Talk:Anthroposophy/Archive 4

message: . . . 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: I added a short description including reincarnation and karma on this page. Erdanion 06:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Karma and Reincarnation

message: Since there are questions as to the scientific legitimacy of this subject, I have categorized the article with pseudoscience. Note that this does not necessarily mean that the subject actually is objectively pseudoscience, only that some have considered it to be such. --ScienceApologist 14:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if that is general policy of handling this category, then there is something wrong with it. i am sure that to the casual reader it does not come across like that but rather that anthroposophy is classified as pseudoscience. i don't even have a problem with that assesment in general but nevertheless i found it just a cheap grafitti kind of way to popooh anthropop. i'd prefer if you could rather introduce a section that argues where anthroposophy is not in line with science and where it has antiscientific aspects. not being able to argue that through and just stick on the label pseudoscience is not good enough. if you don't have anything better to show i will remove the cat. but i would support a section as i described. but something more elegant than 'however many consider it...'trueblood 13:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the general way the category is handled, trueblood, and since there is ample evidence that people consider it a pseudoscience, I ask you to leave the tag alone. I am in favor of a new section outlining the pseudoscientific nature of anthroposophy. --ScienceApologist 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, can you elaborate a little on the it is the general way to be handled theme. where can i see that it is how you say it. because on this talk page the issue already popped up but without the result that the tag would be appropiate.trueblood 16:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally considered pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 16:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  at wp:words to be avoided i found three categories that might apply to the term: 
*Are derogatory or offensive.
*Imply that Wikipedia shows support or doubt regarding a viewpoint.
*Are condescending towards (that is, "spoonfeed") the reader.
trueblood 16:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A "substantial" following?  Anthroposophy has no substantial following.  Psychoanalysis has a substantial following.  Anthroposophy has 50,000 followers world-wide.  And maybe half of those consider it to actually be "science".  That's not a "substantial" following of the type the psychoanalysis example is and Anthroposophy certainly does not have the support among scientists that psychoanalysis has.  This is grasping at straws. Pete K 17:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Equating the acceptance of anthroposophy with that of psychoanalysis is highly inappropriate. I think if you disagree you should try to get a third opinion or file an WP:RfC. --ScienceApologist 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "This is an example of systemic bias" in the generally valiantly NPOV Wikipedia "that needs to be addressed." yes, absolutely!  The curiosity is that NPOV reaches towards an intensity of neutrality that Rudolf Steiner actually taught me even more about than I learned in Science or in Psychology - and I'm a good scientist and a trained counsellor - and studying "Philosophy of Freedom" was the key to this for me, taken in context of studying Steiner's work overall and seeing, yes, here is a genius who has not been properly recognized. I've lived 40 years (outside Steiner communities) since discovering Steiner, and have almost never found a genius to equal him.  The problem with Wikipedia (and I don't want to change its setup because usually it works) is that it would not be NPOV as normally understood to gather together similar character references to Steiner from suitable people like Canon Shepherd. Lucy Skywalker 22:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And conversely, the label of science is being equally sought by anybody who wants to apply it to any mumbo-jumbo they consider "scientific".  Anthroposophy is NOT science, it's philosophy mixed with a little religion and occultism.  Pete K 02:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of advocacy is highly inappropriate. The article already illustrates in its very text the problems this subject has had with reception in the scientific community. There is no reason to violate spade clauses. I'm more than willing to help develop the article, but I'm not willing to have anthroposophy-cheerleaders assert article ownership. Pseudoscience categorization is not controversial when the scientific community considers it pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 22:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i am not trying any kind of advocacy or cheerleading here but i find your editing too confrontational. to just put in the cat to me is teritoiral pissing. i thought on of the outcomes of the abitration was a recommendation to you to avoid this kind of stuff.trueblood 11:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  pseudoscience is something that pretends to be science but is in conflict with modern science and does not hold up to basic scientific standards. so when anthroposophy is pretending to be science that is in fact pseudoscience. but it is more, it is about education, agriculture, art etc; and as pete put it it is it's philosophy mixed with a little religion and occultism. 
i have a problem with this whole category. is catholicism pseudoscience or tai chi, yoga...
can i put the cat in the article on plato or c.g. jung or how about philosophy in general? why should anthroposophy carry the labem pseudoscience but not theosophy for example?trueblood 12:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you have a problem with the category, talk about it at :Category: Pseudoscience. If you think theosophy has been verifiably labeled a pseudoscience, go ahead and categorize it. --ScienceApologist 13:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Unlike catholicism, tai chi, yoga, plato or jung, Anthroposophy was stated by Steiner to be a "Spiritual science". A way of investigating the world of the spirit using the methods of science. This is clearly reported in the opening line of the article. Its not actually a science so its a pseudoscience. Lumos3 13:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: True.  Some things are neither science nor psuedoscience.  Some ideas are philosophy, others are just BS.  Anthroposophy does not apply scientific methodology - and scientific methodology consists of much more than "systematic application of reason".  In fact 
the "systematic application of reason" is exactly philosophy.  But Steiner's systematic application of reason left no room for peer review.  In fact, he specifically excluded himself from peer review by stating that the only people who could evaluate his were were, essentially, Anthroposophists.  This, from the outset, excluded scientists (not that any serious scientist would be interested in examining the set of ideas Steiner postulated.  You are trying to change the definition of science so that Steiner fits into it.  This is nonsense. Pete K 17:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that "Anthroposophy does not apply scientific methodology" but I would challenge the accuracy of your observations on which you make this claim.  It is my careful and extensive and informed observation, over 40 years, that Anthroposophy is not at odds with scientific method, which relies on a) consistently careful observation; b) drawing reasonable hypotheses from the observations; and c) being open to further evidence that might challenge the hypotheses.  Now Steiner himself asked people NOT to believe what he said but to test it for themselves. The fact that Anthroposophists sometimes choose belief over testing does not mean that this is what Steiner encouraged. He did not say, as you claim, "the only people who could evaluate his were, essentially, Anthroposophists"; what he said was that he spoke of what he had himself experienced and that if another did not experience the same thing, this was no proof in itself that what he had said was untrue.  It is a delicate matter to grasp the different scientific validities of both positive proof and negative absence of disproof.  One analogy is that I do not claim that Australia does not exist because I have not been there.  I have examined the matter, and have found it reasonable to take the evidence of others as a working hypothesis.   Which is what I have done with Steiner, and have sometimes arrived at different conclusions.  But he taught me the method - to observe what was going on "within" with the same very great care as one would apply to conventional scientific observations, and, indeed, as the whole of modern psychology has taught us to begin to do with our inner realities.  There is a growing number of scientists who see that certain factions in the scientific world claim objectivity where they, as equally respected and qualified scientists, disagree with such claims to "objectivity", see for example [] I hope this helps the discussion Lucy Skywalker 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If this is just a problem of translation, why do Anthroposophical societies continue to mistranslate the term into the English word Science , ? This looks like an attempt to draw on the authority of western science but without subscribing to its rigour, which is the precise definition of a pseudoscience. Lumos3 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is not a problem of translation, when talking about geisteswissenschaft, steiner did not mean the humanities, what the german term also stands for, but as hgilbert put it A way of investigating the world of the spirit using the methods of science. so spiritual science is an accurate translation. but i thought that is somewhat beside the point, investigating the world of spirit is outside science. i thought the pseudoscience label was more about conclusions or observations by steiner that are in contrast with science but concern wordly matters, like vitalism, biological transmutation,... the category is a detail, and i will stop to hassle about it, i found more important that those contraction of modern science are reflected in the article. "Some ideas are philosophy, others are just BS", pete you are wrong with that i think, a lot of philosophy would be considered pseudoscience if uttered today, using the standards that are used here. that is one reason why i don't like the category,, for instance lamarckism is in it. poor lamarck, lamarckism is just a superseded scientific theory. but at the time it was cutting edge science. but that is out of context here.trueblood 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then we have to get into the debate about whether ever word that Steiner uttered represents Anthroposophy.  I don't think it does and there is a debate currently at waldorfcritics.org that suggests that Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom should not be included as part of his body of work that is regarded as Anthroposophy.  Regardless of what you think of poor Lamarck's work, if it were presented today as fact would be considered psuedoscience.  Anyway, are you no longer disputing that the psuedoscience tag is accurate? Pete K 20:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What might surprise you is not relevant to this discussion.  If you have a copy that isn't 30 years old, maybe you should check that one and WP:AGF before disputing what another editor has posted. Pete K 16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category pseudoscience

