Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:18, 5 October 2006

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.

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)

Text moved from article

Particular racial or ethnic groups

BEG TO DIFER? ...but it is scientifically proven that black bodies absorb light whereas white reflect it(i.e, planck's black body in the early years of quantum mechanics) if the absoption of light energy is critical to higher consciousness, then whatever body that can more efficiently absorb light must be must be at an advantage. i do not espouse any of these views, but a more consistent theory of spiritual light energy would have reasoned in a similar manner.

About blond? As we know, the world in inherently deceitful---as a consequence, many plausible things are bound to be fundamentally false. when the romans and the greeks encountered the germanic tribes and the scandinavian vikings, they had concluded that these relatively backward cultures were inherently inferior. they had no written language, and seemed to have no interest in philosophy, commented many ethnocentric roman observers. since, the northerners had no advanced cultures prior to their contact with the southerners, and that the collapse of ROME well coincided with its integration of northerners, then one may argue that the genetic admixture improved the northerners while weakening the southerners. I do not harbor any of these views but my point has been to show that equally plausible alternative arguments are conceivable as rebuttals to the supposed inherent superiority of blondess.

Charges of Racism

Comments

This text above was moved from the article as it violates WP:NOR. Please discuss the fate of this text here. Aquirata 17:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Metamorphosis of Language

The quote below is from 1923. He may have changed his terminology, but not his thoughts.

"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 this assimilation. 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 cerebellum kindles the fire. (...) And we, Europeans, we poor Europeans, we have the thinking life, which resides in the head. (...) Therefore, Europe has always been the starting point of everything which develops the human entity in such a way that at the same time a relationship with the outside world arises. (...)

"When Negroes go to the west, they cannot absorb as much light and heat any more as they were used to in their Africa. (...) That is why they turn copper red, they become Indians. That is because they are forced to reflect a part of the light and heat. They turn shiny copper red. They cannot keep up this copper red shining. That is why the Indians die out in the West, they die because of their own nature which does not get enough light and heat, they die because of the earthly factor.(...)

"Really, it is the whites who develop the human factor within themselves. Therefore they have to rely on themselves. When whites do emigrate, they partly take on the characteristics of other areas, but they die more as individuals than as a race. The white race is the race of the future, the race that is working creatively with the spirit."

--Pete K 03:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Hanssons reliability in description of Anthroposophy

I have added a reference to criticism of an earlier article by Mr. Hansson on Anthroposophy as being unreliable, based on a full quote of the first part of his article and the quotes he uses to support his criticism, and showing with an analysis of them based on more full and additional quotes, how he distorts the sources he uses, as this is notable and relevant in understanding Mr. Hansson's writings on Anthroposophy in general, including his writings on Steiner's views on "race", and has implications for his credibility as author on anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner, and the reader is entitled to know about this. --Thebee 09:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry your self published criticism cannot be cited as a source here. see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Using online and self-published sources. Lumos3 17:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, EVERYTHING regarding Steiner's racism is "unreliable" to TheBee. I would like to collect diffs that demonstrate what he has been doing here. Can somebody please explain to me how I can create diffs? I think this has gone on long enough and it's probably time to get the administrators involved in this. It is incredible, to me, that editors are expected to work on these articles while revisionists continually revert their edits because everything seems "unreliable" to them. --Pete K 03:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.thebee.se/comments/Hansson-commented.htm in full quotes the major part of Mr.Hansson's article "Is Anthroposophy Science?" from 1991 and demonstrates in what way he misrepresents the sources he writes that he describes in a way that shows his unreliability as author of the subject he purports to discuss in his paper. It's a detailed analysis and a simple fact. Nothing to get upset about. --Thebee 23:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Again - this stuff is self-published original research Sune. As Lumos3 pointed out above, it has no business here. --Pete K 05:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That was not the issue in your comment. You questioned my judgment and statement that Hansson is unreliable as author on anthroposophy, based on what he writes in his article from 1991, analysed here: http://www.thebee.se/comments/Hansson-commented.htm It shows he is. Disagree? --Thebee 06:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your assessment of his work Sune, I know it for what it is. And you are continually spamming Misplaced Pages with links to your websites that point to your obtuse analysis of everything that critique's Waldorf and Steiner. Your original research opinions don't interest me and I'm sure they don't interest many of the readers who are intelligent enough to see them for what they are - YOUR opinions. --Pete K 14:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Now our friend, Thebee, has removed the link to this article. Thank goodness I was here to add it back. --Pete K 00:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not remove the link to the article. I conformed the link to the standard in the article of linking to external sites through foot notes. --Thebee 10:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

chronology

It would be helpful to have the dates of all quotes, to see the development of Steiners thinking on this subject. --Vindheim 09:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That would certainly be possible - if the quotes themselves were still available here instead of deleted. Steiner did, indeed, go through a period of time during which he seemed more sympathetic to the races but later reverted to his more difficult-to-reconcile views. I have tried to provide the dates of the lectures when they are available in each direct quote I have provided. --Pete K 19:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Who Writes This Stuff?

