User talk:Hgilbert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--Archive --Archive2

Contents 1 WikiProject: Alternative education 2 Appreciation of your recent contributions 3 Science 4 Pseudoscience Category 5 Invitation to Join Waldorf Project 6 Update on Waldorf Project 7 Proposal at Waldorf Project 8 Hello Waldorf Project Team Members 9 Mediation 10 Request for Mediation 11 Racism 12 'Advert' tag on waldorf education 13 "Clarification" 14 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education 15 Rudolf Steiner 16 Redirect 17 Wisdom 18 Decision Page 19 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education 20 Your edits today 21 Unspecified source for Image:Audonicon.jpg 22 Blocked 23 Request for opinion 24 Gymnasium 24.1 New citations 25 Reopening of arbitration 26 Hey! 27 Sourcing 28 Reverting edits 29 Small Correction 30 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review

[edit] WikiProject: Alternative education

Hello, we are currently seeking additional participation in a WikiProject that been launched on the subject of alternative education. I have noticed that you seem to have an interest and/or some experience in this area. I would like to invite you to join this effort. If you are interested, please visit the WikiProject page. Several of our participants are helping on a daily basis, some weekly, and a few only have a little time to contribute sporadically. Any level of participation is helpful and welcome. We hope you will consider joining our team. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 01:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation of your recent contributions

Based on recent events (however amorphous such events may be – a bunch of arranged bytes on someone else's screen ), I appreciate your tenacity and quest for reasonable accuracy in extremely difficult areas of analysis. Good regards to you. ... Kenosis 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science

Hgilbert, I had my doubts whether the edits you made to the intro of science would hold. But they have. Nice work. ... Kenosis 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience Category

"The Cat pseudoscience is a member of its own group" – so should WP be restricted to only having categories that aren't members of their own group? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) --Wclark 18:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to Join Waldorf Project

Dear HGilbert,

I am writing to invite you to join a project to revamp the Waldorf page and bring a close to the unending edit wars. With the help of unbiased administrators and Wikipedians, I hope to create a balanced article about Waldorf education with a balanced section on critical views. In my own view of this, the article will contain no outside links except to scholarly articles. The project participants, however, with the help of comment and input from unbiased Wikipedians, will make the final call on that.

We could use your expertise and experience in turning this into a Wiki page rather than a war zone.

Thanks for your consideration,

Wonderactivist 15:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update on Waldorf Project

Dear HGilbert, I am sending each project member a copy of the note I am sending to the adminsitrators about our project. I remain very optimistic that this project can make a big difference in the quality of the Waldorf page as experienced by the Wiki reader. I am pasting the letter below my signature and invite feedback on my Talk. Wonderactivist 04:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Longhair and Cormaggio, Thank you immeasurably for your help with the Waldorf project so far. As you will note below, I am planning shortly to move the project pages to within alt ed - just want to clarify structure first. It is currently at User:Wonderactivist/Waldorf Project Team Page

With your admin experience, and the amount of back-n-forth this article has undergone - actually speeding up since the proposed project - I would like your opinion on strategies to manage the project if you should have time.

I see two major issues:

1 there are "sides" within the group instead of a single focus on creating a good article. While this is somewhat to be expected, I also expected a greater level of professionalism. Is there a known strategy to begin to turn this around?

2 Unbelievably, I think,we have actually reached almost a consensus on the Introduction. I would like to focus on this positive and if possible have it become a springboard for examining just one section at a time. 3 On the current project page, a format for the article has been proposed, while the person actually rewrote the whole article, I propose taking just the OUTLINE - the section names 0- and beginnning with agreeing upon the sections.

Other than the administrative questions, my project strategy will be to set up two pages within the alt ed project:

1 to lay out a structure - outline only - for the page 2 to finalize with formal agreement, the introduction. 3 ONLY begin work on the next section when we have agreed upon the above two, then moving just one section at a time.

My hope is that it will disarm the ongoing wars over fine points and pet projects.

