Jump to content

Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

DFES report on Waldorf education

This might be useful: A DFES report characterizes Waldorf education as follows: hgilbert (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC) "The premise from which Steiner education starts is that “each human being comprises body, soul and spirit” (Rawson and Richter 2000: 14). Education is meant to be part of the process whereby “the spiritual core of the person [strives] to come ever more fully to expression within and through the organism he or she has inherited and must individualise” (op. cit.: 7). To this end, the range of human faculties are awakened (cognitive, affective, creative, etc.) in a balanced way according to the anthroposophical model of human development. Integral to Steiner school education is encouragement of balanced growth towards “physical, behavioural, emotional, cognitive, social and spiritual maturation” (op. cit.: 7). Steiner pedagogy recognises “willing” (the control of limbs and bodily movement), “feeling” (the affective domain of the aesthetic and emotional senses) and “thinking” (the cognitive domain of rational thought). Willing dominates pedagogy up to age seven when learning by imitation is very important. Between 7 and 14, children learn through their aesthetic senses, whilst from 14 upwards attention is given to the rapidly awakening senses of reason.

The Steiner curriculum is based on what Rudolf Steiner indicated would be appropriate for children of each age in accordance with his view of child development. It has evolved over the years through a testing in practice of this principle and is documented in publications such as Rawson and Richter (2000). Ideally, pupils follow the curriculum from early years through Classes 1 to 12. Formal learning begins at age 7. Before then, children are said to learn “primarily through imitation and play”, and what they need according to Steiner principles is “a secure, caring and structured environment where activities occur in a meaningful context” (Rawson and Richter 2000: 16)." "Possibly the most distinctive single element of Steiner education is the two hour main lesson that is held at the beginning of each day. Fundamentally, Rudolf Steiner established a pattern for the whole period of Class 1 to Class 12. This is a main lesson up until morning break, followed by usually two subject lessons before lunch and then two further subject lessons after lunch. All classes broadly follow this pattern, whether the pupils are 6 or 16 years of age. The purpose of the main lesson is to allow sustained concentration on a topic for a significant block of time – ideally one month. An appreciation of the significance of this structure is crucial to an understanding of how the class teacher system really works. In the youngest classes, children are more likely to have their own teacher for some or all of the subject lessons, but unlike maintained primary schools, there is a very clear complementary timetable of subject teaching throughout the main primary years that continues into upper school (Classes 9-12). Another distinctive characteristic of Steiner education is the absence of a formal hierarchy amongst teachers. Responsibility for leadership belongs to a college of teachers which Rudolf Steiner intended should run the school as a ‘republican academy’ (Gladstone 1997). A central responsibility of that leadership is to embody and develop the spiritual life of the school, as well as to exercise responsibility for its educational activities and management.

An integral feature of Steiner schooling is the importance attached to family support for the education of the child, and the importance of adult learning and development in the wider school community. The schools need to explain their distinctive philosophy to parents and do so through means such as evening lectures or informative articles in newsletters. Parents are frequently invited to the regular festivals which form part of the work of the schools and where they can see their children’s work. As with maintained schools, there are regular information evenings and teacher-patent consultation events. Some of the schools offer classes in art, craft or other aspects of the distinctive Steiner approach from which adults can benefit. Many parents are also significantly involved in the running of the schools, perhaps as trustees, but often in a practical sense including the maintenance and upkeep of the buildings."

This is very good. Does anyone have a problem with this? We could crib off this structure, and some of the language, for Anthro Basis, Curriculum and in the last section - which I felt was deeply missing - for what is often called "learning communities" in other educational settings. I think this is where discussion of the 4 Temperaments should go because although it is true that Steiner based them off the Greek Humours, etc., how they are used today is as way of working with personality and individuality in a social setting. Personally I would view them as a seeking to create social balance as much or even more than individual balance in the classroom because of course children are moving through developmental stages. If children are fundamentally sanguine, "categorization" as is represented on the page isn't quite accurate. And there is a large component involving the "inner development" of the teacher because the teacher, as an adult, is capable of more self-awareness and modulating their behavior and responses. Of course, these are my views. What matters is what is in the sources and it should be noted that not many of them mention it at all - which is why we are faced with working with this challenging (although very good) piece by a Classicist. I am thinking it is a little WP:UNDUE for the 4 Temperaments to have their own section. I propose working with the DfES explanation, quoting it as needed, but not in its entirety of course. The ideas would need to be synthesized with other RS, as appropriate, and especially if there are any differences in opinion. This latter part will take time, which is why it would be helpful to know if other editors are on-board because it might mean that the description will necessarily look poorly sourced for a while. As for what should be in these sections, however, I think they've hit the mark. Jellypear (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Grant's piece is published in a leading peer-reviewed education journal, and is quite clear for the content we've used - so shouldn't be supplanted. Also bear in mind this WP article is entitled "Waldorf education" and not "Waldorf today", so if Steiner's notions are being abandoned in practice, that doesn't mean we should remove them from the theoretical portions of the article. However, there's plenty of good stuff in the UWE report too, insofar as it describes Waldorf schooling in the UK - so we should certainly use it (more). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Grant's piece should not be supplanted. It has a place and it is a good article. It just can't bear the weight of explaining this whole issue as a single source which is what it is being asked to do right now.Jellypear (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
And interestingly, the UWE report cites Grant's piece as a source ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hadn't seen that. A lot of material to cover. I am getting an education. :) But I'll be be plain. There has has been a lot of "quotation mining" on this page from various POVs. It is what directed me to start reading TALK in the first place and to decide to start editing myself. Good wiki pages demonstrate a synthesis of sources. It is easy to spot when that is not happening, particularly if you have ever been involved in collaborative writing before. A few quick reference checks on the stinkiest stuff - such as Grover Whitehurst appearing to skewer David Elkind - proves that it is happening. All subject matter aside, I detest this. If someone takes the time to write an academic article, or produce a journalistic piece, or enter into a public point/counterpoint debate, others who want to reproduce their thoughts have a moral obligation to summarize the original source authentically. Criticism of it is obviously fine, but only after the original piece has been accurately summarized. IMHO. Jellypear (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I will observe, in general, that thinking one has a monopoly on true and morally-righteous writing (perhaps with the added rider that one's fellow editors don't) is not a good basis for editing Wikipedia. Take the case of Elkind/Whitehurst. When I arrived at this article, Elkind was quoted without a whisper of Whitehurst's response. In my view Whitehurst does (at least attempt to) skewer Elkind. Writing that Elkind is "ignoring empirical evidence", "not letting empirical evidence get in the way of his argument", "ignoring a substantial body of observation and research that runs counter to his assertions", using research "anecdotally and without attention to obvious contradictions", and characterizing Elkind's piece as part of a cycle of "fad and fancy" — is as close as it gets to one academic saying to another "you're talking shit". That, in my view, is notable. You, without a source, have shrugged this - in Wikipedi'a voice mark you - as a "typical exchange" and then airbrushed-out all of Whitehurst's misgivings about Elkind's reliability, and his pungent wording, in your re-write. I think that's POV, and you have failed to characterize Whitehurst's response accurately. However, I will not do you the disservice of saying I "detest" what you've done, say that your work stinks, accuse you of not being authentic, or claim that that you have deviated from your moral obligation. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies for causing offense. I did not know that was the case regarding Elkind/Whitehurst earlier on this page. I would view that as a problem as well because the piece was clearly written as a point-counterpoint approach to the question. One shouldn't include one side without the other. That is what I am talking about concerning "quote mining." Also, I do not think I have a monopoly on "true and morally-righteous writing." In addition, I agree that Whitehurst's response to Elkind is basically that he is "talking shit." But I think it is a mistake to write what he says as if it is an assessment of Elkind's reliability as a scholar. Elkind is a Piagetian and Whitehurst is an Empiricist. Whitehurst is attacking the guys down the hall and their methods which he finds insufficient. He is not attacking Elkind personally - only his brand of scholar in this field. Whitehurst would probably vigorously come to Elkind's defense if someone were to say that he was not a good scholar or that his work, by the standards of the methods he uses, is lacking. Finally, I agree that "in a typical exchange" probably goes to far. I do think this exchange is highly representative of this debate but the statement comes out of my personal preference for transitions and probably should not be there. I will take it out. Jellypear (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Rest assured, I don't take offense. I am merely pointing out what I see as unproductive modes of discourse. When Whitehurst says "Elkind’s not letting empirical evidence get in the way of his argument" - that looks pretty personal to me. Perhaps you could perform some edits so that readers will accurately pick up the "shittiness" which we agree Whitehurst thinks is inherent in Elkind's argument. At the moment it reads like they had a mild disagreement over some points of detail. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Anthroposophical Basis section - differing views of purpose

Based on some recent editing, it seems apparent that there are differing views on the purpose of this section. In some of the stuff I have been adding, I have viewed this as an opportunity to chronologically tell the story of where the educational ideas came from. The purpose of this section would be, for me, to show how Waldorf education is an outgrowth of anthroposophical ideas in order to move on to the specifics of the approach, which themselves are practices. User:Alexbrn has edited it so that (in my take anyway) the purpose of this section is to declare and describe the role of Anthroposophy in the schools today - in underpinning the organization, design of buildings, and teacher training. And then there is a characterization of the viewpoints on the presence of an Anthroposophical influence by Ullrich. I'm going to change it back but rather than get into a cycle of edit/undo I ask: is there any consensus on what purpose this section should serve? Jellypear (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Your contributions are good, I think, but some need better placement. A section entitled "Anthroposopical basis" should start with a statement about how based everything is on anthroposophy, surely. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
"how based everything is on anthroposophy" - This is what is tricky, there is a range of opinion on whether or not "everything" is based on anthropophy. There is no question that Waldorf education is based in Anthroposophy historically and organizationally as a part of a set of anthro movements. And some ideas and concepts pervade. So, discussing an anthro basis is warranted. WP:NPOV is tricky. I haven't resolved on this either. Jellypear (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there any source that says anything other that W.E. is based on anthroposophy? All the high-quality sources say, so -- and, when Woods, Ashley & Woods asked "how important it is that teachers and other staff are knowledgeable about anthroposophy", "the large majority of schools (15) affirmed that it was indispensable or of very great importance. For example: 'Very – basis of all we do' etc etc". I'm not see any "range" whatsoever. What are your sources? Why are Oberski and Ullrich to be doubted here, where elsewhere in this article their views are given as unopposed fact? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Not arguing that WE is not based on anthroposophy. Whether "everything" in WE is based on anthroposophy is the distinction. Some people view Waldorf Education = Anthroposophy. I am not one of those people. But, again, none of that matters. It is what the RS have to say. I don't have a clear sense at the moment as to what has been said regarding WE=anthropopsophy or the degree to which "everything" is based on anthroposophy. Only commitment I have is to representing the range of opinions, as I presume everyone else here wants to do as well. Jellypear (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
(Off topic) Well, as has been discussed here before the problem is the "revealed knowledge" nature of Steiner's views. Once part of anthroposophy is denied, then the whole belief system crumbles as it is based on his divine communion with the spirit world. Like some religions, it's an "all or nothing" investment - and (like those religions) that is its critical vulnerability. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
(Off topic) Actually, not. Steiner never suggested that his insights were absolute; he repeatedly urged people to check them, and reject them if they did not check out. His "spiritual scientific research" was no more guaranteed to be accurate, than "natural scientific research". In both cases, one does one's best. The invalidation of a particular result in science does not invalidate all other results, or even the scientific method itself. hgilbert (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Developmental Approach Section

A few comments. I am emphatically NOT trying to excise any sources from this section, even though the sources coming out is the practical outcome. I have tried to rewrite for explanation. In general I would say that more sources should go in, to either expand or so as not to rely on the DfES report so much. The question is how to do this while still making the explanation straightforward and clear. I am also not trying to pass this off and the best thing in the world. It was a quick write-up but one that I hope is useful. Jellypear (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to remove sources - especially less good ones - if they're no longer needed. But bear in mind Woods, Ashley & Woods - useful as it is - does not appear to be a peer-reviewed source, and is largely specific to the UK. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Hgilbert made some good changes to this section. Linking to the threefold nature stuff is definitely the way to go. I didn't know that page existed. I made some edits which I hope increase clarity. Obviously, I defer to your content expertise. The problem I had was with how "jargony" the new explanation became. Phrases like "the feeling life" are a bit dense, for lack of a better word. I looked at this section in terms of answering a few questions - 1) How is the child viewed during each of the developmental stages? 2) What is the child specifically brought to do during their time in school as a result of this view? - and your contribution - 3) What does the teacher do, or how does the teacher approach their task given this approach? The section seemed light on #2 and heavy on #3 to me. The good news for all of us is that there are many good RS to write up this portion. But how do we make it as clear and useful as possible? Jellypear (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Good points. I have changed "feeling life" to "feelings"; any further improvements are much appreciated. hgilbert (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
One more thing and I am not sure how to express it. With the exception of what you just changed, each section begins with "children learn through empathy" or "children learn through thinking and judgment." This can be taken in two ways. The first way is as in "children aged 7-14 learn subjects in these schools via their empathetic capacities" and "children aged 14+learn subjects in these schools by thinking about things and judging them/evaluating them" - in other words - this is how the learning happens. The second way is more declarative as in "[implied all] Children aged 3-7 learn through their empathy" and "[implied all] Students aged 14-17 learn by thinking" according to our viewpoint. I have seen this phraseology especially by Waldorf-affiliated writers, and less by non-practitioners tasked with explaining the approach. Unless I do not understand, I think the correct meaning is more aligned with the former as in "we approach them through this capacity at this age" because this is what we see as dominant developmentally for children this age. Empathy, thinking, and affect are still alive (or growing) within the child even if the teaching focus is on one or the other at that point in time. (BTW, what happened to "will" in the 3-7 year old - why is empathy used here? Or, is this developing something like an emphathetic will? I will have to go and look at Uhrmacher's piece.) I hope this makes some kind of sense?? The way I was able to grasp this was through the catchy "willing, feeling, thinking" description that non-Waldorf people tend to use and it looks like this (or at least how I understand it):
  1. (3-7) Willing/Hands (ie., using your body and sense perception to understand, DOING things & making things happen) but feeling and intellectual capacities are growing
  2. (7-14) Feeling/Heart (ie., living into stories & feeling numbers, sounds, language, etc. with your emotions) but intellectual and willing capacities are growing too
  3. (14+) Thinking/Head (ie., wanting and needing to think things through on one's own, to challenge, argue, & apply one's own judgement) and capacities for feeling and willing have matured beyond a child's (at least one would hope!)
Anyway, I thought I would share my thoughts on how I arrived at my understanding, such that is is. It is an interesting question how to communicate this and it appears to have been approached in different ways by the authors we can use here. No sure who has done this best for these purposes? Jellypear (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I was aware of some ambiguity here, and we should address this. We should be clear that Waldorf education believes that children primarily learn through these qualities; we are not asserting that this is the case. hgilbert (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Imagination

The role of the imagination should be given a section of its own. Here are some sources from the earlier version: hgilbert (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The approach emphasizes the role of the imagination in learning,[1][2][3][4] developing thinking that includes a creative as well as an analytic component.[5][6]

Refs

  1. ^ Thomas William Nielsen, Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy Of Imagination: A Case Study Of Holistic Education, Peter Lang Pub Inc 2004 ISBN 3-03910-342-3
  2. ^ Carrie Y. Nordlund, "Art Experiences in Waldorf Education", Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia, May 2006
  3. ^ Southworth, Cheryl Ridgeway, Geometry, fir trees and princes: Imaginative cognition in education, Ph.D. dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1988, 294 pages; AAT 8823477
  4. ^ Bo Dahlin, The Waldorf School - Cultivating Humanity. Karlstad University Studies, 2007, p. 69
  5. ^ Freda Easton, The Waldorf impulse in education:Schools as communities that educate the whole child by integrating artistic and academic work, Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University Teachers College, 1995
  6. ^ Ogletree, Earl J., Creativity and Waldorf Education: A Study.

Why? Can't this be covered via comments regarding artistic integration across the curriculum? Or, if thoughtfully done, the idea could be in short curriculum subject sections on Reading/Mathematics & Science? Jellypear (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There is also the Imagination & Socialization section that could be brought up. I am not sure if that belongs under "reception" because there have been quite a few papers that have studied these issues not as side effects but as purposeful aspects of the curriculum. Just another thought. Jellypear (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Primary features of the education

Ullrich identifies the major features of Waldorf education as follows: (Heiner Ullrich Rudolf Steiner, Continuum Library of Educational Thought, 2008' pp. 142-150

Waldorf schools characteristically have: supportive communities committed to their unique educational model;child-oriented architectural spaces for "learning and living"; classes not differentiated by performance; block teaching of major academic subjects; holistic learning, whereby each lesson has a component oriented toward the will, one oriented toward the emotions, and one "encouraging concentrated thought"; an emphasis on productive, self-determined work in interdisciplinary areas of experience; special annual projects including class plays and individual presentations as well as regular shadings of work at school festivals; reports that characterize individual academic progress and personal development, rather than students' position in comparison to others; a primary teacher that stays with the class for a number of years, frequently even for all of grades 1-8, and who is responsible for core academic instruction but also stands as a "role model for personal development" and support for students, a hierarchical relationship that shifts to independent responsibility by ninth grade.

I suggest we create a section of the article describing each of these themes, including their critical reception. Does this seem helpful? hgilbert (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of, or as well as, the existing sections? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Major sections should remain. These could be subsections or in some cases might integrate with existing subsections . hgilbert (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

New section: "Evaluations of students progress"

This new section has just been added.[1] There are a couple of problems with it:

I am removing this section for now; if this material is to be re-added to Wikipedia these problems must be addressed. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Though detailed information about the studies certainly belong in the subarticle, the results of studies should be summarized in this article. Otherwise you are creating a POV fork, where critiques and personal reactions have free rein, but actual studies are squelched. hgilbert (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I have addressed the cases where in-text attributions where lacking (there were actually very few of these). See the above comment on your suggestion that no studies should be reported on here.
If you would like to modify or add material, please do. Please do not remove the entire section, however. hgilbert (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
A POV fork is creating an article like "Criticism of ..."; splitting out studies is a topic-based split, in line with other topic based splits from this article. The sub-article's content should be summarized using a summary style in the main article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Except in the case of this article, there is discussion that WE teaches pseudoscience and other stuff which makes actual studies about the method's effectiveness (or not) highly relevant information. Here is some of my own POV shining but while its great that Eugenie Scott - who has never conducted a scientific study of Waldorf education - says that the schools teach the pseudoscience of a 19th century nutcase, I am more interested in what researchers who have evaluated the schools using scientific methods have to say. Jellypear (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Amusing, then, that those who wish to critique WE's pseudoscience also wish to prevent the light of science from shining into the article. hgilbert (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
(OT?) Well, yes, the irony there is not lost on me. If I were editing a different kind of page I would probably make a stink about Eugenie Scott's comments as an argument from authority. She is a subject matter on science in general, but her expertise on what is or is not taught to students in these schools, as well as what success students have with this education, is very small. If she conducted a peer-reviewed study that came back and supported her statements that the students were being taught pseudoscience then I would have a very different opinion. It's unclear to me what her relationship to the schools are and why she holds the strong opinions she does. In any event, not including studies - when they exist on topics under discussion on this page - is a POV fork. What an odd page this is. No one affiliated with the schools can be a RS on what happens in them and peer-reviewed studies are considered somehow not important enough to have ample space on the page. Jellypear (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I just read this section that was removed. I have been busy and never saw it when it was put in and then taken out. I don't see any problem with this. They are all reliable sources, and assuming that that the studies have been summarized accurately, I see no reason why they shouldn't be here. Is the objection that they would be better integrated within the text sections---speaking to the issues they deal with? If so, let's work together to do that. Studies of the efficacy of this education are the most important things to have on this page, IMHO. Talk is cheap. Show me the data. Jellypear (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Waldorf Education is controversial.

I have thought long and hard about the edit warring over this bit. Without a doubt, this section needs to be rewritten with all editors taking note of WP:WFTO. The leading sentence cannot stand because it describes Waldorf Educuation from a POV rather than describing various disputes or differences of opinion. This is not wikipedian - full stop. Just for reference here are some other pages that do not have any sentence claiming the subject matter is controversial. *I am expressing no personal views on these topics - only noting that striking differences of opinion exist on these topics and they are certainly not uncontroversial topics.

  1. same sex marriage
  2. female genital mutilation or FGM
  3. Electroconvulsive therapy
  4. pedophilia
  5. catholic church
  6. circumcision
  7. deprogramming

But wikipedia doesn't say any of these things are controversial. It describes what the controversies entail. So there are sentences like this:

  1. Opposition to FGM focuses on...
  2. The effectiveness, ethics and legality of deprogramming has been questioned by scholars,
  3. Ethical and legal questions regarding informed consent and autonomy have been raised over non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision

Wikipedia recommends using this kind of format if you must write about something you disagree with personally "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This section needs to follow this format, even if my edits are not the perfect solution. A few other comments: Benn is not a RS on this particular topic given her advocacy role. The second book, from the LLewelyn press, is a hilarious citation. Is there any place else on this page he would be considered a credible source? The former verbiage about "views differ on the effectiveness..." is WP:Weasel. If there are educational scholars who speak to Waldorf education's late introduction of reading or ICT as controversial then they should be cited. Right now the idea is just hanging out there without being attributed to anyone in particular. Jellypear (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at the corresponding pages and been astonished at the difference in approach. I agree with your analysis and have modified the lede to conform more closely to WP standard usage. In particular, WP:Lead emphasizes that undue weight should not be given to any topic in the introduction. There has been an incredibly disproportionate part of the lede devoted to criticism. More should be added about the actual content of the pedagogical approach. hgilbert (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, WP:LEAD says that the weight given to topics in the introduction should align with the treatment of those topics in the article body. Very simply, the lead section is a summary of the article body. It is not the place where a negative balance found in sources, and in the article, should be countered by giving positive thoughts equal footing. Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the lead was a fair summary of the article per WP:LEAD, including prominent controversies as it should. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Fully one-third of the lead is devoted to controversies. That is not by any stretch of the imagination a fair summary. hgilbert (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The non-controversial aspects of the article have expanded since the lead was written, so the correct thing to do is to expand the lead to encompass them; not to delete content you don't like. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I've added some material, but feel it still needs work. I'd appreciate other editors contributions to forming the lead to better reflect the article's content. hgilbert (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's jargon-y, over-cited and introduces novel concepts not present in the body (e.g. "destiny"). I have no idea how to translate Waldorf jargon into readable English, so I won't attempt to. Is it possible to summarize some of this article's existing content using simpler language? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed the citation and novelty problems by bringing very parallel wording into the body. We may want to tweak this to avoid excessive repetition, however.
Can you list some of the terms that you are puzzling over so we can simplify this if possible?hgilbert (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
maybe jargon is the wrong word, but stuff like "the principle of willing", "integrated individuals", "quantitative summative assessments", "balancing ... modes", "fostering idealism (thinking)", "overarching goals ... to provide ... the basis[sic]" ... it's all a bit costive. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it has somehow gotten laden with jargon-esque language and heavy recently. Jellypear (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I am less concerned with the proportions of the lede than with stating that "Waldorf education is controversial" in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia does not declare topics controversial - period. If I haven't made that clear by the examples I have given, then there is a problem. To take another example look at prostitution. The issues that I have mentioned are intensely controversial - worldwide - but Wikipedia does not declare them controversial. Just because one can credibly say it is not uncontroversial - ie., without any elements of controversy - does not make it controversial. As editors, we are obligated to describe the controversies that exist in proportion to their importance to the topic, as best we can, and nothing more. Moreover, it is recommended that the description is put in this format "So-and-so argues that ____________. This is a little wordy for the lede, which I can appreciate, but where controversies exist, the expectation is that wikipedia is clear and informative about who is making what assertions about the controversial topic. Many controversies have several different elements. Take, for ex., FGM. Critics within the countries where it is practiced do not always share the views with critics outside of the countries where it is practiced. An informative wiki page identifies who says what so that such knowledge can be gained. Jellypear (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
As you hint at, in-text attribution is generally not done in the lead; it has more of a summary style, and uses topic sentences to guide the reader (as would be well done elsewhere). Wikipedia says a lot of things are controversial (e.g. The Birth of a Nation, Digital rights management and the One-child policy). Once there are opposing views on a topic, especially in public, it is - by definition - controversial. Given the overall content of the paragraph, stating that "Waldorf education is controversial" is both axiomatic, and ... good style. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
By the way, Jellypear - you don't seem to appreciate that the lead summarizes the body without the need for direct sourcing; your removal of content from the lead on the basis that it is not "RS" is damaging the article, and eroding its NPOV. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so. Benn is a journalist and even though she started a pro-state schools organization I think is a RS for whether or not a controversy had occurred in the UK with the opening of some Steiner schools. Ullrich is an educational researcher, who has studied these schools extensively, and is in a position to know and describe the features of discussion related to the schools. Christopher Penczak is a witch and healing practitioner who writes on magic and herbalism. He is not a RS for whether or not Waldorf schools are controversial. Would we be quoting his views on homeopathy on this page? (assuming he has favorable ones...I am just assuming here.) I think not either. I took him out as a RS and I think it should stay that way. I do appreciate that the lede summarizes without direct sourcing so long that it does stick closely to what is contained in the page. But why is there resistance to identifying who has what concerns isn't a page more informative when this is clearly laid out? Isn't that how one would describe something that is controversial? Jellypear (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't usually point to other Wikipedia articles to prove a point but in response to that being done by Jellypear I wish to bring notice to the following:
...and many more. There are quite a few Wikipedia articles that tell the reader in Wikipedia's voice that the topic is controversial. My search found 888 articles with some variation of the search terms "is a controversial". Further results would be obtained searching for "is controversial". Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The current wording still clearly points to the existence of controversy, but in appropriately nuanced language. hgilbert (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, most of the sources used to support this claim are clearly not "independent academic sources", as . The one that is closest (a UNESCO journal) in contradiction to other statements by the same author. hgilbert (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The lead is a summary of the article. There is no need to check sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a difference of opinion concerning what Heiner Ullrich says in his 2000 paper. Under the "A contradictory balance sheet" section, in the first paragraph he descibes a period of isolation followed by recognition of WE as being an educational alternative in Germany. Then, as a result of it being viewed as an educational alternative he says that intensive study has been in progress in "educational circles in Germany" for ten years. He goes on to describe the positions in these educational circles as "highly controversial: they range from enthusiastic support to destructive criticism." My reading of all this is that when he uses the word "controversial" he is describing not Waldorf education itself but the positions taken within educational circles in Germany regarding Waldorf education during this time period. For this reason, a summary such as "According to Heiner Ullrich, Waldorf education is controversial" doesn't stay true enough to the source and has the effect of enlarging his claim. Perhaps the best thing to do is just quote him directly so as to avoid this issue altogether. Jellypear (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Jargon

Seems to be an issue. What are the problems?, and let's address them. hgilbert (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am interested to hear what others have to say but here is what I wanted to know when I came to this page for the first time --- what is Waldorf Education? What do the kids do all day? How do they learn readin', writin' and 'rithmatic? How is this similar or different from other ways of approaching the task of education? And, once I felt that I understood the basic parameters - what are the results? I am sure I am weird on this point but I also read the page for citations--- who says what about what topics? Maybe I am not answering your question but in each section I want to know who, what, where, why, why, and how - just as if this were a middle school report. I want simple, straightforward language that means the same thing in other contexts. And, generally, less is more. I'll make some edits if I see things that seem jargon-y but I can see a certain level of nuance in the way you put things that a person with less experience with the education might not make. I know some people don't think that you should be participating here but I think the nature of collaborative work is that if we are working together well, we'll get the best out of everyone and minimize the deficiencies or biases we all have. Jellypear (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I've had a go at this; more no doubt is needed. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead etc

I note Jellypear has undone several edits stating there is no discussion of them; well there is (in different places) discussion both of the use of jargon, and of sourcing (or not) for the "controversy" statement - which the undone edits addressed. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And, BTW, reverting on the basis that "this edit wasn't discussed first" is a kind of WP:OWN behaviour. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the "Waldorf education is controversial" sentence, which has not come to resolution and you shifted from descriptive language to declarative language. Jellypear (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I was surprised to see edits of the lead that seemed to butcher the meaning (e.g. replacing "qualitative" or "formative" assessment with "subjective assessment"), and was glad to see the original context restored. Given the on-going discussions of the lead, this was one place where it would have been good to discuss the proposed changes. hgilbert (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Well reverting to a jargon-rich version of the lead as a whole will keep it ... jargon-rich. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I was responsible for reverting it back. I agree this is jargon. However, it is jargon within the field of education and educational assessment and it is fair to assume that some readers of this page know what formative and summative assessments are. For those readers who don't there is a link. We make the problem worse if we try to further describe them here. When I refer to jargon on this page, I am talking about Waldorf specific jargon such as "feeling life." Using the word "feelings" (for example) is more straightforward and achieves the same idea. This kind of a thing becomes a particular problem when there is a whole paragraph of Waldorf-specific jargon...and because it is specific to this context, there is no way to refer someone out of the page for more information as in the case of formative/summative assessments. Jellypear (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Any jargon that lay readers are unlikely to understand is probably not the best thing to put in a lead. At one point I tried to replace formative and summative assessment with more familiar terms, qualitative and descriptive and standardized or quantitative assessments, but after the merry-go-round traced its path, we are back to the specialized jargon. I do feel these terms remain too specialized for the lead; is there a better wording we can use? hgilbert (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Well I had a stab at re-writing, and the whole thing got reverted without discussion (then or now) of the wording. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Controversy over controversy

What about the following for the lede?

Though Waldorf education has achieved wide acceptance as a model of alternative education,<ref>"The Free Waldorf School inspired by Steiner has not stirred comparable discussion or controversy....those interested in the Waldorf School today, be they pedagogically enthusiastic parents, educational scholars, or politicians responsible for education, generally tend to view this school form first and foremost as a representative of internationally recognized models of applied classic reform pedagogy." Ullrich, ''Rudolf Steiner'', p. 140-141</ref> there has also been controversy over the following...
If this material is worth including in the article, include it in the body and summarize it in the lede (if warranted by its weight), in one of the opening paragraphs. Do not try and use it to water-down the controversies paragraph by using it as a kind of qualifying preamble. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
"Though Waldorf education has achieved wide acceptance as a model of alternative education, there has been controversy over the following...." would work for me, I think. If there is any way to address the "so and so says________" guideline in the lead I would very much approve. Mixing the viewpoints of educational researchers with others should be scrupulously avoided. They are two different kinds of analysis and should be presented as such. Jellypear (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't work for me:
  • starting a sentence with "Though" sucks the life out of it
  • there is no support for a universalized statement "Waldorf education has achieved wide acceptance as a model of alternative education" in the body (though I am prepared to accept this is sourceable)
  • there is a POV-y caveating effect by having this start to a controversies paragraph
  • there is a false equivalence between "wide acceptance as a model" and "controversies", implying one "cancels out" the other (should we start the sentence "there is wide consensus among skeptics that that Walford education is a poor educational system"?)
  • it makes the whole lead positive or neutral, except for this now nullified/caveated final paragraph you are proposing. The whole thing smells too much of POV. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

How Waldorf education makes a fool out of Wikipedia

To recap on some of the above ...

I know some editors here are unhappy with how I "bang on" about conflict of interest, yet I make no apology for doing so. In my view COI-compromised editing has the potential to do real damage to Wikipedia and - more importantly than that - to the state of free knowledge available on the Web.

To make this specific to the current article, User:Hgilbert, a Waldorf-affiliated editor with a COI, has been aggressively editing this article for many years. In a recent edit he reinstated a fantastically bold claim for Waldorf education, that

A 2007 Australian study comparing the academic performance of students at university level found that students who had been at Waldorf schools significantly outperformed their peers from non-Waldorf schools in both the humanities and the sciences.

Wow! research shows that Waldorf students here performed better than all others (including those from prestigious private schools) at university!

The only problem is that it's not true - or at least not verifiable; after probing the source it turns out User:Hgilbert sourced this to a broadcast from a local Australian radio station in which a guest "sounded as if [he] was about to publish his thesis containing the study"; but that now User:Hgilbert doesn't even "remember the researcher's name". "Perhaps" - he asks - "someone can find this ... assuming these came out". That is not at all in accord with Wikipedia's policies on sourcing claims.

This is not just a matter of a little internal bureaucratic SNAFU on Wikpedia; this content feeds out into the real world:

  • The FAQ of the Irish Steiner Kindergarten Association [2]
  • A brochure site for the Steiner Academy in Bristol, UK [3]
  • A brochure site for a Waldorf school in Prague, CZ [4]
  • A 'did you know' page for Dunedin High School, NZ [5]

When a Waldorf-boosting editor inserts unverifiable pro-Waldorf claims here, and they feed into Waldorf PR material that may affect the decision-making of parents deciding on their children's education, then something very, very wrong in happening in my view. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you're concerned about civil POV pushing, the correct venue for this would be to ask for a second review here, as this talk page should theoretically be only about the content of the article, although content and conduct seem unfortunately intertwined as of late. a13ean (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
So is this the citation? A Comparative Study of University Performance by Graduates of the Mount Barker Waldorf School (from a Master in Education (M.Ed.) thesis by Bill Wood, Adelaide University). It is just a MA level thesis so it really shouldn't be on par with the other studies, and never should have been used in the first place. On the other hand, it was discussed in a news media piece that presumably was easier to access years ago. (Who knows, maybe it can be now...) For that reason, it could be used on the page, but probably not as a citation for a broad claim as is currently the case. Herein lies the reason why a collaborative atmosphere must be encouraged here. Jellypear (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Dork that I am, I love a good citation mystery. It appears that this paper (if in fact this is the reference-is it?) was included in the following book, Alternative Education: Global Perspectives Relevant to the Asia-Pacific Region (2006) by education professor Yoshiyuki Nagata and there was some conference it was presented at. It probably would have been better to use that as the citation. I don't know if I would have included it at all, however, and the claim it is being used for is too broad for it to support given that it is only an MA paper apparently. Jellypear (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
It is both true and verifiable. The news media's report on the study is accurately reported here. The news broadcast is certainly an allowable source. We can check the data in detail against the survey results reported in the thesis, though this is not itself a RS (and has not been used as one). Incidentally, WP editors are not responsible to keep media in circulation or to ensure that other editors have access to media, only that the information is accurately reported. As it has been. hgilbert (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Just saw the last discovery...we should certainly cite to the book (Springer Verlag), and see if this has other relevant information in it as well. hgilbert (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
No. That is not why I mentioned it. Just FYI, really. Also, there could have been several ways that this MA paper diffused to Waldorf schools than through Wikipedia if there was a book and a conference and media coverage. I dunno. I found it and thought it was worthy of sharing. The book itself I have no problem using but Wood's bit is still a MA paper. It should not be included as it is not a RS in itself. Jellypear (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
It's unusual that a MA paper would get press. All in all, I don't think the source should have been used and that it was being used to substantiate a much larger claim than it was capable of supporting. This stuff is tricky because we are allowing news reports of self-published material or what amounts to self-published materials so a study would seem to be fair game but I think we have a responsibility to vet what we refer to "a study" carefully. Jellypear (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Try to keep civil

Try to keep civil. hgilbert (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The latest change to the lead

seems very helpful, summarizing the situation tidily and coherently. Thanks. hgilbert (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

John Thomas (2012)

The following has a similar issues to Dugan & Daar previously.

In 2012 John Thomas, a law professor, suggested that Waldorf education's emphasis on individual rights is inconsistent with society's use of vaccination to escape from disease, and that the Waldorf school system 1 - "[boasts] a 'strong cultural anti-immunization preference among thought-leaders' in its community". Thomas cited vaccination rates of 23% at a Waldorf school in the San Francisco Bay area, compared to 97% in the surrounding county. He stated that children may 2 - "emerge from their school to infect infants, immunocompromised adults, and people whose vaccinations didn't take or have waned, with potentially fatal diseases."

I am not sure how this is supposed to be done in Wikipedia, but these are not quotations of his statements contained in the piece, they are quotations of quotations. The first one is from an unreliable source, a statement by John Holland on the OpenWaldorf website. The second one is from a RS news article. What is the protocol for quoting quotations? Right now it appears as if both quotations are his own thoughts. With the first one, this is a RS issue and with the second it is a matter of proper citation/credit. (I have no issue with this 2nd bit being quoted...just that it follows proper form to note that it is not Thomas' own.) Jellypear (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If the RS chooses to use certain words we relay them, without attempting to debunk, or performing OR into why the source shouldn't have been doing that. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
That is not what I am saying at all. What I am asking is how does one quote a source of a source in Wikipedia? If this were an academic article, for example, it would be considered unacceptable to say John Thomas argues that Waldorf education "boasts a strong cultural anti-immunization preference among thought-leaders' in its community." You would have to put double quotations in there or you would have to say "John Thomas (2012) agrees with John Holland's position that Waldorf "boasts a strong cultural anti-immunization preference among thought-leaders in its community" (Holland: date) This is not about content per se, but about the policy in wikipedia for quoting a quote so that the originator of the idea is properly credited. Do you know the policy? Jellypear (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
In the Daar and Dugan case there was the issue that the source was perhaps a bit iffy. In this case there are no such qualms. Thomas elected to adopt those word into his main narrative text, so we are bound to honour his writing. We adopt also the quotation marks he used (use singles inside double) to show he is quoting a source. To be really anal, you could add footnote text to the reference stating "Thomas is quoting xyz source here". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
You said you have worked with academic journals in your profession, so I am sure you can appreciate that it is not merely anal to attribute quotes correctly. Do you know the policy in Wiki for quoting a quotation? Jellypear (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
There is none (that I know of). And, anal as I am when it comes to texts I think it's quite unusual to source an adopted quotation, except to make a point. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So what are you thinking? I reckon expanding the ref to add a note with a link to the openwaldorf site (I forget whether this is pro- or anti-) might create as many issues as it solves. Is there really an issue here than needs addressing, or are we at the level of "if the reader really wants this level of detail, they can look at the source" ?? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Overviews of studies

At least two overviews of studies exist, which we could draw on to replace at least some of the direct references to these (and use their summaries rather than ours):

At the risk of provoking more work for us I ask: are both of these RS? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Why not? One is a book with a reputable publisher and the other is a report distributed to the public by a governmental agency - in other words a gov doc.Jellypear (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Jelinek and Sun

The Woods report summary of Jelinek and Sun is rather different than the one here. It includes their findings that "Steiner education is successful in its aim to educate human beings, being particularly successful in stimulating imaginative thought and creating eager, confident and curious students." (p. 30) We should use this overview of studies (rather than cherry-picking only the negative findings.) hgilbert (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In the science section quite possibly. However, it must not be used to water-down the pseudoscience topic, as you have been attempting with your aggressive edits. This has been discussed at length previously. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes...except that you completely removed the science section, where it was previously cited, some time ago. It's a little frustrating to go in circles around this. hgilbert (talk)
Not removed, moved: to the curriculum article. You know ... hypertext ... :-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
You mean a POV-fork? Anything neutral or positive about science education in the schools goes to the curriculum article, anything negative stays here? I don't think so. hgilbert (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, according to our new feelings on non peer-reviewed papers Jelinek & Sun is out (i.e.., it is a research monograph published by their department). We should only refer to it via third-party sources. This is why I am asking for some consistency in rules. I don't have the time or inclination to squabble over any pieces of true scholarship. Generally speaking, they are all credible enough sources to be used and what matters is how we use them. But, if this is what we are doing, then let's not be hypocrites and apply sentiment equitably. Jellypear (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Which is better: to use an original study, generating complaints of cherry-picking, or to use a newspaper report in a national paper summarizing the study, generating complaints of unreliable sources? I am thinking of the PISA results and other studies. hgilbert (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, PISA is a complex case. The first layer is a bunch of data; then there is research on top of that (which wavers between being primary and secondary in my view); and then there is commentary on that - which may or may not be sensational to meet the mode of the publication. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Two queries on RS

  1. I am wondering about the series of Karlstad University Research Reports. These are reports on studies conducted by notable professors (there are usually three authors) but that have not been published in peer-reviewed journals. For example, I don't want to add the following until I am clear about the reliability of such a source:
    A Swedish study found that, in comparison to state school pupils, students in Waldorf schools experience less bullying, and are more open to and tolerant of gay students, students with learning difficulties, immigrants, and minority religious groups, but less tolerant of criminals, Nazis, and racists. Waldorf students also evaluate their teachers to be more egalitarian in their treatment of pupils.[1]
  1. I ran into the following in WP:RS: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals". I do believe that this would apply to the Humanists Association journal; it is certainly not "peer reviewed by the wider academic community" and it should probably be regarded as not a reliable source. hgilbert (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
First part last. Do you meet Free Inquiry, the journal of the secular humanist association? Yes. There was considerable discussion on this and I thought we had come to a reasonable solution based on the fact that they can be reliable sources for their own views. However, it may be that I was taking a liberal interpretation of that point. WP:ABOUTSELF says that such a source can be used for information about themselves but not for claims that involve third parties.
First part second. As I have noted elsewhere, these departmental research reports should be included. They are all university professors, the research was conducted by multiple people, etc. I think it would be a mistake to exclude white papers and manuscripts published by university departments or institutes because this is so frequently done. I have said this all along. If you take this issue to the RS/N, there will be push back from this because in the physical sciences this would be a very weak source. But the two areas of scholarship are so fundamentally different that it is comparing apples to oranges. I suspect you'll get your way on this one because disallowing this series would disallow direct quotation of Jelinek & Sun, and that would have a fundamental effect on the pseudoscience section. Jellypear (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we got guidance from RS/N on Free Inquiry and sorted it out. I think this is another attempt by Hgilbert to remove the statement of the British Humanist Association. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't have the energy to fight for this right now but, in general, wikipedia expects that the entire page is sourced in 3rd party materials and we haven't been doing this. For academic work, this would mean not the original research but peer-reviewed articles and university press books citing them. For some of the reception issues, it would mean only including those things that have appeared in newspaper accounts - places that a have an apparatus and reputation for accuracy. (The New York Times, etc.) I think taking such a hardline would fundamentally change (but shorten!) the page. Just some reflections, not necessarily something I am calling for. Whatever is done, however, must be applied across the board. Whatever process we're using is entirely open to POV-pushing (re:Hether), an especially bad thing for this page. Jellypear (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not quite right. To add to your exhaustion, consider WP:SELFSOURCE, which does allow otherwise bad sources to be used to report on themselves and their own views. We use the BHA, AWSNA, ECSWE, etc. according to this guideline. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The crucial bit, which I don' think I had noticed until now, is that they can't be used for claims about third party sources. BHA's views being on this page is ok currently because they are being cited in a third-party source (the TES article). If it was say, an article circulated in a BHA newsletter about Waldorf schools I would say this guideline says that it can't be included, at least until the views are picked up by The TImes of London (or some such) and then we reported those views together with whatever contrary views were expressed in the reporting. But BHA looks fine to me right now. Jellypear (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
And AWSNA and ECSWE are totally in the clear because they make no claims about third parties. They simply state their own views about themselves. I think that is what the guideline is supposed to protect, the right of groups to make statements about themselves, even if others think they are lying, duplicitous sacks-of-shite comments. :) Wikipedia only lets you talk about yourself. To talk about others, you've got to get it published in a third-party source that has a reputation and mechanism for checking facts. Jellypear (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Colourfully put, Jelly ;-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Dugan and Daar (again)

Dearest editors - we need to do something regarding sources so that we can focus on the comprehensiveness, neutrality, and clarity of this page. I am absolutely loathe to return to this topic again but after checking through the page I now see that this is just called "an article" and there is no mention that it is a publication of the Council for Secular Humanism, and not a peer-reviewed academic journal. Using the listing in Ullrich'sweb previously, I demonstrated how this is a POV publication. Papers that do not address or advance the goals of secular humanism in some way are not published. WP:Scholarship and WP:Sources indicates that such questionable sources can be used for their own ideas but not for claims about other parties, especially when they are controversial. My feeling now after being here longer, working with the guidelines, is that this is not the Council for Sec Humanism making a statement of their own views, but it is Dugan and Daar making statements about a third party. Wikipedia is free to report these views, so long as they appear in a nonPOV publication. What I would request at this point is that someone find these viewpoints being expressed in a newspaper (LA Times, Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle). I do think they exist. Then there would be no question as to there being a RS. If anyone remembers me banging on about there being a structural imbalance concerning statements against and statements for, I thought it was because of the unique RS ruling on this page. Now I see it is because of a misapplication of criteria concerning sources. Claims about others (not about one's self and one's own groups' views) must be sourced from reliable third-party sources that have a reputation and mechanism for fact checking---peer reviewed journals, academic publishers, general readership newspapers, etc. Jellypear (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ullrichs may be wrong of course; and in any case I think you're missing a whole category of sources between self-published statements and peer-reviewed journals (into which most books and periodicals fall, and into which this article falls). RS/N gave an opinion on this source: I agree with it. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Ullrich's is wrong - they are the periodical reference that librarians use. A comprehensive and respected source for information about different kinds of periodicals. And then there are the statements that Free Inquiry makes about itself and its intentions as a publication. It is a POV publication and that doesn't make it "not good," just not good given the guidelines we are expected to follow. I do get what you are saying about the area between self-published statements (like ECSWE for ex.) and peer-reviewed journals. We are running into this with Dahlin's papers, and in other places. I think the answer is that you don't use such sources. If it is worthy of reporting, a third-party has probably done it. What wikipedia gains by having this guideline is a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Original research that has not been cited elsewhere may be considered preliminary in the field or just plain-old no good. We, as editors, have no business making such evaluations. But if you can find the same finding elsewhere, in a book or a peer-reviewed journal it has been taken up by a subject matter expert who finds some value in it and you work with how they have synthesized the original research. Instead of us synthesizing the field, we are relying on them to do it for us. That is proper, especially for an encyclopedia entry that any idiot in the world can log on and try to edit. Jellypear (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
My take: Self-published works by recognized authorities on a subject have a fairly respectable status. Works by non-recognized authorities in non-peer reviewed journals do not. hgilbert (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Too liberal, primarily because it puts all of the evaluation here amongst us were it doesn't belong. The guidelines are wikipedia's idiot default position. We shouldn't presume that we are not a bunch of idiots. :) Jellypear (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

We must not synthesize research on our own: an approach to handling studies

In light of recent discussion on the studies, here is a proposal that I believe is in accordance with all wiki guidelines. Wiki has a great caveat, which I can't find at the moment, that says if the idea is important a third-party source will have reported it. I am now totally committed to the fact that we must let scholars in the field and journalists do much more of the work we have been allowing ourselves to do on this page. So, here goes:

  1. A separate section on the results or outcomes of this education is an appropriate and expected aspect of this page.
  2. That section has a different purpose than the "Waldorf studies" subpage. The subpage can be a listing or summary of nearly everything from a credible academic source because that is it's topic. (I am not editing there but it should include whatever statements exist about the "state of the field" - ie., what's is missing, where consensus and disputes exist, etc., according to RS in a position to know.) What is on this page should provide additional information on issues raised on this page - what are the outcomes of the various approaches described.
  3. Only sources of the highest quality should be used in the study section (and throughout) so as to avoid WP:UNDUE and WP:ORIGINAL. This means peer-reviewed journals, academic books and government documents. If study results have been published in a general news publication, a place that has checks and balances for accuracy and neutrality, then the study may be included via that route but not by reverting and quoting the original. We do not synthesize original research or the field in general. Academics and journalists in the popular press to do it for us. We report what they report - that's it. See WP:PSTS
  4. Care should be made to report the findings as closely to the source as possible, which means noting if it is a cross-national comparison or if the results are only generalized to one country. Mention of what kind of study it was: case study, secondary data analysis, ethnography, etc., is important.
  5. Dissertations, unless they have been reported in a book, peer-reviewed journal or government document should not be included on this page. If their findings appear in a peer-reviewed journal they may be reported, but not by reverting back to the original, only as reported by the third party. WP:PSTS Again, we don't synthesize research. We rely on academics and journalists to do this for us through their own fact-checking review mechanisms and professional discretion.
  6. If the content of an original study mentioned on the page is easily linkable, we should offer this to readers.
  7. Exceptions can be made, in rare circumstances, for pieces of scholarship that fall outside of these boundaries provided that the work is of otherwise high credibility and cannot be sourced by using another scholar's peer-reviewed journal or book. If it can, the journal or book should be used instead. If it cannot this ought to be seen as a true exception that rightly deserves ample discussion. (I am thinking in particular of Heiner Ullrich's UNESCO piece and would personally offer an exemption for that for several reasons.)

I think all of us, myself included, have been allowing our own discretion to play a role on this page. That is not our place. We should be able to edit this page reasonably well without any in-depth knowledge of Waldorf education. All evaluation of what is worthy to be used as a RS should be properly placed in the hands of educational scholars and journalists of general publications that have a reputation for fact-checking and can, frankly, be sued if they get it wrong. We learn if something is worthy when it appears as a peer-reviewed publication or book or is discussed in a peer-reviewed publication or book. If, and only if, a mention of Waldorf education appears in such places should we consider it good enough to use and then we do our darndest to stay as close to how it appears in this peer reviewed publication or media piece. In many ways, wiki has "controls" to make it idiot-proof. We have been sidestepping those inappropriately. Jellypear (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Science" section

I note hgilbert has duplicated the "Science" section from Curriculum of the Waldorf schools into this article; I have reverted that change and do not agree with this content being here. The Curriculum of the Waldorf schools article exists precisely for containing information about the curriculum; I can see no structural or topic-based reason to pluck just one subject out of it and duplicate it here. The only thinking I can see it for it to act as a "counterbalance" to the pseudoscience section; but as has been discussed multiple times before, we should not be editing to try and achieve a pre-conceived POV-balance, but should have a good topical backbone to the article, and treat subject neutrally according to suitable sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that the NPOV policy should not apply to the article? This is a clear POV-fork. hgilbert (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Exactly the opposite: NPOV must apply. It is incorrect to label the sub-article a WP:POVFORK; it is a split-out article based on a topic. Your edit is, I think, what might be termed a "POV-splice" - lifting some content out of the sub-article and trying to duplicate it here as a POV "adjuster" in the main, destroying the logical hierarchy of content in the process. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
And I note, you have just reverted again to your preferred text, not so much BRD as BRR. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
You have added lengthy critiques of the science curriculum here but are trying to prevent any neutral or positive information about this aspect of the curriculum. I'm willing to go with your choice of where this belongs within the article, in the same section as the critiques or in a separate section, but not with a clear POV-fork. hgilbert (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason why academic subjects that have had notable "reception" shouldn't either have their own curriculum section or be included in the reception discussion. Science, technology studies and reading instruction fall into these categories at least. I sound like a broken record and am boring myself on this but this is a page about an educational system. People come to this page to gain an understanding of how these subjects are taught, as they would for all educational approaches. It isn't any kind of POV to include such topics here. I think one thing all of us are forgetting is that if you went to the library and pulled out every item on Waldorf education in a textbook/book or peer-reviewed journal the majority of it would concern what happens daily in these schools, how subjects are taught, and how that relates to educational theory and other forms of education. When we try to meet our obligations for WP:UNDUE, this is important to consider. Now, wikipedia can be something else and is expected to reflect issues being reported in the popular press but in general those issues are not found in what wikipedia considers the best sources to use when writing a page. I am under no circumstances trying to say these issues shouldn't be on this wiki page but in relation to this topic as a whole, there hasn't been as much emphasis on these topics and who are we to have any position on the that state of affairs? We ought to report what is there and that's it. The more I look at this page, the more I think that a liberal position regarding sources has been taken across the board and it has been accomplished via "one-off" dueling matches as is currently underway with Dahlin and Hether. Jellypear (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This sentence could use some improvement to demonstrate what kind of study it was. Just a suggestion: "A 2003 study of science education in American Waldorf schools by David Jelinek and Li-Ling Sun found the scientific reasoning of Waldorf school pupils to be superior to the [comparison group of non-Waldorf students], with the greatest gains [for the Waldorf students] occurring in the later years of schooling." ??? Jellypear (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No - this science content should not be duplicated here. There needs to be consensus for this bold change, and there isn't: I object. I await further discussion on this topic and will note (again) that as a COI-compromised editor, and according to this guideline hgilbert should not be attempting to push a POV here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There are two editors supporting, and one editor objecting to its inclusion. Please do not revert again. It is certainly not a bold change to include material on the science curriculum; you have done so extensively already, but are trying to restrict this to negative coverage. Please reread NPOV. hgilbert (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
It is certainly not POV to include a "Science Curriculum" section in an education page. It is POV to claim it doesn't deserve to be there. Schools teach science - this is not controversial. And, I am sorry to tell both of you that Jelinek & Sun is out for both sections because they are an original source, and not a secondary source. You'll both have to use Woods or Østergaard et al (2008), or perhaps one of their 17 citations. You can't synthesize orginal research, you have to let a secondary source do it for you. This is fair warning that my future edits will be focused on this issue. Jellypear (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The Woods report has a good bit of material on Jelinek and Sun. I've already cited to it in one place. hgilbert (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of BHA content

Jellypear removed this content, and I have reverted the edit. In my view this "non-neutral" source is the best possible one for supporting information about BHA's notable viewpoints held on the subject of W.E. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great that you think so but wikipedia guidelines are clear. Unreliable sources may be used for claims about themselves. They may not be used for claims about third parties. BHA's viewpoints can be, and are, expressed through their presence in a RS - the TES article. Maybe there is more newspaper coverage. I would suggest that you use such sources for claims about other parties. Jellypear (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, "Sometimes 'non-neutral' sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". The claims about third-parties restriction you mention is in a section about what sources state about themselves. Thus it would not be okay to say that the BHA claims about itself that it is (say) accredited by the UK government; one would need to source that from the third party itself. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Jellypear – I also note you have twice removed the Lemuria map (as you have done in the past). This has been discussed before and there is no consensus for its removal. It's fine to test the consensus with a bold edit, but not to repeatedly revert to your preferred version of an article without consensus. In the case of dispute, the status quo version of the article should hold while discussion takes place. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I see you're now re-reverting rather than discussing, in spite of being informed about how things should be done. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
BHA offering their opinion about a Waldorf teaching guide is perfectly legitimate per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. There is no good reason to remove this excellent analysis. Binksternet (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
No. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not trump the very clear policies related to sources, which are core and fundamental to wikipedia. You can make claims about yourself and your own group as much as you like even if there are other people who say you are wrong. "Our records show our protest had a million people." "We are an open, democratic religion that will eventually bring peace to all the world." But these unreliable sources cannot say "Our protest had a million people and Fox News lied about it because Rupert Murdoch has a vendetta against us" or "We are an open, democratic religion that will eventually bring peace to the world, unlike the Catholic Church which is entirely made up of a bunch of evildoers" and get it included in wikipedia. Now, if these latter statements are put forth in an otherwise reliable source like a report in The Los Angeles Times well then wikipedia can report these views. Otherwise, nada. This is very clear. Jellypear (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
This would be true if it is a RS. That's what's under question. Perhaps this too needs to go to the RSnoticeboard. hgilbert (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
We need to be doing our own work. We're all reasonably intelligent people and the guidelines are set up to make it so that every little thing doesn't have to get a consultation. Jellypear (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I notice Jellypear has now reverted User:Binksternet, and again to his own preferred version of the text. Jellypear - even by your own interpretation of policy (which I think is wrong), how is the BHA's description of a book's content disallowed? It's puzzling: one minute you are asking to be treated with kid gloves because you are a WP:NEWBIE, the next you are making bold deletions in the article backed by loudly voiced interpretations of policy! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The BHA document is self-published. There should be no dispute about that. Self-published materials are generally viewed as non reliable sources to use in wikipedia, except under certain circumstances. From WP:ABOUT SELF
  1. Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Finally, in WP:SPS it says "take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." And, we do have a RS that published the BHA's views. Including both a RS and a non-RS raises WP:UNDUE as well. As I said earlier, add more newspaper coverage and you'll get no complaints out of me unless it repeats the same information or is excessively undue. Please state in what ways all of the criteria for WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SPS don't apply in this case. I am not interested in entertaining or advancing any "interpretations of policy." However, explicitly outlined criteria, such as this, cannot be ignored. Jellypear (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
You misunderstand the policy. Did you not see what I put above: "The claims about third-parties restriction you mention is in a section about what sources state about themselves. Thus it would not be okay to say that the BHA claims about itself that it is (say) accredited by the UK government; one would need to source that from the third party itself."?
And you did not answer my question about how even your interpretation of policy would forbid a description of a book's content. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes this is true that the bit about claims about others is in a section about what they can say about themselves. That is because the entire section is about reasons why self-published sources are not, in general, to be used in wiki ("sources that are not usually reliable.") The presumption is that self-published sources are not going to be used. They also describe a questionable source as one that "has an apparent conflict of interest" and advise that these sources are only be used "as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves...They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." Then there is the category of self-published media that are also "largely not acceptable as sources." On the other hand, a self-published expert source "may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article [Waldorf Education], whose work in the relevant field, has been previously published by reliable-third party publications." So, all in all, the guidelines are to not use self-published sources, especially if there is a conflict of interest, if they are making contentious claims about others, or if they are not considered reliable experts on the topic of the article [on Waldorf education] as demonstrated by having been recognized in this capacity by reliable third party publications in the past. BHA does have a conflict of interest related to Waldorf Education, they are making a contentious claim about others, and they have not been recognized by third parties as experts on Waldorf education for their previous work in the field. Not all of these need to apply to demonstrate the inappropriateness of using this self-published source, obviously. Moreover, their views can be found in a RS so we should be relying on that. Jellypear (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
So are you seriously claiming the British Humanist Association is not a reliable source for relaying what the British Humanist Association say they found in a book (claims BTW which are not contended)? Really? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No. If that is all they were saying, we'd be good to go. "The BHA reports they had a meeting and reviewed a Waldorf curriculum book at a three day Summit in late August 2012." That would be fine. The are entirely credible as a self-published source about their own activities. As for claims regarding others, no. "The BHA reports they had a meeting and reviewed a Waldorf curriculum book at a three day Summit in late August 2012 and determined the book contains numerous scientific innaccuracies that the Steiner-Waldorf Fellowship is attempting to hide from the public and the government." This is a claim about others. Under self-published questionable sources: "They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." SWSF and the UK DfE finds BHA's statements to be contentious claims. This needs to be reported in wikipedia via a secondary source, as is the case with TES. Aren't there any other news articles on their views that you could add so that we can move past this? Jellypear (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong claims; weak sources?

Wikipedia, in her own voice, gives us the following impressive global facts:

Studies have found that, in comparison to state school pupils, Waldorf students are significantly more enthusiastic about learning, report having more fun and being less bored in school, find their school environment pleasant and supportive, feel individually met, and learn more from school about their personal academic strengths.[25][62]

The two sources here are:

  • A 1995 Ph.D. thesis from Columbia University Teachers College by Freda Easton (used 3 other times as a source in this article).
  • An article from Die Welt.

RS? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

PhD thesis is out unless it has been cited elsewhere in a peer-reviewed publication or academic book in which case we should make use of the claims in that source. De Welt is fine if it is reporting the study. I haven't checked this citation. The reporting of it here should stick closer to that source. My gut says that this is probably too broad. We'll want to say where this study was conducted, who the comparison groups were etc. The authors themselves probably have a notation that the results shouldn't be generalized to all W students and all State students, as Alexbrn is alluding to. Jellypear (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure Die Welt is a reliable secondary source for reporting primary data-based research studies; they will not be able to perform any kind of scientific review or analysis of that data, but will just relay the primary's claims. Or am I missing something? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I have the same concern as journalists routinely misreport data or mischaracterize things. There is a section on it somewhere but I am frankly tired and don't feel like looking for it. Wiki explains that even if these secondary sources get things wrong often it is better than editors doing write ups of original resource themselves or not including useful information on the page. I think there are some suggestions for how to mildly mitigate it without introducing WP:ORIGINAL. Large newspapers, like this one, sometimes have someone on staff who can edit stats-related data. We should report what they say as closely and accurately as possible. Jellypear (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Easton can go. WP:RS states " "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact....Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic." This is a clear case of the latter. hgilbert (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Does the article text need to be modified now that Easton has gone, or was she not actually supporting anything here? Also, can the other uses of Easton go too? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the basis for my opinion that Easton has to go is because "all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." WP:PSTS But since you are elsewhere arguing that we can work directly with the content of such materials (original research)without making use of a secondary source, and/or that we can parse it into primary and secondary aspects, you ought to hold off on anything here. Let's stay consistent until some consensus can be reached about what I view as the requirement we work with secondary sources. Working on this issue in one-off fashion will have an impact on the page that you fear. Jellypear (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Before I read the last comment here I removed most of the refs. to Easton's dissertation. (Sorry. But none of it was critical, I think. I did remove the text that these were supporting when there were no other citations.) I'm leaving in one reference at the moment because it reflects the central thrust of this thesis, and speaks of the goals of the education, rather than an evaluation of its achievements. hgilbert (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Does the text quoted above need to change, though? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
No, the text draws on the Barz study as summarized in the Die Welt article. Incidentally, Easton has published an article based on her dissertation on "Educating the whole child, “head, heart, and hands”: Learning from the Waldorf experience" in Theory Into Practice Volume 36, Issue 2, 1997. This appears to be a good source. hgilbert (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Lemuria (Again)

It's time to get real about whether or not features of this page are following wiki guidelines and policies. There has been an awful lot of talk as if the guidelines and policies are deeply nuanced and that we need to talk about them ad nauseum. We don't. There are two very clear pieces of guidance for images.

  1. The first is WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Once again, the topic of this article is Waldorf Education.
  1. The second is WP:OI, which relates back to a core policy of wikipedia - no original research WP:ORIGINAL. The original research guideline for images states: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article.

Just to restate the facts with this image of Lemuria, and its caption, it has no significant and direct relation to the article's topic, which is Waldorf Education. Why do I say this? Because we don't have any RS on the page who explicitly says that Steiner's geological account of the earth includes the continent of Lemuria. Now, this may be a generally true statement for all I know. But that doesn't matter. For the image and the caption, there needs to be a reliable secondary source, used on the page, who discusses Steiner's geology and how that plays a role in Waldorf education. There is no such source. The closest one is in Jelinek & Sun where they say "the geological position that earth evolved through Lemurian and Atlantean epochs and is now in its fifth post-Atlantean epoch" [is suspect as a scientific theory]. But, we can't just go quote-mining in original sources and make synthesizing assertions about connections as we'd like. That constitutes original research, and is exacerbated by adding an image that has no relation to Steiner or Waldorf schools at all. There are problems like this all over the page (not just with images). Our job is to accurately report what reliable secondary sources say. Those sources do the synthesizing of the material. We don't. Jellypear (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agree. The image should be removed. In addition, Jelinek and Sun are a primary study; according to the discussion on the RS noticeboard these may no longer be available to be cited here. hgilbert (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
This is beginning to look like a case of WP:IDHT. We have heard these arguments several times before, and there has been no consensus to remove the images; repeating a rejected argument over and over does not make it any more valid. The image here is good and sits nicely alongside the text it illustrates. I will again refer you to WP:PERTINENCE and suggest you look at a featured article: The Origin of the Species - this is relevant as featured articles have had their content (including images) specifically reviewed as part of the approval process, and you will see the use of illustrations there ranges around the topic as a whole, not narrowly the headword meaning. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. This is a case of willful disregard for the basic and fundamental tenets of WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, WP:OI as it relates to captions and WP:ORIGINAL, which is providing the word "Lemuria" that is then further 'riffed off to make the caption about the content of Steiner's geology, the content of which is described and discussed by no source. Further, this is not a "rejected argument." You have stated your opinion and have been backed up by others who don't challenge your edits. Then, you call out User:hgilbert's COI to neutralize him. Well, I am standing up to say that this kind of thing is not okay and violates wiki guidelines and policies, as do several other areas of this page although this is one of the most egregious. I encourage you, and the editors who support you, to state clearly why this picture of Lemuria (not sourced from a Steiner or Waldorf context) is significantly and directly related to the article's topic of Waldorf education and how this is sourced in the explicit cited statements of a reliable secondary source included on this page who drew the connection themselves and not in any original research of the editors of this page. Jellypear (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
It is an uncontested fact that Steiner believed in Lemuria's geological existence, and that it is mentioned in curriculum materials, as Jelinek and Sun relate (and as do multiple other sources). We do not need a super-strength source to relate an uncontested fact. We can even (as we did with Dugan and Daar) quote some original Steiner text if necessary (I think not). Coincidentally, Steiner refers specifically to W. Scott Eliott in this book, and it is a W. Scott Eliott map which we show. In my library I have a copy of that book, with its original maps, and could even make a superior photograph of them if required. The text mentions Lemuria as a "geological" phenomenon, we have a map illustrating this, we place the map by the text. Simple. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
That is all very interesting. And it all amounts to original research by wikipedia's guidelines. "We do not need a super-strength source to relate an uncontested fact." Generally speaking, this is true. But wikipedia sets the expectation that all of the claims put forth on this page will be based in reliable secondary sources. Jelink and Sun is a primary source, btw - they are presenting their original research. If a primary source is used, and this is discouraged because it is easy to misuse them, wiki says "all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." WP:PSTS But setting that aside, Jelinek's and Sun's original sentence (such that it is): "So is the geological position that earth evolved through Lemurian and Atlantean epochs and is now in its fifth post-Atlantean epoch." Even if it were ok to make a synthetic or interpretive claim directly, that actual quotation provides no real content that would connect Steiner's views and this image to Waldorf education. It's a horribly useless sentence! Whatever use one could make of it unfortunately has to come from you synthesizing all these bits together...your knowledge of Steiner's geology...your knowledge that Steiner mentioned W. Scott Eliott in a book. Another reasonable interpretation of the purpose of that sentence - mine by the way - is that Jelinek and Sun are really taking issue with the content of Wilkinson's book and they want to call it out so teachers don't use it. Herein lies the reason why wiki wants editors to use reliable secondary sources and not their own interpretations of original source passages. Those folks will do the synthesis for us. And it won't matter if you and I disagree. It only matters what they say. Our role is to make use of already interpreted and synthesized content according to wiki's guidelines and we should not, and need not, call upon any other books on our bookshelves or extended knowledge of Lemurian geology. So, I'll ask again to please state clearly why 1) this picture of Lemuria (not sourced from a Steiner or Waldorf publication) is significantly and directly related to the article's topic of Waldorf education and how the connection between this image and the article's topic is sourced in the explicit cited statements of a reliable secondary source included on this page who drew the connection themselves. Although we are discussing this image, this issue of interpretation of primary sources on the part of editors is a problem on this page generally so me calling this out is not "pro" or "anti". I feel the same about other areas as well. Jellypear (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
We show what the words say. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Jelinek & Sun must be sourced through a secondary peer-reviewed academic article, book or even newspaper because "all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." WP:PSTS The image and the caption must not introduce original research and new ideas. WP:OI The image must be "significantly and directly related to the article's topic," Waldorf Education. WP:PERTINENCE You have drawn the majority of these connections by engaging in original research. There is no secondary source that does this. I guess we'll have to take this out for consultation if there is no more discussion to be had regarding the clear policies we are expected to follow regarding sources and images. Jellypear (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you're misunderstanding policy and this - combined with your aggressive editing - raises a concern about impact on the article. Jelinek & Sun is neither simply a "primary" nor a "secondary" source. Where it gathers its own raw data and analyzes that then I would say those portions were leaning heavily towards being primary; where it comments on pre-existing materials not created by the research team (e.g. a curriculum book) then it is more in the way of being a "secondary" (the things-being-commented-on are the primaries there). In previous discussion here it has been mentioned that this report has been cited, that David Jelinek is an acknowledged expert, and is neutral (he was used by a Waldorf school to help construct their science curriculum) - all lending weight to the credibility of this source. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Where is the wiki criteria to parse a source in this way? Under that novel criteria, practically every piece of original research contains something that could be viewed as secondary because there is always a literature review and discussion of other papers. Wiki offers no guidelines for how editors might deal with different parts of source, it describes primary, secondary and tertiary sources in total. WP:PSTS And as for this paper, the comments on "the pre-existing" curriculum materials are their original research. It was their content analysis that created a set of materials to be sent out for panel review. Any conclusions in the paper derive directly from this work. If you think of it another way, they could have excluded some particularly noteworthy books and come up with a conclusion that no faulty or troublesome content existed in the curriculum. That would have been their work too. But all in all, this is a level of analysis that is inappropriate for us in our roles as editors. Again, "all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." WP:PSTS Why do you think we are exempt from this? You are forcefully maintaining the right of us as editors to take original or primary sources, peer-reviewed or not (and this one isn't) and synthesize or interpret them without relying on secondary sources. Please defend that, by citing the relevant wiki policies, why we are allowed to do this. I am just as concerned about the impact of the article as you are and I feel that we should not be reporting on materials that have not undergone peer-review using our own opinions of what are the most salient aspects of this article. Our role is to report on pieces that have been written about by second party sources. Otherwise, I could just decide that I am fixated on the t-tests, describing them in great detail and quoting the author's conclusions in Wikipedia. But perhaps the author has some serious problems in that area of the paper and I have overlooked that because I am so enamored with it. Or perhaps I think I understand how to report the results properly but I in reality do not. Whoops! Talk about making a fool of wikipedia. WIkipedia does not allow editors leeway to discuss findings on their own WP:NOR, without the extra protection of a peer-review process that is presumed to have occurred in a secondary source due to the high chance we'll get something horribly wrong or focus on something irrelevant. Anyone can edit wikipedia. Don't you see how these guidelines are protective of the content while not being overly restrictive to editors? Please respond by citing relevant policies that trump this one so that I can understand your position. Jellypear (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's the policy: "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." We need to be engaged in applying that "good editorial judgement and common sense" to create a quality encyclopedia, not writing huge screeds of text uselessly pettifogging over the extremities of policy interpretation. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Good. We agree that WP:PSTS is the guideline and policy that applies here. Although you do cite one element of it - mainly that it is a complex issue often deserving discussion – Wikipedia does provide both guidelines and policies so that discussion needn’t happen often. The clear expectation is that “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.” This is the first statement with regard to sources and is clear as a bell: secondary sources + tertiary sources are the recommended sources for our work here. Primary sources, while not completely disallowed, are an exception that have their own guidelines and policies that must be followed before any discussion about particularities is necessary.
  1. The definition of a primary source that applies to our work: “a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment.” Wikipedia Policy on Primary Sources: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation…. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so… Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.
  2. Secondary sources are defined as documents that “[contain] an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.” Wikipedia Policy on Secondary Sources: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.
  3. Tertiary sources: publications such as encyclopedias and so on. Policy on Tertiary Sources: Can be helpful in providing broad summaries and in evaluating due weight (Making broader use of these sources would be good for us because we have so many NPOV challenges.)
I am sorry that you view my concern with us following wiki policies on this page as wikilawyering over the "extremities of policy interpretation." These definitions and policies are far from "extremities" and, as clearly stated policies, are not interpretations of any sort at all. Previously, I have referred to these policies by linking but you do not seem to see the same words when you get there and only manage to extract prose concerning the exceptions and special cases. But now that we agree this is the applicable guideline from wiki, could you please tell me why you feel that the policy regarding primary sources ("Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation") does not apply to you. Please don't take this personally even though we are discussing a section that you have written and added images to. There are other places on this page where this has occurred, and these are mistakes I would like to see corrected as well, but we cannot get closer to conforming to wiki policies and overall expectations if there is disagreement regarding the very existence of clear policies with regard to the use of primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I think you will find that applying these policies appropriately will have the effect of removing some of the glowing reports about Waldorf that you would like to see off the page. Jellypear (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

TBH, I'm no longer sure what you're getting at, though I can see you're describing me as having beliefs about editing that I don't recognize. An RS is determined in relation to some text, and the processing of the decision cannot be codified in advance, but needs the application of common sense and good judgement based on WP norms. What text/source combo is irking you, and why? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The very simple point is that, as a general rule, we should not be using primary sources in presenting content on this page. We should endeavor to use secondary and tertiary sources. If, however, we develop consensus that use of a primary source is warranted, the policy states that it can be used for basic ideas. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation…. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." We don't report research findings from primary sources. We use secondary sources to do that for us. Jellypear (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
That's what the policy says. And as you aware there is a continued effort to improve the article in this respect. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Jelinek & Sun is a primary source. If you want to discuss findings of this non-peer reviewed paper, you'll need to use a secondary source. I can attempt the rewrite or you can, but this needs to be done. Jellypear (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
No, Jelinek & Sun is a primary source when it is considering its own self-generated data; when it's considering stuff generated elsewhere (aka "primary sources") then it is a secondary source. Intelligence needs to be applied. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
No. Their panel did a content analysis of what Jelinek and Sun determined were the curricular materials. That is what they report in the paper...muddled and unclear as this aspect of the paper is. In any event, we'd still need to see this published in a peer-reviewed journal before it would cross the hurdles wikipedia expects as far as RS. I am sorry these are the facts regarding this paper but I assure you that this is my strongly held understanding of wiki policy. If and when the same issue relates to something you feel is "pro-Waldorf", you'll get the same answer from me. We must not engage in original research or synthesis of primary source materials, especially when they have not gone through any peer-review process at all. Jellypear (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Except you're arguing 180° the other way when it comes to the Woods report. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't remember exactly what I have said about Woods and please note that my disposition regarding sources on this page has grown stricter in the last week. This is what I think. 1. It's a government document, so not self-published. (I haven't reviewed all the policies with regard to handling government documents. If someone could direct me to them, I would appreciate it.) 2 It has not been peer reviewed. It would be best to use it via secondary sources. This is a shame for readers because this is a comprehensive document that doesn't lie behind a firewall. Jellypear (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, who knows what you'll think next week! ;-)

As I've written elsewhere the Woods report is not a "government document"; it was commissioned by a government department, but is entirely the work of three academics from the University of the West of England. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 22:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Very funny. I'm new here and I was going by what you guys were doing with sources which on the surface seemed reasonable. But after consulting with the policies, I began to see that a good part of the WP:NPOV issues were stemming from liberal use of sources across the board. So, I am not going to change my mind on this next week. We must base this article on secondary + tertiary reliable sources. I am 90% with you on Woods, provided that I understand if there is no government document aspect that would allow this content. (I'm just trying to be careful.) Enough time has gone by that we should be seeing this in secondary sources. Has anyone checked? Jellypear (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

POV tag

There is disagreement over the POV-fork over science education. I have added a POV tag to the relevant section. This template is meant to be removed only when consensus about the issue has been reached on the talk page. This has not been achieved. Please do not remove the tag until we have resolved the problem. hgilbert (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:COIU and WP:BESTCOI you should not be editing the article; in particular since you are not impartial you should not be taking it upon yourself to tag sections you don't like, without achieving some measure of agreement that the tag should be added, and as a last resort. This topic has been discussed before and there has been no consensus to pluck favourable information out of a sub-article and place it here to try and "mitigate" what you perceive to be negative material. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Besides, even if you were in order to add this tag, you have added it incorrectly, since you do not dispute this neutrality of this section; rather you want to add content elsewhere in the article which you think will offset it. Please try not to disrupt the article to make a point. I have removed the tag and refer you (again) to WP guidelines on COI editing. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I do dispute the neutrality of a section exclusively discussing negative views of the science curriculum. I have tried various approaches to remediate this: making the section more comprehensive by including a wider range of POVs; adding a section on the science curriculum itself -- you have removed all POVs but the ones you prefer. This is clearly a breach of NPOV and in removing this tag you are also in breach of WP policy about NPOV tagging . hgilbert (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This whole page needs a NPOV tag. Jellypear (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, Hgilbert, you still have an open RfC. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content

Why was this edit made? The edit summary refers to a decision on the Talk page, but I find no decision was made to remove Freda Easton's published work, only her unpublished early thesis.

The removed content is extremely COI-sensitive, as it bears on the central question (in the USA) of whether WE is religious, and hence whether it is eligible for state funding. Removing it gives the article a rather partial representation of views on this issue. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that you were referring to all Easton citations and didn't check. You are right that there were two different works cited. Those relating to the published work should go back in. hgilbert (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Papers published in peer-reviewed journals should not be eliminated without ample discussion. Dissertations should not be included because they are primary source documents and have not had the same level of peer-review as a published paper. Jellypear (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I've already restored the journal citation. hgilbert (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Title of religion section

The old title, "Relation to religion", was neutral. For example, Waldorf education's curriculum includes a survey of many religions, and some may find this a positive thing, others negative. Also, Steiner's view that all education has a religious component (that both teaching young people and learning itself are in one sense acts of devotion), can be variously interpreted.

The new title, "Concerns that Waldorf education is religious", assumes that any relation to religion is a matter for concern. It is a loaded phrase. hgilbert (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not quite right, but neither is a title implying the question is settled. What we really want is some pithy way of saying "View over whether WE is religious or not and how it stands in relation to (other?) religion". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Why not simply a title of "religion" in the meantime or, better yet, a reference to the PLANS vs. SACSUD lawsuit which makes up the majority of reliable secondary source material on this topic. Jellypear (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The latter could certainly be a subsection's title. It does seem that the topic of religion and Waldorf is much broader than one lawsuit, however. hgilbert (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I would like to see all of these things discussed together: religiosity/spirituality/accusations of religious agenda. I am never going to push for this but I think the most informative discussion would pull all of these things together and explore various viewpoints. Jellypear (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Jelly – I like your idea of "spreading it around"; I've thought about this but think the legal events are a bit difficult to account for this way. Do you have any ideas how they might be re-allocated somewhere else? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

I got the message about this. I put a note on the ruling page too. If we're allowed to talk about this here, please could someone inform me what this means we are supposed to do/not do. Thanks. Jellypear (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

AIUI it's mainly a technical change to the governance of this article (and related ones). Rather than having to approach the Arbcom in the case of severe problems, this article (and its editors) are now subject to special measures in case of problems. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 22:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

More claims and sources

We have

A 2009 PISA study found that, compared to state school students, European Waldorf students are significantly more capable in the sciences,[61] slightly less capable in mathematics; and comparable in reading ability.[66]

This is sourced to:

RS? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Die Welt clearly qualifies as an RS. Read the section affirming using established newspapers' reports of studies. hgilbert (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
And the other source? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Die Welt is on the same order as The New York Times or The Washington Post. That being said, this is an interesting use of this article, which says a whole lot more than this.
  • The second line of the article says "Die Abschlussnoten von Schülern an Waldorfschulen unterscheiden sich nicht von den Noten an Regelschulen" -- The graduation grades of Waldorf students do not differ from those of normal students.
  • "Waldorfschüler lernen begeisterter, individueller und mit weniger Leistungsdruck" -- Waldorf students are more excited to learn, more individualistic, and under less stress (although I think we already have something along these lines in the article).
  • "Studien zeigen, dass es zwischen den Abschlussnoten von Waldorfschülern und denen von Schülern auf staatlichen Schulen keine statistisch bedeutsamen Unterschiede gibt, auch nicht, wenn man die Durchschnittsnoten nach der Art des Schulabschlusses vergleicht." -- Studies show that there is not significant statistical difference between the final grades of Waldorf and normal students, also not, when you compare the type of diploma they graduated with.
  • "Kausalität einwandfrei nachzuweisen sei allerdings fast nie möglich, warnte Schleicher. Zu welchem Prozentsatz ein erfolgreiches Schulprojekt auf die Pädagogik oder auf von vornherein bessere Startbedingungen der Schüler zurückzuführen ist, das sei in aller Regel nicht klar feststellbar." -- Schleicher warns that it's nearly to determine causality in these cases. In every case it's not possible to clearly determine what portion of academic success can be attributed to pedagogy or just better initial starting conditions for the student.
This similar has the same issues as several other sources -- in Germany people understand that when comparisons are made against normal students, this includes students in technical and trade schools in addition to college bound students, as stated explicitly in the article. This is why other articles, previously discussed here, break down the comparison between the different types of schools. a13ean (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
So how did we get to "students are significantly more capable in the sciences" as a summary of all that? How would a fairer summary go? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The Die Welt article states, "Dieses Ergebnis passt zum Befund einer Pisa-Studie, nach der Waldorfschüler weit überdurchschnittliche naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen aufzuweisen haben." I do believe that "significantly more capable in the sciences" is a sound translation of "weit überdurchschnittliche naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen".
Incidentally, Jelinek and Sun made the same finding in the US: Woods summarizes their finding as "Scientific reasoning of Steiner school students was found to be superior, and the gains were greatest in the upper schools." Also compare the 2006 PISA study that concluded, "Auf Grund der relativ hohen Naturwissenschafts-Kompetenz der Waldorfschüler/innen in Kombination mit äußerst hohen motivationalen Merkmalen und selbstbezogenen Kognitionen in diesen Fächern ..." hgilbert (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It makes sense to put those two findings together in a science section ---- provided that an educational page is allowed to do the dastardly and decidedly non-neutral thing of discussing science curriculum and outcomes. :) Jellypear (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the content sourced to the Waldorf Today web site, as that seems clearly an insufficient source. Hope that's okay. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought Waldorf sources could be used for non-controversial items? Was this controversial or reported incorrectly? Jellypear (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
both Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Why was it controversial? Jellypear (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
because it was making a universal claim interpreting a data set; data set interpretations really require better sourcing that an advocacy newsletter! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Correct. No disagreements here. Jellypear (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

UNESCO on the Novalis Institute

This content was first inserted in November 2006 and expanded on here. In its current, not much different form, we have

Under the apartheid regime in South Africa, the Waldorf school was one of the few schools in which children of both races attended the same classes, despite the ensuing loss of state aid. A Waldorf training college in Cape Town, the Novalis Institute, was described by UNESCO as an organization which had a great consequence in the conquest of apartheid: "It has prepared the way and laid the foundations for a new and integrated [community]."

As can be seen from above, originally these claims were sourced to this piece by Peter Normann Waage; later a reference to a UNESCO-isssued document (see here) was placed here too.

Some problems:

  • Waage is not a notable figure or a scholar and his piece is not published in a respectable publication so far as I can find. I have removed this source.
  • Although Waage cites the UNESCO document, on investigation it does not contain the word "apartheid" at all, nor anything that would support Waage's claim.
  • It is not quite right to say the views of this document are UNESCO's since "while the narrative text reflects the suggestions and contributions of all the UNESCO sectors, its formulation is the responsibility of the compiler, Prof. Betty A. Reardon of Teachers College, Columbia University of New York". As published, Reardon is given as the author. There is no evidence of peer-review or editorial oversight.
  • The quotation attributed to UNESCO is also not quite accurate; this is in a section where the document is recounting what the Novalis institute reports about itself.

Fix all this and there's not much of consequence left. I propose this material is removed entirely.

You are correct in that this is not a peer-reviewed academic paper. It is a teaching guide produced by UNESCO. Thus it can be used as a reliable source for UNESCO's activities and the content of their published materials. Waldorf could also say they participated in UNESCO activities related to the Year of Tolerance but it is probably better to verify this with an other organization. So, perhaps its just a matter of changing the statement to something like this "In 1995, UNESCO prepared a teaching guide, Tolerance: the Threshold of Peace, as part of the United Nations Year for Tolerance. The work of the Novalis Institute in apartheid South Africa was described in the guide and Steiner-Waldorf schools were discussed as a type of educational approach that follows "a particular educational philosophy based on peace and tolerance." Jellypear (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't the peer-review aspect which worried me so much, it was that we've had the great big honking lie that UNESCO had labelled the institute "of great consequence in the conquest of apartheid" on WP for six years. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, it sort of falls into the category of that law professor who quotes a website and the quote is being used as if it is his own evaluation of the school's culture and thought leaders, rather than it being a choice to cite an evaluation from (for our purposes) an unreliable source. How would you like to see this re-written, because I agree that it needs to stick closer to the source. Jellypear (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
You let that thread die; and in that case it was a quibble over whether some text (in a peer-reviewed journal) that was correctly put in quotation marks, was attributed to the sub-source; not, as here, of words that were entirely fabricated and admitted through a self-published sourced, and then mis-attributed to UNESCO via a reference. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought you said that "It has prepared the way and laid the foundations for a new and integrated [community]" came from a description included in the document, albeit a description that was self-reported by that organization itself. For that reason, I think these items are very similar in terms of our obligations. On one hand, we are in no position to vet an author's assessment of the credibility of a source. On the other hand, we can try to be clear that these are not the author's own words but the words of one of their sources. Presumably, both authors agree with these sources otherwise they wouldn't have included them. On another note, I think your assessment of this document is splitting hairs. Yes, "UNESCO" did not write this document. It was written by a professor presumably upon their request. But it is a UNESCO publication, used for their activities, and they are supporting the views contained within it. All that aside, I do agree with your assessment that this needs to be rewritten to stick closer to the source. Do you like what I have proposed or do you envision something else? Jellypear (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Jelly — it's the more stunning claim, that the institute is an "organization which had a great consequence in the conquest of apartheid" that appears to be a complete fiction. Maybe I am splitting hairs, but as originator of documents for an International agency myself, I would find it quite wrong if any of them where ever referenced as "According to [agency] ..."; so it may be a small thing, but there is no harm in being correct - in fact, as Brit, it might be stereotypically correct of me to think of this as the main purpose :-) :-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes. That has not been sourced. It should be taken out immediately. How about this: "Under apartheid, the Waldorf school was one of the few schools in which children of both races attended the same classes, despite the ensuing loss of state aid. The Waldorf teacher training college, the Novalis Institute, was referenced during UNESCO’s Year of Tolerance for being an organization working towards reconciliation in South Africa.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jellypear (talk • contribs) 19:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Problematic recent additions

Woods, Ashley and Woods

I note the Woods, Ashley and Woods report has recently been introduced into the article with the following text

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

I think there is rather a lot of nuance, qualification and caution missing from this summary. Some quotations from the report follow:

  • "The research evidence has to be interpreted with caution, however. ... Overall, there is a lack of rigorous research on the impact of Steiner school education on learning and achievement and little research which systematically compares Steiner and mainstream schools."
  • "there are insufficient rigorous comparative investigations of Steiner and mainstream schools."
  • A striking contrast with the maintained sector is the lower pay and less favourable conditions that Steiner teachers enjoy. ... The majority hold a teaching qualification issued by a Steiner teacher training programme that would not be recognised by the DfES."
  • "The debate about racism, following the study of the Milwaukee Steiner-inspired school, also highlights the need to consider questions of institutionalised social exclusion. The point, recognised by some within Steiner education, is that Steiner teachers need to be critically reflective and self-questioning about the practical impact of what otherwise is taken-for-granted in the school’s ethos, curriculum and pedagogy."

I'm not sure the summary as it stands gives a true flavour of all that the document states. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a huge report, and it would be tedious to enumerate all the points contained within it in this section. Good news for readers is that its not behind a database firewall---anyone can download it. That being said, some of these ideas can be incorporated into other sections. Generally speaking, I wouldn't be opposed to having a sentence (citing Woods) saying that there is little research systematically comparing Steiner schools and mainstream schools. I think this is not only a true characterization (my opinion here) but faithfully uses a RS to characterize the status of the literature. What it should not be used for is implying that there is anything bogus or not credible in the existing research. It is a claim that more needs to be done to settle some questions with certainty. Many topics have this status. Jellypear (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think that point rather significant. Here we have an RS making a secondary statement about the quality of research in general. That rather suggests the glowing praise of WE derived from primary sources elsewhere in the WE articles family need perhaps to be caveated. In general, I am uneasy with the presentation of so much data commentary without a proper systematic overview or meta-analysis. I wonder if we don't need some expert help in citing data-rich sources/research. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
There was a previous discussion where many of the same concerns were raised. a13ean (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
We should be careful not to introduce a synthesis that amounts to original research. The studies are the studies, and one person's opinion about the studies are something else.
The Woods report material relevant to the particular section on Waldorf and mainstream was used in the section on that subject. I agree that the Woods comment on the lack of research is useful, and would like to suggest that it could serve as a good overview to the section.
In general, all sources say much more than will be used here. It's inevitable that choices are made. I chose a very balanced extract, in which the strengths of both state and Waldorf schools are brought out. Other material could clearly be used elsewhere in the article. hgilbert (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The trouble is, the one voice that dominates the article in presenting these studies is yours: the voice of an editor with a COI. I disagree with your self-characterization of your summary as "very balanced". Given the above I judge it to be partial, in every sense of the word. You correctly state "it's inevitable that choices are made", but according to WP guidelines, COI-compromised editors are not sufficiently impartial to make such decisions. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
"Each type of school could learn from the other type's strengths" was what they said in the report. You've been cherry-picking negative material the whole time you have been editing here. I included a balanced statement that has both negatives and positives. Which is the more neutral stance? hgilbert (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
a13ean – yes I must have read that (and it no doubt unconsciously influenced what I wrote here). It's a pity the issues raised weren't resolved and all the problematic text has now flooded back into the article. Is there some forum on WP for getting data experts to assist in editing? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I have also just noticed that this paragraph duplicates exactly one which occurs just a few lines later in the page, which is careless. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Alexbrn, I am very concerned with your comments here and think perhaps that you have some investment in this subject matter that is making it difficult for you to act as a Wikipedian. It is not our role to synthesize the research in any meaningful way. Wiki is very clear about this. Original research in any form is not to be tolerated and even individual sentences can be examples of original research. Please go back and review those guidelines. We don't need a data expert here, we report what has been written - full stop. (And, BTW, you don't know that you don't already have a data expert viewing or participating on this page.) All we're here to do is include RS, comprehensively, staying true to the sources, and engaging in healthy and productive discussion when there are disagreements of how to implement wikipedia's guidelines. It should be a relatively easy task which many people can participate without devoting excessive time and energy. If you would like to do something else, I kindly suggest that Wikipedia is not the forum in which to do it. I also have to say that deep questioning of this topic, such that it goes beyond "what did so-and-so say and are they a RS," when combined with pushing around other editors you feel are "pro-Waldorf" (as you put it yesterday) is creating a hostile and tedious environment for others to work according to their own obligation to be a Wikipedian. I am not only speaking of myself, but also for any potential editors who might like to join. And that is, after all, the whole point of Wikipedia. About three hours after I joined, I received a message from a13ean suggesting that perhaps I was a sock puppet or that I held multiple accounts. Yesterday, you said I was a single issue editor and that I was assisting a COI-tainted editor and now you are back at it with hgilbert. As you can see from the troubles both you and I had in writing and editing certain explanatory sections, there is a need for editors who know the subject. Until someone is banned from Wikipedia, I think it is our role as fellow editors to be welcoming and stick to the task at hand without a fortnightly COI digression. Collaborative groups can overcome the individual limitations of their members. Encouraging a "pro" "con" stance makes it hard for anyone to maintain a neutral point of view, and be a Wikipedian first and foremost. If this business is carried on any further, one may begin to think it is for the express purpose of discouraging current or future editors who disagree with the "in crowd" from participating at all. We must stay focused on that task and not fixate on our suspicions of other peoples' motives WP:GOODFAITH or on problems that are outside of our role as editors. Jellypear (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
So you disagree we need a data expert's help (by which, to be clear, I mean a seasoned editor preferably who has experience with dealing with statistic-bases sources, preferably of educational data - maybe from WP:EDU). If you think I am proposing we include WP:OR, you are mistaken. I do a fair bit of editing on medical articles, and am aware from them that assessment and use of statistics-based sources is something that needs to be done with great care.
As for COI, if you are proposing that it (and the WP:BESTCOI and WP:COIU guidance) can be ignored, then I respectfully disagree.
I am sorry that you have experienced unusual scrutiny, but as a WP:SPA on a controversial article like this I'm afraid it is to be expected. FWIW, I admire your determination to probe sources, and in the Daar and Dugan instance I think it led to something of an improvement to the article. It would be great if you could assist in probing some of the sources mentioned in this section. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I have made an offer to help. What I am objecting to is the inclination that we need some extra level of scrutiny with regard to the statistics, research designs, etc of any of the papers. We're not here for metanalysis of the field, nor are we here to adjudicate between the papers in any way and as I said elsewhere anything of this nature will waste time and goodwill. Most authors provide a sentence or two in either the abstract/discussion/or conclusion that can be reasonably cribbed to restate the main findings of their research in words as close to their own as possible. I encourage editors here to look for those paragraphs/sentences and then we can discuss that rather than any particular aspects of the study itself. Jellypear (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
@JP, just to clarify the "agf-sock: assume good faith sock" warning it was only because you happened to register an account almost immediately after a sock of PeteK (who was staunchly anti-Waldorf) was blocked. We're all glad this turned out to only be a coincidence. a13ean (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Bo Dahlin's report: biased use of a biased source?

Apparently resolved -- hatting to reduce talk page length. Alexbrn talk
contribs
This research report is cited here, in the following way:

Bo Dahlin, a Professor of Education at Karlstad University, found that Waldorf pupils are more likely to have a positive learning attitude, less likely to have passing tests as the goal of their learning, and had a "more in-depth study style" in higher education. He also found that they showed more tolerant attitudes to minority groups and less tolerance of racist ideologies, were more involved with social and moral questions and were more likely to believe in the social efficacy of love, solidarity, and civil courage as opposed to legislation or police control.

I have several concerns:

  • Bo Dahlin is also affiliated with Rudolf Steiner University College. One would not know that from the text above.
  • I have removed this text and source as non-RS. hgilbert has reverted[6] it back with the comment "... published by academic press". On inspection however, Dahlin self-published this work through the University, and retained personal copyright. There is no academic press (in the normal use of the term), no editorial oversight, and no peer review in evidence. (This has been mentioned before, so ignorance is not a defense.)
  • Dahlin's paper mentions some comments from the Stockholm Institute for Education: "... they were also somewhat concerned about the presumed lack of objectivity and scientific grounds for the Waldorf educational methods and also slightly sceptical to what they called the 'semi-religious' feature". We wouldn't know about any such caveats that from the way it is presented here.
  • From Norway (a non-English speaking country where, Wikipedia has told us, there is no controversy) comes this skeptics' assessment of the Dahlin paper. Although (being a biased source too) it has its swivel-eyed moments, there are some substantive points made. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I note the skeptics' site is citing Wikipedia as an example of what the "Waldorf-movement writes". I do think there's a danger that if we allow this accumulation of blatant COI-inflected POV on this page, Wikipedia's reputation as a whole will suffer. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. The report is published as part of the Karlstad University Studies series, which the university states is "the University’s official publication series for research reports, doctoral dissertations and licentiate theses. The series is administrated by the University publisher, Karlstad University Press." This is an academic press. The university press's site states that "All the doctoral dissertations and licentiate theses which are published as part of the series have been discussed in seminars and in this way have undergone a quality review."
  2. Even if it we treat it as a self-published work (which it is clearly not), the author's status as a professor of education at an important university whose works have been extensively published by peer-reviewed journals and academic presses would qualify the report as a RS as per WP:SPS: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." We have done the same for comments by critics of WE that are either self-published or appear in non-peer reviewed journals such as news magazines.
  3. We can certainly add in his status as a professor at RSUC. Again, you cannot exclude all viewpoints from individuals merely because they have some connection to Waldorf Education -- this would be a blatant violation of WP:NPOV policy. We agree, and recent comments on two discussion boards (arbitration and reliable source) agree that they need to be held to WP:RS. Neither more, nor less.
  4. Are you seriously quoting an anonymous anti-Waldorf website as a serious critical evaluation? I would suggest you retract this, as doing this would destroy every claim to neutrality you have ever made. hgilbert (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, these publications are "administrated by the University publisher", not published by; there is no review or editorial oversight. Dahlin is clearly "deeply involved" in Waldorf and these claims must be treated as unreliable, especially given the "absurdly small sample sizes without controls" he uses. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to interject here that I will not tolerate any future discussion with regards to sample sizes, controls, research design, etc. Any analysis at this level is explicitly outside our purview and a waste of precious time and goodwill. I will reverse any edits based on such criteria. If it has been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal or a university press, (which includes white papers published by a department or division of a university by university professors - especially if there are multiple co-authors), it is a RS for us. We are not a peer-review body ourselves. We report what has been written from RS. All discussion from us must remain strictly on whether the source meets RS guidelines or not. Jellypear (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
He studied 11 of the 13 Waldorf high schools in Sweden and had responses from 68% of the 871 students. Given that Waldorf schools generally have one class per year, that's a very large sample size as a percentage of the total student body in Waldorf HSs in Sweden. The study was conducted by three university professors; the other two were Agnes Nobel, Associate Professor of Education at the University of Uppsala and Ingrid Liljeroth, retired Associate Professor of Special Needs Education at the University of Gothenburg. The project also "had a consulting group consisting of Solveig Hägglund, Professor of Education at Karlstad University, and Sven Hartman, Professor of Education at The Stockholm Insitute of Education." He cites peer review by "Mats Ekholm, Professor of Education (emeritus) at Karlstad University, who gave valuable critical comments on a first draft of this report." His involvement in Waldorf is not relevant to the standards of WP:RS that we are being asked to hold to. But we can bring this to the reliable sources noticeboard if you like, and I am very happy to abide by their decision. hgilbert (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
We are still bound by the Arbcom ruling, and await their further decision. BTW, RS/N is not a place that decides things, but that provides additional input. Anybody can post advice there, as indeed I have done. However, if we can balance the Dahlin stuff out (by including some of the SEI caveats), then it would be good to get further input from RS/N on that text in relation to the source. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
"Balance the Dahlin stuff out" ? There should be no quid pro quo concerning RS. Something is written by a RS - we include it. Something contradictory by a RS is written - we include it. If nothing contradictory is written by a RS, then that should have no effect on whether the first item is included in the page. Jellypear (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I mean, within itself, by fairly representing its own content (i.e. balance for neutrality, not in a pro/con sense). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a research report, and unless it is specifically stated elsewhere, it's not peer-reviewed. The quote given by hgilbert above clearly shows that only the dissertations and theses are reviewed. Selfpub clearly applies, as well as the arbitration guidelines. Let's get more input. a13ean (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, posted at RS/N. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Further to the follow-up at RS/N, for me it seems plain that since this is not a peer-reviewed source and from a Waldorf source, it should go (given this, the other concerns are moot). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I just had a chance to follow-up on the RS/N for the Dahlin paper and was pleased to see that there was agreement with Zad from Alexbrn, Binksternet, and A13ean and myself concerning papers that have not been published in a peer-review journal. Zad does a great job outlining the intent behind sourcing issues - the reputation for fact checking. I recommend reading it if you haven't. My apologies if cutting and pasting is somehow bad wikipedia etiquette or something but there is also this from Zad:

"What I hope is my final comment on this RSN request: hgilbert and jellypear are both saying it's an "empirical study", but to that Wikipedia says, "So what? That's not enough." Getting published in a peer-reviewed journal is a good step toward being WP:RS but even that is not enough, because many journals have disreputable peer-review processes, or somehow the study ended up in a decent journal but not one directly relevant to the field of study. Even when you have a study produced by a PhD and published in an appropriate, reputable peer-reviewed journal, that's not enough, because the study may have had undetected confounding problems or just be a statistical outlier. It's not until the study has been picked up in a review article or meta-analysis and combined with many other high-quality studies in a good secondary source that you can finally have some confidence in using it in a Wikipedia article. The Dahlin study is really at the very bottom of this hierarchy, as it appears to be a primary research study not published in any journal and not subject to any kind of peer review, and it was done by someone with a signficant conflict of interest. As such, the answer is: Dahlin's report is only useful as attributed to Dahlin for Dahlin's own opinions, and without an independent secondary source picking up on Dahlin's findings, it's a very open question as to whether Dahlin's findings are notable enough to be quoting as suggested in the "Content" line at the top of this RSN request."

In response to this Binksternet says "Zad68 eloquently voices the concerns about the source. I think we should wait until the study is discussed in a secondary source; until then it is impossible to determine its accuracy or importance."

Does this mean we have achieved consensus regarding the use of non-peer reviewed papers and the importance of at least waiting for secondary source synthesis? Jellypear (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I agree on applying WP policy (which is not generally subject to editors' consensus). And I also agree with Zad's comments on the Dahlin case. And I agree with Binksternet's view that the Arbcom ruling clinched the matter. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Heiner Ullrich's long-term study

Apparently resolved -- hatting to reduce talk page length. a13ean (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia tells us, glowingly,

Heiner Ullrich, who visited a number of schools in a long-term study, found that Waldorf schools successfully foster dedication, openness, and a love for other human beings, for nature, and for the inanimate world.

Where is this "long-term study" detailed (and what is the source for so characterizing it?) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He specifically cites
  • Grasshoff, Gunther, Davina Hoeblich, Bernhard Stelmaszyk and Heiner Ullrich (2006), 'Klassenlehrer-Schuler-Beziehungen als biografische Passungsverhaltnisse', in ZeitschriftfiirPddagogik (Weinheim)
  • Helsper, Werner, Ullrich, Heiner, Stelmaszyk, Bernhard, Hoblich, Davina, Grasshoff, Gunther,Jung, Dana (2007), Autoritdt und Schule. Eine empirische Rekonstruktion der Ktassenlehrer-Schiiler-Beziehung an Waldorfschulen. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag

but see also

  • Ullrich, Heiner (1991), Waldorfpädagogik und okkulte Weltanschauung (3rd edn). Weinheim, Munchen: Juventa.
  • Ullrich, Heiner (1994), 'Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925)', Prospects: The Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 24.3-4
  • Ullrich, Heiner (1995), *Vom AuBenseiter zum Anfuhrer der Reformpadagogischen Bewegung', in Vierteljahrsschrifi fur wissenschaftliche Pädagogik (Bochum), 71, 284, ff.
He had been studying the schools for at least 27 years at the time of the book's publication. I can change the wording so it does not imply a single published study; I can see how it could be understood in this way, which is not what is meant. hgilbert (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Right, so are you now saying he didn't "visit a number of schools in a long-term study"? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I am saying he did and clarifying the context. One can refer to an academic's "life-long" study of a topic; I meant it in this sense, and have tried to eliminate any ambiguity. Is the new wording clear enough? hgilbert (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
So unlike the other usages in this article where a "study" from which the author "finds" things refers to a focused and data-rich academic project, hear you in fact meant "he wrote about it a lot, and came up with an opinion". Can you see how your original wording might be misleading, and in which way? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's why I changed it, isn't it? Did you not read my above posts? hgilbert (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
It is better now. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Universal claims

Wikipedia gives us some facts, in its own voice, as follows:

More than twice as many Waldorf students report having good relationships with teachers. Waldorf pupils also have significantly less physical ailments such as headaches, stomach aches, disrupted sleep,[67] and a lower incidence of allergies and allergic-like symptoms[68]

I have a concern about this text:

  • Although it sounds good, we're not told explicitly what the "twice as many" is in relation to (one assumes state school pupils, mentioned in the previous paragraph). As a universalized statement, this is a bold claim. However the source links to a study of 800 students between 15 and 18 years in Germany. How do we get from the restricted national study to the global statement?
  • We are also told, as a universalized fact, that Waldorf pupils "have significantly less[sic] physical ailments ...", based on a European study. However, it should probably be made plain that the study is European, that the authors think the reduction may be due to "anthroposophic lifestyle" rather than WE per se, and that they caveat their conclusion thus: "However, the lifestyle factors investigated in our study represent only a selection of various characteristics of the anthroposophic lifestyle. Therefore, we cannot exclude that other factors need to be considered to understand completely the background for this lower risk." Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree completely. Can you find wording to clarify this? Thanks! hgilbert (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be helpful to create a task list of studies that need a review of their summaries. This is a universally difficult thing to do - journalists mess this up all the time. If there are some that need to be re-written, and there is also no question as to their being a RS, I'll take a stab at it. I am not going to waste my time doing it just to have the citation go into a cycle of edit/undo because there is a dispute over the reliability of the source. Jellypear (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
It would be good if you could have a go at this text, I don't think it's contentious that it needs reform. Extra points if you don't increase the word count :-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Jellypear? were you going to see to this, or shall I ? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Glowing words from a marginal source

Apparently resolved -- hatting to reduce talk page length. Alexbrn talk
contribs
Wikipedia tells us

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

An impressive finding! Until, that is, we find that the "study" is an unpublished Ph.D. awarded by a distance learning institution, that has not received up-take from reputable academic sources in the 11 years since it was completed. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It is an empirical study and significant for that reason; if it were a subjective opinion I would not otherwise include it. Again, we can take this to the RSnoticeboard if you like. hgilbert (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Is it this text? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
No, definitely not. That appears to be a summary by the author. I wouldn't use it, but rather the original dissertation, which is available from the standard dissertation service. hgilbert (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Cool - what page number(s) in the source are pertinent to the use here? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason to use this unpublished work. Hether says "The impetus for my topic arose from personal observations made while my two daughters attended the Haleakala Waldorf School..." which makes me think she cannot be trusted to construct unbiased test questions. She wanted to defend and promote her choice of school. Binksternet (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Wow, nice example of OR and jumping to conclusions.
An empirical study done in the course of Ph.D. work would normally qualify as an RS. It is a distance learning institution; it would help to know who the dissertation advisors were. Can someone find this out? Or shall we take this to the notice board? hgilbert (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Weighing in on this one. I do think that distance learning programs are different than traditional universities and for my own purposes, would generally discriminate against these sources to some level. On the other hand, this university is accredited, which is not an unrigorous thing in the United States. And distance learning and non-traditional universities are something growing on the landscape. I don't think we are in any position to set alternative criteria for different accredited institutions of higher learning. So, I say it stays in as a RS. That being said, it would be preferable to get more than one viewpoint on this aspect of the education from another university-based source. This is a source best used in triangulation with other sources. I will try to look. Jellypear (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This one can go straight to RS/N I think. Just waiting for the page numbers and it can go ... 18:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"Completed dissertations written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and can be cited in footnotes if it is shown that they have entered mainstream academic discourse and therefore have been vetted by the scholarly community." I still see no evidence that this condition is satisfied. This is as clear cut as it gets, but feel free to take it to RS/N. a13ean (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
If you feel strongly about dissertations having to have been cited in order to get into this article as a RS - I am not sure how else one would show they have entered the discourse - then the whole matter needs to be taken out for consideration since this article uses a lot of dissertations. We need to get an overall ruling and not attempt to adjudicate this on a case by case basis. We could be working ourselves into situation in which media articles are ok across the board, but types of scholarship are not and this will pose a challenge in providing informative content. As a side note, I see that she uses a validated measure, which gives it points in my book. Jellypear (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I had forgotten about that qualification about mainstream discourse. So yes, this need to be excised. We don't want to create needless discussion on RS/N. We can measure a disseration's impact reasonably well thanks to Google Scholar and other search engines. (FYI, I excised Lyon's highly critical dissertation from this article for precisely that reason). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
You are misremembering. Lyons was a Master's degree paper - whole different ball of wax. Having just gone back to look at the guideline, I can agree with the dissertation + citation index thing. However, we are dealing with a rather small subfield of education and so citation chances may not be high. In addition, there is a lag time for citations to appear. And, because of the unique self-published source thing on this page we are forced to be overly reliant on dissertations. So, depending on how much this affects the pool of RS, we may have to get a global ruling. I really think we need one on the topic of white papers/research manuscripts produced by University-based researchers and published or distributed by their departments or institutes. Let's get this kind of stuff settled so that we can have more productive and clear-cut conversations about RS. Jellypear (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Masters theses are okay if they "have had significant scholarly influence"; I considered Lyons hadn't and so deleted that content. I don't think it is possible to have a global ruling - at some level common sense has to apply. This ones needs to go. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Why? It's been cited in a peer review journal. D. Graber / Journal of Media Literacy Education 4:1 (2012) 82 - 92. Jellypear (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Good find! (Google Scholar missed that). Can we solve this then by simply using the Graber source? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't see why that would be necessary. It is a PhD dissertation from an accredited American university that has received a citation in a peer-reviewed journal. Its good to go. Jellypear (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Is a single cite evidence that it has entered "mainstream scientific discourse"? I have a feeling RS/N is not going to like us by the time we are done going through these. a13ean (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Good golly. We should not consider ourselves in the business of evaluating how many citations of an academic piece are enough. Dissertations are one of the highest quality resources we have to work with in this article given the RS parameters. There was just a good dissertation written on this topic at Harvard but according to the expectation of citation, it will probably be 2 years before that dissertation can be included on this page. Are we editors really trying to advance the view that someone who just got a doctorate in Education at Harvard should have less informative things for readers of this page than Joe Blow getting quoted in a newspaper? I'll say it again, what a very strange little wiki page this is. Jellypear (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I would not cite a dissertation from my own university, in my own field, for a scientific statement, unless it was published elsewhere (and then I would cite the actual publication). Some theses enter mainstream scientific discourse, (Louis de Broglie comes to mind), but this one has not. Citing a news article to quote someone is entirely different. Again, this can easily be resolved: if you think this should be a RS, take it to RS/N and see if it floats. a13ean (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Then please kindly make a review of all of the dissertations here, how they have been cited, and designate which ones have entered "mainstream scientific discourse" according to your opinion and/or reading of the wiki guidelines. This is what I am saying about getting a global ruling that we can all abide by. It is tedious to have this level of conversation about each citation from university-based researchers. Their views and statements are among the most credible ones we can include here. Jellypear (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify so there is no confusion with the other ongoing discussion, when I referred to "university-based researchers" I meant people who are either obtaining a doctorate degree or have gotten one and are publishing and participating as professionals in their discipline. Jellypear (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Jellypear – a couple of weeks ago I made a pass through the sources and checked out the dissertations, so what remains meets at least some notion I had of being acceptable; I may well have made mistakes but I don't think there's anything appalling here. However, if you want to get your magnifying glass out and examine them, that would be useful I am sure.

I think if we're going to use marginal sources it's inevitable there will be a need for case-by-case discussion. The way out is to prefer quality independent sources: that will save us bother in the longer run. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the RS guidelines and agree that this is not a RS given the absence of citations. hgilbert (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with both alexbrn and hgilbert here. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "completed dissertations written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and can be cited in footnotes if it is shown that they have entered mainstream academic discourse and therefore have been vetted by the scholarly community. This can be done by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indices." There is nothing to say about how many citations a dissertation has to receive. Moreover there is the problem of time lag. I just mentioned a fine dissertation coming out of Harvard. Editors are now of the mind that this person's work should be excluded on the page because, as something that was recently completed, it has not gotten any other citations. Because of the unique RS guidelines, editors are challenged to find third party sources for claims on this page. And, in many cases we're not talking about anything controversial, just something that needs to be cited in the work of a third-party source/publication with a reputation for fact-checking. On the other end of the spectrum, we have a citation in the immunization section that says that an Australian newspaper reports that parents had concerns that the Australian schools were discouraging immunization. Yet you go and read the news article and no parents or specific schools are quoted in this discussion - the reporter says "we heard from parent" and lists a number of issues. Now, I have no doubt that someone- who knows how many-told a reporter in Australia that immunizations were discouraged at a school they were involved with. But as a point of information in this controversial discussion, it is pretty shallow. Yet, because it is in a reputable newspaper it is fine to leave there. Why in the world are we scrutinizing credible, qualified third-party academic sources, especially when they are being used for uncontroversial matters? There is no question that Hether conducted a dissertation at an accredited American University, used a validated measure, and found certain results. These results were subsequently reported in a peer-review publication, offering editors some sense that it has "entered the academic discourse." It is not our place to say how many citations are required, and once again, because of the time lag with these things we are not in a position to know that there won't be 20 more citations to this dissertation in the next 3 years. It is not our place to offer any evaluation of the state of scholarship in this field. Jellypear (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am appending this conversation to note that my views on the use of dissertations has changed since this conversation occurred. What is written here may not reflect the current status of my views which can be found in more recent discussions. I have begun to advocate for the removal of dissertations on this page, mainly for the difficulties that relate to their being primary sources for the research conducted within them. We have too many difficulties related to RS and the use of primary sources as it is and using dissertations makes the challenge worse. I now maintain the position that if the content of a dissertation is interesting to an editor, it should be sourced through a peer-reviewed secondary source (at minimum). Dissertations could be used for descriptive, non-controversial content (in following with wiki policy) but from my experience anything and everything on this page has been, or could possibly be, viewed as controversial by editors so it is better to simply start from the point of a peer-reviewed journal or book rather than a dissertation. In the specific case of this dissertation, editors should discuss the findings (if they wish) by referencing the peer-reviewed secondary source noted above. Jellypear (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Glowing words from a marginal source 2

Apparently resolved -- hatting to reduce talk page length. Alexbrn talk
contribs

Wikipedia tells us:

A 2007 Australian study comparing the academic performance of students at university level found that students who had been at Waldorf schools significantly outperformed their peers from non-Waldorf schools in both the humanities and the sciences.

A very bold claim, amounting to Waldorf students outperforming all others (even those from expensive private schools) in all areas at university.

The source backing this is a proprietary media stream from a Australian local radio station (does not play for me). One of the guests from the show (and look: that word "controversy" again) is billed as "Executive Officer, Rudolf Steiner Schools of Australia, Anthroposophist" - no doubt the source of the comment. RS? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a Steiner source that we cannot use. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Never mind the Steiner source: even if the whole radio station staff were chanting in Unison, they are hardly RS for this momentous research finding. Where is this mythical Australian study? it sounds like something that would have sent shock-waves through the educational world... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, actually no, that's not the source of the comment. There was a radio interview with the researcher who actually performed the study. hgilbert (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
So it's RS? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
hgilbert, we need the source on this sooner rather than later but not for the reason others have expressed. According to the standards of this page a media account is absolutely fine for getting quoted on this page. However, I object to the placement in the studies section if the viewpoints expressed cannot be sourced to an academic RS. Jellypear (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Looked into this a bit more. It is badly sourced for such a strong claim. I can't make my link work either. It is up to the other editors and their discretion as to whether this comes out immediately or time is given to come up with a RS - but this needs to happen within the next 24 hours or I will do so. Jellypear (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I put this passage in the article in 2007, when the radio program first aired. At the time it sounded as if the researcher involved was about to publish his thesis containing the study. He may have done so, but I have no access to academic work in Australian Universities. Perhaps someone can find this; I agree that it is time to replace the radio citation with a direct citation to his research results, assuming these came out. If no one else can find the thesis, we can and should remove the whole passage. Unfortunately, I have to confess that I don't even remember the researcher's name, and if the link doesn't work any more, this will be difficult to unearth. hgilbert (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
So, bearing in mind your COI and the above, just what do you think you are doing inserting this extremely misleading content here? Are you expecting other editors to give everything you do the tenth degree as I have done? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, it could stand on its own as a RS just by virtue of the media coverage although I wouldn't like the placement of it with the studies. Can anyone else hear the program? I don't have RealPlayer and that is what it is calling for. But no doubt this has to come out of the article. I'll let you do the honors, Alexbrn. :) If anyone can get the researcher's name I'll see if I can find a study. Jellypear (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Cool off. There is nothing misleading about it. I would hope that we could find the study that was cited in the media report. Having said that, on the RS noticeboard, to establish notability we are being asked to use reports that mention studies, rather than the original study. Perhaps this should be kept on this very basis. But I'll not push the point. Just try to keep civil, please. hgilbert (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Creative thinking

Apparently resolved -- hatting to reduce talk page length.Alexbrn talk
contribs
What Wikipedia says:

In a 1996 study, Waldorf pupils averaged higher scores on a Torrance Test of Creative Thinking Ability than state-school students.

What the source says:

  • "The sample consisted of 1,165 third through sixth grade children--479 English, 193 Scottish, and 493 German students. The findings obtained from administration of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking Ability, suggested that Waldorf students were more creative than their state school peers."
  • "The validity of the Torrance test to measure creative thinking is an issue. The consensus is that they do not measure a kind of universal creative thinking ability. But it is held that the tests do measure certain intellectual processes as well as non-intellectual characteristics, divergent thinking, which standard IQ tests do not measure."

Is this material presented with sufficient accuracy and nuance? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is important to mention that it was a cross-national study. One could describe what the torrance test of creative thinking ability is, but that will add more words and will require sourcing a discussion on the differences between a test that measures universal creative thinking ability, IQ and Torrance. (I haven't read this paper.) If there an internal wiki link to Torrance, I'd do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jellypear (talk • contribs) 14:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Another bold claim

stated as fact, in WP's voice:

Waldorf pupils' achievement on university entrance examinations has consistently been found to be comparable, slightly better, or far better[69] than that of pupils in state schools.[70]

This universalized claim is sourced to an issue of Der Spiegel from 31 years ago (no page number or quotation given) and a 2008 press release. (N.B. This wording also makes little sense since even worse achievements will fit into one of the categories: "comparable, slightly better, or far better".) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the study? Not knowing anything else, my first blush says that the sentence should be changed to say something like "A study of German Waldorf students' achievement on university entrance examinations found their scores to be comparable, slightly better, or far better than the achievement scores of pupils who attended state schools." Jellypear (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there a study? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
This questionable sources are still there; I've tagged them for now. I propose removing them. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Hearing no opposition.

  1. ^ Bo Dahlin, Cathrine Andersson, Elisabet Langmann (2004), "Waldorfskolor och medborgerligt-moralisk kompetens: en jämförelse mellan waldorfelever och elever i den kommunala skolan", Karlstad University Research Reports
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waldorf_education/Archive_11&oldid=1268348734"