Jump to content

Talk:Anthroposophy/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Proposed merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge the two articles hgilbert (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I propose to merge the newly created article Anthroposophy and Judaism into this article. Much of the material is duplicated; the one or two sentences that are new could be added here. Are there reasons to have a separate article? hgilbert (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger needs work

The new section on Anthroposophy and Judaism needs work...hgilbert (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Rounds, cycles, and stages

I have simplified the passage on the connection of the human being to the Earth, and connected it with the appropriate paragraph.

I have a question of the complex system of rounds, cycles, and stages that Anthroposophy took over from Theosophy. It is so complicated that it would require a separate article of its own if we were to do it justice. I suggest that we just put in a simple statement referring to this system, and if someone wants to create the article explaining it all, that would be fine.

As an example of its complexity: the Carroll quote was referring not to the primary system of cycles, but to a sub-cycle within the most recent sub-cycle of this system. I don't think we want to go there...hgilbert (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Supporters

Could find no evidence that Bruno Walter is a nobel laureate.

Ibrahim Abouleish seems notable only for being a believer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.158.52 (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Category: Eastern philosophy

Anthroposophy is not part of Eastern philosophy. This category should be removed. hgilbert (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Further reading

There were a wide variety of sources on this list. Rather than removing all, I suggest that any that are dubious are removed. Or are you asserting that there are absolutely no trustworthy sources on the subject???

Many of the sources were tangentially related. I would like to restore the following, which seem more central, unless there's some strong reason not to. Other sources from objectively positioned writers should also be included:

  • Ahern, Geoffrey (2009): Sun at Midnight: the Rudolf Steiner Movement and Gnosis in the West ISBN 978-0-227-17293-3
  • Davy, John, Hope, Evolution and Change", Hawthorn Press. ISBN 0-9507062-7-2
  • Edelglass, Stephen et al., The Marriage of Sense and Thought, Lindisfarne Press. ISBN 0-940262-82-7
  • Gleich, Sigismund, The Sources of Inspiration of Anthroposophy, Temple Lodge Press ISBN 0-904693-87-2
  • McDermott, Robert A., The Essential Steiner: Basic Writings of Rudolf Steiner, Lindisfarne Press ISBN 978-1-58420-051-2.
  • Oort, Henk van, 'Anthroposophy' A Concise Introduction to Rudolf Steiner's Spiritual Philosophy'(2008)ISBN 978-1-902636-92-4
  • Prokofieff, Sergei O., What Is Anthroposophy? ISBN 1902636783
  • Sit, Kwan-Yuk Claire, Lao Tzu and Anthroposophy ISBN 1584201266
  • Steiner, Rudolf:
  • Steiner, Rudolf and Welburn, Andrew, The Mysteries: Rudolf Steiner's Writings on Spiritual Initiation, Floris Books ISBN 0-86315-243-0
  • Welburn, Andrew Rudolf Steiner's Philosophy and the Crisis of Contemporary Thought Floris Books
hgilbert (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I had missed this before coming here today. A list would improve the article. I see nothing in above objectionable, but may be it is too long? Perhaps one or two could be omitted, while still lettting an inquirer have an all-round view. Qexigator (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sir George Trevelyan

I've added this name under the section Reception: Supporters. It is patently clear from the bio here of Sir George, as well as in his Exploration Into God (publ. Gateway, p.50) that his support of Anthroposophy ran deep even though seldom seen publicly. He was awarded the Right Livelihood award in 1982. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

J.G. I.H.Fichte

There is at least some doubt whether "anthroposophy" can be attributed to J.G.Fichte Immanuel Hermann Fichte (inserted 11:06, 14 April 2007)[1]: see, e.g., David Wood on Traub's Philosophie und Anthroposophie: Die philosophische Weltanschauung Rudolf Steiners. Grundlegung und Kritik (2011)[2] (more extended review in[3], including section 5 on "Steiner´s philosophical originality"). Can the attribution be sourced? Qexigator (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thomas C. Südhof

The cited article says that he is a Nobel prizewinner. It does not claim that he would support anthroposophy. To be sure, Thomas C. Südhof says he is a Waldof school alumnus and he said he owes his success to his bassoon teacher. So far no claim that he would support Steiner's spiritual philosophy. In fact, it would be hard to reconcile many of Steiner's bizarre claims about medicine with present-day hard science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have found this, but so far no mention that he would now support anthroposophy, just stating the fact that he was born in an anthroposophical family. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Anthroposophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

The Anthroposophy#Scientific basis section contains a large discussion about anthroposophy's scientific basis, with a variety of viewpoints. The lede should summarize this, not merely represent a single view. HGilbert (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

