Talk:Rudolf Steiner

Too many citations for any given sentence

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)

Well, that's a response to people claiming at this talk page that it would be somehow doubtful that the mainstream academic POV is that Steiner was a pseudoscientist pur sang. They did not seem to be content with just four or five citations.

And there are Wikipedians willing to argue that Anthroposophy isn't a religion, although I WP:CITED more than 50 scholars endorsing that it is (see Talk:Anthroposophy#List of many).

I had to argue with people who denied these are the mainstream academic views unless one cites at least two dozens scholars. See the archives of this talk page and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 63#Need some help on Anthroposophy and its related articles, particularly Waldorf education, Anthroposophic medicine, and Biodynamic agriculture. So, yup, there are so many citations because such pro-Anthroposophy group of editors (see the cited FTN topic) either honestly did not know how mainstream science and mainstream academia view Anthroposophy, or at least pretended they didn't.

They denied that Rudolf Steiner is a pseudoscientist, they denied he is a pseudohistorian, they denied that Anthroposophy is a religion—despite these facts being print-published in reputable sources for more than seventy years, and still published in reasonably recent WP:RS.

While I can see the reason for the second {{overcite}}, I can't see the reason for the first one. Solved. I do notice that Wikipedia:Citation overkill is against many citations (i.e. the numbers in superscript), not against many reliable sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything really standing out in the current version at least for excessive foot notes (don't think I saw more than 3). That said, if there's ever a sparing need for many references in one footnote, there's always multiref templates. KoA (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

First marriage

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)

Schizophrenic

Now we have two psychiatrists who have diagnosed Rudolf Steiner with schizophrenia. Unlike (I presume) Wolfgang Treher, C.G. Jung actually met Rudolf Steiner, not to speak that Jung was much more famous than Treher. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

And yet somehow the man managed to write books, lead and develop a community, a schooling system, and create architectural masterpieces. Stupid. Project Apollo (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2024 (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)

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.

Besides, if Steiner had freedom of speech, so did Treher and Jung. All of them wrote opinions which are germane to this article. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Univocality

In respect to the claims about Steiner's Docetism, Adoptionism, and Gnosticism: I don't believe in the univocality of the Bible, why I would believe in the univocality of mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP? tgeorgescu (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

NOT gnostic

id suggest removing this introductory statement that Steiner was influenced by Gnosticism as it's too speculative. Citing academic opinions on the nature of Steiner's work isn't the same as reading the words from the man himself. Anthroposophy is the study of man and the cosmos - it's more aligned to Hermeticism than it is to gnosticism as gnosticism is a faith based system, whereas Anthroposophy is a scientific examination (whether people accept it to be or not). He does not focus on the idea of a Demiurge, but utilizes the belief systems and names of and in multiple religions.

Here is a quote from Steiner: "... And if people who venture to judge of Anthroposophy to-day, would take the trouble to observe these things, they would not fall into the calumny of confusing Anthroposophy with what is really only a dishing up of ancient Gnosticism, or similar things." - Feb 06, 1921, public lecture

Project Apollo (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The fact he is influenced by gnosticism is hardly speculative and clearly well cited given that you had to remove five wp:RELIABLESOURCES supporting the claim—blindlynx 01:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Project Apollo, see especially Was Steiner a Gnostic? Yes and no. which is a verbatim quote inside our article. See also the quote below it. It's a complicated matter, and cannot be answered simplistically.

To delve into terminology, "Gnostic" means "one who knows," rather than "one who believes." So, Anthroposophy is a scientific examination does not exactly help your argument that Steiner isn't Gnostic.

Hermeticism, Gnosticism, and Rosicrucianism are not mutually exclusive terms. Also, you say it like it can be only black or white, while in fact there are nuances. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)