message: can anybody explain how 'Steiner's ideas have their roots in a positivistic and romantic stream of German thought'?
i would have thought that positivism is the opposite of anthroposophy...trueblood 10:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Steiner was positivist in the worst sort of way, applying scientific methodology where it suited him and abandoning scientific consensus when he disagreed with it. Goethe did similar things and based much of his claims of humanity on Auguste Comte and Hegel. --ScienceApologist 16:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  positivism 

message: If we quote McDermott, we need to give a full and unbiased picture of his comments. Editorializing is inappropriate.  --- unsigned comment by 14:27, December 22, 2006 User:Hgilbert.
:Then stop editorilaizing.  The section is about racism in Anthroposophy - not the lack of it.  If every time we broach the subject of racism, you fill the page with apologetic snippets, the point is never covered honestly.  Let the subject be discussed. Pete K 16:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mcdermott 

message: Hi there everyone,
Before people bite my head off for these edits, when I should be mentoring - , as I have read and reread this bit of the page many times it was really bugging me - so cleaned up a little.
Explanation for using blockquote found here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations should ideally use blockquote for quotes - as many in these articles thought I would give an example edit. You do not have to use it - but thought I would mention it early as I have a feeling a lot of quotes will be looked at over coming days. Cheers Lethaniol 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Racial Bias 

message: I forgot to add an edit summary.  I've revised the definition of Anthroposophy to a more accepted one that identifies Anthroposophy as a set of beliefs - and gets away from the misrepresentation that it has something to do with science. Pete K 20:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice going--it's completely plagiarized.  How much time is wasted so far fixing these bad fixes?  Too much of mine for today.  It's New Years Eve, and I'm going to celebrate the rest of it like it should be celebrated.  Happy New Year. Venado 21:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Three sources say the exact same thing.  I don't know who plagiarized whom.  I don't know about you, but I don't consider fixing the articles a waste of time.  I do, however, consider much of the back and forth arguing a waste of time. Pete K 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not the plagiarists, you are.  All three links point to the same source.  They're all mirrors of the same copyright dictionary--Houghton Mifflin.  You've plagiarized it from H-M.  It's taken word for word, keeping language that isn't even grammatical in sentence form.  Plagiarizing isn't allowed at wikipedia.  Venado 00:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the time the language of this ONE SENTENCE is referenced EVERYWHERE on every free dictionary on the web, it is in the public domain.  It isn't plaigerism.  But to satisfy you, since you seem to want to stick to a silly point and revert edits over it - I've changed a few words.  Talk about a waste of time. Let's see how many sentences in these articles are lifted out of other sources shall we?  I don't think I will, because it's a waste of my time, but the whole point is a very silly one. Pete K 01:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very frustrating if you won't read what's been explained to you.  You are way to quick to revert important and valid edits.   You've been told to stop edit warring (but you continue), and plagiarism is way off the charts wrong to do here.  The top of every edit window has a sign in big GIANT letters "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted."  That one sentence you speak of (second time I've told you) is copyright by Houghton Mifflin and identified as "All rights reverved".  The three websites where you read it have repeated that sentence because each one has permission to copy it and each has identified it as belonging to Houghton Mifflin.  It's your responsibility as an editor to read the material, including who wrote it and who it belongs to, before you use it here.  You can easily see it is the same text, not three different texts.  You don't have permission to copy it, and you copied it without identifying it as a quote from somebody else.  That's plagiarism and copyright infringement both.  Don't do it!  It's plagiarism to copy, it's copyright infringement lift somebodies written material without permission.  Wikipedia makes this clear to everyone who edits by saying don't do this on every one of our edits, top and bottom!  Venado 19:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - but I don't need things "explained" to me by you - so that may be where you are frustrated.  If you want to be didactic, find someone else.  Regarding reverting valid edits, this goes both ways but I don't see any edits I have reverted as being invalid.  You continue to accuse me of plagiarism and I think you are way off base here, but I humored you and reworded the sentence.  Thanks for the big bold letters BTW, but the statement is meaningless in this case - its a sentence, not a document.  You're wasting your breath.  Plagiarism is representing someone else's work as one's own.  Get a clue, please. Thanks. Pete K 14:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Edit

message: ::(To Pete) My browser only shows Wikipedia in Lucida Sans font, which has no italic, so if you used italic to highlight your quote of me, perhaps this is why I could not see it.  Please, for me use Black! Lucy Skywalker 21:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you can select a different Wikipedia font using preferences. Pete K 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to meet you as my record shows, but on this one I cannot.  I am not asking much and it would show your willingness to practice courtesy and goodwill. Lucy Skywalker 12:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried changing your preferences and it didn't work?  I don't think filling the discussions with bold text is such a good idea as pretty soon, everything everyone says will be bold... People think BOLD makes what they are saying sound important... note my signature -->  Pete K 17:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formating issues/ archiving talk page 

