Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Fatal consequences

Apparently resolved -- hatting to reduce talk page length. Alexbrn talk
contribs
Some text has been changed in the Immunization section to read as follow In 2002, economist Thomas DeGregori wrote an op-ed column for the American Council on Science and Health that noted a newspaper report on the low rate of vaccination at a Waldorf school in Boulder, Colorado. He described the refusal to vaccinate as a type of "rejected knowledge" that may have "fatal consequences both for those children and their younger siblings who have not yet been vaccinated". I have some concerns with this as it stands: Labelling DeGregori as "an economist" might make it seem he is writing outside his area of expertise. He is an active professor of economics yes, but also a board member of the American Council on Science and Health, the author of several more widely scoped books and describes himself as a "development economist" and "policy advisor". Similarly, the labelling of his piece as an "op-ed column" is a bit editorially dismissive, since - as the piece states - these are extracts from DeGregori's book, published by Blackwells (unfortunately not wholly available online), and an MS in preparation. The piece lists a good number of sources. Stating that DeGregori is merely noting "a newspaper report" is editorial eyebrow-raising; DeGregori treats the Boulder reports as factual evidence without caveat. We should not be inserting content that implies he might have been less-than-diligent in doing so. (Do we know he was using a newspaper report alone; this story was run in at least The Atlantic too)? Saying that immunization "may have" fatal consequences misrepresents the source, which does not use these words. The source states "children are not receiving their pertussis and other immunization — with fatal consequences both for those children and their younger siblings". Using "has had" rather than "may have" would therefore be accurate. In general I think it may be better to use DeGregori's references to the UK reports from The Lancet, rather than the Boulder case. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC) In fact, based on what I have just written above about sources, why don't we save ourselves time, lose this marginal source and rely on the stronger ones in this section? They are enough, I think, to represent the necessary views and findings. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Leave the citation in or take it out - either way is fine with me although I am not quite sure what status this website has as a RS being that it is part of an advocacy organization. I do know I have no time or energy to squabble about it. A few notes: I added his credentials (he is a professor of economics) because I feel this page needs that in general. I have been doing that all over. Readers need to know who these people are rather than "Oberski" and "Ullrich." The aspects of someone's credentials (if they have many) can be discussed but usually if there is an academic status I feel this is good to note. As for referring to this as an op-ed piece, well, that is where it is listed on the website. About the Boulder thing, I was not trying to insert any editorializing, only trying to describe his source because it was not his own data. He only mentions the school in one sentence! A far cry from the previous description which implied the whole citation was about this school in Colorado. Jellypear (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)  Done Hearing no opposition, I removed the stricken content. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

KITA Aktuell

Apparently resolved -- hatting to reduce talk page length.Alexbrn talk
contribs
We learn A study of the performance of 6,600 students found that the children who had experienced an earlier introduction to academic learning had poorer results in fourth grade than students who had not had early academics.[85] The source is this; I'm not quite sure what ... a newsletter? More particularly, how is this relevant? The source does not appear to mention Waldorf/Steiner education. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC) I propose removing this, as it seems irrelevant. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Agree. But it belongs in some article, somewhere, I'm sure! hgilbert (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)  Done Hearing no opposition.

Lower levels of harassment and bullying

Wikipedia states as fact, in its own voice:

Research reports have found lower levels of harassment and bullying in Waldorf schools.[8]:29

(lower than what, we are not told). Some issues:

• Why is this given as a universal statement?
• The primary sources here appear to be two case reports, one limited to a single UK school; another to a set of interviews with 4 pupils.
• The UWE report's statement about the more substantial of these is rather more guarded than we might think from the text above: "Its findings suggest that there may be lower levels of bullying in Steiner schools" (my emphasis)
• Is the UWE research report - not itself peer reviewed - RS when it comes to assessing the data from case reports (I am comfortable with using it for general evaluative and descriptive statements - but interpreting data sets requires a bit more)?

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The UK DFES report is certainly one of the best reviews of literature we have. (In fact, as far as I can tell, that report and Ullrich's book seem to be essentially the only comprehensive, neutral reviews of studies of Waldorf education.) It states, "Its findings suggest that there may be lower levels of bullying in Steiner schools." On the one hand, we should be reporting the authors' conclusions, not trying to re-interpret these. On the other hand, I agree that, looking at the study they are citing, to phrase the conclusion the way they did is an irresponsible jump. In any case, the article text needs to be modified to a more modest claim. hgilbert (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not looked at this paper but in general I like the wording of "Its findings suggest that there may be lower levels of bullying in Steiner schools". That is exactly how findings are to be reported and our verbiage should not deviate from this. Jellypear (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A few observations:

• The Woods report is not a UK DFES report, it is a report commissioned by the DFE; although small I think it's important to make this distinction as this is a document not produced by government; merely re-produced by it.
• Like Jelinek & Sun, it mixes its own original research with evaluative/descriptive content on external material.
• Like Jelinek & Sun, it appears to have had no independent editorial oversight or peer review.
• Ullrich's book is also not peer-reviewed. It was published by Continuum, a slightly "out there" (but respectable) publisher at the time (since taken over and now just an imprint).

These are all middling sources, usable with care. I am concerned however that between them, the Ullrich book and the Woods report now account for a whopping 27 citations in this article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

An observation: Citations to these two works have vastly increased since we've tried to replace direct citations to studies with citations to reviews of studies. I suspect that the pressure to do this came from editors used to sciences where "reviews of research" play a much larger role than in pedagogy. Nevertheless, I think the point is well-taken; a study's mass of conclusions is better summarized by someone with a comprehensive overview of the field, than by a WP editor. The best thing would be to find another comprehensive literature review. hgilbert (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The more "scientific" a claim, the more appropriate scientific levels of sourcing rigour are. For critical evaluations, opinion and descriptions in softer areas, the requirements are different - which is why I categorized the above sources as usable with care. If they were doing something scientific, like setting out and analyzing biomedical data - then they wouldn't be usable. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Woods, Jelinek & Sun and Ullrich. Sorry for reposting here but there seems to be discussion of this in several places. 1- Woods. This piece needs to go, provided there is no nuanced exception as a government document. I am not currently finding anything in wikipedia to that effect so it can go. 2-Jelinek & Sun. Not peer reviewed, and a primary source. This needs to go. 3-Ullrich. This a book by an educational scholar and part of the content of the book comes from his previously peer-reviewed works. I see no grounds for excluding it. Jellypear (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources don't "go" - use of sources is evaluated in respect of content. Besides, I'm not following your logic. You seem to be saying that Ullrich's book (non-peer-reviewed by adjunct professor) is good whereas the research monographs - by teams led by full professors of education - are "out". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the use of those two sources does not meet wikipedia guidelines that we should be using peer-reviewed secondary sources for this page. The first, Woods. has not been peer-reviewed. The second Jelinek & Sun has not been peer-reviewed. In addition, it is a primary source for the findings we are interested in. There is no acceptable use of these sources. We should not be using such sources. If we are interested in their content, we need to find it in a secondary source. Let's not go round and round about this. These are the guidelines. What else is left to discuss? As for Ullrich's book, he is an educational professor, who has published in the area of alternative education/Waldorf education in peer-reviewed journals and his book was published by CH Beck Verlag. I appreciate the need to scrutinize our sources but now that we understand the facts about these sources we need to make the appropriate changes to the page. Jellypear (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You are mis-stating policy to claim "there is no acceptable use of these sources". Articles use non peer-reviewed and primary sources all the time; however they should not be the foundations of an article, and need to be used carefully. When Jelinek and Sun are evaluating a book, that book is the primary source; they are secondary. Also I still do not understand how can you argue one non-peer-reviewed source is okay because it was written by "a professor", while other non-peer-reviewed sources by professors are somehow not okay. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No. You are mistating the policy. The first criteria for a reliable source is that there is some evidence of "many people checking facts, analyzing legal issues and scrutinizing the writing." Evidence that this has occurred is it being found in "peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." In the case of Woods, and Jelinek & Sun, there is no evidence that a peer-review process has occurred. (And, even then, there is no guarantee that it was a good one, which is why just having one at all is the recommended bar.) Secondly, both present original research which makes them primary sources. For us to use them, we would need to ground any interpretive claims or exceptional claims they make in a secondary reliable source, such as a peer-reviewed paper or book. I would argue this is especially crucial given the fact that they, as primary sources, have not been peer-reviewed. We cannot go into either of these documents and just pull stuff out, as doing so brings us into original research territory. We must rely on the peer-review process to tell us whether these documents are accurate and good and what parts of them are relevant---or even if the whole document is relevant at all. These are decisions and judgment calls are not for us but for the experts in this field. I understand the basis upon which you feel that Jelinek & Sun are operating as secondary sources for books published by Waldorf or Steiner sources. There are two problems with your reasoning. First, this is not a peer-reviewed paper so they are not a reliable secondary source for our purposes. Second, these statements are a result of the content analysis they conducted (i.e.., they are the result of "an experiment" so to speak.) The authors indicate that they "drafted" a Waldorf science curriculum from various resources so that it could be evaluated. ("The Waldorf science curriculum that was drafted for this study is derived from Steiner’s curriculum teachings and these resources, plus unpublished Waldorf school curriculum documents.") This is their own compilation. It could improperly include or exclude relevant items. We are in no position to judge how well this was done. That is the role of peer-review, which hasn't occurred. Then, their thoughts on these issues are placed in a section called "Discussion of the Findings in Relation to the 4 Research Questions." In other words, they asked 4 research questions, designed a methodology, conducted analysis according to it and are reporting their results. This makes it a primary source for the findings of their research. You say "articles use non peer-reviewed and primary sources all the time." This may be true but there are very clear guidelines for how to use non-peer reviewed and primary sources. I suggest you revisit those guidelines and the use that is allowed is very circumscribed. In order to bring this matter to resolution, why don't we both propose how Jelinek & Sun could be used as a non-peer reviewed primary source and how our usage fits the criteria. Then, the same could be done for Woods however it appears to me that Woods is mainly being used not for findings but in a synthesizing way. These could be replaced by another peer-reviewed secondary source to bypass the matter altogether. Jellypear (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. In reference to this: "I still do not understand how can you argue one non-peer-reviewed source is okay because it was written by "a professor", while other non-peer-reviewed sources by professors are somehow not okay." I am not arguing this nor would I. Articles are either peer-reviewed or not and non-peer reviewed articles should not be included. Could you restate which of Ullrich's publications we are talking about? Which one is not peer-reviewed and therefore "self-published" such that determining his expert status is something we need to discuss. Jellypear (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with the consensus - when this was discussed before, the fact that the report had enjoyed some academic uptake, that Jelinek was an acknowledged neutral expert, and that he had subsequently been hired by a Waldorf school to sort out their science curriculum all weighed in the text's favour; that's the evidence this is usable under the category of "with care", which is what is being done. (P.S. Ullrich's general book on Steiner is not peer-reviewed). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean his book was not peer-reviewed? How can a book be peer-reviewed (or not)? A reliable book source according to wiki includes "books published by respected publishing houses." His book was published by CH Beck Verlag. What other criteria would you apply? We cannot be applying novel criteria because this is exactly how we get into---and stay---in disputes about npov and undue. We need to let the applicable field of experts do that for us in confluence with wiki policies. This sets us up well for success, provided that we don't resist these limitations upon ourselves. What kind of a mushy category is "some academic uptake"? Google scholar shows Jelinek & Sun being cited by two unpublished masters papers, an unpublished dissertation and one peer-reviewed journal. And if Jelinek is an acknowledged expert, why in the world are you questioning Heiner Ullrich? I am still looking for any recent papers from Jelinek on Waldorf education but so far I have come up short. We must not make up our own criteria and should stick closely to wiki policies and guidelines. Just because a few students decided to cite this paper does not circumvent our need to strongly vet non-peer reviewed sources, and if they are determined to be of use, use them not just "carefully" but exactly according to wiki policy. Jellypear (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "with care" is the wording of the policy. The peer-reviewed citing source gives us (in reference to J/S): "On the negative side, the science curriculum for Waldorf schools was considered somewhat old-fashioned and out of date, as well as including some doubtful scientific material" (my emphasis). That this is relayed without question gives further weight to the J/S comments; we are then using their monograph to fill in the details for the benefit of the reader. All perfectly in order - in fact, good! How about, to meet your concerns, we also cite the comment of Østergaard et al. as a prelude to the J/S stuff? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I am going to move further discussion of Jelinek & Sun to its own section. Jellypear (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The original question at the head of this thread has not been resolved. I propose removing the content in question. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a good solution, as the content is clearly sourced to a RS. We should adjust the wording as per above to "findings suggest". hgilbert (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the point is it isn't. It's sourced to the (unreviewed) Woods report - so needs to be treated with caution. That said, I could live with the inclusion so long as it was very carefully qualified as being (1) very small scale and (2) UK only, and (3) in the context of the authors' concerns about research quality. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This snippet also suggests there may be more pertinent content out there. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Bold facts; confusing sources

Another fact/own-voice statement from Wikipedia

studies have found the schools' pupils to be unusually oriented towards improving social conditions and having more positive visions of the future

This is sourced to: Gidley, J. (1998). "Prospective Youth Visions through Imaginative Education." Futures 30(5), pp395–408, cited in Gidley, Batemen, and Smith, Futures in Education, Australian Foresight Institute Monograph Series, 2004 Nr. 5 Some concerns:

• The source appears to be a non-peer-reviewed monograph, but (oddly) is a two-stage source. The "inner" source (a journal article) gives a case of the lead author - Gidley - citing herself from the non-peer-reviewed "outer" wrapper. Which raises a red flag.
• The "inner" source appears to be a primary source: some data research (on "senior secondary students who had been substantially educated within the Rudolf Steiner schooling system in three major cities in Australia") with consequent analysis from Gidley. The work is evidently based on her contemporaneous Masters thesis.
• Gidley has been employed by Steiner Education Australia in the interim; but because we are citing a monograph there is no formal COI disclosure.
• Even if the source were in order, why is Wikipedia mentioning "studies" (plural) and "schools" (universalized)?

