Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:58, 8 October 2006

Template:RFMF

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Todo priority

Umm, why is this a sub-page (xxx/yyy format). That format is no longer preferred. Can you all find a name in the main article space for this? GRBerry 23:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I (the creator of this page) didn't realize that the format was obsolete. It is being moved. Hgilbert 23:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Anthroposophical Commission's Findings

I really don't understand why the findings of a "commission" of Anthroposophists is relevant here at all. We all get that Anthroposophists don't find the stuff Steiner said to be racist. That a commission of Anthroposophists took four years to review a portion of Steiner's material and came to the concusion that it wasn't racist is NO surprise here and hardly deserves mention in this article. As I have said before, it would be like Christians reviewing the New Testament and proclaiming that it is true. It makes to remove the entire derisory section completely. It's the Anthroposophical equivalent of holocaust denial. --Pete K 16:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, since nobody opposes the removal of this section, I'll be removing it later today. --Pete K 13:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Pete, one day is not enough time to allow for comments; I suggest one week. The members of the commission had considerable standing in Dutch legal and professional circles. That is the sole criteria. Note again (it is tiresome to repeat things, please get to know Misplaced Pages standards) that Misplaced Pages forbids excluding people's point of view based upon their affiliations. Hgilbert 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Naw... I'm not going with one week. You guys are here babysitting this article every day. It is increasingly tiring to have you referring me to the Misplaced Pages standards when you are so careless with them yourself. You routinely remove any critical point of view, sometimes underhandedly as administrators have noted. This is not excluding someone's opinion, this is a question of whether that opinion has any relevance AT ALL to the article. I'm not suggesting we exclude them based on their affilitations, but based on the fact that the finding of the commission were irrelevant. It would be like defending the verdict of the Salem witch trials by pointing out that the court actually proved the people were witches. Duh... Who cares? --Pete K 02:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not allow more than one day to pass for editors to review changes? There's over 1,000,000 articles at Misplaced Pages. Sometimes editors choose to edit articles on other topics that interest them, for their own reasons. The sheer bulk of information in the articles related to Waldorf education and Steiner alone would take any editor almost a day to read over them all. It's simply unreasonable to expect anybody to be able to track every edit to every Waldorf related article in a 24 hour period. If the content is long standing, and only yourself showing an objection to it being there, then your attitude is that of a POV-pusher. I won't stand in the way of anyone reinserting the deleted content if that's what consensus here has reached. Your accusations of babysitting err on the side of failing to assuming good faith and I will extend a block to those involved in edit wars if they resurface. -- User:Longhair 02:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's obvious by now that there are two POV sides here, that is the entire issue. Clearly Pete is a "POV-pusher" but what in the world is someone who wants *an anthroposophical commission's* findings that anthroposophy is not racist, if not a POV-pusher? How do you reconcile this? (more below)DianaW 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that we cannot really, on either side of a debate, be expected to begin anew each day assuming good faith from people who have over and over violated it. That's not asking people to assume good faith, that's asking them to be chumps.DianaW 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Longhair - These edits go back and forth sometimes several times within minutes. Are you saying we need more editors supporting my POV? I can certainly recruit them. That may, of course, change the consensus. The truth doesn't work by consensus. The issue here is that this material is silly and the findings of a commission of Anthroposophists that excuses racism in their founder is hardly surprising or noteworthy. This is an article about *Steiner's VIEWS* - and the commission's findings are irrelevant. --Pete K 16:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No PeteK. Sheer bulk of numbers is not going to make this article stable. Verifiablity, not truth is what's important. A read over what is a reliable source is worth the time for any editor disputing the usefulness of an outside view on Steiner. I'm not here to discuss the content as you know. I'm here to bring a halt to the many complaints arising from the editing of this and other related articles. Clearly, this set of articles related to Waldorf education and Steiner are prime candidates for the dispute resolution process, perhaps mediation. Anyone can request mediation. I suggest somebody does so. -- Longhair\ 21:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding this in again because apparently I put it in the wrong place. This is in response to Longhair above: "A read over what is a reliable source is worth the time for any editor disputing the usefulness of an outside view on Steiner." Longhair, it looks to me, with all due respect, like you do not understand that a report from an anthroposophical commission is not an outside view on Steiner. Is that the case? An anthroposophical report on Steiner is an *inside* view on Steiner.DianaW 12:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't formed any view whatsoever of the usefulness of any report from any anthroposophical commission. I'm not here editing this article. I'm here as an administrator, to resolve the many complaints that are being brought to my attention by several editors. That said, I don't see why any article on "Steiners' views..." shouldn't include valid criticisms of his views, so long as a reliable source has published them. I'm not about to join the debate over what's a realiable source, that's up to you as editors of this article to decide. I think I get what you're saying though, the report is biased? -- Longhair\ 12:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of the NPOV policy. These are published findings of an established commission of qualified experts. Hgilbert 18:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a commission of *anthroposophists*. If it is mentioned in the article, and I think that may not be unreasonable, after all they did convene this ludicrous group and they did publish a very long report - the obvious bias of this group needs to be pointed out. That is clearly fair - an unbiased news article on such a report would clearly point to what can be assumed to be the bias of the authors of the report. To try to claim that THAT is POV when it is the *commission* that is POV is flat-out ludicrous, Harlan. Pete is right, it's the same as asking Christians to attest to Christ's goodness. It's not news when they agree to testify.

An anthroposphical commission declared anthroposophy isn't racist? No kidding.DianaW 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Qualified? What are you talking about Harlan. This is a ridiculously biased comission of Anthroposophists acquitting Steiner of racism in the face of hundreds of racist quotes. What nonsense. Talk about pushing a POV... THIS is a perfect example. It is revisionism at it's highest and grandest. In any case, there is absolutely NO benefit to this article to point to this commissions findings UNLESS you are pushing YOUR POV. The article is discussing "Steiner's views on race and ethnicity", not the Anthroposophical Commissions POV about Steiner's views. The best approach for this article is to quote Steiner and let people decide for themselves what Steiner's views were. We've got his own words, and you've already gone to great efforts to twist them at every opportunity in this article. Having an Anthroposophical commission's proclamation that Steiner's racist comments aren't racist is not only unnecessary, and irrelevant, it is ludicrous. You're suggestion that these are qualified experts that can represent a NPOV is comical. --Pete K 18:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

To quote from the article: "The chair of the commission was Ted A. van Baarda, director of the Humanitarian Law Consultancy in The Hague. He studied international public law at Leyden State University and completed his thesis at the University of Twente in 1992 on the subject of colliding human rights. In 1993 to 1994 he served as General Secretary of the Conference on the Rights of Children in Armed Conflict and subsequently organized a conference on civil-military cooperation. He teaches at the Military Staff College (Instituut Defensie Leergangen Ypenburg) near The Hague and, on an occasional basis, at the Netherlands Institute on International Relations "Clingendael." He has written widely in journals and the popular media on issues of international law and morality."

And where is the mention of his anthroposophical affiliations? Are you going to tell us with a straight face they aren't relevant, and that omitting them was accidental?DianaW 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a highly qualified source; other members of the commission were also highly qualified and the study was detailed and in depth, including all comments by Steiner about race. It is against Misplaced Pages policy to exclude anyone due to organizational affiliation.

