Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

a bunch of stuff under studies

User Wfsf added a bunch of material under studies (specifically relating to Gidley's work). Since some of the study's were funded by the Rudolf Steiner Schools Association of Australia those might fall outside the guidelines from ArbComm on article probation (specifically the use of sources that are not peer reviewed). I commented them out, if folks disagree go ahead and 'uncomment' them. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That would make sense if the sources were not peer-reviewed. As they were published in peer-reviewed journals, however, I don't see how a ruling on non peer-reviewed material applies. I have thus restored them. (Gidley is also a recognized researcher in her field of education.) hgilbert (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I know Gidley is ok in a general way, but was concerned about the stuff paid for by the Rudolf Steiner Schools Association of Australia, and didn't have time to really look at it yesterday. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

major balance issue

I read through the whole article, and did not find any explicit criticism of the Steiner school system, despite it being heavily criticised by the mainstream. Surely this article should at least reference public opinion. It reads like it was written by their marketing department Npmontgomery (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The article cites nothing but mainstream sources. And I'm not sure what you mean by "public opinion"? Are there any available polls? BTW: You might want to consult Wikipedia's policy on what constitutes a verifiable source. hgilbert (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As someone whose primary and secondary education was at a Waldorf school I don't believe I should edit the article but it does seem wildly inconsistent with the realities of their methods. Overall the main correction I would make would be that a Waldorf education is very strict, restrictive and above all things punishes autonomy. The claim that they "help every child fulfill his or her unique destiny" is only true if that 'unique destiny' is one they believe in, showing any interest or talent in fields outside those they prescribe is prohibited. This article needs further work to balance out the obvious bias. 121.214.142.235 (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as you are willing to follow the wikipedia editing guidelines there is not problem with editiing the article. Many of those who do have an implicit conflict of interest (either attended, worked at, or are parents of kids at waldorf schools). That is why the statement at the top of the page refers to article probation sourcing (there were some issues in the past).

I'd be interested in some kind of reference/specifics on this statement: The claim that they "help every child fulfill his or her unique destiny" is only true if that 'unique destiny' is one they believe in, showing any interest or talent in fields outside those they prescribe is prohibited. It has not been my observation that interests are prohibited, even if they may not be taught at an individual school. But your mileage may differ. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Balance Issues 2012

I'm also astounded at the lack of a 'Controversy' section. Steiner's views are controversial to say the least. Lucifer's presence is strong in electronic devices? etc. Max sang (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not an article about Steiner, but about Waldorf education. There is both a section for studies and a section for the education's reception by pedagogues. Wikipedia explicitly discourages "controversy" sections: see Wikipedia:Controversy_sections#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_.22criticisms.22_or_.22controversies.22. hgilbert (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a strong case for a criticism section on this article. There are plenty of people who don't hold such a rose tinted view of it should be up to the reader to determine whether they attach more credence to the claims or criticisms of Wardoff education

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2012/02/frome-steiner-academy-absurd-educational-quackery.html http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3528 http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3595 http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3853 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.252.198 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, blogs are not considered reliable sources by encyclopedias generally, or by Wikipedia specifically. hgilbert (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The blogs demonstrate that there is a degree of controversy about Wardoff education and its foundations in Anthroposophy. Tragically this article is that it is completely one sided and does not reflect this alternative view. Reading it you would not get any impression that Wardoff education was a completely accepted from of education. A balanced article would at least indicate that there are alternate points of view without perhaps passing judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.252.198 (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources for the apparent controversy about Waldorf. If there are just blog opinions, that's just not enough. An encyclopedia is not sourced on random opinions presented on blogs. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I struggle to how a article written by a professor of science at a top UK university with verifiable sources and references is somehow less worthy of reference than a few puff PR pieces written in newspapers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.252.198 (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Besides the reason for referencing the blog is to show that the Waldorf education isn't universally warmly received and that there are some areas of controversy in some people's opinions. He's views are relevant as both a scientist and an educationalist. I have referenced his blog as the argument in it are interesting and useful insights to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.252.198 (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

To quote from WP:RS: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." The material you are adding qualifies in neither sense; the mere fact of being a professor certainly does not make one an authoritative expert on primary and secondary education, and blogs are not reliable publication processes. hgilbert (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that blogs are not alway reliable. But there are some very good blog out there Prof Colquhoun's blog is good for its skeptical take on may subjects (based on his scientific/empirical approach). I would rate such a blog above many new paper articles which are often of dubious merit (this was demonstrated by the rubbish printed in "good" newspapers on MMR vaccines). Many fellow rationalists and skeptics would rate a blog by somebody with the reputation of Prof Colquhoun above an average to mediocre article in a newspaper (probably written by a journalists with less expertise on education as well as everything else).

The Boston Globe article immediate preceding the Prof Colquhoun referenced is clearly a piece largely based upon interview with people working at Waldorf schools or educated by them. Hence it is little more that a PR piece for such schools. That said even the quote extracted from the article is from Deborah Meier is taken out of context. The article actually reads: "Deborah Meier, principal of the innovative Mission Hill School in Roxbury and recipient of a MacArthur "genius grant" for her work in public school reform, quibbles with some aspects of Waldorf education but also values the schools as exemplars of alternative education." In other words even Deborah Meier who is being used as an advocate for such school (and possibly largely is) still has "quibbles"! Interestingly her website (http://deborahmeier.com/?s=waldorf) makes no mention of these schools (so clearly that have not had such a huge impression on her).

Also there are plenty of other website with sceptical views on waldorf education. (E.g: http://www.waldorfcritics.org/index.html and http://www.openwaldorf.com/criticism.html and http://waldorfwatch.com/). Now arguably such website have an agenda but I'm not entirely convinced that the other articles and source references don't have an opposite agenda. Its interest to note that Thomas W Nielsen seems to have made his name in education supporting such ideas arguably not making him a disinterested party. (There are plenty of other educationalist who have attached associated themselves with other teaching approaches and my have more skeptical or no views of Waldorf). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.252.198 (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, if you believe there are reliable sources then you need to take them up, one by one, here first, per WP:BRD. So let's discuss: the critical web sites are not reliable sources and blog posts are not reliable sources. Perhaps the only source you have is the Guardian article -- but that one may not be valid because of giving one report undue weight. You need to make the case here as to what the wording should be. Also, please be aware that you can't engage in original research in which you stitch together several sources to draw conclusions that are not present in any of the sources. --EPadmirateur (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The original version of the article stated that "Waldorf education has had a positive reception from educationalists". However the evidence provided for this seems VERY weak also (and largely not exactly of peer reviewed standard). Perhaps a more accurate statement would be it has had a positive reception from SOME educationalists. Taking the three references in turn

The first article is an Address to the Council of Elementary Principals Meeting and presumably not peer reviewed. Its contains one quote from one educationalist Robert S. Peterkin. Incidentally the link it broken and should be (http://education.jhu.edu/newhorizons/strategies/topics/Arts%20in%20Education/The%20Center%20for%20Arts%20in%20the%20Basic%20Curriculum/oddleifson3.htm).

The second article is by an academic how seems to have published lots of pro-waldorf articles and research .

The third article is a light piece from the Boston Globe. At the end it contains a moderately positive comment by Deborah Meier but the article acknowledges she has some misgivings about the steiner education.

I struggle to see how this constitutes a positive reception from educationalists.

I referenced two national newspapers (The guardian - a UK broadsheet) and the Age (- an australian broadsheet), with articles that expressed concern about this education system. I used one blog and showed that there was a controversy based on anti-wardoff sites without endorsing their arguments or claiming they were reliable sources. I would suggest that if these are not reliable sources then we remove both the Address to the Council of Elementary Principals Meeting reference and the Boston Globe reference are removed. I would also suggest that the claim that "Waldorf education has had a positive reception from educationalists" is reduced to "a few educationalists have expressed support for some of the ideas developed by Rudolf Steiner" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.252.198 (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the updated link. Let's go over these points one by one:

1. The Address to the Council of Elementary Principals Meeting doesn't need to be peer-reviewed to be a reliable source. It is dealing with elementary and secondary education with statements by recognized educationalists about Waldorf, so it is reliable. In the report there is a direct statement "Leading educators have a high regard for Waldorf education." and then cites three educationalists, Ernest Boyer, Thomas Armstrong and Robert Peterkin, all of whom have strong statements of support for Waldorf.
2. Thomas Nielsen is a recognized educationalist and his statements about Waldorf are from reliable sources. The fact that he "seems to have published lots of pro-waldorf articles and research" doesn't detract from that. To insist that he be disallowed is pushing a non-neutral point of view.
3. Your point about Deborah Meier, that she "quibbles with some aspects of Waldorf education but also values the schools as exemplars of alternative education" turns "quibbles about aspects" into "having some concerns about the Wardoff schools". I don't think that is a fair rendering. We need to find better wording.
4. Your sources from waldorfwatch, waldorfcritics and dcscience are non-starters in terms of reliable sources.
5. Your blog source for "reknown scientist" David Colquhoun is still a blog and his campaign against teaching homeopathy reported here doesn't give him any authority other than personal opinion to talk about Waldorf education. If he has written something about Waldorf in a journal on education or written a book on Waldorf published by a reputable publishing house, then either would qualify as a reliable source.
6. The article "Warning on state Steiner schools" might qualify as a reliable source but it is addressing one elementary school in Australia, not a general critique of Waldorf. If you would like propose some better, more general wording, other than

   In Australia concern have been raised in Victoria about the performance of Waldoff schools and efforts have been made to try to strengthen the regulatory framework around them

   then do so here on the talk page. Otherwise, I object that using this article is placing undue emphasis in the reception section.

In following WP:BRD, you have added something. I reverted it (as did Hgilbert), so the proper procedure is to discuss these questions here. So I am reverting your additions until we reach consensus here. --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Incidentally, there is already a section of the article devoted to individual countries and schools that already covers the Australian controversy; if there is more relevant information about this, it should be incorporated into that section. hgilbert (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You have failed to deal with my main criticism of this section the opening statement "Waldorf education has had a positive reception from educationalists" is simply not backed up by the facts provided and therefore represents a gross overstatement. The sources that you provide (aside from Thomas Nielsen - although I would question his neutrality) are as weak or weaker than the ones I've provided (in terms of being reliable sources).

I dispute your claims that waldorfwatch, waldorfcritics and dcscience are non-starters. The would be if presented as original and valid research. However the valid sources section states "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field". In otherwords they can be used as evidence that there are alternate opinions (albeit as long as not presented as valid research in its own right.

Finally the section lacks balance. Not only is the opening statement a gross overstatement but it would appear that any criticisms need to be tucked away under the sections relating to countries under "Publicly-funded schools". Effectively hiding the criticisms under "a little local bother"!

Controversies should be discussed upfront in an open way. Otherwise this article looks very biased and will bring wikipedia into disrepute (unless that is what you want to achieve in order to defend Waldorf education — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.252.198 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You have asserted that the version you are promoting is the "accepted version". That is not the case. Please read the WP:BRD cycle. You inserted a change to the article (Bold step). It has been Reverted (several times). There is clearly opposition to your change from two editors. That puts this process in the Discuss step, which should be done on the Talk page, not by edit warring and trying to get your change in the article. And you need to give the other editors a chance to respond to your points.

I have been occupied all day today and have not had a chance to respond. You need to allow time for the other editors to respond. I can respond now only to your point that

the opening statement "Waldorf education has had a positive reception from educationalists" is simply not backed up by the facts provided and therefore represents a gross overstatement.

It's hard to imagine how this statement could be more fully supported from the sources. Please note that the article says "a positive reception from educationalists", not from disaffected parents. The primary cited reference has a direct, unambiguous statement that "Leading educators have a high regard for Waldorf education." and then cites three educationalists, Ernest Boyer, Sir Thomas Armstrong and Robert Peterkin, all of whom have strong statements of support for Waldorf. So how is the statement in the article a gross overstatement? In fact it understates the statement in the cited reference, which says leading educators. Do you have other educationalists who disagree? If so, please provide the reliably sourced references.

Yes indeed there are a number of people -- some are very vocal -- who do not have a high regard for Waldorf education. But these people are not educationalists (they are mostly disaffected parents, a few former students, a few former teachers, and other non-educationalists). But any movement will have its critics. We can include their criticisms in the article if there is some reliably sourced reference to the criticisms. But their opinions and criticisms are not reliably sourced. If you can come up with a reliable secondary source that says that there are many people who criticize Waldorf education for reasons X, Y and Z, then we can include it. But you haven't done that yet. --EPadmirateur (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You have found one speech (not peer reviewed) where THREE educationalists (out of many thousands globally) state some positive things about Steiner education. You then infer that "Waldorf education has had a positive reception from educationalists" implying all aspects of the education have a positive reception from the majority of educationalists. This remains a gross overstatement. I'm undo-ing your reversions and I would be grateful if you would stop your edit warring until you generate some more solid arguments justifying the current wording!

Incidentally I almost made the same mistake by writing scientists have expressed concern.... likewise that should be some scientists (you cannot infer the whole from a few samples). I hope that you will acknowledge the same is true of educationalists so that we can get to a consensus! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.252.198 (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement about the positive reception is sourced to an WP:RS.

You quote WP:SELFPUB. By this standard, Waldorf publications may be used in this article for factual information (numbers of schools, etc.) It does not apply to external organizations such as Waldorfwatch, etc. commenting on Waldorf schools; this is not a self-description. You are seriously distorting this policy.

This link is about a party in Venezuela, and has no references to Waldorf education whatsoever. I am removing this and the section citing it.

Once again, blogs are simply inadequate sources, especially when they are from someone outside the field. Do reread WP:RS on this. hgilbert (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The information about Colquhoun's activity against homeopathy/anthroposophic medicine is irrelevant here. Also, a link to his blog was mistitled Times Education Supplement. I've cleaned up this part. hgilbert (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with adding David Colquhoun's blog as a source for an article on Waldorf education. What is your rationale? --EPadmirateur (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The editor who added this appears to be an IP user unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. But s/he is persistent as heck. If you want to remove it, you have my blessing and support. hgilbert (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the WP:BLOGS policy, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Colquhoun fails this on all counts because he is not an established expert on education, let alone Waldorf education, and he doesn't have any previous work in the education field that has been published by reliable third-party publications. I think we need to reconsider this statement in the article, particularly if the IP user can't put forward any counter arguments. BTW, I can't find any mention of Colquhoun's stance on Steiner Waldorf in news sources, so it's apparently not very notable in the debates in the UK. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

An interesting article here. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dutch study

The Dutch study explicitly says that the educational results were not evaluated because the free (Waldorf) schools do not use the state assessments. Unless we make clear what was actually evaluated, then, this is a misleading judgement to include. It seems that they judged that 8 of the 45 schools had weak methods to evaluate the progress of their pupils. Is this a correct reading of the text? hgilbert (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. The majority of elementary schools in the Netherlands are not state schools, but so called "special schools" (see Special_school_(Netherlands)) which means they have their own curriculum and receive state funding. Waldorf schools are no exception to this! (94.212.52.82 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

P.S. I have revisited it back to my edit. Should we leave the citation there and explain the context of the evalutation? If you read through the report you will see that the state assessments only contribute to (a small) part of the reports. Some Waldorf schools are performing better now than in the report from 2006, but many still provide poor education. You can find the list of all "very weak schools" (not only Waldorf) at http://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/actueel/publicaties/overigdetails/Zeer+zwakke+basisscholen and conclude for yourself! (94.212.52.82 (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)).

I think Hgilberts question though is more "if they didn't use the state evaluation/assessment method, the report says they were not evaluated (for the report)...is this correct". Your response is that they got state money and that there are poor performing schools. I havn't read the reports or link stuff. I hope the reports evaluation is better than most of the critical material that reads "waldorf bad, hippies crazy". --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the list you provided of "very weak schools" - there are no Vrije Scholen among them at all as far as I can see. Am I missing something? In the original report there is an explicit disclaimer that the Waldorf schools could not be evaluated for performance, only for tracking. I will modify the section to reflect what the "Rapport" actually says. hgilbert (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You indeed missed something, these are recent reports mentioned in the list: Basisschool Geert Groote 2, Basisschool Johannes - Vrije School Tiel.

I found a document dealing specificly with the Waldorf education: http://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/actueel/publicaties/Zeer+zwakke+vrijescholen.html

These are the criteria where Waldorf significantly deviate from the average schools:

- ‘de school inzicht heeft in de verschillen in onderwijsbehoeften van haar leerlingenpopulatie’ (14 procent vs 74 procent),

- ‘het leerstofaanbod voor Nederlandse taal en voor rekenen en wiskunde dekkend is voor de kerndoelen’ (33 procent vs 96 procent),

- ‘de leerinhouden voor Nederlandse taal en voor rekenen en wiskunde zijn afgestemd op de onderwijsbehoeften van de individuele leerlingen’ (40 procent vs 93 procent),

- ‘de leraren de vorderingen van de leerlingen systematisch volgen’ (40 procent vs 95 procent), en

- ‘de school een samenhangend systeem van instrumenten en procedures gebruikt voor het volgen van de prestaties en de ontwikkeling van de leerlingen’ (40 procent vs 91 procent).

