Talk:Anthroposophy/Archive 5

message: It's not the same thing to write a minority subject page than it is to write a majority subject page. Even though Wikipedia generally encourages usage of secondary sources, it is not wrong to use minority publications on a page about themselves. When writing a minority subject page there is a risk ending up to write it only as some majorities see them. That is not in accordance with the NPOV policy. It sais on Wikipedia:Attribution that secondary sources should be used wherever possible, however, in many cases on a page like this it is not possible. I've been going through policy pages and arbitration decisions and I don't think there is any reason why anthroposophical publications couldn't be used to state views of anthroposophists here. If an anthroposophical book says something which majority people find controversial, it is still not (usually) controversial that the author thinks that way. It can be put in as the author's view, or sometimes as a view of anthroposophists, depending on a book. I hope a peaceful solution can be found to this. I don't insist that pages should be written with brochure language or that there couldn't be majority views on it. I hope there will be a way of writing some fair descriptions of anthroposophical views, using anthroposophical sources, to make sure that these pages go along with the NPOV policy. Erdanion 14:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minority subject page 

message: User:RookZERO has made a seemingly arbitrary revert of several editors' edits. The history of his/her talk page shows a pattern of intrusive edits. I will revert and ask that edits will be addressed individually, with discussion on the talk page if there are larger issues here. Hgilbert 13:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary revert 

message: One user keeps putting in UNESCO in the text of the introductory paragraph. UNESCO has made no such claim (about the practical influence of anthroposophical ideas). Three authors are cited, one of whom was published in a UNESCO-published magazine about education. This is not the same as UNESCO making a claim. In addition, all three authors concur and no verifiable source disputes this. We need to find accurate wording here. Sourcing the claim to UNESCO is clearly inaccurate. Hgilbert 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the claim is not from UNESCO, the the authors who are making the statement or the journal in which they are writing should be cited by name rather than simply stating their research as fact.  (RookZERO 20:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not write the all of authors' names in your three or four or ten or however many links followed by a direct quote about the impact of Anthroposophy from at least one of them?  (Incidentally, 4 does not constitute a "wide range").  (RookZERO 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "UNESCO" edit 

message: I've only skimmed some of this but dose 8 pages being referenced 18 times (^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Robert McDermott, The Essential Steiner, , pp. 3-11) seem excessive & questionable, as if one offline source is being used to avoid fact tags? I've only just come across the article but it seems unusual to have such a small reference referred to so many times, if it is legitimate then some explanation is needed to avoid these comments being repeated. It calls into question if some of the areas referenced should be combined.--Nate 18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A reason why this book has been used many times could also be, that it includes quite much non-disputable kind of general information. There are over 60 notes on this page as a whole. If there are particular places you don't like they could be discussed and maybe improved. Erdanion 10:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point was that I have seen a similar tactic used to add POV info to articles before, I haven't had a chance to even see if my local library has it to fact check but the comment asking about it was reasonable, as to specifics I intent to have a look when I get the time --Nate 12:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over Sourcing 