What is your opinion?

And thank you from the bottom of my transplanted Texas heart! Wonderactivist 04:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal at Waldorf Project

With advice from an admin, I have taken the next step in the Waldorf project and invite your opinions or alternative suggestions for a first formal proposal. In the face of the ongoing conflict it will be necessary to work especially hard toward NPOV and to establish groundrules before we can begin our real editing work. I invite you to be part of that process at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Waldorf_Project_Proposals Wonderactivist 14:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Waldorf Project Team Members

I just wanted to let you know that two proposals have passed on the Waldorf project and two more - one based on Fergie's starting place - have been set out for discussion here. Feedback has been given that the project has been going slow. I apologize as I had hand surgery a week ago, but truly nothing should wait for one person. If we each check in once or twice a week, we should be able to get through the article in a month or two. I would appreciate your valuable insights on the proposals and timing. Wonderactivist 12:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf Edits In clicking around to user pages to send the note, I have seen that the edit wars are truly still raging - they just have moved from the Waldrof page to user pages. As a result, I do not advise speeding up this project - time will be well-spent hashing out the disagreements civilly, with the result being a better page for Wikipedia and its readers. The problem with this page, overall, has been each person's need to push their own agenda without taking time to consider other viewpoints. Please do not resume your edit wars on the page. Wonderactivist 12:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Waldorf_Project"

[edit] Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Hello HGilbert, I did go ahead and sign the mediation thing on the 11th and place the project on hold. Thanks for the note to besure I saw it in time. Please let me know if I should do anything else as I am not very familiar with the mediation process. Wonderactivist 13:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Racism

I want to commend you for your brilliant solution to fixing the problem in the final sentence of the section, with "warm praise." Boogafish 01:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Advert' tag on waldorf education

Hi HGilbert! Please do not remove the advert tag from the Waldorf Education page until a consensus has been reached that this is OK. As you are aware, a project has been set up with the aim of making the article less brochure-like- I suggest you await the outcome.--Fergie 10:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked you to identify specific problems with the text; you did not do so. The project is apparently inactive, in part due to the refusal of two users to participate in the mediation process. Please identify specific sentences/sections, at least as examples of the "brochure-like" quality. Hgilbert 13:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - please don't remove the tag. The WHOLE article is a brochure. The mediation process, like the Waldorf project, was set up unfairly - with extreme bias. Are you saying the Waldorf project has been officially terminated? If not, could you please let us know the status of the project? Pete K 15:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is largely objectively descriptive; nevertheless, it can be improved. Bias meaning that two single-issue editors who are active in a prominent anti-Waldorf organization are not able to dominate a process in which 9 or 10 other users drawn from a wide spectrum of experienced Wikipedia editors were agreeing to mediation? Hmmm...

I am trying to determine the state of mediation and project. Hgilbert 02:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

LMAO - "wide spectrum of experienced Wikipedia editors"? Um... I don't think so. You, HGilbert, are a Waldorf teacher. Wonderactivist runs a Waldorf homeschool. Vindenheim is a Waldorf parent. TheBee is a Waldorf activist/extremist. Professor marginalia is another Waldorf activist/extrimist - both TheBee and Professor marginalia represent AWE - an extremist group that makes false claims of "hate group" and use their own organization to substantiate them. Who else have you got on the project? A lot of Waldorf people hiding behind aliases. The brochure language has got to go - everybody agrees on this. I begged you to produce a reasonable mediation request, BTW, and you didn't care to. You derailed the process before it began. Pete K 04:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The list of editors that signed on is:

• Hgilbert (talk • contribs)
• Wonderactivist (talk • contribs)
• Goethean (talk • contribs)
• Thebee (talk • contribs)
• Fergie (talk • contribs)
• Professor marginalia (talk • contribs)
• Vindheim (talk • contribs)
• Trueblood (talk • contribs)
• Lumos3 (talk • contribs)

