Talk:Rudolf Steiner/Archive 3

message: I have blocked Pete K and Hgilbert each for 24 hours for edit warring on Waldorf education.  The next time these articles are disrupted by edit warring I will fully protect them and no one will be able to edit at all.  In order to edit the article you will have to agree on the edit and then put the  template on the talk page to get an admin to do it for you (assuming you can agree on anything).
I also notice that these articles, despite the article probation, rely heavily on anthroposophy-published documents as sources, in spite of the arbitration ruling determining that they should be removed.  Documents originating with anthroposophy, the Waldorf foundation, or Rudolph Stiener are not acceptable as sources either for claims that Waldorf is good, or for claims that Waldorf is bad.  Things ranging from the complex (whether Steiner was racist) to the simple (whether Waldorf schools discourage parental communication) can not be sourced to primary documents.  They are not considered reliable sources for several reasons.  Generally if you are using Waldorf materials to describe the benefits etc., you run afoul of the self-serving limits of the reliable source policy, and if you are citing Waldorf documents to "prove" they have problems, you are violating the "interpreting primary sources to draw a conclusion is original research" limitation. 
If you think that reopening the arbitration case will get the other editors banned but leave you safe, I can almost guarantee you are wrong. Clean up these articles.  Get the Waldorf sources and all the original research, conclusions and personal experiences out.  Rely on what independent third parties have published in reliable sources, and if they haven't published anything about a topic, take it out.  Trust me, you do not want the case reopened. Thatcher131 02:59, Date Jan 12, 07 (UTC)
See discussion and comment on this at Talk page of another article.
Thebee 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last chance 

message: Checking the citations here, I found that the quotes were drawn from a single source (Falk), but that there were actually quotes about Steiner from four different people. Oddly enough, the two negative ones had been included in the article but not the two positive ones. All four are now included for a balanced representation Hgilbert 11:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about leaving it at two positive and two negative and deleting the larger "Reception of Steiner" section which is basically reception by Anthroposophists anyway?  We all know Anthroposophists received Steiner - otherwise they would have chosen a different religion. Pete K 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, the majority of the "Reception of Steiner" section remains unreferenced.  I think the two and two quote idea is a good one.  Shall I make the change? Pete K 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Thebee 10:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to hear from someone who ISN'T pushing a POV.  In the mean time, I think the section is at least more balanced without the two new additional quotes.  It would be fine with me if we delete those.  The uncited sections need to come out anyway so that's a good place to start. I'll go ahead and do this. Pete K 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation "Uwe Werner, Anthroposophen in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, Munich 1999, p. 8" is another one of those obscure citations that supports unbelievable claims that are refuted by other evidence (including Steiner's own words).  Does anyone have access to this material that can verify 1) it's existence and 2) the claims made by it?  This article seems to reference the article and refutes what is claimed in Werner's article.  In any case, this Anthroposophical source is not a valid source to support the mysterious claim made in the Wikipedia article: "Given Steiner's clear statements about political democracy being the proper kind of State for humanity, his consistent and emphatic support for liberty and pluralism in education, religion, scientific opinion, the arts, and in the press, not to mention his rejection of the idea that the State should take over economic life - one cannot justly link Steiner or his movement with a totalitarian intent;[41] rather the reverse, for his whole philosophy is based upon individual freedom."  I'll be removing that claim until some non-Antrhoposophical source is found that supports it. Pete K 13:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception by non-anthroposophists 

message: guys, you can't be left alone, we had this so much clearer, why do we have to go through this again: from the article:
When Steiner described what he believed to be the particular characteristics of races, ethnic groups, nations and other groupings of human beings, some of his characterizations are difficult to reconcile with his more general statements about the subordinate role race and ethnicity play in present-day humanity. Reactions to these characterizations vary widely:
They have been termed racist by critics.[47][48][49][50][51]
Other supporters see in Steiner's anthroposophy the "one viable path to overcoming racism" and, in the light of his larger views, relativize his particular characterizations as more or less successful attempts at anthropological distinctions.[52][53][54]
In the 1930s and 40s, Nazi ideologues repeatedly investigated Steiner's ideas and found them absolutely incompatible with racist ideology.[55]
this makes it sound as if  these characterisations ( for example africans are more emotional, whites are more intelectual) are seen by some as racist and by some as "one viable path to overcoming racism", and that the nazis looked at these found them not racist enough for them, but really, the only direct reactions to these characterisations mentioned here are the ones that say it is racist. everything else is refering to other things the doc said, or his general philosophy. i propose we move the supporter thing further up to the part where it said what a tough antiracist he was and leave the rest more clearly, he said some things that sound problematic and a lot of people find them racist. period trueblood 22:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen! Problem is, it does no good to correct this because someone else will come along and "soften" it again - forever.  As it stands, there is no way ANYBODY can make sense of it - and I think that's intentional on the part of some editors.  I support putting this material into some very plain terms.  We lost the entire "Rudolf Steiner's Views on Race and Ethnicity" article some time ago, so now we are obligated to be clear here. Pete K 23:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, no, it isn't a small part of Steiner's work, it is the foundation of Steiner's work which is basically an essay on the "evolution" of man and human consciousness in relation to the world of spirit.  And no, you don't overcome racism by scaring pregnant mothers or through promoting ridiculous stereotypes and espousing pure racist nonsense that you attribute to spiritual truths - but hey, if some people like that path, that's fine.  The word "viable" seems absurd here, BTW, but again, if that's someone's bag, fine.    The section is about RACISM, however, not about how Steiner's ideas can be misconstrued to be something other than racism - so those kinds of discussions belong elsewhere. Pete K 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: um, i quote again: "Reactions to these characterizations vary widely:", and then three examples of reactions are given, two are actually not reactions to these particular steiner quotes, but to anthropop in general. this perceived or real racism has caused considerable stir at least in germany and holland, maybe also other countries, so it is notable. i don't want an essay, not even add much, but rather, um repeat myself just see above.
also i seriously doubt that the nazis found steiner's ideas incompatible with racist ideology in general, but rather assume that they found it incompatible with their particular racist ideology. to me equation nazis don't like steiner, therefore steiner=antiracist does not work. so can we delete that part;
In the 1930s and 40s, Nazi ideologues repeatedly investigated Steiner's ideas and found them absolutely incompatible with racist ideology.[55]
trueblood 18:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: and i am sorry to have opened this can worms again, i did not even want to stir up this discussion below, i am happy with the changes made by Lkleinjans.
trueblood 11:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  and racism again 

