Talk:Rudolf Steiner/Archive 2

and again racism

i reverted the 'clarication' of the racism section because i did not clarify anything. as it is now it is relatively neutral. the in depth treatment is left to the steiner on races article where one finds a critical and a sympathetic voice on steiner's alleged racism. adding the dutch anthropop soc report in here again tilts the balance to one side. and why does it say citation needed. do you want a racist steiner quote. watch out because i might just find you one the may appear offensive to modern ears. i am not sure if the article would really benefit from that.--trueblood 11:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with a summary line from the article dealing specifically with the topic? Aquirata 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to create a balanced summary that will satisfy all sides. The present format seems to be meeting with acceptance from all sides and I think it is really fair. The sub-article is there for all the striven-over stuff that needs comments from various sides. Hgilbert 16:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

the summary of the racism article cannot be that there are simply no grounds for accusations of racism, since steiners idea are as stated in the article 'complex'. the article also states that : The conclusion of the Commission is that sixteen statements, if they were in public by a person on his or her own authority, could be a violation of the prohibition of racial discrimination under the Criminal Code of the Netherlands. it is just that steiner said a couple of things that 'may appear racist to modern ears'. just leave as it is, otherwise it is only a question of time until someone gets really worked up about this 'anthroposophical whitewash' (might happen anyway) trueblood 18:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards are to avoid personal statements and especially attacks; these only serve to heat up arguments, not to improve articles, which is our mission. Please keep calm and assume good will on all sides, as we all do; it will make editing a much more pleasant experience for everybody. A neutral tone in discussion also gives the impression that the writer is capable of reaching a higher level of objectivity, which probably tends to give more confidence in the objectivity of his or her edits, as well. Adding objective content to articles speaks most strongly.

A calm approach will also help you recognize when people are actually agreeing with you; your last comment and mine are both supporting the current version.Hgilbert 00:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

oops, sorry i did not mean to sound worked up, i was not. i really meant, that there are this charges of racism (with certain reasons) , and if the article sound too apologetic then it is really just a matter of time until someone stumbles over, gets really worked up and starts an edit war because of this 'whitewash', meant that as a quote. also i wanted to respond to aquirata, rather than you trueblood 11:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We have worked through to a reasonable balance for the race issue; a brief summary that mentions both aspects of the situation and a detailed analysis in a sub-article. This came out of conversations on the Talk:Anthroposophy page, and all sides felt well met by the solution. Let's not start an edit war here; the section was over-large trying to incorporate the enormous complexity of Steiner's views (see Rudolf Steiner's views on races) within an overview article that is anyway larger than Wikipedia standards suggest. Hgilbert 01:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you need to save room, take out the stuff about the Goetheanum. Architects don't find it spectacular, it's a church like any other church. Only Anthroposohists think it's great. Steiner's racism, however, is of significant imprtance to people and a whitewash of his teachings is in place here. Steiner's racist remarks are, as I have said, sometimes almost indistinguishable from Hitler's, and this absolutely NEEDS to be reflected here. Steiner was a philosopher - and racism was part of his philosophy. To suggest otherwise is to sweep under the rug the entire basis of Anthroposophy which has at its core physical and spiritual hierarchies. In Steiner's view of spiritual hierarchies, Thrones are higher than archangels, archangels are higher than angels and stuff like that. In Steiner's veiw of physical hierarchies, diamonds are higher than emeralds, roses are higher than carnations, and white people are higher than black people. Racism is part of Anthroposophy and it should be part of this article. --Pete K 02:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

hu, chill out a little. comparing steiner to hitler is way over the top. the goetheanum takes a lot more important place in steiners output, than a few racist comments. those few are really ugly, but i don't think they proove that anthroposophy is build on racism trueblood 17:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are the one who needs to chill out my friend. Please slow down and re-read what I wrote. I was comparing Steiner's remarks on race to Hitler's remarks on race, not comparing Steiner to Hitler. Some of them are indistinguishable from Hitler's. If you don't think building a philosophy (Anthroposophy) on spiritual hierchies that are based in racism is important, or significant, or evident, perhaps you need to read a bit more of Steiner's material. People who characterize Steiner's racism as "a few racist comments" make me question if they have a thorough grasp of the subject. --Pete K 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A fair presentation of Steiner's comments will show all sides of his work. Wikipedia guidelines suggest avoiding loaded and variously interpreted terms such as racism; instead, show what the person said, wrote and did, and let the reader make up her or his own mind what this means. We are trying to do that on the Rudolf Steiner's views on races page. We can interpolate more quotes (of all kinds) on that page. The issue is truly complex, and I know of no qualified historian, philosopher or corresponding authority who has examined Steiner's works and called them racist. Yet there are certainly comments that characterize races or ethnic groups in ways that imply or state judgments about their relative strengths and weaknesses, sometimes in extreme ways. We need not shy away from presenting these, as well. Hgilbert 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"The issue is truly complex, and I know of no qualified historian, philosopher or corresponding authority who has examined Steiner's works and called them racist." You're kidding right? Have you looked on the web? There are 248,000 links for Steiner+Racism on Google, 121,000 for Steiner+racist. And you know of no "qualified" historian. Have you heard of Steiner historian Peter Staudenmaier? Oh, yes, he sent you articles and published works about Steiner's racism. You've had discussions with him several times. What, in your opinion, disqualifies the foremost historian on Steiner's racism? His academic research? His published works? His PhD? Just curious. --Pete K 15:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I have understood, PS has no qualifications as a historian, though he is seeking to attain these.

oh dude, as it is i am completely chilled. since i don't seem to have a thorough grasp of the subject i say no more, except what is your thorough grasp on the subject based on, except the google search steiner + racism. can you tell me of one encyclopedia were they left out the gotheanum to have enough space for his racist views? on a different note hgilbert or whoever i would like to delete three words from steiner and ethnicity, as this section is probably soon called: including his own, unless someone show me one quote were steiner spoke about his own race in a way that may appear denigrating to some modern ears... trueblood 20:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Steiner spoke of the white race as being potentially far more decadent than any other. Give me a couple of days to find this reference, and perhaps one or two others relevant to this statement. Hgilbert 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

1. White people take on the qualities of foreign areas more than other races. They decay individually more than other races when they leave their homeland. GA 349, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde, p. 62
2. The white race is the result of a cooperation between normal and abnormal spirits: GA 121, p. 85.(English: Mission of the Individual Folk Souls in Relation to Teutonic Mythology)
3. Native Americans are able to hear in nature the voice of the creative Spirit, while Europeans have such a materialistic culture that they can't hear the voice of nature any more. GA100, p. 244

From the article: "He discarded the theosophical terminology of root races, prefering to speak of earth epochs." I don't think this sentence is supportable at all - in fact I think it is an outright lie. Steiner ABSOLUTELY talks about root races throughout his lectures and books. As I recall, in his book Atlantis and Lemuria" he spends almost the entire book talking about root races. Here's a quote from one of his defining works "Knowledge of Higher Worlds" p 207 (the title has been changed in recent years to something like "How to Know Higher Worlds") "According to the nomenclature of the science of the spirit, the Lemurians, Atlanteans and Aryans are root races of mankind. If one imagines that two such root races preceded the Lemurians and that two will succeed the Aryans in the future, one obtains a total of seven. Each root race has physical and mental characteristics which are quite differentfrom those of the preceding one. While, for example, the Atlanteans especially developed memory and everything connected with it, at the present time it is the task of the Aryans to develop the faculty of thought and allthat belongs to it.In each root race various stages must also be gone through. There are always seven of these. In the beginning of a period identified with a root race,its principal characteristics are in a youthful condition; slowly theyattain maturity and finally enter a decline. The population of a root raceis thereby divided into seven sub-races. But one must not imagine that onesubrace immediately disappears when a new one develops. Each one may maintain itself for a long time while others are developing beside it. Thus there are always populations which show different stages of developmentliving beside each other on earth."

Here's another one: "We are within the great Root Race of humanity, which has peopled the earth, since the land on which we now live rose up out of the inundations of the ocean. Ever since the Atlantean Race began slowly to disappear, the great Aryan Race has been the dominant one on earth. If we contemplate ourselves, we here in Europe are thus the fifth Sub-Race of the great Aryan Root Race. The first Sub-Race lived in the distant past in Ancient India. And the present-day Indians are descendants of that first Sub-Race, whose spiritual life is still extant in the ancient Indian Vedas. The Vedas are indeed only echoes of the ancient culture of the Rishis. At that time there was of course no writing yet - there was only tradition. Then came the second, third and fourth Sub-Races. The fourth Sub-Race adopted Christianity. Then, halfway through the Middle Ages, we see that the fifth Sub-Race formed itself, to which we and the neighboring nations belong." (Steiner, Rudolf. The Temple Legend: Freemasonry and Related Occult Movements: Twenty Lectures given in Berlin between 23rd May 1904 and the 2nd January 1906. (1904-1906) Trans. John M. Wood, Edited E.M. Lloyd. London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1985, p. 220)

Rather than delete the sentence completely and offhandedly, I'd like to leave this open to discussion for a day or two first. --Pete K 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

yep, you so proofed your thorough grasp. impressed. trueblood 22:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

He certainly used the terminology "root race" in his early theosophical period, before splitting off from the Theosophical Society. All the works you quote are from before 1907 or so, when he began changing a great deal in his presentations, including this. Hgilbert 00:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL! So he didn't "discard" it at all. He used this langage, in his lectures and books and at some point in 1907 when he split off from the Theosophical Society, reinvented HIS OWN terminology to separate himself from Blavatsky. This is hardly what the sentence says now, is it?

Re: Peter Staudenmaier, since you are currently in communications with him, why don't you simply ask him about his qualifications as a historian. He is on the WC list right now describing your exchanges with him - and that you are denying, apparently, what is clearly historical information that he is providing to you. Living in denial of the facts is unhealthy.

Re: Denegration of white races - again, what you have demonstrated by your examples IS racism. Your efforts here, and Sune's efforts on the Waldorf page are proving the point - that Steiner considered race to be an important factor in determining things like intelligence, morality, decadence and went into detail about how some races had their internal parts harden too soon, or were burned by the sun and all sorts of other nonsense (to modern ears <G>). Now, I have 25 pages of quotes from Steiner that denegrates all races but the white race, and you have three snippets out of 40 books and 6000 lectures (and even those snippets are taken completely out of context) that say white people decay when they leave their homeland or are more materialistic than Native Americans - as a defense of this "across the board" idea you are trying to promote. It's really ridiculous to suggest . In fact, Steiner was against the "mixing of the blood" and that's why he prefered white races not populate areas where "savage" races were.

Trueblood, I studied Steiner in earnest for more than a decade. I apologise for mentioning google searches in my comment above as that may have misled you to think my understanding of this subject is superficial. --Pete K 14:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding HGilbert's claim that "I know of no qualified historian, philosopher or corresponding authority who has examined Steiner's works and called them racist." Here's one - and since you read German, you won't mind:

Helmut Zander, “Der Weltgeist auf dem Weg durch die Rassengeschichte. Anthroposophische Rassentheorie” in Stefanie von Schnurbein and Justus Ulbricht, eds., Völkische Religion und Krisen der Moderne (Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2001)

Helmut Zander, “Sozialdarwinistische Rassentheorien aus dem okkulten Untergrund des Kaiserreichs” in Uwe Puschner, Walter Schmitz, and Justus Ulbricht, eds., Handbuch zur ‘Völkischen Bewegung’ 1871-1918 (Munich: Saur, 1996)

So now you can no longer honestly make that claim. --Pete K 02:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added this quote by Steiner:

"[W]e are not justified in thinking that human beings were originally like the savages of today. The savages have developed into what they now are--with their superstitions, their magical practices and their unclean appearance--from states originally more perfect. The only superiority we have over them is that, while starting from the same conditions, we did not degenerate as they did. I might therefore say: The evolution of man has taken two paths. It is not true that the savages of today represent the original condition of mankind. Mankind, though to begin with it looked more animal-like, was highly civilized. ... Just as the present savages have fallen from the level of the human beings of primeval times, so the apes are beings who have fallen still lower." (Steiner, 1924, EEM p. 126)

Let's see how long it stays before the revisionists remove it. Anyone interested in seeing the breadth of Steiner's racism can certainly go back through the history pages here and read a new quote every day. If there is any question that his remarks were of racist intent, the abundance of quoted material here should clear that up.--Pete K 23:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it only took a few minutes for the revisionists to remove the quote. I've added a new quote:

But all such questions are illuminated as soon as we recognize the nature of the spiritual essence which lies at the back of our blood. Who can deny that this question is closely linked to that of race, which at the present time is once more coming markedly to the front? Yet this question of race is one that we can never understand until we understand the mysteries of the blood and of the results accruing from the mingling of the blood of different races. And finally, there is yet one other question, the importance of which is becoming more and more acute as we endeavor to extricate ourselves from the hitherto aimless methods of dealing with it, and seek to approach it in its more comprehensive bearings. This problem is that of colonization, which crops up wherever civilized races come into contact with the uncivilized: namely - To what extent are uncivilized peoples capable of becoming civilized? How can an utterly barbaric savage become civilized? And in what way ought we to deal with them? And here we have to consider not only the feelings due to a vague morality, but we are also confronted by great, serious, and vital problems of the very fact of existence itself.

Those who are not aware of the conditions governing a people - whether it be on the up- or down-grade of its evolution, and whether the one or the other is a matter conditioned by its blood - such people as these will, indeed, be unlikely to hit on the right mode of introducing civilization to an alien race. These are all matters which arise as soon as the Blood Question is touched upon." Rudolf Steiner, Occult Significance of Blood, An Esoteric Study -Berlin, October 25, 1906 GA 55 --Pete K 03:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote was deleted an again, I've added it back today. I'm documenting here the attempts by revisionists to remove Steiner's quotes. --Pete K 15:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed your pet quotation. If you want to add something "proving" Steiner's racism, add a quotation from a repudable scholar on Steiner. What you are doing is original research. — goethean ॐ 16:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not paying attention - my "pet quotation" is one of about a dozen or more quotations I've posted here over the past couple of weeks. It's not a "pet quotation" - it's characteristic of Steiner's racism. I don't need to "prove" Steiner's racism by a quote from a reputable scholar, Steiner's own words speak for themselves. There is NO original research involved in quoting the man's OWN words. What you are doing here is REVISING HISTORY. I'll add back yet another quote. You have no right to deny users of Wikipedia the right to view an example of Steiner's own words regarding the races - nor do you have the right or authority to subjugate my edits and remove these quotes. Do you deny that Steiner said these things? If not, then leave them in the article. --Pete K 18:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Since we can't put everything that Steiner said in the article, your selection of which of his words to quote constitutes scholarship. There is an entire article on Steiner's views on race, and your attempt to spotlight negative quotations by repeatedly inserting them into this page constitutes POV advocacy. Furthermore, your use of the word "malicious" constitutes a personal attack. Please stop. — goethean ॐ 18:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As if this isn't an organized attempt to keep this stuff off the page... LOL! My "Malicious" vs your "Vandalism" - I think both could be considered a personal attack - so I'm not buying what you're selling - and I don't frighten easily. I'm not selecting words to demonstrate Steiner's "scholarship", I'm demonstrating his "racism". If there's room in this article to discuss the ANTHROPOSOPHICAL commission's views on Steiner's racist commentary, then there's room here for examples of the actual words HE used. It's inappropriate to allow Anthroposophists to white-wash the racial issue (as if that isn't a POV advocacy) and then remove discussion to demonstrate the opposite from the page. Please stop with this silly whitewash. Steiner's racist language IS appropriate RIGHT HERE on an article about Steiner and on the topic of racism. I've included complete citations of each quote and each one has been removed by revisionsts here. --Pete K 20:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop attacking editors personally. Discuss content, not contributors. — goethean ॐ 21:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you think YOU are doing by characterizing my edits as "vandalism"? Why don't you stop deleting the quotes I put up here? The content apparently isn't at issue here because I've put lots of different quotes up and they all seem to disappear. So it isn't the content of the material, it's the entire idea of quoting Steiner in this article that you find objectionable. Why not give it a rest and let Steiner's words speak for themselves? --Pete K 22:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

After several attempts today to get a quote to stick, I'll start, again, posting the quotes I'm adding on the discussion pages here. At least people who are interested and savy enough to search the disucssion pages will find this material. Today's quote is:

"Man himself continued to progress, and now passed on into the middle of the Atlantean epoch; the present human form only began to develop during the first half of that epoch; only then did man begin to feel fully at home in it.

Now, there were some beings in those ancient times who were very low down in the scale of humanity; these became the backward races; there were others who kept themselves plastic; and, again, others who only occasionally inhabited human bodies. What I am now about to describe happened very frequently in the first part of the Atlantean epoch. Imagine a man of that time who for an Atlantean was highly evolved; through certain procedures it frequently happened that such a man was caused to separate his physical body (which was then very plastic) and his etheric and astral bodies from his more spiritual parts, which then withdrew more into the spiritual world so as later to take on another body.

It very frequently happened that, long before the physical, etheric and astral bodies were ready to die, they were willingly vacated by their soul and spirit-principles. These, when they had belonged to especially exalted individuals, were pure and good bodies. Highly spiritual beings then let themselves descend into these bodies; and so it frequently happened during the ancient Atlantean epoch that beings who were otherwise unable to incarnate on earth made use of such advanced bodies in order to descend among men. These were the beings who acted as great teachers in the Atlantean schools of initiation. They worked powerfully with the means available at that time."

(http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA/GA0105/19080811p01.html ; p. 104 in the book - lecture, number 7, from August 11, 1908)

Editors who continually remove this type of material are doing a disservice to people who are interested in the topic. --Pete K 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A new editor in the Waldorf revisionist tag-team has arrived to delete the quotes revealing Steiner's racist comments. This time they deleted the following:

"You will now understand the peculiar character of the Semitic 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 racial continuity through the blood-stream 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. When he declared himself to be 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.

The blood of mankind is thus subject to a twofold influence; two races emerge, the Mongolian race and the Semitic race. This points to the existence of an important polarity in mankind and we must emphasize the immense importance of this polarity if we wish to plumb the depths of the Folk Souls. "

"Consequently the various peoples may assume the most diverse forms. According as the eye or the ear or one of the other senses predominates, so will the different peoples respond in this or that way to the particular national tendency within the racial character. In consequence of this they are faced with quite specific tasks. The particular task of the Caucasian race is to find the way to the spirit through the senses, for this race is orientated chiefly towards the sense-world.

Here is disclosed something that introduces us to the deeper secrets of occultism; it shows how, in those peoples who are subject to the Venus forces, the initial steps in development, even in occult development, must be concentrated on the respiratory system. Amongst the peoples living more in the Western Hemisphere, on the other hand, the initial steps must start from an enrichment and a spiritualization of the life of the senses. This is experienced by those peoples inhabiting countries more towards the West in their stages of higher cognition, in Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition, in so far as the Jupiter Spirit originally modified the character. "

"Finally, the abnormal Spirits of Form who have their centre in Saturn work indirectly via all the other systems into the glandular system. In the Saturn race, therefore, in everything to which we must ascribe the Saturn character, we must expect to find the combination of the forces leading to the twilight of mankind, forces which set the seal upon its development and sow the seeds of its ultimate decline. This action and its effect upon the glandular system can be seen in the American Indian race and was the cause of its ultimate extinction.

The Saturn influence finally works via all the other systems into the glandular system which secretes the hardest parts of man. This slow decline is characterized by a kind of ossification which is clearly reflected in the external form. If you look at the pictures of the old American Indians the process of ossification described above is evident in the decline of this race. In a race such as this everything pertaining to the forces of the Saturn evolution has become realized in a special manner; then Saturn withdrew into itself, abandoned man to his bony system and thus hastened his decline. " The Mission of Single Folk Souls in Relation to Germanic-Nordic Mythology - Lecture 6 - The five main races of Mankind. --Pete K 03:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No surprise again, the quote was immediately removed. Here's today's quote:

"It certainly cannot be denied that Jewry today still behaves as a closed totality, and as such it has frequently intervened in the development of our current state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable to European ideas of culture. But Jewry itself 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, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur p. 152) --Pete K 15:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

PETE K, YOU SAID: "There is NO original research involved in quoting the man's OWN words. What you are doing here is REVISING HISTORY. I'll add back yet another quote. You have no right to deny users of Wikipedia the right to view an example of Steiner's own words regarding the races -nor do you have the right or authority to subjugate my edits and remove these quotes."

You are right in saying that these are his OWN WORDS and you have a good point in thinking that since these are his OWN words, that it should be added to his encyclopedia entry, that taking off his own words is only due to embarrasment of what he said. I'd like to offer another point as to why certain quotes shouldn't be on his page...

Steiner gave many of his lectures to the general public, but most of his lectures, however, were given to members of the Anthroposophic Society. In those private lectures, he did say things to members WHO WERE AWARE that INDIVIDUALITY was a more important factor to destiny than RACE. So even though these were his OWN WORDS, it would be wrong to put them up because they are being taken out of context. Even though they are Steiner's OWN WORDS, posting them in less than full awareness of the context in which he said them is actually slanderous. You can, in fact slander someone with their own words, if you post them out of context, which is what you are so adamant to do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.4.7 (talk • contribs)

I agree that it is out-of-context quotations that are the problem here, although I don't agree with 64.185.4.7 on slander. We deal with this type of thing constantly at Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche. Opponents of Nietzsche take a few quotations out of context to make him sound like a Nazi. It's irresponsible, unethical, and it hurts Wikipedia. I think that there are fewer academic studies of Steiner than Nietzsche and that that is also part of the problem here. In the Nietzsche article, we can demand that editors quote Nietzsche scholars. — goethean ॐ 22:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but that doesn't hold water. Some of the quotes I have listed are directly from Steiner's written works - his books that are the foundation of Anthroposophy itself. Some are from conversations with the workers who were building the Goetheanum - IOW, ordinary people who had, perhaps, some interest in Steiner - but there is nothing that I know of that indicates the workers all (or any) belonged to the Anthroposophical society. Can you identify which quotes, of the ones I have provided, you believe are from lectures that were "private" lectures in which only members of the Anthroposophical society were present? And given the understanding about Steiner's views about individuality, which statements do you then believe are no longer racist? And, for the record, I haven't made any claim that Steiner didn't believe individuality was more of a factor in destiny than race. He did, indeed, believe this. His racism was not directed at individuals (although he never met a black person). His racism was directed at RACES. He made assumptions about which races were advancing and which weren't and which races had certain characteristics that were favorable and which races had characteristics that weren't. Regardless of how Steiner felt about individuals, his ideas about the races ARE RACIST and his statements about the races reveal this. There is nothing slanderous here - he said what he said and even in the context you present, it's still racist. --Pete K 01:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone today has added the following commentary with an (apparent) quote:

He also believed that "the concept of race ceases to retain any meaning in our time," and that "Anyone speaking today about the ideal of races and nations and clan allegiance speaks out of decadent impulses for humanity.... And if these so-called ideals are believed to represent progressive ideals before the world, then this belies the truth. Because nothing brings humanity more into decadence than the proliferation of the ideals of race, nation [Volk] and blood.”

While I am encouraged that users are bringing Steiner's own words here, which is something I truly believe we should be doing, I am concerned at how this particular user linked the first and second quotes as if they were a stream of thought. The first quote is a snippet, not even a full sentence - taken from a lecture in 1909. The second is another snippet with a section removed in the middle and is taken from a lecture in 1917. The editor, who is unnamed, linked the two together and took parts out to make it seem as if the quote is supporting something that Steiner didn't actually support. I would hope these quotes, if we finally agree to bring them here, would be in their true context and not snippets stitched together to form a collage that represents something other than Steiner's true viewpoint. --Pete K 02:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to bring something from Steiner's early lectures in the 1907-1909 period when he actually talked about the concept of race as not having the same meaning as it did in Atlantean times (i.e. before he took a more racist tone) - why not, at least, get the whole clip (which is quite nice BTW) and present it instead of just snipping it into a sound-byte. This is from the SAME lecture the annonymous user referenced in the article.

"We can now say: Today in our time, the group-soulness of people is still not yet overcome, and whoever believes that it is completely overcome does not keep in mind certain finer phenomena of life. Whoever keeps it in mind will very quickly see that certain human beings not only appear alike in their physiognomy, but that also the soul-qualities are similar in groups of human beings: that one can, as it were, divide human beings into categories. Each person can still today be reckoned into a certain category; with reference to this or the other quality, he will belong perhaps to different categories, but a certain group-soulness is not only valid because the races exist, but also in other connections. The boundaries drawn between the single nations fall away more and more; but other groupings are still perceptible. Certain basic characteristics stand so connected in some people, that he who will only look, can still today perceive the last relics of the group-soulness of man.

Now we, in our present age, are living in the most eminent sense, in a transition. All group-soulness has gradually to be stripped off. Just as the gaps between single nations gradually disappear, as the single parts of different nations understand each other better, so also will other group-soul qualities be shed, and the individual nature of each single person come to the foreground more and more."

And finally now, we are getting to the part that was sound-byted:

"We have therewith characterised something quite essential in evolution. If we want to grasp it from another side, we can say: That idea whereby the group-soulness chiefly expresses itself loses meaning ever more and more in the evolution of mankind, i.e., the idea of race. If we go back beyond the great Atlantean catastrophe, we see how the human races are prepared. In the old Atlantean age human beings were grouped according to external characteristics in their bodily structure, far more strongly than today. What we call races today are only the relics of those important distinctions between human beings as were customary in old Atlantis. The idea of race is only really applicable to old Atlantis. Since we deal with a real evolution of mankind, we have never employed the idea of race in the most eminent sense for the post-Atlantean age. We do not speak of an Indian race, a Persian race, etc., because that is no longer correct. We speak of an old-Indian period of civilisation, of an old-Persian period of civilisation, etc. And it would be utterly devoid of sense if we would speak of our time preparing a sixth race. If relics of the old Atlantean distinctions, of their group-soulness, are still existing in our time, so that one can still say the racial division continues to work on — that which is preparing for the sixth period of time consists just in the character of race being stripped off. That is the essential. Therefore it is necessary that that movement which is called the anthroposophical movement, which should prepare the sixth period of time, adopts in its basic character this stripping off of the character of race — that especially it seeks to unite people out of all “races,” out of all nations, and in this way bridges over these differences, these distinctions, these gaps, which are existing between various groups of human beings. For the old racial standpoint had in a certain connection a physical character, whereas what will fulfil itself in the future will have a much more spiritual character." From GA 117 Dec. 4, 1909.