Only the last two points can count for an bad evaluation method. This has also been mentioned in the media 3 years ago: http://www.nrc.nl/wetenschap/article1836499.ece/Revolutie_op_de_Vrije_School As these reports are consistent the way you modified the article gives the impression that the Waldorf schools only had an bad evaluation which is not the case here!

Obvious there there are lot of advocates for Waldorf education here, but the public has the right to know that a majority of these schools is performing weaker than average. For people interested in this type of education this is also an indicator to look for a good Waldorf school. (94.212.52.82 (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

OK - I've located the inspecting authority's document which lists the detailed criteria you have above - I'll insert it as the citation. hgilbert (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you check if my translation is accurate? In particular, I'm not sure what the phrase "main goals" (kerndoelen) refers to - do you know if these are goals set by the evaluating authority or those of the schools themselves? hgilbert (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Material on individual schools

As has been discussed here before, material particular to individual schools is appropriately placed in articles on those schools, not in the general article. If there is not yet an article about the school, feel free to create one. hgilbert (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am confused here. I posted something about both of the publically funded Waldorf schools in Sonoma County, not an 'individual school,' and that information comes from official sources (so it is properly sourced), and the information provides information which contradicts the 'Official' Waldorf position. I do not believe that the 'official' statement of the Waldorf committee reflects their reality. Anti-immunization is so highly correlated with the Waldorf schools I have looked at as to be close to official policy. Waldorf schools in the US education as practiced in the US includes a substantial anti-immunization RichGibson (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How many publicly funded waldorf method charter schools are there in Sonoma Co.? Unless we can have some kind of broader details on the immunization questions, it should probably go under 'commentary' of the individual schools. full disclosure, i'm on the board of a private waldorf school We have some parents who are dead set against immunization, even though we generally make parents specifically ask for exemptions from immunization requirements (the state has some requirements that effect every school child public or private). I think the problem is more specialized than a walsforf school issue. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Concerns over immunizations

The current text refers to a 'consensus statement' which is a dead link. This page http://www.waldorfanswers.org/QuestionsMore.htm refers to a growing anti-immunization movement within and outside of Waldorf schools, but again refers to the same dead link as the 'consensus statement' on vaccinations.

The article does not cite a verifiable source on the policy of Waldorf education towards vaccinations. The article does say "Studies have found Waldorf pupils to have a lower incidence of allergies and allergic-like symptoms, an effect which correlated with the extent to which they lived an "anthroposophic lifestyle" generally - in particular with reduced use of antibiotics, antipyretics, and measles, mumps and rubella vaccination" Which is a deep violation of NPOV - to assert a correlation when there is a deep selection bias in the cited studies.

I will replace the immunization section with something sourced unless it is properly sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichGibson (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 June 2010

unfortunately the waldorfanswers.org site is a polemical unreliable source according to the arbitration decision regarding the article probation. and as such should not be used in the article. find where a reliable source discusses this issue. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noting the dead link; I have repaired it.

Regarding selection bias; the original (peer-reviewed) study notes the ways that they ensured they were comparing comparable populations. Of course no study is perfect, but do you have comparably peer-reviewed critiques of this one? hgilbert (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You removed the link to the same references used in the health study which say that a reduced use of the MMR vaccine is why Waldorf kids have fewer allergies from the section on immunizations? WTF?

Would data from the whole of California count for you? The private and public Waldorf schools in California have 'Personal Belief Exemption' rates of 12% to 88% of their kindergarten classes. Regardless of what the official position is - and I assert here, but would not do so in the article, that the 'official' position was a lie in order for Waldorf education to not appear like a complete cult - Waldorf students are grossly under vaccinated. That fact should be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichGibson (talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

RichGibson, your assertions about a written or unwritten anti-vaccination policy in Waldorf schools needs to be documented with a reliably sourced reference. What you are asserting is original research and synthesis of information which are not permitted. It is also not supported by the facts. I believe the facts are that Waldorf schools have explicit policies supporting adherence to the public health policies of their local community. Do you have any evidence of a secret policy or even a preference communicated in some way by a school to its parents about vaccinations?

My assertion in the article was about the actual vaccination rates in the two public waldorf schools in Sonoma county, supported by the state of california data. That was not 'original research' unless 'original research' means 'reading the numbers in a table. RichGibson (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it happens that many Waldorf families choose not to have their children vaccinated. There is a correlation but that doesn't mean there is a causal link. In my opinion, this is more a case of both effects having a common cause: the parents who are attracted to Waldorf are also anti-vaccination. Both are their choice. And they find commonly held beliefs and preferences among other Waldorf parents. But that doesn't mean that the schools actively promote avoidance of vaccinations, despite their official position, which is what you are asserting. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not assert that it was official policy in my article edits. The Correlation here is highly significant, as is the incredible effort which goes into maintaining the lie that this correlation does not exist. RichGibson (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reduced use of MMR vaccine is one of several factors cited, and could be mentioned in the section on that study, if it is not already. As the study was not conducted in the USA it should not be used to support claims made about the US however. hgilbert (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked and it is already mentioned in that section. So what's the big deal? hgilbert (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The big deal is that the article is making a specific health claim about allergies, and that the Anthroposophic 'lifestyle' is responsible, and that that lifestyle includes minimal use of the MMR vaccine.

Later under the immunization controversy section there is no discussion about the observable fact that the students who are at Anthroposophic schools are in fact under immunuzed. RichGibson (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If it doesn't have a reliable source or citation, it shouldn't be in the article. If you can't find a reliable source, then what is there to discuss? Wikipedia's core policy is verifiability. Note the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth for an explanation. --HighKing (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the students in Waldorf schools in California have personal exemptions from immunizations at a higher rate than the state average is fact, verified by the State of California statistics which I ref'd. In Sonoma County the exemption rate is 52% for the private school, 71% for one charter school, and 88% for the other. The state average for personal exemptions is less than 2%. Moving to the rest of the state provides similar numbers. The schools can claim that this is not an official policy, but I did not argue that it is official policy, only that the numbers are true and that they are verifiable.

My edits have been deleted with the argument that the verifiable truth of individual school and county data is not relevant to a 'movement of over 1000 schools.' So from my point of view, true and verifiable information about a significant component of life in Waldorf schools is being suppressed on wikipedia. RichGibson (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What is your source for California-wide data on immunization rates in Waldorf schools? hgilbert (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Though this is a year later, I will say that I was a Waldorf parent and I vaccinated my children. There were parents who didn't, however. 19th century spiritualists did not believe in vaccination. Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of evolution with Darwin, campaigned against it. Feelings against vaccinations are still widespread in countercultural and spiritualist groups like Waldorf and and also many others. My friend, who became a Waldorf teacher, took her sons to an anthroposophical pediatrician in at the Spring Valley, NY, Anthroposophical Community. He dealt in homeopathic medicine as an adjuct to mainstream medicine but to my surprise he persuaded her to vaccinate her two boys (she had been very opposed to it) against all but one of the main childhood diseases (don't remember which it was but it was one of the less fatal ones). I think the article should reflect that there is a range of opinion even among hard-core Anthroposophists. That said, although I am not religious and do believe in mainstream medicine, most of the time, we did not find Waldorf at all restrictive. To me it is the same as having standards. My daughter agreed, after 12 years of Waldorf, she was a national merit semi-finalist and went to a very selective college and is very happy with her Waldorf preparation. It affected our whole family for the better, and my older child was sorry he hadn't got to go to Waldorf (I didn't know about it then). I think they definitely do seek to educate "the whole child". Of course, Waldorf schools do vary a great deal and you might get some with some kooky people -- I don't know, but it certainly was not our experience.173.77.104.175 (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have made a small edit to this section. I removed the reference for the Townsend letter as its not a reputable journal, I updated the link to the JACI to the full text rather than an article discussing the text which made assertions that the paper did not. Following this I removed any reference to the MMR vaccine as the paper does not conclude that it has an effect of allergy (they give the lack of antibiotics and anti-pyretics the credit). The paper does say that the students had an increased rate of the Measles but considering the section of the wiki article devoted to vaccination this doesn't seem like the place to put in.Kirren of smeg (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; that's the better source. The paper specifically links MMR vaccine and rhinoconjunctivitis; I added this. I don't know if other studies have supported this. hgilbert (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Curriculum

Vis a vis the Jaeckel quote: Though I believe the original text gathered the sense of the author's meaning, I have tried to match the article text more precisely to the exact quote. Rather than reverting, the IP user involved could make any adjustments s/he still feels are necessary. hgilbert (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio tag

The Mentor magazine article was copied into the article almost verbatim.

• "The Way Forward in Formative Years":

Though Waldorf schools were Euro-centric to begin with; today they have incorporated an increasingly wide range of cultural and religious traditions. Festivals play an important role in Waldorf schools. Festivals and celebrations that best meet the needs and traditions of the students in their particular school are followed. Waldorf theories and practices have been adapted by schools to the historical and cultural traditions of the surrounding communities. In fact, Waldorf schools located in regions where Jewish, Buddhist or Islamic traditions are dominant celebrate festivals drawn from these cultures.

Article text:

...but these schools are now incorporating an increasingly wide range of cultural and religious traditions. Schools located where Jewish, Buddhist, or Islamic traditions are dominant celebrate festivals drawn from these traditions.

This problem must be solved before the Mentor source is brought back into the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it's the other way around; that article was published in 2012 and the Wikipedia article text predates this considerably. The copying went the other way. They should have attributed the text to Wikipedia.

It does make the Mentor article a weak source here, however!! It probably should be pulled. hgilbert (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The article was published in February 2011. Here is the diff 4 days before it was published: [1]. It looks like it was copied into this article. No I'm mistaken, search wasn't matching the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we can remove Mentor as a source. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. hgilbert (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I deleted all the text because the article is under probation. You can re-add the material when you have a different source. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Following the limitations set forth by arbitration, the Sue Fitzjohn book, Festivals Together: A Guide to Multi-Cultural Celebration (ISBN 1-869890-46-9) cannot be used because it is published by Hawthorn, a Waldorf imprint. Waldorf Today cannot be used because it is a Waldorf source. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of studies

The "criticism of studies" section is 100% WP:Original research. In addition, the justification that someday references will be found to shore this up is absurd; WP editors are expected to find references to support assertions that are not common knowledge before adding these. (Otherwise anyone could add anything to any article with the justification that they would someday find citations to support this.) hgilbert (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving the proposed change here for discussion and development of sources to support the statements --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that many of the studies showing superior results (or simply different results) for students of Waldorf schools are unfortunately not scientifically controlled experiments.

Unless the assignment of children to the either the "Waldorf" or "other" condition is random, it is possible that significant differences exist between the two groups of students that were not caused by the different schools (or in fact existed before the students' participation in the programs).

Without random assignment (or at least some sort of control mechanism that can approximate it if true random assignment is not feasible), it is difficult to draw conclusions about the potential superiority of the Waldorf model.

For instance, critics could still contend that any observed superiorities in the Waldorf students were actually caused by a third factor which simply correlates more strongly with families that choose to send their children to Waldorf schools than it does with the average population as a whole.

(As noted above, educational successes of private Waldorf schools may partially reflect the social status of their students.)

Critics could even claim that students who do well at Waldorf models would do significantly better under some other model, and only well-controlled empirical studies will be able to settle this issue.

Note also, however, that the Waldorf model is not unique in receiving these criticisms, but shares them with other popular alternative models like Montessori.

My comment is: if there are critiques out there in reliable sources that make these statements, by all means put what they say in the article. However, in its current form this section is just speculation, not even quite original research and really should not be part of the article, until it can be supported by reliable sources. The best place to look for such critiques would be commentaries made in response to the specific studies. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, this section is inadmissible as written. If the studies are RS (which I haven't checked) they should go in, if there are critiques of the studies that are RS, that should also go in. a13ean (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Particular sections

I did have a chance to take a look at a lot of the materials in the studies section, and found that there are a few outstanding issues with how sources are being used:

• A UK Department for Education and Skills report noted significant differences in curriculum and pedagogical approach between Waldorf/Steiner and mainstream schools and suggested that each type of school could learn from the other type's strengths: in particular, that state schools could benefit from Waldorf education's early introduction and approach to modern foreign languages; combination of block (class) and subject teaching for younger children; development of speaking and listening through an emphasis on oral work; good pacing of lessons through an emphasis on rhythm; emphasis on child development guiding the curriculum and examinations; approach to art and creativity; attention given to teachers’ reflective activity and heightened awareness (in collective child study for example); and collegial structure of leadership and management, including collegial study. Aspects of mainstream practice which could inform good practice in Waldorf schools included: management skills and ways of improving organizational and administrative efficiency; classroom management; work with secondary-school age children; and assessment and record keeping.

  Has some very nuances findings which are not accurately depicted in our use of the cite, for example: "Overall, there is a lack of rigorous research on the impact of Steiner school education on learning and achievement and little research which systematically compares Steiner and mainstream schools." and "The research studies reviewed also give a cumulative impression that Steiner schools tend to create positive and mutually supportive relationships in schools. However, as with the research on learning and achievement, studies tend to be small scale and there are insufficient rigorous comparative investigations of Steiner and mainstream schools." This may also be relevant to the section above.

  We could certainly include a summary statement preceding the studies section that studies have tended to be small scale and rigorous comparative investigations rare.

  Or we could exercise editorial prudence and only include studies which add something to the article. This doesn't need to a a collection of trivia for all things related to WE. a13ean (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• A 2007 study in Sweden comparing Waldorf and state schools reported that Waldorf pupils were more likely to have a positive learning attitude, less likely to have passing tests as the goal of their learning, and had a "more in-depth study style" in higher education. They also showed more tolerant attitudes to minority groups and less tolerance of racist ideologies, were more involved with social and moral questions and were more likely to believe in the social efficacy of love, solidarity, and civil courage as opposed to legislation or police control. In addition, Waldorf students tended to wait longer before attending university.

  5 is not an RS for how it is being used for several different reasons. It's published through an university publisher, but otherwise not reviewed. Some of the results presented in it are based on absurdly small sample sizes without controls. The authors also make it clear that they are not neutrally on the subject. Most importantly however, what it's sourcing is only weakly supported by the text, and appears to randomly pick facts from it.

  The results were based on surveys conducted in 11 of the 13 schools. The response rates from students, which is what most of the results reported in the article are based on, was quite high: 77%. The sample size is thus a high percentage of the population sampled: most of the schools only have a single class for each grade.

  You are right that only some of the study's results are reported in the article does seem quite arbitrary, for example the study reported that "The study environment was experienced as calmer and more pleasant in Waldorf schools...Waldorf pupils expressed greater insecurity over managing concrete tasks...Waldorf pupils had a more positive attitude towards Mathematics." We could list all the results (which is quite a lot) to make the selection less arbitrary. Of the declared purposes of the study, to evaluate 1) the knowledge attained by pupils; 2) the relationship to society, and 3) teacher training, only the second is adequately represented in the article as it stands hgilbert (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• [duplicate paragraph removed]A cite mentioned in 26 appears to use haupt/realschule in their calculation for the very low abitur pass rate which seems pretty unfair, but if anyone can find the original study this could confirm or refute this.

• An American study found that Waldorf-educated students scored significantly higher on a test of moral reasoning than students in public high schools and students in a religiously-affiliated high school. Waldorf students were also far more likely to volunteer opinions about the survey and research in general, suggesting possible improvements in the survey technique and offering new possibilities to resolve the moral dilemmas raised in the survey.

  8 (Hether, Christine Anne, The moral reasoning of high school seniors from diverse educational settings, Ph.D. dissertation, Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center, 2001, 209 pages; AAT 3044032) is not a RS unless it was peer reviewed and published elsewhere, and PhD's from distance-learning programs are generally seen a problematic.

