Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Reception

In line with the comments made by various people, I have considerably reduced the extent of quotation in the reception section and changed it from "positive reception" to "reception by mainstream educationalists". Both positive and negative reception would thus have place here, in line with the NPOV policy.

I have kept the quotations in the footnotes for the moment; at some point we may want to drop these, as well. They may be useful to check the accuracy of my summations, or people may want to modify how I have changed the section. Hgilbert 09:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is better. I still dont understand last one about "healing". I dont know what that means. Maybe this is a sign to why the quotes are not working for me. I can figure out the meaning in the first two but all three quotes are isolated. The integration of arts to curriculum was talked about in the article someplace else.But how does the article explain how Waldorf education teaches seven intelligences besides the quote? I dont know what healing education means, and it isnt shown in the article how it ties to a Waldorf philosophy or practice.Venado 21:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we think that the reception section should only repeat elements already mentioned in the article? It could simply reflect the reception of Waldorf education amongst mainstream educational authorities (both positive and critical). If someone wants to know more about Gardner's theory of intelligences s/he can follow the relevant link, for example; it is not necessarily the purpose of the Waldorf article to explain this as well.

The quote about healing education is less easy to follow up on; there is no Wikipedia article on the subject to link to, for example. Nevertheless, it is a significant focus of Waldorf educators (for example, there are regular conferences on the subject, called the Kolisko conferences, attended by both doctors and teachers). I don't know of material that would meet our verifiability standards to further explain what is meant by this, however. It is obviously a significant point for Peterkin, and will be understood, I suspect, by many educators. So I would suggest leaving this in, but how do others feel? Hgilbert 12:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion about controversies

I think it would be better to write about controversies i there own section.

1. Controversy about public waldorf and law suit in America.
2. Controversy about Report Mainz TV show in Germany
3. Controversy about outbreaks of illnesses in Colorado and Germany
4. Controversy about reading (other sources talk about this and using them to would make this better)

The Urban school study and the Swedish school studies arent controversial so they should go somewhere else, probably a section about studies.Venado 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the headings you use here are a lot more descriptive than the headings you seem to be happy with in the article. Why is that?--Fergie 06:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As I was saying yesterday: "The section titles can be improved, but please dont make them worse. Dont add titles that distort the information found from the sources." The ones in the article are at least accurate and because of that they are more "descriptive" than section titles that are completely inaccurate. If we have a section "Controversies", the subtitles under it should just be "Report Mainz broadcast in Germany", "Outbreaks of illnesses in Colorado and Germany" ect. It would not be good style to repeeat "controversy about" in each subtitle. These controversies are sourced, and it is a good NPOV method I think to report them as controversies here. Then all sides shown in the controversy given by the sources can be reported in the article. It is not NPOV to just pick out parts on one side or another when more are given in the source.Venado 15:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Waldorf schools

The history section has been changed to a "first Waldorf school" section. I'm not entirely happy with the resulting lack of a general history of the school movement. What do others think? Do we want both (first school and general history)? Just one or the other? Hgilbert 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited that section because I thought some of it was redundant to the daughter page. Also the third paragraph was not about history. Perhaps a little bit could be added here, but I don't think anything lengthy would be appropriate. Henitsirk 19:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there any reference sources telling more about general history.One of the footnote articles says that history of the first school is significant memory to the other schools. (Oberman). May be the history section sticks out of place because there isnt transition to themes in the rest of the article.Venado 21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

By the schools growth chart by the history section it look like there were no schools after Hitler until 1962, then none again between 1965 and 1975 and they restarted after 1975.Venado 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Stuttgart school reopened in 1945 under the American occupation of Germany.--MinorityView 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange edits

Fergie has made some strange edits. One is the change of the sub title "Swedish study" to "Study: Nazism and Racism Amongst Swedish Waldorf Pupils". The twisted title says: Nazism and racism is found among Swedish Waldorf pupils. The opposite is the truth. They display a markedly greater anti-Nazism and anti-racism than pupils at public schools. I have therefore changed the subtitle to correspond to what the study described says. Thebee 20:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Another edit by Fergie has been to change "Concerns over Immunizations" to "Refusal to Vaccinate Pupils". The sub title implies that Waldorf schools refuse to vaccinate Waldorf pupils. This is untrue. Waldorf schools do not vaccinate or refuse to vaccinate Waldorf pupils. Parents do. Changing the title to imply that Waldorf schools refuse to vaccinate pupils is another twisted distortion by Fergie for some strange reason also of what the text in this section says. Thebee 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Those edits were to tabloid and did not represent with any accuracy what the sources say. We are trying to work to good article. It has to be accurate. I dont think this is the time for careless language and mispresented references. Do schools vaccinate pupils, or doctors and nurses do this? There was no claim made in any reference given I see that the schools refused to vaccinate pupils. There was a claim in one reference that one school in Germany discouraged vaccinations. We have been discussing how to find better sources so the WP article can say more about this subject, but we dont have any that say schools refuse to vaccinate pupils.

The title change of the Swedish study was distorted because the findings were huge (93% Waldorf compared to 72% municipal) to show the opposite (active antiracism and antinazism, not racism and nazism).The title change served no good purpose. I do not agree this new reverted title though either. The subsections make no sense any more. The swedish study is not about "reception" or about "controversy".

I also disagree with the other section title change on German TV program because it leaves debate out. I would not disagree with something about "debate about racism". The TV show claimed it did not accuse or imply proof there was racism, only broadcast accusations made by others, and thats what the court debate was about.

The section titles can be improved, but please dont make them worse. Dont add titles that distort the information found from the sources. Maybe rethink if the titles and sections still make sense.THe Swedish study was in a section about racism and antiracism.That made sense. Now it is in controversy -reception section, but we dont describe any reception or controversy of this study.Venado 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot the last change. Changing "mainstream educationalists" to "a mainstream educationalist" is not accurate. three different ones are quoted. We have also have above a discussion in process how to do that section better, but it is a misprepresentation in title to say those quotes there now are all the same person.Venado 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The section titles are vague and non-descriptive and they could be improved. I am by no means a 'Waldorf-Critic', yet it has been a very long time since any edit I have made on the page has been allowed to stand, and I usually get a good flaming to boot (see this thread). I am going to rise above the hysterical cries of 'flasehood', 'twisted distortion' and 'untruth' and instead direct Thebee, once again, to WP:OWN, and WP:AGF. I would also caution Thebee that he has been walking on thin ice since arbitration, and continuing to confrontationally edit in the absence of PeteK will not be looked upon kindly--Fergie 06:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support your comment about flaming; we need to avoid all personal comments here.

At the same time, the section titles should be accurate; obviously edits that make them less so should not stand. Given the history of this article there are understandably strong allergic reactions to what may seem like polemical edits from any side. Our best strategy is to avoid any sense of polemical intent; we need to rebuild mutual trust. We need productive, objective editors here; please do contribute positively. Hgilbert 11:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits can be criticisized and called so if the information is false and distort sources. We are trying to raise this article to good article status, and those edits were not NPOV, inaccurate distortions of the sources, and the section headings were changed so they no longer follow WP:Style. Every ones edits have been changed again and again to get exactly accurate, NPOV, without disporportionate weight, and every one has been told to justify with reasons on the talk page. Even things people worked hard to write is being removed by there author to make the article better overall. Every editor is entitled to WP:AGF when they give good reasons to justify edits. Section headings can stand to be changed or improved but not turned into inaccurate distortions. The Featured Article for today is vague in all of its section titles. "Modern era", "Language", "Religion", "Institutions". Vague is better than wrong.Venado 15:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Venado, you are describing edits in terms of 'right', 'wrong', 'true' and 'false'. I will remind you that what we are aiming for here is verifiability- assigning value judgements such as right/wrong or true/false to content is a sure road to an edit war. Also, I suggest you review WP:AGF, as you seem to be a little confused as to what this guideline is all about.--Fergie 06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you have not understood what I am saying. What is "wrong" or "false" is how the sections were retitled, not whether the information in them was verified true or false. The sections involved were verified. But when the section title was changed to say "Schools refuse to vaccinate" and that does not match the content of its section or the statements in the sources used to verify the content of that section, then the title is false, it is inaccurate, it is wrong. Similar happened repeatedly before the arbitration.Sometimes for biased effect. The sources said one thing, and how it was written here was altered or misrepresented to say something else.Because of that problem arbitrators in Review voted unanimously to Principal "Proper Use of Sources: The information used from a source in an article should accurately reflect the information contained in the source". When words chosen by editors are not accurate description of there sources, it isnt a dispute about verified/unverified. The dispute is about mischaracterization of content. I believed I understood WP:AGF, and rereading it did not changed my understanding. All editors are entitled to it. So am I. "Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence." During arbitration, one person treated me just the opposite.Then I was accused only of having a bad motive while this one accuser refused to identify even one of my actions or edits as unfair or inappropriate.Venado 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Outsider's Input

I looked up this article after reading a favorable comment on Waldorf education in a parenting community and wanted to know more. I didn't notice the article's neutrality was questioned when I first began reading, but by the end I thought 'this article can't be considered neutral/up to regular Wiki standards,' and when I scrolled back up to the top, yes, there was the tag I'd missed.

The article felt very disjoint to me. Many parts of it felt random or out of place or perhaps badly integrated. For example, the racism controversy. I went attended a public school and heard racist comments all the time. Is there any particular reason to think that racism is more notable in Waldorf schools than other schools? If so, It seems that a more cogent explanation for these reasons could be presented at the beginning of the racism section, and the rest of the examples could be used to illustrate different sides of the issue. In the current article, I do not get a sense of any overall point to the racism section.

Likewise, more broadly on the subject of NPOV, the article reads to me like it's swinging back and fort from favorable to unfavorable. The good parts read as too good and the bad parts read as too bad. Overall I felt like I didn't have a very clear view of the advantages and disadvantages of a Waldorf education for my child--which I speculate is a major reason people would look up this article. There's a lot of information here, but I think it could be better presented.

Keep up the good work!----Electron —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.100.52.149 (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

You are right in saying that racism and racist comments are present in every school. Afterall, kids are kids everywhere, no matter what school they attend.

Now you asked a good question as to why some people feel that Waldorf is inherently more racist than other school system. I can only speak for my experience, though, and it has been my experience that Waldorf teachers are actually the LEAST racist teachers there are; they are simply too good at teaching and too determined to help every child to grow.

Now there are critics who allege that Steiner himself was racist, but any reasonable amount of investigation into this proves, I believe, just the opposite. And these critics are quick to point out the faults of a few bad teachers, but, again, I can only speak from experience when I say that I have seen nothing but teachers who dedicate their lives to helping kids blossom.

So there's this teeter-tottering of facts when researching Waldorf education. But the bottom line, to me, the only way to really know anything for sure is to really visit the school, ask questions, and talk to your child's potential teacher. Ask tough questions about anything that concerns you and go from there, based on what your experience tells you. Bellowed 17:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

An Insiders View on the American Urban Waldorf School

I read this article, in particular the part on the study of the American Urban Waldorf School. I was a student there and I am appalled at the comments about racism in the Milwaukee Urban Waldorf School. I did not experience any racism at all while attending the school. Also I have read the report in question and I would like to point out it is very positive and the small quote defending their combat of racism does any justice.

Also, I will point out some of the Teachers were African-American, and also the respect among teachers was paramount.

If you have any questions on The Waldorf School System (because this site does not do it justice)or would like to challenge my statements please contact me at voteruud@hotmail.com. THANK YOU

I agree. The presence of the section is absurd and does not accurately reflect the study. You are correct in stating that the overall findings of the study were positive. I believe that the study should accurately reflect the study itself, or be deleted from this article. Bellowed 16:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Elementary education/looping

The extensive material about the advantages of teacher continuity seems not to relate particularly to Waldorf education; should it not be put in the Loop (education) article? Hgilbert 19:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I put that extensive material in the article because, the way it was written, it was sourced from an anthroposophic source on the benefits of having one teacher for years. So instead of deleting the benefits altogether, I decided to put in materials from an outside source, looping, because it's the same thing. But feel free to edit freely; I just wanted to make sure that the benefits were supported from an a permissible source. Bellowed 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Racism Sections

Okay I have just got back from holiday - and I have a great concern over what has happened to the racism section - this version. Now I am not going to go through all the article and talk history yet - but I thought I would ask:

1. Why has the McDermott study got no title, and why is it not with the German media debate section.
2. Why is the "Swedish Waldorf pupils markedly anti-racist" not with the the German media debate section also - that would make it flow much much better, and why has it got such an opinionated title.

Please look at this link - this was pretty much how it was before I had technical issues and before I was on holiday. Although I can understand why this section may have been condensed, I am extremely concerned with the mess that has now been made.

So is there a good explantion for what is going on?

Cheers Lethaniol 17:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like many have taken a turn changing there. The whole thing was botched before to. Objectively, only German media section was controversial. It was not a study. Anecdotal stories and comments were shared on a broadcast about racist material and practice in German Waldorf schools. But the Sweidish study is not a "controvery" or "reception" issue, it is an outcome issue. It is a research finding that students in the Swedish Waldorf schools scored equally high to compared students in attitudes against racism and much higher than compared students in tendency to respond actively against racism. The Milwaukee study is not a controversy, and the racism issue was not an outcome. The study only raises a question whether or not the Waldorf method is adequate to counter a population of students afflicted with racist and negative self-images learned in there communities, media and society at large. So this was also not a "reception" or "controversy". The study did not measure any findings about racism in the school, it only posed this as important but so far unanswered question. Quoting the prejudices observed in the students is highly misleading in quote form because the article said those were examples of stereotypes and negative images students were learning from "society at large". The relation to Waldorf education was to question if this new alternative school method would work well in urban student populations to undo those kinds of racist stereotypes and negative images, and this study did not answer the question.Venado 17:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Some really good interesting points Venado. Obviously I think the current version is broken - but I understand that some of these studies/reports do not fall neatly under our current section headings. I should add though that the article should flow - so if report A is under section B, and report C works well as a rebuttal even though it would not be in section B usually, it should follow report A. Hence why I think it would be a good idea to try and keep the whole "Racism" reports together, in one section/subsection - so that someone reading it can take it all in one go.

The concern over the use of the Swedish and Milwaukee is interesting. These reports/research have only been used previously to argue the Racism/Anti-racism issue, but of course that is not what any of them were just set up for. That is the difficulty with using only a small part of a report/research - it does not give the whole picture. But I do think the previous version gave a relatively neutral account (tweaking is needed) of the only notable/neutral reports/research on this issue- and of course gave access to the original documents.

I believe we should go back to the old version - maybe even merge the Studies section into the Reception and Controversy section - and start again from there.

Cheers Lethaniol 14:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Immunizations sections

Hello everyone, I have been taking an extended break, and even still am only looking in to see what's been going on.

A probably very minor thing caught my eye: "The official position of Waldorf Education is that childhood immunization is a matter of parental choice." I don't know if long discussion went into this, so I will not edit it directly but will say: I don't think it's appropriate to say there is any "official position" given the independent nature of Waldorf schools, and given that the very beginning of the paragraph states "Waldorf schools have never taken an official stance on vaccinations." Perhaps it would be more clear to say that "The official position of ECSWE is..." Thanks, Henitsirk 03:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I have been looking at the article and in my opinion it could be made to sound more neutral, and I made one version. I tried to make it sound more like an encyclopedia. I also made some other kind of changes which I hope are understandable. There were two changes made after I started working with this: Eurythmy was removed from a wrong section, but in my version it's there in another place (I left it because it's something unique to Waldorf schools). And then another change which I didn't know whether it came from a source. Erdanion 12:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up the English grammar of the revisions, which look great. The eurythmy section may still need some work. Hgilbert 20:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I discovered that the references were scrambled up in the process of this revision. I have tried to relink the correct references with the correct material; this may need further checking. I have also reintroduced the (heavily-referenced) sentence about the increasing use of Waldorf methods outside of Waldorf schools. Hgilbert 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I couldn't always be sure which reference connected which sentence there being so many of them, I tried to do my best but sorry if I made mistakes. About the sentence Waldorf methods been used by some other teachers, I only transfered it to the reception section. Erdanion 17:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

reading/literacy

The to-do box at the top of the talk page still lists reducing the quotes for the reading/literacy section as a goal. I've had a look at this section; the main quotation actually summarizes the questions around this very succinctly, and I don't see how to reduce it without a danger of making it one-sided in one direction or another. Hgilbert 15:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As a periodic reader of this article (I read it first maybe three years ago), the version now is so much better in every way than the previos ones. Both in terms of NPOV and clearly explaining the program. If a suggestion is appropriate it would be to freeze/lock out all editing of the article for a period of time (longish - 30 days or something) to let everyone get used to the where it is now then maybe fix up the tiny problems, find the peer reviewed critisism (if applicable) and such. Have a great day. -johnb (not a real editor)

NPOV tag

This article seems ready to go out into the world without an NPOV tag. Let's open a discussion about this and resolve any remaining issues. Hgilbert 14:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is a long way off from being NPOV. We simply have not been successful in encouraging and recruiting editors who are not actively involved with the promotion of Steiner/anthroposophy/waldorf. The irony is that if the article were less POV it would actually make the Waldorf Education system seem more credible and attractive.--Fergie 15:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We have had numerous such editors. My perception - and I'm sure that this is not universally shared - is that the challenge lies elsewhere: that there is very little citable information that differs significantly from the material included here. Academic studies and neutral authors have tended to present views comparable to those presented here (which are drawn from such studies and authors). In this sense, the article accurately reflects the mainstream view. In support of this:

1) There are no sources of encyclopedia quality that are being either suppressed or down-played.

2) Waldorf and anthroposophic sources have actually been more effectively excluded than non-anthroposophic sources through the arbitration decisions.

I would welcome attempts to balance the presentation without violating the arbitration rules. Hgilbert 01:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I really do not know where to start. Valid sources are routinely excluded and downplayed. Banned sources are repeatedly inserted (particularly links to thebee.se). And new, neutral editors are literally hounded out (wikiwag, lili, Lumos3). All uninvolved parties who have expressed an opinion think that the article reads like a badly written advertisment. --Fergie 07:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fergie:

Banned sources are repeatedly inserted (particularly links to thebee.se).

There is not one link to my personal site (Thebee.se) in the article on Waldorf education.

Thebee 13:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Good- Lets hope it stays that way! --Fergie 13:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We all have our different hopes in life. Thebee 17:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The only sources that have been excluded have been on the basis of the arbitration (or of Wikipedia's WP:Verify guidelines); are you questioning these? At least two of the editors you mentioned were focused solely on adding links to a chat site for critics of WE; this qualifies neither as neutral nor as appropriate source material (by Wikipedia standards). No banned sources are being inserted. Let's keep the talk page neutral and accurate, as well. Hgilbert 19:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

It is not NPOV. It reads like an advertisment brochure not a encyclopedia article

In an earlier comment I pleaded with contibutors not to delete again a single paragraph that injected some scepticism into what isa eulogizing article extemely off-balance in favor of Waldorf Education. That this paragraph was again deleted for a second time, after my plea, and despite my consciensous effort to phrase it in neutral language and with all the qualifications described in the NPOV guidelines, I think speaks louder of the need for balancing the article, than the deleted paragraph itself. From my side I have neither the time nor the disposition to engage in insertion-deletion war. I hope this is something the arbitration committee can resolve.

That's all folks. I am over and out. I only want to add a reply to the objections to my earlier comment. Just dressing a controversial topic in pseudo-factual, pseudo-scientific language does not make it less controversial. When a topic is controversial all sides must be represented in the treatement. Neutralizing one side to present it as "factual" and removing other sides will not work for NPOV, IMHO.

Thank you, Lili

I had never before heard anything about this subject until finding this article today, and I concur with Lili that it's far from NPOV. Antelan ^talk 02:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just adding my two cents. As it stands now it is a sad excuse for an encyclopedia article. Any whiff of the true nature of these schools has been systematically excluded, with the small exception of the "German media debate about racism" (and even that small section presents an anthroposophically sanitized version of the incident). Neutral editors arriving now need to understand that anthroposophists watch this article hour by hour, year in and year out, and quickly revert anything that suggests Waldorf is not a paradise. If you want to debate it with them it will be a brawl every time (don't mistake this just because certain people sound tweedily polite) - unless you have time and patience for a monumental act of resistance, they will win.70.20.161.123 02:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Sorry that's me again not logged in.DianaW 02:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is blatantly biased and even the most ardent proponent of Waldorf education could see that it reads much more like an endorsement than an encyclopedia article. What's worse, any attempt to edit it and neutralize it is quickly deleted by the creator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeraldcityserendipity (talk • contribs)

What encyclopedia quality sources have been offered that are critical of waldorf and have been rejected? Examples, please. MinorityView 03:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fergie and Lili (I think) claim that the article "reads like an advertisment". I don't think it does. To me the article reads like a fairly accurate description of the system and its philosophical background (as far as I understand it). I think it does a fair job of a subject that raises strong feelings and differences of opinion even (especially?!) amongst people within the Steiner-Waldorf movement.

I hope I'm in the position of being fairly open-minded but well-informed about it: I'm not an Anthroposophist - I'm pretty sceptical of what I know of that - but I do have kids who have been/are in a small Steiner-Waldorf school and I've picked up (from parents' evenings etc) some of the Why behind the How of the teaching. Personally I have to say I'm impressed by the gentle and human way in which the best is brought out of the children not just educationally but socially. Whether this shows that S-W education is brilliant or just that mainstream education is bloody awful is another question! However I'm aware that some people have had bad experiences of S-W education - or that their children have which arouses far stronger reactions. Such things have happened at our own kids' school and I'm aware that people feel outraged about them (I know I did). So I can understand that some people want to get that across in the article too. However this is an encyclopaedia article not a place to enthuse about or castigate it.

--John Stumbles 11:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The opinion that Waldorf education is 'brilliant' whilst mainstream education is 'bloody awful' is not a good starting point for an encyclopedic article. As you rightly point out, Waldorf education has clear advantages and disadvantages, which some people feel strongly about- the article as it stands does not deal with them in an informative way. --Fergie 12:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I absolutely agree that "the opinion that Waldorf education is 'brilliant' whilst mainstream education is 'bloody awful' is not a good starting point for an encyclopedic article": I was giving it as an example of an opinion people might have and argue about — I wasn't advocating that view! When I said this is an encyclopaedia article not a place to enthuse ... or castigate... I was trying to say — as you did — that strong personal opinions have no place in a WP article.

When you say "Waldorf education has clear advantages and disadvantages ... the article as it stands does not deal with them in an informative way". I think the article is trying to do this, and I hope I've contributed to this by e.g. expanding the "U.K. Comparison with mainstream education" section to bring in something about advantages and disadvantages from a verifiable source. However inasmuch as the article still fails to deal with them this may be as much down to a lack of verifiable sources as poor editing: it is probable that S-W education has not been widely studied and reported on by independent researchers (the University of West of England report being a notable exception) so maybe there just isn't the verifiable material to draw from?

--John Stumbles 20:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The effective action for those who are not satisfied with the balance of the article is to find acceptable sources for critical info. Complaining because unacceptable sources have been correctly rejected accomplishes what, exactly? I asked, above, for some examples of acceptable stuff that had been kicked out of the article. So far, nada. Please? In the last month, what material that meets the guidelines has been rejected? MinorityView 23:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Path forward

OK; let's be clearer about what needs to be done. Please list specifics that should be improved; we should have the aim of having a neutral article. Please list here specific significant points of view not yet included (with references to sources for these!), or sections of the article that need cleanup.Hgilbert 14:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In view of the controversial nature of these two sentences, I'd like to suggest rather than make the following edit: from

original>> Waldorf education emphasizes an imaginative approach to learning and aims to develop thinking that includes a creative as well as an analytic aspect. proposed change>> Waldorf education aims to develop thinking that balances creative and analytic thought.

original>>Its goal is to provide young people the basis with which to develop into free, moral and integrated individuals. proposed change>> Its goal is to help its students to develop into free, moral and integrated people. Jlhughes 19:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Further discussions prompted by article feedback from uninvolved editors

Thanks for your excellent observations, Antelan. You write: "'Waldorf education emphasizes an imaginative approach to learning' - This sounds like an ad" - Yeah. That's ad copy. But the Waldorf brochure-writers here don't get that. They just think it's true that Waldorf ecucation is imaginative and if you disagree with that, you must be their enemy and you must be a person who "attacks" Waldorf education and then they put on their armor and go to war with you. That's what happens in these articles. And your comments about the standardized testing are spot-on. There aren't any studies showing Waldorf students do better on standardized tests (or worse, to my knowledge) that students from comparable socioeconomic backgrounds at comparable private schools. Of course they do better overall than their peers in public schools - but that factor traces directly to factors like parents' income. And it probably traces to their parents disregarding Waldorf advice and getting them some extra tutoring or test prep - ironically, things to which Waldorf is philosophically opposed. Yet it's convenient to take credit for it later.

"Steiner’s pedagogics hold firmly to the principal perceptions of modern common sense educational theory since Comenius and Pestalozzi. - This, to me, reads like it was written by someone with a conflict of interest." LOL - yeah - not to mention someone who doesn't know jack about Comenius or Pestalozzi.DianaW 13:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I find this sentence problematic too. I will remove it for not working in the context. Erdanion 17:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The source for

"Steiner’s pedagogics hold firmly to the principal perceptions of modern common sense educational theory since Comenius and Pestalozzi."

is a paper, written in 1994 and republished by UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, 2000, The author was Heiner Ullrich, academic director since 1991 for the Institute of Education at the University of Mainz. The source for this (ref 27) was given in connection with the statement in the article, now removed by Erdanion. I added it to balance the description of WE as something that has "a sacred task in helping each child's soul and spirit grow", being a very narrow and one-sided description. It is also supported by the quote from Steiner somewhat later in the section.

"The only thing that matters is that everything we do here is focused on life’s realities and that we never lose sight of them."

I take it that Ullrich's academic porisition can be taken as an indication that he knows something about Comenius and Pestalozzi, as also that the publication of his paper on Steiner as a pedagogue by Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education (Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education), to indicate that he is understood to be someone who knows something about WE, though publication of something by academic and also peer reviewed journals does not always say much about the reliability of the authors they publish, at times being the case when they publish papers on little known and understood issues.

I'll readd the well sourced statement again, balancing the description, if noone else provides a a serious and well founded argument against it.

Thebee 10:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not here to debate source by source with you Bee. You and Erdanion have kinda missed the point of what Erdanion wrote, and in your usual comical fashion. Out goes the sentence, in goes the sentence, out, back in, endless edit war ensues . . . You're missing that an impartial observer (he/she states they never even heard of Waldorf education before responding to this request for comment) has picked up very quickly just how desperately absurd much of this article reads. Anyone who is not already a Waldorf groupie sees at once that it is an advertisement for Waldorf education, not an encyclopedia article. What school doesn't "encourage the imagination"? Even this very simplest point is lost on you - it's weak to write that this form of education "encourages the imagination" just because there are a bunch of faceless dolls around. You should take the advice of someone OUTSIDE that this does not read convincingly - other preschools have toys too, you know, and stuff about encouraging the imagination is simple ad copy. Readers come here for FACTS not for the same stuff they'll get handed at the open house.

It's too bad you can't understand that you hurt the cause of Waldorf education, not help it, by pushing to have an article that is bloated with puffery visible a mile away. Comenius and Pestalozzi, give us a break. This is sheer desperation, and unfortunately, it does read that way. You should take the advice that it reads that way, and work to improve it, not nit-pick whether you've got a UN source that mentions Steiner and Pestalozzi in the same article so HA HA We get to include it <sticks out tongue> (I'm a bit skeptical that article actually compares them or claims Steiner drew on Pestalozzi, but that's not the point.) This was ONE of Antelan's points, and even his points were just examples, to show you the way the article reads unconvincingly. He/she was trying to help!DianaW 13:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence was slight problem but not because it was "biased" or erroneous. The similarity connection between STeiner and Pestalozzi educational philosophy is obvious. It may have sounded like a "self interested" comment to uninvolved editor. but the person who said it, Ullrich, is both independent and professionally qualified to give opinion. The problem is that meaning of the "common sense" phrase in the passage of Ullrich is ambiguous and therefore can sound like puffery in standalone. And also that the Ullrich's point to that mention is made not strong enough. Ullrich's point was that Steiner's basis for Waldorf (esotericly and spiritually based theories) may be dubious. but the educational system Steiner advanced was like Pestalozzi's system. Ullrich writes that even if Steiner's ideas were "dubious" (Ullrich's word), Steiner's education is still successful for maybe the same reasons Pestalozzi's educational philosophy has merit. The article before Erdanion's edit said this but maybe not clearly enough for those that didn't read it in Ullrich. Ullrich didn't compare Steiner to Pestalozzi to brag about Steiner but to give a nonesoteric perspective of educational concepts found Steiner's education.

There is also a problem of editors only fighting against each other instead of reading and discussing the sources. Unfounded accusations fly from all sides. Like agreeing Ullrich was biased and further "does not know 'jack'". Re read it. One person will contradict there own arguments inside of one complaint. "If this is true, where is the source that says it?" When source is given, person say "Obviously that source doesn't know jack about it". And when that is shown false say, "I am not going to discuss source after source.you are missing the point". The problem is not just bias which comes here from more than one side. Also the problems are also from perverse arguments, red herrings objections, or "impossible to satisfy" conditions given. Venado 17:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to re-summarize Antelan's points, as I am probably guilty among others of writing too much following on them, and they end up lost. So here, to try to help other editors who actually aim to improve the article:

• "Emphasizes an imaginative approach to learning" and similar flowery language about teachers' "artistry" reads like ad copy. Antelan uses the word "effusive" - that is a dead giveaway that outsiders can see you've got an article full of ad copy. You should not be fighting the removal of these claims or efforts to significantly ramp them down: this is the way to improve the article.
• Quantitative claims about things such as standardized test scores aren't backed up with facts - these claims either come from within the movement or aren't statistically meaningful (invalid comparisons etc.)
• This one point sums it up: "I feel like I'm reading about a fad nutritional supplement, where experts tell me that the supplement does nothing for my health, but a random person swears that it cured their cancer."

That's where you guys are going wrong trying to write an encyclopedia article. It isn't about random facts, ha ha I've got a source that says so-and-so, I'm going to put it in the article, try and stop me: you have to aim for overall objectivity on the subject, and because of your long-term (lifelong?) involvement and financial and emotional COI in this setting, you're having a lot of trouble even recognizing this issue.DianaW 13:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To have disagreement does not mean that others wouldn't be doing their best, let's keep talking about the content. I think the sentence with Comenius and Pestalozzi is not understandable to a general reader and doesn't make clear the connection of Comenius and Pestalozzi to this. That Waldorf education emphasizes an imaginative approach to learning is true; Waldorf schools have much more arts than other schools, in the elementary education every day during the main lessons, and art lessons come in addition to that. This is their emphasize which the article could bring out more so that it would become clear to anyone who reads it. Erdanion 14:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Erdanion, you're not getting this. If Waldorf schools have "much more arts" than other schools, where do we find this documented? Remember, you have to look other places than Waldorf web sites, or what the teachers said at back-to-school night. The issue is not really that complicated. We can't claim it is true just because Waldorf schools claim it is true, see? In fact, it is very, very unlikely to be true that overall, Waldorf schools "have much more arts" compared with other schools. This is just a promotional claim. When you have experience with other schools, you see that it is divorced from reality. My son is about to enroll in a school (public) whose orchestra is touring Europe this summer. The Waldorf school has nothing remotely like this - there is no point of comparison. That right there, drops Waldorf off the "We've got more arts than anyone else in town" pedestal. And that's just a comparison with a school I happen to be familiar with personally. We could as well argue the Waldorf schools discourage artistic expression by making art into a phony "spiritual experience" that is deadly to true creativity.

Tour around the schools and you would see that the Waldorf schools most likely have *less* art, in terms of variety of instruments or mediums offered, advanced levels of instruction, qualification of the teachers (teachers who are accomplished artists, rather than just anthroposophists with paintbrushes), linking the kids to artistic activities in the community or through travel, arts-related awards or grants the school receives etc. You need *facts* for an encyclopedia article, not brochure-style claims. The sentence about Comenius and Pestalozzi is not understandable because it is absurd - stuck in in desperation by someone trying to sound erudite. An intelligent reader is immediately alerted that the whole article is questionable.DianaW 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what Pete and I said would happen to these articles if he was run off. Objective outsiders will stop by in response to requests for comment, etc., but their opinions will be ignored and there's no reason they would stay around to fight about it. I doubt Antelan is going to fight with you about the Ulmer Heinrich reference etc. Those with long-term interest are systematically run off by the polite pitbull anthroposophists here; wheelbarrows-ful of propaganda are delivered within a half-hour of someone posting an objective observation, and usually written in such obfuscating impenetrable jargon that no one in their right mind would bother looking into it.

So you can keep going through your little show of replying politely when people like Antelan show up, and ignoring everything they've told you would improve the article. That's it for me for now, folks.DianaW 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two comments so far and they are not the same. So far Erdanion has made changes in response. These last months the article has improved, not gotten worse. The process is working much better now. Venado 17:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The next one was in the RfC section under the third comment, which was made by User:83.248.129.37 18:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC):

I agree with the above! Some improvements have already been made: in addition,

• Imagination: you are right that this needs more clarity (see below)
• US Waldorf Schools study; I have replaced some of the original material. This is a thorough, independent study of pupils' experience and as such gives one of the most objective evaluations of the reality of the education. If we can find further studies we should merge the results, of course.
• German racism section: The criticism were largely not made by experts, but by individuals. Two experts spoke, and I have tried to give this more weight while not excluding individuals' voices heard in the broadcast.
• Let's keep working on this! Hgilbert 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Imagination

The citation to the "imagination" passage is from Thomas William Nielsen's Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy Of Imagination: A Case Study Of Holistic Education. This and other independent descriptions of Waldorf pedagogy make it clear that the imagination plays a central role here, significantly beyond its role in other forms of education. It may well be that this role is insufficiently articulated in the present version, in which case clarification is needed.

In general, I would hope that we will not argue about cited material without presenting a case based upon verifiable sources. Obviously, all significant points of view should be included; in order to do so, they need to meet Wikipedia standards.