I propose this content is removed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have attributed and edited the content so at least the article is not actively misleading, while this topic is discussed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I support the changes made. Her employment (after writing this monograph) as an advisor to a wide range of organizations that also include Steiner Education Australia should certainly not affect its value as a source. hgilbert (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

But isn't this a primary source? (albeit wrapped in an unacceptable source) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I propose removing this content entirely. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

First off, I should say that I do not like Jennifer Gidley's writing, although she makes interesting points and seems intelligent. She is part of this breed of Anglophone academics that manages to write things that Americans have immense difficulty understanding at all. She is not alone - there is a prominent professor at Oxford who published something so scattered and ale-battered in minutia I felt it should be ignored completely. It turns out one of his friends saw his work was laid to the wayside and became incredulous that anyone would feel that way about his work. Anyhow, personal feelings aside, this is a tricky one. It appears to be an edited volume so there is some expectation of fact checking, etc - the first criteria for reliability. But the publishing aspect of it is questionable. From some quick checking, it appears that this content can be found in something that has been more reliably published. I propose that the claim be sourced elsewhere. It appears that can be done but will require going through some more citations. Jellypear (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree that it be sourced to the original. I have done this. hgilbert (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Monographs

I agree that non-peer reviewed monographs are not ideal as RS for this article. Note that Jelinek and Sun's is also a non-peer reviewed monograph. hgilbert (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ullrich Schmullrich

Heiner Ullrich's opinions are very heavily represented in this article:

In the lead, Wikipedia states as fact and in her own voice

the Waldorf approach has achieved general acceptance as a model of alternative education.

This is, as it turns out, an opinion taken from Ullrich's (non-peer-reviewed) book and stated as a general truth. I have at least attributed it for now to avoid the unfortunate statement of opinion as fact.

Later, as the opening words of a section, we are told

Heiner Ullrich, who has written about Waldorf schools extensively since 1991, argues that the schools successfully foster dedication, openness, and a love for other human beings, for nature, and for the inanimate world.

My question is: so what? Ullrich seems to be a scholar with a solid research record who has risen to the moderately lofty heights of adjunct professor. But are his opinions - when taken from general books - notable enough to be worth quoting? In particular I don't think his opinion belongs in the lead; and I don't think the warm and wooly view in the second extract above really adds much heft to the article.

Thoughts?

We would have to put this on par with Jelinek and Sun's opinions about pseudoscience. Either judgments like this, grounded on study of the schools, belong in the article and/or lead, or they do not. But we cannot have the decision depend upon whether the evaluation is positive or negative. hgilbert (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't see that argument. You could argue that Ullrich's view might be considered against Jelinek and Sun's opinions in general (rather than on pseudosciene in particular). Also, J&S certainly do add some heft to the article with their various content. But, their opinion does not appear in the lead; nor is it stated as fact. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Another way to look at Ullrich is that he is acknowledged as an export in this field, on this topic, by several third party sources. So, even something self-published from him might be allowable. He's probably the only source that I can think of that would raise to this level. I don't personally like the heavy reliance on him but we can only work with what raises to the level we're expected to work with. One thing to take seriously as editors is just to dial back the page (provided this can be done uniformly across the board), to only discuss aspects that can be found in reliable secondary + tertiary sources. If you look at tertiary listings of WE, they are about 1/3 the size. Jellypear (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What's the evidence for him being an acknowledged expert? What started me thinking was he wasn't cited by the Woods (2002) article or Uhrmacher (1995) article, despite having apparently been a Waldorf guru since 1991. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

He's not a Waldorf guru. Waldorf boosters consider him rather hostile to Waldorf education, I believe. Jellypear (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

To answer your other question, he is a professor of education and writes widely on the topic of progressive education. He's certainly an expert on progressive educational reforms in Germany and Waldorf education is a subset of that. He has been published in many peer-reviewed journals and has written books on these topics. Wiki has guidelines about expert opinions and how closely aligned with the subject matter they have to be---not just being an education professor, for example, but being a recognized expert on this type of education. I think he even wrote the Waldorf entry in an encyclopedia I once read (can't remember what). It's that kind of stuff that tips you off to what their peers think of them. Jellypear (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, he's an adjunct professor who, despite having writing a load on Steiner, doesn't seem to be a "go to" source from recent educational articles, and whose 2008 big book on Steiner wasn't placed with a top-tier publisher. So I ask again, what is the evidence that he's an acknowledged expert? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is his CV. He appears to have been academic director of the Pedagogical Institute of Mainz University since 1991, among other significant positions he holds. Given this and his extensive familiarity with and writings on the subject at hand, he appears to be the best qualified expert we have. hgilbert (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite possibly — I'm simply asking for some evidence of this "top expert" status. What I'm seeing is some good earlier peer-reviewed work; a career plateaued at adjunct professor for the last 8 years; that when he writes in a team he's not the lead author; when other professors write on W.E. they don't appear to cite him; and his latter publications are from less than top-tier publishers. What we want to avoid is a situation where the only publication treating him as "the best qualified expert we have" is Wikipedia. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that he writes in German, and his research is mainly about German pupils, so that is a very good reason why two English speaking writers wouldn't have cited him. I can see that you would like to have this field be more robust. Unfortunately, it is not and there is nothing any of us can do about it. It is what it is. Educational scholars tend to write about and research state schools rather than alternative or private ones. It is ok to be cautious but again, I think it is beyond our role as editors to make too many judgements that extend beyond the type of source and whether or not it was peer-reviewed. I hope you will lend such a critical eye to things on this page such as Eugenie Scott and her "being scathing" to Waldorf education. If she can have some prominence on this page just by being quoted in the Chicago Tribune (20 years ago?), and you feel that Free Inquiry is a peer-reviewed publication, then certainly a professor who has been publishing on Waldorf education for years, and has an ongoing research project in this area, is an expert view we can rely on. Jellypear (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're changing the subject. But, to the point, I'm not hearing any evidence that Ullrich is this super-scholar he's been made out to be. I'm perfectly fine using his non-peer-reviewed writing to "fill in" stuff in the article - but (to return to my original question) what I'm asking is: are his opinions as his opinions worth stating, especially as stand-alone pronouncements in the lead and as section openers? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do think the expert status is warranted. But what here is non peer-reviewed such that it would have to trigger the expert status exemption for self-published works? Jellypear (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

From Ullrich's book you mean? bold claims and/or speculative opinions would raise a red flag. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Social competency

In the lead Wikipedia gives the following statement as fact, in her own voice (this text added by Hgilbert)

Waldorf education has been found to foster a high degree of social competency.[7]:190[8]:4

This is sourced to an article by Ullrich, and the Woods report.

Some concerns:

• The Ullrich text (presumably the source bit of it) refers to just one school: "a recent qualitative study of the educational biographies of former pupils of a Rudolf Steiner school. ... They ... were particularly willing to accept social responsibility". Ullrich goes on to argue that this school is representative of "many other" Waldorf schools; but that is his opinion, and should not be stated as bare fact. Furthermore, he qualifies his comments by observing "the educational successes of these schools do not result solely from their particular educational slant and from the strong identification of the parents with the school that they have chosen for themselves, but also from the privileged social status of their clientele." This is a qualification that Wikipedia omits.
• The Woods report has

  The research studies reviewed give a cumulative sense of a positive relationship between Steiner schools and learning, achievement and pupils’ development of academic, creative, social and other capabilities important in the holistic growth of the person. The research evidence has to be interpreted with caution, however. Studies are often small scale and conducted in different cultural and national contexts that may affect the confidence with which findings can be generalised to other settings. 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. (my emphasis)

So I don't think these limited and caveated claims can fairly be synthesized into a bold universal claim stated as fact by WP, especially in the lead: it is doing precisely what the text cautions against, and generalizing the findings to other settings. In general, per WP:LEAD the lead should be summarizing content found in the body, and not introducing novel material. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a critique of the studies available generally, not any one particular study. Indeed, at one point, when there was a study section (how did we lose this, by the way), such a broad-based caveat prefaced the whole section, so readers could view the research aware of its limitations. I think this worked well.

Incidentally -- a familiar point -- as this critique of research studies applies to all studies, it also applies to Jelinek and Sun. hgilbert (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I propose this material is removed from the lead and placed in the body, with attribution - and qualification as contained in the source. We may then consider how/if it is summarized in the lead. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added a number of citations to the corresponding area in the body. It is widely agreed that the schools seek to foster social responsibility. Perhaps the lead should reflect this rather than the one limited study. hgilbert (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

V. Dion Haynes, Chicago Tribune (1999) - Cherrypicking?

The Chicago Tribune article cited in the "pseudoscience" section neither primarily concerns pseudoscience (its title is Waldorf School Critics Wary of Its Religious Aspect) and includes other information, such as a charter school's 7th graders are reported to have the top reading, language arts & math grades in the state at a time when age predicts a decline in academic achievement (rather than an increase). This is not included. WP:CHERRYPICKING says "In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." Given that only one view from this source is expressed - that of Eugenie Scott regarding pseudoscience - how do we avoid the problem of cherry-picking in this case? Jellypear (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The article also quotes two authorities with opposing viewpoints, only one of which had been included here hitherto...an even clearer case of CHERRYPICKING. I have added the other for balance. hgilbert (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The article contains no contrary view on pseudoscience, just information about a different topic: science (as well as commentary on religion etc.) Science and pseudoscience should not be given co-equal status as one is a fringe theory, as set out in WP:GEVAL. OTOH, the claim by the head of the Anthroposophical Society might be placed in the Science section - with suitable attribution of course. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I see it as a problem when articles cannot be presented in line with their own sense of balance because the section heading is making a circumscribed claim. In many ways, the pseudoscience issue is a subset of the "religious aspect issue." Shouldn't we be taking some guidance from the sources themselves in how we arrange these reception issues? And what about tertiary sources? I see the religious aspect included but not pseudoscience. Shouldn't that factor into the organization of this page in some way? Jellypear (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever structure is picked for this article, there is going to be dissonance with the structure picked by some of the sources: that is inevitable. If we re-cast the article in tune with the Tribune's model (Waldorf religious?) that that would jar with what other structures want to say. We need to provide a good topical backbone and allocate information to that. What we also want to avoid is "giving up" and just have an incoherent listing of standalone digests of sources; that would represent a failure of consensus and give a horrid unencyclopedic article. Ultimately this all comes down to common sense and editorial judgement. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, I dislike the recent changes even more than I disliked the previous version! I was not calling for a tit-for-tat kind of change so that it is +1 for pseudoscience and +1 for "real" science or whatever this latest instantiation is. What I was referring to is the fact that the article is not about pseudoscience, even though one commentator mentioned it. The point of the article runs deeper, mainly that a charter school following these methods not only displayed top-level results but that these results also run contrary to what is predicted for all students in this age group. This created a paradox worth reporting, especially given the concurrent lawsuit (at the time). So do such desirable results come at the expense of pseudoscience or of religious teaching? What might be the evidence for that? Who feels this way and why? Thus the news article itself provides us with some guidance for how we could approach this thoughtfully and if we weren't doing this before with cherry picking Eugenie Scott's quote, we certainly are not making it better now. I think the problem for me is that this section presumes that pseudoscience in the schools exist, and then seeks out supporting documentation to flesh out the section. This is in contrast to how sources themselves have treated this issue. Would anyone hate it if I changed it back? It's this kind of blatant attempt at equivalence that made me interested editing this page to begin with. Jellypear (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Jelly - I think you're right in some senses. Re-reading the Tribune piece I think the quote could be here, or not. But on your pseudoscience point, is there any source anywhere that says W.E. does not teach pseudoscience? What is notable about both Waldorf responses here is that they don't take that line, but instead go for a "no single truth" statement. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The article quite carefully presents two contrasting viewpoint. If we are to pick up on either of these here, the other should be presented as well. Otherwise it is a clear case of cherry-picking and a complete falsification of the article's thrust. If, on the other hand, we feel that the article's thrust is wholly different, both quotes might need to disappear and a more accurate depiction of the charter school results (as Jellypear describes) appear in their place. hgilbert (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"But on your pseudoscience point, is there any source anywhere that says W.E. does not teach pseudoscience?" With this question I think you are missing a vital point in that tertiary sources are absolutely silent on this issue. And, the academic research, as we know, currently rests on one unpublished manuscript from 10 years ago. And even though that has been cited, no new data has been added. One could take this in three ways. The first is to view this as people being uninformed as to this issue or perhaps even not paying attention to the evidence before them. The second is to see this as some (perhaps tacit and unacknowledged) consensus having been reached that pseudoscience being taught is not an issue. The third perspective is that perhaps there is currently not enough credible evidence and until that time, statements in one direction or the other are ill-advised and could have the unintended effect of advancing an incorrect view. In order to avoid WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE Wikipedia editors have to take seriously all of these possibilities. Hotel operators generally don’t go around announcing that they clean their toilets. Even though they don’t make this announcement, this doesn’t mean they have dirty toilets. And then there is the schools’ view of what science is. They relate, and others confirm, that they take a phenomenological approach to science. They purposely do not start with the theorem or law and are instead interested in developing tools of observation, evidence collection and documentation, etc., with the hope that students work their way back to the law/truth/current scientific consensus on their own (or as a classroom). It reflects a position that “science is” a process primarily. Similarly, people who feel that “science is” the body of codified knowledge also have a position. This is how I would personally explain why spokespeople, when faced with the allegation that they “teach pseudoscience,” answer with something besides a simple “we don’t teach pseudoscience.” Although this is my view on the situation, such discussion is irrelevant. As Wikipedia editors, our role is to neutrally report what is contained in reliable sources. I think coming from a standpoint in which it is presumed that WE teaches pseudoscience because it has not been proven false smacks of being an 'absence of evidence argument' that has no place in a tertiary source that is expected to be neutral. This is a serious issue. What I would recommend is placing concerns about pseudoscience in a "Science Instruction" section in the curricular areas and also introducing a "State Funding of Waldorf Schools" in the reception area. I think we need to be following the organization of our sources more closely. We are having trouble working with the pro and con viewpoints because so much has been bifurcated structurally. As I have been advancing elsewhere, the presentation of this issue should follow what Woods (2008) does. How do outcomes relate to the input? How much do we know about either? Jellypear (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The article presents one opinion that the Waldorf science curriculum teaches pseudoscience and one opinion that it teaches "sound science". The two are clearly talking about the same thing, the science curriculum, in directly contrary ways. These are all talking about the science curriculum, as is a study (such as PISA) that shows that Waldorf students have solid understanding of science is also about the teaching of science in the schools. Otherwise you create a POV fork; it would be equivalent to having a section in Obama's biography on his being born in Kenya, and treating any evidence that he was actually born in Hawaii as being about a completely different subject (what does Kenya have to do with Hawaii???). The subject at hand is the Waldorf approach to science. (If the topic is pseudoscience the whole thing should move to the pseudoscience article.) If the topic is the science curriculum at Waldorf schools, which it appears to me to be, then all sides of this are relevant and should be presented in accordance with NPOV.