  It's not clear why a report on the results of a test of moral reasoning, when conducted by a PhD student and included in a dissertation, would not be a RS. A test of moral reasoning appears to be a quite objective measure and should not be affected by being a distant learning course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs)

  Let me be clear in my objection: a dissertation from a distance-learning PhD program is not a reliable source, if it's not published elsewhere. If you disagree, let's take it to WP:RS/N. a13ean (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• A 1995 survey of U.S. Waldorf schools found that parents overall experienced the Waldorf schools as achieving their major aims for students, and described the education as one that "integrates the aesthetic, spiritual and interpersonal development of the child with rigorous intellectual development", preserving students' enthusiasm for learning so that they develop a better sense of self-confidence and self-direction. Some parents described upper grades teachers as overextended, without sufficient time to relate to parental needs and input, and wished for more open and reciprocal parent-school support. Both parents and students sometimes described colleges of teachers as being insular and unresponsive. [New paragraph] The students overall were positive about the school and its differences; experienced the school as a "community of friends"; and spoke of the opportunity to grow and develop through the broad range of activities offered, to learn when they were ready to learn, to develop imagination, and to come to understand the world as well as oneself. Many students spoke of the kindness of their peers and of learning to think things through clearly for themselves, not to jump to conclusions, and to remain positive in the face of problems and independent of pressure from others to think as they do. Improvements the students suggested included more after-school sports programs, more physical education classes, more preparation for standardized testing, a class in world politics and computer classes. Faculty, parents and students were united in expressing a desire to improve the diversity of the student body, especially by increasing representation of minority groups such as African-Americans and Hispanic Americans.

  Same thing goes for 6 (Freda Easton, The Waldorf impulse in education:Schools as communities that educate the whole child by integrating artistic and academic work, Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University Teachers College, 1995), and some of the things sourced to it are generally unencyclopedic: " Many students spoke of the kindness of their peers and of learning to think things through clearly for themselves, not to jump to conclusions, and to remain positive in the face of problems and independent of pressure from others to think as they do."

  I'm puzzled; why is an unusual level of kindness and positivity unencyclopedic?

  It's unencyclopedic to selectively include summaries from uncontrolled surveys. How is the fact that some unknown number of students wanted more computer classes notable at all here? Similarly, we're reporting that some students "spoke of the kindness of their peers" -- what sort of useful information does this provide? Surely there's students all over the world, who would speak of the kindness of their peers. a13ean (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

  It's a valuable survey. For example: the desire for more computer classes is very relevant, given the schools' known proclivity to delay technology classes until high school. It's clearly impossible to include all the results, however. I don't know what we could do better; there's a link to the original survey for those who want more complete results. I'm very open to some other method of reporting the conclusions; do you have any ideas? hgilbert (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• A 2009 study comparing Waldorf and public school students in New Zealand found that the Waldorf students, who had no formal instruction in reading in pre-school or kindergarten, caught up in reading ability by around age 10, at which point there was "no difference in reading achievement between children who had been given early instruction in reading and those who had not".

  85 (Sebastian Suggate, "Response to reading instruction and age related development", unpublished doctoral dissertation. Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Otago, New Zealand. (2009). See summary at Learning & Development: Reading - Willing and able?) is similarly sourced to an unpublished dissertation, which contains an unreviewed primary study.

  Suggate's work has been published in peer reviewed journals, for example doi:10.1177/0142723710395165. I've added this reference to the article.

  The study who's doi you linked above does not support the citation above; and is about something reasonably different: "Analyses suggested language development – including story memory and narrative quality and phoneme awareness – improved with age but not length of formal schooling. Conversely, non-word decoding skills improved with formal schooling, but not age. These findings add to the literature supporting separate skill clusters of language and decoding skills, with potentially different contributors to their development." a13ean (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

  I've corrected the language accordingly. Thanks. hgilbert (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

  Incidentally, Suggate actually conducted a series of 3 studies, including one using the very substantial PISA database. See His summary of his process here. hgilbert (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Studies have found Waldorf pupils to have a lower incidence of allergies and allergic-like symptoms, an effect which correlated with the extent to which they lived an "anthroposophic lifestyle" generally - in particular with reduced use of antibiotics, and antipyretics. Children who had received MMR vaccine showed an increased risk of rhinoconjunctivitis.

  91 is a primary study and notes that there have been several contradictory findings particularly related to the MMR point. It's unreasonable to choose a single result from several contradictory ones, absent any particular evidence to support it.

  "Children who had received MMR vaccination had an increased risk of rhinoconjunctivitis (current symptoms and doctor's diagnosis) in all models." That seems pretty clear. I'm missing the contradictory findings. hgilbert (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  "It has been hypothesized that measles infection and/or MMR vaccination could affect the development of atopic disease, but data are inconclusive. Measles infection has been reported to accompany atopic diseases,24 but also to decrease the risk of atopy25 and improve atopic dermatitis symptoms.26 In our study, measles infection was associated with a lower risk of eczema (current symptoms and doctor's diagnosis) combined with IgE sensitization. Furthermore, an increased risk of rhinoconjunctivitis was found among children who had received MMR vaccination. A previous study found an inverse association between allergic diseases and MMR vaccination,27 whereas in a Danish study, measles infection and MMR vaccination were both associated with an increased risk of atopic dermatitis.28 One explanation for the apparently discrepant findings between studies may be differences in outcome definitions." Is the direct quote from the article that I was referring to. This is not a strong enough result that merits using an original study for. a13ean (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

  I agree that this is a weak link, but I don't believe that the article claims that MMR affects the development of atopic disease. If it does, this should certainly be revised. What passage in the article are you thinking of? hgilbert (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

  The article is currently making a claim that's only weakly supported by the source, contradicted by others, and is not even covered at all at MMR vaccine. a13ean (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

  OK, agree: The MMR-rhinoconjunctivitis link has little or nothing to do with this article in any case. I have removed it. hgilbert (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

To try to make this somewhat less confusing, I have expanded on my original comments and included the original context. (Some of the reference numbers will not match up here as a result). Please feel free to discuss them individually above, or in general below. a13ean (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Original discussion of above

Any thoughts? a13ean (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do you dismiss Ph.D. dissertations which are considered RS's if publicly available? "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan.", per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. They are considered peer reviewed and thus vetted. "Publicly available" does not necessarily mean "published" as in a book, only that they are available to scholars, for example, via request. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There are certainly situations where dissertations are appropriate sources, but I don't think the ones I mentioned above are. We don't have any particular evidence that these were vetted by the broader scientific community, and some of these explicitly mention that they are unpublished. Similarly, one of the dissertations is from a distance learning program rather than a traditional university, which raises some red flags. At a bare minimum dissertations need to be subject to the same criteria as other sources -- a primary source such as a original study can't be used nearly as broadly as a secondary source like a review article. a13ean (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As EPadmirateur mentions, Ph.D. dissertations are indeed generally considered both peer-reviewed and -- in the USA -- published (usually only by a dissertation service, which then makes the work available) documents, and are explicitly RSources by Wikipedia guidelines. Incidentally, the peer review process for a journal is not a 'vetting by the broader scientific community', but rather a vetting by a few readers, very similar in fact to the vetting of a Ph.D. dissertation by a few committee members. In neither case is absolute truth guaranteed.

I'm open to exploring the appropriateness of the use of sources, however; can you clarify what you see as problematic in particular usages?

Also: I'm not finding your references (75) and (5) above in the article itself; can you tell me where these occur? hgilbert (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, the reliability of PhDs is sometimes called into question. It depends on the nature of the PhD. I suggest possibly going to RSN to check it out. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs in the study section are sourced to 74/75 and the third paragraph is sourced to 5. a13ean (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

It would be helpful to seek a wider circle of opinion here to form consensus. We've been able to agree on several points (more precisely, there are areas where I've agreed with User:A13ean and made corresponding changes), but there are other areas where we are not reaching common ground. hgilbert (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should cross-post to WP:EDU, WP:FRN and WP:RSN to see if we can attract more eyes. a13ean (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Blog attributed to Colquhoun is not by Colquhoun

A critique in the article was attributed to a blog posting by Colquhoun, who is a notable pharmacologist (and thus likely not a reliable source for an article on education anyway). On more careful examination it turns out that the blog posting is actually not his; it is a guest post that appears on his blog site. The true author has no standing as a reliable source whatsoever, and a guest posting on someone else's blog is not exactly an encouraging basis for an encyclopedia citation. I have removed the passage. hgilbert (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"natural, unmanufactured materials"

Siraj-Blatchford and Whitebread are idiosyncratic in describing Waldorf early childhood programs as emphasizing "non-manufactured" materials. The claim is unsourced and wildly inaccurate; obviously Waldorf early childhood programs use tables, chairs, buildings, cloths, cutlery, and probably thousands of other items that are manufactured. Siraj-Blatchford and Whitebread essentially critique the schools for not doing what they never claimed to do.

To see if there was some basis for their claim, I did a Google search on "non-manufactured" materials and Steiner or Waldorf; the only hit that comes up is a reference which uses Siraj-Blatchford and Whitebread as their source for the claim.

The claim is sourced to an otherwise excellent RS, but I would suggest that it is a bugbear better left out. How do others feel?

Also: I have moved this to early childhood, as the source is speaking of "Foundation Stage education", which applies to 3-5 year olds in Britain. hgilbert (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In the process of "moving" you also (unacknowledged) re-worded the content to slant it in a way favourable to Waldorf/Steiner, both by removing the sourced phrase "belief system", and distancing the sourced description by characterizing it as a "criticism" of the authors — elsewhere in this article, in content introduced by you for example, sourced description is generally stated directly without employing this distancing tactic. As an editor with a clear COI problem you should not be editing this article in substance, and particularly not in this way so as to direct its meaning in a certain direction. Alexbrn (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

For comparison: should we state that "Waldorf education a healing education whose underlying principles are appropriate for educating all children" without making it clear that this is one person's opinion? If not, why should we state that it is "illogical" without making it clear that this is one person's opinion?

The standard that I would normally employ is to differentiate between an objective description, and an opinion. Opinions elsewhere in this article are sourced clearly to their author; this is true whether they are favorable (e.g. Peterkin and Nielsen) or unfavorable. That seems to me pretty sound practice.

About the change of wording: Would you not say that calling something "illogical" is a critique? How does this remotely direct its meaning in a certain direction? hgilbert (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Three things. First, edit summaries should accurately reflect the edit made - which yours didn't, since you re-worded the content in transit without mentioning it. Secondly, I don't think it's right that "opinions elsewhere in this article are sourced clearly to their author"; the lede for example is full of unsourced (and rather glowing) opinion. Thirdly I'm not sure the case in point is an opinion: the scenario of forbidding manufactured items but allowing woollen cloth is, objectively, illogical is it not? (I know you dispute the accuracy of the source but that's another topic). Alexbrn (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead is unique in that it is a summary of the whole article. The statements in the lead need to be supported by the content of the article, and that content provides the detailed sources and treatment for the summary statements in the lead. Regarding "non-manufactured" materials in the Early Years classes, the authors may have heard about the preference for "hand-made" items and turned that -- incorrectly -- into its apparent opposite, namely non-manufactured items. They are also incorrectly equating a preference to an absolute requirement. In fact there are many manufactured items in the Waldorf classroom but the preference is for hand-made items, e.g. a hand-carved wooden spoon for play rather than a factory-made metal spoon, but metal spoons are indeed used -- for eating. So what seems illogical is most likely due to the authors' misreading of some statement from a Waldorf source. In any case, their statements are, as Hgilbert pointed out, inaccurate. --EPadmirateur (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary focused on the primary purpose and content of the edit; I apologize profusely for not mentioning there what I thought was an insignificant and uncontroversial addition of the word "criticism". I will try to make my edit summaries here comprehensive.

I have reread the lede and wonder what you consider "opinion" there. Some items are listed as goals of the schools, which are clearly goals; others as characteristics (holistic approach, interdisciplinary approach) which are quite uncontroversially characteristics. These characteristics are not praised, they are simply presented. I don't know who would doubt what is presented there; can you point to what you consider opinion?

It would not be illogical, but rather inconsistent to forbid something yet use that nonetheless. The whole claim is so ridiculous that it is really not worth discussing further, however, as EPadmirateur has also pointed out. hgilbert (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In the lede, stuff about what the approach emphasizes, what Waldorf education's overarching goals are, and how it "helps every child fulfill his or her unique destiny" is somebody's opinion. Alexbrn (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; the specifics are helpful.

Goals are not opinions, but simply a person or institution or movement's chosen directions. Whether the education achieves the goals is another question. The lede makes no claims about the latter, however. In the sections you mention, it merely specifies what the intended direction is. Once again, I can't imagine anyone doubting that this is what Waldorf education intends.

Incidentally, the lede doesn't say that the education helps children to fulfill their destiny, but that its goal is to do so. Same response: this is clearly its goal. Whether it is a good goal, or whether it succeeds at the goal, is more a matter of opinion. hgilbert (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

But who says what Waldorf education's goals are? Alexbrn (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

too much of a leap from what the source actually says, to what is claimed

Hi, Alexbrn, in this edit you question that the Grace Chen source supports the statement that the Waldorf methodology encourages collaborative learning. At the end of the article, Chen states "some private schools, such as the Waldorf schools, already operate based upon collaborative reasoning". Chen earlier stated that "collaborative reasoning programs encourage students to become consistently active and personally accountable for their own evaluations and conclusions". This is presented in the context of and as part of "collaborative learning".

How does the WP article statement "present a leap from what the source actually says" -- that "Waldorf methodology encourages collaborative learning" is a leap from "Waldorf schools operate based on collaborative reasoning" in the context of collaborative learning?

Please discuss. In the meantime, I am removing the tag. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning in the Article here is that since Waldorf methodology is "based on" collaborative reasoning, and since collaborative reasoning begets collaborative learning, then Waldorf methodology itself begets collaborative learning. In other words, "A and B, therefore C". This is a WP:OR leap of logic by the editor -- it could (say) be the case that Waldorf education has other aspects which nullify the effect of its collaborative reasoning basis. Conclusions must be avoided that are not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The conclusion that collaborative learning results from collaborative reasoning is Chen's conclusion, not any editor's. That's what her article is all about. And she applied collaborative reasoning, and therefore collaborative learning, specifically to Waldorf at the end of her article, particularly given the context of the end of the sentence:

While some private schools, such as the Waldorf schools, already operate based upon collaborative reasoning, the philosophy shows great promise for the future of public school classrooms.

To assert any other interpretation is a leap of logic. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to assert any interpretation. Your telling me what the article is "all about", invoking context, etc. is pure OR. Wikipedia policy is crystal clear: conclusions must be avoided that are not explicitly stated by the source. Alexbrn (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

To teach collaborative reasoning is to foster collaborative learning; these are just two terms for the same thing in this context. It is a perfectly normal paraphrase, especially since Chen uses both terms essentially equivalently. hgilbert (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"these are just two terms for the same thing in this context. It is a perfectly normal paraphrase, especially since Chen uses both terms essentially equivalently" -- is just pure WP:OR. I don't know what else I can say, so I shall just re-state Wikpedia policy again: conclusions must be avoided that are not explicitly stated by the source. Alexbrn (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Spiritualist, racist concerns ignored

This article reads like a propaganda piece for Steiner Schools. According to this article Steiner was a radical racist and believed in unconventional spirituality. One point it brings up is that reading is not taught to children until their adult teeth emerge because teaching reading is felt to interfere with the child's spiritual development. 128.135.39.147 (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The criticism is valid but that article is hardly usable here because it is not a WP:Reliable source. If you can find similar criticisms from scholarly sources then bring them here. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The criticism is pretty spurious as well. hgilbert (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There was a BBC News item on Steiner Schools recently that mentioned this. I'd be happy to transcribe the relevant passage (And incidentally the fact that the topic was covered in a BBC documentary is surely notable in itself and should have some mention in this article). Yes? Alexbrn (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw the documentary, as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the concerns were about anthroposophy, the spiritual philosophy of the founder of Waldorf education, and not about the schools themselves. If so, they belong in Anthroposophy#Statements_on_race, if they add anything to the sources there, rather than here. hgilbert (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. The piece is entitled "Frome Steiner school causes controversy", and the concerns were put directly to the head teacher and discussed with another teacher. Since BBC News framed it this way I don't think we should depart from that (if it was "concerns about anthroposophy", that is something I'd expect to see more on an Open University programme, than on the mid-evening BBC News!!) Alexbrn (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The BBC story seems to have been based on incomplete research into what it broadcast, which makes it into an unreliable source for Wikipedia. 81.227.26.177 (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Opinions and facts

The following recent addition to the article is stated as fact, whereas it is actually Carroll's opinion: However, it is likely that some of anthroposophy's weirder views will be passed-on in Waldorf education, such as Steiner's belief in the existence of Atlantis or his views on astral bodies, even though anthroposophy is not formally part of the curriculum.

I suggest that it would be more appropriate to revise it to reflect the fact that it is one person's opinion, as has done elsewhere in the article. hgilbert (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is better. We should apply this procedure to other sourced statements in the article that aren't plain facts. Alexbrn (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

RS for self-reporting

WP:SELFSOURCE states:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I will restore the Association of Waldorf Schools statement, as this is clearly an example of an organization stating its equal-opportunity policy, a normal thing for any organization to do, and this article is indeed about the Waldorf schools.hgilbert (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this statement should be allowed, particularly for WP:NPOV. I have added an equivalent statement from the European Council for Steiner Waldorf Education (ECSWE) because it is more relevant to an issue raised in the UK. --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Failed verification

I am puzzled by the Failed verification templates that have been added:

-- "Its methodology encourages collaborative learning." is cited to a source that says "Some private schools, such as the Waldorf schools, already operate based upon collaborative reasoning". How is this a failure in verification?

