Talk:Rudolf Steiner/Archive 2

message: I have reverted this article.  HGilbert, you are removing quotes that you don't care for and citing a need for a NPOV.  What's "Neutral" about the POV you are presenting here?  Nothing.  Once again, you are a Waldorf teacher with an investment in the promotion of Steiner.  There is nothing wrong with the quote I added except that you don't want anything here to demonstrate Steiner's own POV on the races.  If you can explain why the quote is not accurate, was taken out of context or doesn't in fact reflect Steiner's own POV, we can consider removing it.  Just ripping it out because you don't like what it says is not appropriate. --Pete K 20:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that all quotations were inherently NPOV and fair game? What happened, Pete? — goethean ॐ 14:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Karel, I wasn't sure how to take your comment as it came from an un-signed person at the heels of some recent vandalism.  As to getting people riled up - several of the people here have a history with each other going back several years - so some of this is just polemics transfered here from elsewhere. Pete K 13:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted Article - NPOV 

message: Please see here for discussion about the inclusion/exclusion of this source of information. --Pete K 20:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reference to the discussion page you mention is completely irrelevant. My description of ten of the fifteen quotes from the original published Steiner works, that I have added to the end of the article is based on my having the report by the Commission and having read the fifteen quotes from the original sources, that I describe. It is my description of them, not anybody else's. I have read them. You clearly have not. I will add the completely correct description of them, and expect that you not will take any more disruptive action regarding it. --Thebee 20:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Is your question a "Good faith" one? Your insinuation completely lacks a basis in reality. I took a pause from the English Wikipedia for a number of days, and just returned. When I did, I saw the discussion on the issue, checked the report and added the info that the Commission was an anthroposophical Commission to the description of it. --Thebee 21:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back.DianaW 01:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dutch Anthroposophical Society's Commission on Racism

message: I've not agreed to the list of mediation issues as formulated by (presumably)  et al. My reasons are as follows.
I can’t even agree to most of these “issues” as they are phrased prejudicially in favor of protecting the anthroposophical contributors' approach to these articles. Many of these don’t address real issues – they’re a stacked deck, phrased simplistically and benignly to sound like anyone who might disagree is just argumentative.
•	Exclusion of works by members of the Anthroposophical Society as sources on anthroposophy; in particular a report by a Dutch commission on Steiner's comments about race. (This is at issue in two articles) 
•	Consistency of a policy on identifying authors' affiliations (should authors not members of the A.S. be protected from any identification of their background or affiliations). 
Diana says: The “exclusion of works” is not the issue, nor is “protecting” anyone nor “consistency.” This is an attempt to make it sound like critics aren’t being fair, like “If our guy has to have his affiliations disclosed, then so does yours.” That’s not how scholarship works. The relevant issue re: the Dutch Commission and the material by Sven Hansson is that the former source is an *inappropriate* source to comment neutrally on anthroposophy in the first place, and the latter is an appropriate source, by scholarly standards. The nonneutrality of a source cannot be disguised simply by omitting the authors’ credentials and affiliations. That is why critics argued for their inclusion. Authors who are indeed neutral and fully appropriate sources, as is Hansson, do not need to have exactly where they got their PhDs or what their undergraduate thesis was on etc. discussed or even mentioned in the body of an article, and they certainly do not need to have their religious beliefs discussed in the article. No academic paper would ever do that. (I edit academic papers and I can tell you the various affiliations of the authors cited in the reference list are not discussed in the body of a paper – ever. The only time this could happen is in the anomalous situation where “response to criticism” on a particular issue was itself the SUBJECT of the paper. Then, it might be appropriate to explain from what quarters a particular response was issuing.) If the Dutch commission’s report on accusations of racism in anthroposophy is to be included in an article on Steiner’s racial views, it would have to be as an example of anthroposophical response to accusations of racism against anthroposophy – NOT as a supposedly neutral academic assessment of that racism - because it is not that, by academic standards. This is not difficult to understand but in particular it is not something that academics "negotiate" or "mediate" for particular articles. It just IS. An analogy in medicine is the way authors must now disclose if they are receiving funds from pharmaceutical companies, which impacts their neutrality if they are involved in research on agents made by those companies; these disclosure statements are now often printed right under authors’ names. *Irrelevant* affiliations, or other activities the author may be involved in that are not pertinent to the topic of the paper, are never mentioned, let alone discussed, in the body of the paper. I have very little doubt that this issue is clear to , Sune etc. The “issue” as stated above is formulated falsely, and IMO deliberately so.
•	Extent and number of quotations by Rudolf Steiner on race/ethnicity related topics in the main article Rudolf Steiner when an entire sub-article Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity is devoted solely to this question, and provides room for all such quotations. 
Again flatly dishonestly formulated. Clearly, “all such quotations” would have to be defined, or there is nothing to mediate here. What would “all such quotations” be, some specific number? Real scholarship would absolutely never proceed on such a basis. Absolutely never. “You may have 5 quotations as long as we can also have 5” etc. Absolute rubbish. I would never participate in that. The author can either write about what she believes is the relevant material, or she doesn't write the article – authors never negotiate about *how many quotes* they can include from a source with antagonists in the wings saying “You can have four, but not five” because they disagree with this author’s interpretation of the material. No reputable scholar would agree to such a project, and for wikipedia to allow hacks to do it just lowers wikipedia’s value.
• Use of links to pages including original research, or use of such pages as sources. 
o	Use of links to pages not including original research (transcripts or articles) residing on websites that do include original research 
Shamelessly dishonestly formulated. This refers to ’s attempt to cite (first) FIVE VOLUMES of Steiner’s complete works as a proper citation for a claim that Steiner wrote a series of articles for a magazine combatting antisemitism. When I protested this, he replaced the reference with a link to a web site, in German, that – as far as I can tell considering I don’t read German very well – includes *mention* of the name of this periodical, and perhaps even asserts that Steiner wrote this supposed series, but *still* doesn’t include a citation to the article itself. If it includes the citation,  could point it out, but he did not reply to this question from me, but has moved to “mediation” of his supposed “right” to link to such a page, with the context of the discussion removed. It would be a travesty to redefine this issue as “use of links to a certain type of web site” and then for him to be able to point to this point in the mediation and say it had been agreed to. It is absolutely not an appropriate academic citation, and I will certainly not agree to it. The issue is NOT whether it is ever appropriate to include a link to a particular type of web page. This is an attempt to redefine and thus dishonestly work around a REAL issue which is simple: the reference is bogus, and a “series of articles” cannot be cited unless the series of articles is going to be cited.
•	Inclusion of editorial commentary on sourced material ("This conclusion is not surprising given the author's obvious bias...", etc.) 
Also dishonestly formulated. That’s not what happened. “This conclusion is not surprising . . .” was not editorial commentary an editor added to the wikipedia article – it was a quote *from* a legitimate source.
•	Appropriateness of biographical information in the article about Rudolf Steiner (this is contested) 
Formulated either deliberately dishonestly or completely idiotically. Who in the world would try to claim that it isn’t appropriate to include biographical material in the article about Rudolf Steiner? The question is WHAT biographical material. I made a strong case that a lot of irrelevant material could be deleted. No one replied to that discussion other than to say inane things like "It's his biography." This right here is enough to disqualify your attempt at mediation. You're supposed to have attempted to work through issues prior to mediation. That means you need to *reply* to issues raised. I pointed out (for instance) that a goofy story about Steiner meeting a "simple herb gatherer" is inappropriate encyclopedia material. No one have given a justification for the inclusion of this fairy tale; no one replied at all. I suggested a silly discussion of Steiner being "deeply moved" in the presence of a comatose Friedrich Niezsche and then writing a book about Nietzsche be removed; in Nietzsche scholarship, no one pays any serious attention to Rudolf Steiner. If you would like to argue to include this material, then do so. Explain Rudolf Steiner's role in Nietzsche scholarship; justify the inclusion. Running to "mediation" saying "They want to cut Steiner's biography!" is silly childishness.
•	Objectivity of information in and tone of Waldorf education article 
Either come up with a real, definable issue or don’t waste people’s time. Obviously we’re all concerned with the objectivity of information and the tone of the Waldorf education article. 
•	Tone of comments on talk pages, including the question of whether Wikipedia policies such as the assumption of good faith and avoidance of personal attacks are being followed. 
Again a non-issue. What do you want people to agree or disagree with here? How can we mediate the “tone” of something? We want you to stop fawning and slobbering on Steiner; you want us to stop pointing out this nonsense and insisting on simple facts and objective assessments. You don’t agree, obviously, that our assessments are objective. This can’t be resolved by some kind of fiat regarding “tone of the article.” Either come up with some issues we can *actually* discuss or don’t waste people’s time.DianaW 13:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Request 