Would you argue that if, asked if an art work were a forgery of a Monet, I answered "it's a true original Monet", my answer is irrelevant to the question of the forgery? Similarly, if I answer the question "does W. teach pseudoscience" with the response "it teaches sound science", I am directly addressing the question. Two authors do not have to use exactly the same jargon to be talking about the same subject. (And if you claim this is OR or SYN, I would respond that too artificially separate two positions clearly presented as contrasts in an article on the pretense that they are unrelated, when the article's author clearly believed they were related, is far more clearly taking editorial liberty, or OR if you will.) hgilbert (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jellypear that the principal sources, including Jelinek and Sun, all talk about the science curriculum, and mention pseudoscience in this context. We should integrate these back into a single section on Science Curriculum, with all the concerns that have been expressed about this. hgilbert (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Aids to development via play

(which might be better termed "educational toys") are described thus:

Aids to development via play generally consist of simple materials drawn from natural sources that can be transformed imaginatively to fit a wide variety of purposes. Waldorf dolls are intentionally made simple in order to allow playing children to employ and strengthen their imagination and creativity. Waldorf schools generally discourage kindergarten and lower grade pupils being exposed to media influences such as television, computers and recorded music, as they believe these to be harmful to children's development in the early years.

and sourced to this.

I can't find the ext in the source supporting this. I've no doubt it's right but it should at least be sourced correctly (and is The Atlantic really the best source for this?). Also, the chief characteristic of Waldorf dolls (small or absent facial features) is not mentioned. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the citation is just for the media influence comment. As for the earlier sentences: I would urge us, in line with WP policy, not to require citations for generally accepted material, assuming no editor disputes these. hgilbert (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

On the burning issue of facial features in dolls: there is great variety here. The features of dolls meant to be used by very young children tend to be, as you suggest, limited in detail, though there is considerable variety even here. Dolls for somewhat older children tend to have much more detail. Dolls are often made by middle school children as part of the handwork/crafts curriculum; these dolls tend to have extremely detailed features. Like many other things in Waldorf education, it is developmental rather than rule-based. hgilbert (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you are asking for a source for the sentences preceding the media influence? I don't have one. I have no objections to providing a source but text should not be changed in the interim. There is a lot of ongoing "work" related to this page. I simply do not have hours upon hours each day to participate - nor do I want to. Let's try to prioritize. I don't see this as a pressing issue. Pottery Barn and other upscale children's toysellers sell cloth dolls that look just like Waldorf dolls. Jellypear (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV in the Lead

There have been a series of edits/undo's regarding the Lead, and they all link back to prior discussions we have had concerning the lead's purpose, NPOV, intext attribution, etc. This is an ongoing source of disagreement so I am opening up a section to discuss it rather than making more edits. I think it might be fruitful to work through WP:YESPOV and discussion where issues remain. With regard to one of the more recent edits in this area, Alexbrn appears to further attribute WE's reception in central Europe to H. Ullrich, even though he is the source for the citation given. Alexbrn feels that this is necessary because this is H. Ullrich's opinion. I think this minimizes the fact that Ullrich's statements, when published in a book about all aspects of Waldorf Education, and written after many years of publishing in peer-reviewed journals on the topic, are not merely opinions. They are evaluative and interpretive claims. However, because they are not necessarily true and correct, they must be sourced. The books contents are as follows:

• 1. Intellectual biography
• 2. Critical exposition of the thinker's work
• 3. The reception and influence of the work
• 4. The relevance of the work today
• 5. Bibliography

Thus the quotation comes from his evaluation of how his work has been received and the influence that it has made. These are expert claims, not merely opinions and although they must be properly sourced. Adding an additional qualifier, which seeks to identify his view as merely an opinion, is not only unnecessary but introduces its own WP:NPOV issues.Jellypear (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the statement is presented as a fact by a notable scholar. If we have equally strong sources for any conflicting interpretations, we should present and attribute both. If not, we should accept it as presented. hgilbert (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say this was a basic case. As YESPOV says, even "evaluations" like "genocide is evil" need to be attributed! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I want you to know that I am taking your concerns here seriously and I do share your concern that things are attributed neutrally and according to wiki policies. If I am understanding you correctly, you feel that Ullrich's evaluation of the landscape in central Europe is a contestable one. If that is the case, then I would ask you to provide a reliable source who says so because Ullrich's statement is more than just his opinion, it is an evaluative claim coming from his research. As such, we do need to source it and that has been done. Another way of approaching this is that his statement only got in here because of our difficulties with "Waldorf Education is controversial" which as you note above in the "genocide is evil" comparison, that needs to be attributed as in So-and So says that "genocide is evil" kind of way. However, we are not using Ullrich to say "Waldorf education is not controversial," rather the page says "the Waldorf approach has achieved general acceptance as a model of alternative education [in Central Europe]." These are vastly different claims (one is declarative and the other is descriptive) and rather surprising coming from you after we have already had extensive discussion as why "Waldorf education is controversial" would be perfectly acceptable as a statement on its own by sourcing - among others - an herbalist magician. ;) I think perhaps the way to move forward is to keep rewriting this paragraph. Can you offer other ways of doing so that don't reduce Ullrich's evaluation as an opinion because there is no comparable educational scholar who has stated the opposite? Jellypear (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources: two clarifications

Arbitration clarification

From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clerk_notes:

1. "The ArbCom ruling did not forbid using Anthroposophy related publications, but found in 2006 that for controversial statements those publications were unreliable."
2. another editor agrees with Alexbrn, however: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so".

Comment: The situation remains unclear. Given the "probably" in the second comment, however, I suggest we should be more liberal about accepting these publications for factual, non-controversial statements (such as content of the curriculum, number of schools, etc.)

Reliable sources noticeboard

At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Other_sources, there is the following discussion (that starts with a question I posed):

What about these, then, two of which are also not peer-reviewed journals:

Content: "Waldorf education is controversial", or "Waldorf education has experienced controversy in English-speaking countries" (two proposed versions of text)

Source 1: Melissa Benn, School Wars: The Battle for Britain's Education, Verso Books, isbn 978-1-84467-736-8

Source 2: The Financial Times, David Turner, "Steiner school switches to city academy status", March 1, 2008

Source 3: Heiner Ullrich,"Rudolf Steiner", Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education, Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, vol.XXIV, no. 3/4, 1994, p. 555-572.

hgilbert (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Benn: journalist book, not expert educationist, OK for uncontroversial facts. FT: good for news fact only. Ullrich: good source. Rather than the lede saying "it's controversial", which is not informative, it should summarise the detail in the "Responses" section. It doesn't need to introduce new sources. The article needs some copyedits by the way. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We should remove the two sources that are good only for news or uncontroversial facts and edit according to the recommendation above (which seems to fit Jellypear's ideas, as well!!!). hgilbert (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact the Waldorf education is controversial, is not controversial! However, in the interests of obeying WP:OVERCITE all these can go: we just need to summarize the article in the lead; and stating it is controversial is part of that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn, it doesn't seem as if the lede debate involves whether or not Waldorf education has had controversies. Newspaper reports, people issuing statements, a lawsuit, testifies to the fact that controversies have occurred. However, the crucial issues for us to contend with as editors are WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Stating something has had, or is currently undergoing a controversy is a qualitatively different thing than stating it is controversial. Look at the sources for the various controversies, there is a lot of self-published material which is fine for expressing its own views but we don't have a RS that discusses the controversy itself---putting it into any kind of context that would allow us, as editors, to be assured that we are offering a balanced wiki entry that doesn't make claims about a state of the world we are in no position to know about. Heiner Ullrich comes closest, but you will note that his position is that the criticism overlooks the differences amongst the schools. We, as wikipedia editors, must realize we have no place in characterizing the controversial nature of WE ourselves. We can use RS to show that controversies exist - that is all.Jellypear (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS is a pretty good enumeration of my concerns with the "Waldorf education is controversial" statement. I have not seen anything like this from a RS or even something like this: "Waldorf schools are a controversial form of education..." The existence of controversies does not necessarily make the entirety of something controversial. Jellypear (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's clear from the discussions here that the claim "WE is controversial" is itself controversial, and the dissonance between various sources (even Ullrich comments on this differently in two different places) is striking. Jellypear's description seems clearer: there are controversies over particular aspects of the education (immunization, etc.) Precision is helpful. hgilbert (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hgilbert – as WP:BESTCOI and WP:COIU recommend, you have no business POV-pushing here. We have a stack of sources matter-of-factly stating that WE is controversial; however I thought we'd gone beyond the need to use those since it is simply a good summary of the article to say that WE is controversial (sometimes I wonder if people understand what the word means!). Wheedly words watering down this plain meaning should not be used: this is an encyclopedia article, not a PR exercise. The lead is now misleading by suggesting that controversy is limited to English-speaking countries (itself a curious watering-down), when we mention pseudoscience in Stockholm, and by subtly misusing Ullrich to imply as fact and in Wikipedia's voice that there is no controversy in "central Europe". It is also badly written with the weird personification of "Waldorf Education has experienced controversy ...".

What I am seeing here is POV-pushing from a COI-tainted editor, now again making aggressive edits to the article in this and other respects, and aided by a WP:SPA who is making strongly pro-Waldorf edits and removing criticism from the lead. Given the COI aspect, I have replaced the COI tag on the article until these matters can be resolved. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you ignoring the fact that the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard discussion has clearly evaluated your sources as not reliable in this context? In addition the following suggestion was made there "Rather than the lede saying "it's controversial", which is not informative, it should summarise the detail in the "Responses" section. It doesn't need to introduce new sources." This is an independent editor's voice, not mine. hgilbert (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole paragraph about controversy is written in "Wikipedia's voice". We could deconstruct the whole thing, giving particular attributions, and perhaps we should. hgilbert (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn, I am taking offense that you have chosen to characterize me as someone who is a WP:SPA "aiding" a COI-tained editor. This is not helpful or productive and such comments run counter to WP:FIVE. While you may have gotten your account long before me and currently have lots of time to edit multiple pages within the anthroposophical series making it such that you are not WP:SPA, this does not give you the authority to make assertions about me that run counter to assuming good faith. Don't bite the newbies. I have a life and limited time to be editing wikipedia. There are lots of other areas I could participate but the fact of the matter is that this page has multiple problems that I have now begun to feel strongly about the more I have become involved. The content of studies has been misrepresented via quote mining in several sections, peer-reviewed studies are somehow not considered important on this page, there is the ongoing difference of opinion about the use of illustrations, the unique RS ruling on this page sets up WP:UNDUE issues that have to be mitigated by editors working together, just yesterday I discovered the content of an un-RS blog being presented as the assertion of an attorney in a peer-reviewed publication, and now there is input from the noticeboard saying that "it's controversial" is not informative and another approach should be taken. Should I just ignore these things? Why does mentioning them and trying to discuss them and come to resolution on them make me "aiding" a COI-tainted editor? Again, I will refer back to why I decided to start editing wiki in the first place - as a reader of this page that could tell that sources were being misrepresented.

Now, as for the lede, we don't have to stick with what is currently on the page but that ought to be discussed here - with serious consideration being made to this third party opinion - rather than making assertions about each other. You make valid points about personification and the characterization of "English-speaking" is probably not as accurate as it could be. Lets work out here what some alternatives may be. How about "There have been several recent controversies involving Waldorf education. For example, so-and-so says..." Would something along those lines be better? Jellypear (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of misunderstanding and misdirection:

• The opinion from RS/N was that we don't need to use sources in the lead. That is correct. We should say WE is controversial as that is a fair summary of the article content. We can use Wikipedia's voice for this since the bases of the summary are themselves sourced as they should be. The sources discussed at RS/N are fine for facts, so we may use them in the body if we wish.
• However, introducing novel content (i.e. that is not in the body) into the lede, in Wikipedia's voice, as hgilbert has done is wrong. First because (here) it misrepresents the source in an attempt to water-down criticism, secondly because we should not generally put novel content in the lede, and thirdly because we don't generally need to source content in the lede. This is pure POV watering-down. The theme of this third paragraph is to outline controversies. Hgilbert is trying to spin the article in line with his COI. Again.
• Jellypear's (no doubt unwitting) aiding of this is in removing critical content from the lead that fairly summarizes some body content. The effect again is to swing the POV of the article unduly. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn:"We should say WE is controversial as that is a fair summary of the article content." What!? Where do you get this idea from based on the 3rd party editor's comments? She said "Rather than the lede saying "it's controversial", which is not informative, it should summarise the detail in the "Responses" section." I am not sure how much clearer this opinion could be. When she uses the word "rather" she is proposing doing something else, not keeping that approach. The recommendation is to not use the phrase "WE is controversial"....rather we should describe the controversies as enumerated in the reception section. Our job is to describe controversies and differences in opinion, that is it. Have you read the wiki guidelines as to what constitutes original research on the part of editors? I will get the citations if that helps Jellypear (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want we can include something more in the body about it being controversial, so we can summarize it in the lead. Stating that Waldorf is controversial is an excellent topic sentence for that paragraph. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The lede does not need to be sourced, but the content does. If the content is not sourced in the body of the article, it should not be in the lede. If you have a good source that states that Waldorf is controversial (and why), use it to say that in the body, and reflect that paragraph in the lede. If you don't have a source that states that Waldorf is controversial, it should definitely not be in the lede. Above all, we must follow WP:V. Further, it would be better to attribute that "Waldorf is controversial" to the source, as that cannot be a fact, and must be an opinion. DigitalC (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please pardon me for going on about this (rather than ignoring it and sticking to the task at hand) but I am rather hot-under-the-collar about these comments. User:Alexbrn has said that I am "making strongly pro-Waldorf edits and removing criticism from the lead." For the record, I have not removed criticism from the lead. What I did do, is remove a sentence that said (paraphrasing from memory here) "Views differ on Waldorf's stance on teaching reading and ICT skills later than mainstream schools." When I took this out, I cited WP:Weasel. There are no RS on the page that offer differing views on these topics. The discussion between Elkind & Whitehurst is not about Waldorf education, it is about academic kindergartens more generally. While Elkind says positive things about Waldorf's overall approach - albeit without offering any data about the approach's effectiveness - Whitehurst does not address reading instruction in Waldorf schools at all. The one author (Suggate) who does address Waldorf specifically presents research findings that show similar longterm reading gains between early-starters and late-starters. So, I fail to see a difference of opinion about Waldorf teaching reading later in the RS that can be summed up as "views differ." As for ICT, there is only one RS and they say "our view would be that it is to the credit of the [DfE] that Steiner schools have been recently exempted from the requirement to teach ICT." So where is the difference of opinion there?