-- " learning is interdisciplinary, integrating practical, artistic, and conceptual elements" is cited to a source that says, "The school conception of education is reflected in a curriculum in which practical, artistic and academic learning are equally represented and integrated." I have added an additional citation supporting the term interdisciplinary (and the term holistic, appearing earlier in the sentence). hgilbert (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I'd like to add that it is customary if one can't personally verify the source (e.g. because the text isn't available on-line) to ask the other editors what the source says, rather than put a "verification failed" tag on. In the second example, your edit summary said "can't see how the source supports the assertions made" but the source specifically cited page 150, so it would be appropriate to ask, "What does this source say on p. 150 that supports this statement?" I also don't have access to the Rist and Schneider book, so I'd like to ask, for the record, what does p. 150 say? Perhaps Hgilbert can help out here.

I'd also like to say that, rather than remove statements from the text that one feels are not properly sourced, it is more customary to put a "citation needed" tag on instead. That leaves other editors the opportunity to find citations rather than notice that text has been removed. In this particular case, speaking of the origins of Waldorf, there was also a major additional "main article" on this subject History of Waldorf schools that is well-cited. In removing the first paragraph of the section wholesale, the entire section became meaningless. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Why should I ask other editors when I have access to that text myself? I said what my problem was as clearly as I could ... I don't see how custom comes into it!

As to removing content, with respect, you're wrong. WP:V explicitly states that "any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". However, in the case of this article, the arbitration ruling states "editors of this are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information ..." (my emphasis). Some schools of thought have it that removal of unsourced content is actually best practice, since it is most likely to get a good outcome for the article (as it has here, for which much thanks!). Alexbrn (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This was sourced and cited. You removed the citation. To then claim that the problem was that there was no citation is misleading at best.

The source is readily available at [unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0003/000363/036368eo.pdf]. hgilbert (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me there. I don't think I'm claiming there's a missing citation, but that I can't see how the citation backs the text. And I don't believe I removed any citation from the passage I removed as unsourced. But of course it's quite possible I've made a mistake! I note, however, your implication of bad faith: please don't do that. Alexbrn (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

See here for one example of a citation being replaced by a citation needed tag. But I apologize for any implication of malicious intent. We're all trying to improve Wikipedia.

Vis a vis the connection of the citations and text: If you review the summary at the top of this section, does it not seem to you that the cited text and the article text are virtually identical in both of these cases? With all the good will in the world, I'm missing something here. hgilbert (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I wonder if we're seeing the same text? ... the page 150 I'm looking at starts "The art of education as practised in Rudolf Steiner schools is governed by this postulate. ...". Alexbrn (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right; though page 150 also mentions the interrelationship of the three aspects, the text I quoted here ("The school conception of education is reflected in a curriculum in which practical, artistic and academic learning are equally represented and integrated.") was actually from page 1. I've added page 1 (and other pages) to the citation to clarify the issue. hgilbert (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem now is that it is apparent the source does not support the text, since the source describes a single school, the curriculum of which is merely "heavily influenced" by Steiner, and for which "it is open to speculation whether the form of curriculum articulation exemplified here could be implemented independently of Steiner's theory". Such a caveated description of a single school just isn't good enough as a source for an essentialized description of Steiner education in general, stated as fact. A further problem is that the source is authored in whole or in part by "persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians", which contravenes the AC ruling on sources. I have therefore removed this material. Alexbrn (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

remove journal article source published by the Waldorf Library

Hi Alexbrn, you have apparently removed a citation to a Ph.D. dissertation from the accredited Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center here, apparently because it also appears on the Internet on the "Waldorf Library" web site. Wherever else this source has been published does not negate the fact that it is a WP:RS that does not conflict with the arbitration committee's restrictions, since it comes initially from a non-anthroposophical source. I am going to reverse your edit. It seems you are stretching considerably the interpretation of the arbitration committee. --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Content that appears in anthroposophical sources is considered "self-published by the Anthroposophy movement"; this is just such content. Granted, it had some previous existence prior to publication, but citing that prior version looked to me like a mistake (I assumed the editor was unaware the content was now published). I would err on the side of caution and consider that this content's appearance in an anthroposophical source is a pretty clear indication that it's unsuitable material: if in doubt, keep it out. But your position is: if in doubt, keep it in (?) Okay, I can live with that, if other editors can ... Still, it surely must appear eccentric to outsiders to be quoting a dissertation when a published journal article equivalent exists; and if this was seen as a way of dodging round the arbitration committee's decision that would be bad. Alexbrn (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A dissertation clearly qualifies as a reliable source. The reason for this is because of the independent, academic peer review process that any dissertation passes through. Its later publication by any organization does not remove the peer review, of course. The reason anthroposophical (or any institutions') "self-publications" are not considered reliable sources is that they have presumably not been through this kind of outside review. hgilbert (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmmm – actually looking at this a bit more, I'm not sure it's that clear. The AC ruling prohibits "[a]nthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians", and the author of the piece appears to be a theoretician involved in the movement (it says in her bio she is now a member of the Board of Directors for Haleakala Waldorf School on Maui). The piece also sources anthroposophical material directly in the handful of references it has, which suggests it is an 'anthroposophy related publications' (vague as that phrase is). In general, it's a concern that the references of this (Wikipedia) article lean so heavily on dissertations … are there really no equivalent supporting sources published in reputable publications that could be used instead? Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking over the citations, there appear to be relatively few dissertations; certainly not an alarming proportion.

A member of a Board of Directors hardly qualifies as a theoretician! In any case, the work is peer reviewed.

More generally: As Waldorf education is intimately connected to anthroposophy, by the above proposed reasoning any source whatsoever that mentioned Waldorf schools would be an anthroposophy related publication, and thus excluded as a source for this article. That would make writing this article pretty hard; we could only use sources that didn't mention Waldorf at all.

The interpretation that the arbitrators put forward in discussions over the vague phrasing was that material published by anthroposophic presses would be invalid, as there is a presumed bias, whereas material published under objective peer review would be valid, regardless of the author of the work. (Just as one could not imagine excluding a work on the Catholic Church that had been published by an academic press, merely because its author was Catholic.) The standards of WP:NPOV require that all viewpoints are presented; it would be a gross violation of this to exclude the emic viewpoint. hgilbert (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Being on a board of directors certainly counts as being "involved in the movement" though, doesn't it?

Ph.D. dissertations are of course not "peer-reviewed" but examined, usually by a supervisor closely acquainted with the student and their work (and who champions it), and an "external" - who may or may not be connected with the student and/or their supervisor. Obviously there are degrees (hah!) of quality in how this is applied. A dissertation examined at Harvard or Oxford carries a different weight to one produced for a correspondence course at some backwater institution which has since gone out of business.

As Wikipedia puts it, Ph.D. dissertations have been "vetted by the scholarly community" ... that's not the same as "peer review" where (typically) an independent panel of senior experts assesses the work of somebody they don't know. So if the arbitration panel is insisting on "peer review" then we are in trouble and need to have a citation cull. I think the kind of case that would be of most concern is where an anthroposophic dissertation by a student involved in the anthroposophy movement was examined by assessor(s) involved in the anthroposophy movement, particularly at non-mainstream institutions. Having said that, I don't think these sources are being used to support exceptional claims, so in my view the issue is not critical. Alexbrn (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. hgilbert (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing unsourced reference from lede

I am removing the text from the lede "It has a humanistic approach to pedagogy and learning is interdisciplinary", which (as in the case discussed earlier) does not appear to be supported by the source. I have two meta-questions which maybe long-standing editors here can help me with:

• Has there been any concern in the past (maybe during arbitration) about sources being less good than required?
• Am I going to find, after wrestling each source in the lede to the mat, that all of them are iffy?

Alexbrn (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The interdisciplinary part was explicitly supported by the text, and I quoted the relevant text at the top of the Talk:Waldorf education#Failed verification section above. I have added it to the footnote itself, as well, now. For the humanistic approach I have added a new citation and quoted the relevant text in it, as well.

Perhaps you could raise future issues here on the talk page first. Much of what you have questioned has turned out to be well supported by the existing citations; I don't know why you have had so much trouble finding the relevant text within the citation. Simple searches for a keyword would often have sufficed.

For many questions, like the humanistic approach, it is easy to find supporting citations. That's why it's advantageous to put a citation needed template, or mention the problem here, rather than to remove the text. hgilbert (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind I'm not close to the text like you are – I'm thinking of the innocent reader coming here with fresh eyes. It seems a bit unreasonable to have a statement supported by a reference, and expect them to know that in fact only the last three words are supported, and that in order to check references they may need to split the supported text up and search for fragments before they strike it lucky in finding the partial support!

Nevertheless, the edit you have made fixes this problem, and your other edits are improving matters too. I think the level of misdirection/misrepresentation in the text is gradually diminishing.

As a general observation, I think the lede is of pretty low quality as an introduction. It's certainly in no danger of winning a plain English award. I appreciate this may be a consequence of the edit warring of past years, but is there really no pithy and readable summary of Waldorf education that could be sourced/used here? It seems to me a general problem with this article that while the Steiner movement writes about itself (perhaps to excess) there are fairly few plainly stated descriptions of it. Maybe this is because the federated nature of the system makes it quite difficult to generalize accurately? Alexbrn (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh! Your latest query is truly problematic; the Nielsen footnote has absolutely nothing to do with the text it appears next to. Puzzled, I searched...years ago, in 2007, there was a statement about Waldorf being one of the largest independent school systems, sourced to Nielsen. Someone at some point rearranged, then removed the text. I have restored the original context.

I don't know if you want separate confirmation of the fact that there are Waldorf home-schooling programs and charter schools. We can easily provide this if necessary, of course. I've added this assuming you do. hgilbert (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Who's "we"? Alexbrn (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

We editors: You, me and anyone else who cares to try. The sources aren't hard to find. hgilbert (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been staring at your question...and realize why it stands out. I seem to be the only one trying to check if there are citations to support the statements made here. It would be nice if you would also do so, and add a query if you are unable to readily find these. hgilbert (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And you struck the text out because … ?

As to editing M.O. – we do it differently. It seems to me that you have a firm idea of what needs to be said, and a fair idea of how to find sources to back that conception up: you are leaning towards what might be termed "author mode". I admit, to some extent I had the same approach with a concept of some balancing (what might be termed negative) information that needed to be in this article for POV reasons. But in general I take a much more editorial stance: what needs to done to make the article better? – and sometimes to improve a text you need to do violence to it. Alexbrn (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I struck the offer to find citations "if necessary" because based on the history here, I figured that you would probably demand the citations anyway, so I might as well just go ahead and do the work right away.

I don't know how much you know about the subject, but it seems to me that you are demanding substantiation for every single phrase, as if you don't have any reference point to work from. I was just looking at the article on Impressionism for comparison; there are hundreds of statements that could be contested, as they are not supported by citations -- but people who know something about the subject wouldn't bother to question these, because from an informed standpoint it is a reasonable description. I suggest that many of the characterizations here of Waldorf are similar. They are characterizations that those who know something about the subject would essentially universally agree with, and that many reliable sources would support. Do they really need separate citations? Obviously, for you they do. I'm wondering why. hgilbert (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a proud deletionist in that I think it improves an article to remove dead wood. I don't like to pummel the reader into senselessness with wordiness. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to be included among the editors here who are trying to improve this article and providing sources to support statements in the lead and elsewhere, if editors feel that specific statements and characterizations need to be sourced. I would agree with Hgilbert that the characterizations are well-sourced and are generally held among those who are familiar with Waldorf education, as they appear in many sources. However, if the characterizations sound implausible or overly positive to the general reader then they can be sourced. If there are negative characterizations in reliable sources, they need to be included as well for a neutral point of view. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

De-footnote lede

I suggest that we make an effort to move supportive text, with footnotes, to the body (for example about charter, public and homeschooling Waldorf environments). This would allow us to remove footnotes from the lede in many cases, improving flow. hgilbert (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I am intending at some point to attribute the sources of the various quotations about Steiner (except where they state the plainest of plain facts), and am afraid a consequence of that will be that the lede turns from being somewhat, to completely, undreadable ...

I think we're going to face a challenge in summarizing the body into a lede while avoiding OR/SYN however. A nice plain secondary source would be so useful. Alexbrn (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Great. Sounds like a project.

Vis a vis personal attributions: I suggest we distinguish between a personal evaluation, and a widely accepted characterization. For many statements here that are supported by citations to one or two sources, quite a few other citations could also be found. That Steiner education is interdisciplinary, is essentially universally accepted, for example, and many supportive sources can be found for this. It makes little sense to attribute a commonly accepted characterization to a single person, and in my opinion a list of all the people who share the opinion would look foolish. Other statements may be unique to a particular author, and then should be attributed to this person.

Perhaps we could make a list of statements we propose to attribute to individuals here, so they can be checked for their universality first. (Or at least run a Google search for Steiner OR Waldorf education and the keyword and see if it is a common characterization, before particularizing it.) Would you agree that this makes sense? hgilbert (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

To do this by the book, WP:INTEXT says inline attribution is only omissible in the case of "simple facts"; so I think any kind of commentary, description or evaluation will need it, no matter how common it is. (I also think it's a general problem with the lede that it tries to cram in too much commentary, description and evaluation). Alexbrn (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that one of the problems with the lead is that it doesn't have any statements summarizing the concerns and negative reception in the Reception section (and elsewhere? -- are there no negative studies?). Including such summary statements in the lead would go a long way to balancing the article. Waldorf education has no dearth of detractors: their concerns need to be summarized in the article's lead. --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no dearth of detractors via blogs and such. Every time this subject comes up -- and it has frequently -- we discover that there seems to be a serious dearth of detractors amongst educationalists and academics who have studied the schools. But I'm open to finding out that this has changed, or that we've missed something. hgilbert (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Reception section has reliably sourced concerns and criticisms (use of computers, reading and literacy, racism controversy, immunization). Some sentences summarizing the most important of these concerns is really needed in the lead, I believe. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

If the reception is to be summarized in the lede, then it should be even-handedly, pointing out both positive and negative aspects. See WP:Criticism. hgilbert (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD guideline says that major points discussed in the article body should be summarized in the lead section. Criticism is such a point. Strictly speaking, no citations are needed in the lead section (everything is cited in the article body), but if material is questioned then cites are commonly placed in the lead to reinforce the validity of controversial bits. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've spent some time trawling online libraries for Waldorf material, and it seems to be a good proportion of what has been written by reliable sources is already cited in the article here. However, a couple of peer-reviewed article which are very critical of Waldorf education are noticeable by their absence (they state Waldorf Education is a cult). For balance these really should be included and then we should think about how the raw materials we have can be boiled down into a summary of criticism for the lede. (FWIW I am myself would then be satisfied that, source-wise, the article has a good and fair representation of verifiable commentary — even if the narrative of the Article itself may still need work to build on that in the best way). Alexbrn (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In-text attribution

As far as I can see, WP:INTEXT nowhere suggests that everything but simple facts needs citation. Here are some relevant standards I find there:

• "Simple facts ...can have inline citations to reliable sources as an aid to the reader, but normally the text itself is best left as a plain statement without in-text attribution"
• "sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged"
• Neutrality issues apart, there are other ways in-text attribution can mislead. The sentence below suggests The New York Times has alone made this important discovery:

According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening.

• "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution"

(The last is from NPOV)

In this article, essentially every statement, including those of simple fact, has been challenged by one editor or another over time. (An example of this is the opening statement that Waldorf education was founded by Rudolf Steiner; an editor became very aggressive challenging this at one point, and thus there is a footnote for what is clearly a simple statement of fact.) The footnotes have thus proliferated, and perhaps this process refined the article in some ways. hgilbert (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A degree of common sense is necessary. Personally I think the register of the lede is mostly wrong - it reads like it's aimed at academics in the field of education philosophy rather than the general reader. So the second sentence now is "it has a humanistic approach to pedagogy" (which would be better stated as "it has been described as having ...") — I'd much prefer to see something much more down-to-earth here. Alexbrn (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Taking apart the lede; a space for reconstructive activity

Overview

• Waldorf education (also known as Steiner education) is an alternative educational system based on the ideas of Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy.
  • Introductory sentence
• It has a humanistic approach to pedagogy; learning is interdisciplinary, integrating practical, artistic, and conceptual elements. The approach emphasizes the role of the imagination in learning, developing thinking that includes a creative as well as an analytic component.

(Comment: I think this is too wordy and hifalutin. Alexbrn (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC))

• • General sense of the approach
• The educational philosophy's overarching goals are to provide young people the basis on which to develop into free, morally responsible, and integrated individuals, and to help every child fulfill his or her unique destiny, the existence of which anthroposophy posits.

