Talk:Anthroposophy

Category

Karen Swartz and Olav Hammer say it is a new religious movement. Martin Gardner called it a cult.

Some have argued that there are court verdicts that Anthroposophy isn't religion ([2]). To such argument I reply:

• the claim that occultism isn't religion is ridiculous on its face (a mockery of justice, a hoax, a farce);
• court verdicts are not WP:RS, and do not trump WP:SCHOLARSHIP; court verdicts are a matter of getting the popcorn;
• I'm not bound by such verdicts. Nor is Gardner, who is now deceased, and could get sued for his 1952/1957 claim for decades. Nor are Swartz and Hammer, whose disregard for such verdicts is obvious. WP:MNA, they were fully aware of such verdicts when they wrote their scholarly article;
• according to WP:NLT, those threatening with court actions should be indeffed on the spot. Yup, even insinuating they are willing to take legal action against me or the WMF means they get banned from Wikipedia;
• in the Netherlands one is allowed to register a penal complaint for libel, but such complaints never get prosecuted. The fact that libel is a felony is "dead letter law";
• I have WP:CITED a plethora of other scholars who state that Anthroposophy is neo-Gnosticism and/or neo-Rosicrucianism, including the view of the Catholic Church that Anthroposophy is heresy (AFAIK the Pope has never retracted it). And that can only be retracted if the Catholic Church loses its theological identity;
• And, yup, I fully agree that the academic field of Western esotericism is not religion, since the religious studies of occultism are not occultism. A researcher of occultism does not even have to endorse occultism or the supernatural. They can very well be materialistic and rationalistic in all their approach to occultism. But Anthroposophy is not religious studies, it is occultism. E.g.:

  • My wife is an expert, among many other things, in Chaucer. She doesn’t “believe” in Chaucer, although she loves the texts and finds them personally important. There are professors in the university who teach the history of communism; most of them are not communists. Others teach the philosophy of Plato; they are not necessarily Platonists. Others teach the history of 20th century Germany; they aren’t Nazis. Others teach criminology; they aren’t necessary mass murderers. ... And so a scholar of Buddhism is not necessarily Buddhist (the ones I know aren’t); a scholar of American fundamentalism is not necessarily an American fundamentalist (one of my colleagues in that field at UNC is an Israeli Jew); a scholar of the history of Catholicism is not necessarily Roman Catholic (another colleague of mine in that field is, again, somewhat oddly, another Israeli Jew); scholars of Islam are not necessarily Muslim (neither of my colleagues in that field are); etc etc.

    — ehrmanblog.org

  • Some people maintain that it is impossible to study Jesus without believing in him. Do you think this is true? Is it true for other areas of academic study? Is it possible, for example, to study Buddhism without being a Buddhist? Or the Dialogues of Socrates without being a Platonist? Or communism without being a Marxist?

    — The Historical Jesus. Part I. Professor Bart D. Ehrman. The Teaching Company, 2000, p. 4

  • We can start the topic by conceding that, just as no modern expert on Plato is expected to be a Platonist (even of the Middle or Neo- sort), no Bible expert should be expected to accept the ideas it puts forth, far less believe in its god(s) or its divine origin.