message: could people please put their comments after previous comments, and not interspersed. this page is now pretty much unreadable. --Vindheim 14:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unreadable comments 

message: I support the merging of the articles.  There are about 20 articles on this and similar, related subjects already.  Much of the information on Steiner is also in the article about Anthroposophy.  Merging the race and ethnicity article with this one would be very appropriate as it never should have been split off in the first place. Pete K 01:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is being discussed here. — goethean ॐ 16:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Welcome to Wikipedia, Egamirorrimeht. Just so everyone knows, Wikipedia administrators have the ability to check the IP addresses of accounts to see if people are using multiple accounts as sockpuppets. Do not do this. — goethean ॐ 20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is indeed controversial, but simply wiping it out is no solution right now. Please help us find a balanced presentation! Hgilbert 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to discuss such wholesale edits before making them.  This sort of thing is what got the articles locked up in the first place.  Just because you have a good idea doesn't mean everyone here will agree with it. Pete K 20:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

text: There has been a claim made that you are a sockpuppet.  Should any of us be satisfied with your suggestion that you are not and simply sharing a computer with someone else?  I know I'm not - no offense intended.  If you are sharing a computer with someone else, can you please let us know who they are so we won't think you are one person using two accounts?  Thanks! Pete K 21:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My claim was only based on the fact that is a new user with no edits prior to posting here, that he/she has a detailed understanding of the debate, and that immediately before, another anonymous poster commented. I have do not have his IP address information. Maybe he is the same user as User:64.185.4.7 (who commented above). — goethean ॐ 21:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I don't know who is speaking here - it would be helpful if you sign in.  From the spelling and grammar, it appears to be Sune.  So, you admit, it wasn't a sockpuppet - it was a meatpuppet.  Fair enough.  You can shorten it to yesterday's version and I'll repair whatever you do.  It makes no difference to me.  Better, however, to discuss the issues here and not go making wild edits that will be reversed.  Thanks! Pete K 23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I'm happy to discuss shortening the bloated article.  I think all the apologetic stuff should come out and his actual views - i.e. quotes from his books and lectures - should make up this article.  It is, after all, about his views.  Nobody can describe his views better than Steiner himself. Pete K 00:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Welcome to Wikipedia, Venado. — goethean ॐ 22:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, welcome Venado.  You're just in time to vote... LOL! Pete K 00:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, Steiner's biography is of very minor interest to the world.  Much of what is here is already covered in multiple sub-articles about his initiatives.  Most of what is on this page is redundant.  Pete K 23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just talking about the biography section here.  Most of it would interest a lot of people.  The discussion about his involvement in the Theosophical Society duplicates much from the subarticle.  It should be revised. Venado 00:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!  OK, if you say so.  I find it pretty boring personally, and believe it could be snappier and condensed without losing the main points which are, IMO, he was born, studied philosophy - eventually got his PhD, edited Goethe's scientific works - published Theory of Knowledge, wrote POF, joined the Theosophical society, got married, Pres of Theosophical Society in Germany, wrote Theosophy, KOW, OS, broke off from the TS and started Anthroposophical Society, remarried, etc.  Meeting herb gatherers is the type of stuff that belongs in a book - not an encyclopedia entry. Pete K 00:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We know Pete. The only thing you think is interesting and should be included in the article is reams upon reams of quotations exposing Steiner's racism. That's not really what Wikipedia is about. — goethean ॐ 14:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I urge you to learn more about Wikipedia's policy and mission. Please ask administrators. This is a biographical article. It is appropriate to describe Steiner's biography, whether superficially or in depth. It is also appropriate to describe the controversy around Steiner's views on race. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to take a side on a controversy. — goethean ॐ 17:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is arguing these things.  Here's what some people are arguing - that due to lack of space on this article, we shouldn't merge the "Steiner's views on race and ethnicity" article.  They believe we should separate out Steiner's views, and leave here his extensive but rather boring biography.  I'm arguing that his views are more important than his biography.  If you want to make a separate article about his biographical information, that's fine - but what defines Steiner is not his biography, but his accomplishments, philosophy, viewpoints and political activities.  Those are the topics that should be covered in the main article - as well as an edited biography.  An extensive biography is not required here. Pete K 18:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging Articles