message: I'd like to separate the discussions on each reference so the talk is less confused.  Please focus on issues, not each other.  Please do not fill the discussion with inflammatory exaggerations.  It just wastes time and page space, and increase odds of edit conflicts.Venado 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm sure you would like to separate the discussions.  THEY'RE RELATED.  On the one hand, you want to exclude a source that has the complete text of the article referenced, and is posted on an unbiased site hosted by scholars on the exact subject of the article.  On the other hand, you want to include a report for which the text is unavailable for review, written by authors who are KNOWN to be biased and that is from a biased website that is clearly not allowed.  There's no question why you would want to separate these two issues - because the treatment of these issues together demonstrates clearly a bias to your POV.  This CLEARLY demonstrates exactly what I have been talking about - an organized effort to distort the truth.  Don't separate the issues - deal with them and the issue of intentionally introduced bias in these articles.  Pete K 17:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Peter Staudenmaier's name appears on the article in several other places on the internet.  I have provided the article with Mr. Staudenmaier's name on it for you to examine.  Your position as to who wrote the article is not well taken. Neither is your guess as to what content may or may not have been removed in the condensed version.  The Dutch Commission report isn't searchable on the internet either, BTW.  None of your points make any sense. Pete K 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not disputing with you that he wrote it.  I am disputing that any real "peer reviewed" publisher would publish an article giving nothing but the author's "first name" (in all lower case letters) to identify authorship.  No legitimate peer review publication would publish like that. Thats one big clue right there, which you are playing down as "deciding if a source is good on how it looks". Well, yah, thats one reason it does not look right.  Peer reviewed publications dont expect readers to guess the name who wrote the article they are publishing. The link you are giving is not a peer review publication, it was uploaded to a message board by its author, ie self published.  Editors do not "guess" what references say, thats why we can not add this without any one here even reading it.  This is basic,you don't bluff by adding rumored published references you have not even read.  I am starting to feel duped into explaining because it now seems I am taken played.  This is not a published peer reviewed article, I should not have to explain ten times, it is so obvious.    Venado 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been published at other sites.  That's a fact.  Whether it is referenced at this site or another site is irrelevant to me.  It's a real work by a real author.  A search will show an extensive effort by Anthroposophists to dispute its content (Daniel Hindes most notably).  Nobody disputes the author, or the publication of the article.  This just happened to be the only "neutral" source where the text was available.  It appears on both Anthroposophical and Critical websites and neither its legitimacy nor its content, nor its authorship, for that matter, is in dispute.  For these reasons, the article should not be rejected - in its current form (nobody needs to guess what it says - they just need to read it).  It exists, it was written by Staudenmaier, an expert in this field, and is a very valid source for the information it produces.  Your "explanations" don't hold any water because you keep missing the point.  The point is - this is good AS IS. Pete K 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google finds there are only copies in two different places.  Social-ecology, where it is not a suitable publishing for reasons listed many times, and waldorfcritics, which is both not allowed for these articles and not any kind of real publisher either.  This article on Google only hits 6 or 7 different websites, and all the rest are just link farms which link directly to those first two we know are not wikipedia qualified publishings.  It might have been published in some much shortened form in a Norwegian publication, thats all we have to go on so far.  Is this subject not note worthy enough for wikipedia in the first place? Or else there should be better reference sources we can find to use besides this.  We should not have to scrape the bottom of the bowl to find something to use, and should find some wikipedia worthy published source for this.Venado 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I am looking at the right article.  Footnote 47 has this link  to "Janus Face of Anthroposophy". you reverted several times to keep it.  We have talked in circles for days, on 2 talk pages, and you do not even know what the article is that you have been reverting over.  You are just wasting our time with sources you know are not allowed. Waldorfcritics is not allowed.Venado 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not remember points in the earlier discussions about if the source is polemical, I did not pay close attention and that is not why I say this is not a proper source.  That was a dispute I was not involved in so that was the reason given by other editors to exclude the source.  My reason is that it is not properly published.  I do not understand why the PhD candidacy of the author would mean that his work does not need to be published.  This special exception at wikipedia is intended for people like the surgeon general of the United States or a scientist awarded the Nobel prize for mapping the genome, not a graduate student still in college or only well known to waldorf critics.  Normally graduate students are not considered "well known professional researchers".  What I am asking is for a well known researcher with so much expertise in the field and so many experts on his side, why do we need to use this where he uploaded his own work on his college website to be published?  What kind of well known professional researcher would just be self publishing his own stuff or published on waldorfcritics and no place else?  If he is well known expert on this same subject then use what he published where the other well known experts publish.  If he is well known in "waldorf critics world" that is not enough, he needs to be published.Venado 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You DO get that he's been published right? Pete K 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So who was the publisher and was the published material related to our discussion? Lkleinjans 23:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Then please just find this published work so we dont keep arguing why we really need to even in his case?  Here is a published article that talks about the critics of Steiners race views.  It can be used somewhere in that discussion.  If it needs more discussion on that source we should start another section.  Long sections with several seperate issues mixing together are harder to follow or resolve.Venado 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Henitsirk provided a link to the published works above.  No, I don't care about articles that talk about critics of Steiner and what they think - I'm interested in what scholars think - and Mr. Staudenmaier is a scholar, not a critic.  Producing an article that states what critics think is no better than producing an article that says what the Dutch Commission thinks.  The position of scholars (who are not Anthroposophists) is that Steiner's views were indeed racist.  That's what should go in the article. Pete K 01:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To PeteK.Henitsirk's link was to a book store selling 2 books that are different than the Janus article used as reference here.  One of the books I found in an online library and see that the book is 2 essays written by 2 authors.  The one by Staudenmier does not say anything about Steiners racism.  But the one by Janet Bierl does.  I will use that link to the book instead of the self publish by Staudenmier.  I do not know if it is just careless or what it is but lot of wrong information kept coming back in this whole discussion creating arguments that go no where.  The reference linked in this article by Staudenmier was misidentified to 3 totally different writings of his, and he didnt even write about Steiner's racism in his essay in the published reference finally found by tracing Henitsirks link to the publishers online book store. But somebody else wrote about Steiner there.  Shortest distance between to points is a straight line not a treasure hunt.  This publisher is also a radical anarchist press, so the polemical dispute might still be unresolved.  But I do not have the whole facts on the decision admins made when this question came up before.Venado 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty obvious to me that you want to find any excuse to exclude Staudenmaier as a possible source.  The Janus article was acceptable, as is the Anthroposophy and Ecofacism article.  I may add Staudenmaier's article back in ANYWAY because it's a valid source and he is a valid historian and scholar.  You may think the shortest distance between point A and point B is to claim point C is just as good, but I don't agree.  I didn't say, BTW, that that particular article was listed in the link Henitsirk provided - I said that it shows Staudenmaier is published on the same topic - which it does.  Staudenmaier is an EXPERT on Steiner and I intend to challenge any removal of his material here - as long as I am here (another reason to push for my banishment).  Here he absolutely discusses Steiner's racism AND Waldorf schools.  This is the article that should be used as a source here, and the one I repeatedly pointed you to - not the Janus article.  Pete K 05:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not a for racking author trophies. It is an article about Steiner.  I found a published source to verify the article statement, the Steiner article was not changed one inch to accomadate it. But thats not good enough, and now 4th Staudenmier web article is merchandised like all of them are the same.  Like equally interchangable tires on a car.  There were several days trying to confuse editors tp interchange one self publish Staudenmier with another.  Why?  Is this the idea of his publishing agent?  I dont know if it is spamming or wikilaywering or what the name is but this is not constructive editing given the task at hand.  It is creatomg unnecessary conflicts.  And takes time from the project.  Is that the intention?  Because this is a needless conflict, and does not impact article content.  But only impacts potentially the face time of slighted authors who want a citation at wikipedia for themselves. If this is about one source face time on wikipedia, it just detracts from the project.  It is not a place to pad the CV.  Why rewind and go through it all again to battle about a source that didnt pass before?  This went to dead ends for so long, and is a redundant source that wont even affect article content.  When an end-run victory has been found, why refight old battles that were lost?  Venado 07:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're confused here.  I don't have time to mess with this but as I said above, point C doesn't represent a faster or straighter route to point B.  Peter Staudenmaier is an expert in this field, he's not a critic nor an anthroposophist, his material is peer-reviewed, and his credentials are impeccable.  There's no valid reason to exclude his work with an "end run". Pete K 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Right simple solution to this problem - I suggest you take it. If Peter Staudenmaier is truly a expert in the area of Anthroposophy then he will either have peer reviewed journal articles (can not find any) or published works (only thing I can find is  and I do not think this is particularly relevant). This suggests to me that he is not really a notable expert to work from (great to use his work to find other sources that we can use). Using his work, would be like using by 1st PhD year report (which had 80+ references) as a source - no one in the scientific community would take it seriously (and certainly not quote it) until it was published (though they would take an interest). Hence I suggest that until P.Staudenmaier is shown to be an expert in the area, his unpublished works/comments/opinions should not be used as references in these topics. Cheers Lethaniol 16:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that published book you found on amazon as a reference because at least it was published and the Biehl essay of it was relevant, not the Staudenmier essay though because it did not talk about Steiner and racism.  But Pete_K has added a new link with a self published Staudemier article Pete_K has mistitled.  He has edit warred with me to keep it, so I will leave this for somebody else to sort out. I have already complained about the time wasted by interchanging titles of the articles and it did no good.  This interchanging of different Staudenmier titles and publications has happened to many times in this dispute.  I hope it is not deliberate but at the least it is total carelessness to keep happening after I pointed the problem out already.  The reference should come out anyway.  Pete_K has not shown it to be properly published, and the editor who adds sources is responsible for making sure it is properly published and not pass that job to some one else.Venado 17:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless of the sources found, the report is a biased report produced by biased individuals.  It's relevance, other than to show the absurdity of the efforts of the Dutch Anthroposophical Society to clear their well-deserved reputation has not been demonstrated here.  It does not excuse Steiner of racism or racist speech.  It has no value here and was only introduced with the intention of confusing the readers.  Pete K 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputes over racism discussion sources 