message: ::(to everyone) This is such a Janus-issue! so appropriate to New Year's Eve! Is Anthroposophy a science or a belief??? Now I know it as a science that I've tested time without number, but I sympathize with those who see it as a belief. I feel that the best NPOV can do for now is to include both perspectives.  However, the matter is of such crucial importance that I feel the little paragraph in the article simply does not begin to do it justice.  So I've started a daft draft essay on the "Philosophy of Freedom"'s key concept, on my personal page here. Please have a look! I would welcome comments. You need to EXPERIENCE the key concept of "POF" to PROVE that Anthroposophy is a science (certainly an unusual science), and that this core experience of thinking is indeed the foundation of Anthroposophy.  But this proof hurts the brain!!! it goes against all one's comfort zones!!! just as Jesus went against all Saul's comfort zones, until Saul was blinded on the Road to Damascus and found that Jesus was ok after all.  I hope this helps. Lucy Skywalker 21:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually, when you stretch something as much as Anthroposophy requires the brain to stretch, it may very well hurt.  I don't see any value in trying to prove Anthroposophy is a science... but have fun with that... Pete K 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have just said "I don't see any value in trying to prove Anthroposophy is a science... but have fun with that... " Are you not shooting yourself in the foot here, giving evidence of 1) your unwillingness to follow a proof, and 2) your POV not being NPOV?  The "proof" I've just outlined at my Lucy Skywalker page is - to my perception - not so difficult to follow (though it may still need "fixing for bugs" and perhaps you can help me here, by continuing to give the kind of criticisms in which you excel, which gives me material to work on).  Now I am not living in the world of Steiner as it was when he wrote "POF" and later developed Anthroposophy.  My aim, arising out of my life now, is to show that, however many "truly proven" flaws (ie not just CSICOP-type, see Alternative Science/CSICOP) one may find in Steiner, or in Anthroposophy as it has become, this does not invalidate the principle of Scientific Method per se, nor the root principle of Spiritual Science in demonstrating the field of objectivity within the act of thinking.  If you are unwilling to go back to the first principles and follow the proof, and if you express responses that come from the emotions and not the mind, then you have not earned the scientific right to dismiss the claims that a Spiritual Science is a legitimate possibility, and that methodology in line with Scientific Method is possible. 
 
Lucy Skywalker has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding ,  or  to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! 
Please everyone, read my Lucy Skywalker page! TheBee, I did hear your call... Now (naturally) I would like to see the substance of my page put up as a fresh Wikipedia page because I believe it is that important... but even if it does not become a fresh page (I don't feel competent yet to post it up solo) I shall put it on my own website presently. Lucy Skywalker 12:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no auto-archiving, see here  Lucy Skywalker 20:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I've looked at your page - it's pretty much exactly what I expected.  I don't find any substance there that is particularly noteworthy - no offense intended.  It's more of the same I've heard for years.  You can get some mileage regarding new ways of looking at thinking processes, but you run into potholes when you look at where that took Steiner.  And that's what happens when thinking alone is let loose (as science) without the rigorous scientific methods we insist on.  You can call the products of this activity philosophy, you can even call them psychology, but you can't call them science.  And yes, we all know our thinking is based on our perception which is based on our thinking and yes, it hurts the brain - but we don't all have to take the red pill (or the blue pill) - we can be glorious in our diverse set of ideas and experiences.  And while I appreciate the effort you are going to on your blog, know that this is nothing new for those of us who have been around the block on this stuff.  But hey, have fun! Pete K 18:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like a discussion on this, and on what you consider "scientific method" to be, but not here. Please, use my User Talk page, and please tell me there, where can I find all your arguments together without wasting time trawling pages and pages of forums like where Staudenmaier hangs out? Lucy Skywalker 20:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't collected my "arguments" together in some original research vanity-press website like some here have.  While I enjoy debate, I don't really do one-on-one debate privately.  If I'm going to take my time to debate issues, it serves me best if the discussions are out in the open where others can see them.  Your talk page would not be appropriate for this, of course, as it is yours to control as you like and out of sight of the mainstream who don't know to look there.  Since this is the Spiritual Science (redirect) talk page, it might be fine to discuss this here if we don't get too far off the subject.  I assume you believe the outcome of the discussion will impact the Anthroposophy article (it probably won't) so that's probably justification enough to discuss spiritual science here.  Your slam of Peter Staudenmaier makes me wonder if there is any point in engaging you.  If you don't find any value in what he has to say, there is little chance you will find any value in what I have to say either. Pete K 21:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate all you say, but what I have to say is so long to put here, that's why I thought it would be better on my page.  Then people can look  here (my front page) and  here (my talk page) to check.  Sorry about my ref. to Staudenmaier, I agree it was bad language - what I meant is that I like to go further than just the references you give, and I got irritated with unfamiliar formats and it took a very long time - it irritates me that forum threads take time to trawl, this is why I like the Wiki format! You say I assume you believe the outcome of the discussion will impact the Anthroposophy article (it probably won't) so that's probably justification enough to discuss spiritual science here and I shall return to this, but after a break which I now need, and it will be on my talk page for the above reasons - at first, at least. A little "please" - could you get this talk page shortened with archiving - it really needs it and I can't do it now for a week probably Lucy Skywalker 11:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Lucy - I'm not a big fan of archiving discussions because, well, people bring up the same topics again and again.  The archives are filled with the same discussions we see on this page, so leaving this stuff visible, to my way of thinking, is a good thing.  Pete K 19:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthroposophy: science or belief? 

