Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Censorship of these pages

The following 2 links to sites which are primary sources of collections of parents , teachers and commentators views critical of Steiner education are being repeatedly removed from these pages.

• People For Legal And Non-Sectarian Schools Campaigning Group critical of Waldorf Education. Waldorf critics site containing resources critical of Waldorf education including, parent and student testimony, and articles by academics and researchers.

• [link removed] Site created by teachers and parents at the Norwegian Waldorf-/Steiner school in order to share experiences.

The arguments used for their removal seem to boil down to the fact the editors don’t like what they are saying.

Your comment shows, I think, that you you have not more than superficially looked at the documentation showing the extent of the repeated untruthfulness and demonization of WE at the WC-site, and that you disregard the basic Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion of External links in articles, explicitly and repeatedly pointed to here in the discussion. --Thebee 12:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is wikipedia and opposing views on a subject must be given an airing.

In addition discussion of the actual issue of the inclusion of these sites has now been removed to a sub page to keep it from view.

".. discussion of the actual issue of the inclusion of these sites have now been removed to a sub page to keep it from view"? This stands out as a sweeping and untrue biased statement. The MAIN discussion on this, not archived, TALKs page on WE concerns the WC-site. The ONLY discussion of the second site you mention also is published here, not on the "Archive" page, as you write. This indicates, well, actually shows in full, that you do not quite know what you're talking about, or do not care if it actually is true, as what you write in the main is untrue. --Thebee 12:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is evidence of a consistent campaign to keep these pages on Wikipedia as close to a sales brochure for Waldorf education as possible and marginalise any independent criticism.

This issue of criticism needs to be discussed here on the discussion page of the article not on an archive sub page. Likewise attempts to hide and marginalise recent discussion are also attempted censorship and should be resisted. Lumos3 11:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You're not serious, Lumos, see above ... --Thebee 12:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Lumos. There is indeed a serious effort by Waldorf fanatics to hide critical views of Waldorf on this page. Looking at how many times a day this page is edited to remove criticism will make this clear. I have added links today to Waldorf Critics. Let's see how long they are available to parents and people who are interested in both supportive and critical viewpoints of Waldorf Education. --Pete K 08:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Does the site of the WC ("Waldorf Critics") show that it has the nature of a "hate group"?

The article on Waldorf Education in the section http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Waldorf_education#Basis_in_Anthroposophy says "Some parents have stated that they are uncomfortable with a teaching philosophy that has evolved out of such principles — while others choose the schools because of these very principles. The San Francisco based anti-Waldorf lobby group PLANS, described by some as a hate group [15], is the most vocal on this issue."

As reference it links to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Waldorf_education#_note-14 that in turn links to http://www.americans4waldorf.org/Myths.html For more on the issue, see here --Thebee 17:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. That is the reference that is under dispute - it links to your own web site. You can either find a neutral source to reference this claim; agree to my wording change: "Anthroposophists call PLANS a hate group"; delete the unsubstantiated accusation; or, if you can't live with any of that, expect your own tactics to get lots of air play, here and elsewhere. Well Sune, "some people say" lots of things. I will make sure this issue remains front and center here and is well publicized elsewhere. PLANS is not a hate group by any objective criteria; it is only a "hate group" to people who feel picked on when someone says Waldorf isn't wonderful.

The other option is of course to explain what PLANS has done that makes them a hate group. Keep on bringing up witchcraft, and expect me to keep on rebutting, in my own clear English, your convoluted and largely unreadable version of the events in question, without multiple links and sentences that run on for paragraphs - just a clear explanation of what happened. Keep on saying PLANS is like jewwatch, expect Steiner's own statements on the Jews to appear in reply every time, here and elsewhere, to make clear to people why you need PLANS to be discredited. You can expect that I intend for this issue to become clear to the public.DianaW 18:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example of the prose at "Americans for Waldorf Education" (the page that the so-called reference takes us to):

"Behind the civil surface that Mr. Dugan tries to cultivate in public discussions on the "Waldorf Critics" mailing list, an objective observer will find there denigration, belittling and hateful reaction to anything remotely positive about Waldorf education, anthroposophy or Rudolf Steiner."

This is the say-so of Linda C[...], Deborah K[...], Serena B[...] and Sune N[...]. Who are they? People who don't like what they read on the Waldorf critics list.

This can't conceivably meet any standard for a "source" that "documents" that PLANS is a hate group. Realizing this, the defenders instead inform us, with straight faces, that it documents that "some people say" PLANS is a hate group.

And I can say that there really are Martians on Mars, canals, ancient cities, and little green men and everything. I can put up a web site where I describe the ancient ruins and the little green men who still roam the hills. Thank you Ray Bradbury. Then I can write a Wikipedia article on the possibilities of extraterrestrial life in the solar system. I can say that "Some people report that there are little green men on Mars." [15] Reference 15 will take readers to my web site describing the green men on Mars. When someone protests, I will retort, as IByrnison did, that my reference isn't meant to show that there *really* are little green men on Mars. All I am doing is referencing that "some people say" there are little green men on Mars.

Then I can ask all my friends to sit at their computers in shifts, swiftly reverting the changes any time someone points out that the web site I have linked to is not, uh, credible, and that no one else has seen the little green men.DianaW 19:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that a threat? Wikipedia does not like threats. Or Ad hominems. --Thebee 20:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana replies: It meant just what it said. It promises that I will keep this issue visible if the wording changes are rejected (or repeatedly revert). It is actually just this sort of tactic that you are using here, that I am interested in exposing. You say PLANS is a hate group - that is basically a criminal charge - and now Diana Winters is a dangerous and threatening person? I do not think that is going to work, Sune.DianaW 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reformulated the sentence into the more specific *The San Francisco based anti-Waldorf lobby group PLANS, described by one support group of Waldorf Education, Americans for Waldorf education as a group that publishes argumentation characteristic of hate groups against Waldorf education[15], is the most vocal on this issue." Does it? I think this documents this in full. --Thebee 20:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana replies: I like the wording better. I definitely do. I will say more in a day or two. But I like it much better. It makes clear that it is a group of people who don't like that they're being criticized, who are turning around and lobbing accusations of their own at the people criticizing them. I'll be away for a little while. We'll see how long this change lasts!DianaW 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you like a wording that says that PLANS argues against Waldorf Education using argumentation characteristic of Hate groups, but don't think this 'talking like a hate group', 'walking like a hate group', and 'looking like a hate group', when looked at closer, described and documented here and linking to a description of it here, also described here and here makes it into one. How interesting. --Thebee 22:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is PLANS, an organization critical of Waldorf, a "hate group"? What is a hate group? Does anyone other than anthroposophists call PLANS a hate group?

PLANS meets nobody's definition of a hate group. A hate group dislikes people due to their religion or their ethnicity or skin color and targets them because of this, if not for outright violence at least for verbal bashing. A hate group is not the same thing as a group, organized or otherwise, of people who have criticisms of an institution, movement, or doctrine. The latter - criticism of religious movements - is a simple matter of free speech, at least in the US. In the US, we are not only allowed but *obligated* to criticize religious and other institutions when they misbehave, the same as we criticize politicians or others who betray a public trust.

A group does not become a "hate group" by virtue of having a web site or running an email list where people who have had unsatisfactory experiences with an institution or movement report their stories, or where people with a critical view of the doctrines or teachings of the religion or movement discuss their views, or where aspects of the movement's history that are embarrassing to the movement are openly discussed.

A hate group *hurts* people. A hate group hurts people because of *who they are* rather than *what they do*. Criticizing the behavior of an institution, or individuals affiliated with these institutions, is not hate speech. For instance, complaining that the reading instruction in these schools is poor is not hate speech. The claim itself may be true or false, but parents complaining that their child was poorly served academically in Waldorf schools, is not hate speech. Likewise parents, or others with academic or other personal interests, discussing the racist and antisemitic writings of Rudolf Steiner do not thereby become members of a hate group.

Does anyone have a source that calls PLANS a hate group, other than anthroposophists? I am no expert on hate groups, but I certainly cannot find one online. The first hit when you google "hate groups" is the Southern Poverty Law Center, a very reputable source, and they certainly don't mention PLANS anywhere. I didn't keep googling as just going through google hits is not a very reliable way to research something.

I am confident no such non-anthroposophical source for this view exists.

If it does, I would like to see it here. I would like it posted right here. If no one can find such a source, I propose that where the article says "Some say PLANS is a hate group," this be amended to read "Anthroposophists say PLANS is a hate group." (Actually, it would be better if it said, "Some anthroposophists say PLANS is a hate group," as many anthroposophists no doubt recognize that this claim is absurd, and are embarrassed by the lunatic antics of a few.)

And in fact, I'd like you to keep the comment, as I think it discredits anthroposophists rather than PLANS. It only helps you *as long as* its origin is not clear.

Which is of course clear evidence of your dishonest motives. Once the origin of the claim is made transparent, it's no use to you. At that point you may find me arguing to keep it rather than delete it entirely.

Just take responsibility for what you are saying. 'Fess up. No one thinks PLANS is a hate group except anthroposophists.

And please note: We are not talking about citing other people citing anthroposophists. Linking to "AmericansForWaldorfEducation" will not do it. *Original* sources - people who know something about hate groups, rather than bending this slanderous notion to their own defense, and then quoting each other as if "lots of people think so" - are what is needed.

If this change is objectionable, I would like to hear why.

If these proposals are reasonable, I would like Byrnison or whoever it is to cease reverting this change in the article. If you intend to keep reverting it, I would like to see a source given *that is not anthroposophical or that does not quote anthroposophists* for the contention that critics of anthroposophy (PLANS or anyone else; there are many critics, especially in Europe, who are not affiliated with PLANS) are a "hate group." Otherwise, the intellectual dishonesty, self-serving nature of the claim, and the tortured circuitous logic of the claim are fully exposed, and no one can argue this claim belongs in an encyclopedia.

You can keep changing it if you like; that is the way Wikipedia works. But I intend that if you do, your efforts will be widely exposed and discredited.[]] 13:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The above was written by Diana. Again not trying to be anonymous- forgot to log in.DianaW 13:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

archive and special page

I have archived all material pre-2006 (see top of talk page for a link to the archive) Hgilbert 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved two huge discussions, one about the PLANS web-site generally and one about linking to that site from this article, to a special page for this subject only; this brings the two together and allows this talk page to regain a sense of proportion. I hope that all can see the sense of this (I am not trying to cut off discussion, which can continue on that page). Hgilbert 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and you have also "moved" or rather removed my comment *on this action*. Lumos comments on it below but you have simply eliminated my comment on this censorship. It is not at this page now or at the subpage you created, as far as I can see. If that isn't vandalism, I don't know what is. You are simply removing comments that reflect others' views not only on anthroposophy but on how you handle the discussion. I am still investigating but it must surely be against Wikipedia policies to tamper with the Discussion page.DianaW 11:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana writes 5 minutes later: I was mistaken - see that it is still there - just moved to a far less prominent and visible location.

I didn't move it at all. Look at the history; it is exactly where you put it. In any case, personal accusations are to be avoided on Wikipedia; please see the guidelines WP:Civil and WP:Assume good faith. Hgilbert 14:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert, it is not going to be helpful for you to go on pointing out my supposed violations of protocol. Little scoldings do not deter me. There is no "personal accusation" from me. All my comments refer to the material. I assume good faith until good faith is violated. You violated good faith here pretty early on. The reasons you moved all that material are transparent.

I recognized and acknowledged my mistake in saying that the material had been deleted, within moments, you might note. That is an example of "good faith." I didn't just delete my own mistake, or move it somewhere else hoping people wouldn't notice.DianaW 15:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You recognized your mistake...but continued to claim it was moved.

Hgilbert writes: "I have moved two huge discussions, one about the PLANS web-site generally and one about linking to that site from this article." This makes it sound like these are just two issues . . . and like there are so many other issues that the page can now "get back to," as byrnison also puts it, "let's get back to working on the article." Guys - newsflash: there isn't any *other* issue to discuss, in terms of improving this article. The inclusion of critical material is *the* issue. Everything else looks hunky-dory. There aren't any spelling mistakes or typos that I have noticed. The issue is whether the Wikipedia entry on Waldorf should be, as lumos notes, a sales brochure for Waldorf schools, or an article giving enough perspective on differing views of Waldorf that an uninformed person can begin to understand what the issues might be. Nobody is objecting to all the brochure copy you've pasted in on eurythmy or pentatonic recorders or the head, the heart and the hands. What we are asking is that the downsides of all this blinding beauty and wonder also be accessible. - And without resort to preposterous and slanderous revenge tactics such as labeling critics of your movement a "hate group."

This slanderous action - the labeling of the organization PLANS as a "hate group" in the absence of any evidence of this is also a topic I see you would rather not be highlighted on this discussion page. Again, my debunking of the ludicrous old "PLANS alleges witchcraft" discussion was dismissed by Sune N[...] with a few quick phrases, oh, there was an article in the Sacramento Bee, well that settles it. Comments clearly showing the editorial to have been unreliable don't get a reply. Your response is to kinda shove the discussion to a less visible place on this site. It is quite obvious that the mere existence of the preposterous "hate group" discussion is something you would rather not be so readily readable by interested parties. You hope for the casual denunciation of the main body of organized critics as a "hate group" to have its impact on the casual reader of the article, while discussion of the origin and motivation for this outrageous claim is not readily accessible.DianaW 12:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:Assume good faith again. First of all, the discussion has achieved such monumental proportions that it deserves its own page; this is normal Wikipedia policy with specialized parts of articles that become overwhelmingly long. Second of all, I'm afraid that there are many aspects of Waldorf education, and this one link remains a highly specialized question, whatever its dominance in any individual's or group's thinking. Filling out and improving the actual description itself are also important tasks. There are now four links to the page in question, one at the very top of the page for quick access. Please be WP:Civil; this is not optional behavior at Wikipedia, but is "official policy and is considered a standard that all users should follow". Hgilbert 05:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fergie

Thanks, Fergie, for moving the whole discussion with DianaW to the bottom of the page, where it belonged. When DW put it at the top of the page instead of where it should have been, at the bottom, I put my comment on the issue just before DW's, for purely logical reasons, as DW's discussion was an answer to what I had written, and an answer normally comes after what it is an answer to.

Maybe the contributions by DW here have given a taste of the discussion culture on the WC-list, that is pursued there day in and day out, week in and week out, year in and year out, since soon ten years, draining the soul of all life, and then republished by the secretary of the goup as "archives", now 140+ MB, at his site for search engines to index and spread world wide for anyone interested in WE, as "Education of the public about Waldorf education". Is it fair to characterize it as hate speech, far beyond reasonable criticism? In my view, yes. --Thebee 10:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression that you guys are pusuing old vendettas from elsewhere. Maybe you should both try to take a couple of steps back, and try to be less emotional on Wikipedia.--Fergie 13:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Multiple links to same site

Before adding reference links, please check that they aren't already provided. Please do not add the same reference over and over, and do not link usenet or other email lists as reference material, nor message boards, blogs, etc. These are not to be used as reference material on wikipedia. Professor marginalia 22:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

1) All external sites should have just one link

so we can allow 24 hours for individuals to fix the links to their own sites - by choosing the one link. If you are "involved" with this page, please do not add more links at this point to replace others as we are trying to reduce links. I agree with Garrie on the placement of the critics site, but I also think that a PLANS person should choose the placement of their link.