message: *For a summary of the race issue with a link to the article Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity
Hgilbert 15:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please state your position

message: The article currently states:
Steiner believed that humanity is made up of individuals first and foremost, each of which exists sui generis: as a unique entity unto him- or herself, and that each individual passes through incarnations in changing settings. For Steiner, race and ethnicity are thus transient characteristics, not essential aspects of an individual. In addition, even in a given lifetime these are minor influences compared to more individual factors. Steiner also emphasized that race was rapidly losing any remaining significance for human development. One of his central principles was to battle racial prejudice; "any racial prejudice hinders me from looking into a person's soul".
I don't believe this to be correct.  I don't believe we are making it clear enough that when we say Steiner believed an individual passes through incarnations - that only some aspects of the individual pass from incarnation to incarnation (and the periods inbetween).  The statement above makes no distinction between the individual who had incarnated in a physical body (and an etheric body - and a race - and had abstract thoughts and scientific thoughts that cannot be retained after death) and the "individual" Steiner describes as the "inner kernel of our being" (what some of us might call the soul or spirit) having impulses and habits and desires - the part that DOES reincarnate.  When we discuss things like race, it is easy to incorrectly suggest that Steiner meant "individual" when he indeed meant "spirit".  The statement above, about racial prejudice is correct - Steiner was attempting to look past the individual into the soul behind the individual.  I would like to adjust the above paragraph to read as follows:
Steiner believed that humanity is made up of individual spirits first and foremost, each of which exists sui generis: as a unique entity unto him- or herself, and that each individual spirit passes through incarnations in changing settings. For Steiner, race and ethnicity are thus transient characteristics, not essential aspects of an individual spirit. In addition, even in a given lifetime these are minor influences compared to the "deeper being". Steiner also emphasized that race was rapidly losing any remaining significance for human development. One of his central principles was to battle racial prejudice; "any racial prejudice hinders me from looking into a person's soul". Pete K 03:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone has a better term than "individual spirit" - I'd be happy to use it. Pete K 03:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Pete: a little summary of the last developments:
* You and Diana denied that Steiner had written articles in the Journal of an organization opposing anti-Semitism; you claimed that anyone putting a statement to this effect in the article was "dishonest", in bad faith, and a host of other accusations. You now have been shown that he had; in fact, your accusations were totally out of order.
* Then you and Diana claimed that the wording used "weasel words"; the wording was quoted and you were asked to find any ambiguous or uncited wording. You could not for there are no ambiguous words, everything claimed is cited. 
* Then you claimed that the statement in the article somehow implied that Steiner's articles in question were against anti-Semitism - when it just stated that he had written the articles. This was, according to you, completely false, again a breach of good faith, more baseless accusations. In reality, however, it is not in the wording - you could find nothing there - but in the fact that he wrote those articles that this implication may be found. The fact is a fact, however. Now I've quoted from one of the articles and there is a link provided by another user to a copy of a whole other article, both of which prove that the articles are in fact against anti-Semitism; any inference that the articles were against anti-Semitism - if a user did in fact draw this - would be completely justified because the articles are of course against anti-Semitism. All of your accusations are false. 
* Finally, you continue to employ these accusations though all of them are totally baseless and have been proved so. You have provided no evidence of any kind throughout about the articles in question. All of your claims have been disproved. Please withdraw them or show evidence - and the fact that you can't read German is not evidence of anything but the fact that you've not read what we're talking about. Hgilbert 22:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I've responded to some of the above erroneous slop on my talk page, where it was also pasted in, and won't make a further mess here.DianaW 13:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Posted by Hgilbert 17:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims 

message: *On October 20, 2006: "I'm not trying to put the label of "antisemite" on Steiner. I never have."
*On October 20, 2006: "The fact that Steiner was in favor of assimilation rather than extermination doesn't make him less guilty of antisemitism. "
*On October 21, 2006: "there is lots and lots of information documenting Steiner's anti-semitic position "
*On October 22, 2006: "Steiner was a racist and an antisemite"
:Posted by Hgilbert 17:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pete's claims

message: :PeteK: "In and of themselves, six articles don't change or excuse a lifetime of antisemitism anyway, but I'll have a look at them."
:"... a lifetime of antisemitism"?
:* In 1881, at age 20, Steiner condemned the philosophy of Eugene Dühring, one of the most prominent German anti-Semites of his time, who argued for the physical annihilation of the Jews, as "barbarian nonsense". Rudolf Steiner: Briefe I (Letters I), pp. 44-5. (GA 38)
:* Steiner also expressed his vehement opposition in the 1890s (during his 30s) to what he described as the “outrageous excesses of the anti-Semites”, and he denounced the “raging anti-Semites” as enemies of human rights. Rudolf Steiner: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1897-1901 (Collected Essays on Cultural History and Current Events), pp. 198-9. (GA 31).
:* His criticism of anti-Semites as enemies of human rights indicates that he fully supported the complete legal, social and political equality of Jews in the same way as for everyone else, as the only solution to what at the time wass called the “Jewish question” (also by Theodor Herzl in 1891, the main initiator of political Zionism). The achievement of equality was something that only in stages was becoming a reality in large parts of Europe during the second part of the 19th century.
:* At 36, he wrote:
::"Value should be attached solely to the mutual exchange between individuals. It is irrelevant whether someone is a Jew or a German ... This is so obvious that one feels stupid even putting it into words. So how stupid must one be to assert the opposite!". Rudolf Steiner: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1887-1901 (Collected essays) September 1897. (GA 31).
:* As an active participant in and supporter of the "Association against Anti-Semitism" in Berlin at the turn of the 20th century, Steiner again criticized the anti-Semitism of the time, writing (at 39) in 1900:
::"I have never been able to see anti-Semitism as anything except a view that indicates in those who hold it an inferiority of spirit, a lack of ability to make ethical judgments and an insipidness […], that is a blow in the face for every person with a normal way of thinking.". Rudolf Steiner: Review of the novel Ahasver by Robert Jaffé. In: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1897-1901 (Collected Essays on Cultural History and Current Events), pp. 378-9. (GA 31).
:For more on the issue, see an overview of his views on Jewry and Judaism and their role in human culture.
:It does not quite support what you write.  --Thebee 09:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "As an active participant in and supporter of the "Association against Anti-Semitism" in Berlin at the turn of the 20th century, " - LOL. Diana felt the need to see where this link goes. It goes, of course, to Sune Nordwall's web site.DianaW 13:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Steiner against anti-Semitism