About "qualified sources." The point is not whether Ted van Baarda or any of the others on that commission were "qualified sources." They can be the most learned scholars on the planet and that is not the point, Harlan. Consider an analogy to peer review in scientific research. You have to find people who aren't just *qualified* to assess the research but also unbiased. You don't have your work reviewed by someone who has some vested interest, either financial or ideological. You can't just say, these people are PhD's in this field, for instance, even though that makes them "qualified" to review the research - they can understand it, they know the issues etc. - but they have to also be, not your brother-in-law; not somebody making money off your work; not your student, who is inclined to say everything you write is great; and not your rival, who might be tempted to unfairly disparage your work. Just a few examples. If you're going to evaluate *anthroposophy* for racist content, you can't ask anthroposophists, because anthroposophists aren't unbiased about anthroposophy. This is nothing against anthroposophists. This is just reality. Nobody is complaining about Ted van Baarda's "qualifications," he is no doubt a distinguished attorney and expert on many things - the complaint is about his (and the rest of the commission's) bias as anthroposophists.DianaW 12:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a simple proposal and I'd like to see a response. Include mention of the commission's report. Make explicit that this was anthroposophists reporting on anthroposophy. Delete the lengthy explanation of where Ted van Baarda got his degree(s), because it reads embarrassingly apologetically. Who cares what this fellow wrote his undergraduate thesis on? This is protesting too much; geez we're sure he's a swell guy and well educated. The point is he's an *anthroposophist* and that needs to be explicit. Any reader with half a brain can understand that an anthroposophical report on anthroposophy is not a bias-free analysis of the situation. I agree, fundamentally, with Pete K that including it is rather silly, as it is a POV source par excellence. Arguments for including it, however, are 1) it will end this argument; and 2) the article will exemplify, as well as report on, the difficulties anthroposophy has dealing with anthroposophical racism, and that will be immediately obvious to most uninformed readers. I suppose this sounds a little cynical, but in effect I'm arguing they have more to gain by taking it out but are too biased themselves to understand this. Why not let them shoot themselves in the foot if they're so determined to do so?DianaW 12:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I might ask you not to exclude him but to INCLUDE his organizational and religious affiliations - all of them. Include the relevant ones, rather than conveniently leave those out.DianaW 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally Harlan, what *is* his organizational affiliation exactly? You seem to be arguing that somebody wants to exclude him on this basis yet are being coy about mentioning what this affiliation might be. Don't delete it: EXPLAIN it.DianaW 02:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that you have inserted Hansson's POV about Steiner's views. Hgilbert 01:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Everybody's got a point of view. When the material is controversial isn't the whole point to explain that there are different points of view on it? Who says what about this, and where are these people coming from? The reader needs to understand on what basis a person cited as a source may have formed a particular view. There is quite a difference between *outside* analyses of Steiner's racial views and the self-serving analyses published by his own followers. The problem is not necessarily including the different points of view but in obscuring the origins and biases of the different sources. Surely it is clear anthroposophists are inclined not to think anthroposophy contains any racism. It is dishonest to try to hide these people's affiliations - such as by burying it in lengthy irrelevant paragraphs about other things the person has done in their life - so that the uninformed reader will believe the source is unbiased when it's not.DianaW 02:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That this person is familiar with international law does not make him a source that is qualified to evaluate racism in Steiner's work. That he is an Anthroposophist disqualifies him from being credible. It's like Branch Davidians testifying on behalf of David Koresh. Hansson is NOT an Anthroposophist. That's the difference here. If you find a commission of qualified Non-Anthroposophists who claim Steiner's writings were not racist - I will absolutely support you in presenting that information here. Fair enough? --Pete K 16:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Do you know of such a source Harlan?DianaW 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Another thought is to put the report itself in the Wikisource thing? It is such a goofy document, anyone who reads even the summary of it will be amused by the apologetic language. And at the moment, we might note the link is to, you guessed it, Sune Nordwall's website. Didn't we agree that wasn't kosher?DianaW 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The author is a renowned expert on human rights issues and is well-informed about anthroposophy. No better source could be found. Hgilbert 21:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words, NO source could be found that isn't an Anthroposophist. I removed the section again. You can either put a truthful version in identifying the "conclusions" for what they are - the biased denial of Anthroposophists about their guru's views, or leave it out. And your repeated assertions that there is not room enough in this article for Steiner's own words is good reason to remove this section. It's a silly section in the first place and I've got lots more quotes I need to make room for. Hey, maybe this could be moved to a sub-section - or sub-article, "Why Anthroposophists Won't Acknowledge Rudolf Steiner's Racism." It would make good sense there. This article, however, is ABOUT Steiner's Views on Race and Ethnicity. This is a place for Steiner's views to be described. Shall I start the new article for this information or would you like to? --Pete K 22:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that you will indefinitely continue to insert selective quotations from Steiner that appear to buttress your point of view. You are treating Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. You are also disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. — goethean ॐ 22:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're having trouble reading what is clearly written, but I'll summarize by saying, yet again, that Steiner's OWN WORDS are the best way to demonstrate his OWN VIEW on race, ethnicity, or ANY other subject for which HIS VIEW is required.--Pete K 23:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrators - please note the "tag team" going on here - HGilbert and Goethean are working together to revert the edits endlessly. I suspect Goethean is also TheBee as he seems to behave in the same reckless and arrogant way. Should we all get multiple accounts to circumvent the 3RR rule? --Pete K 22:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

PeteK, your questions are bordering on the ridiculous and clearly annoying others. Suggesting ways to game the system isn't going to help this or any article progress. If you have suspicions on a user's activity and their suspected usage of sockpuppet accounts, I suggest you take them to Requests_for_checkuser with your evidence. -- Longhair\ 23:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is more frustrated by this process (maybe this is obvious) than I am. Trying to get this article to read legitimately is very difficult when people team up to revert edits. That's gaming the system and I've included an example of how this is being done on your talk page. I don't really care to game the system myself - nor am I suggesting others should - I'm just trying to establish how ridiculous it is to make a 3RR rule and then ignore the obvious efforts of users that actually ARE gaming the system to promote their POV. --Pete K 23:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I hear what you're suggesting. See your talk page for my reply. If you feel sockpuppets accounts are in use, or editors are teaming up (known as meatpuppets, also linked on your talk page), there's established means of finding out. -- Longhair\ 23:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have only one account here at the English Misplaced Pages. A few times I have forgotten to log in before editing. I have not given access to my account to anyone, and doubt anyone else has hacked it. --Thebee 12:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Since Pete K and Diana are in extensive contact outside Misplaced Pages (they are both among the 6-7 most active members of the PLANS organization and the Waldorf Critics forum), there are indeed serious concerns about teaming up. Certainly they do not represent independent points of view. There are no sockpuppets active here, however; I know that for a fact. The edits you are making are reverted because you are excluding a point of view. Misplaced Pages policy on points of view is that all are valid (assuming they are verifiable and by academically or otherwise qualified sources); neutral point of view is achieved by including the various POVs, not by choosing the one "correct" one. You are trying to suppress an important point of view by a highly qualified source. His institutional qualifications appear in the article. There are claims that he is an anthroposophist or supportive of anthroposophy and thus disqualified. These claims are so far unsupported, first of all, and second of all they would no more disqualify him as a source than an academic who was an American or a Catholic would be disqualified when writing about America or Catholicism - or, better yet, an existentialist writing about existentialism. These are often the best experts, though clearly not neutral in their attitudes, and inclusion of their work is most important. Hgilbert 19:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete: please see Misplaced Pages standards about writing articles, in particular on bias and fairness of tone, as well as letting the facts speak for themselves. Editorializing is simply not an appropriate part of the article. I have removed your editorializing to allow the actual statements to stand. Hgilbert 19:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Those edits were vandalistic. — goethean ॐ 19:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed your addition. The inclusion of the report itself is editorializing. "Since Pete K and Diana are in extensive contact outside Misplaced Pages..." If you have any evidence of this - please present it. "... there are indeed serious concerns about teaming up." As far as I know, Diana has been on the talk pages and not "teaming up" with me to revert edits and avoid the 3RR rule - which you and Goethean have obviously been doing. "There are no sockpuppets active here, however; I know that for a fact." LOL! Sounds like something a sockpuppet might say. "The edits you are making are reverted because you are excluding a point of view." Duh... The article is supposed to be NPOV, not YOUR POV. "These claims are so far unsupported, first of all, and second of all they would no more disqualify him as a source than an academic who was an American or a Catholic would be disqualified when writing about America or Catholicism..." This is not a Catholic discussing Catholicism, it is, in your analogy, like a Commission of Catholics concluding Christ was a Catholic. It is absurd. --Pete K 22:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Indeed. Those edits were vandalistic." - No, not at all. To make the inclusion of the report truthful, one has to make it clear that it is a report BY THE FOLLOWERS OF STEINER and a totally BIASED report. Disguising this fact, and inserting the report is vandalism - and dishonest. --Pete K 22:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrators - Please Keep an Eye on the Edits

People who are seeking to revise history are systematically removing quotes that have been properly cited and that represent Steiner's views on the races. That is what this section is supposed to be about - Steiner's views. I am hoping Administrators will keep an eye on these edit wars and identify the people who are continually reverting edits without discussion or without citing a valid reason for doing so. This is becoming frustrating for editors like myself who have demonstrated an understanding of the subject matter and are trying to produce an article that is evenly balanced and not a whitewash of Steiner's views on race. --Pete K 23:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

racism ?

In order to determine whether Rudolf Steiner deserves to be labelled "racist" it might to be good to ponder what "racism" is. My suggestion is that Steiner fits some definitions, not others. If "racism" is taken to indicate harbouring a concept of human races, and various understandings of differences between such groups, then Steiner can fairly be labelled racist. But if you, on the other hand, use the more common perception; that racism is a xenophobic set of attitudes tied to systematic discrimination, brutal and thuggish behaviour, then Steiner just as obviously does not fit the label.