message: Someone made reductions which I think were not necessary. If you want to reduce, it would be a could idea to discuss about it. With a reduction important meanings might change as well, and I think that at least in one place that happened. Erdanion 10:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to realize that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Description of an idea is fine. Trying to promote by means of "nuanced wording" is inappropriate. Realize your bias, start from the current wording and move forward. ScienceApologist 00:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With nuances I meant meanings. I will change it some. Maybe you are right that some sentences could be improved. But I do think that fair description means using good language and it shouldn't be a problem to state details either. If you don't like my new try please specify which part. Erdanion 17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your willingness to compromise. I will be the first to admit that I have only limited familiarity with anthroposophy, but in this case I think that this is an advantage. My goal is to make the prose as clear as possible, following the precepts of clarity of thought, if you will. I have reworded some of the paragraphs to remove some redundancies (such as overuse of the word "clarity") and to fix some of the jargon. I understand that wording is very important since anthroposophy has its own agreed upon language. I hope that we can work as an editting team: I'll let you dictate the important concepts that need to be outlined and I'll edit them for clarity and avoidance of unintentional POV. Deal? --ScienceApologist 00:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think we are making progress and I appreciate it very much. One thing still needs to be fixed. You took away a term "clarity" from some places as being jargon. However, I think it's important because "a scientific method" usually refers to a very specified methodology used in sciences at the moment. Anthroposophists think that it's main idea needs to be taken and developed further, not just to use it as it is now. That is why it is better to say "the clarity of..." or something like that. There might be other and better ways to describe it, but there is a risk starting to invent them here, so I suggest that we would stay with the word clarity. Erdanion 07:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but it's really poor form to use the word "clarity" over and over again. Coming up with synonyms may be appropriate or maybe there is a term that is used by anthroposophists that's a little less cumbersome than "clarity gained through application of the scientific method"? Also, you seem to want to emphasize "individual freedom", but the text as written emphasizes freedom from spiritual authorities which is a slightly different concept. Individual freedom is a fairly loaded term, as you may or may not be aware. --ScienceApologist 13:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. But. You were changing some meanings again. I will keep some of your changes which I thought were good but I will also have to revert some. Please if you change it again do think is it absolutely necessery. I don't think neither of us wants to go on this forever. Bye, Erdanion 13:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer that if instead of reverting you would try to modify the language so it reads to you like something that is closer to what your intended meaning is. I have made these changes for a reason: avoidance of unintentional POV-promotion, removing strings of prepositional phrases that confuse the text, etc. Instead of looking back in the edit history, if you would just open an edit window and try to take the prose and change it so that it reads something satisfying to you. I do believe we are making progress and it may take a couple of tries, but hopefully we're almost there. --ScienceApologist 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to modify. I have every time taken both old and new texts side by side and compared them. Remember that I can't just write what I want to say, I must respect the meaning in the text as well since it has been taken from a source. Erdanion 13:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much for being understanding and accomodating. This latest edit I made was the smallest yet. We'll see how it squares with your interpretation. --ScienceApologist 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine to me. Thank you, too, the text is better now.  Erdanion 14:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to work with the text 