    — Philip R. Davies, Reading the Bible Intelligently

• I have added more WP:RS which WP:V my claim. If the Antroposophists want to sue, they would have to sue many scholars, from many countries. Two of them could have been sued for decades, eventually they died of old age without getting sued. Shooting the messenger would result in the Streisand effect. Again: the fact that Anthroposophy is a new religious movement is known to scholars for a century, and very recent mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP still agrees with that. This is not information Anthroposophists can delete from the public record through barratry (common law);
• Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a reason for deleting from the article information supported by multiple mainstream WP:RS;
• Also, there is a big difference to be made between Waldorf schools not overtly teaching a religion, and Anthroposophy overtly teaching occultism (which is a religion). While the status of Waldorf schools as religious education has been litigated in the US (not worldwide, mind you), the fact that Anthroposophy is not a religion was part of the 2012 US verdict; but judges are not experts in religious studies, and do not decide matters pertaining solely to WP:SCHOLARSHIP; deciding that is the privilege of the scholarly community, not that of courts of law. E.g. the Camphill movement was found not to be a religious organization for US immigration/visa purposes, but no judgment has been passed upon Anthroposophy itself. Also, the status of being a religious organization is not granted by default in the US, but the organization itself has to actively ask for it (exception: churches);
• Whether Anthroposophy should be considered a religion has been litigated in 2012 in the Eastern District of California. Wikipedia very much privileges the worldwide mainstream academia over issues belonging to national law of some countries/states. Wikipedia serves a global view, not a Californian POV. US courts have no jurisdiction over the free speech of religion scholars all around the world. This is a matter pertaining solely to academic freedom, not to vexatious litigation in some countries/states. Religion scholars have for a century print-published the view that Anthroposophy is a new religious movement, an occultist movement, or an offspring of Christian Gnosticism, or of Christian Rosicrucianism. This is no longer a matter that can be litigated. The conventional wisdom of the mainstream academia can only be changed through peer-reviewed publications, not through litigation. E.g. the existence of quasicrystals was not recognized through court order, but through freely reached scientific consensus. The issue to be litigated would not so much be whether Anthroposophy is a religion according to the US establishment clause, but whether religion scholars should get muzzled. Even a court which wholeheartedly agrees that Anthroposophy isn't religion would knee-jerk reject censoring mainstream scholars who think it is. If it were a court case in the US, Karen Swartz and Robert A. McDermott would be the main culprits, since Martin Gardner and R. McL. Wilson are already dead. If it were a case in the Netherlands, Brill Publishers would be the main culprit, not me, since they have repeatedly published such claim and Gilles Quispel is already dead. Carl Clemen and Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke are dead, so they can't be sued. Every judge would see that the statute of limitations has been largely exceeded. The complaint of Anthroposophists would come so late after the purported damage, that it would be no longer be regarded as a serious complaint. They will have to explain during the trial, "Yes, your honor, the claim we act against was originally published by the University of Chicago Press more than one hundred years ago. And a famous debunker of pseudoscience also made that claim more than seventy years ago. Most of us weren't even born yet, but our feelings were deeply hurt. In total disregard for our emotions, he repeated the claim verbatim five years later." Anthroposophists were lucky because the 2012 verdict wasn't decided according to mainstream religious studies, but they should not push their luck. Since if they litigate it again, and the judge recognizes the religious studies as a legitimate academic field, they're doomed. If the already published peer-reviewed scholarship will decide their fate, they will lose the trial. It's ridiculous to question witnesses in order to find out if they're part of a religion when the mainstream academic view is that they are. Experts in religions have already answered that question.

Conclusion: Don't ventilate court verdicts around here, Wikipedia:We are not as dumb as you think we are. If you are here to deny that Anthroposophy is a religion: that ship has sailed. The dispute lies at the level of emic vs. etic. Hint: Wikipedia rubber-stamps the etic view. Anthroposophists don't agree with mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP because they think it is written by Muggles. And, yup, I can grant them this: from the inside it does not look like you are part of a religion, but more like having the secret key to the mysteries of all religions ever. And that secret key lies in Rudolf Steiner's teachings (for beginners) and in Rudolf Steiner's spiritual exercises (for more advanced adepts) + esoteric school (whose teachings are really secret).

Also, my approach isn't "stick it to them", but render the WP:CHOPSY view about Anthroposophy. I am not so much opposed to Anthroposophy as "pushing" the mainstream academic view. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

According to religious studies, Anthroposophy is a religion. I did not find WP:SECONDARY or tertiary WP:RS stating that it isn't a religion.

Hammer, Olav (2008). Geertz, Armin; Warburg, Margit (eds.). New Religions and Globalization. Renner Studies On New Religions. Aarhus University Press. p. 69. ISBN 978-87-7934-681-9. Retrieved 23 January 2024. Anthroposophy is thus from an emic point of view emphatically not a religion. — The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Anthroposophists would have to sue four dozens scholars plus the Pope and Cardinals in order that they publish retractions with peer-review, and the problem is that at least five of those scholars, and several Popes, are unable to publish retractions, due to being deceased. The bottom line is: Wikipedia will no longer accept such information to be retracted (or deleted from the article), it is here to stay. It is too late for the Anthroposophical Society to change anything about that: since too much time has passed since the initial publication of those scholarly papers, the legal claim of the Society is rendered void and meritless. Suing 100 years after the fact (since the claim that Anthroposophy is a new religious movement was published on US soil) means having your lawsuit dismissed out of hand. The lawyer who tells them they could win such case is a conman or a dope addict.

E.g. the book edited by Cusack was introduced as WP:RS by Luciola63, not by me. So, in this respect, I explored a RS which has been added years ago to the article, with no one protesting against its citation. Luciola63 followed the suggestion by HopsonRoad. Similarly, McDermott was WP:CITED as an authority in May 2006 by Clean Copy. Ahern was cited in March 2006 by Tomchat123. Hammer was cited as an authority in May 2007 by an IP and AFAIK never since removed from this article. The International Bureau of Education was WP:CITED in January 2007 by Thebee. Toncheva was WP:CITED by an Anthroposophist editor almost a year ago. Same applies to Gilhus, Tøllefsen and to the book edited by Partridge. So I was by far not the first to cite them here. So, you see, there is nothing particularly new or original in my approach. I don't do original research. And I have simply stated facts known to the educated public since at least 10 years ago. I get the point that some people get angry that Wikipedia says these things about their new religious movement, but don't blame me, since these are facts print-published by mainstream scholars for several decades. We don't play hide and seek with facts known to the mainstream academia for decades, see WP:CENSOR.

Now that Anthroposophy is a new religious movement is WP:V by 5 WP:RS, and 10 other WP:RS which agree with that statement are commented out. So that statement could get 15 references just by un-commenting those references. So, it's one of the most securely established facts about Anthroposophy: most claims from this article are not WP:CITED to so many different mainstream scholars.

List of many

Who says it's a new religious movement or a religion or occultism or a Christian heresy, such as (neo)Gnosticism or (neo)Rosicrucianism? (counting authors + editors of collective books + translators)

1. Jung, Carl Gustav
2. Robertson, David G.
3. Gilmer, Jane
4. Quispel, Gilles
5. Layton, Bentley
6. Oort, Johannes van
7. Carlson, Maria
8. Livak, Leonid
9. McLachlan Wilson, Robert
10. Metzger, Bruce M.
11. Coogan, Michael D.
12. Diener, Astrid
13. Hipolito, Jane
14. Gardner, Martin
15. McDermott, Robert A.
16. Eliade, Mircea
17. Seddon, Richard
18. Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas
19. Swartz, Karen
20. Hammer, Olav
21. Brandt, Katharina
22. Rothstein, Mikael
23. Geertz, Armin
24. Warburg, Margit
25. Toncheva, Svetoslava
26. Clemen, Carl
27. Frisk, Liselotte
28. Cusack, Carole M.
29. Norman, Alex
30. Zander, Helmut
31. Hoheisel, Karl
32. Hutter, Manfred
33. Klein, Wolfgang Wassilios
34. Vollmer, Ulrich
35. Ellwood, Robert
36. Partin, Harry
37. Winker, Eldon K.
38. Rhodes, Ron
39. Lewis, James R.
40. Tøllefsen, Inga Bårdsen
41. Gilhus, Sælid
42. Bogdan, Henrik
43. Partridge, Christopher
44. Ahlbäck, Tore
45. Schnurbein, Stefanie von
46. Ulbricht, Justus H.
47. Staudenmaier, Peter
48. Hansson, Sven Ove
49. Ahern, Geoffrey
50. Brown, Candy Gunther
51. The Catholic Church (all the Popes and Cardinals, beginning with 1919)

Evidence: User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox2. It lists 31 WP:RS which WP:V the answer to this question.

Note: Diener and Hipolito plead that (maybe) it is not heretical, but what it is then? Religiously orthodox (according to them). So, still a religion — "aspiring to the status of religious dogma" confirms this (page 78).

Also, I am not saying that Jung, the Pope, the Cardinals, Winker, and Rhodes are right. Nor am I saying they are wrong. All I am saying is they are entitled to their own theological opinions, and their opinions are relevant to this article. I am not taking sides whether they express "true" religion vs. "false" religion. I respect learned views (scholarly views), without necessarily claiming they speak WP:THETRUTH. Without implying that either Evangelicalism or Catholicism are "true", I can see why they claim that anthroposophy is a heresy: it abides by a very different set of theological beliefs, so of course the Evangelical or Catholic orthodoxy reject those very different beliefs as being heretical. The claim of anthroposophists that they are theologically non-heretical, compared to mainstream Christianity, is risible. Remember: I'm not saying that mainstream Christianity is right, just that they have different beliefs. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Litigation

E.g. only the Catholic Church is prepared to spend many millions of dollars for defending their legal right to call Anthroposophy a heresy. So, Anthroposophists should be careful if they choose the path of litigation, there are considerably bigger players than them involved in this game. Oh, yes, the Vatican is a sovereign state, so it cannot be juridically coerced to retract it. Legally, the Catholic Church is not a religious organization, but it is a sovereign country. Anthroposophists from California enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but so do Catholic bishops from California. Coercing those bishops to say that Anthroposophy is not a heresy would violate their Constitutional rights. And they are prepared to litigate tooth and nail for their rights. Same applies to Catholic bishops from the Netherlands or from Switzerland. They have no other option than to see it as a vicious attack against the Church. So, the only avenue for appealing it is convincing the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith that Anthroposophy isn't heretical. But we all know that it does not even stand the chance of a snowball in hell. It's like in that joke wherein the chicken and the pig want to give someone else ham and eggs: for the chicken it's a gift, for the pig it's a sacrifice. Meaning that for Anthroposophists being declared heretics is bad PR, while for the Catholic Church not being able to call Anthroposophy a heresy is an existential threat.

But, wait, aren't my edits a vicious attack against Anthroposophy? Since Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia based upon WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Anthroposophists cannot demand that Wikipedia hide properly attested scholarly facts from public view. See WP:CENSOR. What Wikipedia certainly isn't: a PR venue for new religious movements. We do not pander to piety. “Unambiguous exposés of quackery will inevitably appear rude to some people and hurt some feelings. This is a fact of adult life.” Kimball C. Atwood.

Even clearer: the problem of Anthroposophy at Wikipedia isn't me, but mainstream science, mainstream medicine, and mainstream academia. Wikipedia kowtows to these, and they all give the lie to Anthroposophy.

Schnurbein and Ulbricht published their claim more than 20 years ago, so that's also very much past the statute of limitations inside German law. If the Anthroposophical Society did not win by now the trial against Schnurbein and Ulbricht, it no longer has a case against declaring Anthroposophy a religion, in the German-speaking countries. And the journal of the International Bureau of Education stated that Anthroposophy is a religion twice before I was even born. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Original research

Court documents are not WP:RS. If no WP:RS rendered the conclusion that verdict, the verdict itself is unusable for Wikipedia.

There are more than 30 WP:RS which support the point that Anthroposophy is a religion, or a new religious movement, or a Christian heresy. No WP:RS has been WP:CITED for the opposite POV.

Before you ask: yes, I have WP:CITED court verdicts before. But never for claims which cannot be WP:V to WP:SECONDARY sources.

Let me say this: I don't contest the result of the verdict, it is just that no WP:RS has reported the verdict remaining definitive (final). An information which made it to no WP:RS is not Wikipedia-worthy, even if it is formally true.

This source only reports the verdict as being a provisional result, and does not exactly agree that Anthroposophy isn't religion. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Evidence

Evidence of WP:MEAT: Google "VANDALIZED by one guy — Tgeorgescu — with an axe to grind — trying to prove that Anthroposohpy is racist — making over 100 edits to the Anthroposophy article — when i know for a fact that Anthroposophists are the most inclusive, open, and diverse group. was so shocked when a friend who had asked me about. Anthroposophy thought i was Racist — because it was the first thing she read on Wikipedia — until i read the. EDIT HISTORY — over a 100 edits from one guy — Tgeorgescu — grrr someone help me get this Vandal out of Wikipedia — with his lies. if you".

Also Google "this guy Tgeorgescu is shitting all over Anthroposophy — and it is not right to let his lies stand. please help get the word out. thanks jp".

Date: 19 October 2023.

Hard to miss: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22shitting+all+over+Anthroposophy%22

John Penner

January 3 at 2:55 AM ·

calling for a bit of help here — to help with some Vandalism to the wikipedia article for Anthroposophy Wikipedia Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy

if you check the Wikipedia Edit HISTORY — you can see how the Anthroposophy entry has been VANDALIZED by one guy — Tgeorgescu — with an axe to grind — trying to prove that Anthroposohpy is racist — making over 100 edits to the Anthroposophy article — when i know for a fact that Anthroposophists are the most inclusive, open, and diverse group. i was so shocked when a friend who had asked me about Anthroposophy thought i was Racist — because it was the first thing she read on Wikipedia — until i read the EDIT HISTORY — over a 100 edits from one guy — Tgeorgescu — grrr 😡

someone help me get this Vandal out of Wikipedia — with his lies. if you could spend a couple minutes to login to Wikipedia and correct just one statement in the article — that would be of use — because right now — this guy Tgeorgescu is shitting all over Anthroposophy — and it is not right to let his lies stand. please help get the word out. thanks jp

Full quote. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

**** Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Just because members of the MGTOW community don't like this article doesn't mean it's biased. Wikipedia is designed to be written from a neutral point of view, not a promotional point of view. In the case of fringe opinions, such as MGTOW, Flat Earth Society, etc., the proponents of such opinions are as a rule never satisfied with the consensus version of the article. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should completely avoid covering such topics. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Penner's ire seems to be directed against me having read WP:RS known to the mainstream academia for decades, see WP:CENSOR. I mean: the basic WP:RS about racism is a PhD thesis from the Ivy League, 14 years ago. He seems to think that the most germane facts, from the most illustrious sources, should be left unsaid, just because otherwise people might call him a racist. “Unambiguous exposés of quackery will inevitably appear rude to some people and hurt some feelings. This is a fact of adult life.” Kimball C. Atwood. Removing citations to WP:SCHOLARSHIP because some people might get offended would mean putting the axe at the root of Wikipedia. I'm not saying that I would WP:OWN the article, but mainstream scholars collectively own it. As Bon courage put it, Wikipedia does not deal in your "truth", but reflects accepted knowledge.

The problems with "it is not right to let his lies stand":

• these are not "lies", but academic insights published in sources having proper editorial control and fact-checking;
• even if we would admit for the sake of argument that these are lies, why would they be my lies, instead of Staudenmaier's or Hammer's lies?

He is wrong that the enemy is me, rather than mainstream professors in general. I'll explain you how it works: I don't have to be faithful to Rudolf Steiner, I have to be faithful to sources written by mainstream professors. If he has an argument that I'm not faithful to such sources, let him speak.

So, yes, there is a difference between WP:THETRUTH of Anthroposophy and the mainstream academic view about Anthroposophy. These are not upon the same page. Many of the sources/scholars which I have WP:CITED were already mentioned by Anthroposophic editors, so my only guilt is that of reading what those sources/scholars wrote. He blames me for compiling this "press review", instead of blaming the people who wrote the original papers. So, when the pro-Anthroposophy faction cites Hammer, it is perfectly all right, but when I cite Hammer, it is "murder in the astral plane". When I dare to WP:CITE the same authors/UNESCO journals as WP:CITED by Luciola63, HopsonRoad, Clean Copy, Tomchat123, Thebee, Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?, and SamwiseGSix, it suddenly becomes highly contentious. That is the very definition of "rules for thee, but not for me". HopsonRoad does not seem to be pro-Anthroposophic, but the rest of those mentioned do seem.

If what I wrote in the article would be just my own views, it would be easy-peasy to get this article rid of my own opinions. I don't get published at the Royal Brill Publishers, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, MIT Press, or Yale University Press. The scholars whom I have cited do.

In a nutshell: Anthroposophists have the legal right to hold WP:FRINGE views, and mainstream professors have the legal right to criticize WP:FRINGE views.

And as argued by Munoz in his PhD thesis, if you assume people only have one life on Earth, then Anthroposophy is certainly racist. But if you assume that people reincarnate in various races, then it's not racist. So, yes, for people who don't believe in reincarnation, it is a perfectly cogent view that Anthroposophy is racist. Of course, Anthroposophists believe in reincarnation, so they think that the mainstream view upon Anthroposophy is dead wrong. So, I don't say that Penner has to agree with me that Anthroposophy is racist, but has to understand that since most people and most mainstream professors don't believe in reincarnation, that's the mainstream view. Sometimes WP:SCHOLARSHIP does have metaphysical assumptions, and here is not the place to WP:RGW about it. In the end, Wikipedia serves the mainstream academic paradigm, not an WP:IN-UNIVERSE view. And the problem with the pro-Anthroposophy faction is that they don't understand very well the fact that Wikipedians are only here to serve the mainstream academic paradigm. Wikipedians are not the masters of Wikipedia, they are its servants. And we don't edit Wikipedia for aggrandizing our own religion, but for rendering mainstream academic knowledge about religion.

I'm not saying that reincarnation is impossible, just that it isn't the mainstream view, nor the mainstream academic view. That is, the mainstream academic view is that reincarnation is mythology. It could be true, it could be false, but since there is no way to know, scholars call it mythology. Or, if you prefer, it is a religious belief. Anthroposophists say reincarnation is science (meaning an objectively assessable fact about the spiritual world), but nope, it isn't science, it is a religious belief (meaning a subjective opinion).

I saw an article at medium.com wherein its author (Q. G. Wingfield) is persuaded I'm the author of these opinions. The Anthroposophists are extremely concerned with the fact that I'm citing learned opinions online, but they do not seem concerned with the fact that these opinions were print-published in the first place, and also stored in online repositories (that is: I wasn't the person who stored them there). And, again, many times the pro-Anthroposophic editors have provided the WP:RS I have WP:CITED. So, yes, the charge boils down to: I have dared to read the WP:RS which the pro-Anthroposophy faction has produced in defense of Anthroposophy. They have WP:CITED some sources in order to defend their own religion, and now they get terribly angry that I actually read those sources.

Clearly expressed at [3] by a Waldorf teacher that The article references peer-reviewed, largely academic sources, the opposite of propaganda. This is WP:PAG: citing mainstream academic RS about Anthroposophy is the opposite of propaganda. I.e. propaganda is banned from Wikipedia according to WP:SOAP. Rendering the mainstream academic view is not propaganda. So, what I do here counts as propaganda only for people who think that academic criticism is an insidious plot. Plot initiated by the Academy of Gondishapur according to Steinerian mythology.

There are millions who believe that Ancient astronauts is gospel truth. Yet Wikipedia correctly labels it as racist pseudohistory. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha, Wingfield, who first invited me to openly debate the issue, has blocked me on Medium.com. And I was on their page extremely polite, towards them, Anthroposophy, and even Rudolf Steiner. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

So? this is not about them, take it to their talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK they are not a Wikipedian. If you want, you may request the closure of these discussions.

Anyway, what I've meant is: I have provided evidence of meatpuppetry at Facebook, Medium.com and /r/WikipediaVandalism. That's why I discussed those venues. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry, again

What strikes me is that Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner have been edited by many WP:SPAs and throw-away accounts. They have one or two short bursts of edits, then they cease editing for good.

So, yes, I guess it is more like astroturfing than having many persons who tried to edit the article. Why do I think that? Because they all misunderstood Wikipedia in the same way. If there were many newbies, we would expect they misunderstand Wikipedia in different ways. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism

I will tell you what would be vandalism: suppose I no longer like my own edits and I would seek to delete big chunks from the article because those were added by me. That would be vandalism, and I would rightfully get blocked for doing it. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The main difference between me and Mr. Penner: he is concerned with the public image of Anthroposophy, while I am concerned with WP:V objective historical facts. He cannot cancel objective historical facts with concerns about public image. Apples and oranges. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of information