message: Pete:please stop moving the references to "fundamentally anti-racist" to the end of the paragraph. This creates the false impression that these are to both sides, whereas they are both to the anti-racist question. Also, please stop removing a citation to Waage that fits the verifiability criteria; he is a mainstream journalist publishing in a mainstream journal. Hgilbert 18:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False impression 

message: What's the policy in effect in these articles?  In the case of controversial material, is original texts from Rudolf Steiner allowed, but no other authors from anthroposophic publishers? Venado 16:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Original texts from Steiner are to be avoided and so are Anthro publishers (according to my understanding).  Third-party sources are preferred. Pete K 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought.  So why do new anthroposophic sources keep going in?  It takes the article backwards.Venado 19:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy on sources

message: Venado, you have re-archived this stuff.  What gives?  What you find inconvenient and fixed with your solution has made things inconvenient for me.  I'm inclined to revert it again.  Can we maybe just archive the discussions that aren't current?  Some of the ones archived had discussions that were added to only a week or two ago. Pete K 19:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent I saw archived are a month old, and most of that just says the repeating the same arguments.  Please don't revert.  It's easier to look back to an archive if you need to than it is to wade through old messages to get to the current discussions.  In the last few days some of my edits to the talk page have taken so much work during edit conflicts, I gave up.  The page load in edit conflict is about 3 times bigger than even in the normal edits, which were way to big already.  It cost me a big chunk of time with every visit to the talk page.  The arbitration decision came the end of December, and the older discussions don't pertain closely now besides.Venado 20:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: PS I got sidelined by another edit conflict when I tried to make the above comment while you added this long old stuff back in the page.  If those discussions were worthwhile you guys wouldn't still be edit warring over the issue.  A lot of the text isn't even relevant to the article.  It's very aggravating.  Venado 20:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is aggravating for everyone.  It's aggravating when new people arrive to question (or make aggressive edits to) stuff that has already been discussed and worked through by the people most invested in the articles here.  And, unfortunately, in the past, archiving has been used as a way to hide discussions that showed Steiner in a "difficult" light.  If I'm incorrect that auto-archiving is active on this page, then maybe it would be best just to get a bot to archive these pages automatically - that way nobody can complain about who archived what and when.  Fair enough? Pete K 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is open to everyone, and editors aren't supposed to control the articles.  How could there be a bot?  The talk pages went back to 2004 and there were no archive files. Stop owning the articles and let other people contribute.  You revert way too much.  It was a lot of work to archive this, and I appreciate it.Venado 22:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There certainly are bots that auto-archive talk pages.  There was one on the Steiner Views on Race and Ethnicity talk page.  Editors are not supposed to selectively archive material they don't want to have visible to readers (that's what was going on here in the past).  Auto-archiving would save everybody a lot of work.  And a lot of discussions that are still relevant have been on hold during the arbitration.  That period of inactivity doesn't mean they are dead subjects.  Regarding "reverting way too much" - that's only because people are adding stuff they know will be reverted.  At some point, they're going to point to all my reverts and make a case (big surprise).  The directive here was to clean up these articles, not make them worse.  I'm reverting material that makes them more biased toward Anthroposophy than they already are.  I'm very much trying to do what the directive from the ArbCom said.  Like it or not, the POV-pushing Anthroposophists got dealt a blow here and there's no reason to continue to accept POV edits by them. Pete K 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: I have blocked Pete K and Hgilbert each for 24 hours for edit warring on Waldorf education.  The next time these articles are disrupted by edit warring I will fully protect them and no one will be able to edit at all.  In order to edit the article you will have to agree on the edit and then put the  template on the talk page to get an admin to do it for you (assuming you can agree on anything).
I also notice that these articles, despite the article probation, rely heavily on anthroposophy-published documents as sources, in spite of the arbitration ruling determining that they should be removed.  Documents originating with anthroposophy, the Waldorf foundation, or Rudolph Stiener are not acceptable as sources either for claims that Waldorf is good, or for claims that Waldorf is bad.  Things ranging from the complex (whether Steiner was racist) to the simple (whether Waldorf schools discourage parental communication) can not be sourced to primary documents.  They are not considered reliable sources for several reasons.  Generally if you are using Waldorf materials to describe the benefits etc., you run afoul of the self-serving limits of the reliable source policy, and if you are citing Waldorf documents to "prove" they have problems, you are violating the "interpreting primary sources to draw a conclusion is original research" limitation. 
If you think that reopening the arbitration case will get the other editors banned but leave you safe, I can almost guarantee you are wrong. Clean up these articles.  Get the Waldorf sources and all the original research, conclusions and personal experiences out.  Rely on what independent third parties have published in reliable sources, and if they haven't published anything about a topic, take it out.  Trust me, you do not want the case reopened. Thatcher131 02:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last chance 