It is true that Steiner used the concept of human evolution through seven rootraces, each consisting of seven subraces, at least while he was a member of the Theosophical Society. It is equally true that most followers of Steiner have resisted racist thuggery, be it Nazism in central Europe, Apartheid in South Africa or plain segegrationism in the USA.

If we could agree on these points. that Steiner used the concept of human races, (was a "racist thinker") but never advocated racist politics, we might be able to concentrate on sketching the development of his thinking on these matters. --Vindheim 12:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The point your definition is missing is that a "racist" is one who suggests one race is better than others. Steiner definitely did this. No, Steiner was not a thug, he was not even a bigot (in my view), but he definitely was a racist. With regard to advocating racist politics, I think we might disagree here, but it's worth disucssing. --Pete K 13:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure Steiner should be understood like that. If he follows Blavatsky (whose thinking I know better) he conceives of a development of humanity through successive races. The later are understood as more evolved, higher if you like, this does not necessarily translate into "better".--Vindheim 14:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "higher" is as good as "better" when we are talking about racism. "More evolved" is also good enough for this. That's why I always stop short of calling Steiner a bigot - I don't think he held a prejudicial and demeaning view against individuals within races, although, he certainly held prejudice about the races themselves - and by extension, the individuals within those races. I don't think Steiner would have objected to having dinner with a black man, but he would certainly have looked at the intellectual writings of a black man with suspicion. Once Steiner attributed characteristics like "intelligence" to a particular race, and "childishness" to another race - as he did, he clearly entered the area which is the definition of racist. --Pete K 15:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I think the distinction between someone who makes judgements about group characteristics, and someone who judges individuals on the basis of racial characteristics, is indeed important here. Steiner did the former but never, so far as I know, the latter.

For comparison: Steiner talked about various nationalities' characteristics and relative evolution, as well, but always evaluated the work of writers (say, philosophers) for their own sake, i.e. without reference to their national heritage. The author's biographical connection to his/her subject and approach might have national references, however. I believe it is fair to say that in every case, for Steiner a work stands on its own, its evolution out of a biography is related to the historical, national (and surely racial) context. To take a particular example, the works of Langston Hughes have a poetic worth independent of his racial affiliation, but cannot be separated from the latter biographically. Same for Fichte: definitely an outgrowth of post-Kant Germany, but the philosophical work has to be evaluated independently of this, as a contribution to philosophy. I am very sure that Steiner would not have looked at any writing by anybody with suspicion as a result of the person's background or heritage. (He made one reference to a "Negerroman" , but was referring to a book written by a white person about Negros, and the term referred to the book's published subtitle.) Hgilbert 18:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"The girl L.K. in class 1...is one of those cases that are occurring more and more frequently where children are born and human forms exist which actually, with regard to the highest member the ego, are not human at all but are inhabited by beings who do not belong to the human race...They are very different from human beings where spiritual matters are concerned. For instance they can never memorise sentences, only words. I do not like speaking about these things, as there is considerable opposition about this. Just imagine what people would say if they heard that we are talking about human beings who are not human beings. Nevertheless these are facts. Furthermore, there would not be such a decline of culture if there were a strong enough feeling for the fact that some people, the ones who are particularly ruthless, are not human beings at all but demons in human form. "But do not let us broadcast this. There is enough opposition already. Things like this give people a terrible shock. People were frightfully shocked when I had to say that a quite famous university professor with a great reputation had had a very short period between death and re-birth and was a re-incarnated negro scientist. But don"t let us publicise these things." (Steiner, 1923, Conferences with Waldorf Teachers pp.36-37)

Hmmm... Wonder why Steiner found this so "shocking" - or why he believed others would find it so shocking?

"These blacks in Africa characteristically suck in, absorb, all light and all heat from the cosmos. And, humans being humans, this light and this heat from the cosmos cannot pass through the entire body. It does not flow through the entire body, but it stops at the skin. In this way, the complexion itself becomes black. Consequently, a black in Africa is a human who absorbs and assimilates as much light and heat from the cosmos as possible. As he does this, the forces of the cosmos work throughout that human. Everywhere, he absorbs light and heat, really everywhere. He assimilates them within himself. There really must be something which helps him in thisassimilation. That something is mainly the cerebellum. This is why a Negro has an especially well developed cerebellum. This is linked to the spinal marrow; and they can assimilate all light and heat which a human contains. As a consequence, especially the aspects which pertain to the body and to metabolism are strongly developed in a Negro. He has a strong sexual urge -as people call it-, strong instincts. And as, with him, all which comes from the sun -light and heat- really is at the skin's surface, all of his metabolism works as if the sun itself is boiling in his inside. This causes his passions. Within a Negro, cooking is going on all the time; and the cerebellumkindles the fire."

Sounds like he's talking about ANY INDIVIDUAL of this particular race.--Pete K 22:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the authorities on the issue of race and racism is George M. Fredrickson, who in "Racism. A Short History". Princeton 2002, pp. 154-156, gives a good description of the central components of racism:

"... the core function of racism -- its () assigning of fixed or permanent differences among human descent groups and () using this attribution of difference to justify their differential treatment -- ..." (p. 156)

"... 'racial' -- meaning that they are () intrinsic and () unchangeable" (p. 154)

"Race can therefore be described as what happens when ethnicity is deemed essential () or () indelible and made () hierarchical" (p. 155)

() added by me.

On a)

In Steiner's view, what were described as 'the five main races of humanity' (the distinction originating with Blumenbach, and the main meaning of 'race' at Steiner's time) were not in his view fixed and permanent differences among humans, but something that arose at one time in human evolution far in the past, but that are loosing their meaning during post-glacial time and in a number of thousand years will disappear completely as we understand them.

On b)

Steiner never at any time referred to such distinctions to justify differential treatment of anyone. At most, he complained about the erotic oriented type of 'Negrophilia' at the beginning of the 1920s in Franch cultural life (later during the 1920s examplified by the banana skirt type of dancing by Josephine Baker.)

On c)

'Intrinsic' with regard to the body from a specific time in human evolution and decreasingly during the coming five thousand years, yes (being a not racist as such, but racialist distinction, in the sense of making distinctions, but not using it to advocate any differential treatment on the basis of it), but not d) unchangeable, as it in RS' view fades during postglacial time as reality and is increasingly overshadowed by other characteristics. In Steiner's view, one can only speak of 'races' in a proper sense with regard to man during Cenozoic time, and in our time, it in his view constitutes trifles in relation to our individual qualities:

"... as regards ... what is independent of our bodily makeup we are all individually made; each one of us is his or her own self, an individual. With the exception of the far less important differences that show up as racial or national differences ... but which are (if you have a sense for this you cannot help noticing it) mere trifles by comparison with differences in individual gifts and skills: with the exception of these we are all equal as human beings ... as regards our external, physical humanity. We are equal as human beings, here in the physical world, specifically in that we all have the same human form and all manifest a human countenance. The fact that we all bear a human countenance and encounter one another as external, physical human beings... this makes us equal on this footing. We differ from one another in our individual gifts which, however, belong to our inner nature." Rudolf Steiner: Education as a Force for Social Change (in GA 192), Hudson 1997, lecture of 23 April 1919.

On e), 'describing a relation between 'races' as 'hierarchical'

There appear basically three uses of the term 'race' in Steiner's works. One is the theosophical term 'root race, that refers to humanity during the sequential stages in the development of our present solar system from beginning to an end, far in the future. While the latter forms of man during this process in RS' view are more developed, and the relation in this sense in his view 'hierarchical', it has little relation to the issue here, as the term in that sense not is a 'race'-concept in any biological sense in general, but just a term referring to 'groups of humans', in that case basically 'the human race' in its totality at different stages of deelopment.

The second sense refers to the human forms that developed from beginning to end of Cenozoic ('Atlantean') time, some of which are reflected as paleontological forms from the time. Few would probably consider them NOT to constitute a development from 'lower' to 'higher' forms. The third main sense is the use of it to refer to what at Stener's time was viewed as the 'five main races of humanity'. While Steiner described them as they initially arose as tending to constitute a form of fixation of man at different stages of development during life from birth to death with regard to the body, he also pointed out that such bodily characteristics are bodily characteristics and do not define what any human is as a human being in a spriitual sense. He also did not refer to them in a hierarchical sense common at his time, for example in a popular American high school biology textbook by Hunter, titled A Civic Biology, in the section on evolution under the subtitle 'The Races of Man'.

The examples are few where Steiner refers to one of the 'five main races of humanity' as inferior or superior to any other beyond characterizing them with regard to general qualities at different times of human evolution . When this can seem to the case for example at one time in 'Knowledge of higher worlds', he does not mention any of them, and the temporal context points to that the comment refers to the broad sense of the word used in theosophy at the time, including the non-biological concept of 'root-races', and the biological human forms developing during Cenozoic time.