This is a very nice quote. I don't see why Steiner supporters don't use it instead of Swiss-cheesing sound-bytes to try to make their point (POV). As I have said before, I will support quotes BY STEINER that demonstrate HIS POV (not necessarily mine or yours). But don't expect me to go looking up all the good ones for you guys. --Pete K 03:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I`d like to mention that Steiner was the oppposite of a racist, because he hardly did anything different in his life than trying to convince people of the existence of an inner world in man. This isn`t anything very new in the history of human thinking, but the problem Steiner faces is the simple disbelief, how former times called it, and he, like others in our age (for example Adenauer) just calles this disbelief different (materialism) for the sake of reaching more modern thinking people. All his work on races and other anthropological things is based on this humanistic thought, so that racism can very easily be excluded. There are, also, no really doubtful passages in his speeches, what regards races, the Dutch "commission" — a not very neutral handful of anthroposophical apologists, who, of course, tried doing everything to avoid a pro-Steiner impression — finds an evil content even where there is nothing than the trial of a scientific look at certain races in Steiner`s works. The background is the somewhat superficial half-educated social layer in Germany which counts itself very wise, once it has resolved to ignore the existence of any racial differences between men; a decision, like everybody will easily understand, that only provokes the opposition of people distinguishing people by their physical appearance, the forms of their skulls, and so on, and aggravates a culture of love between people of a different biophysiological origin; for love, always, includes an interest for everything connected with the loved one, i.e., also his outer peculiarities!--Hans Dunkelberg 11:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an incredibly naive viewpoint - and is one reason I am disappointed that the material here is archived so frequently. It is, I suppose, a prerequisite now for new participants to read through the many archives first to find examples that refute what is being claimed above. Steiner was exactly a racist by the definition of the word "racist". There is no doubt of this - he elevated some races above others. There are countless examples of this in his work which have been presented here and subsequently archived {sigh}. That's what constitutes racism and what makes him a racist. To argue that this was done out of "love" for people doesn't change this fact. Racists can show great love for the races they are subjugating. --Pete K 16:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Racists can show great love for the races they are subjugating." Excuse me, but this appears too illogical to me. Where is then the racism, if there is love?! The problem seems to me that there are people who simply aren`t able to imagine what is love, and therefore, can`t imagine that anybody could love different races for their different qualities. Even if there should be words that can be counted a subjugation of a certain race from their literal meaning, this doesn`t mean that Steiner had hated them. A racist is somebody who hates a certain race, not somebody who loves it. If You tell that racists can love the races they subjugate, I have to take this as a plead for the racists and as a playing down of racism. Interesting is that if Steiner hadn`t said his words about the Indians - which can, for sure, easily be seen as full of hate against the Indians, especially, if one can`t imagine anything different than hate in the soul of a man - about the Indians, but about the Germans, i.e. that the Germans are a slightly decadent race - which is, for sure, true - nobody would remonstrate. It seems to me that Steiner is a racist, not because he has said something about the Indians, but because he is a German - which is, of course, racism itself. Also that You are against naivety doesn`t make You very credible for me. Against naivety are often people who have a darwinistic, materialistic, or social-darwinistic view of the world.--Hans Dunkelberg 19:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana replies to Hans: Sorry, Hans, but racists can definitely "love" different races, that's a very naive and simplistic viewpoint. "Loving different races for their qualities" is racism - people don't *have* different qualities based on their race, Hans. Lots of slaveholders loved their slaves, cared for them, looked after their welfare, had intimate relationships with them, etc. Your comments about the Indians are particularly interesting - you seem to be admitting on the one hand that his words appear "full of hate" and then taking it back, saying this only appears true for someone who can't imagine anything but hate anyway! And yes Hans - saying that Germans are a "decadent race" is racist, as well as idiotic.DianaW 11:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hans wrote: "A racist is somebody who hates a certain race, not somebody who loves it." Absolutely somebody who "loves" a certain race is a racist.DianaW 11:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You should perhaps look up the actual definition of racism. You are mistaken about what it means. It doesn't mean "hating" - it means elevating one race above another. Steiner definitely did this. The rest of your post is based on your misunderstanding of the term. Steiner was definitely a racist. Pete K 19:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Pete, but defintions of words don`t change as quickly as You, apparently, would like it. "Racist" is understood by the majority of people as something negative, not as something neutral and scientific, even if some scientists at a university or in an other ivory tower have thought out something different. It may be that Steiner is a racist in the sense of such a new dictionary, but this shouldn`t be told in the public, because it will, for sure, be misunderstood, thus causing much damage. The main problem is in this respect with Steiner that people begin hating other races if they are told that Steiner was a "racist", because they know of the many very goog things Steiner has brought into the world and which don`t have anything to do with races. So, better, Pete, let this be!--Hans Dunkelberg 19:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Hans, but what you are saying doesn't make sense. Are you saying don't call Steiner a racist because you believe the majority of people have the same misunderstanding of the term "racist" that you have? If the dictionary definition of the word isn't appropriate, what word would you have me substitute? This is an interesting position that many Anthroposohists take - changing book titles because of the connotation of certain words - "Occult Science" is a good example. I'm not about to play this game - if you don't know what a word means, then avail yourself of a dictionary. If you think people around you don't know what words mean, maybe you should start handing out dictionaries to them. It's not appropriate to tell people they shouldn't use words just because you have misunderstood their meaning - or you think others might. Steiner was a racist - and there is no denying this, and a peek in the dictionary confirms this, as does a peek into Steiner's own writings. Maybe you have a little less ground to stand on than I do - and perhaps you should "let this be!" Pete K 20:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Steiner for intermarriage

"... In fact, Steiner was against the "mixing of the blood" and that's why he prefered white races not populate areas where "savage" races were. ..." Pete K 14:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is contradicted by a lecture, that on the one hand is a comment on a comment by Mefistofeles in Goethe's Faust, and at first formulates the probably questions of a number of his audience, then to continue at the end to tell what Steiner himself thought of intermarriage:

"In earlier times tribes held aloof from each other, and the individual members of families intermarried. You will find this to have been the case with all races and with all peoples; and it was an important moment for humanity when this principle was broken through, when foreign blood was introduced, and when marriage between relations was replaced by marriage with strangers, when endogamy gave place to exogamy. Endogamy preserves the blood of the generation; it permits of the same blood flowing in the separate members as flows for generations through the entire tribe or the entire nation. Exogamy inoculates man with new blood, and this breaking-down of the tribal principle, this mixing of blood, which sooner or later takes place among all peoples, signifies the birth of the external understanding, the birth of the intellect.

The important thing to bear in mind here is that in olden times there was a hazy clairvoyance, from which the myths and legends originated. This clairvoyance could exist in the nearly related blood, just as our present-day consciousness comes about owing to the mingling of blood. The birth of logical thought, the birth of the intellect, was simultaneous with the advent of exogamy. Surprising, as this may seem, it is nevertheless true. It is a fact which will be substantiated more and more by external investigation; indeed, the initial steps along this line have already been taken.

But this mingling of blood which comes about through exogamy is also that which at the same time obliterates the clairvoyance of earlier days, in order that humanity may evolve to a higher stage of development; and just as the person who has passed through the stages of occult development regains this clairvoyance, and transmutes it into a new form, so has our waking consciousness of the present day been evolved out of that dim and hazy clairvoyance which [was] obtained in times of old."

--Thebee 19:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL! How is "intermarriage" the mixing of the blood of races? Nobody is talking about brother marrying sister here Sune. "Exogamy" means no inbreeding - i.e. small villages or tribes should seek people outside their tribe - it doesn't in any way refer to interracial marriages. That you have misunderstood what he wrote is no reason to cut the quotes I have been posting. --Pete K 20:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Exogamy means "marriage outside a particular group with which one is identified"; this can be on any scale. Hgilbert 12:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't need an English lesson, nor do I need help interpreting this quote or any of Steiner's material. The quote is NOT talking about marrying outside one's race. Revisionists, like you perhaps, try to use nonsense like this to convey that Steiner was talking about the mixing of races. The quote does not say this at all, and it doesn't imply this at all - and Steiner was not in favor of this at all - in fact he was very much opposed to the mixing of the blood of different races. Do you want me to post quotes here to support what I have just said? Here's one:

"Occult investigation shows decisively that all the things which surround us in this world - the mineral foundation, the vegetable covering, and the animal world - should be regarded as the physiognomical expression, or the "below," of an "above" or spirit life lying behind them. From the point of view taken by occultism, the things presented to us in the sense world can only be rightly understood if our knowledge includes cognition of the "above," the spiritual archetype, the original Spiritual Beings, whence all things manifest have proceeded. And for this reason we will today apply our minds to a study of that which lies concealed behind the phenomenon of the blood, that which shaped for itself in the blood its physiognomical expression in the world of sense. When once you understand this "spiritual background" of blood, you will be able to realize how the knowledge of such matters is bound to react upon our whole mental outlook on life.

Questions of great importance are pressing upon us these days; questions dealing with the education, not alone of the young, but of entire nations. And, furthermore, we are confronted by the momentous educational question which humanity will have to face in the future, and which cannot fail to be recognized by all who note the great social upheavals of our time, and the claims which are everywhere being advanced, be they the Labor Question, or the Question of Peace. All these things are pre-occupying our anxious minds.

But all such questions are illuminated as soon as we recognize the nature of the spiritual essence which lies at the back of our blood. Who can deny that this question is closely linked to that of race, which at the present time is once more coming markedly to the front? Yet this question of race is one that we can never understand until we understand the mysteries of the blood and of the results accruing from the mingling of the blood of different races. And finally, there is yet one other question, the importance of which is becoming more and more acute as we endeavor to extricate ourselves from the hitherto aimless methods of dealing with it, and seek to approach it in its more comprehensive bearings. This problem is that of colonization, which crops up wherever civilized races come into contact with the uncivilized: namely - To what extent are uncivilized peoples capable of becoming civilized? How can an utterly barbaric savage become civilized? And in what way ought we to deal with them? And here we have to consider not only the feelings due to a vague morality, but we are also confronted by great, serious, and vital problems of the very fact of existence itself.

Those who are not aware of the conditions governing a people - whether it be on the up- or down-grade of its evolution, and whether the one or the other is a matter conditioned by its blood - such people as these will, indeed, be unlikely to hit on the right mode of introducing civilization to an alien race. These are all matters which arise as soon as the Blood Question is touched upon." Rudolf Steiner, Occult Significance of Blood, An Esoteric Study -Berlin, October 25, 1906 GA 55

And for one of my favorites:

STEINER (1923) "No doubt about it, the soul becomes corrupted through using the French language...It is also possible at the present time that the French will even ruin their own blood, the very element which has kept their language going as a corpse. That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to other people, the frightful cultural brutality of transplanting black people to Europe. It affects France itself worst of all. This has an incredibly strong effect on the blood, the race. This will substantially add to French decadence. The French nation will be weakened as a race." [Steiner, Rudolf. *Conferences with the Teachers of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart 1922 to 1923: Volume Three: Being the end of the Fourth Year*. (1923) Trans. Pauline Wehrle. Forest Row, U.K.: Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications, 1988, pp. 87-88.]

And who can forget this one:

"I am convinced that if we get yet another set of Negro novels and give them to pregnant women to read, then Negroes do not have to come to Europe to conceive mulattos; just by reading Negro novels, half-blood children will be born in Europe" (from Steiner's "Health and Illness").

If you need more support for what I have said, please let me know. --Pete K 04:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your first quote doesn't say anything against mixing of races. The second says that bringing black people to Europe will weaken French blood and race; it is not clear that he means by intermarriage. The German says that "this deed, this terrible cultural brutality, works back unbelievingly strongly on France to weaken its blood, its race." - it is the deed itself that has this effect. The third is Steiner's weirdest ever quote (it is not new to me, I say this out of long experience); it actually doesn't directly address the issue, but indirectly gives credence to your standpoint. Against this stand various quotes: the one about Christ:

'Christ could be born in Galilee just because members of many peoples from various parts of the world were assembled in one spot; there was far less blood relationship, and, above all, far less faith in this [i.e. these relationships] than in Judea, in the narrow circle of the Hebrew people. Galilee was a heterogenous racial mixture....Christ's task was intimately connected with this mixing of blood.' (quoted and referenced in article)

A critique of Spengler's emphasis on everything coming from the "blood" (GA 36/p. 98)

"Someone who wishes to go to the root of the German nature cannot be content with that which a materialistic view calls "blood" or "race" of a folk." GA64/p.225

"Another memory lingering into Atlantean times was that although a man no longer felt the Folk-soul directly within him as on the Moon yet he experienced the influence of the old Folk Souls, Race-souls. This influence was so strong that it would have been quite impossible in those times for anyone who belonged to one Race or Folk-soul ever to unite with one who belonged to another race. There was a deep antipathy between the peoples of the various Folk-souls, love only existed between those belonging to the same. We may say that the common blood which earlier in the Moon-period had been poured down from the Folk-soul was the basis of this kinship." Theosophy of the Rosicrucians, lecture 9. This also clarifies the earlier quote about exogamy and shows that Steiner did specifically mean races, not just tribes.

"It will come about that all connections of race and family stock will cease to exist, men will become more and more different from one another, interconnection will no longer depend on the common blood, but on what binds soul to soul. That is the course of human evolution.

"In the first Atlantean races there still existed a strong bond of union and the first sub-races grouped themselves according to their colouring. This group-soul element we have still in the races of different colour. These differences will increasingly disappear as the individualising element gains the upper hand. A time will come when there will no longer be races of different colour; the difference between the races will have disappeared, but on the other hand there will be the greatest differences between individuals. The further we go back into ancient times the more we meet with the encroachment of the racial element; the true individualising principle begins as a whole only in later Atlantean times. Among the earlier Atlanteans members of one race actually experienced a deep antipathy for members of another race; the common blood caused the feeling of connection, of love; it was considered against morality to marry a member of another stock. " ibid. lecture 10, further confirming that exogamy among races is what he means here.

"If in man of an earlier time there flowed blood which bound him with his tribe, today the love which still flowed in the earlier blood shows greater and greater cleavage; a love of a spiritual kind must take its place and then we can ascend again to spiritual realms. There is good reason for us to have come down from spiritual heights, for man must go through this descent in order to find the way up to spirituality out of his own strength. The mission of Spiritual Science is to show mankind this upward path." ibid.

In Central Europe, what is essential is not a matter of outer determinations such as blood or race, but something like a spiritual substance that permeates the world. GA159/p. 58

In GA325, Steiner speaks of the evolutionary/cultural impulses carried by inheritance, by the blood, carrying through to Greek/Roman times, but then reaching a dead end; "nothing more was dependent upon, nothing more came from the blood....the blood gave nothing more"

There's a first selection. Hgilbert 07:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think these support your point at all. He doesn't say anything about mixing the blood of the races, he says that "individuality" will overcome the "racial element". And as for the French quote, here is another version:

"The use of the French language quite certainly corrupts the soul. The soul acquires nothing more than the possibility of cliches. Those who enthusiastically speak French transfer that to other languages. The French are also ruining what maintains their dead language, namely, their blood. The French are committing the terrible brutality of moving black people to Europe, but it works, in an even worse way, back on France. It has an enormous effect on the blood and the race and contributes considerably toward French decadence. The French as a race are reverting."

(Rudolf Steiner, Faculty Meetings With Rudolf Steiner, New York 1998, pp. 558-559)

What do YOU think he means, then? Are you suggesting that Steiner believed that simply bringing blacks to France would somehow have an effect on the blood of the French? "Ruin" their blood? This is an interesting point of view - perhaps supported by Steiner's claim that simply reading a novel about blacks could cause pregnant women to give birth to mulatto babies.

"I am convinced that if we get yet another set of Negro novels and give them to pregnant women to read, then Negroes do not have to come to Europe to conceive mulattos; just by reading Negro novels, half-blood children will be born in Europe" (from Steiner's "Health and Illness").

And lest Sune get on here and try to convince anyone that this was Steiner joking around, he made the same agrument again:

"You see, if a pregnant woman today were to ask for something to read, there is nothing to give her! There isn’t even anything to recommend! Recently I went into a bookstore in Basel and found an example of the latest publishing agenda: a Negro novel, just as the Negroes in general are entering into European civilization step by step! Everywhere Negro dances are being performed, Negro dances are being hopped. But we even have this Negro novel already. It is utterly boring, dreadfully boring, but people devour it. I am personally convinced that if we get more Negro novels, and give these Negro novels to pregnant women to read during the first phase of pregnancy, when as you know they can sometimes develop such cravings, if we give these Negro novels to pregnant women to read, then it won’t even be necessary for Negroes to come to Europe in order for mulattoes to appear. Simply through the spiritual effects of reading Negro novels, a multitude of children will be born in Europe that are completely gray, that have mulatto hair, that look like mulattoes!"

p. 189 of Über Gesundheit und Krankheit (Dornach 1994) (from 1922)

Steiner is, by the way, referring to Rene Maran's novel Batouala.

So which is it? Was Steiner talking about the ruining of the blood through interbreeding, or was he talking about osmosis through close proximity to the black race - or even BOOKS about the black race causing "half-blood" children? --Pete K 14:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In the original German, he refers to the terrible deed of cultural brutality involved in bringing people forcibly from Africa to Europe. He then says that this deed will have an effect on the blood and race of France. He does not say that this will be as a result of intermarriage. Since Steiner did believe that good or evil deeds could affect one's physical being even down to the inherited being, I don't know if he meant this or that there would be mixed-race children born. It's impossible to determine from the context. Hgilbert 16:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's only "impossible to determine" if you don't want to see the context. Steiner was talking about the black soldiers who were stationed in France. This wasn't slavery. If Steiner wanted to comment about slavery, he could well have talked about the United States. He talked about France because France is part of Europe and that blacks were brought into Europe bothered him. Steiner made lots of comments about the social implications of mixing cultures (and blood - I've quoted some above), about how "savages" would corrupt the Europeans. Steiner, himself, never met a black man. Steiner was referring to Rene Maran's novel 'Batouala' when he was talking about pregnant women reading novels and giving birth to mulatto children. If you are convinced that you don't know what he meant, then why are you arguing? Why not let editors who have studied this and actually KNOW what he meant perform edits to this article that are supported by evidence? --Pete K 17:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, such interpretations are considered original research and have no place here. We can quote published studies by competent authorities to bring their interpretations to bear, but cannot impose our own. Hgilbert 19:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Steiner's OWN WORDS are quotable here and I intend to quote Steiner right here. People can make up their own minds. --Pete K 04:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

For those who are just joining us, the above has been proven by yours truly - and is currently in the article - supported by a reference from Time magazine 1923 that explains EXACTLY what Steiner was talking about and why he said what he said when he said it. Please see the article section. Pete K 02:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to keep this section available as it is part of what is being mediated currently. --Pete K 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism ? Yes .

The ongoing edit war has thrown up some fascinating quotes from Der Doktor, mainly posted by Pete K. Now Pete obviously has his own axe(s) to grind, but the reaction of the Steiner acolytes is interesting in itself. I have been reflecting on the use of the word "vandalism" for Petes posting of unsavoury quotes from Steiner. I agree that Pete overdoes it, but then his opponents will apparently not accept the slighest splash of mud on their statue - or wikipedia article - of the Great Man. Hence the use of the word vandalism. The picture of the wartless man is destroyed as if Pete were marking the statue with a spraycan of red paint. Now Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, it is not a museum for idealised portraits or statues. Therefore any attempt at keeping the article free of mud is going to be a tough battle, not only against Pete and me and others with criticisms small and large of Rudolf Steiner. It is a battle against the spirit of Wikipedia. Once again I appeal to the common sense of the anthroposophist editors: accept that the article must contain criticism of the Great man. Steiner did have warts. Let them show. --Vindheim 18:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The POV "quotes" that Pete intensely works at spamming the main article on RS with belong in the discussion of the subject in an existing special article on the subject, linked to with two links from the main article, that gives a fuller NPOV oriented picture of the issue. For some discussion of the issue, see :http://www.waldorfanswers.org/Myths.htm ->

http://www.waldorfanswers.org/OnSalonArticle.html

http://www.waldorfanswers.org/AAntisemitismMyth.htm

http://www.waldorfanswers.org/ARacistMyth.htm and

http://www.waldorfanswers.org/ThreeConcepts.htm

Is the special page and discussion of the issue "hidden" or difficult to find from the main article? No. You want to see warts on Steiner? Take them to the proper article and accept a NPOV integration of them in the presentation there --Thebee 20:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Waldorfanswers is not a viable website where scholarly research has been done. It is an original research sight that is pretty much nonsense - and certainly not NPOV - so any references to this site will eventually be removed as I find the time. Anything that contains the word "myth" in it regarding Steiner's racism and antisemitism is suspect IMO - as these were very true aspects of Steiner's writings - not myths. The ridiculous attempt to remove any reference to racism and antisemitism in this article is clearly uncalled for here and should not be permitted at all. There are no POV opinions in the quotes that have been posted here - they are the exact quotes from Steiner. I'll continue to replace the removed quotes with new ones until someone here can justify why they should not be part of this article. This is not vandalism, it is an honest attempt to put Steiner's views in perspective and make them visible to people who are interested in them. The continued removal of these quotes (reminds me of the grafitti-removal machines in the movie "Demolition Man") is just an automatic response by people who don't want to see their false picture of their guru blemished. --Pete K 21:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So today we have the usual suspect placing a POV-Section marker at the material he doesn't like to hear. Steiner's OWN WORDS are not a POV of anyone but Steiner. If you don't like it - don't read it. This is going to start another edit war over somebody wanting to revise history. Steiner said these things. They were ugly, sure, but he said them - and people have a right to know. It's like when people hear that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, it makes a lot of what he wrote in the Declaration of Independence seem creepy - but it's STILL part of history. This is an encyclopedia - not your personal website. You don't get to change history here. --Pete K 14:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Pesky bot re-archived this. --Pete K 00:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Proper page for subject discussion

I suggest discussions on RS views on "races" is moved to its proper place, the Talks page on that issue. Thanks, --Thebee 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't agree, not surprisingly. Rudolf Steiner's views on race belong right here not buried elsewhere. This is, again, another attempted "clean-up" so even the Rudolf Steiner Talk page can stay pristine. This is part of your effort to keep Steiner's ideas about race hidden from public view. If they are moved, I will move them back here. The discussion here is exactly about whether Steiner's views on race should be available on THIS article and not on the sub-page. The discussion is relevant right here. --Pete K 04:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Time for a compromise maybe? Pete K. boils his presentation of Steiners racist remarks down to one paragraph here, and posts some of the rest of his quotes on the Steiner and racism page. just a suggestion. --Vindheim 05:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If they are published in the article on the subject, publishing them here too, as also repeatedly at the main page of the article on Rudolf Steiner is pure spamming and and edit warring and constitutes repeated conscious vandalism of the main article on R.S. --Thebee 08:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Spamming? ROFL... The main article on Rudolf Steiner is in need of HEAVY editing, BTW, and will get my full attention when time permits. In the mean time, his views on racism, which have been buried in a sub-article that makes excuses for them, need to be expressed here to some degree. His language was racist, not just to modern ears, but to ears contemporary to his lectures. He promoted that the white race was more evolved, more spiritually suited for the future than other races who had "hardened" too soon. It is incredible to me that anyone would continually suggest Steiner's own words cannot be referenced here. His views on race were a HUGE part of who he was and they were a huge part of his lecture topics, and they were a huge part of his defining literary works. This is not an attack on Steiner - it is a definition of who he was in an honest light. This is not opinion, it is fact and we don't need to go to any sources other than Steiner himself to confirm this fact. That's why it is so important that this be presented HERE in the article. People who have decided to revise history by wiping the fingerprints off this article are not going to win this debate. They cannot disassociate Steiner from racism, and bifurcating the Steiner article from the Steiner Racism article isn't going to divert the attention away from what Steiner actually said. --Pete K 15:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That's one POV. Steiner fought against anti-Semitism and racism his whole life long, however, both practically and through his writings and lectures. There are many hundreds of quotes to support this. He did not wish any human being to be judged on the basis of race.

At the same time, however, he made many comments about races and ethnic groups. He explained that he believed it was possible to define the tendency of any given group, while emphasizing that individuals were just that - they are not limited by the nature of the group into which they are born. He was comfortable with this to a modern ear paradoxical situation.

Many of his comments seem to go over the edge of defining groups into a casting of relative judgments. These need to be represented too.

I agree with Vindheim; each side needs to be represented here proportionally. Note that this was the case originally, before this edit war; both sides were represented quite fairly. Both sides were also represented briefly because of the complexity of both cases to present. We could try for a somewhat fuller presentation. Hgilbert 00:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"He did not wish any human being to be judged on the basis of race." Yet he judged THE RACES themselves. That's racism. And no, Steiner didn't fight agains anti-Semitism his whole life, the best that can be said was that at times he was for assimilation - there's a difference. And yes, comments and judgments about races and ethnic groups that places some races or one race in a superior standing to others IS racism. There is no question about this. You just seem to want an opportunity to explain your point of view (or his) - and you have done that in the sub-article and now in this article. I like what you added, BTW, and I've added one of the more racy (pun intended) quotes as well. I don't agree that both sides of this issue have been represented well, but it is better now than it was. Can we leave it alone now? --Pete K 01:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Steiner wrote criticizing anti-Semitism as barbaric, idiotic, etc. He also said, as one example among many, "It makes no difference whether someone is a German or a Jew." He believed in a world culture, and that all races and ethnic groups should work to contribute towards that. These are real statements, and there are hundreds more like this. He also believed - and this should be compared to his general ideas about the trend toward a loss of racial distinctiveness in the future - that Jews should assimilate rather than remain a separate race or culture. I want to present what he really said in the whole context, not just individual quotes.

You don't seem to have understood, though several people have mentioned this, that Wikipedia has an express policy of not labelling things 'racism'; instead, to present a person's words and thoughts and let people draw their own conclusion. It is true that Steiner did not wish people to be judged on the basis of race. It is also true that he differentiated races, sometimes showing all as one-sided in their own way, sometimes in a way that indicates relative value. The latter I too find problematic, and am not seeking to hide this; on the contrary, I included extensive sections on this in the sub-article.

Most of his comments, however, either are simply general about race - always anti-racist - or describe individual racial or ethnic groups in a context of each having its own strengths and weakenesses. Comments drawn from these may sound discriminatory until one recognizes that 1) he was willing to describe his own race and ethnic group in the same way: as having strengths and weaknesses, and 2) he emphasized that individuals were not limited by these group characteristics; on the contrary, many other factors are far more prominent and important than race in an individual's being, including individual innate abilities.

Nevertheless, there are many quotes that describe a given racial or ethnic group in a disparaging way. Some of these belong to the above category - he was willing to disparage every group, since he believed that we all need to overcome our group characteristics to achieve a full humanity. Some are more discriminatory in nature (in the perjorative sense). I have also represented these in the sub-article. They simply form a minority of all his comments about race and ethnicity. I don't expect you to believe this, but I wonder if you draw your knowledge of his work from selections that only represent the latter category? The average reader of Steiner will only encounter comments that are in no way problematic here, not because anyone has hidden certain kinds of quotes, but because they primarily occur in relatively obscure places, and often in a context that makes it apparent that they are not meant in a discriminatory way. On the other hand, every reader of Steiner will have encountered many statements that support an attitude of equality between all races and ethnic groups. The Anthroposophical Society's statutes explicitly require this: all are welcome, of any race, creed, ethnic group, philosophical persuasion whatsoever. This is not the act of a racist, or the expression of a racist philosophy. Hgilbert 22:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you really believe my understanding of Steiner's work is superficial, so I won't even comment on this. If you are suggesting that I am trying to do ANYTHING BUT present Steiner's own words and let people draw their own conclusions, I think you have to make that case. You suggest that Steiner was willing to describe his own race in a fashion similar to the way he described other races - and I would assume you also mean to the same degree. I have yet to see evidence of this - and I have evidence to the contrary. His own white race is described as the race of the future while other races are described as having fulfilled their usefulness, or having stopped in their evolution. These descriptions aren't apparent only in obscure places, they are in very prominent places.

Steiner said many things that people would find even more HORRIBLE than what I have presented here. From "The Fifth Gospel - Lecute 5, Oslo, 6 October, 1913 (p65) "And Jesus went on to say; 'If I, also a son of the House of David, were to do as Hillel did and utter the sublime revelations that have brought enlightenment to my soul and are the same sublime revelations as were given to the Hebrews of old, none would have the ears to hear today'"... "As if to sum up everything he had to say on the subject, Jesus told his mother: 'The revelation of ancient Judaism is no longer suitable for the Earth, for the old Jews have passed away; the ancient revelation must be considered worthless on Earth today.'" This is FAR beyond racist speech - in that Steiner, through his "clairvoyant" production of the "fifth gospel" put his racist ideas IN JESUS' MOUTH. This is EXTREMELY offensive material and still, nobody is suggesting it should be in the article.