There are four experienced editors there that are unconnected with Waldorf; all signed on. So much for the reasonableness of the mediation request. In addition, at least two of those you listed edit widely outside Waldorf articles and are also experienced. You and DianaW, on the other hand, are single-issue editors with strong POVs and without much Wikipedia experience. You could have added issues to the mediation request; to remove all the ones to which 9 editors had already agreed is not constructive. Hgilbert 14:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Which four editors are you suggesting aren't connected to Waldorf (and I assume you mean Anthroposophy as well here)? BTW, I edit other articles as well. Re: the advert tag - I'm not the only editor on the list that has insisted it should stay (I think it was Fergie who replaced it last time). AGAIN, please stop removing it until there is agreement. We're a LONG ways from removing the brochure talk. It would be better if you didn't continulally reverse the edits that are getting away from the brochure language. Then it would be possible to actually remove the tag. Pete K 16:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're back Harlan. I think you forgot to answer my question above. It asked "Which four editors are you suggesting aren't connected to Waldorf (and I assume you mean Anthroposophy as well here)?" Pete K 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There are five that I believe have no such connection. I might be wrong about one of them, but I doubt more than one.

• Fergie (talk • contribs)
• Vindheim (talk • contribs)
• Trueblood (talk • contribs)
• Lumos3 (talk • contribs)
• Goethean (talk • contribs)

Hgilbert 01:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong. Pete K 01:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you provide no evidence, and I am afraid I await this to be convinced. Hgilbert 01:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, one of these five, at least, has a child or children in Waldorf (Vindheim, I believe). Another, (Lumos3 I believe) has indicated that he has, at least, researched Waldorf education and visited Waldorf schools first-hand (more than one). Without speculating about personal details about persons who haven't mentioned their affiliations, at least these two people have indicated they are connected to Waldorf through their statements here. Pete K 01:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Here, this is from Lumos3's talk page - in a discussion with YOU.

Your original statement was that the editors were just "a lot of Waldorf people hiding behind aliases". The above statement by Lumos3 (and his edits) indicate that he is not a "Waldorf person", though he may have encountered schools (it's not clear how); similarly, Vindheim may have a child in a Waldorf school, but is clearly independent of and often critical of Waldorf (based upon his edits). The five stand as independent editors who were willing to enter mediation. Hgilbert 09:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am far from a single-issue editor, and my wikipedia experience is significantly broader than yours.DianaW 02:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Up to Oct. 27, 2006, all of your edits were to very closely related articles (Waldorf/PLANS), definitely around a narrowly defined single issue. Since that time, i.e. the last 3 weeks, you have spread out a bit. I have a long history of contributing to a very wide spread of articles, however much reduced recently given the edit wars here. Hgilbert 23:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm looking to spread out more. There's an article on "White People" that is locked up right now. I can't wait to get Steiner's views into it when it is available for editing. Maybe, Harlan, we can diversify our editing together... Pete K 18:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like spreading out; it sounds like a single-issue editor promulgating the issue from article to article. Hgilbert 23:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually write about many, many issues - in Wikipedia and outside it. Try it sometime, it'll refresh your outlook!Hgilbert 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I do too... I'm a published author... how about you? Pete K 01:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am too. What have you published (I'm genuinely curious, Pete)? Hgilbert 01:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Google my name if you want to know what I've published. Pete K 04:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I Googled Peter K which is all you show, and got nowhere, found nothing. I'm trying to understand better where all participants are coming from. For how can disputes be resolved without going back - and back - and back - to basics? It seems you draw heavily on Peter Staudenmaier. Can you tell me on my own User Talk page please? Lucy Skywalker 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Clarification"

That reminds me of the way some public figures "clarify" their comments when they want to rescind sub rosa something too truthfully said. Why privilege Mackay's anarchism over his pederasty, and why so diplomatically? Haiduc 01:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Because he was primarily known and active as an anarchist; I have never heard of the other side of his activity (is it really true?), and Steiner certainly emphasized his interest in MacKay's individualist-anarchist philosophy. It's like Einstein siring an illegitimate daughter and leaving her with the grandmother; not the main emphasis of his life for most people (other than the daughter, no doubt). Hgilbert 23:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rudolf Steiner