I applaud the effort toward peacemaking, but I don't think that affiliates or factions of any sort should be given the exclusive power to choose their own choice of territory within the article or external link section. I think we should discourage any further identification or faction forming by editors to any particular group or "side", and establish more objective criteria. Including a section given to "criticism" looks like the common method used in countless other articles here at wikipedia. The pages on Freud, psychology, alternative medicine, Marxism, etc all handle it this way so though I'm not sure it has to be this way here, but I'm not sure why it should be changed here either. Seems to me that the number one purpose of the external link and reference sections would be to provide readers the sources used as background support for facts in the article itself, what if we agreed to guidelines that all the references and links posted here should roughly correspond to categories where the material or subject appears in the article itself?Professor marginalia 14:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

More on links I'm concerned that many of the links here just don't meet wikipedia's standards. Many are simply links to the main pages of personal websites filled with self-authored treatises or advice of one sort or another, another one added for the first time today that doesn't even mention the name of the school it supposedly criticizes. I propose that these kinds of links, pro or con, should be discarded. The personal reports of various web-diarists or web-fan sites don't cut it. An exception could be made to links to certain pages on those type websites which display reprints of published articles or research studies.Professor marginalia 14:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree professor, but so far this group is not ready for this. Ideally, we should have only Wikilinks or those to scholarly articles, and I think at some point in this process we should go there. To set en example, I will remove all homeschooling links as the page already links to the homeschooling page which has a few selected links. Wonderactivist 16:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I regret that it took extensive and repeated linking and editing to bring this issue to scrutiny. I agree, it makes sense for an Wikipedia to link to scholarly articles and not to blogs. I like the idea of linking to open discussion lists, however, as those tend to have fairly balanced and helpful discussions (when they are not heavily moderated) that would indeed be of interest to people researching Waldorf education. Again, as a 15-year Waldorf parent with kids still in Waldorf, and former founder of a Waldorf school, I feel that it is absolutely imparitive to have a balance of critical material and links - and believe that this balance ultimately assists Waldorf education to attract clientele that truly want what they have to offer. --Pete K 16:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Open discussion lists are absolutely not appropriate at wikipedia. They may be helpful resources in other contexts, but they do not meet the criteria as a reliable information resource for an encyclopedia. While the broader intention to include them may be good, such would be an inappropriate misuse of the wikipedia. Professor marginalia 17:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks. So where a single author, for example Sune, the owner of Waldorf Answers, discusses things on his own site without review by anyone, how is that not a blog? What does it take to make the opinions of a single person not a blog - a few links to other sites? What service are we providing by linking to a site like Waldorf Answers where NO contrary discussion is possible and critics of Waldorf are maligned without any recourse? And when he clones his site and calles it Americans for Waldorf Education, and provides two links - why is that OK with everyone here? --Pete K 22:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

For a definition of "blog", see the article at Wikipedia, here: Blog. "A weblog, which is usually shortened to blog, is a type of website where entries are made (such as in a journal or diary), displayed in a reverse chronological order." Approximately 99%, 140MB of the WC-site consists of archives of a mailing list, where the archives are displayed in reverse chronological order. This corresponds to the Wiki definition of blogs. Linking to such a blog violates Wikipedia guideline http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided point 9.

I'm quite familiar with what a blog is - and no, a mailing list is not a blog. A blog is written by one person and comments to that one person's entries are permitted. A mailing list does not conform to that format and certainly the fact that the PLANS site has an storage archive of a separate Waldorf Critics mailing list doesn't qualify it as a blog. My site, Waldorf Questions, does not qualify as a blog either, but the rule that I violated was linking to my own site. This is, I'm sure, the same rule you violate when you link to Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf. Waldorf Answers is your own site and AWE is a site run by you and three other people. --Pete K 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.waldorfanswers.org is a site, published at one time, not an endless list of postings by anyone, displayed in reverse order. That makes into a non-blog.

No, that's what makes it into a non-discussion list. --Pete K 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.americans4waldorf.org contains little of what is found at http://www.waldorfanswers.org. But it contains a large section on the WC-site: http://www.americans4waldorf.org/OnPLANS.html http://www.waldorfanswers.org doesn't. This makes "Americans for Waldorf Education" into a non-clone of "Waldorf Answers" --Thebee 08:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It is, indeed, a subset of WaldorfAnswers. A huge percentage of the material there is cut and pasted from WaldorfAnswers. You are using silly technicalities to sidestep the intent of Wikipedia. --Pete K 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And now the PLANS link has been moved and no section for CRITICAL REVIEW is available. So the PLANS link is buried in a section called "Further Discussion, Outside Views and Reviews of Waldorf Schools". Again, what's wrong with a reader having easy access to information critical of Waldorf? I would like to recreate a section labeled something with the word "Critical" in it so users can find links to critical information. Unless there's an objection to this, I'll do it tomorrow sometime. --Pete K 03:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before you arrived. This violates the standard for articles on Education at Wikipedia. See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Waldorf_education#Comparison_with_other_articles_on_education The article also has four sections describing criticism of WE, two of which link to the WC-site here: PLANS, that contains several links to the WC-site. It contradicts your statement that readers of the article do not have easy access to what is published by the WC-group, that you support. --Thebee 08:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Until two days ago, the link was available in a separate section of Critical links. I will restore a section like this for it. It is obvious, again, that it is your intention to bury the link now that the concensus here has been to include it. Again, your interpretation of the guidelines here is contrary to the intent of Wikipedia, which is to present a "Neutral point of view" and to allow both sides of the discussion. --Pete K 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "both sides". One group's critical opinion is just "another side". This is becoming silly--hours earlier you objected to the organization being described as "critical of Waldorf" and changed it, and now you place it in a section all by itself and label it "Critical view"? There is no reason to limit a section "critical views" arbitrarily to this one website. It was formerly in a section with "critical" in the title, and you weren't content with that either, but had placed it in three or four other subsections in addition to it. Then you moved it out altogether. Now you're moving it back to where it was to start with, presumably because all the other links have now been removed from it leaving your favorite link all by itself. Not cool. Professor marginalia 15:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Pete K, like you, first removing critical answers to the criticism by the WC-site, that does not meet the basic demands on External links and publishes repeatedy extreme and untruthful argumentation and material characteristic of hate groups, according to the approved wording of your co-representative of the WC, and now arguing that the NPOV policy is not met by linking to it within a comprehensive Further Discussion, Outside Views and Reviews of Waldorf Schools, but requires a special "CRITICAL REVIEW" link section (with no answers to the defamation of WE at the WC-site) to meet the the NPOV policy does not hold, and clearly violates the NPOV policy of Wikipedia.

It also violates the standard in articles on Education at Wikipedia. Not cool, as Professor Marginalia tells. --Thebee 15:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

To address Professor marginalia's comments first, and I have already addressed them once, but I'll address them again, to truthfully represent a NPOV, or more specifically a balanced POV, a critical viewpoint should be available where it is appropriate, not hidden in a list of other non-related stuff. So, when people are looking for Waldorf resources, for example, one cannot assume that the resources a person is looking for must be supportive of Waldorf. Someone looking for an objective view of Waldorf resources should have critical as well as supportive information at their fingertips. IF this is impossible within the guidelines of Wikipedia (and I don't believe it is) then a section for critical viewpoints should be available. This section should indeed be for critical viewpoints, and not unbiased viewpoints such as unbiased articles which may have said one or two things Waldorf supporters don't agree with. Critical means critical, and the expression of a critical viewpoint is absolutely acceptable and encouraged by Wikipedia.--Pete K 19:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

To address Sune's (TheBee) comments: First, I don't have a "co-representative of the WC" - I am an independent Waldorf parent with no connection to PLANS nor to Waldorf Critics, but I do post on their discussion list, as you have also done. There is nothing untruthful about the information contained there, and that it doesn't meet with your approval or view of Waldorf is not surprising. Please read my comments above to Professor marginalia regarding the Critical Review. And no, there should not be rebuttal available to a cite linking critical information. Fairness would require a link to rebut every link to Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf Education. BTW, that Waldorf is a great educational system is a minority view. As we well know, most of the world doesn't go to Waldorf schools or look favorably upon Waldorf education - and for good reason. Most people who discover Waldorf DON'T send their children there for many reasons not related to finances. That a critical viewpoint is not MORE prominent on this page is highly suspect. --Pete K 19:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

HGilbert, please read the instruction at the top of this section. We have been directed to describe edits that we intend to make here - 24 hours before we make them so that discussion can take place and the edit-wars can hopefully stop. Please do not remove the link heading "Critical Review" - even though it is containing a single link currently, there will be more critical sites linked here in the future. It has been decided, above, that a PLANS person will determine where the link to PLANS will go. I will confer with PLANS and confirm its location, but for the time being I feel comfortable representing them in this minor issue, so it should remain as it was before you deleted the section it was in. If this is unsatisfactory, please explain why. I'll check in tomorrow and replace the section if you haven't gotten to it. --Pete K 05:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to take Wonderactivist's suggestions as instructions, please note her suggestion above about only having links to Wikipedia or scholarly articles. I'm willing to agree to follow all her suggestions, which I find quite sensible taken as an entirety, but not a pick and choose your favorites approach. "We have been directed"...these are still suggestions by another editor (as I said, sensible ones). Shall we agree to follow all of them? Perhaps wonderactivist could list them clearly as a group and we could see if we can have agreement of all parties. Hgilbert 10:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I think we should all follow MY suggestions, but I'm pretty sure you won't agree to it. So we will continue with EDIT WARS until the clean-up team is available. Are you suggesting the links to AWE and Waldorf Answers are scholarly articles? They're bullshit. And that you have the time and energy to completely revise this site to YOUR impression of what it should be is not going to discourge me and others from correcting your corrections. This article and the intent of Wikipedia is to present a balanced view. If that is not possible with your presence here, then perhaps you should leave it to others. How about if we stop with this silliness and create a good article. It sounds like that's what Lucie has in mind. Why don't you follow her suggestions. If you think you are going to bully me into submission - please ask around, you've picked the wrong guy to try to bully. --Pete K 16:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind us all of the need to be civil and professional in our work together and that"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia". The article, or any encyclopia article, is meant to have solidly founded material, not random opinions, as its basis. I'm happy to follow Lucie's suggestions; one of them is to remove certain kinds of links. You seem to have begun this process with sites that do not conform to your POV. Are you satisfied if we follow through systematically? One result would be that the PLANS link would also have to go; it is not a scholarly article. Hgilbert 18:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering you have systematically reverted every edit I have made, I'm being extremely civil with you. Unfortunately, for you, you don't get to make decisions of what's scholarly. If PLANS links go, so do Americans for Waldorf Education and Waldorf Answers links. The article would be far better without them anyway - but frankly, I think Waldorf Answers is great reading - it turns more people off of Waldorf than PLANS does. But back to your didactic comment that characterizes my contributions as "random opinions" - again, I suggest you consider that a balanced view would require more than just YOUR opinions. I will be happy to support everything I include in this article with words from Steiner's own mouth, if necessary. But you're not going to like that either. So, I ask you again to adapt a cooperative attitude so that we can come up with an article that will be truthful and satisfactory to both Waldorf supporters and critics alike. I'm quite optimistic that it's possible but some effort has to be made. --Pete K 22:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

2) I was going to move all of the science parts to

a page called Goethean science, however there is already a holistic science page so I propose just adding a line that says "Waldorf teachers base science instruction in holistic science which is woven throughout the curriculum. Feel free to suggest a different line. It will then link to the holistic science page. There are already plenty of links to site which feature Waldorf curriculum - so the specifics are not needed. And yes, critics, the holistic science page already has a section called opposing views, but feel free to add a touch. Steiner folks, he isn't mentioned, but there's a link to Nature Institute and I added one to Rachel Carson's site. Please, let's not add too much to that page - Steiner could maybe get a line there, referring to his page .

Are you suggesting that the detailed Waldorf curriculum be eliminated altogether, or simply relocating or removing the science parts? I think the entire Waldorf curriculum discussion should be kept together if possible. I don't think that the science curriculum is exactly equivalent to either Goethean science or holistic science, but maybe a 'see also' pointer or other type link to those pages would be good for further background. I'd section out the History and Social Mission sections rather than divide out just one or two elements from the rest out of the currently practiced curriculum. Professor marginalia 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's get opinions on this. I originally saw an easy way to drop a large section, because really as a teacher I see the Waldorf curriculum as a direct reflection of holistic science. Let's openthis for more discussion - why do you feel a detailed curriculum should be here and which school's curriculum will you use - they vary? Wonderactivist 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The primary topic of interest in Waldorf curriculum is in where it deviates from what one would expect at any school. Someone looking for the curriculum breakdown would be better advised to research the curriculum at the school they are interested in sending their children to. Better to concentrate on what make Waldorf unusual. --Pete K 16:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good idea to ask how much detail is important. I think a broad curriculum discussion is important. (I mean the curriculum itself, without any particular focus on whether it is *unusual* or not. The article should talk about waldorf education, and whether or not somebody finds some particular aspect of it unusual doesn't make it more significant.) The science discussion seems disproportionately detailed, but it's good detail. I think some other curricular areas could benefit from a little more detail. There's a balance between making it just too cursory and too detailed, and overall length of the article is one of the concerns here. The point that it may not be consistent across the board to all schools is a good one. What sources have been consulted to describe the curriculum, and are they are widely accepted as "standard"? Professor marginalia 18:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a study done about the Waldorf science program. I'll look for the link. I'm pretty sure it was even referenced on AWSNA's website. Maybe providing a link to that study would be helpful. As for the curriculum itself, as a Waldorf parent, I know the wording gets a little fuzzy. Sometimes what you might find in a class called "economics" - is really more along the lines of Steiner's theories about a three-fold social order. So I'm not sure even listing the topics here is all that helpful in that it might (would) be misleading readers. Regarding the "standard" - in my experience, the curriculum and when each subject is taught is indeed standard throughout the world in Waldorf schools. The curriculum follows Steiner's prescription exactly and Waldorf schools haven't deviated from it in 85 years. What I would like to see some discussion about (and what I mean by "deviates") is stuff like Eurythmy, which is REQUIRED for every student from 1st grade through 12th grade. In other words, it's a big deal. It is a deeply spiritual exercise that I think we should take a few sentences to talk about here. --Pete K 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

3) I propose we take Garrie's advice

on the social mission page and then link to it, or is there already reference to that on Steiner's mega-page? Perhaps someone would like to write that page and then reduce the sizeof both this page and Steiner's by linking to it...and yes, crtics, I think one critical link would be appropriate - again, just one.

What does everyone think of these first proposed steps? I am very open minded on this. Wonderactivist 13:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've left opinions above, and think that the social mission section would be one of the better candidates to devote to its own separate article. Maybe we could move the "teacher education" section to the new school administration section, since the two subjects might be closely related. Also perhaps put the links with the data about existing schools and steps for starting new schools? They seem to me to be a natural fit, and help keep this page from feeling too chopped up, hit-and-miss, while making the new section into a fuller picture of the nuts and bolts inside the actual school houseProfessor marginalia 15:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the teacher education section, I have issue with the use of the word "college" which implies college-level training. Waldorf teacher-training centers are not colleges - they do not provide college training, and a teacher who has participated in these training courses could never claim that, on that basis, he or she went to college. --Pete K 16:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pete K: I don't understand this objection. The section is labeled "Teacher Training Programs". The only reference to "college" is in the names of the institutions, and you're not suggesting that editors here change these names to something else? Professor marginalia 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How are these sentences talking about the names of the institutions?

"Specialist Waldorf education teaching colleges are in operation throughout the world." "Rudolf Steiner's "spiritual science" or Anthroposophy and developmental psychology are normally central courses at any Waldorf teaching college." "Much of the education of any Waldorf teacher happens after graduation from teaching college,"

They are not called "colleges" everywhere. There is one literally across the street from me at Highland Hall School in Northridge. It is called WISC - the "Waldorf Institute of Southern California". No mention of "college" in the title. It only serves to confuse and deceive people to call teacher training institutes "colleges" and the truth is, they are not colleges. If anything would be appropriate as a description for them, it would be "training centers" - and everyone routinely calls the experience "teacher training" - not "teaching college" as is suggested above. That is the most accurate terminology. I'm not interested in contributing to the editing wars, but I will be happy to make those edits if, after you research this, you agree. --Pete K 02:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. I thought you were speaking of the link section, my mistake. I think it appropriate to change one, but the other makes a specific claim about the content of the instruction. I say one particular use of it should be left alone rather than be changed on one editor's say-so. If this is a disputed issue, reference sources should be cited. Professor marginalia 15:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following rewording that would be consistent with the wording used in Waldorf environments and would help avoid confusion between teacher training institutions and colleges:

"Special Waldorf education teacher training centers are in operation throughout the world." "Rudolf Steiner's "spiritual science" or Anthroposophy and developmental psychology are normally central courses at Waldorf teacher training institutions." "Much of the education of any Waldorf teacher happens after graduation from teacher training,"

Please advise me if you have an objection to this change. --Pete K 22:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf's social mission is integral to its being; it was part of its original concept and has been one of its most powerful defining traits. I have moved it lower down in the article. I do feel it should stay here.

Now that some sections have been moved to subsidiary articles, I don't see that there are very many sections left that should be moved out. There is a general introduction for those who only want that. Then there is a table of contents to help guide those who are interested in special aspects; they can jump to their section of interest. The educational philosophy definitely needs to be represented!! Improving the balance of this is certainly a worthwhile goal, however.