We haven't even touched on, BTW, Steiner's other wacky ideas regarding reincarnation and karma, for example. We could and should get into those as well - and those too are major themes running through Anthroposophy. For example, Steiner believed that pneumonia was derived from having had sexual excesses in a previous lifetime (From Manifestations of Karma, p93). Anyone could list a lot of things like this if the intention was to make Steiner out to be a nutcase. The point, however, is to examine what Steiner REALLY believed and to put that into an article. Steiner really believed the white race was superior to all others. That's racism, my friend. --Pete K 16:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Steiner never said that. He made all sorts of comments about strengths and weaknesses of various races, and one can draw all sorts of conclusions from these, including that various races are better fitted for particular activities or situations, or for developing certain faculties, but not that any one is generally superior. Hgilbert 01:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Then how do you explain these quotes directly from Steiner:

"Really, it is the whites who develop the human factor within themselves. Therefore they have to rely on themselves. When whites do emigrate, they partly take on the characteristics of other areas, but they die more as individuals than as a race. The white race is the race of the future, the race that is working creatively with the spirit." [Steiner, March 3 1923, lecture to the workmen (GA 349 p. 67)]

"You see, when we really study science and history, we must conclude that if people become increasingly strong, they will also become increasingly stupid. If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will become increasingly dense if men do not arrive at a form of intelligence that is independent of blondness. Blond hair actually bestows intelligence. ... It is indeed true that the more the fair individuals die out the more will the instinctive wisdom of humans vanish." [Rudolf Steiner, founder of Waldorf Schools. Health and Illness: Volume I, p86. (1922) Spring Valley: Anthroposophic Press, 1981]

"We are within the great Root Race of humanity, which has peopled the earth, since the land on which we now live rose up out of the inundations of the ocean. Ever since the Atlantean Race began slowly to disappear, the great Aryan Race has been the dominant one on earth. If we contemplate ourselves, we here in Europe are thus the fifth Sub-Race of the great Aryan Root Race. The first Sub-Race lived in the distant past in Ancient India. And the present-day Indians are descendants of that first Sub-Race, whose spiritual life is still extant in the ancient Indian Vedas. The Vedas are indeed only echoes of the ancient culture of the Rishis. At that time there was of course no writing yet - there was only tradition. Then came the second, third and fourth Sub-Races. The fourth Sub-Race adopted Christianity. Then, halfway through the Middle Ages, we see that the fifth Sub-Race formed itself, to which we and the neighboring nations belong." (Steiner, Rudolf. The Temple Legend: Freemasonry and Related Occult Movements: Twenty Lectures given in Berlin between 23rd May 1904 and the 2nd January 1906. (1904-1906) Trans. John M. Wood, Edited E.M. Lloyd. London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1985, p. 220)

"The Western European peoples have become very much crystallized in their national characteristics, but in the case of the German people this cannot happen because of the peculiar nature of the German folk spirit. The result is that German attitudes will always have to remain more universal than those of other peoples. These things relate to profound realities in the spiritual world." [Steiner, Rudolf. The Destinies of Individuals and of Nations. (1914-15) Trans. Anna R. Meuss. New York: Anthroposophic Press 1987. p. 176]

"The German spirit...is prepared for a truth that reveals itself to be true out of itself, not requiring external verification. The German spirit is prepared for this and evidence of this may be found everywhere. The thoughts of those who were truly working within the essence of the German spirit have always taken the form of considering truth to be an inner gift of the human soul." [Steiner, Rudolf. The Destinies of Individuals and of Nations. (1914-15) Trans. Anna R. Meuss. New York: Anthroposophic Press 1987. p. 104]

"What has to come about for the civilization and culture of the future will only come about if the German folk spirit finds souls that transplant the Christ impulse into their astral body and ego the way it can indeed be implanted there in a state of full conscious awareness. It has to come about through harmony being established, by uniting with that which is consciously achieved in Central Europe--more and more consciously."This will need not just one or two centuries, but a very long time. The time needed...I would say counting from the year 1400. Adding two thousand years to 1400 we get the approximate time when something will emerge in the evolution of the earth that has had its seeds in the German life of the spirit...That is the intention of the cosmic intelligence...For the moment the East is very far indeed from achieving this. The very best of them still fall far short. Short sightedly, they still refuse to accept what Central European culture in particular is able to give." [Steiner, Rudolf. The Destinies of Individuals and of Nations. (1914-15) Trans. Anna R. Meuss. New York: Anthroposophic Press 1987. p. 62]

"The most characteristic sign of the time is the belief that when a group of individuals have set up some trashy proposition as a general program--such as the unity of all men regardless of race, nation or color, and so forth--something has been accomplished. Nothing has been accomplished except to throw sand into people's eyes. Something real is attained only when we note the differences and realize what world conditions are." [Steiner, Rudolf. Spiritual Science as a Foundation for Social Forms. (1920) Trans. Maria St. Goar. Ed. Alan Howard. New York: Anthroposophic Press,1986. p. 122] (My emphasis)

"The representative people for the development of the consciousness soul, hence for what matters particularly in our age, is the Anglo-Saxon nation. The Anglo-Saxon people are those who through their whole organization are predisposed to develop the consciousness soul to a special degree. The prominent position occupied by the Anglo-Saxon nation in our time is indeed due to the fact that this nation is especially suited for the development of the consciousness soul." [Steiner, Rudolf. Materialism and the Task of Anthroposophy. (1921) Trans. Maria St. Goar. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1987.]

Is NO amount of evidence enough to convince you? Perhaps the other editors here will see this constant denial of what was clear in Steiner's writing as just that - denial. --Pete K 14:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I brought this back too... those pesky bots are archiving stuff that needs to be available for the mediators. --Pete K 00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

pov quote spamming

i like that expression, can i use it..

just wanted to point out that i liked this version of the racism section better: Rudolf Steiner's views on race are complex. He advocated treating every individual as unique and suggested that races should no longer be an important factor for humanity, but on a few occasions spoke about particular races (including his own) in ways that appear denigrating or offensive to modern ears.

it was short and came to the point. i fail to see how the new version is an improvement, although the quote from knowledge of higher worlds, seems worthwhile since it seems to be an antiracist comment in a relative central position. trueblood 20:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the original "modern ears" statement said enough - and indeed, many of Steiner's racist remarks were offensive to the ears of some of his contemporaries as well. It isn't as if all people in Steiner's time spoke in this way or held (and promoted) the view that the white race was advancing while others were left behind - or that blond hair and blue eyes bestowed intellect. It isn't enough to say he slipped up and said a few off-color remarks - he actually built Anthroposophy around a set of racist beliefs and hierarchies. That's why the simple sentence that was there before is not indicative of the extent of Steiner's position on the subject of race. --Pete K 01:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

me, i found the old version somewhat sharper, than what is there now. i would remove the (including this own) because it is somewhat misleading. i agree with you that some of these quotes (most of the were familiar to me) are so extreme that it seems steiner either was on acid or really racist. i heard this out of context argument before and i cannot see in which context a thing like that could not be racist. but i don't agree with you that you can proove that anthroposophy is build around racism, not even that this is the place to try to do so.

as a compromise, how about if this article mentioned that for some years anthroposophy attracted criticism partly because some of these quotes became known and then put a couple of the stronger quotes in the sub article. and say so in the main article. but move away from trying to prove that steiner was a racist and towards documenting that others have said so. trueblood 12:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, what is there now is not very clear. It attempts to put a spin on the topic of race using Steiner's own words - and that doesn't work very well. Is Anthroposophy built on racist principles? Nobody, to date, has put together a list of Steiner's works that constitute the body of Anthroposophy - and exclude all other works as outside of Anthroposophy. Indeed, all of Steiner's written works and lectures are considered the body of Anthroposophy. And the problem is that Anthroposophists DON'T consider even the most racist of Steiner's material to be racist. The explanations they give are that the comments were "out of context" or "the reader lacks the foundation required to understand them" or "Steiner was just joking around". Now, looking at what constitutes Anthroposophy, and taking then into consideration that Steiner's racialism is an acceptable part of this, where does this fit into the foundations of Anthroposophy? Anthroposophy is an exploration into the nature of things spiritual. Steiner not only described a method for this exploration (In Knowledge of Higher Worlds for example) but also the results of his own findings having explored the spiritual world. It is these findings that constitute Anthroposophy. It is these findings that lead to Anthroposophical medicine, biodynamic agriculture, Waldorf education, and so on.

So what did Steiner find? He found that the spirit world contains lots of beings - and that each of those beings contains lots of parts or "bodies" living on different spititual planes - and that this system is structured in a hierarchy. So Steiner went into great detail about how this structure is laid out - describing Thrones and Seraphim and Cherubs and Archangels and Angels and stuff like that. Then when he described the human spiritual existence, he put in his observations about the races and how they are separated by their blood and where they are in the spiritual hierarchy. After that, he went into the animal kingdom, the plant kingdom, the mineral kingdom and so on and described what was revealed to him. And this, the observations that Steiner made about what the spiritual world consists of and how it is structured, constitues Anthroposophy.

So, when Steiner says the following - it ties this together:

"Occult investigation shows decisively that all the things which surround us in this world - the mineral foundation, the vegetable covering, and the animal world - should be regarded as the physiognomical expression, or the "below," of an "above" or spirit life lying behind them. From the point of view taken by occultism, the things presented to us in the sense world can only be rightly understood if our knowledge includes cognition of the "above," the spiritual archetype, the original Spiritual Beings, whence all things manifest have proceeded. And for this reason we will today apply our minds to a study of that which lies concealed behind the phenomenon of the blood, that which shaped for itself in the blood its physiognomical expression in the world of sense. When once you understand this "spiritual background" of blood, you will be able to realize how the knowledge of such matters is bound to react upon our whole mental outlook on life.

Questions of great importance are pressing upon us these days; questions dealing with the education, not alone of the young, but of entire nations. And, furthermore, we are confronted by the momentous educational question which humanity will have to face in the future, and which cannot fail to be recognized by all who note the great social upheavals of our time, and the claims which are everywhere being advanced, be they the Labor Question, or the Question of Peace. All these things are pre-occupying our anxious minds.

But all such questions are illuminated as soon as we recognize the nature of the spiritual essence which lies at the back of our blood. Who can deny that this question is closely linked to that of race, which at the present time is once more coming markedly to the front? Yet this question of race is one that we can never understand until we understand the mysteries of the blood and of the results accruing from the mingling of the blood of different races. And finally, there is yet one other question, the importance of which is becoming more and more acute as we endeavor to extricate ourselves from the hitherto aimless methods of dealing with it, and seek to approach it in its more comprehensive bearings. This problem is that of colonization, which crops up wherever civilized races come into contact with the uncivilized: namely - To what extent are uncivilized peoples capable of becoming civilized? How can an utterly barbaric savage become civilized? And in what way ought we to deal with them? And here we have to consider not only the feelings due to a vague morality, but we are also confronted by great, serious, and vital problems of the very fact of existence itself.

Those who are not aware of the conditions governing a people - whether it be on the up- or down-grade of its evolution, and whether the one or the other is a matter conditioned by its blood - such people as these will, indeed, be unlikely to hit on the right mode of introducing civilization to an alien race. These are all matters which arise as soon as the Blood Question is touched upon." Rudolf Steiner, Occult Significance of Blood, An Esoteric Study -Berlin, October 25, 1906 GA 55

And this is why suggesting that the commentary on the races, the hierarchy of the races - the white race being on the rise while other races on on the decline, is not only appropriate - it is necessary in gaining an understanding of who Steiner was and what he believed and promoted. --Pete K 17:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Trueblood that the original version was clearer and sharper. Can we have other opinions here? Hgilbert 01:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Then you agree with me - the current version that you have provided is no better than the original version. Why not just include an example of what we mean when we say the sentence that was in the original version? It's the attempt to HIDE the actual offensive quotes from Steiner that makes the current version muddy. The "Here's an example:" and quotes that I have added in the past clarified what the original version sentence talks about. The sterilized examples you have provided here DON'T.--Pete K 14:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

compromise: the version i quoted plus a sentence about steiner having been criticised and described as being racist, or there being a controversy whether he was racist or not.trueblood 17:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

oh i already said that, well other people also seem to repeat themselves :-) trueblood 17:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So, should I assume, if I go to the Hitler page, I'll find statements about some controversy over whether Hitler was a racist or not - because members of the NAAWP insist that he's a great guy? (I don't think Steiner was like Hitler, but I like to use exageration in examples). How much evidence of racism needs to be presented here before that claim can be made to stick? Did Henry Ford have THIS much to say about the races? Did Ford build a philosophy based in racism, and open schools based on that philosophy? In Steiner, we have a man who clearly promoted ideas that are racist today and they were racist in his own time, and because some heavy-handed editors like the guy, the editors that want to get at the truth have to tiptoe around the facts. --Pete K 23:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Steiner based his Anthroposophical Society on admission of all, independent of race, religion or viewpoint. He said that this was the essence of the society, that it united all races, nations and peoples. That is different from Hitler's stance, in case you didn't notice. Steiner's life and deeds show no racism. His words promote the ideal of overcoming racial differences, while acknowledging distinctions that remain. Amongst the latter distinctions, there are highly problematic statements, we all recognize this (and so does the article). Classification of someone who consistently talked of racial differences as a factor of little or no significance in comparison to individual differences, and of the goal of humanity being to overcome all racial distinction, as a racist is highly problematic, to say the least.

In the end, however, whatever your opinions, it is Wikipedia expressed policy to avoid the term and present the actual ideas. We are doing this in their full range, with all their light and all their shadow. Basta. Hgilbert 15:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's all very nice. It's the "I can't be racist - some of my best friends are black" excuse for racism. Even Hitler worked with some Jews. That's not the point here. Steiner had views about *races* - and believed that his views about a particular race applied to all the individuals within that race. He believed blond hair and blue eyes bestowed intelligence. Does that mean that to him, having neither made a person less intelligent? Of course not. But he believed in stereotyping people by their race. Those were his actual ideas - and he promoted these ideas even to Waldorf teachers. Waldorf schools admit all races too... but does that mean the teachers, despite their mandatory instruction on Steiner's racial stereotyping, treat all children without regard to race? Absolutely not. And, despite the Anthroposophical Society policy of "admission of all", Steiner never met a black person - so I'm guessing black people weren't exactly breaking the doors down to get into the Anthroposophical society. I think you are a bit confused - Steiner's words don't talk about the overcoming of racial differences, they talk about the individual overcoming the limitations of his own race, his own blood. While he considered the lives of the individual, he also put great stock into the differences between the races and never passed up the opportunity to put the white race at the top of the list. And the article does NOT reflect this. --Pete K 15:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, he didn't stereotype individuals; he expressly said that individuals could not be judged on the basis of their racial/ethnic background, and acted this way as well. That is where you cannot understand his ideas; he believed that there was a tendency that came from the race or ethnic group, yet the individual contribution outweighed this (his words!!). You can't put that together and make sense out of it; I can. I have a tendency that comes from my family, yet am an individual. No doubt you could tell what in me is from my family, my being an American and my being white and Jewish. Nevertheless I am not determined by all that. It's obvious as soon as you look at real people. Hgilbert 15:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You are apparently having difficulty understanding what I am saying or you are in denial. You write "Sorry, he didn't stereotype individuals" - I wonder how you can believe the stereotyping of individuals might even be possible. You can't stereotype an individual, the terms are mutually exclusive. You can only stereotype groups of people. I don't know how to make it more clear to you. Stereotyping a race of people and producing a hierarchy of those races is racism. And I have agreed with you that Steiner believed an individual could "overcome" his race. But to say that excuses his racist views is preposterous.--Pete K 16:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood??? At the beginning of this section you write:

just wanted to point out that i liked this version of the racism section better:

Rudolf Steiner's views on race are complex. He advocated treating every individual as unique and suggested that races should no longer be an important factor for humanity, but on a few occasions spoke about particular races (including his own) in ways that appear denigrating or offensive to modern ears.

it was short and came to the point. i fail to see how the new version is an improvement, although the quote from knowledge of higher worlds, seems worthwhile since it seems to be an antiracist comment in a relative central position.

trueblood 20:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And on HGilbert's talk page (only 18 days earlier) you wrote :

again i don't know if these kind of quotes really have to be on wikipedia. but when refering to them we always get vague rather language: may sound denigrating to some modern ears, sometimes in a way that can sound demeaning. come on, we are talking about quotes that are highly offensive to modern ears and as the dutch comission found could get you into trouble with the authorities for racism. trueblood 17:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like at one time a couple of weeks ago, you were supporting a more thorough or at least more honest review of Steiner's racial commentary. Just wondering if you have changed your mind or if I'm missing something. --Pete K 00:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

well, and you know what, i even threaten to dig up one of those weirdo racist quotes that you tried to insert, but when i saw them there i thought they were like grafitti. contrary to you i think that most of these quotes are hidden in more obscure corners of steiner's oeuvre. i was not aware of the quote in knowledge of higher worlds and i think it weighs heavier than something that was uttered somewhere. i think the passage could be sharper, but it was better than what is there now. i would remove the words 'including his own', because they are misleading and would be happier with ' are offensive to modern ears' or even highly offensive. and as said before i would also mention the criticism that steiner and anthropop attracted in the last decades in several years in several countries (germany, holland).anyway, all this got overshadowed by the way you jumped in, editing and discussing in a way that i found very polarizing and way over the top' always with the h-word at hand (no you are not comparing steiner and hitler, but why then mention hitler in this context anyway) suppose i was potentially on your side but on time earlier on when i had a different opinion than you it seemed like in your perception i belong to this anthropop conspiracy to whitewash this article. well i think, this situation (several people together reverting your edits) is of your own making. on more thing, i think it should be mentioned (the racism controversy) but it is not the most important thing to this article. just look at how much space this whole discussion takes up. do you think it is justified, i don't. - was that illuminating?trueblood 19:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks - that's very illuminating. I'm sorry you think the quotes I brought are "weirdo racist quotes" - I didn't make them up, of course. They were Steiner's own words, and I really can't help that. As for Steiner sounding like Hitler, here are some of my favorite comparison quotes - Steiner's, Hitler's and the NAAWP:

“All the human culture, all the results of art, science, and technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan. This very fact admits of the not unfounded inference that he alone was the founder of all higher humanity, therefore representing the prototype of all that we understand by the word ‘man.’ He is the Prometheus of mankind from whose bright forehead the divine spark of genius has sprung at all times.... Exclude him- -and perhaps after a few thousand years darkness will again descend on the earth, human culture will pass, and the world turn to a desert.” Mein Kampf, p. 290.

“Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. “Mein Kampf, p. 383.

"You see, when we really study science and history, we must conclude that if people become increasingly strong, they will also become increasingly stupid. If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will become increasingly dense if men do not arrive at a form of intelligence that is independent of blondness. Blond hair actually bestows intelligence. . . .It is indeed true that the more the fair individuals die out the more will the instinctive wisdom of humans vanish.” (Steiner, 1922, Health and Illness: Volume I. Trans. Maria St. Goar. Spring Valley: Anthroposophic Press, 1981. p. 86)

“The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and psychically homogeneous creatures. This preservation itself comprises first of all existence as a race and thereby permits the free development of all the forces dormant in this race.... Thus, the highest purpose of a folkish state is concern for the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind.” Mein Kampf, p. 393-94.

“The representative people for the development of the consciousness soul, hence for what matters particularly in our age, is the Anglo-Saxon nation. The Anglo-Saxon people are those who through their whole organization are predisposed to develop the consciousness soul to a special degree. The prominent position occupied by the Anglo-Saxon nation in our time is indeed due to the fact that this nation is especially suited for the development of the consciousness soul.” (Steiner, 1921, Materialism and the Task of Anthroposophy. Trans. Maria St. Goar. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1987. p. 195)

“The technology we enjoy is almost entirely due to the efforts of White scientists and inventors. And, if we permit our race to fail, the world will descend into a primitive And, if we permit our race to fail barbarism that can scarcely be imagined.” National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP)

"The European sort of invention is impossible for either the Chinese or the Japanese." (Steiner, 1924, The Evolution of the Earth and Man and the Influence of the Stars. (1924) Trans. Gladys Hahn. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1987 p. 77)

“No doubt about it, the soul becomes corrupted through using the French language. . .It is also possible at the present time that the French will even ruin their own blood, the very element which has kept their language going as a corpse. That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to other people, the frightful cultural brutality of transplanting black people to Europe. It affects France itself worst of all. This has an incredibly strong effect on the blood, the race. This will substantially add to French decadence. The French nation will be weakened as a race.” (Steiner, Conferences with the Teachers of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart 1922 to 1923: Volume Three: Being the end of the Fourth Year. Trans. Pauline Wehrle. Forest Row, U.K.: Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications, 1988. pp. 87-88)

“The Aryan gave up the purity of his blood and, therefore, lost his sojourn in the paradise which he had made for himself. He became submerged in the racial mixture, and gradually, more and more, lost his cultural capacity, until at last, not only mentally but also physically, he began to resemble the subjected aborigines more than his own ancestors.... Thus cultures and empires collapsed to make place for new formations. Blood mixture and the resultant drop in the racial level is the sole cause of the dying out of old cultures; for men do not perish as a result of lost wars, but by the loss of that force of resistance which is contained only in pure blood.” Mein Kampf, p. 296.

“The most characteristic sign of the time is the belief that when a group of individuals have set up some trashy proposition as a general program - such as the unity of all men regardless of race, nation or color, and so forth - something has been accomplished. Nothing has been accomplished except to throw sand into people’s eyes. Something real is attained only when we note the differences and realize what world conditions are.” (Steiner, 1920, Spiritual Science as a Foundation for Social Forms. Trans. Maria St. Goar. Ed. Alan Howard. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1986. p. 122)

So, yes, indeed, Steiner, in his language, is sometimes indistinguishable from Hitler. Again, I'm not making this up. If I'm a rotten guy for bringing this to the world's attention, then so be it. The facts are the facts and supported here by me every time I post something. I get that some people don't like to hear this stuff. I can't say that I blame them. But an encyclopedia, if that's what Wikipedia is, shouldn't only publish the material people want to hear - it should present material that is sometimes offensive to modern ears. --Pete K 00:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

i'm sorry, with weirdo racist quotes, i meant that they are not just racist but also really weird, crazy, gaga, i did not mean that you are weird for bringing them up.trueblood 10:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

okay, one more time, then i leave you to it. i think you are right in calling these quotes racist. you might even be right in thinking that there is more racism at the base than i thougth so far. but what you are doing here is called original research by wikipedia standarts. i don't really care so much because i think that steiner was just weird. but i think the hitler comparison is off limits, because steiner never advocated violence, he never called for the extermination of a part of humanity, he never had his followers organize themselves in paramilitary militias. trueblood 18:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand Steiner was not like Hitler. I have been careful to make it clear that he was not like Hitler. It is his SPEECH, however - some of the statements he made that sound like some of the statements Hitler made. I'm not trying to link the two here - I'm trying to defend my original statement which everyone seems to want to jump on. In any case, Steiner's commentary is racist - his ideas were racist, and the resultant philosophy was racist. I don't think he was such a bad guy - really - but I think there is no denying this aspect of his character and people who do deny this are trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. As for "original research" - nothing I have produced on the article page is original research AFAIK. It is all right from the horse's mouth. He said these things - he meant these things - and he should be held accountable for how he believed - AND he would be the first person to agree with me in this regard. --Pete K 20:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Quotations can be abused. A quotation from User:Pete K: "...Steiner was...like Hitler." — goethean ॐ 21:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, some people reading what I wrote and what you have claimed I have written don't see any difference. The problem with your point, however, is the MORE one reads of Steiner, the MORE one gets the impression he was a racist. When you guys (Steiner revisionists) try to come up with something he said that was derogatory of the white race, we get these half sentences that, when taken in their full context, say exactly the opposite. When you try to present something that you claim was a nice thing to say about races other than the white race, again the same thing - a sentence at the most. Reading the entire context of Steiner's quotes confirms his racism far more than it refutes it. That's why so many contortions are made by people here when they try to defend Steiner's racist remarks - "he was just kidding" or "he didn't know the stenographer was behind the curtain" or "the audience knew he wasn't serious". Let Steiner's words speak for themselves. It's easy for me to pick at the stuff you guys post here - because it's nonsense. You have the very difficult task of re-writing history - where I just have to post what the man actually said - IN CONTEXT. --Pete K 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

bof, it's just the hitler comparison is so tiresome because hitler is the ultimate bad guy in history. you could probably come up with some other obscure guy that theorized about superiority of the 'white race', but it's got to be hitler. hitler but all this into practise. whilst followers of hitler went exterminate handicapped people, followers of steiner started a movement of communities that took care of handicapped people, that's one difference. if you look at the anthroposophical movement today it is an international; movement concerned with organic agriculture, alternative education and medicine amongst other things. please just go and start to chronicle the critiscism that steiner received for his racist remarks instead of proving things here with comparing quotes from him to hitler quotes.that is what i meant with original research. it'll be a lot more productive and i might even support you. trueblood 13:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the Hitler comparison is wearing thin for some people. But there's really no point comparing Steiner to some "obscure" guy - that type of comparison is one that requires people to find out about the obscure guy as well as Steiner. That Steiner didn't call for the death of anyone, even handicapped people, is certainly a point in his favor, of course. But if we really look at the Anthroposophical movement today, we find a movement bathed in dishonesty. Biodynamic agriculture, for example, has NO documentation to support that it is any better than ordinary organic agriculture, and there is nothing to support the notion that burying manure in a cow horn on the full moon to create compost starter creates compost that is any better than ordinary compost (although I'll admit biodynamic compost looks pretty good). But still, no evidence of any benefit has been documented by anyone - and basically, people who spend more money for biodynamic foods aren't hurting anyone.

In the case of Anthroposophical medicine, however, this is not the case. People who are sucked into using this type of medicine ARE hurting people. Children, specifically, who have no say so in the matter of the medicine used on them are definitely victims of Anthroposophical medicine. Nutty parents who treat high fevers with lemon wraps on the child's feet, or ear aches with onion wraps on their heads are denying these kids the benefit of true medical treatments that are supported by science. Children sometimes get better, sure, and sometimes they get worse. The point is that without scientific support, the use of Anthroposophical medicine is basically CRIMIMINAL and endangers the lives of children. When we look at Camphill-type environments, we don't always see fantastic places where handicapped and developmentally challenged people are treated with care and reverence, we sometimes see abusive situations (just like non-Anthroposophical facilities) and sometimes this abuse is at the hands of kids 16-18 years old who are stationed at these facilities as helpers. Waldorf schools are probably the worst of Steiner's initiatives because they are based on dishonesty - not only in the recruitment of parents, but in the hidden agenda of dispensing Anthroposophy to students without the knowledge or permission of the parents. Now what does this have to do with Rudolf Steiner? Probably not that much - but Steiner started these initiatives, and he literally "blessed" the dishonest approach evident in some of them (Waldorf especially) - and this makes him accountable in some way for the results of his works.

Was Steiner Hitler? No, of course not. But that Steiner's ideas are still prevalent today disguised as mainstream alternatives to scientifically supported methods of medicine, agriculture, healthcare and learning makes it necessary for people like me to educate the mainstream as to what Steiner's ideas were and what they were based on. And I believe that education belongs right here on his page - because this is where the deception starts, at who Steiner was and what he believed, and the validity of those beliefs. If we're going to start talking about Steiner at Wikipedia, by offering a deceptive article - there will be no reason for anyone to look for an article that criticizes his work. --Pete K 15:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We will be needing these as well. --Pete K 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted Article - NPOV

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)

I thought that all quotations were inherently NPOV and fair game? What happened, Pete? — goethean ॐ 14:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You have again missed the point. Try reading. I'm not interested in your troll-like sniping. --Pete K 15:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV says that representation should be proportional. Already the POV you are promoting has two large quotes, while the POV you are against (and is equally well represented in Steiner's work) has one large and one small quote, one of which you are trying to remove. I suggest we try to keep the balance here; if anything is to be added next, it should be a quote on the side that is less represented currently. Please discuss this here before further reverts.