message: "This, my friend, is what Steiner was promoting - the assimilation of millions of Jews into Germanic culture." What rubbish, based purely on an invalid guilt by (bad) association argumentation. Steiner was for assimilation, like large groups of Jews in the West during his time. The nazis were for assimilation too, you write, not of Jews (but who cares, sounds good as defamatory guilt by association). And we all know the Nazis were Germans, don't we, trying to create a second guilt by association, building the association Nazis-Germans, Steiner ... Germans ...Nazis. Good one, Pete.
On "Jewry as such has long since outlived its time; it has no more justification within the modern life of peoples, and the fact that it continues to exist is a mistake of world history whose consequences are unavoidable. We do not mean the forms of the Jewish religion alone, but above all the spirit of Jewry, the Jewish way of thinking." (Steiner, GA 32, p. 152)
You say you like context (well at times at least), try Some comments on a libelous article on Waldorf education in Salon.com two years ago, somewhat edited
:The context from which the quote is taken, a review by the 27-year-old Steiner, as a literary critic in 1888 of the drama "Homunculus" by Robert Hamerling, indicates that it was made -- not as an anti-Semitic statement, which a superficial glance might seem to indicate, but in the historical context and spirit of the Jewish Enlightenment (the Haskalah).
:The Haskalah, as a movement of Jewish Enlightenment, developed from the end of the 18th up to the end of the 19th century, as part of the general development of the Enlightenment. It later led to the development of Reform Judaism.
:Like Enlightenment in general, the Jewish Enlightenment considered religion -- in the case of Haskalah, the Mosaic religion -- to be an outdated basis for human culture, thinking and action.
:Instead it argued, like Steiner, for the emancipation, integration and assimilation of Jewry into human culture in general. And its representatives at times expressed themselves far more radically than Steiner.
:On one of them, the socialist Moses Hess, historian Walter Laqueur in his History of Zionism (1972) (18) writes:
::“... like almost all his contemporaries, Hess turned his back on religion; the Mosaic religion (as he wrote in his diary) was dead, its historical role was finished and could no longer be revived. [...]
::"In his first book (The Sacred History of Mankind) he said that the people chosen by their God must disappear forever [...]” (19).
:No one would accuse Hess of anti-Semitism for the unreserved declaration of his belief at the time (1837) in the assimilation of the Jews, much as Steiner later proposed.
:The same applies to the Russian Zionist Leo Pinsker, who in 1882 in his book Autoemancipation wrote, expressing himself in much stronger words than Steiner, that in the Jews, the world could observe a people who resembled a living dead (20).
:These examples and Steiner's repeated and vehement argumentation against the anti-Semitism of his time indicate that his comment about Jewry was not, as one at first glance might be led to think in today's context after the Holocaust, part of an argument calling for the annihilation of the Jews, as the placement of the quote on the home page of the anti-Waldorf group tries to imply.
:Instead, Steiner argued for the complete opposite of this, namely the complete integration and assimilation of Jewry into society and culture in general. This view was also a common view among Jews in the West at this time, when Theodor Herzl started to argue for the opposite.
:A thorough investigation of Steiner shows a completely opposite picture to what the limited quote used in anti-Waldorf demagoguery tries to indicate.
:Throughout his life, Steiner rejected anti-Semitism, arguing that no one should be judged on the basis of their belonging to any sort of group, that is, as something more important than their qualities as individuals.
:(I wrote that, have the copyright to the text, and republish it here on this basis. Thanks for the opportunity to do it.)
: Thebee 19:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Instead it argued, like Steiner, for the emancipation, integration and assimilation of Jewry into human culture in general."  Cool!  The Jews could join the world of humans.  How nice.  Please don't try to convince me Sune - your arguments are, as usual, the same nonsense supported by more nonsense.  If you can support your position with real references, please feel free to do it.  If you're just going to point to your own personal summaries, please don't bother - it's a waste of my time to even read it.  In the mean time, I will make my case and we will have the same issue as we do with racism - you trying to hide everything I say, and me trying to reveal the truth.  Good luck to you in this, the latest of edit wars. Pete K 20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On guilt by association argumentation

message: On "Instead it argued, like Steiner, for the emancipation, integration and assimilation of Jewry into human culture in general." you comment:
:"Cool! The Jews could join the world of humans. How nice."
"... human culture in general" meant "Human culture not bound to any specific national identity", not your twisted description "the world of humans". The fertilization of all sorts of cultures by people of Jewish origin and/or faith, contributing to their development, has also developed since the beginning of the Diaspora, not least the last century of all sorts of anthroposophically based activities world wide, including the U.S. Thebee 01:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great - now you characterize Jews as fertilizer. You should quit while you're way behind. Pete K 02:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the one who comes across as crazy here is not primarily Thebee. --Vindheim 19:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, thanks for weighing in on this one big guy... Pete K 20:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 
Big surprise - this came from . Pete K 02:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is actually a Wikipedia standard message reminding people about the purpose of these articles and Wikipedia policy. Hgilbert 02:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shove your reminders . This is a controversial issue, and people here are behaving like children.  You loaded up DianaW's talk page with these reminders last week while she was out of town.  That's childish nonsense and you are using Wikipedia policy to intimidate people.  Again, these articles are controversial - there's a reminder on the top of every page.  We don't need your daily reminders as well. Oh, and thanks to the sockpuppet for weighing in.  Pete K 15:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Thanks Boogafish, I wanted to correct that I don't write children's books - I write technical books and I'm currently writing a book about Waldorf education.  Pete K 23:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No personal attacks 