What is probably the real NPOV issue is that the wingnut views are not adequately presented as such in the body. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
WP policy is that the lede should summarize the body accurately. The sources added to the lede should go into the Reception sections creating the balance. Then the lede should summarize the whole reception section, not just one view expressed there. HGilbert (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
While the lead should represent the body, the body must also represent the mainstream views. That is clearly not the case here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
What is the gist of the argument: many of Steiner's scientific ideas are outlandish and outright bizarre from the perspective of present-day mainstream science. This has to be reflected, it is not merely the view of skeptics, it is the view of any rational person with a sound scientific education (including those who disagree with the mainstream scientific consensus, but nevertheless acknowledge it for what it is). Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Just consider WP:CHOPS. What would Stephen Hawking say about Steiner's ideas? What would Michio Kaku say? What would medicine professors from CHOPS say? Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
This has been previously discussed at Talk:Rudolf Steiner/Archive 4#Category: Pseudoscientists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This article does tend somewhat towards an in-universe view. By acting as though wingnut views are actually quite sensible, we do readers a great disservice. bobrayner (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, materialists consider Steiner in error, thus above label "wingnut". There is in the article no mention of Steiner's view about Zionism. Whoopsreader (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The article on Rudolf Steiner covers the latter. He never presented this as part of Anthroposophy. (Funny timing: I was just at Theodor Herzl's birth house.) HGilbert (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not proclaim the Truth that Steiner (or any other guru) was in error, but it simply has to render the fact that Steiner's ideas are eccentric and bizarre in respect to mainstream views (e.g. what commonly passes for science and scholarship in the contemporary academia). Wikipedia simply has to render the lack of broad acceptance for Steiner's views. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
"Steiner is right" is a transcendental truth, and Wikipedia has no access to transcendental truths. What it has access to is learned opinion, such as science, scholarship and reliable press. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "Modern analysts, including Michael Shermer, have termed anthroposophy's application in areas such as medicine, biology and biodynamic agriculture pseudoscience." goes far enough. WP has a policy of accepting scientific consensus as true. We shouldn't couch the consensus in terms like "Modern Analysts have termed the application of..." etc.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC points out that to demonstrate the existence of scientific consensus "requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view". HGilbert (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthroposophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anthroposophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Not New Age

In his New Age Religion and Western Culture, Hannegraf writes: "Both outsiders and insiders sometimes associate certain older movements in the occultistic tradition, for instance Anthroposophy, with the New Age. Such an application of the term is unwarranted for several reasons...Anthroposophy...emerged and developed...far earlier than the period in which the term New Age began to be used..." This is as definitive a source as exists. Clean Copytalk 18:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Hanegraaff uses "New Age" to mean the movement based on Seth channeling and subsequent developments (eclectic or supermarket type of religious worship). But this is a technical, academic meaning, not what most people understand by "New Age". E.g. New Age includes Steiner, but Steiner's movement does not include the New Age. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Hanegraaf points out that 1) it would be anachronistic to apply the term New Age to a movement that was founded 70 years before the New Age movement started and 2) anthroposophy has fundamentally different characteristics to New Age movements. It has nothing to do with an academic usage. Clean Copytalk 15:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, that depends upon what we call New Age: some put its beginnings in Seth channeling, others put it in theosophy. There are WP:RS on either side. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthroposophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"The Founder of Anthroposophy"

Rudolf Steiner cannot possibly be the "founder of Anthroposophy" when the term was clearly used by a Welsh philosopher in the 1600's, i.e. Thomas Vaughan.