Please avoid all personal attacks; they are both against Wikipedia policy and a poor replacement for supported argument in any situation. Hgilbert 21:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment section

This is a request for comment about whether this article is written from a neutral point of view, for suggestions as to how to improve its neutrality, and for a judgment as to whether the NPOV tag should stand at the article's head. 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC) This section is reserved for comments offered by uninvolved editors and should remain at the bottom of this page while WP:RfC is underway. To best facilitate open and independent feedback, this section should not be used for follow-up discussions or debates regarding the comments given in the RfC. Involved editors should please continue with any follow-up remarks to these comments in another talk page section above this. 15:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My observation is that it seems a pretty accurate article. There will certainly be those who protest that anything which is not a point by point refutation of the subject is a fawning NPOV article. Rocksanddirt 22:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have the benefit of not actually knowing anything about Waldorf education, as Wikipedia is the only place I've even seen the term. This gives me the chance to read the article for its form without being prejudiced for or against its content. I've commented on this talk page before, and I'll do so again now: much of the language in this article comes off as non-neutral. I'll list some things that I consider problematic:

• Waldorf education emphasizes an imaginative approach to learning - This sounds like an ad
• Artistry, autonomy and authority of an individual teacher is to be emphasized. - This sounds like a guidebook. If these things are emphasized, say so. If they're not, cut the sentence.
• OK, they have "toys and dolls to encourage the imagination"; why don't we just say that they have toys and dolls - must we include an encouraging POV statement after every statement of fact?
• Standardized testing: Why are we comparing Waldorf schools with public schools? Shouldn't the comparison be with other private schools?
• While understanding the teacher to have "a sacred task in helping each child's soul and spirit grow"[15], with the aim of aiding the children's maturation process and spiritual awakening, Steiner’s pedagogics hold firmly to the principal perceptions of modern common sense educational theory since Comenius and Pestalozzi. - This, to me, reads like it was written by someone with a conflict of interest. That is, if I were to be describing something about which I had a conflict of interest, I would probably end up using such effusive and complementary language as you find here.
• As Waldorf education has expanded beyond Europe and North American to cultures such as Israel and Japan - Israel and Japan are countries. Israeli and Japanese culture can be found in Europe and North America, so I'm assuming that someone meant countries.
• The pedagogy section states In Waldorf schools elementary education generally begins when the child is nearing or already seven years of age. The reception section states Lucy Calkins, a reading specialist at the Teachers College of Columbia University, indicates that in most public schools children who start reading later tend to do worse, but adds that Waldorf students might benefit slightly from starting earlier, and "I would not necessarily be worried in a Waldorf school. The foundation of literacy is talk and play." - Now, I'm actually very confused at what is being said. Is the conclusion that kids start reading later at Waldorf schools than in normal schools? Is Lucy Calkins saying that if Waldorf kids started reading slightly earlier they'd be better, or is she saying that they do start earlier than at other schools? At any rate, there seems to be some high-gloss coating applied to this; Waldorf sounds shiny no matter how you approach it. I don't see a way for this to be neutral, and I don't see how someone could be expected to interpret the chopped up statement from Lucy Calkins anyway.
• The German Racism section appears to have been written out of line with typical Wikipedia practices. It is uncommon to list a criticism and then a rebuttal. It is strange, too, that the criticism was made by experts, and then a rebuttal was made by a single private individual. I feel like I'm reading about a fad nutritional supplement, where experts tell me that the supplement does nothing for my health, but a random person swears that it cured their cancer. Perhaps both of these stories are worth telling, but not with the same weight, and not in this fashion.
• The concerns over immunizations section is similarly problematic. It presents the criticism, but then finishes in a way that seems to indemnify Waldorf. This section should just contain the concerns about vaccinations; the discussion of the potential harm of vaccinations belongs in another article (and if you're going to mention the benefits of not being vaccinated, it is somewhat strange to mention "increased risk of allergy" as a risk of vaccination without likewise mentioning "increased risk of untreatable fatal infection" as a risk of not being vaccinated).
• The US Waldorf Schools Survey seems like it's being reported in far too much detail, and reads like an advertising pamphlet. Who conducted this survey? Where is the source for this material? Even if there is a source, is it appropriate for an encyclopedia to say "Students were aware that their school offers "a different kind of education, that stresses the arts as well as basic studies""? What school doesn't have an art component? This just seems like stuff that is essentially obviously true but being spun like it's something worth reporting in an encyclopedia. Also, what question were these kids asked? Based on the answer, it appears that the question was, "Are you aware that your school offers a different kind of education, that stresses the arts as well as basic studies?" Would anyone but a joker say no to that question?
• In 1996 a report was published on this school citing the school as a "positive learning environment" in which "the children and their background seem to be treated with respect", and as a potential model for public education's future direction. - This "report" appears to have been written by one person. Wouldn't it be more neutral to say that this person thinks that the school was a positive learning environment, that it is a good direction for public education, etc.? Writing it as "a report was published" makes it seem like this was some broad study instead of simply one group's thoughts in an article about one specific Waldorf school. The article seems pretty light on substance, saying such things as "The children and their background seem to be treated with respect. The school emphasizes not just standard cognitive learning, but character development in preparation for taking one's place as an educated citizen. Our vague sense is that this makes a great difference. In antroposophy, each child is understood to have a special destiny, and it is the school's business to make the most of it." That's a lot of opinion without much to back it up but a "vague sense". Take home message? Just phrase things a bit differently so this report doesn't come off as overly official, as it does now.
• With regards to Swedish Waldorf pupils markedly anti-racist, again it seems to me that the appropriate comparison would be between Waldorf schools and other private schools, not Waldorf schools and municipal schools.

Waldorf schools are not close enough to my main interests for me to want to get involved in editing this article, but since there seems to be a flurry of activity here I thought I'd post up my thoughts to see if they can stimulate any further discussion. Sorry for the long, and longwinded, list! Antelan ^talk 10:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your well written comments. I for one certainly hope they will stimulate further discussion! 83.248.129.37 18:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Urban Review article

The Urban Review article, cited earlier in the Racism section, is coauthored by seven ethnographers and educators (all academics), forming one of the highest quality sources on Waldorf. I have tried to integrate their descriptions of Waldorf generally into the main body of the article, and of the Milwaukee Urban Waldorf school into the "studies" sub-section dedicated to this. Hgilbert 14:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

REWRITE/ IMPROVEMENT

After reading some of the comments left by wikipedia readers on the discussion page, I realized that the entire article is in need of major revision. Here is the comment that best expresses what I am talking about:

I looked up this article after reading a favorable comment on Waldorf education in a parenting community and wanted to know more. I didn't notice the article's neutrality was questioned when I first began reading, but by the end I thought 'this article can't be considered neutral/up to regular Wiki standards,' and when I scrolled back up to the top, yes, there was the tag I'd missed.

The article felt very disjoint to me. Many parts of it felt random or out of place or perhaps badly integrated. For example, the racism controversy. I went attended a public school and heard racist comments all the time. Is there any particular reason to think that racism is more notable in Waldorf schools than other schools? If so, It seems that a more cogent explanation for these reasons could be presented at the beginning of the racism section, and the rest of the examples could be used to illustrate different sides of the issue. In the current article, I do not get a sense of any overall point to the racism section.

Likewise, more broadly on the subject of NPOV, the article reads to me like it's swinging back and fort from favorable to unfavorable. The good parts read as too good and the bad parts read as too bad. Overall I felt like I didn't have a very clear view of the advantages and disadvantages of a Waldorf education for my child--which I speculate is a major reason people would look up this article. There's a lot of information here, but I think it could be better presented.

I think she means that there seems to be a contrived effort to keep a neutral POV. This is contrived by means of inserting critical comments in every section, after every point. An example of what I am talking about is the Oppenheimer quote and the criticism within the section "Spiritual Foundations."

The remedy for this, I think, is to remove all criticism from the articles and subarticles themselves and confine them to only the reception and controversy section. We would need to move alot of text around so, before undertaking this massive rewrite I wanted to throw it out there to see if there are any ideas that anyone had on this. Bellowed 15:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bellowed, this is a good approach, the article is much confused without this. We should begin this.212.29.211.18 09:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)1garden 09:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear that this is the best approach everywhere; where criticism seems a contrived part of a section, I can see the point of moving it out to a separate criticism section. But where it is integral - for example, in a section on the spiritual foundations of Waldorf education - I can see value in maintaining it within the section. Perhaps we need a differentiated approach? Hgilbert 19:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There are several critical themes that recur: 'Steiner was racist', 'Waldorf education is elitist', 'Reading instruction is sub-optimal', 'Waldorf schools are religious' among others. It seems reasonable to articulate these concerns in a seperate criticism section, together with an explanation of where they come from. Elsewhere in the article all forms of criticism or advocacy should be avoided.--Fergie 07:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Fergie - unless a criticism can be placed easily within the flow of the text it should be in the Reception section. The rest of the article should not be written in a tone that advocates these schools - but is neutral. Cheers Lethaniol 17:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Charles Darwin was featured article last week. Obviously a more notable and controversial subject than this but the article did not act like a critique of Charles Darwin. There was no "reception" or "controversy" sections by themselves. I think to many believe that this article is supposed to critique. That is not the role of encyclopedias. What the featured article did was give different sides of complicated issues like Darwin to racism, religion, eugenics ect. and not to isolate pro con opinions all by themselves in "reception" section. Thats the best way when possible. Besides to be NPOV in "reception" we cannot give undo weight to opinion only because negative. So how can this article give the positive opinions also with out becoming brochure like? This should restrict topics to issues that are factual like *history, philosophy, scope and methods of Waldorf education, *comparative studies of students or other research findings, and *issues from Waldorf education or schools which made news. Venado 18:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The criticisms of looping are an examle of this. I just took them out of the section in which they appeared; we need to find an appropriate way to insert them into a criticism section.

That section was very very strange-sounding. Most of the sentences were devoted to criticizing looping and not to explaining what it is and what the benefits are.

SO if anyone has any ideas on how to introduce them in the criticism section I would love to hear them. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I included the following trying to balance this one-sided article with at least one reference to serious criticism

However, detractors (including former parents, students and staff of Waldorf Schools) have expressed their concern alleging that the Waldorf Education misrepresents itself as a progressive art-based pedagogical method, whereas it has a secterian agenda of propagating the beliefs and practices associated with the Anthroposophy cult

I have included a reference to the warldof critics web page. I think this is fair and writen in proper NPOV form. However, someone deleted an addition that I made earlier to that effect. Please do not delete. If you see any problem with NPOV in my addition, just say it here and I will revise.

Thank you

Lili

(Comment made 02:26, 15 May 2007 from IP 195.251.176.132)

Sorry Lili, but there was endless disputing over sources like this and the rule is that they are not allowed. Also, nothing is allowed from a pro-Waldorf site, citations from Anthroposophic sources, Waldorf sources (such as a book written by a Waldorf teacher), etc. Let me know if I can be of any assistannce to you. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 15:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record- although anthroposphical sources are banned in accordance with the arbitration findings, waldorfcritics.org is not. --Fergie 16:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Most of the other references cited are "from Anthroposophic sources, Waldorf sources...etc.". Lili P.S. I also removed the personal part of my comment above, as my family suggested it may be read as offensive by some people. Lili

The arbitration - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education - has stated that anthroposophic sources may be used for non-controversial material. It also stated that no polemic sources may be used from any side; "high-quality" , neutral, and preferably academic (or peer-reviewed) sources are required for controversial areas.

Not only was the Waldorf critics site specifically mentioned in the discussions about this; discussion groups are not allowed as citations for any Wikipedia articles in any case(WP:Verify) - for obvious reasons (otherwise I could say anything in a web discussion group and then add a reference to this as a "verifiable" citation). Hgilbert 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no arbitration ruling prohibiting links to waldorfcritics.org. The waldorfcritics.org website hosts some copies of peer reviewed academic material which is fine to link to. It is also the web presence of the activist group known as PLANS, so it is also OK to link to waldorfcritics.org for citations of what PLANS thinks. HGilbert knows as well as I do that waldorfcritics.org is not (soley) a discussion forum, although he is right to say that a discussion forum cannot be linked to.--Fergie 21:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, I read the arbitration text very carefuly -- thank you for the link Hgilbert. I think however that I must agree with Fergie, there is no ruling prohibiting the link. I understand that NPOV requires not to mis-represent opinion as fact, but it allows to present the different sides on a controversy as long as you make it clear that they are opinions. I think for any controversial topic it is impossible to write in neutral terms, without masking controversial issues as universally accepted facts. Therefore, the best bet at neutrality is to present all points of view. That said, I am not puting the link back in, because I am new at wiki and I don't wamt to start a new dispute unwittingly by my lack of delicacy. I have no strong feelings about the topic, I just interpreted the banner as an invitation to contribue content balancing the article toward neutrality. Best, Lili

No, Fergie. Polemical sources are not allowed to be used and waldorfcritics.org is clearly just that.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(Pumpkinpatches 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC))I hope I am editing correctly since I have never done this on Wikipedia. I have been trying to find nuetral information on Waldorf for a bit of time and it is super hard on the Internet because there is the school, which does a fine job of representing itself AND there is an overly critical group (PLANS) on the Internet that seems to want to just destroy the program. I happen to be a public school educator with NO ties to Waldorf. My concern is that the criticisms are not really written with the mindset of someone who is a professional in education. I think if you could find a writer who is a professional and is established in the field, they could give a much better nuetral assessment. I think there is a lot of similarities and differences between Waldorf and modern education that would make for an interesting article. For instance, the Temperments part came off a little biting to me--temperments is old--dating to Plato. But, modern teachers constantly decide where children should sit based on personality. Go to any book that talks about cooperative learning in the modern class and there will be a chapter on this...

This seems sensible; seating plans are common to a very wide range schools and school types. I will strike this example. Hgilbert 12:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I just added a little item and a link to the CDC Pink Book under the immunizations section. The wording of the bit about Sweden made it sound as though hordes of children in Sweden died from the potentially fatal disease when they cut back on the vaccinations because the one they were using was damaging children. Whooping cough can be a nuisance. Fatalities are in small infants, usually under 3 months of age. So if your 8 your old gets whooping cough you don't actually need to worry that they might die.MinorityView 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Following up

I'd like to follow up on Antelan's list of suggestions, point by point. Please help address each of these!

• Waldorf education emphasizes an imaginative approach to learning - This sounds like an ad
  • Changed to improve objectivity of statement. ("unusual emphasis on imagination")
  • The role of the imagination in Waldorf education is noted by nearly every independent reviewer, and often is so prominent as to form part of the title of works on Waldorf (Oppenheimer, etc.).
• Artistry, autonomy and authority of an individual teacher is to be emphasized. - This sounds like a guidebook. If these things are emphasized, say so. If they're not, cut the sentence.
  • Resolved by rewording
• OK, they have "toys and dolls to encourage the imagination"; why don't we just say that they have toys and dolls - must we include an encouraging POV statement after every statement of fact?
  • Resolved by dropping the statement
• Standardized testing: Why are we comparing Waldorf schools with public schools? Shouldn't the comparison be with other private schools?
  • False "we": the original researchers, not Wikipedia's editors, are making this comparison. We are reporting comparisons made by verifiable sources. Comparisons of private with private schools, if available, should be given more weight in the article.

Diana adds later: Yes, but if such comparisons aren't cited, but the relatively useless comparison is cited anyway, without the shortcoming of such an analysis being noted, this comparison is given undue weight. *That's* the type of problem you don't, won't, and never will address if somebody doesn't babysit you 24/7 here.DianaW 15:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• While understanding the teacher to have "a sacred task in helping each child's soul and spirit grow"[15], with the aim of aiding the children's maturation process and spiritual awakening, Steiner’s pedagogics hold firmly to the principal perceptions of modern common sense educational theory since Comenius and Pestalozzi. - This, to me, reads like it was written by someone with a conflict of interest. That is, if I were to be describing something about which I had a conflict of interest, I would probably end up using such effusive and complementary language as you find here.
  • The quote is from a UK governmental school review, not generally noted for effusive language or conflicts of interest (they were reviewing their competitors).
  • Second part: Resolved by dropping wording about Comenius and Pestalozzi.
• As Waldorf education has expanded beyond Europe and North American to cultures such as Israel and Japan - Israel and Japan are countries. Israeli and Japanese culture can be found in Europe and North America, so I'm assuming that someone meant countries.
  • Fixed
• The pedagogy section states In Waldorf schools elementary education generally begins when the child is nearing or already seven years of age. The reception section states Lucy Calkins, a reading specialist at the Teachers College of Columbia University, indicates that in most public schools children who start reading later tend to do worse, but adds that Waldorf students might benefit slightly from starting earlier, and "I would not necessarily be worried in a Waldorf school. The foundation of literacy is talk and play." - Now, I'm actually very confused at what is being said. Is the conclusion that kids start reading later at Waldorf schools than in normal schools? Is Lucy Calkins saying that if Waldorf kids started reading slightly earlier they'd be better, or is she saying that they do start earlier than at other schools? At any rate, there seems to be some high-gloss coating applied to this; Waldorf sounds shiny no matter how you approach it. I don't see a way for this to be neutral, and I don't see how someone could be expected to interpret the chopped up statement from Lucy Calkins anyway.
  • Resolved by simplifying wording of Calkins statement.
• The German Racism section appears to have been written out of line with typical Wikipedia practices. It is uncommon to list a criticism and then a rebuttal. It is strange, too, that the criticism was made by experts, and then a rebuttal was made by a single private individual. I feel like I'm reading about a fad nutritional supplement, where experts tell me that the supplement does nothing for my health, but a random person swears that it cured their cancer. Perhaps both of these stories are worth telling, but not with the same weight, and not in this fashion.
  • Both the criticism and rebuttal were largely reporting individual (not expert) opinions. The section has been dropped in view of repeated criticisms of the quality of the source (television show, not peer-reviewed material).
• The concerns over immunizations section is similarly problematic. It presents the criticism, but then finishes in a way that seems to indemnify Waldorf. This section should just contain the concerns about vaccinations; the discussion of the potential harm of vaccinations belongs in another article (and if you're going to mention the benefits of not being vaccinated, it is somewhat strange to mention "increased risk of allergy" as a risk of vaccination without likewise mentioning "increased risk of untreatable fatal infection" as a risk of not being vaccinated).
  • The section has been revised to be more objective.
  • Generally: WP:Criticism states that "As with all Wikipedia articles, criticisms articles must follow Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. If there are valid counter-arguments to the criticisms, then these must be fairly included."
• The US Waldorf Schools Survey seems like it's being reported in far too much detail, and reads like an advertising pamphlet. Who conducted this survey? Where is the source for this material? Even if there is a source, is it appropriate for an encyclopedia to say "Students were aware that their school offers "a different kind of education, that stresses the arts as well as basic studies""? What school doesn't have an art component? This just seems like stuff that is essentially obviously true but being spun like it's something worth reporting in an encyclopedia. Also, what question were these kids asked? Based on the answer, it appears that the question was, "Are you aware that your school offers a different kind of education, that stresses the arts as well as basic studies?" Would anyone but a joker say no to that question?
  • Some changes in wording were made to condense this section.
  • The survey was conducted by a verifiable source (doctoral thesis, Columbia University). The study and thesis were approved and published by Columbia University. The study itself reports the original questions; there is no need to postulate absurd formulations. This is one of the few objective studies of parents' and students' actual perceptions of Waldorf education, especially important in view of partisan claims that have been made about parent satisfaction, etc.
• In 1996 a report was published on this school citing the school as a "positive learning environment" in which "the children and their background seem to be treated with respect", and as a potential model for public education's future direction. - This "report" appears to have been written by one person. Wouldn't it be more neutral to say that this person thinks that the school was a positive learning environment, that it is a good direction for public education, etc.? Writing it as "a report was published" makes it seem like this was some broad study instead of simply one group's thoughts in an article about one specific Waldorf school. The article seems pretty light on substance, saying such things as "The children and their background seem to be treated with respect. The school emphasizes not just standard cognitive learning, but character development in preparation for taking one's place as an educated citizen. Our vague sense is that this makes a great difference. In antroposophy, each child is understood to have a special destiny, and it is the school's business to make the most of it." That's a lot of opinion without much to back it up but a "vague sense". Take home message? Just phrase things a bit differently so this report doesn't come off as overly official, as it does now.
  • Resolved: The report was actually made by an official group of educational professionals and academics invited to evaluate the school's development. This has been clarified in the article and the wording revised as per above.
• With regards to Swedish Waldorf pupils markedly anti-racist, again it seems to me that the appropriate comparison would be between Waldorf schools and other private schools, not Waldorf schools and municipal schools.
  • Once again, the choice of schools to be compared was made by the study authors. I concur that studies comparing private schools with private schools should be given more weight.

Functional talk page

Should a lot of the discussion prior to maybe the middle of june or even latter be archived? the page is really long, and we're not using most of that. I don't want to act premptorily and I don't know that type of achiving that's been done. --Rocksanddirt 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an automatic archiver bot removing discussions after 1 month of no activity. I think it good to archive more now. A lot is just soap opera any way.Venado 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems ok to me. Especially if we keep creating new sections for things as we talk about them. --Rocksanddirt 18:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerns over Immunizations

I removed the following paragraph since it has nothing to do with Waldorf Education (as far as I can see). Perhaps it belongs in Vaccine controversy?

In a different study of the vaccination moratorium period that occurred when Sweden suspended vaccination against [[whooping cough]] (pertussis) from 1979 to 1996, Swedish physicians found that 60 percent of the country's children contracted whooping cough, a potentially fatal disease, before the age of ten years.<ref name="TheAtlantic2">Arthur Allen, ''Bucking the Herd'', The Atlantic Monthly, September 2002</ref> In the United States, where vaccination has been practiced since the 1940's, the majority of deaths from whooping cough are in infants under 3 months of age. However, prior to widespread vaccination, pertussis was "a major cause of childhood mortality in the United States." Pertussis continues to be a major health problem in developing countries, with over 290,000 deaths resulting from the disease in 2002.<ref> "Chapter 7: Pertussis" ''Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases'' Centers for Disease Control (February 2007)[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/pert.pdf] </ref>

--John Stumbles 18:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's one of those hard questions (to keep that sort of stuff in). Because who cares about vaccination at all if it just keeps kids from having to stay home from school? If here are actual deaths involved....well then having them makes more sense. The issue of vaccinations or not is much broader topic than waldorf education anyway. --Rocksanddirt 18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I did just add a sentence to direct people to the broader vaccine controversy page. Revert if that doesn't seem to get the idea out there. I'm generally in favor of linking the full discusion of the issues rather than making a really long article. --Rocksanddirt 18:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree this was good decision to remove that section, in line with earlier decision here this is not the article for general vaccination debate, it is about Waldorf schools. The sources did describe vaccination controversie directly to Waldorf schools. It is wrong to pad it with information about vaccination controversy in other places, such as Sweden. Sweden's moratorium on vaccination had nothing to do with Waldorf. It is against WP:OR policy to make a "synthesis" of Sweden example to make criticism or claim against Waldorf schools. When the source attributes claim or criticism about vaccination direct to a Waldorf school, it belongs here. Editors here cannot create new case statement about Waldorf vaccination by using unrelated stories such as Sweden as example. Editors can not assemble non Waldorf material to show readers why "who cares" about vaccination in Waldorf. That is WP:OR It is misleading also because putting Sweden story in this article it makes it confusing like what happened in Sweden was about Swedish Waldorf when it was not.Venado 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Sorry if I overstepped. - Wikiwag 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag

Hi, I noticed that the NPOV tag was removed today with the edit summary as per talk page discussion. I havn't seen where the anti-waldorf education people have aggreed yet, but seem to have given up. Now, I also don't understand their objections so I would really like to see one of them say what specific things are not following the WP policy of neutral point of view "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias" quote from the policy nutshell. If the sources allowed by the arbitration arn't negative enough for them, what can be done? --Rocksanddirt 19:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tag should only have been removed by an uninvolved user, although it seems that HGilbert has once again stretched the boundries of wikiquette by removing it himself. This article should be neutral and informative in tone, covering all aspects of Waldorf Education in a concise manner. There are several well established criticisms of Waldorf Education- they are censored out of this article which means the article loses credibity. The people you characterise as 'anti-waldorf' are for the most part like me- neutral wikipedians who want to improve the quality of this article. You are however right to say that such editors have 'given up'- any attempt to restore balance to the article is swiftly edited out by the article owners who are in clear breach of WP:COI. Expect a comment like this to be replied to with a combination of 'innocent' enquiries as to the exact nature of the article's shortcomings and some thinly veiled personal attacks.--Fergie 09:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This would be better placed at the bottom after the responses from venado. And I agreee, which is why I asked the question about the removal. That said, why did the arbitration rule that those sources were not valid? I fully agree that the "pro-waldorf editors" of this article for the most part have behaved in a way that does not encourage good faith and had I been on the arbitration committee would likely have endorsed a ban of them from the articles as well. Much of the critism of waldorf education I have read over the years, has been focused on a either a) individual teachers and schools and thier problems or b) that the program has a spiritual component and the critic thinks that doesn't belong in a school of any kind. --Rocksanddirt 16:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The dispute on this question was going no where. Fight over the NPOV tag was not even about the quality of the article at the end.it turned into bitter, purely personal, grudge match. It was a game of capture the tag on talk page, but only one editor doing any work about NPOV in the article. Childish fueding also poisons the well on talk page, which it discourages other editors from contributing. I think it is best to clear the fight ring. What article needs now is for uninvolved editors to give opinion, involved editors are a broken record. And the article is open for editing, so it can still be improved where there is need to do it.Venado 21:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's my question, what was the core of the real dispute? I've observed this article periodically for a while, and read more of the talk pages, and arbcom pages than I wanted to in order to understand and I just don't. I understand the PLANS people and where they are coming from. As far as the personal stuff...if certain editors were still here I would not be getting involved now, I don't need that kind of personal negativity anywhere in my life. As far as additional editing, I don't likely have time to research acceptable sources that have not already been used here to try and clearly explain the program. I'd be another broken record. Thanks for responding! --Rocksanddirt 21:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As uninvolved editor, how do you have opinion how the article stands right now?Venado 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good (as I put at the beginning of the RfC section). I'm not with out at least the appearance of COI, however as I'm on the Board of a Waldorf School. The only real comment is that there is not slavish devotion to the principles outlined by stiener in many waldorf schools as the article kind of indicates, but rather individual schools are trying to do what his writings indcate (IMO) and that is to 1) try to honestly observe the children, 2) teach them where they are at in their development. Not that there arn't schools/teachers/parents that take stiener's work as gospel and we struggle against them constantly. --Rocksanddirt 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing comment. I saw this to in some academic references also that the schools very in many ways. Venado 23:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the tag with a POV check tag since the article has been cleaned up and disputes resolved. This tag is placed if someone thinks the page might be un-neutral but isn't sure how to proceed or if an article has been cleaned up but editors think it might still lack something that was overlooked.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Compare two article tests

(I assume the RFC is still open and add new comments here to reserve lower page for RFC)

For NPOV

I found a featured article about another school system for comparison. I thought it would help all involved editors to step outside and see how others think to read article fresh if I did a test. I switched the names in two articles for test purposes. The featured article has been copied and the school names are substituted with names and terms about Waldorf. Assume this is a school you do not know for test purpose and all the facts in it are accurately verified. Read it to see if it sounds balanced and NPOV.Waldorf article.

I took the Waldorf article and made a test, switching the names to analogous ones. Assume this is a school system you do not know. But assume all the facts in it are accurately verified. Read it now to see if it sounds balanced and NPOV.Hopkins Method.Venado 17:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparing to other articles is interesting, but not a test of how this article should read, no matter how good the other article is. In this case, it's apples and oranges. At the Hopkins School there is no religious sect hiding behind the curtains there - the school's purpose, methods, curriculum, etc. are all just what they appear. Waldorf isn't analogous - Waldorf's foundations in anthroposophy are consistently downplayed by the schools, so taking their web sites and promotional literature as straightforwardly factual will not yield an equally informative article. More depth is needed when more depth *exists*. (Clearly, anthroposophists would agree that Waldorf schools are much deeper in purpose and content than any other school; they just don't want your average prospective customer to hear talk like that before they sign up.) (Also, interestingly, if you look at the Hopkins article talk page, you'll see that there too there have been requests that brochure-style, self-aggrandizing phrases that the school routinely uses in promotional literature be removed.)

Furthermore, as I think I've said, I'm not so impressed by wikipedia's overall standards and guiding principles that I'm willing to agree that some other school that's got "featured article" status on this web site must therefore necessarily be a great model for any education-related article. I would guess there's a lot else of interest that could be said about Hopkins that you won't find in that article. Elite educational institutions do indeed have their critics, from a wide variety of perspectives, and it's a weakness of wikipedia that anything deemed "critical" is instantly excised by defenders of this the questionable, sort of high-school debate-club level idea of "NPOV" here. (I hadn't realized until recently that a high proportion of the "administrators" here are high school students; that explains a lot.)DianaW 21:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Doing my own quick comparison, I looked at the wikipedia page for the high school my son will attend next year. It's also a poor article and full of rah-rah "We're the greatest" stuff. To hear them tell it the sports teams never lose and almost all the kids go to Harvard. Schools just do this. If no one at wikipedia cares to argue about it, there it sits. At our orientation night, I'm pretty sure I heard some administrator claim that the school has the best high school library in the . . . world. It's very doubtful that that's an objective claim, but schools promote themselves. What does it mean that the Hopkins article got "featured" status here? It means a bunch of anonymous people on wikipedia decided it was good. People who will hang in and be determined will make it so, as long as they are willing play by all the petty rules etc. I'd be willing to bet people closely affiliated with Hopkins orchestrated it. Since anonymous editing is encouraged, there's no way to ever know.DianaW 22:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

These comments show some reasons why you do not like the article or wikipedia. But they are not reasons that can editors should use to change the article to say only what you want it to say.

The first issue listed is not a factor here at all because Waldorf brochure material or Waldorf published sources are mostly not allowed as references. They have to be removed if any are still use. This article can not be criticized for this problem because only independent references are allowed in it. A few fact tags only are still there and that material will have to be removed if reference not found do to probation.

It is not a valid reason to keep NPOV tag because you think:

• wikipedias best articles are bad to
• administrators are only students
• the independent published references dont say what you want them to say
• the WP NPOV policy is "high school"
• and all the other WP rules are petty to.

Those are only personal opinions and not suitable reasons to resolving article disputes at wikipedia.Venado 00:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Venado wrote: "These comments show some reasons why you do not like the article or wikipedia." These comments were in response to your suggestion that we compare the Waldorf article to another article, not a suggestion that we "change the article to say what I want it to say." As I stated, comparing to other articles is interesting, but not a test of how this article should read, for a variety of reasons.

As for all your reasons why it's supposedly not a valid reason to keep the NPOV tag, unfortunately, Venado, my reasons for keeping the NPOV tag are just as good as yours for deleting it, and probably better. In fact, arguing that "wikipedia's best articles are bad, too" (which isn't what I said, but just supposing I did), that's indeed quite a good reason to keep the NPOV tag. I refuted your suggestion that just because you can compare the Waldorf article to some other article, favorably or unfavorably, that tells us whether the Waldorf article is POV or not. Huh? Your argument led nowhere. You disagree, I get that. The same applies to all the other reasons I offered, and/or to your caricature of them.DianaW 02:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I proposed the test comparison because it helps editors from all sides judge if the articles have NPOV tone to other readers. If editors say "yes the claims are all well sourced but the article sounds like a brochure" this was one way editors can step back and judge tone for NPOV fresh. But if editors say "these claims are false, important content is missing" that is a different kind of problem that needs fact checking the disputed claims and adding content that is accurately sourced. Editors at wikipedia learn by analyzing and comparing work to other good articles. In article peer review or rfc editors urge the comparisons to articles routinely. Conform and judge steiner articles by WP policies and methods.Venado 15:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find the "brochure language" discussions raised at Hopkins School talk pages for ideas here, but cant find it. Please give link to that page because this article editors could benefit from reviewers comments made in similarr situation.Venado 15:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

See the several paragraphs under "Removal of Boston Latin" on talk page for the Hopkins School article. (It's a little hard to miss, it's most of the page.) I didn't follow the dispute carefully, but clearly the school is proud of, and mentions prominently in their promotional literature, that they're the oldest something-or-other in the blah-blah. Other editors then nitpicked the wording. They're not the oldest, they're the oldest "in continuous existence" because some other school closed and later re-opened, or smtg like that; this is the sort of thing people writing promotional literature sit around thinking about, how can we make a really cool claim for our institution that makes us sound really prestigious and venerable even though it kind of skirts the truth just slightly.DianaW 15:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Venado wrote: "Editors at wikipedia learn by analyzing and comparing work to other good articles." Yes. So what they learn is only as good as what is already here. Sometimes this is just looking around for tricks that others have gotten away with. Sometimes this means someone learns and improves, other times this is the blind leading the blind. I repeat that just because it got featured article status here doesn't impress *me* - the quality of the article is what would impress me. Probably now you will write me another "It doesn't matter what you think" post, but that's really not getting us anywhere.DianaW 15:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Venado: ". . . helps editors from all sides judge if the articles have NPOV tone to other readers." I'd say "to other readers" is the point there. It's one thing to write something that sounds NPOV "to other readers"; it's another thing to write something that *is* NPOV. The former is just how do you get really good at writing promotional copy that isn't so boastful and absurd that people actually snicker over the blatant self-aggrandizement; there's a real trick to writing sophisticated, not obviously overhyped promotional copy. The latter, however - writing an objective article - is what we should be aiming for. In this regard the comparison to another article here about some other school isn't much help.DianaW 15:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sarcastic. It is just efforts to clarifying disputes. Clarify the problems to resolve problems and help with the article. You say you do not agree to compare to other articles because "I am not impressed what articles WP calls good". That is not sarcasm. It is help to know if this is your reason to keep NPOV tag is that you use self standards, not WP standards of practice or policy.

About Boston Latin and Hopkins School dispute example. That is an example of a fact dispute. Either it is the oldest, it is not the oldest, or it is unknown which school is the oldest. If a 400 year old continuously operating school is the oldest or one of the oldest in North America it is a notable item. The dispute raised among editors there was not about taking out claim or tagging article but wording to make a correct statement, a factual dispute. Fact disputes best need talk and reference sources to settle, but there was a mini revert war at the time in the middle of a day full of vandalism edits brought on only by Featured Article exposure. The limited talk made regarding fact dispute was still cool headed compared to talk often here.

Involved editors are involved in dispute the issue of NPOV. They are accused they can't be objective. But you do not see value of each editor to try to step back and look at NPOV of this article objectively or try to see it from independent standpoint? Since it is a good question if involved editors can judge this NPOV question, I think they should try to step back and get look from other sides, but you say no that is bad idea, that is a promotional trick. I say it is a good idea to compare to other articles. You say it is a bad idea, the blind lead the blind. I say again my comment about the goal of some to permanently obstruct the resolution of the article. To much always excuses of every kinds to every suggestion, stopping all attempts at clarifying what the problems are and making progress toward consensus and finish of this article.Venado 17:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Venado: "If a 400 year old continuously operating school is the oldest or one of the oldest in North America it is a notable item. The dispute raised among editors there was not about taking out claim or tagging article but wording to make a correct statement, a factual dispute." This is actually a very helpful comment, as it clarifies for me that you do indeed have tunnel vision and don't know how a good article would be written. No - the argument at the Hopkins page wasn't just a factual dispute, or a question of "how exactly should we word it." It was about putting the brakes on the desire of people closely involved with the school, or deeply enamored of the school or benefitting from the school's prestigious reputation, to use wikipedia to promote the school. We see this over and over here: editors argue the points as if the only issue in the world were "If it's a fact I can source somewhere, then I get to put it in the article, and you can't stop me." That is not how any good article on anything is written; articles are more than collections of facts, and correctly sourcing a fact or getting the exact wording right is only one, very small, element in whether the article is a good article or whether it has a "neutral point of view."

Venado also wrote: "To much always excuses of every kinds to every suggestion, stopping all attempts at clarifying what the problems are . . ." There is no lack of clarity here as to what the problems are. You want us to focus, nitpicked point by nitpicked point, on whether you're "allowed" to stick this or that small factoid into the article, claiming if you've got a source, it's good to go. You either aren't capable of seeing or don't want to see that the problem is much bigger, it's that people whose livelihood and deep religious convictions bind them zealously to anthroposophy can't write an unbiased article about anthroposophy or anthroposophical projects in the first place. They *believe* the propaganda on a deep personal level and cannnot separate themselves from it, so they feel anything that is necessary to get that stuff in the article and keep it there, this is their mission to accomplish. Editors with another point of view are a problem for them to work around, by provoking, seeking bans or blocks, inciting, intimidating etc. (edit warring, babysitting the article 24/7 or standing vigil in shifts, making 20 edits in a row every day for 10 days, adding references in various languages or from very obscure and difficult-to-track sources, complaining to multiple admins about other users and continually "gaming" wikipedia, and generally making it impossible for anyone to keep up if they don't have 12 hours a day for this). The problem is as wikiwag has been pointing out - that the main editors of the article all suffer from COI and are trying to OWN the articles. (Wikiwag's suggestion that Hgilbert walk away for a month, for instance, is a good one. I'd be very surprised if he were able to do that.)DianaW 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I am getting picture myself. The Hopkins school issue was a fact dispute. The one editor commenting complaint of claim there was the same editor adding same claim to a different school. This was a dispute about facts. This was not a dispute, "do not say this is second oldest-it is not encyclopedic, only brochure promotion".Dispute was "do not say this school was second oldest because this school was not second, it was third". Wikipedia repeats claims like this in hundreds articles. "Fifth richest man", "smallest country", "third largest planet", "second fastest", "ninth oldest". The claims are included in articles because it is often interesting to people.

Wikipedias objective: to web publish encyclopedia articles. How this is done is in open editing using content verified to most reliable available published references. Facts are represented as facts. and opinions or value statements must be attributed with sources. NPOV is not achieved by "keeping out content that sounds good/bad". It is to writing the article fair and accurate to proportion in content found in the most reliable published sources found. It is not a game to trick system to find these sources. It is inviolable policy to find these sources. The objection in arbitration was that the article used only Waldorf promotional materials for sources. This problem was solved when in arbitration stricter policies were set on sources. Even though many complained at the time there were not good sources available, afterwards between 60 and 70 different published references are cited now. Many are by education professionals doing research studies and publishing in professional journals for educators. This is positive development.it is requirement of the article probation. Editors who did find good sources are doing the real work for better article development and can not be condemned for doing it.

Another rule for writing articles is wikipedia is not a battleground. All edit history for 1.5 years shows only 1 edit from DianaW to the article. The edit was only fixing one comma. You say all the time why you wont help on article, but this is not due to any one unfairly interfering with your edits because you never do edit it. But you do come to talk page for new place to restart new arguing of old grudges, to belitle editors, and to stand on soapbox angry at Waldorf, at what you find wrong with others editing, and wrong with wikipedia. And you tell you will not discuss about the content issues under any circumstances, and you neither will do any other work on the article. You said you "gave up" doing the work because of interferance and WP:OWN, but total of your editing in this article was just once on one comma one year ago. You rant here, but should rant on a blog or usenet forum some where. Because this is not personal opinion forum.Venado 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is another way the anthroposophists control these articles. There are nearly 50 articles that fall under the "anthroposophy/Steiner/Waldorf" rubric which the arbitration addressed. A critical editor will get little scoldings that a certain point isn't correct because it doesn't appear in *this* article but in one of the other ones, or challenges "That's not in the edit history here." Ok maybe it was in the Steiner article etc. Several neutral or mildly critical editors have been rebuked this way.