The science section could certainly be moved out if replaced with a brief summary, however. This would allow it to be expanded in its new site; it is one area about which there are often questions, unclarity and/or critiques. Hgilbert 01:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

PLANS

This is becoming ridiculous. There is no reason to post the reference to PLANS a hundred times. You don't provide balance by granting one opposing reference more weight than any others by repeating it ad nauseum. It's of highly questionable value as a legitimate reference source to begin with, but it certainly doesn't deserve to be duplicated five times! Professor marginalia 14:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Professor, I agree - whether a critic or anything else, nothing should have 5 links on a Wiki page - absolutely nothing. Wonderactivist 15:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And the same person is removing other sites...including one critical of the critics. What's that about not suppressing criticism? He seems to be suppressing criticism of his favorite site... 24.190.149.18 20:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Since links are broken up into sections and categories, it makes good sense to provide a link to a critical site in the category where it is appropriate. Researching a Waldorf school, for example, is a good place to have a link to a site critical of Waldorf because people researching a Waldorf school could certainly be interested in information critical of Waldorf. I will shortly be providing a link of a site critical to the Camphill movement as well. There is nothing sinister about adding links to critical sites where they make sense instead of grouping them all under the category of critical. The pro-Waldorf links on these pages are overwhelming and even many of the links listed in the "critical" section point to very soft articles. Also, it is absolutely inappropriate for a "rebuttal" to a critical link to be posted - as it would be for a critical rebuttal to be posted for every supportive link. And somebody continually changes the description of the link to PLANS to say something like "The Anti-Waldorf" blah blah... Should I continually change the Waldorf Answers site description to "The Waldorf Fanatic site" blah blah? There should be a balance here between supportive and critical information and this is hardly the case. Wikipedia, I'm sure, is not intended to be a site for promotional material, nor is it intended, in my view, as a place where watchdogs can continually excuse themselves while removing corrections to the article content and links to critical sites. There are many inaccuracies in the main article page itself that critics have let slide - with the understanding that links to critical sites will be available. People who research Waldorf education should have access to both sides of the issue. Pete K 1:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have developed and merged the section on Outside views with the section Further Discussion and Reviews, and removed a direct link to the anti-Waldorf lobby group PLANS, as such a link would violate Wikipedia guidelines by the site to approximately 99%, 140+MB, being an archive of a mailing list, comparable to a blog, and publishing and supporting defamatory untruths and argumentation comparable to hate groups, see here. The views of the group are presented by articles in San Francisco Chronicle, listed in the section. --Thebee 13:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sune, until you get a handle on your temper about this, you will be wasting everyone's time here. I will replace the link to PLANS yet again. Your OPINION that it is "hateful" or "untruthful" does not give you any right to continually remove the link and continually rename it when it is there. Links to YOUR OWN sites which are WaldorfAnswers and Americans for Waldorf Education could easily be removed for some of the same reasons you site above. And as far as renaming the links - I don't think this is your responsibility. If you need me to continually rename the Waldorf Answers link to - "Waldorf Answers, a fanatical group of Waldorf zealots", then continue with this childish nonsense. Otherwise, please consider that your opinion is ONLY your opinion. --Pete K 16:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added back the links to PLANS and to Waldorf Critics. I have correctly labeled two websites as fanatical. Sauce for the goose... Level-headed people in this discussion, please note I have done this to make a point. Somebody in authority needs to please take control of the edits on these pages and, at some point, lock them. This is just plain ridiculous. --Pete K 16:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are not backed up, neither by reference to specific guidelines, nor to specific documentation in support of your view. When making edits, please provide them. --Thebee 17:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who may be new or unfamiliar with wikipedia protocols, please note that editors are not to perform "breach experiments" within the article in order to demonstrate your point. We're not to break the rules to prove a rule.

The talk page and talk page archives reveal disputes over the worthiness of the PLANS link has been extensively explored, and at least at one point the consensus seemed to be that it should be included as it pertains to the lawsuit mentioned in this article. The mere fact that Waldorf education, or any other subject of topics here at wikipedia, has critics or others with personal gripes against it doesn't merit they each be exhaustively catalogued in the articles here, nor given a spot of real estate here to air their complaints.

I'm appealing to a halt to the edit wars over this link, and ask that we abide by the earlier consensus formed here, and focus our efforts now on working together to improving the structure and length of this article, including its reference section. Professor marginalia 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

On the reason to include a special direct link to the WC-site, that "it should be included as it pertains to the lawsuit mentioned in this article.":

The section that mentions this: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Waldorf_education#U.S._Waldorf_methods_public_schools, as also a previous section on 'criticism of WE' gives a direct link to the Wikipage on the group at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/PLANS that extensively describes the lawsuit, lost by PLANS after a 30-minute trial, after having had seven years to prepare for it, with a direct link to all the legal documents involved at http://www.waldorfanswers.org/Lawsuit.html and numerous links to the WC-site itself. In addition giving a third link on the WC-group, directly to the WC-site itself here in the article on Waldorf education, that would violate/violates several Wikipeida guidelines, adds nothing to this, except acceptance of a conscious violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and repeated disregard of these guidelines, because of bullying by one participant here, using another violation of yet another of the Wikipedia guidelines here: a "breach experiment" to to implement the violations. All essential viewpoints of the group also already are presented in two articles by San Francisco Chronicle, listed in the Further discusson section, without violating Wikipedia guidelines. --Thebee 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sune, I've asked you several times now and so have others - please discontinue this childish editing of the PLANS link. Let's please just call it PLANS without some comment beside it that attempts to discount its legitimacy. I am going to remove the "group of lobbyists" comment you added. Again, if you think it's appropriate to characterize PLANS in the way you see it, then I'm sure you won't mind if I do the same with your own (multiple) links. --Pete K 22:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

First you write "... as far as renaming the links - I don't think this is your responsibility." Now you again accuse me -- without any factual basis -- of "childish editing of the PLANS link". The only thing I've done -- one time -- is to add PLANS to the name. For some reason, you seem to have been misreading the hístory page of the WE article. --Thebee 10:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This statement in the article "The San Francisco based anti-Waldorf lobby group PLANS, described by one support group for Waldorf Education (Americans for Waldorf education) as a group that publishes argumentation characteristic of hate groups, has been extremely vocal on this issue." is about to get a footnote that says "Not surprisingly 'Americans for Waldorf Education' and sister site 'Waldorf Answers' are considered by Waldorf critics and Waldorf supporters alike to be comprised of fanatical Waldorf supporters. Additionally, much of the information contained in these two sites is unfounded and libelous. Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf Education site owner, Sune N[...], once voted one of the 250 craziest people on the internet, is known among critics for his dishonest portrayal of Waldorf education..." And I'll add lots of links to discussions with and about Sune. And that can continue for a few pages. It makes perfect sense to me to discredit the people who continually seek to discredit critical viewpoints concerning Waldorf. Again, why in the world is it of any value to a Wikipedia article to have this sort of statement present (The one that's actually in the article now, not the one I am proposing - tongue-in-cheek)? Yes, some idiots have said PLANS is a hate group, and we have had a discussion about this - and clearly PLANS is not a hate group. I don't belong to PLANS, but I post on their discussion list, and now, because some crackpots have sought to discredit PLANS with this "hate group" nonsense, my name is associated with a supposed "hate group". Again, the integrity of Wikipedia is at stake here - if that means anything to anybody, and this kind of inflammatory dialog doesn't belong in an article about schools. --Pete K 01:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana, one of the foremost supporters and promoters of the WC-group in discussions on the net, has written that she likes the rewording of the first direct characterization of PLANS as a hate group into "The San Francisco based anti-Waldorf lobby group PLANS, described by one support group of Waldorf Education, Americans for Waldorf education as a group that publishes argumentation characteristic of hate groups against Waldorf education[15], is the most vocal on this issue.".

Besides DianaW, you're the most energetic supporter and promoter of the WC-group on the web. Why are you not a "member" of it? It only costs 15$/year, and they really need it. Or are you?

You do not like to see the WC-group very neutrally characterized by Professor Marginalia as a "Lobbying group critical of Waldorf education" as description after the name. But you yourself have added a link to a completely self published, one man site (looked at the Wiki guidelines on this?) and describe it with "Critical viewpoint of Camphill Communities." That would be one violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and one inconsistency of argumentation, no?. --Thebee 10:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not Diana, so I'm going to remove the hate group stuff. If you insist that you want to include the completely unfounded "hate group" comment, I will add comments characterizing the group that makes these comments. BTW, suggesting that I should join or am secretly a member of a particular group (especially one that you have labeled a hate group) in this discussion is completely out of line here Sune. It is part of your attempt to discredit all critics. That's part of why you and your ilk have dragged discussion about my divorce into these pages - an act that was incredibly insensitive. It's the kind of stuff hate groups do. The one-man site you are talking about is no different than the one man site Waldorf Answers that you run, and link here repeatedly. --Pete K 14:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, like your statement on my having edited the description of the WC was untrue, so is your statement that I have "dragged discussion about (your) divorce into these pages". I have not written one word on it. As for the question om membership of WC, it was quite natural. If not even you, one of the most vocal supporters of the WC supports it with 15$, who does? And why (not)? --Thebee 16:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the discussion about my divorce was produced by "your ilk", but the blame for attempting to discredit all critics of Waldorf is correctly placed on you too. And why in the world is discussion of who supports membership in WC of any relevance to this and being discussed on Wikipedia? Get a life will you?. I've left your "approved" wording about the "hate group" and added my qualifications - as promised. If you need more people to call AWE fanatics, I'm sure it will be no trouble for me to round them up and link to them. --Pete K 17:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I'm removing all unattributed criticism; I was trying to be gentle with edits, but you're right, the whole paragraph is unattributed and thus untenable for the Wikipedia. I'm trying to rewrite it in a form that respects the intent while recognizing that in none of the major studies done of Waldorf Education (by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in Britain, for example, or by UNESCO) have any of these issues been raised. There aren't any citable criticism of this particular issue, but it is something potential interested parties should know.

Many themes in the Support and Criticism sections under Debate were repetitive. There were also two sections labelled criticism, one with text and one with links. I have merged the two debate subsections thematically under the general aegis of 'Debate' and removed the 'support' and 'criticism' tags; if someone seeks criticism specifically, they will find the links.

In particular, the criticism that Waldorf 'hides its spiritual nature' has never been made by any reputable authority. In addition, since all published material on Waldorf education emphasizes this spiritual emphasis, the criticism has certainly not been relevant since the advent of the Internet. Dated at best.

recent additions:North American Waldorf Schools Connection to Christianity

Added recently:

AWSNA, the organization that certifies all schools in North America with the trademarked name "Waldorf," says that to be certified it is "essential" that schools have a "strong foundation" in a religious system developed by Rudolf Steiner

AWSNA did not use the term 'religious system'. This is misleading.

, called Anthroposophy. (AWSNA) Anthroposophy is a form of Christian mysticism

Steiner connected with many streams: Christian mysticism, Theosophy, natural science, Goethe, Fichte, and so on. Anthroposophy is not a form of Christian mysticism, however.

, where Christ remains the central figure, but other religions and philosophies are incorporated as well. (Steiner, 1914) Most private Waldorf schools

in Christian countries

celebrate Christian-based holidays, with an Anthroposophic interpretation, including the four seasonal festivals of Michaelmas (fall), Christmas (winter), Easter (spring), and St. John (summer), as well as Martinmas and the Advent Spiral or Garden. Most Waldorf schools also have other Anthroposophic

or non-anthroposophic: Hannukah, so far as I know, is not an anthroposophic festival

celebrations and festivals throughout the school year that are not Christian holidays, but the vast majority are Christian-based.

in Christian countries

I am removing the tendentious and in large part factually untrue section.

Whoevers asking i go to one of the Waldorf schools and they do tell us what religions are about and stuff but nuthing like worship so don't worry.

Waldorf Project

Is the Waldorf project moving forward, or should those of us actually interested in fixing this article start editing it? If the Waldorf project has come up with edits, I would suggest they be introduced here so the rest of us aren't wasting our time editing things that will get changed by the Waldorf project. Pete K 17:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete, as motivation for your removal of two links from the links section today (17:20, 18 October 2006), http://www.waldorfanswers.org and http://www.waldorfanswers.org/Studies.htm you describe the site as "defamatory". On 2 September 2006 you described it as:

"... replete with defamation and non-verifyable (outright lies) information." (BTW, 6 minutes after you wrote it, Longhair reported that had you been "blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and a violation of the three revert rule".)

Can you be more specific about what you mean with this (replete with defamation and non-verifyable (outright lies) information), or maybe just "defamatory", as you write today? --Thebee 18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a few of the many lies on those pages have been exposed and discussed here and in the archives of this and the Rudolf Steiner articles. Please feel free to use them to refresh your memory. I think the best example of the defamation is available by simply looking at the sites themselves. I won't waste too much time on this as it would be an exercise in demonstrating the obvious. Is there some reason you are trying to connect the 3RR rule violation with this? And do you see what you are doing here in this example - connecting unrelated issues together to try to make some implication about me. This is what you do on your websites as I pointed out to you on a different page in an example - that you took claims that were made by others and suggested they were made by PLANS. There's really no point in discussing this with you as you apparently have no idea how dishonest your websites are. Just rest assured that I will remove references to them every time I see them. Pete K 19:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's no answer regarding Waldorf Answers. If you state that http://www.waldorfanswers.org is defamatory, and give this as one reason not to link to it in the article, you need to substantiate it and be specific. It you can't substantiate it, I'll have to ask you to retract your statement. Thanks, --Thebee 20:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't HAVE to do either. Your own website substantiates my statement for me. It's a waste of my time to continue to argue with you over the validity of your website. If you want to have this mediated - ask for mediation. Pete K 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can't share the reasons for your objection to the website, then that objection to it can be ignored. This whole issue is irrelevant as neither waldorfanswers.org nor waldorfcritics.org are reliable sources. — goethean ॐ 20:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum on numerous "talk" pages here related to Steiner. Sune's web sites, Waldorf Answers included, contain the assertion that PLANS is a hate group. (Or various weasely mouth-of-cotton constructions like, "includes argumentation characteristic of hate groups in their early stages" LOL.) All of the people that he and others routinely (whether accurately or not) associate with PLANS are defamed by association with this. The claims are completely, in total, 100% nonsense, and he has never posted a shred of evidence to support them. The charges are very serious and I've pointed out to him and his colleagues at AWE, his other web site, that if they truly believed them they should be reporting people associated with PLANS to law enforcement. They don't, of course, because it's merely propaganda. I have been interviewing for jobs, and a potential employer could google me and become worried that I am involved in a "hate group." Sune [...] knows that this is not true. He should remove these phoney accusations that he cannot substantiate, as they paint him rather than the people he is falsely accusing as lacking in ethics, but we can't force him, short of legal action. He should not be allowed to provide links to material like this here - this we can protest, and we will. Wikipedia does not allow defamation.DianaW 20:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow defamation.

This is irrelevant. What you are discussing is linking to alleged defamation, which is completely different. If you find a Wikipeia policy on that, then bring it up. As I said above, this is irrelevant since the site is not a reliable source. — goethean ॐ 21:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing "alleged" about describing a group of people as a hate group and refusing to give a shred of documentation for the claim. The fact is these web sites DO call PLANS a hate group; this is documented. It's further obvious to any reader of those web pages that there isn't any documentation on the web site of any activities that meet the definition of a hate group, or even close. There are no reported hate group activities, and no reported hate group speech. This is his propaganda to deter critics of anthroposophy. You've been party to long conversations with Sune [...] in which he continues to refuse to provide evidence for these atrocious claims. He argues things like, somebody got promoted to vice-president of PLANS because she "cultivated a myth about anthroposophical conspiracies." He has no information on the inner workings of PLANS, couldn't document why so-and-so became vice president if his life depended on it, and he doesn't even have the guts to provide links showing where the VP of PLANS supposedly did such a dastardly thing - becuase if he provided the link, everyone would see what the rest of us know - that it doesn't show that. It's general talk on a mailing list about anthroposophical projects and doctrines, in other words, it's people criticizing anthroposophy, mainly parents whose kids had a very bad time in their schools.DianaW 11:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's Original Research at the very least. No link. Pete K 21:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I to understand that you with this retract your statement from 2 September in this discussion, that http://www.waldorfanswers.org is

"... replete with defamation and non-verifyable (outright lies) information." --Thebee 23:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I absolutely DO NOT retract it - in fact it has been proven here countless times. I'm just not going to humor you while you whine about it here. Pete K 23:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"What you are discussing is linking to alleged defamation, which is completely different." There is no "alleged" defamation - it IS defamation to toss around words like "hate group". Pete K 01:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging Articles

I agree this article should be merged with the Transfering article and the History of Waldorf Schools article. There is no reason to have so many articles repeating the same information. The history of Waldorf is handled in this article - as is the transfering to/from Waldorf schools. A little embellishment maybe, but that's all we need. Pete K 21:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The sub-article Transferring to Waldorf Schools is far too long to incorporate here; that's why it was separated off. There is a question as to whether it should exist at all, however. (I separated it rather than deleting it to avoid offending whoever put it in; perhaps he or she could say why it is important to have here.)

