This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rudolf Steiner article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 15 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?: If we drop Taverne's claim, same applies to the claim of Hitler declaring "war against Steiner":
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)
Okay, I have removed both claims as being unreliably sourced. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
"War against Steiner" was introduced at [1], 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)
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.
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)
Rudolf Steiner joined the Nazi party in its early days
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)
@ 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)
@
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)
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)
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)
See WP:citekill; we shouldn't have large numbers of citations for any single sentence. 2-3 citations should suffice normally. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? ( talk) 19:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
His first marriage ended in divorce in June 1904, according to Dutch Wikipedia, citing (Lindenberg 2011:356; Zander 2007:241).
The only thing that is doubtful is separation (without divorce) vs. divorce. My German is not good enough for such nuances. E.g. religious Dutchies get formally separated instead of divorcing, since their religion does not allow them to divorce.
Reason? His second wife moved in his home, while he was married to his first wife. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rudolf Steiner article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 15 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?: If we drop Taverne's claim, same applies to the claim of Hitler declaring "war against Steiner":
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)
Okay, I have removed both claims as being unreliably sourced. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
"War against Steiner" was introduced at [1], 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)
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.
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)
Rudolf Steiner joined the Nazi party in its early days
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)
@ 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)
@
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)
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)
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)
See WP:citekill; we shouldn't have large numbers of citations for any single sentence. 2-3 citations should suffice normally. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? ( talk) 19:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
His first marriage ended in divorce in June 1904, according to Dutch Wikipedia, citing (Lindenberg 2011:356; Zander 2007:241).
The only thing that is doubtful is separation (without divorce) vs. divorce. My German is not good enough for such nuances. E.g. religious Dutchies get formally separated instead of divorcing, since their religion does not allow them to divorce.
Reason? His second wife moved in his home, while he was married to his first wife. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)