No, I've done little actual editing on any of these articles, because any change I implement is reverted within minutes. The way they got Pete K banned was coaxing him into edit wars, or pushing him with ever so slightly increasing pressure. They went at him from every angle including the personal, finding the right buttons to push. There isn't a way to win that game. I have achieved a couple of things, though, putting them on notice that certain pro-Waldorf sources were going to be exposed which they hope will slip by appearing neutral to people who don't know much about anthroposophy, or that blatantly slanderous material about critics individually or collectively would not stand here. I will fight on certain points. Thebee knows for instance that when "hate group" or "Jew Watch" rhetoric reappears, or nonsense with individual critics' names attached, I will see that it is removed.

The anthroposophists have one key tool at their disposal - dogged fanaticism, and the willingness to commit their lives to doing this. I frankly don't have that. I care about the topics and have spent considerable time on them. I can't sit by the computer hour by hour by hour.DianaW 13:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Other comparisons

The Hopkins School was a featured article. In one way I will say first, the Waldorf article is much better researched. The Hopkins school relies almost exclusively on documents from or directly tied to the Hopkins school. Only one other published source outside the school's is used as reference, and the publisher for it was a small local vanity press. Venado 17:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Hopkins school relies almost exclusively on documents from or directly tied to the Hopkins school." And so why again were you suggesting that it would be helpful to us to use this article as a model?DianaW 02:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Venado: your point is well taken. But I see no evidence that your example is remotely as controversial as this article has been. It's also just one school vs. an entire philosophy. - Wikiwag 02:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked for featured articles of related subject for comparison. In some ways this article is much better than the featured article. Now in terms of NPOV only though is a difference of opinions here. It seems like this is a difference of opinion focused on tone and weight in content, not fact claims. Venado 15:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Arbcom on acceptible sources

Wikiwag writes above:

I've deleted this chart from the article, as its data is based in part on ArbComm-forbidden sources. - Wikiwag 16:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the Arbcom description of the principles to be followed in editing the article, one of them, on Verifiability says, overruling what Wikiwag writes:

===Verifiability===

3) 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.

passed 6-0 at 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have pointed this out before a number of times. The principle means that, with regard to uncontroversial issues, to which most probably would consider the number of Waldorf schools in existence at different times to belong, anthroposophy- or Waldorf related sources are to be considered reliable sources.

This also means that with regard to this chart of the number of Waldorf schools world wide at different times, created by Hgilbert, based on five elementary sources, also described at the page is based on sources considered reliable by the Arbcom ruling on Principles to be followed in the editing of the article.

The graph also does not constitute "Original research", which is used in the following more limited and specific sense here at Wikipedia than the literal sense of the term:

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

• It introduces a new theory or method of solution;
• It introduces original ideas;
• It defines new terms;
• It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
• It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

The graph removed by Wikiwag does none this. Is just gives a summarizing overview of the number of Waldorf schools world-wide in graphic form, nothing else. The motivation described by Wikiwag for its removal from the article therefore is not vaild, and I (again), based on this, will readd it to the article, if noone points to a valid reason, other than that assumed by Wikiwag, for not doing this.

Thanks, Thebee 20:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

TheBee: Yes, I know you keep trying to argue that point. But friend, there is a comma between "controversial" and "material," indicating these things must be read as a list:

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.

This means that "material published in Anthroposophy related publications" are "considered self published and thus not reliable sources."

Moreover, Fred Bauder and Thatcher131 have both said in no uncertain terms that Anthroposophy-published works are not acceptable sources and specifically directed their removal.

As such, removal of the graph in its present form is absolutely appropriate. Just replace the self-published data with independently-verifiable data and I'll have no problem with the graph's presence. - Wikiwag 21:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that this is a controversy at all. Are the schools real or does some body say them made up with pretend names and addresses, most in Germany, and that nobody else can verify they really exist. That seems like if it was controversy, it means a corporate conspiracy to make up pretend schools, and that is not plausible to me. So this source is allowed, just like in other articles, like United Airlines. United Airlines is used as the source for the chart there of how big is the fleet size and when it was founded.

But I also see why some one would think that chart uses unallowed source, but that rule about unallowed source is only for controversial issues, and it is not a qualitative claim it is just a list count of their schools. So the chart or removing it can be discussed and it is bad to edit war about this. Wikiwag, that interpretation you give does not work. "except with respect to information which is not controversial" makes no sense by it self in a list. It is a qualifier to the arbcom rule is all it is. It is not a stand alone arbcom policy, it would be incoherent if that is the way to read it.Venado 21:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Venado. Any more comments by others on Wikiwag's way of interpreting the verifiability principle to be applied for the article, as described by the Arbcom ruling, and quoted wbove? Thanks, Thebee 21:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have more comments. The ruling said no anthroposophy-published sources. Yes, even a list of schools is potentially self-promotional. I mean, if nothing else it's a means for potential customers to contact these schools! It's bloody free advertising. Nobody is saying they are literally inventing schools and giving them pretend names. But I've been having the conversation with various Waldorf advocates for years about various claims relating to how many schools there are world wide. There is a lot more room to manipulate such numbers than you might think, there's different ways to count even what exactly is a "school," there's a question as to whether schools that have later closed are ever removed from these lists. High numbers are obviously in the movement's self-promotional interest and are often used to show they are "growing." (In fact, at one point earlier in the development of this article, or maybe it was the History of Waldorf Schools article, I'm pretty sure such a chart was included to show the movement as "fast growing" or some such.) This is, as Fred Bauder notes, a basic sales pitch. Absolutely, a list of the schools from a Waldorf source is not a reliable source, and it almost doesn't matter how far you pare the claim down to basic facts, Waldorf supporters are likely to find a wy to add "spin" in one form or another. It may sound extreme, but it's true - they are not even to be trusted counting themselves. The arbitration ruling said no anthroposophical sources and that should be followed. (Whoever pointed out that in some ways this works against critics' viewpoint, too, is correct.)DianaW 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you show a single example of a school listed on an official Waldorf list that did not exist at the time when the list was made? Hgilbert 17:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I haven't claimed anything about this particular source, its accuracy or otherwise, and don't need to. It is not an acceptable source per the arbitration guidelines.DianaW 17:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And you seem to be hinting that you are aware that probably there are schools on the list that aren't in existence anymore.DianaW 17:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

DianaW sweepingly:

"I have more comments. The ruling said no anthroposophy-published sources."

Wrong. See extensive quote and analysis above from the central point in the Arbcom ruling regarding reliable sources. You work in between as editor. Please read Wikiwag's interesting interpretation of the application of the verifiability/reliability principle with regard to Waldorf related articles, and tell me you think he gives a correct description of it.

With regard to the reliability of the published info regarding the number of Waldorf schools world wide at different times, you have commented:

"For all we know it is 100% accurate." (referring to the number of schools in question.)

You also refer to one source used by Hgilbert as

"a disallowed source per the arbitration rulings"

That is not what the mentioned principle refers to. It refers to "information" in waldorf sources, not the sources in their totality as allowed/disallowed, depending on the nature of the information as such (non-controversial/controversial) in the source.

Thanks, Thebee 14:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you too. This is how you waste people's time, and it's part of your overall strategy to maintain control here. What I wrote is correct and pertinent in every detail regarding what the arbitration said about disallowed sources, and I've also given extensive reasoning for why the question of the number of schools worldwide is indeed potentially disputable - why it is, from a certain POV, almost the central question in terms of how the movement promotes itself worldwide - and several others have noted the same problems, namely that how schools are counted and listed is indeed highly manipulable and subject to bias. Furthermore a source that gives contact information for potential customers is the clearest possible example of promotional material that the arbitration disallows. Hgilbert has now given another source, which I don't have time to check further into at the moment so will probably stand.DianaW 15:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore Mr. Bee, I find it somewhat creepy that you persist in referring to my career or job situation at regular intervals, when it has nothing to do with anything here. "You work in between as editor." I would appreciate it if you would avoid these comments. I'm aware of what you do for a living, too (as it's mentioned on your public web site), but I don't draw it into the conversation here. It takes on a somewhat too personal and slightly intimidating air to me. Please cease. The jobs of those here who draw their salaries directly from Waldorf education are pertinent in showing their bias in editing these articles; my occupation is completely unrelated to Waldorf education, I don't earn money either working for or criticizing Waldorf schools.DianaW 15:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You write:

I don't earn money either working for or criticizing Waldorf schools.

Neither do I. As for the rest of what you write, I don't have the energy to comment it in detail.

But you have not addressed the question if you think Wikiwag gives a correct description above (21:19, 11 July 2007) of the verifiability/reliability principle with regard to Waldorf related articles. Can you do that? Thanks, Thebee 15:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in discussing whether someone or other gives a correct description of the arbitration - I don't know if I even read whatever Wikiwag wrote about it and don't have time now to sit around discussing it. What *I* wrote has nothing to do with whatever Wikiwag wrote.DianaW 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV label

After the RfC and extensive work on the article to objectify its language, clean up unclear aspects, and generally raise the professional standard, I would like to sincerely recommend that we now remove the NPOV label. I feel the article now deserves this, acknowledging everyone's (including even the most critical voices!) work that has led to these improvements. Hgilbert 14:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As I'd like to reserve some space for substantive discussion, I've created a subsection for this, and one for those who wish to engage in ad hominem discussion, as well (fair is fair). Hgilbert 15:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL!!! I just noticed this. I suspect, however, hgilbert, that deliberately creating a section for ad hominem discussion violates some wikipolicy.DianaW 15:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No, ad hominem discussion itself violates wikipolicy. See WP:Assume good faith and WP:No personal attacks.

If there are no substantive grounds for keeping the label, it must be removed. Hgilbert 14:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been over a week and no substantive discussion is forthcoming. I am removing the NPOV tag. Hgilbert 11:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That is to say - substantive in your opinion. - Wikiwag 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That is to say, substantive according to Wikipedia official policy: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." This is pretty clear. Hgilbert 15:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So how does one separate the content from the contributor, when the contributor has a well-documented COI? This is not a personal attack. I, and it would appear others here, would really like to know. - Wikiwag 14:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. What a fundamental question. You address the content objectively, and ignore (do not mention, pretend not to have noticed - see Miss Manners' books and articles for further details of how to manage this) the personalities involved. For example, you could say: "It seems to me that important criticisms about xxx have been missed in this article. What about this source: yyy?" and see what happens. Or, "The following phrase seems adulatory. Is it really backed up by objective authorities in this phrasing?" Or "Why have you deleted xxx? - it seems an important aspect." You can talk about anything at all in the article, you see, without being personally offensive (or, if you have truly been addressing objective content and someone takes offense, it is his/her projection/identification).

Believe it or not, many of us work to achieve this. (Let's not get personal and judge success rates here; that would make an interesting off-Wiki them.) If we all work even harder to achieve this, the article will get much better faster and we'll all learn to like each other (believe it or not!) Hgilbert 17:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Substantive discussion

Per Hgilberts comments around and about. My substantive comment is that I'm not sold on removing the Npov tag yet. I would like to see allowable sources and a real section in the article for some of the various critisisms of the waldorf education system. The critism section as it stands now is very weak. All the sources I know of are either discussions by waldorf or anthroposophical authors or publishers (not allowed based on the artibration), or from forums or mailing lists (not reliable under any WP sourcing policy). --Rocksanddirt 16:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

At one time, there was a healthy and vigorous criticism section. The third and most recent attempt to create one is here. However over time, the phrasing is invariably massaged and criticism quashed by the COI editors of this article. That is the precise and substantive reason why it is absolutely inappropriate for any involved editor to either call for or much less remove the NPOV tag. I am delighted to see that there are those in agreement with this point, though it's unfortunate for those here that it took Fred's return to make it stick. - Wikiwag 14:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone suggest any allowable sources for this? If what you (Rocksanddirt) are saying is that the sources you have in mind are disallowed by the arbitration ruling because they do not meet Wikipedia's standards for a notable, verifiable point of view? If they have never been expressed by an independent and competent voice, how do they affect NPOV considerations? Hgilbert 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what the last sentence in the Vacination Controversy section has to do with anything. I just says that kids in Sweden got whooping cough since the government suspended vaccinations. While updating the vaccination section is fine, it's not a pedagogical specific waldorf education thing. --Rocksanddirt 15:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to clarify the issue. It is the Waldorf population that is largely unvaccinated.Hgilbert 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but if it's not part of Swedish waldorf schools recommendations to parents does it belong in the article? We could go on and on about things that parents who put thier kids in waldorf schools do that is not "mainstream", I don't think that stuff is appropriate for an article about waldorf education. --Rocksanddirt 16:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem discussion

Well, I stopped by ... just to see if anything had really changed and if the likes of Hgilbert, TheBee and Venado could be true to their word and write an NPOV article. Not surprisingly - but still disappointingly - they haven't; we're still left with a biased, over-lengthy and over-sourced article that reads like a brochure. Moreover Hgilbert, the fact that the approx 150 of the last 250 edits have been made by you or TheBee, both deeply involved in the Waldorf movement, explicitly disqualifies either of you from making such a request on COI grounds alone.

The pair of you may have helped get Pete banned and convinced me that utter and total frustration I experienced as an editor on this article was not how I wanted to spend my free time. But, rest assured that under present ownership [yes, I chose that word deliberately], this article will never achieve NPOV. It doesn't matter how long the dissenting voices stay away or how many RfCs disagree with the content. Nothing substantive has changed - nothing substantive will change, because the lot of you Waldorfers are absolutely incapable of separating your unequivocal bias from the content of the article.

I'm frankly inclined to suggest the opposite happen - that this article be deleted from Wikipedia on WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE grounds, and that the principal editors both pre-and-post-arbitration are in violation of WP:OWN, making it impossible to achieve legitimate WP:CONS. - Wikiwag 16:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag, you write;

Hgilbert, the fact that the approx 150 of the last 250 edits have been made by you or TheBee, both deeply involved in the Waldorf movement, explicitly disqualifies either of you from making such a request on COI grounds alone.

I checked the edit history of the article. The last edit I made of the article was on 31 May, about a month ago, adding info on country for identification of a university in a citation. In total, counting the edits I seem to have made, when 500 are listed, they seem to be in total 23, the first being made on 13 Feb.

Maybe you can be more specific with regard to the logic of your argumentation with regard to the number of edits I've made (23 of the last 500) as basis for your claim that they show that I am disqualified from making a request that the POV tag be removed? Maybe you can also point to any time where I have requested or participated in a request that the tag be removed since or before 10 February? Or is your comment meant as something else than a contribution to a battle (WP:BATTLE) you then list as one reason to suggest a deletion of the article?

As for Hgilbert, I think you will find it difficult to document any extensive evidence that he has not repeatedly asked for suggestion on how to improve the article in acordance with the WP policies and the more explicit rules laid out by the arbitration, and then trying to implement them. Thanks, Thebee 18:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Logic and fact are two different things; the facts of what I wrote are indisputable. If this article were based logic, NPOV would have been achieved long ago.

Likewise, asking for suggestions and allowing them to stand are two different things. Suggestions and edits have offered in abundance from many people, including other editors, impartial individuals, administrators and arbitrators, since this article first hit the 'pedia. But under the ownership of Hgilbert and you, the article always slips back into a Waldorf POV, where it remains to this day.

Logic suggests and that persons who are deeply involved with conveying a favorable view of a topic [namely Hgilbert and you] are incapable of doing so without a favorable bias; it would be like [note, this is simile - not metaphor] asking tobacco executives to write an NPOV article on tobacco. That is why NPOV is WP:POLICY.

My suggestion that the article be deleted stems from the logical proposition that the article, by virtue of the facts that a] it is written and owned by persons deeply involved in promoting the movement, b] that alternate points of view while arguably invited by the owners, are not allowed to stand no matter how well sourced causing c] the article to meet many or all the tests of WP:OWN leading to the conclusion that d] the article is fundamentally flawed due to an enduring and irrefutable bias in support of a pro-Waldorf POV that shows no signs of changing.

Quod erat demonstrandum - Wikiwag 13:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wikiwag, A while back I asked for some examples of properly sourced material that had been deleted. No such examples were presnted by any of the gentlewikipedians who continue to complain about this article being "owned." What I see is whining and no facts. Sorry to be harsh, but neither you nor DianaW have actually presented any appropriate material in MONTHS and yet you continue yelling about how the article is bad, bad, bad. Tiresome and unconvincing, frankly. MinorityView 14:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am personally straightforward and honest in my intentions here. I tell you clearly what I am here to do. I have no interest in "improving the article" and don't run around looking for material to add to it. That is flatly impossible given (blah; I don't care about wiki-acronyms) OWN and COI and AGF etcetera etcetera. I gave up - this is no secret, and I have heartily congratulated the "owners" of the article on achieving it. They worked very doggedly. Their politeness and good will are one thousand percent phony. (Thebee recently reprinted Hgilbert's phony "apology" to Pete for his scandalous remarks about Pete's family - the only thing Hgilbert was sorry for was getting caught - he thought at the time he wrote them that we were not listening.)

I add comments to the talk pages periodically to assist readers who look back here to perhaps get a deeper look at the sorts of controversies that embroil Waldorf education and anthroposophy, as they are all reflected right here on the talk page. I fully accept this doesn't make me a good "wikipedian" - I don't have a lot of interest in contributing to wikipedia as a project overall, I am too busy, and I think wikipedia has too many problems at this juncture to be a useful source of information on any controversial topic - and I understand that Hgilbert and Thebee record all such comments from me in the hope of eventually banning me as well. They are basically rather simple folks in their understandings of things - witness thebee's triumphantly quoting Peter S. as "criticizing" academia which thebee thinks means Peter S. isn't a good academic source! This is the level of dialogue - there isn't much point in a thoughtful person trying to discuss anything serious with clowns like that.DianaW 15:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And I particularly like the little "check" marks and "Resolved" notes Hgilbert adds to things to show that he has earnestly taken care of the little problems here :) It is certainly entertaining reading.DianaW 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think now some users are commenting to obstruct, as if only option they want is NPOV tag stays permanent. And if not able to keep NPOV tag always, want wikipedia to delete the whole article even though reason given is not a valid reason wikipedia uses to delete articles.

Every one need to stop starting obstructive flame wars. Do some real work if you want to make good articles. Users need to go away if they are here only to shut down consensus or discourage input with avenger style flame wars. Users should remove all non-content related commentary and personal remarking themselves. Or I will be bold and put all ad hominem section in archive. Venado 16:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"I think now some users are commenting to obstruct, as if only option they want is NPOV tag stays permanent." I do indeed want the NPOV tag to stay permanent as long as the article is POV, which, as Wikiwag notes, kinda looks like forever as long as you boys hang on like dogs with bones. "Users need to go away if they are here only to shut down consensus . . ." Oops, violation of civility. It isn't exactly news that you'd like me and other critics to go away, nor really very productive to ask me repeatedly. I can't stop you moving stuff you don't like to the archive - be my guest. As I said, I stop in periodically to merely call attention to the fact that these sorts of games are ongoing.DianaW 21:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My, my - how easily they bristle; clearly, I've touched a nerve. ;-)

MinorityView - you're asking me to prove a negative; that is not possible. Frankly, I don't have the time or the interest to get re-involved to the level you ask [pulling diffs, calling on the arbitrators, etc.] in order to prove my point. What's more, I don't need to - and it's not "whining" or "yelling" to point out a flaw in the logic of a proposition. Far from it - I am very calm and shall remain that way.

I freely concede that I cannot personally match the level of minute detail you people are able to muster to prove the spurious claims made by the movement. That however, does not change the fact that the article is fundamentally biased by virtue of who you are and what you do. That alone is the basis and substance of my proposition that NPOV can never be achieved under present ownership, and that is all I need.

You can prove me wrong, by following the Wikipedia recommendation of taking some time off from the article like I have, and letting other people like DianaW, Fergie and me edit the article unchallenged. Come back after a few weeks. Would you allow that? I suspect not - and if not, then you are the owners by definition. - Wikiwag 01:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag wrote: "I don't have the time or the interest to get re-involved to the level you ask [pulling diffs, calling on the arbitrators, etc.] in order to prove my point." And that's what they count on. That's how they won this fight, and why they control the article. It's that simple. It would take 12 hours a day to combat it effectively, and the patience of Job, to not only edit the article but use official channels and procedures to report grievances such as the continual personal slander (critics don't have custody of their children; PLANS is a "hate group" etc. Thebee called me a "jihadist" a couple of days ago; I guess I ought to start a list somewhere, or file a report with some committee, but I have a life.)DianaW 02:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote: Thebee called me a "jihadist" a couple of days ago; - give him 30 minutes, and he'll be here asking for the diff. He'll claim moral victory if I don't come back with it in the next 24 hours. The strategy they have used here is simple: they waited us out. Nobody could do it forever. (I don't recall if it's this talk page or the anthroposophy one, nor do I plan to go pull the diff, but the jihad comments aren't hard to find.)DianaW 02:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well: This article is written and owned by persons deeply involved in promoting the movement. Over time and at length, alternate points of view while arguably invited by the owners, are not allowed to stand no matter how well sourced. This has caused the article to meet many or all the tests of WP:OWN. Therefore, the article is fundamentally flawed due to an enduring and irrefutable bias in support of a pro-Waldorf POV.

There is only one substantive question at hand. Are Hgilbert, TheBee and Minority View deeply involved in Waldorf Education as teachers, pedagogues or in some other fashion? If you are, then NPOV cannot be realistically achieved - the basis of good research says so, and so does WP:POLICY; if you're not, then perhaps I stand corrected. - Wikiwag 01:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

These are ad hominem questions. Look up the difference between ad hominem and substantive. The personal difficulties have also been dealt with in great detail by the arbitrators; the final results banned one user, PeteK and an administrator threatened at least one other user, an "ally" of PeteK, with a ban. My question is: do you agree to follow Wikipedia guidelines (including assuming good faith and no personal attacks? Hgilbert 19:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag this is old issue handled six months ago in the arbitration. As result, arbitration put very strict rules on allowed references. Those same rules apply for every one and some of the "alternate points of view" you put in were not referenced, and so tagged, and later removed by me, for no sources not WP:OWN. After the article was in probation, you added content without source, and said on talk you wanted other editors would find the references. If you want content added to the article, naturaly you need to include the citations, not put this on other people. Claims with fact tags there now in article will also be removed unless sourced. Can you source these tagged?Venado 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC) I found sources myself. Venado 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehehe. Whatever. I know the difference between substantive and ad hominem very well friend, and well enough to know that any assertions of bias have no substance among the owners here. It's also not a "personal attack" to state the reasons that I think the proposition is in error. I frankly don't care about PeteK - this has nothing to do with him. It does however, have everything to do with the substantive issues I've raised pertaining to the unquestionable bias and COI of those editing the article - your repeated efforts to sidestep, label and dismiss them as "ad hominem," not withstanding. You're equivocating ... or at least making the attempt at it.

I suppose you really can't see that this argument only proves my point - that's a shame, this could be a great, genuinely informative and exciting article. So, rationalize all you like. It doesn't change the facts or the substance of the objections of many others in addition to myself, that are summarily rejected in favor of Waldorf POV. Such behavior also reinforces the ownership label.

Enjoy your article. But it's not NPOV by Wikipedia standards for at least a dozen specific reasons. Since I know you won't listen even if I cite them, I'll leave you to do your own homework. But until you listen to, allow, accept and embrace other viewpoints, it's not consensus and therefore not NPOV. - Wikiwag 21:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Idea for Sources?

Perhaps this approach would work: for the critics to get access to the articles currently referenced in the article to see if these articles include some critical comments on waldorf. This would break the cycle of critical writers trying to include references to material that doesn't meet the standards for this article, which is then deleted, which then brings forth anger because the pro-waldorf contingent won't allow any critical material, but the material proposed isn't appropriate and around and around it goes. If one group of people can get access to these articles the other group of people can also do so. And they might find other appropriate materials, too, who knows? MinorityView 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think most of the references are from online sources, and most of the allowable sources are not terribly critical of waldorf education. I recall reading somewhere on one of the acres of talk pages that people felt online sources were important. My view, and it is totally orignial research based on my own reading and observation, is that the bulk of the valid criticism of waldorf education is personal (individuals have conflicts regarding a particular teacher, school, kid, parent). There are a some items that could be more general critisism, but they are kinda vague (e.g., stuff about how bulling is delt with), and no allowable third party seems to have written about them. --Rocksanddirt 22:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we are dealing with businesses. They have a product to sell, which while doubtless good, is described in glowing terms. There is nearly no reliable source which objectively evaluates the results. That most Waldorf parents feel good about the schools and a few are disappointed is not notable, one might say the same thing about those who purchase Mercedes. Fred Bauder 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. With the Mercedes however, there are some moderately reliable third party reviews (Car and Driver, etc.) to give an opinion. I havn't found any for this subject that have backed up criticism (rather than anecdotal stuff) that have the sort of critism that I, as a "pro-waldorf" person actually want to see in the article. It is partly selfish on my part, when a family comes to our school and wants to enroll their kids, they are often at their wits end with the public school system and have a hard time listening to our description of the program. If they have some realistic idea of what we are providing, with clear rational explaination of the warts, it is much easier for us. And I don't know how to get the third party sources already used to describe themselves in less glowing terms. --Rocksanddirt 23:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So you really don't think there are any acceptable third party sources that are critical of waldorf? That seems odd. I just have the impression that the critics haven't looked very hard, but perhaps I'm wrong. One reason I made that assumption is that the critics fought to improve the standard of content allowed, which seems to have resulted in chopping down their own platform. Shows a lack of foresight. MinorityView 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I havn't found any, though I could look harder than I have. My observation is that while waldorf education has some weakness like any educational philosphy, it's not greater than anyone elses weakness (the montesorri instance on no imaginative play for young children, or the "standard" educational view of sit down and shut up). So, the third party sources are not terribly critical. In fact specifically waldorf or anthroposophical sources are more critical, but also specifically personal in the critisisms (i.e., xyz school has a problem with abc thing). Yes, they really did cut off their own noses. I don't know if it was a lack of foresight, as that would require an understanding of thier position, which I don't have. --Rocksanddirt 00:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Quick update....a glance through the online card catalog of the University of California indicated lots of things from various anthroposphical sources, and some disertations in German, Finish, and maybe Japanese that exist either in book or online form. I'll try to do some more research later in the week. --Rocksanddirt 00:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey folks. As it happens, there are acceptable 3rd party resources critical of Waldorf or some of Waldorf's approaches and beliefs. The irony is that many of them are the same sources used by the COI editors here to push their POV. Case in point: prior to this edit here, the "Concerns over Immunizations" criticism excluded the Steiner philosophy. It also lauded a Swedish study that pushes the POV that abstinence from vaccination is a good thing, while excluding the high rate of contraction of this potentially fatal disease during a nationwide Swedish moratorium period. That information was once a part of this article, along with criticisms from other sources.

Many editors [myself included] have tried to bring balance to this article and introduce the many criticisms of Waldorf into the article. But as I said above, over time those criticisms are eroded and quietly swept away from view by those pushing the pro-Waldorf POV. We'll see if the last edit I made sticks without controversy. It should, considering the fact that it's properly sourced from the very same article they've used. In another ironic twist, I was the one who brought The Atlantic articles to the discussion in the first place.

I'm just sick of the drama - let the facts stand for goodness sake and for the sake of achieving NPOV.

Moreover, I'm reluctant to spend any significant time adding verifiable criticisms, until I get a commitment from the other editors that as long as it's properly sourced, it won't be made into a source of controversy. There's been a lot of bad behavior here and I'm more than a little jaded - perhaps that disqualifies me. But who else is going to do it? - Wikiwag 15:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I can help to an extent, I don't have the kind of time that others have spent here in the past. I do however have no patience for the ownership of the article exhibited in the past, and will be very aggressive in pushing for sanctions on those who incrementally change the article. I do feel that this article is beyond the scope of WP:Be Bold however, and would like to see just about everything discussed in a fresh section below prior to editing the article.

As far as Stiener's philosophy on fevers....that's not a great bit of critism of waldorf education. I think it's fine to include but the immunization section is not as relevant (in my mind) to the article, but should be included in an article on "anthroposophical medicine" if there is one. If you know of some other stuff in some of those articles, lets discuss them and put in what makes sense. --Rocksanddirt 16:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to it and I'm glad there's someone like you on board to help keep matters in check. I agree that the Steiner philosophy is not per-se a criticism, but it does open a window into the reasons why things are the way they are at Waldorf schools with respect to immunization, making its inclusion valuable.

I want to be clear about one thing though. I'm not so much a critic, as I am someone who wants to see a truthful article, to the extent that such an article must include criticism of the method and the movement. Unfortunately, my experience here so far has illustrated that even that moderate posture had provoked incivility and personal attacks. Perhaps matters will be different now. I hope so, but we shall have to wait and see.

Also, I've deleted this chart from the article, as its data is based in part on ArbComm-forbidden sources. - Wikiwag 16:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I appriciate the distinction. Moderation is a scarce commodity when dealing with any of Stiener's work in any format. I don't know why. Hopefully we can have a bit here now, and if anything seems a personal attack to you, let me know. I've got no problem escalating and getting even the polite incivility banned. --Rocksanddirt 17:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to people who are "sick of the drama": What will help if to stop adding to the melodrama accusations in every talk issue. Is not to blame on COI or OWN every bit in article that you do not agree with. These are examples why it is just useless "blame game" broken record. The part wikiwag calls "criticism" in the vaccination article about Steiner and inflammation was there in this article for months before rewritten or edited slightly by Bellowed. The part about German broadcast controversy was removed by Erdanion who said it was a self publish source. {The article was written by (and on there website) one of the main parties direct involved in the controversy}. The stuff about vaccination was cut way down by consensus on this talk page becase this is not article about pro and con of vaccination in general or its health impacts. This article should only talk about what is directly about Waldorf vaccination. These were not decisions from COI editor. And the section is growing now into same problem. What does Sweden temporary suspending vaccination have to do with Waldorf? Nothing.

Also the disappearence of the "criticism" section. It was changed to "reception and controversy" by consensus from discussions led most by Lethaniol. This wikilink shows same idea decided here: that it is usually bad writing and not NPOV to have an isolated spot set up for collecting together only mix match of issues of the subject that have nothing in common except they are negative or critical in nature: Criticism sections Also it turned out that two of three "racism" sections were not even Waldorf criticism, they were researcher findings about Waldorf and they were positive findings, not negative. So it would do well not to point fingers at each other instead of at content. These are all examples of changes contributed by editors new since arbitration. We are asking for more of this input. Why, as these examples now show, keep making the same lazy blamings on "COI" and "OWN" for there contributions?--- Venado 18:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rocksanddirt: Again - I look forward to it :-) Going forward, we all need to remember that according to the ArbComm all anthroposophical sources are considered self-published [controversial or not] and must therefore be deleted from the article - I intend to follow that ruling and hopefully the COI editors will remember it as well. Moreover, we have been specifically admonished that Wikipedia is not a soapbox - we all need to keep sight of that. - Wikiwag 18:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Venado: As I have often stated from the very beginning, I'm here to edit and create an NPOV article. I disagree with your assessment of the treatment of immunization issue. The pro-view was already there by no apparent consensus. Moreover, the seriousness of the issue was soft-peddled. I simply added the rest of the story from the same source MinorityView used. The fact that many students at Waldorf schools are unvaccinated by conscious choice of their parents as absolutely appropriate to the discussion of Waldorf. Many independent RfCs and now the apparently moderate Rocksanddirt have characterized the Criticism section as "thin." With all due respect friend, "consensus" means the due consideration of all substantive POVs - mine included. - Wikiwag 18:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not want talk in circles. You may have a different opinion about the content. That is substance. I said that finger pointing is missing hitting the target when it is not about content but about motive of other editors. There is no criticism section to criticise as thin. And I pointed out that finger pointing about where it went also missed the target because without foundation it was blamed on COI of editors, not substance. Which was not the case. There was a lot of discussion about this. Jimmy Wales himself wrote special "criticism" section was usually not good practice. What we need aim for is balance representation of views of Waldorf issues, like reading lesson, like vaccination, not "Waldorf has these criticisms. This is the list of them: Section One Reading lessons etc, Section Two Waldorf students do not get vaccinate etc. If you were not here then to join in those discussions, that does not mean they were not a consensus but COI or OWN. If you want to talk again about decisions, do so. But leave finger pointing out. Melodrama just get in the way of things at wikipedia. Venado 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said. In fact, when I first started editing the article in January, many of the crits were intermixed with the props in their respective sections. Over time and under the guidance of the principal editors here, all the crits got put in the separate section. This trend accelerated post-decision to what we have today; we'll frankly have a hard time going back and I don't for a moment believe that the other editors will go for it, whether Jimmy Wales says so or not. I could be wrong... - Wikiwag 21:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; you have to aim the finger at the Waldorf-critics if you want to, against my repeated advice, get personal here (and perhaps at Lethaniol, otherwise a fine fellow). Long ago, I quoted the above Wikipedia guideline and suggested criticism be incorporated in appropriate sections but was in the minority (perhaps a minority of one at the time) and the current format was chosen. Do we now have consensus to merge criticisms into sections when these exist? For example, the anthroposophical basis of Waldorf is treated under "spiritual foundations" and under a criticism section - would it not make sense to merge these?Hgilbert 20:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets make a section and have that discussion --Rocksanddirt 22:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be Hasty

Wikiwag don't be to hasty to remove something that is just a fact based bit of information. I don't want to start reverting things, but I will also. --Rocksanddirt 16:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's misleading and based on data that is not allowed under the ArbComm decision, disallowing original research [the dissertation] and Anthroposophy-related publications [the waldorfschule.info website]. Therefore, it must be removed. - Wikiwag 16:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

However, I'm not about to engage in conduct that some might call "edit warring," and revert someone else's reversion. - Wikiwag 16:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither am I. which is why I did not revert it, and asked for an explaination. I would actually rather not edit the main article for the most part. But rather understand here the edits people want to make. I've got no problems if the document is from a source that's not ok, since it was in before, I had thought it was ok. --Rocksanddirt 17:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And I also have no real issue leaving it out altogether. --Rocksanddirt 18:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks :-) I do owe you an apology for connecting your comment with the fact that it had been reverted. I realize now that it was actually TheBee who reverted. That reversion is unfortunately representative of the challenges faced by those genuinely seeking NPOV. I'm grateful in advance for your vigilance. - Wikiwag 18:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Does theBee participate on the talk pages any longer? I know he's had plenty to say in the past. --Rocksanddirt 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He seems to from time to time. He challenged me on my logic just a few days ago. Looks like he spends most of his energy on the Anthroposophy page these days, but still keeps an eye out for what's going on here, as his edit today demonstrates. - Wikiwag 19:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The waldorfschule.info website should not appear as a source in these articles - EVER. There is no more quintessential example of a site that exists to promote Waldorf information.DianaW 17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the official website of the German organization of Waldorf schools. Official websites of organizations are allowed sources for factual material about the organization. Obviously, it should not be used for evaluative material! Hgilbert 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on a Possible Big Revision

It has been suggested to possibly do away with the controversy section and instead put all of those critisisms into the appropriate section already existing in the article. If a particular criticism doesn't have a section lets evaluate wether we actually need it or if we need to make it a stand a lone piece. I would like to do something like this, and make the article sections more independant. In addition for things were it's a typical waldorf parent thing to do, but is not part of the actual waldorf educaiton (such as non-vaccination issues) perhaps we just redirect those to the appropriate discussion of the issue. --Rocksanddirt 22:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you suggest spraying the article with criticisms in all section (made independent of each other, what would that mean?). I think that would be a bad idea, making people uncertain in every section about what they're reading. I would suggest keeping possible criticism or concerns together in one section, and by the way think the present section "Concerns over immunizations" is badly and carelessly put together, with citations not stating what they're sweepingly used as alleged support for. Like cit. 65, that only describes one Waldorf school, in Boulder Colorade, but is misused as citation for a general statement that "significant numbers of Waldorf students being unvaccinated". The article used as citation does not state that and does not refer to any study showing it either, something possibly coming from Pete's edit wars.

The cited article also indicates how widespread scepticism is to childhood vaccinations among American parents. "According to a survey published in the November 2000 issue of Pediatrics, one fourth of all parents are skeptical of some or all of the standard vaccines", having nothing to do with Waldorf education.

As citations for another sweeping statement "Concerns at times have been raised that unvaccinated students, some of whom attended Waldorf schools, may have been compromising public health by spreading disease, even among vaccinated populations." it refers to three citations. According to one of them, "Yolo County, south of Sacramento, recorded more than 170 cases of whooping cough in late winter this year - almost all in vaccinated older children" indicating a strange relation between being vaccinated against whopping cough and then ... getting it, and not giving any indication that they received it from Waldorf students.

While the article also tells that "At Yuba River Charter School, a public charter program Elijah attended last year, more than half of the kindergarten children this year don't have a complete set of vaccinations, according to the school." The article also tells that according to one parent at the school, only two children at Yuba River Charter School have had whopping cough the last nine years, and none has had measles or mumps according to the memory of the source (parent) at the school.

A quick browsing of the three articles seem to indicate that the statement in the article more has the character of "original research" in the Wikipedia sense, than an actual balanced description of reliable sources. The sweeping word "disease" in the Wiki article seems to possibly refer to whopping cough. One of the articles tells that "When Sweden [during 30 years according to the article!] stopped immunizing children against pertussis due to concerns about the vaccine, the pertussis rate climbed to the point where about 60 percent of Swedes contracted the illness. Due to universal health care and a high standard of living that promotes good health, however, the death rate was kept to about one per year, lower than the death rate in the highly vaccinated United States."

It indicates that the vaccination section in the Wiki article does not give a very good and well founded picture of the issue it relates to.

Thebee 00:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it could be possible to create a "fair and balanced" article by incorporating critical views back within the article sections. However we would need to tread very lightly as far as giving appropriate (as agreed upon consensually) weight to them. For example, I think that while the vaccination issue is unusual in comparison with other private school methods, it's not intrinsic to Waldorf school policy or pedagogy. As Rocksanddirt said earlier, it's parental choice. So I think we could find a way to describe how it is "common" among Waldorf families to avoid immunization, and perhaps the repercussions (and agree on sources). But again, as someone else already said, this would probably be more appropriate for the anthro. medicine article.

The other problem is that many of these criticisms are personally important to individual editors, but have little verifiability and weight given the overall picture. The whole basis of PeteK's ban was a discussion of a teacher's disciplinary methods, which while they are a concern, are not necessarily widespread (or verifiably widespread) or even distinctive to Waldorf (I remember many not-so-wonderful teachers both in private and Lutheran school, and in Lutheran school my principal could use corporal punishment at will!) Same with vaccinations: you can find lots of information out there about many people who avoid vaccinations that are not Waldorf families. I think it's notable in the case of anthro. medicine because the physicians are upfront about it, publish their opinions, and are pretty consistent across the board. But again, that's for the anthro. medicine article! It's true that anthro/Waldorf families tend to make alternative lifestyle choices, but is that distinctive to Waldorf? Unless you can definitively say yes, then it doesn't belong here.

In the same vein, is reading and literacy a widespread criticism of Waldorf? Are there numerous (allowable) publications criticizing the method, or are some parents just concerned because Waldorf varies so much from mainstream reading timetables?

I will say again: I'm not necessarily trying to defend Waldorf but am just trying to bring clarity and be as objective as possible. Henitsirk 03:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about what Henistirk mentions. In my view a separate controversy/critism section gives undo weight to the controversies, unless the entire section relating is repeated there to rebut it, which in turn affects the entire article's flow. I think it would be possible to have mostly neutral clear sections on various items of waldorf eduction with the verifiable critiques in the text. It would however require a lot of effort, that I am not in a position to make for a couple weeks at least.

The whole idea on vaccinations and the controversies is irrelevant to the article, in my opinion. It has nothing to do with Waldorf Education. If there is some acceptable verifiable research or discussion on Stieners views on some fever being healthy for development, that would be something to include, as it is used by schools when the recommend not dosing your kid up with Tylenol and sending her to school.

I have a whole other series of thoughts on WP:NPOV and what could be done to decrease tensions on many articles and topics. But they are only half formed, and really should be put into an essay to prompt some discussion. --Rocksanddirt 22:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What is a Waldorf school?

In Waldorf parlance, 4 kids in someone's house qualifies as a "school," as do individual children who are "home schooled." No other educational method does this and calls themselves a school. Also, United Airlines must submit to public and FTC filings and has not been specifically prohibited as a source on Wikipedia. Perhaps I'm making too much of this, but this graph and knowing the standard for the data collection behind it, makes it a misleading instrument at best. - Wikiwag 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag, I'm quite startled by the statement above. Where have you actually seen 4 children in someone's house counted as a school? Certainly not in the U.S., where schools aren't counted until they apply for membership in AWSNA. Please, give an example! MinorityView 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I found this site: http://www.waldorfschule.info/index.71.0.3.html which lists the schools by country. I counted up 961 institutions by adding up the list. I tried clicking on some of the links and there really are real addresses listed under each link. Do you think that someone went to the trouble of compiling 961 fake addresses in all these different countries? Or that some of these schools only have four students? Okay. MinorityView 22:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is getting carried away. Nine hundred schools is about the number given in other sources besides this Waldorf website. The chart is using this website to make a chart about the growth from 1 to 900 since the beginning. There is no controversy about how many schools, so there should not be reason for suspicions it is not reliable source for the dates the schools were first opened. It is valid to use this one source unless there is a good source with information to the contrary.Venado 22:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets move this down below to a section on does the chart help the article. --Rocksanddirt 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

MinorityView: Without sacrificing my own anonymity, I can unfortunately only say this: our local Waldorf school in an effort to create demand in the metropolitan area that is dozens of miles away from the main school, has created a "satellite program" that is run out of the house of a teacher who could no longer make the commute. I personally saw 4 children [ages 7-9] in a single room (albeit a beautiful room) of the teacher's house. They list this program as their "metro location" in their promotional materials and report it as such to AWSNA. This was one of the many points of disillusionment I accumulated toward the end of my long-standing association with the local Waldorf school, which led me to seriously question (and ultimately doubt) the objective honesty of those responsible for setting the policies and guidelines by which the children are educated. - Wikiwag 23:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the one room a seperate school or a satellite? If a satellite, it is not a seperate school. Is that one class room listed at the source used in the chart as a seperate school? And how many students are in the school, not the satellite? If this satellite is not counted as seperate school in the chart's source, I do not understand what you think is evidence of dishonest counting in this example.Venado 23:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well...it would seem that I've ensnared myself in the verifiability vs. truth quagmire. I can't produce proof without internal documents that would compromise my identity - moreover, I don't think those would meet the accepted standard for verifiability. So, I'll abandon this single issue on the matter of the chart. The other issue below still stands, however. - Wikiwag 14:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's awfully short sighted on their part. The school would have been better off to create it as a separate, but affiliated school from the get go. Sattelite programs get cut when the budget gets tight, and folks know that. --Rocksanddirt 15:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag: "In Waldorf parlance, 4 kids in someone's house qualifies as a "school," as do individual children who are "home schooled." Yes, that's right. Thank you.DianaW 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Other than Wikiwag's admited orignal research on that topic and the source that minorityview used (which is likly not ok, per arbcom ruling), what else is there on school size qualification? and, do we actually care? --Rocksanddirt 17:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. If there are such schools with only a few children listed on the Waldorf list, name any one of them - it does not have to reveal anything about anyone's connection with the school - or have someone else name one for you.

The reality is the opposite; there are many young initiatives that have not yet received even a first level of certification and thus do not appear on the official lists. Hgilbert 17:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Reality check - it is not up to other users to "name one" showing anything about this list one way or the other. For all we know it is 100% accurate. (I doubt it, but that's not the point.) The point is it is a disallowed source per the arbitration rulings, and with good reason, it's from a Waldorf promotional web site. This issue is not exactly rocket science, hgilbert, you know a waldorf promotional web site when you see one.DianaW 17:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already changed the citation so as not to use the official list of worldwide Waldorf schools that you find so problematic. Hgilbert 19:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC) But see my comments below; official sites of organizations are acceptable sources for factual material. Hgilbert 20:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

While Wikiwag's experience with the 4-student "satellite" is interesting, I don't think it calls into question the overall number of Waldorf schools. To my knowledge, (at least for the US) AWSNA would not consider that satellite a separate school. In fact, the back cover of their magazine Renewal lists every Waldorf school in the US, Canada, and Mexico, and these are only "true" schools, not someone homeschooling or teaching 4 kids in their living room. Perhaps it's different in Europe, I can't speak to that. And Wikiwag: "knowing the standard for the data collection"...you seem to be using your personal experience with one school to tar all Waldorf schools with the same brush. Maybe there's a "Waldorf parlance" about what is a school, but groups like AWSNA have much stricter guidelines than that. Henitsirk 03:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

An interesting note on AWSNA: their list of affiliated schools on their website lists "member schools," "candidate schools," and "developing schools," all of which appear to be included in the list on the back cover of Renewal. And in their FAQ they mention that "standalone" kindergartens may not be listed and would be found via the Waldorf Early Childhood Association (WECAN), whose list includes both Waldorf school kindergartens and home daycare providers. So now we would still need to verify whether the "data collection" that gives us 900+ Waldorf schools includes the WECAN list, or only more rigorous lists like AWSNA's. Or we could just drop this and scrap the graph altogether. Henitsirk 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The international list of schools uses the German definition of school, which excludes kindergartens (considered a pre-school program, not a school). Since the list actually has every school explicitly mentioned, this is easy to confirm (if you don't wish to take my word for it). Hgilbert 13:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the list indicates the exact grades taught in each school; none is just KG or pre-school. It also indicates the school's status as member/candidate/developing school in countries where this distinction is made, such as the USA. Hgilbert 18:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the number of schools chart help the article

I'm ambivelent about either keeping or losing it. Is the reason to show the growth and therefore that it is an important movement in education? That might be to weak to keep it in such a long article, in my opinion. --Rocksanddirt 22:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting information. but the chart is not complete and thus misleding. It shows no schools in period of war, but were not there still schools in countries like England and United States? The chart used data from different sources, but there are still gaps left.Venado 23:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think my biggest problem with the chart [and I know this is at least the third issue I've raised with it], is the number of schools worldwide, regardless of what model the school teaches under, has grown for no other reason than there are more children. This does not distinguish Waldorf as being any better or worse than any other educational model. There are 5-times as many Catholic schools in Africa than there were 80 years ago and more Catholic schools worldwide - does that make them superior to other schools? How about the fact that there are more public schools? Independent schools?

My point is this: having a chart to illustrate more schools for Waldorf is like having a population chart on the article. Moreover, the "growth" suggests superiority, when the facts may be quite different. - Wikiwag 23:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think growth suggest educational superiority. Harvard Princeton Yale are generally called superior and they only have the same number of schools, one, for a long time.Venado 14:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it implies superiority either, but rather better access to education and population growth world wide, and really, who cares about that. I'd just as soon lose it and stick to the paragraph discussion of growth.--Rocksanddirt 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It summarizes a great deal of detailed information in a clear, visual form; it is very objective. It does not claim to identify the reasons for the increase in numbers of schools. It would be helpful to include missing years; if we can find accurate information for these, I will build this in. Hgilbert 01:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It shows new schools opening. It does not say whether schools that have closed are ever taken off. In that sense, it is not even clear that it legitimately shows "growth" - whatever the reasons for growth. And because it is a Waldorf-internal source, it is not even to be trusted with the bare facts; the movement has an interest in promoting itself and presenting data in a way that visually implies "growth" even if it were not even true. (And of course, it helpfully provides phone and email contacts for potential customers!) Wake up people. These and multiple other reasons are why the arbitrators disallowed Waldorf sources to back up claims in the Waldorf article.DianaW 02:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Venado wrote: "do not think growth suggest educational superiority." Of course it does. Don't be ridiculous. There is no better example of a blatant promotional claim. This is the stuff you guys can't get and never will. No, Harvard and Yale don't have to grow . . . but there is no comparison to Harvard or Yale. Everyone else, to be noticed, has to come up with something, and "We're growing" is about as basic as it gets.DianaW 02:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Objective facts can be presented in an appropriate manner. Editors' interpretations should not be. Basta. Hgilbert 16:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Be serious, hgilbert. The page is a contact sheet for potential customers - complete with phone, fax and email. I can't think of a more obvious example of wikipedia as free advertising. Why don't we just post a "Find a Waldorf School Near You" by typing in your zip code type thing? Give us a break! An *independent* source for the growth or status of the Waldorf movement world wide would not, I hate to break it to you, include "Contact us" information.DianaW 17:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hgilbert: "It summarizes a great deal of detailed information in a clear, visual form; it is very objective." It summarizes a great deal of *disputable* information, and no, it is not objective, it is produced internally to the waldorf movement and with the aim of recruiting customers.DianaW 17:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Current chart (on the Waldorf Education page) is based on academic sources except for the data for a single year: 1972. On what basis is the information disputable? And how does this chart recruit customers? Or are you talking about something else altogether? If so, please link to the data you think we are talking about and perhaps we can clear this up.MinorityView 19:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; perhaps I should have mentioned here (not just in the edit summary) that I replaced the source you find questionable, the official list of Waldorf schools, with an academic source (Plymouth University). I have added a second academic source. Hgilbert 19:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The source of the chart, not the chart itself, is where the contact information is found. It essentially gives a phone and email address for every Waldorf school on the planet! What part of "promotional material" don't you people understand?

That is factual material, first of all. Second of all, what citation currently in the chart has this information? Hgilbert 11:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got to say, the chart doesn't thrill me. It just shows a steady increase in the number of Waldorf schools each decade, which could just as easily be stated in the text. Personally, I think it would be nice to have more visuals, but this one isn't that interesting or illustrative (IMHO). Henitsirk 02:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The alternative would be a list of dates and numbers of schools, I suppose (anything else would be jumped on as interpretive original research). The chart form seems to me to be far more digestible and informative. Hgilbert 14:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well...I'm not convinced that this information is even necessary in graphic form. I think it's fine over on the History of Waldorf Schools page, but here it seems a bit overkill. Henitsirk 02:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that as a new reader, if I saw the chart here, and then went to the history page and saw the same graphic right at the top, it would seem repetetive. Just a small thing, but possibly something to consider about new readers. Henitsirk 02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have moved it to a less prominent location; this puts the pedagogy first, most people's primary interest, and the origins section next to the spiritual foundations section, a natural pairing. The flow is better all round. Hgilbert 14:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fevers and such

I've come across the idea that fevers are useful in childhood from other sources than Steiner, ditto the anti-Tylenol line. There are actually medical journal articles which describe the dangers of suppressing fever, but I guess doctors don't read them. So this one isn't exclusive to waldorf either, but would probably be found in any community of people who are interested in alternative health practices. Steiner may have had different reasons for the recommendation, so that might be worthy of note. MinorityView 23:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Steiner said (and currently practicing anthro. MD's say) things about the function of fever that are distinctive to anthroposophy, for example they link fevers and the proper incarnation of the human soul and the re-molding of the inherited body of the child, which is not what other anti-fever-suppression folks say! However I still think this is irrelevant to this article and would be better placed in the anthro. medicine article. But even there, can we quote Steiner? :)

Also, to mention something that Rocksanddirt said above: even saying something like "as it is used by schools when they recommend not dosing your kid up with Tylenol and sending her to school" sounds very anectodal to me, and if we were to use that as a criterion for including vaccinations in this article we would also need to be able to back that statement up with verifiable sources! (I'm not saying that the statement isn't true, I'm just saying it needs to be provable. Oy.) Henitsirk 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely my statement is totally anecdotal, and there is likely wide variation in practice at schools around the world. The point of that is Who Cares About It in the context of Waldorf Education? What does the anthroposophical and steiner in particulars view about fevers have to do with describing waldorf education. --Rocksanddirt 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. All worthy of note and exploration, but on the anthro. medicine page IMO. Henitsirk 02:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of cult allegations

Dear 70.234.99.251, the changes you are making to this article are in violation of the rules that have been set down. I am moving them here so we can discuss them and make the information acceptable according to Wikipedia standards. Your changes are:

Waldorf and Anthroposophy. Anthroposophy is a cult-like religious sect, that Waldorf is a front for. Critics are often silenced. Almost all cults try to deny they are a 'cult'. Please see www.waldorfcritics.org for more information and links due to constant censorship and cult-like tactics by Waldorf/Anthroposophy on Wikipedia.

Please note that this article is a controversial topic: any significant changes such as you are proposing need to be discussed here first to insure that they follow the general Wikipedia rules as well as the rules of the arbitration decisions earlier this year. According to the Controversial Topic tag above:

Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information in highly controversial articles.

Merci, EPadmirateur 23:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, the waldorfcritics website is not an acceptable source to cite for Wikipedia since it is original research and is polemical in nature. Your contentions, that (1) Waldorf is a front for anthroposophy, (2) anthroposophy is a cult-like religious sect, (3) critics of Waldorf are often silenced, and (4) most cults try to deny that they are a 'cult', need to be documented with appropriate sources such as journal articles and books that are not original research and are not written in a polemical way. In other words, statements in Wikipedia articles need to reflect a neutral point of view. It's also important to assume that the people here are acting in good faith rather than that they are practicing cult-like tactics.

EPadmirateur 23:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It was reverted and restored again. User, please understand that the Arb Com won't allow that type of material. Further insertion of it is going to get you reported.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read this page on reverting and restoring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR MinorityView 02:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you a member of this cult. I find it interesting you in fact censure(within minutes) A LINK critical of the cult. There is more than one source who thinks Waldorf misrepresents itself initially and is a front for a fringe cult. I think it is highly questionable you censure a post within minutes.

Why is anthroposphy immune from being called a cult or 'cult-like'. Why is Steiner so great. Where is it proven that vaccination is a BAD thing or computers are somehow harmful to children. I will continue to edit until we have a discussion with the Admin of Wikipedia. Both sides need to be at least present then people can make up their own mind if you act cult like toward critics. 02:21, 22 July 2007 User:Concered parent08

I'm the one who removed the addition on the WC-group. I removed not simply a link to the site of the group, but the text block quoted above. The issue of the group has been discussed extensively in connection with this article. See for example this from a year ago. Wikipedia articles are not forums for views and opinions. They strive to be an encyclopedia, based on reliable published sources, allowed under the Wikipedia rules for sources. The WC is not such a source. See for example Americans for Waldorf Education on the WC and the ten main myths the WC cultivates and publishes at its site.

I removed what you added (within minutes), not because I continuously monitor this article, but because I happened to log on to Wikipedia and look at it only some minutes after you added it. Based on the long and extensive discussion of the issue, I removed what you added. It has nothing to do with censorship, only with the demand by Wikipedia to only use reliable sources following the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks, Thebee 05:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

See the arbitrators' ruling on this article, in particular the probation guidelines that state that acceptable sources must be provided for statements. There is a great body of literature studying cults; if anthroposophy is one, supporting evidence will be found there. Find a citation and the claim can be included in the article on anthroposophy. This, in any case, is an article on Waldorf education.

All the material here is referenced to independent academic journals, books and dissertations or articles by independent journalists. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. Hgilbert 10:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does this same web link get spammed here many times. It is even showing on so many wp bot lists of frequent spam links posted in wikipedia. Scientology article used publish articles like TIME and other magazine and newspapers for "controversy" references. but here it is so much this same web site, added again, this one that is not accepted here.Venado 23:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My page is for the most part a citation FROM WIKIPEDIA of what a cult is WITH SOME KNOWN 'beliefs' of Anthroposophy. Your cult like tactics of constantly deleting anything other than your P.O.V (within minutes) suggests you are cult like... 03:57, 23 July 2007 User:70.234.99.251

The reason your edits are removed so quickly is that they contain a link to a web site (freewebs.com) that is not allowed on Wikipedia. They are removed automatically by the AntiSpamBot. But more than that, the web page you link to is not acceptable because it is original research and the specific problem with it is that it is a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, as you admit. In addition, a number of your facts are wrong. What you need to do is find a verifiable source that meets Wikipedia standards for source materials, including a neutral point of view and you can add what it says, not your personal opinion or interpretation of what it says. If you persist in adding these edits, you will be blocked from Wikipedia. Merci. EPadmirateur 04:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You must be censoring this site often if you read my page before the wikipedia robot removed it. Chances are you are a member of the cult. I will find a server that is Wikipedia approved and list the DEFINITION of a cult from a MAINSTREAM source along with your known cult traits. User:70.234.99.251

Please don't waste your time and your money setting up another server. This has nothing to do with supporters or opponents of Waldorf education and anthroposophy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for personal opinions. Regardless of whether Waldorf-anthroposophy in fact is a "cult", you may not post your opinion about it one way or another on Wikipedia. If you persist in trying to do so, you will be blocked permanently from Wikipedia for up to 24 hours in the first instance, due to the 3 revert rule. --EPadmirateur 05:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC) (--corrected incorrect statement, EPadmirateur 01:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

Hi 70.234.99.251,

You can't create an external personal webpage and then use that personal web page that you have created as citation for what you write in articles at Wikipedia. See the Wikipedia policy on Self-published sources (online and paper).

For some comments on the "religion" argumentation, see this.

You also write at your page, for example "They separate themselves from outsiders". The main center of the anthrop. movement in Sweden, where I live, is a place called "Jaerna", south of Stockholm. The first week of July the Anthrop Society (I think) organized a cultural Festival at the House of Culture. It was opened with a concert by Barbara Hendricks, well known non-anthrop. In September one of the symphony orchestras in Sweden will perform. Many well known (non-anthro) artists in Sweden perform there.

And you write for example "Membership are expected to donate large amounts of money and or time to the cult." In Sweden, where I live, the minimum membership fee in the Anthrop. Society is appr. 80$/year which includes an extensive quaterly membership journal. But nobody demands that you become a member of the ASociety to work or participate in anthrop. activities. Most aren't. Maybe the situation in the U.S. or Tulsa, where your IP tells that you connect to the internet (as you have not registered at Wikipedia), is different. The allegations having their center in the WC-group in S.F., much discussed earlier in connection with this article, need to be related to differently, I think. Thanks, Thebee 06:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as a small addition: you also write (above)

I will find a server that is Wikipedia approved and list the DEFINITION of a cult from a MAINSTREAM source along with your known cult traits.

That would be no help. Yourself putting together argumentation saying "these are definition of cults" and "these are characteristics of anthrop. active people" or something similar, and "this shows that the anthrop. and the Waldorf movements are cults" would constitute original research in the sense defines by Wikipedia.

While reputed published sources, like academical papers published in peer reviewed journals, containing such original research in general can be used as citations at Wikipedia, you yourself cannot produce such original research in the Wikipedia sense in Wikipedia articles. And it is no help if you do it at a web page you yourself set up either, and use that as citation, regardless of where you put it, as that web page then constitutes a self published source.

It sounds like you're angry, for some reason unknown to me. While this may fall outside normally recommended discussions at Talk pages, can you describe some of the background for what you write, as this might help understand what you write and your argumentation? Thanks, Thebee 07:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, please do not bring personal discussions to this page. Do that else where. As this page says at the top, this is Not A Discussion Forum. Anonymous user needs to understand this article is under probation and that not sourced or poor sourced text must be removed. Also nothing can be used as source that does not say closely what the editor writes here. It is not o.k. for this article at Wikipedia to use references that do not at all write about Waldorf education. If anonymous user keeps adding text that is not appropriate at wikipedia or violates article probation of course it needs to be removed. That is just good editing not censorship. This article is not the place for making speeches.Venado 15:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Then feel free to answer at your Talks page, 70.234.99.251, or mine. For some other comments on the issue, see AskAlana. Thanks, Thebee 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I put back a section that was in article. I think Pete K last who took it out. But also I use sources, and edited words to be less law technical and more nuetral. Venado 17:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Accreditation

(Title keeps changing-just "accrediation" is best for understanding the complete discussion beginning to end}Venado 15:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The cult is very active on Wikipedia wanting it to only be a forum for one sided views. Banded after a fews days. It should be noted not one of the cults schools PUBLIC schools are accredited in the US by a MAINSTREAM agency. PUBLIC Waldorf is simply a 'diploma mill' for the cult Anthroposophy cult. Concernedparent08 03:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC) {user:70.234.99.251 added Anthroposophy 01:43, 25 July 2007, user:70.234.102.60 added public 06:54, 25 July 2007 }

Actually, a large number of the schools are co-accredited by regional independent school federations, such as NYSAIS here in the Northeast. Hgilbert 13:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

MAINSTREAM accreditation. There a six MAINSTREAM accrediting agencies in the US.

The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) is one of six regional associations that accredit public and private schools, colleges, and universities in the United States. From http://www.wascweb.org/

The one you cite is not one of the six MAINSTREAM/REAL accrediting agencies. Some diploma mills to come up with their own. I have little doubt the cult Anthroposophy has tried to get mainstream accreditation accreditation FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS as aggressively as they have tried to censure Wikipedia. Probably why the cult has its own accrediting. 01:43, 25 July 2007 User:70.234.99.251 { user:70.234.102.60 added public 06:54, 25 July 2007 }

Concernedparent08 originally asserted: "The cult is very active on Wikipedia wanting it to only be a forum for one sided views. Banded after a fews days. It should be noted not one of the cults schools is accredited in the US by a MAINSTREAM agency. Wadolf is simply a 'diploma mill' for the Anthroposophy cult. ... There a six MAINSTREAM accrediting agencies in the US. The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) is one of six regional associations that accredit public and private schools, colleges, and universities in the United States. From http://www.wascweb.org/ The one you cite is not one of the six MAINSTREAM/REAL accrediting agencies. Some diploma mills to come up with their own. I have little doubt the cult Anthroposophy has tried to get mainstream accreditation as aggressively as they have tried to censure Wikipedia. Probably why the cult has its own accrediting." user:EPadmirateur 14:44, 25 July 2007

Interesting point. Apparently WASC has accredited 8 private Waldorf schools in its region (with one more pending):

East Bay Waldorf School (K - 12)

El Sobrante, CA 94803

Haleakala Waldorf School (PK - 8)

Kula, HI 96790

Highland Hall, A Waldorf School (9 - 12)

Northridge, CA 91325

Sacramento Waldorf School (K - 12)

Fair Oaks, CA 95628

San Francisco Waldorf School (K - 11)

San Francisco, CA 94115

Santa Cruz Waldorf School (K - 11)

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Summerfield Waldorf School (K - 12)

Santa Rosa, CA 95401

Waldorf School of the Peninsula (K - 8)

Los Altos, CA 94024

--EPadmirateur 02:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't bother to actually check the Western Association of Schools and Colleges web-site. Here is a link to a list of accredited schools with "waldorf" as part of their name. There are probably a few more, missed by this search. http://www.acswasc.org/directory_searchlist.cfm ::Could I recommend that you take a few seconds to check your facts before you post? It really doesn't hurt. Anyway, you stated the name of a MAINSTREAM/REAL accrediting agency and it turns out that a whole bunch of waldorf schools are actually accredited by the agency you named. Next point?MinorityView 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

NOT ONE PUBLIC Waldorf school is accredited by WASC. Thank the real god.

You leave out private under each private school you cite. Again NO PUBLIC Waldorf 'school' meets the minimum standards of WASC and MOST of the cults private schools do not.

This site should have 3 graphs to better expose the cult. The first showing the number of PUBLIC schools: NONE by WASC... The second showing number of MAINSTREAM accredited private schools VERY FEW. The 3rd showing the number the cult 'accredited' to illustrate. 13:04, 25 July 2007 User:70.234.102.60 { user:70.234.102.60 delete "real god", add "very few", "to illustrate" 11:46, 25 July 2007 }

If you have any citations showing how many schools of which type are accredited, please bring them here. Otherwise this is idle speculation and soapbox-ing. Let's work on something productive. Hgilbert 12:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused - I thought all of the Waldorf schools were private, but apparently the article states that at least one Milwaukee public school has "switched to Waldorf methods" - does that make it a Waldorf school, or not? Which Waldorf schools exist that are both public and unlicensed? --Alvestrand 16:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alvestrand and welcome to our merry band....The majority of waldorf schools are private schools. There have been several public school waldorf methods experiments. One of which is the Milwalkee school, which was a very poorly performing inner city school. In addition there are a number of charter or magnet schools in different areas that use waldorf methods also. The lawsuit section discusses a couple of them briefly. It would be a stretch to call any US public school a "Waldorf School", as there is a fair bit of spiritual content to the standard waldorf school community life that would not be allowable in a publicly funded setting (based on first amendment establishment considerations). Which is why they are usually refered to as "waldorf methods schools", and they take many of the classroom ideas (teachers staying with the class, long main lesson block each day with rotating subjects, emphasis on artistic as wells as academic approach to each subject, etc.) and put them in place. --Rocksanddirt 16:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also relevant is that the public waldorf methods schools, are run either by their local school district, or by the organization that obtained a charter from the local school district. In the case of private waldorf schools, it is the responsibility of the individual school to seek accreditation. In the case of public schools, it is the responsibility of the school district to bring individual schools through the accreditation process with the relevant accrediting agency. Thanks for starting a helpful discussion, Concerned Parent. But please, do remember to sign your name!MinorityView 16:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked on google. Most U.S. public Waldorf are in California.Nnone public Waldorf listed in California are public high schools. WASC accredits only few of any public or private elementary or middle school. 90% it says that it accredits are high schools,link even when 4 in 5 of all public schools is not high school. Also a hundred percent of private Waldorf high schools on list in California are accredited by WASC which accredits public and private. And besides this independent WASC has cooperation with Waldorf association of schools. link. This is original research but shows claim about no Waldorf accreditation with WASC is exaggeration because WASC accreditation is mostly for high schools, and because more percentage of all the Waldorf schools have it than not Waldorf public schools. anyway, I do not think there is anything notable about this number of accreditation at WASC because there are not very many high schools.Venado 17:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So then the question becomes, is it important enough to put in to the article? And do we need to do some other research to find a nice 3rd party reference that does the OR in a reviewed and reliable sort of way? Off the top of my head I think not, but my mind could be changed easily. --Rocksanddirt 21:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For a neutral POV maybe members of this 'counter-culter movement' 'can' put their name on it. Waldorf is counterfeit in my opinion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.234.102.60 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC) --User:70.234.102.60 deleted counter-culter added movement 01:51, 27 July 2007

I think a link to the WASC website (or perhaps their Directory of Schools, which is a PDF) would be a third-party reference, as WASC is a neutral, regional accreditation entity. (They also "accredit" Rudolf Steiner College in California, more or less as a vocational school.) There are also other regional groups in the US that accredit Waldorf schools, such as the New York State Association of Independent Schools (NYSAIS). I don't know off the top of my head about other countries.

I could be convinced that mentioning that Waldorf schools sometimes seek and achieve regional accreditation could be useful in this article, in the Governance section (which right now only has one link, about the state of Rhode Island -- kind of a skimpy reference IMHO). Henitsirk 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction now reads:

"Waldorf education (also known as Steiner or Steiner-Waldorf education) is a pedagogical movement based upon the educational philosophy of Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy. The education emphasizes the role of the imagination in both teaching and learning. It aims to develop thinking that includes a creative as well as an analytic aspect and to provide young people the basis with which to develop into free, moral and integrated individuals."

Notes

I see no evidence that imagination is developed or encouraged in Waldorf Schools; that creative thinking is encouraged, or even tolerated from students or teachers; or that any basis is laid for development into freedom. What I see are laudable goals. Essentially a sales pitch. Fred Bauder 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How can evidence like that be described in the introduction? My recollection is that the sources which might have the kind of discussion of results "that creative thinking is encouraged, or even tolerated from students or teachers; or that any basis is laid for development into freedom" are happening were prohibited as polemically postive. At least in the US, where they are primarily private schools there isn't the government paid testing and evaluation, though in a few years there might be enough info on waldorf charter schools to say something meaningful. I'd hope some independent researchers would want to do that. I'll take a stab at something a bit later today. --Rocksanddirt 18:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point and a weakness for the article. The education related reference sources take the Waldorf "imagination" education as more than a slogan. It could be said that it is one of the most distinctive things in the sources in terms of how much importance is given to it and analysis about how the schools are trying to do it. Even the title of one of the articles used most here from Atlantic Monthly put it in the title, "schooling the Imagination". I found one of sources, a research study, that tested creativity of Waldorf students. It is one source of this question of what evidence is there. "Creativity and Waldorf Education" This was a reference in the article before. I do not know why it is not there now.Venado 22:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe some sources were lost in a complex edit by another editor in an attempt to reduce the first paragraph some time ago. I have re-added the above-cited source and there are now four sources actually studying what goes on in the education (not just its goals) that affirm the role of the imagination in Waldorf education. Add to this the "Schooling the Imagination" article, and that makes quite a number of independent studies: pretty substantial confirmation. There is an article in the current issue of the Christian Science Monitor (July 18, 2007, pp. 13ff) that also speaks about the role of imagination in the Waldorf kindergarten. Hgilbert 20:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nielson has presented extensive empirical evidence for Waldorf's imaginative approach; see this paper and "Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy of Imagination: A Phenomenological Case Study" as well as his book on Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy of the Imagination] Hgilbert 13:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This study of creativity in Waldorf students is also relevant; I have introduced it into the article in response to the above concern for documentation. Hgilbert 19:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

court case edit

I would support Fergie's simplification of the court case, dropping the "small group" Hgilbert 18:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not object but it is how the group is described in the ed weekly article. Supporter editors are accused of POV edits but I see here edits to emphasize criticism more than its sources do. Is that POV editing? Is this change adding undue weight.Venado 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The group is not mentioned before in the article. In Swedish, the standard for good language is to refer to something not known to the average reader of a text you write as "a" or "an", when it is mentioned the first time, and add some explanatory quality about it, before then referring to it in a determinate form (as many times as you like). Prof Marginalia's version did that. That's why I reverted the edit by Fergie to the version by prof Marginalia. Thebee 19:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the "small group" is my edit. As written in edweek article reference "a small, loosely organized group". I do not have strong object. But do not know removing it out helps clarity. Venado 19:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I support leaving it out. Other wise we have to qualify what small means and that gets into the whole issue of the group itself which has it's own article. --Rocksanddirt 21:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The PLANS organization may be "small" in number of members but its effects have evidently not been small on the Waldorf movement, particularly the government Waldorf methods schools. So, saying it is a "small" organization gives the appearance of non-NPOV and so should be left out, in my view. --EPadmirateur 02:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Is PLANS a "small" group?

There are three (four) sources on this, as far as I'm aware of.

1. As Venado tells, "a small, loosely organized group" is how Educational Week described the group in an article on it, in June 25, 1997, "Public Waldorf School in Calif. Under Attack". (Free registration makes it possible to view the article). That's as far as I know the only citation referring to the size of the group, and editors of Wikipedia are obliged to follow closely published, reliable, reputable sources, to which Educational Week probably can be viewed as belonging.

2. "small" is also how the Wiki article on the group describes it, referring to a deposition by the President of the group in 1999.

3. During the arbitration, PeteK, who at all times accused me of all sorts of things, before he was banned indefinitely from editing any article related to WE for his way of doing it, accused me of blowing up the size of the group, when I added the info to the Wiki article on the group that it had 44 members in 2000. That was the number given by DD in answer to a question by me about the size of the group. As the group according to it statutes does not have "members", it sems to refer to the number of people who around 2000 had given at least 15$ to the group. In Pete's expressed view, the group was small and not notable enough to have a whole article on it at Wikipedia, and the number "44" misrepresented the nature of the group in terms of notability. It tells that for this most aggressive jihadist supporter of WE-criticism, the group is not big but "small" in terms of notability. The group as such consists of its board, that has seven members, which is the actual size of the group, and supports the expressed view by PeteK, and the description by the only reputable published source (EdWeek) of the group as "small".

With regard to the effect of the group on public Wmethods education, it may have had an effect. That there today exist 20 Wmethods schools specifically in California, where the WC brought its suit nine years ago, in relation to the possibly only two(?) then does not support this. Also describing the actual size of a group based on its effects is - I think - not tenable. There have been some (few) terrorists who have had a great impact on the world, because of their ways of promoting and giving expression to their views. That does not make them (those few ones) into "many". Having a large impact despite being few in numbers is one of the characteristics of terrorists, and does not in my view justify not describing the actual number or groups of terrorists as "small".

This supports using what the only reputable source on this says: describing it as a "small" group. Nothing suggests that it has grown notably in actual size since the article was published and it was "small", neither in terms of its actual members (board), nor its number of economical supporters.

Thebee 11:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the qualification stemmed from the cited source. I drop my objection, though feel it could be more clearly stated (numerically small? few members?). Hgilbert 15:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't care for it. I would rather just link to the article about the group, but whatever. The size is somewhat irrelevant, they are a (if not the) major internet critic of waldorf education/rudolf stiener's other works. --Rocksanddirt 15:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement from 70.234.102.60

Wikipedia mc. Steiner members sure rely on computers....

Where did the name Waldorf come from educate the world in this aspect of the 'Steiner bible'...

