DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Violation of WP:PSCI

[edit]

@Johnrpenner: You're violating WP:PSCI. Anthroposophic medicine and biodynamic agriculture make a lot of claims about the real-world (i.e. falsifiable), as Steiner also did. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Usefful Edits

[edit]

instead of just deleting a whole bunch of stuff, why not engage in something more constructive?

i have removed none of the points that were in the original edit, nor any of the references.

im sure we can make this article better together.

Johnrpenner (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "diagnosis" that Anthroposophy has nothing to do with physics is yours, and yours alone. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
actually — im very happy that you make the challenges. too many sheep will just accept what they read, and a lot of the anthroposophists are sheep 🐑 and dont think critically enough.
• the changes ive made nowhere dispell the notion that anthroposophy should not be treated uncritically, nor have a deleted a single refernence that was existing in the article — so that they could be followed up and investigated.
• what the article did lack was —> how does Anthroposophy distinguish itself epistemologically from other views — such as Critical Idealism? this would be something useful if i knew nothing about the topic.
• also the intro did mention that it has its roots in German Idealism — without mentioning its leading proponent — Goethe, and the role of Intuition being the connecting link to the spiritual world.
we may agree to disagree about whether the so-called spiritual world is perceptible via the faculity of intution — but to say that this is what is believed by Anthroposophists would not be untrue, and i would consider this detail (about intuition being the connecting link) to be a useful addition to the article for anyone unfamiliar with the subject.
ive been a technical writer, and can help make this a better article. im not here to fight, but to improve.
cheers john penner
Johnrpenner (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnrpenner: Again, you're violating website policy (WP:PSCI). tgeorgescu (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i doubt anyone is truly neutral in this. you certainly seem to have invested considerable effort to make your points — and if this is done to the end of improving the article, and making a subject more unstandable. then all good. — the points: i) i have not deleted a single reference that existed in the article, i was careful to retain them. ii) what the article lacked was 'how does Anthroposophy distinguish itself epistemologically from other views' — and this is a valid question which is not violating a neutral point of view to answer. iii) including the detail that Goethe in particular instead of alluding only to 'German Romanticism' is also not violating NPOV, and iv) mentioning the role of Intution is simply stating that 'this is their point of view', and not advocating for or against it — and therefore also not violating NPOV.
the criticisms and critics you have so far referenced do make a case of condemning the Anthroposophists — but if one sees only efforts directed at this — then i might also question how neutral things are — without contributing anything that might help provide insight on the given topic.
cheers! Johnrpenner (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTNEUTRAL, WP:GOODBIAS, WP:LUNATICS, and so on.
You seek to reject the label of pseudoscience as a category mistake, through performing sheer WP:OR.
The website policy WP:PSCI is itself biased against pseudoscience.
While I do have my own opinions, I don't ventilate my own opinions inside the article, but let WP:RS speak (Oxford University Press, MIT Press, etc.). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
anthroposophy is not science — nor is the study of philosphy.
it is not my role to vent opinions in the article, but to make the subject comprehensible & accurate.
from WP:RNPOV — In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed.
Johnrpenner (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnrpenner: I have already reported you at WP:AE, so admins will be the judge of this dispute. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thats a really constructive way to improve an article. 🙄 Johnrpenner (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist to breach website policy: yes, it is. I don't have any other choice.
Since you're not willing to obey our WP:RULES, obedience for our WP:RULES has to be administratively enforced. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We describe subjects how reliable sources describe them. Even if that means doing so in a way that might seem biased to those related to the subject. For example, we call homeopathy a pseudoscience whose beliefs are contradictory to all modern sciences. Practitioners of homeopathy likely consider this biased, but that's what reliable sources say about the subject.
— User:EvergreenFir

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 völkisch Wagner clubs, and has never claimed to be a clairvoyant. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborating to Make a better Article

[edit]

dear mr Tgeorgescu -- lets make this article article better together.

if you dont like the characterisitian that Anthroposohpy is not a study of physics (it isnt) — then edit that out. it is rude to just delete everything you dont agree with. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Johnrpenner (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Collaborating to Make a better Article" is what this whole page is about. But you are not doing it. You are introducing your own WP:POV, violating WP:PSCI, then edit-warring by reverting the revert. Read WP:BRD to find out how to behave in such situations.
This is not about deleting "everything you dont agree with", it is about following the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, the idea that Anthroposophy is 100% metaphysics and 0% empirical claims does not appear in mainstream WP:RS. And I could bet in does not appear in the books published by Rudolf Steiner Press or the Temple Lodge. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Objective

[edit]

@Fehyv: "Objective" refers to Platonic realism (i.e. metaphysics). "More objective" refers to epistemology. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

[edit]

I have reverted the whitewashing of this cult. The whitewashing violated the website policy WP:PSCI, and removed the information that Anthroposophy is a new religious movement. Both claims which the Utah IP sought to remove were abundantly sourced with mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The IP had further deleted inconvenient truths about Anthroposophy in Nazi Germany, namely that the Nazis were ambivalent in respect to Anthroposophy, and never really sought to send all Anthroposophists to concentration camps. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritualism

[edit]

@Donn Fretz and McSly: Channeling is not Spiritualism, and clairvoyance isn't channeling. Steiner hated Spiritualism, perhaps because he got conflated with it. Otherwise, I have no dog in this dispute.

AFAIK, Steiner claimed that he observed the work of elementals, angels, and so on. Not that he talked with them. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New religious movement

[edit]

About reverting the IP by Blindlynx:

There are WP:CITED around 60 sources which agree with us (from moderately to totally), and 2 or 3 which say there is room for doubt (i.e. they are somewhere in-between denying it and affirming it). And I mean sources written by theologians, or experts in religion studies, or mainstream academics. And, to be fair, I did find one reliable source which denies it (written by Stehlik, Thomas).

A straightforward argument is: if Anthroposophy isn’t a religion/NRM, why do so many religion scholars study it? It seems that the unwritten assumption is that you have to agree at least partially that it is a NRM in order to study it inside the mainstream academia. I mean: you don’t learn astronomy in order to learn how to grow lettuce.

According to Liselotte Frisk, "Thus my conclusion is that it is quite uncontroversial to see Anthroposophy as a whole as a religious movement, in the conventional use of the term, although it is not an emic term used by Anthroposophists themselves." That is a WP:RS/AC type of source, so it alone would easily trump 10-20 sources which disagree that Anthroposophy is a NRM. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthroposohy is it really a sect and if it really is why don´t we write this article as what antroposphy is

[edit]

hello guys perhaps i am gonna be a little confusing but i was reading anthroposphy stuff for while, and i came to the conclusion that is a sect where the sheep follow a system of a ideas, in fact the Anthroposophical society has its own bank, and the followers follow a lifestyle aligned with the constellations. Don't believe me? There's a bidynamic calendar based on the movement of the constellations that tells you which months are best for planting and doing certain types of activities. I don't know guys but what do you think?, i am trying to have a unbiased perspective. Elemperadorauténtico (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are WP:CITED four WP:RS which say it is a cult/sect. And many others say it is a religion or a new religious movement.
So, basically, Wikipedians render WP:SCHOLARSHIP, they don't render their own opinions or their own research. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]