My view is that both sides are right, and that the basic points of both sides should stay in the article. Once there is a valid criticism documented, you don't get to try to disprove it. And you can't disprove it with any number of quotes, so please let the other side's position stand as well as your own. —Hanuman Das 01:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The section on Steiner's stance on assimilation can stand, and no one is trying to remove or disprove this. The opening line, however, is clearly inaccurate as it stands, and no documentation has been presented for its present formulation. On the contrary, extensive documentation exists for Steiner's general (and harsh) criticism of anti-Semitism. Hgilbert 01:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, this "extensive documentation" that Steiner criticized anti-Semitism is from Anthroposophists who *don't get* that anti-Semitism includes assimilation. That's really NO point at all. Pete K 13:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry? On the talk page I have provided extensive documentation that you have been clearly seen, as you have deleted it from the article itself. That is in the form of direct quotes of Steiner's criticism of anti-Semitism in the most general terms possible. You are falsifying these critiques and inserting your own POV for which you have provided no documentation, only your own assertion. Hgilbert 19:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Steiner's criticism of "anti-Semitism" doesn't include his OWN anti-Semitism. Are you suggesting he was opposed to assimilation? The evidence that he supported assimilation is absolutely there in the article and has been referenced by his own words. It is only YOUR contention that assimilation and that the wiping out of the culture of the Jews *isn't* anti-Semitism which is in question here. My POV is not in any of this. Your POV, that assimilation is not anti-Semitism is at the basis of your complaint. And that, friend, is only your own assertion. Pete K 19:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's your assertion: I never said anything like this. Let's put the direct quotes in from Steiner and resolve the issue...you have always said that Steiner's own words are best in a disputed case like this. Hgilbert 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, but I have a problem with a citation that goes nowhere. If there is a page where these words appear, please cite it so that the context can be verified. Thanks! Pete K 00:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

Hi. I've noticed a redirect pointing to a page in your user space (Seven-year cycles). Redirects such as these are discouraged except temporarily after moving a page to user space. The reason for this is that either the redirect is an potential legitimate article title – in which case it should not point to a user page because they are generally considered to be "owned" by that user, not freely editable by everyone as articles should be – or it is an inappropriate article title, in which case it shouldn't exist at all. Redirects to user pages may be speedy deleted at any time under the criteria for speedy deletion, so it will probably disappear at some point. If the user page is intended to be an article, please move it out of user space (requesting deletion of the redirect first if necessary). Thanks – Gurch 11:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; this was an old project that left a redirect behind without my knowledge when I moved the article into my user space. I have requested its deletion. Hgilbert 14:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wisdom

I'm wondering about the wisdom of adding brochure language to the Waldorf article at this time - as your last edit did. It's completely up to you, of course. I'll wait until you're done and review the damage. Pete K 03:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Information describing Waldorf education's pedagogical principles, as supported by cited authorities, is naturally appropriate, however. :) Hgilbert 13:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here, let me hand you some more rope... Pete K 14:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision Page

You know you're not supposed to be voting on the decision page - right? It's for arbitrators only. Pete K 17:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Harlan,

I just happened on some of the Waldorf/Steiner pages that you have been involved with. I just wanted to say that my heart goes out to you and others dealing with this struggle.