message: Please resume discussion about "Janus" article here.Venado 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter Staudenmaier's name appears on the article in several other places on the internet.  I have provided the article with Mr. Staudenmaier's name on it for you to examine.  Your position as to who wrote the article is not well taken. Neither is your guess as to what content may or may not have been removed in the condensed version.  The Dutch Commission report isn't searchable on the internet either, BTW.  None of your points make any sense. Pete K 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not disputing with you that he wrote it.  I am disputing that any real "peer reviewed" publisher would publish an article giving nothing but the author's "first name" (in all lower case letters) to identify authorship.  No legitimate peer review publication would publish like that. Thats one big clue right there, which you are playing down as "deciding if a source is good on how it looks". Well, yah, thats one reason it does not look right.  Peer reviewed publications dont expect readers to guess the name who wrote the article they are publishing. The link you are giving is not a peer review publication, it was uploaded to a message board by its author, ie self published.  Editors do not "guess" what references say, thats why we can not add this without any one here even reading it.  This is basic,you don't bluff by adding rumored published references you have not even read.  I am starting to feel duped into explaining because it now seems I am taken played.  This is not a published peer reviewed article, I should not have to explain ten times, it is so obvious.    Venado 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been published at other sites.  That's a fact.  Whether it is referenced at this site or another site is irrelevant to me.  It's a real work by a real author.  A search will show an extensive effort by Anthroposophists to dispute its content (Daniel Hindes most notably).  Nobody disputes the author, or the publication of the article.  This just happened to be the only "neutral" source where the text was available.  It appears on both Anthroposophical and Critical websites and neither its legitimacy nor its content, nor its authorship, for that matter, is in dispute.  For these reasons, the article should not be rejected - in its current form (nobody needs to guess what it says - they just need to read it).  It exists, it was written by Staudenmaier, an expert in this field, and is a very valid source for the information it produces.  Your "explanations" don't hold any water because you keep missing the point.  The point is - this is good AS IS. Pete K 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google finds there are only copies in two different places.  Social-ecology, where it is not a suitable publishing for reasons listed many times, and waldorfcritics, which is both not allowed for these articles and not any kind of real publisher either.  This article on Google only hits 6 or 7 different websites, and all the rest are just link farms which link directly to those first two we know are not wikipedia qualified publishings.  It might have been published in some much shortened form in a Norwegian publication, thats all we have to go on so far.  Is this subject not note worthy enough for wikipedia in the first place? Or else there should be better reference sources we can find to use besides this.  We should not have to scrape the bottom of the bowl to find something to use, and should find some wikipedia worthy published source for this.Venado 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I am looking at the right article.  Footnote 47 has this link  to "Janus Face of Anthroposophy". you reverted several times to keep it.  We have talked in circles for days, on 2 talk pages, and you do not even know what the article is that you have been reverting over.  You are just wasting our time with sources you know are not allowed. Waldorfcritics is not allowed.Venado 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not remember points in the earlier discussions about if the source is polemical, I did not pay close attention and that is not why I say this is not a proper source.  That was a dispute I was not involved in so that was the reason given by other editors to exclude the source.  My reason is that it is not properly published.  I do not understand why the PhD candidacy of the author would mean that his work does not need to be published.  This special exception at wikipedia is intended for people like the surgeon general of the United States or a scientist awarded the Nobel prize for mapping the genome, not a graduate student still in college or only well known to waldorf critics.  Normally graduate students are not considered "well known professional researchers".  What I am asking is for a well known researcher with so much expertise in the field and so many experts on his side, why do we need to use this where he uploaded his own work on his college website to be published?  What kind of well known professional researcher would just be self publishing his own stuff or published on waldorfcritics and no place else?  If he is well known expert on this same subject then use what he published where the other well known experts publish.  If he is well known in "waldorf critics world" that is not enough, he needs to be published.Venado 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You DO get that he's been published right? Pete K 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So who was the publisher and was the published material related to our discussion? Lkleinjans 23:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Then please just find this published work so we dont keep arguing why we really need to even in his case?  Here is a published article that talks about the critics of Steiners race views.  It can be used somewhere in that discussion.  If it needs more discussion on that source we should start another section.  Long sections with several seperate issues mixing together are harder to follow or resolve.Venado 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Henitsirk provided a link to the published works above.  No, I don't care about articles that talk about critics of Steiner and what they think - I'm interested in what scholars think - and Mr. Staudenmaier is a scholar, not a critic.  Producing an article that states what critics think is no better than producing an article that says what the Dutch Commission thinks.  The position of scholars (who are not Anthroposophists) is that Steiner's views were indeed racist.  That's what should go in the article. Pete K 01:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To PeteK.Henitsirk's link was to a book store selling 2 books that are different than the Janus article used as reference here.  One of the books I found in an online library and see that the book is 2 essays written by 2 authors.  The one by Staudenmier does not say anything about Steiners racism.  But the one by Janet Bierl does.  I will use that link to the book instead of the self publish by Staudenmier.  I do not know if it is just careless or what it is but lot of wrong information kept coming back in this whole discussion creating arguments that go no where.  The reference linked in this article by Staudenmier was misidentified to 3 totally different writings of his, and he didnt even write about Steiner's racism in his essay in the published reference finally found by tracing Henitsirks link to the publishers online book store. But somebody else wrote about Steiner there.  Shortest distance between to points is a straight line not a treasure hunt.  This publisher is also a radical anarchist press, so the polemical dispute might still be unresolved.  But I do not have the whole facts on the decision admins made when this question came up before.Venado 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty obvious to me that you want to find any excuse to exclude Staudenmaier as a possible source.  The Janus article was acceptable, as is the Anthroposophy and Ecofacism article.  I may add Staudenmaier's article back in ANYWAY because it's a valid source and he is a valid historian and scholar.  You may think the shortest distance between point A and point B is to claim point C is just as good, but I don't agree.  I didn't say, BTW, that that particular article was listed in the link Henitsirk provided - I said that it shows Staudenmaier is published on the same topic - which it does.  Staudenmaier is an EXPERT on Steiner and I intend to challenge any removal of his material here - as long as I am here (another reason to push for my banishment).  Here he absolutely discusses Steiner's racism AND Waldorf schools.  This is the article that should be used as a source here, and the one I repeatedly pointed you to - not the Janus article.  Pete K 05:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not a for racking author trophies. It is an article about Steiner.  I found a published source to verify the article statement, the Steiner article was not changed one inch to accomadate it. But thats not good enough, and now 4th Staudenmier web article is merchandised like all of them are the same.  Like equally interchangable tires on a car.  There were several days trying to confuse editors tp interchange one self publish Staudenmier with another.  Why?  Is this the idea of his publishing agent?  I dont know if it is spamming or wikilaywering or what the name is but this is not constructive editing given the task at hand.  It is creatomg unnecessary conflicts.  And takes time from the project.  Is that the intention?  Because this is a needless conflict, and does not impact article content.  But only impacts potentially the face time of slighted authors who want a citation at wikipedia for themselves. If this is about one source face time on wikipedia, it just detracts from the project.  It is not a place to pad the CV.  Why rewind and go through it all again to battle about a source that didnt pass before?  This went to dead ends for so long, and is a redundant source that wont even affect article content.  When an end-run victory has been found, why refight old battles that were lost?  Venado 07:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're confused here.  I don't have time to mess with this but as I said above, point C doesn't represent a faster or straighter route to point B.  Peter Staudenmaier is an expert in this field, he's not a critic nor an anthroposophist, his material is peer-reviewed, and his credentials are impeccable.  There's no valid reason to exclude his work with an "end run". Pete K 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Right simple solution to this problem - I suggest you take it. If Peter Staudenmaier is truly a expert in the area of Anthroposophy then he will either have peer reviewed journal articles (can not find any) or published works (only thing I can find is  and I do not think this is particularly relevant). This suggests to me that he is not really a notable expert to work from (great to use his work to find other sources that we can use). Using his work, would be like using by 1st PhD year report (which had 80+ references) as a source - no one in the scientific community would take it seriously (and certainly not quote it) until it was published (though they would take an interest). Hence I suggest that until P.Staudenmaier is shown to be an expert in the area, his unpublished works/comments/opinions should not be used as references in these topics. Cheers Lethaniol 16:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that published book you found on amazon as a reference because at least it was published and the Biehl essay of it was relevant, not the Staudenmier essay though because it did not talk about Steiner and racism.  But Pete_K has added a new link with a self published Staudemier article Pete_K has mistitled.  He has edit warred with me to keep it, so I will leave this for somebody else to sort out. I have already complained about the time wasted by interchanging titles of the articles and it did no good.  This interchanging of different Staudenmier titles and publications has happened to many times in this dispute.  I hope it is not deliberate but at the least it is total carelessness to keep happening after I pointed the problem out already.  The reference should come out anyway.  Pete_K has not shown it to be properly published, and the editor who adds sources is responsible for making sure it is properly published and not pass that job to some one else.Venado 17:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Social Ecology

message: Please resume discussion about the anthroposophist report here.Venado 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the sources found, the report is a biased report produced by biased individuals.  It's relevance, other than to show the absurdity of the efforts of the Dutch Anthroposophical Society to clear their well-deserved reputation has not been demonstrated here.  It does not excuse Steiner of racism or racist speech.  It has no value here and was only introduced with the intention of confusing the readers.  Pete K 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dutch commission

message: I removed most Steiner references except quotes which still need discussion.  I think we need to assess how they are used in this article.  I say Steiner quotes may be o.k. in some places but only when they are used as example or illustration of a point which has been made by a secondary source.  We can not use Steiner quotes to make other wise unverified claims.  We can not use Steiner quotes to stand alone either.  They must be used only in context of sourced claims surrounding written text in the article.  Your thoughts please.Venado 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, ideally should only use Steiner refs for quotes (also agree those quotes should not be stand alone but relevant and proportional to the article content), and possibly for occasions where we might want to say Steiner thought X, or said Y, though again ideally secondary neutral sources preferred. Cheers Lethaniol 20:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Totally agree with Venado - especially that primary sources of autobiographical nature should be used with extreme care. This has nothing to do with the article probation or ArbCom, but the standard policies in place see WP:BIO and WP:RS. Cheers Lethaniol 02:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it would be appropriate to use Steiner's own works as sources for the information here either.  He said a lot of things about himself that simply weren't true.  Let's please be careful how we source this material.  OTOH, if it's OK to use Steiner quotes directly, I've got a few I'd like to add. Pete K 03:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steiner quotes 

message: I think this needs some sorting out. Three types of guidelines are referred to in the above discussion. One is Wikipedia policies. Another is the arbitration ruling. A third is expressed opinion of admin/s.
Venado, when you refer to the last, writing "Admins have pointed out in comments in involved articles that second and third party sources must be used.", does this refer to the expressed opinion of Thatcher131 above, and/or do you refer to other comments? Thanks,  Thebee 10:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, welcome to the world of Wikipedia, where you have to balance and interpret multiple policies in relation to each quite frequently. The ArbCom decision is in addition to the requirements of Wikipedia policy (in fact the ArbCom have really only made an interpretive decision of the policies in the specific case on Anthroposophical sources). Any opinion of any Admin, though likely to be helpful, does not overrule either Wikipedia policy or the ArbCom decision. Cheers Lethaniol 10:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There were many comments, I dont have them without looking. Most admin comments attempt to explain and arent only new rules as they are sometimes thought by editors here. The only new rules in effect here are new extra restrictions from arbitration on sources from anthroposophic publishers and waldorfcritics and other sources with strong bias, and that the articles are on probation to make sure the problems get fixed.  I think editors have been wasting to much time on sources that fall in the gray area because then no work gets done while editors argue for days about it is o.k. or not o.k.  Steiner is not much in the gray anyway in this article. It is about him so the ways he can be used as a source are not very many by normal wikipedia rules.  The way Steiner quotes are used is taking it over the edge at this point.  More independent sources will have to be found to support the use of some of the quotes that are there right now and need more verification of the claim.  Quotes cant make or prove claims by themselves. Only can be used, like a photo, to illustrate analysis verified with second and third party sources.Venado 20:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules for citations in this article 

