Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner

message: Switching left handers continues in some Waldorf schools although it is long since abandoned in other schools, because it is pointless as well as abusive. I was not, btw, suggesting Waldorf teachers are practicing black magic. If anything, as the post states, the origin of such a practice might be related to *protecting* people from black magic. They are *not* into black magic and don't want to be associated with it.
Forcing left-handed children to switch has its roots in ancient superstitions and occult associations that associate “left” with inferiority, evil, the dark, fear, dirtiness, and various other prejudices, and “right” with goodness, truth, rightness, the light, etc. If you’d quote the whole post – which as I've said you always have my permission to do, Sune – this context is clear. Anthroposophy draws from occult traditions and some of these unexamined prejudices linger. Some find fertile ground in the minds of teachers who “reverence” Steiner uncritically and believe anything he said. Steiner stated that left-handedness was a sign of karmic weakness, or possibly resulted from a previous lifetime of hard menial labor. I believe that fewer and fewer teachers will switch left handers, but there are still Waldorf schools that won’t give up the practice. Abusive practices linger when their roots are not examined. Most Waldorf teachers are themselves likely unaware of where the bias against left handers comes from, and some are so poorly trained they’re unaware that forcing children to use the right hand is no longer done elsewhere. 
Anthroposophy, and various rituals that survive in Waldorf, certainly have connections to magical traditions, but I’ve never seen any evidence they derive from black magic as opposed to white. Waldorf is heavily ritualistic; some teachers barely talk to young children at all, but mostly chant and sing anthroposophical verses. Anthroposophists aren’t trying to hurt anyone with their rituals; this is not about hexing or cursing or casting spells or something. But things like making left-handed children write or eat with the right hand are definitely abusive, and a real torment to some children. Anyone who wants more information on this, I’m happy to provide it. I don’t accuse Waldorf teachers of practicing black magic, or anything sinister. I do accuse the entire movement of failing to examine and discard various outdated prejudices. The prejudice against left handers is one; they should have quit this practice a *long* time ago. Most parents today won’t stand for it, and are stunned to find a teacher suggesting their child be switched.
I do appreciate, Sune, that you admit switching left handers is still done; often I get enraged denials that it still occurs at all.DianaW 01:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Diana.  As usual, Sune has apparently completely misunderstood what was said in the source he was quoting from.  He still hasn't provided a link so that we might check the accuracy of his "summary" ourselves... and I suspect he won't.  Funny how some people can build a house of cards elsewhere on the internet, but when they actually have to support their wild-ass claims with citations, their nonsense is shown to be what it is.  Pete K 02:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switching Left Handed Children in Waldorf 

message: :At issue here is whether a hand-picked commission of Steiner's own followers excusing Steiner of racist speech is anything more than predictable - and whether the addition of this information and the information and articles that point out the absurdity of this committee is a reasonable use of space in an article where adequate space for Steiner's own views is limited.  Chances are, the Steiner support group who insists they would like to include this article will want to retract it in the full light of who the members of this commission were and on what they based their conclusions.  The Steiner support group wanting to produce this commission's findings only want to do so if they can disguise the affiliations of the commission (and their associated biased POV) and if they are forced to reveal them, want to extend this policy to those with critical viewpoints in order to cast doubt on their neutrality (see below). --Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth noting that this same tactic was tried regarding the accusations that PLANS, an organization critical of Waldorf, is actually a "hate group." Once they were persuaded that the fact that their source was *anthroposophical* needed to be made transparent to readers of the article, they were no longer interested in including it. This is pretty good evidence of lack of good faith. When you're forced to make your source transparent, and right then you suddenly announce that it's not a useful source to you anyway, this is good evidence that the exercise was dishonest to begin with.DianaW 04:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to exclude Catholic authors writing about Catholicism, authors who are members of the Democratic party writing about the Democratic party, U.S. citizens writing about the United States, or generally people writing about groups of which they are members. It is natural to mention affiliations when they are relevant, as in this case, but not to exclude a valid point of view. (Surely anthroposophists' ideas about what anthroposophy is saying is a valid point of view!) Hgilbert 18:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Your point seems to be that a report on Jesus written by a group of rabbis would be inherently objective, whereas any report written by a Christian shouldn't even be mentioned. — goethean ॐ 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you folks could at least follow the discussion. How in the world can you expect "mediation" to work when you apparently don't have any idea what you've even asked be mediated? Nobody has ever said, ever, ever, ever, ever that "any report written by a Christian shouldn't even be mentioned." I believe I'm about talked out on this topic. This is just endless bullying from people who think wikipedia should provide free advertising for their products, and a free soapbox for their nutty ideas, and anyone who points to their lack of validity must be silenced. *READ* what has actually been stated by Pete K and myself if you'd like to dispute it, goethean. This is ridiculous. Do you have the faintest clue what arguments have been raised, goethean, regarding what makes a neutral academic source?DianaW 20:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''*Exclusion of works by members of the Anthroposophical Society as sources on anthroposophy; in particular a report by a Dutch commission on Steiner's comments about race. (This is at issue in two articles)''' 

message: :In this case, the Steiner support group feels they want to spin the report of Professor Hansson by producing his affiliations and background (skeptic/humanist) and to suggest that this background disqualifies him from an unbiased viewpoint.  No mediation required - only an understanding by them about what constitutes bias.  --Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should organizational affiliations not be mentioned if these are relevant to the viewpoint presented? Hgilbert 18:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The "if these are relevant to the viewpoint presented" part is what you're not getting. --Pete K 19:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''*Consistency of a policy on identifying authors' affiliations (should authors not members of the A.S. be protected from any identification of their background or affiliations).'''

