User talk:Generalrelative

George Floyd and Dostoevsky

Just an afterthought: I can't help asking myself, why do people hate George Floyd so much that they get themselves blocked in order to besmirch his reputation ? Maybe the answer has been given by Dostoevsky in his The Brothers Karamazov, when he has the old Karamazov say: "I played such a foul trick on a certain man that I started to hate him." If the roots of old racism were economic interests, maybe today's racism is rooted in bad conscience. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Michele Clark

I learned about her when I was reading The Boys on the Bus, where the (iirc) one and only mention of her is the author introducing some random thing she said with "Michelle [sic] Clark, a young, extremely beautiful black reporter from CBS's Chicago Bureau had said [...]" and then in a footnote he says "On December 8, 1972, she was killed in a plane crash at Chicago's Midway Airport". I was like, dang, what a way to memorialize someone: I thought she was hot, then she died. Astrophobe (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance

I think that this sort of exception only seems plausible if you buy into fascist propaganda about how they operate and don't bother looking into how they actually operate. (And I do specifically mean Popper is making this mistake.) I think that the difference between the (early 20th century) US and the UK versus Italy and Germany is that the US and UK were, eventually, willing to enforce existing neutral laws against their fascists, while Italy and Germany let their fascists form paramilitaries and attack minorities and socialists for years straight. Beating fascism didn't take any special consideration for fascists, but rather a refusal to consider them separately. Loki (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

if Senator Sheehy didn’t get an article till after he won Platner doesnt either Hthompson2000 (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

You're entitled to that opinion, but AfD determined the article stays, at least for now. Generalrelative (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10, Nos. 326, 327, 350, 351, 352 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run S & T | Women in STEM | Halloween Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Sister wikiproject Women in Green October 2025 Good Article Edit-a-thon focuses on What Women Do Tip of the Month: Notable does not always mean admirable; you don't have to like an article's subject to make the article a useful contribution to Wikipedia. Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 6,283 articles during this period: 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women) 24 September 2025: 20.20% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,088,533 biographies; 421,901 women) Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I mentioned your name at ANI - see WP:ANI#Complaint concerning GorillaWarfare, concerning Talk:Graham Platner Acroterion (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to see the matter was quickly resolved. Generalrelative (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Awwwwwww, man... I was actually tickled pink by that double close. You closed the door, then Doug came and nailed it shut. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Ha, like a magic spell of binding. Glad to hear you got a good tickling out of it though. Generalrelative (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I tried to work out how a magical binding would work once. I didn't just fail, I accidentally gave my ex girlfriend a tentacle kink. 0/10, would not mess with dark arts the knowledge of which was not meant for mortal man again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean, when it comes to tickling, nothing beats a tentacle. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Generalrelative (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 11, Nos. 326, 327, 353, 354 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run: U, V, W | Asian women Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Women in Red's Asian women event is part of the global Wikipedia Asian Month 2025 campaign. You are welcome to add your contributions to both event pages. Tip of the Month: Verifiability is increasingly important as AI evolves. You should ensure that every statement made is adequately sourced. There should be no less than three independent reliable sources for each biography, including at least one source for each paragraph. Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 20,473 articles created in the past year. 21 Oct 2024, 19.963% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,030,245 biographies; 405,305 women) 28 Oct 2025: 20.23% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,094,677 biographies; 423,778 women) Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hello, Generalrelative. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! – robertsky (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion that may interest you at

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Revisiting the Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Groups List

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 12, Nos. 326, 327, 355, 356, 357 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run X, Y, Z | Food and drink | Women who died in 2025 Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Global Translat-a-thon 2025 06 December 2025 Tip of the Month: Lists of deaths by year is a good resource for the December / January meet-up Women who died in 2025 Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The issue with using that figure is that it doesn't adequately convey the fact that PGS variance explained will increase with sample size/variants sampled, and more recent data indeed shows a higher amount of variance explained (not inexplicably high or anything compatible with the figures from e.g. Jensen, but higher than the sub 10% figures from the Lee and Howard papers). For the purposes of this article, 2022 is really already an WP:OLDSOURCES in statistical genomics. Katzrockso (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Katzrockso, I appreciate your thoughtful engagement on this, and in principle I wouldn't be opposed to simply removing the percentages from both clauses of the sentence. But I'd point out that both Lucas & Turkheimer and Plomin & Stumm are secondary sources here. The sentence currently summarizes this line from L & T:

For example, while ‘traditional heritability’ derived from twin and family studies indicates that approximately ~50% of variation in intelligence is attributable to genetics, ‘SNP heritability’ derived from genome-wide association studies indicates that only ~10% of variation in intelligence is attributable to genetics.

I get that more recent single studies seek to update that latter figure, but do we have corroboration from authoritative secondary sources? Note too that L & T are writing in part to challenge the premise that PGS variance explained will increase with sample size/variants sampled. It may turn out that this is the case, but (they argue) it can't be assumed. That's the substance of their disagreement with P & S. Generalrelative (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh my bad, I was misremembering them citing the PRS variance explained there. They're citing SNP h2, which is unbiased when it comes to sample size. PGS/PRS variance explained is biased wrt sample size, and in theory as the sample size increases the variance explained by the PGS should equal the SNP h2

However, the SNP h2 parameter is influenced by the distribution of variants and how they are sampled in the GWAS (i.e. rare/ultrarare variants aren't covered as well, and their inclusion would affect SNP h2). There are lots of caveats between here and there, though. Don't have too much time to explain right now.

I'll see if there's a good way to word it, perhaps dating the T&L comparison would be useful. Katzrockso (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps, though I'm not sure that dating the T & L comparison would be especially meaningful to the lay reader. Remember that these articles are meant to be written in WP:ONEDOWN style. That said, the most important thing is to ensure that we're presenting the current scientific consensus, as much as one can be said to exist. This means balancing the need to update articles based on new information and the need to avoid recency bias. The best way to find that balance, in my opinion, is to wait for reliable secondary sources to be published. If you already have such sources to support your analysis, by all means proceed. Generalrelative (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | January 2026, Vol 12, Issue 1, Nos 357, 358, 359, 360 Online events: New: Sports (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run - countries starting with A Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Women who died in 2025 Announcements from other communities Wikipedia turns 25! Celebrate Wikipedia Day on Jan 15, 2026. Tip of the month: Consider becoming a new page reviewer to help reduce the huge backlog of women's biographies. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Was my addition so bad that it needed deleting in total? I'm not a follower of Anthroposophy, but I've found it has a unique and profound critique (maybe the most rigorously-philosophically profound) of materialistic conceptions of science and technology, so I think it should be represented and adequately explained on the page of Transhumanism. I can try shortening my addition if you think. I'm certainly a good faith editor. I notice that the similarly non-Anthroposophical esoteric popular scholar author Gary Lachman, in his book on Steiner, describes Steiner's contribution as a uniquely philosophically based extrapolation of what existence would look like if you consistently view it from an Idealism perspective (philosophical opposite of Materialism). Steiner began his career as a rigorously philosophical rebutter of Kant's epistemology, before turning to esotericism. ~2026-63498-8 (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC) I can log in if you wish! April8 (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The main issue I saw was not that it was bad writing but rather WP:UNDUE. According to that policy, we're meant to cover well sourced material in proportion to the amount of coverage it receives in the sources. The stuff that explicitly discusses Anthroposophy's relationship with the transhumanism movement appears to be quite thin. Generalrelative (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I see your point. I'd reply:

• CONCEPTUAL RELEVANCE (Importance) OF ANTHROPOSOPHY (Whether one accepts its premises or not) IN A DEEPER CRITIQUE OF TRANSHUMANISM:

Anthroposophy (the term coined by Steiner, meaning "the Wisdom of the Human", to accurately describe the difference between his approach and Theosophy, Philosophy, Religion, or Materialist (Baconian) Science) is the most philosophically and scientifically framed/grounded school in Western esotericism, despite whether one accepts its philosophical premises, or opposes it as pseudo-science. As such, and as a non-follower myself, I've found it to have the most rigorously spiritual-philosophical systematic critique of Materialist Science and Technology, which it views from a Goethean science (German Idealism) holistic background, developed later into esoteric initiation (a modern Mystery religion school). Steiner began in philosophical epistemology, rebutting Kant on metaphysical clairvoyent knowledge, and publicising in his scholarship the holistic non-Newtonian spiritual conception of Science of Geothe, and a spiritual interpretation of Nietzsche. Only susequently did this background lead him to Blavatsky's esoteric Theosophy, which he temporarily used as a vehicle to develop his own Anthroposophy (Blavatsky was intuitive/clairvoyent, without any of Steiner's rigorous philosophical sober intellect). Steiner called his movement "Spiritual Science" in order to highlight its difference from empirically unmoored Mysticism. This explains why I think Anthroposophy deserves a space on the page, due to the unique rigour of its critique of Transhumanism.

• RELEVANT SPECIFIC (Anthroposophical) SOURCES ON TRANSHUMANISM:

Nevertheless, where it does share common ground with esoteric mysticism is that it similarly explores profoundly subtle, dialectical, spiritual-psychological concepts, meaning it tends to elude precise published systematic treatises on specific topics (but not always!). Followers of Anthroposophy in recent years, who follow Steiner's wish to creatively innovate and progressively develop the spiritual movement, have addressed much attention to developing Steiner's accurate predictions and critique of the coming approach of Transhuman and AI materialistic technology. These topics are diffuse and replete throughout the original writings and talks of Steiner, as well as in the Anthropsophical writings of recent prominent followers (renowned in the movement). The 3 sources I cited are the best I could find that do specifically address Transhumanism, and why more generally, Anthroposophy sees great spiritual-existential danger in it. These 3 sources show the reason for the opposition isn't dogmatic or theological (religion or articles of faith based), but spiritual-philosophical, principled and profound (how a Philosophy of Idealism would look if applied with deep esoteric consistency to the Inner experience of the psyche, the history of culture, and to the empirical world). ie. Anthroposophy's opposition to contemporary (materialist) Transhumanism is because it has an OPPOSITE Spiritual conception of the future evolutionary development of Trans/Post-Humanism, just as it follows a Geothean, non-Baconian holistic spiritual opposite view of Science.

• MY SOURCES:

The 3 sources I cited were therefore the best I could find to show this:

1) "Posthumanism: About the Future of Mankind" by Mieke Mosmuller, 2022. DIRECTLY DEALS WITH ANTHROPOSOPHY'S CRITIQUE OF (Materialist) TRANSHUMANISM:

"These transhumanists are not prepared to delve into the meaning and significance of the physical body itself. They simply want to get rid of it, having distilled from it what is most important to them: an algorithm based on computer science, which also contains certain creativity, as we know it in gaming. You have to be content with that creativity, further developed, of course. You then have to be happy with the unprecedented computing capacity as a basis for intelligence. Those future machine people, who will be something completely different from robots, will then take the place of biological humans....

When you meditatively absorb these insights, you find the opposite image and you more or less spontaneously arrive at the step in the development of humanity which is the 'other half' of this and which still lies in a distant future. (Mieke Mosmuller)

Imagine humanity in a distant future. How would human society look like? How would human beings think? And above all, what would the human form be?

In the form of both lectures and conversations, Mieke Mosmuller reveals this 'other half' of trans- and posthumanism. It is a spiritual vision of the future, not science fiction."