In addition, merger tags should go in the appropriate section of an article when they apply only to a sub-area, at the top of the article when two comparable articles are to be merged. Hgilbert 13:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the sub-article shouldn't exist at all. It apparently started out as "Waldorf Schools" and became "History of Waldorf Schools" - and really, much of the relevant material is covered here. Can we all agree to delete that article? Pete K 16:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops; two article merges are being confused here (my fault; I wasn't specific). The article Transferring to Waldorf schools is the one that probably shouldn't exist. The History of Waldorf schools article has substantial information independent of the nature of Waldorf schools; it should stay and will be developed further. Mea culpa - sorry for the confusion. Hgilbert 21:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, no confusion - the history of Waldorf education should also be deleted as most of the info is in the Waldorf article (currently) - and really, who cares about the rest? I don't know what the Waldorf Project team has in mind however so maybe they will be spinning off dozens of Waldorf articles and flood Wikipedia with Waldorf and Steiner stuff. Hey, aren't you part of that project? Pete K 00:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf Resources

Pete, after I deleted a link to one site, "OpenWaldorf", giving as expressed reason that it is a one-man self published site, that noone but himself has checked before he published it or he has gotten approved by some institutionalized Waldorf authority as authorative, and I added one link to the Online Waldorf Library at http://www.waldorflibrary.org/ you have deleted all three remaining links in the category without giving any other reason for this than: "they seem to be the next front for edit wars.".

The three resources you deleted are:

• The Online Waldorf Library
• Waldorf Research Institute
• List of well-known Waldorf alumni

I have specified the reason for deleting the one-man self published site, which is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. http://www.waldorflibrary.org like http://www.waldorfresearchinstitute.org are basic institutionalized authorative informational sites on Waldorf Education, giving an extensive overview of literature and articles on Waldorf education. In no way do my edits constitute an "edit war". As you do not give any specific reasons for deleting the three links, your deletion of them however stands out as pure edit warring. Maybe an administrator can look at this? --Thebee 16:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I hope administrators look at this. The Waldorf Project is, in fact, working on the issue of links as well as other issues related to this article. Rather than getting this article locked up over links, we should probably delete all the links until the Waldorf Project makes a decision. They have taken on the responsibility of producing an NPOV article AND NPOV links. I would suggest to you that you should let them do their work and stop fussing with links. Pete K 16:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you are the one who "fussed" with the links, perhaps you should take your own advice. The links you deleted cannot be criticized on any possible grounds. Their relevance to the article is also clear. Hgilbert 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

The neutral point of view policy is laid out clearly. Material in this article is from cited references (general references appear at the end of the article, specific in footnotes). Please specify exactly what parts of the article are not meeting which aspects of the WP:NPOV policy rather than general tagging; then these can be improved.

Please compare this article with, e.g. the Montessori article; the use of language is much more careful here. Please specify what more is sought. Hgilbert 18:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is helpful to compare this article with other articles that have the same or similar problems. This article reads like a Waldorf brochure - everybody agrees with this. That's why the Waldorf Project Team was created - to FIX the article and bring a NPOV to it. We're all waiting patiently for them to fix it. Meanwhile, the tag is very appropriate. Here's an example of what I could easily write in the article and reference - if I were so inclined: "Waldorf schools were developed by Rudolf Steiner as a process by which children could be indoctrinated into Anthroposophy. Steiner instructed teachers to conceal the underpinnings of Waldorf education and to not let students OR parents know the Anthroposophical trappings that are infused in the curriculum." I could support this statement with "Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner" easily - and it would be just as valid as the description you have hoisted up there. I think we can agree that some language between what you have written, and what I would like to write would be appropriate. Yours is no more a NPOV than mine is. In the mean time - while we are looking into the issue, the tag should remain. This is literally a brochure for Waldorf - and that should be made apparent with a tag. Pete K 20:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Another suspicious website has been referenced as a source for warehousing information. UncleTaz (Tarjei Staumme) is similar to Sune(TheBee) in the misinformation he provides on his website. I would like to request that a neutral party look at the UncleTaz website and determine if links to this original research website for warehousing legitimate information are irresponsible and should be redirected directly to the articles themselves. I believe it is a dangerous idea to store good information on defamatory websites and direct readers there. Let's use Wikisource whenever possible for warehousing legitimate information. I'll leave the link for today. A neutral person should evaluate this. Pete K 17:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Another reference to the problematic website has been produced. Still no discussion. OK, tomorrow morning - out it goes. Pete K 02:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is helpful, from WP:Reliable sources:

"The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source.

Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources."

(I have replaced the above-mentioned webpage citation with a direct citation to the original publication.) Hgilbert 21:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you're citing of Wikipedia policy is another smokescreen. "poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time"

"Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources."

"The same reasoning applies to trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia.com, where the degree of editorial oversight is unknown."

If you have referenced UncleTaz, it's coming back out. Pete K 22:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Going from Bad to Worse

Having reviewed the latest edits, this article is going from bad to worse. Even some of the language we agreed to remove is re-entering the article by means of the same people who agreed to remove it. Can we have an official word that the Waldorf Project is not doing anything at this point? I'm inclined to reverse all of HGilbert's edits today but don't want to begin an edit war again. If nobody is willing to look at the brochure language here, I will go through the entire article and make a very coarse and thorough edit. It will bring the article down to size, I'm certain, and will remove the brochure talk. I would much rather a more "neutral" person perform this task as people perceive me to be opinionated in one direction - just as HGilbert is opinionated in the other direction - but in the absense of any interest by another reasonable reviewer, I'll go to the trouble of doing this. Pete K 14:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been asked not to "simply revert"; please respect this. We are trying to make the article conform to Wikipedia standards, for example by removing ambiguous language and vague phrases. What is problematic in these last edits???? Please discuss and come to agreements here.

I believe that the project has come to a standstill because of your (and Diana's) refusal to enter mediation; I at least, and apparently a number of others, find it impossible to work with users who refuse to compromise and refuse to mediate. Hgilbert 13:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

, I'll be making corrections to the article directly. If you can add all this stuff in without discussion, you should expect to have it edited without discussion. If, instead, you choose to work with others to make valid edits by consensus on a controversial topic such as this one, then there is a greater likelyhood that your edits will stand. BTW, you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting the mediation process was derailed by Diana and myself. You saw, for six days, our diligent discussions about the problematic wording of the mediation request and did nothing to "compromise". Please don't try to pin the failed mediation on Diana or me. The Waldorf project was problematic from the beginning - all WALDORF people made up the project group. The chances of a non-biased article coming out of that group were nil. And what in the world do the Waldorf project and the failed mediation have to do with each other. Were you expecting to reprimand me into working on the project? If you find it impossible to work with me, you should, perhaps, let this article go. You have been unable to produce an unbiased version of this or several other articles - so why not just relax for a few days and let others give it a shot. Pete K 15:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, , I see you are busy adding back the brochure language I took out last night - so I'll let you have this evening and remove it again in the morning. Hope you are enjoying yourself. Pete K 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's more brochure language that needs to come out: "Private Waldorf schools make up the largest independent school system in the world." To support this statement - we have a list of 921 schools... and a website reference in German by Anthroposophist Detlef Hardcorp. This is brochure speech at its finest, and listing the number of Waldorf schools doesn't support the statement. I will be removing it tomorrow. Pete K 04:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The relevant reference of the two is to the article by Detlef Hardorp; I have moved the other reference to a more appropriate location. The article was originally published in a standard multi-volume reference work on education, published by a mainstream publisher; I have added the reference to this source as well. (You cannot discriminate against an author due to his/her affiliations (see Wikipedia standards)). The citation is adequate unless you can find evidence that speaks against this statement. Hgilbert 22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, a reference in German by an Anthroposophist supporting an unbelievable claim. What a surprise. You will hopefully understand, then, why the advert tag is going to stay on the article until the brochure speech is removed. Why don't you guys at least TRY to make an attempt at a NPOV article - instead of pushing this silliness? Pete K 00:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Redundant Sections

There are two sections that are redundant. "Anthroposophy's role in Waldorf Education" and "Basis in Anthroposophy" say almost exactly the same things. I'm removing the latter and preserving any information contained therein by adding it to the former. Pete K 00:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

Phrases like "Some schools do not give sufficient information about..." without any citation or backup is pure weaseling. This is editorializing at its worst; it is simply an editor's opinion dressed up as fact. Hgilbert 00:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. The truth is NO schools give sufficient information about Anthroposophy on their websites. But I'll challenge you to find some that do. Not links to information - but actual information on the website. I could easily take out the "some" and make the sentence a lot less weasly. Pete K 01:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a little backwards. To make such a claim, you must positively source or otherwise prove it - unsourced claims do not stand until disproved. I have provided a compromise wording that is indisputable. Hgilbert 19:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks , but that's not truthful. I'll adjust your "compromise" wording to be more in line with the truth. Thank goodness I'm here and able to do this. Pete K 21:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What you call 'truth' is merely your opinion. What amount of information about 'anthroposophy' is "sufficient"? Once again, claims made have the burden of verifiability; you cannot merely claim anything and demand that others disprove it. Hgilbert 11:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Tearing off the Advertisement Tag

A few days ago, I removed the ad tag because it looked like the article no longer needed it. It was immediately changed back, and the person who changed it said "that an anonymous user can't decide this" and I didn't think that was fair, but thought "oh well, I'll just get a username and no longer be an anonymous user."

Well I did just that, I got a name. Well then I looked and saw that someone else took the tag off. So another person evidently agreed with me. Well, then the same person who reversed my edit, did the exact same thing with this other person's edit, saying a consensus hasn't been achieved yet. Well it looks to me, based on this person's other edits, that he is simply trying to edit to page according to his own personal viewpoint, and he needs to shelter himself under the advert tag to do just that.

Well I for one don't think a consensus needs to be achieved if just one person is against it. I don't think it is fair to the readers. I'm curious, what does Wikipedia have to say about it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rottentomatoe (talk • contribs)

PeteK is certainly not an editor who is afraid to go against the grain, and if it was not for him, this article would have been in a far worse state. Those who are interested in editing the article tend to have a personal investment in Waldorf education and in some extreme cases a religious devotion to it. Consequently the article has become brochure-like and the advert tag is justified until this is rectified.Fergie 21:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fergie: I have asked you several times on your user page to clarify what sections/sentences in the article, or what sorts of problems you see, giving concrete examples. You have never answered this. If you wish to maintain this, you need to give reasons/examples. I don't see the justification at present. Hgilbert 22:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just read through it and it's remarkably better than it was. I think you guys owe Pete a debt of gratitude. It makes Waldorf education look much more credible - much more *respectable* - like perhaps you are serious educators - to have an article like this, that describes content of the education and background of the education and largely refrains from a lot of overblown, Open House-style obvious puffery. You don't know what a favor he's done you. That slobbery stuff really does not do Waldorf any good at all with thoughtful customers, whom presumably you ought to want as customers. Yet, a few areas still contain "brochure talk."

The discussion of Main Lesson Books, for instance, is covering for the fact that the content of the books, both text and illustrations, is largely copied. "each pupil writes and illustrates a 'main lesson book', a self-created 'textbook' based upon the content learned." Well - they copy it off the chalkboard. They often aren't even allowed to decorate the borders with a little scroll pattern of their own design without teacher guidance. "Scope for independent creativity in these books progresses rapidly through the elementary years." That's spin - that's a reply to an unstated criticism, which is that there's precious little such "scope" for quite some time.

The teacher training section needs to have mention of anthroposophy moved up earlier. "The course of study normally includes methodologies of teaching, academic training in specialized disciplines, artistic development, and familiarity with child development (especially as researched by Steiner and later Waldorf educators)." It needs to read "normally ncludes anthroposophy, methodologies of teaching . . ." etc. "It also generally aims to develop an understanding of the inner, or spiritual, basis of teaching;" That's brochure talk - most people don't agree with you that Waldorf has got some kind of unique understanding of the "inner or spiritual basis of teaching." I see that you guys are trying, and that it is hard for you to sort out what critical outsiders want. What is objective and factual to say is that it is *Steiner's* notion of the "spiritual basis of teaching" that the teachers are studying in training. "They learn the spiritual basis of teaching" type stuff is brochure talk because it's like you know what the spiritual basis of teaching is. Um, not according to everyone. Moreoever there isn't one"spiritual basis of teaching" - there's potentially many.

The next paragraph says, "TRudolf Steiner's 'spiritual science' or Anthroposophy and developmental psychology are normally central courses at any Waldorf teaching college or training" - and this is good but needs to appear at the beginning of this discussion. The Foundation Year is anthroposophy - not "teaching methodologies" etc. Incidentally, just from a copy editorial POV, you should ditch words like "methodologies" when a simpler word like "methods," which means the same thing, will suffice. - I know, some educators or stuffed-shirt PhD's earnestly believe that "methodologies" means something fancier - but it doesn't.

"Academic training in specialized disciplines" - say what? What exactly would these specialized disciplines be? Does this mean English and math? This is a bit dolled up. I mean, they learn (supposedly) how to teach third grade English in two weeks in the summer before the third grade, and how to teach fourth grade English in two weeks the next summer, etc. Waldorf teachers, if their training has been only in a Waldorf teacher training program and their teaching experience limited to Waldorf schools, often have very little of what would elsewhere be recognized as "academic training" at all; never mind "specialized disciplines."DianaW 04:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing where it is. You are right that it could be further edited, things shifted around a bit - this is true of any article in any encyclopedia, and especially in Wikipedia where things grow by accumulative processes. Would you agree there is nothing in your suggestions that justifies calling the article in its present state an "advertisement"? I think we can continue to work on it, but the tag can be dropped.

"Specialized disciplines", incidentally, include math and english, of course, but also foreign languages, biology, physics, woodworking, and everything else. These play a very large role in both high school and specialist-teacher (e.g. foreign language) trainings, and a smaller but significant role in class teacher trainings, but even for the latter content of this kind (as opposed to general pedagogy) is much more prominent in the four-year Waldorf teacher training courses typical of continental Europe than in the one and two-year courses typical of the U.S..

The spiritual side of teaching could be reworded; there are usually courses addressing the "inner life" ("spiritual life") of a teacher: meditation, working with the spiritual beings, including the spiritual aspect of a child. Hgilbert 11:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Would you agree there is nothing in your suggestions that justifies calling the article in its present state an "advertisement"? I think we can continue to work on it, but the tag can be dropped." - I don't agree with this statement at all. Right up until the article was locked, I was removing brochure language - see my edits. As Diana pointed out, there is more brochure language that needs to be removed. What concerns me is that if the article is unlocked, your "team" will try to undo all the edits that brought the article closer to a non-advertisement. There's a lot more to be done here not even counting reverting the edits I know are forthcoming from the Waldorf support POV lobbiests. Again, the brochure-like language of the article has been in question here for at least three months and the Waldorf project team was supposed to address this. The best way to address this, however, might be to have non-Waldorf people look at it instead of a project team populated with Waldorf people. Why not show some good faith and not force the removal of the tag while the necessary edits are taking place? Just a thought. Pete K 21:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not set a good example and show some good faith yourself? The only edit war that has been happening during your last, rather large burst of editing has been over the tag. The tag should go. The editing should continue as an interactive process; some of your edits have been extremely POV, and they have been effectively moderated by other users. You cannot expect to change every one else's text and have yours remain untouchable; that's not how a collaborative process (even if a combatively collaborative one in this case) works. Mutual trust would take down the tag and go forward trying to accept each others' approaches and work with these. I think there's actually been a lot of that here recently, considering the circumstances. Hgilbert 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Pete wrote: "What concerns me is that if the article is unlocked, your "team" will try to undo all the edits that brought the article closer to a non-advertisement. There's a lot more to be done here not even counting reverting the edits I know are forthcoming from the Waldorf support POV lobbiests." This is my take as well. The tag should not be removed while the article is locked. Then after the article is unlocked, it leaves you free to go right back to reverting back all the things Pete succeeded in fixing. Then you'll say, 'What advertisement tag? All that got taken care of'.DianaW 23:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like my "POV" edits . They've mostly been removing or correcting *your* POV edits. But, in any case, it seems you are confirming, above, that you're ready to reverse my most recent edits - at which point the article would return to a brochure. Anyone reading the article now, and suggesting that it's not a brochure would be evaluating the wrong article - according to your suggestion above. So, yeah, the tag should definitely stay. If you've got some proposed edits that might let the article be unlocked, let's hear them... Pete K 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would revise only two of your many edits:

1. The one where you add "and sometimes unfortunately". You drift into pure editorializing; this needs some other formulation that isn't a pure projection of your opinion and/or personal experiences. I happen to be a champion within the Waldorf movement of revising the emphasis on the eight-year class teacher period. But the opposite of "brochure speak" is "antagonist speak"; both may make statements that appear clear, objective and meaningful to the person making them - but are too broad and too vague simultaneously. It is "weasel" language; unattributed, both unprovable and undisprovable.
2. The wholesale removal of the section on rhythm in the kindergarten. It needed revision, but not removal. I would replace it with something like: "Waldorf early-childhood pedagogy believes that clear daily and weekly rhythms are essential for the child's healthy development and emotional security. [citation] [reference to the elements of this rhythm] It also believes that both the seasons and festivals relating to the course of the year provide central formative experiences.[citation]" This is a huge part of Waldorf's approach to early-childhood education and needs mention.