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

message: For some comments from the Waldorf schools in Berlin-Brandenburg on the German TV-program from 2000, that you added a link to as reference, trueblood, see http://www.thebee.se/comments/Germany/Germany.htm and http://www.thebee.se/comments/Germany/report-with-comments.htm Did you get the link from the WC-site? As for Pete, at present he's on a 24-hour block until 22:57 for Edit warring of one article, Boogafish. On the 3rr rule: Boogafish reverted your links two times, trueblood. Violation of the WP:3RR rule only takes place with the fourth revert. Thebee 21:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your concern... I'm back apparently... Pete K 23:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i did not allege racism, i just stated the fact, that anthroposophy was heavily attacted and criticised for being what was perceived as racist. this is what is notable and what should be in the article. that is different from trying to prove in the article that steiner was racist. got all those links from a google search steiner racism. i thought boogafish impolite because he reverted right away, a referenced edit without really discussing with me. that is exactly the sort of behavior that starts edit wars and i would have tried to get him blocked had he reverted another time for edit warring.trueblood 11:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

message: Now, our friend Boogafish has put out an advertisement soliciting meat puppets:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/29567
Attention everyone, on the Rudolf Steiner page on Wikipedia.org, there
is a great deal of controversy regarding race (and many, many other
issues)
Currently, there is an subarticle on Steiner's "racial views" that is
even longer than the subarticle on his contributions to Christianity.
There's a fierce opponent of Steiner on wikipedia named Pete K who
reminds me alot of Dan Dugan and he is attempting to totally pervert
Steiner's legacy. Many people believe Wikipedia to be somewhat of a
credible source and I, therfore, don't want to see many newcomers
recieve a distorted view. So I've been working hard over there trying
to get things done, but there's only one of me.
Anyways, regardless of anyone's position on the issues over there,
your presence would be MOST welcome. We just need more activity over
there so that a distorted viewpoint doesn't become "the viewpoint."
:Warm Regards,
:Boogafish
I'm not inclined to visit the other Anthroposophical websites to see if it appears there too - but I would suggest that new visitors who jump in here to make edits might be viewed with some scrutiny.  BTW, Boogafish, people who are trying to distort what Steiner actually wrote and professed are the ones who are perverting Steiner's legacy.  Pete K 18:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Call for Meat Puppets

message: Trueblood- Look, you are not getting it. This has nothing to do with whether or not what you posted was neutral. The subsection on race should not even exist. Its very existence makes the page un-neutral. (re-read the Wikipedia policy I posted in my previious "incarnation.")The FACT is that the section on race should not even exist. It is a minority view, much as the flat-earth society is a minority view of geography. The example in the wiki policy states that the flat-earth society posting their views on the main article for "Earth" would make the page slanted. Wikipedia is not the place for minority viewpoints, no matter how correct they think themselves to be. Those viewpoints can be expressed in their own article, but not in the main article. Again, read what I posted earlier before you had me blocked.   
-    
- I tried posting this earlier, but Trueblood had me blocked before I could get it up onto the discussion page. I chose to delete the section "Race and Ethnicity" because, after looking at the wikipedia standards a bit more, I believed it to make the article biased. At the very least, it makes it disproportiate. I think we're all losing sight of the article as a whole here too, because of this one section. So I wanted to delete it for the time being, until we decide whether or not it should even belong. Meanwhile, we should expand the other sections so that, if we decide the Race subarticle does have a place, then at least at that time, it wouldn't be disproportionate.    
-    
- I'm not going to post here anymore until my block is up because I respect wikipedia's blocking me. I just wanted to post what I was in the middle of writing at the time I was blocked is all....Boogafish2 23:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that the subsection on race should not exist is ridiculous Boogafish (or Boogafish2 as the case may be).  I think you need to get a handle on what you are trying to accomplish here.  If it is to eliminate all traces of the race issue with Steiner, you should be aware of the fact that your opinion about this is the minority opinion - even among the Anthroposophist editors here apparently.  Nobody before you, that I know of, has suggested that the entire topic should be deleted completely from the article.  Please know, for certain, that it will never be completely effaced from this article. Pete K 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boogie wrote: "The subsection on race should not even exist. Its very existence makes the page un-neutral." Say what? Come again? Please try to make sense. The very existence of a subsection in the Steiner article discussing Steiner's views on race makes the page un-neutral only if you believe that the facts of his views on race are not fit for public consumption, and the public should be shielded from learning of them. Is that what you believe? Considering you're on at least one anthroposophical mailing list at the moment trying to recruit people to come over here and support your position, I'm guessing that *is* what you think. Look: face facts. Getting any mention of Steiner's racial views deleted from the Steiner articles on wikipedia is going to be a losing proposition. There are a number of us who will fight a whitewash very vigorously. You can always hope one or the other of us will go away for a few days - but we'll be back, and we aren't the only ones. Give up attempts to REMOVE Steiner's racial views from the Steiner articles here - there's literally no chance of succeeding at this.DianaW 02:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

text: "Pete, it is justified scholastically because mainstream scholars have never accused Anthroposophy of being founded on rascist principles." That's just not true. "Mainstream encyclopedias never accuse Steiner or Anthroposophy of rascism." I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with it (even if true).  Regarding the Wikipedia guideline - the point you are making is completely false.  It is not a minority viewpoint, it is not something nobody currently believes, it's a major part of Steiner's biography (as I have said to you at least twice now).  I get that you don't agree.  So what?  "I think it's getting closer to voting time on this."  No need - this place is crawling with Anthroposophists who would love to remove any mention of racism in this article.  That's not going to happen, as I said.  That Steiner didn't produce racist remarks is the minority view - and even the Dutch Commission of Anthroposophists refute this claim.  So the race and ethnicity section stays.  You can hold kangaroo court if you like, but it won't matter a bit (meaning no disrespect here) - your opinion is not the majority opinion - even if it's the opinion of the majority of editors concerned with Steiner's article.  Pete K 22:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go somewhat easy on this person - I think this is a teenager.DianaW 02:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Diana.  OK Boogafish, I appreciate what you are trying to do here.  So let's not get in a pissing contest about it.  Let's discuss your reasonable edits calmly and see where they take us.  If they are reasonable, I will agree to them.  If they are a whitewash of Steiner, I won't.  I will not concede the point, however, that Anthroposophists are the minority opinion here - and that the world's view of Steiner is different than the view of Anthroposophists.  You've already seen in this article how it has been impossible for Anthroposophists to produce an unbiased source that suggests Steiner's work is free of racism.  But I will, as I said, consider reasonable edits that we have discussed first.  I look forward to these discussions, BTW, as it will give us both an opportunity to examine our positions carefully.  Fair enough? Pete K 04:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Um... that doesn't mean you get to make it - just because you can explain it.  We discuss things here and attempt to come to an agreement.  You are spinning your wheels if you think simply explaining your position is enough to wipe out or add in huge sections of text.  Some actual discussion has to transpire.  When there is disagreement, that's a good sign that you still need to discuss your points.  When someone hasn't responded, that's a good sign they haven't had time to respond. Pete K 18:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, BTW, it appears four editors have weighed in here and disagreed with your intended edit. Pete K 18:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boogafish, I'm here ready to discuss this edit with you and you have been silent.  So far, you seem to insist on the approach of just wiping out other work - most of it is language that took months of discussion and debate to arrive at - and expect everyone here to accept your proposed edit.  This seems a little naive on your part, and bullying isn't going to get you very far.  Lots of editors have lots of time invested in this article - and you show up expecting to ram your POV down everyone's throats?  I don't think so.  If there is something of your edit that you would like to ADD to the article, without removing the work of the other editors here, we should discuss this.  If it is still your intention to destroy the work of others without discussion, so that you may push your POV, you may find that more difficult to accomplish. Pete K 01:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Wow, I can't believe the latest link comment "The Nazi movement in Germany repeatedly investigated Steiner's ideas and found them absolutely incompatible with racist ideology" - cool!  So the Nazi's give Steiner's ideas a look and claim they don't measure up to the Nazi's view of racist ideology.  This shows how deep Anthroposophists have to dig to find someone outside of Anthroposophy who doesn't think Steiner's ideas were racist.  It's mazing to me that they would want to include this reference. Pete K 17:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It borders on the surreal. This is cited in order to show that "reception of Steiner's ideas about race has ranged from sharp criticism of these as racist to warm praise of his uncompromising stance against racism" - in support of the latter, in case you're in any doubt; this shows that some people - er, some Nazis - have responded with "warm praise" to Steiner's antiracism. Sometimes, Pete, it is better to let Steiner's defenders shoot themselves in the foot. This is spectacularly bizarre.DianaW 18:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Quite a Nazi

