User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox4 - Wikipedia

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

This is my sandbox.

You are kindly asked not to put this sandbox upon your watch-list, since you will get notifications for every change, and that can be irksome. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

What my wiki-enemies don't understand is that I'm pro-facts and pro-WP:SCHOLARSHIP (of the WP:CHOPSY sort).

Wikipedia's policies, particularly the neutral point of view policy and sourcing policies, are not just acceptable to Christianity, but (if you believe Christianity is true) to Christianity's advantage.

Those who seek to whitewash our articles must be thinking "NPOV is anti-Christian" or "NPOV is anti-anthroposophic". I can understand why fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals think that NPOV is anti-Christian. And, frankly, seen that anthroposophy peddles all kinds of WP:FRINGE beliefs, I do agree that, indeed, NPOV is anti-anthroposophic.

So, yes, the bias of Wikipedia, namely being a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, based upon mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP, does not offer a level playing field between opponents and supporters of anthroposophy. Since, well, the task of mainstream scholars is to exercise critical thinking, and those who have WP:FRINGE beliefs are not particularly pleased by critical thinking. Or by exposing facts which were supposed to remain hidden under layers of difficult wording (yup, Steiner's translators have to take care to keep the level of difficulty when they are translating). E.g. I have read a whole book on the meaning of life, written by Rudolf Steiner, and he had never cogently put his view of what is the meaning of life, even hidden under the veil of difficult esoteric language. I mean he made no positive statements about what the meaning of life is supposed to be, according to him. Instead of honestly saying what he meant, his book seemed of consisting of fables and divagations, never reaching a concise conclusion. I was impressed by the book, but he never overtly told therein what he meant.

So, anthroposophists believe that putting their teachings in easy to understand language means throwing pearls to the swines. This makes them seen religion scholars and historians as enemies, instead of disinterested scholars seeking the historical truth. Every independent scholar who ever cited stuff from Steiner's books is accused of citing out of context. Apparently, one should cite the whole book written by Steiner, preferably without any inkling of personal reflection. Same as Heidegger banned his book Being and Time from being published together with a critical commentary.

And they think that accusing Rudolf and Marie Steiner of racism is sacrilegious, and should therefore be banned from Wikipedia for the protection of their religious sensibilities (thing which is overtly banned by WP:CENSOR). They will never be content with citing reliable sources to that extent, they will always find some excuse why it does not apply to anthroposophy, and if they cannot find one, they will perform edit warring in order to whitewash the articles. And they will not relent until it becomes obvious to all observers that the anthroposophists were engaging in whitewashing.

They accuse me of being a schizophrenic, but, hey, I'm not the one peddling irrational beliefs at Wikipedia, I'm not the one making infantile demands that inconvenient truths should be deleted from Wikipedia because they are "lies". They cannot WP:CITE any WP:RS why those truths are lies, they are just lies by fiat, simply because they think they know anthroposophy, while mainstream scholars merely pretend to know it (according to anthroposophists). Any inconvenient truth should be whitewashed, because that's what WP:ACTIVISTS do in public forums. In their view, any article about Rudolf Steiner, Waldorf schools, anthroposophical medicine, biodynamic agriculture, and so on, should sing praises to the superhuman genius of Steiner. And they gradually lost control of Wikipedia articles about anthroposophy since WP:PSCI has been adopted as website policy, and WP:MEDRS has been proclaimed as binding for medical articles, while the guideline WP:FRINGE did the rest about agriculture.

They don't understand that Wikipedia does not pander to piety, that it does not give equal validity to Ivy League scholarship and occultism. And they tell bald-faced lies that anthroposophy is not a religion, although mainstream scholars know for a century that it is a new religious movement. They made me curious about that, so I researched the matter, finding 50 scholars who endorse the view that anthroposophy is a religion, or a new religious movement, or a Christian heresy. And these scholars are of very diverse faiths: Jung was a New Age leader, the Pope who declared it a heresy was a Catholic, I have cited very conservative evangelicals, but I have also cited atheists and agnostics, I have cited mainstream religion scholars and debunkers of cult pseudoscience. Why? Because I did not took the verdict of the Sacramento court at face value. And I have provided a paper in law science explaining why that court had to reach that verdict, and that reaching it testifies of an outdated legal framework. I.e. the judge was not "wrong" for deciding that verdict, but the whole US legal system did not keep up with social change.

Why do religion scholars keep studying anthroposophy? Because it is, you know, a religious movement. Religion scholars study it because it is a religion.

If anthroposophists think they are the light of the world and the salt of the earth, they are in for a rude awakening: mainstream science despises their teachings, evidence-based medicine despises their teachings. It's inane to ignore how mainstream scientists and mainstream MDs think about their cult. Many of Rudolf Steiner's prophecies about his teachings getting soon endorsed by mainstream science failed miserably.

As Hammer pointed, anthroposophical medicine and biodynamic agriculture can be commended for their lofty ethical values, but alas not for their science. And, it is indeed so: ethics and architecture are the two fields which Steiner got right. Steiner was a racist ontologically, not ethically.

Anthroposophists who accuse me of trolling forgot this: spreading the message of WP:CHOPSY and WP:BESTSOURCES is not only not trolling, but it is also highly valued inside this encyclopedia.

And we already have an essay thereupon, see WP:PROUD.

And I'm not saying that my edits are perfect, but they get incrementally better, and I respond to constructive criticism.

While Anthroposophists do have the legal right to hold and spread false beliefs, they don't have any power of coercing Wikipedia into saying their beliefs are true. As I argued elsewhere, the website policy WP:NPOV is anti-anthroposophic. So, by design, Wikipedia is biased against cult pseudoscience and cult pseudohistory.

I'm not saying that the God of the Catholic Church is true, while the God of Rudolf Steiner is false. All I'm saying is that they are different gods: the Holy Trinity does not consist of seven Elohim.

Let me set this straight: I do not engage in defamation. But I do fully engage in citing mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

I would not say that Calvache and Junior is a reliable source. It is cult apologetics. But I did not remove it from the article since I do not seek unnecessary quarrels. And in a curveball way, it confirms that Abd-ru-shin has removed the Epilogue from his later editions. So, without wanting to do so, it corroborates the mainstream WP:RS.

Allowing cultists to whitewash our articles means smashing WP:PAGs with a sledgehammer. That's why I am so angry about this matter. So don't play hide and seek with facts publicly known for more than 90 years just because it could offend some cultists. It's WP:V to University of California Press and to Cambridge University Press, so no one can hide such information from Wikipedia.

If he wanted to retract his claim, Abd-ru-shin could have published a notification saying "I was wrong. I am not the Messiah. I am not the true Christ. I am not the Son of Man. I'm not the one who brings the Doomsday Judgment. I'm not establishing the Kingdom of God."—but he did none of that. Because after he print-published the claim that he is the biblical Immanuel, who brings the Word of God and heralds the Final Judgment, no one could take him seriously if he denied that he called himself the biblical Immanuel.