--Daniel Birns

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

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

For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits today

Harlan, I'm about to ask for a 24 hour ban on you today. I don't know what the problem is, but you are still trying to own the articles and the edits you are making are not warranted. I've asked you to step away from the keyboard - and I've had to revert several of your edits today - edits that you know will not stand. Your last one is just making stuff up to avoid content you don't care for. You've had it your way for a year - now is a good time to let things balance out. I hope you don't mind me saying so, and I say this with all sincerity, but your need to control these articles has ended up in a decision that has set back ALL future editors who agree with your positions. If you can't find middle ground - and I really mean MIDDLE ground, then I'll go forward and ask for the ban. I think your behavior today has justified it. I'm happy to discuss every single edit first if it will help you, but what I've seen today from you is reckless and emotional editing intended to draw controversy. Please assume good faith. Thanks. Pete K 21:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete: I understood the editor's position differently; he seems to be modifying it now. But one referenced article should not be both at the beginning and the end; I have combined the two (without losing text). You know that your mentor advised you to reduce the quote, and you did not do this (I know of this through the indiscretion of a third-party). Note that I have not reverted, but moved your text to combine the two places the article references the exact same source about the exact same issue. This seems justified and an obvious move.

In addition, you continually move the citations to the wrong place giving a very misleading indication of what is going on.Hgilbert 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, what you have done is started the Racial Bias section with a denial of racial bias. That's really kinda silly. In the article I have referenced - the part that appears at the end is in fact the part where one of the authors of the article was pressured by Anthroposphists to recant (while the other chose to simply take her name off the article). I don't know what you are talking about - me moving citations. I'm not going to discuss anything that has been discussed under mentorship here publicly. Pete K 21:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I have started it with a fair statement including both sides. Read it again. Then comes the A.S. statement, which is clearly relevant. The citations you keep moving are to the first sentence; perhaps this is unintended as you keep reverting everything. Hgilbert 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is it not fair to say "Racial bias has been identified"? It's this attitude that you have to let go of. The section about racial bias is there BECAUSE racial bias has been identified. Pete K 21:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I kept this, but put it in the section that talks about it. We can add it to the beginning, as well, if you like, but the specifics belong together in one place. Hgilbert 21:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Harlan, let's not use the article as a scratch pad - OK? Use your talk page, my talk page or the Anthroposophy talk page to work out the kinks. It really is possible to work this out - but not with edits, reversions, and hack-jobs. Let's get it in a form we agree with and put it in the article. Someone else may want to change it later, but we don't have to kill a whole day doing this pretty simple task. Pete K 22:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete. I've a confession to make. I originally had no objection to the McDermott article (though I did find it a little curious that suddenly an anthroposophical source was acceptable). When you added the big section intro based on the same source as the already huge quote at the end that I felt it was going over the top; the first word, last word, and by far the most words were all going to the one article. In a failure of the "good faith" principle, I assumed you wouldn't compromise here and decided to question the whole article's presence on the basis of the verifiability decision.

Can we find a reasonable compromise and try for a reasonable balance? Hgilbert 23:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

With great pleasure, we can try for a reasonable balance. I've started discussion on the Anthroposophy page here. I'm trying to start from your latest edit, but I think it would be better to start at what I've been insisting on (the whole thing) and to remove material. I don't want the article here to read lika PLANS, I want an honest view. Stuff like racism cannot be swept under the carpet. These topics need fair play. I was happy at one time with a single sentence - remember? Pete K 23:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Audonicon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Audonicon.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 999 (Talk) 16:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked both Pete K (talk • contribs) and Hgilbert (talk • contribs) for 24 hours for edit warring at Waldorf education (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) between Jan 10 and 11. I haven't added up the diffs to determine if the the 3RR rule was violated in letter; it was clearly violated in spirit. Edit warring is not permitted, and both users have been on warning that continued disruption at Anthroposophy-related articles will result in sanctions. (This block is not due to any specific violation of the arbitration case unique to these articles, but based on the general prohibition against edit warring that governs all editors. Thatcher131 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K says