In addition, this section of the article is disproportionately long already; further issues should be covered in the existing sub-article. Hgilbert 18:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not buying this argument. If you want to shorten the article, there's plenty of fluff that can be removed. Your "small" quote is all you can find to support YOUR POV - and you have to take it out of context in order to do that. Steiner didn't think all races are created equal. Stop trying to re-write history.--Pete K 15:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert's quotation can be replaced if more context is provided. — goethean ॐ 16:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove HGilber's quote. He's complaining that I have added a quote, not that his quote has been removed. Please read more carefully. --Pete K 19:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about reverting some of your edits that were actually reasonable. It's when you blend the reasonable ones in with the unreasonable ones that we have a problem. Please stop with the Hansson defamation campaign and we won't have so many reverted edits. --Pete K 01:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you say "Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity - Balance of POV; Hansson report covered in depth in sub-article; Pete says let Steiner's words speak for themselves)" as your reason for making these silly edits. Hansson's report that is covered in depth in the sub-article is one reason why the sub-article is locked up. You want to remove it from that article as well. Revisionist! --Pete K 01:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. You have no basis for claiming that I want to remove a report from that article; on the contrary, I have tried to include a report that you are seeking to remove. It is an old tactic to accuse someone else of your own deeds. You keep saying "let Steiner's words speak for themselves" - trying to exclude the one report. Now it is evident that you are being dishonest here. Hgilbert 11:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

HA! This must be some source of amusement for you. Anyone can read the discussion. You not only want to include a bogus report by a commission of Anthroposophists denying Steiner's works contained racist comments, you insisted on disguising the fact that the commission was COMPRISED OF ANTHROPOSOPHISTS. That's just plain dishonesty at it's best. The bogus commission's report isn't letting Steiner's words speak for themselves - not by a longshot. They are saying, in fact, and you are agreeing with them, that Steiner's words should not speak for themselves, that the conclusions of the commission should tell us whether Steiner's words were racist. It's the same old argument that Waldorf teachers around the world use - "Steiner is difficult" - yeah, people need Anthroposophists to explain to them what they are reading. That's what's happening in this article, and what's happening in the Steiner's views or racism and ethnicity article. YOU guys (Anthroposophists) want to explain everything instead of letting people read the man's words and understand their meaning. Steiner wrote 40 books and gave 6000 lectures. I think he would be considered a pretty fair communicator at some point. If his own words can't get his point across, there is no reason to expect it would be better presented by the less-prepared spin-doctors of Anthroposophy. Let his words speak for themselves. It's THAT simple. --Pete K 15:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to revert this article again - since people are counting my reverts, so perhaps one of the other editors here might want to revert it. Or you could just leave this part that another vandal (or the same one) has added: "Rudolf Steiner (February 25, 1861 – March 30, 1925) was an Austrian prankster, nuclear physicist, hashish eater, reality television producer and esotericist. He is the inventor of the H-bomb and the grandfather of Paris Hilton." It's probably as truthful as some of the stuff here anyway. --Pete K 17:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

These comments need to remain visible for the mediation discussion. Pete K 02:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete: love your style. Take a deep breath, relax, now... Isn't that a lot better? ;) And now: start thinking!

Thanks friend. Thinking hasn't been a problem for me. Pete K 14:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete: Not a problem? That's good. I never suggested that it was. 'Problem' is not a useful word in this context and I'm a bit puzzled why you used it. Personally I have never found thinking a problem but always quite a challenge. It is an exciting and rewarding one.

Now it seems to me (you'd have to be blind Freddie not to see it) that if indeed you are trying to get more balance into this article then you are not exactly achieving your objective. Would you agree? Have you thought about why that is? You have spent a huge number of keystrokes on it already.

In my experience balance is a very delicate thing. Were you good at the see-saw in kindergarten? No point jumping up and down on your end to get balance, eh?

I realise that these comments are a bit off topic (I know and care little about Steiner's 'racism' and even less about Waldorf reform) but I am fascinated by how thinking people manage to get other intelligent people annoyed while ostensibly trying to do good. This whole site suffers (a little) from it. Would you care to discuss this in private? Cheers .. .. Karel

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)

quotation guidelines

The quotation added by User Thebee offers no online verification and contains an ellipsis. I submit that it would be better to use quotations which can be verified online, and which do not use ellipses. — goethean ॐ 18:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have replaced the recent quote added by TheBee with a shorter and more complete quote. --Pete K 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me add here, that on-line verification is not something that is always possible with Steiner's more "racy" quotes. Most of the material that is on-line comes from the Rudolf Steiner Archive - and that has been edited over the years by revisionists. Even books as common as "Conferences with Waldorf Teachers" - later re-titled "Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner" underwent heavy editing during the process. "Difficult" material was removed - despite that Steiner said it and that it was, indeed, his viewpoint. I would suggest, however, that in places where Steiner has self-edited, as in the reprinting process of his own books, such edits should be respected as it is practically impossible to determine whether the edits were made based on a change of view or for political or other reasons. --Pete K 20:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding the use of elipsis, one of the things apparent in Steiner's lecturing style was a tendency to go off-topic. In cases of this, where he goes off topic for a sentence or two (or even a paragraph) the use of elipsis is reasonable. What I don't like to see is where a snippet is taken from here and attached to a snippet taken from there to produce something quite different. I have documented one occurrance of this happening here where a snippet was taken from 1909 and attached to a snipped from 1917. This is a practice that I believe should be avoided.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete_K (talk • contribs)

Because of the contentious nature of these articles, ellipses should be avoided altogether. If your quotation goes unreasonably off-topic, then it's not the best quotation to use, even if it furthers your own personal agenda. Personally, I oppose the use of quotations at all. They are simply too often and easily abused. The only reason that I support them to some extent here is because of the paucity of neutral academic work on Steiner. — goethean ॐ 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope - not buying into this one Goethean. You're just looking for reasons to remove the quotes I've posted. And I get why you don't think Steiner should be quoted. It makes it too difficult for you to refute what he actually said. You're wasting your breath here. --Pete K 01:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

These are reasonable, neutral standards that both parties should be able to agree to. It is revealing that it is the Steiner 'exposer', rather than the Steiner apologists, who objects to them. — goethean ॐ 14:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete: It is incredibly dishonest to keep removing quotes by Rudolf Steiner from this section and then accuse others of seeking to do so. Do you not see your own inconsistency here? Can you not hold yourself to standards you claim you wish others to maintain? Hgilbert 11:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My standards have always been consistent - to represent honestly what Steiner said. Truth is, I don't trust you guys - so I'm seeing this as an attempt to remove relevant quotes that honestly represent what Steiner said. I have supported adding quotes - and we all know Steiner spoke out of both sides of his mouth many times, so there's no surprise when two quotes conflict. I don't recall removing any quotes - other than extremely long, extremely patched quotes that struggled to make your POV. I left the one that was patched from 1909 to 1917, but recommended a better, supportive quote from the same lecture right here in these discussions. You would be wise to replace the patched one with the better one, but that's up to you. I don't find anything wrong with quoting Steiner, back and forth because the truth is in one breath, he said something nice about a race, in the next he said something horrible. You guys don't seem to want to publicize that balance - you only want to push the nice side of Steiner, so that leaves me with the responsibility of pointing out the other side. If you guys would paint a fair picture of Steiner's views, I wouldn't have to be the "exposer" you guys think I am. If it were up to me, there would be no elipsis in quotes - the whole lecture, no matter how many tangents Steiner takes us on, would be quoted. There is never an attempt, on my part, to hide anything meaningful by the use of elipsis. The statement above, that quotes should not be used at all is, I think, ridiculous. If what you guys write about Steiner is refutable by Steiner himself, then don't write it. It makes you look like idiots. --Pete K 16:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If what you guys write about Steiner is refutable by Steiner himself, then don't write it.

You are missing the point. Primary quotations are just as easily manipulated (through mere selection or taking words out of context or otherwise) and abused as any other source is. Think of how Jesus' words have been misused over the centuries. Repeating over and over again that these are "Steiner's own words" is pointless. It would be better if we both could acknowledge that both sides are working in good faith. You think that Steiner was a racist, and others do not. The guy wrote and spoke a lot, and both sides can supply endless quotations that appear to prove our respective points. You seem invested in the belief that the pro-Steiner side is working in bad faith. That will cause you problems at Wikipedia, as it contradicts one of Wikipedia's central tenets. So I suggest that you give that point up. — goethean ॐ 16:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Goethean wrote: "You think that Steiner was a racist, and others do not. The guy wrote and spoke a lot, and both sides can supply endless quotations that appear to prove our respective points." I hate to rain on this picnic, but I have some bad news for you. Racists are human beings, with their own good and bad points like anybody else. Racists, obviously, say some things that are not racist. When someone has said a bunch of things that are racist, and a bunch of things that are not racist, the correct conclusion is that . . . he or she is a racist. I'm sorry but this is not rocket science. Long quote wars will not change this. The racist quotes cannot be made not racist by setting the non-racist quotes beside them. That is not how it works. Nor will the racist quotes go away even if you succeed in deleting them from a particular article on wikipedia. For one thing, the discussion page highlighting them will remain here. I would suggest that in the long run, expecting to cleanse an article on "Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity" of all or most of Steiner's less, well, enlightened views on race and ethnicity, is an exercise in futility. You may win a battle here and there but the war is long since lost. The man said the stuff that he said, and that is the big problem you are not going to be able to get around. It is THERE. It is on wikipedia now, and it is lots of other places too. You want 20+ articles on Steiner/anthroposophy on wikipedia: face the fact that some of his racial views are going to find a place on wikipedia, too.DianaW 18:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I get the point quote well. If you will look at the article (actually read it) you will see, hopefully, that it is a spin in its entirety. I don't believe every person on both sides is working in good faith, in fact I'm quite certain some are not - as I know some of the people involve here from other discussions elsewhere. So Wikipedia's central tenet isn't going to change that - I can't assume something to be true when I know it isn't. I will, however, try to look at each edit as if it was intended in good faith, and see if that helps. Regarding the manipulation of quotes, the best answer for this is to include more, not less, of the quotes. When you guys put in tiny snippets to support your commentary, it not only doesn't read well, it reenforces what you have stated above, that quotes can be misused. Applying a larger section of the quoted material gives the reader a better perspective on what is actually being said. --Pete K 17:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Applying a larger section of the quoted material gives the reader a better perspective on what is actually being said.

No, it degenerates into a point-of-view pissing contest. — goethean ॐ 17:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

First rule of pissing contests - when you find yourself in one - stop pissing. --Pete K 17:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

More stuff for the mediators Pete K 02:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Anthroposophical Society's Commission on Racism

Please see here for discussion about the inclusion/exclusion of this source of information. --Pete K 20:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Oh, you have the report, do you? Isn't that interesting! It will be a simple matter then for you to look into the question of whether the authors are anthroposophists, which became quite a point of contention for awhile. How very odd that you remained silent while people scurried around trying to look them up, while you possessed the document itself. "Good faith"?DianaW 21:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Welcome back.DianaW 01:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put a reference to the Dutch commission in this article, you had better be sure to call it The Dutch Anthroposopical Society's Commission of Biased Anthroposophists. BTW, the Dutch Anthroposopical Society's Commission of Biased Anthroposophists found 16 counts of racist speech that would have put STEINER IN JAIL if he were to have said them today. Maybe we should be talking about this here - I don't recall seeing this description in the previous statements about Dutch Anthroposopical Society's Commission of Biased Anthroposophists. Remember, if you reference the Dutch Anthroposopical Society's Commission of Biased Anthroposophists, we will also have to reference the article that describes who they are - so please expect this to follow. I say this with the utmost of good faith. --Pete K 01:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a little tidbit I recovered from Archive 1 from a section titled something like "No Racism in Anthroposophy":

An anonymous editor keeps making accusations of racism. For his or her benefit:

The Netherlands Commission that investigated charges that anthroposophy included racist ideas

finds again that any suggestion that racism is an inherent part of Anthroposophy, or that conceptually Steiner helped prepare the way for the holocaust, has proven to be categorically wrong. As a matter of fact, the investigation of the Commission shows that, beginning in the year 1900, he clearly spoke and wrote against the dangers of anti-Semitism, including in the periodical of a then existing

German association against anti-Semitism.

Pete writes: Note that our friends here again made NO mention of the Dutch Commission's affiliations and attempted to thwart the innocent comments by a user by suggesting the accusations of racism were proven false by this commission. This is what they are trying to do again here today. --Pete K 00:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Proportion and subarticle

The racism section is again becoming a disproportionate part of an article that necessarily needs cover many themes. The subarticle is there to provide a complete discussion; the whole subarticle is now creeping back into the main article. The present length is already substantially more than is reasonable for a specialized topic covered extensively in a separate article. Let's please respect a reasonable proportion here; note that there is a reasonable balance of opinion included in the present text. Hgilbert 01:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Um... a discussion that you guys won't allow. Please don't decide which sections deserve more attention. The Goetheanum doesn't deserve a lot of attention - and neither does the Dutch Anthroposopical Society's Commission of Biased Anthroposophists. If the article is getting out of hand, let's prune it fairly and not in a lopsided fashion. --Pete K 01:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, be serious. Let's take a look at what's presently in this ludicrous article. "Childhood and education" - Rudolf Steiner is not someone whose CHILDHOOD deserves 3 paragraphs on wikipedia - be serious. Nothing about his childhood was exceptional. This needs one sentence: "He was born here and educated in such-and-such." The section is full of embarrassing fond lore, too, like the oft-repeated tale of the "simple herb gatherer." Aren't you embarrassed by this smarm? It's like he met his fairy godmother on the path in the woods one day. Clearly inappropriate nonsense for an encyclopedia. What's next, his baby pictures? If you could bring yourselves to cut all this silly fluff that no one else could possibly care about other than Steiner's gushing fan club, there would be plenty of room for more substantial material.

Let's go on - "attacks and death" of Rudolf Steiner is also not a subject that wikipedia readers need THREE PARAGRAPHS on. This is insider gossip, and it reads like a celebrity tabloid. There is nothing interesting about this man's death (and the reports of "attacks" give the article a paranoid, cult defenders feel). Give his birth and death dates - there is no other material on Steiner's childhood or death that is interesting except to his groupies.

A biography normally includes information beyond birth and death dates.

Diana adds: I don't know who this is who has interspersed comments, but I'll note I was scolded for it, myself. A full-length biography includes whole *chapters* on someone's childhood and education. An encyclopedia entry certainly does not. It should give dates, place of birth, parents' origin, anything significant about the parents, where the person was educated and in what, and anything of signficance that happened during the person's childhood. It would not normally include things like "meeting a simple herb gardener." I'm sorry but I had a much more interesting childhood than this *myself* and don't expect anyone to want to read about it on wikipedia.DianaW 19:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Philosopher" section is also embarrassing. Outside of his cult following no one considers Rudolf Steiner to have made significant philosophical contributions. You could just delete this. 739 words on a philosopher that no one has heard of in a university philosophy department.

He was a PhD in philosophy and published a number of works on the subject. This belongs to his biography.

Be serious. There are lots of people out there with PhD's in philosophy, and lots of other things, too. We don't write encyclopedias about all these people. We acknowledge people's legitimate *contributions*.DianaW 19:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Social activism"? This apparently refers to the fact that he published his views on social questions, and gave a lot of lectures. I'm not aware of any other "social activism" undertaken by Rudolf Steiner. Isn't there a separate article on threefolding, anyway? (If there's not, I'm sure there will be soon.) Delete this, it sounds desperate. The man was not a social activist. Stick to what he actually created of lasting import in the world - his spiritual science.

There a numerous volumes of his lectures on social questions, and he was in his time a widely-known social activist, especially through his lectures to workers and others in Germany after 1918.

Exactly what I said, all he did was lecture. You've reasserted he was a social activist but offered no evidence of such activities; only "lectures." So include them in your bibliography. I've given lectures too and it doesn't make me a social activist.DianaW 19:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed if you think that your statement "I've given lectures too and it doesn't make me a social activist" argues for your assertion that Steiner was not a social activist. Arguing that lectures constitute social activism does not entail that all lectures do so equally. — goethean ॐ 19:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lectures aren't activism. Activism is things like organizing people, demonstrations, protests, working on political campaigns, attempting to influence legislators or elected officials, civil disobedience actions, public events to capture media attention for a cause, etc.70.20.218.230 19:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You could ditch the picture of the First Goetheanum. It's a monstrosity. If there must be a picture the second one is not nearly so bad, though it is not exactly candy for the eyes either.

It is his work and included in the referenced list of masterpieces of modern architecture and online library of great architectural works.

Right-o. Too silly to argue about. Nobody in architecture has heard of him. I haven't checked out your "online library" but there are gazillions of such things. I don't really care if this article describes him as such, personally; you're merely showing that you have no perspective on Rudolf Steiner.DianaW 19:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Breadth of activity" is another section that should be cut entirely. Reads like it comes out of a fan club mail bag. Repeats all the material above it, and is nothing but self-congratulations.

Part of his biography.

Sigh. Yes, Part of his biography.DianaW 19:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The article can and should be much shorter.DianaW 01:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If you aren't interested in having a longer article then stop adding to it. This is hypocritical. Let those who are interested work on the article.

I've neither added anything to the article, nor suggested adding anything to it. Interesting accusation!DianaW 19:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just picked up on this adorable little snippet too. Trying to see if there is anything worth keeping under "Writer and philosopher," I find that Steiner once wrote for a magazine devoted to combatting antisemitism. The reference for this says literally: "Steiner's early articles are collected in five volumes of the complete edition of his works, GA 29-33."

Guys . . . that is not a reference. How many more embarrassments such as this can we find if we go through this article with a fine-tooth comb? Wish I didn't need to go get 8 hours of sleep. How stupid is this. You cannot cite a reference that is FIVE VOLUMES of someone's work. The name of this magazine that he supposedly wrote for is not even *mentioned*. And clearly the implication that he was out there fighting against antisemitism cannot be supported in this way, even if the magazine he wrote for is named. This is *pathetic*. Absolutely you must either cite an article that Steiner wrote for this magazine, as well as actually showing that the article combatted antisemitism, or (speaking of bogus references) this little beauty is out of here.DianaW 02:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The sentence says that he wrote numerous articles; the reference appropriately tells where these are to be found. I have added references and the title of the magazine for the clause about his writings against anti-Semitism. The specific articles are to be found in GA31, pp. 382-417; there are six that were published in that magazine specifically. Hgilbert 15:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dear God. If this weren't so funny it would be impossible. No. Not going to work. The sentence reads as follows: "Steiner also wrote articles for various journals, including a series for the Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus, a magazine devoted to combatting anti-semitism, during this time.[4]" Reference 4, needs to be to a series that Steiner wrote for Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus in the 1890's; it cannot be to writings appearing on an anthroposophical web site in 2006. You need the title of the article(s), the year, volume and issue numbers of the publication, and the page range for the article(s). That's a reference. If you're going to cite it as some sort of indication of Steiner's stance against antisemitism, I think you're going to need to post some of it here, so the rest of us can see whether it is a statement from Steiner against antisemitism. So far, it's still rather cloudy whether you've actually ever eyeballed this article.

The specific articles are to be found in GA31, pp. 382-417; there are six that were published in that magazine specifically. I cannot add this reference to a locked article!! User:Hgilbert 18:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

More "summaries" from you folks on Waldorf and anthroposophical web sites about the deeds of the great man are NOT sources that can be used in wikipedia articles; the word "summary" per se ought to set off everybody's bullshit detector. This is no different from the plethora of "summaries" on Sune's web sites that have already been deemed unacceptable here as "sources" for just about anything.DianaW 19:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL the summary is not even in English. I see the periodical mentioned in this article; I am guessing, though can't be sure, that the article states that Steiner contributed to this periodical. If there is a specific citation of Steiner's article or series of articles I can't find it. Is it there?70.20.218.230 19:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I hear crickets over here too, it seems. ...has said elsewhere that he is happy to provide this, so I wonder what is the reason he hasn't done so. Is this going to be another case where, when they're asked to show the rest of us the material on which the claim is based, suddenly the anthroposophists decide the reference isn't useful after all? The claim is that Steiner wrote a "series of articles" to a magazine combatting antisemitism. This claim appears very boldly and early in the Steiner article, obviously intended as a first strike against the criticism which will rear up later of Steiner's antisemitism, which the anthroposophists have not succeeded in squelching all mention of. The claim, of course, stops just shy of asserting that Steiner's article(s) actually combatted or even *mentioned* antisemitism - merely that he once made some contribution to a journal which did. A editorial sleight of hand to begin with (I think wikipedia policies refer to this as "weasel words"), but now it seems there is some difficulty in finding this reference at all. What is the story here?DianaW

Perhaps some of Steiner's followers are, like Steiner, clairvoyant - and therefore no actual references or, for that matter, even a thorough understanding of the material is required before producing it here. It seems to be the premise they are working from. I think it would be easier on us if we just assume this to be so. --Pete K 15:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear: A real reference gives, in addition to the author's name, the title of the article, title of the periodical, date, volume and issue numbers, and page range. It is not adequate to name the periodical; it is not adequate to provide a link to an article by somebody else who allegedly agrees with you that Steiner once wrote an article like this (especially when the link is not even in English, and we have to take your word for it that the article even says this), and a reference is not a reference which says something like: Steiner wrote a lot of stuff, see the first 5 volumes of his collected works.DianaW 13:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Crickets still chirping, 5 days later. So nobody's got this reference?DianaW 02:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...Diana...the reference you ask for has been part of the article for a while now already, as I mentioned above. There have been two footnotes at the end of that sentence for some time. One is the original footnote. The second is to a published source that confirms that Steiner wrote such articles, opposing anti-Semitism, and telling where they were published originally. (I'm sorry you can't read German.) The first footnote is a reference to the texts of those articles, as published in the GA (Steiner's complete works in German). I'm afraid that they may not be translated; most of his early essays have not been. Hgilbert 17:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No,. The reference I ask for has never been provided. A reference to an article or series of articles includes the following: the author's name; the title of the publication; the title of the article(s); the volume and issue of the publication; the page range(s) for the article(s). Someone else claiming elsewhere (your "published source") that Steiner wrote such articles is not a reference. (I didn't see a published source anyway; I saw a web page that I couldn't even tell the source of - "waldorfschule something," which tells me it's anthroposophical, and you've never given the source. But don't waste your time doing so, because that's not a reference.) You and your friends on other web sites assuring each other that Steiner once "opposed antisemitism" aren't a legitimate reference.DianaW 20:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And let's be clear: EVEN if we proved he published some articles in this periodical, the original claim was classic "weasel words." There is no reason to believe, and you yourself do not bother asserting, that these ARTICLES BY STEINER are commentaries written to oppose antisemitism - just because this periodical itself, on other occasions, opposed antisemitism. That's classic "weasel words" - implying he must have been opposing antisemitism, yet not going *quite* so far as to say so explicitly, probably because the claim can't be supported.DianaW 20:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a question for you: Have you read these articles yourself? What do they say?DianaW 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

DianaW, is this the quotation section that you claim contains weasel words and "editorial slight-of-hand"?

Steiner also wrote articles for various journals, including a series for the Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus, a magazine devoted to combatting anti-semitism, during this time.

— goethean ॐ 20:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Reception of Steiner" section is almost entirely POV, and apologetic. More "What a man he was" stuff. The article would be improved by removing this section. The conclusion "one cannot justly link Steiner or his movement with a totalitarian intent; rather the reverse, for his whole philosophy is based upon individual freedom" certainly does not belong in an encyclopedia. It is entirely POV, and can only have the effect of making people think, Hmmmmm, obviously somebody thinks he IS linked with a totalitarian intent.DianaW 02:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is the first time I've taken a close look at some of this stuff. It is full of puffery, obviously written by someone with no perspective on Steiner. I'm pasting in the "Writer and philosopher" section, followed by my suggested revision of this section. It presently reads:

"In 1888, as a result of his work for the Kurschner edition, Steiner was invited to come to the Goethe archives in Weimar to become an editor for the official complete edition of Goethe's works. Steiner remained with the archive until 1896. As well as the introductions for and commentaries to the resulting four volumes of Goethe's scientific writings, Steiner wrote two books about Goethe's philosophy: The Theory of Knowledge implicit in Goethe's World-Conception (1886) and Goethe's Conception of the World (1897). During this time he also collaborated in complete editions of Arthur Schopenhauer's work and that of the writer Jean Paul. Steiner also wrote articles for various journals, including a magazine devoted to combatting anti-semitism, during this time.[4] Steiner was one of the defenders (with Emile Zola) of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish Captain in the French army falsely accused of treason.[5]

During his time at the archives, Steiner wrote what he considered his most important philosophical work, Die Philosophie der Freiheit (The Philosophy of Freedom) (1894), an exploration of epistemology and ethics that suggested a path upon which humans can become spiritually free beings (see below).

In 1896, Friedrich Nietzsche's sister, Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche, asked Steiner to set the Nietzsche archive in Naumburg in order. Her brother by that time was no longer compos mentis. Forster-Nietzsche introduced Steiner into the presence of the catatonic philosopher and Steiner, deeply moved, subsequently wrote the book Friedrich Nietzsche, Fighter for Freedom.

In 1897, Steiner left the Weimar archives and moved to Berlin. He became the owner and chief editor of as well as an active contributor to the literary journal Magazin für Literatur, where he hoped to find a readership sympathetic to his philosophy. Dissatisfaction with his editorial style led to his departure from the magazine."

It can advisably be shortened as follows: "Steiner's early career (1888-1897) included editing the scientific works of Goethe as well as writing two books on Goethe, and another on Nietzsche; collaborating in complete editions of Arthur Schopenhauer's work and that of the writer Jean Paul; and contributing to various periodicals. During his time at the Goethe archives, Steiner wrote what he considered his most important philosophical work, Die Philosophie der Freiheit (The Philosophy of Freedom) (1894), an exploration of epistemology and ethics that suggested a path upon which humans can become spiritually free beings (see below)."

