Talk:Rudolf Steiner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Drop the claim[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Okay, I have removed both claims as being unreliably sourced. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

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)[reply]
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[1][2] (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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.][reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  1. ^ Adolf Hitler, Staatsmaenner ode Nationalverbrecher ("Men of the State or National Criminals"), in Voelkischer Beobachter, 35.Jg., 15 March 1921, S.2.: "Anthroposophist Rudolf Steiner, follower of Threefolding the Social Organism and whatever all these Jewish methods of destroying the normal frame of mind of the people are called.... And who is the driving force behind all this devilishness? The Jew! Friend of Doctor Rudolf Steiner..."
  2. ^ The most objective and simultaneously most thorough biographer is Helmut Zander. He writes, "Am Tag nach Hitlers Ernennung zum Reichskanzler brachen wilde Polemiken über die Anthroposophie herein, die sich zuerst an Steiners Beziehung zu Helmuth von Moltke festmachten. Im Lauf der nächsten Wochen zogen Nationalsozialisten alle Register der Verleumdung. Sie nahmen ihren Ausgangspunkt von der Feststellung, Steiner sei Freimaurer gewesen und ein Agent von Theodor Reuß. Diese NS-Schriften scheinen keine neuen Informationen zu Steiners Freimaurertätigkeit zu enthalten, bieten aber Unterstellungen ohne Ende." In English, briefly: The day after Hitler was named Chancellor, wild polemics broke out against anthroposophy, focusing on Steiner's connection to Helmuth von Moltke. Over the next weeks, National Socialists reached every register of lies. Their starting point was the claim that Steiner was a Freemason and an agent of Theodor Reuß. These National-Socialist publications appear to contain no new information about Steiner's activity as a Freemason, but rather offer endless insinuations."

Catholic newspaper[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Removed[edit]

@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)[reply]

Zander[edit]

@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)[reply]

Yes, but we don't have to quote people ascribing views to others. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Long section on anthroposophy after Steiner's lifetime[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not Austrian?[edit]

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)[reply]

Too many citations for any given sentence[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rudolf_Steiner&oldid=1214150844"