message: I have removed a strange citation to a website called doyletics, some sort of esoteric group it appears but certainly sub-standard for Wikipedia. I have also removed one line that I had added to the Waldorf article; I would like to improve this but need to get hold of McDermott's book (the only source I know of for this) again to do so. "Coming soon." Hgilbert 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the section removed by the edit described above. Funny you shouldn't like comments from "some sort of esoteric group" as that would describe Anthroposophists quite well.  I suggest that what seems strange to you is not criteria for removing material. Pete K 19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The logic of what you write could seem to be that it is your view that when any sort of group that can seem to be "esoteric" publishes something on the net, that is a a valid and reliable citation source regarding anthroposophy. While the individual behind the site - that seems self published - has written a number of reviews of works or lecture series by RS, the site seems to be dedicated primarily to promoting a version of Neuro-linguistic programming developed by someone who - as far as I have seen (I may have missed it) - does not seem to have anything to do with anthroposophy.  Thebee 23:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And when you write "replaced the section", that seems to mean "Reverted edit by Hgilbert", is that correct?  Thebee 00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The "agree" link does not work in my browser. It seems the last part maybe got lost and the link should have been this. Thebee 10:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting I don't know this subject, HGilbert - and that I should read books on it?  You guys just have a ball, and I'll be back to clean up your mess later. Pete K 15:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucifer and Ahriman 

message: From the article:
:Although Steiner urged his followers to think for themselves and to adjust his insights for new circumstances, a social study of anthroposophists in England found that many of them considered Steiner infallible (Ahern, 1984). If Steiner's theories do not provide an adequate safeguard from being accepted uncritically by Waldorf teachers, then his writings on race could be dangerous. It is difficult to imagine how his speculations on the evolution of consciousness among different peoples could be applied to individual children from different traditions without being racist. Few theories about how the universe works can be easily applied to the full complexity of individual lives. When any spiritual tradition accepts a multilived, karmic account of an individual child, there is always a considerable risk of misjudgment. When a key category in the interpretation of the child's karmic path through multiple lives is the individual child's skin color or ethnic background, it is more than a risk; it is racism, and it is intolerable. It is time to sound the alarm against the possibility that Waldorf teachers could be using such ideas to guide their thinking about children in their classes.
:Whatever Steiner did say, whatever he might say if he were alive today, if only a few Waldorf teachers can nurture what might be a Steiner-derived anti-Semitic or anti-African American prejudice, then Waldorf educators will have to critique themselves before their pedagogy can be of systematic use across the country. The offending texts must be identfied, criticized, explained if possible and disowned if necessary. Appendix II offers an example from Steiner's The Mission of Folk-Souls. More than the passages from the Dutch newspaper quoted in Appendix I, this text is at the core of the Steiner canon. It can be read perhaps by scholars familiar with a wide range of Steiner's writings as having nothing to do with the current arrangements among groups of persons designated by various racial terms either around the world or, now far from the soils that nurtured their races of origin, within American cities. Without an extensive explanation of the text, however, it is much easier to read the passage as simple racism, with black people once again treated as the simple children of the earth, close to their senses and instincts, and no doubt in need of guidance from those less driven by the instincts of the body. A noncritical reading of such texts could have been a source for the Dutch Waldorf teacher investigated for teaching her class about the exceptional sense of rhythm shared by contemporary black persons.
I'll remove the tag again.  Pete K 19:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying this; I was not aware of this (and would like to read the full article now). 68.193.184.127 02:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, Pete, that's from the (excluded) Waldorf Research version of the article...68.193.184.127 02:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact tag, racism