The relevant book titles can of course be given in the bibliography. Other than Philosophy of Freedom, they aren't necessary in the body of the article. His writings on Goethe, for instance, are relevant to the later development of his spiritual ideas, but he's not a significant Goethe scholar. There is no need to mention editing of a literary journal, as he never made any notable contributions in this field either. I would move right into his spiritual research after explaining the years working on Goethe etc. This is what the man is famous for. It would be charitable to say he is very minor figure when it comes to architecture, Nietzsche scholarship etc., and the article loses credibility aiming for this Renaissance man, "renewed all aspects of society" type thing. His lasting significance was as founder of anthroposophy.DianaW 02:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's more of the stuff that is just simply fluff "As a playwright, Steiner wrote four "Mystery Dramas" between 1909 and 1913, including The Portal of Initiation and The Soul's Awakening. They are still performed today." Yeah, he was a "playwright" alright. I wonder who is performing these Mystery Dramas? Anybody want to venture a guess? I'll give you a hint... it starts with "A" and ends with "nthroposophists". The only significance of ANY of these celebrated "accomplishments" is to Steiner's own, as Diana put it, "gushing" followers. If I write a play and my kids perform it for their grandmother at Thanksgiving, does that make me a playwright too? --Pete K 02:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete any of this relevant biographical information. — goethean ॐ 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The biography is verifiable and accurate. There is no reason to cut it arbitrarily. Information about a person's life and work is normal to a biography, as I'm sure you are aware. Hgilbert 15:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I gave you some pretty good advice, that would make anthroposophy look better - I told you how to make the article more professional. I'm sure the biography is "verifiable and accurate," . (Well, I'm not sure, really, but since so much of this is trivial, it's not worth verifying.) Lots of things are verifiable and accurate and don't belong in encyclopedia entries. This isn't a celebrity fan piece, and it isn't a full-length biography of Rudolf Steiner, either. It's an encyclopedia entry. You could make anthroposophy look better by not coming across as fawning groupies, and merely submit some factual and succinct information on who this man was and what he is recognized for today. Rudolf Steiner is not renowned for drama, sculpture, architecture, "social activism," and surely not for taking a stand against antisemitism. (He didn't do *anything* describable as social activism.) He is not relevant to Nietzsche studies or Goethe studies, unless as a footnote. He is recognized for anthroposophy and what comes out of it: namely, Waldorf education, Camphill, biodynamics, eurythmy. A few other areas deserve mention like anthroposophical medicine. Many other details of his life and work may be important to *you*, and nobody begrudges you, but you're making anthroposophy look foolish trying to cram all this into an encyclopedia article. You'd do Steiner greater credit by writing a credible article on him.DianaW 19:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No, none of the RELEVANT information will be deleted... trust me on this. The question is, shouldn't we delete the irrelevant information? I agree with editor DianaW and say YES! This puff-piece article needs to be updated, and several editors have said exactly this right here on this discussion page. --Pete K 14:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

trust me on this

That's not possible at this time, I'm afraid. You have proven that you have an axe to grind. — goethean ॐ 15:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"The biography is verifiable and accurate. There is no reason to cut it arbitrarily." A good deal of it is only relevant to Anthroposophists - and nobody is suggesting an arbitrary pruning of this. Diana has made some very reasonable suggestions that would cut down this already too-lengthy article which you yourself have complained is too long. Your solution, of course, is to remove the stuff that defines Steiner (his political, scientific and spiritual views) and leave in the stuff nobody cares about (his early childhood and 4 plays that nobody but Anthroposophists has ever heard of - or wants to). If we're really pressed for space here, then let's remove the fluff and leave in what Steiner said, believed and promoted. That's what makes a good encyclopedia article. --Pete K 15:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"trust me on this That's not possible at this time, I'm afraid. You have proven that you have an axe to grind." I don't see any reason why I should have to respond to this childish baiting. --Pete K 15:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear most of this stuff doesn't belong here. I think I will suggest that we start removing or re-writing it little by little. Diana, one way to ask for sources is with the {fact} tag. We should be putting this wherever inadequate or original research sources are referenced anyway. This article should probably get a {POV} tag at the top too. Maybe it's time for a complete re-write here anyway. I can just see the edit wars (shaking my head) - it's really a shame that everyone here can't work toward the goal of an honest concise representation of the subject matter and stop trying to make every article here a promotion of their POV. --Pete K 22:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding to this to prevent automatic archiving. Pete K 02:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Motivation for lock, of this article TOO?

It is with deep reluctance that I write here. The reason I in the main have refrained from it so far is the repeatedly extremely emotional nature of the discussion and argumentation.

After the locking of the sub article on RS' views on race and ethnicity against further editing, Pete has again moved to the main article on RS, insisting on again developing the section "Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity" in the main article with a number of more 'quotes', and - when I have complemented this with other balancing quotes in a NPOV direction for the section in its totality - not accepted this, but added even more quotes in the POV direction he represents.

I have therefore - not deleted any of the new quotes added by Pete, but - but again added complementing quotes to those he has added and at the end of the section added a description of the in total 14 quotes on American Indians, found and documented by the Dutch Commission in its its intermediary report. As Pete does not seem to have the report, and knows that what I write is a very short summarizing overview of the content of the 14 quotes from the original published sources with regard to the issue of the two basic causes for the near extinction of the American Indians, by me, not the Commission, he has twice deleted my short fully verifiable description of the original published sources, and then twice omitted it when reintroducing the excessive quoting in the section, constituting a 3rr violation, for which an admin has warned, but forgiven him.

He has also 'edited' my fully correct description of the article by Hansson, given in the original version of Hansson's article in Swedish, described by Pete as a 'Report', in a way that made it unintelligble, based on the argument that it was 'unintellible' before his edit .... I have also slightly edited the description by Pete of one of his quotes, describing what he in a simplified way asserts is Steiner's 'true view' as this is contradicted by the overview of the in total 14 quotes from RS' works on American Indians. And I have a second time repaired the description by Hansson himself of the background for his article, made unintelligible by Pete.

None of this constitutes an 'edit war' on my part. I have only in the main added fully verifiable quotes from original published sources, made a summarizing description of 14 of them, and corrected a description by Pete of the nature and background of Hansson's article, based on its original publication.

This has all added to, not lessened the quality of the article (apart from contributing to making the section on an issue, descibed more in full in sub article, excessively long, as Pete has refused to accept limiting it to a reasonable size).

Do you consider any of my described actions to constitute edit warring, Longhair? Or did you lock the article because you feared edit warring from someone else because of my actions? --Thebee 10:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason given for protecting of this article, which is viewable in the article history was Protected Rudolf Steiner: Protection against edit warring. That's exactly what occured. Who did what is hardly important - it takes more than one editor to edit war. -- Longhair\^talk 11:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Longhair, for locking this article. It is unfortunate, again, that my reluctance to edit-war the recent changes allowed the article to be locked in the dishonest form it is currently in. There will be little incentive for the Waldorf supporters to have this lock removed as they have managed to have it locked up with their controversial edits included - edits that are currently under discussion. The locking of articles has become a game of musical chairs - editors, when they foresee a lock-up, hurry to get their POV in before the music stops and the article is locked-up. This is unfortunate, but I guess now that all the articles are locked up, we can all have a good weekend. --Pete K 15:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You write, Pete: "It is unfortunate, again, that my reluctance to edit-war the recent changes allowed the article to be locked in the dishonest form it is currently in." "Your reluctance to edit-war"? Maybe I can remind you that you are the one who violated the 3rr rule four times, noone else, and all four times completely without any tenable basis for it. --Thebee 19:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That's just not true... which is typical of your contributions here at Wikipedia and everywhere else Sune. Again you dishonestly offer defamatory statements about me. You have launched into personal attacks on me (and other editors) on practically every page I have been involved in editing, AND on the talk pages of several administrators, AND on your own talk page. You have even tried to underhandedly coax administrators into off-line conversations with you so you could obviously bend their ear. You continually spam these pages with links to your own personal defamatory websites - for no other reason than to promote your own twisted POV. Even Steiner supporters have asked you to cool it. Why don't you take their advice and give it a rest? I am hoping the administrators, editors and readers in general are keeping an eye on your tactics and behavior. You take Wikipedia to a new low with every post and continually make ridiculous, undocumented, unexplained edits you know will be reverted - then point fingers at those who have reverted them. Banning you would do a great deal toward ending these edit wars - and it will give us all a much-needed rest from the folderol that seems to continually spew from your keyboard. --Pete K 23:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I: "Maybe I can remind you that you are the one who violated the 3rr rule four times, noone else, and all four times completely without any tenable basis for it." You: "That's just not true... which is typical of your contributions here at Wikipedia and everywhere else Sune."

Don't take it personally, but your 3rr violations 5-6 October are documented here --Thebee 18:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone actually examining your "evidence" will see that the article was not reverted for the same thing, but for various stupid stuff you guys tried to insert and delete. That's called "gaming the system" Sune - and further demonstrates your underhandedness. AND, this example, even if it were true, doesn't prove what you said above - it's STILL a lie. You would need to show four times where I have violated the 3RR rule. Anyone assuming you are telling the truth - even when you provide "proof" is simply not familiar with the level of your dishonesty. --Pete K 19:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"You have launched into personal attacks on me (and other editors) on practically every page I have been involved in editing, AND on the talk pages of several administrators, AND on your own talk page." If you think I have made one or more personal attacks on you in the sense described by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples feel free to point to them to an admin and ask for a comment. I have not seen you document one yet. --Thebee 18:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. I'm sure the administrators have their hands full with YOUR whining. I'm not going to bother them with your nonsense. None of your personal attacks hold water and literally EVERYONE can see this. There's no point in me pointing out the obvious. You are just being childish, which seems to be your nature, when you run to the administrators - who in case you haven't noticed, have lots of better things to do than to listen to your ridiculous complaints day in and day out. So go ahead and compile your lists and whine away the day. Add this comment to your list too. Maybe, when you realize nobody believes you, or cares, you'll stop. But I doubt it. Think about trying to act in "good faith" and stop crying about everything. If this is proving too difficult for you, perhaps you should take another rest. --Pete K 19:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Request

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)

For the record, I am not refusing to mediate, only refusing to agree to the list of issues as presently worded. I may suggest a revision of the list but it probably won't be for another day or two. I am objecting to the weighted and biased way the issues have been framed. Much of it is inane: who could dispute that biographical material on Rudolf Steiner belongs in the Rudolf Steiner article? The anthroposophists, I'm guessing, think if they can get such a point "mediated," anyone then changing, removing, or adding material to the biography section that they don't like can then be told to get lost, that they're violating the agreement etc. Obviously just *what* is going to be mediated has to be agreed before you can expect people to blithely agree to abide by mediation. The language is, at best, far too vague. Some of it is outright nonsense: you can't ask people to change their "tone" on an article's discussion page in "mediation," for instance. If you don't like someone's "tone," don't talk to them; that doesn't mean their views are less worthwhile than yours or they have less right to contribute to the article. You cannot expect Steiner's critics to maintain the same reverential tone toward the man that his defenders display. This sort of vague, behavioral type requirement has to be altogether deleted from a list of points to mediate IMO. I'll go post this at the case page too.DianaW 15:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I have copied Diana's comments to the discussion page of the mediation request. If that is the appropriate page to discuss this issue, we should do it there. --Pete K 17:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

unreadable comments

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)

Hear hear! --Pete K 15:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging Articles

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)

This is being discussed here. — goethean ॐ 16:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging of articles can be a good thing, as long as each article isn't too long and is proportionate. Currently, the article "Steiner's views on race and Ethnicity" is way, way too long. Someone needs to cut it down. Steiner's views on race and ethnicity comprised about one-millionth of everything he said, yet it takes the bulk of the article. 64.185.4.7 18:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well proportionate shouldn't just reflect a balance of the articles, but a balance of what Steiner said. I agree with what you said on race and ethnicity only being one-millionth of what Steiner said. You really have to look closely to find any talk about race. I don't even know if it should be on the article myself, although people in today's world seem intrigued. Perhaps there should be a seperate article, one on PLANS or Steiner critics. Afterall, I've never seen anything on Steiner's racial views in Britannica. Perhaps that's because: (1) either the arguments aren't valid to the scholars who wrote the article and (2) there is simply too much other information about Steiner's contributions and beliefs to even print a blip. Egamirorrimeht 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Or maybe it's a fellow friend of mine who shares an interest in Steiner and we go to the same school and use shared cpu's.

And Hgilbert- I wasn't wip[ing it out by any means. Like it has been said: IT TAKES UP THE BULK OF THE ARTICLE. ANd, no, I didn't wipe the article out. I left an argument as to what Steiner said concerning the individual being greater than race, and also left an argument up as to the fact that his racial comments can sometimes be controversial. I think there is equal representation of both sides left up there. I cut out a ton of (on both sides) of the details. I think if anyone cares to read those they should click on the link. Egamirorrimeht 20:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey-wait-I've got an idea!!!! Why don't we just insert the entire article from "Rudolf Steiner's views on Race and Ethnicity!!!" All 45 pages of it....we can put it in this article since nobody else here cares about balance of topic. Egamirorrimeht 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And another thing, HGILBERT- You simply saying "Please help us find a balanced presentation!" is nothing. You're not helping discuss. Yopu're not contributing here. You're just criticising and tearing down.

Plus, IT WAS BALANCED! Like I said, I left equal representation of both sides up. I took out the filler that can be seen in the bloated article on Steiner's racial views. I'm not arguing that article. I'm simply trying to pop the bloat of this article.Egamirorrimeht 20:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Okay then, now that there is agreement that the section is bloated, let's come up with a way to edit it down. What does everyone think about what I did? I edited alot of the details, as people can see those within the large article. I left two paragraphs--one giving a broad general argument informing of Steiner's beliefs concerning human individuality being greater than that person's race. The other paragraph informs readers to the fact that there is indeed controversy and the reasons why. Each of those paragraphs are essential to the main points regarding Steiner's beliefs concerning races. The details (all of them) should be in the article, not on Steiner's page.Egamirorrimeht 21:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus I think it's particularly funny that Stiner's views on Christianity (which take up book after book, lecture after lecture) comprise one sentence here in his article, while his views on race and ethnicity, which has been said to be one-millionth of what spoke about is the largest article on his page. Egamirorrimeht 21:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

No, first off it wasn't my roomate who posted, nor was it done from the same computer. The other is a friend of mine, or more like a mutual aquaintance who I briefed on everything that was happening on Steiner's page this past week. He has a very clear opinion of the matter and has wanted to past something for some time, but only yesterday we were at the library and I saw him, actually, in the Steiner section at the library (Texas Tech is fortunate to have an extensive Steiner collection....some 500 books, so we're both very well read on the subject.) I told him I posted just a minute ago downstairs and, like I said, he's wanted to post for some time and share his views. I told him to make an account and told him how to edit, etc. and this is how all this started.

Anyways, I'm tired of nothing getting done here. My argument is that the current "Steiner's views on Race and Ethnicity" is way too long. Something needs to be done to shorten it. Nobody else is willing to discuss shortening the bloated article, and it appears that there are no dissenters. The only reason it was retracted was that it was done before people had a chance to debate it, and now everyone's obviously had that chance. So I'm going to shorten it to the version that it was yesterday, because there is definate agreement that it is bloated. Now is will at least have balance. 64.185.4.7 15:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

The articles should not be merged. They're both long already. At Wikipedia, subarticles are preferred for 'in-depth' descriptions of particular sub-topics. Definitely the biography of Steiner is more to the point in this article. The biography is valuable, and it's strange to propose a solution that would remove the biography here just to make room in this article for material already covered in the other article. Venado 20:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Venado. — goethean ॐ 22:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, welcome Venado. You're just in time to vote... LOL! Pete K 00:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, it IS what Wikipedia is about. Steiners own VIEWS are what Steiner was about and his VIEWS are what Wikipedia needs to examine - not whether he met an herb grower. So yes, Steiner's racism is absolutely relevant and far more important than all the puff-piece nonsense that is currently here. Steiner took a political stance, he started a religious movement, he started a school system, he motivated people. Of course his views are important - far more important than his father's work history. Pete K 16:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Edit Wars Starting Again

Are we going to get this article locked up again over the Dutch commission? They're ALL ANTHROPOSOPHISTS. If you want to include the report, you have to say so. I'm pretty sure we've agreed to this. Pete K 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You started it by deleting a section. — goethean ॐ 21:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The section is either going to be truthful or it's going to come out. Have a look at the Race and Ethnicity page - the Dutch Commission stuff is repeated there. It doesn't need to go in both articles - and when we merge the articles, it will be there. Pete K 21:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no untruthful information. Sabotaging sections of articles because one item of information you'd like included is not there is inappropriate; work it out on the talk page. I support the information being included, however, now that a citation has been provided to support this (is this citation currently in the article, BTW? It should be.)

I do not support merging the articles, however; the section is already too long as it stands, by any standard whatsoever. We should be looking at condensing it to what Wikipedia recommends, a NPOV summary/overview with a link to the detailed article. Hgilbert 15:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone has just provided such a summary/overview; this was not done with my knowledge but I find it quite appropriate. Hgilbert 15:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"There was no untruthful information. Sabotaging sections of articles because one item of information you'd like included is not there is inappropriate" You've GOT to be kidding . "One item of information" - what insanity is this? THE DUTCH COMMISSION WAS COMPRISED EXCLUSIVELY OF ANTHROPOSOPHISTS. You can't really be a Waldorf teacher and be so dense, can you? It is the most significant item of information about the report. "work it out on the talk page" We've talked about this for weeks - you were involved in the discussions. Here's the bottom line - you will either include the fact that Anthroposophists comprised the commission, or (and if I were you I would consider this) remove the Dutch commission section completely. It is meaningless when the facts are presented. You do not get to hide the make-up of the commission (I'm talking more to the other slash-and-burn editors here). "I support the information being included, however, now that a citation has been provided to support this (is this citation currently in the article, BTW? It should be." Yes, the citation and a quote from it has been added to the article. This apparently struck some Steiner defenders the wrong way and they continue to yank it out. Pete K 15:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"It is the most significant..." - To you, yes. Yet it is one piece of information in an article. It is sabotage to remove whole sections because they do not include your favorite piece of information. IF THE REPORT APPEARS, I SUPPORT INCLUDING THAT PIECE OF INFORMATION WITH A CITATION, PETE. But it's still sabotage to do what you did. Hgilbert 15:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No , not to me, to EVERYONE who reads this report. The bias of the commission - that they were all Anthroposophists, all followers of Steiner - is the most important piece of information to everyone. Please stop trying to hide this fact. I don't care how you characterize my edits. I think yours and some of the others who have edited this article have been dishonest. The attempted change of the wording to "Anthroposophical academics" for example - is not the same as saying "all Anthroposophists" - it's like saying someone is a "Jewish scholar" - it implies they are scholarly on the topic of Judaism, not that they are Jewish. So your sleight-of-hand is not going to work here . Tell it like it is or remove it completely. There are no other choices. Pete K 15:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete, I'm getting tired of this. I haven't hidden the fact. I've asked you to document it. THIS IS NORMAL. You documented it. Someone else has changed the wording, not me. OK? There are several people in the world, Pete, not just YOU and NOT-YOU. I have said above that I agree with your wording now that you've documented the attribution. Your accusations are totally out of place. Hgilbert 16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

When you pasted in the report, after it was discussed for two weeks and no agreement arrived at, did you modify the paragraph at all to indicate that the commission was comprised entirely of Anthroposophists? No, you didn't. You say you agree with me, but no effort was made to make this simple change. Pete K 17:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And you noticed it and made the change. Thank you for noticing what I missed. Hgilbert 00:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, whatever . It seems a little hard to believe you "missed" it when we had discussed exactly this issue for two weeks prior to the unlocking of the articles - but at the risk of sounding EXTREMELY GULLIBLE, I'll consider the unlikely possibility that it was an honest mistake. So, on a different subject. How about if we lose the chalkboard drawing. It's impossible to see what it depicts and even enlarging it (which doesn't do much) doesn't show anything. Do you have something you really want to replace it with? Or can we just remove it and gain some much-needes space? Pete K 00:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete, I myself am an anthroposophist, and anthroposophists agree that it is a matter of misunderstanding, not a matter of misinterpretation. Afterall, the sentence reads "Anthroposophists assert..."

Besides, understanding comes from full awareness, whereas interpretation from however you want to see it. But that's besides the point because, like I said, "Anthroposophists assert..." I will allow you to put a "citation needed" there, though, if you want to make the refrences even more encyclopedic.64.185.4.7 01:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. You can't use yourself as a reference. I'm fully aware, and I understand Steiner, I studied Steiner for 15 years. It isn't my understanding that is at issue - it is my interpretation. I've changed the sentence back. If you want to provide a legitimate reference go ahead. If you insist on changing it back - I'll just delete the sentence. It's meaningless anyway. Pete K 01:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please state your position

• 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) Obviously, me 64.185.4.7 15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• For an extensive discussion with a link to the article Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity

• For a merger, incorporating the above article

Race and Ethnicity

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)

If someone has a better term than "individual spirit" - I'd be happy to use it. Pete K 03:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Steiner nearly always uses the term "individual" (Individualitaet) when speaking about the incarnating being. He occasionally uses "soul-spirit", but this only when comparing it to the bodily-etheric. When speaking about human beings in their essential being, as in the quotes I have added to the references now, he also speaks about the individual. He was not a gnostic, i.e. he did not believe that the spirit was the true reality and the soul and body mere maya; he repeatedly emphasized that he was in fact a monist, i.e. he believed that spirit, soul and body were all interconnected revelations of the individual being. (See the added references in the article for detail.) I have tried to incorporate the distinction you are indicating here in a slightly different way,which I hope meets what you are trying to indicate. Hgilbert 10:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Articles

I have given a reference to Steiner's articles against anti-Semitism; they appear in the complete works, with exact page numbers given in the footnote in this article. Previously, when the article was locked, this documentation was on the talk page. That articles have not been translated is completely irrelevant to their existence. This is sufficient documentation by any standard. Hgilbert 10:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that the articles are not in English, and you know it. This is such despicable behavior, always hiding behind your false professorial manners. A reference for articles published in a journal includes the journal title, year, volume, and page numbers. The objection regarding a foreign language was in reference to the discussion on some other web site that supposedly discussed these articles. You've removed that, so that's not what this is about. The further objection is that EVEN if these articles APPEAR in a "journal devoted to combatting antisesmitism," this is classic "weasel words" definitely frowned on at wikipedia. It's being used to suggest Steiner was opposed to anti-semitism, yet the fact of these articles can't be used to show that. They probably DON'T show that - and my suspicion of this is further strengthened by the fact that you don't actually bother claiming that they do. That's exactly what weasel words are. This citation should be removed. We've discussed it at great length and your sticking it back in now, pretending none of that happened, violates good faith.DianaW 11:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

One solution might be for you to quote some passages from these articles for the rest of us, if you think it's fair that they suggest he was writing in opposition to antisemitism. If we can see that they say what you suggest, others might agree to them. This shouldn't be a problem for you since you can read them in the original.DianaW 11:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana, the only way to ensure discussion, that I have found, is to remove the reference (as you did originally). As long as the article remains in the form they prefer, editors tend to avoid discussion. I hope I'm wrong in this case. Pete K 13:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete and Diana, this is aggressive and unfounded. Verification was requested. Two references have been provided, one to the original text - which is itself sufficient - and one to a citation that verifies this. This is all that is needed. I am not a translation service, nor does Wikipedia require translation of supportive documentation. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English; in particular "there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation."

You can look at the table of contents here, but you may need to first login to the site here as a "Neuer Benutzer"; this is free. The article says that Steiner wrote six articles for the journal in question; the table of contents cites that they were indeed published in this journal. Hgilbert 15:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

, you are perhaps not understanding the issue here. I can write articles for Mothering magazine, that doesn't make me a mother. If your claim is that he wrote articles that appeared in a magazine about anti-semitism, that's one thing... if it's that this proves he was against anti-semitism, that's quite another thing - especially in the light of substantial information to the contrary. Pete K 16:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The sentence in contention in the article states that Steiner "wrote articles for various journals, including a series for the Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus, a magazine devoted to combatting anti-semitism." I have documented this; it is a biographical fact. It does not, as you seem to think, assert a claim that this proves he is against anti-semitism. So yes, the article's claim here is simply that he wrote articles that appeared in the magazine.

Though this is not relevant to this particular part of the article, statements by him documented in the sub-article do prove that he was against anti-Semitism, however:

1. He speaks of anti-Semitism being a "danger for Jews", but also "for non-Jews";
2. he considers anti-Semitism a sign of twisted thinking, stupidity, inferiority of spirit and showing a lack of ability to make ethical judgments.
3. "It really doesn't matter whether someone is a Jew or a German...That's so obvious, that one is almost dumb saying it. How dumb then must someone be who says the opposite!"

At the same time, his judgment of Judaism itself was complex. He seems to have classed all religious or cultural orientation to an ethnic or racial basis as out-dated, and brought Judaism as a key example of this, for example. And he also seriously underestimated the power of anti-Semitism. All this is also documented in the article about his views on race/ethnicity, as it should be. Hgilbert 18:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Again : scoldings will not slow anyone down so I suggest you desist. Nobody is being "aggressive" in pointing out that this reference is not kosher. You write: "It does not, as you seem to think, assert a claim that this proves he is against anti-semitism. So yes, the article's claim here is simply that he wrote articles that appeared in the magazine." Yes, , that's the problem. (One of them.) That's what wikipedia calls "weasel words" and they're strongly discouraged. This couldn't be more transparent, : You probably don't even know what the actual articles say, and don't care. If you knew that they said something against antisemitism, you'd *quote that*. What on earth is stopping you if these articles contain Steiner speaking against antisemitism? But you know you can't possibly make such a claim. You're hoping that the suggestion he *wrote for this magazine* will suggest this in and of itself. It doesn't. That's weasely. It's poor scholarship, at best, and most likely outright dishonest. I strongly suspect you have no idea what those articles say. And please spare us: we all know the next thing you will write to be an accusation that I don't assume good faith. I don't think, however, that there's a requirement we go on assuming good faith from someone who's already violated it.DianaW 20:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The WP:Assume good faith policy is non-negotiable if you wish to edit here; any failure to do so is obnoxious and aggressive. In addition, assuming you know what others would do and must have read is always doubtful; here you are simply wrong. Finally, there is nothing weasely about the statement that Steiner wrote these articles for the magazine mentioned; it is simply factual. Look up the WP policy on weasel words. Hgilbert 20:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

, you wrote:

1. He speaks of anti-Semitism being a "danger for Jews", but also "for non-Jews";
2. he considers anti-Semitism a sign of twisted thinking, stupidity, inferiority of spirit and showing a lack of ability to make ethical judgments.[1]
3. "It really doesn't matter whether someone is a Jew or a German...That's so obvious, that one is almost dumb saying it. How dumb then must someone be who says the opposite!"[2]

Putting these into context would ge a good idea . These are quotes I like to call "snippets" - taken out of context (as they always are) to make a point that is inaccurate (in these cases really the opposite of the point you are supposedly making). The fact that Steiner was in favor of assimilation rather than extermination doesn't make him less guilty of antisemitism. We've had lots of racist quotes here already. Do you really want the antisemitic quotes here too . That's fine with me - but I've been avoiding that whole issue. Since you want to make the claim that is opposite of the truth (yet again) we'll just do it your way. Pete K 20:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, get over yourself, . The "assume good faith" policy does not apply to people who have *violated* good faith - obviously. What kind of idiots do you think the rest of us are? I think it's downright uncivil of you to act this way with other adults. It's like nursery school and you think you're the teacher. Talk about obnoxious. You call anybody who disagrees with you a bunch of pompous names. Okay - so you're implying clearly that you *have* read these articles. What is making it so difficult for you to provide some actual quotes, then - the stuff that would show whether there's a reason to believe these articles show Steiner speaking against antisemitism? And if they *don't* show that, then I think it's up to you to justify why this material is included at that point (or any point) in the article. What is the point of referencing the material at all? Any idiot can see it's an apology-in-advance for the criticisms, the suggestions that Steiner *himself* was an antisemite, that are going to appear later in the article. I did look up the policy on weasel words, , and I suspect (ooh, naughty of me) that you did too. This is the most classic conceivable case. In fact, I may submit it as a good example for wikipedia to use to illustrate the policy.

