Talk:Rudolf Steiner/Archive 4

Fire

It is true that there is much speculation about the cause of the fire, but a police report is more conclusive than speculation taking place 80 years later. I have added a second reference for it being an act of arson. hgilbert (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Your reference Stephen Klimczuk and Gerald Warner, Secret Places, Hidden Sanctuaries, p. 73 is 'poorly sourced'.

The police report you refer to mentioned in Lindenberg is describing NOT a factual report but a speculative report made by the Goetheanum to the Police and NOT a report BY the police determining an issue of fact.

Do you have anything to suggest otherwise?

Even Steiner stated in an address to his followers the next day that he merely 'assumed' it was arson and Steiner pointed his finger at the local Dornach Roman Catholics saying they were in cahoots with freemasons who 2 years prior had, in print, predicted "sparks will fly."

(Your 'poorly sourced' reference, incidentally, speculates it was a disgruntled anthroposophist but again provides no scholarly reference for this speculation.)

That arson was only suspected is borne out by the New York Times report:

See New York Times Jan 2, 1923 HOME OF THEOSOPHY BURNS; Incendiarism Suspected in Destruction of Steiner's Temple Near Basle. Basle Switzerand Jan 1 The Goethanim [SIC] headquarters of the International Anthroposophical Society at Dornach, near here was burned last night. ... It has not been determined whether the fire was incendiary, but opponents of Steiner's teachings which are Theosophical, have threatened to burn the building, so that a guard of three men has been constantly on duty for the last eighteen months."

Again you have removed this now 4 times.

My suggestion presents both sides:

1. arson was suspected and was included in a report made to the police:

It was destroyed by fire on New Year's Eve 1922/23. Because of the level of hostility against him, Steiner assumed arson and this was stated in a police report. In his first lecture on January 1, 1923, the day after the fire (GA 259) Steiner pointed directly to "two main sources of irreconcilable animosity against the Goetheanum": the Roman Catholic Association in Dornach and the Freemasons.

New York Times Ibid. Sergei O. Prokofieff, May human beings hear it!: the mystery of the Christmas Conference Publ. Temple Lodge Publishing, 2004; pp.720-722. Gary Lachman Ibid pp.204-205; Lindenberg Ibid chapter 46, "Der Brand des Goetheanum" pp. 789-797. René Maikowski, Schicksalswege auf der Suche nach dem lebendigen Geist; Publ. Freiburg 1980, pp.59-65: "Der Brand des Goetheanumsalswege auf der Suche nach dem lebendigen Geist; Publ. Freiburg 1980, pp.59-65: "Der Brand des Goetheanum"

2. The scholarly side which suggests arson is unproven

The suggestion that the burning of the Goetheanum was arson, however, has never been proved and is disputed. The source of the fire seems to have been inside a hollow wall and although smoke was noticed at an early stage, the location of the fire was only found after the wall was broken open. This has led some commentators to suggest the fire was caused by an electrical fault.

Sergei O. Prokofieff, May human beings hear it!: the mystery of the Christmas Conference Publ. Temple Lodge Publishing, 2004; pp.720-722. [Referring to Steiner lecture GA259 states "arson assumed".] Gary Lachman Ibid pp.204-205; Lindenberg Ibid chapter 46, "Der Brand des Goetheanum" pp. 789-797. René Maikowski, Schicksalswege auf der Suche nach dem lebendigen Geist; Publ. Freiburg 1980, pp.59-65: "Der Brand des Goetheanumsalswege auf der Suche nach dem lebendigen Geist; Publ. Freiburg 1980, pp.59-65: "Der Brand des Goetheanum."

You incorrectly suggest this is "synthesis". It is not.

The issue here is whether it is important that it be shown that it was NOT definitely arson or not. In the interest of fairness and neutrality I believe it is crucial.

Since, despite 5 challenges, you have provided no real reason not to show it and have failed to provide a genuine reason for removing it (falsely saying my entry is "original research", then that it is "synthesis",) so, in the interest of scholarship I am reverting to the more objective description backed by multiple scholarly references and contemporary news reports which includes both sides.Masteryorlando (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Hgilbert on this so we need to discuss this further before you make these changes. There are plenty of reports in reliable sources that state outright that the building was destroyed by arson but the question is what was the finding of the inquiry? The NY Times report on the following day is irrelevant because it too is not definitive (it couldn't be without an investigation). Lachman and other who cast doubt are just a case of dueling sources. If we were to go on the number of sources that say it was arson and those that say it may have been some other cause, then we will have to go with arson.

So it is up to us to determine the most authoritative source(s) and go with that. What does Lindenberg say about this? What does GA259 contain about this? What does Prokofiev say? Can you provide the specific quotes from these texts?

I read an account, I believe it was from his "First Lecture After the Fire", that Steiner stated that he and two or three others checked the heating system (they were afraid this was a likely cause) and then went to the White Room (where the fire started). There they found in an opening between the two walls straw and kerosene that had been used to start the fire. Undoubtedly that would have been reported to the police. There was also the body of a Herr O. that had been found in the ruins. He had been seen walking up the hill to the Goetheanum before 8 PM, which was highly unusual behavior "What's he doing here at this time?" the witnesses had asked one another (see Ilona Schubert, Reminiscences of Rudolf Steiner, p. 46). This incident was also testified to, probably as part of the inquiry.

Given this information, the conclusion of the police report is probably the only authoritative source here. I think that source document is contained in GA259, p. 787 (I don't have the full text, probably you have it) but in part it states:

...daß weder Kurzschluß noch maschinelle Leitungsdefekte den Brand verschuldet haben können, ist mit fast ziemlicher Sicherheit anzunehmen daß böswilliger Brandstiftung vorliegt.

which translates roughly to "that neither a short-circuit fault nor mechanical line (conduit?) defects could have caused the fire, it accepted with near certainty that malicious arson occurred."

Given this excerpt, I believe the police report concluded "with near certainty" that arson had happened and they ruled out electrical short circuits and other possible causes. Therefore I think that the reference should change to the GA 259 and the clear statement that it was arson should be retained. If you can provide authoritative quotes from these sources that contradicts this, then let's see them here on the talk page. In the meantime, I am reverting your additions about the fire. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

reliable sources specifically requires "making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered."

It is not, as you suggest, "going on the number of sources that say it was arson and those that say it may have been some other cause" It is not, as you say "up to us to determine the most authoritative source(s) and go with that." That would be Original Research. So unless you can demonstrate why the following are NOT reliable published sources then their report that a contrary view exists to the arson theory must be included: Gary Lachman Ibid pp.204-205; Lindenberg Ibid chapter 46, "Der Brand des Goetheanum" pp. 789-797. René Maikowski, Schicksalswege auf der Suche nach dem lebendigen Geist; Publ. Freiburg 1980, pp.59-65: "Der Brand des Goetheanumsalswege auf der Suche nach dem lebendigen Geist; Publ. Freiburg 1980, pp.59-65: "Der Brand des Goetheanum." Colin Wilson, Rudolf Steiner, the man and his vision: an introduction to the life and ideas of the founder of anthroposophy Publ Aquarian Press 1985 p.153. Indeeed neither EPadmirateur nor Hgilbert have yet to provide one reputable source that has said it was unquestionably proved to be arson. Hgilbert keeps referring to the "police report" described in Lindberg I have now obtained a copy of all of the Police Reports which are reproduced in GA 259 Whilst most of them state that the cause is unknown, only one states that it is thought to be arson (this was the preliminary inspectors report made on the 4th January before the body of Ott was discovered and when Ott was assumed to be the arsonist and thought to have disappeared.) Perhaps Hgilbert could provide the exact Lindenberg reference to check this?? The final Judicial report dated 14 February however is absolutely inconclusive.

Solothurnische u. bernische Nachbarschaft Nachträgliches zum Brande des Dornacher Goetheanums Die gerichtliche Untersuchung - Die Versicherungsfrage -o- Solothurn, 14. Februar. Die Untersuchung der Brandursache des Anthroposophentempels von Dornach ist dem Vernehmen nach noch immer nicht abgeschlossen und wird vermutlich überhaupt nie zu einer vollen Abklärung der teilweise mysteriösen Begleitumstände der Feuersbrunst führen. Die verschiedenen Skelettüberreste, die im Schutt aufgefunden worden sind, werden einer genauen gerichtsmedizinischen Begutachtung unterzogen; desgleichen unterlie

The District Commissioner of Dorneck-Thierstein's Report of 22 January 1923 likewise also states that there is no proof of arson and speaks of "all sorts of rumours swirling around."

See GA259 Appendix 7 Bericht [vom 22. Januar 1923] des Oberamtmanns von Dorneck-Thierstein an die Regierung des Kantons Solothurn betreffend den Brand des Goetheanum in Dornach, welcher am 31. Dezember 1922 um 22 lA U h r stattgefunden hat. Brandobjekt: Grundbuch Nr. 2542. Gebäude Nr. 383. Eigentümer: Verein des Goetheanum in Dornach. Mit dem Glockenschlag, der den Anbruch des neuen Jahres verkündete, schlug ob Dornach eine Riesenflamme zum Himmel empor, einer weiten Umgebung den Untergang des Goetheanum verkündend. In der Nacht vom Sylvester auf Neujahr des Jahres 1922 ist das Goetheanum in Dornach ein Raub der Flammen geworden. Der Unterzeichnete begab sich am 1. Januar 1923 früh auf die Brandstätte, wo von dem ehemals gewaltigen Bauwerk nur der von der Hitze an vielen Stellen geborstene Betonunterbau, erfüllt mit brennenden und rauchenden Holzüberresten, noch zu sehen war. Das Betreten und Absuchen der Gebäudereste war erst nach einigen Tagen möglich. Über die Brandursache schwirrten alle möglichen Gerüchte im Lande herum. In gewissen Kreisen der nähern Umgebung von Dornach machte sich eine ziemlich erregte Stimmung gegen die Mitglieder des Vereins des Goetheanum bemerkbar. Es mag sein, daß hiezu der Umstand nicht wenig beigetragen hatte, daß von Dr. Steiner und seinen Leuten selbst eine Untersuchung geführt und die Bedienung der Presse durchgeführt wurde. In einer der ersten Veröffentlichungen wurde die Behauptung aufgestellt, es liege Brandstiftung von außen vor, was die Gegner Dr. Steiners arg in den Harnisch brachte. Die amtliche Untersuchung, die sofort eingesetzt hatte, stellte folgendes fest: Am 31. Dezember 1922 um 17 Uhr fand im Goetheanum eine eurythmische Vorstellung statt, die kurz vor 7 Uhr zu Ende ging. Nach der Vorstellung wurde, wie gewohnt, das ganze Gebäude von den Besuchern entleert, genau kontrolliert und nirgends etwas Verdächtiges bemerkt. Um 8 Uhr begann ein Vortrag von Dr. Steiner, der gegen 10 Uhr beendigt war. Hierauf wurde wieder das ganze Gebäude entleert, von einem Wächter kontrolliert und abgeschlossen. Im Freien wurde das Gebäude von 5 bis 7 Uhr von einem und von 7 Uhr an von zwei Wächtern bewacht. In der Zeit von 7 bis 8 Uhr hielt sich im großen Saale und in ihrem Zimmer im I. Stock des Südflügels, wie gewohnt, Frau Dr. Steiner auf. Ihr fiel nichts auf. Nach der Vorstellung, ca. um 7 Uhr, kam ein Fräulein Wahler [Waller] in ihr Garderobenzimmer, im I.Stock des Südflügels gelegen, und bemerkte, daß der Spiegel, der einige Zeit vorher noch an der Wand hing, zerbrochen auf dem Boden lag; man maß dieser Beobachtung aber wenig Wert bei. Als nach der Leerung, Kontrollierung und Schließung des Gebäudes zwei Wächter auf ihrem Rundgange sich beim Südportal trafen, war es 10 V* Uhr. In diesem Moment roch der eine Wächter Rauch. Sie fanden im Südflügel im III. Stock im sog. weißen Saal starken Rauch hinter den Heizkörpern hervorkommen. Als auf den Alarm der Weckerlinie die Feuerwehrleute des Goetheanum herbeigeeilt waren und man nach dem Feuer suchte, fand man zunächst überall nur Rauch, aber kein Feuer. Es verging wohl eine V* Stunde, bis man endlich im I. Stock über dem Südportal aus den Fugen in der Westwand Rauch hervorquellen sah. Man schlug diese Wand ein und stieß auf das Feuer. Es ist durch mehrere Augenzeugen die Tatsache festgestellt, daß vorher an keinem andern Orte des Gebäudes Feuer war, so daß angenommen werden muß, daß der Brandausbruch im Innern der Westwand über dem Südportal stattgefunden hat. Laut den vorgelegten Plänen bestand die Wand aus den Konstruktionsteilen und innerer und äußerer Doppelverschalung (siehe Skizze). Im Innern der Wand waren somit Hohlräume vorhanden. Durch diese Hohlräume führte ein Frischluftzufuhrkanal aus Blech, der in einem Fenstersturz seinen Anfang nahm und hinter den Heizkörpern im sog. weißen Saal im III. Stockwerk ausmündete. Daher ist es erklärlich, daß in diesem Räume zuerst Rauch bemerkt wurde. Nachdem diese Wand geöffnet worden war, entwickelte sich das Feuer mit großer Schnelligkeit gegen die Kuppeln hin. Als gegen 22 V* Uhr die Feuerwehren von Dornach und Ariesheim und etwas später diejenige von Münchenstein und die Dampfspritze von Basel beim Brandobjekte erschienen waren, war der Aufenthalt im Innern des Gebäudes fast unmöglich geworden, und man mußte sich auf die Bekämpfung des Feuers von außen beschränken. Um 23 Vi Uhr mußte der allgemeine Rückzug der Feuerwehren angeordnet werden, und um 24 Uhr stürzten die Kuppeln ein. In den folgenden Stunden strömte eine solche Hitze aus dem Brandobjekte, daß die in der Nähe stehende Schreinerei in beständiger Gefahr war, und die Feuerwehren mußten ihre ganze Kraft auf die Rettung dieses Gebäudes konzentrieren, was auch gelang. Die Spritzenprämie ist der Feuerwehr Ariesheim auszurichten. Es ging aus der Einvernahme zahlreicher Personen hervor, daß der Brandherd in der oben näher bezeichneten Westwand im I. Stock des Südflügels anzunehmen ist. Wie ist der Brand entstanden? Mit dieser Frage beschäftigte man sich in den ersten Tagen nach dem Brande allgemein, zeitweise auch sehr vorlaut. Sehr nahe lag die Vermutung, daß Kurzschluß in den elektr. Leitungen die Ursache sein könnte. Diese Frage wurde, wie wir Ihnen in unserm Bericht vom 3.Januar mitteilten, mit Bestimmtheit in negativem Sinne entschieden. Im Verlaufe der weitern Untersuchung wurde bekannt, daß der Uhrenmacher Ott in Ariesheim, der seit kurzer Zeit Mitglied des Vereins des Goetheanums war, vermißt wird. Dieser Umstand und die Aussagen einzelner Mitglieder des Vereins des Goetheanum über Warnungen, die Ott geäußert hat, ferner die Feststellung, daß das Feuer im Hohlraum der bezeichneten Wand, wo aber keine elektr. Leitung durchführte, ausgebrochen sein muß, sowie die Tatsache, daß an der Außenseite des Baues in der Nähe des Südportals ein Gerüst stand, mittelst welchem der Ort des Brandausbruches mit Leichtigkeit zu erreichen war, führte zur Vermutung, daß Brandstiftung vorliegen könnte. Spuren einer Brandlegung waren nicht festzustellen, da die mehrfach bezeichnete Wand bis auf den Grund niedergebrannt ist. Der einzige Zugang aus dem Innern des Gebäudes zu den oben bezeichneten Räumen im I. Stock über dem Südportal soll beständig bewacht gewesen sein und der Zutritt nur den Mitgliedern der Gesellschaft gestattet gewesen sein. Die oben erwähnte Spiegelgeschichte könnte mit der Brandstiftung insofern in Beziehung gebracht werden, daß man sich vorstellen könnte, ein durch das wahrscheinlich nicht geschlossene Fenster im Zimmer der Frl. Wahler [Waller] (Eckzimmer im 1. Stock) eingestiegenes Individuum hätte in der Geschwindigkeit den Spiegel heruntergeworfen. Es müßte dies während der Vorstellung vom 31. Dezember von 5 bis 7 Uhr nachm. gewesen sein. Ob Ott der Täter ist? Über diese Zeit ist nämlich sein Alibi nicht einwandfrei festgestellt. Gemäß §64 des Gesetzes betreffend die Gebäude-Brandversicherung veranlaßte der Unterzeichnete am 3. Januar das Einschreiten des Gerichtspräsidenten, der seither die Untersuchung weiterführt. Die weitern Zeugeneinvernahmen haben ergeben, daß Ott vor dem Zusammenbruch der Kuppeln im Kuppelzwischenraum gesehen wurde. Anläßlich der unter Aufsicht der Polizei systematisch durchgeführten Räumungsarbeiten fand man in der Gegend der Bühne die Überreste eines menschlichen Skeletts, und einige Tage später wurde in der Schreinerei auch der Mantel, den Ott am Sylvester getragen hatte, aufgefunden. In Anbetracht, daß sonst niemand vermißt wird, ist es sehr wahrscheinlich, daß Ott beim Brande des Goetheanum umgekommen ist. Die Untersuchung durch den Gerichtspräsidenten ist heute noch nicht abgeschlossen. Am 4. Januar fand durch die lt. Regierungsratsbeschluß Nr. 29 vom 2. Januar 1923 gewählte außerordentliche Kommission die Abschätzung des Schadens statt. Das eingeäscherte Gebäude war für Fr. 3'500>000.- brandversichert. Die Überreste wurden auf Fr. 317'000- gewertet, so daß der Schaden Fr. 3'183'000- beträgt. Gegen diese Abschätzung wurde vom Eigentümer, der Verein des Goetheanum, innert nützlicher Frist (abgelaufen den 19. Januar) keine Einsprache erhoben.

Breitenbach, den 22. Januar 1923. Für das Oberamt Dorneck-Thierstein Der Oberamtmann: gez. Haberthür

Even Steiner said he only "assumes" it was arson (it must be so, he says since the fire originated from outside the wall of the Goetheanum) But this is an error - he later corrects this to say that it was actually started inside a double walled inner wall in by the South portal of the White Room - as the investigator's report concludes.

Having firstly accused the Catholics and the Freemasons (pointing to a prediction by the astrologer Elsbeth Ebertin) Shortly thereafter Steiner says that Ott is the culprit - he concludes this on the basis that Ott had disappeared also because Ott has money problems and because Ott was behaving suspiciously. Indeed Steiner says (the same day in an interview with National-Zeitung see GA259) that Ott is probably over the border by now and that it is impossible that any body could now be found in the ashes. Of course Ott's body was found shortly thereafter having fallen through the collapsed floor. Later eye witnesses (reported in Maikowski) claim that Ott had been one of the most fervent of the firefighters so that blows up the whole Ott theory.

1.) I am not familiar with any lecture in GA274 or GA259 that claims to have found straw or kerosene. A 'cooking apparatus' which was used by the Eurythmists for making tea was found on 7 January (in the room where they changed which was close to the source of the fire.) There was talk of a mirror which was found toppled and broken: Steiner says this broken mirror was evidence of arson - that someone climbed a ladder on the outside of the Goetheanum and punched a hole in the outer wall (at about 6 in the evening when the fire is said to have started and whilst Steiner is lecturing inside!!!) Steiner says this explains the toppled mirror. Steiner does change from "assuming arson" in January 1923 to May 1924 in a Paris lecture when he says it was "definitely arson" - but this seems to be unproven and speculative.

2.) Yes I agree that Steiner says several times in interviews in the immediate days after the fire, that it could not have been a short-circuit fault. He claims to be able to 'prove' this because all the lights were on. He also says 'experts' checked the heating mechanics and found no fault. He also claims the electrical cables were in steel conduits and fire proof. These assertions are repeated in at least one of the police reports.

But Steiner's position is clearly stated in my edit which says:

The Goetheanum was destroyed by fire on New Year's Eve 1922/23. Because of the level of hostility against him, Steiner assumed arson and this was stated in a police report. In his first lecture on January 1, 1923, the day after the fire (GA 259) Steiner pointed directly to "two main sources of irreconcilable animosity against the Goetheanum": the Roman Catholic Association in Dornach and the Freemasons.

Neither EPadmirateur nor Hgilbert have yet to articulate why the equally justifiable position described by 4 commentators should not be stated.Masteryorlando (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the very full report of the district commissioner. It states clearly that there were no electrical cables in the area where the fire started, and that the possibility of an electrical short circuit being the cause of the fire is thus absolutely excluded. That seems quite clear and explains why it's not worthwhile including speculations of authors of trade books 80 years later who, with no supporting evidence, postulate an electrical fire. The district commissioner also lists a whole series of circumstances that justify the suspicion that arson was the cause, and proposes no alternative plausible cause. As he doesn't definitively conclude that it was, however, it is reasonable to indicate the uncertainty. I've clarified the article in this sense. hgilbert (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

1. How on earth do you draw from that report your new edit that it was "probably arson": the report explains why people have "assumed" arson but specifically says no trace of arson was found.

Nowhere does that report come close to saying "probably arson" Im Verlaufe der weitern Untersuchung wurde bekannt, daß der Uhrenmacher Ott in Ariesheim, der seit kurzer Zeit Mitglied des Vereins des Goetheanums war, vermißt wird. Dieser Umstand und die Aussagen einzelner Mitglieder des Vereins des Goetheanum über Warnungen, die Ott geäußert hat, ferner die Feststellung, daß das Feuer im Hohlraum der bezeichneten Wand, wo aber keine elektr leitung durchführte, ausgebrochen sein muß, sowie die Tatsache, daß an der Außenseite des Baues in der Nähe des Südportals ein Gerüst stand, mittelst welchem der Ort des Brandausbruches mit Leichtigkeit zu erreichen war, führte zur Vermutung, daß Brandstiftung vorliegen könnte. Spuren einer Brandlegung waren nicht festzustellen, da die mehrfach bezeichnete Wand bis auf den Grund niedergebrannt ist.

2. The report entirely backs up my statement that some assumed it was an electrical fault. It says so itself

Sehr nahe lag die Vermutung, daß Kurzschluß in den elektr. It then goes on to discount reports of an electrical fault saying that the Goetheanum Association said there were no electrical cables in the area and for that reason this has been excluded... Diese Frage wurde, wie wir Ihnen in unserm Bericht vom 3.Januar mitteilten, mit Bestimmtheit in negativem In saying it is "probably arson" you also entirely exclude the 14 February report which says: Die Untersuchung der Brandursache des Anthroposophentempels von Dornach ist dem Vernehmen nach noch immer nicht abgeschlossen und wird vermutlich überhaupt nie zu einer vollen Abklärung der teilweise mysteriösen Begleitumstände der Feuersbrunst führen.

This entirely supports Lachman's assertion - precisely as I edited - "probably we will never know"

I suggest the following section contains a neutral and accurate reflection:

Goetheanum Fire

The Goetheanum was destroyed by fire on New Year's Eve 1922/23. Because of the level of hostility against him, Steiner and others assumed arson.[REFERENCE GA260a Lecture at Paris May 25, 1924.] [REFERENCE name=CL/>{{rp|796}] [REFERENCE New York Times Jan 2, 1923 HOME OF THEOSOPHY BURNS; Incendiarism Suspected in Destruction of Steiner's Temple Near Basle: Basle Switzerand Jan 1. The Goethanim [SIC] headquarters of the International Anthroposophical Society at Dornach, near here was burned last night. ... It has not been determined whether the fire was incendiary, but opponents of Steiner's teachings which are Theosophical, have threatened to burn the building, so that a guard of three men has been constantly on duty for the last eighteen months."] In his first lecture on January 1, 1923, the day after the fire, [REFERENCE GA 259] Steiner pointed directly to "two main sources of irreconcilable animosity against the Goetheanum": the Roman Catholic Association in Dornach and the Freemasons. [REFERENCE Sergei O. Prokofieff, May human beings hear it!: the mystery of the Christmas Conference Publ. Temple Lodge Publishing, 2004; pp.720-722. Steiner also read from an astrological prediction by the renowned German astrologer Elsbeth Ebertin - whose prediction he described as a Masonic threat: "a real spark of fire shall put an ignominious end to the Dornach pomp."] Arson was also stated as a likely cause in an early report made by the police[REFERENCE GA 259 Police Inspector Report of January 4, 1923]: a disgruntled Anthroposophist, Jakob Ott, a hunchback watchmaker who had financial difficulties connected with the Society, was suspected and was said to have fled the country immediately after the fire. A manhunt was launched but Ott's body was later found in the ruins and witnesses accounted for his presence in fighting the fire. Marie Steiner continued to believe Ott was responsible although Steiner apparantly did not.[REFERENCE Prokofieff Ibid pp.904 Footnote 16 quoting Marie Steiner: Briefe und Dokumente p.295)

The suggestion that the burning of the Goetheanum was arson, however, has never been proved and is disputed. [REFERENCE: Prokofieff Ibid. Gary Lachman Ibid pp.204-205; Lindenberg Ibid chapter 46, "Der Brand des Goetheanum" pp. 789-797. René Maikowski, Schicksalswege auf der Suche nach dem lebendigen Geist; Publ. Freiburg 1980, pp.59-65: "Der Brand des Goetheanum"] The District Commissioner's Report [REFERENCE GA259 Appendix 7 January 22, 1923] states that no trace of arson was found although it left open that arson was certainly a possible cause. It concludes that the source of the fire was inside a hollow wall and although smoke was noticed at an early stage, the location of the fire was only found after an hour's search when the wall was broken open, probably by Ott, during the search for the source of the smoke. This has led some commentators to suggest the fire was caused by an electrical fault [REFERENCE Lachman ibid p.204 See for one such commentator Colin Wilson, Rudolf Steiner, the man and his vision: an introduction to the life and ideas of the founder of anthroposophy Publ Aquarian Press 1985 p.153. Wilson writes "Most commentators suggest that the fire was due to arson, but the fact that it began inside a wall suggests an electrical fault."] The District Commissioner's report discounted the possibility of an electrical short circuit after the Goetheanum Association claimed that no electrical cables had been located inside that wall. Another police report [REFERENCE GA259 Appendix 7] states that a paraffin "cooking utility" on which the Eurythmists were said to make tea was also found in the area of the source of the fire but this finding was excluded from the Commissioner's report. The final judicial report report made by the Swiss Cantonal Superior Court was entirely inconclusive. [REFERENCE GA259 "Die Untersuchung der Brandursache des Anthroposophentempels von Dornach ist dem Vernehmen nach noch immer nicht abgeschlossen und wird vermutlich überhaupt nie zu einer vollen Abklärung der teilweise mysteriösen Begleitumstände der Feuersbrunst führen."] supporting Gary Lachman, Steiner's biographer's contention "more than likely we will never know the cause." [REFERENCE Lachman ibid]Masteryorlando (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The report excludes any possibility of an electrical cause: "Sehr nahe lag die Vermutung, daß Kurzschluß in den elektr. Leitungen die Ursache sein könnte. Diese Frage wurde...mit Bestimmtheit in negativem Sinne entschieden."

No other alternative to arson has ever been proposed, and the report says that arson is suspected. hgilbert (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Re electrical: Yes I stated that "The District Commissioner's report discounted the possibility of an electrical short circuit after the Goetheanum Association claimed that no electrical cables had been located inside that wall."

Re "No other alternative to arson has ever been proposed" is

(a) inaccurate (see above) and (b) concluding that because no other alternative is proven it must "probaby be arson" would constitute original research and synthesis. The Commissioner's report makes no such conclusion.

Regarding the report saying arson is suspected.

The report says that firstly that Steiner is reported in the press as suspecting it because of hostility to Steiner - but the report states that these are "swirling rumors":

Über die Brandursache schwirrten alle möglichen Gerüchte im Lande herum. In gewissen Kreisen der nähern Umgebung von Dornach machte sich eine ziemlich erregte Stimmung gegen die Mitglieder des Vereins des Goetheanum bemerkbar. Es mag sein, daß hiezu der Umstand nicht wenig beigetragen hatte, daß von Dr. Steiner und seinen Leuten selbst eine Untersuchung geführt und die Bedienung der Presse durchgeführt wurde. In einer der ersten Veröffentlichungen wurde die Behauptung aufgestellt, es liege Brandstiftung von außen vor, was die Gegner Dr. Steiners arg in den Harnisch brachte.

I included in my suggestion that Steiner and others assumed arson.

Secondly the report states that because of the facts surrounding Ott, the management of the Goetheanum "assume arson."

Der Uhrenmacher Ott in Ariesheim, ... vermißt wird. Dieser Umstand und die Aussagen einzelner Mitglieder des Vereins des Goetheanum über Warnungen, die Ott geäußert hat, ferner die Feststellung, daß das Feuer im Hohlraum der bezeichneten Wand, wo aber keine elektr. Leitung durchführte, ausgebrochen sein muß, sowie die Tatsache, daß an der Außenseite des Baues in der Nähe des Südportals ein Gerüst stand, mittelst welchem der Ort des Brandausbruches mit Leichtigkeit zu erreichen war, führte zur Vermutung, daß Brandstiftung vorliegen könnte. Spuren einer Brandlegung waren nicht festzustellen, da die mehrfach bezeichnete Wand bis auf den Grund niedergebrannt ist.

I included that in my suggestion "Marie Steiner continued to believe Ott was responsible."

The report makes no such conclusion that you have asserted that it was "probably arson".Masteryorlando (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE INDENT YOUR COMMENTS WITH COLONS so we can follow what is being said by the different editors. Thank you for providing the texts of the reports that you did here. You didn't respond to my earlier comments directly, so I am including them here again:

Given this information, the conclusion of the police report is probably the only authoritative source here. I think that source document is contained in GA259, p. 787 (I don't have the full text, probably you have it) but in part it states:

...daß weder Kurzschluß noch maschinelle Leitungsdefekte den Brand verschuldet haben können, ist mit fast ziemlicher Sicherheit anzunehmen daß böswilliger Brandstiftung vorliegt.

which translates roughly to "that neither a short-circuit fault nor mechanical line (conduit?) defects could have caused the fire, it accepted with near certainty that malicious arson occurred."

Given this excerpt, I believe the police report concluded "with near certainty" that arson had happened and they ruled out electrical short circuits and other possible causes. Therefore I think that the reference should change to the GA 259 and the clear statement that it was arson should be retained. If you can provide authoritative quotes from these sources that contradicts this, then let's see them here on the talk page.

I don't see this text in what you have provided. So my request is, since you have access to the German text in GA259, please provide the full context of this excerpt from p.787. What is the full statement? Where is this statement from? Many thanks, EPadmirateur (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The text you quote is from a January 5 newspaper article which holds the view that Ott is the culprit. However after Ott's body is found that theory is rejected. Then the police reports move on to the 'cooking utility' theory but that finds no place in the District Commissioners report. It does NOT say at all arson was "with certainty". You are running one sentence (saying it is almost certain it was not an electrical fault.) with another lookibng at Ott

Nach Ausschaltung dieser Möglichkeit und nachdem alle Anzeichen darauf hinweisen, daß Ott geflüchtet ist, und zwar, wie es heißt, über die Grenze, war es gegeben, Ott, dessen Verschwinden höchst merkwürdig ist, nachzuforschen und ihn zu verfolgen, da die bis jetzt einvernommenen Zeugen schwerwiegende Verdachtsgründe gegen ihn eröffnet haben, während nach anderen Richtungen hin absolut kein Verdacht vorliegt.

Nachdem durch Zeugen und Expertisen unzweideutig festgestellt worden ist, daß weder Kurzschluß noch maschinelle Leitungsdefekte den Brand verschuldet haben können, Ist mit fast ziemlicher Sicherheit anzunehmen, daß vorliegt.

Böswillige Brandstiftung

Auch die amtliche Untersuchung scheint nun zu dieser von Dr. Steiner bereits am Brandtag behaupteten Annahme gekommen zu sein. Nach ihm, der sich doch wohl in der Konstruktion des Baues am besten auskennen wird, muß der Brand in der Zeit von 5-7 Uhr abends gelegt worden sein.

Masteryorlando (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this quote -- it always helps to have the full text available. I can't respond in detail now but will do so later today and propose a wording to describe the fire that should be acceptable and if not we can discuss further. Thanks, EPadmirateur (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK - from the official documents printed in GA259: p.751 "...Kurzschluß ausgeschlossen ist; denn die ganze elektrische Anlage war den Vorschriften vollständig genügend montiert. Die Beleuchtung funktionierte in allen Räumen, bis sie kurz vor dem Einsturz der großen Kuppel ausgeschaltet worden war; ein Ventilator, der an einer getrennt geführten Leitung angeschlossen war, wurde ebenfalls während des Brandes ausgeschaltet; zudem waren die Leitungen nicht an denjenigen Stellen des Baues durchgeführt, wo der Brandausbruch nach den Berichten der Zeugen stattgefunden haben muß. Die Umstände lassen mit großer Sicherheit Brandstiftung vermuten." (p. 752). Thus the official police report states that a short circuit is excluded and that arson is surmised with great certainty. hgilbert (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet again Hgilbert you are distorting the truth.Please see the beginning of this letter dated 4 January 1923 on p.751 of GA259. In this letter The Police Inspector, Dr Schopfer, states that he has the honour to enclose the "preliminary report" issued by the District Administrator of Dornach to the Tax Department of the Canton("Oberamtmanns von Dorneck-Thiestein an das Finanzdepartement")

The police inspector then quotes from that report. it is therefore NOT a POLICE REPORT from which you quote but a peliminary report from the Dornach Town Clerk requesting the Court investigate. (Note the quotation marks at the top of page 752 "Om der Nacht...)

The report, which is from Dornach's Baliff (Oberamtmanns) - an administrative rather than an investigative postion - Town Clerk would be the equivalent in the USA - states that Mueller, the building's architectual engineer, Birseck and Bloch its insurance agents, the Dornach Fire department, and Pfeiffer of the Goetheanum Association have examined the electrical system and believe that there could not have been a short circuit - because the fans were working and the lights were on during the fire until the engineer switched them off. For that reason it says "the circumstances mean that arson is certainly SUSPECTED " ("Die Umstände lassen mit großer Sicherheit Brandstiftung VERMUTEN")

It goes on to say that therefore Article 64 (presumably of the Cantonale legal code) requires a detailed investigation. So he, (the Dornach Baliff,) is therefore asking the Court President to investigate.

The report goes on to state Ott is a suspect.

This is therefore NOT a police report of arson and it does NOT say as you mistranslate that "arson is surmised with great certainty" but that arson is SUSPECTED (exactly as the New York Times article I quoted in my edit said.)

The police inspector then closes the letter (p.752/753) saying that members of the Anthroposophical Society are frightened for their lives. The Inspector says, however, that there is absolutely no evidence that anyone has planned violence against them and that "Pogroms in the Swiss countryside are not common practice." That letter in GA259 follows the preliminary police report issued the previous day (3 Jan) (p.750 of GA259) That report repeats that the Goetheanum's engineer and electricians have said it cannot be an electrical fault, that "the Anthroposophic society view is that Ott is the culprit" and that "the Anthroposophic society" say that Ott "was the tool of a certain group." It says "since in interrogrations many witnesses suspected arson" ("Einvernahme der Zeugen starke Verdachtsmomente fur Brandstiftung vorliegen",) the coroner has forwarded the files for investigation.

With regard to the passage on page 787 of GA259 referred to by Epadmirateur. Again this is NOT a police report. It is a newspaper article in the 'Basler Nachrichten' dated 5 January 1923. It describes how the information in it has been taken from an interview with Dr. Steiner "wie dies auch die Ansicht Dr. Steiners ust, den wir in dieser unde anderen"

Nachdem durch Zeugen und Expertisen unzweideutig festgestellt worden ist, daß weder Kurzschluß noch maschinelle Leitungsdefekte den Brand verschuldet haben können, Ist mit fast ziemlicher Sicherheit anzunehmen, daß vorliegt.

TRANS: Expert witnesses have established with near certainty that it was not a short circuit or fault in the wiring. Then there is a headline

Böswillige Brandstiftung (byeline TRANS: Malicious Arson]

Auch die amtliche Untersuchung scheint nun zu dieser von Dr. Steiner bereits am Brandtag behaupteten Annahme gekommen zu sein. Nach ihm, der sich doch wohl in der Konstruktion des Baues am besten auskennen wird, muß der Brand in der Zeit von 5-7 Uhr abends gelegt worden sein.

TRANS: The official investigation now seems to be turning to Dr Steiner's allegations of arson.

The article goes on to explain that officials suspect Ott.

So can we now agree that you can provide NO verifiable evidence of an official report that says "Arson was the probable cause"; that, on the contrary, the police report of 3 January says only that witnesses say that it was arson. The Dornach Town Clerk says "arson is suspected" just as the New York Times says "incendiarism is suspected"; the final District Commissioner's report in February says "Spuren einer Brandlegung waren nicht festzustellen" - that is "no trace of arson is found" and the Judicial Report of the Superior Court says "no conclusion can be drawn." Masteryorlando (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Masteryorlando, how in blazes (pun) is anyone going to follow your points here?? No reader can tell from your text, Hgilbert's responses, my responses and your indentation even who is speaking. You are inserting comments without indentation in the middle of someone else's comments. You have large block quotes of German that are not set off or isolated as quotes and most non-involved readers won't have any idea what they mean.

May I make some suggestions: INDENT EVERY PARAGRAPH WITH COLONS (sorry for the shouting - how many times have I said it before?), join lines together that belong in the same paragraph (every new line is a new paragraph to WP), make paragraphs readable -- not too long and not one-liners, add a blank line between paragraphs for readability, DO NOT INTERSPERSE YOUR COMMENTS WITH ANOTHER PERSON'S -- no one can figure out who's talking (for clarity, use @UserX to indicate whom you are addressing in your responses), use the {{quote|text of quotation}} macro for block quotes, ALWAYS USE THE PREVIEW BUTTON to check how your writing looks (or use multiple edits to get it looking right), indent one more level under the last person's comments and use {{outdent}} macro when the indentation is too high, like this:

Here is the rest: I suggest that you reformat and clean up the text you have entered (here and elsewhere on this page). I'm tired of cleaning up your comments after you. Then we can discuss your points. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to do a little extra work. Again, I strongly suggest getting a mentor. Sorry to be so blunt, EPadmirateur (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your cleanup of this section. It's still very messy but better than it was. Here is my general response, not getting into all these details: I think we can all agree that the evidence is that the officials, in their final published document, completely ruled out the possibility that an electrical fault was the cause. So if some source like Gary Lachman's says that an electrical fault was a probable or possible cause, then we can ignore that. We need to be using secondary sources as much as possible (to avoid original research) but we can use primary sources to select the best secondary sources to use. In this case, Lachman should not be used, even if he is a WP:RS for other purposes. The fact that he included the speculation about electrical fault shows that he is not completely thorough and thus his other statements need to be scrutinized more carefully. So any statement in the article about possible electrical fault is out.

As to the rest of the statement, which is currently "contemporary police reports indicate arson as the probable cause", it seems accurate. So what do the secondary sources say?? Prokofiev? Lindenberg? Klimczuk? They obviously have specific overall statements about the cause of the fire. What does Lindenberg say in Der Brand des Goetheanum on p. 752 and 796?

A word of advice: the editing process can go slowly if there needs to be a discussion among several editors. Most editors have other jobs and responsibilities and can't afford to make immediate responses to another editor's comments. Frequently they can devote only a short time once a day to responding. When you "blast" an article and/or the talk page with a huge change or a huge amount of information, it takes time for other editors to sort it all out. That's why you can be reverted and go into the WP:BRD cycle. And that's why it can take a while to respond to one of your "blasts" on the talk page. If you made simpler changes, one at a time in the article they can be dealt with and agreed to more quickly. If you made shorter, well-formulated and well-formatted comments then other editors can respond more easily in the time they have.

One more point: your statements about other editors, their motives and conflicts of interest are out of place in WP. You need to assume good faith about the other editors. Everyone has a particular point of view. Since you are writing a "critical" book on Rudolf Steiner, which is fine, you need to recognize that you also have a point of view and a possible WP:COI. Again I suggest that you get a mentor or perhaps one should be assigned to you. --EPadmirateur (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead should be concise and give a survey of the subject; see WP:Lead section. Could I suggest that changes are proposed and agree on before being introduced? hgilbert (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to it being concise but to reduce, in the lead, the 11 years (over half of Steiner's ministry) when he was President of the German branch of The Theosophical Society - an Esoteric Occult movement - and Arch Warden of its Esoteric School - to instead simply say his movement "had links with Theosophy" is just plain inaccurate. Masteryorlando

Equally to ignore his initiation within Rosicrucianism and present instead his spiritual path as a "synthesis between science and mysticism" is equally entirely inaccurate. The Spiritual Science he described was Episteme not Scientia. Masteryorlando

The lead states clearly, "At the beginning of the 20th century, he founded a spiritual movement, Anthroposophy, as an esoteric philosophy growing out of European transcendentalism and with links to Theosophy."hgilbert

You have not answered my point that "links to Theosophy" is absurdly inaccurate in minimizing Steiner's involvement. To say that the leader of the German Theosophical Society for 11 years merely had "links to Theosophy" would be like characterizing Ronald Reagan's life in his biography as "having links to the government of the United States" Masteryorlando

Equally to describe spiritual science, as "seeking for a connection between the cognitive path of Western philosophy and the inner and spiritual needs of the human being" is to entirely distort the purpose of Spiritual Science which Steiner (and the School today) describes as "to lead the spiritual in the human being to the spiritual in the universe" - the perception of the supernatural (or supersensible) worlds. Masteryorlando

To ignore that in refounding the Anthroposophical Society Steiner called it "a service of the gods, a divine service" and to ignore his claims to clairvoyance entirely distorts who he was. Masteryorlando

I suggest this bias needs correcting. Masteryorlando

He was not President of the TS but of the German section, which was completely independent of the main body. This is covered in the text. Similarly, the section of the esoteric school that he led was completely independent of the rest of that school.

I have added two references supporting the wording used.

Please suggest any emendations here with supporting citations from peer-reviewed sources. hgilbert (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Yes I agree - the German section or "branch" was a "branch" of London. I said this: "Steiner went on to become President of its German Branch in 1902 and Arch Warden of its Esoteric School" (I do however disagree that the German section was "completely independent." Since it was a branch of London it was NOT independent. Just look at the terms of the Theosophical Society charters...) Re comment "[this] is covered in the text." We are discussing the fact that the lead summary reduces Steiner's 12 year involvement as President of the German branch of the TS and Arch Warden of its Esoteric School to merely a "link to Theosophy". This is absurdly reductionist to the point that it is in my view plain and simple dishonesty. Equally the lead ignores the fact (crucial to understanding Steiners life) that Steiner was intitially opposed to Theosophy (see his 1897 article http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/node/4236 . Equally the lead ignores the absolutely crucial fact (as he acknowledged) that Steiner's initiation was as a Rosicrucian. "A survey of the subject" required by Wikipedia for the lead to this biography cannot, in my view, omit these facts without displaying very very significant bias. Wikipedia requires the lead to "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" although Steiner is one of the most controversial figures this lead is entirely sanitized of that and entirely biased in consequence. To rectify these crucial ommissions I suggest:

Although he had been initially opposed to the Theosophical Society in Vienna in the late 1880's, Steiner went on to become President of its German Section from 1902 to 1913 and Arch Warden of its Esoteric School.From within the Theosophical Society, Steiner developed, out of his Rosicrucian initiation, a comprehensive step-by-step path to gnosis. He called this esoteric and occult spiritual philosophy Anthroposophy Although he claimed he had never been a member, Steiner was expelled from the Theosophical Society in 1913 for a breach of its Constitution. He went on to assist in the formation of the Anthroposophical Society founded by his wife in 1913 as well as an Esoteric Occult School of Spiritual Science. Following schisms within the movement, Steiner refounded the General Anthroposophical Society over Christmas 1923 describing it at that time as "a service of the gods, a divine service".

Obviously each of these 9 facts will be backed by reliable reference

1, Opposed to Thesophy - his Magazin fur Literatur article on Theosophy 2, president of it German Section and Arch warden - the usual biographers already cited 3, Rosicrucian initiation: Schure,Barr document, Marie Steiner, Prokofieff, Rudolf Steiner Autobiography "Rosicrucian directive "to bring spirit into the world" http://books.google.com/books?id=bWXSwDrPNNAC&pg=PR23&dq=schure+steiner+rosicrucian&hl=en&ei=zilLTaXnJ4O88gafnInvDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=schure%20steiner%20rosicrucian&f=false 4, Step by Step path to gnosis - Steiner, GAS Principles. 5, esoteric and occult - Steiner, Constitution of School of Spirtual Science, History of School of Spiritual Science, Steiner assertion to Besant 6. claim of non-membership - usual biographies (already included) 7. Expulsion from TS for breach of consitutuion - refusing membership to members of OSIE - TS contemporary documents 8. Founding of AS - usual biographies 9. Refounding of GAS - usual biographies Prokofieff and Steiner Books publications on Christmas Conference

If you would like to debate why any of these facts are not crucial to a survey of Steiner's life I would be happy to consider argument. It is however becoming increasingly clear that there is very signicant Anthroposphical Society inspired bias at work here and that your edits are in support of that bias intending to present a distorted 'sanitized' version of Steiner as a secular and uncontroversial academic rather than a more neutral description of his life. May I point to: The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors of this are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them. For further information see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:53 Masteryorlando (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Without looking to closely at the argumentation and suggested references by Masteryorlando, I would caution that the editors involved with Steiner's works have generally interpreted the arbitration ruling referenced above to mean that items from sources without independent editorial review and control (such as Mr. Steiner's autobiography) have not been considered reliable enough to be used as sources. Does this seem a bit counter-intuitive? yes. Does it mean we might be leaving out things that could/should be included since there are not other sources? yes. So, rather than MB's of text here about why this is not a good biography because the Steiner's health is undercovered, lets carefully try to find third party discussions of the things that could/should be added. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes - I think however, that the problem is that the editing of this article needs some review and control since as a result of hundreds of edits by a few individuals it is now presenting a very distorted image of a controversial figure. Masteryorlando (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

discussion on this page is all the editorial control that en.wikipedia will exert. Make a case here for changes/additions to the article and get others to buy into it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

McDermott

Regarding the quote in the lead supposedly referenced as Robert A. McDermott, "Philosophy and Evolution of Consciousness", in James Ogilvy, Revisioning Philosophy, pp. 279-280 Not only is this reference inadmissable under the terms of the arbitration since Mcdermott is part of the Anthroposophical movement - see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Robert_A._McDermott where he is described as "co-founder of The Owen Barfield Graduate School of Sunbridge College" but more crucially the quote bears no relation to the Mcdermott passage referenced. In the lead Mcdermott supposedly says: "His philosophical work of these years, which he termed spiritual science, sought to provide a connection between the cognitive path of Western philosophy and the inner and spiritual needs of the human being." Not only does Macdermott say absolutely no such thing in the reference but instead the nearest I can find is that Macdermott actually says : "I [Robert McDermott, the author] have come to be convinced of the need for this approach to philosophy - of transforming philosophy into Spiritual Science" Mcdermott then goes on to explain Spiritual Science in the footnote quoting Steiner "Steiner writes 'There slumber in every human being faculties by means of which he (or she) can acquire for himself a knowledge of higher worlds. Mystics, Gnostics, Theosophists - all speak of a world of soul and spirit which for them is just as real as the world we see with our physical eyes and touch with our physical hands.' To therefore paraphrase Mcdermott as saying that Steiner "sought to provide a connection between the cognitive path of Western philosophy and the inner and spiritual needs of the human being" is to distort both Steiner and Mcdermott completely.Masteryorlando (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, McDermott's reference is a valid source for this article. Even though he is an anthroposophist, he is published by a respected, non-anthroposophical publishing house (SUNY Press). The restriction is using an anthroposophist writer as a source when published by an anthroposophical press (Steinerbooks, Anthroposophic Press, Temple Lodge, etc.) --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The exact requirement of the arbitration which may be seen here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education This states "Waldorf education and related articles placed on probation1) Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them." Clearly a source which is a book written by the "co-founder of The Owen Barfield Graduate School of Sunbridge College" - a leading Anthropsophical College, is an "Anthroposophy related publication", whoever it is published by. Irrespective of that you have singularly failed to address the key point I made that the reference is bogus. It does not say what is purported here.Masteryorlando (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing this to my attention; I have provided a better citation for this. BTW: The arbitration terms have been set already, this is not the place to argue them. hgilbert (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hgilbert, it's only courtesy to provide the McDermott text quote that you are using in your latest edit, since that's what we are requiring Masteryorlando to do. May I request that you make proposals for wording changes and new references here, with supporting quotes as needed, before adding them to the article?

Also, can you provide the precise wording that expresses the ArbCom's position on Steiner-related references? It was a statement by User:Fred Bauder as I recall. Maybe it should be made part of the header of one of the articles. Thanks, EPadmirateur (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely R. A. McDermott is anyway - as an adherent of Anthrosophy - not a 'verifiable and reliable source' according to the Wiki guidance on "fringe theories".Masteryorlando (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy is not a fringe theory. What is a reliable source is unrelated to fringe theories anyway. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Anthroposophy as a Pseudo-Science, a Pseudo-Reigion and based on Pseudo-Scholarship is by "categorical imperative" a fringe theory. Just common sense suggests that Steiner's theory of Anthroposophy as a route to the supersensible and the Akasha must be reasonably considered a Fringe Theory - or do you think it a mainstream scientific view that the Buddha was crucified on Mars in the seventeenth cetury?

http://books.google.com/books?id=7VuiPwuFznEC&lpg=PA207&ots=JPHf_GQqd3&dq=buddha%20crucified%20mars&pg=PA207#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.rudolfsteinerweb.com/Rudolf_Steiner_and_Science.php http://books.google.com/books?id=7_WwVFntyFwC&lpg=PP1&ots=xha2EhYtx_&dq=guenon%20theosophy&pg=PA194#v=onepage&q=guenon%20theosophy&f=false

This is why I object to Steiner being described here almost exclusively as a philosopher and Anthroposophy being described as a philosophy not as an esoteric religion. (see Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthroposophy See Clemen http://www.jstor.org/pss/1195620 See Ahern etc etc.)

See for instance the standard academic textbook, The Dictionary of World Philosophy Taylor & Francis, 2001 - Anthroposophy does not even rate an entry - Just a reference under Mysticism as "a mystical system seeking the development of spiritual awareness" - now that is an accurate description of what Steiner developed from 1900 onwards. NOT these entirely bogus and shame faced descriptions that the mealy-mouthed want to pretend that Anthroposphy is and ashamedly pretend that Rudolf Steiner was because they want to defraud. "synthesis between science and mysticism", "connection between the cognitive path of Western philosophy and the inner and spiritual needs of the human", "advocated a form of ethical individualism, to which he later brought a more explicitly spiritual component", taught that "there are no essential limits to human knowledge". This is all totally bogus in a paragraph intended to summarise who he was. Masteryorlando (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing Caution

It appears that some of the comments/commentary have gotten removed from the talk page, without being archived. Please be careful. The removal or refactoring of the comments of others is highly discouraged. And as a way to keep conversation going, if one wishes to remove something said either use strike out, or mark that you removed something (comment refactored or similar type note). It helps to keep the discussion orderly, so others can follow it and add to it in a way that makes sense. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Another thought

This article is supposed to be a short biography, of the sort you find in an encyclopedia. A book lenghth one is beyond our scope. All the various things and various thoughts that Steiner got involved with do not need to be described in depth. There are lots of articles on en.wikipedia about them (waldorf education, biodynamic farming, etc), this article doesn't need any details, just a link to the already existing articles. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The German lead is much more succinct and accurate: I suggest modelling the English one on that. Here is one suggestion

"An Austrian occultist[1], mystic and philosopher[2] who founded Anthroposophy[3] as a religious, esoteric and gnostic belief system[4] which seeks the development of spiritual awareness and consciousness.[5] Steiner's system derives from Christianized Theosophy[6], Rosicrucianism[7], and German Idealism [8] It grew out of the German Occult Revival of the early 1900's[9]. Steiner's doctrines have been influential in many different fields including education (Waldorf education), art (Eurythmy, Anthroposophical architecture), medicine (anthroposophic medicine) and agriculture (bio-dynamic agriculture).[10]

Comment????Masteryorlando (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Someone should initiate deletions and make this article shorter. Pass a Method talk 07:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead

It seems like overkill to mention every aspect of Steiner's work twice in the lead. It seems sensible to call him a philosopher, social thinker, and esotericist, and perhaps an architect (given the public exposure and critical appreciation of the buildings he shaped) - but should he really be identified as a poet, except in the sense that everyone who writes verse is a poet? I suggest that we identify people with their primary accomplishments - I would not call myself an explorer, even though I have explored a few places, or a woodsman, though I've cut down many a tree. In any case, the next paragraph details more of his accomplishments aside from his primary identity. hgilbert (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Date of Birth

I have mentioned this before but the Swiss website astro.com has Steiner's correct date of birth, why are we still showing 2 dates? http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Steiner%2C_Rudolf Veryscarymary (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have answered this before so why are you asking it again? There is genuine controversy over the date, with differing documents supporting two possibilities, and no clarity or consensus exists as of yet. Nice website, though. hgilbert (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Swapped sections

I've been a little Bold and swapped two sections; most people probably are more interested in the practical side than the philosophical, so I've put them in this order. In addition, the philosophy leads over more smoothly into the following sections of the article. If someone objects, we can swap it back, however. hgilbert (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Direct quotes from Steiner

An arbitration proceeding about this article ruled that direct quotes from Steiner - in fact, anthroposophic sources generally - could only be used in regard to noncontroversial themes. It doesn't help that the quotes were sourced to the website of a user who has been specifically banned from editing this article, rather than to a Verifiable source. Incidentally, when Steiner founded the Anthroposophic Society in 1913 two of the three people he chose to lead it happened to be Jewish (Adolf Arenson and Carl Unger...the third of the group was Steiner's wife, Maria Steiner-von Sivers). hgilbert (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Social reform vs. social activism

There are two sections about Steiner's impulse toward social reform. One is part of the biography section (Social reform) and the other part of the "Breadth of activity" section. A general introduction to Steiner's thought seems clearly to belong in the latter; biographical material in the former. Recent edits have confused this distinction. One result is that there's repetition of the same ideas in the two sections. I'd like to sort this out. hgilbert (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Villeneuve

The volume by Villeneuve, Rudolf Steiner: The British Connection, is half hagiography, half speculation. I'm not sure I'd include this in the bibliography; what are the reasons for doing so? hgilbert (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Villeneuve, Reply to hgilbert (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2012

First, Villeneuve's volume is in the section headed 'Further reading' which does not purport to be listing books in the customary sense of sources used in the article (or other work) to which it is appended. It contains its own select bibliography in that sense.

Second, it is not properly characterised as hagiography. It is thoroughly documented, indeed mostly quotation of primary sources, which have evidently been carefully checked and compared. (For example, note 21 'The historical lack of interest in Britain for researches into colour of a kind which contest Newtonian doctrine was made strikingly clear to the present writer in 2010 when consulting in the Bodleian library in Oxford University its copy of Dr Joseph Reade's book quoted by Goethe in this passage, "Experimental Outlines for a new theory of colours, light and vision, with critical remarks on Sir Isaac Newton's opinions (1816). Its pages were still uncut.' (See also the writer's Preface, p.2, para. beginning 'In this regard...')

It contains much information about the subject, Rudolf Steiner, not otherwise available easily (or at all), including letters of Steiner translated into English, and Steiner on Goethe, and is at least as informative and useful as other books in the list for "further reading" to expand, supplement and complement what the article purports to be about.

Third, to the extent that there is some speculation (which would not be well suited to an encyclopaedia article), it is very obvious, can readily be distinguished and does not detract from the primary and informative matter.

The work makes good the writer's claim in the Preface to open up the larger topic of Steiner's relation to natural science as a whole 'highlighting the polarity and tension -- ultimately for Steiner a creative one -- between on the one hand the Goethean view of science arising from Middle Europe and on the other those different scientific attitudes emanating from Western Europe which may gnerally be described as Baconian'. Qexigator (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems that a good majority of quoted references are an alias for you? Is this correct???

Seems that a good majority of quoted references are an alias for you? Is this correct??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.84.237 (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Changes to URLs at RS Archive

There were several errors in the wording and actual URL references to documents at the Rudolf Steiner Archive. I have made the corrections to eliminate several redirections of links, and to clarify what exactly is at the Archive. The elibrarian (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Links to Fine Arts Presentations

This link: Rudolf Steiner at Fine Arts Presentations features the artworks of the good Doctor, as well as a directory for Portraits and for the Goetheanum. I will be adding a new directory for his Blackboard Drawings. Does the community believe these additional links in the External Links section would enhance this document? The elibrarian (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The link is spam, contains product advertising and is not a reliable source, see WP:EL...Modernist (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

1923 preface of Theory of Knowledge...

As edited by Hgilbert at 12:11, 15 August 2012. This revision to Qexigator's fails adequately to balance or compare the unsourced assertion that Steiner considered PoF to be "his most important work". In the Preface to ToK, dated Nov. 1923, Steiner's own words (O.D.Wannamaker's trans.) were "Now that I again turn my attention to [ToK], it seems to me to be also the foundation and justification, as a theory of knowledge, for all that I have asserted since [sc. up to Nov. 1923]." In the next sentence he states in a few words exactly what he means (not some other party's paraphrase): "It speaks of an essential nature of knowledge which opens the way from the sense world to a world of spirit." It may be that at the same time (or later) Steiner said in truth that he considered PoF to be "his most important work", but surely the ordinary reader relying on Wikipedia for information deserves a better presentation of these two assertions than Hgilbert's revision. Qexigator (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! I have now sourced the statement and modified it to be closer to the original wording. It is not unlikely that Steiner spoke of both texts as being foundational:

1. The two works are closely related (ToK being the preliminary work to PoF), and
2. Steiner was not known for his consistency in such matters hgilbert (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Yes, the two works are closely related, but Steiner took more care than most to say what he meant about each, in ways that may be lost on some readers, perhaps due to translation or the reader's/ hearer's pov, or lack of attentiveness. For instance, those who know of S.O.Prokofieff's reputation and work will be able to judge for themselves how far to rely on it. More to the point, does he or anyone else source this particular assertion about PoF to Steiner himself: when and where? (I have seen his book but do not have it to hand so cannot check what appears on p.460 of the work cited.)

I do not propose to tinker further with this, but to my mind your revision-

"...The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World-Conception (1886), in which Steiner set forth the foundation and justification for much of his later work..."

is still not sufficient to repair destroying the import of my earlier edit, and its place in the text-

"Nevertheless, he later affirmed, in his Preface to the 1923 edition of The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World-Conception, that this work (The Theory...) was speaking of an essential nature of knowledge opening the way from the sense world to a world of spirit, such that, as a theory of knowledge, it had been the foundation and justification for all that he had since asserted orally or in print." (emphasis added)

If I could I would have checked the 1923 Preface with the German from which the translation was made. I remain of the view that paraphrasing risks misrepresenting an author who himself has made a habit of using his own words with care, and too often loses the very point which the author was actually making. Qexigator (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Further to above, I now see the following printed on the unnumbered page after the Contents page of Anhroposophy and the Philosophy of Freedom by S.O.Prokofieff (trans. fom German, 2009)-

• I asked Rudolf Steiner: "What will remain of your work thousands of years from now?" He replied: "Nothing but The Philosophy of Freedom. But in it everything else is contained. If one realizes the act of freedom described there, one can discover the whole content of anthroposophy." From the conversation between Rudolf Steiner and Walter Johannes Stein, Den Haag, April 1922.
• "One who is willing can indeed find the basic principles of anthroposophy in my Philosophy o Freedom. Rudolf Steiner, 11 June 1923.

These have been widely disseminated for years, as has the 1923 edition of ToK. It is easy to see he speaks/ writes of PoF otherwise than he does of ToK. Qexigator (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why contradict the author?

For those more closely concerned with the circumstances of the republication, the author's Preface was dated November 1923 in both the first edition which appeared in December 1923 and in the second and final edition which was corrected and seen through the press by the author and published in 1924. The English translation by O.D.Wanamaker was from the second 1924 edition.

The revision of 19:06, 15 August retains the assertion that in ToK Steiner set forth the foundation and justification for much of his later work, in contradiction to Steiner's 1923 Preface, and remains without supporting citation or other explanation. The English translation unequivocally states "all" not "much". Qexigator (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a supporting citation to that very preface, but I've changed the wording to indicate clearly that it represents Steiner's own judgment. I took out the unneeded and perhaps misleading word "much", as well. I hope this meets your needs! hgilbert (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that revision: it seems to be a neat way of putting it, without overstraining the text with explanations beyond what, I daresay, would be needed by the ordinary reader.Qexigator (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Today's revision to the footnote results from looking at the article again after a watchlist prompt due to a recent revision to another part of the article.Qexigator (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The text now shows the distinction between ToK and PoF:

• ToK-- the epistemological foundation and justification for every thing he later said and published (which "opened the way from the sensory world to the spiritual one").
• PoF-- an exploration of epistemology and ethics that suggested a path upon which humans can become spiritually free beings.... containing implicitly, in philosophical form, the entire content of what he later developed explicitly as anthroposophy.

This both avoids misinforming the more casual reader and lets the more attentive reader recognise the relationship of these two works from their author's own point of view.Qexigator (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

From the previous discussion at User_talk:EPadmirateur#Edit_reversion_for_Rudolf_Steiner

If you look at the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Remedies section, the explicit point is

Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications.

When this was discussed with User:Fred_Bauder it was clarified that all quotations from Rudolf Steiner lectures and books should be omitted. The rationale was stated in the Findings of Fact:

Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and related articles contain large amounts of original research and information gathered from Anthroposophical related sources which are for verification purposes properly considered self-published by the Anthroposophy movement.

I don't see how this is any different from the usual restrictions on self-published sources -- they should only be used to reference the source's viewpoints. a13ean (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The following represents my best understanding of the arbitration decision. Others who were there are welcome to contribute to this.

The arbitration decision explicitly referred to avoiding sourcing even Steiner's own viewpoints through references to his work when such a sourcing was remotely controversial. This unusual decision was made in response to the frequent situation where quotations from one place in Steiner's works were being contested using quotations from different parts of his works. Every use of a quotation threatened to explode into an article-length comparison of often self-contradictory quotations from different parts of his ouevre; the result was invariably a kind of OR by community action. (The word community here belies the often disputatious tone of the conversation and editing process that resulted.)

The arbitration suggested that verifiable third-party sources have presumably sifted this material and come to some sort of citable and non-contentious overview, though even here there are of course differences of opinion. hgilbert (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There is flexibility here; I think everyone would agree with the fact that Steiner spoke about elemental beings, including gnomes, salamanders, etc., as in some sense real beings. It seems reasonable to include a balanced presentation. It might be easier to agree that such a presentation was balanced if it was sourced to a non-anthroposophic reliable source, however. hgilbert (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

New discussion

I see two issues over the inclusion of a citation to Steiner's works over gnomes:

1. It is controversial, as evidenced by the discussion here. This violates the arbitration proceedings, which decided that to resolve the problems created by selective use of quotations, third-party, objective sources were preferable.
2. It overemphasizes a tiny point of his work. In Steiner's world-view, gnomes are a subset of the realm of elemental beings, which are a subset of spiritual beings generally, one branch of which includes an entire angelology. The nature of the human being as a spiritual being would also have to be considered. In other words, in an article on Steiner's ideas about spiritual beings, gnomes would play a subsidiary role. In an article on Steiner generally, their importance diminishes to insignificance.

Nonetheless, referencing a non-anthroposophical work on the subject published by a reliable source would provide a considerably more solid basis for inclusion in a balanced way. hgilbert (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Hgilbert's comment gives a reasonable perspective, both from the point of view of Wikipedia practice and the published work by and about Rudolf Steiner. If it is proposed that Steiner's explanation about gnomes be added somewhere, see articles Gnome, Elemental, and see Wiktionary gnome linked at Gnome (disambiguation). It can be seen that Steiner was speaking of "gnomes" in a way for which the use of "belief in" is as little suited to the context as it would be to say "Isaac Newton had a belief in the force of gravity". Qexigator (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think User:hgilbert's representation of the arbitration outcome is accurate, or even applicable to the edit in question. The result of that process appears to me to have been that action was taken against a number of editors who had been behaving badly, and to re-affirm several core aspects of Wikipedia policy – which of course apply here just as they do to any article. If the edit in question advanced an evaluative or novel notion concerning Steiner then of course a secondary or tertiary source would be required; but WP:OR explicitly permits primary sources to assert "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". The edit in essence merely reports that Steiner had stated something, and so falls clearly within this permitted use. (The one improvement I would make would perhaps be to modify the title from "Belief in gnomes" to "Views on gnomes", to neutralize it absolutely.) If I had then gone on to editorialize by analysing his statement in terms of "the nature of human beings" (as you do) then yes, secondary sources would be required. So if you believe this statement is better accompanied by secondary sources, then please add those sources. It is not however in line either with Wikipedia policy (or the arbitration outcome) to delete the edit: that degrades the article by lessening it verifiable factual content.

On the question of "overemphasis" – that is an editorial judgement which of course risks embodying WP:OR in itself, since deciding what is "in" or "out" can effectively shape an article. As a editor disinterested in Steiner, who merely wanted to check whether Steiner had (as I had heard) said anything about gnomes, I was surprised that Wikipedia was silent on this topic when Google was comparatively deafening. As a rough-and-ready objective metric, Google (UK) returns 64,500 pages searching for "Rudolf Steiner gnomes" but 20,200 searching for "Rudolf Steiner scientism" – and that latter topic is accorded its whole own section in this article. So I suggest to you that that your opinion that mentioning gnomes "overemphasizes a tiny point of his work" is itself WP:OR, built on a personal editorial pre-conception of what is important and what is not, which runs counter to the empirical measures we have to gauge popular interest in the topic of "Rudolf Steiner". The article with my edit will help curious readers without preconception to get more accurate facts on Steiner than the article without it – and for that reason the edit should be allowed to stand. Alexbrn 09:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(Caveat: The present comment is based on: 1_Given that all are affected by the arbitration ruling, whether or not parties to it and 2_making no comment about its effect on the present question, or the merits of the discussion about it.) With regard to Alexbrn's well reasoned reply to hgilbert's point 2: 1_Proposed change from "Belief in..." to "Views on..." agreed. 2_"...rough-and-ready objective metric" --perhaps more rough than objective: all edits and consensus building are proceeding from human not artificial intelligence (cp. revert bots which invite human attention), and require the exercise of judgment (inevitably more or less subjective, but aiming to present something recognisably objective). The claim that "The article with [the proposed] edit will help curious readers without preconception to get more accurate facts on Steiner than the article without it – and for that reason the edit should be allowed to stand" is a good example of editorial judgment. 3_ The proposed edit would be "better accompanied by secondary sources", if permitted. Qexigator (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking over the article as a whole, it seems to me that any reference to gnomes belongs in the Anthroposophy article rather than here. This article is primarily biographical and only has room for the barest glance at the details of his ideas, other than the de rigeuer overview of controversy and reception. hgilbert (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Inclined to agree with that. Qexigator (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Christian Community

A recent edit to this section removed cited material and replaced it with uncited material. I have tried to merge the best of both worlds. What is left of the new material is "The concept of the Christ through Anthroposophy requires continual self-transformation, knowledge and a sense of devotion. It encompasses a wide range of understanding of all religions and includes the course of human development within this understanding." I'm not sure how this fits into this section. Any thoughts? hgilbert (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Goetheanum

The source cited states that the loss of the Goetheanum affected Steiner's health. What justifies removing text cited to a RS? hgilbert (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Steiner's Racism

This article appears to whitewash, no pun intended, the racist beliefs of Steiner as if they were a mere product of his time. Why not include some actual quotes from Steiner concerning race:

“On one side we find the black race, which is earthly at most. If it moves to the West, it becomes extinct. We also have the yellow race, which is in the middle between earth and the cosmos. If it moves to the East, it becomes brown, attaches itself too much to the cosmos, and becomes extinct. The white race is the future, the race that is spiritually creative.”

“The Jews have a great gift for materialism, but little for recognition of the spiritual world.”

“Negroes” are “decadent" and “completely cut themselves off from the spiritual world”

“[I]f we give these Negro novels to pregnant [white] women to read, then it won’t even be necessary for Negroes to come to Europe in order for mulattos to appear. Simply through the spiritual effects of reading Negro novels, a multitude of children will be born in Europe that are completely gray, that have mulatto hair, that look like mulattos!”

"Today's red and black races descend from abnormal humans and have not participated in the evolution led by whites"

“If you look at pictures of the old American Indians the process of ossification is evident in the decline of this race ... [A] representative of these old American Indians still preserves a memory of that great Atlantean civilization [i.e., the civilization of Atlantis] which could not adapt itself to later evolution ... The Atlantean had not assimilated all that the Venus, Mercury, Mars and Jupiter Spirits [i.e., gods] brought about in the East, to whom we owe all the civilizations which reached their zenith in Europe ... The descendant of the brown race did not participate in this development.”

https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/steiners-racism

Smiloid (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A detailed arbitration proceeding (see header) excluded the use of Steiner quotes here and in other anthroposophy-related articles. Can you find reliable sources other than those already cited? hgilbert (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If there aren't sources acceptable by the terms of the arbitration proceeding, I suggest removing the tag from this section. hgilbert (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Any comments, pro or con the tag? Otherwise this seems a clear case of drive-by tagging. hgilbert (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to the implications of the section it is not a matter of opinion whether Steiner or Anthroposophy is racist. Here are some examples of this sugar coating: "whether a given reader interprets Anthroposophy as racist or not depends upon that reader's concerns." and "Steiner occasionally characterized specific races, nations, and ethnicities in ways that have been termed racist by critics"

It is factually correct that Steiner was racist by definition of the word, a belief that some races are superior to others.

See definitions of racism http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

Smiloid (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies on WP:TRUTH and WP:Original research. Do read these. They include the idea of using the most objective authorities' judgments, which we should continue to seek out. hgilbert (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I have read them. The problem is that the sources used in these articles are not objective. This article like other Steiner related articles here downplay these controversies and give undue weight to Steiner's defenders.Smiloid (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Not a single "defender" of Steiner is represented here. These are just the objective authorities...if we drew on the many anthroposophical sources on the subject, the section would look very, very different.hgilbert (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The correct term is racialist, not racist. As mentioned upon another page, Steiner did not advocate fight between races or oppressing other races, but he meant that the task of the "higher" races was to help the "lower" races evolve. As my teacher Olga Amsterdamska said, in the 19th century, if you weren't a racist, you was a Socialist, meaning that racism was the mindset of most 19th century social and political thinkers (including the scientists who devised the basic statistical tests used in sociology), Socialists excepted. I am neither Steiner's friend nor his foe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a distinction without a difference. These terms are synonymous. Racialism Steiner may not have advocated cruelty towards other races but it still doesn't make him less of a racist. Steiner believed that the task of the "higher" races was to help the "lower" races evolve to where they were of the "higher" races. This belief makes Steiner a racist. Smiloid (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

See Racialism (racial categorization)#Differences with Racism. Even US Police uses racial categorization of suspects, but this does not mean that it practices racism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Affirmative action is racialist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the only factor on whether it is notable is the role of race in his theories and work. Did it play an important role? If so, it should be acknowledged. If it is a matter of his personal views, I do think he needs to be placed in the historical context of the times he lived in.

Plus, I'm sure among the many, many thousands of profiles of scientists, actors, writers, politicians, etc. profiled on Wikipedia, quite a few were probably racist and/or sexist. But unless it was reflected in the work they did or they made it a defining point in their public persona (like writing an op-ed piece for a newspaper that is racist or sexist), it is usually not mentioned.

I'm not condoning racism or sexism but if these attitudes were part of zeitgeist of the times, then I don't think it is notable. It was unfortunately, all too common. Heck, I just got a message today from someone who told me to shut up because I was a "lib womyn" and I should "let them men do the important work." It's an unfortunate part of our culture. Newjerseyliz (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Race is important in Steiner's teachings, but he was no advocate of racial hatred. Of course, we need reliable sources if we are to add this to the article. The problem with rendering information about Steiner in Wikipedia is that sources are very polarized, there are either written by his apologists or by his "foes". There are almost no neutral, third-party sources, as I stated upon [1] Well, except the Brill dictionary of esotericism and related religion studies papers, which more or less get obscured by the polemics going on between Steiner apologists and Steiner's "foes". Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Category: Pseudoscientists

This category has just been added, but there is no material in the text to support it. hgilbert (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree -- totally unsupported. --EPadmirateur (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Also agree. Qexigator (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Also agree User:maven111. The evidence is that his views are becoming increasingly important, and have been highly influential for a century. —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. Pressure cooker mentality. In agriculture and medicine Steiner would be considered their laughing stock, if we would counter-factually assume that the majority of mainstream scientists have actually read his ramblings. He may be important for the alties and tin foil hats, but he is WP:FRINGE/PS in respect to most of his falsifiable affirmations about agriculture and medicine. In the Dutch TV show Hokjesman, http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/afleveringen/1327665 , which was not unfriendly to Steiner's teachings, the commentator sarcastically affirms that Anthroposophy books are placed in the book shop in the "boundary frontier science" category, i.e. "between religion and esotericism". Also he wanted to know if anyone has written books about Anthroposophy from an objective perspective (i.e. neither apologetics nor harsh criticism) and he was answered that apparently there are no such books on the market. As far as I know, one book written from an objective perspective on Steiner is Feet of Clay by Anthony Storr, but it is a study of more than one guru and does not give lots of details about Steiner's teachings. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The lack of such books should tell the tale of how irrelevant Steiner is for the mainstream science (religion studies focused on Western esotericism excepted). Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

To rephrase it using anthroposophical jargon, you don't realize how Ahrimanic mainstream science and medicine are, in comparison Anthroposophy appears much more Luciferian than mainstream science and medicine. (Hint for noobs: it does not refer to Devil worship, Steiner explained that the Christian path is the midway between the forces emanating from Lucifer and Ahriman). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Steiner pretended to be a know-all, from world history to medicine. What is most relevant is that his contributions are ignored by mainstream academics and as Anthony Storr put it in Feet of Clay. A Study of Gurus: "Yet his so-called 'thinking', his supposed power of supersensible perception, led to a vision of the world, the universe and of cosmic history which is entirely unsupported by any evidence, which is at odds with practically everything which modern physics and astronomy have revealed, and which is more like science-fiction than anything else. The claims which he made for himself are astonishing. He had complete confidence that his own subjective powers of 'spiritual perception' revealed the truth about the universe in ways beyond the reach of orthodox science, and that the discoveries which he made in this way could be applied to every department of life, from medicine and agriculture to the education of both normal and handicapped children. ... Steiner's belief system is both idiosyncratic and incredible..." (p. 81). "His belief system is so eccentric, so unsupported by evidence, so manifestly bizarre, that rational skeptics are bound to consider it delusional." (p. 69). "But, whereas Einstein's way of perceiving the world by thought became confirmed by experiment and mathematical proof, Steiner's remained intensely subjective and insusceptible of objective confirmation." (p. 70). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Steiner was an adversary of the idea that matter consists of atoms and ridiculed Einstein's theory as being able to hear the cannon before it shoots. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That and 2/3 of his major theories have been determined to fall in the pseudoscience cat after general deliberation. a13ean (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The quote from Storr is completely accurate but rather one-sided, as Storr also emphasizes Steiner's honesty, "perfectly sensible advice", and fruitful legacy. At one point Storr compares Steiner's ideas of a spiritual world to those of Plato. Storr's concluding statement in his chapter on Steiner is probably the best summary of his views: "Steiner's belief system is both idiosyncratic and incredible; but what he achieved in humanitarian terms is remarkable and enduring." I'm not sure that that's sufficient to put him in a pseudoscientist category.

Direct references to Steiner's work would not be usable by the terms of the arbitration, but perhaps it's worth noting that in those Tgeorgescu listed above, Steiner never claimsthat matter is not made of atoms. Rather, he agrees that it is, then goes on to suggest, as many working in the area of consciousness studies would agree, that human perception and experience cannot be wholly explained by material atoms and vibrations.

Similarly, Steiner agrees that Einstein's theory is accurate in the physical world, but suggests that it has philosophical consequences: "“Insofar as man considers himself within the world of natural things and events, he will find it impossible to escape the conclusions of [Einstein's] theory of relativity....It will not be possible to evade this theory of relativity for the physical world, but precisely this fact will drive us to a knowledge of the spirit.” (Rudolf Steiner, The Riddles of Philosophy, p. 444). Given the way relativism has become a dominant force in philosophy, social sciences, and general thinking, he may have a point. hgilbert (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No connection between the theory of relativity (physics) and relativism (ethics, political philosophy). The gist is that Mother Teresa was seen as a champion of humanitarian action, but that did not make her a scientist. Therefore humanitarian success does not make Steiner a scientist. Fact is that Steiner championed many weird beliefs masquerading as science: ancient history which lacks academic recognition (stories about life on Atlantis and Lemuria are relegated to pseudohistory), geological and astronomical claims lacking academic recognition (like Great Britain being a floating island which the forces of the stars prevent from sinking), medical claims which have no impact outside of a fringe group of MDs and their patients (anthroposophical medicine which gets called pseudoscience and quackery in the lede), agricultural preparations which seem more like ritual witchcraft than modern chemistry or biology, and so on. Science is organized skepticism, therefore scientists have to be rational skeptics. For how rational skeptics are bound to consider Steiner's views see the quote above. If he did not claim to make science, he would be just a mystical philosopher and no pseudoscientist. But since he claimed to be divinely (or supernaturally) inspired in order to change several sciences, he cannot be something else than a pseudoscientist.

Steiner is mentioned in The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience by Michael Shermer and in Pseudoscience: a critical encyclopedia by Brian Regal. Anthroposophy is mentioned as pseudoscientific here. Steiner's agriculture ridiculed in Dick Taverne The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy and the New Fundamentalism. Also mentioned in The new encyclopedia of unbelief by Tom Flynn. Anthroposophy called "parascience" here or pseudoscience "in a broader sense, to also cover all those areas dealing with bogus knowledge." (Martin Mahner). C.K. Ogden wrote "Similarly in Anthroposophy, where a pseudo-science is invoked in support of the most extravagant ideas, we find a movement inspired by a Teacher, who, whilst laying claim to marvelous faculties, nevertheless found it convenient to avoid any verification of his claims." (here). Anthroposophy prominent in German, Dutch and Swedish sceptical publications ([2]). Anthroposophists as propagators of eccentric sexual theories which constitute pseudoscience (Martin Gardner, Fads & Fallacies In the Name of Science, [3]). The Flickering Mind: The False Promise of Technology in the Classroom and How Learning Can Be Saved by Todd Oppenheimer: "In Dugan's view, Steiner's theories are simply 'cult pseudo-science'." Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

See also Quackwatch and Skeptic's Dictionary. While a case could be made that Dan Dugan (audio engineer) has some axe to grind against Steiner and the Waldorf schools, Michael Shermer, Martin Gardner and Quackwatch are reliable sources about what counts as pseudoscience. They passed WP:RSN many times and if you want to check if they pass it this time, you may start a WP:RSN topic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if the argument that the theory of relativity pushes people towards relativism is yours or Steiner's. If it is Steiner's, it is an extra argument for him belonging to WP:FRINGE/PS, since physics does not study moral values. No group except the fringiest Christian conservatives considers that the theory of relativity has direct consequences for moral values. But they also hold that Earth is 6000 years old, so it may be said that they collect and adopt pseudoscientific views. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that Pseudoscience is there defined as

• 'a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status',

and that this applies to the category of that name, it would be surprising to find any work of Rudolf Steiner showing him to have failed to make abundantly clear the distinction which he made between what is here being called 'science' and what he wrote and spoke about as 'Geisteswissenschaft'. Certainly his works show that he had no pretensions about making discoveries of the kind here considered to be 'scientific'. But that he, as other critical thinkers in the field of philosophy, wrote and spoke about the boundaries of 'naturwissenschaft' as a complete or sufficient source of knowledge of the objects of the natural sciences is equally manifest. It could be better said that he was a lifelong opponent of pseudoscience. Qexigator (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

+ Geisteswissenschaft mentions Dilthey, whose writings are referred to on p.8 of Steiner's "Truth and Knowledge"[4] ("...dealing with the interrelation of cognition and the other sciences"). For further refs. in Steiner's "The Riddles of Philosophy, Presented in an Outline of Its History." (1914) see[5] and see, with preface to 1923 edition[6]

See also: New World Encyclopedia "integrates facts with values. Written by online collaboration with certified experts." [7] --Qexigator (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As noted by multiple reliable sources, Steiner did pretend to do empirical science, not just "spiritual science". I.e., his contributions to medicine and agriculture cannot be relegated to the realm of "spiritual science", but the fall within the domain of empirical science, wherein they constitute pseudoscience, as multiply attested by hunters of pseudoscience. You cannot seriously claim that anthroposophical medicine makes no scientific claims whatsoever, but it solely confined to "spiritual science". Anthroposophical medicine makes scientific claims which are largely regarded as pseudoscience and quackery. I don't try to smear Steiner without due reason. If he were only concerned with philosophy he would have been known as the Great German Idealist of the 20th century. If he were only concerned with philosophy and esoteric lore (occultism), but without drawing any practical (i.e. scientific) conclusion from them, he would have remained free from doing pseudoscience. But as long as he pretended to renovate real empirical sciences and pretended to draw valid conclusions about agriculture and medicine, he tried to do empirical science but did pseudoscience instead. You cannot say that medical claims are "spiritual science" and wholly different from any empirical science (like medicine and biochemistry). Therefore the argument about doing "spiritual science" only is a red herring. We are not discussing Steiner's spiritual views, but we are discussing his attempts to contribute to medicine, agriculture and other fields which concern empirical sciences. Reliable sources attest that he attempted to do real science and he failed in his attempt. E.g., mistletoe either cures cancer or it doesn't. "Mistletoe cures cancer" is a falsifiable sentence, it is not some lofty ideal about spiritual beings. Anthroposophical MDs try hard to turn mistletoe into a wonder drug which cures cancer because Steiner said so. And till now, most of the studies which they have performed have serious design flaws, according to the Cochrane Collaboration. And Iscador is the subject of an article of the Dutch Anti-Quackery Association at [8]. They don't think either that "Iscador cures cancer" would be a "spiritual science" claim, devoid of falsifiability. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The misattribution of pretension to that kind of empirical science on his part is apparent to any attentive person's natural reasoning who reads the content of his books and lectures. This can be difficult for opponents to acknowledge. As before mentioned he was explicit and clearer than most about the boundaries of science. The questions above mentioned about Iscador are relevant to Steiner's work, and show that he was not making any pretension to practice the kind of empirical science to which the above comment refers, and that he remained an opponent of pseudoscience. However, given that Iscador is not part of conventional medicine, in that sense it is "alternative medicine" and physicians and others can and do decide whether to use it with conventional treatment or not. To do so is not to practise or be subject to pseudoscience. That cap does not fit. Qexigator (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Quackwatch calls it quackery and this is enough for Wikipedia. Cochrane Collaboration says the evidence for the effectiveness of Iscador is flimsy. Quackwatch and Chochrane Collaboration pass WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDASSESS. I will start a WP:RSN topic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you have not followed what has been said. This article is about Rudolf Steiner, a lifelong opponent of pseudoscience. It is not about alternative medicine. Qexigator (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The reliable sources which I have shown above don't call him "a lifelong opponent of pseudoscience", they call him a pseudo-scientist. You are not a reliable source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not the first time that the Wikipedia paradox has been noted: a weakness in assesing rationally, scientifically and meaningfully the distinction between science and pseudoscience. That need not require any person, as reader or editor, to surrender intelligence to unreason. Qexigator (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles says: Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate.

A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, here: "Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio. A category embodies one or more defining characteristic—how this is achieved in practice is described in the following sections.

Reliable sources do not commonly and consistently define Steiner as anything like a pseudoscientist. They often mention this question as a controversial, but the above clearly states that categories should generally be uncontroversial. Please explain how this categorization satisfies the above standard. hgilbert (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You say that his status as a pseudo-scientist would be controversial. Controversial according to which sources? Anthroposophical press and books cannot be taken in consideration, since they are considered self-published, per ArbCom. So, unless you show with reliable sources that it is controversial, I have no reason to believe it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This means that anthroposophists cannot be considered part of the controversy. A controversy has to exist among independent, mainstream academics who live by publish or perish. Otherwise we cannot speak of controversy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"Zu den umstrittenen Aspekten der Anthroposophie gehört die Frage, ob sie den Anspruch, Wissenschaft zu sein, zu Recht erhebt oder nicht." (The question, whether anthroposophy can justifiably claim to be a science, is one of its most controversial aspects.) Carlo Willman, Waldorfpädagogik: Theologische und religionspädagogische Befunde, v. 27 of the Cologne Kölner Veröffentlichungen zur Religionsgeschichte. Böhlau Verlag, 2001. But you are right that there are few other academics who contest this. Hammer comes down clearly on the side of it being "scientism". hgilbert (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The quote shows that the claim made by the anthroposophy that it would be a science is controversial, it does not show that the claim that anthroposophy is a pseudoscience would be controversial. E.g. the claim of parapsychology that it would be a science is controversial, but its status as pseudoscience isn't controversial (even at the level of Wikipedia categories). Besides, it would be a question if Willman is a disinterested scholar or he has an axe to grind, but after noticing the previous, Willman's impartiality (or lack of it) is of secondary importance. But coming back to the subject, it is straightforward that the stuff taught by Steiner is rejected by mainstream academics. It would be unrealistic to assume that it could be otherwise. E.g., no historian could get through peer-review descriptions of daily life from Atlantis and Lemuria in any respectable historical journal. "What are your sources?" he would be asked. "I received it through spiritual instruction and it is multiply attested by clairvoyants." Anyone having some common sense knows this is not how peer-review works. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There are people who do parapsychological research following all rules and requirements of sound psychological research. So it cannot be claimed that all parapsychologists deviate from the rigor of the scientific method. They would say: we want that the same standard which applies to psychological, sociological and anthropological research be applied to parapsychological research. But they face the problem that the claims of psychology, sociology and anthropology are not extraordinary, while the claims of parapsychology are extraordinary. And extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. A number of statistically significant results is not enough for confirming parapsychological claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

So, parapsychology is either a science which failed (failed science) or something which is not science (a non-science) pretending to be science. In both cases it is pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

While the article mentions that the term "scientism" has been applied to Steiner's work, it is here being proposed that "pseudoscientist" should be attached, and on checking out some of the sources and coming for the first time to the Skeptic's Dictionary[9], the pages I have looked at seem to have been written in a spirit and style of rational candour and openly declared pov. Perhaps those two labels and that source will be enough to point out for a reader what s/he needs to know about the character of Steiner, his work, his followers and his critics. Qexigator (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not going anywhere: take it to RSN or FRINGE. a13ean (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

There are already more reliable sources mentioned in the topic opened at WP:RSN. Till now there is no indication that the label pseudo-scientist applied to Steiner would be controversial among independent scholars. Those who depend upon accepting Steiner's teachings for remaining employed may have a different view, though. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that looks representative of the sort or comments often made about Steiner by critics and opponents, not all of them necessarily hostile, but usually on the basis of a certain pov. The inapproprate mention of 'who depend upon accepting Steiner's teachings for remaining employed' does not reflect well on the commenter who made it. COI applies both ways of course, but it would be a false inference (and false argument) to assume any kind of mercenary or vested interest on the part of all those who differ from them. The examples listed 1.- 4. in the comment under Categorization[[10]] are particularly relevant to the point under discussion. One of the comments above it links to a source[11] about Steiner on pseudoscience in a lecture given at the end of January 1914 when work was well advanced on the construction of the Goetheanum building he had designed. While it may be the kind of source which is not acceptable for Wikipedia as reliable, how much weight is due to an opinion expressed in a secondary source ('independent scholar' or other) which had failed to take it into account? Qexigator (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It applies both ways? I don't think so. There is noone here who's job is contingent on the rejection Steiner's teachings. I think Tgeorgescu has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that Steiner's work as regards to science is pseudoscientific. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that to an open-minded person there is reason to believe that so it would seem to certain points of view, as per Wikipedia criteria etc. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, rational skepticism is what all academics ought to have (since science is organized skepticism), Wikipedia relies upon the mainstream work of academics, therefore rational skepticism is not seen as being biased inside Wikipedia. I don't try to bash Steiner, in fact I am prepared to admit that he had serious philosophical contributions, which are neglected by academics since they conflate those with "knowledge received through channeling or clairvoyance". I don't even understand how you cannot understand that Steiner is seen as fringe by mainstream academics. All clairvoyants are seen as fringe, this is part of the claims for having supernatural inspiration; instead of rationally defending their conclusions they claim "I could see this in the higher worlds and mainstream academics can't see in the higher worlds, therefore I am right and they are wrong." If labeling such claims as pseudoscience is controversial, it is a lame controversy. Try passing an article through peer-review in a serious journal with footnotes like "This has been revealed to me by Archangel Michael on February 2, 2012" and "So it is written in the Akashic records." Any serious reviewer would write a report like "Junk science, ROFLMAO." Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Perhaps there is a flaw in that comment's reasoning. There could be a question about how highly Wikipedia is rated by reputable sources, especially of the encyclopedic kind, and how many leading academics take Wikipedia as authoritative on topics such as rational skepticism or any other. Why resort to empty slogans such as "junk science" which tend to discredit the case it seeks to support? My surmise is that it would not be too difficult for someone sufficiently knowledgeable of primary sources to publish as a secondary source a rebuttal of those remarks about clairvoyance, given time and place. But has not enough now been said for this section? Qexigator (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

So we are in agreement that the pseudoscience category can be added? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

For me this is a difficult one. I am sceptical about the use of the Category, and of the way it is applied. I concur with hgilbert and EPadmirateur above. I do not see it as reflecting well on Wikipedia to attach the Category to Rudolf Steiner. That means, I suppose, that I am opposed to the Category generically, and to its application here in particular, but my surmise is that this is out of order from the Wikipedia pov, and does not count. If so, neutral in principle = neither agree nor disagree on this one. Qexigator (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

See the RNC discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Categorization. hgilbert (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

On the abovementioned "Reliable sources Noticeboard" (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Categorization) I've started a new discussion, which I'll summarize here. In response to Tgeorgescu's question above about what makes the "Pseudoscientist" category controversial in application to Rudolf Steiner, I cite several academic sources which do not agree with that characterization of Steiner and his work. I conclude: "Other examples could be provided, but I believe these are enough to show that Rudolf Steiner's 'status as a pseudo-scientist' is indeed 'controversial' among academics who have studied his work. Hence the category designation 'Pseudoscientists' on Wikipedia's 'Rudolf Steiner' page is controversial and should not be applied. [Therefore I've removed it.] Those who would stand by that label should perhaps express their point of view in the body of the article, with proper citations, rather than as a category designation." --Macam14 (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

(On the same discussion, as an aside, I question the usefulness of the "anthroposophical" label as a criterion for evaluating sources.) --Macam14 (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's an ArbCom decision and unless you get it overturned, it is still of application. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

In its narrowest sense pseudoscience elevates philosophy or religion to an equal of science in explaining the natural world. Advocating for a perspective which attempts to integrate philosophy and nature, for example, is simply philosophy, not pseudoscience. Looking at controversies surrounding pseudoscience today, applying that use of pseudoscience to Steiner is not appropriate. It's pigeon-holing, "some (who?) would describe Steiner as pseudoscientist were he alive today" at best. VєсrumЬа ►TALK

It's just that reliable sources have been shown which specifically state that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudo-scientist, Anthroposophy is pseudoscience and anthroposophical medicine is quackery. A discussion of the sources can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 146#Could Quackwatch, Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer be used to affirm that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudoscientist?. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And thus these sources should be cited in the article, as we all agree.

Wikipedia's categories are not meant to assert an opinion about a topic, however, even if this opinion can be sourced to a number of reliable sources, but rather to refer to "essential—defining—characteristics of a topic" as WP:Categorization repeatedly emphasizes. As can be seen by browsing any standard biographical source (see here for some of these), no such source considers "pseudoscience" to be even relevant or important, much less an essential or defining aspect of who Steiner was. hgilbert (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this really still being discussed? Let's RfC and resolve it one way or another and save everyone some time and hassle. a13ean (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard discussion

This issue was taken to the RSN ^{(permanent link)} and after extensive discussion, primarily between the disputants, but including comments from 4-5 neutral editors, when asked for a summary conclusion, noticeboard participants responded with the following: hgilbert (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

1. IMO this discussion itself is proof that the cat choice is controversial and therefore unlikely to comply with the guideline. User:WhatamIdoing
2. I don't see that pseudoscientist applies User:DGG
3. Agreed, "Pseudoscience" is as inappropriate for this article as it would be for an article about homeschooling itself. User:Shii

This discussion continues to be scattered and inconclusive. Why don't you draft a succinct case against the use of the category (say 500 words or less), someone else can do the same for including it. We can RfC it and all agree to stand by the results. a13ean (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We took this to the RSN. The comments we garnered there from outside editors are quite conclusive; I asked for a summary position and twothree editors provided this.

I really don't see the point in taking it further, but if you want to take it to RfC we should include in the submission the comments by the four established outside editors who contributed to the RSN. (I would leave out the new editor who also posted there.) hgilbert (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

One more person has chimed in at the RSN. It seems quite conclusive now. hgilbert (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You're arbitrarily counting comments only in a single section, and ignoring the input of people who have already made their views known. This is not conclusive, and that's why the RfC mechanism exists. a13ean (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be a buttinsky, and I'm no expert on Rudolf Steiner, but as an outside editor who occasionally checks RSN, I hope I can be some help. I see lots of work by Steiner that RS (and I personally) classify as pseudoscience (but I could also classify as gibberish not even reaching the level of pseudoscience, which does after all require some impersonation of scientific method). I see defence of his ideas that skirts round any coherent attempt to justify his formal classification as a real scientist. I don't see any quotations specifically describing Steiner in general as either a "pseudoscientist", or as "not pseudoscientist", and I'd be concerned that any such categorization is therefore original research. I would also describe the categorization as lacking consensus, and as being of limited though not zero use to an encyclopaedic reader.

In summary, in order to use the category "pseudoscientist" here, I'd like to see at least a handful of reliable sources that specifically use the term. I suggest that if routine academic use of the term in relation to Steiner can be demonstrated, then the category should be used. If no such use can be demonstrated, then it shouldn't. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources which specifically call Steiner a pseudoscientist are available at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_146#Could Quackwatch, Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer be used to affirm that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudoscientist?. User:Maven111 specifically claimed that Steiner became increasingly important and influential (I assume he means in science, since we were discussing pseudoscience), therefore he stated that Steiner did or attempted to do real science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Since there are a number of standard reference works, such as encyclopedias (including Britannica) that have articles on Steiner, and all of these take him seriously as a cultural figure and philosopher, Wikipedia should follow their lead. I think you'll find that pseudoscientists generally don't get into Britannica at all, and certainly don't get the kind of serious treatment Steiner is consistently accorded in mainstream reference works.

In addition, a number of outside editors have given their opinions, and the consensus is clearly that the category is inappropriate. HGilbert (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Steiner is highly relevant for the history of Western esotericism, but in respect to who made it in Britannica see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/524755/Sasquatch . Being a man of culture and a philosopher does not exempt one from doing pseudoscience. Quackwatch, Shermer, Regal and Gardner are mainstream. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Trofim Lysenko also made it in Britannica. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Precisely, and Britannica's characterization of all three of these figures is exemplary. Feel free to quote Britannica's article on any of these figures in a Wikipedia article. HGilbert (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

In mainstream science claiming that you got your knowledge through clairvoyance translates as "he got his knowledge through hallucination". So, for mainstream scientists, Steiner (whether he was a clairvoyant or not) makes the claim that he got his knowledge from hallucinations. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, world history based upon hallucination, medicine based upon hallucination, agriculture based upon hallucination. That's what mainstream scientists would think of Steiner's views, if they bothered to know them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

E.g. Iscador is based more upon Northern European legends than on medical evidence, because Steiner believed that such old wives' tales must render the clue to curing cancer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Upon http://www.radio1.nl/items/44942-antroposofie-wetenschap-geloof-of-geluk Madeleen Winkler, president of the Dutch Anthrosophical MDs Union, says that all of the anthroposophical medicine is based upon science. She has of course the right to hold such opinion, but she is in denial. Quackwatch, Cochrane Collaboration and the Dutch skeptics foundation Skepsis concur that the evidence for the anthroposophical medicine is quite flimsy, and mostly comes from the science learned in the universities at regular medicine studies (and, of course, anthroposophical MDs do their best to forget what they learned, namely that medicine is or should be evidence-based). Of course, I am not saying that alternative medicine should be prohibited, what I am saying is that it is pseudoscience and it should be labeled as such. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

So, Steiner is the initiator of many pseudoscientific approaches. I mean how else could a rationally thinking person evaluate Steiner? Failing to see this points to being in denial, brainwashed or having lost contact with mainstream science and medicine. Now, I don't say that you have to give up your faith in Steiner. What I am saying it is that it is preposterous to picture Steiner as a "lifelong opponent of pseudoscience" when he peddled so much pseudoscience himself. And that the claim that he has not peddled pseudoscience is a WP:FRINGE claim. It is not your fringe apologetics that matters, it matters how Steiner would be seen by mainstream scientists and MDs, if they knew his theories. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Steiner peddled pseudoscience simply because his scientific standpoints are extremely fringe, and they were fringe since he first stated them. This is a quite reasonable assessment of Steiner's position in respect to mainstream science and medicine. If would be quite weird if would not belong to the fringe. So, the aberrant claim is that Steiner isn't fringe. Now, I don't say that his philosophy (speaking strictly of his few philosophical works) would be fringe, since there ain't such a thing as fringe in philosophy. And his spiritualistic views of Atlantis and Lemuria could be considered a mere spiritual teaching, unless one realizes that he meant a real Atlantis and real Lemuria here on planet Earth, in real historical-geological time. Therefore, such views are immediately relegated to pseudohistory since there is where such falsifiable but ludicrous claims belong. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

And here is Mrs. Winkler repeating Steiner's viewpoint that there is nothing wrong with children being able to get measles. Well, nothing wrong? Except... being buried or cremated as a consequence of measles? A medical biochemist wrote "For example: no vaccination, 10% risk to die of a disease. With vaccination 0.0001% chance on a harmful side effect. You choose the odds you prefer, I know which one I prefer." Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"The heart is not a pump" taken seriously by Anthroposophical MDs, first published in a journal described as:

"The heart is not a pump: A refutation of the pressure propulsion premise of heart function," Frontier Perspectives, Fall/Winter, 1995;5(1):15-24 (Frontier Perspectives is published by The Center For Frontier Sciences at Temple University in Philadelphia. It is an "anything goes" forum for crank science. A paper by a group of Steiner disciples. The lead author is listed as being from the Rudolph Steiner Research Center at Royal Oak, Michigan. Others are from various medical schools. This paper seems to be crank science based upon the fact that "in 1920, Steiner, of the Goetheanum in Switzerland had pointed out in lectures to medical doctors that the heart was not a pump...but that the blood was propelled with its own biological momentum.")

— William T. Jarvis, Ph.D., Anthroposophical Medicine

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Performing arts

The level of detail should be appropriate for a fourth level subsection of a very large article. Do we really need to know where ensembles still perform these dramas? That's probably something that should be reserved for a sub-article. HGilbert (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox: work to do

The following have been removed from the Infobox and would have to be referenced in the article to be restored: HGilbert (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Influences:

Eduard von Hartmann, Max Stirner,

• Influenced:

Hugo Bergmann,Alan Chadwick, Rudolf Hauschka, Bernard Lievegoed, Karl König, Brian Goodwin, Henri Bortoft

"cultural philosopher"

What is there in the article to support the qualifier "cultural"? The link goes to a one liner which does little more than cite a work published in 2005, with a blurb to the effect that its author, Morton White, has gone beyond Quine's dictum that philosophy of science is philosophy enough, and is proposing that it should contain the word "culture" in place of "science." Thus, it is untrue to state that Steiner "gained initial recognition as a ... cultural philosopher", a term that was not current at the time, and has not come into general currency today. Qexigator (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"spiritual"

Given that the word "spiritual" is in the article, should it be made clearer whether this is being used in one or more of its particular meanings? Or should it be left open to readers to make their own guesses or inferences? Editors may be aware that Anthroposophy is mentioned in the "Contemporary spirituality" section of the Spirituality article, and is one of its "See also"s. Spiritual (disambig) links to Wiktionary "spiritual", which offers the following:[12]

• 1.Of or pertaining to the spirit or the soul.  [quotations:Respect towards ancestors is an essential part of Thai spiritual practice. Sir Thomas Browne God's law is spiritual; it is a transcript of the divine nature, and extends its authority to the acts of the soul of man.
• 2.Of or pertaining to God or a place of worship; sacred.
• 3.Of or pertaining to spirits; supernatural.
• 4.Consisting of spirit; not material; incorporeal.  [quotations: a spiritual substance or being Bible, 1. Corinthians xv. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
• 5.Of or relating to the intellectual and higher endowments of the mind; mental; intellectual.
• 6.(Christianity) Controlled and inspired by the Holy Spirit; pure; holy.  [quotations: Bible, Gal. vi. 1 If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one.
• 7.Not lay or temporal; relating to sacred things; ecclesiastical. the spiritual functions of the clergy; lords spiritual and temporal; a spiritual corporation

There is an inline link to Anthroposophy in the "Metaphysical and metaphorical uses" section of Spirit, but no mention at Spirit world (Spiritualism). --17:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC) correction Qexigator (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"influenced by Dilthey"?

The link, both verbally in the text and to the Wikipedia article, appears to be circular and lacking an external source, and unless supported is due for removal. Steiner discussed Dilthey at some length in The Riddles of Philosophy. His account of Dilthey's writings (as of others discussed in the same work) is respectful but critical and suggests, not that Steiner was "influenced" by Dilthey, but that there was some partial but distinctly limited concurrence of Dilthey's philosophy with Steiner's. Steiner comments on Dilthey and Eucken that their mode of conception leads to "no means of cognition that could guide the soul or the self-conscious ego beyond what can be experienced in connection with the body". Dilthey's works among others are listed in the Introduction to Steiner's Truth and Science (the doctoral dissertation) as "concerned with the theory of cognition in general". [13] If mention of Dilthey is to be retained, let it be for his advocacy of the term Geisteswissenschaft (literally, "spiritual science") by pointing out that other terms such as "social science" and "cultural sciences" are equally one-sided and that the human spirit is the central phenomenon from which all others are derived and analyzable (per his article). Qexigator (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Astronomy

The "breadth of activity" section addresses practical initiatives that were established. Steiner lectured on many themes, including astronomy, but talking about something is different than doing something about it. I suggest that the "Astronomy" sub-section be removed from this location. (I doubt it should be placed anywhere, except perhaps in a sub-article that could be a list of every theme he ever spoke about. Astronomy simply does not stand out from countless other themes he addressed.) HGilbert (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair comment, but then its place would be "Spiritual research", particularly because it is not just one other of an endless list, but relates to Steiner having deliberately created the Astronomical Section for the School of 1923. So I have put it at the end of that section, but may be it would suffice as an explanatory footnote to "astronomy", which needs something said about it. Qexigator (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to Steiner's spiritual research, too. I don't know why this needs to be in this article; it belongs in an article about Vreede, really. HGilbert (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

For the reasons above, you seem to be mistaken about that, perhaps a blind spot. It is not too difficult to see that his concern with astronomy, particularly in connection with spiritual research, the School of 1923 and the results in other domains such as agriculture is at least as essential as most else that the article mentions. It is one of the things that differentiates him from the likes of Dilthey and James. Qexigator (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"esoteric philosophy"

What is there in the article to support the qualifier "esoteric"? The disciplined practice of meditational techniques, or mental exercises, is not necessarily "esoteric". Steiner wrote and spoke on many topics including esotericism, founded and led an esoteric school and when founding the Anthroposophical Society in 1923, let it be known that its founding "vorstand" had an esoteric character. In his work The Riddles of Philosophy Presented in an Outline of Its History published in 1914, Steiner mentioned that his earlier work The Philosophy of Freedom (1894) was intended to give the philosophical foundations for what had been outlined in his yet earlier work, based on his doctoral dissertation, Truth and Science (1892). In Riddles[14] Steiner explicitly made clear that what he was proposing was "a continuation of the scientific way of thinking provided it is inwardly experienced in the right way". At no later time did he repudiate the content of the works here mentioned for the sake of "esotericism" or otherwise. Qexigator (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Any doubt whether Steiner was a philosopher and as such primarily concerned with the traditional and fundamental questions of philosophers, from earliest times to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, about epistemology and ethics, can be resolved by attention to his Preface to the 1923 editionof The Riddles of Philosophy Presented in an Outline of Its History, as well as by reference to the last editions of his other philosophical writings published in his lifetime. Qexigator (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the now current ("simpler") version[15] suffices in this opening paragraph and sits well there, while more about that is given later. Qexigator (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Not in the article

See [16]: at the University of Amsterdam in the religion studies is taught a course in Western esotericism, and Steiner gets discussed therein. So, formally, Steiner was an esotericist, his philosophy is esoteric in this formal meaning. If you want a reliable source for this, see [17]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That does not support the use of the qualifier "esoteric". The question is about the ordinary use of the English language. Steiner was an academically qualified and practising philosopher, he was also and separately known as an "esotericist" in an accepted sense of the word, as mentioned above and in the lead to the article; and much that is published and taught as "philosophy" is esoteric in the popular sense, as might be said "it's all Greek to me!", but much of Steiner's philosophical writings is easier for ordinary readers to comprehend than the works of other philosophers. You may find TFD helpful on the point.[18] --Qexigator (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if such philosophies were truly esoteric (meaning only discussed among initiates) there would be no public discussion about esoteric philosophy, except conspiracy theories like we have about Freemasons plotting to do this or that and secretly worshiping dark forces. This is the paradox of calling a philosophy esoteric. But, if we use the term Western esotericism as reliable sources do, then it is no doubt that Steiner's Anthroposophy is an esoteric philosophy, meaning it belongs to Western esotericism, in its academic meaning. Otherwise I don't understand what you criticize: esotericism does not necessarily imply secrecy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The paradox you have proposed is beside the point. Qexigator (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please note: the question is about clarity in the use of the English language, particularly in the context of the article. Steiner was a philosopher, whether or not there is a box with the name "esoteric philosophy" for something else. Hanegraaff's "Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism" is not about philosophers in the usual and traditional sense which includes Spinoza, Hegel, Fichte, von Hartmann, Brentano, Husserl and others of that sort with whom Steiner's name as philosopher is connected. Qexigator (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that dictionary has an article upon Rudolf Steiner and he is mentioned in many other of its articles. I do agree that apparently the Philosophy of Freedom and other "purely" philosophical works by Steiner aren't esoteric philosophy and could very pass as academic-level philosophy. But the way Steiner employed them in his teachings shows that they are given esoteric meaning, i.e. he considered the Philosophy of Freedom a (future) path leading the pure thought towards the supernatural realm. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Occult Physiology. One of the key elements of Steiner’s anthroposophy is a spiritual or occult [→ occult/occultism] physiology of man.

— Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism, p. 82

In this sense, anthroposophy is an occult (esoteric) philosophy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The question is, first, about the use of the term "esoteric philosophy" in plain English for the information of the ordinary reader, and in the context it has been given in the article, whether or not there may be some who would, mistakenly (as explained above), infer that Steiner was not a philosopher, but was an "esoteric philosopher" according to a work by a professor in a university in the Netherlands (quoted above). Secondly, the question is about sources, with relevance to notable philosophers such as those discussed by Steiner in his work "The Riddles of Philosophy" first published in 1914, later with the author's prefaces of 1918 and 1923. Qexigator (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Steiner is not listed in any tertiary works on philosophy, I'm guessing, except those on esoteric philosophy, or with specific reference to his esoteric teachings. This is what he is notable for; had he stopped writing in 1900 I doubt anyone would remember his work today. Britannica calls him a spiritualist, which is misleading, but points to his spiritually-oriented work. There might be a better term than esoteric philosopher but I don't know what it is. HGilbert (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The term "esoteric philosopher" has little currency. It (not necessarily persons so classified) is an unhappy mongrel, more so than "cultural philosopher" which at least has a pedigree, but is also questionable in the context of this article, as mentioned above. Whether or not it is accurate to claim that today Steiner is more noted as an "esotericist" than as a philosopher, a philosopher is what he was first and foremost, in the mainstream tradition from Plato and Aristotle and on to 19-20c. He is probably more widely known as an educationist or educational psychologist, and it may be that most of the philosophers sufficiently notable at the time to have been discussed in Steiner's Riddles of..., are, unlike Steiner, little known today whether as philosophers or anything else. Is he listed in any tertiary work as "esoteric philosopher"? Qexigator (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

+When the term "cultural philosopher" was brought into the article 12:11, February 2009, it was coupled with "esoteric philosophy".[19] This was a revision for the opening paragraph, which has been improved by further revision. With the exception of those two terms, the lead is a clear and sufficiently accurate summary of Steiner's lifework for this article. Can we not find a way of removing those two qualifiers, which are not, so far as I can see, duly sourced? Qexigator (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

+ I propose:

• Steiner gained initial recognition as a literary critic and cultural philosopher philosopher of epistemology and ethics. At the beginning of the twentieth century, he founded a spiritual movement, anthroposophy, as an esoteric philosophy with roots in German idealist philosophy and theosophy; other influences include Goethean science and Rosicrucianism.--Qexigator (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Revised proposal:

• Steiner gained initial recognition at the end of the nineteenth century as a literary critic, and cultural philosopher published philosophical works in connection with the sciences, humanities and spiritual activity. At the beginning of the twentieth century, he founded a spiritual movement, anthroposophy, as an esoteric philosophy with roots in German idealist philosophy and theosophy; other influences include Goethean science and Rosicrucianism.--Qexigator23:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC) + minor rewording. 07:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)+minor rewording. Qexigator (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

To be sure, Steiner could write both academic philosophy and esoteric philosophy. If he chose to make a career in academic philosophy, he would be known as the German idealist of the 20th century. I discussed about Steiner with philosophers and for them the fact that he described his clairvoyant experiences is a reason not to take his philosophical works seriously. Call it a prejudice, but for someone who stands or falls by rational arguments, indulging in occultism is compromising. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Steiner certainly did not gain initial recognition as a philosopher of epistemology and ethics. And it seems to me clarifying to describe anthroposophy as a spiritual philosophy. HGilbert (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

To clarify: 1_Are you able to say what is the basis for reporting Steiner as having gained initial recognition as a literary critic but not as a philosopher of epistemology and ethics? 2_Is the philosophy of others, such as Berkeley or Hegel and other "idealist" philosophers, also classifiable under the name "spiritual philosophy", or is Steiner the only member of this class? Qexigator (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

For Berkeley and Hegel, spirituality had to do with the mind (reason), they did not say they were offering a path of access to the supernatural world (buy only to the world of ideas, whatever they thought them to be). I found the following quote:

In 1918, long after Steiner changed his philosophical for his esoteric career, Steiner issued a second edition of this work, which substantially differed from the original one.

— Cees Leijenhorst, Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism, p. 1086

This kinds of do justice to Steiner as both a philosopher and an esotericist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

On this point the current version of the article is about right. At no time did Steiner alter his philosophical stance as can be seen from the later editions of his philosophical works, which were at all times consistent with his other works including those which may be classified as "esoteric". Recent works by others that are focused on "esotericism" are apt to ignore or forget or distort that. Agreed, it may be seen that with Steiner, it was a case more of "both and" than "either or", and it can also be seen that the "esoteriic" aspects of his work evolved from and after the philosophic - he was reading Kant in the schoolroom and the German idealists as a student at a leading technical university in Vienna, then, soon after graduating, and for his doctorate, he published his philosophical works which he repeatedly reaffirmed to his dying day, after founding and leading the School of Spritual Science at the Goetheanum, Dornach with its distinct Sections and Section leaders. Published information also shows that after Steiner's death various doctrines about the School, its Sections and esoteric concerns developed among members of the School and the Society, sometimes of a polemical character, and this has tended to cloud the issues or muddy the waters from the points of view of others. Qexigator (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Separate heading for "Esoteric schools"?

The placing of esoteric schools within the "Spiritual research" section is unexplained by the text, and is not self-evident, nor does a Wikipedia search for "Esoteric school" help. It has been in the article a long time, from September 2006.[20] Privately, this is not a problem to me, but could some copyedit clarify? Would it suffice simply to put it under a subheading of its own? Qexigator (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Sections" of the School founded in 1923

Given that the divisions of the School of Spiritual Science created in 1923 are called "Sections" in the published English language translation of the record of the proceedings (printed and published in the USA), and that the same term has continued to be used from then to the present day, it should be used in the article with reference to that event, in the absence of good reason otherwise. Qexigator (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree; on the other hand, insider terms are confusing if used without explanation. The usual term for these in English is research departments; I have now included both the normal term and the term used in the AS. HGilbert (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Steiner was making a particular point about them not being "departments" such as the conventional structure, practice and name used in many academic establishments (as well as in businesses and bureaucracies) - eg "Department of Social Sciences in the Something Research Institute/ University of Someplace". It is therefore non-encyclopedic and far from helpful to readers to use "department", or to imply equivalence, in contradiction of the record of the formation of the School and its Sections, and the actual facts of subsequent and current practice. An editor may be of the private opinion that department "should" have been used, for one reason or another, but that was not so and is inaccurate descriptively. To try and insert something comparing "section" with the use of "department" in other institutions while at the same time, for the sake of accurate information, explaining why that term was not and is not used in the School at Dornach or in the General Society or in the local societies, would simply be undue. Qexigator (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Vide:

• School of Spiritual Science[21]
• From the Life at the Goetheanum[22]
• The First Class of the School of Spiritual Science[23]
• The Pedagogical Section[24]
• Welcome to the North American Youth Section's Website...[25]
• The School of Spiritual Science: An Orientation and Introduction edited by Johannes Kuhl, Bodo Von Plato,Heinz Zimmermann p.16[26]

Qexigator (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain how the pedagogical section, for example, actually differs from a department of education in a teaching or research university? Other than the name? HGilbert (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The purport of the question is not understood: it seems to be beside the point. The School's sections were not formed to be known by the name of another type of entity and have been known as sections and not otherwise. The accuracy and informative value of the article is not improved by arbitrarily switching the terms, as explained above. There seems to be no need for further explanation. Qexigator (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Other esoteric schools' texts

Another proposed change: what about saying that "By 1992, the extant texts relating to all three of these esoteric schools were published as part of the full edition of Steiner's works." This seems more complete. HGilbert (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hardly necessary, but if so it would be well to quote the source explicitly or link to it online. Qexigator (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

1923 founding of the School: repetition

Information about the 1923 founding of the School occurs in two places, with some repetition: under "The Anthroposophical Society and its cultural activities" and under "Spiritual research". Should it be in one or the other, or at least avoid repetition? Qexigator (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Gnomes

This has been blank for some time. Is there reason to retain the title? Qexigator (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Early spiritual experiences - Fichte

According to the source cited in the current version (which stems from an earlier version of June 2006),[27] Steiner had concerned himself with Fichte before he became acquainted with the agent of "the Master". Is the text reconcilable with the citation? Should one or other be rectified? The section "Early spiritual experiences" ends with this: "According to Steiner, he also introduced Steiner to a person that Steiner only identified as a “Master”, and who had a great influence on Steiner's subsequent development, in particular directing him to study Fichte's philosophy. But the "GA 262" refers to a document Steiner wrote for Schuré in 1907, in which the opening paragraph contains this: "At fifteen I studied Kant intensively, and before going on to college... I immersed myself in Fichte and Schelling... I gained complete understanding of the concept of time... guided totally by the spiritual life...the precondition of spiritual clairvoyance. Then came acquaintance with the agent of the Master." Qexigator (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

+ see quoted text here[28]. --Qexigator (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

+ ... this was mentioned on the Talk page in June 2006[29] Qexigator (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It could be changed accordingly. HGilbert (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The passage after mention of the herb-gatherer seems to be based on misattributions. It suggests that Steiner studied Goethe's work as a result of the herb-gatherer, but as mentioned a few lines above, it resulted from his connection with Schroer in the academic envrionment of Vienna. Rather than a rewrite it may be better to let it be removed (done), leaving it open to some new text based on GA 262, if considered usefully informative in the context. Qexigator (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

..and now some lines added, per GA 262.[30] --Qexigator (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Helpful redistribution of information, per given structure and sequence of article, noted, including contrasting use of "belief" for reporting certain information but not other.[31] [32] --Qexigator (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"Spiritual Scientist"?

Two questions on the insertion of the term "Spiritual Scientist" at the end of the first sentence[33]- 1_Why are caps used for this but not for any of "philosopher, social reformer, architect, esotericist"? 2_Is the term sufficiently supported in the sources? My comment: the info box has caps for this with a link to Anthroposophy via a redirect, but a Wikipedia search gives non-caps with reference to Steiner in Gary Lachman and Integral (spirituality), and without mention of Steiner in Arthur Eddington. --Qexigator (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Spiritual scientist and other matters

Spiritual Scientist: I think the term deserves to be part of the description, as that is the essential characteristic of his work, and must be mentioned even if it is not used often. My mistake for the caps.

The Philosophy of Freedom: Again, HAS to be referred to right in the beginning as it is the foundation for all the later work.

One-sided mysticism AND science: keeps it consistent with what is described later in the section Spiritual Science. Mentioning only one of them is inaccurate. Mention both or neither. Besides, the approach to mysticism wasn't vague by definition. Mystics gained clarity of some specific experiences as opposed to the totality of experience, hence "one-sided".

Advocated ... etc: No, this is one-sided in itself... "advocated" makes it sound as if it is an agitation for a particular point of view. No legalistic notions fit here.

... explicitly spiritual component: It is not an ADDITION of a component, it is an outgrowth of it, or an evolution, the very thing Goethe emphasized. The phrase makes it appear as if spirituality was piggy-backed onto philosophy, which is not a correct description. The last sentence ought to show how this approach differs or extends that of Goethe's, else there is no point in mentioning that here.

Section (Social activism): Activism has the connotation of organizing protests and "fighting the system", or a "peaceful form of conflict" as the wiki page suggests. Since lecturing was the primary activity, it makes sense to call it social activity. Else we will have to call the work of teachers "Lecturing activism".

Accurate perception and imagination: Leaving the first phrase out is one-sided again. Unless an imagination meets a perception, we just have subjective fiction, and that has numerous references, if required.

Line 166: Asymptotically: Unnecessary mathematical reference. Very fancy, but misleads conceptually. The asymptote is something you NEVER reach, and hence quite out of place to claim here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.134.53 (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Broadly agree with above, subject to reasoned comment from others. Qexigator (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

+ Except, I remain doubtful about the use of "spiritual scientist", for reasons similar to but not entirely the same as previously in respect of "esoteric philosophy" (above) or "cultural philosopher"[34] There appears to be little or nothing supporting "spiritual scientist", in common usage or in published sources generally or relating specifically to Steiner. Have you anything of that sort to propose, from English, French or German sources? Remember, we are not writing a work to express our own personal preferences, inferences, deductions, beliefs, classifications or anything of that kind. We report according to what there is in the public domain. (If I have erred, let me be corrected.) Qexigator (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I appreciate the opening of a discussion here. Some responses:

1. I agree with Qexigator on the doubtfulness of "spiritual scientist" for the above reasons. There was a period when a few anthroposophists used the term in English; it neither stems from Steiner nor is remotely current usage either within anthroposophy or in general discourse about spirituality.
2. The two different treatments of mysticism make sense because they are in two different contexts. In the first one, in the lead, a comparison with science is not immediately relevant and would require tedious explanation out of place in an introduction. In the later, detailed treatment, the larger context is explained.
3. The Philosophy of Freedom is an important work. It could be briefly mentioned in the lead, keyword briefly. (Done)
4. The relationship of Steiner's philosophy and later spirituality: again, detailed explanations belong in the body. "More explicitly spiritual" implies exactly what you are suggesting, that the spirituality was already implicit previous to this. But propose a tweak here and let's sort it out.
5. Social activity refers to all social contact: conversations, parties, etc. That's not what we want to imply. Perhaps there's a better term, but Steiner was very much of a social activist during these years -- proposing alternative social systems. Activism need not be violent or conflictual. Again, feel free to propose something that makes more sense.
6. I agree with "Perception" and left this unchanged. Good edit.
7. I left your edit of asymptotically unchanged. HGilbert (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

1. I guess the approach I am suggesting is different from what is normally done. Rather than emphasizing the term "spiritual scientist" because of its common usage or for being already known, I suggest to use it because it is highly relevant and is necessary. Spiritual and scientist are very common terms, putting them together will show a new thought "not commonly found", simply by the presence of that phrase. Also, for instance, if one has a question about what is the aim of the School of Spiritual Science, then the term is asked for indirectly. The most accurate term would obviously be that Rudolf Steiner was an anthroposophist, but I think spiritual scientist lies right at that border of people knowing what it means and having no idea about it.
2. Okay, I agree with that explanation.
3. Thanks. The editors on that page are doing a great job.
4. I guess my issue is the phrase "spiritual component"... has a mechanical ring to it. Component of an engine, yes... component of a proof, yes... but we can't use it for living beings. In place of spiritual component, I would suggest something like:..."from which he derived a spiritual world outlook."
5. There is some overlap here. Maybe the section itself can be relabeled "Social Threefolding", followed by a link to [35]

129.7.134.217 (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

OK - I changed "component" to "spiritual approach".

(Threefolding is only aspect of Steiner's social activism.) Changed "activism" to "reform", which is anyway more in keeping with the content that follows.

On "spiritual scientist": while I appreciate what you are saying, it surely makes more sense in an encyclopedia to explain things well rather than use phrases that you know people are likely not to understand. HGilbert (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Spiritual Science" as infobox "Main interest": remove?

Should it be retained here? While it may properly be included in "Notable ideas", it is incongruous to have it as a "Main interest", where it was first intruded at 07:09, 30 July 2009 [36], together with Jennifer Gidley, by Wfsf, whose status is "currently blocked"[37], as of April 2010. The info box links to Anthroposophy via a redirect, and a Wikipedia search gives non-caps with reference to Steiner in Gary Lachman and Integral (spirituality), and without mention of Steiner in Arthur Eddington (where the use of the term is out of place and unsourced). The Integral (spirituality) article cites Gidley in connection with: "It has also recently been noted that Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925) an Austrian spiritual scientist, educator, and esotericist who founded Anthroposophy, Waldorf education, biodynamic agriculture, anthroposophical medicine, and Eurythmy, used the term integral in a similar way to Sri Aurobindo and Gebser very early on, by 1906 comparing "integral evolution" with "Darwinian evolution." Jennifer Gidley points to Steiner’s earliest use of the term integral, in reference to integral evolution in a lecture in Paris on the 26 May 1906.

The grandeur of Darwinian thought is not disputed, but it does not explain the integral evolution of man… So it is with all purely physical explanations, which do not recognise the spiritual essence of man's being. [Italics added]

"

Qexigator (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC) corrected re Integral (spirituality)/Gidley article. Note: No comment is being made here on Lachman or Gidley by..... Qexigator (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Qexigator (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think it needs to be included... it is heavily used in rsarchives, for example, which is the first place (after wiki) people reach when they google Steiner. 129.7.134.217 (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thus, along with Anthroposophy and so on it is retained in Notable ideas. Qexigator (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Influences

Needs further review of Infobox HGilbert (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

To my mind "influences" is always an equivocal or doubtful term, such as in Influence: Science and Practice, and with connotations of "ascendancy or moral power", which could be a dominant meaning today. Who is to say but the person himself, or a person who knew him well enough? The present version[38] has: Brentano, Fichte, Goethe, Hegel, Kant and Schiller, but not Schröer. Why Kant, whose dominating influence on philosophy. science and culture Steiner spent so much of his life seeking to redress? Why single out any of the others, except Goethe? Why not Laplace (with Kant) or von Hartmann, whose response to The Philosophy of Freedom was such a disappointmenr to Steiner? But most of all, why not Schröer who seems to have had more influence (apparently the benign influence of a "fatherly friend") than any of the others: on Steiner's development when a student in Vienna, on his career and activity as an exponent of Goethe, in connection with the character of Capesius in Steiner's dramas and with the Oberufer Christmas plays, and of whom Steiner wrote and spoke with such respect and affection in some of his last writing and lecturing? Qexigator (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

+We could consider persons named in Steiner's autobiography,chapter III[39]: "(from the end of my Realschule period until my entrance into the Technische Hochschule ...

• I had got so far with my reading of Kant that I could form a notion, even though immature, of the advance which Fichte wished to make beyond Kant...
• I devoted myself to Fichte's Theory of Science. And yet I had my own opinions. So I took the volume and rewrote it, page by page....
• Of special import for me, however, were the lectures which Karl Julius Schröer gave at that time in the Hochschule on German literature. He lectured during my first year on “Literature since Goethe” and
• “Schiller's Life and Work....I took great satisfaction in
• the Herbartian, Robert Zimmermann. He lectured on “Practical Philosophy.” I attended that part of his lectures in which he developed the ground principles of ethics. I alternated, generally attending his lecture one day and the next that of
• Franz Brentano, who at the same period lectured on the same field. ..
• .for the first time I read Goethe's Faust...
• I made a thorough study of Haeckel's Generelle Morphologie.(10)...

From Schröer I learned to understand many concrete examples of beauty. Through Zimmermann there came to me a developed theory of beauty. The two did not agree well. Schröer, the intuitive personality with a certain scorn for the systematic, stood before my mind side by side with Zimmermann, the rigidly systematic theorist of beauty. Franz Brentano, whose lectures also on “Practical Philosophy” I attended...The stimulus which came from Brentano worked strongly upon me. I soon began to study his writings, and in the course of the following years read most of what he had published. ...It then chanced that I became acquainted with a simple man of the plain people (ie Felix the herb gatherer)...

• a thorough-going study of Hegel...was very helpful to me....
• a personality for whom I felt quite extraordinary respect... was Edmund Reitlinger...-lectures on the history of physics,...
• I was deeply stirred by the reading of Schiller's letters concerning the aesthetic education of man....

A spiritual perception formed itself before my mind which did not rest upon dark mystical feeling. It proceeded much more in a spiritual activity which in its thoroughness might be compared with mathematical thinking. I was approaching the state of soul in which I felt that I might consider that the perception of the spiritual world which I bore within me was confirmed before the forum of natural scientific thought. When these experiences passed through my mind I was in my twenty-second year.”

Qexigator (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Bildende Kunst, etc.

The term means fine art, not "sculptural art" or whatever. See any German-English dictionary HGilbert (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

For reply see[[40]]. Qexigator (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

...and to my mind it's worth getting this bit right, both for that bit and for the whole.[41] --Qexigator (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

the currently accepted term for the 1923 section is fine arts. See Goetheanum history linked in citation. HGilbert (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Visual arts is also an acceptable translation...would this be preferable?HGilbert (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we are getting nearer an acceptable version.[42] I have looked carefully at your proposed changes there. The Goetheanum "Overview" page citation (with its links) that you inserted is useful further information, which would be helpful to readers at that point or as an external ref. But where is Maryon and the sculptural section in "...sections for general anthroposophy, education, medicine, mathematics, science, etc"? Note that only 1+ 5 sections are given, and the name for "Bildende" is evaded by "etc.": no "fine arts" or "visual arts" either. As a source for reporting the historic facts, and the present, it is deficient in that respect, but no doubt suffices on that page for the present-day purposes of the Society or Goetheanum management; and that list may be accepted as sufficient for the main text of this article, while the inset image of Maryon with its caption will suffice for her appointment, and the footnote for Vreede (the Goetheanum may not wish on the overview page to say any more about them, which makes good enough sense). You raised the question of "Bildende" and that can be covered in a revised version such as the one which had been added.[43] It is now a matter of finding a suitable way of including the information and sources, whether in text, by citation or External link. The historic aspect here should not be treated disdainfully: it may be the very thing an inquiring reader is looking for, nor should the translations be treated as if based on linguistic ignorance or as old-fashioned: no reason for that has been given against the known facts. Qexigator (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Revised distribution of information done [44][45] --Qexigator (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I have included the entire official list; this should clarify the matter, I hope. There are also two places in this article where this list is referred to; perhaps only one is necessary. Which would be preferable? HGilbert (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

misc

In the same section: the pronoun "there", which was replaced after I removed it, is ambiguous. The last location referred to was the burned-down Goetheanum, so it sounds as if the meeting took place "there". I have clarified this. HGilbert (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Qexigator (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Why contradict the record?

It is not helpful to edit the article in misguided or pedantic reliance on a standard dictionary in a way that distorts the known facts, or conflates later practice with the foundng event.[46][47] Given the English language sources published in English language countries, there appears to be nothing dating from 1923 to the death of Rudolf Steiner in 1925 which shows use of terms other than "fine arts" "sculptural arts" or "plastic arts" for "Bildende Künste" in respect of the appointment of Maryon as the leader of one of the sections of the School inaugurated by Steiner at that time. Factually, irrespective of any personal opinion or point of view relying on dictionaries, the term "sculptural" or its variant "plastic" are found in authentic publications recording or reporting the Foundation Meeting, as translated by persons whose good repute as German-English translators is not in doubt, one of whom is known to have been a quasi-official translator for Steiner's lectures and writings at the time, and whose name is included in the list of persons present at the Foundation Meeting. If in the course of later events, the name of any section was changed, officially or otherwise, such a change would not be retroactive in respect of the name at and after the Foundation Meeting. If there were something which suggested otherwise, perhaps a report or review in a newspaper such as the New York Times, that could be mentioned. So far, nothing at all has been produced to support contradiction of the Adams and Collis translations. Qexigator (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The official record is in German. We both agree that a section for "bildende Künste" was founded. That is not the problem.