From the article: "He refers to the tragedy of black Africans being ‘brutally’ brought to Europe against their will. He states that this "brutal tragedy" will work to the disadvantage of both peoples, in particular weakening the European stock. (Note that this seems to contradict his general comments about racial admixture being a necessary part of the transition to a universally human culture.)"

This is totally ridiculous. Steiner was talking about black SOLDIERS stationed in France. The "cultural brutality" that Steiner is talking about is to OTHER people in Europe. Steiner is saying that the French will "ruin their own blood", for bringing blacks to Europe. "The French nation will be weakened as a race". Steiner is not concerned at all about black people here - he is concerned about Europe and the effect of transplanting blacks to Europe will have on Europeans and specifically European blood. Here's the exact quote:

STEINER (1923) "No doubt about it, the soul becomes corrupted through using the French language...It is also possible at the present time that the French will even ruin their own blood, the very element which has kept their language going as a corpse. That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to other people, the frightful cultural brutality of transplanting black people to Europe. It affects France itself worst of all. This has an incredibly strong effect on the blood, the race. This will substantially add to French decadence. The French nation will be weakened as a race."

It would be nice if commentary in this article was somehow supported with some evidence. It's bad enough the material presented here by others is slanted, but when they reverse what is being said, it's just dishonest. --Pete K 00:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's some support from my claim, BTW - from Time Magazine - dated March 3, 1923

Posted Saturday, Mar. 3, 1923

General Degoutte continues to warn Germany and the French Government continues to inform the world that it will not leave the Ruhr until Germany shows a reliable disposition to settle her reparations liability.

The French have succeeded in improving railway transportation. A direct service to Paris began on February 26.

The customs cordon round the Ruhr area has been completed, and the French say that it is now impossible for the Germans to smuggle anything out of the enclosed district.

The Germans have complained bitterly about French brutality; about the prohibition of Wilhelm Tell at the theatres; about the expulsions of German officials from the Ruhr; and about the use of black troops. In connection with the last complaint, German contentions are backed up by first-hand unbiased evidence, despite French denials.

From the Mar. 3, 1923 issue of TIME magazine

Notice the use of the word "brutality" refers to the USE of black troops, not the treatment of them. Here's another link to a WIKI article that discusses this:

So, would anybody object to me removing or revising this ridiculous misrepresentation in the article? I'll wait until tomorrow to remove it. --Pete K 01:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that the brutality has anything to do with their treatment, but rather with their being brought to Europe. If you want to change this to "used in Europe", this would be fine. The passage should stay, however. Hgilbert 09:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The passage, Harlan, implies the exact OPPOSITE of what Steiner meant in his comments. In literary terms, Harlan, that is called a LIE. We're not going to do that here Harlan just because some people want to paint a pretty picture of Steiner. Here's what the passage should say:

"He joined other Germans in protesting the French for the housing and deployment of black African soldiers in Europe. He states that this "cultural brutality" will work to the disadvantage of both peoples, in particular weakening the European stock." I will make this change. --Pete K 13:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The change is fine, and maintains the accuracy of the article. It does not differ from the previous version in any significant way as far as I can see. Hgilbert 15:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

LMAO... yes, hardly any difference at all Harlan. --Pete K 21:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a portion of the following quote after the sentence about Asians to better clarify Steiner's position on Asian races.:

"The Asian peoples, in particular, have not descended so deeply, nor become so entangled with the physical but neither have they contributed so much to the conquest of the latter as have the Europeans. We see how the Europeans, especially, have brought about what we call external, physical civilisation whereas the stragglers from Atlantean conditions have stood still and have consequently been unable to find their bearings in the post-Atlantean world because they preserved certain characteristics and subsequently degenerated. It is often pointed out nowadays that their inherent qualities are bringing about significant progress in the Japanese. This is an illusion. They are not developing as a result of their own characteristics. Their victory in the last war was achieved by means of warships and guns invented by Europeans -- by exploiting an alien civilisation. Progressive development is only possible when a people can evolve by virtue of its own intrinsic nature. That is the crucial point."

Rudolf Steiner, Universe, Earth and Man (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1987); this is a translation of Rudolf Steiner, Welt, Erde und Mensch, Dornach 1983 (GA 105) (p. 147)

Here's another version of the quote:

"The Mongolian peoples have not descended so deeply, nor have they entangled themselves so much in the physical plane nor done so much towards its conquest as the people of Europe. We see that external physical civilization is accomplished by western nations rather than by the stragglers from Atlantean civilization who had remained stationary, and were therefore not at home in a world of post-Atlantean development, because they had retained certain qualities and had then degenerated.

It is often pointed out that the Japanese are going through a significant development today through the qualities of their own character. This is an illusion. They are not developing through the force of their own qualities. In the last war against Russia they conquered with the help of battleships and cannon invented by Europeans; they made use of a foreign civilization. It is only progressive development when a people develops from out its own being. It is on this that development depends."