'Steiner bible spin' This page is a little more 'free' than the sticker outside of the wall.

wink wolf wink wolf this level 3 'dated cult'. There are 'rapper basket ball gangs' that would like to sell a steiner child a used 'Radio Shack...' computer in a New York minute.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.234.102.60 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

See the origins and history section in the article. Hgilbert 10:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(Wow. Hope this one's not a Waldorf graduate...) Hgilbert 00:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

easy....I think it's more a case of editing under the influence, and I still don't think I understand what was trying to be said. --Rocksanddirt 15:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

New Review of WP:NPOV

Are we ready to review the neutral point of view arguement again? Perhaps before we do though, I would recommend that the regular editors here go look at the Montessori method entry and see if we can provide a bit of guidance or editing there? just a thought.--Rocksanddirt 16:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The first thing that jumps out at me is the relative dearth of references in the Montessori article, most notably in a sections labelled "Benefits" and "Criticism." This might be due to the appearance that Montessori article benefits from apparent good faith between its editors who allow facts to stand. This makes it an overall superior article.

I think we could accomplish the same thing here, but the article needs hard pruning. Moreover, we as editors need to abandon the tit-for-tat efforts to either demonize the movement as "harming children" or promote the method as having no flaws whatsoever. [archived off topic comment]

Let us at last come together in good faith and write a great article. - Wikiwag 14:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

EPadmirateur: I am and have always been a straight shooter. I consider the appearance of the article on the list an embarrassment [refers to archived off topic discussion Thebee 06:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)] and I see no contradiction in saying so in the context of calling for an abandonment of extreme views in favor of moderation. The record shows that all I've ever sought to achieve was a well-rounded NPOV article in an atmosphere of good faith and civil discourse. I maintain the article needs hard pruning to meet the comparative standard of Montessori. I would gladly start working toward that end myself, but I'm frankly afraid that I'd be accused of vandalism for my efforts. I even considered my recent edits risky based on the atmosphere I've come to know on this article, and am frankly surprised that they've been allowed to stand unchallenged.

Perhaps this is a new regime of cooperation. I hope however, that you'll forgive me for remaining skeptical for the time being, as I have historically been treated very poorly - despite my good intentions and almost unanimously civil approach. - Wikiwag 23:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My take on the Montessori article is very different from yours. I find it to be as, if not more, brousure-ish as what people complain about here, in addition to a lack of explaining the unlying philosophy of the program.

What bee is aluding to is that no matter what we do here, the very harsh critics will not consider it enough unless we are calling for the elimination of waldorf education and the vilificaiton of all that it stands for. In that light, any outside source the looks at "the worst of wikipedia" is going to be fair game. Back to the point, is the article ready to lose the dispute tags? --Rocksanddirt 01:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Rocksanddirt: I apologise, I thought you were offering the Montessori article as a comparative exemplar and based my comments on that premise. [archived off topic comment] On your original question, that's a question best left answered by independent comment; I think we're all too close to be objective on the question of NPOV. Is it possible to open a new RfC? If so, how do we do so? - Wikiwag 12:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, before we ask for an Rfc, I was just asking if the regulars here thought we were ready for it. I do agree that we need some outsiders to check it out to get a real consensus decision. --Rocksanddirt 16:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. - Wikiwag 12:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time to have someone objective review this article via RFC. Henitsirk 15:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We have done RFC before. Anyone who tries to respond to RFC in WP articles will no this is a lot of work and editors do usualy not leave comment if it is to much work. Also I have looked at random RFCs from months before. I see same problems in them as here. One is few or none take trouble to comment. And then it is common for when there is comments, they do not resolve the dispute because involved editors do not bend. They only want comments that agree with there side.

I think RFC is waste of time unless editors here are in self control. One thing we should do to get more comments is clean off this talk page for RFC, and leave it clean for uninvolved editors. Fighting like is always on this talk page frustrates commentors. It is to boring to go throguh long melodramas between enemies to leave constructive comment.Also it also is not helping NPOV to leave long arguments to convince or influence the commentors. We do not need agreement for RFC but it will probly get skipped over anyway if we do not agree in consensus to stay quiet on the talk page for certain period to get more uninvolved comments. RFC comments need to be about the article on its merits with out talk page commentary. I think we should agree to a quiet time period for RFC comments here on talk page. Involved editors should take this time to respond to RFC in other articles to. After this time of two or three weeks quiet by involved editors, then here discussion of RFC comments can start to make the consensus changes.Venado 22:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we may not get helpful reviews as the article is long, and detailed, and about something many people have no interest in. I also agree that the melodrama of the talk page must be kept under control. We were doing pretty well for some time on that, and when we have the regular archiving of the talk page (threads older than two weeks), that seems to stay under control as well. I will spend some time, trying to help other articles and projects within wp. --Rocksanddirt 03:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppenheimer block quote

Dear Wikiwag, my point in reverting your removal of the Oppenheimer quote was simply this: it removes a major part of the article and replaces all that is said with "an article ... which also discusses concerns about Waldorf's comparatively late start to reading". That's not a fair substitution for a major area of controversy, taking out relevant information and saying simply "also discusses". However, if your objective is to shorten the article, I would agree with that goal and perhaps the substance of the Oppenheimer quote can be summarized in the text of that paragraph. OTOH, Oppenheimer's words may make the points most efficiently and make the article more interesting overall. --EPadmirateur 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think large edits should be discussed here first to avoid reverts.

In regard to the blockquote, I think that late reading is something particularly interesting and unusual about Waldorf, which merits explanation. In fact, it's so far outside the mainstream (US public schools teaching reading at age 5 or even younger vs. Waldorf teaching reading at age 7 or older) that I think additional explanation before the blockquote would be good. Perhaps the quote itself could be shortened somewhat for better overall balance in the article.

I will be clear: I'm not saying this to promote the Waldorf view. I'm looking at this as an encyclopedia article: what's distinctive about Waldorf? Accusations of racism are also distinctive to Waldorf and deserve to be described at some length as well. Henitsirk 14:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

Reading and literacy

Mainstream pedagogical methods in the US call for teaching reading beginning in preschool for ages 3-5. According to the US Department of Education, "School readiness is a goal around which the entire nation has enthusiastically rallied....However, there is more that needs to be done. Many young children are still entering kindergarten without the prerequisite language, cognitive, and early reading and writing skills they need in order to benefit fully from early formal reading instruction."[1]

The Waldorf curriculum typically does not start reading instruction until age 7 or later. Todd Oppenheimer, a freelance journalist,[2] compared the Waldorf schools' approach to reading to the approach used in most other American schools: (blockquote and following).

The first reference is to http://www.ed.gov/programs/earlyreading/faq.html. I couldn't see a way to shorten the blockquote without changing the implications of the quote. Henitsirk 15:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I like the combination of the mainstream info and the waldorf approach. This is, of course, the sort of info that will need to be updated periodically. The mainstream changes direction every few years. MinorityView 22:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Mainstream pedagogical methods in the US call for teaching reading beginning in preschool for ages 3-5."

That looks like an ahistoric description. How about adding the info that this is the situation today. When I was a kid (in the 1950s', in Sweden), kids normally started school (public ones) at seven (based on broadly accepted non-Waldorf criteria for school readiness, still used at Waldorf schools), and did not start to learn to read until then. The push for ever earlier school start and reading training, is that not a rather new invention, not that old, ten years? See for example these comments. And should that not be described in the section, to put a historical perspective on the issue? Thebee 23:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thebee, it certainly is the situation now in the US. I Googled "preschool reading program" and found this, which shows publications on preschool-age reading from at least 1998. I could change it to "currently call for" to make it more precise, but short of doing major research on the history of US mainstream pedagogy I can't say when the current methods were adopted. I don't really think a historical perspective is necessary in this section. Henitsirk 00:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is helpful, but I'd have to agree that a historical perspective on this point is not useful in this article. I think it would be considerably more difficult than you imagine at first to document the popular belief that "reading is being taught earlier and earlier these days." I personally believe (I can't document this either, and I just don't think either belief would be easily "documentable") but I personally believe it's a myth that reading instruction is being pushed earlier and earlier. I believe if accurate and careful research were done on this point - what is *actually* done in schools - it would probably show that the age at which certain activities are introduced in preparation for reading, and actual reading instruction itself, has not changed much, if at all, in probably the past century. The "they're making them start younger and younger" thing is one of those "the world is going to hell in a handbasket" claims, and probably a public misperception. I personally believe that for many decades now, preschoolers and kindergarteners have been introduced to the alphabet, and done a wide variety of what's widely called "pre-reading" or "reading readiness" activities - learning to identify and write letters and associate them with their sounds, and then actually starting to read around first grade. A few children have always started a bit earlier because they are interested or because a parent encouraged or because a particular teacher encouraged it, and by the same token there have always been other children who weren't ready until a bit later. I seriously doubt you could find a reliable source that would show otherwise.

In fact, Waldorf diverges from mainstream practice very very significantly here. The discrepancy comes in Waldorf's near-total taboo on any form of literacy activity or even literacy interest before the first grade. Some Waldorf teachers even advise parents not to let their child see print before age seven. That kind of extreme approach has never been the norm at least in US schools; and despite claims to the contrary I'm skeptical it's ever been a common thing in Sweden or elsewhere in Europe either.DianaW 01:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I probably didn't explain what I mean clearly. The quote was offered: ""Mainstream pedagogical methods in the US call for teaching reading beginning in preschool for ages 3-5." The problem is that that statement could mean many things - the simple phrase "teaching reading" means a thousand things to a thousand people. Absolutely, almost every preschool on the planet "teaches reading" beginning in preschool - if by this is meant that preschoolers sing the alphabet song, write their names, color letters or cut out letter shapes or glue macaroni to a picture in the shape of a letter, or look at picture books, learn a few words, learn to write Happy Birthday or simple things like that - all things that are utterly taboo, considered shocking and wrong and damaging, in a Waldorf preschool. But is that "teaching reading"? In Waldorf rhetoric that is "teaching reading" when it's convenient, because it sounds like "Those other schools start far too early." But the phrase "teaching reading" can also mean literally, phonics in the first grade, in which case no, most schools do not "teach reading" to 3- to 5-year-olds: the claim then would be false. Starting seriously with phonics in the first grade really has not changed much. Possibly a little bit in kindergarten, but most schools really don't "teach reading" in a strict sense to kindergarteners, and in the progressive schools the trend is in fact in the other direction - to delay, and to emphasize play and social skills over to academics prior to first grade. What they DON'T do is advise parents to do things like hide the cereal box in case the small child learns a word or two from them, or says (Horrors) "Mommy, what does that word say?" The latter is the Waldorf attitude and DRASTICALLY far from the mainstream approach.DianaW 01:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it's hard to believe any progress is possible here. The following passage in the article is completely confused. It's really hard to write clearly when what you're doing is basically composing propaganda. Whoever actually put this together should stop and think - it is unintelligible as currently written:

"Current mainstream pedagogical methods in the U.S. call for teaching reading beginning in preschool for ages 3-5. According to the U.S. Department of Education, "School readiness is a goal around which the entire nation has enthusiastically rallied.... However, there is more that needs to be done. Many young children are still entering kindergarten without the prerequisite language, cognitive, and early reading and writing skills they need in order to benefit fully from early formal reading instruction." The Waldorf curriculum typically does not include reading instruction until age 7 or later. Todd Oppenheimer, a freelance journalist, compared the Waldorf schools' approach to reading to the approach used in most other American schools."

So which is it? Are other schools in America "teaching reading to 3- to 5-year-olds"? Or is the Waldorf approach actually just the same as "most other American schools"? You're torn between which of these makes Waldorf look better, I think. It makes it difficult to make sense of what you're reading, let alone organize it usefully in the article. The second sentence contradicts the first, though somebody must have believed it supported it. The second sentence doesn't say that "teaching reading" should begin at ages 3 to 5; this has never been the case in US schools. It says that children that age need PREREQUISITE skills so that they will benefit from "formal reading instruction." Formal reading instruction comes AFTER prerequisite skills are acquired at an earlier age. It doesn't say that anything has changed, or that suddenly 3 year olds need to be reading. And then another tailspin, the next claim is that Waldorf waits till age 7, and, oh, actually most other American schools do, too. The reader is left thinking WTF?????DianaW 01:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I made some adjustments to the paragraph to address your points. --EPadmirateur 03:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Henitsirk wrote: "I Googled "preschool reading program" and found this, which shows publications on preschool-age reading from at least 1998." I'm sorry, bu the page to which you referred us definitely does not show publications on preschool-age reading. How did you get that notion from looking at that page?DianaW 01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thebee wrote: "The push for ever earlier school start and reading training, is that not a rather new invention, not that old, ten years?" Nope. I went to a very mainstream ordinary public preschool and kindergarten in the US in the 60's, and I did all the things commonly called "reading readiness" activities today - we learned the alphabet, we wrote our names, we learned the sounds the letters make, the teacher read us stories, we sang songs and learned nursery rhymes, we played games learning to identify letters and numbers, we were encouraged to write and praised if we learned to identify a few simple words. There is nothing new about this. Most of the day was play. Incorporating "reading readiness" so that the children will not be completely unprepared when reading instruction begins formally in first grade is not an idea someone thought of in the past 10 years.DianaW 01:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK...I will try to respond to all this.

DianaW: I appreciate your critical views. What would help me improve what I have suggested here would be for you to suggest alternate wording, or to more simply state your criticms instead of attacking me. I tried my best to concisely describe what I thought was the significant difference between mainstream US and Waldorf pedagogy. Perhaps I didn't do a great job. I just proposed something to get the ball rolling, and after a few comments I edited the page. It doesn't help me for you to call me a "propagandist" or assume that I think reading to my children is "taboo..shocking and wrong and damaging." I let my 5 year old son pretend to write letters with a pencil, and I constantly read to my kids. I just trying to be neutral, and if I'm not, please let me know in a non-ad hominem way.

You're right, perhaps "teaching reading" isn't a clear enough word choice. Perhaps we could write something that more clearly states that in the US, preschool children ages 3-5 are taught the alphabet and other "pre-reading" skills. Waldorf pedagogy uses different methods to create "reading readiness" like listening to stories, circle games and rhymes, etc. that do not directly "teach" reading readiness in an intellectual way.

Also, the Google search I mentioned has this as the first listed book, published in 1998, that directly addresses literacy in kindergarten-age and younger children. I simply mentioned it to give Thebee an idea that in the US, mainstream pedagogy has included reading/literacy skils for very young children for more than 10 years.

I have added the words "In contrast" to clarify that the Waldorf method is different from the mainstream method described, in response to your comment that the passage was unclear. Henitsirk 19:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

The lead doesn't actually indicate what constitues a Waldorf education. Perhaps merging the "Overview" section with the lead would work? I'll leave it up to the regular editors to decide.  :) --Iamunknown 19:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

just looking quickly we might just do away with the header for overview so that the lead becomes two paragraphs before the table of contents. --Rocksanddirt 19:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That is good idea. I think "overview" paragraph is better to come before "first school was opened" and the rest of the first paragraph. Meaning I would reorder the overview discussion before the discussion about number and scope of schools. I know this was worked on by many already but I think this is awkword sentence: "Studies of Waldorf education describe it as aiming to develop[11] and succeeding at developing[12] thinking that includes a creative as well as an analytic aspect and to provide young people the basis with which to develop into free, moral[13] and integrated individuals.[14][15][5][16] Waldorf education seeks to integrate practical, artistic, and intellectual elements into the teaching of all subjects.[17]". All the foot notes -8- in one sentence is to distracting. I think one reference for this sentence is better. One foot note can describe them all 9 in details and explain what each they say about it.Venado 23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the switch. I'll try to improve the wording.Hgilbert 20:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I have improved things, but please keep improving organization and flow and the footnotes. I commented out one of the latter and grouped others to reduce the sheer number in an opening paragraph. Hgilbert 21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Great job, folks! As a reader unfamiliar with the topic, I feel it is an excellent improvement, as the lead is now much more informative. Cheers! --Iamunknown 04:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

As a casual reader here with a casual interest in Steiner, etc., and having read some of the decisions that ended up putting this article on probation, I suggest that it seems a little too brochure-ish, and that there really is no coherent criticism section presented (the Reception and Controversy section, it seems to me, does not do justice to what ~I imagine~ -- and again, I'm not well informed here -- are probably more numerous, cogent complaints about Waldorf. If you reading this are a proponent of Waldorf, i'd say it behooves you to be the ones to find and include them. I'm intrigued and mostly impressed by Waldorf education principles personally, but know that Wikipedia contains growing movements of a)making sure that articles about controversial concepts give proportionate room to the critiques of its detractors, and also b)"evidence-based" scientistic skeptics, or -- in my opinion, most of them -- "pseudoskeptics", who scrutinize any claims made by anyone with metaphysical or intuitive bases (observe: Project Rational Skepticism). I know very little about Waldorf myself, but I'd recommend making perhaps a separate Criticism section (your Reception and Controversy section sounds advocational to me) that really presents the criticisms from the most cogent, well-known sources. I'm sure it will have to happen at some point; don't wait til it's forced upon you by more than simply the specifically anti-Waldorf folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friarslantern (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome casual reader! actually to meet the terms of the arbitration, all the verifiable criticism we can find is used. There just isn't much that's not either from completely unreliable sources (blogs, forums, email lists, and the like) or from "anthroposophical" publishers which are considered "self-published" by the interpretation of the arbitration committee. We've tried several other ways to present the material but it comes off as either really undo weight to something that's not important (at one time there was a long couple of paragraphs on vaccinations) or the article reads like a sales pitch, with a small paragraph of whinning that it's bad at the end. If you can find something, please let us know and lets try to work it in. --Rocksanddirt 20:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A first step to improve the situation: I have moved the studies of Waldorf education before the reception and controversy, as they contain more objective material. Hgilbert 10:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Multi-disciplinary arts-based curriculum

The article references Uhrmacher's 1993 paper "Making Contact: An Exploration of Focused Attention between Teacher and Students" and lists several arts that are part of the "arts-based curriculum". Are there other "arts" listed by Uhrmacher such as handwork and farming (gardening)? I don't think these latter two would be considered "arts" and part of the "arts-based" curriculum even though they are undoubtedly part of the elementary curriculum. What does Uhrmacher say specifically? Are there other references that would justify adding more "arts"? --EPadmirateur 21:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Regarding Handwork and Farming

There is a lot more to handwork than knitting, though it is an important piece. Not all school farming/gardening is biodynamic in nature. I think it is important not to be to specific on those kinds of items that are going to vary by school subtantially. --Rocksanddirt 18:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire statement "Handwork, agriculture, farming and gardening are also integral parts of the Waldorf curriculum." really needs to be supported by an acceptable reference. Otherwise it is original research and not really acceptable in the article. In my understanding, there are no Waldorf schools that do "agriculture", meaning raising and selling crops or other farm products. Likewise, schools generally have a "farm trip" in 3rd grade but usually do not do "farming". The children do not weed crops, turn compost and milk cows, except on the one farm trip. At best some schools have a gardening program which ideally, but not always, involves the use of biodynamic methods. However, this view is based on my fairly limited experience with different Waldorf schools.

The other part of this statement, about handwork, is correct, but handwork includes more than knitting like crochet, felt balls, cross stitch, sewing, doll making, embroidery, braiding and finger knitting, etc., etc. And what about "Practical Arts" meaning woodworking, copper work, clay modeling, etc.? I think this statement needs to be adjusted and properly sourced. In the meantime, it should probably be removed (in my opinion). --EPadmirateur 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I updated the curriculum section to include handwork and gardening in the Woods, Ashley and Woods, Steiner Schools in England, University of West of England, Bristol: Research Report RR645, section 5.2, "Curriculum" reference. More detailed discussion of what handwork is taught would be found on the Curriculum of the Waldorf schools page. I would agree that as far as I know, most schools do not necessarily teach "farming" or "agriculture" outside of a farm trip, though most probably would try to incorporate some gardening of the school's grounds if nothing else. Henitsirk 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the farming/gardening reference as the other aspects of the curriculum are all ones that are consistent throughout the education, whereas farming and gardening tend to happen in only a few years (and not at every school even then). As we have a whole article on the Waldorf curriculum, specific year-by-year courses would be more appropriate there. Hgilbert 16:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Brevity

I have worked through a number of sections to bring these into tighter form. In addition, as the table of contents was a page-and-a-half long; I have deleted titles for subsections that were only a single paragraph anyway and brought this down somewhat. Hgilbert 16:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Images

The image of a Waldorf school recently added to the beginning of the article is very helpful. I find the following:

File:Bonecos waldorf.jpg

, added to the elementary education section both misplaced (it belongs to early childhood education) and not as well-chosen. I have removed it for the moment; could we look for a more well-rounded image of an early childhood environment (and a better picture?) Hgilbert 16:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Overall Neutral Point of View Review

hide rfc template --Rocksanddirt 22:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Once again, we have been through a cycle of edits for neutrality and the article has been proposed to be checked for neutrality with no responses. This is now a very thoroughly sourced article. Are we ready to drop the neutrality-check header, or where does further work remain to be done? Hgilbert 05:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any sense in maybe doing another article RfC? I know that not many people came and looked at the last one and it seemed mostly to promote arguement between a couple of editors. --Rocksanddirt 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Well, I went ahead and did the rfc anyway. Lets give that a few days and see if anyone shows. Maybe we could canvass some of the others who have helped here in the past? Like the arb coms and mentors and such that have tried to help? --Rocksanddirt 17:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears that nobody cares. --Rocksanddirt 22:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't Steiner's Dogma mentioned?

Or anything else in this article regarding some of Steiner's controversial mystical views concerning education?

This is from Robert Todd Carroll's website:

"Steiner designed the curriculum of his schools around notions that he apparently got by special spiritual insight into the nature of Nature and the nature of children. He believed we are each composed of body, spirit, and soul. He believed that children pass through three seven-year stages and that education should be appropriate to the spirit for each stage.

Birth to age 7, he claimed, is a period for the spirit to adjust to being in the material world. At this stage, children best learn through imitation. Academic content is held to a minimum during these years. Children are told fairy tales, but do no reading until about the second grade. They learn about the alphabet and writing in first grade.

According to Steiner, the second stage of growth is characterized by imagination and fantasy. Children learn best from ages 7 to 14 by acceptance and emulation of authority. The children have a single teacher during this period and the school becomes a "family" with the teacher as the authoritative "parent".

The third stage, from 14 to 21, is when the astral body is drawn into the physical body, causing puberty. These anthroposophical ideas are not necessarily taught as part of the standard Waldorf school curriculum to the students themselves, but apparently are believed by those in charge of the curriculum. Waldorf schools leave religious training to parents, but the schools tend to be spiritually oriented and are based on a generally Christian perspective.

Even so, because they are not taught fundamentalist Christianity from the Bible, Waldorf schools are often attacked for encouraging paganism or even Satanism. This may be because they emphasize the relation of human beings to Nature and natural rhythms, including an emphasis on festivals, myths, ancient cultures, and various non-Christian celebrations."[1]

If this is in fact the actual basis that Steiner used to develop his ideas concerning Waldorf education, then I don't see why these types of things aren't mentioned in the article.

Geneisner 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a few reasons. 1) due to a ruling by the arbitration comittee on what is a reliable source, most anthroposophical materials (such as Steiners writing about education) are not considered reliable sources. 2) the article is also about how the waldorf education is practiced today, not what Stiener proposed. 3) the anthroposophical ideas behind the curriculum are not taught to the students until the later years of high school, if at all. The idea that Stiener developed the curriculum out of his anthroposphical ideas is in the text, and the article on Anthroposophy is referenced. The souce you cite would certainly be considered "not reliable" by the arbitration ruling. So, we end up with an article that describes what goes on today in waldorf schools, with some evaluation of public waldorf schools in a few areas, and that's about it. Hope this helps, if you have other questions please ask! --Rocksanddirt 15:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Steiner's theory of child development, which Carroll sketches out, is described in the article. As far as the spiritual background is concerned, I may have a good-quality source that could be used to bring this into the context of the article; I'll check at home. We should look at the anthroposophy article and see if it covers this subject sufficiently, as well. Hgilbert 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put in a link to the Anthroposophical view of the human being.Hgilbert 16:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What is "The International List of Famous Waldorf Alumni" and should it be linked in?

I have recently added a link to "The International List of Famous Waldorf Alumni (...and Waldorf Parents)". Subsequently, Rocksanddirt has suggested that it appeared to be like an advertising spam link and has asked me to explain why I think the link should be kept. I will be happy to do so:

In this list, Waldorf alumni who are recognized in their home countries or internationally for positive contributions to the arts, science, politics, commerce, industry, and other fields are collected. The list was founded more than 10 years ago by a private initiative of German Waldorf alumni calling themselves "theWaldorfs". Through the years, it has adopted the character of an international research project on "famous" Waldorf alumni. Among other things, the list is supposed to act against prejudices that are present worldwide, which claim, for example, that Waldorf education would not sufficiently prepare its students for the "real challenges of life" (see also "Motivation" of the list). The names have been collected with participation of numerous individuals from many countries and with active support of publicly recognized Waldorf alumni, to include bestselling authors, diplomats etc. Already two years ago, the list has received visits from more than 70 different countries within 1 month time. The list respectively selected names are frequently quoted in newspaper articles etc. As there is no other effort of comparable global extent researching biographies of publicly known Waldorf alumni, this list acts as exclusive and primary research output. Where to go if not into Wikipedia as an encylopedia? To sum up, I do think that it does indeed add value to the discussion on Waldorf education related topics and its link should be kept here.

The initiative is independent, unsalaried and in no way initiated or influenced by any official Waldorf related institution. Calling the list "spam" does certainly not do justice to the efforts that have been and continue to be invested by many people from all over the world who are supporting its development. If anyone has further questions as to the nature of the list, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards

Christof Jauernig

theWaldorfs

Editor-in-Chief

Cjauernig 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly not a commercial site. I see no great objection to having it. Based upon the similar pages for other schools, it could certainly be made into a Wikipedia page and linked to - and it makes sense that, for Wikipedia, links to external sites must be acceptable if the same material would be acceptable on an internal article page (assuming the site itself contains no objectionable material). Hgilbert 20:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I participated in two arbitration hearings which directly involved Waldorf related articles. The result was that Waldorf published sources are not allowed as sources in the Waldorf related articles except in limited situations. This remedy was imposed, in large part, to prevent use of Waldorf promotional materials and self-published materials. The probation is still in effect, and the use of references that are self-published by Waldorf alumni would seem to fall under the probation's ban. If it is not sourcing any claim but simply attached as an external link, then linking it may not present this problem. But if edits creep back towards information that smacks of "promotional claims", editors could find administrators intervening.Professor marginalia 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't see anyone suggesting this material be cited in the article. Nor can matters of fact (a list) be critiqued as incorporating bias. Hgilbert 23:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

well, actually....I a) don't like even external links that arn't reliable sources and b) don't like external links that arn't some how related to the text. However, I agree with prof.M. it is a self published (in fact wiki'ish) list. --Rocksanddirt 00:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that this is a principle more violated than upheld in Wikipedia lists of notable school alumni; they rarely cite their sources. Nevertheless, I found the superbly cited List of Harvard University people, with proper references for every entry. Perhaps the users who wish to include this information for Waldorf could convert the web-version to a Wikipedia list and work to reference the entries. Hgilbert 01:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Hgilbert was, of course, involved in the arbitration, as was Professor marginalia; I was not. This link does not "smack of promotional claims." There is, for example, no claim that Waldorf Education produces specially notable people, that it is superior to other forms of education. The list is a bit apologetic in nature, i.e., the purpose was to show that Waldorf graduates can function in the real world, but that is really dicta. It's not relevant to whether or not we can link to the list. The realization of the intended purpose would be through listing actual Waldorf graduates, thus accomplishing the purpose for which we would link it. The purpose would *not* be realized through fake listings or other misinformation.

I am a bit disturbed by Rocksanddirt's comments. First of all, he originally removed the link, with no discussion, based on a claim that it was "promotion," which was nonsense. It is a bad habit, when one's action is countered because it was founded on an error, to discover another reason to justify the action. At the very least, before going ahead with additional reasons, one should, as a matter of ordinary courtesy, retract the original claim. So now the objection is that the external link is not a "reliable source," and, while that is itself questionable, it is irrelevant. External links do not have to meet the qualifications for reliable sources, and, indeed, it is most common that they do not. Wikipedia is not asserting as fact everything that is in an External Link. Then, that Rocksanddirt does not see the relevance to the article says nothing about its relevance. Others do see the relevance. I am *not* a Waldorf promoter, as I've mentioned, and, before Rocksanddirt posted his comment about relevance, I cited other articles showing that such material is routinely accepted. Indeed, it seems, most articles about schools seem to have, directly or indirectly, lists of alumni. "Self published" may not be exactly true, the alumni list in question here seems to be published by an organization, but, again, this is moot, and the claim that the site is "wiki-ish" is, again, unfounded on its face. While it's certainly possible that someone could set up a wiki and then mirror it on a non-wiki (it's done all the time with Wikipedia), there is no evidence at all that this is the case. Rather the site solicits submissions by email, and reviews them for notability. It's an *edited* site, taking it one step closer to being considered a reliable source. And, again, this is moot.

Anyone is free at any time to create an Alumni section in the article and to add notable people to it. I'm certainly not going to do it and I actually think the link is adequate. Among other things, it avoids all debate about who is notable and who is not.... --Abd 04:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

a list/table of alumni for a separate article? list article?

Well, I started to work on a list. The first person I look at the ref for, Jennifer Aniston, the reference in the list from the external link says she went to Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts, which is a public high school in Manattan. We cannot have a list without references that work. I can be as policy wrong as makes any of you happy, but our references must check out. --Rocksanddirt 22:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Give this a look, and add to it if you feel inclined. The source box I was thinking for non-en.wikipedia sources. The people on the list should be 1) notable on en.wikipedia (have articles, even stubs) or 2) should have articles (which will give us something encyclopedic to do). --Rocksanddirt 22:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidently Jennifer Aniston went to Rudolf Steiner School in NYC, if you believe this page: "At the age of 11 i joined the drama club in the Rudolf SteinerSchool. Acting was always fascinating to me but I didn't want to pursue it as a career, but my school pushed me to." --EPadmirateur 23:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is my concern with links of this type. friendster? seems unlikely to be a reliable source, though maybe no one cares. --Rocksanddirt 23:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I googled "Jennifer Aniston Waldorf" and found reference to Rudolf Steiner and then "Jennifer Aniston Steiner" and found plenty of references: "83,500 for jennifer aniston steiner." The friendster page, on its face, is her page. Is it really hers? I don't know. Do they do any verification on famous people?

Wikiquote has a quote from her about Waldorf education at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Waldorf_schools#_note-WA. The source for it is the Waldorf Answers site at http://www.waldorfanswers.org/WaldorfComments.htm (Waldorf Answers would not be considered a "reliable source" for article purposes about anything controversial, it is run by Waldorf educators.) But I think that we might assume that if the information about her *grade school* (and maybe part of high school) was incorrect, there would be reference to it somewhere.

In an archive for the Waldorf Critics mailing list, I found reference to the probable source for the information on the web. See the post at http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/archives/WCA9609.html (I searched the page for "Aniston." It was apparently "the official web page for NBC's hit show "Friends."

I wasn't able to find that site, exactly, but the following seemed pretty authoritative: [2]. This is in no way connected with Anthroposophy or Waldorf education as a site, and the people who put the site together claim to have been in regular communication with Friends staff. The same basic information is also on http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000098/, the Internet Movie Database.

There is another source that I found: http://www.jenniferanistonwatch.com/2007/04/ with "As Jen told Esquire in 2002: [...] I was enrolled at the Rudolf Steiner School, which recommends that children don’t watch TV. I’d sneak it all the time, of course.] A german site has the 2002 article, showing the cover with Aniston. http://www.friends-serie.de/news/newsartikel08.html Quite possibly copyright violation, but, hey, it's not illegal to *read* it!

Bingo! Print publication, available on-line at: http://www.esquire.com/women/women-we-love/ESQ1002-OCT_ANISTON.

And how important is it all? Not very. Personally, I somewhat prefer leaving the matter with the link to Waldorf Alumni. But anyone is, of course, welcome to use what I found. It is now sourced with a whole lot more reliability than is actually necessary. --Abd 04:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning anyone on the list, but the references on the list. If it is to be relied upon, the references need to be the ones that say the person went to or graduated from xyz waldorf school. Sandra Bullock's wikipedia article (the references on the list) doesn't say she attended a waldorf school either, and it goes into some detail on her younger years (more than Aniston's). --Rocksanddirt 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the opinion of Rocksanddirt. The list in question is not an encyclopedia, and it is not necessary that it be sourced. It is not the job of the editor of that list to make easier the job of Wikipedia editors who want to insert material in articles here and show primary or other reliable sources. They will, quite properly, satisfy themselves that, say, Aniston did indeed attend a Waldorf school, and then they put in a link *not* to prove this, to provide a "source," but simply so that any reader can identify who this person is. An editor on a site like that might well use personal knowledge or original research to confirm the fact, or might simply accept the testimony of someone they trust.

Suppose a Waldorf School has a list of people who have attended the school. Is that usable? I'd say so. It's a primary source, actually, *for that purpose." Basic legal principle: testimony is to be presumed true unless controverted. There is practically no reason to suppose that, as an example, a school would falsify attendance reports like that. Wikipedia has high standards, in theory, and lower standards, in fact. A *lot* of what is on the encyclopedia is not "properly sourced," and the reason is that it can be a lot of work, and people know what they know, as so they simply write what they know. Or think they know. Someone can come along and challenge it as unsourced, and then someone, if they want the information to remain, must source it, because of the policy. Until then, if it stands in an article in the presence of more than one or two editors, and especially in the presence of controversy over the topic, it's probably true and useful even if unsourced. I'm working on other articles where there is unsourced material, even material favorable to a faction which considers me to be in opposition, and I don't touch it *if* I think it is true, even if it is unsourced. I would be *reducing* the actual value of the article to *readers* by removing factual information. Ultimately, all facts should be sourced, but it may take us a long time to get there. Meanwhile, if we did actually remove all unsourced material, we would be harming the encyclopedia. I'd focus on material that is POV and unsourced. That's what harms the encyclopedia, if it remains unchallenged. There is plenty of work to do on that.

In this case, I showed that it was possible to confirm the claim regarding Aniston by using Google and being persistent. I have no intention of repeating this, I did it merely to confirm my suspicion that the Waldorf Alumni site was *reasonably* reliable. This has nothing to do with any controversy over Waldorf Education. I've debated Waldorf and Anthroposophy for years, in one environment considered a supporter of Waldorf ("Waldorf Critics" mailing list) and in another, sometimes, a critic (Various Waldorf and Anthroposophically related forums). I have had no reason to doubt the good faith of all those people; where I might disagree with them is over interpretations of facts. Some of them do not return that favor, but that's their problem. It is my belief that once an editor here grasps the concept of NPOV and sees the value of having publications which are truly NPOV -- which in no way excludes having *other* publications that are quite biased -- this editor can be of great service here even if highly opinionated about the subject. What it takes is an ability to distinguish between one's own opinions and facts, and, for Wikipedia, when push comes to shove, sourced facts. I know a great deal that I could not prove to anyone, and, no matter how well I know it -- I might know it well enough to risk my life on it being true, or even the lives of my children --, I can't cite myself here as a source except under very narrow circumstances. Besides, my memory might be faulty, my analysis defective, or my expression flawed. Together, we can do much more than we could ever do alone. --Abd 19:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Having read this enormous amount of argumentation, I thought it might be useful that I would, as the publisher of the list which is being discussed here, add some additional comments. I don’t want to go in too much detail, and it is certainly not my role to take part in arguing pros and cons like it has extensively happened. Adding the link in the first place was a clear statement of mine that I thought it would be appropriate, and most of all helpful, for this article.

First of all, being someone who is new to Wikipedia and especially to the Talk pages – I even did not know their function beforehand – I am quite impressed by the massive discussion that was triggered by the insertion (and of course the deletion) of this link. In a way it is nice to see how eager you all are to care for properly kept rules and how much thought is invested in this issue. I must admit, since I am new to this I am not an expert in all rules and definitions and may have been a little naïve by inserting the link, not knowing that it would result in this kind of ongoing discussion.

However, there are some points I like to make which might help focusing the further conversation a little:

- Concerning: The idea of not linking to the list but including names in the article itself, formatting and sourcing it the way Rocksanddirt suggested:

First of all I find it a little odd that it is finally the one editor who identified my link as "advertising spam" and removed it without any prior consultation in the first place, who now wants to transfer names from the list itself to the article – with no advance consultation again. As I can understand the motivation (reliability, sourcing, verification etc.), I am not confident, particularly in the light of the discussions’ starting point, seeing the list’s content being copied into Wikipedia. There is something called “compilation copyright”, which protects “…a compilation (…) as a ‘collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.’” Source. TheWaldorfs have been collecting, selecting and intensively checking notable Waldorf alumnis’ names for more than a decade now. The result of this huge amount of ongoing work, in a condensed form, is expressed in this list. To my understanding – and I am NOT going to take part in a discussion on this one – the list as a whole results from a creative effort and grants us compilation copyright (it is not only rearrangement of known information but through our own research creation of new information that has not been available in a larger public context before). And because of that, I don’t want to see a substantial part, leave alone the whole list be transferred to Wikipedia.