Mysticalresearch (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, you've stimulated me to fill out the early history of the term. Using a term and founding a movement based on this term are quite different things, however. Clean Copytalk 05:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Cheers. I however feel that the philosophical movement had been practiced by philosophers long before Steiner. Although he may have deeply contributed to the movement's shift into modernity, I would still not consider him the founder of such. Mysticalresearch (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
It is interesting that you feel that way, but can you find any evidence of there being a movement by this name before Steiner? Yes, the word is very occasionally used as a descriptive term by earlier philosophers, but philosophers use a lot of words. Clean Copytalk 09:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The above draws attention to an ambiguity: (1) anthroposophy as used by others before Rudolf Steiner, described in the section Etymology and earlier uses of the word; and (2) the anthroposophy uniquely propounded by him under that name in the 20c. as described in the rest of the article, and extended to cover the "work arising" from that, in education and so on.[4] A similar ambiguity affects the use of Theosophy: 'the term theosophy has generally been used to refer to the religio-philosophic doctrines of the Theosophical Society, founded in New York City in 1875...', but not in respect of "work arising". The article's lead needs some adjustment in this respect. It may be surmised that by the end of the 1920s, the use of the term for the anthroposophy uniquely propounded by Steiner, before and after he founded the Allgemeine Anthroposophische Gesellschaft in 1923 would have supplanted the little known uses by others in earlier writings. Today, it could be said "anthroposophy is a <+>the</+> philosophy propounded by Rudolf Steiner that postulates the existence of an objective, intellectually comprehensible spiritual world...." But the lead should also mention that the term had been used by some earlier writers. Qexigator (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
There is no real ambiguity, as
  1. this article is about Steiner's movement, not about the earlier uses.
  2. Furthermore, for the last 50-100 years, there is no evidence that the term has been used in any other sense than to refer to the movement that Steiner founded. There is no ambiguity because the current meaning is clear, and has been for a very long time.
It is enough to mention in the Etymology section that the term had earlier been used in analogous senses. If someone wants to write an article about the other uses, and add a See also hatnote, that would be fine. Clean Copytalk 05:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I made an error with my earlier verbiage. I should not have used the word "term" as it may have confused you with my point. The article should be about the study of Anthroposophy as a whole, not be based solely about one man's contribution to the study of Anthroposophy. In this instance, it is not simply about an etymological "use" of a word, but rather that a philosopher had used and developed the study of Anthroposophy prior. The evidence I propose is one of Thomas Vaughan's works titled, Anthroposophia Theomagica. If it is indeed true that some fundamental principles are shared between Vaugan and Steiner, then how can Steiner be a founder of the Anthroposophy when another before him had used and developed the underlining philosophical principles? It doesn't make sense to write another article about another man's contribution to Anthroposophy.Mysticalresearch (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I had taken the opening comment above, about Steiner as "founder", in Mysticalresearch's sense. Clean Copy's comment This article is about Steiner's movement is off the mark, and appears to disregard my npov remarks. It can be seen that it was made by one who has been a major contributor to the article,[5] from December 2005.[6] The use of "founded" stems from 28 April 2005.[7] Yes, the article is mainly about the anthroposophy of Steiner's 20c. anthroposophical movement, which became the major concern of his lifework, but anthroposophy is not exclusively about Steiner's movement. There is no doubt that there was a grammatical ambiguity, and my version was meant to avoid it. Wikipedia should not make the assumption that a reader will not be more interested in the earlier usage than with that of Steiner and his dedicated followers, some of whom may readily accept that Steiner's use was intentionally a derivative in point of language, and perhaps to some extent in purport. The assertion "No one uses the term in any other sense anymore"[8] is obviously hyperbole, not fact based reason. The works of earlier writers have continued to exist in the last 50-100 years, and may be of more intererst to some, as specialists or general readers studying mysticism, historical and contemporary, for whom Steiner's work is relevant but not more than a part of the field of study. It could be a moot point whether students of that sort outnumber those who consider themselves adherents of Steiner's version of anthroposophy. If 'Clean Copy' has a better way of removing the ambiguity when referring to Steiner as "founder of anthroposophy", so be it. The founders of the Theosophical Society were not the "founders of theosophy". Qexigator (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I heartily agree that the founders of the TS were not the founders of theosophy; the latter was indeed an active area of work previous to that time. How can we be sure of this? Numerous tertiary and secondary sources have articles on theosophy as it existed previous to the TS.
There are numerous reliable, tertiary and secondary sources that indicate clearly that the term anthroposophy is used today to refer exclusively to Steiner's philosophy: Britannica, Encyclopedia of Angels, Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy, Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, Religions of the World, New World, Duden, Anthroposophie in Deutschland, Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie, Dictionary of Theology, International Dictionary of Music Therapy, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Encyclopedia of Special Education, Encyclopedia of the Social and Cultural Foundations of Education and Robert McDermott, The New Essential Steiner; Jakob Meyer, Rudolf Steiner. Begründer der Anthroposophie und Waldorfpädagogik, Tina Usner, Die Waldorfpädagogik: Die praktische Umsetzung der Anthroposophie, Uwe Werner, Anthroposophen in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus. Can you point to any such sources that indicate that anthroposophy was a movement or area of study previous to Steiner, or that the term is used in this sense still? Clean Copytalk 02:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
In order to find a neutral basis for the discussion here, perhaps we can agree that an interesting and maybe inconclusive debate on the points under discussion could be enjoyed among, on the one hand, those who are well-disposed towards Steiner and his version of anthroposophy, and on the other those who are opposed or at least more critical, provided all of them were sufficiently familiar or conversant with Steiner's writings and not relying on polemical secondary sources of opinion and comment. While this is not the place for such a debate, for the purpose of discussing the npov presentation of the article's content, the following could summarise the points for discussion in such a debate:
  • 1_Steiner expressly denied/ affirmed that the anthroposophy he was propounding was connected with what had previously been called anthroposophy by the earlier writers named in the article.
  • 2_Steiner himself neither expressly affirmed nor denied that his 'anthroposophy' was connected with what earlier writers called anthroposophy, but RS support the opinion or comment that his writings implicitly so affirm or deny.
  • 3_There is a middle position, that RS support the proposition that Steiner considered that he was doubly justified in using the term: first, because he was consciously drawing directly from a higher or ideal/mystical/spiritual source, such as Plato's writings describe in Greek, and, secondly, that he also considered that the earlier writers were inspired (but not necessarily consciously) from the same source.
If there are no citable sources for any of those three, the article should not be written in Wikipedia's voice as if it were. Part of that debate could refer to this quotation from one of the sources cited in the article, in which I have inserted (italicised) words implicit in its author's context: "The spiritual reorientation and the contact with esotericism set Steiner on a path of eclecticism and synthesis that produced a highly original and speculative occult philosophy now known, by the name he gave to it, as anthroposophy. The theosophical years from 1902 to 1913 were particularly productive. Several books considered fundamental to Steiner's version of anthroposophy were written during this period, particularly Theosophie (1904)..." (Olav Hammer, Claiming Knowledge: strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age, Brill 2004, p. 64). Qexigator (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I have supplied a veritable host of RS supporting the proposition that the term anthroposophy is used today simply to refer to the movement Steiner founded. That there are a very few, very antiquated usages that predate this is an interesting footnote. Unless you have RSs that suggest otherwise? Clean Copytalk 11:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but I see nothing in those links that addresses the points in 1-3 above. Noted that Clean Copy's last comment is again off the mark, as if inadvertently (agf) not addressing the points raised at the top of this section, and by...Qexigator (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This discussion started out with a question as to whether Rudolf Steiner was the founder of anthroposophy. I have provided 18 high-quality reliable sources that certify that this is the case. No reliable sources have been given to place this in doubt.
Furthermore, I have seen no sources given for anything else under discussion, which makes this WP:Original research. Interesting but not suitable for an encyclopedia. Clean Copytalk 15:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Again, a failure to address the point, on 'Clean Copy's' part, after repeated requests. Please pinpoint any passage in the sources cited that addresses the point (see 1 and 2 above). It appears that none do, because we may surmise, they lack the necessary degree of assiduous attention to the topic to mention it or, perhaps, have not even given it any thought, or failed to follow it up. Now that the question has been raised, it should not be dismissed as insignificant but should be suitably acknowledged in the lead, as proposed: that there were precursors, per the article. That cannot amount to SYN or OR, nor UNDUE: merely honest editing, as in Bamford at pp.7 and 11 of What is Anthroposophy? Three Perspectives on Self-knowledge (2002). Qexigator (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Bamford writes, "What Steiner did and taught is, from this point of view, Anthroposophy. From this point of view the two — Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy — are interchangeable." is this what you are referring to? Clean Copytalk 05:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The point seems to be jumping all over the place. I am fine with addressing th e earlier history of the term in the lead and have inserted possible language doing just this. Let me know if you feel this meets the desired goal. Clean Copytalk 23:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
That edit OK. That quote from Bamford also noted, and there are others: in fact, both for readers who have and for those who have not prior knowledge of anthroposophy or Steiner, the whole of Bamford's introduction offers a good survey and a balanced appreciation. At this very time, while I am writing, the morning star is literally passing from the sky as daylight breaks! Qexigator (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Touching on your quote "What Steiner did and taught is, from this point of view, Anthroposophy. From this point of view the two — Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy — are interchangeable." Being doer and teacher does not equate to being a founder. I get it, he greatly contributed to this topic. But you cannot say he founded it when others before him wrote very extensive volumes on this subject. Your opinion is biased.Mysticalresearch (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"Assimilationist antisemitism"

I have removed this loaded term, as it is used by only one author addressing a theme which has been framed in a wide variety of ways. It also uses the word "antisemitism" in a way that does not convey what most people understand by this term. For example, a significant proportion of the German Jews were fairly extreme assimilationists before the Nazi era, but would it really be helpful to call them "assimilationist antisemitites"?

If we really want to include this, we probably should open up a whole palette of terminologies...this would be a mess. But what do others think? Clean Copytalk 09:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Yup, Steiner did not hate the Jews or wanted to oppress them. My teacher, Olga Amsterdamska, said that in Steiner's time there were two categories of intellectuals: if you weren't a racist, you were a socialist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

POV and general wikistyle issues

Just to put my cards on the table, I plan on engaging in a project to revamp this article as well as the other pseudoscience articles related to anthroposophy over the next several weeks. By these articles I mean Anthroposophy, Biodynamic agriculture, Anthroposophic medicine, the Camphill movement, and Waldorf education. It is my belief that these articles have been slowly but surely edited to use weasel words and other elements of insidious writing that subtilely enforce a preferred viewpoint. What these articles are lacking is a true description of the overall intellectual consensus on these disciplines as pseudoscientific (meaning the practical applications themselves) and fringe in nature (referring to the philosophy itself).

I do not intend to over-emphasize any critical viewpoints and I plan to retain the wiki-like elements of the majority of the article's bodies. There are parts of Steiner's history (mild assimilationism with regards to the Jewish people, anti-darwinism, pseudo-naturalism etc) that are either minimized or not discussed in full in this main article in particular. In the articles dealing with applications of Anthroposophy, an overly positive viewpoint is enforced in a way that is fundamentally not objective. Of course I will bring all of these edits in using Reliable second- or third-party sources.

I also find that these articles in particular use quite a lot of primary sources that are very pro-Steiner. This in itself is a problem, as any viewpoint peddling sources should be balanced with neutral or opposing opinions in context. I've been thinking about coming back to these articles for a while, so now seems like as good a time as any. Please refer any disputes with my content and style changes to the relevant talk pages. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Reporting individual pupils' or parents' experiences

  1. Question about reliable sources: Are the opinions of individual Waldorf school alumni or Waldorf alumni parents reliable sources for commenting on a philosophical movement? WP:RS suggests that "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications."
  2. Question about NPOV: If individual opinions are significant, then every such comment has an equal right to be reported, not just the negative ones (see WP:CHERRY). Clean Copytalk 16:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be confused about what is needed for inclusion of content or viewpoints in article. No, the primary sources themselves of critics are not always WP:RS. But they merit inclusion if they are backed up by reliable secondary sources displaying their notability and coverage in the mainstream media, literature, etc. Here's the pertinent wiki policy supplement. Here also is a pertinent quotation from the NPOV FAQ:

Fairly explaining the arguments against a pseudoscientific theory or verifiably describing the moral repugnance that people feel toward a notion is fully permitted by NPOV.

And as to your second point, what you are describing would be against the policies as set down in WP:NPOV. We are supposed to include viewpoints proportional to the weight they are given in reliable secondary sources. We are not to include every tom, dick, and harry. Only the toms, dicks, and harrys included in secondary sources, and only in proportion to the inclusion in those sources. In the NPOV policy, this is referred to as "due and undue weight." See here:

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

WP:CHERRY, the article you've cited to support your claim that this article should have more POVs if we are allowing these, is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. WP:NPOV (and more specifically WP:UNDUE) is more relevant and actually enforceable by administrators and ArbCom. But it actually references a more useful guideline: WP:FRINGE. In the lead of that guideline, it says:

Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.

Does that answer your questions? It is exactly why I included those negative points of view couched in their subjectivity in this article. They are covered in WP:RS as notable criticisms of Anthroposophy and the Waldorf system (The Atlantic, The Chicago Tribune, and so on) and therefore merit inclusion. It isn't for me, or for you, to decide whether or not they are worth including. They are covered in secondary sources, and are therefore worth including.
More specifically, the Dan Dugan criticism is very well-covered and absolutely merits inclusion. As does the Geoffrey Ahern criticisms in his published book. And the Michael Shermer criticism in his published book. And so on. I will level with you that the Roger Rawlings criticism, as only a former pupil, is perhaps the least meritorious of the three. As far as I can tell, the only coverage it has is with Quackwatch. And Quackwatch is a gray area, as we've discussed. It would probably need to go to a RfC if we want to debate whether or not it merits inclusion. I would argue that, for these fringe theories, Quackwatch is about as Reliable a source as we can expect. The entire movement of Anthroposophy is so esoteric that very few WP:RS care enough to cover proponents or critics. But the non-Rawlings criticisms are pretty cut and dry.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  1. How is "waldorfcritics.org" an "independent reliable source"???
  2. Ahern's book is generally very positive toward Steiner and anthroposophy. This is not remotely a fair representation. Clean Copytalk 17:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Re:waldorfcritics.org, the website itself is not a WP:RS. But it is reprinting an article published in a WP:RS. I have said this to you several times already. Please slow down and read what I've said on these topics before replying so quickly.
It's reprinting an article published in The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief, Edited by Tom Flynn and published by Prometheus Books in 2007. The article appears on pages 74-76. This encyclopedia is a primary WP:RS. The secondary reliable sources that depict the notability of Dan Dugan's criticisms are also referenced. This is entirely allowed, as detailed in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I'm going to add all those Encyclopedia details to the citation, because it seems it isn't clear enough.
Re: Geoffreey Ahern, Sun at Midnight is not generally positive, it's generally unbiased. The word "unbiased" is exactly what the publisher uses in the blurb for the 2009 edition. He does provide some criticism in the book. He actually uses the word "cult" fairly regularly to describe how individuals interact with Anthroposophy. Consider pages 205, 223, and 260 of the 2009 edition for examples. He also notes the 'unscientific' nature of the movement and how it benefits from the appearance of science on pages 92, 119, and 188.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Anthroposophy a philosophy ?

I would question the definition of Steiner's anthroposophy as a "philosophy "; it is not, it goes beyond. Just think of Kant, Hegel, Heidegger. They created philosophies. Steiner posited a "Weltanschauung" that draws from many different sources (Christian mystics, anglo-Indian Theosophy, Goethe, and evolution, to name a few). It is more what you would call a "Weltanschauung", a system of thoughts and beliefs that help interpret the world and act upon it accordingly, hence all the lasting influence Steiner's anthroposophy had on agriculture, education (Waldorf pedagogy),architecture, medicine, eurythmics.

In "Philosophy and Anthroposophy", Steiner goes so far as to define Anthroposophy as a "scientific research of the spiritual world." This is a challenging concept, if not an oxymoron, but it suggests that Steiner himself does not consider anthroposophy a philosophy.

What do others think? Luciola63 (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these thoughts, Luciola63. Given your insight, what would you recommend for a lead sentence in the article? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Steiner was educated in philosophy and he did wrote philosophical books, like The Philosophy of Freedom and Goethe's Theory of Knowledge. So, yes, he was a bona fide philosopher, but he also was a New Age guru, the two are not mutually exclusive. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for this reply, Tgeorgescu. But does the fact that Steiner may be considered a philosopher, make anthroposophy a philosophy? The central question here is what is the best adjectival descriptor for the concept? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
It is philosophy and it is New Age mysticism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
It is not unusual for a philosophical or mystical system of beliefs to be applied to other fields. It also does not make it any less of a "philosophy." See: Buddhism applied to economics, agriculture, Soviet communism applied to agriculture, genetics, etc. Laveyan satanism applied to cooking. Scientology applied to the treatment of mental illness. As well as scientific empiricism applied to all manner of things. These are all "philosophies" being applied to practical and non-theoretical avenues. The category "philosophy" just means "framework of belief." In the study of epistemology, such a category includes/subsumes religious philosophy, political economy, ethical framework, etc etc. Nothing about how Anthroposophy is applied makes it special or unique in comparison to these other philosophies. except, perhaps, that it is more absurd in its tenets and more mystical and self indulgent in its "origins." Would you rather we call it a cult? or an esotericism? I would say of all possible terms, in my opinion, "esoteric religion" is probably the most correct. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your insights, here, Tgeorgescu and Shibbolethink. My thinking is that we should be using terms that are used by reliable sources writing about the topic in addition to how Steiner characterized the movement. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
There's a lot of variation in terminology Some sources I found:
  1. Encyclopedia Britannica calls it a philosophy[1] and I've added this as a citation. But other encyclopedias use other terms.
  2. The Handbook of New Religions and Cultural Production calls it a "philosophy and cultural movement" (citing Lorand 1996:33)
  3. Phillips' Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy calls it a "spiritual movement" (p. 847)
  4. Corsini's Encyclopedia of Psychology calls it a "system of thought" (p. 86)
I kind of regard Britannica as both the most authoritative and the most comparable to Wikipedia in purpose (a general encyclopedia)...but there are a lot of options here. Clean Copytalk 02:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

In view of the difficulty and complexity to succinctly define "anthroposophy", I agree completely with HopsonRoad that one should stay with Steiner's original description. Steiner was a philosopher and Anthroposophy certainly has philosophical underpinnings, but he defines it as "Lehre"("teaching"),and a path to enlightenment, thus going beyond "philosophy' by entering into the religious belief system. He also always stresses that anthroposophy is a 'scientific" method for discovering and developing the spiritual side of the human being. This may not fit our understanding of what a scientific method is. For those not familiar with the German language and the term "Weltanschauung" in contrast to philosophy, this entire discussion may be semantics.Luciola63 (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

In saying "reliable sources", I really meant other than Steiner. However, it would be important to say something like (in the body of the article), "Steiner himself defined anthroposophy as a 'scientific research of the spiritual world' and others have variously called it a'philosophy and cultural movement',[2] a 'spiritual movement',[3] or a 'system of thought'.[4]" Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I would encourage HopsonRoad to implement his suggestions about the definition of the term 'Anthroposophy into the article.Luciola63 (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Anthroposophy, Encyclopedia Britannica online. "Anthroposophy, philosophy based on the premise that the human intellect has the ability to contact spiritual worlds. It was formulated by Rudolf Steiner (q.v.), an Austrian philosopher, scientist, and artist, who postulated the existence of a spiritual world comprehensible to pure thought but fully accessible only to the faculties of knowledge latent in all humans."
  2. ^ The Handbook of New Religions and Cultural Production calls it a "philosophy and cultural movement" (citing Lorand 1996:33),
  3. ^ Phillips' Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy calls it a "spiritual movement" (p. 847
  4. ^ Corsini's Encyclopedia of Psychology calls it a "system of thought" (p. 86)

Double information

The paragraph "Anthroposophy's supporters include Pulitzer Prize-winning and Nobel Laureate Saul Bellow,[15] Nobel prize winner Selma Lagerlöf,[16] Andrei Bely,[17][18] Joseph Beuys,[19] Owen Barfield, architect Walter Burley Griffin,[20] Wassily Kandinsky,[21][22] Andrei Tarkovsky,[23] Bruno Walter,[24] Right Livelihood Award winners Sir George Trevelyan,[25] and Ibrahim Abouleish,[26] and child psychiatrist Eva Frommer.[27][28] Albert Schweitzer was a friend of Steiner's and was supportive of his ideals for cultural renewal.[29]" under Reception is already stated outside the subcategories. I suggest it either be removed, or placed in a separate subcategory called Notable Supporters (or something similar). FikaMedHasse (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

It isn't clear what you're saying, FikaMedHasse. Major supporters are stated in the lead (introduction) which is a summary of the main points of the body of the article, and under Reception. Why do you think that information doesn't make sense as part of Reception? (Btw, the divisions in an article are sections and subsections; "categories" and "subcategories" are something very different on Wikipedia.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I see, it makes perfect sense. I just found it a bit odd mentioning the same info twice, but having it in both the summary and the section makes sense now. FikaMedHasse (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Practical applications

My edit was partly reverted with a claim that influences would only fit for individuals, but this is actually only an extension of its influence. Presenting these as "practical applications" misleadingly promotes it as a type of science. —PaleoNeonate – 00:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What should we call the application of a philosophy to areas such as education, art, and agriculture?--I'm also not quite sure what the best term would be. These are surely practical fields of life, but perhaps there is a better way of describing it. Waldorf education, for example, or biodynamic agriculture are not simply "influenced" by Steiner and anthroposophy; they were directly founded by Steiner and are based on (not merely influenced by) his work and the work of other anthroposophical thinkers. Clean Copytalk 16:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Original research, racism, and Steiner.

@2001:16b8:31cd:f000:95b6:86f7:1626:d305, we do not write on Wikipedia on the basis of our opinions, or our beliefs. We do so on the basis of reliable sources. Do you have sources of equal or better reliability which demonstrate that Steiner was devoid of any white supremacy or pseudoscientific theories based on race? The WP:LEAD of the article should be written as a summary of the body, and the body tells us these things are true, using reliable sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is not neutral. Examples;

  1. "Anthroposophy has its roots in German idealism, mystical philosophies, and white supremacist pseudoscience."

2. "Anthroposophical medicine is a form of alternative medicine based on pseudoscientific and occult notions"


Firstly, to say that something IS based on white supremacist pseudoscience is quite a bold statement to make. How is it? "Read the citiations!", yet i doubt someone who wants to have a surface-level understanding of anthroposophy will, they will simply read "white supremacist pseudoscience" and have their entire understanding of anthroposophy tarnished by this.


Secondly, to say that something is based on pseudoscientific notions and explain nothing else about it only displays ideas of one side

This article needs improvements, as right now it shows an idea of anthroposophy through the lens of someone who disagrees with it. Criticism is good for people who want to understand, however reading or writing a page that just says "it's bad" does not benefit anyone. TWYLIVE (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

You have been served with WP:GOODBIAS at your talk page. You were also warned of discretionary sanctions. To cut a long story short, Wikipedia always chooses for mainstream science, mainstream history, mainstream medicine, mainstream social science, mainstream psychology, and mainstream psychiatry against tiny cults founded by clairvoyants.
Also, mind you that this isn't a PR-outlet, it is not meant for WP:SOAPBOXING.
If you deny that Anthroposophy peddles pseudoscience, WP:AE is just around the corner. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I note that those statements are in the intro and should be and are expanded in the body of the entry. Personally I would drop "white supremacist" as an adjective to pseudoscience in the intro since some of the pseudoscience is independent of it being racial. I also note that the US society has apparently updated its statement on diversity to admit that some earlier statements were problematic. Erp (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@Erp: Not so soon,