(Comment: I am concerned about who is defining these overarching goals. We don't say. To me a WP:SYN warning light is flashing here. Alexbrn (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC))

This is an example of a widely accepted set of goals, articulated in many works about Waldorf education (Education Towards Freedom, etc.), and cited to a RS, which states just what is said here. It seems to me that every possible base has been touched, to use a baseball metaphor. hgilbert (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've searched the first source (Nielsen) but couldn't find this overarching goal mentioned. Could you point me to a page please? Alexbrn (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

p. 85; only in conjunction with the two other sources is this usable, however. But you are right that we are putting together a number of goals listed in separate sources, and that no one lists all of these. Would it help to reword to beginning of the sentence to something like "Its goals include..."? hgilbert (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have no preference for how it's done so long as opinion is clearly identifiable as opinion, content accurately reflects sources, and we remove the element of editorial synthesis. I think, though, that trying to compact all this stuff into a short space for the lede isn't going to work. This material would be better devolved to the article body and unpacked, and then some plain summary could be made of it in the lede, if appropriate. Alexbrn (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Internal goals, which are rather unique
• Schools and teachers are given considerable freedom to define curricula within collegial structures.
  • Special structure

Practical details

• The first Waldorf school was founded in 1919 to serve the children of employees at the Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory in Stuttgart, Germany.
  • Historical origin
• As of 2012, there were 1,025 independent Waldorf schools, 2,000 kindergartens and 629 institutions for special education, located in 60 countries.
  • Present state
• There are also Waldorf-based public (state) schools, charter schools, and homeschooling environments, making up one of the world's largest independent educational systems; in addition, other state and private schools are increasingly using methods drawn from Waldorf education.
  • Ditto

(Comment: and add a paragraph dealing with controversy/criticism, perhaps starting "Waldorf eduction is controversial ... " Alexbrn (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC))

Re: Concerns that Waldorf education is religious

If the Dan Dugan-Judy Daar concerns are included, there need to be balancing, WP:RS statements disputing the religious nature of Waldorf education and/or anthroposophy, for WP:NPOV. Dugan and Daar make statements that are strongly disputed by Waldorf proponents. --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No doubt! – do you know of one? I thought the legal narrative I moved to that section acts as a well-sourced counter-balance. Alexbrn (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

We do not artificially "balance" the treatment of a topic to give equal weight to opposing sides that are not so balanced in real life. More discussion is made about how Waldorf schools have a cult religious or cult pseudoscience aspect than discussion about how that is not true.

• The School Choice Hoax: Fixing America's Schools, page 111. "The [Waldorf charter school] teaching techniques we observed seemed more fitting for producing compliant cult members than students capable of independent thought."
• Hands, Hearts, and Heads: Childhood and Esotericism in American Waldorf, page 169. "The anticult organization International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA), formerly the American Family Foundation (AFF), has treated anthroposophy and Waldorf as 'cults' and has printed articles in this vein in its publication Cultic Studies Review."

From a quick look at online sources it appears the argument against Waldorf schools being religious hinges on whether anthroposophy is a religion which is taught in Waldorf, or whether the unconventional spiritualism of Waldorf can be called a religion. The angry parents describe secrecy and falsehood in how Waldorf represents itself compared with what is delivered to the child. Educators note how Waldorf adherents clothe their argument in secular concepts to make it seem less religious, but the children are nonetheless inculcated in the Waldorf-brand eccentric spirituality. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree we don't want to create any sort of artificial parity, but if there are various contending well-sourced views around a topic they should be aired and probably clustered together -- for coherence if nothing more. If your excerpts are RS (and they appear to be), why not add them to the Article? Alexbrn (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added the position statements of AWSNA and the Anthroposophical Society in America regarding Waldorf and anthroposophy, and religion. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I was wondering why something like that wasn't there already ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Controversy paragraph

I inserted one, as outlined in discussion above, but note the edit has been reverted by User:Hgilbert – who, as a COI-tainted editor under ArbCom sanction needs to be extremely careful here. What's the problem? Everything mentioned in the para is mentioned in the body, and stated plainly. If the para "needs work" then start on that work, don't revert — that appears to me like an aggressive edit. Alexbrn (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. From WP:Bold: "Don't get upset if your bold edits get deleted." Sometimes it's better to work something through in the talk space. hgilbert (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Lede: controversy

The following needs work:

• Waldorf education is controversial. In the academic sphere, debate has centred on Steiner Schools' practice of not teaching reading and ICT skills as early as in mainstream education. In the social sphere, Waldorf education has been accused of discouraging immunization and harbouring unacceptable views on race; the Waldorf movement has denied both accusations. In the United States there has been opposition to Waldorf education gaining public funding, on the grounds that it is a "religious" education. The Waldorf movement has denied it is religious, and successfully defended that position in court.

1. The opening sentence is questionable; it appears to me to be WP:OR.
2. I don't know of serious debate in the academic world about Steiner Schools not teaching reading in EC; there has been such debate in the popular press. (Unless this refers to the academic side of school, rather than academia, in which case it should be reworded for clarity.)
3. ICT--similar questions, and in both cases we probably need to attribute this to particular individuals rather than to a nebulous "academic sphere"
4. Social sphere-- funny term --

I question whether every one of these controversies justifies a place in the lede, and if so, does every positive affirmation also justify a place there? NPOV would require balance here (see WP:Criticism). hgilbert (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing of substance here to justify blanking the paragraph as you did; and for that reason this seems to be COI-tainted, unduly POV editing. However, to your points:

1. Don't you find it strange trying to deny this is a controversial topic on a page which has at its head, in bold text, "the subject of this article is controversial"? Since multiple controversies appear in the body text, it is a perfectly reasonable supposition that the topic is controversial, and editorial consensus was reached above that this paragraph should be here (consensus which your aggressive editing is breaking).

A Wikipedia tag is hardly a RS. It seems to me clearly OR or WP:SYN to claim that a topic is "controversial". Every topic is controversial in one sense -- evolution is controversial, Catholicism is controversial, psychology is controversial -- but it would be better to articulate the controversies, than to claim that it is controversial, which is a loaded statement not supported by any sources (so far as I know). Can you see the difference?

1. Then you should read the article, in the "Reading and literacy" there is well-sourced debate on this topic from excellent sources, and a well-sourced description of this area as, literally, "controversial".

I suspect I misunderstood your phrasing (see above); I thought you were trying to indicate that this debate was within the academic world, whereas you might mean that it is about the schools' approach to academics. As I indicated above, clarifying this would help.

1. ICT - again, read the section: already a first-class source questioning the validity of Waldorf's ICT teaching. If you disagree, bring your concerns to talk rather than blanking the para.
2. Okay, "social sphere" may be a slightly infelicitous term. The lede needs to summarize the body neutrally, so if you can come up with a better term please supply it!

As to whether this paragraph should exist, as a COI-tainted editor I don't believe you can even be offering a view that need be weighed. And no, "positive affirmations" should not be intermixed in the para here as this is not a list of "negative" affirmations, rather a list of areas of controversy, which affirms no position. It follows, of course, two broadly affirmative paragraphs about Steiner education. Your appeals to WP policy misrepresent it: WP:LEAD clearly states that a lead should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" (my emphasis). That is what this paragraph does. In the absence of any valid reason for blanking this paragraph, I shall restore it. Kindly refrain from further tendentious disruption. Alexbrn (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative (needs work still): Waldorf pedagogy has been critiqued for not embracing formal instruction in reading, mathematics, and information technology in early childhood programs; the value of doing so remains controversial amongst literacy experts. Some Waldorf schools have been criticized for having low immunization rates for certain vaccinations; the schools assert that this is due to individual decisions by parents, rather than school policy. A number of critics have suggested that Waldorf schools include spiritual or religious elements; the schools have denied they are religious in nature, and in the United States have successfully defended that position in court. hgilbert (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it reads like a PR defensive exercise, by omitting some things (like the word "controversy"), fudging other things (by e.g. implying that the immunization criticism is just a cricism of "some schools", which is to misrepresent the body) and silently censoring other things (like the controversy about Steiner's views on race). So no, not very good. But (to repeat myself) since you have a COI conflict I am just astounded that you can even think you have any business edit warring on this paragraph! Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to edit war, just to talk this over and come to consensus, which I am sure we can do, before posting a major addition to the lede. If you want to use the word controversy to describe particular debates, that's fine. The general term seems to me to be suspect.

I have changed the schools section in the proposed alternative above to be more general; I hadn't noticed the recent addition of a more general critique...most critiques I had seen were directed to particular schools.hgilbert (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Coming to a consensus involves working with other the editors who have been discussing the addition of material w.r.t. controversies, and a controversy paragraph, above. It does not mean peremptorily blanking a paragraph before (as you admit) even familiarizing yourself with the current version of the article, in the hope of inserting some text of your own, which has no consensus. You do not OWN the article. For the purposes of consensus forming in this matter your voice has little or no weight, because you have a conflict of interest. Alexbrn (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

To remind yourself of the editing activities that are permitted for a conflicted editor, please see WP:COIU. 23:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The same source that asserts the education is controversial also says that it is "renowned for its holistic...approach". Shall we include both statements? Why is one more article-worthy than the other? hgilbert (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the purpose of this para is to summarize controversies per WP:LEAD, and this is merely to support the opening contention (which you challenged) that the topic is controversial (not that it really needs to be supported anyway). Switching into "positive PR" mode here would be as inappropriate as lacing the opening two paragraphs with negative criticism. If you want to add the renowned stuff somewhere in the body, though, feel free. I repeat - your COI problems mean you should really withdraw yourself from editing this content. Alexbrn (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. So you suggest that when there is a source that, in the same sentence, presents positive and negative aspects, taking only the critical side is neutral, whereas reporting both the positives and the negatives violates NPOV. Can you explain the reasoning? hgilbert (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That two statements are in the same sentence in the source is incidental. The source is a piece of neutral reportage that describes "the controversial Steiner method renowned for its holistic, co-educational approach". I am using this to bolster the contention that the topic is controversial, which is a fair use of the source. There is no mutuality of meaning between the clauses in the source which I am undermining by using it in this way. There are other words in the sentence: so what? There are other words close by in the preceding sentence, which I am not using. Similarly if this source was used earlier to support a claim that Waldorf education was "holistic and co-educational" there would be no need to mention that it was controversial right there. In general, it is bad style to intermix (what might be termed) "pro" and "con" clauses in running text, especially in the lede.

It is good practice to to segregate the cases for two positions; it is best practice to have some sort of narrative backbone and let the points emerge naturally in their allotted place: that is what the lede is aiming for — the plan of the lede is broadly: (1) a general description paragraph, (2) a "then and now" paragraph and (3) a summary of controversies paragraph (as suggested in WP:LEAD). To begin this paragraph (as you did in your edit) with "Though renowned for its holistic approach, Waldorf education is controversial in some respects" is bad:

1. Starting a paragraph with an introductory clause ("Though ...") is bad style — it sucks the life out of it
2. In a paragraph dedicated to controversy, starting with a mention of a "holistic" approach both undermines how that paragraph signals its intent to the reader, and is a bad non sequitur
3. You misrepresent the source by introducing a qualifier it doesn't have ("in some respects")

I mention these in some detail because I think it illustrates a problem with your editing here in general: every little edge, tweak and dodge is used to wage warfare on what you perceive as "negative" commentary, the result being the "brochure text" phenomenon which has been so frequently mentioned in this article's past. To me, the tactical nature of the changes you are suggesting here are reminiscent of the sort of copy edits done by PR people when preparing a statement. I am not saying this is bad faith; let me suggest to you that your COI makes you see everything through a lens of "positive" and "negative" which you must strive to balance, whereas for a disinterested editor such a thing as mentioning that the topic is "controversial" is just routine, and not even "negative". This, no doubt, is why Wikipedia has a policy on editors with a COI, which limits the type of edits they are permitted to make. Why do you keep violating it? Alexbrn (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not promoting myself or my institutional affiliation, which is a particular school. No personal or financial advantage whatsoever can possibly accrue to me through editing this article. I have worked with many editors here to ensure that all standpoints represented in RSs are represented. I have added explicitly negative evaluations; for example, "The pedagogy's reliance on a single theory of child development has also been questioned and some Waldorf teachers' uncritical attitude toward anthroposophy criticized.[17]" and "The Dutch Inspectorate of Education reported that a significantly higher percentage of Waldorf elementary schools than state elementary schools visited were judged weak or very weak in the following areas: providing differentiated instruction and lesson plans, the curriculum meeting primary goals in mathematics and language arts, and pupil assessment". (There are others, as well.)

You appear to me to have a marked bias; you have objected to apparently non-evaluative/objective descriptors that are sourced in multiple academic citations (e.g. interdisciplinary), but are ready to include highly evaluative/subjective descriptors (e.g. controversial) sourced in a single citation drawn from a news article.

You keep turning substantive disagreements, on which I have repeatedly compromised, into personal questions over what you claim to be a COI. I will not remove the "W.e. is controversial" statement, but I believe it to be ridiculous -- there are certainly aspects that are controversial, but many aspects are not, and blanket statements are generally less helpful than differentiated/nuanced descriptors. hgilbert (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not want to personalize this, and would appreciate it if did not. However, COIs are not determined by the nature of edits, but by the personal circumstances of an Editor. According to the ArbCom ruling (as well as to common sense) you have a conflict of interest. It doesn't help if you delude yourself otherwise.

Am I biased? Yes! I am biased in favour of making the Articles I edit neutral, comprehensive, and well-sourced. My queries of how sources have used have uncovered some misdirection and inaccuracy, and as a result the article quality has improved. Alexbrn (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Court documents not for publication

I am looking at this document cited in the Article and notice is is headed "not for publication" (it is published on the waldorfanswers.org site, which is a bit iffy isn't it?). Does anybody know whether this should be being reproduced on WP? It's obviously handy to have. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can find a new story verifying the fact of this legal outcome. Alexbrn (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking that out right away. It is a primary source completely inappropriate for citation. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got a secondary in place we can use. Alexbrn (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Next up, what about this one ? (not marked nfp, but still) Alexbrn (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not for publication is a legal term (in use in California and many other states) that excludes the case from being used by later cases as case law. It does not mean anything else.

Why is a court's decision inappropriate for citation? hgilbert (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose a secondary source is always better than a primary. Are there secondary sources for the earlier court episodes. In fact, now the case has a "final" result is it worth even including these? (I have no preference - but I'm guessing they were added as the action progressed) Alexbrn (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Memorandum and Order from November 5, 2010 is the final judgment of the trial judge. It's an important summary of the case from its inception and, more importantly, a summary of the August 31, 2010 trial and the judge's reasoning for the final judgment, as stated in the article, that "anthroposophy is more akin to a methodology or approach to learning as opposed to a religious doctrine or organized set of beliefs". As such it's more important than the final appeal result. A cursory search of newspaper articles around November 2010 did not show any news article on the trial result. --EPadmirateur (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay - sounds like a good reason to keep. I do have a concern about including an editorial summary of legal texts though. Is there some secondary summary we could use? Alexbrn (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've found a press release which, being from an established law firm, is a reasonably good secondary source, and used that. I also replaced the text in the article based on the new source — what was there before (why does this not surprise me?) was slightly misdirecting in that it implied the judge had reached a conclusion based on evidence surrounding the subject in general, rather than the evidence presented at trial in particular (of which, incidentally, he seems rather contemptuous – particularly of that presented by the plaintiff). Alexbrn (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Normally a press release would be a bit suspect, and since this once comes from the lawyers defending the case this may even be COI-tainted. However, I think that law firms have to show exceptional care in their public statements, and of course their output is legally vetted ... therefore any legal commentary they offer is highly likely to be careful and accurate. In any case, having this is certainly better than having a primary text with an editor's interpretation (violating WP:PRIMARY). I have however added a template showing we could do with an even better source for this. Alexbrn (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think the whole presentation by the plaintiffs was flawed and the appeals court thought they should have presented their case more straightforwardly. Therefore the appeals court felt this could not be a final conclusion: "the court was expressing no view as to whether anthroposophy could be considered a religion on the basis of a fuller or more complete record". --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's now clear from the Article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"Controversial" or "highly controversial" ?