As a result I assume that all discussion dealing with “can those names be put into the article while we do not know whether they are reliable?” could stop here. Which leads to the next question:

- Does the list, accessed through an external link, have to show the sources of information?

Abd has explained, not only regarding this issue with striking clarity, that “it is not the job of the editor of that list to make easier the job of Wikipedia editors who want to insert material in articles here and show primary or other reliable sources”. We do indeed only place general links to webpages “so that any reader can identify who this person is.” Verification of reliability is a process we have *internalized*. We could, indeed, include sources once they are publicly accessible (the links would, however, end up not only on English but on German, Norwegian, or Japanese webpages then.) But: one clue about this list is that there are many names on it which we *did not* receive on the basis of publicly available information but through other channels which we consider as reliable (this is, in fact, the value added of this list). Do journalists only publish information which is already publicly available and proven? They would be irrelevant if they would. Instead, journalists do their own research and have their networks and sources they rely on. Do they add the name of every single informant or source next to their news stories? No they don’t. However, if they make up stories themselves, this will quickly be revealed.

We follow the same principle. Our verification mechanisms have proven functional and we have absolutely no interest in a.) risking our list’s credibility and b) possibly getting in trouble with celebrities’ lawyers by faking biographies or making up names. In the very few (!) instances where we regrettably were mistaken, those mistakes were relatively quickly revealed by visitors (we have 3,000 to 4,000 hits per month) and immediately corrected (as our disclaimer suggests). Another example of how these mechanisms work: Generally, we receive several e-mails about one person (for example because there has been a TV broadcast about an alumnus that was observed and reported by several people at once). Thus, if someone nominates a celebrity of international prominence who has been famous for a while already and we have not received any other nomination of that person within the years of the list’s existence, there is a 99% probability that this information is wrong.

I can assure, reliability is our top priority. We may be in favor of Waldorf education (in fact, there are things I do criticize about Waldorf schools, but I honestly enjoyed my school years) but through this list we do not express opinions of ANY kind, all we do is reporting facts and leave it to the reader to form his/her opinion (however that will be).

- To sum up:

I appreciate this discussion, I really do. The seriousness which goes along impresses me. Still I think some plots of the discussion really missed the point. I kindly ask you to refrain from transferring more than some names to the article, however, having an external link was my original idea, which I still support. On our list, there are no sources linked because it is about seeing who is behind the names, not: where else can I find the statement that x or y went to a Waldorf school? No, we are not crazy enough to go for faking names because that would be ridiculous. And: yes, we do everything in our command to verify the submitted information, without 100% guarantee but with a large deal of certainty. I hope, these statements may support the discussion. I will further on be happy to answer outstanding questions, if necessary.

Cjauernig 23:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Christof, are you aware whether this list has been cited anywhere in a scholarly publication? For example a university degree dissertation or a book about Waldorf education? The list itself appears to be a reliable source in some sense but if it has been recognized and cited by a recognized reliable source that would make it all the stronger a source to be included in this article. I would think then that the list itself could be mentioned briefly in the article as a recognized compilation of notable Waldorf graduates. --EPadmirateur 01:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really respond to this when I responded before (below). There should be no problem with linking, as we seem to generally agree. Putting a reference to the alumni list in the article itself requires a bit higher standard. It's a fact that the list exists, and anyone can verify that fact, so sourcing the fact is not a problem. If we say "there is a list of alumni at..." it is clearly true, if the list is there. If we were to claim that the list was reliable, we'd have to source that and obviously the list itself couldn't be the source. However, there is *no* reason to think it is unreliable, and we don't have to state that it is. If there was a credible charge that it was *not* reliable, then it shouldn't be in the article, and it would be arguable that it shouldn't be in the links as well. But this is not the case. --Abd 16:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should stay away from creating a list on wikipedia, even if others schools have them. (I may be contradicting my previous comments here.) There used to be a "list of Waldorf Schools" that was removed, even though it should be even easier to directly verify the existence of schools than it would be to verify famous attendees/graduates of them!

I think at this point anything Waldorf-related is under a too-high burden of scrutiny to create any subpages that might be considered promotional. I think an external link would be enough.

However, in reading the guidelines on external links I see that according to the guidelines, we should avoid "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." My only hesitation is that it would be quite difficult to fully verify this list, especially given the proportion of German people (meaning difficult to verify via English-language web sites). Not that I don't trust Mr. Jauernig, but the data aren't really traceable. Henitsirk 01:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments from the editor of the Waldorf Alumni list, Cjauernig. My own conclusions from looking at the list and from what he had previously written was that it was an edited source, and *could* be considered reliable similarly to a print publication. Wikipedia does have standards on this, but it also bends the rules whenever the quality of the encyclopedia will benefit. Nevertheless, my own conclusion was that there was no need for a list of graduates on Wikipedia. It is, however, a *fact* that there is an list of alumni at the linked location. That *could* be reported in the article. It is also a verified fact that Jennifer Aniston is a graduate. *If* it were considered relevant to this article, the fact could be inserted. She gives a positive report about the school, apparently, but all that this boils down to is that a student did well. Students can do well at lousy schools and some can do poorly at excellent schools. It's more of a trivia issue, unless, as someone mentioned, a study was done of graduates comparing them to graduates of other schools, and such would be quite difficult. Waldorf schools in some places, such as the U.S., are *usually* private schools and thus students tend to come from relatively affluent, educated families.... but this isn't relevant here. The linked site, as noted by the editor, is not promotional. Given that it asserts that it uses a verification process, if it were important, I'd push for it being considered a reliable source. But we don't need that now. Linking it is quite adequate.

As the editor noted, simply copying the list would be a violation of copyright, which is specifically reserved on the list itself. Using the list to verify that a person was a Waldorf graduate, if that were relevant, would be fine, that is fair use, and one might even discover a few famous people from that list and, say, put them on this list, though it would be better to confirm them independently -- and I'm not at all sure that this article should have this. The individual verification would not be for *this* article, more typically it would be for a biography of the person in question. For example, the Jennifer Aniston article could be fleshed out a little with the information we uncovered. I'm not going to do it myself.... my interest was in fairness and the principles of Wikipedia editing.

If someone is so inclined, they could set up a category and add tags to biographical articles on the order of "Former Waldorf Student" or the like. I'd consider the linked list adequate as a source for that, based on what we have developed about it. Is this promotion? While the person doing it might have some promotional motive, it is not motive that controls here, it is content. I'd consider that, really, just as relevant as many other similar tags I've seen with biographies.

I will repeat another comment I made before, in light of the implication that the guideline that we should avoid "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" applies to linking this site. That guideline, if interpreted as implied, would essentially prohibit almost any links, unless one could verify every fact reported there. No, that guideline refers to a site known to be inaccurate or reasonably suspected of such. As we showed, in addition, it *is* possible to verify the information on that site, or at least much of it. Because some information is based on private communication from sources deemed reliable by the editors, some of it might seem to be unverifiable, but, in fact, it would simply take greater effort, one might actually have to engage in that archaic form of communication called "talking." It would help, I would suggest, if the list shows the actual Waldorf schools attended. By the way, "alumnus" would generally refer to those who *graduated* from a school, not merely those who attended it. It was not clear to me how far Aniston went at Rudolf Steiner, but it seems she did not graduate from the high school. But all this is suggestion for the editors of that site, and has little to do with Wikipedia. --Abd 03:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments regarding the list. First of all, EPadmirateur has asked whether I would be “aware whether this list has been cited anywhere in a scholarly publication”, and if so, that “the list itself could be mentioned briefly in the article as a recognized compilation of notable Waldorf graduates.” I appreciate this suggestion, but, to be frank, I don’t know whether it has been cited in scholarly publications. As mentioned before, there are page visits from many countries, and there is no way for us to determine whether or not someone in Spain, South Africa, the US or in any other country has cited the list in his/her dissertation. The same applies to books on Waldorf education. Maybe it has happened, however, it has not been reported to us, and we have never asked ourselves this question before. And still, my understanding is that if it is about including a link to the list on the bottom of the article (I never thought about anything beyond that), the level of “reliability” the list presents is considered sufficient (to be honest, as a newcomer to Wikipedia, I still can’t derive a clear answer to that from the variety of opinions that have been brought in…).

The following comments do not concern the Wikipedia aspects but should be seen as additional explanations as to why the list appears on our website the way it does today. Referring to the input that “"alumnus" would generally refer to those who *graduated* from a school, not merely those who attended it”: The original German title of the list has since 1997 been “Die Internationale Liste prominenter Ex-Waldorfschüler” which translates to something like “The international list of famous ex-Waldorf pupils”. We picked up the suggestion of a native speaker to use “alumni” as a proper translation. While it is correct that this term describes graduates, it does, if I read Wikipedia correctly, also include “former students”, meaning not necessarily graduates. The main reasons why we do not only consider graduates are a.) because there are a lot of newly established Waldorf schools which in their early years, depending on the country they operate in, are not granted the allowance yet to offer state-approved graduation. In some cases, pupils at some point have to switch over to a state run school to receive their graduation. Furthermore b.) there are, in rare cases, Waldorf pupils who achieve public recognition while they still go to school (e.g. the German Ochsenknecht twins as actors. It would not make sense to exclude them from the list because they have not graduated yet.

Regarding the suggestion that “it would help (…) if the list shows the actual Waldorf schools attended”: We decided not to do this particularly because we do *not* want to have single elements of the list be used as a promotional tool by a specific Waldorf school. To us it seems that many Waldorf schools as institutions are not aware or really don’t care that celebrity x or y attended them, especially if this happened 10 or 20 years ago (particularly in Europe one will practically never find any reference to own famous graduates on Waldorf schools’ websites). We do not want to actively influence/change this situation by publicly associating names with schools. This is especially in the light of many Waldorf schools being in constant lack of financial resources and heavily depend on fund raising activities. In front of this background we do not want to annoy the listed celebrities by reminding individual schools that Mr. X graduated from them years before his big record deal and that it might be a good idea to now approach him with donation requests. This strategy does not, I understand that, make external verification of information easier. However, we have not been considering the latter as our top priority but rather do our internal editorial verification.

After all, I still have the open question whether or not a simple external link to the alumni list will be permanently accepted. Not being familiar with the Wikipedia procedures good enough, I would be happy if someone of the participants could explain to me on what basis (respectively by whom) such decision will be made. Many thanks! Cjauernig 18:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! The decisions on what is in or out are made by us, the editors of the page on a consensus basis. So, once we decide what we want, there it is. --Rocksanddirt 00:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to be able to agree with Rocksanddirt. There is no guarantee of "permanent acceptance" of anything here. However, you could Watch this article and any others you are interested in so you could see if anyone takes it out. You could then read the reason, if one is given, and, if you thought it spurious, you could put it back. But it would be better, since you are an involved party, to let someone else do that, and confine yourself to using Talk to ask why it was removed and to correct errors. As to who makes decisions, we do. All of us. Together. In any case, I see no sentiment at all, here, for removing the link. If some appears, I think we can defend it. "We" means the community of people who watch this article to keep it on track. While, if push comes to shove, there is administrative authority, that authority only rarely makes content decisions. There are about a thousand volunteer administrators who can do things like block users, freeze articles, and such. If dispute arose here, and it can't be resolved by consensus among those who edit this article -- that's all of us -- and Mediation fails, Arbcomm may be asked to make a decision. They are not bound by rules, see WP:IAR, but are not likely to move far from the existing guidelines. And above that there is God and User:Jimbo Wales. Actually, there is now something in between God and Jimbo: the Wikimedia_Foundation Board, which is elected by ... us. Well, sort of. Technically, we nominate board members though election and the board appoints them, though it is not legally bound to do so. Ahem. Is this enough of an answer? --Abd 00:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think an external link, at least, would be appropriate. Notable alumni is something distinctive that most schools advertise, and that encyclopedias mention: here's an example that includes a short list of alumni from Harvard. I could agree that a simple external link perhaps does not need to comply with the arbcom decision, and that Mr. Jauernig and his associates have edited their list appropriately so that it can be considered verifiable data.

However, if we want to add anything to the actual text of the article, then we are definitely bound by the arbcom decision, and I feel we would need to find other secondary, non-Anthroposophical sources, as abd has done with Jennifer Aniston. And we would need to tread carefully indeed to not sound promotional.

I'll suggest two options, for the sake of clarity in this lengthy discussion:

1. An external link to CJauernig's list.
2. A short blurb somewhere in the text regarding notable alumni, with links to other secondary sources.

Thoughts? Henitsirk 00:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to add those detailed explanations of the decisions procedures, that was very helpful! I look forward to the outcome of the process. Best regards, Cjauernig 21:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Off Topic

Something to check out when you have some free time. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007. Excersise one's responsibility to participate in the community governance and all that jazz. --Rocksanddirt 18:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening para

I think the opening sentence should include "(also known as Steiner or Steiner-Waldorf education)". 'Steiner School' is the commonly used term here in Australia for about 60 schools, kindergartens and playgroups; including the first such Australian school, Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School founded in 1956 (see [3]).--Design (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Done.Hgilbert (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

International List of Famous Waldorf Alumni

Evidently there's a disagreement whether a link to this list can be allowed. What's the reason for removing it? Merci, EPadmirateur 23:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It reads like advertising spam to me. That said, if it can be explained why it's not? and maybe the item worked into the text, we could keep it. --Rocksanddirt 15:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree: this is an encyclopedia article, not a brochure, and a list of "famous Waldorf graduates" and "famous parents" reads like a promotional brochure. The lists do provide a measure of success of graduates (i.e. successful, creative people) and an indication of acceptance of Waldorf in various countries (i.e. prominent members of government, etc. send their children to Waldorf schools), but this is more like a brochure presentation. It would be much better if there were some scholarly analysis of graduates (or parents) that did comparisons with other school systems. --EPadmirateur 16:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. A list of noteworthy people who have attended an educational institution -- or, as in this case, a class of institutions -- is itself noteworthy. To observe Wikipedia precedent for this, I picked the name of a local school and checked out the article to see if alumni were listed: Amherst_College#Notable_alumni. And there is then a pointer to another page: List_of_Amherst_College_people. Is this "advertising spam" for Amherst? Other examples? Well, my own school: California_Institute_of_Technology, see List_of_California_Institute_of_Technology_people. Darn it! I'm not on the list!

Okay, what about a smaller private school? Just picking the first school that came to mind, there is a boarding school I'd heard of in Ojai, California. Looking it up, it was the The_Thacher_School. I didn't see an external reference to a list of alumni, but there is a list in the article itself.

Certainly a reference to an external list is reasonable for the article, particularly given that Wikipedia has actual articles with lists of alumni. I'm undoing the removal, because no cogent reason for removing it has been given. I looked at the list itself (did EPadmirateur?) and it is not a "promotional brochure" for Waldorf Education. --Abd 18:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

ummm, it is promotional it says so in the intro to the list. However if we want to add a "famous alumni section" or a list as a separate article, we could use the site as a source (likely) and make a list of those who are notable enough for a wikipedia article. I don't care for unexplained promotional links in the article. --Rocksanddirt 18:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The list is at [4]. I don't see *anything* in the intro that indicates the list is "promotional." I'm not sure that it would be a disqualification even if it were "promotional." For example, the article Atkins Nutritional Approach links to the company founded by Atkins, which certainly is a promotional web site. AWSNA is linked from the article, the AWSNA site home page is clearly promotional [5]. That a site contains promotional material is not necessarily a disqualification from linking. The list home does link to a page on "motivation," which turns out to be, indeed, a standard human motivation: to show that Waldorf Education does have some alumni who achieve things. "The aim is to reduce prejudice." If this is objectionable as "promotion," so is a great deal that we routinely accept here. People create web pages because they have an interest in the subject. Please show a guideline that indicates this link is improper. I did read Wikipedia:External_links and Wikipedia:Spam. By the way, I have no Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest on this subject, I've been a Waldorf parent and was not particularly thrilled by the experience, but my goal on Wikipedia is for articles to be accurate, informative, NPOV, and, yes, *useful*. Abd 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

While the link is likely fine on an "appropriate external link" sort of criteria (see Hgilberts comments below), I don't care for external links that are not in some what related to thhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waldorf_education&action=submite text. This article has, in my view, to many links on to many subjects, but I'm not going to remove them all, and I'm not going to edit war over the inclusion of this one. But I would like to see it linked into the text somehow. --Rocksanddirt 20:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this issue could be listed as one of the Controversies, that the public impression has been negative and that Waldorf graduates have encountered prejudicial judgments (see the mission statement) but in fact Waldorf graduates are generally successful, creative individuals (reference the list). Then include the list among the links. --EPadmirateur 20:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are verifiable sources for the public impression, whether positive or negative, we could open up such a section. A website claiming either without references is not, IMHO, a verifiable source. Hgilbert 20:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I like how the Amherst College article incorporates a small amount of text "justifying" the list, and then links to a separate page for the list itself. I could also see including something brief about why the list exists (i.e., the negative PR), but then as HGilbert says, we would need another source verifying that PR. If an external link provides some pertinent information then I don't see why it can't' be used, as in the Atkins example above. One thing: if this list was created and is maintained by "a private initiative of German Waldorf alumni" as Mr. Jauernig says, would this be a disallowed source? Would the list need to substantiated by a third party? Seems silly, but we're constrained so much by the arbcom ruling. Henitsirk 02:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the link is relevant to the article even if not specifically mentioned in it. There *could* be a section of the article on notable alumni, and then the list in question could become a reference, but then the matter of "reliable source" becomes relevant. I would consider the list a reliable source on its face, but ... that could be challenged. It is edited, it is not a wiki as one editor suggests below; however, we know little or nothing about its standards for verification. And I consider it totally unnecessary to get into that issue. A link need not consist only of reliably sourced information. Rather, we should take this list at its face value: it is an effort by Waldorf alumni to compile a list of notable Waldorf alumni. There is no reason to expect that this would be biased.

The arbcomm ruling has no application here with respect to this link. It is a stretch to consider a web site created by alumni of Waldorf Schools to be an "Anthroposophic" institution with a conflict of interest. There seems to be some opinion here that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Verifiability applies to the Waldorf Alumni site. I would personally consider that site to be prima facie evidence that a particular person was, in fact, a Waldorf alumna or alumnus. The site is credible, and there is no reason to suspect its accuracy. But as far as the link is concerned, we need not establish that the site is a reliable source in that respect; if we were considering putting names in the article based on inclusion on that list, I'd say that we would probably want to see the same sources that the list used, but we are not putting those names in the article itself. It's just a link, folks! --Abd 03:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources, however, does apply to this link if we are going to do anything other than external link it. And it fails that as a self published original research bit of information. And based on the discussion that led up to the arbitration guidelines and subsequent clarifications....it would count as an "anthroposophic institution," simply because the editor/author stated that he was not antagonistic to the Waldorf education movement. --Rocksanddirt 04:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a gray area whether a web list compiled through edited contributions from informants is a reliable source or not (would it matter if they published a print edition?), but this is not the time to test the limits of "reliable source" policy. It's *moot*. Before I wrote what I wrote about the arbcomm decision, I *did* read it.... the source does *not* fall within the definition of an anthroposophic institution, and the reason given by Rocksanddirt, I must suspect, was garbled. Did he really intend to claim that any institution with an editor is an anthroposophic institution because the editor is "not antagonistic" to Waldorf education. Wouldn't this disqualify just about any newspaper with a non-hostile editor? I'd suggest to Rocksanddirt that he give it up. He goofed. Meanwhile, trying to figure out why and following the footprints I found lots of interesting stuff that isn't relevant here, he's got his fingers in a lot of pies, pies far more important than a single link in this article that should not even be controversial: it is relevant, it is not objectionable, it does not violate an arbcomm ruling or any other policy that I've been able to find, plus it is *useful*. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 04:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted my comments. What I mean is that several of the participants in the arbitration argued the point that any reference that was clearly "pro waldorf" or "pro anthroposophy" should not be allowed. Obviously this is not a real position to take to create an encyclopedia that is from a neutral point of view. The link proposed is clearly in favor of waldorf education. The link is clearly original research, and not part of what is usually called a reliable source (peer reviewed academic journals, mainstream newspapers and magazines that have and excersise full control over what they print, and similar), unless I missread what the author/editor of the list said he prepared. And what I'm concerned about is it being used by folks with a POV (on either "side") to push for either more restrictions or unacceptable other sources. As I said, it likely is fine for an external link, I just don't care for external links that arn't also part of the text. Lastly, please comment on content not on editors. --Rocksanddirt 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) While I did peruse the comments made in the arbitration, an arbitration does not necessarily decide every issue raised by participants. Nothing in the *conclusions* of the arbitration supports the view that a source is ipso facto prohibited because it can be alleged to be "pro waldorf." Rather, the arbitration conclusions were tighter than that. Lest it be assumed that I am wiki lawyering, the *substance* here is that links like this or information like this is routinely allowed, and it is not controversial. Sworn enemies of Waldorf education would be rather foolish to assume fake lists of notable graduates, given that it would be pretty easy to spot fraud. People, especially famous people, often Google their own name or have a google watch set up. It wouldn't last long! Then, if we can agree on the substance, is nevertheless this linking prohibited from an arbcomm ruling? There are several sections of the arbcomm ruling that might be alleged to apply:

Verifiability 3) 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.

In this case we are not including "information" in the article beyond a link. The link is to information that is *in substance* not controversial. Nobody has alleged, here, that the listings, the substance of the linked site, are controversial. It's a list! And it is not argumentative. Given the manner in which it appears that it is being created -- it is not a wiki as Rocksanddirt alleged, it is an edited site compiled from email submissions, notability is checked according to the site, and I suspect that facts are as well -- and given the considerations I have mentioned about fraud in listing, I'd say it could be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, *but* I am not suggesting that it be so used, and it would certainly be better that if any Waldorf graduates are going to be listed in the article, they be independently verified. Given that the article should not mention more than a very few of these, if any at all, there is no issue we need to resolve at this time. The list of publishers given as examples of those "deeply involved in the movement" was clearly written to refer to COI editors, so the extension of this to anything done by any student at a Waldorf school is a bit of a stretch. In this case, "verifiability" would refer to verifying that the link is actually to what it claims to be: a list of Waldorf alumni. Which any of us can verify trivially. If it were a link to a site defaming Waldorf education, or to one engaged in puffery about it, then there might be an issue here. But that is not the case. The removal of the link was an error, it is that simple.

Conflict of interest 4) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, strongly discourages editing regarding an organization by those associated with the organization, especially in a public relations capacity. As applied to this matter, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applies to those persons 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.

This does not apply to the link, nor to the editor who placed the link here originally, and though the link could be seen as "promoting" a web site, and it seems the link was indeed placed by the editor of that site, I see the placement as an attempt to be helpful, and that editor did not attempt to revert it back, but instead, joined discussion here. It could have been anyone who placed it, it was relevant, not POV, and I replaced the link and thereby became responsible for it myself. I have posted material to a PLANS mailing list, in the past. Does this make me "associated with PLANS." I have also posted material to Waldorf lists. Does that make me "associated with Waldorf schools"? I think not. I have no assertable Conflict of Interest and no axe to grind. I have criticisms of Waldorf education that have *nothing* to do with the matter of this link, and I would not dream of using this article to voice those criticisms. Only if I had something encyclopedic to contribute on the matter of criticism would I venture into that. In this case, I'm intervening simply because I edited this article once, apparently, a long time ago, and so it ended up on my watch list and I became curious about what was going on. I also have a bit of a bug about editors who go about "cleaning up" the encyclopedia by removing material for pedantic or nit-picking reasons; some of these contribute very little useful content. Sure, material contrary to policy should be removed, but there are ways to do it which were not followed. And this link was not contrary to policy.

(This comment about "editors" is a general one, and I'm concerned about the problem because I have often seen legitimate material removed by such editors; the harm that this does is serious. In the long run, the article is not so much harmed as is the editor community, because, if the material is legitimate, it is likely to eventually come back. I've seen what happens when a new editor works to put some material in and then it is reverted out by someone based on alleged policy violations, with no consideration shown for the feelings of the new editor, with no suggestions for how to proceed or information about the alleged violation, and often no Talk. Frankly, it's rude and it harms the community. The editor here may or may not match that description.

Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and related articles 1) Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and related articles contain large amounts of original research and information gathered from Anthroposophical related sources which are for verification purposes properly considered self-published by the Anthroposophy movement.

This is not an "Antroposophical related source" within the meaning of the arbitration. Anthroposophy is not officially taught at Waldorf Schools; some teachers are Anthroposophists and some are not. Schools vary in the degree to which they are influenced by anthroposophy; public Waldorf schools are, except quite indirectly, very little influenced. The site is a *list* of Waldorf graduates. This has *nothing* to do with Anthroposophy, it is about *fact*. Did a notable person attend the school? End of question.

By the standard being proposed, Wikipedia would not link to any web site that was not simply a mirror of a "reliable source (peer reviewed academic journals, mainstream newspapers and magazines that have and exercise full control over what they print, and similar)". Besides the fact that the linked site does have editorial review of content, it "exercises full control over it," this is setting the same standard for links as for actual content inserted into Wikipedia, which is *not* what is policy. I'm claiming here that the site in question could be considered as a reliable source, it is not *clearly outside* that, but, again, this is not the issue here and it is not necessary to resolve it. What is the issue is the use of links to a site such as the one in question, when the subject matter of the linked site is, by precedent from other schools, clearly legitimate content, usable here (excepting an argument about "reliable source," though nothing has been alleged which would make the site in question "not reliable.").

From Wikipedia:External Links"

This page is considered a style guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page.

The removal of the link should have been discussed in Talk before it was taken out. If it was going to be taken out prior to discussion, the fact and reasons should have been given in Talk at the same time as the removal. --Abd 17:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not completely divorced from this discussion because my niece will be attending a Steiner school. Still, I am fairly impartial even as an uncle, I respect the content of Wikipedia more than I care for my personal bias. So let me get down to the core issue. I would like a section on successful graduates as it helps me form an opinion of this alternative schooling method. Make the inclusion in no way advertising related, instead have a succinct description of their complete activities, which is what I was looking for in the first place, especially inclusive of successful alumni. Please restore this section, let those who are unbiased take care of whether it is succinct or accurate. Thanks to everyone who attempts to make this a better article, your contributions are very much appreciated by this uncle. Nazlfrag (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion vs religious sect

I think the wording that was recently introduced is better, that is, to say "cult-like 'Steiner based' religious sect" rather than "cult-like religion", because this is closer to the first reference (requires free registration or search via Google) which said "calling Waldorf an offshoot of a 'cult-like religious sect' " and also to the PLANS press release at the time which said "Waldorf education is a missionary activity of Anthroposophy, a cult-like religious sect". The second reference is less accurate by characterizing "the Waldorf educational movement is rooted in a New Age, cultlike religion called anthroposophy". I think the previous edit should be restored. We can also add (where possible) these links to the articles in the respective references. --EPadmirateur (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

definition of anthroposophy in introduction

The definition of anthroposophy doesn't seem to belong to the first paragraph of the introduction; first Waldorf education should be described before another theme is brought in. It is obviously relevant, but I wonder if this is the right place for it? It already is covered in a later section. I will try simplifying it to "Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy," which gives the reader who is unfamiliar with the latter term the chance to link to the article. Hgilbert (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the earlier introductory paragraph with the extensive definition of anthroposophy was a bit unbalanced. There is a description and link to the Anthroposophical view of the human being in the first section (on the pedagogy) and then later an entire section on the role of anthroposophy. Nazamo's point was that "most people would not be familiar with the term" anthroposophy, but the link is there if they need help. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

POV and OR "Reception by mainstream educationalists"

Making a list of approving quotes and titling the section "Reception by mainstream educationalists" is great advertising. Though OR and NPOV might be applied to make a bettter encyclopaedia. Will be removing unless fellow editor/s can demonsrate compliance with WP policies. SmithBlue (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On reading through the article I find the section 'Studies" also appears to be a collection of studies that reflect totally positively on Waldorf education. Why were these particular studies chosen? Has WP:WEIGHT been applied? Maybe there is no research or reliable overview that shows any failings in Waldorf? Seems hard to believe but is possible? SmithBlue (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's because the article is controlled by anthroposophists. They sound polite but they'll claw your eyes out sooner than allow a critical perspective its place in this article.DianaW (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Several studies cite negatives that are accurately reported in the article: especially the UK study and the Waldorf schools survey (e.g. "classroom management", "insular colleges of teachers", "need to improve diversity"). The criterion applied was simple: All available studies were included. The same criterion has been applied to the quotes: commentary by mainstream educationalists was included regardless of content. The two sections are meant to accurately reflect the views of the mainstream academic community about Waldorf education. If there are further sources that meet arbitration guidelines, let's add these to balance or extend the existing citations. Hgilbert (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

From "Steiner Schools in England", 4.1.3 Social justice issues, I read of;

Golden's research finding "... stories ... are embedded “within patriarchy”, ...., the male, and male hierarchy, appear as the norm in stories, ... on the basis of interviews with children, stories are interpreted in ways that reinforce gender stereotypes,

McDermott explained that it was important “to consider the possibility that some naïve forms of racism are endemic to those who embrace anthroposophy without a strong critical sense for the real possibility that Steiner’s speculations about the racial organization of culture and consciousness were wrong”,

and, from the report itself, "The research question is whether Steiner schools in practice, ... help towards overcoming unjust social distinctions and cultural hierarchies, or whether (perhaps unconsciously) they reinforce or exacerbate them."

Wikipedia editor Hgilbert says all available studies are used - doesnt appear to be the case? And the negative content of the Woods studies about social justice issues appears to be missing from here. I note that "perceptions" of Waldorf positive educationalists are included whereas Woods' questioning/troublesome material from educationalists is ommitted. SmithBlue (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

All of the studies you mention are included already, friend. McDermott published two articles based upon his study of the Milwaukee schole, one in an anthroposophic publication; this article was explicitly excluded by the arbitration proceedings. But his Urban Review article is cited no less than 9 times in the article already! The DFES study is also already included in the article, with an extensive paragraph quoting a range of results.

The Woods/McDermott article includes a variety of points about the school's treatment of race, for example:

• "We also got a sense that it is a place where the contradictions of competition, crass consumerism, and racism can stand up and demand that they be tended to and confronted."
• "It points to necessary conversations among faculty, parents, and the Waldorf movement about the extent to which the "whole-child" philosophy of Waldorf education includes attention to the racial and ethnic identities of the children."
• "While the path is sometimes fraught with confrontation, struggle, and uncomfortable silence, the Urban Waldorf faculty has a commendable level of engagement with the difficulties of racism."
• "Given the origin of Waldorf in early-20th-century Germany and its present in a class-biased and color-racist America, Waldorf educators need to work incessantly to clean their approach of unsuspected biases. For instance, with regard to race, a naive version of the evolution of consciousness, a theory foundational to both Steiner's anthroposophy and Waldorf education, sometimes places one race below another in one or another dimension of development."

How does one neutrally sum up the section? Perhaps you have a suggestion. The present summary of this section (only one of many in the report, all of which should receive equal treatment) is "The report also discussed the challenge of meeting societal racism and unsuspected biases of teachers and students in modern-day America:[10] The researchers noted that teachers "have found a way to put respect for the children before other considerations", and that the school was attempting to combat racism." I'll add "and anthroposophy and Waldorf education's underlying theory of the evolution of consciousness which "sometimes places one race below another in one or another dimension of development"" Hgilbert (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I found the reference to the Golden study in the DFES report...it was a study of a single school and was relativized as such within the DFES report: "This is just one, small-scale study which requires testing and replication by other researchers in other contexts," but it could be included in the article under studies of individual schools if you can find the name of the original school studied. Note that the DFES study is 208 pages long and there's a tremendous amount there not included in the article, for example this: "Cox and Rowlands (2000: 501), reflecting on their findings which show Steiner school pupils displaying more developed creative and artistic abilities, suggest that it is not just a case of giving more time to art but that “the crucial factor may be teachers’ attitude” and their better understanding of the wider educational value of artistic activity." The challenge is how to find the essence of such a monumental work. Part 5, the "Findings", might be the best place to look. Hgilbert (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to the above questioning of the selection of studies reported in the article, I am going through the DFES (British government agency) report's list of studies on Steiner/Waldorf education and ensuring that all possible are accurately and effectively represented. However, I am leaving out:

• studies only published within the Waldorf movement (as per arbitration), and
• A study showing less bullying in Waldorf schools (Rivers and Soutter, "Bullying and the Steiner School Ethos", School Psychology International, v. 17, p. 359-77) because the DFES report comments that, despite the robust data, there is a lack of comparable data for maintained schools.
• Very interesting-sounding studies on school rituals (Mary Henry, "School rituals...", International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 5 (4):295-309, 1992) and Steiner education's contribution to spiritual education (Woods et. al, "Spiritual Values in Education: Lessons from Steiner", International Journal of Children's Spirituality 2(2); 25-40) - because I can't get my hands on the originals or an abstract and the DFES summaries are too diffuse for me to mine effectively. Hgilbert (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are the two abstracts, such as they are: Henry, School Rituals as Educational Contexts and Woods, Spiritual Values in Education. You can use scholar.google.com to find article references, abstracts and citations (sometimes on-line reprints as well).

I would say that the Rivers and Soutter paper is a valid source and can be included, with an accompanying caveat as stated from the DFES report. The authors claim they "find a very low level of bullying despite the fact that many pupils came to the school because they had been victimized elsewhere", so the basis for concluding "less bullying" are the comparable experiences of many of the very students in their study: the students themselves experienced less bullying. --EPadmirateur (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Rivers and Soutter paper covers one school, I believe...if you feel it worth putting in, do so. The abstracts don't inspire me to add anything to this article, but if someone else wishes to, go ahead! Hgilbert (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that choosing what to include is very difficult. Are you sure that the Arb Comm have decided to ban some content of a British government report? SmithBlue (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I refer here to McDermott's solo paper: "possibility ... some naïve forms of racism are endemic". SmithBlue (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see only the ArbComm restricting "self-published" material - the British gov Woods report does not fall into this category. Which seems to make McDermott's question available. However it would need to be balanced with material on rascist attitudes in nonWaldorf schools I think. SmithBlue (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The British gov't report is an excellent source, as I said above. I wasn't referring to this but to McDermott's paper in an anthroposophical journal; what of this is referenced in the British report is of course available for citation here. His paper in Urban Review is directly available as a source and might be preferable for this reason. In any case, I did put in the following quote from the Urban Review article: Waldorf education's underlying theory of the evolution of consciousness which "sometimes places one race below another in one or another dimension of development" but if you want to replace it with the quotation you mention above feel free.

I agree that any significant statement would have to compare various schools. I'm not clear that material on racist attitudes in non-Waldorf schools is directly relevant to this article, except for comparative studies, of course. One of the latter is represented already: a Swedish study that found less incidence of student racism in Waldorf schools. Hgilbert (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthroposophical sources

Forgive me if this is obvious, but I can't find it. Where does the arbitration ruling say that Steiner cannot be quoted? We have been working with this notion for quite some time, but I don't see where the ruling says that. Doesn't the article on Philosophy of Freedom need either substantial editing, then, or complete deletion? There are many articles on wikipedia about individuals that naturally quote the individuals in question, not always at length, but there doesn't seem to be any requirement that, for instance, an article on Mary Baker Eddy can't quote Mary Baker Eddy, or an article on Mark Twain can't quote Mark Twain.DianaW (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

See this section of the arbitration. The ruling was that anthroposophically published sources may be used as citations for non-controversial, just not for controversial topics. The Philosophy of Freedom article cites only sources published by non-anthroposophical publishing houses. :(Note: I moved the above comment by DianaW from the middle of another editor's comments, where it had been inserted originally.) Hgilbert (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere does this say that Rudolf Steiner cannot be quoted. Actual quotes by Rudolf Steiner are in the category of not controversial - I can't recall a single instance where anyone working on these articles has actually disputed whether Rudolf Steiner said a particular thing. The interpretation is often disputed - where or when has it actually been controversial what Steiner said? Can you point to any instances of this? I could imagine perhaps where a translation is disputed, but I don't recall that coming up here at all. On what basis did you decide that the arbitration ruling forbade us to quote Rudolf Steiner?

It is not correct that the POF article "cites only sources published by nonanthroposophical publishing houses." It cites Rudolf Steiner. Yet you are claiming other Steiner-related articles cannot do this, per your self-serving interpretation of the ruling.