2)"The Future of Ahriman and the Awakening of Souls: The Spirit-presence of the Mystery Dramas", Peter Selg 2022. Though the book is couched in an analysis of Steiner's Mystery Dramas, it shows how principled opposition to coming predicted Transhumanism is ROOTED IN STEINER'S OWN WORDS:

"In 1919, Rudolf Steiner spoke about the future physical incarnation of the Ahriman being. This would take place before “a part” of the third millennium has passed and is inevitable, but it is also necessary for people to be aware of the event and recognized it. Otherwise, earthly culture will be destroyed if the world falls completely to Ahriman. The situation we find ourselves in today shows Ahriman’s unmistakable signature―the rapid destruction of nature, zoonotic diseases and pandemics, huge social inequalities, and the dominance of high finance.

The book concludes with an evaluation of “the Battle for Human Intelligence,” which is taking place in contemporary culture through materialistic ideas such as transhumanism. In their recent book Covid-19: The Great Reset, for example, Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret propose wholesale economic, geopolitical, environmental, and technological revisions to society―ideas that must be understood and confronted in human thinking and consciousness. The Future of Ahriman and the Awakening of Souls is a crucial aid to comprehending our time."

3) "The Representative of Humanity: Between Lucifer and Ahriman - The Wooden Model at the Goetheanum", Judith Von Halle & John Wilkes. The GENERAL BACKGROUND TRIFOLD SPIRITUAL CONCEPTION OF MAN by Steiner. Only the mediating balance of the Universalistic (non-specifically Christian) Christ impulse can develop the future evolution of man in a spiritually-existentially beneficial way. Steiner predicts the coming materialist technologies of Trashumanism and AI (the influence and incarnation of Ahriman) as apocalyptic dangers, where man will devolve into materialism. Shows furthermore that Steiner's opposition to coming Trashumanism is based on a spritual Philosophy of Man, not on religious dogmas.

• BUT I COULD SUBSTANTIALLY TRY TO SHORTEN MY CONTRIBUTION TO ITS MOST CONCISE FORM I CAN FIND (While trying not to lose any of its explanatory essence, showing the nature and relevance of Anthroposophy's critique of Transhumanism? That would help address concerns of undue prominence.

April8 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Would you say that mainstream scholars consider these sources mainstream? Or are they rather fringe voices in the world of academic philosophy? If the latter, we need to treat them in accordance with our WP:FRINGE guideline, regardless of what you or I may believe. As a personal matter, I agree that transhumanism represents a "spiritual-existential danger", but disagree that Anthroposophy adds anything substantial to the debate. Your mileage may vary. What is important is that we present the mainstream scholarly perspective in due proportion. Generalrelative (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

ANTHROPOSOPHY'S CONTEMPORARY POSITION IN ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHY TODAY:

Thanks. Yes, I'd agree that Anthroposophical sources aren't mainstream at all, except perhaps more in Germany. eg. Academic Philosophy hasn't absorbed or critiqued Steiner's foundational, early, purely philosophical - epistemological work, "The Philosophy of Freedom" (Gary Lachman, "It's also a work of genius, and one suspects that Steiner's later occult reputation has prevented the book from receiving the kind of attention it deserves. Mainstream philosophy has as much use for Steiner today as it did a century ago, but his work has been picked up by more alternative thinkers, like William Irwin Thompson and Richard Tarnas."), while his later esoteric work is reserved for the newer departments now studying Western esotericism.

NONETHELESS, THE UNIQUE CONTRIBUTION ANTHOPOSOPHY DOES OFFER TO THE TRANSHUMANISM DEBATE:

I'd suggest that Anthroposophy does add something quite unique to the debate on Transhumanism. Notice the page so far doesn't really treat critical responses from WESTERN ESOTERICISM. (It covers more general spiritual and religious voices. NB. As the page Rudolf Steiner shows, Steiner actually had a negative view of FAITH BASED religion, which he wanted humanity to evolve beyond. He bridges both religion and opponents of religion such as Nietzsche, in a more profound synthesis of esoteric knowledge, developing a spiritual conception of Enlightenment Humanism. ("The young Steiner emerged as an individualist, positivist and freethinker, who was not afraid to refer to scandalous philosophers such as Stirner, Nietzsche and Haeckel. His freethinking culminated in a contempt for religion and faith. He attributed almost pathological traits to Christianity. Steiner was lecturing at many workers' colleges, and at the Giordano Bruno Union (a rationalist, anti-religious organisation) on the history of philosophy. Indeed, several authors see a change from the young this-worldly Steiner to the somewhat older other-worldly Steiner.") Anthroposophy, both in Steiner's predictions of the future, and in their "fulfilment" among Anthroposophical thinkers today, is as far as I'm aware, the only sustained critique on Transhumanism from a rigorous Western (ie. Scientifically connected, particularly in Steiner's school of thought) Esoteric school of thought. Because it actually has an opposite Spiritual notion of Trans/Post-Humanism of its own. (Steiner is refered to by his followers as the Modern Initiate of the West.)