Though raised Catholic, Büchenbacher had partial Jewish ancestry and was considered a “half-Jew” by Nazi standards. He emigrated to Switzerland in 1936. According to his post-war memoirs, “approximately two thirds of German anthroposophists more or less succumbed to National Socialism.” He reported that various influential anthroposophists were “deeply infected by Nazi views” and “staunchly supported Hitler.” Both Guenther Wachsmuth, Secretary of the Swiss-based General Anthroposophical Society, and Marie Steiner, the widow of Rudolf Steiner, were described as “completely pro-Nazi.” Büchenbacher retrospectively lamented the far-reaching “Nazi sins” of his colleagues.59

— Staudenmaier p. 18

Steiner was a member of a völkisch Wagner club, and anthroposophist authors endorsed Wagner’s views on race.45

— Staudenmaier p. 79
Dick Taverne states that Steiner was a Nazi (i.e. member of the NSDAP). Taverne, Dick (2006). The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy, and the New Fundamentalism. OUP Oxford. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-19-157861-8. Retrieved 3 February 2022. Rudolf Steiner joined the Nazi party in its early days tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
In which case the White Supremacy roots are in addition to the pseudoscience roots. However I note that Taverne does not cite a source for Steiner having joined the Nazi party so I would be wary of considering it a fact. I did scan through Staudenmaier's thesis, which since it is concentrating on Anthroposophy and the Nazi party, would certainly mention if the author knew Steiner was at any time a Nazi party member; I could not find any such reference (admittedly it was a scan so I could have missed it). He certainly mentions plenty of Steiner's followers who do later become Nazis. Also you might find Help:References_and_page_numbers#Inline_page_numbers useful and use the thesis that the Staudenmaier book is based on since the thesis is more easily available. Erp (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@Erp: Yup, Staudenmaier does not say that Steiner was a member of NSDAP. But he kind of suggests that the Nazis saw Anthroposophy as Nazism's dumber sister, or something to that extent.
Otherwise, my preference goes to the book published by Brill, since it is a very reputable publisher of the academic studies of occultism (university-level studies in Western esotericism).
Of course, the big difference is that Steiner was basically a humanitarian, while the Nazis were bloodthirsty. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The Brill book is Staudenmaier also; apparently his thesis with maybe some modifications (see the acknowledgements). Taverne is Oxford University Press. I note the description at the OUP site emphasizes that it has been carefully checked as far as science, but, nothing about the checking as far as history and the subject area is Politics/International Relations not modern history. I agree there is an overlap of Anthroposophists and Nazis in Germany though the Nazi leaders were also suspicious of it (I suspect being headquartered in Switzerland so not under the control of the Nazi party didn't help). I must admit the history of the Anthroposophical Society is very scant for the years 1930-1960 except that there were splits. Erp (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
At the very least, we can agree that Steiner's theories on the hierarchies of races are indeed "white supremacist". — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I would be more inclined to the term racist and rephrase as "pseudoscience including racist pseudoscience". There is also the article on scientific racism (though anthroposophy was always considered pseudoscience by most scientists in contrast to some other hypotheses). Erp (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
To clarify some stuff: Steiner did say that Aryans were the superior race, however he never meant that Aryans should oppress other races. The former is his understanding of reality (worldview), the later is his ethics. So, yeah, he had a racialist worldview, but not a racist ethics. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

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 Copytalk 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 [9] to that book (still in thesis form) the quote is on page 207 in this version—blindlynx 19:50, 5 October 2022 (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 [10] 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 [de] (an agriculturalist), SS colonel Hermann Schneider, and Gestapo chief Heinrich Müller.[1]

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.[2]

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 [11]
  • 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 [12] [13]
  • {{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 [14]
  • In similar terms, anthroposophist Ernst Boldt derided what he took to be a severely distorted presentation of Steiner’s view [15]
— 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). [16]
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. [17]
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

  1. ^ Staudenmaier, Peter (1 April 2013). "Organic Farming in Nazi Germany: The Politics of Biodynamic Agriculture, 1933–1945". Environmental History. 18 (2): 383–411. doi:10.1093/envhis/ems154.
  2. ^ Anthroposophen in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, p. 283
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)

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 [18] 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthroposophy/Archive_7&oldid=1212968743"