message: There were quite a few topics covered in multiple sections scattered throughout the article. I have tried to unify similar topics; this initial result need not be the final organization of the article, of course. I'd welcome ideas about this.
The whole work of providing citations will need to get underway at some point, as well. 68.193.184.127 02:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: Hi there guys - have played around with this section - mostly formatting but have made the following changes:
Title change to Racism in Waldorf Schools - because this is a psuedo  criticism section (maybe it should be renamed Reception and Criticism - as most of the sections are criticism)  - is does need the Concern in the title. Also used Racism as that is what is discussed in the three research reports.
Title change from Racism to Racial Bias - the opening of this section is based on Anthroposophy where no evidence has been provided that there is racism - the sub section covers racism in the schools and is named as such. So this section is better called Racial Bias as the moment it is a war of quotations, but no research been presented to suggest that Anthroposophy as a whole is racist. Cheers Lethaniol 16:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles are talking about racism.  Anthroposophy believes, as Steiner did, that some races are advancing while others are declining, that some races have outlived their usefulness and that the white race is the race of the future.  That's not a racial bias, it's racism.  Now I don't believe in calling short people vertically challenged, and I dont' believe in calling racism racial bias.  It is what it is and we shouldn't call it something else. Pete K 17:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops - you are right Pete - the following link Talk:Waldorf_education/Archive3#Final_section_from_Urban_Journal_and_McDermott_report does cover the quote in the Racial Bias section.  No I was right, was just getting confused here - sorry. Think first, write later Cheers Lethaniol 17:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The articles are talking about racism - but only really in the context of schools. If we can not find any acceptable sources for racism in the followers of Anthroposophy/Steiner, then  maybe we should change the whole section title to Racism in  Waldorf Schools? Cheers Lethaniol 17:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The large section exclusively relating to Waldorf schools is already in the eponymous article and should not be repeated here. The one section connecting to anthroposophy is sensible here. Hgilbert 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed but have added a wikilink to that Waldorf Education section - please reword as needed - english getting poor as I fall asleep. zzzz Cheers Lethaniol 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are we again having to prove racism in Anthroposophy?  We've had this source  for quite some time. Pete K 02:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial Bias 

message: Lots of the material here has remained unsourced.  Since I'll be leaving soon, I want to make some effort to clean up this article before I go.  If there are approved sources for any of this, they would have appeared by now (it's been like this for over a month).  I'll be removing the uncited statements and as sources are found, they can be re-introduced into the article.  I'd be just as happy if someone else would take on this task, but it seems it's always left to me to do this dirty work and then some sinister intention is applied to it.  Can anyone support why this material should remain unsourced?  Pete K 15:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have agreed to take on this work article by article. We could make this article our next priority, but should 1) agree to do so and 2) choose a reasonable deadline together. I am happy to turn our attention here, but let's look for some editorial concensus here. Hgilbert 16:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I may not have the luxury of taking too much time - so I'll do what I have to do before I'm gone and whoever is left can sort it out.  Some of these cite tags have been on the article since the first arbitration.  That's plenty of time - and you have been adding to this article all during the time we were working on the Waldorf article, so it's not as if you have followed your own suggestion above.  You can, of course, add the material back in when you source it.  The arbcom decision says to remove it.  That's what I intend to do, hopefully without your interference. Pete K 16:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting Unsourced Material