YOU CONCLUDE:

"What is important is that we present the mainstream scholarly perspective in due proportion." Yes, good point, I fully agree. In that light, I can see that my attempted contribution was of too great a length or detail, relative to Anthroposophy's present near-absence from the contemporary academic debate. But I still think its unique contribution merits an adequate reference on the page. I can try showing you a modified briefer second text version. April8 (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Here's a simple test: can you find any mainstream (non-Anthroposopy) sources that discuss Anthroposophical critiques of transhumanism? If so, some mention would probably be due. If not, probably not. See WP:MSS: Points that are not discussed in these mainstream sources should not be given any space in articles. Generalrelative (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I notice you say "PROBABLY not". the guidelines also say: "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia." I guess some anthologies (particularly up-to-date anthologies) on SPIRITUAL responses to Transhumanism will at least briefly mention Anthroposophy (since academic study of Western esotericism is a new and growing field). The page does include other spiritual critiques of Transhumanism. Have all those met your suggested hermeneutical rigour?!

eg. The section "Debate-Intrinsic immorality" includes this: "Christian theologians and lay activists of several churches and denominations have expressed similar objections to transhumanism and claimed that Christians attain in the afterlife what radical transhumanism promises, such as indefinite life extension or the abolition of suffering. In this view, transhumanism is just another representative of the long line of utopian movements which seek to create "heaven on earth". The way in which Anthroposophy includes this general spiritual critique, yet also goes beyond it, is that Anthroposophy is an Esotericism that gives consistent intellectual justification for general spiritual concepts. (Hence the term "Spiritual Science" coined by Steiner to characterise Anthroposophy, based on a non-materialist holistic philosophy of Goethean science. Esotericism is applied to the fields of Science, history and culture in Anthroposophy) This point gains further force from the way in which Anthoposophical authors specifically write books on an alternative esoteric-spiritual view of Transhumanism. More so than the "Christian theologians of several churches and denominations". (NB. Although Steiner draws from many streams of thought, including German Idealism, Western Esotericism and Paganism, his overall school is accurately described as a heterodox esoteric Christianity.)

PS. I've found other Anthroposophical sources, alongside "Posthumanism: About the Future of Mankind" by Mieke Mosmuller. eg. "Humanity's Last Stand: The Challenge of Artificial Intelligence: A Spiritual-Scientific Response" by Nicanor Perlas

Which amounts to my thought that the page should at least have a sentence, if only in the "Debate-Loss of human identity" section, describing the nature of Anthroposophy's specific and focused critique of materialist Transhumanism. (Since Anthroposophy's objection to technological Transhumanism is specifically the loss of the true SPRITUAL nature of Human identity, replacing it with an Ahrimanic materialistic debased caricature of the Human.) I don't think this is an unfair suggestion, based on my fair reading of the Wikipedia guideline page you referenced! And I don't have any personal interest in the matter, since I'm not a follower of Anthroposophy. (My father is, and I've been looking through his library. My own views of Anthroposophy are nuanced: I hold a Kabbalistic philosophical view that truth is fragmented, plural and contradictory. Every belief and philosophy contains unique aspects of God/Truth. "newkabbalah.com". Anthroposophy contains true "sparks" of universalistic aspect of truth. Yet Steiner's inheritance of Christian and Enlightenment Supersessionism means he has a profound humanistic-universalist misunderstanding of my own Judaic exceptionalism-particularism) I merely think the page would be improved by at least a sentence about Anthroposophy's universalist critique!