message: The following was lost in an invisible comment in the article.  Does anyone know the story on this?  
*"In May of 1891 Iduna (literature society), which had the descriptive subtitle of "Free German Society for Literature", was founded by a circle of writers around Fritz Lemmermayer. Lemmermayer acted as a sort of "middle man" between an older generation of authors (which included Fercher von Steinwand, Joseph Tandler, Auguste Hyrtl, Ludwig von Mertens, and Josephone von Knorr) and a group of younger writers and thinkers (which included Rudolf Steiner, Marie Eugenie delle Grazie, and Karl Maria Heidt). The name Iduna was provided by List himself and is that of a North Germanic goddess of eternal youth and renewal. Richard von Kralik and Joseph Kalasanz Poestion, authors with specifically neo-Germanic leanings, where also involved in the circle. The other organisation List was involved with was the 'Literarische Donaugesellschaft' (Danubian Literary Society), which was founded by List and Fanny Wschiansky the year the Iduna was dissolved in 1893. At this time Guido von List met Rudolf Steiner."
I have removed it to here to be identified.Venado 20:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identify hidden comment 

message: I have blocked Pete K and Hgilbert each for 24 hours for edit warring on Waldorf education.  The next time these articles are disrupted by edit warring I will fully protect them and no one will be able to edit at all.  In order to edit the article you will have to agree on the edit and then put the  template on the talk page to get an admin to do it for you (assuming you can agree on anything).
I also notice that these articles, despite the article probation, rely heavily on anthroposophy-published documents as sources, in spite of the arbitration ruling determining that they should be removed.  Documents originating with anthroposophy, the Waldorf foundation, or Rudolph Stiener are not acceptable as sources either for claims that Waldorf is good, or for claims that Waldorf is bad.  Things ranging from the complex (whether Steiner was racist) to the simple (whether Waldorf schools discourage parental communication) can not be sourced to primary documents.  They are not considered reliable sources for several reasons.  Generally if you are using Waldorf materials to describe the benefits etc., you run afoul of the self-serving limits of the reliable source policy, and if you are citing Waldorf documents to "prove" they have problems, you are violating the "interpreting primary sources to draw a conclusion is original research" limitation. 
If you think that reopening the arbitration case will get the other editors banned but leave you safe, I can almost guarantee you are wrong. Clean up these articles.  Get the Waldorf sources and all the original research, conclusions and personal experiences out.  Rely on what independent third parties have published in reliable sources, and if they haven't published anything about a topic, take it out.  Trust me, you do not want the case reopened. Thatcher131 02:59, Date Jan 12, 07 (UTC)
See discussion and comment on this at Talk page of another article.
Thebee 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last chance 

message: The reception section appears randomly chosen and unhelpful. Should we scrap it? Revise it? How? All suggestions are welcome. Hgilbert 14:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, Geoffrey Falk should not be cited. His book is self-published on the web and no more a reliable source than a weblog. — goethean ॐ 21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: the term christ being is not really a generally used one, can we replace it by jc or something, at least in the section heading?trueblood 16:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is awkward. Unfortunately Steiner regards Jesus Christ as a particular incarnation of a being that has accompanied all of human evolution, so JC is probably not so helpful. What about simply Christ? Hgilbert 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: yep; trueblood 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I changed it in the heading, that might be enough. Erdanion 17:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christ being 

message: The source recently added, Husmann-Kastein, is non-polemical in character. I have added some flesh to the racial characterizations section through citations to this source. Hgilbert 01:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial theories 

message: The section on Steiner's antisemitism has been reduced to this:
"Steiner and Antisemitism
Beginning around the turn of the century, Steiner wrote a series of seven articles for the Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus, a magazine devoted to combatting anti-Semitism, in which he attacked the anti-Semitism of the era. [53]"
This is a disgrace. This is what the anthroposophists who manage this article have achieved here in the wake of the arbitration that effectively stifled critical perspectives on this page. Steiner was an anti-Semite himself - not an opponent of anti-Semitism.DianaW 14:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any verifiable sources for this? You have been a great one for emphasizing the value of the arbitration's requirement for citation sources ... Hgilbert 11:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As you probably know, I have looked at the historical context for what you refer to. It indicates that just quoting it without taking this into account and describing it and giving a full account of his complex views on Jewry, see for example this, would be highly controversial. That's the reason it isn't quoted in the article. And "Look at this!" is not a very descriptive/informative header, as you're probably aware of. Thanks,  Thebee 07:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a fact that that's your reaction to what he wrote. We have been asked to cite authoritative sources, however. Please find these and add them; I agree that the section should be improved. Hgilbert 13:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look at this! 

message: is the 27th Feb. --89.56.208.13 16:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Steiner's autobiography gives the date 27 February 1861. However, there is an undated autobiographical fragment written by Steiner (referred to in a footnote in his autobiography in German, GA 28) that says, "My birth fell on the 25th of February 1861. Two days later I was baptized." --EPadmirateur 23:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  date of birth 

message: In Foundations of Human Experience, Steiner calls the brain the organ of thinking (p. 116 in the German). I have removed the section stating that this is not so. I have also taken away the term "vital force", which seems not to stem from Steiner. Hgilbert 08:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "heart is not a mechanical pump" section does not fit into controversies as now worded; there is no documented controversy over this. On the other hand, I don't know where we'd put this rather minor point; it is only here because people have taken umbrage over it - but not in any documentable fashion. Does it belong at all? Where? Hgilbert (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical views 

message: I have studied Steiner's work for over 15 years, and while I see the necessity of including the controversy about his racial ideas, I also think that the presentation of these ideas in this entry could be a bit misleading. These views about the different races were expressed in some of his most profoundly esoteric lectures, and they do not bear such glib extraction. On the other hand, to present these ideas in an accurate context would necessitate including a web of related ideas that don't belong in a simple article. Might it be best at least to point out the gravity and complexity of these ideas, as they relate to his entire cosmology?
It's late and I'm not expressing myself too well, but this seems like it needs further attention. Feel free to write to me directly at herrneilson@yahoo.com
Best wishes,
Neil Martinson  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.169.231 (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All material here must be referenced to verifiable sources; on controversial themes, preferably to peer-reviewed sources. If you know of such sources that are not included here, please let us know or add them directly. Hgilbert (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I have tried to rebalance the presentation and have removed the specific example that was extracted from a larger presentation.  Can someone have a look and see if this is an improvement? Hgilbert (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand removing the quote from Knowledge of Higher Worlds, but don't understand the justification for removing the characterizations of the 4 or 5 different races from Husmann-Kastein in this change. Not scholarly? Not peer reviewed? Too superficial? Incorrect characterization? --EPadmirateur (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not peer-reviewed. I was the one who originally put this in; I realize now, reviewing the section in response to Neil's comment above, that it does not qualify by arbitration standards. I thought the article was fairly balanced, considering the intensely critical attitude of the author, but an individual editor's judgment should not override arbitration criteria. Hgilbert (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: i removed this part:
On the other hand, Steiner emphasized the core spiritual unity of all the world's peoples and sharply criticized racial prejudice, stating his beliefs that:
* The individual nature of any person stands higher than any racial, ethnic, national or religious affiliation,Robert McDermott, The Essential Steiner, Harper San Francisco 1984 p.55  
* Race and ethnicity are transient, not essential aspects of the individual, especially since in Steiner's view each individual incarnates in many different peoples and races over successive lives, thus bearing within him- or herself a range of races and peoples.Eugen Blume, "Joseph Beuys". In Kugler and Baur, Rudolf Steiner in Kunst und Architektur, , p. 186"Es hängt dabei von den Interessen der Leser ab, ob die Anthroposophie rassistisch interpretiert wird oder nicht." Helmut Zander, "Sozialdarwinistische Rassentheorien aus dem okkulten Untergrund des Kaiserreichs", in Puschner et al., Handbuch zur "Völkischen Bewegung" 1871-1918: 1996.
* Race is rapidly losing any remaining significance for humanity.
since we do not allow anthropop quotations anymore, i suppose we cannot use  christoph lindenberg and propably also not this blume guy. also do kindly explain to me how the text could remain the same although  the reference was changed to zander. i thought we had a balanced section with some of quotations that were racist and some that were anti racist. now you are spinning things around again to mellow it down, pity that.trueblood (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think your objections all center around the choice of references. Christoph Lindenberg's book is  a scholarly work published by a mainstream source (Rowohlt) and so is acceptable. Same for Blume's chapter on Beuys in the Kugler and Baur book Rudolf Steiner in Art and Architecture, published by DuMont in Cologne. The text that remained the same even though the citation changed from Husmann to Zander was, I believe, "Race is rapidly losing any remaining significance for humanity". This is something Steiner said very emphatically a number of times and (most likely) was cited by both authors, since they are being scholarly in their analyses of Steiner, although by no means uncritical, either of them. I think this little section that you removed needs to be restored to maintain neutrality. What else needs to be added to regain balance and not mellow the article down? --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a source, Husmann-Kastein, from which the majority of the text had been drawn (I had put this in originally but in checking the online text found that it is not peer reviewed, as required by the arbitration). I found the now-cited article by Zander, who is a fairly prominent historian and far and away the most objective source. Some of his conclusions overlap with Husmann-Kastein's, for example, the one you cite. I can look back at Zander's article; I'm sure there are more critical sides represented there I've not yet brought in, as well. Otherwise: sources, sources, sources! Hgilbert (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  my objections center around my impression that hgilbert uses the arbitration results to remove anything remotely critical. we had a nice little version of this section where some of the crasser racist remarks were mentioned and some of the anitracist stuff; hgilbert removed the racist stuff, i removed the anti racist stuff. at the same time he pretends that all he wants is a fair and balanced article. i am sort of tired of that.trueblood (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the way it works: rather than remove valid material, you need to find properly sourced material that reflects the criticism of racism. There must be such statements, particularly from Zander and similar scholars. Can you find some? In the meantime, the deleted material needs to be restored. --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually added a critique of Steiner's "extreme assimilationist views" that was challenged by another editor as being unsourced. I think this accurately represents Steiner's views but must find a peer-reviewed source before I can include it. The same holds for any other controversial analysis on his works. FIND PEER-REVIEWED SOURCES!!! Zander has written a lot on the subject, for example; I have gone through a small fraction of his work. Hgilbert (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have tried to balance the section again with material from Zander. Hgilbert (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The racism section 