Hi Thatcher131, I think if you have another look, please notice that we arrived at a compromise. We each battled for our own language and ended up combining terms and including each other's sources. It was a good compromise and I don't think we should be banned for it. Pete K 03:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still edit warring, but if you agree that you reached a compromise then I'll unblock you both, as a block would no longer be needed as a preventative measure. Thatcher131 07:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you didn't know, when you are blocked you can still edit your own talk page. Thatcher131 07:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Pete's attempt at a compromise. Nevertheless, sources that do not meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards should simply not be included in this article. As far as I can see, this includes all of the references given for the term "religious" philosophy: old newspaper articles quoting members of Pete's PLANS organization which has since lost their case in court claiming that anthroposophy was a religion, This rather ridiculous citation and original research websites. The present references should absolutely be dropped. If Pete can find a verfiable source to support the "religious" claim - and this should have a high standard given the California court's rejection of the term as applied to anthroposophy - the compromise phrasing could then stand; otherwise, there is no basis for it. Hgilbert 11:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration case specifically mentioned the issue of sources, and it did seem, on a quick skim of recent edits, that Pete is still using sources that do not meet policy. It's hard to be more precise without getting even more deeply involved myself, and I spent 2+ hours last night dealing with past arbitration cases including this one. I suggest that when the block expires, you discuss the source issue on the talk page. You might try using the talk page of reliable source policy as a resource for an outside opinion. Thatcher131 12:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for opinion

I have answered your question by giving MHO on the talk page in the relevant section. Cheers Lethaniol 02:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gymnasium

Do you have a source that the comparison between Waldorf students and the state school students was to the Gymnasium schools? Oppenheimer source dos not say this. Thanks Venado 17:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New citations

Some more, seemingly problematic citations have been introduced to the anthroposophy article.

1. Doyletics (sp?) seems to be a curious splinter group and surely not what we want to be citing here.
2. Are Steiner citations allowed or not? They keep recurring but I thought we were avoiding these in favor of third-party sources. Hgilbert 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, use of the Doyletics website is questionable. The use made of the Steiner quotations seems Ok though, as I don't think they are controversial, at least in the sense that it is not controversial that he used the Michael metaphor in that way. Using them to illustrate the truth about the Archangel Michael would be a different story. My opinion might change if I looked the edit and what it is trying to show more closely. Fred Bauder 19:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reopening of arbitration

I have reopened the arbitration case concerning this article for review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. Fred Bauder 15:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

If you ever need any help with any of these issues related to waldorf education let me know. I think you've done a great job-- wikipedia can suck the life out of you. Keep up the good work. futurebird 06:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Harlan, re-inserting this stuff with Anthroposophical sources is a bit off isn't it? In one breath you accuse me of using Anthroposophical sources (I didn't) and then you introduce them yourself. We have all agreed we can't use KOW or other Steiner books or lectures as sources. If you think changing the rules suddenly is a good idea, please explain why. Nothing personal here, I'm just trying to do whatever I can to help these articles along before leaving or being banned (whichever comes first). The uncited material was there for months and needed to come out. If you can source it properly, please do - otherwise you should leave it out until you can. Feel free to solicit other opinions (in a neutral way of course). Thanks! Pete K 19:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Steiner's books and lectures are acceptable as primary sources for referencing what he said in specific instances (this is a fact); secondary sources would be preferable for statements about the general tenor of his thought (this is an evaluation). See the arbitration; Fred Bauder has made it clear repeatedly. Hgilbert 20:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of this, but it isn't appropriate to now word everything is this way. If it is, then I've got a lot of stuff to add to the racism section that can be sourced to Steiner's own words. You decide how you want to approach this. The material I removed was not Steiner's words, but YOUR words. If you want to add it back in Steiner's own words, that's fine, but I think the ArbCom made it clear that Steiner could not be used for the entire article. Choose wisely Grasshopper. Pete K 21:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

See Fred's comments above ("New citations"). Hgilbert 23:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it... so? Are you suggesting we make the entire Anthroposophy article quotes from Steiner? So I can say, for example, that Steiner believed that the fact that Jews are around today is a mistake and cite:

"It can certainly not be denied, that today Jewry still appears as a closed totality, and as such many times has intervened in the development of the present situation in a way that has been less than positive for Western cultural ideas. But Jewry as such has long since outlived itself, and has no justification any more within modern life of the peoples, and that it nevertheless has preserved itself is a mistake of world history, whose consequences have been inevitable."

