERYTHING you read? Here's what I wrote: "That's a PERSONAL THREAT Sune. Do you want to retract it and apologize - or shall we have the administrators have a look at it? You've crossed the line AGAIN. This one may get you booted off of here. Please think carefully before threatening personal violence." What I've said above, about seeing your picture, is that I don't really feel personally threatened physically by you, based on your picture. But, again, since you have made a personal threat of physical violence, and have indicated that you are in contact with people who know who I am, I can now draw from this that you could be insinuating that you will have someone ELSE make good on your threat. I guess it's time for the administrators to have a look at this. Pete K 16:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"... since you have made a personal threat of physical violence, and have indicated that you are in contact with people who know who I am, I can now draw from this that you could be insinuating that you will have someone ELSE make good on your threat." Your fantasy seems to be running wild. As you know, I live in Sweden, not the Wild West or Chicago. Sweden is a peaceful country, possibly somewhat like Canada. The one I referred to was a personal friend of yours, that I met once last year when visiting the U.S., one of your Waldorf friends. He seemed to care for you. I doubt he'd ever think of hurting you. The only thing I've thought of is to write and ask him if you really look as mean as you indicate that you do. And as I've told, I'm a peaceful person, and in my youth refused to do military service as a conscientious objector. I don't beat people up, not even when I last time fought with someone, 40 years ago, at school, and never asked anyone else to do it for me either. All your personal insults and personal attacks just make me feel sick in between. That's what I told you. On my personal Talks page, you comment on this: "Deal with it!" Thebee 16:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's out of my hands now Sune. As I'm sure you know, I've reported you to the administrators. You still haven't retracted your statement, nor have you apologized for making it. So, I take it, your statement stands. Where you live has nothing to do with your threat of personal physical violence - as you have, I am sure, contacts with lots of people who dislike me as well - people at my kid's school. So, in light of your unwillingness to retract your statement - and to offer an apology, I think it's best if the administrators here have a look at your bizarre behavior here and make a determination for themselves. Pete K 16:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Where you live has nothing to do with your threat of personal physical violence - as you have, I am sure, contacts with lots of people who dislike me as well - people at my kid's school."

You think I know people at your kids school, and would think of writing to them to ask them to beat you up?!! You need a beer and a talk with someone. Thebee 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You forget I've been in Waldorf for 15+ years Sune. I've been threatened by Waldorf people many times before - so your threats are not uncommon. And yes, I believe you are capable of this. You just finished writing here that you want to punch me - and that you have made (or will make) inquiries about my physical size. Even if you don't make good on these threats, they are intended to intimidate me - and they clearly violate Wikipedia policy. You should retract them and apologize. Pete K 17:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I shall write to one of the female administrators at your school, after all, ask her to hide behind a door when she sees you coming, and then jump out and say BUUH! when you pass ...

NOW, you have an intimidating threat to complain about! And I COMPLETELY stand behind that. Run off now to the Admin Notice Board ... Thebee 18:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice try - but your original threat was a threat of personal and physical volence and it was serious. Trying to play it off as some harmless joke is not going to work with me. You should retract your threat and apologize. Pete K 18:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The admin answering your your notice here on the Admin Notice Board does not seem to agree with you, and has answered:

• Its seems you have a long history with this user and your comments leading up to this would also be considered personal attacks. I suggest you participate in the mediation and try to be more civil in the future. Shell babelfish 16:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A true optimist. Thebee 18:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's OK - there are other administrators here who will see the seriousness of threats of violence - and now they have a record of your attack and my registered complaint. It doesn't change the fact that you should retract your threat and apologize - if for no other reason than to try to convince people who are reading your material that you aren't a lunatic. Pete K 18:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

guys, since this is the talk page to discuss improvements for the steiner article, could you have this little talk in a more private location? trueblood 19:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with you, trueblood.

Pete, could you not collect all the further personal attacks and insults that refer to me and that you feel you want to make on either your or my personal Talks page in the future, so I don't have to look for them for a further notice to an admin about them? Thanks, Thebee 19:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

PeteK: "... you should retract your threat and apologize - if for no other reason than to try to convince people who are reading your material that you aren't a lunatic"

That would be another personal attack on your long list. I'll make a note about it and add it to the list at the top, after all the other ones since 1 Sept, still lacking documentation there. Babelfish was a true optimist. Who'd have guessed. Thebee 20:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the header here Trueblood. It really more accurately reflects what has transpired here. My apologies for my part in this. Sune, why don't we move this discussion to your talk page. Pete K 20:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Repeated long term bullying

PeteK, first you in violation of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks and other Wikipedia policies publish a long row of personal attacks, insults, and denigrating comments, the first ones (during your first ten days here at Wikipedia) described here and something (26 Aug.) that stands out as slander (and one of your many personal attacks) if you don't substantiate it: "Not surprisingly 'Americans for Waldorf Education' and sister site 'Waldorf Answers' are considered by Waldorf critics and Waldorf supporters alike to be comprised of fanatical Waldorf supporters.".

You have twice refused to substantiate it with regard to "Waldorf supporters alike", beyond referring to yourself, and maybe some members of your family?, the second time on 5 Oct. documented here and have both times written that you will not substantiate it if I do not sue you for what you have written in the discussion.

Above at this page you 23 Oct. describe my description of the historical context of a statement by Steiner in 1897 as "nonsense supported by more nonsense", wihout any further substantiatíon of what you write with regard to the content of what I have written. In this, it resembles the statement made by you earlier in discussions here at Wikipedia, mentioned above, that stands out as slander as long as you do not substantiate it, which you have not yet done, and constitutes yet another of your many violations of WP rules for civility WP:CIVIL#Examples Wikipedia:Civility. You also write above that you will delete anything I write in the article on the defamatory anti-Waldorf group PLANS, seemingly regardless of whether it in full is cited and your deletion is supported by a WP policy or not, which would constitute a general violation of Wikipedia policies.

You refuse to participate in, and 14 Oct. tried to sabotage the Request for mediation regarding the articles you're involved in here at Wikipedia, by completely replacing the original description of the issues to be mediated with your own description, and deleting the listing of two of the articles listed in the request, after nine of the eleven invited editors had accepted the invitation. As a result, two of them withdrew their earlier given acceptance of it. Then you 23 Oct. try to get me critizised for telling what I felt for a short moment about your long row of personal attacks, insults and denigrating comments, and at my personal Talks page have told me "Deal with it!". You also write that you're bigger than me and that just seeing you in person would make it necessary for me to change my underwear (another personal attack according to Examples of personal attacks.

Then again, after an admin advices you to be more civil in the future, you here make yet another personal attack, suggesting that I should try to prove that I'm not a lunatic (one of your many repeated similar personal attacks since you arrived at Wikipedia in August), and tell me you want to have a discussion with me at my personal talks page. Nice. --Thebee 11:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

please take this somewhere else. i repeat, this talk page is for discussing improvements in the article, nothing else.trueblood 12:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The above points out a number of violations of Wikipedia policies in postings published in this discussion. I need a summary of them here to link to in a complaint to Admins about a number of Personal attacks. It's just a list, not much to discuss. Thebee 12:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What the bleep is all this? Over here, you are still repeating "hate group" slurs; on another page, where you've been asked to document this, you've complained I was asking too much of you too quickly. Please paste in your documentation if you intend to go on calling anybody a "hate group." You claim above it is "in full cited" - put the citations right here then, please, so we can all see what they look like. Why are you ignoring, after several days, requests for this information? You may rest assured your accusations that somebody is a "hate group" are not going to pass unchallenged in any forum I have access to. I know it is a little shocking for you, as you'd gotten quite complacent putting up web sites where nobody can argue with you and all your friends congratulate you. HERE Mr. Nordwall you are going to be asked repeatedly for your documentation that PLANS is a "hate group" and you are not going to hear the end of it when you ignore these requests.DianaW 12:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood, our friend TheBee won't take this somewhere private - it is his policy to make loud noises in public places. He's following me around all the talk pages, starting new subject headers for the purpose of trying to intimidate me into sourcing statements on talk pages instead of working on the articles themselves. I hope the administrators are watching this. I've stopped reading his long-winded blowhard posts and am allowing his lunacy to speak for itself. I'm as tired of it as you and I suspect everyone else is. Pete K 12:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

PeteK: "I've stopped reading his long-winded blowhard posts and am allowing his lunacy to speak for itself." That would be yet another violation of the Wikipedia policy for WP:CIVIL#Examples and another violation of the Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples_of_personal_attacks Thebee 16:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please don't forget to register that one on your goofy list that pretty much confirms what I've said above. Edited to add that your edit summaries also speak volumes - changing the line spacing of the talk pages, bolding signature... What gives? Are you hoping that by improving the format of this talk page - more people will read through your nonsense and follow your links to your defamatory websites? Pete K 17:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

On "...please don't forget to register that one on your goofy list that pretty much confirms what I've said above. Edited to add that your edit summaries also speak volumes - changing the line spacing of the talk pages, bolding signature... What gives? Are you hoping that by improving the format of this talk page - more people will read through your nonsense...". This would constitute yet another violation of the Wikipedia policy for WP:CIVIL#Examples, your second one today on this Talks page, wouldn't you say? Thebee 21:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

More violations of Wikipedia civility policies

No, I wouldn't say. I don't think ANY of the things I have said to you violate Wikipedia policy - and apparently neither do the administrators or I would have received warnings by now - and furthermore, you have brought the things I have said to you on yourself. Grow up! Discuss the edits here and stop WHINING ABOUT EVERYTHING I WRITE HERE. It's ridiculous and is basically harassment. I know you don't really care if you look like an idiot - since your websites can't be referenced here anyway, but you could at least try to refrain from harassing everyone who edits these pages. Harassment, I'm quite sure, violates Wikipedia policy. Please stop harassing me and others here. I'd be happy to discuss edits with you, but this nonsense you keep pursuing here goes way beyond good taste. STOP HARASSING ME! Pete K 01:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This refers to not only your recent personal attacks here on me, but also your repeated earlier personal attacks on me and others at different other Talks pages. As a few of many examples, see the five personal attacks you made on 9 october, and some few of your many other personal attacks documented here, since your last warning by Admin Golden Wattle on 1 September.

What you write - again - constitutes a number of new violations of the Wikipedia policy for WP:CIVIL#Examples, including a new violation of the Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples_of_personal_attacks ("I know you don't really care if you look like an idiot"). Can you take a look at the policies in question? They do not seem important to you. Complaints about your repeated violations of them is not harassment. Your repeated violations of them, some described above, are, in this case. Your violations are the only ones I complain about, as they are so numerous, as also others seem to have noticed, then not in relation to me, and you seem to insist on making them.

See for example a comment on 5 October by User Connor K on your attacks on others.

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

The reason I address them here at this Talks page of one of the articles you're involved in, is that they repeatedly have made, and repeatedly continue to disrupt and make sensible discussions of the articles extremely difficult. Stop violating them, and I will not complain about it. Thebee 06:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Man all this fighting and all these attacks are getting entertaining! Great stuff!. I, for one, think it makes this discussion all the more entertaining and needs to stay on this page. I just hope nobody here starts hurling constant insults at me. 64.185.4.7 00:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. Pete K 01:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)