Others of your edits I have already revised and a middle ground has been found; this process will continue, I would expect. I have not been reverting your edits generally; only blatant editorializing (which I have sometimes managed to convert into something meaningful).

The tag should go because it is presently unjustified, as you all agree; it is inaccurate in its present form; why are you advocating keeping something that is not accurate? If it becomes accurate, it should go back; that's easy enough to do. Hgilbert 07:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"#The one where you add "and sometimes unfortunately". You drift into pure editorializing; this needs some other formulation that isn't a pure projection of your opinion and/or personal experiences. I happen to be a champion within the Waldorf movement of revising the emphasis on the eight-year class teacher period. But the opposite of "brochure speak" is "antagonist speak"; both may make statements that appear clear, objective and meaningful to the person making them - but are too broad and too vague simultaneously. It is "weasel" language; unattributed, both unprovable and undisprovable. " The percentage of teachers who make it through 8 years with a single class is staggeringly LOW - so what starts as a lofty goal often ends up as an interruption of the children's education - and often under difficult circumstances. Making the claim that a teacher stays with the class for 8 years is brochure speech not supported by reality. It's like saying - "it is the intention of each baseball player to bat 1000". It is meaningless except for the purpose of sucking people into a set of ideals that aren't part of reality. If you don't like the statement that points out the reality of the situation, then we should remove the claim completely.

"#The wholesale removal of the section on rhythm in the kindergarten. It needed revision, but not removal. I would replace it with something like: "Waldorf early-childhood pedagogy believes that clear daily and weekly rhythms are essential for the child's healthy development and emotional security. [citation] [reference to the elements of this rhythm] It also believes that both the seasons and festivals relating to the course of the year provide central formative experiences.[citation]" This is a huge part of Waldorf's approach to early-childhood education and needs mention." I don't disagree that this is part of the pedagogy, but the wording has to be concise. "Essential for the child's healthy development and emotional security" - you sound like Donald Rumsfeld with your terrorist scare tactics here. Yes, let's all just scare the parents into Waldorf education. How about just saying "rhythms during the day and through the year are thought to be important"? What you wrote above is the type of brochure speech that riddles this article and makes it impossible to view it as other than a advertisement.

"Others of your edits I have already revised and a middle ground has been found; this process will continue, I would expect. I have not been reverting your edits generally; only blatant editorializing (which I have sometimes managed to convert into something meaningful)." Your "middle ground" and mine are in very different places, my friend. Blatant editorializing is what my edits have been removing. Just because I haven't had time to go back and re-word what you believe you have made "meaningful" doesn't mean it has any validity in this article. As long as you, a Waldorf teacher, is here making this article "meaningful" - there will be no end to the controversy here.

"The tag should go because it is presently unjustified, as you all agree; it is inaccurate in its present form; why are you advocating keeping something that is not accurate? If it becomes accurate, it should go back; that's easy enough to do." Nobody agrees - as far as I know, with what you have said above - although one polemic editor besides yourself did remove the tag. The tag is completely justified. Here's the next paragraph that needs brochure speech removed:

• "According to Steiner, the child at this early stage learns through imitation and example,[4] so in Waldorf it is considered best to surround him with the goodness of the world and caring, practically active adults to emulate. The curriculum attempts to awaken the child's will and initiative; the teacher has the responsibility for providing an environment that stimulates imitation. In Waldorf, such an environment is believed to support the physical and spiritual growth of the child. Formal learning is absent, and experiences of the written language are consciously avoided. Oral language development is addressed through circle games (songs, poems and games in movement), daily story time (normally recited from memory) and the range of practical activities."

And there are more and more similar paragraphs that require lots of work. I'm sorry if it is offensive to you as a Waldorf teacher, to find out that lots and lots of people besides you feel it is best to surround children with goodness. In fact, maybe you should point out schools who, as their goal, consider it best to surround children with something other than goodness. There is absolutely no justification for removing the tag while this type of language fills the article. There was, at one time, a promise of a re-write of the article (most of which, I believe you personally have written) and this promise was not fulfilled. Now it's time for you to, perhaps, sit back quietly for a while and allow the article to be repaired, instead of wringing your hands at every edit and denying what is plain for everyone else (who isn't a Waldorf teacher) to see. Pete K 16:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You fail to note that these parts of the article articulate Waldorf's conscious goals, easily citable and expressed in this article as goals, not as achievements - the eight year teacher period, etc. Surrounding a child with moral goodness and with practical activities to emulate in early childhood are particularly strong themes in Waldorf early childhood work. They thus deserve mention, whether or not they are important in other educational impulses. Waldorf's differentiation of goodness as the central theme for early childhood, beauty for the middle years of childhood and truth for the adolescent (12-14 and up) is unique to Waldorf. That may sound like brochure talk to you but the articulated aims of a movement deserve mention - as do the methods by which the schools attempt to realize this.

I am naturally open to revising the wording to make it clearer; there is always a danger of words that mean something to insiders meaning little or nothing to outsiders. But removing all mention of what Waldorf emphasizes as its own aims would exclude one important aspect of an article about it. Perhaps each phase of life should have differentiated sections: stated goals, methods and curriculum - there may be others as well. Hgilbert 01:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Gimme a break . I find it incredible that you seem to think these are "Waldorf" goals. Educating the "whole child" - right - like anyone sets as their goal the education of half a child. These are, to be sure, Waldorf buzz words - the kind of language Waldorf brochures are filled with - of course. But they are meaningless in the framework of an encyclopedia article. They are sensationalism. They don't deserve mention at all - except in Waldorf brochures - and that's NOT what we are creating here. And, really, there are lots and lots of examples in which the reality contradicts the "surrounding the child with moral goodness" you are describing. The easiest to point to is that Waldorf teachers read Grimms fairy tales to the children and promote them to parents to read to their children. These are the uneditied versions with the "grimm" stuff in them - the types of stories that are filled with immorality and horrible images for young children. I can recite examples directly from them here but I'm sure everyone knows what I'm talking about - think Hansel and Gretel and all the immorality that goes on in that one. These are definitely NOT themes of "moral goodness" - they are outrageous themes of depravity. So again, what we have here is brochure language that, in this case, doesn't even reflect what goes on in Waldorf. It needs to come out. Setting up more sections and going into greater detail about each of the "stated goals" is a bunch of hooey as well. Every school has fantastic goals for their students, just like every parent has wonderful goals for their child. This article is NOT about the goals of the Waldorf Schools, it is about Waldorf education - what it actually is, what it actually does, what it actually means. If you want to state goals and ideals, write yourself a brochure - this article is not the place for it. Sorry. Pete K 02:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The education has certain goals which it repeatedly states. If a reader finds these obvious or banal, it will work to the detriment of the approach; nevertheless, the stated goals of an educational approach deserve mention. I have been thinking that for each phase of childhood, there could be subsections "goals", "methods", "curriculum", (and perhaps others) to clarify what is what; then the stated goals would not be in danger of being confounded with a judgement of the approach. Hgilbert 12:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"The education has certain goals which it repeatedly states. If a reader finds these obvious or banal, it will work to the detriment of the approach;" No, it won't. It will work toward the detriment of the writer. Any reader reading this stuff will say to themselves "Oh brother, who wrote this - a Waldorf teacher?" - and they would be right, now, wouldn't they.

"nevertheless, the stated goals of an educational approach deserve mention." No, they don't. They are nonsense that deserve mention in brochures. "Educating the whole child" - and "head, heart and hands" are exactly as I have described above, buzz words that Waldorf has latched onto. They do NOTHING but promote Waldorf - and that's NOT what this article is here to do.

"I have been thinking that for each phase of childhood, there could be subsections "goals", "methods", "curriculum", (and perhaps others) to clarify what is what; then the stated goals would not be in danger of being confounded with a judgement of the approach." Sure you have... the more you write, the more important all this stuff sounds. All schools have the goal of educating children in the best possible environment with the best possible intentions, using the best possible methods and providing the best possible curriculum. EVERY school in the world has this as its goal. NONE of this stuff belongs in the article in the first place - and certainly not in the way you present it. The article is a brochure, and listening to you describe Waldorf education is like listening to Bill Gates describe Microsoft. You have a financial interest in attracting people to a school system you work for... and a personal interest in believing you are providing something better than everyone else. I admire that you believe in Waldorf, but this article is NOT the place for your beliefs - it is the place for legitimate, supportable information. You should consider writing brochures for Waldorf schools - I'm sure you would be great at it... seriously. Pete K 14:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Pete, you said that nobody sets out to educate half a child, yet this is exactly what most other school systems do! So I think it is important to distinguish Waldorf education in this way. If you can think of a better term than "education for the whole child" that still captures the essence of what Waldorf is, ie. not just cerebral education, then be my guest. But the reason I think the advert tag should come off is because that is exactly not what you are doing. You are deleting terms like "education for the whole child" instead of replacing them with something equal.Rottentomatoe 19:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Pete, you said that nobody sets out to educate half a child, yet this is exactly what most other school systems do!" LOL! Do you guys practice the "brochure" voice? OK, name a school that sets out to educate half a child.

"So I think it is important to distinguish Waldorf education in this way." Yes, I'm sure you do.

"If you can think of a better term than "education for the whole child" that still captures the essence of what Waldorf is, ie. not just cerebral education, then be my guest. " How about "a dogmatic religious education that seeks to separate rather than unite children with information about the world they live in"?

"But the reason I think the advert tag should come off is because that is exactly not what you are doing. You are deleting terms like "education for the whole child" instead of replacing them with something equal." I don't need to replace them with anything "equal" - Waldorf education is nothing special in this regard. I had a public school education. Guess what, my public school education taught the "whole" me... head, heart and hands... also eyes and ears. When I compare Waldorf education to my own public school education, Waldorf falls far SHORT of it. So wild claims don't impress me. If you want to make a claim, make one that you can support and I'll support it too. Unsupportable and sensational claims are for brochures. Pete K 19:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe some of the juniors should step back and let the seniors fix up the language here. Diana, (or anybody) read the first paragraph in the article and tell me it couldn't use a little work. Somebody looking at that would go running for the hills. This is an article about a school for crying out loud! Whether you like or dislike Waldorf education, they don't deserve this kind of article here on Wikipedia. They deserve something readable. There is too much editing and not enough talking going on here. That's the real reason the article is locked up. Maybe if we could come to an agreement on the wording, one paragraph at a time, the administrators could replace it for us without unlocking the article. The advert tag we're apparently deadlocked on. Why don't we see if there are things we can agree on? Pete K 22:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a proposal: We could agree that any changes could be made to the article freely by any editors; if acceptable they would stand. If not, they could be reverted once by any other editor. At that point the change would go to the talk page for further discussion. This would have the same effect as the above, except that we would be responsible for our own behavior. We would thus seek consensus on new formulations when these are controversial. What do you think? Hgilbert 07:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest

Actually, , there has been some talk about you excluding yourself voluntarily from editing the Waldorf Education page. See Durova's talk page for the discussion - as well as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:VANITY. Essentially, since you're a Waldorf teacher, and have a financial interest in the success of Waldorf, we hope you would voluntarily recuse yourself from editing this page as it is a conflict of interest. What do you think? Pete K 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The talk is from you, Pete. Interesting idea; I am not paid to edit Wikipedia, however, as WP:Conflict of interest indicates would be required to establish such a conflict. It's true, however, that all scientists should avoid editing science articles (especially in their area of expertise), as they have a financial interest in the success of science generally and their area of expertise especially. Musicians (and music critics) should avoid editing articles on music. Teachers should avoid editing articles on education and childhood generally. And so on. "We hope..." - this is you and Diana?

For someone who has shouted to the administrators that others are "trying to get you banned from Wikipedia", you are employing interesting tactics here. For the record, my salary as a Waldorf teacher is minimal enough that I doubt anyone could call this a financial conflict of interest; I'd certainly have a better income if the Waldorf movement failed!!! Hgilbert 02:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

, it is clear to me you realize there is a conflict of interest here - but want to continue editing the article. Who can blame you. If I was selling snake oil, and got to edit the article claiming how good snake oil is, I would benefit from editing the article... right? The right thing to do is to recuse yourself. You're salary is not of any interest. You even write books about Waldorf. Wouldn't your books sell better if Waldorf was more successful? Of course they would. One of the articles I have edited here is the AutoCAD article. AutoCAD is a CAD software product and I have written about how to use AutoCAD. In the Wikipedia article, I added a section describing a command set as "powerful" - because to me, to someone who uses AutoCAD, this is powerful. Another editor claimed that this was POV language. I had to agree with him in the article (even though I didn't agree with him IRL). Even though I know this command set is powerful, I can't say this in the article. Now before you claim conflict of interest here - my book was written in the 1995 and I don't get any royalties any more. Still, if someone claimed I should be excluded from editing that article, I would in all likelihood recuse myself as a matter of principle.

"For someone who has shouted to the administrators that others are "trying to get you banned from Wikipedia", you are employing interesting tactics here." I probably shouldn't qualify this remark with an answer, but let me just say that I am pointing out a conflict of interest where one exists. I have not asked for you to be banned - like you have been trying to do to me - I have asked the administrators to take a look at a conflict of interest situation. That is absolutely appropriate for me to do - especially since you have been instrumental in blocking reasonable edits on this page. Since you don't seem to want to accept that this is, indeed, a problem, it looks like it will be good to have another set of eyes on the issue. Pete K 22:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's note also that the administrator raised this issue, and suggested the conflict of interest. Not Pete. So this is not Pete's "interesting tactics." Pete has not sought a way to have you removed from anything, as you and thebee have repeatedly done with him. I'm getting the feeling that is slowly catching on to what we've been saying about brochure language. I'm not sure he does this deliberately - he's just used to writing in glowing Waldorf-is-wonderful We-have-so-many-gifts-from-Steiner style. If you're in Waldorf and you write for them, you learn quickly what they want, what rhetoric makes everyone beam and ask you for more, what words they always change to sound more spiritual etc. It's hard to get out of the habit, if you then have to write something else. I think this is what afflicts Hgilbert, probably this rather than a desire for financial gain.DianaW 22:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's note that it was exactly the opposite; Durova says to Pete on his talk page, "If you're serious about the allegation that one editor's financial conflict of interest affects the article then I hope you can present supporting evidence." Pete has raised the issue for obvious reasons. Interesting tactics, as is your denial of what is clearly so.

Durova quoted one example of brochure language; this was something that two editors hostile to Waldorf, Paka and Pete, put in. I'm waiting to see his further examples. Yes, you should get out of the habit. Hgilbert 23:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope - not what happened. You've perhaps forgotten, since Durova archived part of the discussion right at the beginning. *You* were whining to admins as usual - it was your initiative. As usual, Pete and I were just scrambling around trying to keep up with whoever you are whining to on a given day. You complained, disingenuously, merely on the assumption that the admin would not know what had gone on, that Pete and I had derailed the mediation attempt. Pete and I began pointing out what had really happened there. Pete complained about your "brochure language" and pointed out - completely obviously - that you do this because you are a Waldorf teacher. Waldorf teachers are often pretty good at writing Waldorf brochures. He did add the phrase "dependent on Waldorf for his livelihood." It reads to me like his concern was your *bias*. We all tend to be biased in favor of things from which we draw our livelihood (or against them as the case may be; we are not likely to be neutral). Pete was not making an attempt to have you removed from wikipedia, disciplined, blocked, or any of the various processes that you and the bee are continually dreaming up to either remove him or slow him down, working your way down lists of administrators. Durova then brought the possibility of financial conflict of interest to his attention. Durova suggested that he look into this, in fact. (To be honest, Pete didn't even read the rest of the discussion. I pointed out to him Durova's suggestion a day or two later. He was not exactly coming after you, .) Durova had also then taken a closer look at the article and saw what is wrong with the article: the Waldorf supporters have stuffed it with obvious nonsense.