Do the examples constitute a 'racial doctrine' in a more than peripheral way of the Dutch sense used in the report. Not in relation to the number of times he pointed to the equality of human beings, and in perspective of how he described how we - in his view - all pass through incarnations in all races. Do RS' comments on 'race' constitute a major or central part of his works, as insinuated by Hansson? In total, approximately five of the 3,000 pubished lectures by Steiner have 'the five main races of humanity' as it was understood at the time as their main theme. The number of quotes on the issue and their length indicate that they constitute less than 1% of his published works, in a social historical context, where all discussion of social issues were dominated by concepts of race.

"During the period from 1890 to 1915, race as a organizing idea claimed precedence over all previous formulations of nation and state. Although the works of many racialist writers of the period are virtually unreadable today without elementary insight into Nieburh and Treitschke and their accounts of Western history from 1740 to 1870, they attracted vast audiences in Germany, France, Britain, and the United States, who were greatly excited by racial ideas." Haannaford: Race, The History of an Idea in the West. John Hopkins University Press 1996, pp. 326-7

Maybe this can contribute to a perspective on the issue discussed here, and the article it is a Talks page for.

And, if you stop using so much CAPITALIZATION and emotionally laden words in your comments, they will be much easier to read and digest more in a wiki style of discussion and interaction. --Thebee 14:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you had to interrupt the flow of this discussion with this NONSENSE? Why don't you just PAY to advertise your website here?--Pete K 17:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC

The issues on this page are:

The inclusion of published evaluations of Steiner's views on race and ethnicity.

Only one, evaluation, negative to Steiner is presently included:

• an article reviewing Steiner's views on race by Swen Hansson, a professor of philosophy and founding chairperson of the Swedish Skeptics.

This is because inclusion of the following is repeatedly reverted:

• a 750 page published report in which the Dutch Anthroposophical Society appointed a team comprised exclusively of Anthroposophists that examined every one of Steiner's statements on race and racism that THEY felt were relevant and evaluated these according to both Dutch law and present ideas of racism. The report was authored by a commission led by a renowned human rights authority who was, indeed, an Anthroposophist himself; the members of the commission were all familiar with and/or connected with anthroposophy and Steiner's work - again they were ALL Anthroposophists.

Inclusion of this evaluation is contested on the basis that all of the report's authors were Anthroposophists - i.e. Steiner was their guru and Steiner's works, whether they are considered racist or not by the general public, represent their belief system. Furthermore, the inclusion of this article, if it is allowed, MUST clearly identify the extreme bias of the participants of this commission - something which the pro-Steiner editors here are attempting to disguise. The evaluation is therefore contested because of an attempt to dishonestly portray the facts in order to advance a particular POV.

Inclusion is supported because the report meets every Misplaced Pages criteria for verifiability; the authors' connection to or interest in anthroposophy is a) unverified and b) irrelevant; by Misplaced Pages standards, authors are not disqualified because of their affiliations or interests or points of view.

Inclusion of commentary on the evaluations, and use of quotation marks to make implicit commentary

The following are examples drawn from a particular user's edits:

• 'The commission "investigated" every one of Steiner's comments in the over 350 published volumes of his writings, lectures and letters which they "believed to be relevant". Their (not surprising) conclusions...'
• 'These controversial (to say the least) findings have been refuted by Steiner's own words.'
• 'As to Waldorf education, the Commission (again, not surprisingly) concluded'

The user justifies such commentary and use of quotation marks by saying that the commission's investigations require such commentary to be rightly understood.

It is contested on the grounds that it is Misplaced Pages policy to objectively report various points of view without editorializing or insertion of negative commentary. Hgilbert 00:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the article that discusses the Dutch Commission of Anthroposophists and their report. To include the Anthroposophical commission's report would require the inclusion of a healthy portion of this article to put their report in perspective. We are already pressed for space here and, again, the Anthroposophical commission's report on Steiner has nothing to do with Steiner's views on race and ethnicity, it only has to do with a very biased Anthroposophical commission's interpretation of those views. If anything, this should be broken out into a sub-article, as I have suggested, and both sides could be adequately presented. This would leave room in THIS article for Steiner's own views - which is, indeed, what this article is supposed to be about. --Pete K 15:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Identification of authors' affiliations.

Note: this section of the talk page has been revised to acknowledge that verification has been given of the Dutch report's authors' institutional connection to anthroposophy and to focus on the remaining issues.Hgilbert 10:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Is identification of authorities by their philosophical and/or institutional affiliations Misplaced Pages policy? If so, it should be mentioned that the author of the Dutch report are anthroposophists and that Hansson is a Skeptical Humanist, (see Sven Ove Hansson). If not, neither should be mentioned.

Diana says: quoting Hgilbert: "If so, it should be mentioned that Hansson is a Skeptical Humanist, as well (see Sven Ove Hansson)."

Nope. The fact that Hansson is a skeptical humanist, if this is true, is totally irrelevant. Hansson can be a Buddhist, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Hindu, Druid - it makes no difference. It doesn't matter what he eats for breakfast, either. It is outside the category of relevant information about this source. What Hansson is not is an anthroposophist - that is what makes him a neutral source, and that is why it is useful to include his views. His credentials do not have to be described in detail in the body of the paper. I'm a professional editor and I can tell you that the ideological affiliations of every source cited are never discussed in the body of an academic paper, unless in some unusual circumstance there is some reason they impact the discussion in a unique way. Hansson's do not. (Yes, we know that anthroposophists believe that anyone who is not "spiritual" is not capable of saying anything intelligent about anthroposophy. This is an academic paper, however, and anthroposophists' personal opinions in this regard are irrelevant.)

Anyone who's interested in reading what Hansson said directly, or has some personal interest in finding out who this man is, will check the reference list, and find the article. That's what a reference list is for. The Dutch commission is a different case entirely. If their views are to be included it must be within the context of *explaining anthroposophical response to criticism of anthroposophy*. That is why the anthroposophical affiliations of the authors would need to be noted. They cannot be *disguised* within the article as neutral sources when they are not; that does not meet academic standards, and it is not ethical.DianaW 12:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why in the world would Hansson's Skeptical Humanist standing be relevant? Should everyone who publishes a document be categorized by their religious or political persuasions? The reason it is important that this commission was comprised of Anthroposophists is because STEINER CREATED ANTHROPOSOPHY. This is incredibly simple - I don't understand why it is an issue. --Pete K 02:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The commission was COMPRISED of Anthroposophists. They were ALL Anthroposophists. Steiner was the founder of their religion. For some reason, you couldn't even bring yourself to describe the make-up of this commission honestly when you produced this request. It is very, very clear that there is something wrong with this Harlan, otherwise you wouldn't continually seek to disguise the make-up of the commission - in the article AND in these discussions. It is equivalent to a cult finding their cult leader free of wrongdoing. I respectfully request that whoever is evaluating this issue, please read the discussion here in its entirety and please consider allowing Steiner's own words to speak for themselves. The findings of a court of his own followers is a waste of precious space here that can be better used by demonstrating DIRECTLY what Steiner had to say on this topic. --Pete K 02:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that they were anthroposophists other than your assertion. Anthroposophy is not a religion, as you just discovered (in a California court case); nor is it generally considered one by others. I am not disguising anything; if - and only if - you can provide evidence of this, it should be included in the article. The leader of the commission is a notable authority in his field; the others were also competent authorities.

Pete: if you believe STeiner's words should speak for themselves, why have you added the Hansson commentary? Hgilbert 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Anthroposophy is INDEED a religion. The California case didn't decide anything and is in appeals court. I was married to an Anthroposophist for 15 years. One of my children was baptised in their church. I think I know what it is... but your denial doesn't surprise me in the least. I don't believe the Hansson commentary was added by me... it may have been, but I'm pretty sure it was here before me and repeatedly deleted by revisionists. --Pete K 14:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Anthroposophy is not a religion; the Christian Community, to which you refer when you say "their church", is not connected to the Anthroposophical Society, and was founded independently of this. The Christian Community is a religion influenced by anthroposophy, but that does not work backwards; anthroposophy does not become a religion because it has influenced one. I think you know all this and are purposely avoiding naming the C.C. and mixing them up to support a spurious claim.