The question is how to translate this. We both agree that early translators often used the term "sculptural" or "plastic" arts. I am pointing out that current official Goetheanum historical documents use the term "fine" or "visual" arts when referring to the original section. I understand this as an improvement in translation. How do you explain the shift in terminology even when referring to the section as established in 1923? HGilbert (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It is almost too obvious to mention, but I have to draw attention to the actual state of affairs by asking, with reference to your remarks, has any point in time been identified when the change to the use of "fine arts" was made in any English language publication, or in anything published in English by the Society or Goetheanum management? I see no reason against letting that be reported somewhere in the article in a way that is consistent with the fact that in the authentic sources in English, reporting the first appointments of the leaders of the sections, the term used was "sculptural" or "plastic", which (contrary to what some may mistakenly suppose) was manifestly well chosen at the time of publication (such as 1990) relating to the circumstances at the time of the Foundation Meeting. That is what will be seen by readers of those sources, whether in print or online, and clearly, an article such as this should be as accurately composed as can be in respect of words, and the time of events the words are reporting. Qexigator (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I already linked to this both in the article and in the above conversation: this is the English language Goetheanum page on the history of the society. By the way, the fact that a sculptor led the section has no relevance to the question of what the section was called.

Can you find any standard dictionary or reference work in which "bildende Künste" is translated as what you suggest, rather than fine or visual arts? If not, the discussion seems closed. HGilbert (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again, that merely repeats the error instead of responding to the points set out above. Why contradict the record? I have been responding at some length in the expectation that a less self-important reply would be forthcoming. You may do your own further in depth research if you wish to pass beyond the superficiality of your limited dictionary understanding and misguided reliance on a German website which does not purport to be offering an official record in German or English. Noted that you have nothing further to add to oppose the mention of sculptural per authentic sources. If you are not willing to revise as proposed below, please avoid acting disruptively by resorting again to blank revert, as you have done too readily with other edits. Let me remind you that the use of "sculptural" in the sources was well founded by persons of undeniable repute as translators, to whom linguistic ignorance or naivety cannot be attributed as you have on this page and here[48], nor that their work was inferior to the operations of an autotranslate machine or program. As quoted above Automatic translations are not as accurate as translations made by professional human translators. To my mind, your responses tend to show something other than NPOV, but I am willing to assume good faith nonetheless. Qexigator (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In any case, most modern translations refer to the 1923 founding of the visual arts section. These include

• the Goetheanum website (presumably the best anthroposophical source),
• The Research Bulletin of the Research Institute for Waldorf Education, v. 11, p. 32
• Judith von Halle, A. John Wilkes, The Representative of Humanity, p. 83
• Faivre's Modern Esoteric Spirituality p. 308

P.S. I don't know why you are referring to automatic translations. The German phrase bildende Kunst simply never refers to sculpture exclusively, but always to the whole range of visual arts. Consult any dictionary or competent translator. HGilbert (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Please note: the question here has always been about the authentic record of the Foundation Meeting and the English language translations cited. If there is anything relevant to that specifically (which is unlikely) please provide a link or quote the passage you consider relevant. You have not mentioned anything to show that the cited authentic translations of the record have been disputed credibly or at all, and the presumption remains that there is nothing to be produced. Unhappily, your responding comments seem to show some unaccountable confusion about this on your part. Qexigator (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

All of the documents cited refer to the foundation meeting. All are "authentic translations". HGilbert (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Why continue to ignore the distinction between documents which are records of proceedings and those which are not and do not purport to be? To persist serves no useful purpose here. It had not occurred to me that perhaps you do not know that there is such a distinction. Qexigator (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The "official records" are all in German. None of the translations are official records of the proceedings. Therein lies the problematic. HGilbert (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no problem, other than one you have invented as an obstruction to the improvement of the article for the use of readers. Why persist? Qexigator (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the term to "visual arts". Perhaps this is a helpful solution? HGilbert (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Noted, and will take time for further consideration. Qexigator (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As said before to my mind it's worth getting this right, Arising from the discussion, and points previously mentioned, including letting "fine" be dropped, there remains a choice between "plastic" / "sculptural" / "visual". Noting that each of those has at least some support according to various sources, and that the topic of the article is the life and work of Steiner (not the Goetheanum as a later institution and its management), it is proposed that an explanatory note is required about using any one of those terms in preference to the others. We are editing for a readership which may include some who, like the two translators Adams and Collis, will be at least as well informed as any of the editors of the present article (or authors of secondary sources), and as knowledgeable generally or in any particular activity such as agriculture or eurythmy; and some readers who will have practically no prior knowledge of the use of those terms in German or in English, or in the particular ways in which the German was known to be used at the time by the author (Steiner).

One way of presenting the information would be to let one of the terms be used in the earlier part of the article, and another in the later, and in both places with a version of the explanatory note adapted accordingly. To my mind, "visual" is too restricted, is not used by Adams or Collis, and is not consistent with Steiner's intent.[49]. It may be supposed that "plastic" is nowadays less acceptable in either place vis-a-vis a general reader, while "sculptural" easily connects with Maryon's appointment. It would therefore be better to let "sculptural" (plus footnote) be used in both places; or at least in one of the two places, while letting "visual" (with footnote) be used in the other. Qexigator (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

1. We cannot know Steiner's intent. He named the section using a term that in his time and ours signified and signifies visual arts: 'bildende Künste' . A note could be made that this is sometimes referred to in English as the sculptural or plastic arts. But the primary meaning, as given in dictionaries and contemporary translations, should be used in the article.
2. It is strange to prefer translations made more than 50 years ago to contemporary translations.
3. That a sculptor was appointed to head a visual arts dept. no more implies that this was limited to plastic arts, than the appointment of a speech artist to the performing arts section implies this dept. was limited to the spoken word.
4. "The Visual Art Section encompasses painting, sculpture, graphics, architecture, interior design and furniture. " website of the Visual Art Section HGilbert (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

While to my mind that does not suffice to answer the points made about translation as such, given the content of the current version under the title "Architecture and visual arts", the latter term may suffice in the context of the article as a whole. Steiner as the artist undoubtedly made known that the sculpture, once in place (not in the event), was intended to communicate by way of the spatial-visual design, including the painting of the ceilings and the colour effect of the glazing in daylight. Qexigator (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Understanding the use of "fine arts", language by language

Maybe this information will help towards letting there be an agreeable resolution about "Bildende"/sculptural/fine. Given that it is generally known that in academia, USA, "fine arts" is a derivative of beaux arts, a construction similar to belles lettres, and that it is less well-known that in German, bildende, in contexts about artistic activity, is more particularly connected with sculptural, three dimensional, plastic artworks, but by default is often used as a portmanteau for what is elsewhere known as beaux arts or fine arts; and that it is obvious and unsurprising that the terms are frequently used indiscriminately, such that this usage is reflected in dictionaries: an inquirer wiith a discerning interest in questions of linguistics and translation would not be blind to the significance of an instance such as this from an official website:[50] New choreography and plastic arts training at the Académie des Beaux-Arts. This page has been automatically translated from French into English by a translation software. Automatic translations are not as accurate as translations made by professional human translators. Nevertheless these pages can help you understand information published by the City of Brussels. "From September 2012, the Institut Supérieur des Arts et des Chorégraphies (ISAC) will be launched at the Académie Royale des Beaux-Arts - Ecole Supérieure des Arts (ARBA - ESA). It offers a French-language choreography and plastic arts training." Or, another instance: "W-S- is contemporary Polish born artist who studied at the College of Plastic Arts and Adacemy [sic] of Fine Arts in Warsaw, and the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris. He now resides in France."[51] And another: "BEAUX ARTS - Magazine of Plastic Arts Beaux Arts magazine is a magazine created in 1983 and dedicated to the Fine Art under all its forms and periods. Beaux Arts magazine est un magazine fondé en 1983 et consacré aux arts plastiques sous toutes ses formes et périodes."[52]. It is also interesting to see that the article on French art begins "French art consists of the visual and plastic arts (including architecture, woodwork, textiles, and ceramics) originating from the geographical area of France", but the term "fine art" is absent, and "Beaux" occurs only in the listing of French and Western Art museums of France. Qexigator (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

+ It would surely be foolish to let an entity operating for the promotion of "A Professional Network for Visual Artists, Photographers, Art Collectors, and Gallery Owners", such as "Fine Art America" [53], determine the question under discussion here about the fitness of "Sculptural arts" as the Anglicizing of a name given in German in 1923, under particular circumstances, to a Section to be led by a person who happened to have been a professional sculptor in England before joining Steiner at Dornach, to assist him in the practice of that art. That could seem like conceding to product placement. Qexigator (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Never saw the website in question. HGilbert (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The website is there, and exemplifies one of the loose ways in which "fine arts" is used, as anyone can see - "Understanding the use of "fine arts", language by language". Qexigator (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Restoration and repair

Let the earlier versions be used to repair the present, subject to tweaking if proposed:

• Under subtitle The Anthroposophical Society and its cultural activities

....Steiner announced that he would lead this School as a whole, and admission would be to its "sections", one for general anthroposophy and seven others including those for education, medicine, mathematics and science< ref >1923/1924 Restructuring and deepening. Refounding of the Anthroposophical Society, Goetheanum website< /ref > < ref >Rudolf Steiner, Constitution of the School of Spiritual Science: Its arrangement in Sections 1964, republished 2013. ISBN 1923/1924 Restructuring and deepening. Refounding of the Anthroposophical Society

9781855843820< /ref >< ref name="wn.rsarchive.org" >Record of Foundation meeting 1923, session of 28 December, 10 a.m. ISBN 0880101938 [54]< /ref >

Proposed revised version letting sculptural go from text to note as variation of "accurate per sources and and consistent with initial appointment of the sculptor Maryon, as well as accomodating later and current usage at the Goetheanum itself)[55](refs here shown in line):

• one for anthroposophy generally and seven others specifically for education, literature, performing arts, natural sciences, medicine, sculptural fine arts < ref > German Sektion für Bildende Künste: currently known as "fine arts" or "visual arts", but known in translations hereafter cited as "sculptural arts". Bildende,[ https://www.goetheanum.org/Sektion-fuer-Bildende-Kuenste.393.0.html?&L=0. ] fine,[ https://www.goetheanum.org/Startpage.45.0.html?&L=1.&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=3429&cHash=fb3bd9a242602fa9ec1aded9ac54bdad ] visual[ https://www.goetheanum.org/Art-Section.393.0.html?&L=1. ] < /ref > and astronomy. < ref > Rudolf Steiner, Constitution of the School of Spiritual Science: Its arrangement in Sections 1964, republished 2013. ISBN 9781855843820 < /ref > < ref name="wn.rsarchive.org" > Record of Foundation meeting 1923, session of 28 December, 10 a.m. ISBN 0880101938 [ http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA260/English/AP1990/19231228a01.html ] < /ref > The School of Spiritual Science included meditative exercises given by Steiner.

Qexigator (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Under subtitle Esoteric schools

...The School of Spiritual Science of the Anthroposophical Society, founded in 1923 as a further development of his earlier Esoteric School. This was originally constituted with a general section and seven specialized sections for education, literature, performing arts, natural sciences, medicine, sculptural arts< ref >German Sektion für Bildende Künste, led by the sculptor Edith Maryon: currently known as "fine arts" or "visual arts". Bildende,[56]fine,[57] visual[58]< /ref > and astronomy...

This accords with published information showing that in the context of the Foundation meeting, those present were conscious of the destruction of the first building as sculpted and of the prospect for the creation of the next for which Steiner's modelling was at hand. For such an occasion "plastic arts" or "sculptural" will not be felt as simply equivalent with "visual". But the German "bildende" can be continued unchanged when "visual" later comes into use, or "fine" (as distinct from mechanic), the contrast with "performing" ordinarily being tacitly understood. Qexigator (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

die schönen Künste

For any editor who needs some help in translation: "Bildende-Kuenste". meanings: collectively - (visually) formative arts; more narrowly: crafts, graphics, painting, sculpture; more widely, including: architecture and art photography. Distinct from performing arts, literature, music. Idiomatic usage: the fine arts (with reference to music, poetry, and painting with sculpture) (German, die schönen Künste). Qexigator (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources

WP:Sources directs us to use third-party sources. In addition, due to an arbitration proceeding over this group of articles, which directed editors to completely avoid anthroposophically-published sources except for wholly uncontroversial material, a great deal of effort went into finding third-party, objective sources. In some recent additions, this principle is being abandoned. I suggest we reexamine our sourcing and find better (i.e. more objective) citations, adjusting the wording where necessary.

This would mean minimizing citations to Steiner's own work and replacing these with citations to commentaries published by standard academic presses and peer-reviewed journals. HGilbert (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Those remarks about the earlier efforts to find "citations to commentaries published by standard academic presses and peer-reviewed journals" are acknowledged. Where, on checking or revisiting, any parts of the text or sources are found to be insufficiently informative for the inquiring reader, others may be required, whether or not retaining the earlier. In Steiner's case editors and readers are mostly able to check against the online archive the validity of any other source purporting to report what Steiner said or wrote, as distinct from what others have published about his work. In any case, such sources are not warranted NPOV. Qexigator (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The point is that, except in the case of a direct quotation, any description of Steiner's complex ideas is an interpretation. WP prefers to draw on the interpretations available in reliable sources rather than those of its editors. This article's arbitration proceedings have also directed us away from direct quotations from Steiner, as these can frequently be chosen to support almost any particular opinion. This may or may not be the current state of play, but the reasons for much of this remain at least partially valid. HGilbert (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Christianity: major heading or subheading

I have provisionally moved the section on "Steiner's relationship to Christianity" to a be a subheading of his philosophical thought; it seems to me this is its proper place. Any thoughts. HGilbert (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Inclined to think not. 1_Placing "The Christian Community" in a subsection of "Philosophical development" seems anomalous. 2_The development of his understanding and exposition of Christianity became an aspect of his philosophical outlook inseparable from the development of his philosophical position toward what he wrote and spoke about as "anthroposophy" and "spiritual science"; but, while it appears that Christianity had been in some way implicit or latent all along and before the inauguration of The Christian Community, it had first of all been his concern to establish and publish the content of The Philosophy of Freedom independently of denominational or philosophical Christianity in the then generally accepted sense. Is there anything to show in his voluminous output that he regarded Christianity, as he later came to write and speak of it, as if it were merely a development of philosophy as he had and continued to write and speak about that? Would that be consistent with, for instance, his lectures on the Christian gospels, although these are included in his own statement about The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World-Conception being "the epistemological foundation and justification for everything" he said and published later, in that "It speaks of the essential being of knowing activity that opens the way from the sense perceptible world into the spiritual one." Qexigator (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The point about the Christian Community is a good one, and I think that, regardless of what happens with the rest of the section, this should become a subsection of "Breadth of activity".

Are not Steiner's ideas about Christianity a special area within his ideas generally? As he was not speaking as a theologian, these were philosophical ideas about the meaning and nature of this; for example, Mysticism at the Dawn of the Modern Spiritual Life and Its Relationship with Modern Worldviews and Christianity as Mystical Fact and the Mysteries of Antiquity are expressly philosophical works about Christian mysticism and Christianity generally. Similarly, he gave lecture courses on many themes; why should this one be regarded as fundamentally different?

As I say, I am not fixed on this, but it seems a more orderly structure than separating this one topic off from the many he spoke about. HGilbert (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Mainly agree, but to avoid an unintended primacy of "philosophy" over Christianity, or false dichotomy or antithesis, a proposal would be to change the main heading to Philosophical development and Steiner's theosophy in view of the following (briefly).

• This is a question of presentation of the given information to ordinary general readers, not an attempt to force an alien structure onto an unusually wide-ranging thinker, whose works include the book Theosophy, An Introduction to the Supersensible Knowledge of the World and the Destination of Man[59] and lectures on The Theosophy of the Rosicrucian, 1907[60].
• Which of these or none has primacy for main title over the others? - Philosophy, Theosophy, Christianity, Rosicrucianism? These are mentioned in the lead (but to what does "this" refer at the beginning of the second sentence? - In the first, more philosophically oriented phase of this movement, Steiner attempted to find a synthesis between science and spirituality;)
• A commentator may choose according to the pov of his/her presentation, but we are serving as npov editors. Anyone fairly widely read in the literature knows how inseparable these were in Steiner's work as a whole.
• The main article on PoF takes care of the "philosophical" aspect.
• "Those who feel more drawn to another method of searching after the truths here set forth (Theosophy) will find such a method in my Philosophy of Freedom. The lines of thought taken in these two books, though different, lead to the same goal. For the understanding of the one, the other is by no means necessary, although undoubtedly helpful to some persons."[61]
• The Biography section of this article covers the Theosophical Society. But Theosophy "may suggest associations with Anglo-Indian Theosophy and the Theosophical Society founded by H. P. Blavatsky. .... In earlier centuries,... “Theosophy” was a recognised section of Philosophy and even of Theology..."[62]
• Steiner's works on Rosicrucianism are among the books listed in Rosicrucianism (although Sendivogius seems to be inexplicably absent from the latter)[63]

Qexigator (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the term "philosophical development" covers all the particular ideas, such as Rosicrucianism, etc. But we could find a more general term: development of ideas, or the like. HGilbert (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No, but glad to be relieved of need to discuss the point further, due to noting with assent the now revised heading. [64] --Qexigator (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

New religious movement category

I am not sure this is the appropriate category...but there's probably enough RSs out there to bear it out. Any comments? HGilbert (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Faith and Knowledge (from "Knowledge and freedom")

I read the article with perhaps an excessively critical eye, but I need to point out an issue that struck me.

"Steiner thus explicitly denies all justification to a division between faith and knowledge; otherwise expressed, between the spiritual and natural worlds."

Those are not the same thing. Whether one can divide faith and knowledge has no bearing on a division of a spiritual and natural world. Dividing Faith and Knowledge is about the method, or system, of reaching (or maintaining) a conclusion. They are separate concepts by virtue of the meaning of the words, meanings which, themselves, can be discussed and argued over.

Now, I do not know what Steiner actually said or wrote on the matter, so I cannot in good faith edit the article. I don't know if he meant that the division of knowledge/faith shouldn't be, or if he meant there can be no difference between the spiritual and natural worlds. Based on the article, I would surmise it is the latter , since it fits his idea of a unity of existence.

The problem is that if that which is called the "spiritual world", as Steiner suggests, is in unison with the "natural world", then we have simply that - "world" - in which case, that world can be accessed for the sake of knowledge, but this cannot "override" faith (nor vice versa) since there are still cases where the aforementioned specific meanings of the words exclude the other one. If I imagine a thing, a type of Russel's Teapot, and decide it is real, I have made a decision to Faith, but if this alone were enough to posit knowledge of this thing, then faith would truly be the most powerful access to the world. However, whereas I may have faith that someone will read this comment and take it seriously enough to reply, there is NO justification for me to claim I know someone will.

That is, a separation (or not) of spiritual and natural worlds, has no bearing on the concepts of knowledge and faith.

If Steiner's point is, in fact, that knowledge and faith have no "real" difference (as opposed to a rationally reached, conceptual difference) then this is something that ought to be clarified in the article. If Steiner's point is that we have no justification for separating the spiritual world from the natural, there is no reason to suggest there's no division to be had between the concepts of faith and knowledge, since these concepts are BUILT, by rational human beings, BECAUSE we see a difference between two similar concepts, whereas the concepts of spiritual and natural worlds (or "subjective" and "objective" by more modern nomenclature) never suggest, in their meaning, an opposition, the only suggestion of difference being on of perspective and perception (to the tune of; no one but I can access my thoughts, therefore they are separate from all else).

Feel free to disregard this whole thing (this has been a rant by a failing philosophy student), but I thought a major mistake appeared to be perpetrated by a subtle error in a turn of phrase. The sentence I quoted above sounds nice, but is laden with post-modern ambiguity.

Noumegnos (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That point is well made. Attempts to compress and paraphrase Steiner, such as the sentence queried above, are at the least risky, tending to obscure or remove the very point that Steiner is making. The paragraph begins "Steiner postulates that the world is essentially an indivisible unity, but that our consciousness divides it into the sense-perceptible appearance, on the one hand, and the formal nature accessible to our thinking, on the other. He sees in thinking itself an element that can be strengthened and deepened sufficiently to penetrate all that our senses do not reveal to us." Then comes the sentence in question, followed by "Their apparent duality is conditioned by the structure of our consciousness, which separates perception and thinking, but these two faculties give us two complementary views of the same world; neither has primacy and the two together are necessary and sufficient to arrive at a complete understanding of the world. ..." A way to avoid the questionable paraphrase could be (subject to others' comments) to omit the questionable sentence and let the next sentence read:

"The apparent duality dividing faith from knowledge is conditioned by the structure of our consciousness, which separates perception and thinking..."

Qexigator (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This is really a good point. I have tried to address it by removing the reference to faith and knowledge and merging some of the other sentences. HGilbert (talk)

Birhtplace of Steiner Rudolf

Rudolf Steiner - born Steiner Rudolf - was a hungarian citizen. He was born in the Hungarian Kingdom. At the time of his birth (1861), Murakirály (from 1920 belonged to The South slavic Yugoslavia, today Croatia) belonged to the Hungarian Kingdom. After the defeat of the Hungarian Revolution 1848/49, the passive resistance of the hungarians forced Austria to reinstate the hungarian constitution (1222), the souvereign hungarian state and the territorial integrity of the hungarian state on the 20th of October, 1860 (patent of October). To decide in this question we could have a look at the birth certificate of Steiner Rudolf. He himself said (when asked in an office in Austria about his place birth): "please include into your document that I was born in Kraljevec, Hungary, on the 27th of February, 1861".

Steiner - Bis es gegeben ist

His poem is now published in the Metapolisz DVD line. This poem - thought in German - reflects pretty well his thoughts about divine will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derzsi Elekes Andor (talk • contribs) 13:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Complete understanding of time"

That Steiner believed he had achieved a "complete understanding of time" by age 15 is a weird claim; it's unclear what he meant by this, it's not particularly relevant to anything else in the text, and I wonder why it is included. (The intention cannot be to duplicate his whole autobiography.) HGilbert (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be strange if anyone reasonably well-read in the literature were to seek to belittle this to the point of omission. It is an unusual claim, but "weird" shows unencyclopedic pov. Either way, he made the claim and presented it for others to judge for themselves. The context where Steiner made it shows that he himself considered the fact/claim/belief to be a decisive and significant step in his further work and development: namely, Steiner's notes written for Edouard Schuré in Barr, 1907 (publishing details:[65]). Others may accept it as such, and of particular significance in his understanding of such other things as the principle of metamorphosis and cosmic evolution, and as going a long way to explain where he differed from others on points of philosophy, science, theosophy and spiritual development, practise and teaching, including The Calendar of the Soul, mentioned and linked in Rudolf Steiner's exercises for spiritual development, and much else of his; or may see it as a threat (welcome or not) to his good reputation as seeming to be (especially if not seen in context, both in particular and in his work as a whole) an extravagant claim on the part of a person whose life and work shows him to be delusionally self-opinionated and one who greatly (perhaps even ludicrously, or at least sadly)) overestimates himself as a thinker, psychologist, educator or theosophist. Qexigator (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

My problem is its ambiguity. Time is very complex, for there is physical, biological (e.g. biological rhythms), psychological, historical, and perhaps yet other kinds of time; Steiner is possibly referring to a spiritual quality different from all the above. Without further clarification, the claim to a complete understanding of time leaves the reader at a loss as to which of these, if any, is meant.

The earlier arbitration asked us to source any controversial claims to independently-published reliable sources. This strikes me as falling within this rubric. HGilbert (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

For the reasons given above, in my view omitting the information would disimprove the article. Thank you for letting us know what you consider to be a problem about the ambiguity of time, but that is beside the point as to what Steiner affirmed about his development, and the manner in which he did so. It is not self-evident why that should be more problematic for the purpose of this article than much else about him. Noted that, instead of answering the points mentioned above, in order to exclude the information, you would rely on a ruling which, as I understand it, was the result of a controversy about something altogether different. This is no place for pursuing a discussion about the complexity of concepts of "time", any more than, say, the validity of the proposal that the change of teeth has a significance in child development usually unnoticed (please note that I express no personal view about these, one way or the other). Perhaps the information could be relegated to a footnote to the sentence about the appearance to the boy Steiner of the deceased aunt. But actually, it makes more sense to put it in the text, in the sequence: boy, adolescent, young student in Vienna.[66] --Qexigator (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@HGilbert--- I have to say that I find the claim concerning time to be quite revealing. I experienced similar things at fifteen. Deep thoughts, indeed. Afterwards I tried... I thought... but it is a long story. A long odyssey. In the end I simply returned to hearth and home, to the faithful wife and tending a little vegetable garden. Indeed. But finding exactly the same claim in an encyclopedia article, thirty years later, brings me illumination about the man and the phenomenon that I would not otherwise have achieved. 178.38.65.146 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sculptor -- or not?

Steiner only created one sculpture (other than architectural models, which don't really count), and this was done with the constant assistance of a professional sculptor, Edith Maryon. I don't think this really qualifies him as a sculptor. In any case, the one work was fashioned in the 20th century, so 19th century sculptor is definitely misleading. HGilbert (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It is well documented and commonly acknowledged that he was the master sculptor of the work, both in the modelling and the carving, and Maryon acted as his faithful assistant. That, therefore, points in the opposite direction, that he was the sculptor of this colossal work, designed to be the focus of the first Goetheanum, and from beginning to end he worked on the sculpture whenever he could when in Dornach, directing and correcting Maryon's work, and devising a particular method of carving. His sculpture was, however, of the 20c. He also created with his own hands the "plastic" models for the first and second Goetheanum buildings, of which he is commonly acknowledged as the architect, in respect of design, form, selection of materials, though assisted by an architectural engineer in respect of technical drawings and some other such details. Qexigator (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Does one sculpture make a sculptor?
2. Steiner and Maryon alternated preparing preliminary models. She was in no sense merely an assistant. It was a collaboration.
3. I suggest that collaborating on a single sculpture isn't really enough to qualify him for the category of 20th century sculptors, but this is a rather arbitrary line, and if someone wants to re-add this category, I will not object further.
4. Poet is also highly questionable. Has his poetry ever been included in a collection of poets, as his architecture has been? He wrote meditative verses, which is somewhat different. HGilbert (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the sculptural aspects of both Goetheanums and other buildings need to be taken into account -- the columns, especially the capitals and the metamorphic transformations between them, the proscenium and the exterior window casements, the speaker's podium, the sculptural forms in the staircases, etc. [67] [68]. These are much more sculptural rather than architectural. Indeed, the first Goetheanum especially was as a whole as much a sculpture as an architectural work. I think this warrants the category of 20th sculptors. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Why invent a problem where none existed then or now? There was no doubt in Maryon's mind or anyone else's that, as artist and executant, he was the master sculptor in all respects and she was assisting under his direction. Have you read nothing published on the subject? The fact that she had trained in the art of sculpture and practised it professionally, and he had not, has never been doubted. One notable work in any particular art, written, visual or performing, can suffice to let its creator be called by that art's name. Can you cite anything to support the contrary? It is usual but not essential for an artist to create more than one work in a given medium. Is "Homer" called an epic poet only because two such works are attributed to that name? This page is to discuss the improvement of the article, not to debate linguistics. 18:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Qexigator (talk)

Fine, add it back. HGilbert (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Level of detail for Steiner's parents

I wonder if the information about Steiner's parents couldn't be shortened from:

• Steiner's father, Johann(es) Steiner (23 June 1829, Geras or Trabenreith, Irnfritz-Messern and lived Geras Abbey, Waldviertel – 1910, Horn), left a position as a gamekeeper in the service of Count Hoyos in Geras, northeast Lower Austria to marry one of the Hoyos family's housemaids, Franziska Blie (8 May 1834, Horn, Waldviertel – 1918, Horn)

To

• Steiner's father, Johann(es) Steiner (1829 – 1910), left a position as a gamekeeper in the service of Count Hoyos in Geras, northeast Lower Austria to marry one of the Hoyos family's housemaids, Franziska Blie (1834– 1918)

What do people think?HGilbert (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be better, but Horn should be mentioned. Qexigator (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rudolf Steiner. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140903110933/http://www.greatbuildings.com:80/architects/Rudolf_Steiner.html to http://www.greatbuildings.com/architects/Rudolf_Steiner.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120211192133/http://www.anthroposophy.com/aktuelles/wiesberger.html to http://www.anthroposophy.com/aktuelles/wiesberger.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Writer?

Adding "writer" to Steiner's list of attributes seems both superfluous and misleading. Superfluous because other characteristics given in the lede -- philosopher, social reformer, literary critic -- imply this. Misleading because adding "writer" to the other categories implies he wrote about something other than these things. HGilbert (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Neither superfluous nor misleading. Writer, because not all of those who engage in those activities are writers about them, and writing about them is not implied in the activity. His writings are a notable part of his lifework, as the List shows. He was not only a writer but a social reformer etc as well. In the field of social reform he was possibly more notable as a writer than activist compared with most of those usually called social reformers. In the field of esotericism he was unusually notable as a published writer, not merely a teacher or ritualist. His published philosophical and other writings notably underpin his anthropsophical and other activities. We cannot assume that readers will be aware of this. Qexigator (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the last philosopher who was not a writer was Socrates, so yes, it is really implied in this, at least. Furthermore there is a whole section on his writings, so no one could be mistaken. Perhaps you could find a reliable source for this as a principal attribute. Not that it is a big issue. HGilbert (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur, philosopher does not = writer, never has, and the top/lead is supposed to mention the essential points for inquirers who may not read the whole. His published writings were essential to his lifework and his influence today. But, since you ask, a quick websearch offers:

Steiner was a true polymath, with interests in agriculture, architecture, art, drama, literature, math, medicine, philosophy, science, and religion, among other subjects. His doctoral dissertation at the University of Rostock was on Fichte's theory of knowledge. He was the author of many books and lectures with titles like The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity (1894), Occult Science: An Outline (1913), Investigations in Occultism (1920), How to Know Higher Worlds (1904),[69]

Not a bad source for that testimonial. Qexigator (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Author is already better, and I have changed it to fit your source. HGilbert (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. I spy J.K.Rowling! Daresay that suits many readers, and if this give some an entree' to Rudolf Steiner, well and good.Qexigator (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

+But hold on: A person more fluent in the German language than I am has drawn my attention to the Steiner article in German[70] where the word used is "Publizist"[71] and not the equivalent of "author" as might be used of a creative writer such as Thomas Mann, ein deutscher Schriftsteller[72] sind Urheber und Verfasser literarischer Texte und zählen damit zu den Autoren[73]. Similarly, Stefan Zweig, Friedrich Dürrenmatt; and Joanne K. Rowling[74] is a female Schriftsteller. Now, of course, allowance must be made for nuance, idiom and usage from language to language (and writer to writer), but my feel for educated written English, together with that glimpse of German, inclines me to see that of the two, it should be writer not author. Note also, French: writer (generally) - écrivain, author (creative, imaginative)-auteur. And in plain English, "The formalist definition is that the history of "literature" foregrounds poetic effects; it is the "literariness" or "poeticity" of literature that distinguishes it from ordinary speech or other kinds of writing."[75]. Qexigator (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Your source used author. Let's stick with how Steiner is described, not random quotes from elsewhere! HGilbert (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hugo Bergmann

Seems like he ought to be on the list of people in the reception section. Jellypear (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe: he translated a work of Steiner, but does that amount to "inluenced by"? Qexigator (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

+ For the record: "Samuel Hugo Bergman(n), auch Hugo Bergman(n)... war ein deutschsprachiger Pionier der neuhebräischen Philosophie, Schriftsteller und Bibliothekar".[76] (Eng. "writer and librarian".) Qexigator (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a suggestion. I'll leave it up to editors who know more. See this entry from an encyclopedia of Jews in Easten Europe for an explanation of Steiner having some "influence" on his thought [[77]]. I don't know if it qualifies as a RS for wikipedia. Again, just a suggestion. Jellypear (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

He was a close student of Steiner's who emigrated to Israel and continued to represent anthroposophy there. He should definitely be included, though an RS would be helpful. HGilbert (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

National Socialism: right or left-wing movement

The sources here refer to other right-wing movements, not just the NS party. In addition, though I know there's some controversy over this, reliable sources overwhelmingly support the classification of NS as right-wing: see e.g. Guy Tourlamain, Völkisch Writers and National Socialism: A Study of Right-wing Political Culture in Germany, 1890-1960. I have reverted the change that cast this in doubt. HGilbert (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I'd like to incorporate what is of value in the suggested edit, but I am encountering a few difficulties comprehending how best to do so.