Boy - reality versus spin eh?DianaW 23:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What Durova pointed out was wrong with the article was a statement that neither I, nor any supporter of Waldorf had added; it was from Paka/expanded on by Pete (according to a statement on Durova's talk page). So the problem he is identifying is coming from the anti-Waldorf side.

I had not seen the discussion until very recently; I can't know what happened in any deleted material. Your statement of the events demonstrates that Pete raised the issue and implied that there was a financial relationship. Durova states clearly that Pete has alleged that an "editor's financial conflict of interest affects the article" - and that he is reacting to this allegation; see the talk page. Hgilbert 23:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I did, indeed raise the issue first, only in passing - I think it was in describing the who's who of these editors. I'm sure it would be easy for your to suspect sinister motives here - especially since you've been engaging in the activity you accuse me of yourself, but I don't look at this as some sort of game here. I'm here to edit what is currently a horrible article (in my view). I even suggested to Durova that for me to say something would be misconstrued by you as retaliatory. I don't know who this Paka person is - so please hold me responsible for my own edits (maybe you think that person is me - it is not). My edits did not put that language into the article... and characterizing me or anyone else as "hostile" to Waldorf is not only unjustified, it borders on a personal attack. FYI, I think people who exagerate the virtues of Waldorf education are as harmful to Waldorf as people who exagerate the problems. Pete K 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Who the heck is Paka?DianaW 23:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Paka's last edit (that I could find) was May 17th. I didn't even show up here until July. Connecting my edits to this person's edits seems a little bit of a reach, wouldn't you say? Pete K 23:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You two were the ones who edited the very section that Durova criticized as being brochure language. See diff for your own edit of the paragraph criticized. If you were so interested in taking out brochure language, why did you add to that paragraph (put in by Paka) instead of removing it? I'd say your complaint has backfired on you; it turns out that the worst "brochure language" found by Durova was your own contribution! Hgilbert 02:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Your statement of the events demonstrates that Pete raised the issue and implied that there was a financial relationship. Durova states clearly that Pete has alleged that an "editor's financial conflict of interest affects the article" - and that he is reacting to this allegation; see the talk page." You're very clever, , but your spins are getting a little desperate. Pete implied there was a financial relationship because there is one. He pointed to this to explain your bias. *You* were the one attempting to have *him* censored in this process - not the other way around. Now you're mad of course because it backfired on you. Durova took one look and said Well obviously this guy has a conflict! It wasn't even a wikipedia policy Pete was previously aware of let alone attempting to have imposed on you. The suggestion came from an administrator and you can spin this into the night if you want, but that's what happened.DianaW 02:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't backfired on me, given the fact that Durova is upset about one of Pete's paragraphs as being obvious brochure language! Hgilbert 02:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd give Durova a little more credit than you're giving her here - she apparently compared two random versions, one of them from last May, and I'm not sure why. Maybe that's a standard procedure. I agree that she misunderstood what she read there, but I think we have to give her credit that she gained an impression of the article overall before commenting. This has given me the impetus to review some of the much earlier versions of this article. Absolutely unbelievable. It certainly gives a sense of how you, , and other Waldorf supporters would ideally prefer it to read. Every single scrap of "brochure talk" that has been removed has been a fight - every single scrap, with you one of the main impediments to progress at each stage. The part that's really kind of sad about it is that you apparently think you're doing Waldorf a favor this way, when in fact the earlier versions of the article are an absolute embarrassment.DianaW 03:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We might note that one of your early edits to this article, - speaking of "conflict of interest" - was to add your own book to the reference list! I'm not sure at what point it got taken out, but perhaps someone pointed out to you the impropriety of this. Obviously, there's been a steep learning curve here.DianaW 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia conflict of interest rules says, "You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's." This is not a COI. I removed the book partly because I felt that it was probably too specialized for the general reader, partly because the article did not actually rely on this as a source. Note that Wikipedia does give the right to cite one's own publications, however.

LOL early versions of this article find Lumos having to explain to you all that "a Praise section is not part of an encyclopedia article" and other people trying to reign Waldorf enthusiasts in by removing lists of celebrities, individuals homeschoolers' web sites, verbiage about Waldorf being "internationally acclaimed," and comments such as "The critics come across as xenophobic."DianaW 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not put in the praise section, or any others you mention. Note, however, that Wikipedia guidelines discourage separate criticism sections "In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged." Sections including both positive and negative reception (praise and critique) of an author's work are preferred. See also here. I have begun trying to ensure that the articles are encyclopediac in their approach here, as well. Hgilbert 06:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

, just to be clear, once again, your diff does not show me introducing the language that Durova quoted. Durova quoted the following: "A Waldorf school is not just an alternative to public schools or another independent school; its curriculum and philosophy proceed from the worldview and the insights into the nature of the child that Rudolf Steiner has given us in Anthroposophy." Your diff shows that I added the text "; but even schools that mention Anthroposophy generally do not give much detail as to what Anthroposophy is." to the sentence before this one. Please back up your accusation that I have provided the brochure language that Durova objected to. Pete K 04:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I made no such accusation; I said that you added to the objected-to paragraph (that included the language Durova objected to) rather than removing it. It was brochure language; why did you extend the paragraph instead of removing it? I suggest because you have put in and fought to retain extensive "brochure language" and editorializing with no verification ([[WP:OR|original research) that fits your POV. I am arguing for the removal of all unverifiable information. Note that the phrase "brochure language" itself is vague, weasel wording; it can be applied to anything and is not Wikipedia vocabulary (for that reason). Verifiability and neutrality (which is inclusivity of all major points of view, as editors and administrators keep pointing out to you) are the key to Wikipedia's approach. We should proceed on this basis to make an encyclopediac article. Hgilbert 06:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing was a misunderstanding, so why don't we drop it? Durova thought it was actual text someone had added to the article, when it was added as an *example* of the kind of rhetoric found on school web sites; Pete later added to it in a discussion of whether the rhetoric on Waldorf school web sites sufficiently explains anthroposophy to prospective parents. *That's* the context in which this material found its way into the article in the first place. Durova was mistaken to believe it was the type of material that Waldorf supporters want to add verbatim to the wikipedia article. Okay? (I mean, supporters *do* want to add stuff like that, but understand now, I think, that they can't.) Why not stop a silly turn-the-tables argument claiming "Pete added brochure language." It was essentially being discussed as an *example* of brochure language. It's quite difficult to get an admin here to pay attention long enough or deep enough to understand the issues here. There's no sense in the editors of the article continuing to fight about a point that was an admin's misunderstanding in the first place, after the admin has told us already to knock it off.DianaW 15:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Actually, Wikipedia conflict of interest rules says, "You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's." Again, , try to understand the big picture here. I am not citing this as an example of "conflict of interest," nor have I attempted to have you removed or censored for a conflict of interest. That suggestion came from an admin - that's a fact, try as you may to spin it. I pointed to your citing your own book, and later apparently removing it realizing its inappropriateness, as an example of how your *bias* and personal investment in Waldorf education - certainly including the fact that you earn your living in it - blind you to the big picture of what is appropriate here. Even if your book were the right citation to stick in at a particular place, it would be almost certainly inadvisable for you to stick it in yourself. The fact that this wasn't immediately obvious to you suggests the sort of problem we keep running into here.DianaW 15:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

wrote: "I made no such accusation; I said that you added to the objected-to paragraph (that included the language Durova objected to) rather than removing it." So you make no claim that I produced the language Durova referenced. " It was brochure language; why did you extend the paragraph instead of removing it?" Um.. because I edited the paragraph above it. You're complaining that I didn't edit the article thoroughly enough and in accordance with what YOU think I should have edited? " I suggest because you have put in and fought to retain extensive "brochure language" and editorializing with no verification ([[WP:OR|original research) that fits your POV." I don't think you understand what "brochure language" refers to. Why I did or didn't edit out brochure language when I happened to see it (if I even happened to notice it at the time of that edit) is pure speculation on your part. My spaghetti might have been boiling over for all you know. For the record, my "POV" is that ALL the brochure language needs to come out of this article. You are the one who has fought to keep it in - while also fighting to remove the tag that says it IS brochure language. "Note that the phrase "brochure language" itself is vague, weasel wording; it can be applied to anything and is not Wikipedia vocabulary (for that reason)." No, see, I was pretty sure you were unclear on what brochure language is. "Brochure language" is language that would be appropriate for a Waldorf brochure. You obviously want this article to read like a Waldorf brochure - and to hopefully fill schools and sell books and line your pockets. Letting this article read truthfully, indicating that Waldorf has some good points and some shortcomings is something you have tried to block relentlessly. "Verifiability and neutrality (which is inclusivity of all major points of view, as editors and administrators keep pointing out to you) are the key to Wikipedia's approach. We should proceed on this basis to make an encyclopediac article." Neutrality is impossible for you, as Wikipedia editors and administrators have pointed out to you. You have a financial conflict of interest. This is different than a strong opinion, which many of us have. This is a potential for financial gain based on this article. That's not allowed here. It's time for you to step back and let others edit this article. Pete K 15:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, here's what you wrote above : "Durova quoted one example of brochure language; this was something that two editors hostile to Waldorf, Paka and Pete, put in. I'm waiting to see his further examples. Yes, you should get out of the habit. Hgilbert 23:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)" So yes, you DID accuse me of putting in the material Durova objected to. Pete K 16:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm hoping , after thinking carefully about it, will voluntarily recuse himself from editing this article. It is bad enough that editors who are trying to make this article read neutrally are having to debate with people connected through their religion to Waldorf schools, but 's presence here is suggesting we should have to debate with direct employees of Waldorf, sentence by sentence, to eliminate the brochure language in this article. We've tried this . The process has gone on for months. You apparently don't know even what we're even talking about when we say "brochure language". Others here DO. Please let us repair this article without your interference. Thanks! Pete K 20:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so it appears HGilbert has decided to launch his own arbitration as a preemptive strike against the arbitration suggested by Durova. Once again, HGilbert, you have missed the issue in your arbitration request - which is YOUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST in this article. Once again, you have rounded up the usual subjects and listed them on the request... Anybody you could think of that has been sympathetic to your cause. How did you arrive at the list of people you mention in the arbitration request? Is it coincidence, again, that they just happen to be people you know as Waldorf people? There were other editors of these articles that you did not call. Why not? This is turning out to be very possibly the best demonstration of how Waldorf teachers behave in real life. This is the classic circling of the wagons, obfuscation of the issue, the dishonest association of unrelated incidents and information to draw a dishonest conclusion. , this isn't Waldorf kangaroo court here - I think we will have the opinion of an unbiased public. And finally, we will see Waldorf people in action. So, , when were you planning to discuss the conflict of interest issue? Pete K 15:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Durova suggested someone begin arbitration; I have done so. If I have missed out any editors, please add them at the arbitration page and notify them on their talk page. There is no conflict of interest. Please review WP:Assume good faith Hgilbert 16:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong... Durova suggested arbitration about your conflict of interest with the Waldorf article - because you are a Waldorf teacher working on an article to make it promote Waldorf. When you suggested otherwise, Durova threatened to personally start the arbitration process [1]. What you've started is a different arbitration that's similar to the mediation process that failed. You apparently cannot even produce a fair request for arbitration. You've ignored the issue that was the intended subject of the arbitration, YOU, and substituted your own issues. You have tried to stack the deck with Waldorf people. When's the last time Wonderactivist edited this article? That she runs a Waldorf homeschool (another conflict of interest case BTW) is the only reason she has been called into the arbitration process. Two of the Waldorf people are from the Waldorf activist group Americans for Waldorf Education - a group that sourced itself in order to try to justify making "hate group" accusations on Wikipedia. You have conveniently left the article (PLANS) that these wild accusations were made on OUT of the arbitration process. Two editors who answered the RFC, 999 and Hanuman Das and who made some fair edits you didn't agree with have been left off the list here. You claim the RFC had no response. So again, this looks like another Waldorf ambush situation orchestrated by you. Why didn't you simply wait a few more hours until the arbitration was brought against you?

So step one, if you want arbitration, is to unstack the deck of parties involved. Step two will be to make the arbitration about the subject under discussion - your conflict of interest... because really, when we have established this, the largest impediment to the editing of these articles will have been eliminated. The articles are only locked up because you have a conflict of interest and are pushing a POV. If it wasn't for this, most editors would be working cooperatively.

I'm not editing the arbitration page at all since you have accused me of wrongdoing countless times when I tried that on the mediation page - so good luck with that. If that one falls through, then we can start an arbitration about the conflict of interest that you refuse to acknowledge and hopefully get a ruling on this that will allow the rest of us that wish to make these articles read neutral to work without having our edits instantly removed by you. Pete K 21:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

+ ru

Pleas agg the link to ru Школы Вальдорфа --Jaro.p 12:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your post is unclear- can you expand?--Fergie 12:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Школы Вальдорфа is "Schkoluj Waldorfa" in Russian writing, and the posting seems to want to say: "Please add link to Russian Waldorf schools". Thebee 13:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope he's not holding his breath... Pete K 22:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--Jaro.p 12:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I think you two should spend more time elsewhere on wikipedia - I will add the interwiki link to the Russian wikipedia article mentioned - as either of you should have done months ago!!!!!

waldorf? like salad?

I have no idea what it is, but from a read through the article I agree it is a bit salesmanly. I hope this gets resolved because it sounds interesting and like useful information to me, if it could get cleaned up correctly. Resonanteye 22:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"advert" tag

I just happened across this article, read it, found no reason for the "sounds like an advert" tag to be there, and removed it. User:Pete K reverted it and said in his edit summary, "Please don't start an edit war over the tag again. Thanks." I have no idea what's going on here but I do know the article doesn't really sound like an advert, and that there's no reason Pete K couldn't just FIX IT instead of replacing the tag. Would Pete or anyone else care to tell me just what it is in the article that necessitates the tag? Highfructosecornsyrup 19:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This tag has been removed and replaced more than a dozen times. Attempts to repair the article have been blocked by some editors. The issue has gone to arbitration. If you can hold off until the arbitration process is completed, we will get a ruling on whether the tag belongs there or not. Thanks! Pete K 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the arbitration can be found here. Feel free to weigh in if you like. Thanks! Pete K 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Concerns" in racism section

I have removed the "concerns" paragraph as it now gives a totally fallacious reference. I don't know what happened to this. Hgilbert 07:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the racism section. I'm *concerned* that you guys removed it after we went to so much trouble to agree on what it says. Pete K 14:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Tags (again)

HGilbert - I noticed you deleted the merge tag. I have replaced it. It would be better, since you have a history of aggressively deleting tags, and you have a conflict of interest in this particular article, if you discuss these types of edits here beforehand. Thanks. Pete K 18:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind - I realized the articles HAVE been merged. Pete K 18:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

McDermott study

Now as the whole of this racism section is being addressed and I am trying to act as neutral as possible - I will give this piece of information to balance my contribution:

Everyone seems to be arguing over this source a lot, so I thought I would chip in with these links -

This article Waldorf education in an inner-city public school appears in the journal The Urban Review, which unless I am wrong is not a Waldorf publication, and will have been peered reviewed. Hence this article could likely be used as a source. I do not think this is the source in case here - but it certainly covers the racism issue. In case you do not have Athens access here are few quotes. This should IMHO act as replacement for the current Waldorf publication based McDermott article (this article is from a disallowed source!). Cheers Lethaniol 23:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Staff members are not always better equipped than the children to handle the hidden injuries of racism. The staff and faculty at Urban Waldorf represented a wide gamut of opinions on race and the possible presence of racism at the school. Some were quick to point to what they thought were unquestionable cases of racism inherent in Waldorf philosophy and practice, and others were as quick to deny the possibility of racism at any level, in any practice. Sometimes, this difference fell out clearly according to the racial identifications of the faculty members; sometimes, not at all. Sometimes, we were able to observe seemingly honest and engaged dialogue about the construction of race and the consequences of racism; at other times, stances were taken, and dialogue was perhaps discouraged. The faculty seems to understand that explorations of the construction and function of racism may be lethal to a struggling community in this country. They also understand that they must try. And so we found teacher study groups on African American culture (particularly on storytelling and folklore), and various individual projects on urban life--everything from African American history to rap music--were shared by the teachers. 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.