Weaseling is when you don't have anything that will really make your case; so you stick in something that doesn't really quite do it but sounds, offhand, like it might. You can't, therefore, explicitly claim that it does, but since it's kinda related you hope nobody will notice. And if somebody does complain, you protest that you "never said that anyway," and technically, you're right - but ethically, it's a bit of a scummy trick.DianaW 20:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What the bleep are you talking about? What case? The passage mentions Steiner's early articles; it is not trying to make a case for anything. You are the one projecting all sorts of things here, claiming I or the article said or is trying to say things that neither is saying and then objecting when it is pointed out that it and I are not saying that. Ethically, this is surely a scummy trick, if it is a trick. Why don't you settle down? Hgilbert 01:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's the best possible example because in this case - the material being cited is in a foreign language. Pete K 23:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Horrors! The material is in a foreign language! Why? Because the reference is to Steiner's writings, and he had the temerity to write in a foreign language. Highly suspicious, you think? Hgilbert 01:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

{Sigh} OK ... again, if you insist... here's an article that I will reference that discusses the very articles you mention. [1] - It isn't pretty and in fact shows that indeed Steiner was an extreme nationalist and held an antisemitic political view. Here's a passage from the article:

"Steiner consorted with notoriously bitter antisemites and was by his own account on entirely friendly terms with them. The passages in Mein Lebensgang on his relationship with Heinrich von Treitschke, for example, are straightforwardly admiring of this towering figure on the German right, who was the foremost intellectual ally of militant anti-Semitism (Treitschke coined the Nazi slogan "The Jews are our misfortune"). Steiner never so much as mentions Treitschke's infamous stance on the "Jewish question." The same is true of Steiner's appraisals of Haeckel and Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, among others. In fact it is abundantly clear from Steiner's own writings on the subject that he had an extremely rudimentary understanding of anti-Semitism and that he was himself beholden to a wide variety of antisemitic stereotypes, which he frequently broadcast to his followers.11) On more than one occasion he expressed the wish "that Jewry as a people would simply cease to exist" (Steiner, Geschichte der Menschheit, Dornach 1968, p. 189 and elsewhere). This wish was consistent with Steiner's categorical rejection of the Jewish people's right to existence: "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." (Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur, GA 32, p. 152)"

Again, have it your way... I'll put this reference in tomorrow sometime. Pete K 03:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The articles I mentioned, in the journal against anti-Semitism, are collected in GA31. None of these are referenced in the above quote; you are mistaken here.
2. Steiner was friends with and/or acquainted with an amazing range of people, from wildly left-wing anarchists such as MacKay (a friend) to Treitschke (a distant acquaintance). He had a hostile relationship with Förster-Nietzsche (see his autobiography).
3. The quoted article is correct that he saw the Jewish religion and "way of thinking" - by which he seems to have meant religion that prescribed external laws of behavior rather than a path of inner transformation - as outdated, and that he severely underestimated anti-Semitism. This is rightfully seen as problematic, especially in a historical retrospect that can see how anti-Semitism became a terrifyingly powerful force in Germany some 20-30 years after his comments disparaging it.
4. He was nevertheless a vocal opponent of anti-Semitism and of German nationalism; in an article that is drawn from the journal in question, he spoke about Adolf Bartels, a German nationalist as follows: "It wouldn't occur to me to equate Mr. Bartels with the banal factionalists who invented the 'German man' in order to have as euphonious a phrase as possible to justify their anti-Semitism....But one thing seems certain to me: Bartels remarks about the 'German man' originate from the same source as the senseless prating of the anti-Semites."(Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus Nr. 37, 11 Sept. 1901)
5. Or: "There was never a 'Jewish question for me....as part of Austria's national student body became anti-Semitic, this appeared to me as a mockery of all the cultural achievements of modernity. I have never been able to judge a person on the basis of anything but the individual, personal characteristics that I became acquainted with in that person....I have never been able to see anything in anti-Semitism but a view that indicates the mental inferiority, deficient ethical judgement and poor taste of those who hold it."(GA31, pp. 278ff)

I am not trying to avoid the complexity of his position, but you are vastly oversimplifying it by ignoring his numerous comments directed against anti-Semisitism and anti-Semites. Hgilbert 09:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to avoid the whole issue here . Your insistence in trying to imply Steiner was a champion against anti-semitism is what's bringing this discussion here. He definitely was not. We can open up this can of worms if you like - I personally would rather ignore it and simply take out the suggestion that Steiner opposed anti-semitism. Again, it's your call. Pete K 16:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have checked a number of things the author of the article, that Pete mentions, writes against the original published sources he refers to as alleged support of what he writes. This has shown that he repeatedly is completely unreliable in relation to the sources he refers to and has made me completely lose confidence in the truthfulness of ANYTHING he writes down to the last comma regarding anthroposophy until I personally have checked the sources he refers to. The unreliability of the author turned up already when checking the very first paragraph of his first article as solo author on anthroposophy against the source it refers to.

For a comparison of what the author writes as "The passages in Mein Lebensgang on his relationship with Heinrich von Treitschke, for example, are straightforwardly admiring of this towering figure on the German right, who was the foremost intellectual ally of militant anti-Semitism (Treitschke coined the Nazi slogan "The Jews are our misfortune")." against the actual source it refers to as "support" for what he writes, Steiner's autobiography, see here. Was Steiner in his autobiography "straightforwardly admiring of Treitschke" as a person or as a writer this author writes?

Steiner in his Autobiography

"Men like Treitschke, who stick so fast in their own personalities, can make an impression on other men only when the personal element is at the same time both significant and also interwoven deeply with the things they are setting forth. This was true of Treitschke. When he spoke of something historical, he discoursed as if everything were in the present and he were at hand with all his pleasure and all his displeasure. One listened to the man, one received the impression of the personal in unmitigated strength; but one gained no relation to the content of what he said."

For another comment on Steiner's view of Treitschke, see Rudolf Steiner and Heinrich von Treitschke by Daniel Hindes. Or here for some comments on Steiner as alleged anti-Semite. For some comments on the last quote from Steiner, see here. It shows that quoted statement was made in the historical context of the late Jewish Enlightenment Haskalah, that like the Enlightenment in general, considered religion -- in the case of the Haskalah, the Mosaic religion -- to be an outdated basis for human culture, thinking and action. On this, the Russian Zionist Leo Pinsker, wrote 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 a description of Steiner's view of Jewry, see here, Rudolf Steiner - an active opponent against anti-Semitism by Lorenzo Ravagli, or Anthroposophy in the time of Nazi Germany by Uwe Werner, author on the most thorough work on the issue ("Anthroposophy in the Time of Nazi Germany", Verlag R. Oldenberg, Munich, 1999.).

It shows that the author mentioned by Pete does not qualify as a WP:Reliable_source for anything in an article at Wikipedia. Insertion of anything based on him in an article at Wikipedia would violate Wikipedia requirements on WP:Reliable_sources. --Thebee 12:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sune, nobody really cares if you think an author you don't like is "unreliable" - you've cried "wolf" too many times. That source will be used here over your objections. You seem to think EVERYBODY who doesn't represent your POV must be "unreliable". Sorry to be so blunt, but that's nonsense, once again, and not worth the effort to address your objections that are summarized in links to your own website. Pete K 16:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

On "You seem to think EVERYBODY who doesn't represent your POV must be "unreliable".". No, I think people who write things that are not supported by the sources they refer to as alleged support for what they write are unreliable. It's very simple. Your statement that you do not care about this contradicts the strife by Wikipedia to only use reliable sources, and - if you implement it - would violate it. --Thebee 16:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"No, I think people who write things that are not supported by the sources they refer to as alleged support for what they write are unreliable." Um... that would be YOU. Thanks for making my case. Pete K 16:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

On your: "you've cried "wolf" too many times". You mean my description of the WC as a site that publishes argumentation characteristic of criticism-hate type of groups, like its publication of an "Anthroposophical World Conspiracy" myth, a "Protocol of Steiner" myth and allegations of the type that Waldorf schools want children to suffer by opposing to immunization and exposing children to child diseases, in discussions described by Diana as "life threatening illnesses"? (For the argumentation by and answer on this to DianaW (later on the WC-board) see here).

Diana adds: Yes - on your "description of the WC as a site that publishes argumentation characteristic of a criticism-hate type of groups, like . . ." etc. Yes - that. Your documentation for that please? The above contains no links documenting, for instance, that PLANS publishes an "Anthroposophical World Conspiracy" myth. If PLANS publishes such a thing, giving the link to it should be very straightforward. But the links you give merely lead to your own writings. You've been asked to document these scandalous claims how many times now? Why do you ignore these requests?DianaW 12:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just checking - Yup - the link above that the reader is to believe will lead to a quote from Diana saying something like "Waldorf schools want children to suffer" - DOESN'T go to such a quote from Diana, since there isn't such a quote from Diana. The link goes to one of your bogus "summaries" of mean things people supposedly say about Waldorf. Why are you so loathe to go to actual sources? If I'm SAYING that somewhere, why is it so difficult to show this? Maybe becuz last time you quoted me, it was a simple matter to expose your deception - I was literally saying the OPPOSITE of what you claimed I was showing. I was actually quoting an ANTHROPOSOPHIST saying what you wanted to quote ME saying! Surreal. So go for it - or continue ignoring me? Where's the quote from me saying, "Waldorf schools want children to suffer"? You know that if you link to one of my posts on this subject, a much more complex discussion will be revealed, and people might get interested in what anthroposophists actually DO think regarding childhood illness, vaccines, and karma. Can't have that can we! Best if people think Diana says "Waldorf schools want children to suffer."DianaW 12:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents you four days ago asked an admin to look at and take action against this. (For some reason you seemed to forget my first more detailed description of the site of the WC here in a discussion at Wikipedia.) In an answer at your personal Talks page, an Admin (User:Durova) has answered that he or she will take no action on the basis of what you write, diplomatically describing the issue as a not a black or white one, that is, that it is not obvious that my description of the the WC is untrue, even based on the links you try to give in support of this, and leaves it at that.

On the basis of this, you would not consider the decision by the admin to be a judgement that your "Look, a wolf!" to be not that founded? --Thebee 17:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. I know your writings to be dishonest, deceptive and untruthful... And I know your claims of "hate group" are outright lies. There are certainly other administrators who will take this issue more seriously. In the mean time - I hope you are comfortable in the knowledge that you have made a fool of yourself and have basically damaged the credibility of Anthroposophists in general with your false and ridiculous claims. You hurt Anthroposophy and the Waldorf movement much more than you help it - and many Anthroposophists agree with me. Pete K 23:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Is PLANS a criticism-hate type of group? Check the Wikipedia article on the history and criticism of the group, by others, who had to deal with it locally when it started. Thebee 13:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Um - no, Sune. To show that PLANS is a hate group, you need to link not to other pages on wikipedia where you are making the same charges - but to DOCUMENTATION of PLANS' actions or statements that meet this description. Where is this material? Please post it very soon, as I've asked a number of times.DianaW 13:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

LMAO - Yes, Wikipedia is a solid source for good information - I have learned this (not) after editing here. You have put a lot of crap in the PLANS article and now refer me to it for information? That's rich. I'll be removing whatever you put in there Sune - trust me. But thanks for the laugh. Unbelievable!!! Pete K 15:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's typical. That is his long-term strategy here. He put up the AWE and WaldorfAnswers web sites so that he could quote them on wikipedia; soon, he hopes, if he can get the pages stable enough, he can then quote wikipedia on AWE and WaldorfAnswers! It's beautiful!DianaW 13:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the opinion from administrator Longhair regarding the linking to articles written in German - from HGilber's talk page:

"All external links should be in the English language for the English Wikipedia. I know if I came across an article with external links in German, I'd delete them. -- Longhair\talk 21:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)"

So, , would you care to delete them now, or shall I? Pete K 23:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that external links are not allowed to foreign language sites, but citations for purposes of verification are not considered external links. The Wikipedia guidelines for citations suggest that it is preferable to use English language translations if these are available. It does not say that foreign language citations are not appropriate. Hgilbert 21:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's great news. So I can use the 8 articles I found as citations. Cool! You never answered me about them. Did you have a chance to read them? Pete K 02:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

antisemitism

this [2] leads directly to an article that steiner wrote for the mentioned magazine. the first sentences translate (roughly) as 'Antisemitism is not particulary rich in original thoughts, not even phrases and slogans. Again and again one has to listen to the same old platitudes when followers of this 'philosophy' express their dull emotions.'

he goes on in the article to criticise antisemitic statements by known intellectuals of his day such as Friedrich Paulsen and Eugen Duehring. in the [3] part of the article he describes how people steiner knew in his days as a student in vienna turned from democratic and liberal thinkers who'd talk about humanity, freedom and the dignity of man into nationalist antisemites, who's company began to embarass him. if in doubt find someone who understands german. these articles show somebody speaking out against antisemitism clearly and courageously. i still find it perfectly possible that steiner also said things that would be considered antisemitic elsewhere. as with the racism it is a little more complicated, just putting on a label 'racist' or 'antisemite' will not do. trueblood 12:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood, you're right - this is complex. I'm not trying to put the label of "antisemite" on Steiner. I never have. With regard to what you say above, certainly someone can be a racist and still denounce the actions of the KKK. Denouncing some of the worst antisemites does not excuse Steiner from his own antisemitism. It's a can of worms that will certainly require the spawning of a new article discussing Steiner and Antisemitism if we go down this slippery slope. So what I am suggesting is that we stop trying to suggest that Steiner was a champion for the Jewish people (he wasn't) and leave it at that. When people try to claim that Steiner was against antisemitism, they are begging for material to show up here that shows exactly the opposite. And there is plenty of material that does this. Pete K 16:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

well, i repeat myself at risk of being rude, he was on several occasions speaking out against antisemitism clearly and courageously. i would exactly claim that what you said: he was against antisemitism.trueblood 17:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about being rude - I'm not as sensitive about these things as some people. Anyway, we can have this discussion if you like - there is lots and lots of information documenting Steiner's anti-semitic position - and really only snippets that suggest otherwise. So you think the article is the best place to have this battle? Pete K 18:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

no, not just snippets, 6 whole articles in a magazine that was completely devoted to fighting antisemitism, i am sorry i don't have the time to translate them all for you. but that you of all people talk about snippets, quotes taken of context, that just takes the bisquit. again i don't feel competent to jugde about the rest, but i think it was criticised by you and diana that the article suggested that steiner spoke out against antisemitism. you were doubtful if he might have talked about something else. he did not. he talked about antisemitism and denounced it. now you just speak mysteriously about your antisemitic snippets. let's both have a look again what you said to hgilbert earlier.trueblood 18:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana interjects (and hopes she won't give offense, as this discussion is so very long now, to post this at the end would be too confusing). Thanks for posting this, trueblood. I didn't imagine these articles could actually be found online. Seems amazing that HGilbert couldn't find this, then. For the record, I did not suggest (and this is NOT my take on the question) that I was "doubtful he might have talked about something else." I am doubtful as to why these articles haven't been translated into English; I very strongly suspect that if I could read them in English, I would then understand why. Quite often, Steiner's comments on various races are very deeply ambivalent, and while anthroposophists want to read lovely things into glib statements about loving everybody and unity and brotherhood of man yada yada, those with a critical ear hear something far more nuanced and not open to nearly such unequivocal interpretation. One of Steiner's favorite tricks is to damn with faint praise, for instance. My view is that, in general, anthroposophists DON'T WANT TO HAVE those conversations. They don't want this material to be examined. They want to *suggest* as tried repeatedly to do, that "Steiner was opposed to antisemitism." The material overall on which this claim is based is very, very contradictory. They will resist fiercely any nuanced discussion of it. This was my opposition to the mention of these articles in the wikipedia article. I don't think I'll get involved in the assimilationist arguments; I more or less agree with Pete. Assimilationist arguments are NOT straightforwardly or unambivalently anti-antisemitic. To claim that Steiner was opposed to antisemitism on this basis is no less problematic. The point that remains of great interest is why anthroposophists so fiercely resist seeing the material examined in public.DianaW 13:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I will look for translations of the articles. Fair enough? But a quick peek on the web reveals that the ONLY people who are suggesting Steiner opposed antisemitism are Anthroposophists. No historians, no non-biased persons that I can find. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Have you got a link to a non-Anthroposophist who makes this claim? I'll keep looking - but I can tell you, sites like Defending Steiner, Waldorf Answers and TheBee and stuff like that aren't going to convince me. So fine - we can leave in the reference to the articles you say suggest Steiner was an opponent of antisemitism, and I'll present the case that he promoted the opposite. It doesn't matter that much to me. Pete K 18:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Steiner was an extreme assimilationist regarding the Jewish people, as were many people of his time, including many of Jewish heritage (e.g. the composer Felix Mendelssohn!) His own writings make this very clear, as they also make clear that he spoke against anti-Semitism and racism time and time again.

By the way, your own primary source, P.S., is not a historian, nor is he unbiased by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are founding members of the Skeptical Humanists. Come off your high horse; look down and you'll notice it's a braying donkey. Hgilbert 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You're the one braying here, not me. Are you joining Sune in the attempted defamation campaign? Big surprise. Nobody claimed ANYONE was unbiased. But again, claims excusing Steiner have to come from somewhere other than Anthroposophists. Otherwise, they are more of the same bull. Your house of cards is tumbling down , and your revisionist history along with it. You don't need to tell me Steiner was an assimilationist - I've explained that to you many times right here. He wanted and expected the Jews to dissolve - he didn't like their "Jewishness". I don't need history lessons about this from you and other revisionists. In case you haven't noticed, my high-horse doesn't care for your bull. Pete K 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

no, pete, not fair enough. quick peeks on the web are not enough, just get somebody who understands german, you were wrong but now it does not matter much to you. and tell me again, about this snippet theory of yours. were you indicating that quotes taken out off there context don't tell much? and then the dutch commission's position has to be evaluated but this peter staudenmeyer person does not.

i wish you could come up with some real objective historian or journalist writing in a real magazine or newspaper, not some cranky antireligious fanzine, can't be so difficult. but all your ranting has not change a little bit to this article in terms of making it more neutral. you just managed to get on some people's nerves bigtime. trueblood 22:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - quick peeks are not enough. Reference the articles then - not a table of contents to them. Let's see the articles themselves and I'll get them translated. Meanwhile, here are some I have tried to translate using Google. Have a peek:

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-2.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-4.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-5.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-6.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-7.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

I'm taking this very seriously - but the automatic translator doesn't do a very good job. I will continue to look into this - but maybe you would like to read these in German.

http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner.htm http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-2.htm http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-4.htm http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-5.htm http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-6.htm http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-7.htm

Pete K 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

when you say this: "his type of dishonesty doesn't seem to bother these people and is, as some of us know, representative of Anthroposophists and Waldorf in general. This type of dishonesty is what critics of Waldorf continue to claim exists - and it is being demonstrated here - right before our eyes. Good job guys!!!" are you actually talking to me?

because you come here, make all these wild claims, insult people, scream 'bias', but all the evidence you can come with, are people affiliated with PLANS or sceptical organizations, that seems to show cultish behavior themselves. you don't have any unbiased references, do you. all this PLANS stuff is equally unconvincing as defending steiner or americans 4 waldorf ... and then you talk about your experiences with 'these people'. you are so blind that you don't notice that the people editing here have quite different opinions. if they don't agree with you they are part of this anthro conspiracy, part of 'these people'. man you've got personal issues. but nobody here is interested in that. this is not the place to conduct a personal vendetta. stop dragging in you personal business, stop being impolite, stubborn to the degree of fanaticism. trueblood 22:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see it this way - but you couldn't be more wrong. "People affiliated with PLANS"? Who would that be? What reference have I produced by someone affiliated with PLANS? And who gets to decide who is "affiliated" with PLANS? You? PLANS is an organization just like the Anthroposophical Society - so if you are suggesting that any of my references belong to the organization PLANS, you are mistaken. If you want to make loose associations in order to discredit people - that's something you can do to amuse yourself - but it doesn't amuse me and I suspect most people reading this are intelligent enough to see right through it. So what PLANS stuff are you talking about? It seems you may be the one falsifying associations here. Nobody I have referenced is from PLANS. So then you want to include all "sceptics" - which would be anyone who doesn't buy into Steiner's nonsense - right? I mean, if they don't believe it, they certainly must be skeptical about it - right? So again, you've got nothing here - just more smoke and mirrors trying to discredit me. The house of cards is in jeopardy - it may only take a little more smoke to knock it down. The only thing holding it up is the Commission of Anthroposophists - and mysterious articles in German. Let's see how long those will keep things together for you. Pete K 23:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

plans might be an organization like the anthroposophical society. but i seem to remember to have read something about 40 members. did you say something about a figure of 50000 anthroposophists? so an anthro could have much better reason for saying something general about 'these people' when speaking about plans. peter staudenmaier participates at discussions at a plans online forum does he not, in my book that could pass for affiliated. with sceptics i mean organized sceptics. don't be so slow, you know what i mean. i'd consider myself a sceptic in the general sence of the word. but i am sceptical but organized sceptics. take a peek at this, it sums it up. but your new german links are different. they are in depth, and present a differentiated view. put them in.trueblood 10:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood: "peter staudenmaier participates at discussions at a plans online forum does he not, in my book that could pass for affiliated." HUH??? If participating in that forum makes him a PLANS affiliate, then Gilbert and Sune Nordwall are also affiliated with PLANS. At least try to make sense!DianaW 13:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"peter staudenmaier participates at discussions at a plans online forum does he not, in my book that could pass for affiliated." I get that "affiliated" to you means you can paste that label on whoever you please. So, let me see - here from our group, of the people I actually know, Gilbert (HGilbert) must also be affiliated with PLANS, and Sune Nordwall (TheBee) too is affiliated with PLANS. Correct? Because participation on a discussion list means an affiliation to YOU. That makes sense since you apparently agree to affiliate Steiner with opposition to antisemitism because he wrote articles for a magazine that opposed antisemitism. Boy, I'd hate to think of all the lists I've posted on that I might be "affiliated" with - by YOU. So, anyone who is critical of Waldorf or Steiner, according to you, and who has participated on a list that is critical of Waldorf or Steiner must be affiliated with the organization that sponsors that list. Incredible. "with sceptics i mean organized sceptics. don't be so slow, you know what i mean. i'd consider myself a sceptic in the general sence of the word. but i am sceptical but organized sceptics."

"Organized sceptics"? They don't get to have a say here why? That's a lot of what organized skeptics do, debunk nonsense - and that they turned their attention to Steiner people who claim no racism and no antisemitism in Steiner's works is pretty natural. They aren't skeptical of ALL claims of ALL people who opposed racism or antisemitism. Those are valid POV's because, well... Steiner was a racist and an antisemite, AND skeptics don't make up Steiner's own society. We're not talking about an anti-Steiner group, we are talking about people who are skeptical, and sometimes they are organized in groups, and have identified Steiner as something to be skeptical about. I don't see that skeptics are skeptical about Thomas Edison and his wacky ideas about electricity. Skeptics look to challenge something that is skeptical. Re the articles, I won't be putting them in until I have them translated because, well, I'd like to know what they say before referencing them. But I'm quite sure I will be putting them in eventually. Thanks. Pete K 15:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Claims

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)

, you're not often right, but you're wrong again: * 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. Nope. Diana pointed out that you hadn't referenced the articles themselves - you referenced a table of contents that said the articles existed. As a professional editor, Diana pointed out to you that this does not constitute a proper reference. You still haven't provided the articles as a reference - so this is definitely not 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. Again, you are wrong. The ambiguity is in the improper reference itself as I noted above. You still don't get it apparently.

* 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. I've discovered in your recent comments that your idea of "anti-semitism" is more like "extermination". Assimilation is anti-semitism . Steiner wanted the Jews to disappear - he wanted the Jewish culture to disappear. That he didn't side with the people who wanted to exterminate the Jews does not make him a champion against anti-semitism. {sigh}

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)

* 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. No, I think I'll hold off on that. Your quote is a "snippet". I'll start by having the articles translated - I know someone who might be able to do this for me. Then, I'll see if, as I suspect, they talk about assimilation - I would, of course, expect them to as that's what Steiner promoted. But if they don't (highly doubtful), I will at least know what THOSE SPECIFIC ARTICLES talk about and will be in a better position to produce evidence to refute them - because, after all, Steiner WAS antisemitic. In and of themselves, six articles don't change or excuse a lifetime of antisemitism anyway, but I'll have a look at them. That you think my position is baseless should make for some interesting discussions here . I'm glad you think you can defend your position. I can't wait. Pete K 23:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete's claims

• 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) (according to the diff for the posting.)

Do you intend to sign this ? Let me explain the above for you. I started in on this issue in the hope that you would see the dishonesty of claiming Steiner was opposed to antisemitism. You maintained - behaving in a dishonest fashion - that this is the case. Furthermore, I have never made the claim publicly (that I know of - you're welcome to look anywhere you like) that Steiner was an antisemite. So the first statement was absolutely correct and truthful at the time I made it. I was not trying to put the antisemite label on Steiner - you insisted, however, by continuing to make the claims you have, that I get involved in this discussion - so the situation has, of course changed since my statement. I never said I didn't believe Steiner was an antisemite - in fact, he WAS an antisemite - I only said I was not here to make that claim and that I have never made that claim (again, you are welcome to search the web for me making that claim sometime before Oct 20, 2006). I have been very busy on the web since about 1988, so you have lots to choose from. None of the statements you have posted above disagree with each other. In fact, it seems pretty dishonest of you to make the implication (as your edit summary claims) that I have been dishonest in any way. But then, this is the type of thing I have come to expect from you. Good luck in your search. Pete K 18:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Steiner against anti-Semitism

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)

"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)

That YOU don't understand that "assimilation" is antisemitism is the problem here Sune. Assimilation in Germany is called Germanization. Here's a bit from the Wikipedia article (giggling) about Germanization:

In the Nazi era, the days of certain minorities in Germany were numbered. "Racially acceptable" children were taken from their families, in order to be brought up as Germans[12]. In German occupied Poland it's estimated that a number ranging from 50,000 to 200,000 children were deprived of their families in order to be Germanised[13]. It's estimated that at least 10,000 of them were murdered in the process as they were determined unfit and sent to concentration camps faced brutal treatment or perished in the harsh conditions during their transport in cattle wagons, and only 10-15% returned to their families after the war[14]. Obligatory Hitlerjugend membership made dialogue between old and young next to impossible, as use of languages other than German was discouraged by officials. Members of minority organizations were sent to concentration camps by German authorities or have been executed.

This, my friend, is what Steiner was promoting - the assimilation of millions of Jews into Germanic culture. Of course Steiner was a decade before Hitler came to power, but the concept of assimilation/Germanization had been around in Germany far earlier than Steiner or Hitler. Steiner wanted the Jewish culture to die away - to be assimilated into Germany. I don't think he would have approved of the methods used above during WWII, but the concept he had was indeed about removing the "Jewishness" of the Jews - separating them from their culture, which he believed had "outlived its time". In fact, here's the quote from GA 32:

"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)

So your list of stuff taken out of context and referring back to your own websites (again) is of no interest. The historical fact is that Steiner was an assimilationist. This may have been better than an exterminationist - and that may, in YOUR view make him opposed to antisemitism, but really, that's a crock that doesn't hold water. In Steiner's article, we will be making his views clear - and not whitewashing what he said and believed. Pete K 15:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

On guilt by association argumentation

"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)

"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)

Restoring two removed comments

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) (source)

Great - now you characterize Jews as fertilizer. You should quit while you're way behind. Pete K 02:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the one who comes across as crazy here is not primarily Thebee. --Vindheim 19:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for weighing in on this one big guy... Pete K 20:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

No personal attacks

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)

Geeze, Pete. For days the discussion page was nothing but personal attack after personal attack and nothing here was getting accomplished. Now someone simply posts a reminder as to the purpose of these pages and you issue a personal attack by being condescending. Egamirorrimeht 23:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Pete, I certainly understand that it must be frustrating for you. You're trying your best to spread your views onto Steiner's pages, and you're constantly being rebuffed by people who also have good viewpoints, and alot of times theirs win out... so that's certainly frustrating. And sometimes you're harrassed, and that's got to make you angry. But Wikipedia is no place to let your frustrations mutate into attacks. You're a smart guy, I don't need to tell you that noboody likes to be insulted. I mean you write children's books, I'm sure you know many life-lessons and could probably teach everyone else a good many things about how to deal with others.