1. The lead should summarize the article and be supported by reliable sources. To say that Steiner developed a "new epistemology" may be valid, but is there any reliable source that claims this?
2. "esoterically inspired movement". Does this mean to say that there was a supernatural inspiration? Or that he was inspired by an esoteric group? In both cases, it would be hard to find reliable sources to back this up.

   In comparison, the existing article uses the phrasing, "esoteric spiritual movement". Authoritative independent sources (e.g. Hanegraff and Faivre) confirm that this is the case

3. To say that someone "founded a meditative practice" is to me quite puzzling wording. To my ear, institutions or movements are founded, while meditative practices are developed or taught. Furthermore, the very word "esoteric" already seems to me to imply a meditative component -- and the body of the article tells much more about this. But if you feel it needs to be explicit in the lede, let's do that in a clearer way (e.g. "including a meditative component"). Again, a reliable source might help to word this well.
4. As written, the sentence beginning, "His work had multidisciplinary roots," is difficult to parse and even more difficult to understand. For example:
   1. His work had roots in philosophy? Can you explain what you mean by that? Giving specific philosophers or philosophic movements (as the current version does) would be more helpful.
   2. You suggest that his work had roots in Phenomenology (philosophy), but if you look at that article, you will see that this is a philosophical movement that began after Steiner's time. This makes no chronological sense Clean Copy^talk 23:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Side by side

Current:

At the beginning of the twentieth century he founded an esoteric spiritual movement, anthroposophy, with roots in German idealist philosophy and theosophy; other influences include Goethean science and Rosicrucianism.

Proposed:

At the beginning of the twentieth century he founded an esoterically inspired movement and meditative practice with spiritual, artistic, social and other practical applications anthroposophy. His work had multidisciplinary roots in Scientific method, albeit representing a new Epistemology, German idealist philosophy, Phenomenology (philosophy) and Goethean science. Other influences include theosophy and Rosicrucianism.

Editor of Goethe's works and such

According to my professor of Western Esotericism at the University of Amsterdam, Wouter Hanegraaff, no serious scholar wanted the dubious honor of editing Goethe's scientific work, which was largely considered at the time "worthless prose and wrong science". So, it was not actually something appreciated by most of Steiner's contemporaries. WP:PUFF should be avoided. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Steiner complaining about his job at the Goethe archive:

Leijenhorst, Cees (2006). "Steiner, Rudolf, * 25.2.1861 Kraljevec (Croatia), † 30.3.1925 Dornach (Switzerland)". In Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (ed.). Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism. Leiden / Boston: Brill. p. 1086. Steiner moved to Weimar in 1890 and stayed there until 1897. He complained bitterly about the bad salary and the boring philological work, but found the time to write his main philosophical works during his Weimar period. ... Steiner's high hopes that his philosophical work would gain him a professorship at one of the universities in the German-speaking world were never fulfilled. Especially his main philosophical work, the Philosophie der Freiheit, did not receive the attention and appreciation he had hoped for.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

For Goethe's standing as a scientist according to that time's mainstream view see Peter Selg (26 August 2014). Rudolf Steiner, Life and Work: Volume 1 (1861-1890): Childhood, Youth, and Study Years. SteinerBooks. p. 130. ISBN 978-1-62148-084-6. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Another source: Henry Barnes (1 August 2005). Into the Heart's Land. SteinerBooks. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-88010-857-7. I know that these sources (the later two books) are published by Anthroposophical presses, but we could use the criterion of dissimilarity: if Anthroposophists concede these points, that really was the mainstream view of that time. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Do we have a published source stating that no reputable academic wanted this editing position? Your original citation appears not to be a published work (I'm not sure -- is this your memory of a lecture?), and we should be careful not to draw conclusions that are actually a WP:SYNTHESIS of several sources. Goethe was probably not highly regarded as a scientist, but that does not mean that there would have been no interest from any academic in editing his scientific works.

I'm also not sure how Hanegraff could possibly know such a thing (that no academics were interested in an editing position offered to Steiner in the 1880s) from his standpoint 120 years later, unless he has some source he is drawing upon -- in which case we should probably use that source directly. Clean Copy^talk 02:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is what Hanegraaff said during a lecture. I can offer proof that I have attended the course. Besides I think that "worthless prose and bad science" kind of belongs to WP:BLUE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

To be a verifiable source, the material needs to be out there, published, able to be verified. So if you (or another attendee) would publish your lecture notes through a reputable press, this would become a valid source for WP, but otherwise not.

Goethe's standing as a scientist could be sourced, it looks like, but that alone is probably not relevant to this article. Clean Copy^talk 20:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead (reverted edits)

To be clear: Steiner was not to any significant extent an artist: he painted a few paintings and carved one joint sculpture. He taught one child for a number of years, but this does not make him an educator (though he was a lecturer on education and a founder of a new pedagogy). He studied science for a few years at university, and wrote about science, but this does not make him a scientist.

Nor did he gain recognition in the 19th century as a philosopher, scientist, or social analyst. His works on Nietzsche and Haeckel were in no sense best-selling.

Wikipedia standards are to avoid "puff", such as the claim that he was "a genius in 12 fields", though if this claim was from a more notable cultural figure it would be suitable for the reception section. It is enough to list his accomplishments and let readers judge for themselves Clean Copy^talk 10:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rudolf Steiner. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140628170708/http://www.dasgoetheanum.ch/fileadmin/wochenschrift/downloads/Forschungsbericht_Aschoff.pdf to http://www.dasgoetheanum.ch/fileadmin/wochenschrift/downloads/Forschungsbericht_Aschoff.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051129022355/http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/exhibits/steiner/steineressay.html to http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/exhibits/steiner/steineressay.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020610132804/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/bely.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/bely.htm

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) 02:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

The newly-added passage quoting Sebottendorf is highly suspect -- see this evidence that he was not a reliable source regarding Steiner and the second half of the passage quoted what looks to be a website of the Thule Society, again an unreliable source. I have removed the complete sentence provisionally. Clean Copy^talk 04:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, the first citation given specifies that Ludendorff "is not a reliable witness"! The second citation is to a source that does not refer at all to the battle of the Marne or to Moltke. Clean Copy^talk 12:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Physical incarnation of Christ

Literally, Steiner did believe in a physical incarnation of Christ, but in a special way, namely Jesus and Christ were two different beings and Christ had possessed Jesus since his baptism. Actually, for him Christ Jesus was a mix of three beings: the physical and etheric bodies of one Jesus child, the astral body or the ego of the other Jesus child (who died meanwhile) and the Christ. So, no, Christ wasn't fully man, he was a divine being who possessed a man. And he did not do so since that man was born. According to Steiner, Christ got incarnated in Jesus, but Jesus isn't Christ. Jesus was merely a vehicle/receptacle for Christ. According to Steiner, there were to Jesuses, later they merged (to some extent) and only sometime later did Christ incarnate in Jesus. I did not get it fully, but there was some Anthroposophical talk about the phantom of Jesus eating fish. So, yeah, what our article says about the incarnation of Christ is somewhat misleading. I believe that Steiner was a modern Gnostic, Ancient Gnosticism itself being extremely diverse (they did not toe one and the same line). So, by incarnated Christ he did not mean the same thing as Evangelicals or rank-and-file Catholics mean by incarnated Christ. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Clairvoyant

The vast majority of his books are about clairvoyance and most of his fame is due to clairvoyance. He wasn't a major philosopher, or a major architect, but he was a major clairvoyant. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The citation is to Steiner's own work, not a very good source for this claim. A better source would be more convincing. Clean Copy^talk 00:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I have cited Michael Ruse, published at OUP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Voyaging: I agree with you, but the point is moot. According to WP:NPOV clairvoyance is already a claim, so he claims that he claims to be so and so sounds odd. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Which section of WP:NPOV are you referring to? Voyaging^talk 07:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Voyaging: WP:LEDE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Geisteswissenschaft mentioned in a misleading manner

The sentence:

"Steiner followed Wilhelm Dilthey in using the term Geisteswissenschaft, usually translated as "spiritual science"."

would be less misleading as

"Steiner followed Wilhelm Dilthey in using the term Geisteswissenschaft, but gave it his own spin, which might be translated as "spiritual science", whereas it is more commonly translated as "humanities", "human sciences" or even "moral sciences", with no connotations of spiritualism or hermetic science." .

What I've suggested is overly long, and a bit messy in terms of sentence structure, but comes much closer to the truth of Dilthey's intended meaning, which is, in fact, a key concept in modern social sciences (as interpretation, explanation and explication of meaning and historical context). The current sentence creates a false association with Steiner's thought and that of Dilthey, and is, hence, misleading.Zevonjunior (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I have attempted to modify the phrasing to reflect this. Clean Copy^talk 23:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

Rudolph Steiner is the man behind Rommel's occult paranoias which have left a trail of blood across the world.

I have rarely read and apologetic even for the worst crimes of religion that matches the bumbling unlettered conflagration of words, like a word salad of absurdity, that is this article on Rudolph Steiner.

This man, this repository of schizophrenia, deceptive and imaginary spiritism, this anti-semite, this anti-slav, this bumbling fool, who in 1916 delivered a series of lectures that palpitated through the Nazi movement, alleging in the same way as had been alleged against the Jews with the manufactured protocols of the elders of Zion, that the Slavic people through their Russian magnates were seeking to spread their folk soul, a kind of spiritual imaginary subhumanism, to a sixth race of subhumans, the Slavs being the fifth race of subhumans by the way, in the Americas.

Think about that for a moment. This man was creating the ideological ground for a war against the Americans, in 1916, by alleging that the legitimate struggle of East European people for liberation from the brutal oppression that they had experienced at the hands of the Ottoman Turks and the various Germanic Nations was actually a spiritism of imaginary schizophrenic lunatics like Steiner where the ever-expanding self-exculpation of morons whose power was threatened by the genuine exercise of resistance to brutal oppression was in Steiner's mind a secret conspiracy by the Slavs to spread their subhumanism onto an even lesser group of subhumans living in the United States.

To say he was influenced by philosophy, when almost every reference he makes to Helena blavatsky places her in a kind of role of a secret agent infiltrating the United States with Russian subhumanism meant to compel the United States into an alliance with the sloths against the Germans with Britain a Germanic Nation playing the role of the Roman Empire and unaware that really what's intended here was the wiping out of German people.

Consider the lunacy, of a man dignified with an article this long, who claimed himself to be a clairvoyant - someone who can predict the future - who predicted the very opposite thing that happened given that it was the Germanic people but God bless them not the British and the French, who attempted to wipe out the Slavic people. Historiaantiqua (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, that certainly sounds like lunacy. Clean Copy^talk 00:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Historiaantiqua: Steiner combined racialism (i.e. the belief that there are different races) with altruistic humanism. So, however deluded he was, he wasn't a warmonger, nor he sought nor advocated to oppress other races. If anything, he supported something that resembles a combination of anarcho-syndicalism with anarcho-capitalism. He never meant that his adepts should harm other people because of their skin color. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Historiaantiqua: Also, we are speaking of a man who was having visual and auditory hallucinations, so we should take that into account and not be too harsh on him, by holding him up to the standards which apply for clinically normal people. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Libertarian free will

About Beginning in 1910, he described aspects of karma relating to health, natural phenomena and free will AFAIK, Steiner never endorsed libertarian free will. According to him the will of humans is (or at least should be) determined by their own spiritual being (Self), so he was an idealistic determinist (inner determinism or inner being determinism). If I remember well, in the Philosophy of Freedom Steiner has scorn for the idea that humans can choose for something else than their strongest reason (strongest motive or strongest motivation). Found: It is, therefore, quite true that the human will is not “free” inasmuch as its direction is always determined by the strongest motive. https://www.rsarchive.org/Books/Download/Philosophy_of_Freedom-Rudolf_Steiner-4.pdf page 25.

So, yeah, there are four possibilities:

• nature + random will (Darwin);
• nature + deterministic will (Marx);
• inner being + random will (libertarian free will);
• inner being + deterministic will (Steiner). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Steiner was a big free-will buff. His overall view in the PoF is that we can freely choose between motives, but obviously only from those that are available to us. (If someone is not hungry, they can't eat because they are hungry; if someone has never heard of Christianity, they can't do something because it is the Christian thing to do. My examples, not his) He suggests that "an action, of which the agent does not know why he performs it, cannot be free, goes without saying. But what about an action for which the reasons are known?" His idea is that if we are conscious of the motives working on us, we can choose how these affect us, and which we wish to follow.

The quote you give is pretty decisive, except that if you look at the context, including the last sentence of the previous paragraph and the critical discussion that follows the paragraph, you will see that it is Steiner's summary of the views of Hamerling, not his own views. Clean Copy^talk 00:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

From the 1918 Preface: "An attempt is made to prove that there is a view of the nature of man's being which can support the rest of knowledge; and further, that this view completely justifies the idea of free will, provided only that we have first discovered that region of the soul in which free will can unfold itself." Cf. the discussion of free will in McDermott's New Essential Steiner: An Introduction to Rudolf Steiner for the 21st Century Clean Copy^talk 00:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Steiner's free will is not the same thing as libertarian free will. Apples and oranges. Steiner's free will means "motive=mobile" or "motivation (reason or cause for it)=its purpose". What it does not mean is making a random choice through many alternatives. I don't agree with his occult teachings and metaphysics, but I agree with his ethics. So, yeah, I don't think he endorsed libertarian free will because I agree with him on this point.

If we go by https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/great-philosophical-debates-free-will-and-determinism , Steinerian free will simply does not belong anywhere on the compatibilism to incompatibilism spectrum. Apparently, Steiner did not get involved in that dispute.

That spectrum actually is from deterministic incompatibilism to compatibilism and to free will incompatibilism. I'm afraid he simply dodged the question of where he belongs upon this spectrum.

In present-day philosophical parlance libertarian free will means making choices due to random quantum jumps. That's not what Rudolf Steiner meant.

After reading the Philosophy of Freedom my puzzlement was: what on Earth has this book to do with libertarian free will? Since I realized that Steiner did not advocate for it in his book.

Going by Google searches, there is nothing which affirms or denies that Steiner endorsed libertarian free will. It seems that my puzzlement was never addressed by anyone, in order to either confirm or refute it. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Clean Copy: Could you show me where McDermott discussed libertarian free will? The word libertarian is completely absent from his book, and free will is not comprised by the index. The word liberty appears only once. Also, I'm afraid that except for free willing (mentioned only once), the words free will never appear in his book. Pretty much as Ellen G. White's books don't mention the word Trinity.

My point: even if one takes for granted The Philosophy of Freedom it is still unclear if libertarian free will exists. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

My previous responses were about free will in general; I would avoid discussing libertarian free will in particular in this article, since this was formulated after Steiner's time. Having said that, I find the question interesting. Here are some thoughts:

I am not sure I fully understand libertarian free will, but I think the essential point is that Steiner describes a spectrum: decisions are unfree when (or to the extent that) we are not conscious of the influences that work upon us, while to the extent that we are conscious of the motive forces acting on us, we can make decisions in complete freedom, perhaps equivalent to libertarian freedom.

• If a child is ornery because it is hungry, but is not aware that this is why, it cannot make a free decision whether to be ornery or not.
• If I am aware that I am hungry, and also that social expectations are that I should wait for everyone to be at table before starting, I can make a free decision what to do.

So I would hazard that he would say that libertarian free will is possible but contingent on achieving a conscious awareness of the influences working upon one. I would imagine that libertarians would not deny that there are motives that work upon people under certain circumstances -- that people who are hungry may act in certain ways because of this -- so that there must be some contingency to free will for them, as well, but I may well be wrong about this.

In response to your question about McDermott's book: look for a paragraph beginning, "According to Steiner, the will itself is not free on its own, but it can be made to act freely through free thinking", the passage, "do not interfere with anyone's free decisions and will", as well as a reference to "beings whose activity is based on free self-determination.". Clean Copy^talk 00:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary

There was a Kingdom of Hungary from 1000-1918 and 1918-1946. For the latter period of its history, the Emperor of Austria also ruled over the Kingdom of Hungary, which was not dissolved until 1918 (reforming shortly thereafter).

In 1867, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was formed. This did not eliminate the separate Kingdoms within the empire, however (thus the "Dual Monarchy"). (The lead of the article Austrian Empire clarifies the special status of the Hungarian Kingdom within the Empire.) Clean Copy^talk 16:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Could not agree more. This IP is just slow motion edit warring at this point. I would report them to WP:EWN if they keep reverting. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Biblio.com is not a reliable source

I found this para in the article:

Steiner's literary estate is correspondingly broad. Steiner's writings, published in about forty volumes, include books, essays, four plays ('mystery dramas'), mantric verse, and an autobiography. His collected lectures, making up another approximately 300 volumes, discuss an extremely wide range of themes. Steiner's drawings, chiefly illustrations done on blackboards during his lectures, are collected in a separate series of 28 volumes. Many publications have covered his architectural legacy and sculptural work. *ref: https://www.biblio.com/rudolf-steiner/author/1038

The information might or might not be accurate, but biblio.com is not a reliable source. If anyone is interested, please find a better source (such a well-known man must have decent biographies, surely?)Achar Sva (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed this citation, which was added in the last few days. Clean Copy^talk 20:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article presents Steiner's work as wildly accepted and does not ground it in a wider scientific or philosophical contexts where his work has largely been dismissed. This is probably a result of the articles over-reliance on primary sources to be honest—blindlynx 16:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The truth is that Steiner could have been seen as the great German Idealist of the 20th century, but he wasted that chance by presenting himself as occultist and clairvoyant. His job as editor of Goethe's scientific writings was envied by nobody. Goethe's scientific writings were widely considered as wrong science and worthless prose. It was a low-paid, disreputable job. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

not to mention his approach to Goethe's scientific writings was based in a a misunderstanding of phenomenology and basically amounted to neo-platonist justifications of racism... But we digress better and wider sourcing is needed for this article—blindlynx 19:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Compliment for you from WP:FTN: Great catch. Important for us to fix this, given Steiner's ongoing reach in 21st century education. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Serious thanks to blindlynx and hob gadling for bring this to our attention. I'm up to my ears sorting our UFO fringe (which is back these past five years), but this and Waldorf are my next top priority. Feoffer (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm rather new to all this so any guidance you can provide would be much appreciated!—blindlynx 19:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

We have worked on removing primary sources for everything but bare matters of fact (place of birth, etc.). The vast majority of the references cited are not primary sources at this point, but what problematic citations still remain? Clean Copy^talk 15:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Blindlynx said, probably a result of the articles over-reliance on primary sources. Well, then probably not; instead, it could be an over-reliance on in-universe sources (fancruft, so to speak)? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. Pressure cooker mentality. In agriculture and medicine Steiner would be considered their laughing stock, if we would counter-factually assume that the majority of mainstream scientists have actually read his ramblings. He may be important for the alties and tin foil hats, but he is WP:FRINGE/PS in respect to most of his falsifiable affirmations about agriculture and medicine. In the Dutch TV show Hokjesman, http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/afleveringen/1327665 , which was not unfriendly to Steiner's teachings, the commentator sarcastically affirms that Anthroposophy books are placed in the book shop in the "boundary frontier science" category, i.e. "between religion and esotericism". Also he wanted to know if anyone has written books about Anthroposophy from an objective perspective (i.e. neither apologetics nor harsh criticism) and he was answered that apparently there are no such books on the market. As far as I know, one book written from an objective perspective on Steiner is Feet of Clay by Anthony Storr, but it is a study of more than one guru and does not give lots of details about Steiner's teachings. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The gist: there almost no independent sources about Steiner. You have a huge fancruft literature, and several books by harsh critics, mostly regarding him as the personification of Evil. E.g. some New-Age-is-from-the-Devil theological manifestos. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The entirety of the 'Breadth of activity', philosophy and reception sections present his work uncritically, they fail to ground it in science or philosophy and present his work as accepted and his theories as true. It should be very clear to the reader that there are basically no peer reviewed papers supporting his views and this his ideas are not accepted by science or philosophy. Moreover, statements based on supporters such as His work in medicine led to the development of a broad range of complementary medications and supportive artistic and biographic therapies are not from RS'—blindlynx 19:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The vast majority of the references are from reliable sources, not primary or internal (anthroposophic/Waldorf) sources; the exceptions are for matters of fact (the year of an event, the number of schools, etc.). There is a lot of rhetoric here without a single concrete example. I will set up a sub-section to get more concrete. Clean Copy^talk 10:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggest to start digging for sources from this: Hanegraaff, Wouter J.; Faivre, Antoine; van den Broek, R.; Brach, Jean-Pierre (2005). Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism. Gale virtual reference library. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-14187-2. Retrieved 4 January 2022. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Over the TV show see nl:De Hokjesman. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Problematic uses of self-published (primary and in-house) sources (concrete examples)

WP:ABOUTSELF states that the use of self-published sources is limited in the following ways:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Self-published or questionable references that fall outside these areas should be documented here so that they can be corrected.Clean Copy^talk 10:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

from just the lede of the Breadth of activity section—that is one paragraph—we have

"ATTRA – National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service". Archived from the original on 26 May 2011. Retrieved 23 May 2006. dead link

Evans, M. and Rodger, I. Anthroposophical Medicine: Treating Body, Soul and Spirit totally unreliable and self-serving

"Camphill list of communities" (PDF). dead link and self-serving claim

Die Waldorfschule baut: Sechzig Jahre Architektur der Waldorfschulen: Schule als Entwicklungsraum menschengemasser Baugestaltung Verlag Freies Geistesleben (1982) ISBN 3772502407 ties to anthroposophical movement likely embellished claim.

Looking at this it is clear that unreliable sources aren't the only problem it seems that the main issue is that there are numerous claims that do not meet the criteria that Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. fromWP:FRINGELEVEL. For example: the second paragraph of the biodynamic agriculture section; the Anthroposophical medicine section; the Goethean science section; moreover, the reception section is unduly charitable bordering on apologetic when it comes to his theories to do with race—blindlynx 00:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed some of the wackier and primary-sourced material from the biodynamic ag section.

The rest of this section and all of the medicine and Goethean science sections seem blandly descriptive of Steiner's ideas. It is surely normal to describe a person's ideas in an article about that person, especially when that person was primarily a thinker/writer/lecturer.

The Reception section uses independent sources that fit the standard of WP:V, and are not primary or fan-based. Please supplement with other sources. Clean Copy^talk 15:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Since racism comes again and again: Steiner wasn't a racist, he was a racialist (i.e. he believed humans races do exist, some are better placed than others, but that is no reason to oppress other races than your own). So, despite his racial prejudices, he was benevolent and altruistic towards other races. Despite his delusions, his motivation was humanitarian. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, what i mean is that the section doesn't convey that. It has a weird bullet point structure that reads like an weasel wordy understatement of racism followed by a refutation—blindlynx 04:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And, again, in his time there were two basic outlooks: racism and Socialism. Socialists stated that all races are equal, or should be equal. So, yes, he was educated under a racist paradigm. For that historical period, it wasn't something unusual, rather being a Socialist was unusual. Those were the times: racism was understood as being natural and scientific. Socialism wasn't respectable, it was basically the ideology of troublemakers. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I would agree with blindlynx here. He may have been a "racialist" but there are distinct examples of his philosophy being influenced by his ideology, whether or not it was "of the time." E.g. hierarchy of the races in reincarnation. I think its appropriate that these are emphasized in the article. I think perhaps one issue is that it is completely absent from the lead. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at these one-by-one:

1. "ATTRA – National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service". Archived from the original on 26 May 2011. Retrieved 23 May 2006. dead link

   This is certainly an independent source, nothing to do with Steiner, and it is presumably a verifiable source? What is the problem here? (The link is to the archived version)

2. Evans, M. and Rodger, I. Anthroposophical Medicine: Treating Body, Soul and Spirit totally unreliable and self-serving

   Used to support the statement, "His work in medicine led to the development of a broad range of complementary medications and supportive artistic and biographic therapies." This seems to fit into WP:ABOUTSELF, so long as there is no claim about effectiveness.

3. "Camphill list of communities" (PDF). dead link and self-serving claim

   I have fixed the link to what appears to be the current version

   Such a list of institutions seems clearly allowed under WP:ABOUTSELF; it's just a matter of fact. It is also easy to check if these institutions actually exist (they do).

4. Die Waldorfschule baut: Sechzig Jahre Architektur der Waldorfschulen: Schule als Entwicklungsraum menschengemasser Baugestaltung Verlag Freies Geistesleben (1982) ISBN 3772502407 ties to anthroposophical movement likely embellished claim.

   Used to support the claim, "and other anthroposophical architects have contributed thousands of buildings to the modern scene"

   Such a source appears to be allowed under WP:ABOUTSELF; embellishment is unlikely as this book is illustrated with photographs of the actual buildings. How would these be forged?

In general, WP:ABOUTSELF appears to give reasonable latitude to factual information an institution supplies about itself, assuming there is no reason (based on verifiable sources) to doubt this information. Clean Copy^talk 19:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Dan Dugan

Dan Dugan was banned as editor, not as author. Dugan has published in works edited by Shermer and Linse, Flynn (and Dawkins), published at ABC-CLIO and Prometheus Books. He has been cited as authoritative upon Anthroposophy in a book published at the University of Chicago Press (Ruse 2013). Ruse has also published at Oxford University Press, so Ruse's reputation counts as established. This fulfills WP:UBO. Also, the guideline WP:PARITY works very much in favor of accepting Dugan's works as WP:RS, and against accepting works by Anthroposophists as WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:PSCI statistics

Books which WP:V that Steiner was either a rank pseudoscientist or a clairvoyant or a Nazi have been published at:

• ABC-CLIO
• Dover Publications
• MIT Press
• Oxford University Press
• Prometheus Books
• Random House
• Simon & Schuster
• University of Chicago Press

Namely OUP verifies both "clairvoyant" and "Nazi", all others verify WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Parascience

The distinction between Pseudo and para science is pretty philosophy MOS:JARGONy and i'm not sure it's worth mentioning at all. Further the Mahner essay cited is just a technical topology of various non-sciences and makes a passing mention to the parascientific nature of anthroposophy but not Steiner directly. The sources he uses for the claim are:

T. Hines. Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, 2003

R. T. Carroll. The Skeptic’s Dictionary. Wiley: New York, 2003. [Also online:[www.skepdic.com]]

D. Stalker and C. Glymour, eds. Examining Holistic Medicine. Prometheus Books: Buffalo, NY, 1989.

and might be more useful—blindlynx 15:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, some edits stick, others don't. That's business as usual at Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Nazi

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

Taverne is a noble, a life peer, a respected politician, and was published at Oxford University Press. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

But not a historian, and he quotes no source for this remarkable claim. An in-depth study of anthroposophy in Germany by a noted historian (Helmut Zander) quotes an in-depth study of the theme which concluded that the only anthroposophist who was a member of the Nazi Party was Hanns Rascher ("Als einziges Parteimitglied läßt sich offenbar nur Hanns Rascher identifizieren" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.58.97.50 (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

How was that saying? "We, the people at Toilet Duck, recommend Toilet Duck" (Toilet Duck#Advertising slogan). tgeorgescu (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Helmut Zander is not a historian either but a theologian who studies esoteric religious movements—blindlynx 20:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The first think I’ll say is that I have long avoided the term “objectivity” when it comes to the various things I do, such as trying to reconstruct the past, or to interpret texts, or to analyze arguments. This may seem weird, but I don’t think “objectivity” or “subjectivity” are that helpful as categories.

— Bart Ehrman, Can Historians Be Neutral?, ehrmanblog.org

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Same as we don't hold Heidegger accountable for the Holocaust, we don't hold Steiner accountable for the Holocaust. Judging that Steiner agreed he could be described as an individualistic anarchist, he was probably an adept of Ernst Röhm, precisely like Heidegger. So, they were involved early (i.e. without foreknowledge of what will happen to the Jews) and supported a losing wing of the Nazi party. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There really isn't enough coverage of this to warrant inclusion to be honest. Though Zander might prove a good source—blindlynx 21:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• At the very least, this must be properly described. First para tells he was prosecuted by Nazi (who called him a Jew) and therefore left the country. Then, it suddenly tells he was a Nazi himself. This is just an incoherent text. I thought his schools were closed by Nazi, am I mistaken? My very best wishes (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"I am a Nazi" did not work for Röhm, either, did it? tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not know a lot about it, but to properly describe the story, could you clarify when exactly he became a member of the Nazi Party and what exactly did he do as a member of that party to promote their cause? Are you saying he was just like Ernst Röhm (who of course was a prominent member of that Party)? My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, the proper comparison is with Heidegger: Heidegger supported the Nazi party, but his support for Röhm made Heidegger suspect for the Nazi regime. That's why Heidegger never became an important Nazi decision-maker. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you give any RS that describe Nazi membership of Rudolf Steiner at a significant level of detail? That is what he did as a member, etc.? My very best wishes (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, till I read the page from Taverne's book today, I did not know about that, either.

I just found this book: Staudenmaier, Peter (2014). Between Occultism and Nazism: Anthroposophy and the Politics of Race in the Fascist Era. Aries Book Series. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-27015-2. Retrieved 3 February 2022. It seems to discuss these issues at large.

Instead of an indictment of the follies of esoteric wisdom seeking, the history recounted here can serve as a reminder of the irreducible ambiguities of modernity. Twentieth century Europe witnessed incongruous efforts to reconcile these ambiguities, from Fascism in Italy to National Socialism in Germany, and occult movements partook of the same ambivalent atmosphere. As a hybrid of esoteric and life reform elements, Steiner’s spiritual science proved particularly susceptible to such factors.

— Staudenmaier, pp. 6-7

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, Occultism in Nazism is well known, but what it say specifically about the membership of Steiner in Nazi Party? What would be your summary to include? My very best wishes (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I am still reading through the book. Meanwhile I found this:

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

From the perspective of contemporary critics of the völkisch scene, Steiner’s faction sometimes seemed to be cut from the same cloth as the emerging Hitler movement. 68

— Staudenmaier p. 86

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, a lot of people in Germany supported Nazi. But current version of the page say: In 1921, Adolf Hitler attacked Steiner on many fronts, including accusations that he was a tool of the Jews,[71] while other nationalist extremists in Germany called for a "war against Steiner". Was it true? My very best wishes (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

In Karlsruhe, where the secretariat of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany was located, the Gestapo found no reason for any police action and described anthroposophists in the area as “completely irreproachable.” Indeed, they reported, “most members are rather right-wing, or even belong to the NSDAP.”17

— Staudenmaier p. 107

Anti-occultists within the Nazi hierarchy were not appeased by such reports. Seeking ways to obstruct anthroposophical activities, they encouraged rumors that Steiner was Jewish and the movement under Jewish control. The anthroposophist leadership responded by applying for a retroactive ‘Aryan certificate’ for Steiner, which they duly received in October 1933.21 Anthroposophist representatives constantly stressed Steiner’s Aryan ancestry. In September 1933 Marie Steiner wrote to Rudolf Hess asking him to forbid the German press from claiming that Rudolf Steiner was Jewish. She insisted on Steiner’s “pure Aryan heritage” and characterized him as a devoted advocate of German interests.22 A May 1934 declaration by Elisabeth Klein, a leader of the Waldorf school federation, claimed that Steiner was the first to combat the “lie of German war guilt” after World War I, and complained that “Rudolf Steiner has been slandered by Jewish lies in the press.”23

— Staudenmaier p. 108

In September 1935 Poppelbaum assured the Gestapo that the entire leadership of the Anthroposophical Society was of “completely Aryan descent.”29

— Staudenmaier pp. 109-110

The sd prevailed on a significant organizational question: whether former members of the Anthroposophical Society could join the Nazi party or receive civil service appointments. Nazi opponents of occultism argued for treating anthroposophists like freemasons and thus barring them from party membership. Both Hess and Alfred Rosenberg supported less stringent regulations for anthroposophists. Bormann settled the matter by going directly to Hitler, and the policy remained that individuals who previously belonged to the Anthroposophical Society could not join the party.59

— Staudenmaier p. 117

By 1940 the anti-esoteric faction within the sd and Gestapo considered itself outmaneuvered by anthroposophy’s allies. They noted with resignation that Steiner’s books could still be sold and that Hess had allowed Waldorf schools, biodynamic agriculture, and the Study Circle for Rudolf Steiner’s Spiritual Science to continue. There was, in their view, “no occasion for any measures” against anthroposophy, even if they were dissatisfied with this situation.64 In spite of serious setbacks, anthroposophists had managed to accommodate themselves to the Third Reich. The prospect of unmitigated persecution was held at bay for years in a tenuous truce between pro-anthroposophical and anti-anthroposophical Nazi factions.

— Staudenmaier pp. 118-119

Morals: SD/Gestapo viciously attacked occult/esoteric organizations, and the Anthroposophists were the lucky ones in this respect. Waldorf schools were under attack because the Nazis did not want any private schools. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, but this source does not answer the question: what exactly Steiner did for Nazi? If nothing, this is one story. If he collaborated with Gestapo, that would be something different. My very best wishes (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Steiner died too early to have collaborated with the Gestapo. At the moment of his death, it was unclear who represents the Nazi party and what the Nazi party stands for. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed.My very best wishes (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hitler considered that Anthroposophists were somewhat dumb for his standards, but not disloyal to the state. He thought that all occultists were dumb, deluded or outright subversive. He considered that Anthroposophy were "Nazism for the gullible", otherwise they would have had the same fate as Jehovah's Witnesses. And of course, Steiner did not invent this racialist idea, it was the anthropological paradigm of the 19th century. So, Hitler did not buy into the spiritualistic jargon, but he and Steiner had similar views on race, and Hitler found that Anthroposophists were not opposing his regime. Hitler did not advertise that he wants to kill the Jews, he just told Germans he is deporting the Jews elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Along with other anthroposophical institutions, the Dresden Waldorf school was closed by the Gestapo in July 1941 in the wake of the campaign against occultism.75 In the end, anthroposophy’s adversaries within the Nazi movement prevailed over its allies, after eight years of efforts to establish Waldorf education as a pillar of the national community.

— Staudenmaier p. 199

So, yes, the Waldorf schools got closed, on a policy of closing all private schools, actually Waldorf schools were the last private schools still standing, or at least the last private schools having a special educational philosophy.

There was state-wide persecution against esoteric and occult organizations, there was state-wide persecution against private schools, so Anthroposophists were extremely privileged for not being treated like Jehovah's Witnesses.

Oh, yes, Marie Steiner was in Switzerland, a neutral country, so nobody coerced her into being pro-Nazi.

In many respects, Anthroposophy was treated by the Nazis like National Socialism's dumber sister. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I keep adding "even more" in my mind. "National Socialism's even dumber sister", and "Nazism for the even more gullible".

But lots of the conversation seems to have not much to do with improving the article anymore. Is the goal of all this still to find out whether we should use Taverne as a source? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if it's true or false, but it is at least not an implausible claim. I'll go with the consensus. Anyway, I found the Staudenmaier RS and used it twice in the article. All the quotes above advocate that the claim is plausible.

And, another thing: those people were not all idiots. The mainstream anthropological paradigm of the 19th century was racism. And Germany was a country already having antisemitic bias. So, while racist claims are not done in our culture, those claims were mainstream in theirs.

It's like asking why Ellen G. White condemned masturbation: it is because that passed as top-notch medical science in her own time. That was also the case with "scientific racism". Mircea Eliade stated that not being a racist and not discriminating people is a mentality one can attribute to Freemasonry, i.e. Masonic lodges are the source of this mentality—Eliade thought that he found God through rejecting Freemasonry. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, there was a joke back then: a German can have three properties: he can be honest, intelligent, and a Nazi, but not all three: he can either be an honest Nazi, then he is not intelligent; or an intelligent Nazi, then he is not honest; or honest and intelligent, then he is not a Nazi.

It is not like people did not notice there was something wrong with those guys; they were recognizable as primitive criminals who picked a section of the population to murder and rob.

What I wanted to say with my previous contribution: It just does not do to accept Hitler's judgement that the people who ran after Steiner were any dumber or any more gullible than those who ran after him. The same reasoning you used to explain why people became Nazis back then can be applied in the same way to anthroposophy. It had intellectual precursors too, and it can be blamed on the zeitgeist too.

National Socialism, anthroposophy, theosophy, I could name other fringe ideas here - they are all stupid ideas that managed and still manage to infect people, and smart people too. But there is a limit: if you know how to judge the quality of reasoning and actually apply it, the likelyhood that you are infected goes way down.

See what you did: Now I misused this Talk page for soapboxing, like you. I'll just end saying that Hitler is a very fringe source and that his opinion on anthroposophy, if cited in the article, must be balanced by a mainstream opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The remark of what the Nazis thought about Anthroposophy wasn't to make an extra edit, but to bolster the case that it is plausible that Steiner was a Nazi. Most Nazis saw Steiner as a somewhat deluded fellow, but still one of their own. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Hob Gadling that views by Hitler or other Nazi would be very much FRINGE. As about the joke, I thought that was classic Soviet joke about "ум честность, партийность" (everyone knew it; that was one of favorites by Faina Ranevskaya), but it was Soviet Communist Party instead of Nazi in this joke. My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree. What distinguished Steiner from the Nazis:

1. not a warmonger (even if he applauded some war, his purpose wasn't conquering territories);
2. he sought to integrate the Jews rather than rob and kill them;
3. he considered that his "spiritual science" is from a realm far above ethnic feuds. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There's no question that Steiner influences Nazism -- whole books have devoted to that. But don't think we know he was personally a member. I'd go with "Dick Taverne claims that Steiner was a member of the NSDAP". Feoffer (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It's the sort of factual matter that needs sourcing; you can't just claim this out of the blue. If a single non-historian makes this claim without giving a source for this, it's a pretty skimpy foundation. 69.112.244.165 (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yup, but most books about "how occultism led to Nazism" are conspiracy theories rather than bona fide academic works. So, I was only considering books from reputable academic publishers. E.g. "Hitler the occultist" is a myth: Hitler felt contempt for occultists and considered that all esoteric organizations are controlled by Jews. Many of the claims about Ariosophy and occult symbols are true, but there is no causal link: Hitler thought that occultism is claptrap. Weikart, Richard (2016). Hitler's Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich. Regnery History. p. 177. ISBN 978-1-62157-551-1. Retrieved 10 February 2022. Hitler more often than not dismissed all kinds of mysticism, whether occultism or neo-paganism, as superstitious nonsense. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hess was certainly up to his eyeballs in Steiner. Feoffer (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@IP: I have no way to establish if that's true or false. So, I merely stated "According to Dick Taverne, ..." or "Dick Taverne states". "Claims" is again somewhat deprecated at Wikipedia, see WP:CLAIM.

@Feoffer: The Nazis were not an ideologically monolithic group, but when Anthroposophists complained that official Nazi ideology is materialism, they had a point. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Use of citations

Two statements recently added to this article (1, 2) used citations to the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience to support the idea that Steiner's work was pseudoscientific. The actual text cited states, "Effects of the preparations have been verified scientifically." There is no other comment on the scientific or unscientific nature of Steiner's work. I have changed one statement to directly quote the cited text and removed the other, which is simply not supported by the text cited. Clean Copy^talk 22:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Friend, you need better eye glasses. You missed the most important part of those pages.

E.g.

In physics, Steiner championed Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s color theory over Isaac Newton, and he called relativity “brilliant nonsense.” In astronomy, he taught that the motions of the planets were caused by the relationships of the spiritual beings that inhabited them. In biology, he preached vitalism and doubted germ theory.

— Dan Dugan, op. cit.

Your removal violates WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGELEVEL.

There are just two options: Rudolf Steiner is either fringe or fringe. Heads, I win, tails, you lose.

Please don't engage in denialism, it is pretty much not appreciated at Wikipedia.

Judgment Day for peddling pseudoscience has just arrived at this article. Desist from promoting pseudoscience and finding excuses for it, or be topic banned.

I would tend to agree as well that Bdub hasn't been disruptive yet. But I fail to see how anyone could pursue the argument that mainstream scholarship is wrong and ancient sources are right without quickly becoming disruptive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's count the claims from that quote:

1. wrong color theory;
2. obtuse criticism of the theory of relativity;
3. weird ideas about motions of the planets;
4. supporting vitalism;
5. doubting germ theory.

These are my friend 5 (five) claims that Steiner was a peddler of pseudoscience, a pseudoscientist pur sang. And Dugan only needed 50 words to express them all.

Now He was also a peddler of rank pseudoscience is WP:V by 3 (three) WP:RS. Many more could be produced if you wish, I just scratched the surface of already existing information cited at Wikipedia. I know it and you know it. So, please, let's not play dumb by reverting my edits.

Denying that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudoscientist is absurd denialism. Just please don't do it and it will be all right. You know the WP:RULES, you are not a little child. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

1. The citation you put in was specifically to page 32. None of this is on that page. How was I to know you were actually referring to a different page than the one you cited?
2. This is especially so since the text you say you did mean does not say what you put in the article. WP:OR precludes editors making judgments. You can refer to what Dugan says, but he says nothing about pseudoscience. Stick to what the text supports. Clean Copy^talk 01:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

edit conflict Just a note that this diff [[78]] is based on a block quote in the cited source explaining what biodynamic preparations are. The original source of the "have been verified scientifically" line is Wildfeur, Sherry. N.d. “What Is Biodynamics?” Bio-dynamic Farming and Gardening Association. URL: http://www.biodynamics.com/biodynamics.html. (Accessed on June 3, 2001). In context the cited source dose not support the claim and the original source runs up against WP:ABOUTSELF—blindlynx 00:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me return to familiar ones like the traffic light. If it’s red and you see it as green, the outcome can be disastrous; Derrida doesn’t deny it. You know, it’s a bad misreading… bad misreading.

— Rick Roderick, 307 Derrida and the Ends of Man (1993)

The misreading here being that Dugan is actually lambasting Wildfeur n.d. Dugan does not actually take Wildfeur's claim at face value, he is only using Wildfeur as example of fideistic denial of reality. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Clean Copy: It is called Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience for a reason: it seeks to debunk pseudoscience. Do you deny that all those five claims are pseudoscientific? As I said, many more WP:RS can be produced. You know it and I know it. You can't win this dispute: it's your ideology against the reality-based community. The page numbers had already been properly provided at [79]. Suck it up and be a man. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

#Support - HOWEVER, I think the initial paragraph needs to remove the word 'material' and replace it with 'information' (or similar). The use of the word 'material' can lead a person to think that we only accept words that are verbatim from other sources, which is actually against policy, yet it is FAR too common in Wikipedia. I've been involved in too many debates where people argue that "no, the source said 'rough' not 'coarse'" and people spend endless hours debating whether changing a word constitutes original research. But during this RFC, we're supposed to be focused on the "truth" part of the intro, so I guess despite my misgivings, I'll say 'SUPPORT'. -- Avanu (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Quoted from Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 53. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Im very sorry to appear to be a pain in the ass to everyone, 8-( but I've just noticed that the intro mentions the word 'material'. This implies that we are lifting stuff verbatim from published sources. I suggest changing this word to 'information'.--Light current 00:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Material is better, because information implies that it's true. The sentence doesn't imply that we are plagiarizing. It says we only publish material that has already been published, not that we copy it word for word. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Quoted from Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 9.

Morals: Dugan did not have to say verbatim Steiner was a pseudoscientist, Dugan just had to make this clear in any other combination of words to that extent. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Clean Copy: Are you serious? His ideas have not been "termed" pseudoscientific. His ideas are pseudoscientific. WP:YESPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Why "described"? His ideas are rank pseudoscience. That's a fact. The reality-based community is unanimous thereupon. We don't make this sort of excuses for other rank pseudoscientists. Steiner was a peddler of rank pseudoscience. That's simply applying WP:PSCI and WP:YESPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It just sounds more encyclopedic, and more in line with other articles on Wikipedia we have on other paranormal topics. There was no intent to water down. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Have you read "Why Does Wikipedia Want to Destroy Deepak Chopra?" If Anthroposophists don't complain that Wikipedia wants to destroy Rudolf Steiner, we are doing a bad job. If anything can be said about the two men is that Chopra is considerably less fringe than Steiner. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this deserves an explanation: I don't deny that Rudolf Steiner was a clairvoyant, or that some Anthroposophists do become clairvoyant. What I deny is that clairvoyance gives one deeper, paramount insight into medical science, agriculture, astronomy, and so on.

Storr, Anthony (1997) [1996]. "IV. Rudolf Steiner". Feet of Clay: Saints, Sinners, and Madmen: A Study of Gurus. New York: Free Press Paperbacks, Simon & Schuster. pp. 69–70. ISBN 0-684-83495-2. His belief system is so eccentric, so unsupported by evidence, so manifestly bizarre, that rational skeptics are bound to consider it delusional.... But, whereas Einstein's way of perceiving the world by thought became confirmed by experiment and mathematical proof, Steiner's remained intensely subjective and insusceptible of objective confirmation.

Or, to put it otherwise, clairvoyance is Siddhi and using your Siddhis is bad for spiritual progress. (It doesn't mean that I buy into the theory of Yoga, it is just a comparison.)

About described as vs. are largely, "described" implies that there is some, somewhat large room for doubt. Well, this ignores how categorical is the judgment of the reality-based community. In the context of discovery, dreams and mysticism are permitted, see e.g. August Kekulé#Kekulé's dream. But in the context of justification, science (the scientific method) mercilessly evaluates the advanced hypotheses.

So, how did Rudolf Steiner himself view mainstream science? He accused it of dogmatism, while his own brand called Goethean science would purportedly be free of dogma (see Dugan in Flynn and Dawkins, quoted inside the article). And he accused it of Ahrimanism, meaning materialism.

According to Skeptic's Dictionary, "There is no question that Steiner made contributions in many fields, but as a philosopher, scientist, and artist he rarely rises above mediocrity and is singularly unoriginal. His spiritual ideas seem less than credible and are certainly not scientific." But I won't WP:CITE it since it is not reliable or notable enough. Also, as I told before, I appreciate how Steiner described ethical individualism. Retracted, since I saw it got published at Wiley. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Coming back to the Chopra example: Chopra never belonged to Wagner clubs, and has never claimed to be a clairvoyant. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Ethical individualism

Ethical individualism is a theory of ethics. It is opposed to ethical (or moral) collectivism, i.e. opposed to an universal moral code applied mechanistically. Maybe he got it from Nietzsche, but Nietzsche had a very obscurantist writing style (i.e. hugely multi-interpretable). These being said, Steiner had nothing against "don't steal" and "don't murder" (i.e. generic interdictions), he was more against positive demands from a collectivist moral code. And, no, he wasn't against altruism. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked a bit more into it and "Ethical individualism" is a decidedly Steiner thing. My objection to including it is that it's a bit too in universe. Would: "Steiner advocated a more explicitly spiritual approach to moral philosophy which he called ethical individualism" work?...i guess teh problem is that pseudo-philosophy is harder to explain in the article—blindlynx 15:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

though the entire last paragraph of teh lead needs to be massaged so it doesn't read like disjoint sentences—blindlynx 15:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

While I have a low opinion of Steiner as scientist, I find ethical individualism great. He could write proper philosophy when he wanted to. And no, I don't agree with his idealist metaphysics (i.e. thinking has created the world). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The thing is some of it is just wild or plain wrong and the majority is just underdeveloped. Over all none of it mainstream phil and none of it is some great field of philosophy he founded or whatever. That just needs to be contextualized—blindlynx 21:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes I like this edit actually. I think it better explains his meaning/implementation of ethical individualism. We could expand upon it more later if necessary — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"ostensibly applied projects"

This is odd wording in the lead paragraph. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Two newbies in two days at this article? What is going on? Offline orchestrated campaign? Did the shit finally hit the fan and Steiner's fans are protesting against the basic policies of Wikipedia?

I see you had another edit in 2019. But in total you have now 2 (two) edits at en.wiki. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not the best phrasing but 'practical endeavours' was plain wrong—blindlynx 03:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Bare reference and "Discretionary sanctions"

I see that editors have cleaned up much of this article, except there is an error message in the reflist. Upon investigation I found the culprit to be "." I later found this:"" So should I remove the orphan tag, or should we have some way to warn other editors to not use the same source and risk getting sanctioned?--23mason (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Obliged. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Neutrality tag

WP:Neutrality specifies that on Wikipedia, neutrality means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I don't see here any sources (much less reliable sources) being suggested that present points of view that are not included. Unless we can demonstrate unrepresented POVs, this is not the right tag. Clean Copy^talk 21:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The current article is written from a hagiographic point of view. The tag is appropriate. Feoffer (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This article in general and the examples i've listed above (excluding the first one that was just a dead link) fail to meet Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community per WP:FRINGELEVEL—blindlynx 04:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a well-supported thoughtful biography. I don't see how the content can honnestly be called, "hagiographic." This isn't promotional. It appears that some comments, on this talk page, are by people with a visceral dislike for the subject and are of the opinion that negative or defamatory commentary, unlikely to be supported by reliable sources, be included. If there are clear examples of "hagiographic," exceptionally promotional portions to this article please list them here. --23mason (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You got that right, we are people with a visceral dislike for WP:FRINGE subjects. Spot on! tgeorgescu (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the evaluative statements in the article all stem from reliable, generally academic sources.

Please list specific examples, not of factual information (such as the number of Waldorf schools in the world), but of purportedly hagiographical interpretations where the cited reference does not qualify as a reliable source. I have replaced the Evans citation with one to a mainstream medical publishing house. Clean Copy^talk 20:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, the problem is not hagiography, but an in-universe view which makes little sense to outsiders. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Gotta agree with tgeorgescu, blindlynx, and Feoffer here. The tag is appropriate, there are issues with this page wrt POV, insofar as the article is in-universe and I think ALSO too laudatory. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup, compare with Martin Heidegger: we explain that he is regarded by many as one of the greatest philosophers, we briefly explain his thinking, but we also explain his mistakes and why other philosophers see him as scum.

The difference being that either if you love him or hate him, Heidegger is a mainstream philosopher, while Steiner is a fringe and pseudoscience guru.

The mainstream view is that Anthroposophic medicine is fringe and based upon self-deception (at least the part MDs have learned from Steiner). His directives for agricultural preparations are hardly anything else than ritual witchcraft. Waldorf schools are rife with occult meditations whose meaning is only apparent to insiders or advanced scholars of Western esotericism. Not that they actively teach occultism, but the schools are imbued with occult symbolism, and teachers have to believe in the occult, otherwise they're fired. I no longer believe there are spirits like sylphs, gnomes, salamanders and elves is reason enough for immediate dismissal. And they tell that overtly: overt disbelief in core Anthroposophical teachings means one is finished as a Waldorf teacher. Anthroposophical MDs cannot claim that mistletoe is not effective against cancer, since that is heresy and they would be sacked on the spot. Reaffirming such dogma means they are extremely prone to self-deception, rather than facing empirical reality. The old ideology vs. reality game. Anthroposophical MDs say they're right about mistletoe and every reputable and independent source claims otherwise. I'd like to be proven wrong, but please no WP:PROFRINGE apologetics! tgeorgescu (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we stick to verifiable sources? Neither your opinion nor mine are relevant here. Clean Copy^talk 23:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

a consensus of editors is relevant insofar as it is how we determine when to leave or remove tags. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but if you want to demonstrate that an article is not "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic," it would make sense to cite some of those views. This would also facilitate their incorporation into the article. Clean Copy^talk 00:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

In plainspeak: the article should say that Steiner is a fringe and pseudoscience guru. Otherwise it dodges the WP:PSCI policy.

E.g., the fact that the word "pseudoscience" does not appear in the article is a clear violation of WP:PSCI. Goethean science is not science, but pseudoscience. Not telling this in the article is a violation of WP:NPOV.

Also, according to WP:LUNATICS we are bound to call Anthroposophic medicine quackery.

His views on science were risible at best, delusional at worst.

Verdict of the reality-based community: Anthroposophic medicine is quackery.

Verdict of the reality-based community: biodyanmic agriculture can never feed 4 billion people at once. Rudolf Steiner's cranky ideas cannot feed the world, you need artificial fertilizers in order to feed the world.

Anthroposophists are generally speaking anti-vaxxers and Waldorf schools are pockets with a large number of unvaccinated children. Totally not vaccinating your child is comparable to allow them playing Russian roulette, once in their lifetime.

One source: 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. If you want a real-world case, see Sri Lanka.

Steiner's POV is severely at odds with mainstream science and medicine. This has to be stated very clearly inside the article. He presented himself as having paramount superiority in matters medical and scientific. So, yeah, the mainstream view is that Steiner was a bizarro, wacko guru who bragged too much about his spiritual powers and his own intellect.

Who takes seriously a clairvoyant? Declare that you are are clairvoyant and you instantly lose credibility with rationally-minded people.

I don't say that the article has to bash him, to be wholly negative. But at the University of Amsterdam, when studying Western esotericism, students were told very clearly they are studying a marginal (i.e. fringe) phenomenon of European cultural history.

Whether you endorse the fringe, that's a personal choice. Wikipedia doesn't. Wikipedia is WP:MAINSTREAM.

You don't have to agree with the worldview of the anti-fringe editors, but you have to agree that according to WP:PAGs Steiner is a peddler of fringe and pseudoscience.

It is not a matter of worldview: Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Schelling pushed idealistic worldviews without quickly becoming fringe. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I have reported the edit war to WP:FTN. Clean Copy and 23mason have already been warned of discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience and alternative medicine. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Warned why? For what? Is there a blanket ban on editing this article unless I get some special permissions? All I did is find some sources, where they were needed, and removed some unsupported superfluous content. I got a message that some sources weren't reliable. Sorry, if that was the case, but the edit was in good faith. Please tell me which ones so that I can steer clear of them. I feel like I am being harassed and I don't know why.--23mason (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@23mason: You're not being harassed, just alerted that the pro-Steiner faction has dodged for far, far too long the website policy, namely WP:PSCI, which requires us to call a spade a spade, i.e. call a pseudoscience a pseudoscience. Even clearer: do not remove or water down the fact that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudoscientist, that's all WP:AE is about this article. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

And the remarks about organic agriculture weren't a joke. In Economy of Sri Lanka#Transition to biological agriculture, organic agriculture, Anthroposophic or otherwise, simply could not deliver, despite the highfalutin claims from Joel K. Bourne's book that organic agriculture could feed more than four billion people. Nobody was there to help the Sri Lankan agriculture avoid disaster. And it wasn't practically possible that anyone could have helped them avoid disaster. Transition of the country to 100% organic agriculture was WP:CB. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll echo this with my scientist hat on. So much of organic is unfounded WP:FRINGE or marketing claims us educators have to deal with too often. That said tgeorgescu, I haven't been able to keep up with my watchlist the last few weeks. Are most of the pressing issues taken care of here, or was there anything that still needed an eye or two? Good to see it's been getting cleaned up. KoA (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@KoA: I did not touch most of the article. Others have eliminated some dubious stuff. My main concern was that Steiner gets clearly labelled as a pseudoscientist. Anthroposophists do not have to agree that he was a pseudoscientist, but only with the hard fact that that's the mainstream view. In their mind, he wasn't, they consider him a fighter against pseudoscience (see talk page archives, when I has raised some years ago the point that Steiner should be labelled a pseudoscientist). I'm content that their dodging of WP:PSCI came to a grinding halt. I mean, rules are rules, we don't have another set of rules for Rudolf Steiner. Rules need to be enforced, we cannot build a serious encyclopedia otherwise, it would quickly become a mess. As Kww has stated, As for the page having two sets of rules, it doesn't: sources representing mainstream scientific thought have precedence over mysticism and fringe science. That should be a fairly simple rule to comprehend and abide by.

I do not seek to offend anyone, but I regard attempts to deny that Rudolf Steiner is WP:FRINGE as outright delusions. That, of course, it is my own view and not a medical diagnosis. How could someone pretend to have a grasp of reality if they deny such obvious fact? Of course, everyone thinks their beliefs are true, otherwise they would change their beliefs. But ignoring how their group is seen by the mainstream shows lack of awareness. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring against WP:PSCI

@Rodanmeb: You're edit warring against basic website policy, namely WP:PSCI.

I would tend to agree as well that Bdub hasn't been disruptive yet. But I fail to see how anyone could pursue the argument that mainstream scholarship is wrong and ancient sources are right without quickly becoming disruptive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

And what concord hath Christ with Belial? And what concord hath Wikipedia with Steinerian pseudoscience?

And I know this playbook by rote: WP:FRINGE POV-pushers who claim to understand WP:NPOV better than all established Wikipedians. Well, WP:PSCI is actually part of the WP:NPOV policy.

This is part of the neutrality policy of this website: The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such.

I explain you the basic policy of this website, but all arguments against basic policy are simply wasting your own time.

So, no, making the pseudoscience label appear subjective or disputed does not cohere with our policies and guidelines. We don't believe in teach the controversy.

Let me repeat: Rudolf Steiner is a pseudoscience guru. A topic ban has been enacted upon someone who did not abide by this understanding. You could be next. So, no, you're not fighting against me, you're fighting against the well-oiled machinery of Wikipedia.

In 2022, pro-Steiner editors no longer control the narrative. Their control violated basic website policy, anyway. They've been tolerated for only so long. Now they either abide by WP:PSCI or they're out. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not a denialist, nor an anthroposoph nor a fan of Rudolf Steiner. And I therefore do not wish to be categorized as such. Like you, I am academically educated, and regard the scientific method very highly. But precisely the following sentence: 'His ideas are largely pseudoscientific.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Others call them parascience.[31]', implies that there is no scientific consensus that Steiner's ideas are pseudoscientific, after all others describe his ideas as parascience. So my point is not so much to equalize science with fringe science, but to equalize the first mentioned sources to the last mentioned sources.

Furthermore, I find only the source to Staudenmaier at the sentence : He was also prone to pseudohistory' not sufficient to make such a statement. That is why I have modified that sentence as well. I have read Staudenmaier, but he does not address the emanationism that underlies Steiner's history reading and Theosophy which is quite essential in understanding it. Again I am not a denialist, but I do think that statements like this should be properly substantiated, precisely in the name of the scientific method. Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodanmeb (talk • contribs) 11:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rodanmeb: There is a technical difference between pseudoscience and parascience, but the difference is too small in order to count Mahner as expressing a dissenting view. About pseudohistory: Rudolf Steiner wrote lots of crap about Atlantis and Lemuria. Martin Gardner commented upon that, he wrote classic debunkings of pseudoscience.

Something else: admins do not judge intentions, they judge behavior. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"Parascience" is a rather specific term which I have never heard outside of the context of GWUP. Its meaning is "something that is either pseudoscience or protoscience", so there is no contradiction to the other sources. I would delete the parascience half-sentence, it is not relevant and just gives fence-sitters vain hope, as we can see from what is happening here. We have enough sources already.

Not that it is relevant here, but knowing de:Martin Mahner, I am sure he views it as pseudoscience too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rodanmeb: Just another thing: while we love and benefit from the scientific method, we don't apply ourselves the scientific method at Wikipedia. We apply the reliable sources method. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rodanmeb: To cut down all the craps: if you ever try to remove or water down the information that Steiner is a pseudoscientist, you will be reported to WP:AE and you will likely get topic banned from articles having to do with Anthroposophy. And you have not been singled out for special treatment: that will be the fate of every editor who tries to remove or water down that information. The website policy WP:PSCI has been dodged for far too long, and this time it is over for fringe POV-pushers. Fringe POV-pushing is utterly incompatible with a serious encyclopedia like Wikipedia wants to be. It is over, man, it is over. The pro-Steiner faction lost Wikipedia. The well-oiled machinery of Wikipedia will ban anyone who tries to remove or water down that information. This is simply applying the WP:RULES which have been decided as binding by the Wikipedia Community, and have been publicly endorsed by Jimmy Wales at WP:LUNATICS. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's how it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

indeed—blindlynx 18:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This isn't injustice, nor am I a bully or dictator for applying the WP:RULES which are universally mandatory at this website. If one does not like the WP:PSCI policy, they should avoid editing this article. Or, better, vote with their feet. We cannot make everyone happy, this is a website of mainstream knowledge, not of WP:SOAPBOXING for various sects.

Now there are a dozen WP:RS which WP:V the fact that Steiner was a pseudoscientist. If somebody really doubts that, I guess I can enlarge that number to two dozens. As I said, I was just scratching the surface, all this information already exists, properly cited, in other Wikipedia articles. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If one's main purpose at this article is to sabotage the application of WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE, then we don't need such editors. They should seriously ask themselves why they are here, if they don't like the policies and they don't like the guidelines. Knowing what is considered not done at Wikipedia, I avoid the article abortion: I know I'm unwanted there. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Random blog which sells books

@23mason: https://www.famousphilosophers.org/contact/ fails according to WP:BLOGS. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Philosopher

@Rapidavocado: He wasn't a philosopher foremost, but he was a philosopher nonetheless. Even if you don't agree with his POV, he could write philosophy when he wanted to. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

We should probably redo the infobox though as it overstates his philosophical work—blindlynx 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The fact that an external source like Britannica does not list him as a philosopher means there is a de-emphasis that should not be overlooked.

The reader needs this first line to get an idea on where his significant contribution was. Is a significant fraction of his work on philosophy?

I think "Overstating his philosophical work" is key here, and there is plenty of self produced literature that does this. His work is only known in anthroposophic circles and has been ignored anywhere else, which means his contribution to philosophy is thin as it is centered in spiritualism with few self-standing ideas.

There is a degree of philosophy in many disciplines, the question is: where is the bar to be considered a philosopher? do we mean he is considered on par with with Heidegger? or do we mean a mere "he could do philosophy if he really wanted to, but he mostly made a New Religion"?

A significant fraction of his work was devoted to creating a spirituality movement, which I think deviates from what the consensus would understand as the main work of a philosopher. Rapidavocado (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yup, "he could do philosophy if he really wanted to, but he mostly made a New Religion" is a neat summary of my point. He could have been The Great German Idealist of the 20th century, but that was wasted when he declared himself clairvoyant. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

should we stick with the philosopher infobox and just empty it out of nonsense or switch to a different one?—blindlynx 01:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

There was an edit adding a citation for the "philosopher" category.

Steiner is not listed as a philosopher in many sources, like Britannica, the internet encyclopedia of philosophy https://iep.utm.edu/s/, also, the encyclopedia of pseudoscience by Williams does not list him as one.

This is a point of view issue, and I think the best is to say he is is an esotericist, an spiritualist or an occultist and leave it there, these lines of thought do have some philosophy attached but it is misleading to present him as a philosopher in the Wikipedia as the reader will get the wrong impression.

No amount of citations will resolve this issue as he is mostly seen as a philosopher for people within the Waldorf community but he is mostly unknown elsewhere. Rapidavocado (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Philosopher is redundant with occultist and spiritualist, given that he was a philosopher about these subjects. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Albert Schweitzer

Whatever influence Steiner had on Schweitzer, the later did not convert to mysticism, occultism, or Spiritual Science. Steiner wrote scathingly about the quest for the historical Jesus: https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/FrJeCh_index.html tgeorgescu (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Compromise

By commenting out several sources, these are not completely gone from the article, but these are not displayed either. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

we shouldn't have citations in the lead anyways (per wp:leadcite) we should work those sources into the body or drop them—blindlynx 23:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Now there are 23 citations in the lead, not even counting the hidden ones. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a little excessive...do you have any idea how many of those are just in the lead?—blindlynx 00:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

6 of 23 are used multiple times. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Of those, 5 sources that he was born in then Hungary is excessive, no? All of the citation in the second paragraph can be removed because it's well established elsewhere. Of the cites in the first line saying he's a occultists etc... one or two general seems like a good target... how many of those do you think are worth incorporating into the body?—blindlynx 13:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Occultist, clairvoyant and pseudoscientist are worth keeping. All his fame was due to being clairvoyant. I don't know why Anthroposophists fear the term "occultism", but that's the common name for his sort of writings. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I got rid of one Ruse source because it's just a passing mention (this one ) That said the other Ruse source in the lead is worth incorporating into the article, i need to give it a more through read first though—blindlynx 13:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, that was the only mainstream source which called Steiner "clairvoyant". tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

fuck sorry—blindlynx

References

Clairvoyant and occultist

Steiner's WP:N is due to being clairvoyant and occultist. Of course, he was much more than just a preacher of occultism, he got involved in science, medicine and agriculture, although the gist is that he mainly peddled pseudoscience in such realms. Same as Ronald Reagan's WP:N is due to being POTUS, and not due to being an actor.

He also was a #Philosopher, but he is not recognized as a major philosopher. I can say that his ethical individualism is somewhat unfairly ignored by the mainstream philosophers, but I am not here to WP:RGW. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Wrong colour theory

I think this might refer to his racist ideas, where he thought people were non-white in their incarnation because their spirits hadn't reached the same level of purity. If I am right about that, then the link to colour theory (in the sense of dealing with actual colours and not racial characteristics of people) is misleading. 109.79.1.225 (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

No, that item in the "Goethean science" section is about Goethe's color theory. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

We are also attributing the claims to Dugan. So it doesn't really matter what is "objectively" true. We attribute claims per WP:V — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Note Deluge

Just stopping by this page and saw that one claim in the introduction is followed by 12 (!) notes. Wouldn't it be better to have one or two of these (or leave them out altogether) and back up the claim in the body of the article, where the notes can be better distributed among the text? Cameron.coombe (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cameron.coombe: It has to do with the history of the article. The pro-Steiner faction seemed unconvinced with less citations. See e.g. Talk:Rudolf Steiner/Archive 4#Category: Pseudoscientists. Like

Clearly you have not followed what has been said. This article is about Rudolf Steiner, a lifelong opponent of pseudoscience. It is not about alternative medicine. Qexigator (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Which I now see as attempted gaslighting. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I assumed that was the reason. In any case, I don't have a lot of experience with Wiki but it does look like over-citing to me. Maybe if things ever cool down (!) it could be supported by one or two citations instead, and the rest could be incorporated into the relevant section in the body. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations Cameron.coombe (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

We could also just concatenate it into one cite note with multiple references. This is a relatively common technique for such situations. See: Richard Ebright (cite 24) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't that the case up until recently?—blindlynx 20:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

oh wait note 9 seems to have a stack of em—blindlynx 20:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

What was the cause of his death?

He was not too old, so what caused him dying? 2A01:C22:D5FA:E500:29A5:11FD:AB5:20B5 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion of the subject. If reliable sources don't have a good answer to that question, then we don't include any answers either. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Cerinthus

The point being: Cerinthus wasn't really a Gnostic, but Steiner believed that Cerinthus was a Gnostic. Anyway, splitting hairs upon whether Cerinthus was indeed a Gnostic or only smeared to be so is not germane to this article.

And yup, Neo-Hermeticism, Neo-Gnosticism, and Neo-Rosicrucianism are not mutually exclusive, even to the extent that it is hard to distinguish between them, excepting their names only (i.e. self-proclaimed labels). E.g., adepts of Steiner and those of Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov regard each other with suspicion, but there is a great deal of overlap in their teachings. Both are equally Neo-Hermetic, Neo-Gnostic, and Neo-Rosicrucian. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If he was a Nazi

I'm agnostic upon whether he was a Nazi. Dick Taverne said that, and it kinda fits the picture. But I don't know if that's true. That's why I used WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. We use it when a claim is apparently neither true, nor false. Of course, ontologically, it was either true or false. But epistemologically it is neither true, nor false. The question to people who affirm it and to people who deny it is: "How do you know?" If there is no way to know, then you don't, either. Ernst Röhm was 100% genuine Nazi, yet persecuted by the Nazis. And, whatever he was, he wasn't a turncoat. E.g. Canaris betrayed Hitler, but Röhm didn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Verification

If you think that in his view, Jesus and Christ fused for all eternity (all the rest of it), WP:CITE a WP:RS to that extent. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"Largely"?

The lede states that Steiner's ideas are "largely pseudoscientific." The sources given do not support this wording, however.

• The first source does not use the word pseudoscience and only refers to agricultural ideas, which as far as I can tell is a very small segment of Steiner's thought.
• The second source states that "Anthroposophical pseudoscience is easy to find in Waldorf schools." Newtonian telescopes are easy to find in telescope stores; that doesn't mean that most of what Newton did was telescopes.
• The third source states that anthroposophy is "rather a mishmash of religion on the one hand and pseudoscience on the other." This would support the claim that there are both religious and pseudoscientific ideas in Steiner's work, not that the latter is largely pseudoscientific.

Thoughts for improvement? Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC) — Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The first source compares Steiner's ideas to homeopathy, a known pseudoscience, and so is a fair summary. Anthroposophy is mostly what Steiner is known for, so your second point is rubbish. To the third point, religious ideas themselves are rampant in pseudoscience, so this is a false dichotomy. You're also leaving out the very important next sentence: It is hard to tell where one ends and the other begins, but for our purposes it is not really important. We also have had perhaps 10 sources appended to that sentence in the past, and trimmed to just these because it was considered "patently obvious" that his ideas are mostly pseudoscience. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to drop the 'largely', while he does have some ideas that aren't pseudo-scientific they're few and far between. Also as Shibbolethink points out they're not what he's known for—blindlynx 14:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said, 24 footnotes could be provided for WP:V the "pseudoscientific" claim, but that is generally seen as too much. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't mistake me; that some of his ideas are pseudoscientific is well-sourced. I doubt any of these sources state that his ideas are mostly or largely pseudoscientific, however, or give any support to this sort of wording. A great body of his writing -- including his four or five books on Goethe, The Philosophy of Freedom, a Nietzsche biography, his history of mysticism, several books about the history of philosophy, his works on social reform, etc. -- is not remotely classifiable as pseudoscience (these works make no reference to anthroposophy). So yes, as User:tgeorgescu suggests, it would be proper to drop this qualifier. But I'm not sure everyone is on board with this. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

as User:tgeorgescu suggests, it would be proper to drop this qualifier I could not find the place where TG says that. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Regarding tgeorgescu's recent edit: I'm sorry but who cares whether or not his non-scientific ideas are pseudoscience? Calling a history of philosophy 'pseudoscience' is gibberish!—blindlynx 20:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?: I think you have heavily misread tgeorgescu's position to be favorable to your own. It is not our job to find a citation which says "most of his ideas are pseudoscience." It is sufficient to find many sources which say that individual ideas are pseudoscience, and it becomes an accurate WP:SUMMARY of those sources to say his ideas are "largely pseudoscience." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I found this in WP:Synth: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research." This sounds like it expressively forbids what you have described. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY for why that isn't correct. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That section states, " SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources," and contrasts that with a summary, which is summarizing a single source. It seems clear that if no source says something, we should not be asserting that thing in an article, or combining multiple sources to draw our own conclusions. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

That seems to be your personal opinion. The next step would be to take it to WP:FTN in a neutrally-worded explanation to see if there is a larger consensus that agrees with your assessment. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Have you read "Why Does Wikipedia Want to Destroy Deepak Chopra?" If Anthroposophists don't complain that Wikipedia wants to destroy Rudolf Steiner, we are doing a bad job. If anything can be said about the two men is that Chopra is considerably less fringe than Steiner. Chopra never belonged to Wagner clubs, and has never claimed to be a clairvoyant. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course, knowing Anthroposophists, they will invent all sorts of explanations involving demonic powers acting against them rather than candidly admit that that's mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP, i.e. honest scholars who weighed Anthroposophy and found it wanting. It is of course something to have a religious belief, and something completely different to blame demons and conspiracies for any shortcomings and for received criticism. Of course, Anthroposophists being a WP:FRINGE new religious movement (essentially neognosticism), they perceive mainstream scholarship as having an axe to grind against them. All their talks about angelic hierarchies and reincarnation are utterly unfalsifiable, thus not under the purview of science, thus such talks aren't pseudoscience. It is only when Anthroposophy seeks real-world applications within the purview of science that it gets called pseudoscientific. Their view that the being of Jesus and the being of Christ got united at a certain time in history might be odd, but it isn't pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2023 (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.

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Ernst's Law: if you are studying alternative medicine and quacks do not hate you, you are not doing your job. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Taverne's claim that Steiner was a Nazi

Taverne's claim that Steiner was a Nazi does not deserve to be included here.

1. Taverne is not a historian, and he gives no evidence or citation for his claim. There is no way to verify his claim. As he has no expertise in this area, he should not be considered a reliable source.
2. No other source claims this.
3. Objective biographers, such as Zander, do not mention it, which they surely would if there any evidence of it.
4. WP:RSCONTEXT states that "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support (See WP:INLINECITE and WP:inline citation) the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article."

Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that what Taverne stated is true. But I'm not saying it's false, either. That's why WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is used for it.

While there seems to be little direct evidence for such claim, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence: the Swiss General Anthroposophical Society was basically pro-Nazi, and purged the Jews from its leadership to appease Hitler. See the WP:CITEd WP:RS.

And, of course, that puts Steiner at an early inchoate form of Nazism, i.e. he could not have foreseen that Nazism will turn totalitarian and genocidal.

Steiner was an anarchist, the difference with anarcho-syndicalism being that he rejected neither capitalism, nor corporatism. So, he could be called an anarcho-corporatist. I.e. he was pretty much as Ernst Röhm. That is not to say that Steiner loved capitalism, either, but wanted to reform it. And he certainly did not love liberal democracy. Source: Steiner, Rudolf; Meuss, Anna R. (1993). The Fall of the Spirits of Darkness. Rudolf Steiner Press. p. 223. ISBN 978-1-85584-010-2. Retrieved 10 July 2023. Nope, this isn't complicated esoteric jargon, which could be misunderstood by the uninitiated, it is conspiracist plain speak. Also available at https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA177/English/RSP1993/19171028p01.html tgeorgescu (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone, in case there are any questions as to whether Steiner was a Nazi - are you all aware of this Independant.co.uk source? As it turns out Adolf Hitler claimed he was a Jewish, and personally called on his Nazi followers to wage "war against Steiner" here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/the-big-question-who-was-rudolf-steiner-and-what-were-his-revolutionary-teaching-ideas-433407.html

This was in the early 1920's - he immediately had to flee to Switzerland and never set foot in Germany again hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a very complicated matter: some Nazis accused Steiner of being a Jew, but other Nazis (most notably the adjunct Fuhrer) staunchly defended Steiner and Anthroposophy. About Steiner's antisemitism: he was basically an assimilationist: according to him Jews had to assimilate in the nations and disappear as an ethnic group. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Was he every seeking to force Jews or any other group to assimilate? His core philosophy was focused on freedom for the individual right - he did seem to be hoping that humanity would come together as one human family, and that religious and ethnic differences could be overcome so that humanity could live in peace, freedom, equality and harmony hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

was he ever* sry SamwiseGSix (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

His teachings were a mixture of 18th century racism, 19th century racism and assimilationism. See Ansgar Martins quoted in the article. Hint: Google Books displays the whole page. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Christian Gnosticism

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) 08:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The Goldwater rule

I emphatically deny that the Goldwater rule is applicable to Treher, Wolfgang. Hitler, Steiner, Schreber – Gäste aus einer anderen Welt. Die seelischen Strukturen des schizophrenen Prophetenwahns, Oknos: Emmendingen, 1966 (newer edition: Oknos, 1990). ISBN 3-921031-00-1; Wolfgang Treher Archived 2005-02-12 at the Wayback Machine.

Supporting WP:RS:

• Blom, Jan Dirk (2010). A Dictionary of Hallucinations. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. p. 99. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1223-7. ISBN 978-1-4419-1222-0. Retrieved 2012-01-11. Clairvoyance
  
  Also known as lucidity, telesthesia, and cryptestesia. Clairvoyance is French for seeing clearly. The term is used in the parapsychological literature to denote a ∗visual or ∗compound hallucination attributable to a metaphysical source. It is therefore interpreted as ∗telepathic, ∗veridical, or at least ∗coincidental hallucination.
  
  Reference
  Guily, R.E. (1991) Harper's encyclopedia of mystical and paranormal experience. New York, NY: Castle Books.

• Blom, Jan Dirk (2010). A Dictionary of Hallucinations. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. p. 99. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1223-7. ISBN 978-1-4419-1222-0. Retrieved 2012-01-11. Clairaudience
  
  The term clairaudience comes from the French words for hearing clearly. The term is used in the parapsychological literature to denote a ∗verbal or ∗nonverbal auditory hallucination that is attributable to a metaphysical source, and is therefore interpreted as a ∗telepathic, ∗veridical, or at least ∗coincidental hallucination.
  
  Reference
  Guily, R.E. (1991). Harper's encyclopedia of mystical and paranormal experience. New York, NY: Castle Books.

• 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.

Quoted by tgeorgescu.

Steiner is dead since almost a century, he left no children or grandchildren behind, so WP:BLPSPS does not apply. WP:PARITY does apply. I don't think that the fact that Wolfgang Treher was a psychiatrist is in doubt. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Intersubjective

The clairvoyant hallucinations of Anthroposophists react similarly to high-quality eurythmy shows. So, in that sense, their clairvoyant perceptions are "intersubjective". But those are not deep insights into reality. How do I know? "By their fruits you shall know them." The scientific fruits of Anthroposophy are extremely subpar. Instead of winning the majority of the Nobel prizes, they got debunked as pseudoscientists.

I don't know any WP:RS which spell this out, so more eyes are needed. The point is made at https://theosophy.world/encyclopedia/epistemology , but that isn't a WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Racism

@Ryguy913: Take racism out of Anthroposophy, and it will crumble like a house of cards. Again, Rudolf Steiner's racism is not warmongering, nor malevolent, but he is a racist. If Steiner is an evildoer, he is so as a champion of antivaxxers, rather than as a champion of racism.

“Unambiguous exposés of quackery will inevitably appear rude to some people and hurt some feelings. This is a fact of adult life.” Kimball C. Atwood.

@Ryguy913: Why those are not facts? The WP:BURDEN is upon you to show that in the mainstream academia those do not count as facts.

You should know that Wikipedia has a low tolerance for denialism. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone - could we not consider Steiner perhaps as a notable or even leading anti-racist for his time though? He was repeatedly publicly calling for folks to struggle against prejudice based on race at a time when President Woodrow Wilson was actively segregating the US Federal Government - the Nazis quickly began to persecute him and his friends in the late 1910's and early 1920's and he was one of the first to have to actually flee the country hm

Even his contemporary critics including P. Staudenmeier, along with proponents acknowledge his vast body of anti-racist statements arguably actually far ahead of his contemporaries and predecessors if one reads Engels and co on race, for example hm https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069/1723 can also add D. McKanan at Harvard Divinity, even critic P. Staudenmeier's Cornell thesis, etc -S — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamwiseGSix (talk • contribs)

Mixed bag. See Ansgar Martins quoted in the article, among others. You do not get to push your own ideas, we merely WP:CITE WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I am seeing A. Martin's preview in the German language there - are you able to send over full source? We can for example all see Staudenmeier's full thesis .pdf and he basically is Steiner's leading academic critic right, even he recognizes many the anti-racist statements RS made.. Again he repeatedly called for folks to combat and struggle against prejudice based on race at a time when the US President was actually segregating the US Federal Government hm

The peer reviewed journal article linked above via M. Segall looks into this in greater depth and also mentions key insights for mitigating today's actual existential risks to humanity (nuclear, tech/AI etc) hm certainly curious to hear thoughts.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, e.g. AI is not germane to this article.

Again: Steiner's teachings are a mixed bag, including 18th century racism, 19th century racism and assimilationism. Of course, he was not a malign racist, he was a benevolent racist. Racist meaning he believed in a hierarchy of races. And indeed, read his Occult Science, there is no way around noticing his stance upon the hierarchy and evolution of human races. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

In tracing the history of anti-racism, in the literature of the Quakers and the Abolitionists for example, is all of their language perfect and appropriate for our time? They were nevertheless leading anti-racists for their time right..

In reading RS in the sources you mention and more - there is consistently a pointing out that such language around hierarchy is outmoded and coming from Theosophy, and will become only increasingly more inapropriate over time as humanity works to overcome racial and religious differences (he often had to lecture the Theosophists and broke away from the group in the early 1900's) but felt compelled to use some of their language early on to even reach them, language which he nevertheless criticized in the process..

Again, perhaps we might look at the language of leading anti-racists like the Quakers and the Abolitionists et al as well for comparison? Positioning him as an antiracist voice overall for his time (would you apply the similar standards for Engels or Marx et al?) does seem quite fair for NPOV standards overall here hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Engels for example did actually go as far to call for genocide hm using the Polish people as a hypothetical example, true systemic racism - perhaps we could consider additional ways of seeking to maintain neutral point of view standard overall as best we can here hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, we merely WP:CITE WP:RS. See WP:NOR and WP:RGW. The most heinous Wikipedic behavior is to defend your personal opinions. If these are your personal opinions, keep them to yourself, we are not interested. We are only interested in the opinions of WP:RS.

It is not the task of Wikipedia editors to act as Steiner's interpreters, translating from German to German.

Steiner was a very complex and sometimes convoluted thinker. Thinking that you know what he stated about Jews just because you have read five or ten books by him doesn't do. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Many of his close friends and co-workers were Jewish? Hugo Bergman, Walter Stein and more - good to see the reliable sources demonstrating the helpful comparative literature around the history of anti-racism as well, and that a consistent intellectual and universal progress for humanity/humans globally seems to be remaining in development as a possibility here overall as well hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't contradict my narrative of "mixed bag". tgeorgescu (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Well no one is perfect, right - curious to hear your thoughts re Engels and Marx on race? How might our words and actions be viewed in 100 years? Etc hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a Marxist, so I don't care about "Marx and racism". WP:NOTAFORUM. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello TGeorgescu - I have prepared this adjustment, it does contain WP:V sources without WP:OR, and is very important in maintaining NPOV for the Encyclopedia:

Both critics and proponents alike nevertheless acknowledge his extensive body of anti-racist statements, which were far more progressive in comparison with his predecessors and contemporaries still commonly cited in academia and beyond in modern times. SamwiseGSix (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Your argument: WP:PAGs such as WP:V are for Muggles, Anthroposophists are not Muggles, so the policies and guidelines don't apply to Anthroposophists writing about Steiner. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

References

A scientist

I strongly disagree that Rudolf Steiner was a scientist. By and large, he never participated in the scientific community, or, to the extent that he did, he peddled pseudoscience; he was a pseudoscientist pur sang.

As an artist: I saw his sculpture, it looks like outsider art. I'm not buying the idea that modern art has to be ugly. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You are free to add WP:RS refs that support these perspectives.Dialectric (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait, we need RS to not-include that he was a scientist? —blindlynx 17:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dialectric: There are already a dozen references in the article that what he did is pseudoscience. Anthroposophists will never accept this, because they think mainstream science is controlled by Ahriman, and mainstream scientists are essentially Muggles, so they (mainstream scientists) forfeited their constitutional right to having opinions about Anthroposophy.

Example of full-blown pseudoscience: Steiner, Rudolf (1998). Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner (PDF). Anthroposophic Press. p. 607. ISBN 0-88010--421-X. [...] for instance, an island like Great Britain swims in the sea and is held fast by the forces of the stars. In actuality, such islands do not sit directly upon a foundation; they swim and are held fast from outside. Such examples could be repeated ad nauseam. These not only show him as an ignoramus, but as someone who completely severed the contact with reality. Or, as G.B. Shaw put it about somebody else, these are a "curious record of the visions of a drug addict". Such insights about Great Britain did not come from the supernatural realm, but he simply suffered of psychosis. He was not privy to the secrets of the Seven Elohim, but he was simply psychotic.

What is then the problem, you might ask? The problem is that several Anthroposophic WP:SPAs seek to WP:CENSOR such information from Wikipedia, information which is obvious to all rational critics of Rudolf Steiner. If you ask them, this article has seen better days. But once WP:PSCI got enshrined as a website policy, its fate was doomed. I'm making this comparison with the article "Why does Wikipedia want to destroy Deepak Chopra?" Chopra might be some sort of fraudster, but he is a paragon of rationality when compared to Rudolf Steiner. They think I'm the Wikipedic Nemesis of Steiner, while in fact WP:PSCI is his Nemesis. Since WP:PSCI was promulgated, Anthroposophists lose such disputes by default. It's written in the WP:PAGs that their new religious movement should be treated like intellectual trash. They just think that's my own fault. So many years after the WP:LUNATICS message was broadcasted by Jimmy Wales urbi et orbi, they still think I'm to blame for their failures. Since if they would really understand that the mainstream academic view (and therefore the view of Wikipedia) is that Steiner was a lunatic charlatan, their whole worldview would crumble. I'm not asking them to agree with mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I just ask them to agree that that's what mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP says. Maybe due to their worldview they cannot comprehend what I'm asking and in the end it is too much to ask from them. It is pretty much like asking Jehovah's Witnesses to write objective prose about Jehovah's Witnesses: most of them just can't do it, and the few who can, fear banishment from the religion. They cannot comprehend the charge of WP:SOAPBOXING, but, yes, that's why they're editing this article. Their purpose isn't writing neutrally about Steiner, but making apologetics for their own religion. For them, presenting Steiner according to mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP means offending their religion.

If, despite their protestations, the consensus of mainstream scholarship is:

• he wasn't a genius of science;
• he wasn't a genius of agriculture;
• he wasn't a genius of medicine;

Then there is only one possibility left, namely:

• he was a lunatic charlatan.

Anthroposophists can so easily grasp that the person of Rudolf Steiner was of huge importance for the fate of humanity, and they cannot comprehend why outsiders fail to grasp that. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree 5000%. There is no evidence that Steiner participated in conventional scientific discourse, published scientific papers, ran scientific experiments, etc. He used the trappings of science to advance his own philosophical and untested ideas. We don't need sources to not say something, we need good sources which say it. I am not aware of good quality sources which say Steiner was a scientist. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, while he knew how to write philosophy, and his views about Goethean science should not be dismissed out of hand, there is no shred of evidence that he was a scientist. E.g. capillary dynamolysis has only two results at PubMed: one from 1951 and one from 1961. So, his scientific viewpoints (not referring to his viewpoints regarding knowledge theory) got no traction inside mainstream science. Capillary dynamolysis basically endorses astrology, so this is a big WP:REDFLAG for rational scientists. His positive contributions to science are either fanciful or outright delusional. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Drop the claim

@Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?: If we drop Taverne's claim, same applies to the claim of Hitler declaring "war against Steiner":

• no evidence cited;
• not a historian.

The irony is that both claims could be true, but at different points in time.

Also, Hitler's war against Anthroposophy was mainly fought through rhetoric, while the war against, say, Jehovah's Witnesses meant they were sent to concentration camps until they recant their faith. So, yes, the Nazi regime attacked Anthroposophists through propaganda rather than through the use of force, and this was especially true since Hess flew to England (before his flight, he was cancelling both avenues for attacking Anthroposophists). Anthroposophists (if deemed Aryans and not taking action against the regime) were rather lambasted than persecuted, the Jehovah's Witnesses were really persecuted. Theosophists and Ariosophists were sent to concentration camps, but not Anthroposophists. Of course, if one was a Jew or acted against the regime, being an Anthroposophist was not a get me free out of jail card.

Hitler knew he owed his success to an Anthroposophist (meaning Hess), and Himmler was willing to cherrypick what he liked from Anthroposophy.

So, what does Taverne say? He puts Steiner at an early stage of the Nazi Party, together with Martin Heidegger (and Ernst Röhm). So, there is no implication that Steiner was guilty for the Holocaust, or something like that. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Except that the statement that Hitler attacked Steiner is supported in this article by incontestible contemporary evidence, Hitler's 1921 article attacking Steiner.

This alone makes it highly unlikely that Steiner was a member of the party. Furthermore, as there is no evidence that anybody ever claimed this before Taverne, and he cites no source for it, how does he, writing almost 100 years later, know this? With no chain of evidence? Taverne is also not a historian, and as such has no claim to be a reliable source for an otherwise unsupported historical statement. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?: As our article says, Völkischer Beobachter was very much a mixed bag in respect to Anthroposophy. The Nazi Party was not ideologically monolithic in respect to Anthroposophy. Nazis knew that Anthroposophy overlapped with Nazism, they were only debating if this was "good" or "bad". See the footnote stating "Movements like anthroposophy, from this point of view, represented unwelcome competition." tgeorgescu (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Once more: There is no evidence that Steiner was a member of the Nazi party. An unsupported claim by a non-historian 100 years later is not a reliable source. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?: You fail to see that "no evidence" is in the same boat with "mixed bag". So, both claims have to stay, or both claims have to go. Decide.

Otherwise it's WP:RULES for thee, but not for me. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

In the case of mixed evidence, we should (and in this case already do) cite both sides.

I feel we are stuck, so have listed this on Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. I for one would appreciate other eyes on this. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?: Just a reminder: Taverne got published at Oxford University Press, while the claim of "war against Steiner" is churnalism at best and WP:CITOGENESIS at worst.

Wikipedia regards individuals as reliable sources in their field. Taverne was a Member of Parliament. Do we really want to consider a novel historical claim, with no cited evidence to back it up, by an MP? If it were so, other evidence would be citable. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?: Again, I do not necessarily plead for keeping the citation, but the application of such principle should be coherent and strike both claims. If anything, Oxford University Press is much more reliable than a newspaper. So, if the citation to OUP has to be deleted, then certainly the citation to the newspaper has to be deleted. Saying otherwise is a double standard. While the citation to OUP uses WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, the citation to the newspaper is stated in the voice of Wikipedia. So, certainly, something is not right about these citations. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hitler persecuted the Jews, the Roma, the Slavs, the leftists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, but he only lambasted the Anthroposophists. The Sicherheitsdienst was convinced that Anthroposophy was a danger, but the Gestapo wasn't persuaded. And the Gestapo had the power to persecute people, not the Sicherheitsdienst.

"War against Steiner" is mentioned here. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed both claims as being unreliably sourced. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

"War against Steiner" was introduced at [80], several months before the newspaper article, so it is definitely WP:CITOGENESIS. The editor WP:CITED https://web.archive.org/web/20060103040648/http://www.anthroposophy.com/aktuelles/wiesberger.html , which is not a reliable source, and it does not say that "war against Steiner" was Hitler's POV. Instead it claims it was published in a German Catholic nationalist newspaper. Since in 1921 Anthroposophy was already considered a heresy, it is not difficult to understand why Catholics wanted to fight against Steiner. But, again, that makes it a Catholic POV, not a Nazi POV. Nobody said that Catholics cannot be nationalists. A Catholic newspaper condemning a heretical religion is nothing out of the ordinary, and it wasn't a Nazi POV. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion

David Tornheim (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by tgeorgescu

Taverne is more reliable than Garner, since OUP is higher on the pecking order than The Independent. Either both claims should be kept, or both claims should be deleted. "He is not a historian and he cites no evidence" applies to both Taverne and Garner. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?

1. There are a great many biographies of Steiner; none mention him being a member in the Nazi Party. Taverne, the sole source of this claim, is (1) a politician, not a historian and (2) cites no evidence in support of his claim.
2. There is extensive evidence that Steiner was hostile to the Nazis (quotes from his lectures and many biographies) and that the Nazis were hostile to Steiner (see also the link to Garner and any other biography of Steiner).
3. I acknowledge the weight of the publisher, Oxford U. Press. This is concerning, but the claim diverges so greatly from any historical record that the imprint alone does not seem to me to justify the claim's inclusion given its extraordinary nature. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion by David Tornheim

I'm not promising to provide a third opinion at this point, so I haven't removed it from the WP:3O#Active disagreements. If someone else wants to give the third opinion ahead of me, please feel free!
I can't tell exactly what source(s) you are arguing about. I know one was published at Oxford University Press, which should be a reliable source on many topics. I see something about "Taverne". I don't know who that is. Can you please explain in the appropriate sections? Please focus on the WP:RS and why you think it is or is not reliable. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: The sources are:

• 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
• Garner, Richard (24 January 2007). "The Big Question: Who was Rudolf Steiner and what were his revolutionary teaching ideas?". The Independent. Retrieved 26 October 2023.

It is true that Taverne does not say how he obtained that information. The Garner article is quite probably WP:CITOGENESIS. See above, "war against Steiner" was published verbatim at Wikipedia months before that newspaper article. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems like speculation about where Garner got the information. I would think a journalist would know better than grab it from Wikipedia (or anyone else who simply cited Wikipedia) as "fact". Is "War against Steiner" the only language that is being proposed for this article and sourced to Steiner?

Also, I wonder if rather than using WP:3O, one of you might put this at WP:RSN, since it appears to be entirely about the reliability of Garner? Then it might get more eyes. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: Looking at the above arguments, I agree that it cannot be completely verified whether or not the statement is true, and the source got it right, however, it also cannot be verified to be untrue, and that the source got it wrong. Maybe include both claims, and directly attribute them both, along with their source of publication. "Taverne from Oxford University Press says...", "Garner from The Independent says....", while being careful not to discredit either. Encyclopedically documenting both viewpoints, noting possible disagreement, and allowing it to appear uncertain, for readers to make up their own minds. If we can unequivocally prove one source in particular to be unreliable in this regard, we can drop it.

DarmaniLink (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Tgeorgescu Thanks for creating the WP:RSN entry (WP:RSN#Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy). I suggest you give Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? a chance to state their view in their section rather than articulating their view for them. I would move your comment about what you think they believe from your section back into your section. When I first read it, I was confused, because I had assumed it was them speaking rather than you. I would do the same at the WP:RSN entry before someone replies. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Tgeorgescu One more thing. Rather than simply copying and pasting this discussion verbatim to WP:RSN, I would make the case at RSN per the RSN rules:

"Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports."

I think providing this simple version would make it easier to understand. Then link to this discussion rather than have two copies of it. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [struck 06:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC). I think the two diffs make it easy enough to follow.]

Hitler had an axe to grind against Steiner's suggestion to grant autonomy to a German province, but not necessarily against Anthroposophy. Rudolf Hess, the adjunct Fuerher was an Anthroposophist, and Himmler had some sympathy for Anthroposophy. I don't think that "war against Steiner" was Hitler's POV, instead of being a Catholic POV. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I struck one of my suggestions above. I think the RS/N entry is clear enough because of the two diffs. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

For a while, I believed that Steiner was persecuted by Hitler, but I can't remember whether I got it from Steiner, from Wikipedia, and/or another source(s). It makes sense given my understanding of Hitler from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich which I listened to on audiobook in its entirety. It seemed that just about any leader of a public entity that had strong influence on public opinion of political matters (e.g. school, church, social organization, media, scouts, etc.) and pushed anything that threatened Hitler's power would either have to relent, face replacement, or worse. So someone like Steiner who was no conformist would probably find himself in the cross-hairs. I doubt Steiner would relent. That said, the WP:RS makes the decision. And "war on Steiner" or a "war on Anthroposopy" doesn't exactly sound like Hilter's style. He would be more likely to co-opt the entity to his liking as he did with the scouts. But again, all my opinion, and we have to rely on the WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

There was something like de:Aktion gegen Geheimlehren und sogenannte Geheimwissenschaften, but the Anthroposophists were kind of attacked only rhetorically, while other occultists and esotericists had to go to the concentration camp. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• I support the reasoning given by Erp here. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Catholic newspaper

tgeorgescu: In the WP:RSN discussion (WP:RSN#Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy), you mention here that the "war on Steiner" likely originated in a Catholic newspaper. If you have WP:RS for that, I suggest adding it to the article in an appropriate place.

DarmaniLink's suggestion above could also be used along with it, so that the competing claims over where the phrase originated are more visible. As a reader, I do like to read disputes on the authenticity of claims in articles. It helps me as a reader to better discern the quality of the information I am getting and the bias that might be interjected by various sources and how it may have become a mainstream belief or rumor. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

If anything, I would go as far as to say we have a duty as an encyclopedia to document such uncertainties (in cases where it's genuinely ambiguous and not fringe, that is). DarmaniLink (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@David Tornheim and DarmaniLink: This is where I have read it: https://web.archive.org/web/20060103040648/http://www.anthroposophy.com/aktuelles/wiesberger.html . I would not call it a WP:RS, though. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree the Anthroposophy website is not good WP:RS for this. And although we might be able to locate those articles in the newspapers, that would be WP:OR. I haven't looked at the WP:RS in this article any time lately. Are there any independent sources that talk about the kinds of newspaper articles and the resulting obstacles that Steiner faced? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Staudenmaier is WP:CITED in the article that the Völkischer Beobachter also had articles decidedly favorable to Anthroposophists.

The main opponents of Anthroposophy were Goebbels and Bormann. The main friends of Anthroposophy were Himmler, Hess, and Darré. Hitler saw no clear benefit in siding with either. A lot of high-placed Nazis loved occultism, although the official propaganda was that cults are dangerous. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed

@Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?: I have removed both claims as unreliable. Your assumption is that the Nazi POV about Anthroposophy was coherent, when we have multiple WP:RS showing that wasn't the case. Also, your assumption is that Steiner was either racist or anti-racist, when in fact his writings are a mixed bag. Again supported by multiple WP:RS. History is to a great deal about empirical fact, rather than logic. And this is generally the problem with Steiner's views about history: those are based upon clairvoyance and lots of speculation, instead of being based upon objectively assessable empirical facts. Or when he did consider empirical facts, he was far from comprehensively applying the historical method, instead he was cherry picking. See the two references about him indulging in pseudohistory. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Zander

@Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?: and Rudolf Steiner would plead no contest—that's what Zander says, not me. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't have to quote people ascribing views to others. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Is what you say part of WP:RULES? Please tell. Since, as the saying goes, common sense is not common and it does not always make sense. Meaning: we can't rely on "common sense" in order to decide the matter. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Long section on anthroposophy after Steiner's lifetime

The reception of anthroposophy after Steiner's lifetime would seem not to belong in the article, but in Anthroposophy. Any thoughts on this? Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, we could comment them out. It's hard to describe his position about Nazis without those. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Not Austrian?

The IP from Luxembourg who claims that Steiner wasn't Austrian should make their case here. Also, they should not change verbatim quotes from WP:RS. It's not their privilege. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)