Amid an exciting learning and teaching environment at Urban Waldorf, we also observed interactions that were disturbing. Many of the children seemed to have a distorted and negative picture of blackness, an internalized prejudice that runs deep. This is understandable given the ways in which class and color racism, sexism, and the media have informed their lives and their local communities. Even in a classroom with two African American women for teachers and an African American fieldworker from our team to sing everyone's praises, when children were hurt or wanted to hurt one another they sometimes did so with a string of explicatives and adjectives that "called out" their own Africanness and that of their classmates. Seldom did we hear children affirm themselves or other African American children as beautiful. Too often, we heard degrading terms such as "big-lipped," "nappy-headed," "big butt," and "black-faced bitch" both in the classroom and at play. This points to a near desperate need to develop more systematic ways for addressing self-love among African American children. 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.

Inspired by a good suggestion by you to your mentee, 8 Jan, an eternity ago, I replaced his propagation of his view, using the not acceptible McDermott citation, that he repeatedly to the death has insisted to stick to and make "acceptible", first as a falsely described "independent research bulletin" acceptible, then with its republication at the main anti-Waldorf WC site on the net, with this:

"Racism in Waldorf Schools

Concerns have been raised that latent racism in anthroposophy may flow into Waldorf education today due to the unreserved adherence by some followers to the works of Rudolf Steiner,

According to a study on the use of public Waldorf methods in a public inner city charter school (Milwaukee):

"Some [staff members] were quick to point to what they thought were unquestionable cases of racism inherent in Waldorf philosophy and practice, and others were as quick to deny the possibility of racism at any level, in any practice. ... Many of the children seemed to have a distorted and negative picture of blackness, an internalized prejudice that runs deep. This is understandable given the ways in which class and color racism, sexism, and the media have informed their lives and their local communities. (ref: Dermott R. et al: Waldorf education in an inner-city public school. The Urban Review, Volume 28, Number 2 / June, 1996)

A recent Swedish study contradicts that racism is a notable characteristic of Waldorf education and points to the opposite.

The study compared several hundred Waldorf students there (grade 9 and 12) to corresponding students in Swedish public schools. Among other things the research showed that the majority of the pupils in both types of school repudiated Nazism and racism. However, the proportion of pupils who suggested anti-Nazi and anti-racist solutions, i.e., solutions that involved counteracting or stopping Nazism and racism was considerably greater among the Waldorf pupils (93%) than among pupils at municipal schools (72%). (ref: Dahlin B et al: Waldorfskolor och medborgerligt moralisk kompetens. En jämförelse mellan Waldorfelever och elever i den kommunala skolan. (Rapport 2004:2). Karlstad: Institutionen för Utbildningsvetenskap, Karlstads universitet. (Waldorf schools and civic moral competency. A comparison of Waldorf pupils with pupils in public schools. [Report 2004:2] Karlstad: Institution for educational science, University of Karlstad.)"

Your mentee did not very much like it and replaced it again with one of the favourite myths he so much loves to cultivate at Wikipedia the same day. Thebee 00:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

TheBee I will ask you to calm down too. With respect to the above quoted section I think we should forget about the Swedish report - that should be discussed in the section two above here. The reason I brought this to this page now, was not that you could have a go at Pete K, but that we address all the references on the Racism issue. The fact of the matter is that sooner or later the current McDermott ref will HAVE TO be removed as it is not allowed under ArbCom ruling. I have given the only McDermott research I could find in an allowed source, so IMHO we should use it instead.

Now this is not about scoring points, and this is why all should steer away from personal arguments, but about the articles. Concentrate solely on the article, not the egos., please. Cheers Lethaniol 00:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lethaniol. I agree this article would be helpful if the McDermott research cannot be referenced. I would rather use the McDermott one if it is allowed, and of course, from my POV, both articles would make the point better than one. Pete K 00:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I really think we can only use the one that is from the journal, as it has been peer reviewed, the other may be biased because it has not gone through that process. Therefore I suggest you Pete K scrap the current one, and insert the one above. Cheers Lethaniol 00:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"... sooner or later the current McDermott ref will HAVE TO be removed as it is not allowed under ArbCom ruling."

Anyone can edit any article at any time. If that's your definite view as an experienced editor, why don't you remove it, and the section based on it? Thebee 00:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"I agree this article would be helpful if the McDermott research cannot be referenced."

? Thebee 00:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

TheBee I could go through this section in a few minutes flat and probably convert it to the version it is likely to be after all this argument is finished. But that is not the point of my advice. I am trying to keep you on track, reach consensus yourselves, be civil etc... So when I am not leaning over your shoulders you can play nice, and all contribute most effectively to these articles.

Also if I started editing these articles with a - I know best attitude - you would all revert me - and quite rightly so. I can't say it enough consensus, consensus, CONSENSUS Cheers Lethaniol 00:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to replace it with the new source but I don't have Athens access and can't access the article text. What does this entail? I suppose I could just pick from the text provided above to formulate a claim - but then if I do it, we will be edit-warring over every syllable. Any suggestions? Pete K 01:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically I can not give anyone my Athens access sorry my uni would kill me. I will go check it again, but if you are happy I am 98% sure that I have taken out the juicy bits and given them above. Cheers Lethaniol 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I didn't realize it's a university thing until I went back and looked again. I appreciate the "juicy bits" and I'll take a stab at it and see how far I can get. Pete K 01:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would go with this:

In 1991, seven independent educators visited the Urban Waldorf school in Milwaukee and published the following assessment regarding racism at that school:

Staff members are not always better equipped than the children to handle the hidden injuries of racism. The staff and faculty at Urban Waldorf represented a wide gamut of opinions on race and the possible presence of racism at the school. Some were quick to point to what they thought were unquestionable cases of racism inherent in Waldorf philosophy and practice, and others were as quick to deny the possibility of racism at any level, in any practice.

Amid an exciting learning and teaching environment at Urban Waldorf, we also observed interactions that were disturbing. Many of the children seemed to have a distorted and negative picture of blackness, an internalized prejudice that runs deep. This is understandable given the ways in which class and color racism, sexism, and the media have informed their lives and their local communities. Even in a classroom with two African American women for teachers and an African American fieldworker from our team to sing everyone's praises, when children were hurt or wanted to hurt one another they sometimes did so with a string of explicatives and adjectives that "called out" their own Africanness and that of their classmates. Seldom did we hear children affirm themselves or other African American children as beautiful. Too often, we heard degrading terms such as "big-lipped," "nappy-headed," "big butt," and "black-faced bitch" both in the classroom and at play. This points to a near desperate need to develop more systematic ways for addressing self-love among African American children. It points to necessary conversations among faculty, parents, and the Waldorf movement.

Pete K 01:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol too long Pete K probably in realms of copyvio - start with a NEUTRAL statement of what the research found and then just quote a few sentences e.g. (this is just a quick example)

In 1991, an independent report on the Urban Waldorf school in Milwaukee, was published which highlighted concerns about racism with both teachers and students:

Many of the children seemed to have a distorted and negative picture of blackness, an internalized prejudice that runs deep ... Too often, we heard degrading terms such as "big-lipped," "nappy-headed," "big butt," and "black-faced bitch" both in the classroom and at play ... The staff and faculty at Urban Waldorf represented a wide gamut of opinions on race and the possible presence of racism at the school. Some were quick to point to what they thought were unquestionable cases of racism inherent in Waldorf philosophy and practice, and others were as quick to deny the possibility of racism at any level, in any practice.

Nice, to the point and simple Cheers Lethaniol 01:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No talk about the "exciting learning and teaching environment at Urban Waldorf"? Are you sure we can get away with leaving that part out? <G>. Can I just use your version for now? Pete K 01:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If you wish - it will need tidying up and if a quote needs to be taken out to give a positive side to the research try:

In 1991, an independent report on the Urban Waldorf school in Milwaukee, highlighted potential racism in both teachers and students:

Many of the children seemed to have a distorted and negative picture of blackness, an internalized prejudice that runs deep ... Too often, we heard degrading terms such as "big-lipped," "nappy-headed," "big butt," and "black-faced bitch" both in the classroom and at play ... The staff and faculty at Urban Waldorf represented a wide gamut of opinions on race and the possible presence of racism at the school. Some were quick to point to what they thought were unquestionable cases of racism inherent in Waldorf philosophy and practice, and others were as quick to deny the possibility of racism at any level, in any practice.

Though the research also highlighted that the school was attempting to combat racism:

They also understand that they must try. And so we found teacher study groups on African American culture (particularly on storytelling and folklore), and various individual projects on urban life ... the Urban Waldorf faculty has a commendable level of engagement with the difficulties of racism.

Right I am going to add this compromise to both this article and the main anthroposophy article - hopefully that will satisfy all sides. Of course it may need tidying up but I think the basis is correct. Cheers Lethaniol 14:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Final section from Urban Journal and McDermott report

This is a cut paste of the final section that focuses on racism... Any problems with this give me a shout on my talk page Cheers Lethaniol 01:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

We focus our final remarks on race, because we think it is the most explosive tension at Urban Waldorf----in the lives of the children, in the working relations among faculty, and in formal relations with the international Waldorf community. We give each a brief discussion. A main issue is the development of racial and cultural identity among African American children (Dillard, 1995). Amid an exciting learning and teaching environment at Urban Waldorf, we also observed interactions that were disturbing. Many of the children seemed to have a distorted and negative picture of blackness, an internalized prejudice that runs deep. This is understandable given the ways in which class and color racism, sexism, and the media have informed their lives and their local communities. Even in a classroom with two African American women for teachers and an African American fieldworker from our team to sing everyone's praises, when children were hurt or wanted to hurt one another they sometimes did so with a string of explicatives and adjectives that "called out" their own Africanness and that of their classmates. Seldom did we hear children affirm themselves or other African American children as beautiful. Too often, we heard degrading terms such as "big-lipped," "nappy-headed," "big butt," and "black-faced bitch" both in the classroom and at play. This points to a near desperate need to develop more systematic ways for addressing self-love among African American children. 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.

Staff members are not always better equipped than the children to handle the hidden injuries of racism. The staff and faculty at Urban Waldorf represented a wide gamut of opinions on race and the possible presence of racism at the school. Some were quick to point to what they thought were unquestionable cases of racism inherent in Waldorf philosophy and practice, and others were as quick to deny the possibility of racism at any level, in any practice. Sometimes, this difference fell out clearly according to the racial identifications of the faculty members; sometimes, not at all. Sometimes, we were able to observe seemingly honest and engaged dialogue about the construction of race and the consequences of racism; at other times, stances were taken, and dialogue was perhaps discouraged. The faculty seems to understand that explorations of the construction and function of racism may be lethal to a struggling community in this country. They also understand that they must try. And so we found teacher study groups on African American culture (particularly on storytelling and folklore), and various individual projects on urban life--everything from African American history to rap music--were shared by the teachers. 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. It is easy to imagine why there are disputes at the school about Waldorf educators' insisting on teaching Norse tales and Greek myths to the exclusion of African modes of discourse. Urban Waldorf, because it has been learning from the culture of the children, because it has been learning from its situation, has started to challenge the wider community of Waldorf educators to revisit its philosophy and assumptions.

The challenge is not only to focus on the positive, but to raise critical issues of consciousness. "White people," one Urban Waldorf teacher said, "have always wanted black children to be happy. It is easier that way." There is news in this comment for most white people and perhaps most particularly for Waldorf teachers: A gentle and loving curriculum may not be enough, and assuming so may itself be racist. Much will depend on how the teachers at Urban Waldorf and in the wider Waldorf movement respond to it (McDermott, 1996). Is Waldorf racist? Most Waldorf teachers would be horrified by the suggestion. Those who recognize that racism is endemic in American society, and thus endemic in American Waldorf, must be willing to engage the problem again and again for the good of children everywhere. If Waldorf can learn about priorities, strength, and the contradictions of racism from the inner city, then Waldorf will work well in the inner city, So far, the Urban Waldorf School of Milwaukee works well. We all have much to learn from its effort.

OK, so what's the justification for calling this one the "McDermott" report? Just curious - I don't care that much what we call it but I want to be correct. He's just the first of many authors and his name doesn't appear on the title. Is there some rule that the primary author gets the report named after him? Pete K 17:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No reason except it was more specific than what was there before and shorter - the current titles work much better. Cheers Lethaniol 17:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti racism at Waldorf schools

As Pete has been so insistent on using the reference, I have tried to at least describe it in a truthful way (it is an article, published in a Waldorf research bulletin, the article is not an independent research bulletin), and describing the article in a proper way (McDermott R: Racism and Waldorf Education. Research Bulletin, The Research Institute for Waldorf Education, 1(2): June 1996.) It is properly described and linked to here. It was a step to making fully clear that it is an article on a controversial issue published in a Waldorf research journal. If it is, and as such then probably not allowed as citation in the Wikipedia article, why should the same article, if republished somewhere else, suddenly become a proper citation?

The description of it in the article says:

"The study compared several hundred Waldorf students there (grade 9 and 12) to corresponding students in Swedish public schools. Among other things the research showed that the majority of the pupils in both types of school repudiated Nazism and racism. However, the proportion of pupils who suggested anti-Nazi and anti-racist solutions, i.e., solutions that involved counteracting or stopping Nazism and racism was considerably greater among the Waldorf pupils (93%) than among pupils at municipal schools (72%)."

Suggesting anti-Nazi and anti-racist solutions to problems probably by most is understood to be an expression not only of a less racist attitude, but an expression of an actively anti-racist attitude. And the study does not refer to one school. It refers to pupils at a number of Waldorf schools, in grades 9 and 12.

First repeatedly insisting on falsly describing the article as an "independent research bulleting" by trying to make it stand out as if the reference used - as described - is not published by an anthroposophical research journal, and then repeatedly replacing the citation, properly described with a full properly formatted citation, with repeated unformatted just raw URLs to its republication at the polemical anti-Waldorf WC-site, does not stand out as very good editing.

And then this insistent refusal to accept the use of the term 'anti-racist' in the section title, because it is not a "word" (the phenomenon probably exists also in the U.S. and is described with a proper word, very similar to "anti-racist"), when there is a whole Wikipedia article on it, Anti-racism, then telling that the word is not proper to use for the actively anti-racist attitude that comes to expression in the study, you think that should be considered appropriate editing? Thebee 21:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time you've supported your "anti-racist" claim with something from the study that actually says that. Why not say this in the first place instead of wasting everyone's time? It still doesn't justify changing the section title, but it justifies changing the descriptive text of the study itself. Pete K 21:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you refer to? The quote above is exactly what the description in the article of the study has said from the first time I added it, three days ago. Venado clearly immediately has understood it. Thebee 22:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You understand the difference between QUOTING the article and desribing what it says in your own words - right? This is the first QUOTE I've seen from the article. Pete K 22:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K:

"This is the first QUOTE I've seen from the article."

What you refer to as the "QUOTE" "from the article" has been in the Wikipedia article all the time for three days, since I first added it. How come you only understand it now, after all your edit warring against it for three days? Thebee 22:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there all,

I have been given the link by TheBee for the link to the Swedish survey on Waldorf schools versus other schools - see my talk page please or see [2]. Now this is hosted on a Waldorf site and I have looked hard for a published source (have checked the whole of web of knowledge but it appears that this article has not been published in main stream publications). Also do a goggle search on Waldorf and Dahlin (the author of the article) and the vast majority of site hosting this info are anthroposophical related.