message: * Is Anthroposophy Science? Sven Ove Hansson Conceptus XXV (1991), No. 64, pp. 37-49. 
This reference is cited in the introduction of the article. It is an authoritative statement by a respected academic scientist on Anthroposophy. A copy is available on line. Yet HGilbert and theBee refuse to link to it. The Arbcom decision makes no mention of the avoidance of this host site in its ruling. The paper should be fully linked from this article, both in the citation and in the articles list. It is a key document for anyone researching the subject.
Lumos3 07:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hansson is not a scientist but professor of philosophy and the history of technology.  Arbitrators did say at the time that waldorfcritics could not be used for source in controversial claims and not waldorfanswers or anthroposophic published sources either.  This article falls in the gray zone, and in similar cases in the past months for articles on waldorf websites, where independent published article is reprinted on waldorf website, editors were told they couldnt link to the waldorf websites for those reprints.  Hansson article is an interesting position but exageration to call it "key document on the subject".  I personally think it is splittin g hairs that we cant go to those POV websites, pro or con, just for links to the web reprints for ok source there if we can tell it is reprinted with permission.  This article says it has the permission (also others reprints on that website dont have copyright permission).  But that was not the consensus interpretation when this questions came before.  The consensus interpretation was not to link to waldorfcritics or any polemical type web sites for published sources to statements of controversy, pro Steiner or con Steiner.  I think to go back on it now and argue about it again is not good for the progress of improving the articles.  I think it is better to adjust to the earlier decisions instad of trying to overturn them.  because otherwise editors just argue about rules instead of finding better sources, and the articles have benefited overall by editors abiding those decisions.Venado 00:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We would be hard pushed to find a more credible or relevant study authored by a more credible or relevant academic. If all the referances were as good as this, the article and discussion around it would be raised to a much more intelligent level.--Fergie 08:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is certainly no reason not to use the study, nor has there been any suggestion that it should not be used. Not every citation need include an online link, however, and as Venado pointed out, the rules set for us exclude this particular link.  Hgilbert 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no policy or guideline on wikipedia that precludes inclusion of links to waldorfcritics.org. There is however a gentlemens agreement in place not to link to waldorfcritics.org (in order to pacify those who kicked up a fuss about the exclusion of the dreadful and clearly unsuitable waldorfanswers.com and thebee.se websites, who, for the record were mainly the owner/contributers of said websites). The grown-up course of action is to make a good faith effort to include the study, rehousing it on wikisource if needs be.--Fergie 15:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully this is not true.  Administrators who were not previously involved editors judged publications at waldorfcritics or any Steiner related website or publisher unsuitable for verification of controversial claims.  This is not a gentlemen agreement. it is a small wikistyle progress that curtailed revert wars and anarchism and most editors started to more effectively work together like wikpedians.  Even when they didnt agree with every single decision.  In the similar case I spoke of in the Waldorf article editors decided even linking to the Waldorf Research Library for a web reprint of acceptables article would not be permissible for controversial claims. and the editors had to find other sources for the article.  Waldorf Research Library is not waldorfanswers or thebee.se.  This article does not need to be on wikisource, and it is not in public domain.  There is no need to link the article anyway.  It is not necessary.Venado 17:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Venado, you seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia policies, guidelines and arbitration decisions work. Nothing wrong with that, everybody has to start somewhere, but you might want to go a little easier on the Wikilawyering until you get to grips with the system. Long story short: if individual editors want to link to the paper in question, there is no consensus, policy, arbitration decision, or guideline that precludes this, provided the paper is hosted on a domain seen to be neutral--Fergie 06:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not wikilawyering to explain to you how are mistaken about why that website link was judged unsuitable and removed.  On the basis your own claim that linking can be precluded if the domain is not seen to be neutral then the link to waldorfcritics can justifiably be removed.  Waldorfcritics is obviously not NPOV.Venado 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are going around in circles here- see my previous posts in this thread.--Fergie 05:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Excuse me, but how does the annotated commentary on Hansson's article show that Hansson's article is pseudoscience? What makes this web-based diatribe a reliable source? I think that Hansson's article is perfectly fine to cite in this article as it seems to be a critique at the level of a parity of sources. We wouldn't expect to find Hansson's critique in a scientific journal because anthroposophy is not considered mainstream science, so it is perfectly reasonable to use him as a source of criticism. --ScienceApologist 20:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hansson's article is acceptable as source the way it is done here.  But waldorfcritics was not acceptable for link to English translated webpage copy of the article.  It is a logic error to say one must use strict scientific analysis to give opinion whether some methodology is really science.  That argument is another red herring because it does nt matter what the basis of Hanssons opinion.  The article he published is acceptable as a source, that is not the issue.  Pro Steiner websites are also not allowed as links in such cases or anti Steiner websites.  In all articles involved in the probation editors were prevented from linking to pro Steiner domains for any webpage copies posted there of sources used in the WP articles related to Steiner.  In both cases this is limited to sources used for controversial claims.  Venado 00:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the reason for not being able to link to the text of the article? I don't understand why linking to a particular domain is as problematic as everyone is contending as long as the webpage in question is simply providing the text of an article published elsewhere. --ScienceApologist 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at those who are dong the complaining you will see that they are all single-issue editors who are devoted to advocating Steiner and Anthroposophy on wikipedia (check out the user contributions). In actual fact every single real/regular wikipedian who has expressed an opinion think it is fine to include this link.--Fergie 05:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, if you go back to the origin of this decision, you will see that there were both pro- and anti-Waldorf websites that were considered unacceptable (as excessively polemical). It was the moderates (including the arbitrators) who came down against polemical websites of any stripe. Hgilbert 15:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sven Ove Hansson 