First of all, the Anthroposophical Society does not comprise all of Anthroposohy. So saying the Christian Community isn't connected to the society doesn't mean anything (I suspect you know this). It is part of Anthroposophy just as much as Anthroposophical medicine, Waldorf education, biodynamic agriculture, eurythmy, Camphill, etc. All the things you say have sprung out of Anthroposophy. But more specifically, looking at the written works that constitute Anthroposophy, it is plain to see that at Anthroposophy's core is esoteric Christianity - there's no denying this. It is a religious philosophy - there's no denying this either. Anthroposophists observe religious events, have religious rituals, read Steiner's religious texts, go to Christian Community church on Sundays, pray the prayers Steiner himself wrote. You're barking up the wrong tree trying to argue with me about this - but go ahead if you feel you have a point somewhere in here. Anthroposophy is a religion. Anthroposophists don't like to admit it. --Pete K 02:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So here we have what you are seeking - that the "commission" were all members of the Anthroposophical Society. Here's a quote from this text:

"The Dutch report simply asserts that those anthroposophists who have interpreted Steiner's teachings in a racist fashion have misunderstood Steiner — a convenient excuse which sheds no light whatsoever on the underlying reasons for the ongoing racism within organized anthroposophy. Aside from the irrelevant sections on contemporary discrimination law, the commission's methodology is purely esoteric, and its annotations of the quotes from Steiner demand of the reader a suspension of critical faculties. Steiner's supposed clairvoyance and his ideas about karma and reincarnation play an overwhelming part in their appraisal. This should come as no surprise, since all of the members of the commission belong to the Dutch Anthroposophical Society.

What is more seriously troubling is the commission's insistence on purveying a race theory of their own. According to the Dutch final report there are different human races with different physical, mental, cultural and spiritual capacities. The authors posit "great differences between the human races" (p. 206) and state that "people of below average development" must incarnate in "lower races" (p. 207). They also claim, for example, that technology was developed by the "Caucasian race" (p. 210). Moreover, the commission declares more than once that non-anthroposophists and people who do not share a spiritual conception of reality ("materialists" in their vocabulary) are simply incapable of judging Steiner's work. This absurd stance obviously cancels whatever worth the study might have had for those outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner.

The commission's own epistemological framework is astonishingly primitive, even by anthroposophist standards. In an effort to turn Steiner's frequent unintelligibility into a virtue, they inform us that when Steiner contradicted himself over and over again he was simply trying to get at the truth from different angles. This is a ludicrous pretext for the commission's failure to do any hermeneutic work of its own. A sympathetic reading of Steiner's work is one thing, willful ignorance quite another — especially in light of the commission's notorious 'argument' (really a mere assumption) that Steiner's scattered anti-racist comments both absolve and negate his much more numerous racist remarks. To make this implausible claim stick, they would need to advance some interpretive agenda, some explanatory model for making sense of Steiner's incoherence. But they never do so, leaving the Janus face entirely intact while simply avoiding one of its two sides."

Note the "this should come as no surprise" language - because IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE. The commission is a bogus whitewash of Steiner's racism - just as this article has been.--Pete K 14:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Since Steiner himself said that he was trying to approach things from radically different angles at different times, it would be a hermeneutic reading of his work to examine such apparent contradictions from this perspective. Does it worry you that some physicists talk about light as a wave and others as if it were a particle? These are "obviously" contradictory, yet both valid aspects of light.

What you are quoting is not a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards. — goethean ॐ 15:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not Misplaced Pages's approach. If it will not come as a suprise, let the reader be not suprised. Editorializing is unacceptable.

I'm not quoting it for insertion in the article - I'm quoting it to demonstrate the make-up of the "commission". And I believe it is a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards. BTW, I've quoted Steiner many times here - is there any question that he was a racist? Maybe for you - but not for a free-thinking individual. --Pete K 17:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You should consider abiding by Misplaced Pages policy and stopping attacking editors personally. — goethean ॐ 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My comment about it not being a reliable source may be incorrect, at least in regard to the form in which the article was published in Humanist. I'm not familiar with the publication and don't know if it qualifies as a reliable source. — goethean ॐ 17:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, so now we have established that the commission was indeed comprised exclusively of Anthroposophists... Right? Now that I have wasted half a day proving the obvious, and you guys have wasted three days arguing against the obvious - where are we going to go with this discussion? Do you boys and girls still want to argue that the commission's conclusions should be admissible here? --Pete K 19:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course; they are experts on the subject; why should this disqualify them? Is Hansson disqualified for being a declared Skeptic, thus not objective? I keep referring you to the Misplaced Pages POV policy, which explicitly says that:

"At Misplaced Pages, points of view (POV) are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects.

In Thought du Jour Harold Geneen has stated:

"The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions." Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Misplaced Pages are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Misplaced Pages's official "Neutral Point of View" policy.

Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

Who advocates the point of view What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)"

This is clearly a major point of view, since it can be taken to represent the majority view of those who deal with Steiner's work most closely. Hgilbert 00:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ROFL!!! You are either incredibly dense, or you think everyone else here is (or maybe you just think I am). You have argued here that the people who are on this Anthroposophical commission aren't Anthroposophists. Now, having been proven wrong about this, you say it doesn't matter - that their point of view about Steiner's racism is "major" because it is "the majority view of those who deal with Steiner's work more closely." This is absurd. There are something like 50,000 Anthroposophists in the world - give or take a couple of thousand. That's IT! Now how can you suggest that you know the point of view of the majority of people who have examined Steiner's work closely? Indeed even many Anthroposophists agree that Steiner's views were racist. I get that Anthroposophists aren't supposed to think freely about these things, but still - how can you suppose that this ridiculous commission represents the "major point of view" of anything with your own numbers so miniscule? It is almost pointless to argue this with you because you are so obviously mixed up. This is an encyclopedia for everybody - not just for Anthroposophists. People coming here don't want to hear what has been chewed and digested for Anthroposophists. You and others here have gone to tremendous effort to whitewash Steiner's point of view already. We already get to read the Anthoposophist's point of view on these apologetic pages. That Anthroposophists agree with their own point of view is... well... expected. That a commission was formed to confirm this is... well... STUPID! It isn't worth half a sentence in this article. --Pete K 02:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing... let's not forget that this commission was working according to Dutch law. So out of the 50,000 Anthropops worldwide, how many Dutch Anthroposophists are there, and why in the world does this tiny fraction of the population represent a major point of view? I'm still laughing as I write this. Incredible. --Pete K 02:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It remains a significant view and should stand as such in the encyclopedia. Note that Hansson's views are his as an individual who has much less standing in the world of human rights than the head of the Dutch commission. Hgilbert 11:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for YOUR OPINION. It's this ridiculous view that has caused this article to be locked. The Dutch commission of ANTHROPOSOPHISTS (you conveniently forget to mention their affiliation) has no standing in the world when they are reviewing the work of THEIR LEADER. Your position - that an extremely BIASED POV has a place of significance here is causing these edit wars. This is (I'm tired of repeating this) "Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity", not YOUR views about Rudolf Steiner's views, not the Anthroposophical commission's views, or any other Anthroposophist's views, but Rudolf Steiner's. Misrepresenting his views is not acceptable here. Producing information that misrepresents his views by biased individuals or groups that are immersed in Anthroposophy isn't going to make your case - especially when you insist in hiding the fact that they are biased. You have fought tooth and nail to keep Steiner's own racist views out of the Steiner article, and now you're trying to keep them out of this article which is specifically devoted to the topic. That you would work so hard and pretend to be so naive about racism in order to hide the truth (change history) about Steiner perhaps reveals to everyone here what was going on within the Dutch Commission of Anthroposophists. --Pete K 14:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete K, you are being incredibly aggressive. Please stop attacking editors. Disagreements are normal. Accusing someone of playing naive to do harm is, in my opinion, very inappropriate and demeaning. I cannot comment on the article because I know very little about it. But I can say that you are way out of line regarding Misplaced Pages’s policies in handling disputes.--Connor K. 22:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I know the editor in question knew the commission was comprised completely of Anthroposohists - it has been brought to his attention before. So I'm not unjustified in suggesting he is pretending to be naive about the situation. Nonetheless, I will take your point. Thanks! --Pete K 01:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana adds: Let me back this up. It may appear aggressive if you don't know the context. Pete is definitely not unjustified in suggesting that these folks all knew what the authorship of the Dutch report was. A number of these individuals have discussed it elsewhere for *years on end*. It's not like the Dutch report came out a month ago. There is simply no doubt they were playing naive and attempting to waste other editors' time asking them to "prove" information that they could not have been in doubt about themselves. Let's put it this way - if HGilbert, for instance, who certainly presents himself here as in a knowledgeable enough position to write an article on Rudolf Steiner's racial views, was *not* aware of what was in that report, including who wrote it, this would be an extremely strange situation. If they did not know, and were completely incapable of determining, who was the author(s) of a source they were insisting be included, what in the world is going on here?DianaW 12:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Bias