message: Boo!  I see that the Steiner Gestapo has removed a lot of material from this article.  You people love to remove material, even well documented material, that shows Steiner in a negative light (and there's plenty of it out there).  Shame on you all (Steiner Gestapo) for not representing Herr Steiner's views in a more truthful way.
First of all, the fact that Steiner was a bloody racist (or at the very least a bloody racialist) has been so watered-down in this article that it's frickin' pathetic!  What happened to this whole part of the article:
"Steiner's comments about race are inconsistent in a way typical of the German Theosophical movement of his time: he "often claimed that white Europeans had achieved a higher level of spiritual perfection than the African, Asian or Jewish races. Sometimes, he even went so far as to claim that in the grand cycle of spiritual evolution, the Germanic race had advanced the furthest. At other times and with comparable frequency, however, Steiner reiterated the core spiritual unity of all the world's peoples."Corinna Treitel, A Science for the Soul: Occultism and the Genesis of the German Modern, Johns Hopkins Press, , p. 103 He incorporated the predominant anthropological thinking of his time in making use of phenotypic and geographic attributes to reflect on mankind as a whole through various models and theories, including linking Africa's black race psychologically with the will and historically with the childhood of humanity; Asia's yellow-brown race psychologically with feeling and historically with the youth of humanity; Europe's white race psychologically with sense perception and thinking and historically with the maturity of humanity (though he described European humanity today as centered on overly abstract intellectuality which will need in future to become spiritualized); and America's red race with the old age of humanity.
Some of Steiner's characterizations of racial, national, and ethnic character have been termed racist by critics.Transcript of a program on German TVArno Frank, "Einschüchterung auf Waldorf-Art", Die Tageszeitung Aug 4, 2000.Jana Husmann-Kastein: Schwarz-Weiß-Konstruktionen im Rassebild Rudolf Steiners, script of a talk. Critical Reflections during a conference about anthroposophy. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 21.07.2006, S. 17f. Viewed in the historical context of the times, however, Steiner is more accurately regarded a racialist and not a racist in making use of race-like categories. Steiner sincerely believed that one should have no racial prejudice,"Any racial prejudice hinders me from looking into a person's soul". Steiner, "Practical Perspectives", Knowledge of Higher Worlds and emphasized that individuals should not be treated on the basis of their racial, ethnic or other group affiliation..."
What the heck happened to it?  Are you into book burning or what?
Oh, and the health section:  To Steiner, bad health often reflected the working out of one's "karmic destiny." Did he not write of such things?  And the whole idea that we should not inoculate people for things because it might get in the way of their "karma"?  In 1910, Steiner said, "We also understand why, among the best minds of our period, there exists a kind of aversion to vaccination. . . . [By giving inoculations, w]e are merely accomplishing something to which the person in question will himself have to produce a counterpart in a later incarnation. If we destroy the susceptibility to smallpox, we are concentrating only on the external side of karmic activity." (Steiner, Rudolf Karma of the Higher Beings in Manifestations of Karma Lecture 8, May 25th, 1910.)  Well, I just think some of these things are important to the topic at hand and should be represented in the article.  Your feeble attempts to hide what Herr Steiner really stood for are silly, trite, and laughable.  Go ahead though, keep believing your lies, but it seems crappy that many of you try to cover up a lot of the quackery the old fart once spoke of, and then try to represent it (or misrepresent it) as something else while you goose-step along, farting to your own propaganda.  You jerks can't hide the truth though!  If such pseudoscience chicanery as an Astral body really exists, then your whole shady, goose-stepping Steiner Gestapo lot must be in a really sorry state of affairs!  As Christopher Hitchens once said about another charlatan huckster quack, "I think it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to."  So, put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Fartbucket (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material that was removed was neither drawn from a book nor from any other third-party reviewed source, as required by the arbitration proceedings. Both non-peer reviewed material and original Steiner references were excluded by Wikipedia arbitrators; see Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review. The article references peer-reviewed, largely academic sources, the opposite of propaganda. If there is truth not represented here, it will surely be able to be found in a source that meets Wikipedia standards. Help find such sources! There are surprisingly many out there (see the reference list of the article already!) Hgilbert (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a bloody disgrace! 

message: I have re-added that quote. Please pear review me. (in biodynamic agriculture section)
The section needs some work on the flow. It appears to have been edited by many people. Perhaps I will do this later.Knightt (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be best to find a third-party source for Steiner's claim that mineral fertilizers will cause the loss of nutritive value. Per the "Last Chance" ruling: "Rely on what independent third parties have published in reliable sources, and if they haven't published anything about a topic, take it out." A source that says: "Rudolf Steiner claimed that mineral fertilizers will cause the loss of nutritive value" would be best. However, since your wording includes that this was Steiner's belief, including the quotation is OK with me. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. This quote was not intended to prove or disprove what actually happens to the soil with chemical or organic fertilizers. The thought was to help people to understand what the biodynamic practices are. This is after all what the article is about. It does not really seem to be the place to go into such specifics of if this or that specific aspect is backed by proof. Its a disputed topic on both sides. Not really sure I want to get into the argument. Besides, even if one side was able to "win" the debate, the more important thing can be told by farmers... Does it really work when followed... As far as I am concerned, this is the most important thing, and it can not really be reliably provided here anyhow. Wiki needs to be left to what it is good at. It might not be the whole story, but thats something we need to come to terms with. my own opinion Knightt (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote Re-Added 

message: Not much about his private life, 1st and 2nd wife etc. what a pity! --House1630 (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General questions 

message: Why is this article listed under the freemasonry wikiproject?  I was unaware of steiners importance to that group.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  stray question 

message: This little information is perhaps on the wrong page, but never mind: "as of 2006 about one quarter of the farms in India have adopted biodynamic practices". Is this true? The reference is a Thomas Burstyn film, in the IMDb summary of it, biodynamics is described as "an arcane form of agriculture" which it obviously isn't. -- Hexmaster (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biodynamic farms in India 

message: I have moved the description of Steiner's views on the heart being a dynamic regulator rather than a mechanical pump from the controversies to the medicine section as there is no citation that relates this to any controversy.Hgilbert (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  heart 

message: The following text was added but would properly belong in the Steiner education article: "According to the Good Schools Guide International, 'Teachers in a Steiner school "seek to recognise the unique individuality of every child, and through the curriculum, develop clarity of thought, sensitivity of feeling and strength.  The method of education seeks art and science as two pathways to truth, bringing fullness and nourishment to people who pursue them."'http://gsgi.co.uk/articles/curricula-and-exams/curricula/rudolf-steiner" Hgilbert (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the section this was added to was on Steiner's own education, since the section is about the founding of Waldorf education. However, I agree that it's out of place in this article and would be better as another "Reception by educationalists" in Waldorf education. I'll add it there in somewhat shorter form. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided not to add this reference because the list itself does not appear to be a very reliable source, I can't find any specific Steiner or Waldorf schools listed (after a brief try), and the quotation itself appears to be very much generic and brochure-like. In short I don't think this reference comes up to the level needed for WP. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  misplaced text 

message: For support that Steiner could be considered a hermeticist, see Bamford's book What is Anthroposophy, p. 10-11 Hgilbert (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bamford's intro is not an acceptable source, strictly speaking, and he is making a broad equivalence between Hermeticism and Western esotericism. Yes, one can make the case that there is a thread from the earlier Hermetic traditions through Goethe to Steiner. My objection was based on a reading of the article Hermeticism where this thread is far from clear. I guess an equally strong case can be made that Steiner took his inspiration and knowledge directly from the "spiritual world" and therefore is not connected in an "earthly" way via any books, etc. to any prior teachings or traditions. Given the information from the Bamford introduction, I no longer have an objection to this category. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bamford is of course an acceptable source for non-controversial matters...BTW the case that Steiner was not influenced by teachings or traditions is severely undermined firstly by his own frequent reference to such teachings and traditions and secondly by research into his sources (Zander being the most extreme here) that shows how closely his presentations parallel those of other thinkers whose works he had demonstrably read; if someone presents ideas extremely similar to those in an annotated book in that person's library it is pretty difficult to plausibly claim that that person has come to these ideas independently. hgilbert (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but it's always hard to tell exactly where Steiner received his information/inspiration. I'll restore the hermeticist category. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steiner as hermeticist 