April8 (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thankfully there is a noticeboard for this kind of question. I suggest making a brief, neutral post at WP:FTN and see what the community says. Generalrelative (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

OK thanks. I'll do that when I have time (not quite yet). I'll refer readers of that noticeboard to the full discussion thread we have been having here.

I'd just add the following thought: To my mind, adding a brief reference/sentence on Anthroposophy's specific (and unique/profound) critical view of technological Transhumanism, is a no brainer! Because it in no way PROMOTES, ENDORSES, or gives undue WEIGHT to a "fringe theory", no more so than the BIZARRE "fringe theories", whether MATERIALISTIC or SPIRITUAL, FOR or AGAINST, the page already includes! (eg. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the Catholic historical evolution philosopher most reminiscent of Steiner's esoteric philosophy of history. eg.Nikolai Fyodorov (philosopher), more fringe than Steiner. Raëlism, more fringe than Anthroposophy and less intellectually reputable! The Mormon Transhumanist Association, who believe in a more bizarre, and less valid fringe theory, that each redeemed human being will become GOD Almighty on their own solar system in the future! Douglas Hamp's Corrupting the Image book 3, going so far as to suggest that the Beast of John's Apocalypse is himself a Transhuman hybrid. etc etc. Compared to all these, Rudolf Steiner is the epitome of sober intellectual rigour, profound German philosophical epistemological rootedness, depth and integrity! Surely the page should include ALL RELEVENT VIEWS, FOR or AGAINST. Without sounding accusatory, it seems to me that your original rolling back of my attempted addition was valid for the reason of undue prominence/length (especially my giving my contribution its own sub-heading ""Esoteric criticism", which it now seems to me fair to say, would have been "giving a fringe theory undue prominence"), but that subsequently the hermeneutical caution that motivated it has argued you into an inconsistent and undefendable corner. Unless you follow consistency and delete whole sections of the page as it currently stands! So as a test, consider from initial outside view: does your present recommendation as it now stands (not allowing any reference to Anthroposophy's unique and focused criticism, yet allowing Raelism's and Mormonism's fringe theory support, and reference to generic or specific other spiritual criticism etc), not amount to inconsistency?! (If I were as proficient in the technical pages of Wikipedia guidelines as you, I'd now insert reference link to Wikipedia: Guideline cute phrase page warning against the opposite fallacy style danger)

April8 (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

A further P.S.:

Of the two main Wikipedia style guideline policy criticisms you made, it seems to me that regarding citing Anthroposophy on the Transhumanism page, WP:UNDUE does have hypothetical relevance, but in this case WP:FRINGE does not. (As I already said, WP:UNDUE would be valid if applied consistently, deleting most of the good spiritual or philosophical opinion contributions already on the page, because they are even more MINORITY views than Anthroposophy, and in many cases far less intellectually reputable, focused or profound. But that shouldn't be done, because it would impoverish the helpful and contextual information on the page! Rather, as I said, the page should include ALL philosophical and spiritual opinions, for or against.)