User:Pete K has followed the following extremely biased editorial policies:

• Complaining aggressively that any deletion of quotations by Rudolf Steiner that cast a negative light on Steiner's views on race/ethnicity is "suppression" while himself deleting (suppressing) quotations that show that Steiner opposed racism and racial biases.
• Complaining aggressively that any inclusion of authorities that speak positively about Steiner's work is inappropriate as "we should let Steiner's statements speak for themselves" while inconsistently demanding that authorities (Hansson) that speak negatively about Steiner's work should be included -- this has occurred repeatedly both here and in the main article Rudolf Steiner.
• Demands that authors' philosophical orientation and organizational affiliations be identified in the article when these suggest a presumptive prejudice in favor of anthroposophy/Steiner (Dutch commission/anthroposophical affiliation), and equally aggressively seeking to suppress identification of authors' orientation/affiliation when these suggest a presumptive prejudice against anthroposophy/Steiner/spiritual movements generally (Hansson/Skeptical Humanism) (Posted by HGilbert, 01:24, 6 October 2006)

Diana adds: Regarding this last point this is a false parallel. These two situations are not analogous. Misplaced Pages, as best I understand, asks for academic standards to be followed in terms of what kind of source can be cited for what purpose, and an attempt to maintain a neutral point of view as befits an encyclopedia, not taking a position on controversies. Obviously this is very difficult with partisans of various points of view editing the articles. Pete is right here. The way it works in academia and in scientific research is that to evaluate a controversial topic, a neutral source is considered much more credible. "Insiders" to a controversy don't have the neutral status to evaluate it. Hansson is a neutral source precisely because he is an outsider to the controversy. He is not an anthroposophist. An anthroposophist is not a neutral source to evaluate anthroposophy. Hansson does not need to be accused of "bias" or "prejudice" against anthroposophy. There is no reason to think he is biased or prejudiced against anybody. You go *outside* anthroposophy to find a neutral unbiased source on anthroposophy. Insiders to anthroposophy are not in the same position. The fact that anthroposophists reporting on anthroposophists do not meet the scholarly criteria for presumed lack of bias is the issue here. The anthroposophists here seem to think it is "fair" if their guy gets excluded, the other guy gets excluded too; or at least as I understand it, this is what the argument about "including Hansson's affiliation" is about. They're wrong about how scholarship works, if so.DianaW 11:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana again: Regarding the following: *Complaining aggressively that any inclusion of authorities that speak positively about Steiner's work is inappropriate as "we should let Steiner's statements speak for themselves" while inconsistently demanding that authorities (Hansson) that speak negatively about Steiner's work should be included -- this has occurred repeatedly both here and in the main article Rudolf Steiner:

This is again a misunderstanding. The issue is not whether they speak positively or negatively. If you guys have a legitimately neutral source, with all the requisite qualifications (a published academic commentator who is *not* an anthroposophical insider), who speaks positively of Steiner's racial doctrines, then please add this source to the article. Once you understand what the criteria are for including a source, Pete's "demands" are not inconsistent nor "aggressive." You're calling it aggressive just because he insists, and he is bloody well right to insist and keep on insisting. (We might even call it "raving" and as long as it is civil it is quite appropriate to go on raving.) I agree that "We should let Steiner's words speak for themselves" may not quite identify the issue, and perhaps that is the confusion. The issue is the neutrality of the sources. An article on Steiner's racial views should indeed consist of a substantial sampling of Steiner's own statements on the subject. Neutral outside authorities with comments on Steiner's racial views are also desirable - and whether they are positive or negative is NOT how we determine this. Anthroposophical commentary on Steiner's racial views is BY DEFINITION not appropriate to the standards of an encyclopedia, because . . . drum roll . . . the guy was an anthroposophist. For one thing, by academic standards, it is simply unnecessary. Anthroposophists can be *assumed* to be generally sympathetic to Steiner's writings; it is stating the obvious. There may of course be a few insider controversies; but this is not within the purview of an encyclopedia entry.DianaW 12:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me address these:

"Complaining aggressively that any deletion of quotations by Rudolf Steiner that cast a negative light on Steiner's views on race/ethnicity is "suppression" while himself deleting (suppressing) quotations that show that Steiner opposed racism and racial biases." Not true. You guys are forcing me to complain because you are deleting everything Steiner said that you don't like. I, on the other hand, have been leaving the quotes you provide and putting in additional quotes. I have been supporting the inclusion of quotes - any quotes - from Steiner. On the rare occasion when a quote has been snipped and grafted to another quote to produce the opposite of what Steiner was saying, or in cases when the opposite of the truth has been presented here (as with the "French" quote), I have deleted false information and replaced it with correct information and cited it correctly.

"Demands that authors' philosophical orientation and organizational affiliations be identified in the article when these suggest a presumptive prejudice in favor of anthroposophy/Steiner (Dutch commission/anthroposophical affiliation), and equally aggressively seeking to suppress identification of authors' orientation/affiliation when these suggest a presumptive prejudice against anthroposophy/Steiner/spiritual movements generally (Hansson/Skeptical Humanism)" We have discussed this. When a commission of Anthroposophists excuses Steiner's racism, it is important to note that the commission was made up of Anthroposophists. When an professor points out Steiner's racism, it makes no difference what his affiliation is. Your imagined "presumptive prejudice against Anthroposophy/Steiner/spiritual movements" is nonsense. How would someone's prejudice against Anthroposophy, even if it existed, put words in Steiner's mouth? This is nonsense. Do you really think that explaining that someone critical of Steiner is a skeptic is the same as a commission of Anthroposophists excusing his racism? The concepts are miles apart. --Pete K 01:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, missed one: "Complaining aggressively that any inclusion of authorities that speak positively about Steiner's work is inappropriate as "we should let Steiner's statements speak for themselves" while inconsistently demanding that authorities (Hansson) that speak negatively about Steiner's work should be included -- this has occurred repeatedly both here and in the main article Rudolf Steiner." Hansson is a legitimate source. I'm happy to include any authorities that speak positively about Steiner who aren't Anthroposophists. In fact, most of the article that supports Steiner is by authorities who ARE Anthroposophists. But they are legitimate in what they are claiming. The fact that you guys are hiding the fact that the Dutch Anthroposophical Society's Commission of Biased Anthroposophists is indeed ALL ANTHROPOSOPHISTS, makes it difficult to consider allowing this at all. And again, when you provide this source, the article explaining who they are must also be sourced... and you guys won't like that either. --Pete K 01:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete wrote: "In fact, most of the article that supports Steiner is by authorities who ARE Anthroposophists." Well, then we get into "what is wrong with wikipedia." If the person who wrote the article is an insider to a controversy, and the very purpose of putting the entry in wikipedia in the first place is to strike a blow in an ongoing propaganda war against the folks on the other side of the controversy, the chances of an unbiased, academic-quality article coming out of that mess are pretty slim.DianaW 12:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, Diana. Watching what goes on here has been quite an experience for me. I've told my kid NEVER to trust an article in Misplaced Pages. It is indeed the fanatics who are interested in pushing their agenda and revising history that are providing the majority of the content here (for some reason, they seem to have plenty of time on their hands too). The more fanatical the editors are (on controversial articles) the less accurate the information contained in the articles is. And the assumption of "good faith" is often misplaced as we have seen here often enough. People come here and misrepresent what they KNOW to be true (we've seen this right here in this article), in order to push their POV - and waste the time of editors who are actually interested in producing a good article. More and more, Misplaced Pages is becoming a microcosm of the internet - some good information mixed in with mostly bad information. When people who actually have the ability to produce a respectable article (I'm a professional writer, you're a professional editor, so I think you and I know the difference) put their efforts here, they are thwarted by POV-pushers. It really is a shame that it has to be this way. --Pete K 23:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to Administrators

The locked article, as it stands, contains the defamatory statement below: "In an article , written in 2004 in response to criticism of the Swedish branch of the CSICOP for publishing and defending defamatory writings about anthroposophy by a repeatedly unreliable author, Peter Staudenmaier"