And regarding the personal attacks, you're not the only one here who is guilty of this. Notice how Hgilbert didn't address you specificaly with the posting of wikipedia policy. TheBee is obviously guilty of this too, when he posted that he could punch you for your insults. I just don't think anyone here wants to read insult after insult, or be in fear of being insulted for posting their views, or be frustrated for being harrassed. Boogafish 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

racism again

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)

I support the inclusion of this well-referenced description. (I have changed the wording slightly for clarity; I believe this has not taken out anything.) One of the references Trueblood added is to an article by Robert McDermott, an anthroposophist, calling for a hard look at Steiner's views on races; I have incorporated a reference to this in the text, as well. I do not know about the TV-program reference commented on below. Hgilbert 21:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

alleged racism again

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)

Thanks for your concern... I'm back apparently... Pete K 23:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Well I've fixed the problem, I think. There really were far too many examples within the article and that was the problem with it when it was bloated. Now there are only generalities and that's where it's at its strongest. What I did was take out ALL the examples and I think it is a much more appropriate article now.

And Trueblood, I could very well say the same for you. You added to the article without coming here, to the talk pages, first. Everyone knows that the "race" section is constantly being fought over and any changes would ignite controversy. But in the future I won't make any changes without coming here first.

As for the comment on Robert McDermott, I'm very well aware of his work and respect his opinion a great deal. However, I don't think his arguments nor anyone else's belong on Steiner's main page. The rubric I'm using for this is "Would that ever show up in Encycolpedia Britannica?" Absolutely not. If it were, it would be in a seperate article. Boogafish 16:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Pete, I see what you mean and think that's a very good point. I think "invdividual spirit" might even be the most accurate term here.

My only point really is that I don't think the examples (refrences or specific arguments, to be precise) should be on the main page simply because we know that the page can easily get enormous and disproportionate, quickly. Afterall, Steiner wrote volumes on Christianity and its section on his main page is actually much smaller than his section on 'race.'Boogafish 16:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC) i see this keeness again to sweep things under the carpet. i say this again, there has been a lot of discussion and criticism for the alleged racism in several countries. i think that is very notable. all the links that i added where to reference this, not to bring in this or that argument. trueblood 18:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC) you have not really told me why we should not mention this controversy. as for the encyclopedia britannica, it is a healthy approach but wikipedia is different. this article is probably 50 times longer than any article in any encyclopedia on steiner don't you think? just because the racism question pops up again and again, it will make the article more stable to put this in. i think i am gonna side with pete k in thinking that it is only when discussing this section that people get worried about the overall size of this article. but then for months it seems this section was the only one that got discussed.trueblood 18:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe it's because it's the only section that is so controversial. Fact is, I don't think anything needs to be added to this section whatsoever until the section on Christianity becomes much, much larger, the section on Anthroposophic Medicine becomes much larger, etc. Thing is, it needs to be proportionate to whom Steiner was. People who are new to Steiner see this article on race, and immediately they think one of Steiner's main contributions to the world was his views on race. Obviously, that is absurd. It's like having a large section on Tom Cruise's page describing all the rumors that he's gay, while the section on the movies he's been in is small. But the difference there is that everyone knows who Tom Cruise is, when they see his page and how disproportionate it is, they easily recognize that fact. Few know about Steiner and, for those reasons, the subarticle Race and Ethnicity on the main Steiner page is too long even at one word, much less two paragraphs. Boogafish 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And Trueblood, I want to also complain that I don't agree with you adding an additional refrence, specifically the one about 'self-criticism' after I have so obviously objected to your prior editing. And Hgilbert's support hardly is a consensus. Boogafish 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Pete, I've always seen the topic of race to be a really a major issue to critics of Anthroposophy, but not to Anthroposophists themselves (or at least very, very few.) What becomes clear after really absorbing Steiner, not just reading Steiner, is that race is really no more important to an individual than, say, temperament.

No doubt most scholars agree, which is why major encyclopedic refrences to Steiner never mention his racial views. Boogafish 20:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And I also want to say that, yes, Steiner did have something to say about how races, in particular root races shaped the world today. In that regard you are quite right. But he also said that, at the time of root races the ego was still developing and, in those times race played a pivotal role. Today, it really doesn't.Boogafish 21:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to add this reminder as to what, exactly, constitutes neutral point of view...... Boogafish 21:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced.

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)

Trueblood- My whole point is that it was too long before you even added to it. It doesn't matter how well refrenced it is. Read what I posted previously, on neutrality. Wikipedia isn't the place for minor viewpoints (like the example of some people believing the earth is flat and posting their views on "Earth.") It can be reflected on a page all to it's own, but not on the main Steiner page.

Boogafish 21:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC) but my addition is completely neutral, it just states the fact, steiner's teachings attracted media attention for criticism of racism. did not make headlines but considering the general media attention that anthroposophy gets it was notable, on tv, in news papers, whole books were published and some taken off the market as the result of law suits. the german article on steiner is probably 30% criticism. i am not proposing that. your space argument seems dishonest to me. there are a lot of things in this article that would be in no other encyclopedia. why don't you shorten somewhere else and not in a controversial section?trueblood 21:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Trueblood- Please, I don't want to have to keep repeating myself here. Please read the Wikipedia policy I posted! Weight matters as regards neutrality. Boogafish 22:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

The Call for Meat Puppets

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)

The Deletion of the Section: Race and Ethnicity

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)

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)

Or maybe there are alot of people out there who believe this should be the case but they've never thought about it. That's why I'm bringing it up.Boogafish2 23:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

"So I wanted to delete it for the time being, until we decide whether or not it should even belong." Hysterical! Let's just delete it for a little while! Okay - how's five minutes?DianaW 02:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The section is relevant and accurate. It should not not take up a disproportionate portion of the article; its present length is probably close to a maximum in this regard. It should, however, be NPOV; the initial overview should not be minimalized. I have therefore combined the brief substitute version into the more complete overview. WP:Criticism also suggests speaking about 'reception' of an author in a balanced way rather than focusing solely on 'criticism'; I have changed the final sentence to reflect this. Hgilbert 11:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Now that I'm able to post, here's my take:

First, would the people here please educate themselves on wikipedia standards as to what neutrality means in its entirety. Please, I've asked others to read what I posted from Wikipedia's own page and nobody seems to be doing it. Your reading this precedes any sort of intelligent discussion on this matter. In fact, please don't even continue reading this post until you've done so.

OK, now, you will have seen that neutrality isn't so simple an issue. It doesn't merely mean both sides must be equally covered. It also means that refrences and comments on an issue that only a very minority of people share can actually make a page un-neutral simply because it distorts the content of the page itself. It contributes to a lack of balance because, being so small of an issue it's mere presence blows this issue itself out of proportion.

Here's my proposed solution to this problem:

Under reception of Steiner, why not have simply sentences referring to his racial views, not an entire subsection. True, his views are complex and warrant more than mere sentences will allow. However, that's why there's a link to the main article on this subject.

In the meantime, I have been expanding certain sections that greatly need it. This also will help to properly contribute to proportion.Boogafish 00:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Well Pete, I think things should always be open to debate. The reason I think so is that webpages quickly turn into nonsense when your typing method is called 'putting your foot down.'

And since you mention it I do recall several individuals questioning its existence as a subarticle some time back.

And no, Pete, it's not to eliminate all traces of race and Steiner. The large article existing, I'm not disputing. It should exist. I even think the main article should link to it, and I'm not scared of such a link because I think the facts speak for themselves so long as the people who read them are reasonable and non-hysterical. But the only person who believes one of Steiner's main contributions was race seems to be you. And I'm shocked you're questioning my motives because your motives clearly seem to be to pull down dead Steiner's shorts and expose him to the world.Boogafish 00:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Like I said before, I think your viewpoint of Steiner is unsubstantiated from a scholastic point of view. I hope you don't choose to take that as an insult again, because I don't mean it to be. But the mainstream scholastic work that exists simply does not justify such a viewpoint.

And, just so you know, I'm very well read on these issues (and your viewpoint). I'm no newcomer here so you don't have to type as much on your viewpoint of race within Steiner's thought.Boogafish 01:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Pete, it is justified scholastically because mainstream scholars have never accused Anthroposophy of being founded on rascist principles. Mainstream encyclopedias never accuse Steiner or Anthroposophy of rascism. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it: "In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof."

This is why I believe that the section on racism should not be a section. A mere couple of sentences is, in my opinion, too much, but I would be willing to compromise with that. Because the presence of race as a section on Steiner's page gives the article undue weight. Boogafish 21:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's getting closer to voting time on this. Boogafish 21:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"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)

No, YOU and DIANA and a handfull of other people accuse Steiner of racism, that's all. That's why it is a only a tiny minority viewpoint, and that's why it should not be represented. I'm not saying represented at all, I'm saying not represented as a subarticle. It gives that article undue weight.

And the reason that it DOES matter as to the point I made about other encyclopedias not accusing or even mentioning Steiner's racial views is that these encyclopedias are the mainstream academic viewpoints. This is important to establish because Steiner can only be grasped with careful reflection and research. I know you read Steiner for 15 years, but I would question the reflectiveness and careful research on your end, not because your views are differnet from mine, but because your views are different from these mainstream academics. That's why I believe that your view of Anthroposophy being founded on racism is, like the example of the flat-earth society, the opinion of the tiny minority. And, again, what Wikipedia has to say on that issue is this: "Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all." So, honestly, I think you lost this one Pete. I'm prepared to edit the section down to Wikipedia standards unless you can convince me otherwise. And that means convince me using Wikipedia guidelines, not your opinions.Boogafish 01:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I would go somewhat easy on this person - I think this is a teenager.DianaW 02:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Pete, you don't have a right to revert simply because you disagree with my edit. I think the change speaks for itself. If you have a problem with it, then let's work it out on the talk page and get to a solution.

I've already explained why I felt this change needed to be made and you simply didn't argue the point. Boogafish 17:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

i am getting tired of this game, *on one hand you are adding to the article, on the other you are reasoning this section should be shortened.

• you are talking about encyclopedia britannica, but this article already contains so much that would be in no other encyclopedia.
• you are saying that the presence of this section makes the whole article non neutral, without explaining. we are not even presenting a minority opinion, only the referenced fact that the racist allegation got a lot of media attention, got discussed on tv and in major german and dutch newspapers. why is that pov or non notable? i also mentioned before that chriticism takes up 30% of the german article on steiner. having said that, i hope that makes it clear why i think that your quote on undue weight does not apply here.
• no one stops you from expanding the section on christianity
• looking at your contributions it seems your only reason for being here is deleting this section, now you called in some buddies to help you editing or even voting.

i have said all this before but you keep on saying that noone replies to your arguments and then ignore what we say. that is kind of frustrating. trueblood 13:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Not Quite a Nazi

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)

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)

breadth of activity

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)

Steiner - Against the Antisemitism of his time

==Steiner Dreyfus HGilbert - you want to leave this in the section about Steiner's written works. "Steiner was one of the defenders (with Emile Zola) of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish Captain in the French army falsely accused of treason.[6]" Can we please, if you insist on leaving this in, say something like "Steiner wrote articles in defense of..." - otherwise, it sounds like he was on the defense team. Thanks! Pete K 00:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• An important event which took place in Steiner's time and which drew a lot of public attention should also be discussed: the Dreyfus affair in France, in which in 1894 a Jewish French army officer was accused of having betrayed military secrets. Like others, Steiner also took a passionate public stand in favour of Dreyfus, who was rehabilitated in 1898/99,62 as the accusations demonstrably had been based on falsifications.

• Steiner's discussion of the Dreyfus affair referred mainly to Zola. Steiner has been criticised for not having explicitly mentioned the anti-Semitic aspects of the case, as they have been shown by a number of historians 63 We can accept this criticism insofar as it shows that Steiner's judgement was inadequate and unhistorical, seen from the perspective and the mood of today.64 For at the time these aspects were not even acknowledged by the French Jews. Laqueur writes on their behaviour:

"The hesitance of French Jews to take collective action during the Dreyfus trial showed that they wanted to believe that the affair had no specifically Jewish aspect."65

Reference notes:

62) Dreyfus was granted amnesty in 1899, but only fully rehabilitated in 1906.

63) See the three essays by Steiner in the Magazin für Litteratur (Magazine for Literature): Die Instinkte der Franzosen (The Instincts of the French), 11 December 1897, Emile Zola an die Jugend (Emile Zola Adresses the Young Generation), 19. February 1898, and Zola's Oath and the Truth About Dreyfus, 5. March 1898, in GA 31, ibid. p. 221.

64) An example of this criticism is the not very qualified essay by Julia Iwersen in Nr 16/17 of the journal Babylon, Frankfurt 1996. See our analysis in Rudolf Steiner als aktiver Gegner des Antisemitismus (Rudolf Steiner - an active opponent of anti-Semitism), Stuttgart 2000. Can be ordered from the Association of Free Waldorf Schools in Stuttgart (Bund der Freien Waldorfschulen).

65) Laqueur, A History of Zionism, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1972, p. 35.

You can separate the statements; they are roughly contemporaneous and appear together for this reason (it is a chronological narrative). Steiner came out strongly for Dreyfuss in the same year as Zola, long before the tide had turned in the former's favor.

There are numerous condemnations of anti-semitism in the articles published in the journal mentioned here. See the sub-article link for many of these. The only mention of assimilation is the following: "If the process of assimilation had not been artificially held up, the Jews would certainly not suffer from more exclusivity than, say, the Slavs in German lands." Are you personally anti-Semitical - do you believe that the Jews should have been excluded from European civilization? Steiner is merely saying that they suffer needlessly from exclusivity, that were prevented from assimilating into European culture to the extent that they wished. The sentence does not say that assimilation is a good thing, merely that it had been artifically held up. He later promoted assimilation, but not here.

"Are you personally anti-Semitical - do you believe that the Jews should have been excluded from European civilization?" I'd like to know where you get off asking me a question like this? Steiner's position was very clearly stated... and I really don't need you to explain what Steiner was saying to me. Neither do the readers of Wikipedia. His words speak for themselves - and that you apparently don't understand what he said displays, perhaps, a marginal understanding of Steiner's works and history in general. How many quotes directly from Steiner would you like me to produce that support exactly what I have said here? You say "he later promoted assimilation, but not here" - and yet 10 years BEFORE the Dreyfus affair Steiner writes:

Then stick to quotes, not doubtful interpretations.

• "It certainly cannot be denied that Jewry today still behaves as a closed totality, and as such it has frequently intervened in the development of our current state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable to European ideas of culture. But Jewry itself 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, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur p. 152)

This does not occur in the mentioned articles (in the Journal against Antisemitism), but in other articles. I removed your indication that it occurred in articles in which it did not. You can add that he promoted it elsewhere; I have mentioned this in the sub-article. Hgilbert 01:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added it back. Stop trying to distort his viewpoint. Pete K 01:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing key sections of the deposition testimony taken of PLANS' most vocal spokesperson, Dan Dugan, the judge expressed "grave doubts about any reliance upon his opinions about anything that has to do with any intellectual endeavor, including Anthroposophy" before ruling that Dugan would not be allowed to give testimony in the trial.

Your beliefs and Dugan's are identical. If Dugan's radical misconception was enough for a judge to scoff at the possibility of the court entertaining his opinions, why should Wikipedia tolerate identical beliefs from you?Egamirorrimeht 04:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

themirrorimagE, are you suggesting I am Dan Dugan? I think we've already established that you are a sockpuppet - your suggestion that you are sharing a computer with another member who shares your exact viewpoint notwithstanding. I sign my name to who I am... my taunting little friend. I think this article has been protected from editing by other than established editors. I'm sure your one or two posts here, arriving at a time when "another" user suggested a vote on an issue - wouldn't qualify you. You and your alter ego wouldn't be attempting to game the 3RR rule here would you? Pete K 17:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents- I think you might have misread themirrorimage's post, which I found to be a very good point. He didn't say that you were Dan Dugan, he said your beliefs were identical to Dugan's. And if those beliefs are too unfounded for a jury to hear, then why should they be on Wikipedia for everyone in the world to see? Rottentomatoe

Oh I get his point. It's B.S. and more dribble trying to exclude me from editing. Would you guys really want to risk getting yourselves kicked off Wikipedia for sockpuppetry? Just curious. Pete K 18:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Those are accusations which I find to be personal attacks since they are entirely unfounded. Do you want to get kicked off Wikipedia for making personal attacks?

Wow... now THERE'S a surprise... Pete K 18:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't bite the newcomers.

Please get in the habit of signing your posts. Thanks! Pete K 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about your last edit Pete. First the exapmle you gave was far too long as well as out-of-context. So I trimmed that exapmle off and put a refrence. Even still, I think the statement is out of place. It makes Steiner's time as a philosopher seem entirely devoted to his views of Jews, which is clearly not the case.

Oh, and since you are accusing Steiner of being an anti-Semite, have you ever considered that he was Jewish? I mean racially Semitic, not religiously, of course.

And before you brush aside the suggestion about www.waldorfanswers.org, I think it would be worth checking out. It's a pretty educational site. I've learned quite a bit from it and maybe you could as well. Rottentomatoe 19:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Somebody else saved me the trouble of reverting your edit. If you want to take something out of the article, take the "attacked antisemitism" stuff out. It isn't truthful anyway. Steiner was not Jewish. I don't know where you're getting your information, but if it's Waldorfanswers, you should check out a few other sites... The truth cannot be found there. Expand your horizons a bit, you might learn something. Pete K 19:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

TheBee, you have slashed away an ample section of the article a few times now. You seem to claim that some agreement has been achieved to remove the portion you want to remove because some other portion you want to keep has been removed by another editor. The portion that was removed was, I believe, produced by HGilbert - who may or may not want it removed. We will have to wait to hear from him if he's going to fight to keep that material. The material you want to remove now, apparently based on the removal of 's material, is material I have introduced in response to the material that is now gone. While I get that you believe this is unfair, I would suggest you wait until has had a chance to chime in before escalating this. The editor that removed 's material and kept my material is probably going to want to justify his edits as well. Let's let everyone speak on the subject, shall we? Pete K 00:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Pete, let's leave it as is until Hgilbert has a chance to weigh in. Because nobody likes the version you're putting up. Rottentomatoe 01:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And here's my 2cents: None of the entries on Antisemitism on either side has much relevance to Steiner as a philosopher. Both of the sides always stuck out and seemed out of place all along. But we'll see what Hgilbert thinks. Rottentomatoe 01:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

HGILBERT- When you see the large abomination on the Steiner page, would you look at the history? Pete is willing to get rid of it if you get rid of the antisemitism stuff you added in. Personally, I don't think either one has its place in the article. Nor does TheBee or Pete and most likely his two recruits don't think either edit has a place either. I think they are just trying to muscle the whole situation. Rottentomatoe 01:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I take objection to the "two recriuts" comment. With the exception of Diana, I don't know who anybody is on this side of the argument. Oddly, I know most of the people on the Steiner side. I have not recruited anyone here - and that includes Diana. Second, I didn't produce the version I am defending. Someone else did. So obviously, so someone else apparently likes like this version. Third, people in glass houses and all that... you're a bit of a Johnny-come-lately here yourself. You've been here, what, three days - and accuse me of recruiting others? Who recruited you? Even if HGilbert says he likes the idea, it doesn't give any of us the right to keep other editors from changing it again - so I would suggest to you, these kinds of bargains set a bad precident. I'm inclined to just fight to keep the stuff I like it in, rather than make some back-room deal as if I represent anybody but me. Pete K 02:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of this question, though quite balanced, has become disproportionate. I am archiving it here in case it is needed. I hope this is a satisfactory solution; otherwise it should be placed outside the biographical section as it is not in chronological and thematic sequence with the rest of this section. Hgilbert 06:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

anti-Semitism

There is no justification for adding "extreme forms"; Steiner criticized anti-Semitism generally: see: (from Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus).[4]) Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus).[5], 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.

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)

Request for Comments

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)

Yeah, especially ones who know what a revert is. Rottentomatoe 02:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

That's the problem, neither of the arguments supporting Steiner's promotion of Anti-Semitism nor the arguments on assimilation have any place in his life as a philospher since they don't have enough weight to even make an appearance. These were MINOR details. Rottentomatoe 02:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Nobody made any such assertion. They are, imo, notable. —Hanuman Das 02:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Here's another perspective on Pete's viewpoint that I'd like to share. Another editor posted this and I think it's also appropriate to post it here:

"After reviewing key sections of the deposition testimony taken of PLANS' most vocal spokesperson, Dan Dugan, the judge expressed 'grave doubts about any reliance upon his opinions about anything that has to do with any intellectual endeavor, including Anthroposophy' before ruling that Dugan would not be allowed to give testimony in the trial."

Pete's viewpoint, which is that racism and antisemitism and even witchcraft are each a fundamental part of which Anthroposophy was built upon is the same viewpoint that Dan Dugan shared. Many people are entirely unaware of what Anthroposophy is, and honestly it takes quite a bit of investigation and reading to make sense of what it's all about.

Well, the judge, presented with a great deal of information regarding Anthroposophy but also Dugan's opinions and way of thinking (and those who think like him) decided that his views were far too extreme and unfounded to make their appearance in the courtroom.

So, what does this mean for the current article? 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. So he is giving the subject of race a great deal more weight than it deserves. It doesn't matter so much if it's refrenced. It's mere existence tips the scales far too much.

Furthermore, every quote Pete places into the article concerning race is taken out of context. There is an entire article (and it's very, very large) devoted to Steiner's views on Race and Ethnicity. Many other people who believe, with grounded convictions, that Steiner was not an ugly antisemite or racist have placed the "rest of the story" in that article.

So, in my opinion, it's not a matter of making sure it is refrneced or not. Weight is the clear issue. And, in regards to weight, I'd like for everyone to examine the key piece of evidence I presented you with earlier: 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. Wikipedia should clearly follow in the path that has already been cleared with an esteemed precedent.Rottentomatoe 15:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Mr. Tomatoe wrote: "Pete's viewpoint, which is that racism and antisemitism and even witchcraft are each a fundamental part of which Anthroposophy was built upon is the same viewpoint that Dan Dugan shared. Many people are entirely unaware of what Anthroposophy is, and honestly it takes quite a bit of investigation and reading to make sense of what it's all about."

I've invested 15 years studying Anthroposophy. How about you? I challenge you to find me supporting the idea that witchcraft is a fundamental part of Anthroposophy. In fact, I challenge you to find Dan Dugan supporting that notion. It would be great if you had the integrity to either provide evidence or retract the statement.

More from Mr. Tomatoe: "So, what does this mean for the current article? Well, race, the Jews, the stance on antisemitism (which Steiner is clearly an opponent of, btw)...it's all minor, minor details." Anybody with the slightest understanding of Anthroposophy would understand that this is not the case. I'd be happy to provide quotes directy from Steiner. Shall we go through this again, or would you like the opportunity to examine the archives of this and the Race and Ethnicity article?

"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. So he is giving the subject of race a great deal more weight than it deserves. It doesn't matter so much if it's refrenced. It's mere existence tips the scales far too much." This is completely wrong, and - again, has been argued in the archives. Please read them.

"Furthermore, every quote Pete places into the article concerning race is taken out of context. There is an entire article (and it's very, very large) devoted to Steiner's views on Race and Ethnicity. Many other people who believe, with grounded convictions, that Steiner was not an ugly antisemite or racist have placed the "rest of the story" in that article." Finding someone who isn't an Anthroposophist who believes Steiner wasn't a racist is proving to be difficult for you guys. Nothing I have produced here is taken out of context... in fact, if you look at the quotes Steiner "supporters" are using in defense of his non-racism, they are snippets and quotes patched together from lectures that are decades apart. I provide full citations for all the quotes I provide. You are free to demonstrate here how ANYTHING I have quoted is taken out of context.

"So, in my opinion, it's not a matter of making sure it is refrneced or not. Weight is the clear issue. And, in regards to weight, I'd like for everyone to examine the key piece of evidence I presented you with earlier: The judge's decision."

This in incredibly lame, no offense Mr. Tomatoe, (I suspect you're a Waldorf student) - but this is not a "key" piece of evidence, it isn't even evidence, it's nonsense.

"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. Wikipedia should clearly follow in the path that has already been cleared with an esteemed precedent."

LMAO... Why? Why do you believe a judge's decision in a court case should stifle debate on an issue? Pete K 18:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Diana- It sounds like you're still upset that PLANS lost and also that nobody was allowed to testify. Since they weren't allowed to argue their distorted perception of Steiner and Waldorf education in the courtroom, they are attempting to argue their distorted perception on Wikipedia.

And I am entitling you the new queen of spin after that last post of yours. It's funny how you distort my arguments in the same fashion that you distort Steiner.

And Pete, I'm presenting the judge's comment about his "grave doubts about any reliance upon his opinions about anything that has to do with any intellectual endeavor, including Anthroposophy." This is the opinion of a mainstream and esteemed individual after encountering PLANS's distorted perception.

And yeah, you've spent 15 years studying the subject. You say it like it makes you an expert. Well Bin Laden spent his entire life studying American international politics, so I guess he understands them as well.Rottentomatoe

Um... yeah, I'll bet Bin Laden absolutely understands American international politics. And yeah, studying Steiner for 15 years makes me something like an expert. Generally, people who study a subject for 15 years tend to know what they're talking about. I'm not giving your argument any creedence - it's sour grapes. Nobody is listening to it - so keep rambling away. Pete K 19:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly - let's go easy, they're apparently students.DianaW 20:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Bin Laden is like Hitler. First one to mention him loses the argument. :-) —Hanuman Das 01:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Good to know - I'll cut down on my Hitler comparisons... Pete K 01:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

See Godwin's Law. —Hanuman Das 01:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. So as long as the comparisons are valid, I'm OK. <G> Pete K 02:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But be careful of Reductio ad Hitlerum. —Hanuman Das 02:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. that one even mentions Reductio ad Binladenum at the end. :-) —Hanuman Das 02:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

" may also be described as argumentum ad nazium" ROFLWMP... Great!!! Pete K 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

RT: You are right that most anthroposophists and sympathetic observers of the movement and its institutions find that there is much, much more positive involvement in overcoming racial prejudice and barriers than negative experiences - and that the former are systematic and tend to take hold, while the latter are erratic and tend to die away (or be booted out of the society, in the case of several ex-members who promoted racial attitudes). The anthroposophical work in South Africa, Ireland, Sao Paulo, Israel, inner-city Milwaukee and Baltimore, and the jails of the United States, as well as many, many other places, is extraordinary in this regard.

Nevertheless, some of Steiner's comments require some careful consideration, at a minimum; some are clearly wrong-headed as stated. (Sometimes one can second-guess what he might have wanted to say if he had been more alert and thoughtful at the time...but it's only a guess. Sometimes it's hard even to guess where he was coming from that day.) People like Pete and Diana are disturbed by these, while most of us who actually work with anthroposophical ideas see their irrelevance to the flow of that work; if someone did bring one of the more off-balance quotes to my school he'd be laughed out of the room. You have to respect people's allergic reactions to racist-sounding comments; hopefully, these are people who are trying to maintain humanistic standards in their lives. That doesn't mean less energetic editing here; but please try to recognize that at some level there is a genuine concern and justified reaction. Even if it seems that they are excessively emotionally laden, and however much they seem to refuse to look at other sides of the issue, the solution is to avoid becoming emotionally laden oneself and to be willing to look at their side of the issue - also a legitimate one. Hgilbert 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

spirit and terminology

Steiner never calls an individual a spirit, but rather an "Individualität", or individual. See his Theosophy, where he describes each individual as a unity of a spirit, soul and body. It is a falsification of his terminology and world-view to talk of individuals as individual-spirits.

I have also adjusted the terminology; the Dutch commission uses exclusively the term "discriminatory", saying that there is no racism in Steiner's work. Hgilbert 15:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for this. I've reverted your edits. Here's why:

1) What Steiner was talking about when he used the term "individual" is *completely* different than what people reading this article will derive from the use of the term. I've discussed this with you before and we agreed. Now you're removing the term and starting another edit dispute. You cannot call a spirit an "individual" and then use that explain away Steiner's racism. It's dishonest BS. Now the term "spirit-individual" may not have been used as a term by Steiner, but it *does* describe what he meant. That is the purpose of translating his words - to convey what he meant. I removed the quotes because they seemed to imply that he actually used this term - he did not. But the term he used is misapplied - and you are using this misapplication to justify racist speech. That's not going to fly here .

This is your original research. We did discuss this before (see here) and I explained Steiner's use of the term "individual"; you admitted there and here that he does not use the term "spirit-individual", and gave no evidence (other than your own assertion) that this term has anything to do with what he means. Individualitaet in German means individual in English. In fact, in his Theosophy: An Introduction (and many other works) Steiner uses the specific term "spirit-human" to mean something completely different: one of nine aspects of the human being, one of three aspects of the human spiritual nature. Individualität includes all nine aspects: three spiritual, three soul and three bodily. Where he says individual, he means individual, not the spiritual nature alone. Hgilbert 15:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what word he used in German. What matters is that the correct interpretation is conveyed. "Individual" as it is used in English, does not convey what Steiner meant. So I will fight its use without clarification in the article. Pete K 17:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that this is the "correct interpretation"? Is this your original research?

2) The Dutch Commission found 16 counts of racist speech that would have had Steiner jailed if he had said them today in Dutch environments. You are not being honest here. No whitewashing please. Pete K 16:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch commission report, which I have before me, differentiates between "discrimination" (here defining characteristics of racial or ethnic groups in ways that may lead to discriminatory practical consequences, with or without the intent of causing such consequences) and "racism". It states that Steiner's work is not racist, but that certain comments of his would be judged discriminatory by current law. Hgilbert 15:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So, you have the Dutch Commission report before you and still argued for weeks that the Dutch Commission was not entirely comprised of Anthroposophists. This is a very interesting revelation. You are mincing words here . And your original research and translation of the Dutch Commission's report is invalid. The secondary source translations we've seen show otherwise. Pete K 17:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just purchased the original report, friend. Citation of a report is not original research. You are replacing cited statements with uncited claims. What justification do you have for this? Hgilbert 12:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Extreme forms of Anti-Semitism

This statement, currently in the paragraph In his 30s, he continued to criticize what he described as the “outrageous excesses of the anti-Semites”, confirms the statement that you are continually trying to remove "Steiner repeatedly criticized the more extreme forms of anti-Semitism of his time". I'll keep removing the whitewash stuff as long as you keep putting it in . You're just making a strong case that you shouldn't be allowed to edit THIS article either. Pete K 16:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

s editing here makes perfect sense, pete. yours does not.--Vindheim 16:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that's pretty much in the eyes of the beholder. Getting to the truth is what matters to me here. If you don't believe assimilation is anti-Semitism, then 's edits would make sense. If you believe assimilation is a lesser form of anti-Semitism than the more extreme forms (extermination and such) then my edits would make sense. So that's where the deadlock is, I suppose. If you think wiping out an entire culture is OK, then you should support 's edits. Pete K 16:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with beliefs. Steiner criticized anti-Semitism in the most general terms imaginable. If you are somehow unclear about this, let's quote what he actually said. Your addition is purely POV-spin.

Criticizing the outrageous excesses of the anti-Semites is very different from criticizing the more extreme forms of anti-Semitism, friend. Hgilbert 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

and once again, makes sense, even to a non-anthroposophist like me.--Vindheim 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Steiner did no such thing . Steiner criticised only the most extreme forms of anti-Semitism. There is no example, that I am aware of (perhaps you can provide it) where he criticized assimilation. He supported assimilation. We all agree on this. So your contention, apparently, is that assimilation is not anti-Semitism. That's hogwash. Provide some evidence that assimilation is not anti-Semitism. Otherwise, leave the sentence - which is technically and factually correct - alone. Pete K 18:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

i agree with vindheim and hgilbert, you are trying to spin things. support hgilbert's edits and you support wiping out an entire culture. you failure to see anything but in black and white, that is where the deadlock is.trueblood 18:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL... yes, I agree, that was a little over the top. I sometimes like to exagerate for effect. It's pretty black and white though - and it boils down to assimilation. I'm hoping to see evidence from anyone that assimilation isn't a form of anti-Semitism. Pete K 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

you are splitting hairs. this is not how it works. assimilation is a social process, supporting assimilation could be done for different reasons, anti-semitism being one. you should prove that steiner supported assimilation out of anti-semitic motives. taking into account that the sensibilities about what can be said and what not have changed considerably after the holocaust.

oh and :You're just making a strong case that you shouldn't be allowed to edit THIS article either., in my book that is called bullying. trueblood 18:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood wrote: "you should prove that steiner supported assimilation out of anti-semitic motives. taking into account that the sensibilities about what can be said and what not have changed considerably after the holocaust." Diana replies: And rightly so.

That would appear to me to be the true disagreement here. Do we say, it's okay and we shouldn't look too harshly on Steiner's antisemitism because the Holocaust hadn't happened yet - so let's just sweep this stuff under the carpet. Poor fellow couldn't have known how all this stuff he meant so innocently would sound to post-Holocaust sensibilities! Or do we say we need to look quite harshly on all forms of antisemitism that CONTRIBUTED TO AND RATIONALIZED the belief systems that resulted in the Holocaust. And since Steiner claimed to be clairvoyant, he doesn't really have the excuse that he couldn't have foreseen the Holocaust.DianaW 19:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

YES IT REALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE IF THINGS WERE SAID BEFORE OR AFTER THE HOLOCAUST. ANOTHER PROBLEM IS THAT YOU PEOPLE ONLY HAVE A VAGUE UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, AND GET REALLY MUDDLED UP ABOUT WHAT CONTRIBUTET TO BELIEFSYSTEM THAT LEAD TO THE HOLOCAUST AS PETE FOR INSTANCE PROOFS FURTHER UP WITH HIS THING ABOUT GERMANIZATION (MIXING UP ASSIMILATION AND THE NAZI PRAXIS OF germanization. AND STOP SHOUTING, PLEASE. I CAN WELL READ MYSELF AND DON'T NEED YOUR HELP.

trueblood 19:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am reading this over looking for other things, and must have missed this comment at the time. (Speaking of uncivil, what do you mean by replying to me in all caps like that? I apologize for the sloppy use of capitals in my post to you earlier, I realize that should be avoided and I forgot, I generally use asterisks with only the very occasional capital, but good grief, the manner of your response is like getting a slap in the face in return, and obviously a carefully planned one.) I did not say it "doesn't make a difference if things were said before or after the Holocaust." I'm essentially saying the opposite, it's too bad that is lost on you in your zeal, trueblood. I do think your argument about Steiner stumbles in overlooking his self-professed clairvoyance. He absolutely should have been able to see what was coming if he was clairvoyant, and it is absolutely fair to assess his claims in light of this ability which he claimed for himself, and his students claim today for him. He claimed to be able to see what was coming many millennia or eons from now, and the Holocaust was only a few years away! It was one of the central events of the twentieth century, not something trivial we might excuse him overlooking in his busy schedule of seeing into the future. How do you reconcile this? Do you bother reconciling this?

Even without the issue of his clairvoyance, however, my argument is not that the Holocaust "doesn't make a difference" but that it DOES (whoops, excuse me, *does*) and *should* make a difference in how we assess statements made by someone who died in 1925. The fact of the Holocaust a few years later *rightly* causes us to assess antisemitic pronouncements differently than we might be doing today had the Holocaust not happened. (Not that there would, otherwise, be an excuse for antisemitism any more than any other "-ism," but it clearly would not have the import that it has on our thinking today had there been no systematic murder of millions of Jews in the middle of the last century.) It is quite incredible to me that educated people today would dispute this. It is almost a reversed argument, and utterly perverse. "It's okay," or at least less worthy of condemnation, because Steiner didn't know the Holocaust would happen? No - it's even less okay because the Holocaust *did* happen. We have absolutely no choice but to evaluate the actions or views of people in the past in view of their consequences, do we? Maybe someone feeling less snotty and snide than me and less in danger of making testy remarks that these guys can then run to admin with should try explaining this.DianaW 17:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"assimilation is a social process, supporting assimilation could be done for different reasons, anti-semitism being one." And Steiner's statements that Jews have, spiritually, outlived their usefullness in the world is not enough to convince you of anti-Semitism? Here's Rudy again: "It certainly cannot be denied that Jewry today still behaves as a closed totality, and as such it has frequently intervened in the development of our current state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable to European ideas of culture. But Jewry itself 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, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur p. 152) He can't be more plain about being anti-Semitic. Pete K 21:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

your quote is antisemitic, i'd give you that. if you can build your case just on that, i dunno. diana is wrong, though you cannot look at quotes that are from before the holocaust the same way as if there were uttered today. a lot of people talked like that. oh and yes, he could have been a lot more plain about being antisemitic.trueblood 17:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue boils down to whether you believe assimilation (calling for the breaking down and removal of the Jewish religion, culture and "thinking") is anti-Semitic. This is what Steiner promoted, not just in one quote, but in all his material that people here have been calling "against" anti-Semitism. It doesn't matter if it is before or after the holocaust, the dissemination of the Jewish culture (indeed the Jewish people) is doing something contrary to them. Material that says Steiner was against anti-Semitism doesn't consider assimilation anti-Semitism - i.e. it comes from Anthroposophists primarily or other sources that hold that opinion (mostly Anthroposophists though). Sure, we can find lots and lots of stuff that makes this claim about Steiner, but then we have to read it closely to see what it really is saying (notice, everything presented so far is written in German). This sticking point is why Steiner seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth (not just on this, but in lots and lots of stuff). It makes Steiner sound like an idiot when people say he was against anti-Semitism and also had these terrible things to say about the Jews. In reality, he felt that there was nothing wrong, spiritually, with calling for the end of an era, the end of a people, the end of a culture, in the overall spiritual, cultural and social evolution of the world. He really believed these things and no matter *how* it sounds to people today, it is important to describe what he believed. Ptolemy believed the Earth was the center of the universe. There's no point in saying he was just kidding about this - and nobody thinks less of him for not knowing what we know today. Same goes for Steiner. What he believed is important in its flaws just as much as in its truth. Why do we need to sugar-coat it? Pete K 21:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

, I'm reverting this again. Your citation which I found here and translated (somewhat roughly, I'll admit) does not say what you claim it says - that is, 85% of the article says the opposite of what you harvested from it. As I am accustomed to your slight-of-word editing from other edits, I'm reluctant to take what you claim at face value - and the only citation you can provide to suggest Steiner was opposed to anti-Semitism is in German. You've used the same citation to support several questionable edits on this page. I'm inclined to keep this controversial edit that I am certain is not in agreement with Steiner's political views out - at least until a reasonable citation is produced or an English translation by a neutral party is provided. You can certainly ask administrators to help you with this one if you like. Sorry. Pete K 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. The phrase "extreme forms of anti-semittism" is pure POV int this context. --Vindheim 17:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say he *supported* extreme forms of anti-Semitism. His form of anti-Semitism, complete cultural assimilation and the call for the Jews to disappear, would also be considered extreme by lots of people including but not limited to the Jews of his time. Pete K 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Pete: you have repeatedly said that we should let Steiner's words speak for themselves. Let's allow them to do so. If you want to add other quotes from these articles, do so. Anything from any of the articles at all. Hgilbert 16:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, not in this case, . Selective harvesting of the articles isn't going to make your point. His words show he was the worst kind of assimilationist. YOUR words are trying to declare he was against anti-Semitism with that stance. There is no substance to what you have provided. Other editors here have agreed. Pete K 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood: "diana is wrong, though you cannot look at quotes that are from before the holocaust the same way as if there were uttered today. a lot of people talked like that." Um - a lot of people talked like that and look what happened a couple of decades later. Hello? How then do you justify to yourself that you are here putting your heads together with these guys to strategize how to make it less visible, how to make it not so icky to for the public to look at, what kinds of rationalizations can be offered to soften the smudge this puts on Rudolf Steiner's public face. I've just re-read most of this discussion page and it makes me feel like I need a shower.DianaW 19:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

talking with me makes you feel dirty. it seems that your last comment puts me in the fascist corner, for not agreeing with you. whatevertrueblood 08:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I referred to reading over the entire talk page, a several-months discussion with various individuals, not to interacting with you personally, whoever you are. Read it however you like though - I am not sorry to say the effort to defend Steiner against the racism charge stinks to high heaven. The racist material is in Steiner's written works and is not going away. The public discussion of it would end sooner were admirers of Steiner to wrap their heads around it and admit, yes, there is racism there and there is blatant antisemitism there. The guru was a human being and he did make mistakes. Life goes on - anthroposophical institutions need not crumble when the founder's views are reconsidered, in fact they would almost certainly be strengthened by such a process of reevaluation. There are errors in the given doctrine. Get over it! Examining and correcting these errors would give anthroposophy a good name. There are bound to be anthroposophists who will rise to this challenge, eventually. The process going on here most certainly does not give anthroposophy a good name, it is sordid and unadmirable, and yes taking a shower is what felt right to me after taking an hour to re-read the bulk of the material on this talk page.DianaW 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pete: on my user page you agreed that Steiner's words should be used here, as you are always proclaiming should be the case rather than editor's interpretations. I am going to hold you to that agreement. Hgilbert 14:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey you two, I suggest you either call it quits or take this to mediation again. IMO, Pete's version is fine. Everybodies points are made, and clearly. Hgilbert, you keep trying to take the edge off of Pete's point, but the point is valid and NPOV process suggests that you don't get to continually rebut, counter-rebut, etc. Each POV gets to clearly state their position, and that's that. Please stop edit warring. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekajati, thanks for your support. This issue is already in arbitration. Many of us have noticed HGilbert's proclivity to WP:OWN the discussion here. , I have no problem using Steiner's own words. But words like "individual" carried a different meaning for Steiner and understanding the meanings behind his words is essential to understanding Steiner's words. I don't object to using Steiner's own words but first you will have to agree to stop trying to disguise their true meaning. I think you have taken this ploy as far as you can. Steiner's own words are what clearly place him exactly where I have described him in the passage you object to. Pete K 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Steiner spoke favorably about assimilation. But this is already covered fully in the article. That does not justify falsifying other aspects of his ideas, including his general criticism of anti-Semitism, which was expressed in the broadest possible terms, and in no way limited to extreme anti-Semitism.

Ekajati: you say, and I agree, that all POVs should be expressed. Well, Pete has expressed the one position clearly in the article. He should not then be modifying direct quotes of Steiner presented here in order to reduce them to an interpretation completely unsupported by any verifiable source. His arguments both here and vis a vis his changing Steiner's use of the word "individual" to "spirit-individual" amount to original research impermissible in this setting. It is simply not true that Steiner criticized "extreme forms of anti-Semitism". In every case, he criticized anti-Semitism per se. Anything else is a falsification of what he said. Hgilbert 17:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

, That you misunderstand history is understandable, but that you as a seasoned Waldorf teacher, could so completely misunderstand Steiner is unbelievable. You are whitewashing what ACTUALLY HAPPENED, and what Steiner ACTUALLY SAID. You are being incredibly insensitive in this. I have asked you to support your claims about Steiner. You have not been able to do so and have only provided misleading citations to articles that have nothing to do with the subject. Steiner, by his own words, wanted the Jews to "disappear". He wanted them to be culturally annihilated. He didn't want them to have a religion, a culture, a way of dress or even Jewish thoughts. Those are HIS words. We have to wait another 20 years to find a treatment of the Jews that is more EXTREME than this. It really doesn't get any more simple than this. Your edit will NOT stand. Pete K 18:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you believe about him does not justify distorting his words. Why are you afraid of letting these appear? Hgilbert 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one distorting his words. I told you above I translated the material you sourced and it says the opposite of what you claim it says. Selective harvesting of a word here and there does not amount to letting his words speak for themselves, it amounts to letting his words speak for YOU - and what you think they should have said - and what most advances your cause. You are distorting Steiner's own ideas because they don't sound so good to "modern ears". This isn't the Ecumenical council of Nicaea - you don't get to leave in or out whatever you feel best protects your ideas. Steiner only spoke out against the most extreme forms of anti-Semitism, and promoted some very controversial forms of anti-Semitism (even controversial in his day) - forms that were also extreme. Those are the facts . Steiner's own words support these facts. Nothing you have presented contradicts them. Pete K 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

i think you misunderstood the text. can you point out to me or quote where in the text steiner promoted anti-semitism? trueblood 08:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's quoted above: "It certainly cannot be denied that Jewry today still behaves as a closed totality, and as such it has frequently intervened in the development of our current state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable to European ideas of culture. But Jewry itself 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, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur p. 152)

Here's another very personal quote demonstrating that Steiner didn't believe he was an anti-Semite, but to Jews, he definitely was. Here he talks about the Jewish family where he was employed as a tutor - his own words betray him once again: "The family was Jewish. In their views they were quite free from any sectarian or racial narrowness, but the head of the family, to whom I was deeply attached, felt a certain sensitiveness to any expression by a Gentile in regard to the Jews. The flame of anti-Semitism which had sprung up at that time had caused this feeling. Now, I took an active part in the struggle which the Germans in Austria were then carrying on in behalf of their national existence. I was also led to occupy myself with the historical and the social position of the Jews. Especially earnest did this activity of mine become after the appearance of Hamerling's Homunculus. This eminent German poet was considered by a great part of the journalists as an anti-Semite on account of this work; indeed, he was claimed by the German national anti-Semites as one of their own. This disturbed me very little; but I wrote a paper on the Homunculus in which, as I thought, I expressed myself quite objectively in regard to the Jews. The man in whose home I lived, and who was my friend, took this to be a special form of anti-Semitism. Not in the least did his friendly feeling for me suffer on that account, but he was affected with a profound distress. When he had read the paper, he faced me, his heart torn by innermost sorrow, and said to me: “What you wrote in this in regard to the Jews cannot be explained in a friendly sense; but this is not what hurts me, but the fact that you could have had the experiences in regard to us which induced you to write thus only through your close relationship with us and our friends.” He was mistaken: for I had formed my opinions altogether from a spiritual and historic survey; nothing personal had entered into my judgment. He could not see the thing in this way. His reply to my explanations was: “No, the man who teaches my children is, after this paper, no ‘friend of the Jews.’” He could not be induced to change. Not for a moment did he think that my relationship to the family ought to be altered. This he looked upon as something necessary. Still less could I make this matter the occasion for a change; for I looked upon the teaching of his sons as a task which destiny had brought to me. But neither of us could do otherwise than think that a tragic thread had been woven into this relationship. To all this was added the fact that many of my friends had taken on from their national struggle a tinge of anti-Semitism in their view of the Jews. They did not view sympathetically my holding a post in a Jewish family; and the head of this family saw in my friendly mingling with such persons only a confirmation of the impression which he had received from my paper." (Steiner, The Course of My Life pp. 142-143)

Here's more: :"Actual antisemitism is not the cause of this Jewish hypersensitivity, but rather the false image of the anti-Jewish movement invented by overwrought imaginations. Anyone who has dealt with Jews knows how deep runs the tendency to create such an image, even among the best members of their nation. Mistrust toward non-Jews has completely taken over their souls. ... I consider the antisemites to be harmless people. The best of them are like children. They want something to blame for their woes. ... Much worse than the antisemites are the heartless leaders of the Jews who are tired of Europe, Herzl and Nordau. They exaggerate an unpleasant childishness into a world-historical trend; they pretend that a harmless squabble is a terrible roar of cannons. They are seducers and tempters of their people." (Steiner, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte pp. 198-200 [1897])

Here he describes the Semitic "race": ,"...the Jahve forces from the moon sphere meet and cooperate with the Mars spirits and thus a special kind of modification arises, namely, the Semitic race. Here is the occult explanation for the origin of the Semites. The Semitic people are an example of a modification of collective humanity. Jahve or Jehovah shuts himself off from the other Elohim and invests this people with a special character by cooperating with the Mars spirits, in order to bring about a special modification of his people. You will now understand the peculiar character of the Semitic people and its mission."(Steiner, The Mission of Folk Souls p. 105)

Here are some more: "Thus the greatest tragedy of this 20th century [World War I] has come from what the Jews are also striving for. And one can say that since everything the Jews have done can now be done consciously by all people, the best thing that the Jews could do would be to disappear into the rest of humankind, to blend in with the rest of humankind, so that Jewry as a people would simply cease to exist. That is what would be ideal. This ideal is still opposed, even today, by many Jewish habits - and above all by the hatred of other people. That is what must be overcome." (Steiner, Die Geschichte der Menschheit und die Weltanschauungen der Kulturvölker p. 189)

"Today all aspects of the Jews are dominated by racial qualities. Above all they marry among themselves. They see the racial qualities, not the spiritual. And this is what must be said in reply to the question: has the Jewish people fulfilled its mission within the evolution of human knowledge? It has fulfilled it; for in earlier times one single people was needed to bring about a certain monotheism. But today spiritual insight itself is necessary. Therefore this mission has been fulfilled. And therefore this Jewish mission as such, as a Jewish mission, is no longer necessary in evolution; instead the only proper thing would be for the Jews to blend in with the other peoples and disappear into the other peoples." (Steiner, Die Geschichte der Menschheit und die Weltanschauungen der Kulturvölker p. 190)

Any questions? Pete K 15:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Pete's quotes

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)

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)

assimilation and extremism

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. seeCultural_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)

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)

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)

You're kidding right? Oh wait - you aren't talking about Steiner here - who said: "racial continuity through the blood-stream was of particular importance to the Semitic-Hebrew people" (Steiner, The Mission of Folk Souls p. 105). Here's a bit more from the same source: "the Jahve forces from the moon sphere meet and cooperate with the Mars spirits and thus a special kind of modification arises, namely, the Semitic race. Here is the occult explanation for the origin of the Semites. The Semitic people are an example of a modification of collective humanity. Jahve or Jehovah shuts himself off from the other Elohim and invests this people with a special character by cooperating with the Mars spirits, in order to bring about a special modification of his people. You will now understand the peculiar character of the Semitic people and its mission."(Steiner, The Mission of Folk Souls p. 105) Is there any doubt that Steiner's views toward the Jews are based on their "race"? Pete K 19:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

OK, here ya go buddy - enjoy:

• "Really, it is the whites who develop the human factor within themselves. Therefore they have to rely on themselves. When whites do emigrate, they partly take on the characteristics of other areas, but they die more as individuals than as a race. The white race is the race of the future, the race that is working creatively with the spirit." [Steiner, March 3 1923, lecture to the workmen (GA 349 p. 67)]

• "We here in Europe call ourselves the white race. If we go over to Asia, wehave mostly the yellow race. And if we go over to Africa, there we have theblack race. Those are also the original races. Everything else living in these regions is based on migration. Thus when we ask which race belongs towhich part of the earth, we must say: the yellow race, the Mongols, theMongolian race belongs in Asia, the white race or the Caucasian race belongsin Europe, and the black race or the Negro race belongs in Africa. 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." Rudolf Steiner, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde.(pp. 52-53) Pete K 16:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

An academic statement

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)

Yes, I know you believe this. It's really sad, IMO. Pete K 19:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

So I gather.--Vindheim 21:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Allowed sources

I will repeat my question here. Are Rudolf Steiner authored/anthroposophic published references allowed? I understood the arbitration decided these articles considered that "self published". I have been finding independent articles and it seems like more of the unallowed type references keep getting added. Am I the only one thinking this is what the decision meant?Venado 19:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Which ones are you referring to? Pete K 19:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is one of your additions for an example. [6] Venado 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You find this controversial? Pete K 20:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

More controversial than the rest of the paragraph that you added new fact tags to as if in payback. To avoid new revert wars, I think its best to stick to legitimate secondary source depictions of anthroposophy to avoid fighting here about which Steiner obscure claims in which of his 300 books have which tenets of anthroposophy. Venado 21:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Payback? Please assume good faith here. We were directed to clean up sources to ALL these claims, not just new ones. If you don't want to source these claims, take them out. There's no reason why my inclusion needed to be sourced while others making similar claims in the same paragraph are allowed to remain unsourced. Let's just delete the entire paragraph, and lots of others that are unsouced. Pete K 22:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

With any effort on your part you could have sourced many of the fact tags you put there yourself with Steiner texts. Of course that's the problem, we need to find new sources. Instead of helping with that, you added more of the problem to fix and act like when you use Steiner, it's okay, but only because you say it is. This is frustrating the process here, especially to know you have the same understanding of the rules as I do. The section should be sourced or rewritten to new conform to the source material. Venado 22:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not interested in sourcing all that stuff, nor do I have the time to hunt down sources. I sourced my addition that you asked for a source for. If the Occult Science source doesn't work for mine, the whole paragraph can come out. I really don't care which way we go on this. Pete K 22:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two baic sources on this problem. One is the Arbitration decision. According to decision, the only one in this case:

"Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.

The other source are some statements by Fred Bauder at the Arbitration workshop page:

"Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources."

Also Fred Bauder:

"any polemical source is considered unreliable"

I:

"In a similar way as for works on controversial issues with regard to Waldorf education, published by anthroposophical or Waldorf publishers, I would also suggest 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. Thebee 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder:

"Of course" Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean with regard to the question "Are Rudolf Steiner authored/anthroposophic published references allowed?"

I think one needs to distinguish between issues related to anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner, for which there exist published historical texts by Steiner, and issues related to practical activities, related to anthroposophy.

For issues related to Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy, his own lectures and produced texts are allowed citable primary sources, as long as the description of them is purely descriptive, and does not create a new primary sources, which means making "no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." in the article, based on them.

According to WP:NOR:

However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

SOME CONCLUSIONS:

It means that the polemical sources Pete K repeatedly insists on adding as citation in this article are to be considered unreliable, and therefore not allowed. It also means that the writings by Mr. Staudenmaier in general up to his latest paper are not allowed as citations, as they are all clearly polemical, also according to himself.

It also means that for eample the article by Sven Ove Hansson from 1991 on the issue if anthroposophy in some sense can be considered to contain a scientific element is to be considered unreliable in principle, both for the reason that he (as far as I remember) at the time was chair person of an organization, on ideological grounds critical of anthroposophy, and for the reason that his article is polemical.

A direct comparison of what he writes in his article with the published historical source he quotes at the beginning of his article also shows that he distorts the argumentation in the original source, which demonstrates how he distorts it based on an ideological bias.

Anthroposophical sources are allowed for uncontroversial statements.

Is Pete's citation of a type that is allowed in general? In general Steiner texts and lectures are allowed as primary sources. Are they allowed if the statement in this article, for which they are used, is controversial? That may be unclear. If a link is given to the published historical source, as found on the net, like at An Outline of Occult Science, By Rudolf Steiner, GA 13 giving a link to the specific chapter, it can be investigated whether it is a reliable citation for the addition "as well as other planets", or constitutes a violation of WP:NOR. Also, the citation "An Outline of Occult Science, Rudolf Steiner, p109-114" as citation is careless and incomplete, lacking among other things publisher and publication year.

Thebee 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

None of what you write above makes any sense. Pete K 22:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

To add to this "One of the first steps taken in PLANS' campaign to expose Waldorf methods public schools was to seek the support of members and associates with the Skeptics Society" is a perfectly accurate and NPOV statement. It describes PLANS' "campaign" (which, BTW, sounds a little POV) which is, according to their mission statement, to "expose" Waldorf. It doesn't get more accurate than this. Pete K 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

multiculti

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.

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)

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)