message: The quote in the lead section doesn't work very well.  I prefer a summary of the article.  If the quote must be used, it should be placed in the relevant section.  And, for an article whose length is around 67 kilobytes, the lead should be much longer. Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the above, I've removed the following quotation from the intro, and don't see quite where else it might be appropriate. Shall we drop it or does it have a place? hgilbert (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree that the quote is unnecessary. It's in the anthroposophy article lead anyway. I don't agree that the lead should be much longer. --EPadmirateur (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote in the lead 

message: THF tagged the Reception section for its prose style; I'm not sure what should be changed. Can you clarify? hgilbert (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means it would be better to use prose rather than a list of bullets for the different points. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  prose format 

message: Looking at the external links, I tend to agree that some are not directly related to Steiner. The whole "Practical Activities" section should perhaps be removed. What do others think? hgilbert (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The article says that Steiner began a phase of his work after the Second World War, but he died in 1925. Should this be changed to the First World War? Or should this sentace be removed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.190.75 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right! I've changed this. hgilbert (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII 

message: When this Rudolf Steiner Article is displayed with internet explorer or with mozilla firefox after the first paragraph and before the table of contents about 10 cm of blank white appears. I tried safari, opera and google chrome and with those three it does not happen. I am not a website and browser specialist and i dont want to do  any harm to this article even more since i am a wikipedia beginner and this article seems to be under special arbitration. So maybay somebody else has an idea. It looks now unusual/unproffessional.Rembertbiemond (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browser Problem 10 cm white 

message: Rudolf Steiners full name was Rudolf Joseph Lorenz Steiner, i am a bit surprised that this does not appear in the article.
I don'nt have a ref right here other then the german wikipedia which states it (as some others.  
Since this seems to be a article under arbitration i propose a change here first to see what happens. 
What i suggest concretly is to change the beginning of the article into 
Rudolf Steiner (born as Rudolf Joseph Lorenz Steiner, 25 or 27 February 1861[1] – 30 March 1925)
Next to that: in the box on the right (that is why it popped up to my mind)or it should just say name (and not full name)
or the full name should be stated: Rudolf Joseph Lorenz Steiner should be stated  Rembertbiemond (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to find a source before adding the info. — goethean ॐ 18:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

text: sure, I will try to find one and invite herewith others to help Rembertbiemond (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See here for confirmation. I have added the full name. I don't think it needs a citation in the article, however (unless this becomes controversial). hgilbert (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything that can be cited should be cited. It is presumable that someone will eventually question it, so citing the material helps to ensure a more stable article. — goethean ॐ 19:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Better safe than sorry, eh? hgilbert (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

text: This went fast - but what about the "box" or how is it called on the right? "full" name I would rather delete the word full then change "Rudolf Steiner" to the "Full" name but I don'nt know what the convention is with these boxes?Rembertbiemond (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Name 

message: In the section about spiritual research the first bullet point states .....was disbanded at the start of World War Two.
This is wrong. Steiner died in 1925. The stated activity was discontinued due to the outbreak of WW 1 not WW 2. 
So my suggestion is to change "two" into "one" 
Since the article is under arbitration I first suggest it here - but it is not something which I asume to be controversial.
Rembertbiemond (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. You may go ahead and make uncontroversial edits like this. — goethean ॐ 18:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  world war two should be world war one 

message: For the time being i will continue to discuss edits first here:
The last sentence of attacks, illness and death states: ... He wrote his autobiography in the following months and ....." This is not completly correct. Rudolf Steiner started on his Autobiography in 1923, before his illness, it was published in chapters, most of the time one chapter per week in the weekly "Das Goetheanum" During his illness he continued with the autobiography (amongst other things) and the autobiography was not ready when he died. suggest the following edit: "During his illness he continued to publish chapters of his autobiography..." or similar - then it would be more correct.
The book: Rudolf Steiner; Eine Chronik 1861-1925, Stuttgart 1988, Verlag Freies Geistesleben,  is the ref for this. (as for many other details about Rudolf Steiners life)pages 606 to 632 cover the period end of September 1924 untill short after his death march 1925. I don't think that there is an english translation. Rembertbiemond (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: added the word continued, because otherwise the reader could misunderstand that the autobiography was written only during the last (couple of months -during his illness) months of his life, hope this is ok. Grammar or english edits on this sentence most welcome Rembertbiemond (talk) 07:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autobiography 

message: In the paragraph The anthroposophical Society and its cultural activities line 4-5 states: "In 1919, the Goetheanum staged the world premiere of a complete production of Goethe's Faust". This is not correct. During Rudolf Steiners lifetime a "complete" performance of Faust I and II never took place. However: Work on Faust is essential for the Goetheanum and Steiners life. Several parts where shown.
(for those not so familiar with Faust - a "complete" production is about 22 hours of theater) In Faust am Goetheanum, Verlag Urachhaus, Stuttgart , on page 44- 55 there is an article by eyewitness and coworker Assia Turgenieff with memories about which scenes where shown when and how between 1915 and 1918. Rudolf Steiners widow then continued on the mammoth project and the first "complete" show was done 1938. 
So for articles about the Goetheanum and about the performance history of Goethe's Faust this world premiere in 1938 is of essential importance. (I did not cross check what Wikipedia has on this) But this is the article on Steiner
So what is the Edit suggest? Help appriciated. As a first edit with ref. to the book quoted above I suggest:
"...From 1915 onwards, the Goetheanum staged scenes of Goethe's Faust. In 1919, the first Waldorf school was founded in Stuttgart, Germany...."
The word Faust could be footnoted with: In 1938 the Goetheanum staged the worldwide first complete performance of Goethe's Faust I and II directed by Marie Steiner von Sivers, Steiners widow.
This would fix the wrong information. More substantial editing then hopefully later Rembertbiemond (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance of Faust in the Goetheanum 

message: In the farming section, a sentence describing Steiner's influence on agriculture now says," ... including Germany, Switzerland and India; in the latter about one quarter of the farms had adopted biodynamic practices as of 2006.[45]"  This can't be correct for India but I don't have the reference at hand.  Perhaps Switzerland?
:(was fixed a while ago - ) Rembertbiemond (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not dubious, it is wrong. And it should be corrected. It is wrong for India. It is wrong for Switzerland. I suggest to delete the sentence alltogether - in the article about biodynamic article there is enough further information --Rembertbiemond (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I suggest the following sentence instead: Biodynamic farming holds a significant position in the realm of organic agriculture movements. -hope that somebody has a better suggestion and a ref. This one would at least not be wrong. The only thing i can think of which the original author might have ment is that within the realm of organic agriculture the biodynamic method would count for a quarter of that total. --Rembertbiemond (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Someone needs to look up the citation and see if it says what the article claims that it says. — goethean ॐ 21:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

text: ok I stand corrected goethean. The quote is from a dvd (tells me amazon)... Alternativly another source - maybe a printed one with percentages of organic versus conventional - and within the organic which method could help. I will try to surf a little bit for that one.--Rembertbiemond (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Here http://www.organic-world.net/statistics-world.html is a reliable source with statistics on organic agriculture worldwide. For India i found only the absolute figures - not the relative ones but for the whole of asia  organic farming compared to total farming counts for less then 3% let alone biodynamic...and that no country has 25% organic farming wherof biodynamic farming again would tipically be around 10% of that figure... So sorry for the dvd (if it was quoted correctly). It would have to hold against strong statistical stating something different. --Rembertbiemond (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We can add text to the article indicating the results of your research.  — goethean ॐ 22:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

text: In the meanwhile i found here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96kologische_Landwirtschaft#Biologisch-dynamische_Wirtschaftsweise also the figure for india, it is 0,3 % for organic in total, so biodynamics a fraction of that. Lets not forget that this is an article about steiner, not about biodynamics in india. i therefore suggest simplification, as suggested above  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rembertbiemond (talk • contribs) 23:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the dubious claim invisible and requested verification. — goethean ॐ 23:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Good. I believe a next good step could be to include a sentence with some data on farms/ hectares /continents now working with this method --Rembertbiemond (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But probably in the Biodynamic agriculture article rather than here! hgilbert (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farming 

message: In the part about Steiner and the theosophical Society line 4 states: Steiner met and worked with Marie von Sievers.
The Spelling of von Sievers is wrong. Correct is Marie von Sivers. see also Marie Steiner-von Sivers so my edit suggest is to delete one e from the name and to make an internal link.Rembertbiemond (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, understood. As a relative newbie to Wikipedia (as an Editor, not as a user) and completly new to articles under arbitration I first didn't dare to edit something directly. I now understand that I can make the judgement if something might be considered to be controversial myself, then edit directly or discuss the edit first here. Thank you - and Goethean for encouregement. I will nevertheless be carefull with direct editing because english is not my first language. Rembertbiemond (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marie von  Sivers not Sievers 