As you say, the differing views on reading are in the article (which is on Waldorf education). If you think Elkind & Whitehurst should not be in the article, then that is a different matter. As things stand, it is fair to summarize them, and unfair to remove that summary. On ICT the view is also expressed that the approach is not a "reasoned assessment of twenty-first century children's needs". Sounds like a different view to me. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that we have very different ways of reading texts that will probably result in future disagreements. I appear to parse paragraphs differently than you do and find levels of context and argumentation that you do not consider important. So for ex in this case, when the authors use the phrase "not a reasoned assessment of 21st century children's needs" I see this as referring to their overall opinion that Waldorf educators allow what things are made of to be of more importance than whatever use it could have as a learning tool. So, in their view computer technology is "out" because it is made of plastic and non-organic parts. They view this stance as not being a "reasoned assessment of the 21st century children's needs" (ie., it shouldn't matter what things are made of) but not that the overall approach to ICT - which they end up supporting. And, we can see from the Waldorf spokesperson response, we can see that Waldorf people disagree with this assertion about their views. They feel that it is not about the materials but the timing. Ideally there would be a third or fourth (academic) RS to make heads or tails of this. Don't know if there is one. Jellypear (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are misreading the text :-) And as I see now it's not quite properly represented in the article. The authors disagree with the prohibition ("ideological stand") on ICT but on balance (i.e. despite that) think it's good that the exemption has been granted, because of other Steiner goodness. As their discussion is in the clear context of ICT experience, I think this is plain. We need to include in the lead a summary of the fact that there is controversy over this. I think adding A13ean's suggested source will help too. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A13ean's recommendation is fine to include. Please provide what your summary of this issue would be. I am not sure where we disagree now.24.1.137.227 (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As to the issue of "strongly pro-Waldorf edits" well, I guess that is a difference of opinion that we may never be able to resolve. I would suggest, however, that seeing any edit on this page as either "pro" or "con" is a bad way to go about it. Here is my stance on any topic on this page and I believe this fully conforms to wiki policy. 1. I want to see the most important and fundamental claims on this page backed up by a RS, preferably a peer-reviewed publication by an academic scholar. 2. All applicable publications on the topic should be included within reason, and reporting of each should be as accurate as possible to the authors' own words. A good guide for this is to read the author's own abstract, if available. My disposition is to be a hard-ass about this - sorry. 3. For those topics that are not widely discussed, and for which there is no academic peer-reviewed source, we must take care to evaluate WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, and this includes not having them on the page at all btw. This is a rather subjective task and requires editors working together to discuss wiki's policies. This is not a pro- or con- task, it is about interpreting policies and guidelines. If you can't see a discussion of this nature as anything other than "pro" or "con" - even amounting to collusion between other editors - then I would suggest something is interfering with your primary responsibility here, which is to be a Wikipedian above all else. Jellypear (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This is easily sourced, for example this NYT article says "But the contrarian point of view can be found at the epicenter of the tech economy" about teaching IT skills (my emphasis). a13ean (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In general I agree very much with the approach and context you give. However, protecting Wikipedia against POV is part of editing it, so unfortunately that consideration sometimes comes into play. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

The question is whether it is appropriate to include information about the science curriculum in Waldorf schools in this article on Waldorf education. Currently such information is split into two groups, based on the point of view:

1. Critiques of the science curriculum as being "pseudoscience" are included in the article in a special section devoted to these rich detail
2. Neutral information about as well as positive evaluations of the science curriculum have repeatedly been removed diff 1, diff 2 hgilbert (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Science curriculum RfC discussion

• Include information about Waldorf's science curriculum; expand Criticism section. The science curriculum is one of the most notable, as supported by evidence, aspects of Waldorf education. The overwhelming majority of mainstream science representatives condemn or disapprove of many of the contents of that curriculum. The relevant section should be expanded. In fact, the article, as it now stands, or at least significant parts of it, reads somewhat like a pamphlet for Waldorf. -The Gnome (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Pseudoscience is key to the criticism of Waldorf science curricula. Todd Oppenheimer writes in The Flickering Mind that prominent Waldorf critic Dan Dugan calls Waldorf "cult pseudoscience". It's a main theme. Binksternet (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  Just to reiterate, the question doesn't concern whether criticism should be on this page. If, as the Gnome says, "the overwhelming majority of mainstream science representatives condemn or disapprove of many contents of the curriculum," then the issue of expanding criticism can be accomplished through continued inclusion of applicable RS, according to wiki policies and guidelines. However, there are some editors on this page who prefer to handle discussion of the curriculum by having one section called "pseudoscience" and another section presumably called "science" (although it has been argued that that this section - whatever it is called - should exist on a subpage rather than the main page.) Assuming there will be various viewpoints on this topic, how do editors think this topic should be organized? Jellypear (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• For years the "Science" (or "Science and nature") section has lived happily in a sub-article. Now that pseudoscience is dealt with as part of the "Reception" of W.E., what has changed meaning the section has to be moved here? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So, your contention is that "science and nature" be in the subarticle. That may be a reasonable way to approach it but, as you know, this presents a challenge in how to deal with sources in a way that avoids WP:UNDUE, WP:CHERRYPICKING, etc. Most reliable sources discuss a range of viewpoints related to how science is taught and if we to report them the way we're supposed to WP:STICKTOSOURCE, they contain information that doesn't quite fit under the pseudoscience heading. Again, from my view this entire question concerns how to organize the content of reliable sources when the subject heading presumes either the existence of pseudoscience in the curriculum and/or sources that present a "pro" and "con" view. The picture in the RS is much more developed than that. Jellypear (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I was contending nothing. I asked a question. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought that since you have argued for two sections + one in the subarticle before that your question was rhetorical. I think the current structure makes it difficult to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. What do you want to do? Jellypear (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's very simple: NPOV requires that if one notable POV is presented, others should correspondingly be present as well. The Gnome's description is the normal one: criticism of the science curriculum is about the science curriculum. If the science and nature curriculum belongs in the sub-article, so does criticism of this. That's one clear option. If we are moving the discussion of the science curriculum into the main article, however, then we should be providing a well-rounded picture.

I'm happy with either location, so long as we retain a neutral and balanced perspective. hgilbert (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Widely agreed guidelines?

Another fact WP tells:

Though most Waldorf schools are autonomous institutions not required to follow a prescribed curriculum, there are widely agreed guidelines for the Waldorf curriculum

This is sourced to this article - but I'm not finding support for the text as given. Help! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern in wanting to be clear and precise on this page but I simply cannot keep up! Where do you get the time and stamina? Anyway, all I can say is that this is a true statement that could be sourced many places. Whether it is possible to find a good secondary source quickly is another matter. For the time being, I would suggest putting this on the back burner. As an uncontested issue, we could even source it in a Waldorf publication. There is no need to excise or eliminate this statement because the source is less than stellar. Jellypear (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Just had a chance to skim the source. It is a fine peer-reviewed secondary source on the curriculum but, yes, you right that she describes the guidelines of the curriculum and doesn't say they are "autonomous institutions not required to follow a prescribed curriculum." Again, this is a true statement but I agree it does need to be sourced and this article does not do it. Also, she does make note of reception controversies. This paper can be used in place of primary or non-peer reviewed sources that are currently being used in that area. Jellypear (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Are we using Ida Oberman's book? If so, she makes this claim about the organization of the schools and curriculum. Jellypear (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I propose this is removed for now until/unless some replacement text and source can be found. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the general recommendation is to leave text unless it is a clear case of something being contentious or wrong. Why do you think this is not true? Maybe there is something in Wood's DFE piece that can help you put this on ice for a while? If you think this is wrong, why don't you find a source that says so rather than just striking the text, which would make more work down the road? Jellypear (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Jelinek & Sun (2003) - Reliable Source?

I have moved discussion about Jelinek & Sun (2003) here because it was being entangled with discussion on other sources, namely Woods et al. (2005) and Ullrich (2008). I provide a summary of viewpoints on those below but seek to focus on only Jelinek & Sun (2003) in this section. Regarding Jelinek & Sun (2003), a ten-year old unpublished, not peer-reviewed monograph produced as part of consulting done for the Novato Charter School in California, Alexbrn says this ought to be considered a reliable source. I argue that this paper has the same limitation that he finds in Woods et al. (2005), namely that even though these pieces may have been carefully conducted, they were never subject to peer review---only delivery to their clients. Recently, we sent this topic of unpublished manuscripts to the RS/N board. The reasoned answer that came back was “Getting published in a peer-reviewed journal is a good step toward being WP:RS but even that is not enough [emphasis added], 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 recommendation here sets an expectation even higher than we are applying elsewhere on this page. We could decide to set the bar in an even higher direction, but certainly including an un peer-reviewed monograph in one instance sets us in the opposite direction.

What is the basis for lowering the bar for this one paper? Let's look at what has been proposed. Being that Jelinek & Sun (2003) it is clearly not a reliable, peer-reviewed secondary source, the argument must be that it is allowable as a self-published source. Self-published expert sources “may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.” Google scholar shows that this paper has only one peer-reviewed citation and that Jelinek & Sun have never published a peer-reviewed paper on Waldorf education, (or Waldorf science education). So, there is no reason to believe that Jelinek & Sun are “established experts on the topic of the article.” In this case, rather than pushing on with a dubious source, wiki advises us to “take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.” But again, we find that no peer-reviewed sources have chosen to take this up. In the ten years since it was created only one other paper has cited Jelinek & Sun, which should suggest to all of us that the paper’s impact or import for scholars in this field was not very high at all. These two facts should give us pause in wanting to grant it a status not extended any other piece of scholarship on the page. All remaining studies on this page either are, or in the process of becoming, entirely sourced in peer-reviewed citations. There is no rationale, using wikipedia’s guidelines, to give an exemption to this paper. Doing so circumvents the role external expert peer-review is supposed to play in assisting us with finding reliable sources to use for this page. Everywhere you look the guidelines and expectations are set up for reliable secondary + tertiary sources. A non-peer reviewed primary source is the extreme exception to this rule and, in this instance, is not warranted by any evidence of their being "established experts on the topic of the article" or of the monograph itself having had a high impact - two factors which could possibly mitigate its existence as an unpublished research study.

• Just to recap some of that conversation for listeners just tuning in, I have argued the following: Woods et al. (2003) is a research report commissioned and distributed to the public by the UK Department of Education and Skills. However, it has not been peer-reviewed and it contains findings from original research. For these reasons, I have argued that this paper should not be used by wiki editors and instead we should use peer-reviewed publications that have chosen to cite it. I have also argued that Ullrich (2008) is a book written by education professor Heiner Ullrich who has previously had articles published on the topic of Waldorf education in peer-reviewed journals. His general area of expertise is alternative education and appears to be the most widely published German speaking author on Waldorf education. His 2008 book was published by CH Beck Verlag, a large German publishing house with branches in Munich and Frankfurt, 500+ employees, over 7,000 titles in print and publisher to 50 journals. In contrast to my views, Alexbrn feels that Ullrich’s book is not “peer-reviewed” and maintains the same concerns regarding Woods et. al (2005) not having been peer-reviewed and only submitted as a report to DfE. Jellypear (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Briefly, three points.

• You say that I think Jelinek and Sun is "a reliable source"; that over-simplifies it. A source needs to be considered in respect of some text it support, and in line with WP policy/guidelines. On this page I have described Jelinek and Sun as a "middling" source. If used, it must be used with care.
• You say "we find that no peer-reviewed sources have chosen to take this up". Incorrect. Jelinek and Sun are cited by this well-cited peer-reviewed review article - which we now cite as the basis of the Jelinek and Sun content (as it did before you arrived here, before it was removed as being superfluous).
• The Ullrich book cited in the article (12 times) is an English language book published by Continuum (a less than top-tier publisher, now absorbed by Bloomsbury). Is this the same book you're talking about?

It might help progress things if you described specifically what change(s) you want to make to the article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Ullrich, yes, we cite the translation but the book itself was written in German and published by CH Beck Verlag. I think the fact that it was translated and published in English lends credence to it being a book of some noteworthiness. As for Jelinek & Sun, you are still quoting their findings directly and not relying on Ostergaard et al. to do it for you. That is the purpose of using a reliable secondary source - they synthesize the material for you. You quote them.Jellypear (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I must be being dense, but I can't see a 2008 book published by Beck mentioned on Ullrich's cv. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to do links on this thing so here is the ISBN: 978-3406612053. The Book is Rudolf Steiner: Leben und Lehre. It appears there have been multiple printings so maybe we need to work that out. Jellypear (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a 2010 book, Rudolf Steiner - Leben und Lehre. How did this get translated into English to become the 2008 Continuum book, Rudolf Steiner? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll go to the library and check the book out but this is a really tangential issue. Heiner Ullrich is a German scholar who writes in German. The English book names translators. By all appearances it was a book written in German and then translated. Perhaps the dates aren't adding up because there were multiple printings of the German edition or that it was simultaneously translated into English-I don't know. I can't tell you what exactly happened but I see no reason to believe that he wrote the book in English and had it published by Continuum and that this has no relation to a book by the same name, on the same topic, published by CH Beck Verlag. I'm not interested in justifying Ullrich's status as a scholar in this field any longer - it is eating up my time. He is an educational scholar employed by the University of Mainz, a published author on Waldorf education, and we are not using any sources from him that have not appeared in a peer-reviewed publication or book form. These are indisputable facts. We clearly have other reliable source issues to deal with, starting with the very bottom of the heap---unpublished manuscripts. Jellypear (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A date wouldn't change because of a reprint. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

So back to Jelinek & Sun, the problem with this, apart from it being a non-peer reviewed source, is that it is a primary source regarding its own findings. So, to go into the paper and pull out the aspects you feel are relevant amounts to original work on a primary source. You cannot do this. You need to rely on secondary sources to do this for you and the best that has been accomplished is that one sentence from Ostergaard et al. That is all you can use. Imagine if I were go to into the PISA results, or Suggate's results and pull out ideas and concepts and discuss them in various detail. I could cite them to the source-I wouldn't be making things up- but the synthesis and the expansion of ideas would be my own work. Would you support me going into PISA and pulling out aspects that were not discussed in Die Welt but that I felt were important? We cannot forget that wikipedia becomes a tertiary source through what we write. So, we have to be very careful that none of this is our own work, but the work of reliable experts in the field and sourced through peer-reviewed secondary sources (at a minimum). Another confounding factor is that this content is located in the "pseudoscience" section and so the majority of the findings in that paper would appear off-topic or contradictory so they are not discussed. Forcing the positive aspects of this study into a science section and the negative aspects into a pseudoscience section is pushing a POV. (And, BTW, you are on record in being against having a Science section at all.) What we need here is a secondary source that settles these matters for us. The best we have is Ostergaard and they don't say much to support the view you'd like to advance. What this says to me is that you need to wait for such a source to appear rather than engaging in original research with an unreliable primary source yourself now. If it is true that these schools teach pseudoscience, I am sure that you won't have to wait long. Jellypear (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I trimmed the title of this thread because it presumed guilt and asked for a pardon. I think the Jelinek/Sun study is a reliable source because it is cited by other scholars. For instance, it is cited in the Taylor & Francis reference book named Doing phenomenology in science education: a research review. It is cited in Exploring Things Seen and Unseen: Students Speak of Waldorf Education, by EK Beaven of the University of California, Davis. It is cited by S. Lyons of the California State University, Sacramento, in the paper, Toward a holistic approach to earth science education. It is cited by Suzani Cassiani, Professor Metodologia de Ensino, of the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Brazil, in her co-authored paper, Sentidos sobre ensino de ciências construídos por jovens professores de ciências e biologia que atuam em escolas Waldorf–um primeiro olhar. These people consider the research paper worthy of notice, which pushes it up to a position where we are confident to cite it, with attribution. (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Also, this conference paper and this book. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet We've already discussed those papers: 2 are master's papers, one is a dissertation - all unpublished. There is, as yet, (now 10 years later) only one uptake by a scholar publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. This is not adequate criteria to determine something is a reliable source as you are arguing here. What wikipedia recommends you do is actually use a reliable source instead of making novel criteria for how an unpublished manuscript could be a reliable source. Thanks to {User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn's] extra sleuthing we now have two reliable secondary sources to work with for this section. This section is no different than any other section on this page- you need to work with the reliable secondary sources to make statements in this section. You are not permitted to go into primary source material and pull out synthesize and interpret whatever aspects you feel are pertinent. Again, I refer you to the Die Welt example. PISA is a large and highly credible study - there is no question about that. More could be said regarding the findings of this primary source but until I can locate a reliable secondary source that does it for me, whatever I want to pull out and discuss and cite back to the primary source itself is my own research. It is now long past time that this issue is rectified on this page. You now have two reliable secondary sources to use for criticisms of the science teaching. Use them. Jellypear (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying it's a primary source; but it isn't when it's describing external material (books), then, it is a secondary source. You expressed some potential for doubt in the past about whether J&S had constructed a curriculum properly, but Østergaard et al. are happy to describe J&S's findings as being in regard to the Steiner curriculum - so that objection does not hold. I have removed, however, the evaluative statements of J&S from the text as we now have the extra words from Østergaard et al.. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a primary source for its own research findings. WP:PSTS "A scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment." Amongst this unpublished monograph's research findings - located under the heading "discussions of the findings in relation to the 4 research questions" - are these couple of sentences that you have pulled out of the paper. They are the result of their methodology which was to "draft" (their word) a curriculum and send it out for panel review. This is a research method called content analysis. One collects content that one finds pertinent to the research question and applies a method to compare and analyze what was felt to be the pertinent content. What they say under "discussions of findings" is the result of the research questions they asked and the method they used. They are findings and they explicitly name them as such. Wikipedia editors are not to "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary sources [ourselves]" and are asked to "refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Well, it just so happens that we have two reliable secondary sources that have done this for us. We must use them. By not using these reliable secondary sources, you are engaging in original research with an unpublished (read:unreliable or questionable) primary source. Wikipedia becomes a tertiary source through our work here. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that what appears on the page is the work of reliable secondary sources at minimum - they do the synthesizing for us. Who are we? A bunch of nobodies with an internet connections. If an idea is important enough to convey, chances are a reliable secondary source has done it. In this case, they have. So, report these reliable secondary sources to your heart's content. Jellypear (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You equate plainly describing what is in a book, with running an experiment. I'm not convinced. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You have not presented their plain descriptions of books here. You offer bullet points as to the pseudoscientific ideas that are alleged to be in the science curriculum. But apart from being a primary source for its own findings it is also a 10-year old unpublished monograph. The expectation is that we are using secondary, peer-reviewed sources. We are lucky to have some. This section should be based on those sources which fit wikipedia's expectations. Jellypear (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"Alleged" is your opinion. Østergaard et al. (2008) authoritatively relay that J&S found doubtful material in the curriculum. Of course the situation may have changed - but we'd need a source for that. The section is "based on" secondary, peer-reviewed sources; you seem to be arguing it needs to be exclusively constructed from them. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Good golly. It doesn't matter what words I use here on this talk page or even what I may or may not think. Who am I? No one. I am not asking you to insert any of my alleged opinions into this section. What I am asking you to do is to remove your work with an unpublished primary source and rely instead on the published secondary sources to make up the content of this section. You say Ostergaard et al authoritatively relays that J&S found doubtful material in the curriculum. Great! Go ahead and report their views. Report the views of Woods et al as well. Fantastic! What you should not be doing is working with an unpublished primary source yourself and pulling out bits that you would like to emphasize or discuss. Woods in particular has assembled a paragraph long summary of this paper. As a reliable secondary source, this should be used to craft the text for this section. By analogy, wouldn't you find it inappropriate if I took Jennifer Gidley's unpublished dissertation and expounded on various points contained within it? Her work has been cited. She is a published author in this field. What about the PISA study? I cannot do this because of the high chance that I will focus on the wrong things, or things that are irrelevant, or still unconfirmed. What protects wikipedia for those things not creeping into the article is the expectation that experts in the field, via reliable secondary sources, will have worked this out for me. You seem to have a great appreciation for the limitations imposed on editors in every other instance on this page except here. You have content that is cited to Jelinek & Sun, which is an unpublished monograph. I truly don't understand why you apparently see this to be a significant problem everywhere else on the page except here. Jellypear (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Err, well I don't. Which is why I haven't been removing all traces of the Wood report, or other uses of Jelinek and Sun. Ripping all that out would seem to be the result of applying your logic, which would smack of WP:POINT and maybe WP:NOSE. Anyway you're back to calling J&S a primary source which - when they are detailing book content - is something I don't agree with. Maybe this is a case of WP:STICK. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, as you notice I have not been editing the page, I have been attempting to resolve this in TALK to no avail. THe fact of the matter is that you have sourced content on this page to an unpublished monograph. The content is not a straightforward description of the content of books such as "Jelinek & Sun stated that book X says Y" but rather an assortment of claims that are contained in the "findings" section of their monograph. We need to be using reliable secondary + tertiary sources. There is nothing plainer in the wiki expectations. It is especially egregious to not be using reliable secondary sources when they in fact exist. Jellypear (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a life-sucking experience. I am no longer willing to participate in a round and round regarding an unpublished source, especially when reliable secondary sources exist on the matter. Nor can I assume WP:GOODWILL when another editor feels it is entirely appropriate to ignore the requirement for the caption of images WP:OI to not contain original research. Views on Steiner's geology are not to be found in any reliable secondary or tertiary source on this page. Wiki has a requirement that image captions also not be grounded in original research. I have attempted numerous times, over the course of weeks, to resolve this issue through TALK and by citing relevant and appropriate wiki policies. I am going to post this issue on the original research message board. Jellypear (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should replace the non-peer-reviewed study with the characterizations of it in peer-reviewed sources such as Woods and Ostergaard. The latter, for example, says the following, which would make a solid basis: hgilbert (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"The science teaching of Steiner Waldorf schools in the USA has recently been evaluated by Jelinek and Sun (2003). Among other things, the results of Waldorf and public school students on three different test variables were compared. Two tests measured verbal and non-verbal logical reasoning, respectively, and the third test was a task from the TIMSS test (about magnetism). The results for the Waldorf schools were better than Downloaded By: [University for Miljoe & Biovitenskap] At: 22:41 1 September 2008 112 E. Østergaard et al. those for the public school on the non-verbal reasoning task and on the TIMSS task, but about the same for the verbal logical reasoning task (on the TIMSS task the Waldorf group results were also higher than the international average). Concerning the two logical tests, the authors note that the results indicated that when the tasks ‘involve partwhole- relations, the Waldorf group outperformed the public school group’ (p. 43). The evaluation also included videotaped observations of Waldorf science classes. It was found that a lot of lesson time was spent on asking questions, considering possible answers to questions, noting unexpected phenomena and carefully observing specific phenomena (p. 49). These activities are in accordance with a teaching approach based on phenomenological principles. On the other hand, very little time was spent on exploring the differences between students’ perceptions and considering different answers and solutions, which also could be expected in a phenomenological teaching approach. On the positive side the researchers also noted a high degree of enthusiasm for science among the Waldorf students. On the negative side, the science curriculum for Waldorf schools was considered somewhat old-fashioned and out of date, as well as including some doubtful scientific material."

Indeed, using this source along with Woods (2008) is what I suggesting all day yesterday because it would meet wiki's expectations concerning proper use of sources. For some reason, Alexbrn feels it is preferable to work with the unpublished primary source itself rather than the two peer-reviewed secondary sources available to us because, unless there are more reasons not documented here: Jelinek & Sun aren't really presenting findings of their research, they're merely "detailing book content;" and/or because these two authors - who have no other peer-reviewed (or even unpublished) works on either Waldorf education or Waldorf science education - might be considered experts in the relevant field because as Binksternet has pointed out, several masters and PhD students have cited this paper---albeit in their own unpublished work; and/or because this unpublished primary source is being handled "with care" as evidenced by the fact that the findings are not discussed in toto using a secondary source for the evaluation and interpretation but rather bifurcated into two sections - one bit under the heading "pseudoscience" and the other under "reception." That all of this flies in the face of the expectations placed upon us as editors regarding WP:PSTS, WP:NOR and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, especially when reliable secondary sources do exist, is unacceptable. I believe I have WP:DGF in spending days outlining the various ways using this unpublished primary source violates applicable policies and guidelines only to be met again and again with edits that reverse even annotations of unsourced and unreliable content. So, good luck to you in getting anyone to pay attention to this issue - especially whilst these same editors are simultaneously suggesting that you be sanctioned. Jellypear (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Jellypear that a Jelinek & Sun should not be used in this article. It is a self-published source, which is at the bottom of the barrel of WP:RS. There is no known editorial policy, no known review. It has not been published by a well regarded publishing house, it has not been put through peer-review. It essentially has the weight of a blog post. If there are secondary sources that quote J&S, use them instead. DigitalC (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems quite clear. Unless other editors coming here from the RFC feel differently, we should use secondary sources rather than self-published work. hgilbert (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsuccessful court challenge in one country -- in lead?

Why should an unsuccessful court challenge be included in the lead? hgilbert (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it was one of the leading controversies surrounding W.E. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

At one time in this very long groundhog day I added a phrase concerning controversies surrounding to the state funding of Waldorf schools and then listed the accompanying concerns that have come with that. Alexbrn reverted that. Yet people who discuss pseudoscience, the religious nature, etc., are also against the state funding of these schools and we see that in the sources. Why not more forthrightly describe the debates that have occurred in the UK and the US. In the US the church-state issue is very important, elsewhere not so much. Why not approach it that way? Jellypear (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A while back hgilbert reversed an edit I did that expanded discussion of the PLANS v. SACUSD court case. I included a comment from the defendant's attorney (Sac Unified School District) who opined on which courts would hear further appeals. This was taken out. I think this page is unclear as to the court case's current status. I believe that the plaintiff's attorneys (PLANS) at the Pacific Justice Institute said there would be an appeal. Shouldn't we have something that summarizes the current status of the case in some way? Jellypear (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by the attorneys of either side are not really reliable sources. The current status of the case is very simple: the appeals have been denied and the case is settled. It could perhaps be reopened through another appeal, but at the moment there is no such appeal being made. Since considerable time has gone by, the clearest thing is to state that the case has been decided, at least until a motion is actually filed. hgilbert (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I see your point (although I would argue that from a RS perspective an attorney's views in a newspaper is a RS for their views about a case). I tried a new edit with the words "dismissed on its merits." I think it was the lack of judgment language, or mentioning further appeals, that caused me to question the current status of the case. Hopefully this makes the situation clearer. Jellypear (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

Yesterday, User:The Gnome came to this talk page after having been invited to participate by wikipedia. At that time, s/he decided to put up a neutrality tag, and referenced the talk page but did not make a new section. This has been reverted by User:Alexbrn because no talk has occurred. I am making a new section so that talk about this can occur. Given the difficulties related to this page, all editors should be careful about WP:OWN behavior and we should seriously consider the evaluations of experienced editors why may feel this page has neutrality issues. I would also like to point out that tagging the page as perhaps having neutrality issues doesn't suggest what they are - merely that an editor feels this may be an issue. The tag should stand. Jellypear (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV_dispute

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. (my emphasis)

Well, User:The Gnome did discuss his or her viewpoints related to neutrality in the RfC section. You may have to take it up with this person as to whether this is a "drive by" tagging or if this person intends to continue the discussion further. Now that I have reverted your edit, however, I now feel that this is my tag as well as gnome's. I am currently discussing all of the aforementioned policies and feel there are problems in those areas. Jellypear (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The tagging (edit summary: "bias-tagged article") should not have happened; it's a badge-of-shame tag. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that The Gnome added this tag because s/he felt the page didn't have enough criticism, don't you? Jellypear (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm arguing process, not sentiment. WP sets out what you should do (see above). You're ignoring it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion on this page regarding WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. In particular, we just had an item go to the NOR noticeboard and got a response that the items in question violate the policies. Moreover, you have noted that the reporting of studies has WP:NPOV and WP:V issues. The tag accurately represents issues currently under discussion and is warranted. Jellypear (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn - without having a specific section related to the tag, where specific concerns are addressed, the tag may linger forever. If specific concerns are tied to the tag, it can be removed when those concerns are addressed. If you would like the article tagged, I would suggest creating a new section outlying specific concerns (perhaps link to previous talk sections?) to be addressed. DigitalC (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't care to spend the time to do that but can recognize the reasons why that should be done. Therefore, I won't advocate for the tag any longer and won't reverse edits regarding it. Jellypear (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What did the Woods report conclude?

Another piece of text inserted by Hgilbert

A review of studies of Waldorf education concluded that the education is "successful in its aim to educate human beings, being particularly successful in stimulating imaginative thought and creating eager, confident and curious students."[8]:30

A bold claim for W.E. indeed! However, on investigation, the source has this:

None of the studies reviewed sought to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the extent to which learning and outcomes amongst Steiner pupils were successful in terms of Steiner education’s own educational philosophy and aims17. Jelinek and Sun’s (2003) study, however, does suggest 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. (my emphasis)

So in fact the Woods report is tentatively mentioning one study (note: singular) in the context of a lack of research, rather than relaying it as the "conclusion" of their report (this in not the report's conclusion in any case).

I propose this claim is either heavily qualified, or removed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've condensed the wording and added citations to two more independent sources. hgilbert (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If the Jelinek and Sun report is too weak, we should remove all its conclusions, not just some of these. We could source directly to the original study, which includes comments such as, "Waldorf’s rich array of creative methods that stimulate imaginative thought and engage students in potentially meaningful activities could undoubtedly enrich secular education. Time and again as our researchers visited the many Waldorf schools across America we were impressed with the eager, confident and curious Waldorf students we encountered. These students demonstrated original thinking and innovative problem solving, leaving us with the impression that they cared about what they were doing, were intrigued by challenging situations, and penetrated matters with thoughtful and creative insights." prefacing their caveats about the science education itself. Should we use this quote instead, perhaps? hgilbert (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

How about all of us follow wikipedia policies and not work with unpublished primary sources to begin with because they are easy to misuse WP:PRIMARY, leading to problems of WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOR. The policy is that we "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source [ourselves]; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." This is any easy policy to follow, unless each of us wants to press a POV that prevents us from doing so. And the PVFORK that puts the positive stuff in one section and the negative stuff in another section only makes this worse. It is time for resolution because we reached WP:IDHT on this matter days ago. Jellypear (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Guys, carrying over arguments from other sections and continuing them in this section does not help solve the issue at hand, and bloats this Talk page even more than it already is. Have mercy!

To move forward: I propose this information is retained, but attributed - and qualified as it is in the source. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree it is generally bad form to carry over conversations from different sections but perhaps you are missing the point that these two items are linked --- it is the same faulty source! If the study findings need to be qualified here, they need to be qualified everywhere, if the source is unreliable here, it is unreliable there... and so on and so forth. Dividing up a single piece of scholarship to make different points in two different sections is abusing the source and pushing POV. You both need to find one place that the findings of Jelinek & Sun can be discussed using Ostergaard and Woods (2008) as sources. Horsetrading is not a solution. You actually need to solve the problem by using reliable secondary sources for synthesis, evaluation and interpretation of data. Jellypear (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should use the excellent secondary/tertiary sources available here that summarize Jel and Sun. Alexbrn, are you able to take this step? hgilbert (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We are using them; we can then use J&S to add detail. It makes for more informative and readable coverage of the topic. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOR Noticeboard

This note is to inform fellow editors that I have placed the issue of Jelinek & Sun (2003) and the image of Lemuria on the Original Research Noticeboard, as discussed previously. Thank you. Jellypear (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, here's the link - NORN This is my first time doing this so I apologize for any mistakes, omissions, proper formatting, etc. If there are some, it probably wasn't intentional. Jellypear (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Jellypear. I came here from NORN, and will add to the discussion above below. DigitalC (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jellypear that "The image must be 'significantly and directly related to the article's topic,'", and that the image does not meet this criteria. DigitalC (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been over 24 hours since this NORN item went up. We have received one response (thank you DigitalC). Given that this has been under discussion all month, and the Arbitration decision expects that all unsourced and original research be removed from this page, I am going to strike this image and caption. I will not, however, strike the Jelinek & Sun (2003) content because we have had no input on that yet. Since this also touches on RS policies, maybe listing it at RS/N will elicit more responses. We do need to come to resolution on this matter. Jellypear (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal and am reverting per BRD. The "topic" of an article is not just its headword; this interpretation can be verified by examining featured/good articles. Please continue discussion until consensus is achieved. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What is BRD? Also, Alexbrn, what constitutes consensus for you? Jellypear (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BRD or WP:BOLD. It consists of being bold, being reverted if there is disagreement, and discussion to resolve any disagreement. It doesn't work well on controversial articles (ie ones under ArbCom), and can lead to edit wars. As for consensus, see WP:CON if you have not already. DigitalC (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The image does not add anything to the article, and is not directly related to the article. Taking it away does not make the article worse. As such, I also think the "An autumn nature table at a Waldorf school in Australia" image should also be removed. It also does not add anything to the article. DigitalC (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn -- are you kidding with this, regarding WP:BOLD? This topic has been discussed since December 17th of last year. The viewpoints remain the same. You feel as if it's pertinent because other pages have many images that don't directly speak to the headword and have suggested Boy Scouts of America as an example. Other editors have noted that this image has no significant and direct relationship to the article's topic. Moreover, you have reverted even annotations to the caption showing that it needs to be attributed WP:OI. To resolve the issue - after extensive conversation here - I have brought it to NORN. I am not sure what else can be done to bring this to consensus. Are there any other editors out there who feel this does not violate WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE? If so, please speak up as soon as possible, cite the relevant policies and tell us why we are not in WP:IDHT territory after two months of discussion. Jellypear (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Jelly - as you are well aware, since you arrived here to edit this single article, you have been persistently trying to remove this image, and there has been no consensus to make a change; both I and binksternet judged the situation differently to you and have stated our views. Now, having posted a partial account of the circumstances on a noticeboard and seeing one other editor agreeing with you, you have immediately removed the image, are claiming consensus and invoking IDHT. I don't agree with the removal, and I don't agree with an interpretation of WP guidelines that suggests it should be removed. If your interpretation stood, a lot of images in a lot of high-quality WP articles would need to be removed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

So offer a comment on NOR if I haven't described the situation to your satisfaction. I appreciate that you and Binksternet disagree with me, but you have failed to provide a rationale that addresses the multiple policies that it's use intersects. It's not just the relationship between the "headword" and the image. It is the fact that in order to make a relationship to the headword, you needed to insert your own original research. There is no source on the page that discusses "Steiner's geology." In order to avoid original research, everything needs to be sourced in secondary + tertiary sources. Now, this issue of working faithfully with secondary + tertiary sources, rather than our own opinions and novel interpretation if wiki guidelines/policies is directly related to why I decided to participate here and why I am still here. I use wikipedia a lot for a quick reference and never had much interest in becoming an editor because for the most part what I found was pretty good. Not to mention the fact that I really don't have the time to be doing this and am setting aside other things that I ought to be doing. However, on this page I could tell that WP:CHERRYPICKING was going on with sources and the most glaring one to me originally was the exchange between Elkind & Whitehurst (now changed.) So, I went and looked at the source and saw that this was in fact the case. Then, I started reading the talk page. Then, I decided to participate. Yet after only a few hours and one extremely minor edit I was met with the suggestion that I might be a sockpuppet. Hmm...I then continued to participate, making very few edits, preferring to engage other editors in discussion instead. I thought that addressing straightforward wiki policies would be a rather easy thing to do and then I could move along. But that has not been the case. Far from being straightforward discussions of applicable policies and what they require of editors, I have been accused of involving everyone in debates about the "extremities of policy interpretation." Granted, there are always grey areas on a page, but this doesn't happen to be one of them. The situation for me now is that because I have invested considerable time in what I feel is an extremely basic issue, I am now "dug in." If such an issue cannot be resolved, there is no way that grey areas can be addressed effectively. So, this experience has turned a formerly happy free rider into a Wikipedian. Many people rely on wiki editors to set aside their personal POV, as best they can, and truly collaborate in order to provide a free-access and reasonably informative encyclopedic entry on a given topic. I was one of them. But this is clearly not happening on this page and now I care deeply about it. Clearly stated core wiki policies do not require consensus. They require that editors submit to them. Jellypear (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

To summarize the discussion that I have read so far, EPadmirateur, hgilbert, Jellypear and myself have opined that the image is not suitable for the article, and it should be removed and/or have a more appropriate illustration replace it. User:Alexbrn, you obviously believe it should be kept. Binksternet supports the image staying, based on Jelinek & Sun mentioning Lemuria & Atlantis in their discussion of poor science education. However Jelinek & Sun is not a reliable source. While WP is not a vote, there appears to be 4 editors favoring the removal of the image, and two favoring keeping the image. I have not seen discussion prior to December 2012, or discussion outside of this talk page - is there any? From what I have seen, there is certainly not a consensus to keep the image, and discussions so far would favor its removal. Since this has been recently posted to WP:NORN, I suggest waiting a few days, and if there is no further input, opening an RfC on the issue. In the mean time, we can keep the wrong version. DigitalC (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

DigitalC – I think it oversimplifies things slightly to say Jelinek & Sun is not a reliable source (as an absolute). It it one of two non-reviewed pieces (the other being the Woods report) used in this article. It was published as a research monograph (with no review) by the College of Education California State University. In previous discussion, what has tended to count in its favour as a potentially usable source is that:

• it has enjoyed some post-publication validation, most particularly from Ostergard et al, who specifically validate the "pseudoscience" point in their peer-reviewed article
• Prof. David Jelinek is an acknowledged neutral expert, as evidenced by the fact he has engaged by a Waldorf school to assist in the reform of their science curriculum
• We include the text "geologically, the Earth has evolved through Lemurian and Atlantean epochs, and is now in its fifth post-Atlantis epoch" – so the argument that Lemuria is not mentioned as a geological feature seems to be false.
• the points being raised are not contentious - no source claims counter to these observations ... and a lay reader may easily verify Steiner's views on Lemuria by referring to his writings. Steiner even refers to the very book from which these maps are drawn.

I have in the past referred to the Origin of the Species as an featured article which demonstrates a use of illustrations in accord with the view that they follow the narrative of the text, rather than cleaving closely to the headword. FAs are of course specifically reviewed for both image and caption use. From this it seems there is a degree of lassitude in the use of images on WP, and indeed image use is encouraged, so far as I can see. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Two points of clarification: The copyright for this paper is held solely by the primary author. It doesn't appear to be a "College of Education - Cal State" publication, although this is obviously their academic affiliation. Second, Ostergaard et. al and Woods (2008) do not use the word "pseudoscience" anywhere in their descriptions of this manuscript. WP:STICKTOSOURCE asks wiki editors to refrain from drawing connections that the authors of reliable secondary sources do not draw themselves. But thank you for laying out your criteria as I asked (even though I do note a conspicuous absence of references to actual wiki policies and how your views adhere to them.) Jellypear (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's very inclusion in secondary texts allows us to use these as our source. WP is very clear about preferring secondary reviews to primary research. hgilbert (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A backbone of good secondary sources using primaries and others to fill in detail in concord with those sources: a model of good WP writing. 15:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It would contradict the whole point of using secondary sources to use these and then add everything you liked best from primary sources that they didn't pick up. The whole point is that the secondary sources are a better judge of what is important than a WP editor. What they cite, and how they cite it, ensures a greater degree of objectivity. hgilbert (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Crass straw-man argumentation. Nobody is writing about "everything you liked". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I will repeat myself. Jelenik & Sun fails WP:RS. It is not a reliable source. It is self-published, not published through a reliable publishing house, and not peer-reviewed. It is equivalent to a blog post. If reliable sources have used J&S as a source, use those sources for the article. Just because other sources have used the source does not mean that we should. In fact, because the source fails WP:RS, we should not. DigitalC (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

As for the image, I might agree that the image was relevant to an article on Steiner, but it is not directly relevant to Waldorf Education. DigitalC (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI

FYI, I opened a thread at ANI with regards to my concerns about POV pushing on this page and related ones. a13ean (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

So what happened to this? Jellypear (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

[[1]] After a quick skim of the ani report and comments, there was no resolution because the process of discussion and editing has not broken down. While some editors are frustrated that their point of view is repeatedly challenged in a reasonable way that they call civil pov pushing, other than getting more editors involved in this side alley doorway of wikipedia there is not much going to change.

My suggestion to those who are frustrated is that your frustration will be reduced substantially if you back off from trying to label and categorize every percieved sin and weakness of waldorf education. stick to describing the problems you find. and work on your reliable sources, many of the ones discussed at length on this page are very weak, regarless of the work's POV. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

First comprehensive school

This page sure changes a lot! A while back, I put in a mention that the Stuttgart Waldorf school was the first comprehensive school in Germany and that is now gone. Anyone know what happened? Also, the bit about the Oxford conference has changed too and now its not clear what the relationship between those lectures and the establishment of Waldorf schools in English speaking countries a few years later was. As a page in the wiki series on Alternative Education, I think it is important to describe these aspects of the schools' growth because they relate to other progressive reforms during this time period. I am not saying we should go on and on about it but brief mention with links can help readers learn more on their own. Again, any idea what happened with this small section over the last month? Jellypear (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The Origins and history section still mentions that the school was the first comprehensive school in Germany.

I simplified the Oxford history. I didn't feel it was important to mention Millicent MacKenzie, for example, who is not a commonly known personality today; such detail would be more appropriate to the History of the Waldorf schools article. Much more important would be filling in the 60 year gap after WWII. But do feel free to add back what you feel is necessary here. hgilbert (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2013 (UT

Although it wasn't necessary, I liked the mention of Millicent MacKenzie. She was the first female professor in the UK. But probably better for the sub-article. The comprehensive school thing is important though because it represented a progressive reform that is still being debated. Wiki articles can help fill in the historical details of this idea through its unique linking capacity. Jellypear (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Jelinek & Sun (2003) - Reliable Source? continued

Continuing #Jelinek & Sun (2003) - Reliable Source? : As per the above discussion I propose we replace all citations to Jelinek and Sun with secondary sources that refer to them. hgilbert (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn and Binksternet continue to view it as a "middling" source that can be used with care. DigitalC has suggested opening an RfC on the issue, and I will do that. However, I am concerned that we have to. We should be able to resolve basic wp:rs and wp:original issues here. Jellypear (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Use of sources needs to be evaluated in respect of the text being supported. Also, why is J&S being mentioned but not the (comparable) non-reviewed Woods report? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Research or technical publications published by governmental agencies are generally considered reliable sources, though not at the level of academic sources. It's very clear that the Woods report is not self-published, but published by the UK government department responsible for education at the time of publication. J&S is self-published. There's a world of difference. hgilbert (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Also: Woods is a review, rather than a primary source. hgilbert (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Woods (2005) used multiple methods to create their report. A large part of it is synthesis but they also did survey research - see appendix for the interview schedule. So it is a primary source for those research findings. I have created a new section to discuss the DfES report. Jellypear (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We are not supposed to write text and then evaluate whether or not our source is reliable. WP:STICKTOSOURCE says

Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

The tertiary sources are silent on the issue of pseudoscience in the science curriculum. Reliable secondary sources who include this idea seem to be limited to Ostergaard et al. and Woods (2008) - although I am still looking. We have to be careful of wp:undue and wp:fringe issues if we are doing our jobs properly. We need to take our lead from the RS, rather than our own views. This much is clear. Even if it is 100% the case that these schools teach pseudoscience, wikipedia should not be discussing it until there are reliable secondary sources who do so. And then it should be done by following their lead. Wikipedia is not a forum for our own views or our own original research/synthesis. I am going to make a RfC out of this so please refer me to the policy (or which aspect of the policy) most supports your view. I will want to include that. Thanks. Jellypear (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Could someone else open the RfC for this? I can't figure out how to do it! Jellypear (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It's now active: see here hgilbert (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Two outside editors (Itsmejudith and DigitalC) have now agreed that we should follow the secondary source. I have used Ostergaard as the published, peer-reviewed work, but material from Woods could also be added; see [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Monograph_use_in_Waldorf_education|]]. Every RS on the subject, with the exception of an editorial by Barker (is this an RS?), discusses various sides of the science curriculum; I have adjusted the title of the section accordingly. hgilbert (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Woods (2005) - Report to Governmental Agency

Woods et al. (2005) is a report prepared for the UK Department of Education and Skills (DfES). It is a thorough synthesis of the topic of Steiner Schools in England and was prepared by three educational scholars. UK DfES Report However, this document has not undergone peer review, unless one interprets the willingness of the UK DfES to publish and circulate it as evidence that a peer-review process has taken place. If you look at how this source is being used on this page, I don't see any reason not to just excise it and rely instead on peer-reviewed secondary sources. The Woods' (2008) book reiterates a lot of material in their 2005 report anyway. We have no way of knowing what level of external review occurred before this report was made available to the public and so we are more in keeping with wiki guidelines if we refrain from using it. Jellypear (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Blindly ripping it all out would be as damaging as ripping J&S out. To repeat, use of sources must be judged in respect of the text the source is being used to support. For some uses, the Woods report is okay; for others, not. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There would be no damage to the page because it is only being used to reference ideas that can be found in other sources as well. Why not always use the most reliable sources?Jellypear (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just looked at the page and Woods (2005) mainly appears along with other sources for general statements. So, even just eliminating it across the board wouldn't change the page because the other RS would stand. I am only discussing this because you raised the concern about this paper (above). You are correct that we have no way of assessing the extent to which this has been peer-reviewed or not. So, why not go ahead and stop using it. It is only serving as a supplemental source anyway. Removing it would have little effect on the page. Jellypear (talk) 16:20, 7 February

2013 (UTC)

Have you checked the curriculum article, or what Woods is "covering"? Is it being used to report primary data studies for example? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I view that as a different page but maybe I shouldn't be. I haven't even been editing there. However, I did just look at that and yes, you are correct that there are more single sources to Woods on that subpage. On the other hand, with the exception of the direct quote about Eurythmy, everything else could be attributed to another RS. According to Arbcom even Waldorf sources could be used for much of this since it involves when things are supposed to happen, or that beeswax is a material used for sculpting, etc., and not any controversial or evaluative claims. These things could also be sourced to general readership news articles as well. Then we can be assured that it has appeared in a source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Since you are raising issues about the reliability of Woods (2005), what do you want to see done? Jellypear (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

While I am not familiar with the source (I will try to good look at it further this weekend), if we have better sources that say the same thing, use the better sources! Be Bold! With that said, I would assume that the UK DfES would be considered a reliable source of information (in general, depending on the information). DigitalC (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

See the comment(s) at the RSN. Woods looks good to go. hgilbert (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It is still a primary source for its own research findings. Jellypear (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

From my experience with this article: avoid Waldorf sources if at all possible. Even if they are for factual material, someone, sooner rather than later, will come and claim that they are controversial points and need RS. Been there, done that, don't want to go through it again...and in any case it's clearly much more objective to use DFES than self-published material. hgilbert (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I am seeing that from the edit history too. :) We should stick to sources that can fully meet the criteria for a reliable source. Jellypear (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Links between developmental approach, temperament and formative assessment

Hi. I have been doing some reading it it seems to me that assessment and the temperaments are all part of the the formative evaluation approach that Waldorf teachers take. I put all of this stuff together rather than them hanging out individually. Jellypear (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't look at what you wrote, yet, but while the idea has merit, the question of sythesis comes into play if the sources don't treat it as one thing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please look at what I did and let me know if you think it is a problem. (I am aware I have a faulty link. I'll fix that next.) I did a lot of reading today and I was struck by the fact that if the 4 temps were discussed---and they weren't always discussed---it was in terms of the developing three-fold human being. Some authors would leave it at that but others would later talk about how the teacher's whole view of the child would reveal itself in their formative assessment activities. This latter link seems to be rather lightly done and I think might represent some synthesis on my part if I were to put it on the page. However, grouping it structurally is perhaps less of an issue in that regard. This page is tricky because the whole point of this educational form is that it is holistic. Breaking it down into parts imposes something that might not be there. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Jellypear (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It hangs together reasonably as it now stands. hgilbert (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Immunization & Student Health

I was going through the previous discussions on studies to make sure that all the issues that had been raised were dealt with. Thanks, Alexbrn for closing up the ones that have been addressed. One that remained was "Allergic disease and sensitization in Steiner school" from 2006. Although this is a primary study, it has been cited about 117 times so the findings can (and should be) sourced through another paper. I haven't had time to read through any of those because I wonder how strongly do people feel that student health should be discussed on this page at all? We don't have a tertiary source that tells us what to make of any possible connection between Waldorf education and various health outcomes or decisions. This is a problem for this section and our ability to evaluate WP:UNDUE. WP:CSECTION and WP:INDISCRIMINATE instruct us not to make lists of criticisms but ground them in some way to other sources - "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Is it a problem that there aren't any sources that have worked out possible causal links between Waldorf education and various health outcomes or decisions? Or, is it ok to view this as a "news" section that merely reports media events? If so, I would say that we need to stick closer to those media sources rather than offering a synthetic view by "filling in" this section with anything that also fits the topic. I am genuinely perplexed about what is the appropriate course of action considering this is an encyclopedia entry. What do others think? Jellypear (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe another way of addressing this is to have a "Student Health" section that discusses all of the studies done on Waldorf student health? For people interested in highlighting low vaccination compliance, this section would have to include Ernst's study of anthroposophic lifestyle as a risk factor for measles. If approached in this way, we wouldn't put ourselves in a place of having to figure out some of the issues I mentioned above. We could just accurately describe every credible study that has been made of Waldorf student health. ?? Jellypear (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a plausible approach. hgilbert (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Science and pseudoscience

I see there is a new section and I have set aside time in my schedule to check back in with this TALK page! :) But what I'd like to know is why should this be in the reception section? Science is a curricular topic. On the other hand, should a curricular area have "pseudoscience" in the title? I have been thinking lately that if there were a section devoted to the controversies of public funding in the US and the UK then those sections could rightfully be "filled" with whatever RS are available to help us describe the controversy. Could that be preferable? Jellypear (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Heiner Barz and Dirk Randoll, eds., 2007. Absolventen von Waldorfschulen: Eine empirische Studie zu Bildung und Lebensgestaltung. Wiesbaden

I have identified this book and it appears to be a reliable source. The publisher is Springer VS, and they used to be called VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. The book presents what appears to be the most comprehensive study of Waldorf schools compared to mainstream schools. Some of this material was quoted in Die Welt and is on this page already. Unfortunately for me the book is written in German and I do not know German. Has anyone editing here taken a look at this? Also, it has been cited 25 times but the articles it is cited in are also mainly in German. What interested me in this is the health information concerning Waldorf students. I feel this is a tangent for a "Waldorf education" page - and it also must vary by local context - but if research has been done in this area maybe it should be included. Jellypear (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Myself, Hgilbert, and possibly some others speak German, I will look it over when I have a chance. The health section might refer to the PARSIFAL study, but note should be taken of WP:MEDRS for medical claims originally sourced to that. a13ean (talk)

It appears that this is the book that came out of their own study (Barz & Randoll) and includes the sleeping better and less stress stuff. Of course since this is a primary source for their own findings we should be relying on those 25 citations that have reviewed it. But, as I said, they are all in German too. What do you think about the relevance of discussing student health at all on this page? Personally I think it is a side issue for the topic of the article. I think if anything is here, it should all be here rather than focusing on one aspect of student health. On the other hand, we also have a responsibility not to present a synthetic argument about "waldorf student health" given that the local/national contexts vary so much. Being a "waldorf student" may be the least salient aspect of these health outcomes and there could be unobserved heterogeneity within the global population of waldorf students. Obviously none of this is any of our concern but we are responsible for not placing undue emphasis on topics for which there is not a lot of information and no literature review to draw upon. Jellypear (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The book is huge and I have looked over it, but summarizing it is a daunting task that I would urge us to avoid. In lieu of a professional review article, the "Die Welt" article is the best thing we have found to date.

More generally: student health seems to be a recurrent theme in discussions about Waldorf students. We should not make judgments about the cause, but simply report the results as we find them in RSs. hgilbert (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it is not our place to make judgements of the cause. However, once we bring it up and make a section out of it we're saying that it is noteworthy. Yet wikipedia provides guidelines that not everything- even if from a reliable source - ought to be on the page. This is a severely underdeveloped area of research. Who knows if anyone will ever fund the kind of research that is required to make valid, cross-national comparisons of "waldorf students" vis a vis state schooling students. The whole thing seems rather tangential to me but I am open to what others think. Jellypear (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The PISA studies are just such a large scale, cross-national database. Their results should be promoted to the lead, actually. hgilbert (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

History of waldorf schools chart: best-fit curve

It seems to me that a best-fit curve (below, right) is likely to more accurately represents the actual progress in school numbers than a series of arbitrarily drawn straight lines connecting the data points (below, left). Otherwise expressed: an "unsmoothed" graph is simply a first-order best-fit curve. A higher order curve clearly gives a better fit to this data set. On the other hand, I like the overall format of A13bean's graph (on the left below). Could we perhaps use this, but with a smoothed curve? hgilbert (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Graph showing the growth in the number of Waldorf schools in the world from 1919-2012

Graph showing the growth in the number of Waldorf schools in the world from 1919-2012

While I agree that the smoothed curve is aesthetically more pleasing, I would argue that it doesn't "clearly give a better fit", after all, the true distribution is to the best of my knowledge unknown. Additionally, it doesn't mark the data points as is done on the run-of-the-mill line plot, thus making it impossible to see for which years we actually have data (if I only looked at the best-fit curve I would have assumed that we had data points at least on an annual basis since 1919). I would vote for sticking to a line plot but making it look less like it came out of a word processor from the 90;s (I also really like the horizontal lines of the best-fit plot). -- Dront (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to A13ean for making the graph. Do you feel one is more accurate than the other? They read the same to me. The big takeaway seems that after a period of quiescence, interest in founding schools grew around the mid-1970s...which was (perhaps not incidentally) also the aftermath to a war. Jellypear (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As we're showing data for which there's not an obvious functional dependence, I didn't fit to the data or apply any smoothing. Using straight lines to connect discrete data points is fairly standard to help draw the eye -- see for example figure 2 here. There's not any particularly strong reason to do it, and we can just as well leave it out. I don't think we should use a smoothed line however, as this implies that we have more information than we actually do, and also because the function Word uses to do this (a piecewise defined bezier curve if I remember right) has no particular significance. I tried to make the graph as per the suggestions in VDQI, although I should probably get rid of the box around the title and make the text a bit larger so it shows up better at 300 px. I'm surprised to find that WP doesn't have an explicit style guideline for graphs. a13ean (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

In your same example, Figures 4, 6, 10 use best-fit curves. Choosing straight lines clearly results in just as arbitrary intermediate positions as choosing a best-fit curve, but the latter is much more likely to be accurate when the data is the result of many independent, self-organizing events. Either method is viable, of course. I do agree that the data points should be (subtly) displayed....but would prefer to see a best-fit curve between them. hgilbert (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

These show a fit because the data has a known functional dependence. If there was some evidence that the growth was, say, exponential, it would make sense to have a fit, but there's not. What excel does is not a fit at any rate, it's just smoothing via bezier splines. Straight lines between data points don't imply a piecewise-linear functional dependence -- they are only there to guide the eye. Still, as I said before, there's no harm in removing them. a13ean (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all I want to thank A13ean for taking the time to work on this. I really am happy with both versions. But, as I do have a favorite, I've revised the original file to show the data points; see above. Have a look, but I am happy with either! (I do have a favorite, however, thus one more try:)

Any connection (whether line or curve) between the data points gives a misleading sense that we have some idea of what happened "in between". A line graph is also a "best-fit" graph, one that uses a series of first-order approximations rather than a higher-order curve to indicate the likely path. Both line and curve are merely there, in my colleague's words, to guide the eye. In a given case, one may do this more fluently, another more awkwardly. Also, as it is more probable that the growth rate fluctuated slowly, rather than abruptly changing at the exact moments when someone recorded data, the curve is likely to be a better match to the reality. But we are arguing over fictions! hgilbert (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; I removed the connecting lines from the graph to only show the data points and also enlarged the text. a13ean (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for providing plots and also for the above discussion. I really like the left-most plot, it is "vanilla" and expresses as much as we know and by introducing the data points into the right-most plot the point I was trying to make earlier becomes apparent. You can now see that the curve is forced into shape and actually doesn't hit the data points (misguiding the eyes?). Briefly about the comments from Hgilbert about the growth rate, the problem is that we have no way of backing up your intuition. Perhaps there was a financial slow-down leading to fewer schools between two points or other events, we simply don't know what the underlying function is. As A13ean said, the lines are for guiding the eyes and for this purpose a simple linear fit is that of least surprise (as opposed to Bezier curves). -- Dront (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Steiner vs. Waldorf

I wonder how relevant the critical reception of Steiner (vs. Steiner education) is here. For example, might it be better to condense the first sentence of the following to what is really pertinent to WE? "Bruce Uhrmacher considers Steiner a polymath whose areas of interest do not neatly correspond with any singular modern category of knowledge, and whose views on such topics as pantheism and Angelology have provoked an adverse reaction from modern academics and scientists. Nevertheless, Urhmacher considers Steiner's view on education worthy of investigation for those seeking to improve public schooling; they serve as a reminder that "holistic education is rooted in a cosmology that posits a fundamental unity to the universe and as such ought to take into account interconnections among the purpose of schooling, the nature of the growing child, and the relationships between the human being and the universe at large", and that a curriculum need not be technocratic, but may equally well be arts-based." hgilbert (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what to do about it but I think the issue you raise here is an important one for the page and it hasn't been resolved because of competing editorial viewpoints. Yes, Rudolf Steiner initiated Waldorf education. But so did the constellation of first teachers in Stuttgart and so on and so on. I think it is POV (and incorrect) to write this page as if Steiner was the only person who had anything to do with Waldorf education. A good example of this problem is that the Stuttgart school only had a kindergarten for about 6 months during Steiner's lifetime. The unique form of Waldorf early childhood education was developed by teachers. And then there are those distinct aspects of the education that as far as I know cannot be found anywhere in Steiner's own lectures or writings. Bruce Uhrmacher wrote a paper for Curriculum Inquiry in 1993 about "focal activities" unique to a Waldorf classroom like shaking students' hands, singing attendance, or using music to help students transition into the work of the classroom. I have no idea where these practices came from but there seems to be little evidence that their exact form came from Steiner's lips. The collegial structure of these schools isn't simply a matter of how official decisions are made as is implied when the whole page is about this guy Rudolf Steiner and his ideas. Teachers have had a significant impact on what waldorf education is. Especially in light of its global diffusion, this is also true today. What will Waldorf schools in China look like? Certainly knowing about Rudolf Steiner's ideas will give us a clue, but the ultimate form they take will have much more to do with what teachers (and increasingly parents) decide to do. So in response to your query I think perhaps this bit you mention is an issue only in that the whole page is focused on Steiner, a man who is treated as a the Alpha and Omega of this education with there being little to no mention of the schools as learning communities (see Easton 1997; Stehlik 2002 & 2003). Jellypear (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Tags

There are not really current discussions about the article tagging -- is this still necessary? hgilbert (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It was advised in a previous discussion that the latest tag should be under discussion and should relate to a section. Personally, I would like to see the page better conform to tertiary sources which, for the most part, would make it shorter. Lately I have amassed quite a little reading library for myself on this topic and now feel there are some WP:UNDUE issues and no mention of other items that are well-represented, with the role of art and creativity being a primary example. What do you propose regarding the tags? Jellypear (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that - the tags should be by section and tie into existing discussions. {{POV-section}} can be used to tag for POV issues, for example. Since you're aware of sectional problems, perhaps you could replace the article tagging with sectional tagging? Or, if these are straightforward matters of adding material that no one disputes (such as on the role of art and creativity), you don't need to tag -- just begin to add the appropriate material.

I see no ongoing discussion of the primary issues. I feel uncomfortable bringing this one up, but it needs to be said: To take the one that touches me personally, the COI has been taken to arbitration, but no arbitrator found it significant enough to respond to. I don't know what would justify keeping this on. To take the other, NPOV: it belongs in any area that gives undue weight to one side of the story. hgilbert (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

With regard to NPOV, I think there has been a good attempt to have neutral language throughout the page. What I don't like about this page---and I haven't had the time to make bold changes---is with regard to the reception section. If you go and look at the RS, the criticisms are mostly tied to public funding of Waldorf schools yet the page lists reception issues in the absence of this central fact. It is not really a WP:NPOV issue but more WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE, although I do think that criticisms certainly have a place on the page. Perhaps this is what User:Rocksanddirt was alluding to in the note above on the ANI? As for your issue, I'd like to hear from others concerning what ought to be done. On one hand, you have edited this page quite a bit. On the other hand, I think there has been a pretty thorough investigation of sources. I don't know what to do. However I still don't find this page to be as high quality as it could be. Jellypear (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of work to do. Both the NPOV and COI issue have been taken to arbitration in various ways and the results of the arbitration applied to the article. Tagging is meant to refer to active discussions. This is not true of either tag. I am removing them, and suggest discussion here before restoring these (if indeed anyone feels they are still needed). hgilbert (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Charter and Non-charter schools

Two sources have been combined to reach a total number. Wikipedia has rules about math. I don't know if there is any issue here but please confirm, User:Hgilbert that this is allowed and not WP:SYNTH. If this is allowed, you could also annotate it in the quotes for the sources so that readers can do the math themselves. Jellypear (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations, which states: Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources.

I appreciate your caution here. Balancing conciseness with clarity is always a delicate matter. I originally clarified the breakdown in a comment visible to editors. It could be done within the references as well.hgilbert (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Largest independent educational movement

An IP address inserted the following short paragraph into the lead.

• (NOTE: The sources for this claim seem weak and perhaps biased. The next paragraph states there are about 3,500 Waldorf schools and education centers worldwide. One Montessori community website - url: http://www.montessori.edu/FAQ.html - estimates that there philosophy has about 7,000 schools across the globe. More sources are needed to clarify the numbers, since the average class size of the schools is unknown. I know from personal experience that in the areas in America where I've lived (suburbs of LA and NYC), there are definitely more Montessori schools.)

I encourage the author to come to this TALK page to discuss this rather than altering the flow of the lead. I am not sure how this can be rectified with the alternative information offered - a website and the author's reflections on living in LA and NYC can't be used as RS in wikipedia. Anyone have any thoughts? Jellypear (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Looked into this further. Montessori sources say there are 7,000 schools worldwide which would be larger than the 3.500 claimed here. Anyone know how this sentence came about? There are multiple RS to back it up but the numbers don't make sense. 7,000 is bigger than 3,500. Maybe it would be more prudent to say "one of the largest"...? Jellypear (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Numbers for Montessori schools are a little uncertain. One of their websites says that there are 4,000 M. schools in "America", but that only 1,500 are members of the American Montessori Society, and only 10% of these are actually accredited.[2] Another site lists 635 North American schools.

In contrast, the Waldorf school count only includes accredited schools. This excludes charters and public schools in the USA, as well as "Waldorf-inspired" private initiatives.

I'm also not sure how to handle this. The text read "one of the largest" until fairly recently an editor found the current, up-to-date, very reliable source (TES) claiming the superlative form and reinstated the current wording. Certainly a claim that depends upon the interpretation of statistics should not lead off the lead! hgilbert (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: some time ago, I moved this claim away from the beginning of the lead. I'm still not sure how to treat it. hgilbert (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Undue material

Having a whole paragraph in the lead section of this general article discussing the WP:FRINGE views and strawmen unrelated to Waldorf education of some obscure organisation in Florida or whatnot that are completely discarded by a government evaluation is grossly WP:UNDUE, also such focus on the UK and the US is undue and Anglo-centric. The centre of Waldorf education is Europe, not the US. Waldorf education is widely recognised, not controversial in any way (except among some (very few) loonies/fringe groups) and state-funded in much of Europe. Members of the Norwegian royal family attend Waldorf schools which are almost entirely state-funded. Views of fringe groups such as "PLANS" can be discussed in the article on that organisation, having it here is like having the views of obscure conspiracy theorists like the moonies presented in the introduction of the general article on the Moon.

Also, universities teaching biology today are usually not held accountable (again, except by the occasional loonie) for various views which would be interpreted as racist today held by the 19th century biologists upon whose work their science is based. This is a classical strawman and logical fallacy, completely unrelated to Waldorf education (which didn't even exist at the time). The only works of Steiner which are relevant in an article on Waldorf education, are works on Waldorf education, that are also relevant (i.e. employed in Waldorf education and theory to a notable extent). If Albert Einstein also wrote something on e.g. race or the topic of Palestine, it would't be relevant to discuss it in the introductions of the articles on his theories on physics. Vittoria Gena (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It has been very difficult to work through WP:UNDUE issues here given the POV of the editors who decide to get involved in this page. To recap, I see you making three points. 1) the Anglo-centric nature of this page. 2) The views of PLANS and BHA are "fringe." 3) Steiner's pedagogical views & texts are what applies here but not his entire works. My responses: 1) I agree it is Anglo-centric. I was under the impression that this is presumed since this is wikipedia for English speakers. If there are other considerations in wiki guidelines that should be better taken into account, I'd like to understand more. 2) Given that PLANS initiated a lawsuit, a discussion of this and the separation of church + state belongs on this page. Likewise, the BHA came out publicly against state funding of Steiner schools and they may have had something to do with the BBC piece. (It is very frustrating that the reporter didn't name the person who was standing at the gates and only identified the two people affiliated with Steiner schools. That never would have happened in the United States!) There has been controversy surrounding the public funding of Waldorf schools in both these countries. Wikipedia describes controversies. All that being said, however, wikipedia is not here for exhaustive lists of grievances. WP:Criticism Working from wiki guidelines only, how would you approach what you feel is an WP:UNDUE emphasis on the views of these groups. Is it just the lead or the whole page? Jellypear (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think BHA and PLANS, and even DfES, should stay in the lead section. The reason is so very simple: the WP:LEAD guideline says to summarize major article body points in the lead section. The idea is that someone reading only the lead section will have an idea of the topic. Well, the topic is a pseudoscientific one, according to multiple sources. We should tell the reader that there have been prominent critics of Waldorf, and who they are. PLANS was prominent enough for DfES to issue a statement about them. We should, of course, summarize the main points for the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your views, Binksternet, because these issues need a good hearing. I agree that the lead must summarize major article points. Not mentioning any controversy would be wrong. The question is in what detail so as to address WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Clearly, people are reading that paragraph very differently. I don't think, however, that it is correct to say that "the topic is a pseudoscientific one." The sources who claim that Waldorf education is pseudoscientific (PLANS, BHA, and Eugenie Scott) are not considered expert sources on the topic of Waldorf Education. Their views may haven been published in some reliable media sources but as of yet the views are not reflected in peer-reviewed articles by educational scholars. In contrast, there are many reliable sources viewing Waldorf education as a legitimate form of alternative education. This wiki article has to express that condition clearly in order to fulfill WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I know you feel that the article is WP:SOAP for Waldorf, but it is also important that the article not be WP:SOAP for criticisms either. The reliable sources have to help us figure this out and trust me I have been looking for a reliable source that has evaluated PLANS/BHA's claims. Finally - as a point of clarification - the DfES did not release a statement about PLANS as far as I know. The commentary came from one of the study's authors who was reviewing the DfES report in an edited volume on alternative ed. Under the subheading "Occult Status and Accusations of Racism," there are six sentences about the existence of sustained criticism of Waldorf education by PLANS. The author says that their own research "found very little to substantiate the claims of PLANS..." and then goes on to discuss pseudoscience and pseudoscientific fads in state schools. In wikipedia, contrarian viewpoints must be handled with the same scrutiny as for the general topic. We need to know what reliable sources say about these views, not simply that these views exist. We need to follow the lead of these third party sources to give us a sense of whether WP:FRINGE is an issue. I struggle with this because I have found very few reliable sources (apart from media sources) that discuss the criticisms at all. In my opinion, this should tell us something as editors. Jellypear (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet that some summary is necessary, with Jellypear that it is difficult to find a balance here, and with Vittoria Gena that the paragraph as it stands is too long and detailed for a lead. I have attempted a revision summarizing the key elements of the debate as reflected in verifiable sources. I am open to seeing change in this; this is just a trial balloon. hgilbert (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The US view (separation of church and state) needs to go back in. I think the immunization thing is a side issue and needs to come out of the article entirely. Immunization decisions are made in the United States before school enrollment and are overseen through the laws of each state. States with "philosophical exemptions" have higher rates of noncompliance and these are filed before a student crosses the threshold of the school building. Who knows which way the causal arrow goes but as of yet no reliable secondary source has said that enrolling in a Waldorf school is a risk factor for vaccine noncompliance. There are big WP:SYNTHESIS issues with that section. Also, if you're going to include the views of BHA or PLANS I think the reception of their views by DfES, the Sacramento School Board (and/or the federal court) and the 2005 report are warranted to maintain WP:NPOV. Of course, that doesn't make it any shorter which is why a part of me is sympathetic to the "it has been controversial" issue and leaving the details to the main body. Jellypear (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the church and state issue belongs in the article, but why in the lead? It was a private court case that was lost, and the issue has died with it. If it had ever been a larger public debate (beyond citations to the one quite small group) and/or if the concern continued to be active, it would make more sense to me to include it in the lead. Can we show that either of these is the case? hgilbert (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hgilbert, your reversion here is inappropriate given the dispute about what goes in the lead section. Per ArbCom final decision in 2006, you will want to revert yourself.

The church and state, and the pseudoscience definitions, belong in the lead section because they are major issues in the topic. Did the Waldorf community scramble to respond to the accusations? Yes, certainly. If the Waldorf community had ignored it, the lack of importance would be obvious. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The pseudoscience controversy is still in the lead. On further reflection, remembering now that a similar controversy arose in Australia over public schools there, I agree with both of you that the church/state issue does belong in the lead as well. hgilbert (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

ReVision

I have removed a citation to ReVision, which is not on this list of peer-reviewed journals; if there is reason to keep this, do replace it and we can discuss the matter here. hgilbert (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have two sources that say this is a peer-reviewed academic journal (Ullrich's web & EBSCO). But the bigger problem is that the citation in question makes exactly one mention of Waldorf schools - in a footnote no less! Here it is: "...the director of the Misty Mountain Montessori Education Center is exploring an integral approach to Montessori education. He is expanding the right quadrant in traditional Montessori programs (cognitive development in relation to social and emotional factors) to include more left quadrant elements, often associated with Waldorf schools (imaginal, creative/artistic, explorative, and cultural dimensions.)" So, um, I am not sure where the former statement in Wikipedia came from. Seems to be WP:SYNTHESIS. I concur with removing the citation. Jellypear (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference, this is the text that has been removed. "Sean Esbjorn-Hargens writes that as a holistic education method, Waldorf education de-emphasizes the acquisition of knowledge and competitive achievement over a more individually-centred approach drawing on elements of each individual’s spirituality and culture." As noted above, the only mention of Waldorf education in this article is the footnote referenced above. Given how dissimilar these two sentences are, that the reference to Waldorf education occurred in a footnote, and that the whole paper is about integral education in a higher education psychology classroom, I maintain that this is WP:SYNTHESIS, it was correct to remove it and that removing it had a negligible effect on the page. Jellypear (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know how to check how something that has been here for a long time got in the article? I am curious how this got in. Jellypear (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There's always the "article blamer" tool, which occasionally works great for me but mostly not. http://toolserver.org/~tparis/blame/. Good luck, sincerely! Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the diff; the disputed text was added by Alexbrn on 10 Jan 2013. hgilbert (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking this up again, I note that both reasons given for the removal of this material (that the journal is not peer reviewed; that only a single mention in a footnote is pertinent) are false. Yet, it has been done: as a result helpful information has been removed from WP. There may be a legitimate discussion to be had about how the material here is summarized from the source, but deleting this information on the basis of incorrect statements probably isn't the way to go. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link to the article. I've read through it again, and also done a PDF search through it for the term Waldorf, and only discover the content Jellypear mentions, located in footnote 12. Can you explain what other passage talks about Waldorf, and where you found the material cited to this? hgilbert (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Search for "Steiner" not "Waldorf". He references the Steiner approach as a holistic one, and then describes how holistic education is contrasted with the mainstream; maybe my summary was too elided, but this material could be retained in some form. It's helpful and uncontroversial. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The only mention of "Steiner" is "A number of substantive approaches to alternative education find their expression in the schools of today, including those informed by the metaphysical perspectives of philosophers such as Rudolph Steiner, Alfred North Whitehead, Jiddu Krishnamurti, and Sri Aurobindo. A growing number of schools along the entire spectrum of education (from elementary school programs to doctorate degrees) provide various expressions of alternative education in action. These approaches are often referred to as “holistic” and are associated with the educational approaches of individuals like John Dewey and Maria Montessori." I agree that using a general description of holistic schools which the author says applies to "the entire spectrum of [holistic] education (from elementary school programs to doctorate degrees)" as if it defines Waldorf specifically is pretty clearly WP:SYNTH. hgilbert (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)