Talk:Rudolf Steiner

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors of this 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 further information see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Notice: Pete K is indefinitely banned from editing this article.

The user specified has been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article. Posted by Penwhale for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review.

Archives
Steiner and theosophy, Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

Date of Birth

Steiners date of birth is not in dispute. It was 25th February 1891 at 11.15 pm. I will change that second date of 27th Feb (which was his baptism) unless anyone objects and put the reference [1]Swiss Astro-Data bank Thank you Veryscarymary (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's quite disputed as he gave various dates on various occasions. It seems clear that it is either the 25th or 27th of February. I'm afraid the time of 11:15pm may be pure invention. Astro.com is not a very reliable source; where did they get this from? hgilbert (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Question / Edit suggest on place of birth

Has there been consensus / discussion here about the wording of the place of birth? (-How to search tons of archived bytes talk of this page?) If there is consensus I ask for a ref and explanation. In all literature I know including Steiners Autobiografy it is stated that Rudolf Steiner was born in Kraljevec Austria-Hungary. a footnote that it is now named Donji Kraljevec and now is Croatia is usefull. What is the source for Murakirály?, Some fast googeling of Murakiraly tells me that it is the name of the county where Donji Kraljevec is located. The wording now suggest that the name of the actual place of birth was then Murakiraly. It is posseble (just guessing) that for some time in between (during yogoslavian rule) kraljevec was not an "official" village and the larger entity Murakiraly was the "official" name for a couple of villages. If so i asume that of little importance for 1861 and 2009. I suggest an Edit if there is no substantial evidence here somewhere soon that the place of birth was then named other then Kraljevec. Rembertbiemond (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

At one point the county was included as well; when it was simplified, it was done incorrectly, I suspect. I have made the above alteration. hgilbert (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That was fast - And i think it was good that it was done because other language tend to copy translate from the english version. I suggest "we" change also the 3rd line in the childhood section accordingly...Rembertbiemond (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

done -now also in line 3 of childhood section- Rembertbiemond (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Felix Koguzki not Kogutski

Becoming a bit more corageous I changed the spelling of Kogutzki according to Lindenberg 1988, ISBN 3-7725-0905-3 and Selg 2009, ISBN 978-3-905919-10-3 to Koguzki. Rembertbiemond (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

looks / graphics / box on anthroposophy

Imho the positioning of the box "anthroposophy" is not a graphics-masterpiese. I am not Wikipedia IT Specialist enough to know how to change that - a couple of lines higher would be better i think? What is the opinion of other viewers? Maybe somebody else can have a look/make a change Rembertbiemond (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This was just changed a few days ago due to a complaint about white space appearing (see above). I've tried to fix it; we may need to try out various alternatives. hgilbert (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I Think this is not the solution - then it was better what we had yesterday morning... It is only in windows explorer that there are tons of white again - not in mozilla, chrome, safari, opera. But i think 50% + (?) of users ist still on explorer..

Ist it an idea to have the anthroposophy box start at the top of the childhood section? Would that eliminate the white? Rembertbiemond (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not expirienced Wikipedian enough to start to experiment with lay-out. So maybe i shouldn't bring up the subject in the firstplace. It is not essential for the content. but the looks are not nice - anybody else seeing my point? Rembertbiemond (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that you can experiment fairly easily with template or image placement by using the "Show preview" button, which will show how the page will look with the change that you made, without actually saving the change. Then you can experiment in IE and other browsers before deciding where to put the template so it will work in most common browsers. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have tried now a little different position - after the encouragement - what do you think - better?--Rembertbiemond (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Age 42

Where in Steiner's writings may I find the importance of the age 42 ?

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.184.212 (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Try Bernard Lievegoed's Phases: The Spiritual Rhythms of Adult Life hgilbert (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Lack of balance / sounds like an advert for the subject

I think there are fundamental problems with this article. It reads like a subjective non-encyclopaedic profile written by person/persons who are obviously adherents of Steiner's controversial methods. Here is an entry from The Skeptic's Dictionary [2] -- note that these criticisms are not really touched on in the article, or at least not sufficiently covered.

There is no question that Steiner made contributions in many fields, but as a philosopher, scientist, and artist he rarely rises above mediocrity and is singularly unoriginal. In some cases, e.g., agriculture, he is pseudoscientific. His spiritual ideas seem less than credible and are certainly not scientific. His belief in his own clairvoyance should be disturbing to those who think he is one of the great minds of all time.

And there is nothing in the lead at all which gives an indication that Steiner's ideas are controversial or flawed. This must be a cause for concern. Jprw (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's one man's opinion. Thanks for adding the Carroll quote. It's curious how wide reception of a figure can vary; other authors critique Steiner's philosophy for being overly intellectual! hgilbert (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Speculation, original research and rumor

User:Masteryorlando has added several additional statements to the section Attacks, illness and death (reverted here) which have several problems:

• The paragraph about Steiner's self-poisoning is completely unsourced and speculation.
• The statement that some attributed the destruction of the Goetheanum to "the level of animosity against Steiner after his creation of Eucharistic and other sacraments for the Christian Community" is not supported by the reference.
• The statements about the fire not being arson but caused by electrical fault need to be supported by quoting the specific statements of the referenced books. In any case, the entire paragraph amounts to original research.
• Similarly the insertion of reference to "Mussolini's Corporate Realpolitik" and "within a meritocratic fascist dictat" is either original research or unreliable speculation on James Webb's part. Specific quoted text is going to be needed to support these statements.

--EPadmirateur (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)