message: Steiners date of birth is not in dispute. It was 25th February 1891 at 11.15 pm. I will change that second date of 27th Feb (which was his baptism) unless anyone objects and put the reference Swiss Astro-Data bank
Thank you
Veryscarymary (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Birth 

message: Has there been consensus / discussion here about the wording of the place of birth? (-How to search tons of archived bytes talk of this page?) If there is consensus I ask for a ref and explanation. In all literature I know including Steiners Autobiografy it is stated that Rudolf Steiner was born in Kraljevec Austria-Hungary. a footnote that it is now named Donji Kraljevec and now is Croatia is usefull. What is the source for Murakirály?, Some fast googeling of Murakiraly tells me that it is the name of the county where Donji Kraljevec is located. The wording now suggest that the name of the actual place of birth was then Murakiraly. It is posseble (just guessing) that for some time in between (during yogoslavian rule) kraljevec was not an "official" village and the larger entity Murakiraly was the "official" name for a couple of villages. If so i asume that of little importance for 1861 and 2009. I suggest an Edit if there is no substantial evidence here somewhere soon that the place of birth was then named other then Kraljevec. Rembertbiemond (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At one point the county was included as well; when it was simplified, it was done incorrectly, I suspect. I have made the above alteration. hgilbert (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

text: That was fast - And i think it was good that it was done because other language tend to copy translate from the english version. I suggest "we" change also the 3rd line in the childhood section accordingly...Rembertbiemond (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

text: done -now also in line 3 of childhood section- Rembertbiemond (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question / Edit suggest on place of birth 

message: Becoming a bit more corageous I changed the spelling of Kogutzki according to Lindenberg 1988,  and Selg 2009,  to Koguzki. Rembertbiemond (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Felix  Koguzki not Kogutski 

message: Imho the positioning of the box "anthroposophy" is not a graphics-masterpiese. I am not Wikipedia IT Specialist enough to know how to change that - a couple of lines higher would be better i think? What is the opinion of other viewers? Maybe somebody else can have a look/make a change Rembertbiemond (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was just changed a few days ago due to a complaint about white space appearing (see above). I've tried to fix it; we may need to try out various alternatives. hgilbert (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I Think this is not the solution - then it was better what we had yesterday morning... It is only in windows explorer that there are tons of white again - not in mozilla, chrome, safari, opera. But i think 50% + (?) of users  ist still on explorer.. 
Ist it an idea to have the anthroposophy box start at the top of the childhood section? Would that eliminate the white? Rembertbiemond (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I am not expirienced Wikipedian enough to start to experiment with lay-out. So maybe i shouldn't bring up the subject in the firstplace. It is not essential for the content. but the looks are not nice - anybody else seeing my point? Rembertbiemond (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest that you can experiment fairly easily with template or image placement by using the "Show preview" button, which will show how the page will look with the change that you made, without actually saving the change. Then you can experiment in IE and other browsers before deciding where to put the template so it will work in most common browsers. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  looks / graphics / box on anthroposophy 

message: Where in Steiner's writings may I find the importance of the age 42 ?
thank you  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.184.212 (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Bernard Lievegoed's Phases: The Spiritual Rhythms of Adult Life hgilbert (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Age 42 

message: I think there are fundamental problems with this article. It reads like a subjective non-encyclopaedic profile written by person/persons who are obviously adherents of Steiner's controversial methods. Here is an entry from The Skeptic's Dictionary  -- note that these criticisms are not really touched on in the article, or at least not sufficiently covered.
There is no question that Steiner made contributions in many fields, but as a philosopher, scientist, and artist he rarely rises above mediocrity and is singularly unoriginal. In some cases, e.g., agriculture, he is pseudoscientific. His spiritual ideas seem less than credible and are certainly not scientific. His belief in his own clairvoyance should be disturbing to those who think he is one of the great minds of all time.
And there is nothing in the lead at all which gives an indication that Steiner's ideas are controversial or flawed. This must be a cause for concern. Jprw (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one man's opinion. Thanks for adding the Carroll quote. It's curious how wide reception of a figure can vary; other authors critique Steiner's philosophy for being overly intellectual! hgilbert (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I entirely agree with the comment that this article at present (Jan 31 2011) is an entirely one sided sanitized description of Steiner.  There is now a body of objective academic research on Steiner - James Webb, Professor Antoine Faivre, Gary Lachman, Colin Wilson and others - that presents Steiner warts, ego, hemorrhoids and all within the context of the Esoteric and Irrational movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries rather than as the whitewashed bodhisattva that some evidently would like to see posted here. For instance Steiner from 1902 to 1913 was leader of the German branch of the Theosophical movement a virulently anti-Semitic,anti-Catholic religious order. Steiner states that he knew from at least 1909 of extensive fraud taking place within the TS - yet remained General Secretary in Germany until expelled in 1913. Masteryorlando (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of balance / sounds like an advert for the subject 

message: User:Masteryorlando has added several additional statements to the section Attacks, illness and death (reverted here) which have several problems:
* The paragraph about Steiner's self-poisoning is completely unsourced and speculation.
* The statement that some attributed the destruction of the Goetheanum to "the level of animosity against Steiner after his creation of Eucharistic and other sacraments for the Christian Community" is not supported by the reference.
* The statements about the fire not being arson but caused by electrical fault need to be supported by quoting the specific statements of the referenced books. In any case, the entire paragraph amounts to original research.
* Similarly the insertion of reference to "Mussolini's Corporate Realpolitik" and "within a meritocratic fascist dictat" is either original research or unreliable speculation on James Webb's part. Specific quoted text is going to be needed to support these statements.
--EPadmirateur (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to remove the original research while maintaining the validly sourced parts. The Fortean Times, for example is not an encyclopedia-quality source. hgilbert (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Again, it is original research in the form of synthesis to claim that the reason the police report stated that arson was the cause of the fire was because Steiner assumed it was arson. Police reports of fires do not simply record the opinion of the owner, and in this case there was indeed an investigation. If you want to include more details of the many speculations about the causes this could go into a separate article, e.g. First Goetheanum fire. The police report is sufficient basis for this article. hgilbert (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation, original research and rumor 

message: Attempt to resolve secularisation of Rudolf Steiner presented in warring edits by Waldorf Teacher and Anthroposophical author Hgilbert in pursuit of the Anthroposophical movement's desire to play down the occult or religious nature of anthroposophy. History shows the article has been carefully sculpted by Hgilbert through 600 largely warring edits to present Steiner almost solely as a philosopher and artist (See the lead.) Compare this with the history section in the wikipedia entry for Steiner's anthroposophy - the movemement for which Steiner almost exclusively known - and which comprises the Waldorf School movement. There 2/3 of that section covers Steiner's role as head of the German Theosophical Society. A post which he held for 12 years - most of Steiner's ministry as the leader of a cult movement - as academics Ahern and Bell define it.] Hgilbert reduces this in his lead to merely 'links to theosophy' and refuses all changes giving entirely spurious reasons.
For this reason I would like to add to the lead:
  
After gaining recognition as a literary critic and cultural philosopher, and although he had been initially opposed to Theosophy,Rudolf Steiner, Theosophy Publ. Magazin fur Literatur 1897. Article at http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/node/4236 Steiner became General Secretary of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, from 1902 to 1913 and Arch Warden of its Esoteric School.Gary Lachman, Rudolf Steiner Peguin Books 2007 p.133 et seq. From within the Theosophical movement Steiner developed, out of his Rosicrucian initiation,Lachman ibid p.154, also see Édouard Schuré’s 1908 Introduction to the First French Edition of Rudolf Steiner’s Le Mystère Chrétien et les Mystères Antiques [Christianity As Mystical Fact and the Mysteries of Antiquity (1902)(GA0008)] 1st French Edition Publ. Paris, Librairie Academique, Perrin et Cie. 1908. An English translation of Schuré’s introduction was reprinted in the 1910 English language edition of Steiner’s The Way of Initiation: or, How to Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds Reprinted New York, McCoy 1910: "These lectures give a kind of summary of what Rudolf Steiner calls Anthroposophy … [a] vast and all-embracing philosophy. Its principles are contained in a theogony, cosmogony and psychology complete in themselves. It lays down the basis of a moral philosophy, an art of education, a science of aesthetics. … At the time when Rudolf Steiner entered the Theosophical Society - which he had chosen as his first field of action - he was already fully master of the doctrine he owed to his own [Rosicrucian] Initiation. These lectures, given in the year 1906, are proof of this. …The essential difference between Indian Theosophy and Anthroposophy lies in the supreme rôle attributed by Anthroposophy to the Christ in human evolution and also in its connection with Rosicrucian tradition."  a comprehensive step-by-step path to gnosis which "attempted to find a synthesis between science and mysticism" and for "applying scientific strategies to induce spiritual visions."R. Bruce Elder, Harmony and dissent: film and avant-garde art movements in the early twentieth century, Publ. Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 2008 , p. 32 His philosophical work of these years, which he termed spiritual science, sought, through meditation and cognitive exercisesGeoffrey Ahern, Sun at Midnight, Publ. Cambridge, Clarke 2010 Rev Ed. pp.87 et seq.(based on Ahern's Phd in Sociology of Religion for the London School of Economics) to develop clairvoyance - to lead "the spiritual in the human being to the spiritual in the universe." He called this esoteric and occultRudolf Steiner quoted in  "Rudolf Steiner: Herald of a New Epoch" by Stewart Copinger Easton Publ. Steinerbooks p.125 "I will ally myself only with a movement that is connected exclusively with Western occultism and cultivates its development" spiritual philosophy Anthroposophy. In a second phase, beginning around 1907, he began working collaboratively in a variety of artistic media, including drama and the movement arts, (developing a new artistic form, eurythmy) and later in architecture. 
   