And another example of his thinking along these lines:

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

--Pete K 03:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikification

We have been asked to Wikify the article. There are various things that may need doing; add to this list as you see fit (and comment):

Hanson quotes

These should not form a separate subsection, but be incorporated into the general body through addition of any new points and referencing to his article

quotes at end

According to Misplaced Pages:quotations: "editors should try and work quotations into the body of the article, rather than in a stand alone quote section. Misplaced Pages is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations. A simple list of quotations would be better suited for our sister project, Wikiquote.

Similarly, quotations should be always introduced in articles. Stand alone quotations are not proper paragraphs. Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation.

Third, while quotations are an indispensable part of Misplaced Pages, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Misplaced Pages. Also, editors should avoid long quotations if they can keep them short. Long quotations not only add to the length of many articles that are already too long, but they also crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information"

and

"If there are many quotations, please move them to Wikiquote and place a Wikiquote template on the article to inform readers that there are relevant quotations regarding the subject. "

The whole quote section should be moved to Wikiquote (special quote list on races/ethnic groups) with a link in this article. Hgilbert 10:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This is EXACTLY the place to quote Steiner. The article is called "Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity" - so this is where we should be reading HIS views and not the views of editors interested in hiding what he said. The example above, regarding the housing of the French in Europe demonstrates how some editors here are intentionally HIDING Steiner's own views and putting a goody-goody spin on everything the man said. The proposal above is an incredibly blatant attempt to whitewash, once again, the TRUE political, spiritual and social positions of Steiner. They have been moved from the Steiner page to this sub-page, and now you suggest they should be buried even further. Nonsense! --Pete K 13:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone put the Wikify notice in this article, asking us to conform to Misplaced Pages usage. The Misplaced Pages standards for quotations are available to read at Misplaced Pages:Quotations. Please read them and help us meet these standards. That is all that is being asked. Hgilbert 15:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Quotations shuold be worked into the article body in a seamless way or moved to wikiquote per Misplaced Pages:quotations. Please look at Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche and its archives for a similar issue. In that case, it was also the opponents of the subject of the article who wanted to "expose" the subject with cherry-picked quotations. Their conclusion differed dramatically with the mainstream scholarly research on Nietzsche. Here, I sense that there is less consensus (and less interest) in academia on this subject. But nonetheless, this article should reflect, and refer to, the spectrum of scholarly opinion on Steiner. — goethean ॐ 14:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

HGilbert writes above "Please read them and help us meet these standards." The standard of honesty should come first Harlan. --Pete K 21:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Honesty does not preclude following guidelines of the encyclopedia. We have been specifically asked to bring this article into line with these guidelines. Can you understand this? Hgilbert 23:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Harlan - I can't understand how honesty would or should be at odds with the guidelines. That's why I disagree that moving the quotes to a third burial site after the first two have been discovered is the right way to proceed. This is the page where Steiner's quotes should be prevalent. I don't believe there is any reason to move them elsewhere. Indeed, it is clear that the guidelines can be followed without moving the quotes. --Pete K 00:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was asked to comment here because my bot added the wikification tag, I should point out that it didn't actually add it, rather just re-sorted the tag someone else added by date. Regardless, Wikification largely just means bring it in line with normal wiki formatting style, to me it seems to be inline with our style now. Martin 15:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this Martin. Some people here will use any excuse to hide the facts, it seems. --Pete K 16:26, 23 September 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)

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)

The Ruhr area vs Europe

I have reverted the change HGilbert made because it was inaccurate. Here's the quote from Steiner:

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

Steiner does not say the Ruhr area (Western Germany) - he says "Europe" - the Time article talks about the Rhur area. Additionally, I changed the part about "both" races suffering for the mixing of blood. Steiner only talks about the effects to the French blood - how "This has an incredibly strong effect on the blood, the race. This will substantially add to French decadence. The French nation will be weakened as a race." He is not concerned at all with the blood of the black race. --Pete K 02:30, 27 September 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)

RfC

The issues on this page are:

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

Two such evaluations are presently included:

• a report treating (and quoting) all of Steiner's statements on the topics and evaluating 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; the members of the commission were all familiar with and/or connected with anthroposophy and Steiner's work.
• an article reviewing Steiner's views on race by Swen Hansson, a professor of philosophy and founding chairperson of the Swedish Skeptics.

Inclusion of the first evaluation is contested on the basis that some or all of the report's authors had some sort of a connection with or interest in anthroposophy. Inclusion is supported because such a connection or interest 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)

Inclusion of a claim that the commission was comprised of Anthroposophists.

• User Pete K claims this but has offered no verification (update: verification has now been supplied)
• If it can be verified that this is true, is identification of authorities by such affiliations Misplaced Pages policy? If so, it should be mentioned that Hansson is a Skeptical Humanist, as well (see Sven Ove Hansson).

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."

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.

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)

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)

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)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics