Talk:Anthroposophy

Incomplete citation

The citation to Steiner's philosophy being "white supremacist" is to Staudenmaier 2014, without a title. This should be completed or removed, as there is no way of checking the source in the current format.

BTW: The only book I can find by this author in that year is "Between Occultism and Nazism", and the cited page numbers do not use any remotely similar wording. But perhaps it's another source. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Verbatim quotes have been provided at #Neutrality. If you argue that "white supremacist" is improper, then "pro-Nazi" is more proper. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

One quote is about someone named Buchenbacher. I don't see how you can attribute one person's attitudes to an entire group. The other states, "Steiner was a member of a völkisch Wagner club, and anthroposophist authors endorsed Wagner’s views on race." You cannot conclude anything other than this from this statement: Steiner was (at some period of his life?) a member of a "völkisch Wagner club," and some anthroposophist authors endorsed Wagner’s views on race.

In particular, the quotes make absolutely no claim that "anthroposophy" or "Steiner's philosophy" is white supremacist. I've hunted for some kind of WP policy on how to use sources; I'm sure there are others, but one -- WP:SYNTH -- says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Is this an example? Clean Copy^talk 14:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

There is also the matter that anthroposophy (1912) predates Nazism (1920 as something with that name) so it can hardly have roots in "pro-Nazi" pseudoscience. I've rephrased to "Anthroposophy has its roots in German idealism, mystical philosophies, and pseudoscience including racist pseudoscience". And dropped the reference which refers to two-thirds of German Anthroposophists succumbing to National Socialism since that is later influences not roots (it could be used later in the article though I'm a bit concerned about using a quote of a quote without knowing the context). Note that some of the pseudoscience influencing it was not racist hence the phrasing I suggest. Erp (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

here's a link [1] to that book (still in thesis form) the quote is on page 207 in this version—blindlynx 19:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Anthroposophical medicine

@Wuerzele: The citation you added isn't a WP:MEDRS and isn't notable enough to be included anyway, per WP:NFRINGE—blindlynx 15:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: you also reverted—blindlynx 15:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with @Blindlynx on this. Medical claims for indications of treatment require MEDRS sources. And this content is arguably not WP:DUE here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

edit conflict ( because I thought and wrote a little longer -:):

Really?

First: Hello blindlynx, thank you for finally coming to the talk page to discuss your discontent with my small edit.

Let me rehash:

Yesterday, you [2] reverted] my addition of timely (2021) relevant (mentions anthroposophical) and well sourced (The Guardian) material with the comment "Unclear why this is relavent". You chose not to make suggestions how to improve my sentence "During the COVID pandemic, moist chest compresses with homeopathic pellets of powdered ginger root, mustard flour or yarrow tea, and “potentized phosphorus and correspondingly potentized meteoritic iron” were used in German antroposophic hospitals against COVID-19." You chose not to ask questions or describe what is unclear to you, but you simply reverted.

Reversal is aggressive and should be a last resort per WP:BRD. I reserve reversion of freshly added material only to edits that add false/wrong or duplicate material. Other things which I think are imperfect, I improve by editing, suggesting, talking etc.

Today, above, you still dont discuss the edit you reverted, but you are saying that a second edit I made today to EXPAND AND IMPROVE the first one by adding that this homeopathic anti COVID-19 treatment is not evidence-based medicine and yet it is paid by public health insurance companies, wasn't "notable enough to be included". What WP:notability? This is an existing article about about Anthroposophy -the concept of notability applies to a new article. You say my edit needs a WP:MEDRS. No, it does not. When I quote the Guardian reporting that "During the COVID pandemic, moist chest compresses with homeopathic pellets of powdered ginger root, mustard flour or yarrow tea, and “potentized phosphorus and correspondingly potentized meteoritic iron” were used in German anthroposophic hospitals against COVID-19," this is not WP:biomedical information and it does not need a WP:MEDRS. I know when this is needed. I am a physician, if you had cared to look on my user page, and I have created plenty med articles and edited medical articles and I tell you, this article here is not a medical article.

Also, I notice that with the above you are now using an argument, that your "friend" Shibbolethink used to revert my 2nd addition at 14:58: "This is not appropriate sourcing for this content per WP:MEDRS." He too is wrong, for teh reasons already stated. He also talked of "we" in his revert "We are already on talk." which is also incorrect and can be proven: You blindlynx were nowhere to be seen on the talk page, when I reverted the hitherto undiscussed reversion at 15:00, you signed here per timestamp at 15:09.

You two together have WP:3R reverted me 3 times and clearly have ganged up against this addition of text. The relevance of my edit is obvious if you read the source, and you have not discussed why it is not clear to you.Wuerzele (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Much of the above appears to be your personal opinion. 3RR is per-user. If we independently decide your edit is not high quality, and we independently revert it, that should signal to you to slow down and not push through your edit, rather than continuing to re-add it and avoid engaging in the talk page until now. The order of operations is: 1) (user A) Bold, 2) (user B) Revert, 3) (user A) Discuss. You are the bold editor (user A), who is then tasked with responding to reverts with discussion. The onus of discussion is not on others, it is on you. Blindlynx and I are not "friends". I am quite sure I remember disagreeing with them on several occasions in the past. We just both agree your edit is not helpful. Being a physician does not make you better at editing medical articles. If you had looked at my user page, you would see I am no fan of pseudoscience and write plenty of medical articles myself as a PhD and (in 5 months) an MD. This is all irrelevant, as each edit to these articles is examined on its own, and should stand on its own merits, regardless of its introducer. I maintain this content is WP:UNDUE. Particularly changing "Anthroposophical Medicine" to "Complementary Medicine" waters down the section per WP:WEASEL. The other content could, imo, be included if it were trimmed and paired with a MEDRS source which clearly discusses the lack of proven efficacy or mechanism of action. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Very very strong words from a relatively inexperienced user by edit count. You apparently are unaware of WP:MOS not to repeat the page term in subsections, so renaming it is by no means a watering down. You seem to resist to have this content updated no matter what . You should be constructive and improve it instead of reverting. I will report you on 3R Wuerzele (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I was brought here by your posting at WP:ANEW--and I gave my thoughts there--but I also wanted to say here that I very much agree with the reasoning of blindlynx and Shibbolethink above. Instead of editing against consensus, I would suggest trying to find more convincing sources and/or seeking a compromise solution. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Dumuzid what reasoning is behind reverting an update with a reliable source and a rename of a section? And to call this watering down is completely false. I added the content precisely to show what pseudoscience is done in the day and age of COVID and reombursed by the German taxpayers in the name of Anthroposophy - that is what the source is about, convincingly, if you care to read it. BTW there was no discussion here when they reverted -read my post, so this was totally unjust. Criticizing is easy! Go ahead and suggest a "more convincing" source! Wuerzele (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Wuerzele, I understand your frustration, and yes, criticizing is easy. But it is still important that we live up to strong sourcing, and as has already been said, this simply doesn't pass muster per WP:MEDRS. The onus is on you to convince a consensus that inclusion will improve the article, and right now I see a strong consensus against. That aside, Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Both Shibbolethink and I independently arrived at the conclusion that your edit is undue. Moreover, that Guardian article is highly critical of those treatments and your initial edit does not reflect this at all and your rewritten version significantly water it down—blindlynx 20:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Then blindlynx, with all due respect if you really think so, you should have a ) discussed this instead of revert and b) insert this in a way that is constructive. Please suggest here how to update this section with this source. Wuerzele (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The material you want to include is not acceptable, for reasons that have been explained to you. The source is unnacceptable for biomedical content and you will not be able to use it for the text you wish to add.

It is as simple as that. - Roxy the dog 14:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

ADDENDUM : How can an editor with your experience not know about WP:MEDRS? It is astonishing. - Roxy the dog 14:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Wuerzele was being too subtle in their criticism. Often being too subtle is seen as endorsement, when in fact it was meant as criticism. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Schweitzer

That Albert Schweitzer, who was a thorough rationalist, supported occultism is deeply dubious. The "RS" cited for it is Steiner's fancruft. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

That sentence needs to be expanded because i have no idea what 'cultural renewal' is supposed to mean—blindlynx 00:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

As i don't speak german i cant verify the source and have found no other mention of the two outside of this text...but i found this [3] apparent a translation of it (no clue if its accurate) and while it's only sections it supports the notion thy were friends but not that Schweitzer 'was supportive of his ideals for cultural renewal' as the article currently says—blindlynx 19:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup, they both agreed upon "people should do more thinking", though they did not necessarily agree upon what thinking means. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

got rid of it—blindlynx 22:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Not supported by citation

I'm not sure how to go forward with this, but the following sentence from the article:

Several prominent members of the Nazi Party were supporters of anthroposophy, including Erhard Bartsch (an agriculturalist), SS colonel Hermann Schneider, and Gestapo chief Heinrich Müller. 

is not accurately reporting what the article cited says. Bartsch is never cited in the article as a member of the Nazi party, and the Nazis that are cited are referred to as supporters of biodynamic agriculture, not of anthroposophy. Also, there is a source that states that Bartsch refused to join the National Socialist Party.

Can we clean up this sentence? Bartsch should be removed (no evidence that he was a member of the party) and the word "anthroposophy" should be switched to "biodynamic agriculture" to be accurate to the source. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC) Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

We have covered this above and in the archives several times. But to rehash:

• In July 1933, biodynamic growers founded the Reich League for Biodynamic Agriculture under the leadership of anthroposophist Erhard Bartsch, with headquarters at Bartsch's estate in the rural community of Bad Saarow [4]
• This ‘branch’ of the Nazi party, coined the ‘green wing’, was headed by its slogan ‘Blood and Soil,’ an infamous phrase which referred to the supposed mystical relationship between the German people and their sacred land. Adherents of Blood and Soil held that environmental purity was inseparable from racial purity. This dual concern made them natural affiliates of anthroposophy. The principal intermediary between anthroposophy and the Nazi green wing was Demeter founder Erhard Bartsch. Bartsch constantly emphasized the philosophical affinities between anthroposophy and National Socialism [5] [6]
• {{Three months later, the same anthroposophist was hard at work trying to get anthroposophical literature into the hands of right-wing activists, in the expectation that people “who belong to the political right” would be especially interested in the theme of “Steiner and Germanness.” One point of concern was the perceived “prominence of the Israelite element” within anthroposophical ranks; the few anthroposophists from Jewish backgrounds could unnecessarily alienate Nazi observers.}} ... Several anthroposophists belonged to the Nazi movement [7]
• In similar terms, anthroposophist Ernst Boldt derided what he took to be a severely distorted presentation of Steiner’s view [8]

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

According to this, it seems that the article should rather say that Bartsch was a member of the Reich League. Is there a source for the league being a branch of the Nazi Party, or is that your original research? 69.112.244.165 (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The principal intermediary between anthroposophy and the Nazi green wing was Demeter founder Erhard Bartsch see above — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources above literally CALL it a branch of the nazi party. Please read the excerpted text above again. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The source that calls the League a "branch of the Nazi party" is a self-described "wine blog by wine lovers"; is this really a sound source for an encyclopedia???

The second source, an article called "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism", does not claim that the Reich League was a branch of the Nazi party. It does speak of Bartsch being the "principal intermediary between organized anthroposophy and the Nazi green wing", but it sounds more as if the author is talking about "the Nazi green wing" as the Nazis who were interested in natural approaches to agriculture generally.

So no, it doesn't seem as if this supports the claim! Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Your reading of the second Staudemeier source is incorrect. He says quite directly that the Reich League was a branch of the nazi party (see pages 116, 117, etc). [9]

He also directly says:

As important as Seifert is to understanding the ecological facets of Nazism, and as difficult as his relations m ay have been with other Nazi officials, he was hardly an isolated individual. Several of his 'advocates for the landscape' were supporters of biodynamic cultivation, including Max Karl Schwarz, "a dedicated proponent of National Socialist blood and soil ideology." Schwarz, an anthroposophist and important leader in the biodynamic movement, introduced Seifert to biodynamic principles and was responsible for applying biodynamic methods to the Autobahn project. [10]

A scholarly work published by an expert in these matters (a professor at Marquette). Notes several anthroposophists (including Bartsch and Schwarz) who combined their ecological fringe views with their fascist ones in a conscious way. It directly says Bartsch was a follower of steiner, and we know he was an anthroposophist. It then says he was a member of the ecological wings of the nazi party.

If you disagree, I would encourage you to seek a WP:3O, start an WP:RFC, or post on a relevant noticeboard such as WP:FTN. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to be difficult, but could you please quote the passage in this source you refer to? On pages 116-117, I can find passages where the author points out many, many connections between the League and Nazi adherents, and that many members overlapped, etc. This is absolutely incontestable. But I personally can't find any wording that supports the idea that the League was an actual "branch" of the Nazi party. Again, please just quote the passage(s) you are referring to, so we are on the same page. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

"Michael Bauer (Anthroposophy)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Michael Bauer (Anthroposophy) and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 11 § Michael Bauer (Anthroposophy) until a consensus is reached. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Applications

Someone keeps adding strange modifiers to the "Applications" section title: "Purported," "Claimed," etc.

I don't see where there is room for doubt that Waldorf education, biodynamic agriculture, etc., are applications of anthroposophy. There are tons of neutral sources for this. Some random Googling brings up:

• Hammer, The Occult World, p. 350: "There are numerous practical applications, including Waldorf pedagogy, eurythmy...and biodynamic farming....there is a substantial Anthroposophical visual and material culture, manifested in architecture, in mystery plays, even in commercial products..."
• Gilhus, Western Esotericism in Scandinavia, p. 54. "The practical applications of Anthroposophy have been far more significant...The most important fruits of the Anthroposophical tree are the Waldorf schools...the Camphill movement...biodynamic agriculture and banking..."
• Jones, "Capitalism and the Environment," in Evolutions of Capitalism, p. 201. "the application of Steiner's ideas...biodynamic agriculture...new businesses in industries as diverse as food and finance...socially progressive...social movements...this was accompanied by shifts within the movement itself towards a greater focus on developing practical applications of the philosophy...the first Anthroposphical bank was launched..."
• McKanan, Eco-Alchemy: Anthroposophy and the History and Future of Environmentalism, University of California Press, pp. 70-110. "Anthroposophical initiatives--farms, schools, intentional communities--began to supplant the society as the public face of anthroposophy." McKanan refers to these and other initiatives as "practical anthroposophy," mentioning Waldorf schools, biodynamic farming, Camphill communities. "If the impulse to move quickly to the practical sphere has been part of anthroposophy from the beginning, it has become the dominant feature since 1970....This practical ethos characterizes anthroposophical initiatives founded in 1970 and thereafter...Waldorf school...biodynamic farm, a center for adult education and Waldorf teacher training, a publishing house, an art school, a theater, a research center on the threefold society, and another research center devoted to 'farmscape ecology'." He goes on to mention a "center for anthroposophical water work...the Water Research Institute".
• Svetoslava Toncheva, Out of the New Spirituality of the Twentieth Century p. 125

I'm sure lots more sources could be Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you for the most part. These applications are not "purported", only their authenticity or logical underpinnings. But we aren't here, at this header, to adjudicate that. We do that to satisfy NPOV in many other places in good ways. I think "Applications" is fine. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Could it be fixed, then? I don't understand the motivations of the editor who has been inserting these odd modifiers. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The "odd" modifiers are there by policy in order to highlight the most imprtant point that the authenticity or logical underpinnings of anthrosophy are in fact non-existant. Without them we would be saying in wikivoice that the claims made are reality based. They are not. - Roxy the dog 17:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Every source I can find describes them simply as "applications." Even the highly critical Schermer calls Biodynamic agriculture "an application of Anthroposophy to farming" and refers to anthroposophic medicine and Waldorf education as applied Goethean science. Isn't it Wikipedia policy to follow the sources? Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

They're nto real applications, it's a list of things adherents think are application not what RS say are applications—blindlynx 19:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Au contraire, the sources listed above explicitly and clearly term biodynamic farming, Waldorf education, eurythmy, architecture, plays, and lots of other initiatives "practical anthroposophy" (e.g. McKanan 2018). I've added more direct quotes and another source; check these out. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment about whether Anthroposophy has "Applications" or "Claimed/purported applications"

Should practical areas of work anthroposophists have founded be termed "applications" or "claimed/purported applications"? Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

In favor of "Applications" or "Practical applications"

There are numerous reliable sources that state that Waldorf education, biodynamic agriculture, eurythmy, and other fields of work founded by anthroposophists are "practical applications" of anthroposophy. There have been no reliable sources given that suggest these are not "practical applications". Adding the term "claimed" or "purported" seems to introduce editorial bias. Editors have been persistent in adding these terms, however, to the section title in the article. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support a simple "Applications" with no potentially judgmental labelling, from both grammar and WP:WEIGHT of being the most frequent phrasing. It simply is an application when something is being used for some purpose, whether or not that others think that is good or proven effective. "Practical applications" seems a distant second because of the much lesser WP:WEIGHT of use at least by Google count, and the potential confusion between multiple meanings of "Practical"

(1 - as in an action versus just theorizing and speculation;

(2 - as manifested in practice or repetition for a process or machine; or

(3 - as capable or being used, useful or effective

Whether or not one thinks it works, when someone is using it for something that is "applying" it. Whether it is "practical application" is context-dependent.

"Claimed" applications should not be used as simply a false description and comes off as a bit of untrustworthy editorializing. People are using X in the field of Y or to do Y -- the fact of applying it for attempted purposes is not in doubt, is it? Also, that phrase is not showing any WP:WEIGHT of use at all, at least it is not in Google. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the idea of saying "Purported applications" is just a category error. You can apply something which does not work, in total good faith - for example, I believe the evidence is that dowsing is totally without foundation, yet it was used probably for centuries to determine the best [according to the wisdom of the time] location for a well. To talk of "purported applications of dowsing" would suggest that modern supporters were claiming (without evidence) that dowsing was used in antiquity for choosing well locations. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

RS for "practical applications"

• Hammer, The Occult World, p. 350: "There are numerous practical applications, including Waldorf pedagogy, eurythmy...and biodynamic farming....there is a substantial Anthroposophical visual and material culture, manifested in architecture, in mystery plays, even in commercial products..."
• Gilhus, Western Esotericism in Scandinavia, p. 54. "The practical applications of Anthroposophy have been far more significant...The most important fruits of the Anthroposophical tree are the Waldorf schools...the Camphill movement...biodynamic agriculture and banking..."
• Jones, "Capitalism and the Environment," in Evolutions of Capitalism, p. 201. "the application of Steiner's ideas...biodynamic agriculture...new businesses in industries as diverse as food and finance...socially progressive...social movements...this was accompanied by shifts within the movement itself towards a greater focus on developing practical applications of the philosophy...the first Anthroposphical bank was launched..."
• McKanan, Eco-Alchemy: Anthroposophy and the History and Future of Environmentalism, University of California Press, pp. 70-110. "Anthroposophical initiatives--farms, schools, intentional communities--began to supplant the society as the public face of anthroposophy." McKanan refers to these and other initiatives as "practical anthroposophy," mentioning Waldorf schools, biodynamic farming, Camphill communities. "If the impulse to move quickly to the practical sphere has been part of anthroposophy from the beginning, it has become the dominant feature since 1970....This practical ethos characterizes anthroposophical initiatives founded in 1970 and thereafter...Waldorf school...biodynamic farm, a center for adult education and Waldorf teacher training, a publishing house, an art school, a theater, a research center on the threefold society, and another research center devoted to 'farmscape ecology'." He goes on to mention a "center for anthroposophical water work...the Water Research Institute".
• Svetoslava Toncheva, Out of the New Spirituality of the Twentieth Century p. 125
• Handbook of Nordic New Religions, p. 57: "practical manifestations" of anthroposophy include Waldorf schools, anthroposophical medicine, biodynamic agriculture, anthroposophic architecture, and the Christian Community. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

In favor of "Claimed applications" or "Purported applications"

• I don't understand what the fuss is about. On one hand, these are quite literally applying Anthroposophy to real-world problems. On the other hand, all such applications are mainly pseudoscientific, pseudoscholarly, or bogus, according to the reality-based community. E.g. Dr. Scott Wayne Infante applied his knowledge of faith healing (he seems to be a faith healer) to writing A Systematic Review of the Psychological, Physiological, & Spiritual Effects of Pornography on Males. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm confused. You say that these are literally applications of anthroposophy. So why are you in favor of adding "claimed" or "purported"?

  I have no idea what faith healing has to do with any of this. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Dr. Infante applied faith healing to porn, while the reality-based community says faith healing is bogus. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  tgeorgescu - please clarify - for the RFC question on anthroposophy, why are you posting at the area in favor of adding "claimed" or "purported" when your text indicates otherwise at “these are quite literally applying Anthroposophy to real-world problems” ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: What I meant is that the claims of both sides are true. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• the point is Anthroposophy is fringe, that needs to be clear, 'Practical applications' makes it sound like can actually apply nonsense. That said i really don't care how this is made clear to the reader just 'applications' with a with a section lead feels cumbersome—blindlynx 14:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  Should the way reliable sources describe these matters not have precedence, though? Essentially every one of these uses the term 'practical applications' without weird qualifications. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  No. Just because you think these necessary qualifications are "weird", does not make it so. See my previous response which has already answered this issue, here. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 16:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why not go with the wording used by reliable sources? I have seen no response to this question. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's the simplest way to convey to the reader that these things aren't grounded in reality—blindlynx 02:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  blindlynx - please provide examples RS that also felt so and used either of these exact phrases. WP:MOSHEAD indicates such a non-neutral section WP:POVNAME would be when the prevalence is so common as to override concerns of appearing to favor a side - and my Google did not find use of those phrasings. FWIW, I think conveying points would be better done in the text than the section title anyway, as that allows greater length and showing the supporting source cites. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  like I've said before, I have no problem with conveying it in the section, this just felt easier. I still oppose the use of the term 'practical' though—blindlynx 14:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

Some psychiatrists believe that Gurus are unmedicated mild schizophrenics in a constant psychosis, I can also say the same exact thing here. You shout words that are true, but again, it has little to do with the article, and the situation here. Fadix 18:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Price, John S; Stevens, Anthony (1998). "The Human Male Socialization Strategy Set". Evolution and Human Behavior. 19 (1). Elsevier BV: 57–70. doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(97)00105-0. ISSN 1090-5138. Many studies of cults and revitalization movements have noted that the leaders are susceptible both to auditory hallucinations and sudden changes in beliefs. The schizotype, we suggest, is someone who has the capacity to shed the commonly held and socially determined world view of his natal group, and to create a unique and arbitrary world view of his own, into which he may indoctrinate others and become a prophet, or fail to indoctrinate others and become a psychotic patient.

My point: anthroposophy is a delusional belief system of a crazy guru.

Of course Rudolf Steiner heard voices speaking in his head, he called it the Siddhi of "inspiration". So, now when you hear anthroposophists talking about the paranormal ability of "inspiration" you know what they mean. It means that they hear voices talking in their head. Of course, they usually follow a rule of "don't ask, don't tell" (i.e. they keep mum about their own paranormal abilities), but that's what they mean by it. I'm in fact surprised that many people don't know what they mean by it, since it is anthroposophy 101. It is from the books actually written by him, not from stenographer conferences which may include mistakes. (Most of his books are based upon written notes taken during his speeches.) tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Christian Gnosticism

While source #11 could be construed as WP:OR, the first ten sources of our article fully WP:V the claim that Anthroposophy is Christian Gnosticism (or neognosticism).

The ten sources express a variety of POVs: Catholic, Protestant, mainstream academic (I counted at least two full professors), and including the New Age guru Carl Gustav Jung who was Steiner's fellow neognostic leader.

There is an enormous burden of proof for giving the lie to all these ten sources, and Wikipedia listens to WP:RS written by experts, not to court verdicts written by judges having a limited knowledge of Western esotericism. In matters of academic knowledge, the final authority is WP:BESTSOURCES, not the courts of law. Courts do not get to dictate what experts in religion studies and in heresiology should believe.

If you deny the application of WP:YESPOV, then answer this question: which is the opposing view? According to which WP:RS?

Some of the ten RS have been public for several decades. Who are their detractors? I don't mean detractors in general, but detractors of the claim that Anthroposophy is neognosticism. If there are dissenters, WP:CITE the dissenters.

And if you claim that Anthroposophy is neorosicrucian: there isn't a contradiction between neorosicrucian and neognostic. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes very interesting - although if we do place some weight on the original source documents (some of which received glowing reviews in the  NYTimes etc) we could observe that the peer reviewed and highly cited source documents themselves state Anthroposophy cannot be a revival of the Gnosis, as the Gnosis was strictly guarded in hidden mysteries etc right, hm

Though the modern scholars seeking to draw parallels between Gnosticism and Theosophy etc are producing quite interesting content no doubt, are they really working with full precision? Also, are 10 citations at the beginning really necessary? Feels perhaps maybe a bit overdone maybe hehe although to share them out of the gate for initial study (where appropriate?) before condensing them somewhat could make good sense as well perhaps, right

Also around the Psuedoscience claims - Clopper Almon (Harvard/U Maryland) Barkved, Zajonc and co go quite deep here as I understand, examining deeply the ontology, epistomology and phenomenology etc hm

I also hope that a reasonable epistomological/phenomenological comparison can be added here, in seeking specifically to help improve this page, as I've also expanded on further in my response to you on my talk page? A reasonable comparison for example it seems could be with any one of the many mathematical theorems commonly accepted today that are based actually on somewhat light and quite theoretical ontological/phenomenological grounding, especially in comparison with the arguably more epistemologically/ontologically grounded scientific research as Almon and Zajonc et al can help outline.. Certainly very open to follow up thoughts, ideas and insights here though where helpful as well hm, thank you for your time and consideration. Best, -G SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia kowtows to WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:RS/AC, and WP:CHOPSY. We have the policy WP:PSCI and the essay WP:RGW. So, as far as Almon and Zajonc publish positive science in mainstream scientific journals, they get our respect. But we don't automatically respect their metaphysical and epistemological choices, see e.g. Anthroposophic medicine wherein the Anthroposophic way is rightly regarded as WP:FRINGE/quackery. It is not our problem to fix reality when it contradicts ex cathedra statements by Rudolf Steiner. Mainstream science and the medical orthodoxy rule over Wikipedia. If you disagree, you have to make your own encyclopedia, having your own rules.

E.g. Steiner ridiculed the atomic theory and the theory of relativity. We are entitled to tell our readers that he was flat-out wrong thereupon.

About Gnosticism: it was about "secret" knowledge, but not necessarily a mystery religion. We know close to nothing about the rituals of Ancient mystery religions (people who snitched were executed or sometimes banished). But the "secret" knowledge of the Gnostics was not necessarily a secret.

Another important point: Wikipedia isn't based upon our personal opinions (yours or mine). Wikipedia is based upon the opinions of WP:RS, and there is a pecking order about which RS render the scientific, medical, or academic consensus most accurately. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hm yes around atomic theory Goethe and Newton et al did have a range of disagreements, and Goethean Science still does receive a good bit of attention these days

Anthroposophical Medicine as I understand it is supposed to only be a subtle complement to Western medicine generally, though it does sometimes get attacked when pushed too far out into prominence in the mainstream, some of course do look at the Flexner report of the 1910's with Rockefeller/oil interest backed push on the academy away from natural remedies to the more patentable/synthetic petroleum based/prescribable approaches of the time period hm

Understandable the push to follow mainstream citations though which do tend to be quite workable and redeemable - it could be interesting to consider where the materially focused trends will lead us though, the related lectures above from the 1910's and 20's do actually speak at length about transhumanism, job automation (civilian & defense) and material breakaway civ / 8th sphere etc, these key insights could reasonably also be considerable in discussing and improving this article, if humanity is to continue to exist and even survive our generation hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There was the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. Anthroposophists did not win it. There is still no evidence that a "spiritual world" (angels, archangels, sylphs, gnomes, etc.) does exist.

Sri Lanka wanted 100% organic agriculture for the whole country. That attempt was a complete failure. Where were the Anthroposophists to bail out Sri Lankans?

Simply stating that the materalist world view leads to problems does not prove there is a spiritual world. That is a false dilemma. Anyway, WP:NOTAFORUM: it is not the task of Wikipedia to solve the problems of humanity, it is only to render reliable human knowledge for what it is. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

You mentioned some books:

Books by Anthroposophists are not WP:FRIND, thus do not pass for genuine WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

When Steiner claimed that the Gnosis was strictly guarded, he was either an ignoramus or a liar. Anthroposophists who take his claim at face value cannot be trusted. See WP:FTN.

So, when your dissenters dissent from Anthroposophy is Gnosticism because "the Gnosis was strictly guarded", that is a completely bogus reason. Meaning their claim isn't WP:V in WP:RS written by respectable scholars of religion. The claim was made up by Blavatsky, and taken at face value by Steiner and his believers. Or, allowing for some doubt, made up by Steiner and taken at face value by his believers.

I don't think that the Pope or the Catholic Church were "sinless" in 1919, but they have to be accused of their real sins, not of imaginary ones. Anway, the statement that Anthroposophy is a neognostic heresy wasn't adopted to appease Mussolini. Such idea is preposterous. There is no logical thread from that statement to cutting a deal with Mussolini. Completely made up. So, you were inserting a truthful historical fact in a totally inappropriate context, you were suggesting guilt by association. The fact that some years after making that statement the Pope reached a deal with Mussolini is true, but mentioning it in that specific context is a sophism. The Pope was not in control of the bigger political events from Italy, but subject to them. He chose to make a deal in a situation that was already awry. The Pope had some political power, but not that much political power to be blamed for everything which went bad in Italy. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps one could consider that Steiner himself perceived that Anthroposophy could not be a revival of 'the Gnosis', because he perceived the actual and true Gnosis was a closely guarded secret, and therefore did not want to found Anthroposophy on it? Not seeing how that would make him a liar or ignorant - we can see it was his choice to expressly avoid founding Anthroposophy on the ancient secrets he perceived as 'the Gnosis', even if subsequent scholars did judge Anthroposophy as close enough to the more common 'Gnosticism' or the very common 'neo-Gnosticism' now broadly in circulation these days..

Are you so sure that the contemporary 'Gnosticism' page on today's Wikipedia actually contains references to the 'the Gnosis' true of ancient times referenced above? How might you prove this?

So yes we can observe that while Steiner and community have eschewed building their movement on 'the Gnosis' of ancient times in their own words/texts, some scholars have gone out of their way still to apply the label of a more common 'Gnosticism' and the yet more commonly circulating 'neo-Gnosticism' of our time.. As political tensions were rising in 1919 the church did also happen to apply this label of 'neo-Gnosticism' of course, and soon after the Italian state government did happen to transform to a new political system - not asserting there was some kind of direct correlation there per se, but it certainly was a time of notable rising Naziism.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Not my task to prove anything. I simply WP:CITE WP:RS. Wikipedia is simply a website for churning WP:RS, according to an agreed methodology (WP:RULES).

What I have shown: scholars from various POVs (mainstream academic, traditional Catholic, conservative Evangelical, and New Age) agree that Anthroposophy is Gnosticism or neognosticism.

What you have shown: Steiner and his believers reject this label for spurious reasons. So, you have a sect which rejects this label for bogus reasons, I have WP:SCHOLARSHIP which shows that the label does apply.

And, of course, there is a huge difference between emic and etic. Wikipedia takes an etic approach, not an emic approach. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

... and you have violated WP:PSCI. WP:AE is just around the corner. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hm, was it the sentence around ontology/epistemology with citations that caused the WP:PSI concern there? The sources do go quite deep on epistemology but are somewhat focused on education etc hm - the schools are quite well known around the world, and the wines do consistently win the international contests etc hm

Also, is it so fair to classify Anthroposophy as 'neo-Gnosticism' in the first sentence with 11 citations before the Britannica link? Seems a bit heavy handed hm - also some academic sources below related to your query in the other thread, which attempt to show the secrecy and control around esoteric Gnostic knowledge (2nd link from Wiki page) of the ancient past hm

https://academic.oup.com/book/8519/chapter-abstract/154365661?redirectedFrom=fulltexthttps://static1.squarespace.com/static/52cdf95ae4b0c18dd2d0316a/t/53e074cee4b0ea4fa48a5704/1407218894673/Pagels%2C+Elaine+-+The+Gnostic+Gospels.pdf SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

So after deeper analysis with the broader group, how about I implement these modest adjustments as discussed? I could add this tonight or tomorrow, if there are no objections:

"Anthroposophy is a philosophical, spiritual, and social movement founded in the early 20th century by the esotericist Rudolf Steiner. The approach does postulate in instances the existence of an intuitively comprehensible spiritual world - accessible in instances to human experience, particularly historically. Some followers of anthroposophy aim to engage in spiritual discovery through a mode of thought independent of sensory experience. While critics assert much of anthroposophy is pseudoscientific, proponents seek to present their ideas in a manner that can be reasonably verified, seeking clarity comparable in cases to that obtained by scientists investigating the physical world."

Under #religious nature:

"Some scholars explore the influence of Gnosticism on Anthroposophy establishing some clear similarities, although the source texts and community do deny and eschew the label. The Catholic Church did during the height of growing political tensions in 1919 issue an edict classifying Anthroposophy as "a neognostic heresy" despite the fact that Steiner "very well respected the distinctions on which Catholic dogma insists". and similar labels continued to be applied and cited in the area, especially during the 1920's - 1940's.

Post WW2 relations have been much warmer however.. " SamwiseGSix (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:PSCI, the label of pseudoscience should not be softened (whitewashed).

And I would be extremely surprised if the Roman Catholic Church recants its claim that Anthroposophy is heresy. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I see, does any of the above affect any of the assertions of Pseudoscience though?

Regarding the past edicts, we are are perhaps lucky to be living in a somewhat more merciful and gentler time overall in many ways these days, and as the folks in the other thread sharing analysis had offered, are you ok with an edit close to the above, or might you offer another version? One could hope we should at least be able to more closely mirror the Britannica intro, right Best -S SamwiseGSix (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There was a scholar who had over the desire to immanentize the eschaton. Briefly, he said that Communism and Nazism have much in common with Gnosticism. So, I'm not sure that in that context the accusation of being a neognostic movement amounted to bad press. Hitler supported some belief in the Christian God, but he wasn't fond of the theological orthodoxy. Even clearer: the purpose of Hitler and Mussolini wasn't killing heretics. I mean they believed that the accusation of heresy is superstitious claptrap.

Coming back to the article, "explore" is vague, even more vague that Gnosticism. So I don't support that edit. But if the WP:CONSENSUS says I'm wrong about it, I am prepared to accept it. Also, the articles from Britannica about Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner are terribly short, I don't think they are good examples to follow. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you doctor G for making those edits, the new article version sure is a real relief to see - there definitely is still hope in the world hehe

Quite something to see the wisdom of the crowd at scale helping to guide process in crowdsourcing the worlds' knowledge in beautiful Encyclopedic format daily here, and certainly an interesting scholar (E. Voegelin, right) you mention there also - he sure seemed to share some unique perspectives there hehe but will certainly work to take a closer look. SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Certainly not seeking to whitewash concerns of Pseudoscience here but rather to welcome them, deeply explore them, and hoping to further consider some of the ontological epistemological, and phenomenological arguments et al that some published scholarship may be able to help provide in balance, including in support of notable material phenomena like the Waldorf Schools in almost every major city globally (~3000 total) the Biodynamic Movement (inventors of Organics) and more - for the sake of a decent, and humane future.

I would like to present the paragraph draft example below for you, for you to share your concerns? I would like to more deeply understand your thoughts and concerns about any of the citations and wording that might come up, and possibly find better links/approaches that could be more easily mutually agreeable around consensus here as well. Thank you for your consideration and please do keep us updated here, always pumped to keep in touch on all items in these dynamic times of change Best, -S

Anthroposophy includes roots in German idealist and empiricist philosophy, mysticism of the era, and according to some scholarly critics pseudoscience, including racist pseudoscience. Critics and proponents alike acknowledge his many anti-racist statements, often far ahead of his contemporaries and predecessors still commonly cited today. Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is grounded. Steiner chose the term anthroposophy (from Greek anthropo-, 'human', and sophia, 'wisdom') to emphasize his philosophy's humanistic orientation.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think humanistic is the appropriate word, e.g. secular humanism is an ethical philosophy of atheists and agnostics (mainly). Perhaps you meant humanitarian.

Second, those highfalutin statements about epistemology and phenomenology will never whitewash the label of pseudoscience. Not at this website, see WP:LUNATICS.

Third, Wikipedia has an article on biodynamic agriculture, but again, you won't like it, because it is biased for mainstream science, and mainstream science does not approve of the ways of Anthroposophy. E.g. Bourne, Joel K. (2015). The End of Plenty: The Race to Feed a Crowded World. W. W. Norton. p. 164. ISBN 978-0-393-24804-3. Retrieved 28 January 2022. We aren't going to feed six billion people with organic fertilizer. If we tried to do it, we would level most of our forest and many of those lands would be productive only for a short period of time.

Even more clearer: stating in the voice of Wikipedia that Anthroposophy is pseudoscience is required by website policy, and you have no chance of dodging this website policy when many eyes are looking at this article.

Your purpose of whitewashing the label of pseudoscience is incompatible with the purpose of writing Wikipedia. So, I suggest WP:DEADHORSE. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hehe yes interesting, well there are some scholars who assert we could conceivably feed the world with organic agriculture ;)

https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/badgley-lab/wp-content/uploads/sites/28/2013/12/Can-organic-agriculture-feed-the-world.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01410-w

No one is seeking to move or remove the Pseudoscience tag here, just wondering why one wouldn't be able to consider adding a citation like this one for example?https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

They are offering quite extensive arguments on epistemology etc right, in the field of education in this case. In other words, although the article intro says 'much of anthroposophy is pseudoscientific' there still remains some materialistically observable phenomena measurable right, wouldn't this be neutral peer reviewed academic research be notable and scientific to include? Even if 'much of anthroposophy is pseudoscientific' in the intro there can still be some scientific data measurable and includable right - though I understand there may be some extensive complexities at play here, just seeking to gain a better understanding of your guys' thought processes and policies etc ;) SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Your for the sake of a decent, and humane future is just another excuse to peddle woo. WP:DEADHORSE. WP:IDHT.

Also, you shouldn't think of us as scientists or philosophers, but as the servile scribes of mainstream science (scientific orthodoxy). tgeorgescu (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes sure, but isn't the arizona.edu piece linked above there an example of mainstream science? SamwiseGSix (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

If organic agriculture is to have a chance for the future of mankind, it will only be thanks to GMOs. Oh, the irony: Anthroposophists militate against GMOs!

The idea is that Wikipedia only endorses reliable knowledge. I.e. what passes as reliable according to scientific orthodoxy. It is not the task of Wikipedia to change scientific orthodoxy. Wikipedia does not decide by itself what counts as pseudoscience. The scientific community does that. Wikipedia simply mirrors what they decide. Anyway, the dice have been cast, and Anthroposophy has egg on its face in respect to Steiner's pretense of being a scientific luminary. You cannot change that through talk page arguments, see WP:RGW.

This isn't WP:RS, but says it rather well: Wikipedia is an attempt to collect the knowledge of a materialistic and mechanistic world view and to present the ideological view of neoliberalism and state-conformist western politics. https://www.freewiki.eu/en/index.php?title=Welcome_to_FreeWiki tgeorgescu (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hehe yes some very interesting thoughts and ideas there - to start with though, it is always an option to scale agriculture production using some GMO approaches and some organic approaches, including across regions etc as preferable..

Not sure I'm seeing folks connected to the community here 'militate' against GMOs per se, perhaps finding some kind of a balance though (say a blend of GMO and non-GMO options, including across geographies, with adjustments over time etc?) could make good sense as well. While GMOs can certainly bring a range of benefits, for example;https://www.cell.com/trends/plant-science/fulltext/S1360-1385(22)00004-8https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15427520802418251

..there is also plenty of mainstream science assessing ways to test/assess for safety and mitigate/reduce risks etc as well right, for example:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15123382/

Shouldn't a modest blend of such links be considered legitimate as well, for full academic Neutral Point of View? Not saying that I’m personally interested in adding such links, just speaking conceptually as it might relate to overall balance/neutrality around NPOV on the article above here.

For proposed page link(s) for the article, I don't personally see the harm or concern with adding some of the previously mentioned academic research (largely epistemology around education/pedagogy, and some philosophical ontology, we can always avoid agriculture or present balanced views around GMO etc as needed/preferable). This should not be considered 'whitewashing' (implying a 'washing over' or 'covering up') instead it should be seen as 'complementing' the existing academic sources with additional academic sources to facilitate a more balanced and true NPOV, don't you think?

To help facilitate a consideration of such academic sources to complement and for NPOV, and/or to further discuss concerns and approaches around agriculture et al if needed, perhaps we could also consider starting an additional thread below - as I see we may still be posting under a slightly differently theme thread here hehe (I did actually still have a last minor adjustment or two I was looking to propose on the '#Religious Nature' section in this regard, using some of the consensus/insight from the broader thread yesterday though - shareable upon response) as well. Very curious to hear your thoughts on all questions/threads and thank you for your consideration, always pumped to keep chipping away at all items here in these times of rapid change ;) SamwiseGSix (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Anthroposophy is largely pseudoscientific, and you cannot change that through talk page arguments. Wikipedia will continue to say that Anthroposophy is largely pseudoscientific. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the page can assert that Anthroposophy is largely pseudoscientific, and still also show some of the relevant academic research demonstrating epistemology etc, helping facilitate the standard of 'NPOV'.

This should not reasonably be considered 'whitewashing' - a term generally referring to the 'covering up' of often serious offences eg crimes, scandals, vices etc hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that Anthroposophy is mainly pseudoscience it is the view of critics, but also it is the view of everybody in the reality-based community. So you are not allowed to change it to "the view of critics is that Anthroposophy is mainly pseudoscience" or to "it is pseudoscience according to critics". As I said, WP:AE is just around the corner. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but to call it flat out racist, without qualifying the many leading anti-racist statements recognized by both proponents and critics in academia? That does not seem to be adhering to NPOV..

Published here is the opinion of someone in the reality based community as you put it, who helps further demonstrates the epistemology:

https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

So are you ok with my editing in something like the below?

"Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is grounded. Steiner chose the term anthroposophy (from Greek anthropo-, 'human', and sophia, 'wisdom') to emphasize his philosophy's.."

Or perhaps we should also consider requesting a third opinion here? SamwiseGSix (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Third-party opinion: Search for psiram, under Steiner_quotes.

Or https://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/2010/12/steiner-quotes-specifically-race.html and https://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/2010/12/steiner-quotes-jews-racial-progression.html tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Epistemology, Ontology etc

Looking for reasons we can't add and cite this academic article among others, as an example? This can't in any way reasonably be considered 'whitewashing' right..

https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y SamwiseGSix (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

If you remove the statement that Anthroposophy is pseudoscience, stated in the voice of Wikipedia, WP:AE is just around the corner. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hm interesting - doesn't this account better demonstrate a neutral point of view though, as there are many academics recognizing the many anti-racist statements (essentially almost world leading, right, who was more progressive in this area? even P. Staudenmeier declines to name names, right) along with the extensive/complex ontology, epistemology etc:

Anthroposophy includes roots in German idealist and empiricist philosophy, mysticism of the era, and according to scholarly critics pseudoscience including racist pseudoscience. Critics and proponents alike acknowledge his many anti-racist statements, often far ahead of his contemporaries and predecessors still commonly cited today. Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is grounded.

I'm searching the link you posted for 'Psiram' but am not seeing any results in it - given much of his language is not appropriate by today's standards but overall his many anti-racist statements and views distinguish him from contemporaries like W. Wilson, F. Engels and K. Marx if you check their quotes..

This article is a bit dated but does at least showcase much of his anti-racist language and outlook:

https://waldorfanswers.org/ARacistMyth.htm SamwiseGSix (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Also https://waldorfanswers.org/RSAgainstAnti-Semitism.htm SamwiseGSix (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Do I have to spell it out for you?

"It certainly cannot be denied that Jewry today still behaves as a closed totality, and as such it has frequently intervened in the development of our current state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable to European ideas of culture. But Jewry itself has long since outlived its time; it has no more justification within the modern life of peoples, and the fact that it continues to exist is a mistake of world history whose consequences are unavoidable. We do not mean the forms of the Jewish religion alone, but above all the spirit of Jewry, the Jewish way of thinking." (Steiner, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur p. 152)

"Thus the greatest tragedy of this 20th century [World War I] has come from what the Jews are also striving for. And one can say that since everything the Jews have done can now be done consciously by all people, the best thing that the Jews could do would be to disappear into the rest of humankind, to blend in with the rest of humankind, so that Jewry as a people would simply cease to exist. That is what would be ideal. This ideal is still opposed, even today, by many Jewish habits - and above all by the hatred of other people. That is what must be overcome." (Steiner, Die Geschichte der Menschheit und die Weltanschauungen der Kulturvölker p. 189)

Das Judentum als solches hat sich aber längst ausgelebt, hat keine Berechtigung des modernen Völkerlebens, und daß es sich dennoch erhalten hat, ist ein Fehler der Weltgeschichte, dessen Folgen nicht ausbleiben konnten. Wir meinen hier nicht die Formen der jüdischen Religion alleine, wir meinen vorzüglich den Geist des Judentums, die jüdische Denkweise. "Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur " GA 32, p. 152 f.

Judaism as such is long lived out, has no entitlement of modern peoples' lives, and that it persists nevertheless is an error in world history which was bound to have inevitable consequences. We do not mean Jewish religion only, we especially mean the character of Judaism, the Jewish way of thinking.

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

He is certainly wrong there, but was also a leading voice in condemning popular antisemetism of his time:

Already in the beginning of the 1880's, Steiner condemned one of the most profiled representatives of anti-Semitism in Germany, the socialist Eugen Dühring. Dühring argued in publications for a violent final solution of the "Jewish question". Steiner described Dühring's anti-Semitism as "barbarian and anti-cultural" and condemned "racial struggle" as "the most repulsive form of party struggle".

In the 1890s' Steiner vehemently argued against the "outrageous excesses of the anti-Semites" and condemned the "anti-Semitic brutes" as enemies of the human rights. As a convinced liberal, whose position coincided with that of liberal Jewry (reform Jewry), he actively supported the integration and full legal and social status of the Jews in Europe.

In 1888 he wrote: "The Jews need Europe and Europe needs the Jews" (2). Against the anti-Semitic propaganda of hatred, he set his ideal: "One should only value mutual actions between individuals. It is completely uninteresting if one is a Jew or a German ... That is so simple, that one almost is stupid saying it. How stupid does one then not have to be to say the opposite."

ANTISEMITISM IS THE OPPOSITE OF A SOUND WAY OF THINKING

In 1900 Steiner described anti-Semitism as a "derision of every cultural achievement" of modern time, as "an expression of spiritual inferiority", as a "sign of triteness" and as "the opposite of a sound way of thinking".

In a series of articles, that he wrote in 1901 for the Berlin "Association against anti-Semitism", he argued against the "Germanen" myth of the German racists and their "senseless anti-Semitic chatter". He compared the special legislation against the Jews in European countries with "statutes of slavery". Anyone who believes in the ideas of the human rights, must say to himself: "Anti-Semitism is an insult to all beliefs in ideas. Most of all it is an insult against the idea that humanity stands higher than any specific form (tribe, race, people) in which it expresses itself" (3).

Steiner's clear criticism of anti-Semitism and racism runs through his complete life's work. It is based on the philosophical foundation of anthroposophy, the "ethical individualism", that Steiner conceived already in the 1890s'. Its central concept is that of the self determining individual and its emancipation from the thought- and life forms that want to reduce man to an expression of racial and ethnical peculiarities. SamwiseGSix (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to check Karl Marx's quotes on Judaism by comparison? On race? They are quite horrific.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Who was a better or more progressive thinker on race for his time? Even P. Staudenmeier declines to name names right SamwiseGSix (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

As I have stated repeatedly: his statements are a mixed bag. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

His overall goal, hope and vision is for humanity to intermarry and for racial and religious differences to fall away and become meaningless right, and he was focused on a 'Philosophy of Freedom' so therefore there is not supposed to be any kind of forced assimilation of any kind, but rather that humanity chooses to intermarry and become as one freely essentially

Yes he definitely has some statements that should be rejected by our far advanced perspectives and outlook today, but to flatly label him racist? This seems very unfair, and potentially devastating in these fast changing times SamwiseGSix (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This to me with the citations feels much more fair, overall:

Anthroposophy includes roots in German idealist and empiricist philosophy, mysticism of the era, and according to scholarly critics pseudoscience including racist pseudoscience. Critics and proponents alike acknowledge his many anti-racist statements, often far ahead of his contemporaries and predecessors still commonly cited today. Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is grounded. SamwiseGSix (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

About potentially devastating: as I told you, Wikipedia is not for positing my own opinions, but for positing the opinions of WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

So it sounds like you are ok with me adding this sentence below, right?

Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is grounded. SamwiseGSix (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

but it's this proposed section "..has roots in German idealist and empiricist philosophy, mysticism of the era, and according to scholarly critics pseudoscience including racist pseudoscience." that you're objecting to at this point? SamwiseGSix (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is grounded. Like: there are elves, fairies, sylphs, and gnomes who are in control of the events from the natural world? Don't make me laugh! tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hehe one can always take the best and leave the rest as the saying goes :) So scientifically for example we can see that Waldorf pedagogy is on quite strong epistemological ground, while much of Steiner's philosophical ontology eg commentary on Hegal, Marx Nietzche et al is still quite advanced even for our time today.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

So the Wiki article can still use the tone of largely pseudoscience etc, but there can be some limited links to citations demonstrating some of the materially scientifically datapoints, if that makes sense SamwiseGSix (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

"Mysticism is the metaphysics of idiots." — Theodore Adorno. Or: "Occultism is the metaphysic of dunces." tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Much of the materialism there essentially just stems from Karl Marx's inversion of Hegel's dialectic into materialism eg 'dialectic materialism' - a pretty significant set of assumptions.. Can you really assume that one day material science will be able to present with full confidence a fully comprehensive model of the big bang, for example? Plenty of highly cited scholars allow for the possibility of there being some deeper mysteries to the universe, questions of why, the ontology etc etc.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

So, can I start by adding this with the citations, or do you think we should consider requesting a third opinion? Why or why not?

'Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is grounded.' SamwiseGSix (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

(Regarding metaphysics, Steiner wrote more on Aquinas and Aristotle with deepest appreciation than almost anyone hm) SamwiseGSix (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a hardcore WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. If you behave like it is The Tooth Fairy Fan Club, you have zero chances of success. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hehe, nice - so would you put Aquinas in the tooth fairy club on metaphysics? https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/Metaphysics.htm SamwiseGSix (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"Angry gnomes produce quarrels between schoolchildren, so let's blame the janitor!"—do you call that ontology/epistemology? Ha, ha, ha!

Teachers who seriously claim that are full-blown delusional. You can have more hope for a crack addict or for a heroin junkie. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I've read your update on my talk page - the guidelines here state to be civil and welcome newcomers, perhaps you could explain how I might be blocked for responding to your comments here? We do seem to need a third opinion here, Thomas Aquinas on spiritual beings: https://www.abebooks.com/Saint-Thomas-Aquinas-Spiritual-Creatures-Marquette/30821880158/bd SamwiseGSix (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Whatever Aquinas believed, that's no excuse for passing "Angry gnomes produce quarrels between schoolchildren, so let's blame the janitor!" for rationality. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you show me where you found that quote? So a random teacher makes a silly comment, that's obviously not publishable content - the link below on the other hand appears to be a pretty academic overview of the measurable Waldorf epistemology, thus the 3000 schools in most major cities worldwide, etc

https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y SamwiseGSix (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not about a random teacher makes a silly comment. It is established practice in Waldorf schools. Magister dixit! https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/my-waldorf-student-son-believes-in-gnomes-and-thats-fine-with-me/274521/

"Steiner schools, or Waldorf schools as they are known in the USA, are based upon the ideas of a very intelligent but quite mad Austrian called Rudolf Steiner. His educational techniques were devised not empirically, that is to say by observation and experiment, but were learned clairvoyantly from, among others, the spirits of dead Atlanteans. Call me Mr. Conventional Stick- in- the-Mud, but this has never served to recommend his educational philosophy to me." http://homeeducationheretic.blogspot.com/2009/10/here-come-gnomes.html tgeorgescu (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hehe yes, funny right - though plenty of prominent tech execs have send their kids to Waldorf school as an example, among other fields: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html SamwiseGSix (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

For further insight on metaphysics, one can refer back to Aquinas.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Stop peddling Aquinas if you do not want a level 4 warning. WP:NOTAFORUM. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Feeling confused, the oft-cited scholar relates to the relevant subjects in question on this article's talk page and is relevant to the article right, can you help me understand which policy is not being properly followed by the newcomer here? SamwiseGSix (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Aquinas has written absolutely nothing about Rudolf Steiner and/or Anthroposophy. So citing Aquinas in this article is sheer WP:OR.

Anyway, my point is: to those from the reality-based community his epistemology (talking to the spirits of dead Atlanteans) and ontology (elves, fairies, sylphs, gnomes) are ludicrous and farcical. We have a policy thereupon: WP:GEVAL. And the guideline WP:FRINGE.

"If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic." Thomas Szasz. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hm, well it appears prominent figures and scholars like Owen Barfield et al have drawn deep comparisons and ties between Steiner and Aquinas - as for the Szaz quote, he appears to be drawing quite deeply on Freud, Beck and co there right

Default existentialism of the 30's, with a dash of Stoicism added on in the 60s there perhaps? ;) SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM for discussing existentialism, Stoicism, materialism, and so on. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, ontology and epistemology are prominent branches in the field of philosophy right, which do underpin many of the questions and concerns which seem to be rising in regards to the article, and are related to the philosophy of science and demarcation etc hm

In other words, they do appear quite related to the seeking of additional scientific and academic citations to improve the article here, to help facilitate a more balanced NPOV per the community standard hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia WP:NPOV entails WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, and WP:FRINGE. E.g. the Rose Journal does not pass WP:FRIND. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so how about this sentence and citations then? SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The Rose Journal is uncitable. My two cents are that the other references are not much better. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok removed, so how about I add this sentence w/ citations in then?

Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is grounded. SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: even if it is WP:V in WP:RS, it should not be included if it runs afoul of WP:GEVAL, WP:PSCI, or WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mosesheron: What difference do you see to Smith and Mormonism? A man claims he has had revelations from God, presents a new scripture he says comes from God, starts a new religion that claims to be a restoration, not new. It sure seems very similar. The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible. Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hm, so the qualification that mainstream science views much of Anthroposophy to be pseudoscientific, but that aspects of its ontology and epistemology particularly as applied in philosophy, and education have been academically and scientifically studied and noted? This would seem to be a more granular approach to NPOV - not a meeting in the middle, but a leading with the qualifier, and then at least an acknowledgement of some of the (pretty extensive and notable) academic literature that scientifically outlines the benefits in applying the epistemology etc SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, we go for WP:BESTSOURCES. We do not go for sources which fail WP:FRIND. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes of course, so far those sources seem quite independent - getting a bit late here so going to need to get to bed, certainly curious to see what you guys think and come up with though SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And Steiner's talks about something like AI are not "prophecy", but science-fiction. We do not call Jules Verne a prophet. Morals: in a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia Steiner could be a genial SciFi author, but certainly not a prophet. E.g. in his "prophecy" about the mad cow disease, he blamed urates, when in reality a virus was the cause of the disease. If he had supernatural insight, he would not have made such a gross confusion.

Why are Waldorf schools better schools? Any school which can afford to cherrypick its students can do much better than average.

And if you are here to deny atomic theory in the name of Goethean science: go away, don't waste out our time with such nonsense.

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) 13:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hm interesting, it does not appear that the quotes are pertinent here - of course we agree that Wikipedia should not be advertising for the "MGTOW" or Flat Earth movements and I'm in full agreement with this policy: the NPOV standard objectively manages the related parameters there arguably quite effectively.

Regarding NPOV and CHOPSY on this article, we can of course also observe that plenty of present and former WP/CHOPSY scholars have academically published favorably regarding some of the related epistemology and ontology etc here, including Zajonc, Amrine, McKanan and others. Interesting questions W. Dever and co are raising there also - it appears the Smithsonian piece can additionally help facilitate more objective and neutral ways of viewing the prominent leaders depicted in the Old Testament or Torah, with some modest additional support from the Eakins piece below as well: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/archaeological-dig-reignites-debate-old-testament-historical-accuracy-180979011/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003463737707400402?journalCode=raeb

However, I don't think anyone here seeks to portray Steiner as a prophet - from a tech/VC/business management science standpoint today, being able to successfully found companies/organizations and make accurate predictions while understanding/forecasting trends are important though, and he did somehow manage to found a range of companies/organizations that have grown to large sizes and market cap etc today (often scientifically assessed positively in academia), while arguably leveraging pattern/trend analysis in making a range of predictions on technical/sociological trends around automation, democracy and transhumanism et al that are still arguably quite relevant in our time today.

If there is then no epistemological or ontological basis to the Waldorf schools for example, why do many leaders around tech entertainment and more choose to send their kids to Waldorf schools instead of the other options as the NYTimes article and others explore, not to mention notable alumni accomplishments? And finally yes, while Goethean Science is criticized by some scholars, it certainly receives plenty of positive measurement and sentiment in academic research as well, thus the referral back to and recommendation for the more truly balanced and neutral NPOV standard and approach here. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

So with all this being said, and having explored all of the relevant subjects and sources to the article here, I would like to go ahead and make this addition after the second sentence of the second paragraph of the article:

"Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is grounded."

These independent sources help facilitate a balanced NPOV as reflected by the academic research - is any of this going to be an issue for you, or should we request a third opinion? SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said: WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE. You have to obey these all while you edit Wikipedia. If you do not like do do that, leave. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, understood - so as I understand it since these are independent sources above, I could go ahead and edit these in after the second sentance of the second paragraph. It would be the direct adjustment of the first sentence of the second paragraph however (to qualifying say with 'scholarly critics assert') that would cause you to revert etc

I do have to travel quite a ways across timezones late this week and over the weekend for a funeral unfortunately, so I was planning to come back to this ideally early next week, if possible as well. SamwiseGSix (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I cannot force you to like our WP:RULES, but if you do not like our rules, vote with your feet.

I'm not saying that I'm without mistake, but I evaluate all edits according to WP:RULES, not according to my own liking and prejudices. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes of course, it is all about the science and NPOV :thumbsup: SamwiseGSix (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggesting that Wikipedia should endorse gnomes, sylphs, and talking to the spirits of dead Atlanteans makes a mockery of our encyclopedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Not endorsing any of those things or seeeking to make a mockery out of the Encyclopedia in any way here, rather simply trying to help add some of the scientific insight available in the many independent journal articles linked above to help facilitate neutral point of view, for the sake of a decent and humane future. Humanity faces existential risk https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069 SamwiseGSix (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do you state for the sake of a decent and humane future. Humanity faces existential risk? WP:NOTAFORUM. You cannot win this debate with such inane arguments. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I saw your post on my talk page - I am seeking to use the talk page here to help improve the article by seeking a more balanced NPOV and the academic sources on the topic (both from the literature and posts citing their points above) above certainly do arguably apply right.. Not seeking to soapbox - are you saying that you have admin capability and can simply block me as an editor without warning? This does seem to be quite heavy handed, and an unfair application of the policy. SamwiseGSix (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I have never said I am an admin. I just said that WP:AE is just around the corner. So is WP:ANI also. If you do not want to listen to my warnings, there are plenty of admins ready to block you. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Coming back to the edit you have suggested, my two cents are that all the new sources fail WP:FRIND, so: no, you edit isn't allowed. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hm, so even when an editor is making points very arguably strongly related to improving the article (including around the deeper questions of ontology and philosophy of science) you are saying that you could begin an arbitration process for this - I am assuming the admins would closely read the arguments in question, and assess to what degree they are related to improving the article? Can you show me the precedents that make you feel confidently that I could be blocked from editing without further notice here? Again a fair application of the policies should allow for discussion of ontology, including around philosophy of science right.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

As for the sources above cited, they are independent reliable sources right - can you demonstrate from your perspective (your two cents, as you say) why they are not independent reliable sources.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I urge you to desist from offtopic rants about materialism, existentialism, future of mankind, and existential risk. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Well is the academic literature above not connecting the way the subject article of this talk page is applicable to reducing existential risk? Existentialism is related to the ontology and philosophy of science in this article and your counter assertions - are you trying to argue that we are not allowed to discuss ontology or the philosophy of science? SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM. If you have been unable to get the point after so many hints and formal warnings, you will likely never get it. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I was going to say that, this talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, and not a general discussion forum. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, and I am here politely recommending that we include a sentence like the one below after the second sentence of the second paragraph, to facilitate a more balanced NPOV which showcases the many independent reliable sources publishing relevant data on the subject - is this not a fair application of the NPOV standard and talk page use in facilitating?

Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is grounded. SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: ontology meaning gnomes, elves, fairies, and sylphs; epistemology meaning talking to the spirits of dead Atlanteans. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant, what is relevant is I found none of those words in the first source, so it failed wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I mean I'm not ignorant of Steiner's ontology, nor of his epistemology. Endorsing them would make a mockery of our encyclopedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Epistemology is in the title here, for Waldorf pedagogy https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

The metaphysics does draw heavily from Aquinas and Ancient Greek philosophy, but the independent reliable sources here are looking at Waldorf pedagogy (over 3000 schools in most major cities) for example among other applications, including environmental conservation and more:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244013494861 SamwiseGSix (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is grounded is a largely meaningless sentence that only serves only WP:FALSEBALANCE. Do opponents "acknowledge arguments" when they refute them? Anthroposophy is a weird mixture of obsolete scientific theories, schizophrenic delusions, and platitudes, held together by pompous flubdub. And that sentence is 100% pompous flubdub. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, on a call here currently - will rework this and can post an updated version within an hour or so here SamwiseGSix (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not a chatroom, you do not have to write something just to write something. And there is no deadline. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't add a sentence for example mentioning the epistemology as studied and measured by the academy in education, and its effectiveness in Waldorf education specifically? Not including such extensive and notable scientific data does would not appear to be a proper implementation/adherence to the Wikipedia NPOV policy. This is not to create a false balance, but to state that while much of the body of Anthroposophical work would be considered pseudoscientific by today's standards, some independent, scientifically measured research has nevertheless been published, and is notable for inclusion to keep the article at a reasonable NPOV standard. Just following the science here:https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476718X211051184https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

As I said: WP:FRINGE. Maybe for you that's not a valid argument, but for the Wikipedia Community is a valid argument. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes sure, and that is why presented here are a range of sources passing Wikipedia's standards for 'notability', 'parity', 'independence' and attribution etc as stated on the WP/Fringe page you cite:

https://www.scielo.br/j/er/a/8nyN7QDpx6JYdh4VvYsPBHN/

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ej432784https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15507394.2017.1294400

H. A. Alexander, Reclaiming Goodness: Education and the Spiritual Quest (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001); D. E. Hall, A. M. Catanzaro, O. Harrison, and H.G. Koenig (UTChttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476718X211051184https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=yhttps://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html

SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Rather then providing links how about three really good quotes that back up your suggestion? Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, here some quotes which I hope could help:

From the Indedendent.co.uk:

"Pupils from Steiner schools are said to have practical skills that make them more able to cope in the adult world.." "The argument goes: if it is all right for rich parents to pay for their children to undergo this kind of education, why should it not be available to those who do not have the means to pay for their children's education as well?"

Eric.gov: "Waldorf schools educate the whole human being--head, heart, and hands."

Journal via Arizona.edu: "Students from Waldorf school environments demonstrate critical skills and critique schooling environments, invoking stances familiar to critical pedagogues. Investigation into the philosophical tenets of Waldorf education and Native American/Indigenous epistemologies shows several examples of overlap and similarity, the most striking being elements of spiritual belief and practice as foundational to Native American/Indigenous well-being, and the ability of Waldorf education to address this."

NYTimes: "The chief technology officer of eBay sends his children to a nine-classroom school here. So do employees of Silicon Valley giants like Google, Apple, Yahoo and Hewlett-Packard. This is the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, one of around 160 Waldorf schools in the country that subscribe to a teaching philosophy focused on physical activity and learning through creative, hands-on tasks.." SamwiseGSix (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

what has this to do with "Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is grounded", what is this thread about? Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

References