The arbitration ruling also says the following, which seems pretty clear: "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, strongly discourages editing regarding an organization by those associated with the organization, especially in a public relations capacity. As applied to this matter, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applies to those persons 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." That actually states, Hgilbert, that you are strongly discouraged from editing these articles at all, unless perhaps you've recently quit your job as a Waldorf teacher. Somehow, that part of the arbitration ruling doesn't seem to have slowed you down much these past months.DianaW (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A relevant section may be "Final Decision/Principles/Verifiability :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." Which may restrict us to Steiner quotes from other sources than his own books? - a strange situation. SmithBlue (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a strange situation, and doesn't fit tidily into the regualar guidelines and policies for en.wikipedia. That said, the problem with using lots of quotes from Steiner is the original research that goes on to explain them. as a side note, I'm glad to see that dianaw is back involved in wikipedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The only way that ruling would mean Steiner couldn't be quoted would be if *what Steiner actually said* was controversial, in other words whether the quotes were accurate. I'm not aware of any controversies about whether quotes attributed to Rudolf Steiner are accurate - if that situation arose, we could then apply the guideline. The arbitration ruling doesn't suggest that there is a total ban on quoting Rudolf Steiner, in fact it is an absurd situation that has prevailed for nearly a year here. It is doubtful Steiner advocates here would give this up without reopening the arbitration case, however, and that is their strategy here - dogged determination to wear down ideological opponents. Hgilbert puts in countless hours here, and he tireth not.

At present Steiner advocates are getting away with having this different ways in different articles depending on what suits them - they're quoting him right and left in various articles where nobody is present who's aware of the arbitration rulings, and they can quote various noble-sounding Steiner pronouncements. When critics want to quote bits of Steiner that don't sound so good, like his bigoted notions about blacks and Jews, suddenly we're not allowed to quote Rudolf Steiner, "Fred Bauder said." Oh, and thanks rocks and dirt.DianaW (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few examples of the numerous Rudolf Steiner-related articles on wikipedia that presently quote Rudolf Steiner:

"Philosophy of Freedom":

'A moral misunderstanding, a clash, is out of the question between people who are morally free. Only one who is morally unfree, who obeys bodily instincts or conventional demands of duty, turns away from a fellow human being if the latter does not obey the same instincts and demands as himself.'

'Live through deeds of love, and let others live with understanding for each person's unique intentions.'

(The "POF" article actually has a whole "Quotations" section.)

From the "Eurythmy" article:

'It is the task of Anthroposophy to bring a greater depth, a wider vision and a more living spirit into the other forms of art. But the art of Eurythmy could only grow up out of the soul of Anthroposophy; could only receive its inspiration through a purely Anthroposophical conception.' - Rudolf Steiner [8]

Finally check out this gem:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Foundation_Stone_Meditation

That "article" is nothing less than an actual piece written by Rudolf Steiner, posted on Wikipedia in its entirety as if it were a reasonable wikipedia entry.

So much for not quoting Rudolf Steiner LOL! This has sure been interesting! Hgilbert is strangely untroubled by these particular violations of the arbitration rulings.

It's worth a wander round here seeing the unbelievable jungle of Steiner-related articles that wikipedia now plays host to; literally dozens of articles here are in violation of these "rules," which Hgilbert pedantically enforces only where they are useful to him in silencing people who wish that the more unflattering remarks of Rudolf Steiner had equal air time.DianaW (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the main article on Rudolf Steiner now includes this quote in its opener:

"Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, to guide the spiritual in the human being to the spiritual in the universe…. Anthroposophists are those who experience, as an essential need of life, certain questions on the nature of the human being and the universe, just as one experiences hunger and thirst."[5]

and I would like to say that this is certainly controversial material - that's a quite sycophantish definition of who/what is an anthroposophist; do anthroposophists think they are the only people in the universe who ask basic questions about the nature of the human and the universe?DianaW (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And further down the page we find the Steiner quote: "The being of Christ is central to all religions, though called by different names by each. Every religion is valid and true for the time and cultural context in which it was born. Historical forms of Christianity need to be transformed considerably in our times in order to meet the on-going evolution of humanity."

Need I note that these statements are controversial? The being of Christ is obviously not central to all religions; how absurd.DianaW (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is tiresome; Diana, you were present for the arbitration and should have followed it then. This is a typical quote from Fred Bauder, the arbitrator most centrally involved: "I also notice that these articles, despite the article probation, rely heavily on anthroposophy-published documents as sources, in spite of the arbitration ruling determining that they should be removed. Documents originating with anthroposophy, the Waldorf foundation, or Rudolph Stiener are not acceptable as sources either for claims that Waldorf is good, or for claims that Waldorf is bad. Things ranging from the complex (whether Steiner was racist) to the simple (whether Waldorf schools discourage parental communication) can not be sourced to primary documents. They are not considered reliable sources for several reasons. Generally if you are using Waldorf materials to describe the benefits etc., you run afoul of the self-serving limits of the reliable source policy, and if you are citing Waldorf documents to "prove" they have problems, you are violating the "interpreting primary sources to draw a conclusion is original research" limitation." See Talk:Rudolf_Steiner/Archive_3#Last_chance. The criteria are clear; if one is trying to present a case that Waldorf/Steiner/eurythmy/etc. is good or bad, the source must be an independent, peer-reviewed, reliable source.

If you want to ask Fred Bauder whether he considers the Steiner quotation in the introduction to the anthroposophy article controversial, go ahead. His previous decisions have been that if something drawn from internal sources is not controversial, it can be cited. This corresponds with Wikipedia policy generally. And I know of no one contesting that anthroposophy is about what Steiner says it is about there. Wikisource material is not encyclopedia text; it is source material.

The further "quotations" you list are not quotations from Steiner; they are not quotations at all, in fact; note that they are not enclosed in quotation marks. That portion of the article is based upon an independent, peer-reviewed source (Willman) cited in the footnote at the end of the text.

There is, however, a Steiner quotation further down in that section of the article, about spiritual science not wanting to take the place of Christianity. If you want to contest this, you have the right to present a case that this is somehow controversial. To make this case more plausible, it would help to have some sort of countervailing view, expressed by someone somewhere, preferably in print. Hgilbert (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"This is tiresome, Diana" - that's your tough luck.

"Documents originating with anthroposophy, the Waldorf foundation, or Rudolph Stiener are not acceptable as sources either for claims that Waldorf is good, or for claims that Waldorf is bad." Exactly, hgilbert. "As sources for claims that Waldorf is good or bad." Not as sources for, well, simply sources of what Steiner said. What better source for what Steiner said is there than Steiner? It is quite clear from even the material you have chosen to quote here that Bauder never meant to imply that Rudolf Steiner could never be quoted in articles on Rudolf Steiner.

"If you want to ask Fred Bauder whether he considers the Steiner quotation in the introduction to the anthroposophy article controversial, go ahead." - that's my point, - it's not controversial that Steiner said that, so there's no reason not to quote it. Hello?

Why do you post absurd lies denying that there are Steiner quotes in the other articles? The quotes I posted are INDEED Steiner quotes.

I guess overall you're agreeing with me; there is no reason we can't quote Steiner here. Onwards!DianaW (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason not to quote Steiner on any topic that is not controversial. We were repeatedly asked to remove such quotes relating to controversial topics, and to use third-party, reliable sources instead. Please reread the above and other arbitration review materials. Hgilbert (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't give me advice on what to read or re-read, please; it's meant to intimidate and imply you know better than I do, and it doesn't work on me, nor is it particularly "civil."DianaW (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Both of you knock it off - this sort of talking past one another is what lead to the arbitration that caused you both a fair bit of heartburn in the first place. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Let's get back to work. Hgilbert (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

DianaW: Are you bringing this here in order to discuss the Waldorf Education article? Are there Steiner quotes you think should appear here?

My 2 cents on the Steiner quote issue: I think it's OK to quote Steiner if you're saying in the surrounding text "Here's what Steiner said about topic X." I think it's not OK to quote Steiner if you're saying in the surrounding text "Here's something great/special/redeeming/racist/sexist/something controversial, and the proof is that Steiner said X." This seems to be exactly what Fred Bauder said in the quote above by Hgilbert. It seems to be a safe way to approach this.

An example for this article would be something like: "Steiner believed Waldorf education would achieve X. 'Steiner quote stating X.'" That is a statement of fact about what Steiner said. It is not stating anything judgmental or interpretive. What would NOT be appropriate would be "Waldorf schools produce superior human beings: 'Steiner quote.'" Henitsirk (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To-do box

I have removed the to-do box as it has no longer been in active use for some time. To put it back, insert {{todo}} Hgilbert (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

spam?

a link was added today, that looks like advertising spam to me. I am removing it. If anyone has a reason to keep it, please revert me. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

new info

The following bit was added to the section on South Africa

• The Imhoff Waldorf School in Kommetjie, South Africa has a successful program running where economically disadvantaged pupils are able to apply for sponsorship for their education and school fees. To date they boast 14% of the pupil body to be sponsored. The goal is 25%.

It seems lovely, but we need a real reference for it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Here is more information that supports this program as different from most tuition assistance or financial aid programs. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a school has a tuition reduction program is not noteworthy; most schools have such a program. I am removing this entry from the list. Hgilbert (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, nor are tuition assitance or reduction programs covered by third parties generally (the standard for inclusion). I just didn't want to delete it out of hand without giving a chance for there to be a ref for it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is different from most tuition reduction or assistance programs in that it seeks sponsorship of children from the poverty areas around the school through:

• extra, voluntary contributions from other parents to the sponsorship fund
• a sponsorship committee that helps raise funds, including finding outside sponsors.

I think this is quite different from simply reducing tuition or using income from an endowment. Here is more information that supports this program as different. I think this link deserves to be included because the program is unique and fits in the section on "Intercultural links in socially polarized communities". --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am the person who originally added this. Forgive me, I am new to editing Wikipedia and don't wish to stand on any toes here. If I could just add my 2 cents worth... What makes this program different is that we at the school (I am a parent at Imhoff Waldorf School) are doing a little more than just having a tuition program. Having being out of the Apartheid government in South Africa for a more than a decade now, we are experiencing a tremendous backlash with respect to the "haves" and the "have nots". There is huge disparity here between those that were allowed the opportunity of an education and those that weren't - because of their skin colour! Now the subject of the heading under questions is: Intercultural links in socially polarized communities. Our sponsorship program is helping to give those that were affected by apartheid the most an opportunity to enjoy an education that is not available to them under their circumstances. The school is funded entirely by the fees of the parent body and receives no government financial help at all. The funds for this sponsorship programme is drawn both from the the parent school fees and from private individual sponsorship directly to individual children. The programme is aimed at directly giving back to those who are in some cases severely disadvantaged and in most cases certainly previously disadvantaged (by apartheit). This is, in my opinion an attempt at polarizing a previously unpolarized community very much along intercultural lines... There is no written reference to this that I am aware of other than the link offered above by EPadmirateur, but that does not make it any less true! :-) -- adk42 —Preceding comment was added at 14:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it sounds like a great and different sort of program. Then entire challenge is third party reliable sources. we cannot have information here that is not 'verifiable' in that way. wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifability. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Aid the unfolding of the child's destiny, overarching goal

The recent edit by User:Svetovid removed the phrase "and to aid every child in the unfolding of his or her unique destiny" with the reference to "McDermott_etal". The original sentence was: "The education's overarching goal is to provide young people the basis with which to develop into free, moral[7] and integrated individuals[8][9][2] and to aid every child in the unfolding of his or her unique destiny.[10]" I'm curious what the McDermott_etal reference says specifically that supports the statement that a goal of Waldorf education is to aid the unfolding of the child's unique destiny. Can anyone provide the specific wording? Merci, EPadmirateur (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The original phrasing of the Urban Review article was "The children and their background seem to be treated with respect. The school emphasizes not just standard cognitive learning, but character development in preparation for taking one's place as an educated citizen. Our vague sense is that this makes a great difference. In anthroposophy, each child is understood to have a special destiny, and it is the school's business to make the most of it.."

The phrase "overarching" goal is supported by a third-party analysis, not an internal document; i.e. there is no support given here that the education claims to have this goal, only that others have pointed out that it does have this goal. I have replaced the original phrasing. Hgilbert (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also replaced the destiny passage, as this has recently come up for discussion elsewhere. Hgilbert (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is simply unencyclopaedic.
The term destiny is ambiguous and the claim can hardly be objectively substantiated.
When some author says Elvis was the best singer in history, you can't just insert it into his article as a fact.--Svetovid (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid, I think it's reasonable to include statements that seem "ambiguous" or subjective, if the surrounding text is clear that "this is what the person/group believes", and not "this is substantiated, empirical fact". Destiny, or karma, is an important concept in anthroposophy and Waldorf education. Whether the reality of karma can be objectively substantiated is not the subject of this article. Henitsirk (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The article states that it is a goal of the education to support the child's unfolding destiny; this is a reasonable claim and is supported by a verifiable source. Destiny may be an ambiguous term but there is nothing ambiguous about this being a goal of Waldorf education. Hgilbert (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As a compromise, perhaps this sentence could have a qualifier added: According to proponents, the education's overarching goal is to provide young people the basis on which to develop into free, moral[7] and integrated individuals,[8][9][2] and to aid every child in the unfolding of his or her unique destiny.[10] Or something similar. After all, what is being cited regarding destiny is that according to anthroposophy, "each child is understood to have a special destiny." A thought, EPadmirateur (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

These are not proponents being cited, but independent studies that state this is the goal/aim. We should be accurate about our sources.

Destiny is a separate topic; I have made this into a link to the destiny page, where the views about this should be clarified. I have also added a second reference (and can add more) to support the point made. Hgilbert (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

npov tag

An ip editor put an NPOV tag on the article with the internal comment "no criticism?". While there is no criticism section there are the available reliably sourced critical information in many sections. I have removed the tag, but would invite discussion on the issue if there are editors who feel we need to reevaluate the criticism issue. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are to be avoided according to WP:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure and WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure but all viewpoints need to be represented. I think one problem is that a lot of the criticism is not supported by reliable sources. It would be good to enumerate the criticisms that are embedded in the article, for example in the reception and controversy section. Also I think it would be quite good to look to specific criticisms that are not represented in the article and see how they can be incorporated without violating the rules of the arbitration ruling, for example, the controversy over the racial ethnography block in some Dutch schools. --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current way is fine (prefereable really). I was under the impression that noone has found reliable sources for additional criticisms (especially quite specific ones' like you mention). To be honest, I have not looked very hard for any additional sources for this article and am unlikely to have much time or inclination to do so either (unless there seems to be some good reasons to do it). So, unless anyone else has an opinion, I'm going to consider the matter dropped. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd call it a "drive-by" tagging. Still happening today. I'm reverting to support Rocksanddirt, not necessarily to claim that there are no problems with the article. If the IP editor wants that tag to stick, he or she is going to have to explain it and point to something specific. The IP editor could, for example, review the article History and Talk and see if criticism has been improperly removed, and restore it, or point to some reliable source for criticism, etc. Just replacing the tag without some detail is not acceptable. I'm sure there is some criticism with reliable source; for example the PLANS lawsuit can be cited, or coverage or analysis of it. That would have to be attributed, and if there are issues over this, I'd be happy to assist, ask me on my Talk page. --Abd (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have to, another editor reverted it. And if this keeps up, I could take it to AN/I and the IP could be blocked. By the way, I'm probably more of a critic of Waldorf education than a supporter, but, hey, this is an encyclopedia. I'm just not personally exercised right now to work on the article. Other stuff, you know. One comment, though, Steiner would like. NPOV is indeed the product of integrating, into a single "narrative," apparently opposing points of view. When we can see something from two points of view at the same time (Steiner would call this "affinity" and "aversion"), we get depth perception. He called it "higher consciousness."--Abd (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree. The issue here is sources. Due to the unpleasantess of a year - year and half a go, the sourcing requirements for these articles are a bit tighter than normal 'reliable source' criteria. In a normal article, we could you the 'Renewal' Journal of the ASWANA for some things (especially about how waldorf education in the US presents itself), but since it's a movement published journal we can't. And since nearly all critial matter is either in such journals of national associations or forum/blog posts at 'attack' sites, we have very little sourced criticism, which leads to articles that are less neutral than they probably should be. Appearantly someone did block the ip's in question, I don't know if they are disruptive enough for that, however these recent ip's seem to have been evaluated as 'evading arb topic ban'. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Rocksanddirt wrote: "these recent ip's seem to have been evaluated as 'evading arb topic ban'". Yes, it seems they've been "evaluated" that way. If anyone is aware of when/where/how this was determined, and can find evidence of this or even anyone bothering to make a CLAIM or even post a HINT about what that evidence might be, it would be a service to post it here. Otherwise the very clear impression an objective person would gain is that the IP was blocked on no rationale other than other editors don't like what he or she was posting. If there was really some evidence, why would all the questions about it be ignored? What would be so hard about posting that evidence? The user (Shalom) who supposedly "evaluated" this ignored all my questions. The vague notion that the IP is in the same (enormous) region of the country as a previously banned user, and blocking an unknown person for this flimsy excuse, really makes wikipedia procedures a joke.DianaW (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Links to Waldorf homeschooling

So what links are acceptable as external links for Waldorf homeschooling? How about these two non-commercial resources:

• The Future of Waldorf Homeschooling article by Barbara Dewey, published by The Peridot and re-published by Mother's Nature web site
• Waldorf homeschooling resource directory by Waldorf Family Network web site

Perhaps there should be a new section in this article on the subject. Or should there be a separate article on Waldorf homeschooling with links to homeschooling and alternative education? --EPadmirateur (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Those look much better than the previous links, which were arguably spam. Hgilbert (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Omit Sound Circle Teacher Training Center?

Is this a valid and recognized Waldorf teacher training center? Even though "David-Michael and Glenda are no longer in Seattle"? This center is currently listed as an "AWSNA Developing Institute" by the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America. It has what appears to be a bona fide Board of Trustees and faculty and appears to be offering a bona fide on-going Waldorf teacher training program. So why can't this program be listed among the teacher training external links? It certainly appears still to be in operation despite the claim "IT'S NOT THERE ANY MORE!" I don't understand.... --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, it seems to be there. revert the removal. just because the founders moved on doesn't mean the center fell apart. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledge sources

The actual sources used in the article are third-party and peer-reviewed studies of the education. Thus, it is more correct to say that the education is how they describe it, than that "proponents" (whom the article does not cite) describe it this way. We are not looking at how proponents describe it, we are looking at how it is described by objective reviewers. In case of conflicting descriptions (show that this is the case) it would be better, of course, to write that some reviewers/studies have described it as being this way. Otherwise, we are using verifiable sources that describe a phenomenon and should accept their descriptions as accurate unless there are reasonable grounds to doubt this (e.g. conflicts between studies).

Similarly, that it is the aim of the education to nurture children's destiny has been established with reference to verifiable sources. This is true whether or not they have such a destiny; this is a philosophical argument that doesn't belong in an education article.

There is a distinction between independent academic sources and proponents. The material sourced here is explicitly not from Waldorf sources, but from independent studies. Wording should reflect this. Hgilbert (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"The education's claimed goal..." - 1) this is simply misleading, as it is not internal sources that are cited, but (three!) independent analyses from verifiable sources. 2) The phrasing contradicts the policy on weasel words. Hgilbert (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources for the goal are:

• 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
• Peter Schneider, Einführung in die Waldorfpädogogik, Klett-Cotta 1987, ISBN 3-608-93006-X
• Armon, Joan, "The Waldorf Curriculum as a Framework for Moral Education: One Dimension of a Fourfold System.",
• Abstract), Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24-28, 1997), p. 1
• Ronald V. Iannone, Patricia A. Obenauf, "Toward Spirituality in Curriculum and Teaching", page 737, Education, Vol 119 Issue 4, 1999
• Thomas William Nielsen, Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy Of Imagination: A Case Study Of Holistic Education, Peter Lang Pub Inc 2004 ISBN 3039103423

These are all peer-reviewed authors independent of the Waldorf movement. Hgilbert (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"These are all peer-reviewed authors independent of the Waldorf movement." Can you back that statement up? Anyway, since there are critics, the goal cannot be stated as universal.--Svetovid (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite a (verifiable) source that disputes the point or suggests anything different? The question is not whether the education has critics, but whether they have disputed that the aims of the education are as cited. Absent any contrary voices, the statement stands as not just one claim among many, but a valid description of the education.

Nevertheless, in acknowledgment of your concerns I have added wording indicating that the sources for the statement are studies of the education. It still appears superfluous, as the citations (footnotes) serve the same purpose, but at least it is accurate now. Hgilbert (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the general point that the "overarching" goals of the education are matters of demonstrable fact from reliable sources both within the movement and from independent researchers. However, the revised wording of the introduction, I think, is actually very good, so this interchange has been very helpful in my view. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment on references

an IP editor just added some stuff and references "Renewal" which is a Journal of AWSNA and may not be appropriate (the whole section it's in is leaning away from the topic). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the edit. The rewording was OK, but the added reference was not per the arbitration ruling (Waldorf publisher).Henitsirk (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So let's keep some of the wording. It improves the article. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There are aspects of the Arbitration decision that are problematic. ArbComm was created and designed to arbitrate editor behavior, not to interfere with editorial consensus, and if we keep the policies of the encyclopedia and its ultimate goal in mind, strict reading of a decision that seems to have been rather incautiously worded by current ArbComm standards may not be appropriate. If text inserted into the article is verifiable, and reliably so, that it is published by an anthroposophical source does not necessarily mean that it cannot be used; it might, however, be required that it be attributed. "According to Renewal, a journal published by the American Waldorf School Association, ...." The journal is notable. On the other hand, if the mere fact of a claim in the article in Renewal introduces some imbalance, then it *might* be excludable, but, normally, the solution to imbalance is more material, not less. For example, PLANS is also notable.... and thus PLANS opinion may be notable, particularly where expressed in a public document like the court filings. Perhaps, in light of the article probation, we should work on any controversial text here, first, seeking editorial consensus. That's not a bad idea in any case. There is also WP:BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss. Make a bold edit, wait for someone to revert it, and then, if it is reverted, do not revert it back, but engage the editor(s) in discussion. However, any editor under restriction should not do this, unless the editor immediately self-reverts. (And that COI editor may then invite support for the edit from someone who is not COI; making the change then is simply a matter of reverting it back in. If an editor agrees.)--Abd (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

while I don't disagree with Abd, it's a slippery slope to editwaring. Which has been a problem.

Just as an aside, I was going to look at comparing this (and some of the other related articles) to the good article and featured article criteria. The current stability, and aggressive sourcing seems to have put these in a position to now make them actually readable. any thoughts? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That something is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Edit warring is quite easily recognizable (I use a very tight definition, basically it's any repetitive edit beyond a first revert of a first insertion.) Very low-level edit warring is sometimes appropriate. I.e., new editor adds bad text, another editor removes it. No edit warring so far. New editor reverts without consensus. Edit warring. Another editor reverts back. Edit warring. But below 3RR, not immediately blockable, but blockable if part of a pattern of contentious behavior. But we can discuss to our heart's content here, if it is civil. Look, I have very mixed feelings about Waldorf education, and I have a lot of experience with it, up close and personal. But I want the best possible article here, and, frankly, I also like beautiful articles. How about some more images of Waldorf schools, some of the architecture is spectacular? Waldorf schools are often very impressive to visit, because of the student art on the walls. That shouldn't be controversial!

Edit warring has been a problem here and elsewhere, when two groups of editors each think they are "right." The goal here, however, is consensus, and being "right" can be very, very wrong. Even when you are right. The point is to integrate. Little tip from Steiner's work, though I learned it from a follower of his: Higher consciousness arises when affinity and aversion are abandoned and opposites exist simultaneously. The metaphor I use is that when we can combine and see together from two different points of view, we get depth perception. You don't have to be an anthroposophist to see this, and I'm not. To me, the exclusion of certain editors from working on this article was a loss, though it may have been necessary. I'd really like to see a PLANS rep here, but one who can work civilly. I think there are such: part of the problem has been that someone like that shows up and is attacked. And responds in kind. (or the reverse, a Waldorf fan posts some POV stuff and is attacked.) And the whole thing spirals out of control. I've been developing a method of working with this, and it seems to be working, but with only a little example so far. It involves clamping down, immediately on incivility. We'll see. You can look at a current example with Routemaster. In the original Wikipedia, every editor was admin and could block. That was abandoned with scale, but, in principle, we are all administrators, but without buttons to actually block. However, if we are following guidelines, with civility, and others aren't, we should be able to point this out to administrators and get quick action. It doesn't always happen that way, but it should, and the breakdown of WP:AN/I is part of what I'm working on. It can take patience and persistence.--Abd (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree. One challenge is that PLANS folks, in my experience, are so focused on the 'spiritual' aspects of steiner's work that they cannot engage helpfully on any other aspect of waldorf education. The user who has been topic banned, was able to deal with other aspects, and seemed to have a fair bit of knowledge, but was incapable of working with others. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

another grey area ref

[6] was added with information relating to the numbers of waldorf schools. This seems like another ref that's sort of grey area-ish, the information used seems non-controvertial, but I've been wrong about that sort of thing. please comment. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

removed description of anthroposophy

I removed a new addition on anthroposophy:[7]

Anthroposophy holds that the human being passes between stages of existence, incarnating into an earthly body, living on earth, leaving the body behind and entering into the spiritual worlds before returning to be born again into a new life on earth, with the dependence between different lives termed as karma. <ref>Rudolf Steiner, Theosophy, ISBN 0-85440-269-1</ref><ref>Rudolf Steiner, An Outline of Esoteric Science, ISBN 0-88010-409-0</ref>

While a summary description of anthroposophy might be appropriate here, it isn't easy to summarize in a sentence, and reference to massive works without specific pages is not enough, and it may be better to simple let it lie with the link to the article on the subject. That summary is only one view of anthroposophy, there are others. So, I'd suggest that, if there is going to be such a summary, it should be discussed here and enjoy consensus before insertion. --Abd (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removal, the subject is far to broad to get into in this article. Folks should be directed to the main article and the cubic feet of material written by others on the subject. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

Thanks to User 130.88.0.52 for this reference. Could you provide the specific wording in the Giesenberg article that supports the text ("[Waldorf education] is centred on the belief that humans possess an innate spirit that will develop in the right environment according to karma before returning to the spirit world and reincarnating in another body") that you've included? Many thanks, EPadmirateur (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

relevance?

[8] This info and ref was added recently by EPadmirateur. While I don't dispute the information, it doesn't seem to add much to the section. Is there a reason that there seem to have been excess funds diverted to that section of the school? Is there some manner of fraud going on? I'm not sure what it adds. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The news article mentions allegations of misappropriation of funds (i.e. improper allocation). I think mention of this controversy is relevant because it is one more instance of the on-going controversies in Victoria, in particular with the Footscray school, relative to public-funding of Steiner "streams". I think it should be included for completeness and neutrality. All three of the instances that are mentioned in this section (California, Australia and UK) are controversial. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Anything with relevance to just one school probably should go in an article about that school. Why is this more noteworthy than, for example, the purchase of an old, famous, listed library by one Waldorf school for their new site (as happened recently in Canada)? Or the new school in Nairobi? Or.... hgilbert (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that controversy at a specific school regarding the curriculum or pedagogy or something distinctive to Waldorf education might be appropriate here, but a controversy about financial matters has nothing specific to do with Waldorf education. For example, if a Montessori teacher had been sued for libel, I wouldn't expect that information to be included in a page about Montessori education. IMHO! Henitsirk (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed some of the school-specific information about Footscray, leaving a mention that there is controversy over the Steiner stream. Detailed information about that particular school belongs in the school's own article, which should be NPOV. Someone feel like doing this? hgilbert (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

Where are they? There should really be a section on criticisms of alternate education, especially something like this, where _possible_ pseudoscientific hypotheses like anthroposophy are involved. This article is nothing without it. Thegeneralguy (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh) Try the 'Reception and controversy' section; I think that's what you're looking for.

By the way, the convention is to add new topics to the end of the talk page, rather than the beginning. hgilbert (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. In general, this article reads like a manifesto for Waldorf, and the 'Reception and Controversy' section is little different. I'll make my gripes explicit. The first subsection is a string of people who like Waldorf. There is nothing else besides a criticism of "standard" education for not being more Waldorfian. The second subsection is an articulation of how there shouldn't be any concern over Waldorf, with just a tiny blurb on how there could be harmful effects. The last two subsections present some legitimate arguments over Waldorf, but some parts are vague on what the controversy is, and there is an inexplicable tangent on a school that has received state funding in the UK.

A better criticism section would be devoted entirely to debates on Waldorf, and would probably have something to say on the pseudo-scientific/new agey aspects of the program. Sautedman (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The larger challenge in a criticism section for this topic is the lack of reliable sources that discuss some of the issues raised by the two editors in this section. The various criticisms I've come across in the real world, arn't in reliable sources to use for the encyclopedia. I'm not a fan of sections on criticism any way, I'd like to see each portion of the subject have the pros/cons/praise/criticism. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The latter approach (integrated discussion rather than separate criticism section) is supported by Wikipedia generally. In any case, find good sources! hgilbert (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sports

The topic of sports isn't really fully addressed here; one editor would like to put something in about it, it appears, but without a citation. Does anyone know of a source that discusses sport in Waldorf schools? hgilbert (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea....I don't recall any of the magazine type articles mentioning it. I know some of the 'unallowable' sources will have something regarding sports/games/play stuff. I know that specific schools do have sports programs (The Sacramento Waldorf School's high school won the state championship in baseball, and plays a number of highschool sports with similar sized schools in their area. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

snort - a quick google news search on sacramento waldorf school has the first 10 results all being about girls basketball. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

About 15 minutes of Googling led to pretty much nothing except disallowable Waldorf school web sites. Perhaps there is something in one of the references already used -- I recall one about Steiner schools in the UK with a curriculum overview???--Henitsirk (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I did find one place for US schools, for example Sandpoint, that at least lists the sports offered: http://www.privateschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/8284. And this mentions Sac Waldorf's basketball and baseball teams: http://www.sacbee.com/preps/story/1524988.html. And this has a list of Michael Hall's sports offerings: http://www.schoolsguidebook.co.uk/schools/view/293/Michael-Hall/Steiner-Waldorf-Schools-Fellowship/Michael-Hall-School-Kidbrooke-Park-Forest-Row-East-Sussex-RH18-5JA. --Henitsirk (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Brochure-like

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but this article reads very much like a brochure. It's very informative, but the preponderance of favorable studies pushes the article over the line from encyclopedic to propagandistic. Perhaps it could be toned down a bit? Jun-Dai (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you offer some balancing studies? It would be helpful to the overall article. hgilbert (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can find some real study that has a different balance that would be great. In addition, studies done on private waldorf schools would be great also. Many of the ones we have now are done on 'state run' waldorf schools that have somewhat different constraints than private/independent schools do. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is less about the absence of counter studies and more the preponderence of favorable studies. Take, for example, a single study indicating that Waldorf students are less xenophobic than other students. This seems less like a noted detail about Waldorf education that belongs in an encyclopedia than a note from a comprehensive profile of Waldorf education. The studies on individual Waldorf schools should probably be moved to articles on those schools and don't seem like they belong on an article on Waldorf education in general (and certainly shouldn't get the kind of space these have). The effect this produces is something along the lines of "again and again, Waldorf education has been proven to be better." Adding counter-studies or (notable) contrary perspectives, while it would most likely have the effect of making the article seem less propagandistic, wouldn't necessarily aid the goal of making the article more encyclopedic—it would simply make it a platform for competing views. Jun-Dai (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Good thoughts. I've compacted the misc. studies section considerably. The specific schools section needs thought; the extensive section on the Milwaukee Urban Waldorf school is, for example, a historic artifact. On the other hand both schools represent Waldorf being applied in unusual, high-challenge environments. Perhaps a compression here - and maybe a move to the "social engagement" section of the article - is appropriate. hgilbert (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for objective information and insight about how waldorf students do in SATs and other objective measures compared with students in other private and in public schools, but all I found was a very short line about waldorf students doing well in verbal measures -- no specifics, no actual numbers. There is no data on reading and math scores, either. All studies cited appear to be only those that are favorable to the school. I checked out Wiki because I didn't want the PR from the website, but this page reads like a very long press release, actually reminds me of links that provide results from "clinical trials" and at the end of the link invites you to purchase a product. --Muffinmocha (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't find what you were looking for. I don't know if there are published studies about standardized test scores. If you find one, do incorporate it here (or run one yourself!) In terms of the general spread: there is no inclusion bias operating - find a study and we'll add it; none have been excluded.

The publishers of these studies are universally non-Waldorf sources - journals of psychology and education, university departments, government agencies - and we have to assume that they are reviewing the work they publish and that it is thus suitable for citation here. I'm sorry if they're not saying what you'd like them to say. hgilbert (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I don't know of any studies covering that sort of thing that are not school specific and put together by the individual school (hence likely not reliable sources for this article). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is some data from Australian Waldorf schools within the state system; again, it's not clear who did the study or if it has been published. But the Waldorf schools come off rather better than other state schools. We need to find published data for inclusion here, however.hgilbert (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing specific schools section

User:Earlypsychosis proposes to delete the section on two "specific schools" with the reason given "Overdetailed to have information on a couple of specific schools. the article is about a worldwide educational approach."

These are two studies that have focused on the results in these two specific schools and the section is part of an entire section on studies of Waldorf education. In addition, these two schools are highlighted because of their unusual character relative to the general Waldorf movement and so in my opinion deserve space because they are atypical. These studies highlight the breadth of possible Waldorf schools and shows that they can be successful in urban areas serving minority students and serving high-risk juvenile offenders. For both reasons this section should remain, in my opinion. It adds an important perspective on the subject and is not just "information about a couple of specific schools". --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I was using wikipedia to read about I subject I knew nothing about and decided to be WP:bold - Found this section to unhelpful as it was too narrowly focused on a minor area and did not add to the overall article. Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree that, in principle, information relevant to particular schools should be in articles about those schools, not in the main article. I think that these two have been included for various reasons that grew out of the history of this article's creation. If their relevance is primarily their atypical social context, the information should probably be moved to the section on social engagement, possibly in an abbreviated form. hgilbert (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I continue to agree with the suggestion to consolidate the section on specific schools, moving the information to articles specifically on these schools. Any objections? hgilbert (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't leave much time to respond! --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Studies headings

I changed the bullet-pointed "subheadings" into real subheadings. Having subheadings with a bullet point in front, followed by a large body of text was weird. It bothered me, so I fixed it. Quillaja (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed it back; the table of contents becomes way too long (it's already pretty extended). Can we find another solution that doesn't have this consequence? hgilbert (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think theres a way to suppress some of the table of content info, but I don't know what it is.--Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I see 3 easy solutions. (1) Make the TOC float on the right side where it's not a bother, and make that first picture of the school into a smaller (default thumb size) floater on the left. Not a "solution" per se, but then the long TOC isn't so bad. I tried the "TOClimit" template, but I couldn't make it show only level 1 headers. (2) (recommended) Instead of using unordered lists (*), why not use the term-definition list (; for 'header' and : for 'content')? I think the limitation on this is that the 'content' must be one paragraph. (3) Just make the pseudo-headers bold text, since that's all they look like anyway. Quillaja (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Tags

OR tags are not appropriate where citations are already given. In several cases where quotations or section numbers were given the tagger claimed s/he could not find the quote; I have checked and can find them no problem. Hint; try looking at the page or section given, or search for the quoted text.

Note: page numbers for frequently used sources are sometimes invisible until you edit the section. To avoid multiple footnotes to the same source, this article sometimes has page numbers entered with the reference in a form that can only be seen when you edit the article; it doesn't appear in the footnote itself (because this is shared between various references). I'm not sure what the best way to fix this is. hgilbert (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The policy page also deals with "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". I placed OR tags in a number of places where the references do not state the assertion. It is made more difficult by the lack of page numbers. Perhaps I'm missing something though? For example:

• The article text states Waldorf methods have been adopted by numerous educators teaching in other state and private schools but I cannot find this in the reference provided. Combining two separate references to advance a position, as appears to be the case here, is against WP:SYNTH policy. Also the practice of selectively quoting parts of a paragraph and using three dots to join together these different parts may result in altered meaning. I will replace the OR tag you've removed until either the text accurately reflects the sources, or until you produce a reference that backs up the assertion.
• The text states The structure of the education follows Steiner's pedagogical model of child development The reference provided describes the premise from which Steiner education starts and does mention Steiner's pedagogical model. Again, I'll replace the OR tag.
• Dealing with the UNESCO section, you've changed the text slightly but the sentence is still WP:SYNTH. The sentence is giving a false impression that UNESCO chose a number of schools because they endorse the ideals and ethical principles. Not only that but the first quote is taken out of context. The UNESCO report is stating that the principals of the "Friends of Waldorf Education" foundation - that is, supporting private education, offering advice and expert services, supporting specific projects - correspond to those of UNESCO. It goes on to praise the partnership :- yielded valuable results in terms of eductional projects in difficult social environments and The educational projects it carries out as regards open education and in disadvantaged environments are regarded as important in the current world context. It's actions and cooperation correspond to the orientations of UNESCO's next Medium-Term Strategy in the fields of education and assistance to the excluded. Also, the 2nd reference does not state that UNESCO chose the schools - rather it is a list of participating schoold in the UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network. Putting these two references together to make it read like a UNESCO endorsement is a good example of WP:SYNTH. Again, I've replaced the OR tags.