Misplaced Pages administrators should consider removing this statement about author Peter Staudenmaier as there is no support for this statement and leaving it there without such support is malicious. It is unfortunate that this article was locked after such a malicious edit and personal attack. Despite the disclaimer, I feel Misplaced Pages bears some responsibility for leaving a malicious attack on an individual visible for many days (or maybe even weeks) without allowing it to be addressed or removed. I would recommend using a previous edit as the locking point for this article. You will note my edit described the previous ones as "vandalism" - and it was reverted by editor Goethean, thus replacing the vandalism. --Pete K 15:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The note (41) refers to the analysis' of the article by Staudenmaier published in the anthology, found at http://www.thebee.se/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html and http://www.defendingsteiner.com/refutations/anthroposophy-and-ecofascism.php They are based on close reading of Staudenmaier and the sources he refers to as basis for what he writes and discussions with him, in the case of Daniel Hindes it is based on a paragraph by paragraph analysis. Maybe the Administrators should look at the two analysis', and for example http://www.thebee.se/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier2.htm before making any judgment as to whether the statement that Staudenmaier is a repeatedly unreliable author lacks support or not, and take any action with regard to the reference. --Thebee 15:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That you point to your own document, at your own original research and defamatory websites (not acceptable by Misplaced Pages standards) is revealing here. I don't think your assessment of Mr. Staudenmaier's work is the issue here. The issue here is that the statement is locked in this version and cannot be refuted by the normal means available to editors. Whether you feel justified in making this statement or not - or even whether the administrators believe it to be completely true or not makes NO difference. It is a personal attack that cannot be challenged while the article is locked. This is inappropriate and no consideration AT ALL needs to be given by administrators as to it's "truthiness" or whether your original research constitutes verifiability. It is up to the editors here to do this work. The administrators should revert this version of the article. --Pete K 17:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The article has been reverted by one edit, to remove the statement "repeatedly unreliable author, Peter Staudenmaier". Sources for this claim need to be provided in order for this text to remain. Text such as "repeatedly unreliable" shouldn't be used anyway unless the article is quoting what somebody has actually said about Staudenmaier. -- Longhair\ 22:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Longhair. Are you re-protecting the article or are we free to edit it now? --Pete K 01:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That was my mistake. I accidently removed the protection template when reverting a recent edit. I've since replaced it. -- Longhair\ 01:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont see any consensus. I've reverted, only to remove potentially defamatory content. The article is still locked from editing until that consensus can be reached, however Misplaced Pages administrators, such as myself, are able to edit protected articles. Now back to consensus. I trust you'll all get there eventually. When you do, let me know, and I'll either consider unprotection, or add the content you've agreed on myself. -- Longhair\ 03:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I didn't see the "locked" marker on the article itself, so I didn't know if it needed to be re-padlocked. I will do my best to work toward a consensus. Thanks again! --Pete K 14:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Longhair, In addition to removing the description of the article by Hansson, giving as motivation "rv to remove potentially defamatory statements re: Peter Staudenmaier", as requested by Pete, and replacing it with his simplified and incorrect description of it as a 'Report', you also removed the whole description of the Report from the Dutch Commission on Anthroposophy and the Question of Race, that has nothing to do with Staudenmaier, and in no place mentions him. After you have done this, you have not reinserted the section on the Dutch Commission, that you removed by mistake.

Does this mean that you yourself has taken a personal stance in this discussion that it is inappropriate to have the description of the extensive 720 page Dutch report in the article, until you again unlock the article, while having a description of the (repeatedly untruthful) article by Hansson.

The article is not a 'report', but an article published in the (membership) journal of the Swedish secular humanist branch of CSICOP, a highly partisan and consistently not only critical but also repeatedly defamatory anti-anthroposophical and anti-Waldorf organisation, expressly (described in the Swedish original, not translated in the English version) published in response to criticism of the organisation for its publication of a repeatedly unreliable anthology on anthroposophy, containing among other things the repeatedly untruthful first piece by Staudenmaier on anthroposophy from 2000, see also here and a somewhat shortened version of the also unreliable paper by Hansson, for which an analysis of it in relation to the (also on the internet) published sources it alleges supports its views in full document their respective unreliability. The article by Hansson is not even in the main an original article, but in the main a republication of an article he published in 1988, 16 years earlier.

The report by the Dutch Commission is a 720 page report, that (in the 324 page intermediary report) after a 60 page description of the concept of discrimination and Dutch legislaion on it, an extensive 50 page description of the discussion of the concept of race as it was understood at the time, racial doctrine and racism, documenting with (in the intermediary report 147) in the final report 245 quotes, and an analysis and comment on all of them, being all instances the Commission found in the 89.000 pages of the works by Steiner. All of the seven members of the Commission were academics with PhD degrees.

It is open and in full documented report on all points, documenting all places in the works by Steiner, where it found a comment on the issue of race as it was understood during Steiner's time.

While you have reinserted the description of the repeatedly unreliable article by Hansson (replacing the allegedly potentiatlly defamatory intro), (For example did Steiner believe in evolution? Yes. Is race a central issue in anthroposophy? No. Steiner held appr five published lectures on the issue as its main theme, and all the quotes on 'race' constitute probably less than 1% of his published works.) you have not reinserted the description of the 720 page report by the seven Dutch academics, all with PhD, that in contrast to Hansson's article in full quotes and discusses all quotes on the issue it investigated.

Is this a conscious personal choice you have made, now as a personal stance by you as active party on this issue? --Thebee 00:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The protection templates states 'Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version.'. Stop trying to drag me into this debate. If you lot want to make complex reverts and a general mess of the article by edit warring, that's hardly my problem. Edit war = article locked. That's why it's locked - you lot fail to cease edit warring, over and over again.

Here's an explantion on my level of involvement here (again). I couldn't give one hoot about anything related to Steiner, Waldorf, anthroposophy or whatever. I do give a hoot about how you're all acting when editing though. Stop questioning my motives for locking the article, and get to work on that consensus. Better still, start a dispute resolution procedure like I've asked you to many times now. It's clear this debate isn't going to be resolved any other way. What are you all waiting for? Get a clear outcome to this debarcle, rather than taking the edit war to different articles as they become locked.

I started a Request for Comment process quite a while ago but nothing has happened. I'll escalate to the DR willingly. Hgilbert 02:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Longhair is a 'he' btw - but I realise my username may be confused by those willing to make assumptions. -- Longhair\ 01:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not and did not question your motive for locking the article, for which this page is a Talks page. I asked why you have not reverted the removal you made by mistake. --Thebee 01:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back one edit in the article history. Yes, it was a mistake, and if the content to which you refer has concensus to be reinserted, I'll happily do so. -- Longhair\ 01:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"I reverted back one edit in the article history." No. You reverted back one edit in the article AND removed one section, that has nothing to do with the request for the revert.. The revert was not a mistake, but the removal of one section, not adressed in the request, was.

Is it a correct interpretation of this that you don't consider a request by someone, or consensus here necessary for you to remove a section of the article, about which there is no consensus that it should be removed, but that you consider it necessary for a consensus here about its reinsertion for you to reinsert it? --Thebee 08:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not remove anything intentionally. I reverted one edit. The other paragraph came out as that was also edited in the same edit prior to my reversion. Check the article history - it's all there for you to see. If another editor didn't fiddle what that paragraph prior to my revert, it would not have been affected at all by my reverting action. All I did was undo the last edit. Nothing more. I'm not here ripping out content like you may think to benefit any side - and I'm not putting anything back into the article unless it can be shown to me that all sides of the debate agree to it being there. Longhair\ 09:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the information hasn't been restored because WE CAN'T AGREE ON IT. If you are willing to work with the other editors here, instead of going ballistic every time you don't get your way, we might be able to come to an agreement. We've had considerable discussion about the Dutch Anthroposophical Society's Hand-Selected Commission of Biased Anthroposophists and their report - and we can't agree, apparently, to even correctly identify them as ALL being Anthroposophists - which has been proven to be true AND is a stumbling block in the agreement. You want to include the report AND disguise the membership of the committee. That will NEVER be agreed to here. So it's pretty clear to me there are two very reasonable choices - either exclude a report by the very biased commission of Anthroposophists, or include the report and accurately describe who the commission was - and I'll add that there will be citations to the article that describes who they were. It is an extremely reasonable choice. The choice you don't get is to include the report of the commission and disguise who the participants were. That kind of deception will certainly not be endorsed by Misplaced Pages in any event, I'm quite sure. --Pete K 01:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

PeteK: "If you are willing to work with the other editors here, instead of going ballistic every time you don't get your way, we might be able to come to an agreement." After you have made probably on the order of some 15 personal attacks on me so far here at Misplaced Pages, a number of them documented here I feel very reluctant to have a discussion with you on anything anywhere.

"You want to include the report AND disguise the membership of the committee." As you adress me, I assume your comment refers to me, and not someone else. Can you point to anything I have written that supports your statement?

After I returned here on 4 October from a break from Misplaced Pages to recuperate from all your personal attacks, during which the discussion you mention developed, I checked the intermediary Dutch report and inserted the statement in the article that the Commission was an anthroposophical Commission. The number of members was six + the chairperson, all of them members of the A.S. in the Netherlands. Few probably have the report, neither in Dutch or the intermediary report in German. I doubt anyone else but me here in this discussion has it (the intermediary report in German translation). Two of the members of the Commission are described as 'Dr.', probably meaning non-Dutch PhD, as is the case with one of the 'Dr.'s I've checked, while five are described as 'Drs.', meaning someone who has passed a doctoral exam at a Dutch academic institution.