message: Just to be clear, my recent revisions (as well as future ones), are meant to improve the readability of the article, and certainly not intended to introduce new or remove relevant information. If I have incorrectly reworded something, please be bold and revert it or fix it and don't be shy to bring it up here. However, I ask you not bite my head off either. (I do understand that this article and related ones were the subject of an ArbCom ruling.) Otheus 11:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup 

message: As for the use of Hansson as citation in the article on Anthroposophy, including as "evidence" of the pseudoscientific nature of anthroposophy: During the arbitration, Mr. Bauder answered "of course when I suggested that
:"authors, who have worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy, be considered as unreliable sources with regard to controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy."
Hansson was the probably main founder of the Swedish "skeptics" group "Vetenskap och Folkbildning" in 1982. He was for many years its chair person and still sits on the board of the group. The analysis of his article on anthroposophy confirms what Mr. Bauder described as applicable editorial Wiki principle for such writings as Hansson's - that they are to be considered to be unreliable sources on controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy.
Thebee 22:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hansson disallowed citation for controversial issues

message: One sentence in the article says:
:"He wrote that he had direct experience of the Akashic Records (sometimes called the "Akasha Chronicle"), ..."
While RS wrote about the AC as if he could experience it, I don't remember ever reading that he stated or wrote something like "hey guys, I have direct experiece of the AC". So, can anyone provide a source for the quoted statement in the article? Otherwise it needs to be corrected in accordance with a source (Steiner himself needed). Thanks,  Thebee 11:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: RookZERO: An attribution to a source should be faithful to that source. Schneider states that Steiner demonstrated this, not that he believed this. Please read the source before modifying! Also: when Lindenberg states something, it is inaccurate to say that Steiner says this. Hgilbert 00:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  believed and demonstrated 

message: I am blamed for causing more confusion about dispute of this banking section.  Is Rudolf Steiner Foundation self evident anthroposophy or is that disputed.  The Triodos Bank and GLS needs reference that it is anthroposophic.  The GLS sentence reference shows self claim to be first anthroposopic bank.  Is that disputed?  If it is dispute to it needs independent reference. Also the quote "one of 10 best" now is given to both Co-Op america and Social Investment Forum Foundation.  Even though quote is from independent source (but probably not said by two agencies) is it to promotional to quote for encyclopedia?Venado 14:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every single statement in an encyclopedia article needs a citation. It would be possible to provide these for generally accepted and readily checkable information, such as that Triodos Bank is an anthroposophic bank; I would discourage this and reserve citations for when they are really useful and needed. Compare usage in other articles, and in other encyclopedias or reference works. Hgilbert 16:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the Steiner articles are already more full than average WP of citations but a citation is usually the only resolution for when there is this kind of dispute.  Items in "Applications" were disputed as having not anything to do with anthroposophy and that was given as a reason to keep NPOV tag.  All tagged articles need to be echecked out and the tags removed.that's the purpose of the tag, a notice for cleanup.Venado 16:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Banking

message: I added the following comments to this talk page on May 19. They seem to have been removed. Material that is much older than May 19 remains, so there was no call to remove my comments, other than, as I suggest below, careful image management on the part of anthroposophists. Gentle hint: this is the same point Fergie is making. —The preceding comment is by DianaW (talk • contribs) 03:31, 23 June 2007 : Please sign your posts!
Karma and Reincarnation
. . . are central topics in anthroposophy. Why has all mention of two central beliefs in anthroposophy been removed from this article? The only mention of reincarnation is a derisive reference to Annie Besant which reads as if Steiner would have had no use for such nonsense LOL. Why don't the anthroposophists who control this article want to explain their belief system fully and clearly?DianaW 02:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The karma section has not been changed.  This talk topic was resolved.  Venado 13:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stealthy editing and censoring of talk page 