Rudolf Steiner, from his review of "Homunculus" by Hammerling (1888) published in the German Weekly

Right? Or is the content and tone of this article going to be left up to Fred to decide? Isn't Fred the guy who said there can't be anti-Semitism in Anthroposophy because if there was Anthroposophists would be attending neo-Nazi rallies? I think you and I can probably come up with a better way of handling the complexities of this topic, Harlan, in a way that follows the rules and doesn't make a mockery of Anthroposophy. I'm not opposed to describing what Anthroposophy is, I'm opposed to "selectively" presenting material that disguises what it is. But again, I'll leave it up to you to decide how you want to approach this - cooperatively or through a series of experimental edits and reverts. Pete K 02:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred, as an arbitrator of these articles, has provided clear and, to me, sensible guidelines. These include the use of Steiner quotations for "non-controversial" areas. The above would clearly be a controversial area, as the selective use of quotations from Steiner could prove him to be extremely pro-, extremely anti-, or neutral vis a vis this and other ethnic/racial categories. Here a neutral third-party would be needed to evaluate the whole. Other areas are not controversial.

Fred is right about the lack of anti-Semitism in anthroposophy. This does not exclude individuals in the movement holding their own personal beliefs - this is impossible to control (freedom of thought). I believe you know that individuals have been thrown out of the Anthroposophical Society for spreading such beliefs, however; no one can stop them from believing something, but if they begin propagating such beliefs, they are out of the movement. Hgilbert 11:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment of controversial. Quotes provided that are taken out of context, selectively cropped or misapplied would show some controversy here - especially with the misunderstanding you have promoted about what constitutes an "individual". Taken in proper context, no quotes you can provide introduce anything that says Steiner was not a racist. None. YOU, in other words, have created the controversy where none exists. Fred does not understand the material well enough to make such decisions on content or even what is controversial. So everything is controversial - and that's how we have been proceeding. Again, it's going to be up to you how we handle this (and it's only up to Fred to decide if I'm allowed to be involved). Regarding anti-Semitism, I don't agree with you that Fred is correct. Did the members you are describing attend neo-Nazi rallies? No, they didn't. Their error was to draw too much attention to the darker side of Anthroposophy. Anthroposophy and the Anthroposophical Society still has plenty of halocaust deniers among other things - and you know this. The connection Fred is trying to make to neo-Nazism is absurd. But the truth is, and you know this too, Anthroposophists continue to believe the things Steiner said about the Jews - it's part of the doctrine of Anthroposophy. They believe Jews to be lost souls that need to be assimilated - as much today as 100 years ago. Anthroposophy teaches these things and Anthroposophists don't dispute their value. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it. Pete K 16:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I know of no Holocaust deniers within the anthroposophical movement or society - I know of 2 who were expelled, however, which makes the stance of the society pretty clear. The above characterization is ridiculous. Steiner believed that Judaism was outdated - but he also believed that of Catholicism and every other established religion - and said so explicitly. (Is that a surprise?) Steiner also believed that Anthroposophy was outdated as soon as it was established (and said so); he simply believed that human beings evolved faster than institutionalized anything. Hgilbert 23:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because you don't know any doesn't mean there aren't any. Who designated you omnipotent? And thanks for the original research commentary - more nonsense from you. You can't support any of it. Pete K 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting edits

Hi Hgilbert,

Have replied to your comments on my userpage, to try and keep the discussion in one place, hope that is okay. Cheers Lethaniol 16:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small Correction

You revised a footnote today on the Waldorf education page. I think it is Joan Almon, not Joan Armon, but I didn't change it because I don't have access to the original and I could be wrong. MinorityView 00:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Armon is the correct spelling. Almon is a different Joan. Hgilbert 00:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review

The reviewing of the case has finished. You may view the decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)