But I think in this case, Anthroposophy is not a "Fringe THEORY", because a philosophical, psychological, theological or spiritual system, worldview or opinion is not a Theory! The page Wikipedia:Fringe theories discusses SOLELY Minority, Questionable, Alternative, or Pseudo- views in EMPIRICAL SCIENCE. As Karl Popper explained, to be Scientific, a theory has to be Empirically Refutable. Once Empirically Disproved, or not yet Empirically Testable, unless reformulated with new theoretical apparatus, the theory falls or is sidelined as Alternative/Fringe (as the Wikipedia guideline page discusses, when or when not to include such ALTERNATIVE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES). But Theories in the Humanities (Philosophical, theological, spiritual, psychological, historiographical, etc.) are not Empirically Disprovable, so incapable of being ""Fringe Theories". (Hence the claim of Pseudo-Science: "Not even Wrong!") eg. "Is Christianity wrong?", "Is Transhumanism wrong?", "Is Whig history wrong historiographically?", "Is Carl Jung, or Steiner, wrong?", etc. are non-sensical or only partially sensical questions. (Jung and Steiner's new models of psyche and sprit have been compared in scholarship) Rudolf Steiner did make some specific scientific claims, that were by-products of his wider foundational holistic-spiritual Goethian, non-Baconian view of material science. (eg. The heart is not a pump that drives the blood, but is a spiritual-emotional organ that is driven by the natural Spiritual-Human circulation of the blood in the body. That specific Anthroposophical claim IS an Alternative or Pseudo-Scientific "Fringe Theory", presently unsupported by empirical evidence, so should not be referenced on eg. the Wikipedia scientific or medical pages about the heart.) But Steiner and Anthroposophy's esoteric spiritual philosophical criticism of Transhumanism isn't an Alternative/Fringe/Pseudo-Scientific THEORY, but a profound Spiritual-Philosophical INTERPRETATION, so should be found as a valid view on the Transhumanism page, alongside the already present far less intellectually reputable and noteworthy views.

Particularly since specific profound esoteric criticism of Materialist Technology (AI, Transhumanism, Electro-Magnetic Spectrum and Electrical technologies, etc.) are the whole OUTER purpose and focus of the thought Anthroposophy brought to the world. Where eg. Christianity teaches Trinitarian Salvation from Original Sin, Anthroposophy teaches the spiritual Ahrimanic danger to society and future evolution of Materialism (The INNER contribution of Anthroposophy is solving that false Materialist view itself, using ""Spiritual Science", especially its core root, new understanding depth in Reincarnation: "Rudolf Steiner's Core Mission: The Birth and Development of Spiritual-Scientific Karma Research")

April8 (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I invite you to state your case on the article's talk page here. One piece of unsolicited advice: concision is very often the better part of persuasion. Few editors are going to read a wall of text. Generalrelative (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | February 2026, Vol 12, Issue 2, Nos 358, 359, 361, 362, 363 Online events: New: Alphabet run: countries starting with B | Black Women | Works by women: theatre, opera, music Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Sports (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Join Wikipedia:26 for '26 and create or substantially improve twenty-six Wikipedia articles during the year 2026, at least one for each letter of the English alphabet. Tip of the month: Our redlists are a great resource, but not every redlinked subject is notable. Be sure to research before starting a new article. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Lajmmoore (talk 22:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366 Online events: March 1-31: Artists & Activists | Artworks by women | Alphabet run: countries starting with C Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Celebrate Women Unreferenced articles backlog drive Wiki Loves Ramadan Tip of the month: Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Sorry, I could have just added those very same hatnotes, but yours was perfect, so I felt it was much easier to simply revert there. I did not mean to annoy you or offend. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 18:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries. It's a tricky situation. I wouldn't ordinarily care, but "bias on Wikipedia" is a topic that gets coverage, and one of our founders has weighed in pretty heavily, so I felt that it warranted careful handling. Generalrelative (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey there.

Just wanted to thank you for being very kind and courteous when discussing some issues over on Graham Platner's page. It can be so easy to get lost in the hatefulness of humanity in our era of constant info being blared right into our heads. It's nice to come to conclusions without such destructive behavior in the way. :) Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

For sure! I have nothing but respect for the work you do here. Generalrelative (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

On a bit of a tangent, I've seen a couple of speeches by Platner and I have to say that I quite like him, though I'm at the opposite end of the Eastern Seaboard and can't vote for him. But it's good to see he's got his own article and that editors are collaborating on improving it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

If you haven't yet seen his fireside chats, they're really great. Generalrelative (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar: I’m responding here to your comment at Wikipedia talk:No Nazis#Lead rewrite where you take issue with my reading of Popper’s paradox of tolerance. Here's what Popper says immediately prior to the passage you quoted:

The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any restraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. This idea is, in a slightly different form, and with a very different tendency, clearly expressed by Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance : unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. ––In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

The upshot here, as I read it, is that Nazis should be excluded because they a) can’t listen to reason, and b) answer rational arguments with violence. It is only because they actually do these things that we should exercise the right to exclude them. Conversely, Popper emphasizes that intolerant groups which are not poised to eliminate the tolerant should be left alone. As to your insistence that Popper does think the paradox is intractable, he goes on to say

All these paradoxes can easily be avoided if we frame our political demands in the way suggested in section ii of this chapter, or perhaps in some such manner as this. We demand a government that rules according to the principles of equalitarianism and protectionism; that tolerates all who are prepared to reciprocate, i.e. who are tolerant; that is controlled by, and accountable to, the public.

From where I sit it's pretty clear that Popper is saying a) the apparent paradox of tolerance can be avoided –– just like Plato's paradox of freedom –– with reasonable framing, and b) this is all well within the bounds of an "open society" / liberal order, not an exception to it. I'm not trying to say that your reading is wildly implausible or anything, but neither is mine. Generalrelative (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Part 1: But he's still cutting out a special exception over and above neutral rules against non-violence.

Part 2: Better, but he's still insisting on the framing of tolerating those who are tolerant, while what I am saying is you don't need that exception at all and that society is perfectly capable of tolerating the intolerant.

To be clear, I don't think that your reading is implausible. I get why someone would think that this isn't an exception or a paradox at all. But I do think that it's incorrect. Every time I see a quote from him about this, I can point out the exception to general liberal tolerance he thinks we should be making.

I think that this sort of exception only seems plausible if you buy into fascist propaganda about how they operate and don't bother looking into how they actually operate. (And I do specifically mean Popper is making this mistake.) I think that the difference between the (early 20th century) US and the UK versus Italy and Germany is that the US and UK were, eventually, willing to enforce existing neutral laws against their fascists, while Italy and Germany let their fascists form paramilitaries and attack minorities and socialists for years straight. Beating fascism didn't take any special consideration for fascists, but rather a refusal to consider them separately. Loki (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Part 1: I don't agree that he is carving out a special exception. In the passage you quoted over at No Nazis, it seemed you were focusing on the clause where Popper says any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law but from the context it's clear that when he says outside the law he means committing a crime on the level of incitement to murder. I'm not saying I agree with this position (I think it's hyperbolic, as so much of Popper's writing is, and I think we need to be far less sloppy about where we draw the line), but I also think it's unambiguous that he thinks there is no true paradox and no exception here, any more than locking up a murder is an exception to the neutral rules against violence.

Part 2: There is a separate question here as to whether employing Popper's paradox of tolerance concept is helpful in framing our No Nazis essay for the lay reader. That will ultimately be a question for community judgement to settle. I am broadly sympathetic to your emphasis on what fascists do rather than what they say about themselves –– in my case following Robert Paxton, one of my academic heroes. As I've already emphasized, I think the paradox of tolerance seems helpful for precisely this reason. That is, I think it's a helpful concept despite Popper's sloppy writing. But it's not a hill I'm invested enough to die on. In any case, I appreciate your thoughtful engagement. Generalrelative (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think Popper was ever really seeing this as an actual exception to an otherwise ideal principle: He starts by referring to the 'so-called' paradox of freedom, explaining why it's necessary, then directly comparing the paradox of tolerance to that. I think Popper (and many others, including us) really lack the language to explain precisely why it's not a paradox to impose limits on freedoms in an extent to maximize freedom, nor impose limits on tolerance in order to maximize tolerance.

The best I can do is to point out that we live in an imperfect world, and as such, the 'best' state of anything is necessarily imperfect. This includes freedom and tolerance. We cannot have perfect freedom nor perfect tolerance. Instead, we must impose restrictions based on sound logic on the exercise of both freedom and tolerance, in order to enjoy the most of each that we can. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)