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

message: There is no justification for adding "extreme forms"; Steiner criticized anti-Semitism generally: see: (from
Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus).) Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus)., Steiner wrote the following critiques of anti-Semitism 
*"the banal factionalists who invented the 'German man' in order to have as euphonious a phrase as possible to justify their anti-Semitism" 
*"...the senseless prating of the anti-Semites."
**"Anti-Semitism doesn't exactly have at its disposal a wide range of thoughts, or even of clever clichés or slogans. When the adherents of this 'view of life' express their hearts' dull feelings, one has to hear the same worn-out platitudes over and over." 
*"Those dull feelings out of which anti-Semitism, among other things, arise have the unique quality that they undermine all directness and plainness of judgement....Through anti-Semitism, logic is dethroned." 
*"Whoever keeps his eyes open today recognizes that it is untrue to say that that the sense of unity between the Jews themselves is greater than their sense of unity with modern culture. If it appeared to be so during the last few years, then anti-Semitism has contributed a significant part of this. Anyone who has, as I, seen with horror the devastation that anti-Semitism causes in the hearts and souls of noble Jews must come to this conviction." 
*"Anti-Semitism is not only a danger for the Jews, but also for the non-Jews. It comes out of an attitude that is not compatible with healthy, honest judgment. It encourages such an attitude."
*[A writer, Kunowski] "shows how an idealistic human being must think about this 'question'. Namely, Kunowski rejects all anti-Semitism definitively....Kunowski formulates the concept of a 'people' so that every anti-Semitism is incompatible with his formulation.... Kunowski wishes to lead what is significant in all races into the civilization of the future: 'The morality of the Jews, the government of the Romans, the art of the Greeks, the pyramids of the Egyptians' must unite themselves in us....'On our altars rest cross, sickle and Ark, in our forests wander Zarathustra, Moses, Socrates, Dante, Rousseau, in our fields grow anew Jerusalem, Athens, Sparta, Florence and Paris.' Kunowski sets his own standpoint against the petty racial standpoint with these words: 'The goal...is to generate a new civilized human being, who is neither German, nor Roman, nor Semite.'"</ref> 
*In his 30s, he continued to criticize what he described as the “outrageous excesses of the anti-Semites”, and denounced the “raging anti-Semites” as enemies of human rights. He strongly supported full legal, social and political equality for  Jews — advocating their complete assimilation, and questioning the justification for founding a separate Zionist state. Rudolf Steiner: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1897-1901 (Collected Essays on Cultural History and Current Events), pp. 198-9. (GA 31).
====Connecting two quotes====
TheBee, your latest edit strings together two quotes as one.  The source I have them from shows them as two separate quotes - both from the same reference and page, but not necessarily attached as you have attached them.  I believe they should be separated again.  If you can confirm that they are contiguous, please do.  Meanwhile, I'll separate them again.  Thanks. Pete K 03:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: anti-Semitism

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

message: I've added this article to the artcle RfC page. Let's get some neutral editors in here who know WP policies. —Hanuman Das 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to go argue your case here. You'll simply reduce the amount of time it takes to get blocked. :-) —Hanuman Das 02:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

text: What are you talking about? Nobody made any such assertion. They are, imo, notable. —Hanuman Das 02:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You couldn't be more wrong about this RottenTomatoe.  Racism/ethnicity/assimilation - those WERE Steiner's philosophy.  They are cornerstones of Anthroposophy - whether you acknowledge this or not.  Anthroposophy is founded on ideas like some races are more evolved than others, some are childlike while others are the race of the future.  Races come and go - some races, Native Americans, for example, were spiritually ready for extinction.  Other races, like the Semitic races, were to be assimilated after they had fulfilled their purpose.  Steiner believed the races evolved separately.  These are basic Anthroposophical tenets.  They are part of Steiner's beliefs - not just a belief system he held - but a belief system he created and promoted - one that is being promoted today.  And promote Steiner did... in many written works, the ideas of assimilation.  Steiner was involved in the political unrest of his time.  And what he believed, and what he promoted ABSOLUTELY belongs in this article. Pete K 02:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: You're right - and I guess that says something about the brainwashing that goes on in Waldorf <G>. Pete K 01:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bin Laden is like Hitler. First one to mention him loses the argument. :-) —Hanuman Das 01:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to know - I'll cut down on my Hitler comparisons... Pete K 01:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Godwin's Law. —Hanuman Das 01:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks.  So as long as the comparisons are valid, I'm OK. <G>  Pete K 02:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But be careful of Reductio ad Hitlerum. —Hanuman Das 02:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. that one even mentions Reductio ad Binladenum at the end. :-) —Hanuman Das 02:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: " may also be described as argumentum ad nazium" ROFLWMP... Great!!! Pete K 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comments 

