Talk:Rudolf Steiner and the Theosophical Society

Everything

Big word that one. --Vindheim 12:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

where are all the notes? Some pretty big claims are made in this article, and I'd like to see where they can be checked. kh7 13:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a cleanup

Since we are now cleaning up and trying to be objective, it is not acceptable to have this article leaning so heavily on the selfrepresentations of Steiner and his followers, which is evidebnt not only in the statements made about the breach in 1912/13, but even more in the relative weight given to the different sides of the conflict.

Just one example (at random):the statement that thosophists were not interested in the arts. Steiner may have made such a statemnt, and his followers may be parroting it, but truth it is not.

Furthermore, it is now the time to represent fairly the enormous influence of Blavatskys teachings on the actual contents of anthroposophy, as reported by a number of academic sources. --Vindheim 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisbeth Seidler, oldid 868552600, 12th November 2018

Good evening, the edit has been reverted due to the use of non reliable sources of information. But:

the book titled "Helmuth Von Moltke and the Origins of the First World War" is edited by the Cambridge University Press and just quoted in the biography of Rudolph Steiner (here), with a high number of quotations on Google Scholar
Hitler e il Nazismo magico (Giorgio Galli, publisher Rizzoli) is a reference work in the sector. It gives a quotation sourced by Rudolph von Sebottendorf: the German original book "Bevor Hitler Kam" doesn't mention von Moltke, Lisbeth Seidler and Steiner at all.

According to the book of "Hitler e il nazismo magico" (isbn 978-8817-00634-7, year 2016, p. 96), the Italian book titled "Primachè Hitler venisse-Storia della società Thule" uses as a source "Schwarz-Bostunnisch: "Il dott. Steiner, un imbroglione senza pari", Ed. Böpple, Munich. It existed in a bibliography and publication (here), before the end of its editorial history, and the censorship of any available copy on Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.139.226 (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The book by Cambridge University Press is of excellent quality, but explicitly states that Ludendorff "is not a reliable witness" for the matter you are citing!
The book "Bevor Hitler Kam" is downloadable and based on my search of the complete text does not refer at all to the battle of the Marne or to Moltke. It is unclear from what you write above quite what you are trying to cite from this or how it relates to this subject matter. Perhaps you could include the text you found there. Furthermore, Sebottendorf is highly suspect -- see this evidence that he was not a reliable source regarding Steiner.
The last citation given was to what looks to be a website of the Thule Society, again an unreliable source. It doesn't matter that it refers in turn to another book; unless you have found the latter in a library and can give the original text and citation information for this (in which case why cite the website at all?), this is unusable. (A researcher doesn't use citations to reliable sources found in unreliable sources, except perhaps as a spur to seek out the actual reliable source.)
Hitler e il Nazismo magico can be searched for references to Steiner; none of these is remotely relevant. Clean Copy^talk 23:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]