See Talk:Rudolf Steiner#Drop the claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Updating references

I have updated references. I have properly WP:CITED many already existing references, but often I do not know their page numbers, so I cannot provide those. And I certainly did not check them if they pass WP:V. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Roots of anthroposophy

Querying the following line from the lede:

Anthroposophy has its roots in German idealism, mystical philosophies, and pseudoscience including racist pseudoscience

Which sources state that the roots of anthroposophy include pseudoscience? As opposed to the content of anthroposophy? (For example Staudenmaier's "Race and Redemption" article refers to roots in Theosophy only, as far as I can tell.) Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

After reading every one of the many sources quoted (the exception is Christian Clement's work, which I have not yet access to), these are those that actually address the origins of anthroposophy:

1. Staudenmaier 2008: “origins in modern Theosophy…Western and Eastern Esoteric beliefs“ pp. 4-5
2. Staudenmaier 2010, based on “German cultural values”
3. Dugan 2002, p. 32, origins in "Buddhism and Hinduism (reincarnation and karma), Zoroastrianism (light and dark gods), Manichaean and Gnostic Christianity, and European esoteric traditions including Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, and herbalism"

I am rewriting the passage to reflect the sources that actually comment on the roots. Please do add more sources that actually discuss this directly! (I have left off one source that vaguely cited 'German cultural values' as a source, however. It seems too diffuse and there are better sources.

I have also tried to rearrange the lede more thematically. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Nazi era history moved

The history of anthroposophy runs from 1901-2024 and across more than 80 countries. The lede should not focus primarily on the period 1933-1945 in Germany. I have therefore moved the extensive detailing of this period from the lede into the body of the article. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

We cannot write if there are no WP:RS. For anthroposophy in Nazi Germany there are several high-quality WP:IS. I did not research the matter, but some WP:IS are already WP:CITED, e.g. about Anthroposophy in Norway and so on. Those sources have not been employed to their full extent.

The fact that Anthroposophists started a farm in this village, a school in that town, a bank in another town, is business as usual, so by far less interesting than what happened in Nazi Germany.

E.g., Anthroposophists think that starting their own banks is a fact of mystical significance for the fate of Planet Earth, while mainstream historians think that is a boring, petty fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Univocality

In respect to the claims about Steiner's Docetism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism, and Gnosticism: I don't believe in the univocality of the Bible, why I would believe in the univocality of mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP? tgeorgescu (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Spiritualist movement

I don't pretend that "spiritualist movement" is either true or false. It is simply how Anthroposophy got called by mainstream scholars.

The bar of others have variously called it is a pretty low bar. And if "spiritualist movement" has to go, then "spiritual science" has to go, too, because that's a claim pertaining to nl:Wij van Wc-eend adviseren Wc-eend. Meaning: WP:IS do not buy into the claim that Anthroposophy is a spiritual science. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Violation of WP:PSCI

@Johnrpenner: You're violating WP:PSCI. Anthroposophic medicine and biodynamic agriculture make a lot of claims about the real-world (i.e. falsifiable), as Steiner also did. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Reverting Usefful Edits

instead of just deleting a whole bunch of stuff, why not engage in something more constructive?

i have removed none of the points that were in the original edit, nor any of the references.

im sure we can make this article better together.

Johnrpenner (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The "diagnosis" that Anthroposophy has nothing to do with physics is yours, and yours alone. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

actually — im very happy that you make the challenges. too many sheep will just accept what they read, and a lot of the anthroposophists are sheep 🐑 and dont think critically enough.

• the changes ive made nowhere dispell the notion that anthroposophy should not be treated uncritically, nor have a deleted a single refernence that was existing in the article — so that they could be followed up and investigated.

• what the article did lack was —> how does Anthroposophy distinguish itself epistemologically from other views — such as Critical Idealism? this would be something useful if i knew nothing about the topic.