message: :There's a NOR policy in place.  This does not require mediation.--Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''*Use of links to pages including original research, or use of such pages as sources.'''

message: :This, again, does not require mediation.  It is simply not allowed - and it has been agreed already by the participants here that warehousing of information on original research sites is inappropriate.--Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''**Use of links to pages not including original research (transcripts or articles) residing on websites that do include original research'''

message: :The above is somebody's misunderstanding.  Nobody is interested in including editorial commentary.  Indeed, some of us would like to see far less editorializing on these articles.  No mediation required here.--Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This popped up on my watch-list.  I don't know why you feel compelled to comment a month later on the talk page of a mediation request that was rejected, but once again, you are wrong in what you say above.  It has been pointed out to you several times that the article that was being referenced was the source of editorial commentary just like what you have quoted me as saying - above.  I guess you figured enough time has gone by that nobody else will remember that fact.  If you were really interested in mediation, you wouldn't have produced such a problematic mediation request - and you would have engaged in the six days of discussions that attempted to get the mediation request adjusted so we could proceed.  At this point in time, it's a little late to be crossing T's and dotting I's. Pete K 03:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''*Inclusion of editorial commentary on sourced material ("This conclusion is not surprising given the author's obvious bias...", etc.)'''

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

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

message: :This is a ridiculous request.  People read whatever tone they like into people's words.  That is one of the drawbacks of the internet - you can't articulate tone.  Perhaps, if Wikipedia would invest in some smiley faces that we can use in the talk pages, it might help with this issue.  This is definitely not a subject that requires moderation.--Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''*Tone of comments on talk pages, including the question of whether Wikipedia policies such as the assumption of good faith and avoidance of personal attacks are being followed.'''

message: I'd like to add a couple items while I'm at it:
*Repeated referencing of defamatory original research websites withing the discussion pages.
:This is somebody's personal self-promotion.  Many of us can do this sort of thing, but we all seem to be able to restrain ourselves except for one user, TheBee, who seems uncontrollable in this regard.--Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a problem with many of the editors here.  I'm not sure I understand what they hope to accomplish, perhaps a restraint or banishment of some editors who don't agree with them. Wikipedia benefits from multiple points of view.  Many of these same editors have been seen bullying people (often new people) who come here with a simple edit or discussion item.  Indeed, a couple tried to bully me when I arrived here - and of course the first thing they start doing is quoting Wikipedia policy.  For a newcomer, this is quite intimidating and I'm sure many people leave because of this.  Now, these same bullies have been seen fabricating "personal attacks" or "3RR's" or "administrators are choosing sides" or any number of things they have chosen to complain about.  And the end result of all this whining and complaining is a mediation request which is one-sided in its topics for mediation.--Pete K 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this business of carefully compiling records of grievances against other people is stupid crybaby stuff. Can't adults talk among ourselves as adults, and not stalk around after each other looking for opportunities to accuse someone of something and whine to authorities.DianaW 04:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, sorry, I didn't know this was going to be an issue, but it has come to my attention that one of the editors listed here has devoted an entire page on his talk page to me - and has been compiling a pagefull of complaints.  While I understand how frustrating this can be for some editors, I think this shows mental instability and, coupled with his frequent wild accusations and unintelligible rantings, this hate page makes it clear that our mediation team would have to look at this activity very carefully and determine the stability of the person compiling these complaints and a decision should be made if, indeed, he should be allowed to participate here.  This kind of thing is extremely creepy and demonstrates the personal vendetta that editor has against me.  I think banning this person from Wikipedia would be a wise decision for everyone involved as he seems to be at the bottom of many of the edit wars we seem to be having anyway. --Pete K 04:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing special about the page you complain about. After you had made a number of personal attacks on me, I got tired of them and just set up a page starting to document them, without any special comment on them, beyond registering them, just for the record. That's all. As I was used to them coming from you, I did not complain about them at first. When I did, you got a warning. After that, I haven't kept a record of them, though you have continued to make a number of further personal attacks. On the issue of mental stability: If the page had been left, any reader of it would have been able to judge for themselves where maybe a problem with mental stability lies. And, by the way, the above comment by you constitutes yet another personal attack. Wikipedia does not approve of personal attacks. --Thebee 07:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, your method of putting the blame on the victim of your repeated personal attacks for starting to keep a list of them when they got excessive is interesting. --Thebee 07:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we also usually blame the "victim" who claims Martians are speaking to him through his ipod.  When that "victim" starts to make a list of all the dates and times the Martians have spoken to him, and what he thinks they said, it's really hard to blame the Martians.--Pete K 20:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: ===Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:===
*Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy 
Which reads:
Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity - Should multiple points of view be included, in particular that of a Dutch commission that viewed Steiner's work positively? See Talk:Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity#RfC. 00:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Example of the BIASED Wording in this Mediation Request

message: *Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy 
Which reads:
Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity - Should multiple points of view be included, in particular that of a Dutch commission that viewed Steiner's work positively? See Talk:Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity#RfC. 00:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] that have been attempted:

message: This "discussion"  is impossible to follow. Some people are just giving too much input.  --Vindheim 19:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, it sometimes helps to just read through the history of each edit.  Then you at least get a feel for who said what in response to which. Pete K 19:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it would help to read Vindheim's comment again, Pete. There's a message there for those who have ears. Hgilbert 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Caesar is turned to hear... but I suspected he was talking about Sune... Pete K 20:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  overload