After looking a bit more at whether Waldorf education is "controversial" and adding stuff in this vein to the Article (see in particular the first note to the third para), I wonder if in fact it would be more accurate to state that "Waldorf eduction is highly controversial". That is the phrase used by a couple of good sources ... and looking into recent UK controversies (again, see new material I have added around the Pseudoscience section) I'm beginning to think the "highly" intensifier may be justified. I'm wavering ... thoughts? Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Böhlau Verlag

The de:Böhlau Verlag is a major academic publisher in Germany. It should clearly qualify as a reliable source. I have removed the relevant RS tags hgilbert (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have put a reason in the tag. The issue here isn't the publisher, but the author, who is a "Course Director Waldorf Pedagogy, Danube University". Since the ArbCom outcome forbids "[a]nthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians", (my emphasis) wouldn't this fall foul of that? Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Also this book had its RS tag removed and it surely is not from a "well-regarded academic press". a13ean (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh, and now I'm confused -- the first edition was published by a Harper print in '84 but is now in a specialty press. At any rate it was never an academic publisher. a13ean (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that one is that the author is "a teacher and former board chair of the Rudolf Steiner Institute" ... I've put the tag back with a "reason" attribute in the template. Perhaps we could discuss the Böhlau Verlag case here ... ? Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of the ArbComm's ruling, having followed the arguments throughout and then the subsequent clarifications, is that material by any anthroposophically oriented author is allowed but not if published by an anthroposophically oriented press or anthroposophical publication. Therefore both authors mentioned above have always been and I think should continue to be allowed when they are published in non-anthroposophical publications. That's the way the ArbComm set it up. I trust you can see the difference. --EPadmirateur (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I hear what you say – but surely it's impossible to proceed on the basis of an unrecorded compact that has evolved over the years. I don't believe members of the ArbCom individually have the authority to undo decisions taken by them collectively (which are very clearly stated). Is there anything that can be pointed-to which has these clarifications? ... If it was on WP, there'll be a URL for it! I the meantime I suggest we proceed on the basis of the recorded ruling, but leave the rs tags in place (with a reason) until we get a clarification, if any, from the committee. I don't think any of the queried content is particularly bad, so as far as I am concerned there is no urgent need to delete it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the discussion in which several key arbitrators took part. One summarized the situation as follows:

1. For all information in the articles that is uncontroversial, Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered reliable.
2. For any information in the articles, that (on an not clearly defined basis) can be considered controversial, Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered unreliable.
3. What is "controversial"? That is the big, not cleared out point, about which the Arbitration decision is not clear, and that creates the probably largest difficulty in the continued editing of the article.

I hope this clarifies the situation. hgilbert (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, not really – I don't think anything there conclusively interpets the original text. I suppose the definition of controversial for Wikipedia editing purposes is when editors disagree; that at least is a conservative (and therefore safe) test, I'd have thought. Alexbrn (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect use of Main template

The Template:Main is used in several places in the article, but a number of the uses are incorrect. It's to be used when the article contains a summary and it links to a sub-article.

When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often rewritten in summary style. This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised. ... This template is not to be used as a substitute for inline links or as a "see also". Its usage should be restricted to the purpose described hereinbefore.

The cases that are in error are: Anthroposophy, Pseudoscience and Humorism. One that is correct is Curriculum of the Waldorf schools since the Curriculum section is a summary of the Waldorf curriculum. I will change these cases to inline links. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Should these be changed to "see also" rather than deleted? Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Generally I think wiki-links should work as the reference. "See also" implies a topic that's related and on "the same level". For example, in the "Elements of pseudoscience" case the reference "See also Pseudoscience" is to something more general and should be a wiki-link. A "see also" in this case might be "See also Anthroposophical pseudoscience", if such an article or sub-article existed.

To summarize, in my view "Main" should be used for a sub-article to the section, "See also" should be used to a related article on "the same level" as the section, and wiki-links should be used for references to topics that are more general than the section. I hope that's clearer. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect application of the term Humorism to Waldorf

There is a distinction between humorism and the four temperaments since the former is based on the ancient and medieval notion of the four bodily fluids and was used by physicians. The latter term is an interpretation or adaptation of this former idea applying to behaviors and personality traits. In anthroposophy and in Waldorf education, the latter concept is used and applied specifically to behaviors and personality traits. The term "humors" and the notion of the four bodily fluids is completely absent from Waldorf pedagogy. Associating the term "humorism" to Waldorf in the article, especially as the section heading, is completely incorrect. I will adjust the article accordingly. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the Grant article, the ideas applied are very specifically ancient Greek ones (though the terminology appears to be from the later four temperaments). Alexbrn (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact the whole thrust of the Grant article seems to be that Steiner didn't just adopt contemporary ideas about the four temperaments, but had gone back to the ancients (Galen is mentioned in particular) to inform his view - hence his belief in a physical aspect of the categorization, consequent prescriptions of diet to treat imbalance, and so on. Grant chose to entitle his article "Steiner and the Humours ..." so it is perfectly fair (or at least, not 'completely incorrect') to follow the source in that. However, granted (ha!) he does not use the word "humorism" so perhaps a good half-way house is to entitle the section "Ancient Greek medicine" and then just have Humorism as a "see also" — I think that's about the best representation we can have of the source without writing a mini-essay. I've done this edit ... see what you think.

I have no idea whether Grant is right or not, but it's a solid gold source so we should at least represent it faithfully. Is there a counter-source? Alexbrn (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to the Grant paper (perhaps you can point me to where to get a reprint) so I can't judge the basis for linking the humors to Steiner's use of the four temperaments in Waldorf education. I have never seen or heard of the use of the four humors (black bile, yellow bile, phlegm and blood) in Steiner -- perhaps in his medical lectures. But I'm not that well read. Perhaps you can supply the specific line of evidence Grant used.

In any case, bringing in the humors and ancient Greek medicine seems a bit WP:UNDUE emphasis, particularly as its own section. I think the entire sub-section on humors should be reduced to a qualification for the derivation of Steiner's use of the temperaments, with a link to the Humorism article. --EPadmirateur (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll need a librarian to help you with the article ... it's rather intractable in electronic form (as I am using it) just a scan with no option to purchase individually.

The humours stuff is now only two sentences, which seems proportionate. I think it is needed as earlier a mention is made of how RS's anthroposophic ideas affect diet, and without this kind of content that statement is left unexplained.

As I understood Grant's piece, RS was not wholly invested in the classic "four substances" idea of the humours, but had adopted certain aspects of it. To risk summarising Grant, he was using the definition of his own day while retro-fitting some of the substance-based humour thinking of yore (I have put a quotation in the reference which is the key point Grant makes). So for example Grant says RS was concerned about the consumption of sweet things by sanguine children, as this related to the secretion of gall (aka yellow bile) by the liver. It may be that Waldorf teachers are applying RS's diet strictures without knowing what the background thinking was (if that matters).

On the 4 T's more generally, I am sure it is good to mention as it seems quite important; or at least covered in the supporting research. There are two sources supporting the text (and I could have added more but decided enough was enough). If children are categorized/fed/seated/treated according to thinking about this, then it's surely worth a few sentences. Alexbrn (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a confusion here between Steiner's ideas and Waldorf education. There is no indication that Waldorf education uses the humours to recommend dietary measures; an offhand comment by Steiner about the possibility in principle of doing so is very different than a suggestion that this is actually ever used. I don't think the diet business belongs in this article. hgilbert (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Except, you're directly contradicting what the article says. Alexbrn (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Two sections on same theme

There are now two separate sections, both referring to temperament. I suggest we merge them into a single section.

The Grant article is a pretty poor source; it sounds as if he never visited an actual school. This article should focus on WE as it is, rather than every comment Steiner made in a teacher's meeting. For example, there is no reason to believe that anyone actually recommended or recommends dietary measures to change temperament; Steiner cited the possibility of doing so, but did not suggest that anyone contact the parents to recommend this, or to implement it in any other way. See page 32, which is evidently Grant's source

Ullrich gives a more informed presentation. I've added material from his work and attempted to form a single description. It may be shot down, but Grant is really hopelessly superficial on the subject. hgilbert (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Rist and Schneider article, which I've added as a reference but have not employed yet as a source, is also of high quality. hgilbert (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

And your authority for claiming the Grant article is a poor source is .... ? Alexbrn (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

To repeat the original question: Why are there two separate sections on the same subject?

In any case, there should be a balance between the three sources...independently of quality issues, we should not give unequal weight to any one of these. hgilbert (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to merge the two sections again, including the material from Grant. I hope this works better for you. If not, perhaps you could either create your own merger, or justify why there should be two sections, both on the temperaments? hgilbert (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason for having two sections is that Steiner's 4T's are not your usual 4T's - and sectional structure was attempting to make that clear by showing how he also incorporated earlier, humours-based, concepts. OTOH it did make for a bitty section, so your new merge is good - thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Two anthroposophy sections

There are now two anthroposophy sections, a major one at the start of the "Pedagogy" section, and a very small one at the conclusion of the curriculum section. They overlap and probably should be merged. hgilbert (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason I kept the small one was because although anthroposophy's main role is as the basis of w.e. in general, readers may wonder if it is taught - hence the small section in the curriculum section saying it's not. Also Carroll's comment related to anthroposophy as a curriculum topic. I have no objection to removing the smaller section, so long as the Atlantis comment doesn't go MIA. Alexbrn (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Misleading wording

The following is misleading: Anthroposophic educationalists assert that "all the norms and forms of their educational practice are systematically deduced from the cosmic anthropology of the master" (i.e. Rudolf Steiner). The context makes it appear as if educationalists used this terminology. Ullrich wrote the wording, not an educator, and the term "master" to refer to Steiner appears to be purely his own here; he does not claim that educationalists use this term.

The quote is accurate in wording but misleading in context. I would suggest replacing the ending with "...from the cosmic anthropology" of Steiner. hgilbert (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The term is quite striking, and my assumption is that Ullrich is implying this is what educationalists think – that is the point of his choice of words. He doesn't claim educationalists "use" this term – it's not as if the word is quoted. Interestingly, Carroll says something similar: "Some of the ideas of the Waldorf School are not Steiner's, but are in harmony with the master's spiritual insights." Perhaps this would go well next to the Ullrich quotation? (As an aside, I wonder – in real life, is not RS regarded as "the master" since he as an individual is the origin of some kind of revealed truth?) Alexbrn (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is no, it was and is not normal for Steiner to be referred to as a "master", even though the term was at one point current enough for (usually disembodied) individuals in Theosophical circles. (Equivalent terms such as "guru" were and are also not used to refer to Steiner.) During his lifetime, and up to recently, when people referred to him respectfully they generally used the term "Doctor Steiner", or simply "the doctor", which referred to his academic title (he was a doctor of philosophy). In contemporary usage, W. teachers and anthroposophists generally drop the honorific completely, in line with our more informal times, and refer to him simply as Steiner or Rudolf Steiner.

This is why Ullrich's phrase appears so clearly his own, rather than an adaptation of existing usage. The gesture might be accurate enough for many teachers -- especially an older generation regarded him as a central authority in this way -- but the specific term appears to be of Ullrich's particular coinage, rather than to be in any way typical of "anthroposophical educationalists". hgilbert (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting: a choice between "the master" or "the doctor". Dr Who fans would be very confused ;-)

Anyway, I think both Ullrich and Carroll use the term, and we can only assume they think about what they write and the meaning they wish to have, so we should preserve that and be careful not to damage it with our own research. Of course if you can produce some sourced material showing that nowadays RS is in some respects seen as errant, and/or that there countering philosophical bases for the education given, then we can include that too for a fuller picture. (In real life, my understanding is that it is difficult for followers of RS to question his teachings, as once one part of it is questioned the whole edifice begins to crumble, because that edifice is built on clairvoyantly obtained knowledge from the Akashic Record).

In the meantime I'll add the Carroll quotation, just as a reference for now, to reinforce the meaning and for another instance of the word "master" being used. Alexbrn (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It's better now that you've attributed this to Ullrich. The ambiguity is sufficiently cleared up, I think hgilbert (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Elements of pseudoscience section

I have added the results of the PISA study in Austrian schools which balances the issues of elements of pseudoscience in science teaching. In fact, Waldorf students do well in the sciences compared to public schools.

I would also suggest that the sub-sub-heading for anthroposophy is redundant for this section. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this to the "Studies" section where it belongs. Science really shouldn't be included under pseudoscience. As for the anthro. section, as I mentioned above I have no objection deleting this so long as the Carroll comment finds a home. Alexbrn (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This seems like it would be more relevant to the studies section. The fact that they report enjoying science more than students in public schools doesn't have much to do with the fact that some Waldorf students are also taught pseudoscientific concepts. a13ean (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It's just interesting, given the apparent infusion of pseudoscience in Waldorf science teaching, that (1) Waldorf students excel in science compared to public school students and (2) Waldorf teaching methods are recommended as a model for other schools. OTOH, I take your point that the only valid balancing material would be a statement or other evidence dealing with this specific issue. --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The PISA test showed a higher level of understanding in the sciences for Waldorf students. This is surely relevant to a claim that they are being taught pseudoscience. hgilbert (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Some reference to this is clearly appropriate; the difference in ability (not just enjoyment) found was quite large. I suggest something like Both the 2006 and 2009 PISA studies found that Waldorf students were significantly more capable in the sciences than students from state schools, however; see the study section of this article for details.hgilbert (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any connection or relevance. What's your logic? Alexbrn (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This appears to be cherry picking the best points from this study, and similar issues have been discussed previously with respect to the German schools. You wish to say the above, but this includes the BMS (Berufsbildenden Mittleren Schulen) -- the Austrian equivalent of the german Haupt- and Gesamptschule or vocational trade schools. We could just have easily used the same source to say that Waldorf schools beat out the future machine tool operators, but not the future university students. If you compare the Waldorf schools to the non-vocational schools they do significantly worse. The significance of the study is also very limited -- ~150 students taken only from the largest Waldorf schools, who have a much stronger socioeconomic background than the average Austrian student, in addition to the other concerns mentioned by the authors. The only statistically clear thing that can be said from this study is that Waldorf students self-report enjoying science classes more than their public school peers. a13ean (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. The article is chiefly about one study, to which you are referring, but also speaks of the PISA study: "Pisa-Studie, nach der Waldorfschüler weit überdurchschnittliche naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen aufzuweisen haben." I think you missed this. hgilbert (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And the next line is "Kausalität einwandfrei nachzuweisen sei allerdings fast nie möglich, warnte Schleicher. Zu welchem Prozentsatz ein erfolgreiches Schulprojekt auf die Pädagogik oder auf von vornherein bessere Startbedingungen der Schüler zurück führe ist, das sei in aller Regel nicht klar feststellbar." This again strikes me as cherry-picking. Should we also include every single study that reports worse science scores for Waldorf students in this section -- for example that they do worse than the university-bound austrian students? No, this is about pseudoscience. a13ean (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed this as the case hadn't been made. Is it necessary to mention WP:COIU yet again? Alexbrn (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It's amusing that you claim bias over material from a PISA study, whereas Carroll's wild speculation is welcome. I've tagged the section for NPOV concerns. hgilbert (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem's not the study, but the repetition of the study out-of-position in a way which makes no sense. Especially when consensus on the talk page is that it should not be done, and even more especially when that edit is done – in the face of WP guidelines – by an ArbCom-sanctioned editor with a COI. You are in no position to judge, let alone label, what is POV or NPOV because of that COI. Alexbrn (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with hgilbert here. I said earlier: "It's just interesting, given the apparent infusion of pseudoscience in Waldorf science teaching, that (1) Waldorf students excel in science compared to public school students and (2) Waldorf teaching methods are recommended as a model for other schools." I have twice asked for balancing information be added to this section. I agree with hgilbert that omitting available information that balances the assertion that Waldorf teaches pseudoscience in the sciences is non-neutral WP:NPOV. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

But it's an artificial notion of "balance" that sees the article in terms of "plus points for Waldorf" v "negative points for Waldorf" and seeks to get a score draw in each section, at the expense of the Article's structural logic. As I've mentioned above I think this approach is to view the article in terms of its PR impact, rather than as an encyclopedia entry. Despite asking, nobody has explained what they think the relevance of the PISA study is to Pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, we do not try and artificially balance the two sides in a debate when one side clearly predominates. If positive information is stronger, let it shine. If negative information is stronger, make sure the reader knows. Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes – in the pseudoscience section we've got what the skeptics claim and how the schools responded. Neutral. I don't see how bringing in commentary on a data set from several years earlier, in another country, and on something other than pseudoscience, is relevant. I suspect the desire to do so is the effect of seeing things through the "COI lens" whereby everything is seen in terms of what it might imply about how desirable or not Waldorf education is, and so seeks to offset supposed negative implications with supposed positive ones. Alexbrn (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There are two editors who feel the information is highly relevant. It comes from excellent sources -- 2 PISA studies and many articles about these. I wonder if you might review WP:Good faith?

There is absolutely nothing artificial about including studies that relate to claims being made. There is no danger of this creating imbalance in this section when there are four paragraphs of critique and we are suggesting including one paragraph of not praise, but objective evidence.

From Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies: Likewise, sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are superior to sections devoted to criticism. Best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. (emphasis in original) hgilbert (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Good faith flies out of the window when there is a COI (presumably why COI-tainted editors are encouraged not to edit). Of course pertinent material should be clustered together (both sides of the argument), which is precisely why the schools' responses are included here; but importing irrelevant information is just bizarre. Do you think, in the section describing how Steiner lectured at Oxford we should include "However some accuse Steiner of holding racist views" to "balance" that section? Have you proposed that the pseudoscience stuff be included alongside the positive studies to "balance" them? (tellingly, no). Nobody has even attempted to explain the relevance of this material — the argument appears to me to be "we need some good news to balance out the bad news". Alexbrn (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. The connection between suggesting that a school does not have an effective science education program, and evidence that it does indeed have an effective program, seems clear to me. hgilbert (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The section is not primarily "suggesting that a school does not have an effective science education program". That may be however what you primarily take from it (the COI lens in action again, revealing things as "good" or "bad" for Waldorf PR). The section primarily relates how some UK skeptics are criticizing some UK schools for teaching pseudoscience. People will take this in different ways — not everybody is a skeptic; some people will think this as a good thing. But even if your interpretation is justified, how is the PISA study related to the UK schools of today? Are you assuming the way things are taught in the UK in 2012 is exactly the same as the way things were taught in Austria in 2005? What you are proposing is to take one implication ("Steiner schools bad at science") and try and offset it with another implication ("but wait! Steiner schools good at science"). That is not encyclopedia writing, it's spin. Alexbrn (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The PISA study was not limited to Austrian students; the sources says "European"

These are various aspects of the science curriculum under discussion. I find it bizarre that you suggest the teaching of pseudoscience might be a positive thing; the critics clearly did not mean it as a neutral characterization, and your word "criticizing" points this up clearly. hgilbert (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course the skeptics intended it as adverse criticism, but others may see it as a good thing — presumably the teachers teaching pseudoscience think it's a good thing; and presumably a good number parents are okay with it. Pseudoscience is quite popular. The school had arguments in response to the skeptics and those are reproduced in the Article. They didn't choose to mention PISA studies. Alexbrn (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed hypothetical edit

In the light of the above conversation about the Pseudoscience section, let us consider a parallel case. How about this edit ...

In the "Origins and history" section mention is made of how Steiner spoke at Oxford. I think this serves to give a certain positive impression, lending Steiner a veneer of academic respectability by mentioning him in the context of a famous seat of learning. The section needs to be balanced. To do this I propose adding, after the Oxford paragraph, the following: "In modern times however, Steiner's reception by universities has been less welcoming. The dean of Stockholm university has labelled the Waldorf syllabus 'literature which conveys scientific inaccuracies that are worse than woolly; they are downright dangerous.'" If we don't do this, the article will send out a too-positive message about Univiersities' stance on Steiner.

In my view this edit would be a bad idea – although the case could be made for it, in the same way it's being made above. This kind of edit is torturing the article to impart a bogus kind of PR-style balance - and would end, if carried to its logical conclusion, with every non-bland fragment of the article being combined with every other. Alexbrn (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the Oxford business could go. I don't know who put it in, but it certainly wasn't me. I find your interpretation unlikely, by the way -- I doubt it affects his level of respectability, but maybe it's so -- in any case, I think the sentence belongs to the separate History of WE article, rather than here.

It is, of course, a wholly different thing, however; both edits you mention could go together in a Reception section, but not in a "origins and history" section. Here we are discussing aspects of a science curriculum - and pseudoscience also refers to problems with the science curriculum, as pseudohistory would refer to problems with the history curriculum, pseudolinguistics with... and so on. Note WP's explicit guidelines on avoiding sections purely devoted to criticism, quoted above. hgilbert (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The section primarily relates how some UK skeptics are criticizing some UK schools for teaching pseudoscience, it is you who are trying to generalize this into "discussing aspects of a science curriculum" as an opening gambit to get some positive PR in to offset the perceived overall negativity (even if your proposed addition is based on irrelevant historial data).

This is not a "criticism section" BTW, as it includes the school response — and as I mention above some people will be cheering in approval of the teaching of pseudoscience, crying "yeah! that's right ... we don't want no stinking rigid scientific hegemony; vive la difference!" (there are quite a few people like that, I find, who edit Wikipedia). Alexbrn (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You say, "The section primarily relates how some UK skeptics are criticizing some UK schools." Defining it in this way would clearly make for a criticism section, even if you include responses to that criticism. As I suggested above, Wikipedia encourages organizing thematically: what is the theme here? If it's science, then the other information should be included. If it's the reception W.E. is receiving, then it should move down to the Reception section.

Your suggestion that what you repeatedly have termed criticism (and I agree with this categorization) might be taken positively by some people, is irrelevant. The criterion is not the reader's response, which is clearly unpredictable, but the nature of the material. hgilbert (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you have a novel view of what a criticism section is; by including the response this is not any kind of criticism section. Those are typically long bills of complaint without response, in my experience. Criticism need not be adverse; criticism can be positive too. I am intrigued by your suggestion the section has an innate "nature" distinct from its how it is received. How do you work that out? Alexbrn (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Substitute the word "theme" for "nature". I hope that helps.

If you are limiting the subject to "how some skeptics are criticizing some schools" -- your own description of the section's theme, above -- then I would say that's pretty clearly a criticism section. hgilbert (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerns over editing and advocacy in this article

Prompted by discussion above, I am providing some details of the content and behaviour problems I see with this article. [Update 2012-12-14: Hgilbert has added some inline responses, for readability I have coloured these green]

COI & Talk Page behaviour

1. Hgilbert was asked by IRWolfie- and JzG about a possible conflict of interest on his talk page. In the discussion that followed, Hgilbert claimed "I edit, without giving preference to the one over the other". Hgilbert subsequently deleted [2] the discussion with the misleading edit summary "archive increasingly pointless discussion" (the content was not archived).
2. After raising the topic [3] of a "Conflict of Interest problem", Alexbrn placed a COI warning on Hgilbert's Talk page. Hgilbert deleted this [4]. In the discussion that followed on Talk:Waldorf education Hgilbert implied that he had been cleared of COI by an ArbCom ruling "I am no more or less conflicted than an employee of the public school system would be in editing an article on public education" [5]. The comment was countered by Binksternet, who quoted the ArbCom ruling text.[6]
3. Hgilbert characterized the raising of COI as "personal attack" ("Instead of getting involved in personal attacks, let's focus on the content, OK?").[7]
4. At the same time Hgilbert claimed, falsely, that Alexbrn had been "adding what is clearly personal opinion in the guise of fact" (my emphasis) to the Article. The problem was instead that Alexbrn has not provided an inline attribution for sourced content which Hgilbert disagreed with. [8]

   Carroll explicitly says that "it is likely that some of...". This is clearly an opinion. I'm definitely puzzled how someone could call this statement one of fact. hgilbert (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

5. Hgilbert has stated or implied that he has no COI: "I have worked with many editors here to ensure that all standpoints represented in RSs are represented"[9]; see also reference to "personal questions over what you claim to be a COI" (my emphasis) later at the same URL.

From User talk page: Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users.

Denying sources

Hgilbert has opposed/disrupted the use of authoritative sourced material with which he disagrees, on the basis of nothing more than his own opinion:

1. The work of educationalists Siraj-Blatchford and Whitebread's was described by Hgilbert as "idiosyncratic", "wildly inaccurate" and "a bugbear"[10]. When his argument to suppress the material was lost, it was stated "the whole claim is so ridiculous that it is really not worth discussing further." [11] The content in question was subject to a sequence of attemped POV-pushing edits (see POV pushing section below).
2. Hgilbert applied a RS template to a statement issued by the British Humanist Association with the edit summary: "not a peer-reviewed publication, controversial claim".[12]

   Is this a peer-reviewed publication? The arbitration is clear about the need for these to support anything but sheer matters of fact.

3. Hgilbert took issue with a scholarly article published in the BJES, describing it as a "poor source".[13]
4. Hgilbert takes exception to the use of the published material written by Robert Todd Carroll as a source, calling it "sheer speculation" [14] and "wild speculation" [15].

   See above. Saying that something is "likely" without providing any evidence appears to be, indeed, sheer speculation. Note that this is discussion on the talk page that is being objected to here!

Coordinated editing

When Hgilbert has had edits reverted and it appears things are running against him, he has a tendency to contact known friendly editors to lend assistance. There is no evidence of him voluntarily using normal dispute resolution channels.

1. User EPadmirateur is another editor with a high proportion of editing activity focused on Steiner, the occult, anthroposophy and Waldorf-related topics, dating from his earliest edits in 2007.[16]
2. Whether EPadmirateur has a COI is unknown.
3. On occasion, Hgilbert has contacted EPadmirateur via his Talk page, referencing Steiner/Waldorf-related topics, sometimes with a suggestion (in the text or the edit summary) as to what he thinks needs doing. This is followed by sequences of editing and/or reverting by EPadmirateur and Hgilbert, applying to the content that has been indicated [17] [18] [19]
4. Similar approaches have been made twice to Rocksanddirt, most recently within the last few days: [20] [21]
5. On one occasion, Hgilbert notes he needs help to avoid exceeding the 3RR limit [22] — there follows an edit war (see Waldorf education history around 18 May 2012) with the two teamed editors pooling reverts to "win".

Aggressive editing

Despite being under ArbCom sanction and having a COI, Hgilbert edits aggressively (against the recommendation of the ArbCom ruling, and of WP:COIU).

1. Within the last few days, Hgilbert has reverted, [23] blanked,[24] and heavily edited[25] content.

   The "reversion" of content is actually not reversion of content at all, but re-inclusion of a NPOV template, which Alexbrn had removed. The template explicitly specifies that it should not be removed until the dispute is resolved.

   I did initially object to the lede paragraph as written, but all the same content was in the article later, where it appropriately belongs, and where I did not object to it.

   Is that really a "heavy edit"?

POV pushing

One of the more subtle and insidious methods of advocacy is civil POV pushing, by which a sequence of apparently reasonable and innocuous edits become, on closer inspection and with cumulative effect, deleterious to the neutrality of an Article. Analyzing it inevitable requires descent to the level of minutiae, at or below phrase level. Here is an attempt to show how it has affected this article...

1. On 28 November 2012, Alexbrn introduced [26] new content into the article: Followers of Steiner Waldorf education take the position that children should play only with 'natural, non-manufactured materials' and so maintain that play should not involve computerized or electrically-powered devices or items made of plastic, such as Lego. The Steiner belief system is, however, illogical since some manufactured items, such as woollen cloth, are permitted for play purposes.
2. The addition was sourced, and the wording used close to that of the source.
3. Hgilbert's first assault on this content came in an edit with the summary "merge to EC" [27]. The passage was reworded as follows: Followers of the education take the position that children should play only with 'natural, non-manufactured materials'{{disputed}} and maintain that play should not involve computerized or electrically-powered devices or items made of plastic, such as Lego. Sira-j-Blatchford and Whitebread have criticized the education for being inconsistent, since some manufactured items, such as woolen cloth, are permitted for play purposes.

   A shocking change.

4. Note four changes: a "dispute" tag has been introduced (despite the content's WP:V goodness); the phrase "Steiner belief system" has been removed; the word "illogical" has been changed to "inconsistent"; and an in-line attribution ("Sira-j-Blatchford and Whitebread have criticized") has been introduced. This text now becomes the only text in the section (indeed in all the stages of education sections) with the distancing effect of inline attribution. Note that other statements like "Waldorf teachers have been cited for their level of personal commitment to their pupils" are not inline attributed.

   The non-manufactured materials claim is ridiculous.

5. The next change comes from EPadmirateur, as part of the process of trying to clear the "disputed" tag introduced by Hgilbert, in an edit called "revised to clarify" [28]: Waldorf teachers generally hold that young children should play only with natural materials and that play should not involve computerized or electrically-powered devices or items made of plastic, such as Legos. According to Siraj-Blatchford and Whitebread, this restriction includes 'non-manufactured materials' which appears to them illogical since some manufactured items, such as woolen cloth, are permitted for play purposes.
6. Note with this edit we have a qualification ("Waldorf teachers generally ...") introduced. We now have further distancing ("According to Sira-j-Blatchford and Whitebread ...") building on what went before, along with the disclaiming effect of "which appears to them illogical since" (my emphasis).

   Here is a claim that is only made by one author, and which there is reason to doubt is more widely held. It is included in the article, attributed to the author. That's all. What a tempest in a teapot!

And so the work is complete. The original text is now qualified, distanced and attributed in a way that makes it stand out as slightly questionable in relation to the surrounding text ... just some academics' opinion, not fit to be stated in Wikipedia's voice. In a parallel passage Hgilbert took another attempt at spinning these educationalists' work by downgrading their statement further into something they merely "feel" [29]. Alexbrn (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The term could equally be "believe", "think", etc. The claim that something is "more a reaction against aspects of nineteenth-century industrialization than it is a reasoned assessment of twenty-first century children's need" is surely the author's evaluation, and can be reasonably denoted as such. hgilbert (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, if you see someone gaming the system like at [30], then you can still take it to WP:ANEW for edit warring, and show the gaming. Why post this here? Why not at WP:COIN? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The reason not to take this dispute to WP:COIN is that it is barely a dispute, and the boomerang effect might not go where Alexbrn intends. This is a long article with lots of crappy sources about a subject that is very esoteric to many. ANYONE who spends any significant time here has a COI, simply because we have feeling for the subject. Are we all perfect editors? no. Do some of us keep at the article trying to make it better? yes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Science

I have started a science section in the curriculum area, since one editor feels that the pseudoscience subsection should not be sullied with material about science itself. hgilbert (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Structure section

The structure section is badly organized at the moment, apparently out of a desire to highlight the anthroposophical foundations (and there primarily a critical comment about these). I don't want to get into an edit war over this, and unless a third editor wants to weigh in, I see no way forward here. hgilbert (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The way forward is for you to read WP:COIU and abide by it, rather than continually pushing your advocacy agenda with COI-tainted edits. Comments from disinterested editors are of course welcome. As to the section structure: if something is "the basis" for all that follows, it makes perfect sense to have it as a leading section. Alexbrn (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

From your tone and the nature of your edits, I'm not sure that you are playing the role of a "disinterested editor". I wonder if we can work together to balance our points of view? Perhaps WP:Good faith has a role to play here. hgilbert (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you abide by WP:COIU? Alexbrn (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

We both should be working very hard to ensure a neutral tone. We also should be working very hard to abide by WP:Good faith hgilbert (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As I have written before, sadly good faith flies out of the window when an editor with a COI is on the scene, since you simply cannot be considered sufficiently impartial to edit the article (as evidenced by your patterns of bad behaviour). Read WP:BESTCOI. Alexbrn (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wording of lede: "harboring unacceptable views"

The BBC broadcast suggested that Steiner had unacceptable views, not (so far as I understand) that the Waldorf movement harbored these views. The Waldorf_education#Racism_controversy section reports this accurately, but the lede gives a false impression. Unless there is something I've missed in the broadcast, the lede should be corrected. hgilbert (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made an edit to clarify, and linked to the RS article. Alexbrn (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This reads better. hgilbert (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I went back and listened to the broadcast again. There is no mention of a concern that Waldorf is or might be colored by Steiner's views on the subject. The only thing raised are his views themselves. I'm not sure even the new wording, accused of being colored by Steiner's unacceptable views on race, reflects this. I see no evidence of such an accusation. Am I missing something? hgilbert (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, there's the interview with the young teacher who expressed the concern that people/pupils will accept Steiner's views as good as far as they go in teaching, and then take a step and end up importing all of his view, including the nasty ones. Alexbrn (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The young teacher does not speak about race at all. Though the editing of the video cleverly places one clip immediately after the other, to encourage one to draw the connections, since neither the commentator nor any speaker actually suggests that race is one of the things that might be imported, to refer this specifically to race would be a clear case of WP:OR (Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources) or WP:Syn: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. hgilbert (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it clearly a case of OR at all, since as your yourself note, the the report is made in such a way "to encourage one to draw the connections": the intent and context are there: it's equivalent to having (in text) clauses with a colon between them. If you want to be absolutely bare about it once could say (rough) "the BBC reported on how the opening of Frome Steiner academy was causing controversy. They reported RS views of race (Schwartz/Weis quote), interviewed a commentator who said this was 'pretty much what the Nazis were pushing', asked the head teacher whether some of RS's views 'could be interpreted as racist' and interviewed a teacher concerned that student might come to accept all of RS's views". Now of source this needs to be summarized for the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Note the precise terminology: "do not imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The word explicitly is, well, quite explicit. hgilbert (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but in the summary of the lede one needs to summarize. We could say "questions on Steiner's unacceptable views on race have been raised in a BBC report on a School in Frome ..." but I'm not sure it gains us much other than words! Alexbrn (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've tried for accuracy without making the lede more wordy. Feel free to adjust as necessary. hgilbert (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Peer reviewed sources

The 2003 review of WS science was not published in a peer-reviewed publication; it fails the strict arbitration guidelines here. (It actually appeared in an anthroposophical publication, and so is specifically excluded.) hgilbert (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I notice you have been aggressively editing the article again, removing content you don't like, and without discussion. The material in question in not from an anthroposophical source, and is quoted in peer-reviewed and academically vetted secondary sources, tending to raise its level of WP:V goodness. You yourself were cherry-picking its findings through another article in an earlier edit. Please stop this COI POV pushing. Alexbrn (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What is quoted in peer-reviewed sources, may be used here. The original article clearly fails the arbitration guidelines. Can you please review the guidelines, which are clear here?