message: I don't have the time to enter a more deep discussion on the appropriateness of describing Steiner's criticism of the antisemitism of his time as only a criticism of its extreme forms, or if his criticism also included anti-Semitism in other forms at his time.
The logic of Pete's argument to a quick and admittedly superficial view looks like: "Steiner himself was an extreme anti-Semite. This means that he could not have criticized just the anti-Semites of his time in general. Logic requires that he only could have criticized more extreme anti-Semites than himself. As that is logical, it must also have been the case." Pete then tries to "prove" that Steiner was an extreme anti-Semite by quoting a number of passages from the published works of Steiner at different times. A closer look at Steiner's work contradicts this extremely simplified and simplifying black-and-white view of Pete.
See for example http://www.waldorfanswers.org/AAntisemitismMyth.htm 
On:
:"Jewry itself has long since outlived its time"
A look at the time indicates that the statement was not an anti-Semitic statement, but was part of an expression of the Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah) from the end of the 18th and into the 19th century, during which a Zionist like the Russian Leo Pinsker, who in 1882 in his book Autoemancipation wrote, expressing himself in much stronger words than Steiner, that in the Jews, the world could observe a people who resembled a living dead. For more on this, see here.
On
:"I took an active part in the struggle which the Germans in Austria were then carrying on in behalf of their national existence."
Thas is a mistranslation. He did not in his autobiography write that he took an active part in the struggle of Germans for their national existense. He wrote that he took a keen (or active) interest in the issue, as he also took a keen interest in many other issues at the time. The proper translation is found here:
:"I took a keen interest in the struggle which the Germans in Austria were then carrying on in behalf of their national existence"
According to Lorenzo Ravagli, the statement
:"Actual antisemitism is not the cause of this Jewish hypersensitivity, ..."
was made at a time of a temporarily lost importance of anti-Semitism, and similar to a polemic during a Zionist congress against Herzl, the main inititior of political Zionism. 
At another time he expressed himself in the opposite direction:
:"Anyone who has an open eye for the present, knows that it is incorrect, when it is asserted that the affinity between Jews is greater than their affinity with the strivings of modern culture. Even if it has looked that way during the last years, it to a high degree has been the result of the anti-Semitism. Anyone who, as I, with shudder has seen what the anti-Semitism has accomplished in the souls of noble Jews, must come to this conviction." (GA 31, p. 409)
On Steiner's alleged comments on "The semitic race" and its tasks. The more full context of the quote is found here. A closer look at the original tells that he does not refer to Jewry as a "race", but to it as "Jewry" (Judentum) in the original, and that when he mentions is as one of two races, the Mongoles and Jewry, he adds "so to speak" qualifying it, maybe one reason being that the Mongols were understood to be one of the five main human varieties or "races" of humanity at the time, while Jewry was not.
The lecture can also hardly be described as anti-Semitic, telling also:
:"You will now understand the peculiar character of the people and its mission. In a profound occult sense the Biblical writer was able to claim that Jahve or Jehovah had made this people his own. If you add to this the fact that Jahve cooperated with the Mars Spirits who worked principally in the blood, you will understand why continuity of the blood from generation to generation was of particular importance to the Semitic Hebrew people and why Jahve describes Himself as the God who is present in the blood of the generations, in the blood of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and further on. When he declared: "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", He proclaimed that He was present in the blood-stream of the Patriarchs. Whatsoever works in the blood, whatsoever must be determined through the blood - the cooperation with the Mars Spirits - that is one of the mysteries which give us a deep insight into the wise guidance of all mankind."
That's hardly a way an anti-Semite of any known kind would express himself, pointing to how simplified Pete's view of Steiner as an allegedly extreme anti-Semite is, and depriving his - to a quick and superficial view - seeming possible argumentation for a logical necessity(?) for Steiner only to have criticized extreme forms of antisemitism of its relevance.
And did Steiner have a just simple view that Jewry as a spiritual stream "should" disappear, as it had fulfilled its great task (what anti-Semite spoke of a task of Jewry in human history?) to "single-handedly" provide a necessary monotheistic polarity to polytheism in human history? No. During lectures during his "theosophical" time, he not only pointed the importance of Abraham in human history (what anti-Semite would have done anything remotely similar?), but also to the continued importance of Moses, as something that did not end in the past, but will continue into the future. 
Did Steiner only criticize the extreme forms of anti-Semitism of his time?
Not according to my memory, when I looked at his writings, like:
:"Anti-Semitism is not only a danger for Jews, it is also a danger for non Jews. It arises out of a way of thinking that does not seriously strive for sound, straightforward judgments. Anti-Semitism promotes this way of thinking. And anyone who thinks philosophically should not just observe that passively. The belief in ideas will only return to prevalence if we oppose the contrary unbelief in all areas as energetically as possible." (Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1887-1901 (Collected essays) (GA 31), Dornach 1989, 20 and 27 November 1901.)
But I don't have the time to look closer again at the moment. Thebee 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you should take the time to look closer Sune.  Your pre-packaged arguments to these claims may work for you on your self-promotional websites, but not here.  Steiner's views are plain for everyone to read and don't require the apologetic pretzel-twisted manipulations you have offered here as explanation.  In reality, Steiner did have a short period of time where he was conflicted - 1897-1901 - about the role the Jews should play in the world - and it is primarily from this period that your quotes are harvested.  He appeared, for a short period of time, to speak against anti-Semitism while simultaneously maintaining a stance that condemned Zionism - claiming it to be the main cause of anti-Semitism.  His position changed when he embraced Theosophy and began working on Anthroposophy - to the position that he maintained for the remainder of his life - the assimilation and disappearance of Jewish culture.  He was especially concerned with the race of the ancient Hebrews - only for their significance in preparing the path for the Christ stating "racial continuity through the blood-stream was of particular importance to the Semitic-Hebrew people" (Steiner, The Mission of Folk Souls p. 105).  So, if you don't have the time to discuss this intelligently without continually referencing your pre-packaged arguments, please save it for when you have more time.  Thanks! Pete K 20:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Pete's quotes