I sincerely hope I haven't missed anything in the references provided, but as it stands, the OR tags are justified. --HighKing (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just caught your latest reference which I've also reverted seeing as how the author, Jeffrey Kane, used to be a teacher in a Steiner school in NYC. I believe this has been previously ruled on? --HighKing (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The arbitration ruling does not exclude teachers or anyone else. It merely requires that any source's work be published in a peer-reviewed publication, as opposed to material published by Waldorf (or anti-Waldorf) sources.

I think you are interpreting WP:Synth excessively narrowly. It specifically states that "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis." But I am changing the wording to more precisely match the original text. In some cases, the wording was already identical and, despite this, you have tagged the sections. I'm not sure what you're looking for. hgilbert (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, if you are having trouble finding the quotation or section when a citation is given, it would be more civil to ask for this on the talk page before tagging. It's actually not OR if you can't find the place in the citation but one is given; even if the page number is lacking (and indeed in some - but not all - cases this was lacking), it merely should be added. In other cases a page number is given or, in the case of the UNESCO quote, an annex number (the annex is only three pages long). Please be reasonable. hgilbert (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The arbcom ruling specifically excludes teachers. To quote: 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.

There is no narrow interpretation of WP:SYNTH. Please define what you mean by narrow.

The statements made are not supported by the references given. I've invited you to address the specific concerns above, which you have failed to do. Yet you have once again removed the tags. Please do not do so again without addressing the specific points above.

You have stated above that I may be having trouble finding the quotation. I've invited you to help to locate the quote that would back up the statements made, but you haven't done so. I've read the references.

The UNESCO quote is being misinterpreted, as I've outlined above.

As per the Arbcom ruling: 'Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information. In the cases I've oulined above, an editor would be entitled to simply remove the material. Instead I've invited editors to correct the text and/or provide appropriate references. I believe in taking a reasonable approach, and I also believe that editors should try to ensure that specific objections have been addressed before merely removing tags with claims that the citations exist but that they may be difficult to find.

I've replaced the OR tags in all cases, as your recent edits have not addresses the issues raised above. I suggest that you read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH so that you might better understand and appreciate the points being raised. If the points are not addressed, be aware that an editor would be justified in removing the text altogether. --HighKing (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"material published in Anthroposophy related publications" - exactly. This material was not published in such publications, but in peer-reviewed sources.

In nearly all cases I have replaced the text with exact quotations. How can exact quotations from a source not be supported by the source? This is deeply puzzling. For example: one explicitly cited quotation explicly says "Education in Steiner schools, which is based on Rudolf Steiner’s educational philosophy..." - how can you tag the statement in the article that the schools are based on RS's educational philosophy????? Others are similar.

Please do not revert; there are changes to the text that should not be removed. hgilbert (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hgilbert that the OR placed on Woods/Ashley/Woods is incorrect or perhaps it is quibbling that "educational philosophy" is not the same as the "pedagogical methods" derived from that philosophy and that it is OR to make the connection that Steiner developed the methods from the philosophy, even when that connection is supported by the next part of the statement that the philosophy "describes three major developmental stages of childhood (as well as a variety of sub-stages), each having its own learning requirements", as supported by the next reference. Perhaps the wording can simply be changed to state that "The structure of the education follows Steiner's educational philosophy for child development..." and that would satisfy this objection.

I don't have the Ginsburg text in front of me at the moment, but my recollection is that this is the statement made there. The abstract says "The views of Jean Piaget and Rudolf Steiner concerning children's stages of development are compared and related to present-day instructional practices used in the Waldorf schools, which employ Steiner's ideas". How is this OR? Perhaps Hgilbert can give the specific quotation from the paper.

For the third, even though these are exact quotes taken from the text of Annex VI of the first document, p. 33, I agree that the first quotation is a misrepresentation of the context of the statement. It is not OR but a statement not supported by the citation. A better wording would be something like "UNESCO stated that it is intensifying contacts with the "Friends of Waldorf Education", a foundation that supports the Waldorf education movement world wide, recognizing that the foundation's ideals and ethical principles correspond to those of UNESCO". I also agree that the word "chosen" gives the incorrect impression of explicit endorsement of Waldorf schools. Again, this is not OR. A better wording would be what is in the Annex VI: "Thus far, 16 Waldorf schools in 14 countries have become members of the UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network, which enables their innovative methods to be integrated into the national education system." --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have used the tag instead. I used because the policy WP:OR also covers WP:SYNTH. I'll make sure the tags are accurate in future. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your level of analysis here. The UNESCO case wasn't OR or SYNTH in my opinion but rather "the citation doesn't support the text in the article". Is there a tag for that? I feel that SYNTH has the subtle implication that the author wasn't acting in good faith. --EPadmirateur (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Woods/Ashley/Woods reference is placed within the section on "Pedagogy and theory of child development" and the reference is to support the assertion that The structure of the education follows Steiner's pedagogical model of child development. That is, that Steiner's pedegogical model of a human being as consisting of an eternal spirit, and evolving soul, and a temporal body, is being followed. The report makes no such assertion. Therefore the quotation is being used out of context to further a point, which is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. The quotation used is a selective quote. The quotation in full is in the Executive Summary, and section 1.2 Background. This section states: Steiner school education provides an alternative approach to mainstream education in many countries. The Steiner schools in England are all independent schools and, hence, do not receive state funding. Education in Steiner schools is based on Rudolf Steiner's educational philosophy and has a particular view of what constitutes learning, achievement and educational development. The Background information in this report is to provide the reader with a brief understanding of what a Steiner school is, not to make the definitive statement (as made in this article) about the structure of the education as compared to Steiner's pedagogical model. Furthermore, since this report concerns only itself with England, it WP:OR to use the quotation without that context. For all these reasons, the OR and SYN tags are justified. I disagree that adjusting the text and using the quotation would suffice in this case, since the report was not an analysis of the structure of education in schools and it's adherence to Steiner's pedagogical model.

Without getting into this level of detail about each point I've raised above - especially when the responses have been very undetailed and people generally don't do detailed anyway - there's a simple test to see if a breach of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH has occurred. That is, read the article text with attention to the sentence with the reference. Then read the references. The reference must support the article text. In these cases, picking half a sentence out here, and half a sentence out there, and putting them both together as references for a statement that neither of the references support is WP:SYNTH.

I'm also especially disturbed by the "Links to UNESCO" section. It is highly misleading. Even after tweaking, the text still reads that UNESCO endorses and approves with the methods of the Steiner system, whereas in fact, they are commenting on the aims of the "Friends of Waldorf Education", especially in relation supporting private education, offering advice and expert services, etc. It is not making a comment on the Steiner method. I'll edit the text to improve. --HighKing (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I will not be able to respond in detail to your analysis of philosophy vs methods for a while as I am going off-line. Perhaps Hgilbert will be able to. I think an acceptable rewording, as I suggested earlier, may work. Cheers, EPadmirateur (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(moved from my Talk page since there's no point in having the conversation split over different pages) (1st quote)Please discuss on the talk page before labeling cited material as OR. Please discuss first before reverting/tagging. The material is cited; you are just having problems finding the exact quotation (and I'm not sure exactly why...) within the citation. If page or section numbers aren't given - and in many cases they have been - just use the search feature. Please!!! hgilbert (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Sorry; my previous edit to this page doesn't seem to have saved.) hgilbert (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I did discuss on Talk. But the changes were reverted without being addresses anyway.

PLEASE stop adding OR tags where exact quotations are used!!!!! This is outrageous. How can a quotation from a text be OR????? hgilbert (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think on balance, if anything is outrageous, it would be removing tags without trying to understand why the tag is there and trying to improve the article by altering the text or finding a better quotation. --HighKing (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction: I did my best to meet what you were asking:

1. I clarified citations (adding quotes that demonstrated the basis for the citation, providing exact page numbers where these were missing, etc.);
2. I changed the text in the article to fit the cited text more carefully or replaced equivalent wordings with exact quotations so there could be no question of any departure from a verifiable source;
3. I took out a disputed passage though convinced that its source is perfectly valid;

In short, I did everything I could to meet what you were asking. But you still added the exact same tags back, even after exact quotations were used in the article!!! It's really impossible to do more to establish that a text validly reflects a source than to use the exact words of the source. The context of these quotes also very clearly supports the meaning given here in every case but one; and in that case - the UNESCO quote - there's simply little specifically relevant context, but what is there is supportive and the quotation is clear enough as it stands; see below. hgilbert (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've pointed out above some reasons above why the "Woods, Ashley and Woods" reference is being used inappropriately. Perhaps you are unable to provide a response. But I've since noticed that in a number of other places places throughout the text, this reference is also being used to uphold a generic statement or claim. Yes this report is based on some schools in England, and did not consider schools from other locations. As such, it should not be used in a generic capacity as it can not support any context outside of England. I'm tempted to remove the reference but I figure you may wish to look for a better reference. --HighKing (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

UNESCO quotation

The UNESCO quote reads, "Cooperation with UNESCO: Contacts with the Waldorf Education movement, the ideals and ethical principles of which correspond to those of UNESCO, have intensified, especially during the International Conference on Education held in Geneva in September 1994, at which the foundation mounted an exhibition on its educational projects." On the basis of the title and first words alone ("Cooperation with UNESCO: Contacts with the Waldorf Education movement...") it is clear that the passage is about cooperation/contacts between UNESCO and the Waldorf education movement. In addition, the conference cited as the primary example did not serve to intensify contacts between the foundation and the educational movement, but between UNESCO and the "Waldorf Education movement". As I read it, the sentence clearly and explicitly refers to contact and cooperation between UNESCO (see title) and the Waldorf education movement (see first sentence), which the foundation helps to mediate.

Nevertheless, I can see how in good faith the passage could have been interpreted differently, as it comes in the middle of an annex about the foundation. For the above reasons, I'm not sure how a careful reading can maintain this interpretation.hgilbert (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I see I have been editing the article while this discussion has been happening. Sorry. I think the version on UNESCO that's there now should be acceptable to both parties? --EPadmirateur (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at my editing where I've tried to ensure that the article text is supported fully by references. --HighKing (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The changes look fine to me, more accurate. I archived the Kathmandu reference in web citation so it's available permanently. --EPadmirateur (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. And I never thought of a web archive. BTW, why is it in the Kathmandu section if the conference was in Geneva? Just an idle question. --HighKing (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)The text reads that UNESCO sponsored an exhibit about the Waldorf schools. The reference provided isn't available online. Can someone provide the text here please? --HighKing (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A reference to the exhibit also appears in another UNESCO citation, which is online; the relevant section is quoted already at the top of this subsection.hgilbert (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you a reference for the other online UNESCO citation that supports the fact that UNESCO sponsored an exhibit? Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have put this reference in the text of the article now. By the way, Kathmandu is simply the location of UNESCO's publishing house that put out the work. The exhibit took place in Geneva. hgilbert (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's probably best to leave in the archive.org reference too, since publications without ISBN numbers frequently get challenged. --HighKing (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of the Woods, Ashley and Woods reference

This warrants further discussion. Copying comments from earlier sections:

The Woods/Ashley/Woods reference is placed within the section on "Pedagogy and theory of child development" and the reference is to support the assertion that The structure of the education follows Steiner's pedagogical model of child development. That is, that Steiner's pedegogical model of a human being as consisting of an eternal spirit, and evolving soul, and a temporal body, is being followed. The report makes no such assertion. Therefore the quotation is being used out of context to further a point, which is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. The quotation used is a selective quote. The quotation in full is in the Executive Summary, and section 1.2 Background. This section states: Steiner school education provides an alternative approach to mainstream education in many countries. The Steiner schools in England are all independent schools and, hence, do not receive state funding. Education in Steiner schools is based on Rudolf Steiner's educational philosophy and has a particular view of what constitutes learning, achievement and educational development. The Background information in this report is to provide the reader with a brief understanding of what a Steiner school is, not to make the definitive statement (as made in this article) about the structure of the education as compared to Steiner's pedagogical model. Furthermore, since this report concerns only itself with England, it WP:OR to use the quotation without that context. For all these reasons, the OR and SYN tags are justified. I disagree that adjusting the text and using the quotation would suffice in this case, since the report was not an analysis of the structure of education in schools and it's adherence to Steiner's pedagogical model.

Without getting into this level of detail about each point I've raised above - especially when the responses have been very undetailed and people generally don't do detailed anyway - there's a simple test to see if a breach of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH has occurred. That is, read the article text with attention to the sentence with the reference. Then read the references. The reference must support the article text. In these cases, picking half a sentence out here, and half a sentence out there, and putting them both together as references for a statement that neither of the references support is WP:SYNTH.

I'm also especially disturbed by the "Links to UNESCO" section. It is highly misleading. Even after tweaking, the text still reads that UNESCO endorses and approves with the methods of the Steiner system, whereas in fact, they are commenting on the aims of the "Friends of Waldorf Education", especially in relation supporting private education, offering advice and expert services, etc. It is not making a comment on the Steiner method. I'll edit the text to improve. --HighKing (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've pointed out above some reasons above why the "Woods, Ashley and Woods" reference is being used inappropriately. Perhaps you are unable to provide a response. But I've since noticed that in a number of other places places throughout the text, this reference is also being used to uphold a generic statement or claim. Yes this report is based on some schools in England, and did not consider schools from other locations. As such, it should not be used in a generic capacity as it can not support any context outside of England. I'm tempted to remove the reference but I figure you may wish to look for a better reference. --HighKing (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, I take your point that the reference may be being used incorrectly when it is used in a general way applying to all schools since it studied only schools in England. However, part of the study included an analysis of Waldorf education in general and would therefore be acceptable as a general reference. (I think this would include the part that you explicitly objected to as a reference which describes the "Education in Steiner schools ... based on Rudolf Steiner’s educational philosophy".) I have only a short window of on-line access at the moment and can't comment further at the moment. However, I wanted to make this point and I will look at the individual references later. In the meantime I hope you and Hgilbert will carry on the discussion. Cheers, EPadmirateur (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi EP, thanks for responding. But the study itself does not claim that it includes an analysis of Waldorf education in general I'm afraid. An examination of Appendix 1, shows a reliance on external empirical research publications, but no actual first hand research. (BTW, some of the research listed reports some very favorable results (for example, study by David Jelinek and Li-Ling Sun)). But the use of this reference for the generic claims is WP:SYNTH, unless the text qualifies the material so that it explicitly refers to the UK. Overall though, I believe that some of the places where this reference is used, doesn't need a reference at all as the text is hardly likely to be challenged! --HighKing (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A literature review, which that section of their study is essentially, is every bit as cite-able as "first-hand" research. Their claims in that section are general, not limited to UK schools; you are trying to create a distinction that they do not; to qualify their claims as only valid for the UK would itself be SYNTH. By the way, this is turning into a ridiculous argument; no one doubts, for example, that Steiner education is based upon Steiner's educational philosophy. Why are you making such a fuss over statements that there is no reason to question??? hgilbert (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually you're completely wrong. They did not perform a literature review with a view on examining Steiner education in general. Please do not claim they did. And please explain how qualifying their claims is in breach of WP:SYNTH when the report specifically states that the study is based on schools in England? Since you have not even bothered to try to address my concerns or to alter the text to qualify the context of your report correctly, I will remove the reference from all instances. It is WP:SYNTH to use this report to back up general claims. And if no one doubts that Steiner education is based on Steiner's educational philosophy, why use a trumped-up reference in the first place (btw, I make that suggestion in my previous response, perhaps you missed it?). Also, please be aware of WP:NPA - let's keep the discussion on the content rather than trying to personalize the argument. --HighKing (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Section 2.2 of the report, titled Background on Steiner Education, begins: "Steiner school education provides an alternative approach to mainstream education in many countries. Steiner schools are part of an international community of schools that provide a curriculum that puts into practice this approach. Steiner education is now described as the largest worldwide independent school movement. There are 870 schools globally in 60 countries5, including most European countries, Australia, Canada, Egypt, India, Israel, Japan, Kenya, New Zealand, South Africa, South America and the US." It continues, explicitly speaking about Steiner education in general. Section 2.3, following, is titled Steiner Schools in England. There is a clear distinction between the section on Steiner education in the world, and that specifically limited to England.
2. Section 3 of the report, titled Methodology, lists as the first methodology used a Literature Review of English language sources (they list their sources in the appendix, and they are in no way limited to England. hgilbert (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
3. I did miss your earlier comment that some of these places need not have references. In these cases, generally, some one did ask for a citation for the statement earlier. We had, at one point, an editor (since banned) who fact tagged essentially every sentence, in fact. Some of what we see here may be a relic of those dinosaur days. I agree that there is no need for a reference for commonly recognized facts. hgilbert (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hgilbert here. The Woods/Ashley/Woods report has two distinct parts and this article was referencing the part that deals with Waldorf education in general. Yes, the report says it is based on Steiner schools in England and the bulk of the report deals with Steiner schools in England but section 2.2 is generic. Typically, descriptions of Waldorf education in scholarly studies are general, because Waldorf education is essentially consistent worldwide; the research topic itself is limited, for example, a study of three specific schools in the U.S. This report is no exception: section 2.2 is generic and then section 2.3 is specific to Steiner schools in England.

The Literature Review (section 4) is similarly generic. Since the researchers limited themselves to scholarly studies in English, one would expect to find primarily British and American studies, and a few Australian studies. A quick scan of these studies shows that well over 50% are U.S. More importantly, of the studies of Waldorf education I am familiar with, I can't recall any that describes Waldorf education in a country or region specific way.

Finally, section 2.2 and the literature review are secondary sources. According to WP:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, secondary sources are the preferred sources for WP. --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this is incorrect. The report specifically states that the scope of the report is England. The background information in the report cannot be cited to support generic/global statements simply because it does not form part of the actual reported results of the study - it is merely background information, most like retrieved from Waldorf sources. The report does not claim to have researched the adherence of the schools to the methodology, and it does not form part of the results of the study, etc. Using it in this way is in breach of WP:SYNTH. --HighKing (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello? The section of the report specifically states that is is based upon a literature review using many sources, and lists these. Most of them are not limited to England. Nor are they anthroposophical. Nor, if they were, would it matter; whatever sources they chose to use, they have come to their own analysis which is itself a verifiable source. Their own sources are not in question (nor are they problematic). What this report says in that section about Waldorf/Steiner education in general may be cited as valid for Waldorf/Steiner education in general. hgilbert (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

More WP:SYNTH I'm afraid. The Introduction clearly states that the report was commissioned to comprehensively map Steiner school education in England. There is nothing in the report to say that any of the research may be interpreted in general. That is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. Please follow policy on this matter. --HighKing (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you perhaps see that others do take this section of the Woods analysis to be explicitly general in nature (see EPadmirateur's remarks above), and that it is explicitly based on sources, the majority of which are not about English schools particularly or at all?hgilbert (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you perhaps read WP:SYNTH and construct a convincing explanation as to where, in a report commissioned to comprehensively map Steiner school education in England, was the study performed and data generated on Steiner education itself? It was not. This is clear because it does not form part of the reported results. Please. Read WP:SYNTH. --HighKing (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The section of the report that starts "Background on Steiner Education: Steiner school education provides an alternative approach to mainstream education in many countries. Steiner schools are part of an international community of schools that provide a curriculum that puts into practice this approach. Steiner education is now described as the largest worldwide independent school movement. There are 870 schools globally in 60 countries5, including most European countries, Australia, Canada, Egypt, India, Israel, Japan, Kenya, New Zealand, South Africa, South America and the US6." is explicitly referring to ... "many countries", and Steiner education "worldwide". It continues by describing the history of Waldorf schools...not in England, but starting in Stuttgart (in Germany, last I checked). It goes on to show a table of distribution of Waldorf schools by country in Europe and North America. The whole section is devoted to a general picture of Steiner education; the only place it refers to the situation in England at all is to contrast the age of children in various grades in Steiner education (anywhere in the world) to the maintained sector in England. There is no material oriented toward the English Steiner schools in this section at all, which is not surprising given that the next section is called "Steiner Schools in England".

In other words, Section 2.2 is explicitly world-wide and repeatedly emphasizes this (see above); Section 2.3 (and what follows) is explicitly oriented on England. The title of the report does not determine its contents; a book about George Washington may have information about Martha, the Colonies, England, slavery and a host of other topics which may be cited. hgilbert (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You appear to understand my point, but not accept it. You can't use a scholarly report as a citation *if* what you are citing does not form part of the study or the results. This report states what the study was about, the methodology, and the results. This information is not part of the results. The report is *not* providing evidence on generic and general information. Using it in this was is a breach of WP:SYNTH. You analogy on a book about George Washington is very different for a number of reasons, but the most pertinent reason is that a book rarely sets out what the results of the author's research is, unlike scholarly studies. And unlike this example. --HighKing (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What we differ on is whether the report includes statements about Waldorf generally. If it does, I believe that we agree that they are cite-able. Right now, I suggest that you accept that two of us understand that section as clearly giving a general overview. Let us agree to disagree; if I was in the minority, I would gracefully accept this at this point. (Or we can bring in further people to give their opinion of the section of the report; I would be fine with this.) hgilbert (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No harm is posting a question on WP:RSN? I'll put one up there and keep it short and to the point. --HighKing (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems sensible. hgilbert (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This was the discussion there. On the surface, HighKing's position was not confirmed, if I read what's above correctly. However, as I note below, that information is in a reliable source does not control how it is used. Tendentious debate over sources in the absence of specific suggested edits likely results in more heat than light; the usability of a source always depends on what it is used for. What are the specific suggested edits? One way to deal with this is for an editor who wants change to the article, to make the edit, and, if reverted, discuss that specific edit. See BRD. Don't edit war, but reverting a single edit isn't edit warring unless this gets repeated. What's truly reliable for one thing isn't for another. I suggest, if there is an edit to be made, to make it as small as possible, so that there aren't six different issues to discuss till Sunday. If a small change is rejected, a large change is more likely to be rejected, if a small change is accepted, it can then be expanded a little at a time. Small means "simple," not necessarily "unimportant." --Abd (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Are successfully defended Ph.D. dissertations reliable and verifiable sources?

(comments moved from my Talk page)Hey, why are you repeatedly tagging a section with a dead link template when there's no link? Very puzzled indeed.

Also: the Verify source template documentation states: "In general, add this template only after a good faith attempt to verify information has been made." Good faith presumably means that if an editor other than oneself has checked this and verified it, then this can be taken as verification. I have checked this statement with the original source. What more do you want? hgilbert (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For this source to be acceptable, please read the section on Scholarship in WP:RS. The tags are there because it does not appear that this work meets the requirement: Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. The policy goes on to state: The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals in those fields well covered by such indexes, but not included, should be used with caution. This source fails on this too. It appears to be a dissertation by a student (judging by the title). You say that *you* have checked and verified the source - I think you can probably realize that Wikipedia doesn't rely on heresay. --HighKing (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hearsay. The question from Hgilbert is a good one. The issue isn't reliability, it's notability. Publication means that a publisher has spent money or has invested its reputation in a publication. A successfully defended thesis is in a gray area, because the reviewing body has, in fact, invested its reputation, so the purpose of RS standards is satisfied. So I wouldn't give up on this source; much may depend on how the source is used, and, in the end, inclusion/exclusion, given that the non-negotiable policy of verifiability is satisfied, certainly if the text is properly attributed, are decisions made by editorial consensus. That can be difficult when factional editors become involved, but we have dispute resolution process to deal with that. Take it one step at a time, work to make the issue to be resolved as clear and simple as possible before escalating up the DR ladder. Usually one does not need to go up very far. HighKing is wikilawyering the standards; the list of ways in which material can be vetted is not an exclusive list, and certainly that is not a complete list of what constitutes reliable source. "Scholarly acceptance" is not necessary for a source to be acceptable, rather, lack of acceptance indicates "caution" as to how a source is used.

Don't edit war, and if you are faced with edit warring, get help, ask for article protection, and don't worry if the article is protected in the Wrong Version (TM). This too shall pass.

If you need assistance, any of you, ask me on my Talk. I know this field a little, having, on the one hand, had a child in a Waldorf school at one time, and having two grandchildren in another one, and, on the other, being a skeptic about the theoretical foundations. Good work can often be done on a poor theoretical foundation, or, rather, in spite of it. In fact, being "intuitive" means doing the right thing for no reason or the wrong reason. --Abd (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest citations being added

A number of citations by Jennifer Gidley have been added to this article recently. This appears to be in breach of the arbcom ruling. The ruling is very clear and specifically states 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. I believe these references should be removed. --HighKing (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, these should be removed. Verbal chat 11:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that material by Gidley published by the anthroposophical or Waldorf schools movements would only be acceptable as a source for non-controversial claims (such as the number of Waldorf schools in Australia). Controversial claims are, in general, any being disputed by other editors. On the other hand, material by anyone published by an organization or movement is not necessarily a reliable source for controversial claims about that organization or movement (depending upon the mainstream academic/professional standing of that person). I'm not sure what makes Gidley, a research fellow at a mainstream university, problematic in this regard. hgilbert (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This material, however, is not published in "Anthroposophy-related publications". The International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, Alternative Educational Futures: Pedagogies for an Emergent World and Australian Foresight Institute Monograph Series all qualify as peer-reviewed sources. The arbitration emphasizes that normal standards for WP:Reliable sources are to be applied.

A review of WP:NPOV might be helpful as well; merely because Gidley may be assumed to have a point-of-view does not disqualify her; everyone has a point of view. By analogy: writers of the Catholic faith are not excluded as sources for articles relating to Catholicism, but non-peer reviewed publications put out by the Catholic Church - or by opponents of it, for that matter, are not acceptable sources for controversial claims. As I understand it, this is precisely the distinction the arbitrators are making here; see the following for details. hgilbert (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just had a look at her faculty page on RMIT University Melbourne website. Pretty impressive; she seems completely competent as a source. hgilbert (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

From her faculty page:

A significant achievement in institution-building and pedagogical innovation was to found and direct a private school inspired by Rudolf Steiner’s philosophy and pedagogy in rural Australia (1984-1994). This included establishing recurrent and capital Government funding, and project management of significant building projects ($1million +) in addition to writing several other successful grant applications.

So she founded and directed a Steiner school for 10 years. The arbitrator ruling covers this material. The addition of the material (for example, in the section "Reception") is wholly inappropriate since it gives the (false) impression that these studies are not self-published. --HighKing (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what Self-published means. hgilbert (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see that you're going to balk at this request too. Is this going to happen every time someone questions anything that happens on this article? Perhaps you need to read (again) the arbcom ruling which defines "self-published" in the context of this article. Perhaps the person or persons to direct your comment above at are the arbitrators? Although I was entitled to just remove the sources, I was hoping you could argue a reason for keeping them? But it doesn't seem so. --HighKing (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that we respect reliable sources. Within this and other WP guidelines, edit away. I have given a reason for keeping them; they are not self-published sources, but published by mainstream, peer-reviewed publishers.

I have requested one of the arbitrators to give an opinion on this issue, and hope he'll take the time to do so. hgilbert (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

These conversations led up to the ruling, and the ruling itself was made with due consideration to these comments. I believe the ruling is pretty clear on this issue without trying to find grey areas to justify inclusion. --HighKing (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The ArbComm ruling simply was to consider "anthroposophical publications" as "self-published," which does not disallow all uses, and it does not apply to independently published material, even if the author is an anthroposophist. That a material appears in reliable source does not mean that the material can be unconditionally used, i.e., as if the claim in the source is fact; attribution may still be required, i.e., "According to Jennifer Gidley, Waldorf education is better than sliced bread," not "Waldorf education is better than sliced bread." There is no grey area here, there was simply a finding about considering the entire anthroposophical movement a single "publisher," publishing material on itself, which is quite reasonable and understandable. I see nothing there that justifies exclusion. Now, if it were shown that the publishers were not, in fact, independent, that would be another matter, but I haven't seen an allegation of that. High King, your arguments seem to be ignoring what Hgilbert has written. Where is there anything in what you have quoted that would disqualify an RS based on the employment, present or past, of an author of a paper in an independent journal? We determine RS based on the publisher, not the author. You've confused standards that might be applied in determining how to use material, with RS standards. Rejecting independently published material because the author has some affiliation or alleged bias is preposterous, in fact, though I certainly see this argument attempted. If this needs clarification from ArbComm, I'd certainly assist, I do seem to be gaining a little experience there. If I survive it, of course! --Abd (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that although I think you've misunderstood and misrepresented what I said. I originally was calling attention to those references published by Steiner associated sources (www.steineroz.com). The response by hglibert was to point to her faculty page, and point out that she has an impeccable CV (and therefore, by implication, a neutral and reliable source). From reading her faculty page, I then discovered that she founded and was a director of a Steiner school for 10 years, which means, of course, that the arbcom ruling also covers this. You raise a good point about context, above, also, which is something I've previously tried to raise with hgilbert. Let's look at each of the references:

• The first reference is for the comment studies have found the schools' pupils to be unusually oriented towards improving social conditions and having more positive visions of the future. This reference is published by www.steineroz.com which is the association for Rudolf Steiner Schools of Australia.

The reference says Australian Foresight Institute Monograph Series, 2004 Nr. 5, not steineroz. Are we looking at the same place?

• Under the heading of "Reception" it states Waldorf methodology has had a generally positive reception by educationalists which is not qualified in any way, nor balanced in that it contains no negative reports. The section goes on to list a number of reports without qualifying the reports in any way (as you've done in your example above with "According to Jennifer Gidley, etc") - so for example, the first report is listed as Professor Robert Peterkin considers Waldorf education a healing education whose underlying principles are appropriate for educating all children. but doesn't put it into context that this report wasn't written by the professor, and the attributed statement wasn't written by him, but was a reported comment.

This section is meant to include all representative statements that indicate its reception by educationalists/academics.

• Onto Jennifer Gidley's entry which states Jennifer Gidley, Research Fellow at RMIT University Melbourne, points to the need in the 21st century to create conceptual bridges between Steiner pedagogy and contemporary philosophical and pedagogical approaches.. There are two references for this, and I don't have a problem with these as references per se. (As an aside, as neither reference is available online - could I ask that the relevant text from each book is replicated here to ensure that they indeed support the assertion being made?)

Glad to hear it.

• The final reference in External Links also points to a PDF published at www.steineroz.com which is the association for Rudolf Steiner Schools of Australia. This is the other reference I originally was bringing attention to.

Thanks again for jumping in. --HighKing (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not a reference, it's an external link. The guideline is not WP:RS but WP:External links. It seems to meet this with flying colors. In summary...there don't seem to be any problems. hgilbert (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see the "published by www.steineroz.com" that you cite first. However, is it possible that at one time there was a convenience link there. Sometimes papers are reproduced with permission; the original paper is the source, not the web site hosting it. Unless there is something seriously objectionable about the web site itself, the use of a possibly biased web site for a conveniene link is not a problem. Hgilbert, you are doing some interspersed response, it's usually considered a problem, it makes it hard to see who wrote what.
• On "Reception," this are objections to how the sourced material is framed, not to the source. I'm not diving into that. Seek consensus, fellow editors.
• The third comment accepts the source. Fine. Yes, you can ask for relevant text so that we can judge how it's being used. The quotation should not be so extensive as to violated copyright, but sufficient to give context. The assumption is, however, if we can't get the text and the editor who put it in is not available, unless there is some particular reason to impeach it, that it's been accurately cited. And then we throw the book at editors who misrepresent sources, it's very serious.
• Yes. RS guidelines don't cover external links. We can and should link to Waldorf resources. Some of the external links might be pruned down, with links to sites that would themselves link to greater variety. As well, there can and probably should be links to notable critical sites, or at least one (labelled as such). :::::::*

(outdent)The first link is currently reference #50. hglibert has marked this as a dead link for now. This is hosted at steineroz.com. And thanks for clarifying that WP:EL is treated differently - I agree that this section should be pruned. Finally, hopefully the text from the other sources will be quoted here soon. --HighKing (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The link for footnote 50 is "http://www.swin.edu.au/agse/courses/foresight/monographs/Monograph5.pdf". Is this the one you are suggesting is hosted at steineroz.com? It actually belongs to a Melbourne University. I bet they have their own hosting service. hgilbert (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator's comments relating to verifiable sources

The complete text of the relevant passage in the original arbitration ruling is

"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."

Later clarifications

In Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Proposed_decision an arbitrator wrote: "Articles should rely on secondary sources, not primary sources like Waldorf documents or Steiner quotations. (For example, in most cases, editors should not directly quote Steiner, a primary source about himself, but should rely on articles about Steiner in newspapers, education journals, and so on.)"

Further clarification: "I also notice that these articles, despite the article probation, rely heavily on anthroposophy-published documents as sources, in spite of the arbitration ruling determining that they should be removed. Documents originating with anthroposophy, the Waldorf foundation, or Rudolph Stiener [sic] are not acceptable as sources either for claims that Waldorf is good, or for claims that Waldorf is bad."

Further clarification: "wouldn't anthroposophy press material be similarly acceptable for the narrow purpose of describing anthroposophy? DurovaCharge! 03:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (reply) "Yes, for information which is not controversial. Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)"

External links

The links seem to fit the criteria of WP:External links well, and to correspond to Wikipedia usage in similar articles. In particular, lists of articles on the subject, directories (such as the lists of schools here), etc. are normal; the latter are even mentioned specifically in the "what to link" section. That's not to say that there aren't potential links to prune here, but cutting out most of them arbitrarily is a little excessive. Let's consult about what could go. hgilbert (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through and removed dead links and a few that were singularly unhelpful (such as the Good Schools link). The DFES study is already cited in the main text; EL policy is not to repeat these in the links section. hgilbert (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also replaced groups of similar links with a single link to an external directory, this trims quite a bit more. How's it looking? hgilbert (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking better but there's still a lot of unnecessary stuff here. We're not trying to build a portal to all things Steiner you know. Get rid of the section on teacher training - if readers want that, they'd google it? And the "Articles" section is overkill considering that they're unreferenced news items - what's the point of that? Also, the "Notes" section is usually referred to as "References" in most articles. The current "References" section is really a list of publications which I'd like to see merged with External Links which is what most articles do. --HighKing (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, if the articles did appear in references they wouldn't qualify for the external links section; the whole point is to provide information not presently included within the article but that might be valuable to readers. Similarly, the References section is not made up of web links, and thus couldn't be merged with them; it is intended to be a source of further reading for those of us who actually still use physical books (OK, I've just outed myself as pre-21st century...) just as at the end of an Encyclopedia Britannica article there's usually an - often substantial - list of related reading. As far as the terminology: both Notes and References are acceptable names for footnotes in Wikipedia. We could change them around if we find clearer names for the various sections...say, References and Further Reading?

The teacher training section is brief and it is not without interest where and how many training centers there are. We could ask around what people think about this; it doesn't disturb me. hgilbert (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Three Millionth Article

By the way. The English Wikipedia's 3 millionth article is on the Norwegian actress Beate Eriksen who is head of the drama department at the Bærum Waldorf School, Oslo. Lumos3 (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

" Early use of antibiotics and fever reducers, along with the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination were also associated with increased risks of several allergic symptoms and doctor's diagnoses."!!! It is an argument for the schools and the anthroposofic movement? don't we need a better source for such statement?(rather than a science magazine) Don't we have enough scientific evidence with much better sourcing to justify, recommend and even mandate MMR vaccination? Do we have enough evidence to imply that Waldorf schools are "healthier" than the average school ( adjusted for the $/student)? Isn't it more epidemiologically accurate to imply that the average Waldorf student has a better family income than the average inner city student, and that income imply in better living conditions and lower allergic phenomena?( as I understand we do have good quality data for the last statement). Please omit the section. it is a fallacy, and does little to advance the "Waldorf" cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.0.149 (talk • contribs)

Income and other socio-economic factors were taken into account in the study. hgilbert (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Paradox of pedagogy

In the section on Anthroposophy's role, User:121.217.12.37 added Ullrich's valuable critical question; Ullrich answers this in a differentiated way, essentially suggesting that Waldorf education is more strongly rooted in Steiner's sound pedagogical principles than in his dubious esoteric philosophy. I've tried to reflect this differentiated stance here, but please help! (The article cited is available here). hgilbert (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)