message: I would like to point out an example that I am very unhappy with:
The word anthroposophy is derived from the Greek roots anthropo meaning human, and sophia meaning wisdom. The term was first used by philosopher Robert von Zimmermann in his book Anthroposophy. Steiner borrowed this term when he founded his own process of spiritual study.
The reference for this is a Steiner reference. Now IMHO if you are going to use such a reference then as it is primary material we should say. Steiner says he borrowed this term.... Primary sources making comment on themselves should not be trusted - a secondary/tertiary non-Anthroposophy source is so much better. If it can not be found, then change wording so that it reflects that this statement is from a primary source.
Cheers Lethaniol 17:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. This passage was not introduced by me, however! I don't know who added it and I'm not sure that the statement that Zimmermann was the first to use the word is even completely accurate. (I have removed the passage. )Hgilbert 17:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AnthroMedia has a short section in English on the issue. The German version describes the history of the use of the word and concept more in detail. The word and concept first seems to have been used documented in print in 1575, in a work that probably can be ascribed to Agrippa of Nettesheim. For documentation of this from the work it self, see here.  Thebee 18:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And I'm not the one who entered the recent info on the issue into the article.  Thebee 18:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pete_K put it there in the article originally, where it was wrongly written.  Many people had used the term before Zimmermann, just Steiner said thats from who he took the word.  I see this problem in many places in the articles, not just Steiner published claims.  The editor uses sources but makes claims in the article that arent made in the sources.  This is the case in quite a bit of new added material to Waldorf article to.Venado 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Steiner did not credit Zimmermann with "coining the word", he said he (Steiner) took the word from Zimmermann's title.  That's the first problem, that the "coining the word" idea isn't what the Steiner quote says.  The next problem is the same one we have had since arbitration.  That is when are Steiner sources allowed?  I'm confused what the consensus is, and even you seem to be of two opinions when hours ago you say "everything about Steiner" is controversial and has to have an independent source.  But at the least, there is no confusion that the statements have to be accurate to the sources, and even now it keeps happening that new things are going in articles that are inaccurate. Venado 22:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have the reference above (The Anthroposophical Movement)?  I don't want to type out the whole thing but it seems from the context this is what Steiner is saying.  I really don't care one way or the other as it isn't worth arguing over compared to the other inaccuracies in the article.  I don't think Steiner may be used as a source for anything - according to the ArbCom decision.  I may have misunderstood something, but the last I heard, the ArbCom has said no Anthroposophical references including Steiner.  An individual arbitrator may have added or subtracted something here or there, but again the ArbCom decision (not an individual arbitrator's comments) is what has been set down as the law.  If the ArbCom has revised its decision, I would love to hear it.  I agree with you, I haven't seen anything resembling a "consensus" about anything (with the exception of a few edits and even those have not had a full consensus).  So, we aren't working out of consensus, and the edits today have been plentiful.  What happened to the notion of discussing edits beforehand.  It's back to the same editwarring and people trying to own the articles.  So really, this has just deteriorated again into the pushiest editor gets his way.  I want accuracy in these articles as much as you - especially because I believe a good portion of what is here is deceptive and unsupportable.  I'd rather not reference Steiner directly, but if others are going to do so to push their POV, I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to.  It has to be a rule across the board or it's nonsense.  Pete K 00:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Steiner source example

message: The wording should match what the citations actually say: that it has a philosophical basis, methodology of spiritual research, etc., about all which Schneider goes into great detail. I suggest that the "believes it includes" should revert back to "includes" on this basis. Hgilbert 22:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LMAO... The rest of the editors here have been doing nothing but removing YOUR OWN INTERPRETATIONS from these articles for MONTHS.  Incredible! Pete K 00:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Funny. Elsewhere you claim that the content of the Waldorf education article is back to where it was before the arbitration process. Since all the material is now cited to independent sources, this would imply that these were not my interpretations, but verifiable statements."  Gee... as if that happened automatically.  Do you realize how much work was involved in this process?  90% involved fighting YOU over you continually trying to sneak in Anthroposophical sources.  Amazing.  And "verifiable" doesn't mean squat to me... Everyone falls for Waldorf before they know what it's about.  Anyone writing an article will see exactly what new parents will see - ooo... so pretty.  I'm unimpressed with "verifiability" - I'm impressed with the truth.  If you don't like the way it sounds, why don't you let others re-write it instead of bullying them.  We already know what you want in there - how about letting someone else give it a shot without reverting their edits instantly?  People are bothered by the untruthfulness of what is being claimed and that's why they want to edit it.  Why don't you relax and give them a chance?  They may have sources that conflict with yours for all you know.  Give them a chance to provide them.  Just because you have a source that says something doesn't make it truthful.  Let the truth come out and you will have much less fight on your hands.  Pete K 02:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are still going by Wikipedia's verifiability standards. There have been a whole series of edits around the "practical activities" paragraph of the introduction. There are three citations to show that these activities exist, and that they are effective, all from non-anthroposophical sources; why are editors putting in their own loaded language? I have substituted a direct quote from the UNESCO source to avoid further questions as to what is accurately reflecting the sources. Hgilbert 23:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: In view of the criteria for articles published in the Waldorf education article, I have moved out the bulk of the long, and probably not of general interest, 'view of the human being' section to a linked sub-article (see WP:Bold!). Is this generally acceptable?Hgilbert 03:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  View of human being