Now this means that the whole of the Swedish section on racism is based on an anthroposophical reference, which for at least controversial content, is not allowed as per ArbCom decision. Therefore I highly removed the removing of the whole section, and not to replace this unless the research can be backed up with a non-anthroposophical notable secondary/tertiary reference instead. Cheers Lethaniol 22:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lethaniol. To answer TheBee's question above, the wording wasn't QUOTED in the article. Again, you understand what "quote" means - right? In the Wiki article, you wrote what you believed the article you are citing said. You didn't quote the wording from the article, you produced the language yourself. Your citation didn't allow editors to verify the language - i.e. there was no link to anything. After three days, you produce an actual quote from the report to support what you are saying. Why have you wasted three days instead of producing the actual quote from the start? Why didn't you link to the text of the article if it is available? This is why we have problems. I'm not trying to keep legitimate information out of the article, I'm trying to keep your opinions out. That's what I'm supposed to be doing. Pete K 22:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K please calm down. TheBee if you have access to the whole document and we could see it also that would be great - though I understand this may not be possible. The issue MUST lie first with the fact this reference source is not allowed under the ArbCom rulings. If an alternative reference for this can be found then fine, we can then discuss what exactly the research says. Cheers Lethaniol 22:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm calm. I would just like to make some actual progress today. If the article can be properly cited, I won't object to it being reinserted. Pete K 22:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, TheBee are you okay with that, if we can come up with an appropriate reference then we add back in? Cheers Lethaniol 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what you're referring to. My job is to keep TheBee's opinions out of the article - just as his job is to keep mine out. We are all charged with keeping all articles in Wikipedia NPOV - so what I was implying is that nobody's opinions are supposed to be introduced into these articles, not mine, not TheBee's, not Lethaniol's. I didn't mean to imply that I am here to keep TheBee from editing. Pete K 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That is right - no user is here to put their opinion into an article. Whenever I edit an article (rarer and rarer), I never put in my opinion only facts (that can always be referenced). It is the place of the talk page for discuss opinions on how an article should be formed. And the reason I was asking for TheBee's input above, is that although I was pretty sure I was right, I was giving a chance for feedback before someone (preferably TheBee) removed the section. That way we do not jump the gun, all the discussion takes place on the talk pages and less/no edit warring should take place. Cheers Lethaniol 23:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The study you refer to, as told here is published as: Dahlin B, Langmann E, Andersson C. (2004). Waldorfskolor och medborgerligt moralisk kompetens. En jämförelse mellan Waldorfelever och elever i den kommunala skolan. (Rapport 2004:2). Karlstad: Institutionen för Utbildningsvetenskap, Karlstads universitet. (Waldorf schools and civic moral competency. A comparison of Waldorf pupils with pupils in public schools. [Report 2004:2] Karlstad: Institution for educational science, University of Karlstad.) It is the third of six partial reports from the study "Waldorf pupils in higher education - a follow up study (6 parts)". What is described in the article is one part of it. That [Report 2004:2] is hosted as a .pdf-file at the site of Waldorf Answers with the kind permission from its author is non-interesting. The citation does not refer or link to the report, as hosted at Waldorf Answers. It refers to the report as published by the Institution for educational science, University of Karlstad. In its original form, [Rapport 2004:2] is found here. You can probably order it from the Institution for educational science at the University in question. Thebee 23:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can post it on the Wikisource site - again, if the study is independent. Pete K 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What concerns me, and I agree with Pete K on this - is we need to determine is this report is independent or not, how come it has not been published in mainstream literature/journals? The major concern is whether the report was commissioned by the Waldorf schools themselves - but if truly independent then fine. Cheers Lethaniol 23:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The publications that have come out of the project are listed by the Research database at the University of Karlstad. I will add a description of one part of it (Waldorf schools and civic moral competency. A comparison of Waldorf pupils with pupils in public schools. [Report 2004:2] Karlstad: Institution for educational science, University of Karlstad) in this article. It was not commissioned by Waldorf schools.

Thebee 15:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I see it has been put back in. What I will do, as this is probably the most controversial part of this page is ask a native Swedish editor to check over the Karlstad pages - and check that is:

1. Independent
2. Contains the report on racism

And hopefully that will mean we can keep this article for good Cheers Lethaniol 16:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've got to say - I'm learning a lot here Lethaniol. Thanks! Pete K 16:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have got a reply from the people that have looked into this Swedish report see here - this satisfies me that this report is independent, and notable (even though note published) that the author is reputable - therefore I think this issue be laid to rest - the citation and section kept - Thankyou very much people User:Lethaniol 21:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So, was I right about it and describe it correctly? Thebee 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The translators did not say specifically - i.e. they did not translate the part of report concerned - I see no reason to ask for more of their time. Basically if the author is reputable and the research independent then I see no reason for the English letter we have all seen to be incorrect - which states the facts but does not quote the percentages. I am happy to take your word that you have got the percentages correct - as they fit in with the general information we have seen. I suppose I could go to extreme lengths to check absolutely - but I feel satisfied that I do not need. At some point we have to trust other editors who have access to materials that we might not - like with my Athens access to the Urban Journal. Of course if you have lied and given incorrect information on purpose, I will request for you to be blocked - its nothing personal - just that editors who add incorrect information from hard to access sources are an extreme liability to Wikipedia (I assume everyone can see why). But I do not think this is the case - so no worries - I try to Assume Good Faith as much as I can. Cheers Lethaniol 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The figures are mentioned at page 35 of the original report in Swedish, found here. The paragraph from which they are taken is the one at the bottom of the page. It says (in Swedish):

"Det visade sig att flertalet elever i båda skolformerna och i båda skolåren tog avstånd från demonstranternas åsikter (Tabell 26). Andelen elever som föreslog antinazistiska eller antirasistiska lösningar var emellertid högre bland waldorfeleverna än bland de kommunala eleverna. Totalt föreslog 93% av waldorfeleverna lösningar som gick ut på att på olika sätt motverka nazism och rasism. Motsvarande siffra bland de kommunala eleverna var 72%. Störst skillnad mellan skolformerna fanns på gymnasienivån. Här föreslog 90% av waldorfeleverna mot 67% av de kommunala eleverna antinazistiska eller antirasistiska lösningar på problemet. Skillnaderna är statistiskt signifikanta."

In English translation that is:

"It turned out that the majority of the pupils in both school forms and for both grades [9 and 12, added comment by Thebee] distanced themselves from the view of the demonstrators [nazi demonstrators, added comment by Thebee] (Table 26). The portion of the pupils who suggested anti-nazi or anti-racist solutions however was greater among the Waldorf pupils than among the pupils at public schools. In total, 93% of the Waldorf pupils suggested solutions that in different ways were targeted at countering nazism and racism. The corresponding figure for the pupils at public schools was 72%. The difference between the two school forms was greatest at the high school level. Here, 90% of the Waldorf pupils suggested anti-nazi or anti-racist solutions to the problem, while the corresponding figure for the public school pupils was 67%. The differences are statistically significant."

Thebee 23:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Two basic scientific traditions

Like Waldorf education in general, also the teaching of science subjects in Waldorf schools is influenced by the cultivation of the idealistic tradition in the history of science. It is primarily focussed on processes, and the dynamic or processes. In a number of senses it constitutes a mirror to that of a "materialistic" tradition in the history of science, meant in a purely descriptive, not judgemental sense, focussed on possible static states of matter. This does not mean that the former it not scientific in the same general sense as what today is called "natural science" is. For some penetration of this issue, see What is Science?.

Waldorf education focusses on the actively observing, experimenting and thinking subject in science subjects, while traditional education has its primary focus on the (more passively focussed) learning of theories, developed by others. As far as I remember, the monograph tells of the continued active interest of Waldorf pupils in learning more, after this this type of interest usually wanes among other students. Thebee 16:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You should re-read it then. It emphasizes how Waldorf schools fall short in their presentation of science. As for two basic scientific traditions, one of the two is no longer in practice - except in Waldorf. That Waldorf schools call what they teach "science" is as absurd as Steiner's oxymoronic term "spiritual science". The Research Monograph makes this pretty clear. Kids are, of course, enthusiastic about learning anything that is presented in the right way. Ask any kid if they would like to learn magic, and they will enthusiastically say "yes". What Waldorf schools teach is not science, it is twisted spirituality intended to resemble science. Steiner was good at presenting such twisted logic. There is no reason why sound science cannot be taught at Waldorf schools - except the refusal of Waldorf teachers to accept that Steiner misunderstood some things scientific. Science is, and always has been one of Waldorf's shortcomings. Explaining "two basic scientific traditions" is really Waldorf-speak for "we're not interested in science - except in how it can be explained spiritually". Confusing what science really is doesn't help anyone. Pete K 20:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

On

"Explaining "two basic scientific traditions" is really Waldorf-speak for "we're not interested in science - except in how it can be explained spiritually". Confusing what science really is doesn't help anyone."

My Professor of Philosophy of Science (Håkan Törnebohm), when I wrote the paper for him as part of my study at the Department of the Philosophy of Science at the University of Gothenburg about 1980, disagreed with you. In his judgment, the paper was "excellent" as a presentation of the issue.

It contradicts what you write. Thebee 22:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So what? How many kids does he have in Waldorf? Pete K 01:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt he had any in any Waldorf school. As far as I remember, he never mentioned neither Waldorf nor having any children, when I studied for him, now 25-30 years ago. As far as I know, he passed on some years ago. He basically founded the subject of Philosophy of Science as a special academic subject in Sweden, and in 1963 got a personal professorship (http://hum.gu.se/institutioner/idehistoria-och-vetenskapsteori/). Thebee 09:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

For some more on the issue of science in Waldorf education, see here. Thebee 10:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"I doubt he had any in any Waldorf school." So how would he know exactly how bad Waldorf science is? I'm sure he was a great guy - but YOUR research doesn't exactly qualify for any awards... I'm very sorry to say. Your repeated attempts to direct readers to your own original research is really against Wikipedia policy WP:NOR. You should avoid linking to your own websites in every discussion here. Again, the confusing of science and spirituality is what is problematic with Waldorf education - as unbiased researchers and parents alike have discovered. Pete K 16:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some links to Waldorf's idea of science: Menstruation, Science, Medicine, Vaccinations, and more Vaccinations, and more Vaccinations... and there are plenty more... Pete K 01:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The first is a link to a completely self published site and the personal views of the editor of it, dedicated to "home and/or un-schooling based on a Waldorf Inspired Curriculum". That's all. It's a purely personal site, expressing her personal views. She does not work at or represent any Waldorf school or Waldorf organisation. The page does not tell she's a trained Waldorf teacher. It appears she is a parent home schooling her child or children. Individuals have all sorts of views and opinions. Her views on menstruation has little to nothing to do with Waldorf education. She likes the Raw diet. That seems to influence menstruation. Waldorf teachers and parents like non-Waldorf teachers and non-Waldorf parents all sorts of different diets.

The second site is a WC-promoting site, with all its twists and disinformation.

The third page discusses the role of fever in childhood illnesses. It reflects a growing consciousness of its importance for the body in combatting infections.

The fourth page concerns vaccinations. Waldorf parents, like most parents, have all sorts of views on this. There are anti-vaccination views both inside and outside the Waldorf community. See for example Babyparenting, Global Vaccine Institute and Global Vaccine Awareness League. What's interesting I think is the consensus view of representative organisations of Waldorf schools. One such organisation is the European Council for Steiner Waldorf Education, where the Association of Waldorf Schools in North America is an - sa far as I know - associate member. In discussing the issue, it has issued a policy statement, found here. It tells:

"We wish to state unequivocally that opposition to immunisation per se – or resistance to national strategies for childhood immunisation in general – forms no part of our specific educational objectives.

"We believe that a matter such as whether or not to inoculate a child against communicable disease should be a matter for parental choice. Consequently, we believe that families provide the proper context for such decisions to be made on the basis of medical, social and ethical considerations, and upon the perceived balance of risks.

"Insofar as schools have any role to play in these matters, we believe it is in making available a range of balanced information both from the appropriate national agencies and from qualified health professionals with expertise in the field.

Schools themselves are not – nor should they attempt to become – determiners of health or medical decisions."

While these Talks pages are not intended for general discussions about the article's subject, your links and posting makes it necessary to answer the issues you raise. I regret this. Thebee 18:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think you do. Your own ORIGINAL RESEARCH is posted here constantly. If you don't want to answer the issues, please don't bother. Since you are a self-appointed Waldorf spokesperson, however, it seems you have some need to keep pushing your POV. The sites I listed are just the tip of the iceberg. Here are a few more that deal with Waldorf/Anthroposophy's views of science: Pertussis, Mistletoe for Cancer, More Mistletoe, Anthroposophical Medicine, and that's only the beginning. You are welcome to try to refute these. I've got lots more and will utilize every opportunity you afford me to continue producing them. A good way to avoid this is to stop linking to your own original research in these discussions and just discuss the article edits. That's what these pages are for - not pushing your POV. Pete K 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Context and Bias

I went to this article because a friend of mine was hired to teach a foreign language at a Waldorf school and she mentioned that it was 'quirky' and I wanted to hear a little more about it. The article gives a pretty decent impression of 'quirky', but the talk page definitely underscores 'quirky'.

One thing that would really help is contextualizing Waldorf education a bit. There could be a comparative section talking about antecedents in other educational philosophies and how Waldorf education has effected other movements (public education, etc). Also, the varying degrees to which Waldorf schools adhere to the pure Waldorf philosophy would be good as would a discussion for how these schools are "accredited" as Waldorf schools.

Also, a discussion about how well Waldorf students do in college, later in life, etc. would be most illuminating. I know nothing about educational databases, but google scholar isn't showing much, but somebody has got to be interested in this. Even without objective studies of this kind, though, there has to be speculation from pro- and anti-Waldorf positions which could be mentioned. Right now, there is nothing remotely critical in the article, which makes it seem a little biased.

129.2.180.156 18:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The severely biased presentation in this article is being disputed in arbitration. Waldorf-produced studies are, of course, biased as well (note the way statements are carefully worded). We typically find statements that suggest huge percentages of students are accepted into college. A closer look reveals that two or three students were accepted into multiple colleges and a great number of students don't get into (or more importantly don't want to go to) college at all. Pete K 20:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Research on Waldorf Education

The probably most extensive overview of research on Waldorf education can be found here. For two studies of the type you ask for in your third text section, 129.2.180.156, see here and here. I agree with your suggestions in the preceding section. Regrettably, I think it's difficult to find studies, answering them more in detail, even if there probably exist some in German. Herbartian philosophy seems to be one such historical context. See also here. As for speculations, Wikipedia is against publishing them. Thebee 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think from now on, I'll be removing any links to your original research - even on the talk pages. You may want to talk to an administrator about this. There is no reason your slanderous websites should get free advertising on these talk pages. Pete K 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted links to TheBee's defamatory website again. I may go through every talk page and every archive and do exactly the same thing at some point. For now, I'll be deleting them whenever TheBee introduces new ones. Pete K 15:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the links to TheBee's website again. This afternoon, I'll start going through every talk page and do the same (as promised). I've asked TheBee to discuss this with an administrator. This is free advertising for TheBee and his POV. Not permitted here. Pete K 18:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's better to fight fire with fire. The best and most extensive research on Waldorf education can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Actually, there are many more like this. Maybe I'll insert the list each time TheBee references his websites. Pete K 22:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, Thebee: Kindly enlighten me as to the fairness and equitibility of you disallowing my references to "self-published" websites - which I'll reiterate I only did, because I was unaware of the rules here, at the time - and then you cite your OWN website as a definitive source! As I said below [and earlier today] What good does it do? How does it serve the Article? How does it support the spirit of the Arbitration?

If we all stick to the rules, we'll all get along just fine. But enforcing them for others while you break them for yourself is nothing short of blatant hypocrisy, or egregious double standard. I do not tolerate double standards and I will make no apologies for calling you on such behavior. It's disgraceful, it's infuriating, it's wrong [and I believe you know it] - so please stop it.

Thank you in advance. - Wikiwag 03:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

At one time, Pete K tried to get support in the arbitration for his view that linking to Waldorf Answers (and maybe the site of thebee, don't remember) should be disallowed in discussions of articles related to Waldorf education. As far as I remember he did not get it. That is also so far the case with his request to Mr. Bauder to get permission to delete all such references in postings at all talks pages four months back related to Waldorf education.

For published articles at Wikipedia, the same rules apply to Waldorf Answers and the site of thebee as for all other sites as citation. (In these discussions (or the arbitration), I only remember Hgilbert and DianaW as editors who have used the word "egregious". Funny. And instructive. And for someone, who two days ago wrote that you have never edited at Wikipedia before, you edit, format your postings, and use different forms of links and write Edit summaries like an expert.) Thebee 13:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There's our answer. I've restored the links to the articles I produced above (sorry Wikiwag, but until I can take the high ground, I'll opt for level ground). TheBee only understands pressure like this. I will continue doing this every time TheBee references his own websites - in the name of fairness.

TheBee, today starting a new page of insults, is calling Wikiwag a "sockpuppet" here and complaining to administrators already. The references to Wikiwag's editing "like an expert" imply this as well. By my count, that's four personal attacks by TheBee in two days. Pete K 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't call "Wikiwag" a "sock puppet" here. I have asked Wikiwag if that is the case. In my qustion to Durova, I point out what indicates that this is the case, and ask that she looks into it. Regular Wikipedia procedure. Thebee 16:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)