Can they be considered authorities on the issue of the Report, and qualify as academics with regard to the investigation for which they were responsible? Probably. (I'm translating and will put the translation of their discussion of their independence somewhere on the net as info.) Did they report all relevant basic aspects of it in the report, including documenting every single quote by Steiner they found on the issue before discussing it? Very probably (see above for description ofamong other the different discussions of the issue race from different perspectives at the time Thebee 00:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)), and yes. (I haven't seen final 720 page report. Does it qualify as a source for Misplaced Pages in this article? I doubt it can be disputed as a source based on any Misplaced Pages policy of guideline.

The reference definition of race used by the Commission when judging Steiner's work not to be racist seems to be a Dutch definition of 'racial doctrine', being »a seemingly scientific theory on the basis of which the superiority of one race is supposed to be legitimized at the expense of another." See Final Press Summary. It may be a definition connected specifically with Dutch legislation, that was one of the points of reference for the Commission. --Thebee 14:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

PeteK: "If you are willing to work with the other editors here, instead of going ballistic every time you don't get your way, we might be able to come to an agreement." After you have made probably on the order of some 15 personal attacks on me so far here at Misplaced Pages, a number of them documented here I feel very reluctant to have a discussion with you on anything anywhere. Good - we could both use a break from this. You have entire websites devoted to defaming critics... so your comment about "personal attacks" fall on deaf ears. I couldn't care less if you feel offended by my revealing your modus operandi.

"You want to include the report AND disguise the membership of the committee." As you adress me, I assume your comment refers to me, and not someone else. Can you point to anything I have written that supports your statement? Sure, look at EVERY time you refer to the "Dutch Commission of Academics" - have you even once mentioned in your discussions that they are Anthroposophists? You then attempt to make some kind of bargain that you can tear down Professor Hansson's credentials if this is required. Read back through the discussion Sune.

After I returned here on 4 October from a break from Misplaced Pages to recuperate from all your personal attacks, during which the discussion you mention developed, I checked the intermediary Dutch report and inserted the statement in the article that the Commission was an anthroposophical Commission. The number of members was six + the chairperson, all of them members of the A.S. in the Netherlands. Few probably have the report, neither in Dutch or the intermediary report in German. I doubt anyone else but me here in this discussion has it (the intermediary report in German translation). Two of the members of the Commission are described as 'Dr.', probably meaning non-Dutch PhD, as is the case with one of the 'Dr.'s I've checked, while five are described as 'Drs.', meaning someone who has passed a doctoral exam at a Dutch academic institution. - Great, I'm glad you have recovered. I don't think reference to the commission can be made unless a reference to the report itself is available - and not for $85.00. I couldn't care less about the credentials of the individuals, whether they were PhD's or the Pope, the WHOLE point is that they were Anthroposophists testifying about Steiner's racism.

Can they be considered authorities on the issue of the Report, and qualify as academics with regard to the investigation for which they were responsible? Probably. No, sorry, they cannot, except in the minds of some Anthroposophists. I've explained why this is impossible countless times here. They were Anthroposophists - i.e. BIASED. Their testimony is a joke.

(I'm translating and will put the translation of their discussion of their independence somewhere on the net as info.) Did they report all relevant basic aspects of it in the report, including documenting every single quote by Steiner they found on the issue before discussing it? Very probably (see above for description ofamong other the different discussions of the issue race from different perspectives at the time Thebee 00:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)), and yes. (I haven't seen final 720 page report. Does it qualify as a source for Misplaced Pages in this article? I doubt it can be disputed as a source based on any Misplaced Pages policy of guideline. I'm quite sure it CAN be disputed - and will be disputed. It has nothing to say that isn't obviously a whitewash of Steiner's racism - and the article that will be provided to refute it will point that out.

The reference definition of race used by the Commission when judging Steiner's work not to be racist seems to be a Dutch definition of 'racial doctrine', being »a seemingly scientific theory on the basis of which the superiority of one race is supposed to be legitimized at the expense of another." See Final Press Summary. It may be a definition connected specifically with Dutch legislation, that was one of the points of reference for the Commission. Yeah... get it? They get to define what constitutes racism AND they get to interpret the writings of Steiner bases on esoteric ideas rather than on what they actually say, AND they get to decide which of his writings they will evaluate. You're really wasting your breath here Sune. The entire report is nonsense and the instant you insert it, it will be refuted completely. You're wasting everyone's time here - not to mention valuable space in this article by including something that requires even more space to refute. But then again, you probably want to waste space that could otherwise be used for Steiner's OWN WORDS.--Pete K 17:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Longhair for your patience and continued efforts to control this situation. --Pete K 01:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of going ballistic...you could really ease your tone down a few notches, Pete.

There is no problem with identifying the authors as long as this is verified information; that's all I ever asked. I don't know why you kept removing the whole section; all I did was add a "fact" template asking for verification, I believe - which you eventually provided. So can we agree that the section should go back in with the mention that the members of the commission were all members of the Dutch A.Society? But without further editorializing, which you added previously, such as "Thus it is no surprise...", etc.; this is totally against Misplaced Pages policy. Just the facts, Pete. Hgilbert 02:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Speaking of going ballistic...you could really ease your tone down a few notches, Pete." I'm quite sure you are reading something into my "tone" that simply isn't there. I've been extremely reasonable in all this considering you guys keep reverting my edits without an explanation anywhere, or calling them "vandalism". I'm the one that's going to the trouble of discussing each edit (as it says to do at the top of the article) before making it. You guys NEVER discuss an edit first. You just add in a big chunk of something you like, or chop out a big chunk of something you don't like. I don't know about you, Harlan, but my time is worth a lot of money - so watching my work removed without giving a reason is not likely to make a good impression on me.

"There is no problem with identifying the authors as long as this is verified information; that's all I ever asked." Well, that's not all you have asked - you have asked if you could smear Professor Hansson while you do this. As you yourself have noted - the information has been verified (so there's no question of this) and it will certainly be cited and the citation quoted as well. You can't get much better than that. Oh wait, are we going to have to agree to let Sune defame the people who wrote THAT article too - like he's trying to do with Professor Hansson - and indeed everyone who doesn't agree with him?

"I don't know why you kept removing the whole section; all I did was add a "fact" template asking for verification, I believe - which you eventually provided." I kept removing it because it was stupid to add it in the first place. It's Anthroposophists (Steiner's own followers) letting Steiner off the hook for racism. In what encyclopedia does this type of evidence belong? It's nonsense - but at least by identifying it as such, it will be clear to readers that it's YOUR nonsense. I can't imagine a more stupid apology to discover in an encyclopedia. It's like saying "Anthroposophists believe Steiner was considerably less of a racist than Hitler." It's just a dumb thing to say - and it invites critics like me to point out that the 16 counts the Anthroposophical commission STILL couldn't excuse him for would have gotten him thrown in JAIL if he said them today (and that is also documented and citable). And when I DO add that - you guys will claim that the article is getting too cluttered and crap like that... or want to bury the information in some sub-sub-sub-article. You are really opening a can of worms here for yourselves Harlan, and for the very marginal benefit (if any) that somebody might read the article and not notice that Anthroposohists are Steiner's own followers.

"So can we agree that the section should go back in with the mention that the members of the commission were all members of the Dutch A.Society? But without further editorializing, which you added previously, such as "Thus it is no surprise...", etc.; this is totally against Misplaced Pages policy. Just the facts, Pete." No, you see, the problem here is that the "editorializing" is not mine, it's in the article that I provided to prove that they were all Anthroposophists. See the reference above and the part I quoted directly from the article. Here are the exact words from the source "This should come as no surprise, since all of the members of the commission belong to the Dutch Anthroposophical Society." And really, Harlan, the fact is - IT COMES AS NO SURPRISE!!! - That's the main reason why the entire section doesn't belong here. --Pete K 04:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"I don't know why you kept removing the whole section; all I did was add a "fact" template asking for verification, I believe - which you eventually provided." I thought this sounded strange. Here's the diff - maybe you can show me one where you added a "fact" template.--Pete K 04:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Note on two personal insults here by PeteK

This is just a note, documenting that User PeteK the last two hours two times has added a personal insult to the title of a posting by the undersigned. It is documented here (Revision as of 17:25, 8 October 2006) and here (Revision as of 18:00, 8 October 2006 ) before he then himself removed it. --Thebee 19:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics