User talk:Pjmpjm

Welcome!

Hello, Pjmpjm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Fsotrain⁰⁹ 21:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes

You may not be aware of it, but whatever method you are using to replace dashes is adding dashes rather than replacing them, leaving double dashes in many articles. Also some of the em dashes you seem to be trying to replace are correct as em-dashes (in Mary Wollstonecraft for example). Kaldari (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bobby Vinton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blue Velvet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Unidentified body on Christmas Island

Hi there! Not sure what happened here, but thanks for this. -- saberwyn 06:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pjmpjm. You have new messages at Saberwyn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pjmpjm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Pjmpjm. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Pjmpjm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Marie Steiner-von Sivers, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. I.e. your edit could be completely accurate, but if you did not read it somewhere in a WP:RS (books by Anthroposophists are generally speaking not WP:RS) it is not encyclopedia-worthy. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your reply to my recent edit in the Wikipedia article about Marie Steiner. I've been a student of Rudolf Steiner since 1973 and have read a great deal about his life and that of his colleagues over those 50 years. I was shocked to discover in Wikipedia the bald statement, based on comments by a disgruntled Anthroposophist, that Marie Steiner was a Nazi sympathizer. My edit didn't dispute this amazing claim, but only noted that no other biographers have written anything about Marie Steiner's supposedly Nazi-based political views. Let's take a simple modern example. "Harry Jones reports that Joe Blow is a murderer." Clearly, this statement wouldn't be acceptable in Wikipedia. However, if Joe Blow were convicted of the crime in a court of law, it would be quite a different matter to report the fact. You see my point. One man's opinion (unsubstantiated by any objective evidence) smears the character of a deceased person, by accusing her of association with one of the most terrible and hateful political groups in modern history. I would strongly suggest that this accusation against Marie Steiner be modified or simply deleted. Thanks for listening. Pjmpjm (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done We don't publish our own opinions, but we do publish the opinions of a PhD thesis from the Ivy League, published at the Royal Publishing House Brill, which is a distinguished publisher in the realm of Bible scholarship and religion studies, that is the academic study of religions and new religious movements.

Taverne, Dick (2006). The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy, and the New Fundamentalism. OUP Oxford. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-19-157861-8. Retrieved 3 February 2022. Rudolf Steiner joined the Nazi party in its early days

In other words, I have provided two impeccable WP:RS that the Steiner family were adepts of Nazism: one from Koninklijke Brill NV and one from Oxford University Press. You have provided no WP:RS whatsoever for your claims, and, as noted above, pieces written by Anthroposophists are generally seen as not amounting to WP:RS.

Do mind that I'm not citing Büchenbacher for WP:V. I am citing an expert in religion studies, having a PhD from Cornell University, PhD granted based upon his thesis about the links between Nazism and Anthroposophy.

To draw the line: I cannot force you to WP:CITE WP:RS, but if you fail to do so, you have already lost this dispute. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, once again, for your reply concerning my objection to Rudolf and Marie Steiner being labelled as Nazis in Wikipedia's Marie Steiner article. I have a copy of the OUP Baron Dick Taverne book ('The March of Unreason' and was surprised upon investigating it today to see that the author (a very elderly KC and member of the House of Lords) did not cite any source whatsoever for his contention that 'Rudolf Steiner joined the Nazi Party.' Further, I'm puzzled by your mention of a 'PhD thesis from the Ivy League, published at the Royal Publishing House Brill.' Who is the author of this work? I'm prepared to read it carefully. But without the author's name, I'm at a loss to go further. At present, having consulted a number of non-Anthroposophical books on Steiner and his second wife, I still can't find any source for the Nazi claim. I continue to suspect that this is an 'urban legend' promulgated by religious opponents of Steiner, intended to undermine his work. No need to reply at length. A mention of the Brill author's name will suffice, so that I can find the thesis in question. Pjmpjm (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the Wikipedia article on Rudolf Steiner:

"The National Socialist German Workers Party gained strength in Germany after the First World War. In 1919, a political theorist of this movement, Dietrich Eckart, attacked Steiner and suggested that he was a Jew. In 1921, Adolf Hitler attacked Steiner on many fronts, including accusations that he was a tool of the Jews, while other nationalist extremists in Germany called for a "war against Steiner". That same year, Steiner warned against the disastrous effects it would have for Central Europe if the National Socialists came to power. In 1922 a lecture Steiner was giving in Munich was disrupted when stink bombs were let off and the lights switched out, while people rushed the stage apparently attempting to attack Steiner, who exited safely through a back door. Unable to guarantee his safety, Steiner's agents cancelled his next lecture tour. The 1923 Beer Hall Putsch in Munich led Steiner to give up his residence in Berlin, saying that if those responsible for the attempted coup (Hitler's Nazi party) came to power in Germany, it would no longer be possible for him to enter the country." Pjmpjm (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The author is Peter Staudenmaier. Hard to miss, since his book is cited in the article, and his name is there, also.

Also, you ignore the rest of the information:

But the truth was that while Anthroposophists complained of bad press, they were to a surprising extent let be by the Nazi regime, "including outspokenly supportive pieces in the Völkischer Beobachter".^[1] Sicherheitsdienst purists argued largely in vain against Anthroposophy.^[1] According to Staudenmaier, "The prospect of unmitigated persecution was held at bay for years in a tenuous truce between pro-anthroposophical and anti-anthroposophical Nazi factions."^[2]
Rudolf Hess, the adjunct Führer, was a patron of Waldorf schools^[3]^[4] and a staunch defender of Steiner's biodynamic agriculture.^[5]

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My profuse apologies on missing the author's name. In fact, I've been reading Peter Staudenmaier's book since yesterday and am now just finishing Chapter Two. As regards my ignoring the rest of the quote, there's no question but that some Anthroposophists (and a great many others in Europe) went along with the Nazis from the 1920s onwards. However, our immediate question here at Wikipedia is whether or not there's a legitimate source for the claim that Marie Steiner was a sympathiser. (Wikipedia's own article on Rudolf Steiner claims that he was strongly and repeatedly attacked by the Nazis in the years before his death, which should sound the alarm about reports of his wife's alleged Nazism.) Please give me another day and I'll write again. I would be very, very interested (and surprised) to see that Staudenmaier has genuinely turned up incriminating evidence about Marie Steiner. Pjmpjm (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've found Peter Staudenmaier's source for alleging in Between Occultism and Nazism that Marie Steiner was a Nazi sympathiser.

Ansgar Martins, ed., Hans Büchenbacher: Erinnerungen 1933-1949. Zugleich eine Studie zur Geschichte der Anthroposophie im Nationalsozialismus (Frankfurt: Info3, 2014)

For a long time Hans Büchenbacher's memoirs were unpublished, but in recent years the manuscript has been edited by Ansgar Martins . . . who has added a great many appendices. It's published only in German, as far as I can see. So I've been unable to read it.

However, Staudenmaier has published a ten page 'book review' in English. He writes, "This relatively brief text, though problematic in several ways, is a fascinating historical source and has been excerpted and cited in various contexts over the years. The new book represents the first full publication of Büchenbacher’s manuscript."

As regards 'problems' with the Büchenbacher memoirs, Staudenmaier continues, "Büchenbacher wrote the memoirs in the final years of his life. The text is thus a retrospective narrative, not a document composed during the Nazi era itself. And as with any autobiographical account, it is important to keep in mind the conspicuous limitations and the enormous inventiveness of human memory. But many of Büchenbacher’s specific claims are borne out by other evidence, as Martins demonstrates. Often Büchenbacher’s remarks are still quite bitter, decades later, and personal resentments undoubtedly color some of his ex post facto descriptions. He also adopts a conspiracist framework throughout the text."

This leads us to wonder how objective Büchenbacher is in his recollections of Marie Steiner. It would be important to read what evidence Martins has added in his voluminous appendices to support Büchenbacher's very serious allegations.

I continue to be concerned that Marie Steiner is unfairly labelled as a possible 'Nazi' in her brief Wikipedia article, perhaps based only on the say-so of an elderly and embittered man. But I'll leave the matter now in the hands of those responsible for Wikipedia. Pjmpjm (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've found Peter Staudenmaier's source for alleging in Between Occultism and Nazism that Marie Steiner was a Nazi sympathiser.

Ansgar Martins, ed., Hans Büchenbacher: Erinnerungen 1933-1949. Zugleich eine Studie zur Geschichte der Anthroposophie im Nationalsozialismus (Frankfurt: Info3, 2014)

For a long time Hans Büchenbacher's memoirs were unpublished, but in recent years the manuscript has been edited by Ansgar Martins . . . who has added a great many appendices. It's published only in German, as far as I can see. So I've been unable to read it.

However, Staudenmaier has published a ten page 'book review' in English. He writes, "This relatively brief text, though problematic in several ways, is a fascinating historical source and has been excerpted and cited in various contexts over the years. The new book represents the first full publication of Büchenbacher’s manuscript."

As regards 'problems' with the Büchenbacher memoirs, Staudenmaier continues, "Büchenbacher wrote the memoirs in the final years of his life. The text is thus a retrospective narrative, not a document composed during the Nazi era itself. And as with any autobiographical account, it is important to keep in mind the conspicuous limitations and the enormous inventiveness of human memory. But many of Büchenbacher’s specific claims are borne out by other evidence, as Martins demonstrates. Often Büchenbacher’s remarks are still quite bitter, decades later, and personal resentments undoubtedly color some of his ex post facto descriptions. He also adopts a conspiracist framework throughout the text."

This leads us to wonder how objective Büchenbacher is in his recollections of Marie Steiner. It would be important to read what evidence Martins has added in his voluminous appendices to support Büchenbacher's very serious allegations.

I continue to be concerned that Marie Steiner is unfairly labelled as a possible 'Nazi' in her brief Wikipedia article, perhaps based only on the say-so of an elderly and embittered man. But I'll leave the matter now in the hands of those responsible for Wikipedia.

Pjmpjm (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Staudenmaier, Peter (2014). Between Occultism and Nazism: Anthroposophy and the Politics of Race in the Fascist Era. Aries Book Series. Brill. p. 174. ISBN 978-90-04-27015-2. Retrieved 3 February 2022. Though anthroposophists complained regularly about negative publicity, Steiner's movement received remarkably positive press coverage in the Nazi era, including outspokenly supportive pieces in the Völkischer Beobachter.¹⁰⁸ Anthroposophist authors generally encountered few difficulties in publishing their work,¹⁰⁹ SD specialists on occult groups made suppression of anthroposophist publications a priority, but met with relatively little success. They argued that misuse of terms such as "race, nation, community, Germanness" by non-Nazi authors, even if sincere and well-meaning, "must be regarded as an attack on the National Socialist worldview."¹¹⁰ Criticizing "materialist misinterpretations" of Nazi racial theory, they contended that the Nazi conception of race united the biological with the spiritual, the physical with the soul, into one comprehensive synthesis. The SD was especially wary of spiritual groups claiming that Nazism had "adopted" some of their own ideas or that their teachings had all along been in concert with National Socialist precepts. Movements like anthroposophy, from this point of view, represented unwelcome competition.
^ Staudenmaier (2014: 118-119).
^ Douglas-Hamilton, James (2012). "1 Turmoil at the Dictator's Court: 11 May 1941". The Truth About Rudolf Hess. Mainstream Publishing. p. unpaginated. ISBN 978-1-78057-791-3. Retrieved 2 October 2022. Organisations which Hess had supported, such as the Rudolf Steiner schools, were closed down.
^ Rieppel, Olivier (2016). Phylogenetic Systematics: Haeckel to Hennig. CRC Press. p. 246. ISBN 978-1-4987-5489-7. Retrieved 3 October 2022. Although in his reply, Himmler pretended to share Astel's assessment of anthroposophy as a dangerous movement, he admitted to be unable to do anything about the school of Rudolf Steiner because Rudolf Hess supported and protected it.
^ Tucker, S.D. (2018). False Economies: The Strangest, Least Successful and Most Audacious Financial Follies, Plans and Crazes of All Time. Amberley Publishing. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-4456-7235-9. Retrieved 3 October 2022. according to Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess (1894-1987), those sceptics who criticised biodynamic methods on scientific grounds were just 'carrying out a kind of witch-trial' against Steiner's followers.

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the tip. I've successfully found Peter Staudenmaier's source for the contention that Marie Steiner was a Nazi sympathiser, and will write more about it tomorrow. Pjmpjm (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Staudenmaier_2014_p._174-1] Staudenmaier, Peter (2014). Between Occultism and Nazism: Anthroposophy and the Politics of Race in the Fascist Era. Aries Book Series. Brill. p. 174. ISBN 978-90-04-27015-2. Retrieved 3 February 2022. Though anthroposophists complained regularly about negative publicity, Steiner's movement received remarkably positive press coverage in the Nazi era, including outspokenly supportive pieces in the Völkischer Beobachter.¹⁰⁸ Anthroposophist authors generally encountered few difficulties in publishing their work,¹⁰⁹ SD specialists on occult groups made suppression of anthroposophist publications a priority, but met with relatively little success. They argued that misuse of terms such as "race, nation, community, Germanness" by non-Nazi authors, even if sincere and well-meaning, "must be regarded as an attack on the National Socialist worldview."¹¹⁰ Criticizing "materialist misinterpretations" of Nazi racial theory, they contended that the Nazi conception of race united the biological with the spiritual, the physical with the soul, into one comprehensive synthesis. The SD was especially wary of spiritual groups claiming that Nazism had "adopted" some of their own ideas or that their teachings had all along been in concert with National Socialist precepts. Movements like anthroposophy, from this point of view, represented unwelcome competition.

[2] Staudenmaier (2014: 118-119).

[Douglas-Hamilton_2012_p._106-3] Douglas-Hamilton, James (2012). "1 Turmoil at the Dictator's Court: 11 May 1941". The Truth About Rudolf Hess. Mainstream Publishing. p. unpaginated. ISBN 978-1-78057-791-3. Retrieved 2 October 2022. Organisations which Hess had supported, such as the Rudolf Steiner schools, were closed down.

[Rieppel_2016_p._246-4] Rieppel, Olivier (2016). Phylogenetic Systematics: Haeckel to Hennig. CRC Press. p. 246. ISBN 978-1-4987-5489-7. Retrieved 3 October 2022. Although in his reply, Himmler pretended to share Astel's assessment of anthroposophy as a dangerous movement, he admitted to be unable to do anything about the school of Rudolf Steiner because Rudolf Hess supported and protected it.

[Tucker_2018_p._165-5] Tucker, S.D. (2018). False Economies: The Strangest, Least Successful and Most Audacious Financial Follies, Plans and Crazes of All Time. Amberley Publishing. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-4456-7235-9. Retrieved 3 October 2022. according to Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess (1894-1987), those sceptics who criticised biodynamic methods on scientific grounds were just 'carrying out a kind of witch-trial' against Steiner's followers.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]