message: Pete keeps repeating the nugget he found to link Steiner and antisemittism, namely the use of the word "assimilation". This word is however a mainstream political expression today, being  used by politicians from the soft left to the middler  right  for  the gradual process of adaptation by immigrants into mainstream  society. see Cultural_assimilation . In European politics the principle of assimilation is opposed only by extreme groups on  the right and left. Steiners thinking on this point therefore places him squarely in the political mainstream of today, at least in Europe, where he happened  to spend most of his life .  --Vindheim 18:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nonsense.  Steiner's version of assimilation was NOWHERE near what the political mainstream of today considers as assimilation.  Additionally, it didn't put him near the mainstream of European thought in his day either.  Most people, especially Jews of his time absolutely insisted that assimilation included the Jews holding on to their cultural identity, religion, language and so forth.  This is not what Steiner had in mind.  Maybe you should get the facts straight before trying to correct me on this.  Thanks! Pete K 18:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We obviously disagree on who is spurting nonsense here. The  expression "assimilation" is not vey well defined, and is used to cover a wide variety of politcal positions. None of them racist, however. --Vindheim 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If you were interested in finding  complex truths, you   would by  now have acknowledged that "racism" signifies a lot more than belief in the existence of races.  --Vindheim 20:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You bet!  Racism requires that one race be elevated above another.  In Steiner's case, this is easily seen in the fact that he wanted one race (the white race) to remain while he wanted the Semitic "race" to disappear.  Forgive me if I disagree with you about the complexity of this situation.  Pete K 06:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Exactly. Therefore Steiner by any NPOV qualifies as a believer in the existence of races, not as a racist.--Vindheim 12:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Steiner was EXACTLY a racist for that reason.  Please don't make me dig out all the quotes again.  He elevated the white race above others.  Your assertion to the contrary, without evidence is not advancing your position on the topic at all. Pete K 15:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

text: (sigh) given he used the phrase "the white race" you still have to come  up with instances of  some form of discriminatory practice to make the  point that Steiner was a racist, and not only - like most people at the time - a believer in the existence of races.--Vindheim 17:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, are you blind? "The Negro race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course quite absurd that thisrace is now playing such a large role in Europe" quoted just above is clearly and undeniably racist. Ask anybody who doesn't have an agenda of whitewashing Steiner like you do. -999 (Talk) 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the claim of racism is not the same as the claim of bigotry or even racial discrimination.  Please, Vindheim, get your facts straight and don't assume something that isn't there.  I haven't made a claim of "discriminatory practice", and it is not part of the definition of the word "racism".  There were, indeed, some discriminatory practices that Steiner endorsed, but those are not being claimed here. Claims that one race is better, more elevated, or "the race of the future" is unmistakably racism.  Pete K 18:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I'm just about to leave for a month I probably won't see the response, but I'm willing to bet that Steiner never said something like "The White race does not belong in India, and it is of course quite absurd that this race is now playing such a large role in India." -999 (Talk) 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... no, he didn't say anything like that.  The closest to it is the quote above, "the white race or the Caucasian  belongs in Europe".  So, you're sure you don't want to stick around for the Waldorf arbitration <G>... Pete K 19:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  assimilation and extremism 

message: A recent publication by  Colin Kidd, professor of Modern  History, has  the  following to say on the connection between theosophy and racism:
: Indeed Theosophy proclaims itself a religion of global racial and religious reconciliation. Yet, despite this overt anti-racialist message, Theosophy betrays its origins in the racialist atmosphere of the late nineteenth century and is saturated in the language and ideas of Victorian ethnology. Although Theosophy, it should be clear, was not a racialist organisation, its scriptures contained both a decidedly anti-racist spirituality and a countercurrent of racialist thinking. (Kidd, Colin (2006) The Forging of Races, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 237)
: I believe this  statement easily can be used to characterize Steiners relationship to racism as well. His theories postulate the existence of discrete races of human beings, and palces them   differentlyin an evolutionary chart of humanity, but neither he nor the movements  originating in his   teachings   can fairly be characterized as "racist". --Vindheim 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know you believe this.  It's really sad, IMO. Pete K 19:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have anything to suggest, other than your belief, that the statement "refers to Steiner's relationship to racism as well"? Pete K 20:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Your quotation is inaccurate, Pete. I shall, however,  refrain from drawing any conclusion from that. Colin Kidds discussion is relevant for anyone  who seek a deeper truth than shades of black and white.  You figure out if that might apply to yourself. --Vindheim 20:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Deeper truth" is meaningless to me - other than it suggests I need taller boots to wade through it. Pete K 20:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So I gather.--Vindheim 21:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An academic statement 

message: i removed the following section:
===Multicultural emphasis===
Steiner was early in seeing the challenges of a multicultural society. He articulated the need for a spirituality that could respect and unite all religions and cultures. His line of thought can be summarized as follows:
Many people, especially those of Eastern cultures, see the need for a spiritual basis for a culture. Others, especially in the West, live in a materialistic framework that has achieved astonishing results, especially through the achievements of modern science, but has abandoned its spiritual roots. Steiner suggested that, without a reconciliation of these two, a clash of cultures would be inevitable. He suggested that the East (for Steiner, characteristically spiritually centered people and peoples) would only respect the West (characteristically people and peoples who focus on external reality and achievements) when a new spirituality arose in the West, a spirituality that united the achievements of both cultures. Richard Seddon (ed.): Rudolf Steiner. Western Esoteric Masters Series. North Atlantic Books 2004 
reason, i have not com across this 'multicultural emphasis' in anthroposophy, but rather eurocentrism whereever i look. do i hear someone cry OR, well the way it is put here does not convince me and the quote from a book with that title does not sound appropiate to me.
trueblood 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: from looking at amazon i gather that this book is an anthroposophical book, so it's out anyway is it not?trueblood 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  multiculti 

message: Steiner was early in seeing the challenges of a multicultural society. He articulated the need for a spirituality that could respect and unite all religions and cultures. His line of thought can be summarized as follows:
Many people, especially those of Eastern cultures, see the need for a spiritual basis for a culture. Others, especially in the West, live in a materialistic framework that has achieved astonishing results, especially through the achievements of modern science, but has abandoned its spiritual roots. Steiner suggested that, without a reconciliation of these two, a clash of cultures would be inevitable. He suggested that the East (for Steiner, characteristically spiritually centered people and peoples) would only respect the West (characteristically people and peoples who focus on external reality and achievements) when a new spirituality arose in the West, a spirituality that united the achievements of both cultures. Richard Seddon (ed.): Rudolf Steiner. Western Esoteric Masters Series. North Atlantic Books 2004 
reason, i have not com across this 'multicultural emphasis' in anthroposophy, but rather eurocentrism whereever i look. do i hear someone cry OR, well the way it is put here does not convince me and the quote from a book with that title does not sound appropiate to me.
trueblood 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: from looking at amazon i gather that this book is an anthroposophical book, so it's out anyway is it not?trueblood 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multicultural emphasis