For this purpose compare the Wikipedia.de lead which describes Steiner as
An Austrian occultist and philosopher. He founded anthroposophy, a gnostic belief system [2] [3], derived from Christian Theosophy, Rosicrucianism, and Idealistic Philosophy [4] and a part of the German Occult Revival  of the early 1900's [5]. Steiner's doctrine was influential in many different fields including education (Waldorf education), art (Eurythmy, Anthroposophical architecture), medicine (anthroposophic medicine) and agriculture (bio-dynamic agriculture).
with the current English lead which describes Steiner as 
an Austrian philosopher, social thinker, architect and esotericist.[3][4] He gained initial recognition as a literary critic and cultural philosopher. At the beginning of the 20th century, he founded a spiritual movement, Anthroposophy, as an esoteric philosophy growing out of European transcendentalism and with links to Theosophy. In the first, more philosophically oriented phase, Steiner attempted to find a synthesis between science and mysticism;[5] his philosophical work of these years, which he termed spiritual science, sought to provide a connection between the cognitive path of Western philosophy and the inner and spiritual needs of the human being.[6] In a second phase, beginning around 1907, he began working collaboratively in a variety of artistic media, including drama, the movement arts (developing a new artistic form, eurythmy) and architecture, culminating in the building of a cultural center to house all the artsSteiner led this movement through several phases. In the first, more philosophically oriented phase, Steiner attempted to find a synthesis between science and mysticism;[5] his philosophical work of these years, which he termed spiritual science, sought to provide a connection between the cognitive path of Western philosophy and the inner and spiritual needs of the human being.[6] In a second phase, beginning around 1907, he began working collaboratively in a variety of artistic media, including drama, the movement arts (developing a new artistic form, eurythmy) and architecture, culminating in the building of a cultural center to house all the arts, the Goetheanum. After the First World War, Steiner worked with educators, farmers, doctors, and other professionals to develop Waldorf education, biodynamic agriculture, anthroposophical medicine as well as new directions in numerous other areas.[7] Steiner advocated a form of ethical individualism, to which he later brought a more explicitly spiritual component. He based his epistemology on Johann Wolfgang Goethe's world view, in which “Thinking … is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas.”[8] A consistent thread that runs from his earliest philosophical phase through his later spiritual orientation is the goal of demonstrating that there are no essential limits to human knowledge.[9]
Consider comparing the Wikipedia bio also with reliable independent third party bio's by, for instance, respected author Gary Lachman (who authored the Penguin books bio aready extensively referred to in the Wiki and who, btw, like Hgilbert is sympathetic to Steiner) http://www.forteantimes.com/features/profiles/109/rudolf_steiner.html 
Lachman's website is here - http://garylachman.co.uk/
Lachman gives prominence in his article to Steiner's "super-sensible readings of the occult history of the world made available to him through what is called "the Akashic Record" ...telling them along the way about ancient Atlantis, life after death, astral and ætheric bodies, the true meaning of Christianity ...one of the most influential – and simultaneously vilified – forces in the spiritual and cultural life of early 20th-century Europe." and of "Steiner's efforts to lead the Spiritual in the human being to the Spiritual in the Universe." All of this has been excluded by Hgilbert.
 
Here another objective biography http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Sp-Z/Steiner-Rudolf.html
which describes Anthroposophy as "an offshoot of Theosophy" and Steiner as  "Influential in the worlds of ...occult studies"
Here another accurate (although sceptical) biography: http://www.skepdic.com/steiner.html which in its lead describes Steiner as 
"the head of the German Theosophical Society from 1902 until 1912, at which time he broke away and formed his Anthroposophical Society. ... by 1922 Steiner had established what he called the Christian Community, with its own liturgy and rituals for Anthroposophists....deeply interested in the occult. ...author of many books and lectures with titles like ...Occult Science: An Outline (1913), Investigations in Occultism (1920), How to Know Higher Worlds (1904)"
 
Here a bio put out by the Anthroposophical movement - note how closely it matches Hgilbert's continuous (600 or so) edits http://www.steinerbooks.org/aboutrudolf.html removing all mention of Steiner as a religious or spiritual cult leader (as many academics refer to him) also removing all mention of his movement being an occult movement - even though Steiner himself so described it and even though many reliable academics of esotericism refer to it.
ThanksMasteryorlando (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIAS IN ARTICLE Rudolf Steiner 

message: It is incorrect to describe the School of Spiritual Science as a University. 
(1.) Rudolf Steiner specifically stated that it was not a University.
See Rudolf Steiner, The Constitution of the School of Spiritual Science Publ. Rudolf Steiner Press, 1980  p.42
Steiner says therein : "The School of Spiritual Science cannot be a college or University in the usual sense. It will therefore make no effort to enter into competition with these or to act as a substitute for them." Instead, said Steiner, of the School  "esoteric penetration will be there for those who seek it at the Goetheanum."
(2.) Swiss Universities are chartered under Swiss law. The School of Spiritual Science is not so chartered.
Instead the purpose of the School of Spiritual Science
(1.) As it was formed in 1924 was as an "organ of initiative" for research and study and as "the soul of the Anthroposophical Society". (see Johannes Kiersch, A History of the School of Spiritual Science. Publ. Temple Lodge 2006. p.xiii.) BTW Temple Lodge the publisher was originally part of The Christian Community in London - so affiliated with the Goetheanum. The Anthroposophical Society sponsored Kiersch's book and paid for the translation. 
See also the Principles of the Anthroposophical Society adopted in 1925 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophical_Society#Principles whereby the Goetheanum is described in part as the School (principle 4) and the School is described as a centre of the Anthroposophical Society's activity (principle 5.)
(2) The purpose is described today by the School itself at its website at http://www.goetheanum.org/300.html?L=1 as follows: 
"In 1924 Rudolf Steiner developed a course of study based on meditative exercises that lead 'the spiritual in the human being to the spiritual in the universe.' This is the basis for the work of the School of Spiritual Science"Masteryorlando (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have adapted the text to read "School" rather than "University" hgilbert (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  School of Spiritual Science as University 

message: R Bruce Elder is referred to in the lead as the source for:
"In the first, more philosophically oriented phase, Steiner attempted to find a synthesis between science and mysticism" HOWEVER this quote is taken from a book on film history (R. Bruce Elder, Harmony and dissent: film and avant-garde art movements in the early twentieth century, , p. 32) and is taken entirely out of its context and absolutely does NOT say what the lead quote tries to make it say "to find a synthesis." The full context of the reference pp.31-32 is on the contrary as follows: "The occultists belief that reality is essentially a single all-pervading spiritual substance was the foundation [of Theosophy] ...Anthroposophy has something of the character of Christianized Theosophy for it depicts the Incarnation [of Christ] as a central event in the evolution of the cosmos...The problem as Steiner understood it, was this: How can one reconcile scientific and mystical insights with reality? ...Steiner believed he had worked out a method for applying scientific strategies to induce spiritual visions, which would allow people to validate empirically the contents of spiritual experience." 
To paraphrase this as "Steiner attempted to find a synthesis between science and mysticism" is a complete distortion.
Even were the author to say what the lead purports him to say, however, the author is a film critic unqualified as the "peer reviewed" academic required for such speculative pronouncements about Steiner.Masteryorlando (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: These are good points. I guess your reasoning would also preclude as a WP:RS Gary Valentine Lachman who was primarily a bassist for Blondie (band). Perhaps we have to look beyond the primary profession before deciding this issue. Or we have to exclude both sources, don't we? --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst I would certainly want to see corroboration of any controversial items written by Lachman, however to characterise Lachman as 'primarily a bassist for Blondie' in the context of his writing on the occult is absurd. Lachman is a respected University Lecturer on the Occult DESPITE not BECAUSE of his membership of Blondie. See here for a lecture he recently gave at Middlesex University  http://savemdxphil.com/2011/01/23/middlesex-philosophy-events-january-may-2011/ See here for his webpage: http://garylachman.co.uk/about-gary-lachman/  See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Valentine_Lachman#Literary_career. He has written 12 books on the occult, contributes regularly to respected Newspapers and Magazines in England on the subject and is recognized as an expert - albeit a popular rather than an academic writer. I would however certainly view a quote from Lachman about Steiner to be suspect if it was drawn from a book by Lachman about his band "Blondie" or from a book on "pop music". Clearly this is not the case in Lachman references being used here. Also I am not aware that Lachman is being used to back up any controversial statement in the article. There is clearly no controversy, I presume, about the truth of the FACT that "some said fire was arson and some said it might be electrical."  This sentence which I removed, on the contrary is written by a film critic who has no apparant academic qualifications at all with respect to Anthropsophy writing in a book about Movies.  Your riposte here again betrays clear evidence of bias.  You have noticeably completel failed to address that this quote is taken entirely out of its context and absolutely does NOT say what the lead quote tries to make it say Are you prepared for a mediator to mediate these issues because we seem to be getting nowhere fast wasting time on minutiae?Masteryorlando (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  R. Bruce Elder