• also the intro did mention that it has its roots in German Idealism — without mentioning its leading proponent — Goethe, and the role of Intuition being the connecting link to the spiritual world.

we may agree to disagree about whether the so-called spiritual world is perceptible via the faculity of intution — but to say that this is what is believed by Anthroposophists would not be untrue, and i would consider this detail (about intuition being the connecting link) to be a useful addition to the article for anyone unfamiliar with the subject.

ive been a technical writer, and can help make this a better article. im not here to fight, but to improve.

cheers john penner

Johnrpenner (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Johnrpenner: Again, you're violating website policy (WP:PSCI). tgeorgescu (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

i doubt anyone is truly neutral in this. you certainly seem to have invested considerable effort to make your points — and if this is done to the end of improving the article, and making a subject more unstandable. then all good. — the points: i) i have not deleted a single reference that existed in the article, i was careful to retain them. ii) what the article lacked was 'how does Anthroposophy distinguish itself epistemologically from other views' — and this is a valid question which is not violating a neutral point of view to answer. iii) including the detail that Goethe in particular instead of alluding only to 'German Romanticism' is also not violating NPOV, and iv) mentioning the role of Intution is simply stating that 'this is their point of view', and not advocating for or against it — and therefore also not violating NPOV.

the criticisms and critics you have so far referenced do make a case of condemning the Anthroposophists — but if one sees only efforts directed at this — then i might also question how neutral things are — without contributing anything that might help provide insight on the given topic.

cheers! Johnrpenner (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEUTRAL, WP:GOODBIAS, WP:LUNATICS, and so on.

You seek to reject the label of pseudoscience as a category mistake, through performing sheer WP:OR.

The website policy WP:PSCI is itself biased against pseudoscience.

While I do have my own opinions, I don't ventilate my own opinions inside the article, but let WP:RS speak (Oxford University Press, MIT Press, etc.). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

anthroposophy is not science — nor is the study of philosphy.

it is not my role to vent opinions in the article, but to make the subject comprehensible & accurate.

from WP:RNPOV — In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed.

Johnrpenner (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Johnrpenner: I have already reported you at WP:AE, so admins will be the judge of this dispute. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

thats a really constructive way to improve an article. 🙄 Johnrpenner (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

If you insist to breach website policy: yes, it is. I don't have any other choice.

Since you're not willing to obey our WP:RULES, obedience for our WP:RULES has to be administratively enforced. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

We describe subjects how reliable sources describe them. Even if that means doing so in a way that might seem biased to those related to the subject. For example, we call homeopathy a pseudoscience whose beliefs are contradictory to all modern sciences. Practitioners of homeopathy likely consider this biased, but that's what reliable sources say about the subject.
— User:EvergreenFir

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Have you read "Why Does Wikipedia Want to Destroy Deepak Chopra?" If Anthroposophists don't complain that Wikipedia wants to destroy Rudolf Steiner, we are doing a bad job. If anything can be said about the two men is that Chopra is considerably less fringe than Steiner. Chopra never belonged to völkisch Wagner clubs, and has never claimed to be a clairvoyant. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Collaborating to Make a better Article

dear mr Tgeorgescu -- lets make this article article better together.

if you dont like the characterisitian that Anthroposohpy is not a study of physics (it isnt) — then edit that out. it is rude to just delete everything you dont agree with. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Johnrpenner (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

"Collaborating to Make a better Article" is what this whole page is about. But you are not doing it. You are introducing your own WP:POV, violating WP:PSCI, then edit-warring by reverting the revert. Read WP:BRD to find out how to behave in such situations.

This is not about deleting "everything you dont agree with", it is about following the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup, the idea that Anthroposophy is 100% metaphysics and 0% empirical claims does not appear in mainstream WP:RS. And I could bet in does not appear in the books published by Rudolf Steiner Press or the Temple Lodge. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Objective

@Fehyv: "Objective" refers to Platonic realism (i.e. metaphysics). "More objective" refers to epistemology. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Revert

I have reverted the whitewashing of this cult. The whitewashing violated the website policy WP:PSCI, and removed the information that Anthroposophy is a new religious movement. Both claims which the Utah IP sought to remove were abundantly sourced with mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The IP had further deleted inconvenient truths about Anthroposophy in Nazi Germany, namely that the Nazis were ambivalent in respect to Anthroposophy, and never really sought to send all Anthroposophists to concentration camps. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)