BTW: Using what qualified sources reported about a study is not "cherry-picking its findings". If anything, those sources did the "cherry-picking" ...which is what third-party reviews are for. hgilbert (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you cherry-picked the cherry-picking: which is quite a feat! I have read the arbitration ruling; you are misrepresenting it to try and support your POV pushing. Again. Alexbrn (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources." What is unclear about this? The 2003 study was published in an anthroposophical publication. The people who did the study were connected to WE hgilbert (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a curious claim. Exactly what was in the qualified source that I did not use, but that you would like to see here? Since I added both positive and negative material, I'm very puzzled by what your problem is. hgilbert (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No mention of e.g. "very little time was spent on exploring the differences between students’ perceptions and considering different answers and solutions, which also could be expected in a phenomenological teaching approach". As an aside, this article ("Doing phenomenology in science education: a research review") is very strange - it reads at times like a product of machine translation. Alexbrn (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The passage mentions both what time was spent on, and what it wasn't spent on. We could include both, but this seemed too much. What do you think? hgilbert (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we should use the original monograph as printed by the university and/or Lyons' piece on it, rather than pick out bits from this incidental mention of the work, in an article who purpose is, narrowly, to consider the role of phenomenology in science education. I also think, per WP:COIBEST you should stop editing the article and stop trying to argue positions on this Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked up the authors of the study; Jelinek, at least, was already a professor of education at the time of its publication, and his co-author was either already or has since become a professor of child development. Given this, the study would qualify as a reliable source even if not published by a peer-reviewed journal or press. I therefore retract my objections to the use of the piece. It was an honest misunderstanding of the study's status, for which I apologize. hgilbert (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. However, non-peer-reviewed sources which are otherwise reliable may be used, unless they are written by "deeply involved" Waldorf people, Steiner fans or Anthroposophists. Once again, let me point to the 2006 ArbCom ruling: Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources. Again, thanks. Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of arbitration guidelines

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Workshop#Reliable_sources: except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources. This seems clear. We are dealing here with information that is clearly controversial, and if sourced solely to Anthroposophy related publications clearly contravenes the guidelines. We can still make use of any material from that is reported in other, reliable sources, however, by citing to these sources, rather than the Anth. related pub's. hgilbert (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Also: The arbitrator's response to a suggestion that:

In a similar way as for works on controversial issues with regard to Waldorf education, published by anthroposophical or Waldorf publishers, I would also suggest that authors, who have worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy, be considered as unreliable sources with regard to controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy. Thebee 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

was:

Of course Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Further: Clearly there is little third party peer reviewed information available, but that is what you need to work with. Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The format of that arbitration page was the following: Somebody would propose text for a future final decision, then involved parties would endorse it or not, and the arbitrator (Fred Bauder) would endorse it or not. Above, the discussion you present first was endorsed by the arbitrator and two participants. The discussion you present second was challenged, not endorsed by Pete K. The Jelinek/Sun paper was not discussed at all.

The working discussions were subsequently carried to the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Proposed decision and endorsed or not by ArbCom. 100% of arbitrators endorsed the following text based on the discussion you point to:

Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources.

As you see, research papers critical of Waldorf are not disallowed as you wish them to be. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh? The word especially is not equivalent to exclusively. hgilbert (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest problem

Prompted by a comment above about this article seeming like a "propaganda piece" I have been looking at the edit history of this article and come to the conclusion that there is a potentially significant conflict of interest issue here. In particular, User:Hgilbert (whose contributions are so substantive that he may be accounted a major shaping force for the article as it stands) is a Steiner School employee, who has been in discussion before about possible COI conflicts. These discussions have been deleted from his Talk page, accompanied by a misleading edit summary — "archive increasingly pointless discussion". The discussion was not in fact archived so far as I can see, but removed. In it, Hgilbert stated "[t]here are a lot of things I'm working to change in Waldorf education to bring it into the 21st century" which suggests his involvement is even more than being an employee and is very well advanced into COI territory. For this controversial topic, I propose that any editors with a COI interest (a) declare them, and (b) abide by Wikipedia policy in future by limiting the scope of their activity appropriately. I have added a COI tag to this article which can be removed when there is consensus to do so. Alexbrn (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the final arbitration review that reviewed this situation and/or consult with the arbitrators. I am no more or less conflicted than an employee of the public school system would be in editing an article on public education, or a US government employee would be in editing an article on the US government: I am not an employee of "Waldorf education", but of a particular school that uses this mode of education. I am not paid to do anything other than teach in the school, just as a public school teacher is paid to work in that kind of school, and a US gov't employee is paid by the US government. I am very interested in improving Waldorf education, but that hardly relates to my role as an editor.

I go out of my way to include a full range of viewpoints, insofar as they (from whatever side) can be supported by reliable sources. If you want to work cooperatively instead of hostilely, I would welcome this. If you want to reopen an arbitration or similar proceeding I believe that my editing will stand up well. hgilbert (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly which part of arbitration review says that Waldorf teachers are not conflicted with regard to the Waldorf education article? Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In 2006, a determination was made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Conflict_of_interest to categorize as conflicted any person "associated either with the Waldorf schools or with PLANS, an anti-Waldorf organization, who are aggressively editing Waldorf school and related articles in a biased manner." If Hgilbert is editing in a biased manner, or aggressively, then he holds a COI according to this finding. Such editors are required to refrain from reverting others. Rather, they are encouraged to argue for their viewpoint on the article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet: Can you show me what you would regard as an aggressive or biased edit? hgilbert (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I will not pretend to know what was in the minds of the arbitrators six years ago. To me, "aggressive" would be repeated reversions. "Biased" would be continually pro-Waldorf or anti-Waldorf editing practices. Editors who might be described as aggressive or biased in these terms but who were not associated with Waldorf or PLANS would not fall under this particular ArbCom determination. Instead, these other editors would be subject to the usual Wikipedia guidelines. As a Waldorf teacher, you would look to the stricter ArbCom determination. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with the arbitration content, but don't see how it is relevant to this COI issue. As I have noted elsewhere, some people involved in that arbitration process seem prone to misrepresenting its outcomes in what seems like an attempt to shut down comment. I placed a COI warning on your Talk page but note you have deleted it. Your COI risk is quite simply stated: you earn your livelihood from teaching in the Steiner system, and that system depends for is existence/growth on recruiting new pupils, the success of which endeavour is affected by how successfully the Waldorf education system promotes itself. Since Wikipedia is quite likely to be consulted by parents considering Waldorf education, the content here may affect that recruiting success and so leads back through the chain to your personal stake in the system. In researching this COI I noticed (are you aware of this?) that some Steiner advocacy sites direct their readers to Wikipedia for information. Alexbrn (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that I, and every other editor, should follow Wikipedia guidelines carefully and avoid biased editing. But I am not the one adding what is clearly personal opinion in the guise of fact (see the discussions elsewhere on this page). This should neither be done for positive, nor for negative opinions of the education.

Instead of getting involved in personal attacks, let's focus on the content, OK? hgilbert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you mention "personal attacks". I'm sorry if you take the COI warning personally but I can assure you I did it in the best interests of the article, and there is no personal dimension. Alexbrn (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree that the article and it's editors currently have a COI problem. While certain regular editors are more closely involved with Waldorf Education IRL, the editing of the article does not appear to have the normal COI editing challenges (See scientology articles for comparison). As the discussion of this item ended nearly two weeks ago and article work has seemed to continue in a collegial and appropriate manner, i'm going to remove the tag. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I notice from your talk page you have been prompted by hgilbert to come here. He is a user who has a COI according both to independent editors of this page and previous findings of the Arbitration Committee (see the relevant templates at the top of this page). At the very least, removing this tag without discussion seems peremptory. Please start a new section if you wish to discuss further. In the meantime, I have restored it. 19:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Everyone has conflicts of interest. I'm not seeing the PROBLEM. please point out where his or any other current editors editing is a COI problem. All I see is a few folks trying to make an article better and more complete and more readable (that last bit has a ways to go). This section is fine to discuss the issue, we have lots of sections already. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The problem is that Hgilbert continually edits the article to emphasise the positive and attenuate the negative. The 2006 ArbCom ruling warned against Waldorf-involved editors participating here in a biased manner. Hgilbert is Waldorf-involved and biased, thus he is restricted by the 2006 ruling from making content reversions or disputed text revisions. However, he has made many such reversions and revisions. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia terms, not everyone has a COI. The problem with discussing this here is that it's right at the top of the page, so could interfere with the archival process. The "problem" is that at least one editor with a COI is continuing to edit here in a manner which goes against Wikipedia norms. The consequences of that are unnecessary heat on the talk page, suspicious patterns of editing/lobbying, and an article that is less good than it should be. COI is not measured by what is happening on the page, but by the personal circumstances of editors. Those being as they are, the tag is appropriate. I shall turn the question round to you: what is the "problem" of having a tag on this page which correctly describes both the situation of a prominent editor, and the genesis of the article? Why be less than correct? Alexbrn (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The normal thing is to offer some diffs to show where the user has distorted or suppressed material. I am interested to see what you view as problematic edits. It is my impression that you have objected to reorganization of sections thematically, inclusion of more points of view, and other edits that actually implement, rather than contradict, Wikipedia policy. Or do you think that it's more important to include sheer speculation (as in the Carroll quote you added) than concrete studies? hgilbert (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Read this very page (or my edit summaries) for multiple descriptions of the damage your COI is doing. But you keep trying to frame COI as a content issue: it's not — it's a personal issue, one that inheres in you and which (naturally) you are blind to. You can't be trusted to be sufficiently impartial; you're not sufficiently impartial; you shouldn't be mangling this Article. That is what Wikipedia norms say. And the same of course applies to any other editor with a COI. COI is a terrible thing as it forces an editors personal circumstances continually to the fore (as now) – another good reason why COI tainted editors like yourself should follow the WP guidelines and assume a low profile. Why don't you? Alexbrn (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, it is notoriously difficult to present diffs showing Civil POV pushing, rather it's a consistent pattern of behaviour over long periods. I note that you have consistently been trying to water down any negative material about the related anthroposophical medicine : [31][32][33] etc, so I think there is an issue of advocacy with articles around Steiner. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"I'm not seeing the PROBLEM." If you're not seeing the problem, you're not looking very hard. Hgilbert is a Waldorf teacher who is controlling this and several other articles. If that isn't a problem, then Wikipedia cannot be a very good source of unbiased information can it? Not seeing the problem here damages Wikipedia. Anyone can look at the edit history and see the reasonable edits Hgilbert has reversed. How many editors have tried to adjust this article only to throw up their hands in frustration? How about the quick archiving and even the deleting of archives? This is the behavior of someone with a conflict of interest. It's Wikipedia's problem. 76.170.168.122 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The arbitration guidelines are clear on what sources are acceptable and which not. I'm following these, using only high-quality verifiable sources myself, and am trying to ensure that this is true across the board. These are not guidelines I established; the Wikipedia arbitration process established these.

Incidentally, as noted above, archiving and deletions of material on one's own user talk pages (which is what the above user refers to) is perfectly acceptable by WP guidelines. hgilbert (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that nobody is checking the sources you're using because you've chased everyone who might be interested in objecting to your sources away? The arbitration guidelines may be clear, but the anthroposophical affiliations of your sources are not so clear. The other complaint is that you have quick-archived *these* discussion pages, not your user pages. Are you intentionally trying to confuse the issue in order to seem reasonable here? Nobody cares if you archive your user pages, but you have been archiving talk pages which have, time and time again, tried to introduce a little balance in this article. It's a good way to cover your tracks. The arbitration committee will have to dig very deeply to sort this all out. 76.170.168.122 (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this page archived by a bot (alone)?

As regards sources, over the past few weeks I've had a good look at the ones here and, whatever other problems this article might have, I think its sources are at least in reasonable shape. Alexbrn (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"Isn't this page archived by a bot (alone)?"

That would be a great question for HGilbert to answer. Let's see what he says. Anthroposophical sources aren't always easy to spot. Typing "McDermott Anthropsophy" into Google, for example, often reveals the Anthroposophical connections of the author to the content. Some of the not-so-controversial stuff is sourced to Anthros but shouldn't be - according to the arb com ruling. 76.170.168.122 (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

My understanding was that any anthroposophist's views were effectively "laundered" if they appeared in a high-quality RS publication from a non-anthroposophical source. Alexbrn (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Concur, though I probably would have used the term "verified through peer review" rather than the much more amusing "laundered".

By the arbitration decision, non-controversial material is acceptable to source to Waldorf or anthr.-related sources. This is anyway a WP guideline: see SELFSOURCE hgilbert (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You haven't answered the archiving question yet. Please answer. Meanwhile, whether something is "non-controversial" seems to be in the eyes of the beholder - in this case HGilbert exclusively. Alex, is there such a thing as a high-quality RS publication from a non-anthroposophical source? I'm not aware of any - other than from publications critical of Steiner. Non-anthroposophists don't tend to align themselves with Steiner's ideas primarily because they are so strange. What I'm suggesting is that anthroposophists tend to hide their affiliations so you have to dig deeply in order to uncover them. Look carefully at the references praising Steiner and you'll find anthroposophical connections almost every time. 76.170.168.122 (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The question was answered already; the talk page is being archived by a bot. (I do not normally answer a question that someone else has already fully addressed.) hgilbert (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

We know the talk page is being archived by a bot. Are you ALSO archiving the page? If not, when did you stop doing this, because there have been complaints in the past about you and this particular practice? When was the last time you manually archived this talk page? 76.170.168.122 (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, how was the answer "fully addressed"? With a question? Are you intentionally trying to be intimidating? 76.170.168.122 (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about. Feel free to show a diff. hgilbert (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, you don't have to know what I'm talking about to answer the question. Do you manually archive the talk pages? Yes or no? When was the last time you manually archived the talk page? Date? Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse? It's two very simple questions. I'm trying to identify behavior that might represent a conflict of interest. You are known to have displayed this behavior in the past. What's the problem with answering the questions? The topic is your conflict of interest. 76.170.168.122 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and if you want to claim that you have never archived pages, over the objections of other editors, feel free to make that claim. 76.170.168.122 (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link :::::::Here's a link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julianna_Margulies&diff=528521610&oldid=176348829 to a diff. HGilbert's contribution to the Juliana Margulies article? To add Waldorf her credentials. I suspect additions like this one to Wikipedia articles by HGilbert are abundant. Does every celebrity who went to Waldorf have to be identified in their Wikipedia articles? Why - if not to promote Waldorf? 76.170.168.122

The intended link shows a correct edit to the article, not a problem. The article already described Margulies' Waldorf education, so Hgilbert was correct to assign the biography to the Waldorf alumni category. Binksternet (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The question is, has HGilbert done the same biography "addition" to many articles? If that isn't the work of a conflict-of-interest editor, what is? Has he edited any articles to fill in the schooling of people who haven't attended Waldorf? This was a promotion of Waldorf "addition" - nothing more. 76.170.168.122 (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh look http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_Chenault&diff=529389650&oldid=176349566 he did it again on Kenneth Chenault's page. Chenault's Waldorf education shows up before his fame as CEO of American Express. I'm sure his Waldorf education is why Wiki readers came to the article. 76.170.168.122 (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the page on "Creativity" here on Wikipedia? Somebody has it pointing to Waldorf as an example of a school system that promotes creativity. Really? Others don't? The pro-Waldorf people have made a joke of Wikipedia. Start by looking at HGilbert - the most obvious problem. 76.170.168.122 (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh my God! Here's the diff. hgilbert (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What's your point, that *you* didn't make that particular edit? I didn't say you did. You're not the only Waldorf supporter here adding Waldorf references to articles that don't require them. You have a conflict of interest that's clearly obvious. 76.170.168.122 (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In going through the articles that mention Waldorf, I notice a lot of the Waldorf padding has been done by EPadmirateur. Has he/she declared a Waldorf affiliation yet? This editor seems to support HGilbert in many of his pushy edits or undo's. At the bottom of this page, HGilbert is demanding that I, a commenter, declare my identity to prove I'm not someone he suspects I am. Why isn't it more important that EPadmirateur declare his/her identity - since that person is heavily editing this and many other Waldorf articles? 76.170.168.122 (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Because you are banned and EPadmirateur is not. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)