message: Some facts
On 19 May, Diana W in violation of the rules for contributions to discussions at talks pages, as part of her and Pete's anti-Waldorf and anti-anthroposophy jihad here at Wikipedia since last year, added the comments she mentions, not in its proper place at the bottom of the talks page, but at the top of the page.
When the discussion from the period 8 December 2006 - 20 March 2007 was archived on 25 May 2007 as Archive 4 by Lkleinjans, he does not seem to have noticed the irregular out of order postings by Diana, put by her at the top of the page instead at the bottom of it on 19 May, and they got archived together with the earlier discussion.
No malintent or intent of censorship was probably involved on the part of Lkleinjans in this removal of what Diana W wrote on 19 May, just her own irregular positioning of her POV pushing by putting it at the top of the discussion instead of - like mostly everyone else - putting it at the bottom of the discussion. In a second step, this then now makes her describe this standard way of archiving discussions as "censoring of talk page".
Have the addition on the issue or reincarnation and karma as part of the section "Human being: body, soul and spirit" been removed as part of a by Diana implied control and general "censorship" of the article by "anthroposophists"? No.  Thebee 11:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL - then how come even older material that was similarly located didn't get archived at the same time? Oh, you had to quickly take care of "jihadists" posting here I guess. Jihad Mr. Bee, really now, you ought to watch this sort of thing if you are truly concerned about anthroposophy's reputation, accusing your critics of "jihad" is just slightly over the top, no?DianaW 11:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jihadists at Wikipedia. No good. Personally, with regard to critics in one or other form of WE and anthrop, I'd reserve the term for you and Pete. Take it as a compliment to your 100% dedication to your self chosen task.  Thebee 10:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And, once again, you are very concerned about "position" on the talk page, and "violation" of rules (rules as to what to post where on the talk page!!), but you have little to say about substantive criticisms. Just busy compiling "violations" on other people as usual.DianaW 11:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an automatic archive bot for sections that have not been changed recently; check with the bot-master to find out how this works, or in the article history to see its actions. Unfortunately, there is no automatic removal bot for personal attacks. Please avoid these. Hgilbert 11:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Drop it Hgilbert. Your attitude toward critics here is abominable, and nobody's fooled by your scolding other people about their manners.DianaW 11:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose accusing people who disagree with you of "jihad" won't count as a "personal attack"? My complaining about material moving around on the talk page is a "personal attack," though yes?DianaW 12:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is for issues users have about the article not attacks about each other. Venado 13:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False accusation of censorship of talk page 

message: I have not seen any sources put forward to support the placement of the anthroposophy article in the Pseudoscience or Paranormal categories. The latter category was just placed on this article. Perhaps I have missed the sources that were proposed?? The one proposed source, the Hansson article does not pass the stricter requirements from the arbitration that "authors, who have worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy, be considered as unreliable sources with regard to controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy." I earlier suggested there might be sources to support the Pseudoscience category but none has been proposed, and now I would like to ask also for a source that supports the Paranormal category, an authoritative source that states that anthroposophy is either pseudoscience or paranormal. Otherwise putting this article in either category is original research. Until such a source is provided, I think it is appropriate to remove these categories. Perhaps User:Northmeister can cite a source that supports adding the Paranormal category. Merci bien, EPadmirateur 02:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. My mistake. Regards - --Northmeister 03:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience and Paranormal categories 

message: Someone, not easy to identify, has proposed the deletion of the article. The proposition, found in the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy#The_Christ_as_the_center_of_earthly_evolution cites a quote from a lecture by Steiner, found here on the internet, and put in the article by someone. Except for this quote from the lecture, by the main founder of anthroposophy, the proposal does not give any other specific motivation for the proposed deletion. It would be easier to understand this if the one proposing it identified him- or herself, and referred to a more specific policy violation, that would motivate the proposed deletion. If that is not given here in a day or two by the one who has suggested the deletion, I'll remove the proposal. Thanks,  Thebee 13:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone, not identified by the article history, put the proposal into the article earlier today. Now, someone (probably) else, also not identified by the page history, has removed the proposal. Anyone knows how to trace the people taking the different actions? Thanks,  Thebee 15:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you still go to the page that shows the delete message?  Only with administrator privileges can edits be bloocked from sight in history.  It was maybe something else that you think you saw. Venado 16:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean you don't believe what I write above in this section, because you don't see it for yourself any more, and do not find (neither any addition registration at the history page, nor) any delete message either telling about what I describe ;-?  Thebee 21:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just for the record, I happened to still have the page in one Firefox window, though it was deleted at Wikipedia. I made a Print Scrn of the screen, and have put it as a picture here. I've also put the htm-version of the article, as it was saved by Firefox to my HD here. It contains a number of interwiki links, that did not tell much about the originator of the suggestion for deletion.  Thebee 16:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  By unknown person proposed deletion of article 

message: An anon. user has added a particular path of counselling based upon anthroposophy. Do we want to include such particulars? Is this one notable? Hgilbert 16:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the Sophia College of Counselling in Australia is extensive in their course offerings and trained counsellors, so I have added mention of their "holistic counselling" approach and a link. EPadmirateur 19:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counsellors 

message: Would folks here like that?  the miszabot can archive sections that have been idle for a set number of days (users discretion, I would suggest 30 days).  There are a number of old discussion here that seem to be mostly either settled or not relevant to the article.  any objections?  --Rocksanddirt 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. Hgilbert 21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I set it up.  The miszabot leaves 5 sections on the talk page, to give a flavor to those who come to check it out.  The latest stuff is in archive5.  --Rocksanddirt 19:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic archiving of talk page 

message: This subsection needs a bit more content.Hgilbert 10:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science and spirit 

message: In the third paragraph of the History section, Besant is introduced abruptly; her presence needs explaining, and her name linked. Rosa Lichtenstein 11:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Hgilbert 13:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: Two remarkable Ing bank buildings are located in Amsterdam. There is one in the Bijlmer suburb and one south of the centre. Which one is meant? Andries (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bijlmer building.Hgilbert (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ing bank buildings in Amsterdam: there are two 

message: Steiner's ideas were RACIST.  Even Anthroposophists agreed in the famous Dutch Commission Report.  Any indication of that here?  What NONSENSE this article is.  Have you people no SHAME?  This article is a WHITEwash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.97.170 (talk • contribs) 
:Oddly enough, critics of Steiner fought against the inclusion of this report, which - though it didn't actually say that his ideas were racist - did say that a number of his statements were tendentious enough to be prosecutable under present-day Dutch law. (Of course, the report also pointed out that he made many statements criticizing ethnic and racial prejudices and promoting egalitarian ideas. The reality is complex enough.)
:In any case, Wikipedia arbitrators laid out clear rules for citable material in this regard; it must be unpolemical and peer-reviewed. If you have such sources, we can make use them here. Hgilbert (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that he wasn't as much of a racist as Hitler somehow excuses him from his own racism is just silly.  Why twist his views in this way for the article.  It's obviously a whitewash.  Why?  Have you actually read any Steiner.  If you have, you can't deny this article is blatant in its pro-Steiner slant.  He wanted Jewish culture extinguished - and for Jews to give up even their way of thinking.  Why not mention that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.155.148 (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, what is this about "critics of Steiner".  Just print the TRUTH.  Why divide into camps.  Geez... how immature.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.155.148 (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comments, curiously, are from two IP addresses located in the same geographical area as banned user PeteK, and read much like his contributions. Perhaps that's just a coincidence. In any case, dear Defender of the Truth, please review Wikipedia's policies on verification and sourcing and provide references to back up your surely significant view. Hgilbert (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, what's the procedure for checking whether a banned user is posting anonymously? Can WP stop someone posting anonymously? Or under a different user name? --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

text: See sock puppetry, which includes any use of an alternate access name/IP address in order to contribute without being recognized or "to avoid scrutiny". Hgilbert (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I guess the procedure is detailed at WP:Suspected_sock_puppets#Reporting_suspected_sock_puppets -- looks pretty complicated to make a case. The first rule is to assume good faith. Merci, EPadmirateur (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the IP's stick to the talk page with complaints, I'd rather WP:AGF than bother with a sockpuppert or checkuser investigation.  And if the IP's know of some sort of reliable source to back up the hitler claims....that would likely get these articles the sort of mileage the hundreds and thousands of myspace bands filling up wp's deleted articles cache would kill for.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: These IPs are confirmed to be Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Pete_K socks of User:Pete_K who is topic-banned from both the article space and talk space.  Article talk pages aren't for soapboxing about the topic, so feel free to delete or strike-thru comments which fit that description. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by sock puppet of banned user PeteK; saved for historical interest 

message: I have replaced text that had multiple citations to support it. Steiner is considered one of the two founders of organic farming, not merely an advocate of an existing system (there was no such system to advocate before he and Howard began their work). Hgilbert (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biodynamics 

message: I appreciate the desire to put criticism first in the race section. But:
# the section loses its coherence when the chronology is disrupted. It was clearer when in chronological sequence (1930s, present-day critiques, reply by A.S.) instead of (present-day critiques, 1930s, reply by A.S.)
# the Nazis were also critiquing anthroposophy (though from an extreme-right position) when they stated it was incompatible with a racist ideology. Hgilbert (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race 

message: A recent change has reopened the question of how to describe a subject such as this. The earlier wording emphasized that matters described here were "Steiner's view" of reality; the present version tends to drop these clarifications. Presumably one can assume that in a article about anthroposophy the point of view is clear. But I am not sure that it is a bad idea to emphasize this periodically. Hgilbert (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of descriptions 

message: redirects to this page. Ideally it should be an article unto itself, referring to the category of religious movements which includes Anthroposophy, Christian Science, Mesmerism, Spiritualism, etc, ad nauseum.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.182.107.3 (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a used term and should have an article on its own problematizing the field. Anyone want to give it a go? hgilbert (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiritual Science 

message: I wonder if the quote added to the introduction wouldn't be better as the opening to the "Anthroposophy in brief" section? It seems like it doesn't fit the encyclopedic tone of the present intro, anyway...perhaps something has to change. Hgilbert (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  quote 

message: Rudolf Steiner himself did argue ardently that Anthroposophy is not based on his teachings, but that his teachings are based on Anthroposophy. If based on anyone, it is the spiritual heritage of Goethe, according to Rudolf Steiner. This should be corrected immediately. I feel i cannot do so because I don't have the proper sources available for the moment. Anthroposophy is the science of the spiritual evolution, not in opposition to the science of the natural evolution of mankind.--Xact (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand what you mean. We'd have to distinguish between anthroposophy as a manifested movement, the chief subject of this article, and as a spiritual reality to which Steiner was pointing. We could add a section to reflect this if we find sources. But your edit of the intro seemed to be exactly the opposite of what you suggest here. I've replaced the original text for now; let's look for sources. hgilbert (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the teachings of Rudolf Steiner 

message: I have clarified the citations in this section; they are accurate and do not involve conclusions other than those drawn by the authors.Hgilbert (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific basis 

message: The image :Image:RSteiner.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      File:Representative of humanity.gif
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an image in the public domain. hgilbert (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with Image:RSteiner.jpg 

message: The first reference doesn't acknowledge Rudolf Steiner as an author. 
90.219.156.46 (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first edition of this text usually doesn't list Steiner as an author. Should we add him anyway? hgilbert (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The bulk of the book is written by Steiner, as the front of the book makes clear but the reference doesn't. It seems disingenuous at least and merely a way to inflate the credibility of a 'fringe theory'. I am trying to approach this article with due respect to both it and Wiki by reading the Wiki guidlines first and would like to see a bit more of the Wiki advice applied to this article: "Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." 90.219.156.46 (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your interest. All of the article's citations are to verifiable and reliable sources at this point, as we've been through some massive review; for example, the sections from McDermott quoted here all stem from McDermott himself, not Steiner. hgilbert (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your reply. I think it would be easy to establish R. A. McDermott as an adherent of Anthrosophy which means it is not a 'verifiable and reliable source' according to the Wiki guidance on fringe theories. Presuming of course that you agree this is a fringe theory.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.156.46 (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The administrative review set publication by an independent press as the standard. hgilbert (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad reference