Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Categorization

From WP:Categorization: Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Calling WE pseudoscience clearly violates this; this is not one of the "categories to which it logically belongs", but one that critics have attempted to associate with it. hgilbert (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I have noticed this guideline and agree. I think that the reception area should be organized by reception in various countries. The pseudoscience critique exists in both contexts. I also think that the three curricular approaches that are different from other schools: late introduction of reading, ICT, and phenomenological science could warrant discussion under their own section. Maybe "distinctive practices" or something like that? Jellypear (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Waldorf Education was categorized as "pseudoscience" on the basis of PLANS and BHA's viewpoints even though the governmental bodies in both countries tasked with evaluating the science teaching disagree that pseudoscience is taught?! I'd like to know how long this has been the case and which editor did it. Jellypear (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hgilbert, what part of the ArbCom final decision allows you to make controversial edits such as this removal of the Pseudoscience category? Because of your COI, you must propose such edits on the talk page and gain consensus for them. Your actions require ArbCom attention.

German scholar Helmut Zander argued "convincingly" that Waldorf curricula can only be understood from the vantage point of Steiner's instructions to his Waldorf teachers, regarding the teaching of Anthrosophy. Anthrosophy itself is pseudoscience. Steiner's instructions included such nonsense as the human heart not serving primarily as a pump, and that the teaching of reading must be kept from children until they get some adult teeth. Steiner promoted a racial theory that assigns the different races "lower" and "higher" characteristics related to a soul's incarnation. A close reading of Zander's work ties the pseudoscience Anthrosophy to Waldorf education. Zander is an academic, and academics define the topic.

As well, science educator and curricula evaluator Eugenie Scott has determined Waldorf education to be pseudoscience. [1] "Waldorf Schools Teach Odd Science, Odd Evolution", 1994, National Center for Science Education. "Do Waldorf schools teach pseudoscience?", 1991, Utne Reader.

Education researchers David Jelinek and Li-Ling Sunn determined that the teaching at Waldorf schools was founded on Steiner's pseudoscientific beliefs such as the seven-year recapitulation of a soul's spiritual progress. This seven-year cycle is used to limit the teaching of certain things to the students until they are 7 or 14 or 21. Jelinek and Sunn concur "with a position expressed by Waldorf critics Dan Dugan and Judy Daar",[2] the position being that Waldorf education is based on the pseudoscience of Anthrosophy,[3] and that the only way to prevent that is to incorporate Waldorf schools with teachers who are "not indoctrinated by Anthrosophical training."

Jelinek offers a very differentiated picture; he actually suggests that Waldorf and anthroposophy are separable, and his critiques are of the latter. He seems to clearly state the position that Waldorf is a viable form of education, but that its philosophical foundation is doubtful. That is far from calling the education pseudoscientific. hgilbert (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Mental health researcher Richard Byng and the scholarly British Humanist Association call Waldorf schools pseudoscience. [4][5]

"The scholarly British Humanist Association"??? In any case, there's a concern by a group with a clearly defined belief structure of their own that some science education at the schools is pseudoscientific. That is not the same as saying that the education is pseudoscientific, and it is a contested belief. Letters to the editor of newspapers are not reliable sources, in any case. hgilbert (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Skeptic author Tom Flynn writes in The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief that "Anthroposophical pseudoscience is easy to find in Waldorf schools."[6]

That's also not saying that WE is pseudoscientific. It's also easy to find desks in Waldorf schools, but Waldorf schools are not desks. hgilbert (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The point here is that scholars define the topic, not governmental agencies. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Scholars define the topic. Of the above citations listed the following are reliable secondary sources for use in Wikipedia: Chicago Tribune 1999; Utne Reader 1991; The Atlantic 1999 and the review of Zander's book. (BTW: Look at how old that news coverage is btw.) You say "Anthroposophy itself is pseudoscience" but for this page, we need reliable secondary sources that say "Anthroposophy is pseudoscience AND Waldorf education is pseudoscientific" and I would say that to put this page under the pseudoscience category there should be some broad consensus. I am not seeing that at all. The majority of sources make no mention of it whatsoever. The argument you present here contains a level of synthesis that Wikipedia does not allow. We need reliable secondary sources (preferably published in peer-reviewed academic journals) that say that Waldorf education is pseudoscientific.Jellypear (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that there are a number of sources who declare WE to be based on, or include some elements of, pseudoscience. It's equally clear that there are others who deny this. Categories are meant to be neutral in point of view, not as promoting one side of a controversy. We can take this to some sort of category arbitration, however. What is the appropriate forum? hgilbert (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Zander talked about two different things: whether the science taught to children by Waldorf schools was pseudoscience, and whether Waldorf was structurally based on Anthrosophy. The former he found that there was no single answer, that various Waldorf schools taught various things. The latter he found to be true, that Waldorf was generally structured on Anthrosophy.

I notice that you have no answer for Eugenie Scott. Her conclusion was damning, that Steinerian methods were followed by the schools, and that pseudoscience leaked into the curricula. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for providing "answers" to Eugenie Scott. Her views were not published in a peer-reviewed publication. The fact that they were published in a media outlet that has a reputation for fact-checking makes them useable in a wikipedia article. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of reliable secondary and tertiary sources make no mention of Waldorf education and pseudoscience whatsoever. Even the best source you mention here (Zander) came to no firm conclusion on whether "Waldorf education" (the topic of the page) teaches pseudoscience or even that Anthroposophy itself is pseudoscience. So, what are we talking about here? Jellypear (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The National Center for Science Education publishes the journal in which Scott's article appeared: Reports, page 20, volume 14, Winter 1994. [7] Scott's severe criticism cannot be dismissed. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not about dismissing or not dismissing anyone's views. That is not what wiki editors are here to do. We are here to use reliable, secondary + tertiary sources to write and edit an on-line encyclopedia, which in turn becomes a tertiary source itself. Wikipedia spells out the difference between peer-reviewed academic journals and advocacy organization publications WP:SOURCE, no matter how well-written and persuasive we may find them. Scott's article is in this latter category. Moreover, when there is a difference of opinion we are supposed to take the whole field of reliable sources into account. Even with the citations you offered it is unclear if any of them explicitly say that Waldorf education (the topic of the article) is pseudoscience. To say that it is requires relying on some people having said that Anthroposophy is pseudoscience and then that some people view Waldorf education and Anthroposophy as inseparable - in other words WP:SYNTHESIS. Even Eugenie Scott makes a distinction concerning the method and asks her readers to write in if they share the views of Dan Dugan, member of the organization, who has found pseudoscience in the education. So, again, what are we talking about, Binksternet? Categorizing this as pseudoscience - along with every snake oil remedy on the planet - is not WP:NPOV when there is no clear consensus on the part of the reliable secondary and tertiary sources on this topic. Most sources are completely silent on this issue. That should tell us something. To recognize that is not "dismissive" of, or failing to "answer", the few sources that have made an issue of it. It is just responsible WP:NPOV editing. Jellypear (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this looks a lot like dismissing material because you don't like it. I suggest you read WP:FRINGE, which requires the topic to be put into perspective with regard to the mainstream. Saying that it's an advocacy journal is quite frankly completely ridiculous. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

None of the sort. WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:RS are quite clear about what kinds of publications are appropriate for inclusion in wikipedia. These are not peer-reviewed academic publications, nor are they mainstream general topic newspapers. Sources like newsletters or journals produced by organizations may be generally good- even exemplary - but wikipedia instructs editors not to use them as sources for anything other than their own activities because the level of fact checking and peer-review that goes into these publications is less clear than with books from large publishing houses, encyclopedias, peer-reviewed academic journals and pieces from the mainstream press. Simple, really. Jellypear (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The pseudoscience category is appropriate; I have restored it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Now may be a good time to review the wiki guidelines on categories, which exist to help readers of wikipedia better navigate the site. See WP:Categorization for more information.

• Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.
• Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate.
• A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the ''defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having.

Alexbrn and Binksternet please present evidence that all of these criteria are met. How is categorizing Waldorf Education as pseudoscience neutral? How do the reliable sources commonly and consistently define Waldorf education as having the defining characteristic of being pseudoscience? Jellypear (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Scott is just such a reliable mainstream source; but is there any source which addresses the question of whether WE is pseudoscientific and states that it isn't? It seems any scientist addressing the issue comes to the same conclusion (see discussion above); there is no controversy in the community. And as has been mentioned, WP:FRINGE may be pertinent here too. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiki doesn't really have guidelines about people being reliable mainstream sources. It speaks to documents. Scott's views are available to us through a source that wikipedia does not classify as a reliable source. As for other sources, you are downplaying the relevance of silence on this issue in otherwise comprehensive explorations of the topic of Waldorf education. Tertiary sources, who have similar classificatory goals do not classify Waldorf education as pseudoscience. There are countless other books, academic articles and dissertations that don't take up this claim either way and address it. Classifying Waldorf education as pseudoscientific is not a consensus opinion by any stretch. Given that categories are not discussed, it is unwarranted and does not meet the criteria laid out above.Jellypear (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources quoting Scott are, at the very least, RS for Scott's views. It's a dangerous business, interpreting silence. We've got a number of people stating WE is pseudoscientific, indicating a general agreement that it is PS. Furthermore isn't this a case of obvious pseudoscience? Or is there anybody who really believes (e.g) that teaching early reading causes physical disease in later life. Maybe we could call on some expert opinion from WP:FTN ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The Chicago Tribune article is a reliable source. The TES article on the BHA is a reliable source. There is no need for an expert opinion at WP:FTN because in the absence of a collection of reliable sources to review, that would amount to original research on the part of those editors. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. If there are not reliable sources that say that Waldorf education is pseudoscience, and it is not classified as pseudoscience by such reliable sources, then there is nothing for us to do. Maybe someday sources will tell us Waldorf education is pseudoscience. But before then, it is not our place to act as if that state of affairs has already arrived just because we think it is an obvious case of pseudoscience. There is nothing to do. Jellypear (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Some eminent people among the signatories to this letter in The Guardian are telling us ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No one is arguing that there is not criticism out there that should be included in the article. That's a long way from a category inclusion, however. Many eminent voices describe recent US incursions via drone strike and special forces as terrorism, but putting the US in the "terrorist organization" category would not be justified on this basis. Too much of Waldorf is acknowledged as good educational practice, and often by the same people who critique aspects of the science curriculum or the spiritual philosophy out of which it arose. hgilbert (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The "drone strike" parallel is informative because it's so different. There, the categorization is hotly contested. What I'm seeing here so far is an uncontested categorization of W.E. as pseudoscientific from mainstream experts in the field. WP needs to be in line with respected scientific thought. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:Categorization#Overview begins by stating that WP categories should be "essential—defining—characteristics" of the education. For these, we might look at entries in standard encyclopedias of education: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. None of these articles make any mention of pseudoscience. (And yes, I have read the complete articles, not just those parts visible in Google's preview feature.) It would be odd for every encyclopedia of education to miss the essential and defining characteristics of the education. Contrariwise, it seems challenging to substantiate the claim that this is an essential and defining characteristic if standard reference works on education do not seem to think so.

Many of the "mainstream experts" you refer to are not educationalists at all (one is a professor of pharmacology, another a mental health researcher, another a "Humanist Society", etc.) As far as I can tell there are only one or two educationalists in your list above. Scott, though director of National Center for Science Education, is actually a physical anthropologist, not an educationalist by training. Jelinek, the only real education expert, gives a very differentiated picture of WE. hgilbert (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The category of pseudoscience is not appropriate, as it is not a defining characteristic of the educational approach. I am removing it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't the involved parties just go to DRN to discuss it? (I don't count myself as an involved party as I don't particularly care one way or the other, so please don't invite me if you start something at DRN). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Austrian Institute for Educational Research report

From a Austrian National Institute for Educational Research Innovation and Development (BIFIE) report, ”Kompetenzen und individuelle Merkmale der Waldorfschüler/innen im Vergleich”: hgilbert (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The results of pupils at Waldorf schools in the sciences are better than the average for pupils in OECD countries with 524 points and 500 points respectively and are also higher than the average for Austrian schools. In comparison, the average results in this area lie between the two higher school types (AHS, BHS) and the occupational middle schools. The difference in results is smallest in the sciences in relation to the AHS with 50 test points and to the BHS with 30 test points in comparison to the two other areas of competence (reading and mathematics)....Recommendations for educational policies based on the PISA results can be made especially for the teaching of natural science. Based on the relatively high competence of Waldorf pupils in natural science, combined with exceptionally high indicators of motivation and reflective cognition in these subjects as well as the different pedagogical principles, it is reasonable to conclude that public education can learn from the Steiner Waldorf schools, in particular with regard to being able to concretely apply knowledge in natural science.

I don't speak German. What is the peer-review status of this paper? Has it been cited anywhere else? Jellypear (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a section of an official report put out by a department of the Austrian government. The report's introduction is written by the education minister. As with the Woods report, this is clearly an official governmental document that we can assume has gone through a peer review process. hgilbert (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The "Woods Report" is not peer-reviewed. Who is making the "assumption" that it is? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Woods' report being an acceptable source for use in wikipedia, it was taken out to the RS message board.[[8]] We could certainly pursue this question more aggressively with the wider wikipedia community. With more and more countries funding Waldorf education, there will continue to be documents and research reports created and distributed by government departments of education. Jellypear (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

So are you proposing that this be included in the page or used in some way? Or, is this supposed to combat the pseudoscience thing? So far, I see two government spokespeople (in the UK and now Austria) not only saying pseudoscience is not taught (UK) but actually showing high-quality data that would suggest that the science teaching is good (Austria). Jelinek & Sun showed positive science outcomes too. I am trying to stay open-minded about this pseudoscience point but I have to say, I'd like to see some evidence that Waldorf teaches pseudoscience rather than just quotations in a newspaper to that effect. Ernst and Scott are obviously credible scientists. Moreover, I personally support Scott's efforts to combat single-minded creationism in US schools. [Insert deity] help us all if Americans start believing that human beings were able to ride dinosaurs once upon a time! But I do think as wiki editors we have an obligation to be mindful of wp:undue and wp:npov. The label "pseudoscience" can be see an pejorative and so some care needs to be made in using it in an encyclopedia entry. Where is the evidence? As the Woods' report says, asserting that pseudoscience is taught means making the paradoxical claim that improved scientific understanding is possible by learning pseudoscientific ideas. Students that are taught pseudoscience should score significantly lower on standardized tests than their peers who have not been taught pseudoscience. I'm sorry but it just doesn't make sense to me.Jellypear (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

More Undue Material

While the paragraph or two on the religion issues is fine, wtf is a picture of Judge Damrell doing here? All he has done related to the subject is rule on the issues of an extremely poorly presented lawsuit. If we must have a picture in this area of the article, perhaps one of something that relates to the subject better? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Take it off. hgilbert (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as the image [[9]] that was there before Judge Damrell [[10]] doesn't go back in! Jellypear (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration discussion

There is a discussion relevant to this article going on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hgilbert. hgilbert (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

sigh. After a quick read of that, I'm sorry. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Zajonc

In this edit, the affiliation of Arthur Zajonc given in the cited source, as former general secretary of the Anthroposophical Society in America, was removed. Why? It has the unfortunate effect of omitting Zajonc's interests, which need to be stated (per the source) given the position he is taking. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There are three credentials given in the Tribune article for Zajonc. Since this news article is 14 years old, these credentials are now all out-of-date (except having co-founded a Waldorf high school). Since this is a living person I felt we should primarily identify both he and Scott by linking to their pages, which presumably have the most accurate and up-to-date information about their biographies. However, if you feel all three credentials given at the time should be in this article then go ahead and include them all. On the topic of sticking to the source, I am still concerned that what is included here does not even mention the central "paradox" that made this topic newsworthy to begin with. The article is about a charter school's 7th graders having the top reading, language arts & math grades in the state at a time when age predicts a decline in academic achievement. Yet rather than being taken up as a success story, this mode of education was under strong criticism and (at the time) being taken to court. This wiki article reports on the second part of the story, and not the first. [[11]] Jellypear (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's normal to summarize relevant affiliations or positions. It's not a BLP concern. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Zajonc's former position is highly relevant to this topic and should be stated plainly. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Great. This seems to be three votes for all three credentials/positions. Now, how are we going to deal with the WP:CHERRYPICKING issue? Jellypear (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Frame the text to reflect the balance of the article in a neutral way. hgilbert (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Arts

In taking another look at this page I see that there is little reference to the integrated arts curriculum, which is arguably the aspect these schools are most known for. I have attempted to sketch out a basic description of this. I realize that I have not included citations. I will add sources (and amend as necessary) as soon as possible. Hopefully other editors will agree that this is a basic description that can be found almost anywhere Waldorf schools are described. I can't believe I hadn't noticed that nothing to this effect was on the page before. Jellypear (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ullrich: critical reception

Ullrich's critical reception of the education was divided into two areas; I have merged these under "educational scholars". hgilbert (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Evaluations of Student Progress

I was looking over the footnoting on the page and came across this item (now deleted): "A number of studies of Waldorf education have concluded that the education is "particularly successful in stimulating imaginative thought and creating eager, confident and curious students." There were multiple sources listed, but I wanted to know which study had concluded this. The conclusion is in the Woods report but it refers to Jelinek & Suns conclusions. Therefore I see no justification for this quote & "a number of studies." It is the conclusion of one study. Instead, I inserted Woods actual conclusion regarding the field. Jellypear (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding critical viewpoints of Waldorf education

I am someone who has never actually heard of Waldorf education until recently — in fact, I was only made aware of it by looking through Arbitration Committee archives. Given that it was subject to a full case and has since been placed under discretionary sanctions, I made the logical assumption that it has to be a pretty divisive topic. Needless to say, I wanted to learn more about Waldorf schooling, its history, goals, approach to education, and a variety of different opinions on the matter. In particular, I made sure my eyes were peeled for critical viewpoints that I might be interested in examining on the side. Yet as I was reading through the entirety of this article, I couldn't help but develop the impression that it contains a very heavy, albeit subtle, pro-Waldorf bias. In other words, I don't feel as if I've gotten the full story.

One of the main things I noticed was the fact that several important sections included some sort of external appraisal towards a specific aspect of Waldorf education. For instance, under the "Developmental Approach" subsection, the last paragraph is closed with the following sentence:

“ A 2005 overview of research studies concluded that research results suggest that Waldorf schools successfully develop "creative, social and other capabilities important in the holistic growth of the person," but that more research is needed to confirm the generally small scale studies conducted to date. ”

This was referenced to a 2005 survey conducted by the UWE Bristol, which generally noted several positive aspects of Waldorf education while stressing the very limited nature of the study. Also, the relevant information is found on page 39; however, this is specified in the form of a superscript directly beside the footnote, rather than within the reference itself. The same is true for many other links throughout the article. Some readers will likely find this confusing and difficult to understand.

Here's another example of an outside opinion that is inserted into the article in such a way as to make it seem like a subtle form of Waldorf advocacy. This one is under the "Spiral Curriculum" subheader:

“ There are a few subjects largely unique to the Waldorf schools. Foremost among these is Eurythmy, a movement art usually accompanying spoken texts or music which includes elements of role play and dance and is designed to provide individuals and classes with a "sense of integration and harmony". Ernest Boyer, former president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has noted how the arts generally play a significant role throughout Waldorf education, and commended this as a model for other schools to follow. ”

This article did not help to clear things up, either. It basically lists out a bunch of studies in reverse chronological order, most of which were already mentioned in this article. There are no contrasting opinions; the coverage is uniformly positive.

But the biggest issue for me is best illustrated in the context of this quote:

“ Educational Scholar Heiner Ullrich suggests that critics tend to focus on what they see as Steiner's "occult neo-mythology of education" and to fear the risks of indoctrination in a worldview school, but lose an "unprejudiced view of the varied practice of the Steiner schools." ”

Steiner's "occult neo-mythology of education"? What's that? Virtually nowhere else in this article is such a thing even alluded to. The whole "Reception" section lists out several vaguely-worded criticisms presented as misconceptions, but nothing about mythology or the occult (everything collected under the "Religion" subheader is completely tangential to whatever system of beliefs is practiced within the schools themselves). Are there several people who consider Waldorf education to be occultist in nature? Is it seen as imposing an ideology of some sort? Indeed, I went around to other websites and have found anecdotal accounts of Waldorf pratfalls — with some even likening it to a cult! There are large organizations out there that exist for the sole purpose of berating Waldorf education and anthroposophy; they have gathered extensive testimonial evidence from several different people who were once associated with the system.[12][13] I don't consider any of these domain names to be reliable sources in themselves, but I do get the instinct that there are professional journalists and academics who have spoken out in opposition to Waldorf education.

As an independent observer with no prior stance on the matter, I think my perspective might be valuable in developing this article into a comprehensive, unbiased source of information. Coverage of alternative viewpoints does seem to be limited, but I'm sure it exists in larger numbers than it may seem. If anyone else is willing to offer up some assistance, that would be greatly appreciated. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't need any assistance, as far as I can tell. You have rightly hit the nail on the head. The article is continually fluffed by pro-Waldorf editors such that the context of dispute is muffled. For instance, science curricula analyst Eugenie Scott is a prominent critic of Waldorf education, but her detailed criticism (see a copy of her scholarly journal article hosted here) of Waldorf is introduced to the reader in a belittling manner, making her look like a crank instead of a serious researcher and respected topic expert. This method of treatment can be seen throughout the article. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This piece was published in a membership journal/newsletter, not a peer-reviewed publication. It may be scholarly but cannot be viewed as scholarship according to wiki guidelines. Our task will be considerably easier if we focus on the body of reliable sources. Jellypear (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Whew! Good thing I'm not the only one who thinks so. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read back through the talk page archive to see I have recorded some concerns which intersect with those you raise. However, after the recent arbcom outing I have come to the conclusions WP's mechanisms are currently inadequate to deal with the POV spin being put on this article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of editing this wiki article, Kurtis!! I have a few comments on the items you have discussed. Firstly, I am not sure what you mean by "outside opinion that is inserted into the article." Wiki articles are supposed to include synthesizing evaluations from RS and subject matter experts. The first item you mention (we've been calling it the Woods Report/DfES Report around here) was a study of Steiner schools in England commissioned by the United Kingdom Department for Education and Skills (DfES). There are two parts of the report. The first is a synthesis of current research (as of 2005) on Steiner/Waldorf education (mainly in English). The second part is original survey research on Steiner schools in England. IMO, and in the opinion of others consulted on the RS/N, this is a highly RS for the topic. I am not sure I understand your difficulty with it? The Ernest Boyer item is an expert opinion about the presence and role of arts in this education. (BTW: there is very little on this page about the arts education, even though this is what it is known for.) I am not sure I am following your concern other than perhaps it should not be included. Finally, with respect to Heiner Ullrich's quote, you may be right that it is not balanced out by further information in the religion section. Unfortunately, while this opinion does exist (Ie that the schools are religious and indoctrinate) it seldom appears in the form of a WP:RS. You may notice that one Chicago Tribune article from 1995 is cited for the bulk of this viewpoint. IMO, this issue has been the root of many disputes related to this page. Editors feel as if there should be way more criticism to include but there are very few WP:RS to rely on. Moreover, some of the things that are claimed are directly disputed by other reliable sources, such as H. Ullrich as you mention. As a way to move forward, I would say that all of the editors here know this field and past discussions pretty well. Perhaps we could save you some time by suggesting some reliable sources on the subtopics that interest you. Do you have some specific questions or edits in mind? Jellypear (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

@Jellypear — Oh, the views I've listed are fine in and of themselves and actually should be included. It's just that they shouldn't be right there, but rather within the "Reception" section. The description of the system itself should be completely neutral, but as it stands, they are often followed up by positive commentary which gives the impression of a bias. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I see. I think there was a concern in earlier drafts that each section should include some sort of commentary/evaluation of the subtopic rather than being a straightforward description. Those sentences might be a result of that but I haven't been editing here long enough to say for sure. Personally, I think this page is too long and I think your suggestion might help with that. Jellypear (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There used to be an extensive "study" section which included many more external evaluations. This was taken down by Alexbrn, but you can find it in the article history. The decision was made, in conjunction with discussion on a WP advisory board, that reviews of studies would be preferred over the original studies themselves.

In addition, in an arbitration proceeding long ago we were strongly advised not to use internal Waldorf-published material (or other non peer-reviewed sources) for any possibly controversial findings. Between these two criteria, the available source material became very limited. Thus there are many citations to certain sources. Rather than increase the number of footnotes immoderately (there are already well over 100 in the article), we have been using the standard WP page reference template to reference specific page numbers in-line. Since these are seen with the footnote, they seem quite clear, and nobody has ever raised any concern about them before. On reflection, does this style still trouble you? What would you prefer?

Much of the "controversy" you cite is outside the scholarly world, and stems from aggrieved parents. To the extent that this is reported on in professional media outlets and the like, it can be and is reflected here. There are very few educational scholars who really critique Waldorf education, partly because it performs so well in objective measures of achievement such as the PISA studies and comparisons of medium- and long-term reading ability. Are there reliable sources you have in mind for inclusion? hgilbert (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Kurtis, the organization you mention above has its own wiki page. See: PLANS if you haven't clicked through to it already. Jellypear (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Then why is PLANS barely mentioned in the article? It's presented as a mere footnote, yet it seems to be a pretty important topic to cover. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

PLANS is barely mentioned because it really has very little to do with Waldorf Education. They have a very specific and negative viewpoint (if you read any of their mailing list/forum stuff) and it has nothing to do with education, but rather with the vernacular and what one might call 'religious stienerism'. Their activities regarding waldorf method charter schools are to poorly try to sue school districts that the waldorf methods charter schools are religious schools promoting a 'new age' religion first and foremost. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Links to critical sources

I have found several valid references (ie. news reports, opinion pieces) that could be used somewhere in the article:

• An article published by the Atlantic about a young boy who believes in gnomes.

I like the article, but it is in the form of a very personal and slightly quirky essay by a fond parent of the school. Still, something might be usable... hgilbert (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• This New York Times article discusses a specific Waldorf institution's opposition to allowing children access to computer technology until late adolescence.

done hgilbert (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• A critical piece published by the Chicago Tribune in 1999 acknowledges the successes of Waldorf education, but asserts that it is in fact a form of institutionalized religion, and that its effective methods could be used elsewhere.

already cited in article hgilbert (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• A more recent story (January of this year, to be precise) about an observed tendency among Waldorf students to be exempted from immunization.

Actually an opinion piece; the Sacramento Bee article below is a better source for the same information

• An article written around the same time as the preceding News Review publication about that very same subject (ie. low vaccination rates).

• This one pertains less to Waldorf and more to the actions of one of its teachers; this article could actually ignite a debate over the purpose of standardized testing. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that we could in fact find use for this link in the article somewhere.

Too specific to an individual teacher, I suspect

• An essay written by Peter Staudenmaier and published by the Institute for Social Ecology.

No peer review, and the author had no academic credentials at the time he wrote the essay. Probably falls afoul of RS, especially given the stricter interpretation required of this article by the arbitration proceedings

• Here is a critical piece about it featured at DC's Improbable Science, a website run by David Colquhoun. It can be assumed that this criticism of Waldorf education was written by Colquhoun himself.

A blog that cites as its sources Twitter feeds...the author is not an educationalist...it could be used to indicate that skeptics are skeptical, but not much more

These articles (that was part 1 of 3) were largely guest-written by ThetisMercurio (aka Melanie Byng), a former Steiner parent and now prominent antiSteiner activist, and another contributor (Lovelyhorse). John Stumbles (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is just a start, but I think these would be useful in covering the opposing side of the Waldorf dispute. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, covering both sides; many of these articles speak to positive and negative aspects of the education. hgilbert (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear. It has been difficult enough to edit this page without anonymous twitter authors in the mix! Even sources that qualify as WP:RS - like the LA Times - may be unsuitable in terms of WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:UNDUE depending on how they are used. Jellypear (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The same could be said of any source, though. These could have a practical application if used to cover criticism of Waldorf Education. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I recently read the link that an IP address provided as a source for "it is widely agreed among scholars of Early Childhood development that Waldorf Education or Waldorf Kindergarten is not entirely sufficient in present times." If only I could get back the 30 minutes of my life that I wasted taking this sourcing seriously! Nothing supporting that statement exists there whatsoever. Experienced editors should not be recommending that blogs be used as reliable source material for wikipedia content. Jellypear (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Multiple intelligences

Someone has been going around wikipedia pages on education and inserting claims and references to Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences hypothesis. The poster does not cite verifiable sources and usually links to vague editorial references. I've removed them for being irrelevant as there is little, if any, significant connection between waldorf education and the MI hypothesis.

Please read the page cited next to the reference to MI hypothesis: http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/strategies/topics/Arts%20in%20Education/The%20Center%20for%20Arts%20in%20the%20Basic%20Curriculum/oddleifson3.htm Is it not meaningless, pseudo-scientific psychobabble? Matbury (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly meaningless babble. Not appropriate here. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It is "An Address to the Council of Elementary Principals Meeting" of the Boston, MA Public Schools by the Chairman of the Center for Arts in the Basic Curriculum. As this was an organization with which Howard Gardner was closely associated, I think we can assume that the speaker is reasonably expert on matters related to Gardner. Perhaps we should take it to the reliable source noticeboard for discussion, however. Though active in trying to shape education in the US, the speaker was not a conventional educationalist. hgilbert (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The question is not reliability of the source, it is relevance, and opacity. We don't need vague, incomprehensible text to confuse the reader. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

What the heck is "opacity" of a source supposed to mean? Jellypear (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible summary paper source?

I came across this earlier, didn't have time to read it all the way, or see if we use it currently. Twenty Years and Counting: A Look at Waldorf in the Public Sector Using Online Sources --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It is primary research and has not yet been discussed in other peer-reviewed papers. Jellypear (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems a mixture, but much of it looks to be a review of, as the title says, available online sources. hgilbert (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That is primary research (content analysis). Jellypear (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

vaccines

The section on immunization has always bothered me. I have recently read through whatever materials I could find on the topic and made some edits because I assumed that simply deleting the section would be met with resistance. While I grant that it is true that the data show a correlation between low levels of vaccine compliance and enrollment in a Waldorf school, I have a few difficulties with WP:TOPIC and WP:REL that no amount of editing seems able to resolve for me.

1. First, immunization will be nearly completed by the time a child is old enough to enroll in a Waldorf preschool. If given the choice between the following two statements, it would be more logical to say: "vaccine non-compliance causes Waldorf school enrollment" than "Waldorf school enrollment causes vaccine non-compliance". And, if this is the case, how pertinent is this issue for a page on Waldorf education? What does Waldorf education itself have to do with vaccine compliance? Not every parent who chooses to deny or delay vaccinations for their child will enroll them in a Waldorf school and plenty of families who are fully compliant will do so. People make different choices. How is the school central to a decision that occurs before enrollment?
2. Second, the possibility of avoiding immunization varies by locale. For example, there are no Waldorf schools in Mississippi but if there were, the rate of vaccine compliance would be nearly 100% because only medical exemptions are allowed in that state. What would 100% compliance at a Waldorf school say about vaccines and Waldorf education in that case? Not much. So, why is the converse particularly meaningful?
3. Third, the epidemiological literature seems to have settled on a consensus that there is no single story that explains vaccine refusal. However, refusers do tend to be middle/upper-middle class whites living in affluent areas. For various reasons, these people cluster together but they are not homogenous in their health/life style choices and personal beliefs.

All in all, I continue to find this issue tangential. Thoughts? Jellypear (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the issue is completely tangential to the subject. As a subgroup in an article on vaccination choices it might have a place. I would be very accepting of complete removal. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I was WP:Bold and removed the section. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Free Inquiry

This seems to be a non-peer reviewed source, and definitely not of the quality demanded by the various administrative reviews of this article.hgilbert (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

What source? I am perhaps under-caffeinated this morning. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

In the religion section: "Daar, Judy; Dugan, Dan (1994). "Are Rudolf Steiner's Waldorf schools 'non-sectarian?'". Free Inquiry". Neither the authors nor the publication justify considering this a RS for an article that has been repeatedly under advisement for strict adherence to and a high bar with the RS guideline. hgilbert (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

We've discussed this before. It is the journal of the Council of Secular Humanism. It is not listed as a peer-reviewed publication in library periodical resources. I can't remember the reason why this was allowed to remain but I know I was tired arguing about it! :) Jellypear (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• The paper has been cited by several scholars, notably by U of Canberra Associate Professor Thomas William Nielsen in his Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy Of Imagination: A Case Study Of Holistic Education, and by Tom Stehlik, Senior Lecturer, School of Education, University of South Australia, in his "Thinking, Feeling, and Willing: How Waldorf Schools Provide a Creative Pedagogy That Nurtures and Develops Imagination". The notice by scholars raises the status of this paper. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Both Stehlik and Nielsen merely list it as an example showing that there is criticism of the schools. I can't see how this raises its status -- if a review of cigarette production described the content of advertisements by tobacco companies, these would not suddenly become reliable sources, nor, closer to home, does the fact that Nielsen quotes from a publication of the Mt Barker Waldorf School Parent Association make this publication a reliable source for Wikipedia. But Stehlik and Nielsen are themselves excellent sources, and their conclusions can certainly be used. hgilbert (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review the requirements regarding WP:RS. We are looking for publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal, newspapers/mainstream media, academic books and other encyclopedias for our editing in this article. The salient quality with all of these sources is that there is a reputation for fact-checking. If other reliable sources have discussed a document in some way, that may raise the topic to a certain level of WP:NOTABILITY, but this doesn't suddenly turn a non-RS into a RS for this article. Of course, things written in Free Inquiry can be used for the views of the article authors on themselves. However in this case, the quotes are to make claims about third parties. Claims about third parties get into Wikipedia through reliable sources, because of their reputation for fact checking. Jellypear (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Waldorf-inspired schools

I have included two new sections: Waldorf-inspired homeschooling and Waldorf-inspired state schools. These two types - or applications - of Waldorf education have not been represented on this page. Given the growth of these two areas in recent years, I think this is a significant omission. In due time they might even deserve their own page. With respect to Waldorf-inspired state schools, I have also figured out a way to incorporate some of the "reception" items into the "Waldorf-inspired state schools" section. However, in total this would be a WP:BRD step, and so I decided to make an intermediate one and see what other editors think. Thoughts? Jellypear (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:Criticism suggests that: "The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections." So this sounds sensible. hgilbert (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is a sensible reorganization, especially as so many of the studies used for references include state sponsored Waldorf-ish programs. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I went ahead and did the re-org. Comments welcome, of course! :) Jellypear (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Paring down & images

I was wondering if anyone else thought that the "spirituality" and "religion" sections could be combined? Also, what about "educational scholars" & "relationship to the mainstream"? This page is so very long and maybe not as focused as it could be? Can anything be cut? Also - towards the end of the page - there is a lot of text and it could benefit from some images but I can't find anything but buildings in wikimedia, although images of charters or academies would fit well here. Jellypear (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both groupings. Also: could not the reading and information technology sections be moved from the reception section to an appropriate place within the curriculum/educational practices section?

Thanks for all your work! hgilbert (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I agree they could be moved. However, they are both kind of wordy and I wonder if they are necessary at all - although this is probably just me. This page is long! Jellypear (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I moved some stuff around but didn't edit much text. Maybe a new ordering will provide other editors with a new vantage point from which to view the content. Jellypear (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Work space for religion section

While I think the recent edits to the religion section are generally good, I am concerned that they may not be sticking to the sources as closely as we need to for this page. Firstly, this sentence is a little unwieldy. "Waldorf education was founded with spiritual roots — for Steiner, education was an activity which fosters the human being's connection to the divine and is thus inherently religious — yet a universal orientation: "one of Steiner's primary aims with his new school at Stuttgart was to have a non-sectarian setting for children from all religious backgrounds." I think more can be done to present the arguments of individual RS on this issue and not mix them up together (i.e.., Zander and Nielsen in one sentence.)

1. How about something like this, "Thomas Nielsen, professor of educational philosophy, explains that Waldorf education is founded on the belief that morality and goodness are innate within all human beings and that an essential task of education is to develop students' capacity for moral discernment. Nielsen says that according to Steiner this capacity will not be developed by telling a child what is right or wrong but by stimulating their imagination and their capacity for empathy. Nielsen says that Steiner therefore advocated putting moral questions into "artistic form" so as to not impose "morality on the child but merely [lay] the foundation for moral judgement to develop later in the student's life". Neilsen states that Steiner believed that such experiences didn't have to occur in a particular religious framework. As a result, one of the aims of the first Waldorf school was that it be non-sectarian and open to children of all religious backgrounds. Ullrich describes Steiner's view as follows: "The strongest impulses can come from religious tales because these may be envisioned through man's position within the world as a whole." [maybe expand this a bit more...]
2. As a result of both the unusual character of the intention behind the pedagogy and the concrete pedagogy developed within specific (originally primarily European) contexts, there are many opinions on the relationship between Waldorf education and religion. I think that in order to stick closely to the sources, it may be better to just have the sentence start with "There are many opinions". As a result of..." makes a quasi-causal claim and I think it would be better to source that to a RS who speaks about this issue rather than in the voice of Wikipedia. Nielsen sort of does this. I dunno.

I hope these comments make sense! This is a tricky topic to cover briefly, but I think it is important to be clear about who has what ideas concerning "religion" in Waldorf education. These are just suggestions, BTW, assuming that others can follow my train of thought here! Jellypear (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that sourcing especially this material, which can be somewhat controversial is a good idea. Somewhere there is a balance, however.

As regards the opening: It is my impression that many sources agree on these two fundamental points: that Waldorf is both religious-spiritual, and non-sectarian, and that it clarifies the whole discussion to have this somewhat paradoxical combination laid out up front.

I agree. What is interesting about what people have to say is how they define and describe "religious" - especially as it relates to the aims of education. Spirituality and religiosity in education are considered quite good things by these scholars because these dimensions speak to the holism of the educational approach. However, they are defining religious experience in a wholly different way than as in organized religion. This is how the education can be both religious AND non-sectarian although this would appear to be a paradoxical claim to people not working with their definitions of religion and spirituality. But rather than put these distinctions in wikipedia's voice, they should be cited to authors who claim this. Jellypear (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

1. If citations are needed to back this up, I think these could be found.

That was what I was suggesting with Nielsen and his argument, but maybe it was too heavy on the "he says" stuff. Jellypear (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

1. I'd be happy to go along with reformatting of the complex, somewhat klutzy syntax
2. I'll bow to others' opinions about the helpfulness of such an intro

In terms of your next suggestion, with Nielsen: I find the text appropriate, but wonder if it is really necessary to name Nielsen so often. Perhaps it is possible to distinguish between statements that are clearly controversial (A said X, B said Y), and thus need inline citations, and others that are more factual in character and quite uncontroversial, which might only need a footnote. Where the line between these lies is a dynamic exploration, of course.

I agree completely with the third; I will make the change you suggest. (Actually, I have now removed the "there are many opinions", which seems to me unnecessary metacommentary, in favor of simply listing the opinions. But if you like the sentence please do add it back!) hgilbert (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A little bit off-topic but I was just reading about how teachers are trying to stimulate "moral imagination" at their Jewish-Arab Waldorf school. Link to page It made me think of Nielsen's argument concerning religion in Waldorf schools. I think he is right. Of course, that is just my opinion and to the extent that there are differing views his should not be presented above others in this piece. On the other hand, I am not on top of how much difference there is. Anyway, I thought this was interesting in light of having just read Nielsen's argument. Jellypear (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I would encourage you to go ahead with the Nielsen material, and perhaps add the moral imagination example.hgilbert (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

I consider this article essentially an advertisement. The addition of two shorts paragraphs of criticism is not what is meant by NPOV. What is needed is a clearer discussion of their distinctiveness, and a lesser use of sources from within the movement. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by " a clearer discussion of their distinctiveness"? As noted below, the extensive list of citations for this article come primarily from peer-reviewed academic journals, books published by academic or large reputable presses and tertiary sources like encyclopedias of education. While completeness and NPOV are always something to discuss in an article, there is no basis to say that the article is heavily based on "sources within the movement." That is simply untrue. Such sources have already been excluded per the arbitration decision stipulations. Jellypear (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The phrase that caught my attention was "Waldorf education is the largest independent alternative education movement in the world.[6]". This is a broad generalization that depends on the definitions of at least two of the terms (independent and alternative) and needs to be supported by hard numbers/statistics. In fact, the citation appears to be an opinion piece originally published 10 years ago and the term "alternative" is added to this article where it doesn't exist in the article it cites. Furthermore, the article cited states, "the schools are state-funded in many northern European countries" which to me means they are NOT independent, thus lending credence to the original poster's characterization of this article as being advertising. 81.47.179.40 (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I see explicit discussion of distinctiveness in many areas, including: timing of the introduction of reading, block teaching, looping, textbooks created by students, not grouping by ability, qualitative rather than quantitative assessment, delayed use of media, eurythmy, early introduction of foreign languages, approach to physical education, phenomenological approach to science, values orientation, exemption from the ICT requirement, differences in student attitudes, achievement on PISA tests, career choices, community-building effect, philosophical basis.

All this comes before the Waldorf_education#Relationship_with_mainstream_education section, which (among a number of other things) quotes a major study of the education's contrasting state and Waldorf approaches as follows: state schools could benefit from Waldorf education's early introduction and approach to modern foreign languages; combination of block (class) and subject teaching for younger children; development of speaking and listening through an emphasis on oral work; good pacing of lessons through an emphasis on rhythm; emphasis on child development guiding the curriculum and examinations; approach to art and creativity; attention given to teachers’ reflective activity and heightened awareness (in collective child study for example); and collegial structure of leadership and management, including collegial study. Aspects of mainstream practice which could inform good practice in Waldorf schools included: management skills and ways of improving organizational and administrative efficiency; classroom management; work with secondary-school age children; and assessment and record keeping.

As regards sources: essentially all of the more than 120 citations are from peer-reviewed, reliable sources (standard, accepted journals and publishers); the only exceptions I see are 1) Statistics for numbers of the schools, an accepted use of in-house sources, and 2) extremely brief material in the Intercultural links in socially polarized communities section cited to the website of two schools in Tibet and in Israel, and solely referencing the situation of those particular schools.)

There has been a recent effort to integrate criticism into the relevant sections, rather than isolating this in a separate appendage, as WP:Criticism suggests this is best practice. Are there further, specific areas and sources you can suggest?hgilbert (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion between this article and the Curriculum of the Waldorf schools article, which was the one originally tagged by DGG. The latter indeed draws primarily on "in-house" sources. This one does not rely to any significant extent on such sources.

I suggest that the tag be removed from this article and the discussion moved to the curriculum article, where responses and comparisons are indeed very lacking. hgilbert (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Rawson & Richter is a Waldorf movement source and it is used for many aspects of the curriculum subpage. The tag should be removed here but can be left there (where that Waldorf movement source is important for the page). I will take a look at the curriculum page and see if it can be improved by using a more diverse set of reliable sources. It would help to have more clarification to know where it viewed as being lacking or even non-neutral on that page. As for this page, the tag says the following two things are needed 1) "rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view" and 2) removing any inappropriate external links. In order for this tag to stick, someone needs to point out "promotional content" on the page as well as any "inappropriate external links." Jellypear (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see my recent comment above about the statement: "Waldorf education is the largest independent alternative education movement in the world.[6]". That kind of language is usually associated with promotional materials. It would be better to support it with actual statistics (a table of schools by country, for example) that compares it to other "independent alternative" education movements. And just out of curiosity, does Montessori count as independent and alternative?81.47.179.40 (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the statement sounds somewhat doubtful, particularly given Montessori's population. The citation, however, is to an article in one of the world's most respected education periodicals, TES, and is written by an established journalist who specializes in education. Given WP's WP:Truth policy, this seems to be a situation where the quality of the source might trump our uncertainty about whether the claim is true or not, especially in the absence of evidence that it is false.

The standard of comparison is also unclear. Do state-funded charter schools and academies count as independent? Are they independent if their governance and curricular decisions are independent, even if financing is provided from an external source? Are we counting officially accredited schools (which is how Waldorf counts) or schools that have chosen the philosophy, whether or not they are accredited (which is how Montessori usually counts)? McGavin, the author of the TES piece, does not specify the basis for his comparison.

Any suggestions for how to deal with the situation? HGilbert (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Dubious claim

With the previous single source being an opinion article that is light on statistics, I think the statement "Waldorf education is the largest independent alternative education movement in the world." is intentionally misleading. I have edited it to reflect a more nuanced version that more accurately displays the contents of that source, despite its lede in addition to adding a more reputable source. Andrew (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Good change; thanks. HGilbert (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Poorly Sourced Reference

I can see the Waldorf guards are busy at work here.

Whoever put the reference in for "bad science" - Look at http://www.novatocharterschool.org/wp-content/uploads/waldorf-science.pdf to support the bad Waldorf science claim. 2605:E000:24C0:E400:F44E:F9F3:A10E:C103 (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

see this Talk Page's archives. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Why hide it in the archives if people are going to keep asking about it? How long is this whitewash of Waldorf going to go on? How about letting an editor who doesn't have a conflict of interest add something to this article? Any chance of that happening? 2605:E000:24C0:E400:F44E:F9F3:A10E:C103 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Alexbrn is hardly susceptible to such charges. HGilbert (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The user specified has been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article. You get that I'm not editing the ARTICLE, right? Just leave the comments. 2605:E000:24C0:E400:455F:149F:143B:CC2F (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I've linked this talk page to my own blog and to the Waldorf Critic's list - and will continue to link it on blogs every chance I get. Your edits and the complaints about them are going to get a lot more scrutiny from now on. If you *really* think you are honest editors, you won't mind the whole world watching. In reality, you're taking the famous Waldorf BULLYING to the next level - ensuring nobody can tamper with your article. Somebody with integrity needs to step in here - and the conflicted authors need to step out. 2605:E000:24C0:E400:455F:149F:143B:CC2F (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

HGilbert AGAIN hid my discussion. I'll keep bringing it back. Whaddaya gonna do? Send the Wikipedia police to my house? 2605:E000:24C0:E400:455F:149F:143B:CC2F (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Go to WP:AN3 for edit warring? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 23:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

above discussion was by an IP sock puppet of a banned user, Pete K. The IP sock has now also been blocked. Also violated:

WP:OUTING HGilbert (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Humanism and anthroposophy are an oxymoron

"Waldorf (Steiner) education is a humanistic approach to pedagogy based on the educational philosophy of the Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy." Isn't humanism and anthroposophy a fine example of an oxymoron? 67.230.215.213 (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand the term "oxymoron", but the answer to your implied question is in any case "no", the two are not incompatible, as the source indicates. HGilbert (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent problematic edits

• In this edit (summary: "put studies before personal opinions not backed by evidence"), content was not just moved as the summary implied, but some content was also deleted - e.g. mentioning that a school faced a Federal lawsuit.
• This addition, about attention "now" being given to diversity, introduced material sourced to an unpublished thesis of 2007 and to a 1993 book about festivals, so does not seem good or accurate.

I have reverted accordingly. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Format of list by country

I'm not sure that I've improved things by compressing this table to leave less white space. The two versions follow; any thoughts? HGilbert (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Recognized independent Waldorf schools by continent

	Africa	Asia	Europe	N. America	Oceania	S. America
Schools	22	51	718	146	47	55
Countries	5	12	36	4	2	5

and

Recognized independent Waldorf schools by continent

Continent	Schools	Countries
Africa	22	5
Asia	51	12
Europe	718	36
North America	146	4
Oceania	47	2
South America	55	5

As a reader, but not editing here, I find the 3 column version much to be preferred, due to shorter span and more informative listing. There may be an ease-of-viewing-and-comprehension standard for such things? Qexigator (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Unclear whether or not anthroposophy is taught in the schools?

These two sentences right next to each other seem to contradict one another. Both are cited yet they can't both be right. "While anthroposophy underpins Waldorf schools' organisation, curriculum design and pedagogical approach (and frequently, the design of the buildings, as well as pupil and teacher health and diet), it is explicitly not taught within the school curriculum.[34][12]:6" AND "The curriculum of Waldorf teacher education programs includes both pedagogical texts and other anthroposophical works by Steiner.[35]" Sgerbic (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see why they are puzzling together. One refers to the schools, the other to the teacher education. I will try to clarify this in the article. HGilbert (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks HGilbert that helps a little, but I'm still confused. The article now seems to claim (and the reader is led to believe) that Anthroposophy, which is taught to the teachers as part of their TRAINING, is NOT the "spirituality" that is in the Waldorf curriculum. What "spirituality" are we talking about in the curriculum if it isn't Anthroposophy?Sgerbic (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Does the Spirituality section not answer just that? It's a non-sectarian approach. I wonder how this can be clarified. Any thoughts, anyone, or better yet sources? HGilbert (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Why lead with mention Herbart?

The lead first paragraph of "Origins and history" includes: Steiner's "conception of education was deeply influenced by the Herbartian pedagogy...", but: 1_ this does not appear correctly to represent (and perhaps contradicts) what he expressed in (for instance) the lecture "Spiritual Science and Modern Education", given at Basel, 20 April 1920[14] (p.18), and 2_There seems to be no other mention of Herbart or his pedagogy in the body of the article such as to merit such prominence in the lead. The article would be improved by either omitting this reference to Herbart or expanding on it critically in the body. If the latter would be UNDUE, then the former would apply. User:Qexigator|Qexigator]] (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Now corrected. Qexigator (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see this in the lead...HGilbert (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No, my mistake - in first paragraph of "Origins and history". My comment above corrected. Qexigator (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem. There's an inline citation justifying the inclusion. HGilbert (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

That creates the problem, as mentioned above. The citation does not support the assertion. Also, Ullrich looks like a dubious source, inclined to distort the information to suit a particular POV[15] , which may please some but does not answer my (corrected) comments, 1 or 2. Qexigator (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

OK -- I added another citation, with very complete explanations of the links. HGilbert (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Revision 10:52, 23 June[16] noted, but in my view not sufficient to remove doubting comments above: "deeply influenced by" looks like manifest error on part of the German author or the unknown translator. The peculiar status of this article (arbitration etc.) is an indicator of previous troubled editing concerned with removing distortions misrepresenting Steiner, whether in good faith or not. The fact is, Steiner acknowledged Herbart's work, but regarded it as too "intellectual": that is a decisive and crucial difference which "deeply influenced by" obscures or obliterates. Qexigator (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I have incorporated Steiner's own descriptions of his disagreements into the description. I hope this satisfies. Otherwise, we have two very strong sources that agree. At the moment that's a pretty complete description of the information provided by sources that we have already located. The best would be to find sources that present more facts about the relationship. Absent these, perhaps have another look at WP:Truth. HGilbert (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Revision 11:48, 23 June[17] meets the point well: the lecture cited, and its date, are of the first importance for anyone wishing to discover what Steiner had to say about education at the time of the founding of the school at Stuttgart, which is consistent with everything else he said and did about education. Qexigator (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Notable critic?

Pink Floyd's lead guitarist and vocalist David Gilmour enrolled his children into a Waldorf school, but has subsequently spoken out about the "horrific" experience it was.[18] Kurtis ^(talk) 14:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

it certainly relates to the general problem of providing adequate support for students with special learning challenges. Perhaps we can find some less anecdotal sources as well. HGilbert (talk)

The linked Telegraph article does not speak about the issue of special needs children who are enrolled in Waldorf. It does speak about the "slack" system, the unrealistic progress reports, and the patchy results. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The standards for notability are that the person must be notable in the field for which s/he is being cited. Gilmour is not, so far as I know, a notable educationalist.

From an encylopediacal standpoint, these are comments by a single parent not backed up by anything further. Do we want to open the article up to every parent recommendation and complaint about Waldorf education that has ever appeared in the media? If so, we're going to have a mighty big, and mostly pretty worthless, article. HGilbert (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I would push harder if there was a lot of media coverage of Gilmour's opinion, but there was only this Telegraph article, and some discussion of it on bulletin boards. If some non-educator's viewpoint gets a ton of media coverage then it would be remiss of us not to mention it. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

OK -- I haven't been treating media coverage as very significant, but that makes sense. In line with the guidelines you set out, I've added the NY Times piece that was picked up and reported on in a host of other newspapers and on television news programs. HGilbert (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

New section

A new section was recently added. The substance of the new section consists entirely of one magazine article. I read the magazine article and it references a government inquiry so I went looking for the results of said inquiry which I found in a joint press release from the school and the Ministry of Education. A named spokesperson for the Ministry of Education stated that the school in question "is operating as it should be".

This encyclopedia entry is not intended to be a newspaper of current events WP:NOT. I would say this is especially so when the events in question are not particularly newsworthy. A school "operating as it should be" is hardly noteworthy. Jellypear2 (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Bravo!

i see that after many many years, you've managed to quell the criticism and create an article completely devoid of it. Congratulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.142.145 (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Addition to lede

The recent addition to the lede repeated the three stages of W. education. Twice through in the lede is too much. Let's merge these. Also, the mention of body, soul, and spirit seemed out of place. This could appear in the lede, but where? Finally, the lede is already very long. Making it longer seems unwise.

I have reverted to the old lede but am encouraging merger and discussion. HGilbert (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

For the lede especially I think it is important to make use of wiki links. However, if there isn't an appropriate link, then we should find a better way of explaining things. For example the term idealism used to be linked to in the lede but Waldorf education does not foster philosophical idealism as the link would suggest. In another part I thought about linking to pages on body, soul and spirit but that just makes things more confusing than just linking to anthroposophy. There is also no reliable source that I know of that discusses the different between soul and spirit as it pertains to the theory or practice of Waldorf education so why bother having it in the lede? The lede is supposed to introduce and summarize the page's contents. On another note, I think having a separate curriculum page is burying this vital information. Why does this page spend so much effort trying to explain extraneous things while failing to answer the following questions: What is taught at a Waldorf school? When is it taught? How is it taught? Jellypear2 (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this lead is WAY TOO dense and extensive. per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be concise, and a nice overview/summary. As it stands, the lead is explaining so many elements of other articles, it isn't summarizing this one.--Shibbolethink (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition, I'll be adding the below mentioned criticisms to the lead as well. The lead should cover both the positive and negative reception of the subject, and right now all the criticism is condensed to one small sentence at the bottom of the lead. That's gotta change. --Shibbolethink (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of Ullrich's citation in claims

@Hgilbert:, I'm reverting your most recent edit. I just searched through the source you're citing in Ullrich, and I see no mention of Steiner's theories as closely following common sense theories proposed by Comenius and Pestalozzi. In fact, I see many sources saying the opposite is the case. I have a few sources that show that Steiner's theories ignore everything in Child Psychology since 1920, so the phrasing "since" seems incorrect. Can you give me a quote? --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The passage is quite clear: "Steiner’s pedagogics hold firmly to the principal perceptions of modern common sense educational theory since Comenius and Pestalozzi" (p. 10) HGilbert (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I do still think the use of since is misleading, but I'm willing to pick my battles. There's a lot of work in terms of creating a NPOV in this article, and this particular instance is not the most troublesome.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticism? RE: NPOV

I think this article deserves some love and attention. As one anonymous poster puts it elsewhere on this talk page, criticism and detractions have all been neutralized in this article. Basically, while I think this article includes elements of criticism, those elements deserve to be centralized in "Reception." A reader should be able to scroll to the Reception section, and quickly absorb both the positives and negative receptions of a Waldorf-style Education. I'm gonna be taking some of this on in my free time, but I'd like to add elements of criticism that exist throughout the web, notably those critics of Waldorf-style education as a religious practice, those critics of its foundation in pseudoscience, and those who believe the Waldorf system constitutes a pseudo-cult that inculcates its students. These criticisms have multiple sources, and deserve to be placed in a conveniently located and condensed section in "Reception."--Shibbolethink (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You have surely noticed that all of these critiques are already present in the article, with the exception of the cult claim, for which you have not offered a reliable source (blogs, especially by non-experts, do not qualify as sources for encyclopedias!).

Are you familiar with Wikipedia standards for WP:Reliable sources? If the general policy isn't enough: we've been repeatedly advised to keep a high standard for citations in this article.

Also: WP:Criticism states Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias. HGilbert (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what I said above. I don't think there should be a section of this article devoted to criticism. I think the Reception portion of this article should more clearly note the criticisms, in mirror to the positive reception. As it is, the criticism is buried in a wealth of less than concise information. The criticisms should be grouped, and they should all be mentioned in appropriate detail, as should the positive reception. The same is true of the lead. --Shibbolethink (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms deserve not equal treatment, but proportional treatment. As it is, neither is the case.--Shibbolethink (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, here are the sources for critics who claim the Waldorf school system is cult-like, pagan, new-agey, etc.--Shibbolethink (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Those are a lot more substantial than some of the earlier sources you listed. But these sources present many opinions and should not be cherry picked to emphasize selectively brief mentions of one aspect. HGilbert (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not cherry picking when I'm simply pointing to them as sources that some people believe the Waldorf system of education to be quasi-pagan, and filled with new-age thought. The sources say that, they also say other things. Cherry picking would be if I took things out of context. There's no context needed, and the context is accurate, in this quote: "Steiner was more interested in the opposite possibility. He believed the living could cultivate the ability to enter the spirit world. After World War I, the director of the Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory in Stuttgart, Germany -- an adherent of anthroposophy -- invited Steiner to create a school for the children of factory workers. This was Steiner's chance to train children who could initiate such spiritual contact." That's from the atlantic article.--Shibbolethink (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hgilbert:, thought I might just give you the heads up, I'm gonna start expanding on the role of gnomes and faceless dolls in Waldorf education.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Draft of new Reception section

((I'm putting the current reception section here, and I'll be making periodic edits to a new draft, that I'll employ soon after as a whole.))--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Educational scholars

In 2000, educational scholar Heiner Ullrich wrote that intensive study of Steiner's pedagogy had been in progress in educational circles in Germany since about 1990 and that positions were "highly controversial: they range from enthusiastic support to destructive criticism." In 2008, the same scholar wrote that Waldorf schools have "not stirred comparable discussion or controversy....those interested in the Waldorf School today...generally tend to view this school form first and foremost as a representative of internationally recognized models of applied classic reform pedagogy" and that critics tend to focus on what they see as Steiner's "occult neo-mythology of education" and to fear the risks of indoctrination in a worldview school, but lose an "unprejudiced view of the varied practice of the Steiner schools."

Professor of Education Bruce Uhrmacher considers Steiner's view on education worthy of investigation for those seeking to improve public schooling, saying the approach serves 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.

Thomas Nielsen, an assistant professor at the University of Canberra's Education Department, considers the imaginative teaching approaches used in Waldorf education (drama, exploration, storytelling, routine, arts, discussion and empathy) to be effective stimulators of spiritual-aesthetic, intellectual and physical development and recommends these to mainstream educators. Andreas Schleicher, international coordinator of the PISA studies, commented on the "high degree of congruence between what the world demands of people, and what Waldorf schools develop in their pupils", placing a high value on creatively and productively applying knowledge to new realms. This enables "deep learning" that goes beyond studying for the next test. Deborah Meier, principal of Mission Hill School and MacArthur grant recipient, whilst having some "quibbles" about the Waldorf schools, stated: "The adults I know who have come out of Waldorf schools are extraordinary people. That education leaves a strong mark of thoroughness, carefulness, and thoughtfulness."

Professor of Comparative Education Hermann Röhrs describes Waldorf education as embodying original pedagogical ideas and presenting exemplary organizational capabilities.

Robert Peterkin, Director of the Urban Superintendents Program at Harvard's Graduate School of Education and former Superintendent of Milwaukee Public Schools during a period when Milwaukee funded a public Waldorf school, considers Waldorf education a "healing education" whose underlying principles are appropriate for educating all children.

Waldorf education has also been studied as an example of educational neuroscience ideas in practice.

References

Relationship with mainstream education

Further information: Studies of Waldorf education

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

Professor of Education Elliot Eisner sees Waldorf education exemplifying embodied learning and fostering a more balanced educational approach than American public schools achieve. Ernest Boyer, former president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching commended the significant role the arts play throughout Waldorf education as a model for other schools to follow.

In 2000 American state and private schools were described as drawing on Waldorf education – "less in whole than in part" – in expanding numbers. Many elements of Waldorf pedagogy have been used in all Finnish schools for many years.

Spiritual and Religious Origins

References

Thebee

Thebee, why are you reverting such absurdly minor edits? Templates in that format just LOOK better when they're at the top of a section. We already have inline "dubious" to make it clear which part is considered dubious. Could it be this is animosity in action?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring

From the end of Shibbolethink's large series of edits, there have been several full reverts of the material. Please do not escalate this into an edit war where folks have their participation restricted (or removed). Just because a particular user has not conducted three reverts, does not mean what is happening is not edit warring and will not be treated as such by drive by admins. There has been some good discussion on the talk page here, and articles can always get better (not just longer). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I would think that a series of explained and valid edits should not be reverted wholesale for literally no reason at all (other than an "I think this user is a sockpuppet" complaint coming from an editor with an established conflict of interest). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, But....the number of wholesale reverts by everyone is what's going to get someone sanctioned. The important point is to be clear, and explain anything large on the talk page. My overly quick scan of Shibbolethink's edits is that a lot of them are nit picky to the point of being filler, compared to some of the very real questions and suggestions that he/she's made for improving the article. It might have been best to not mix the copyedits with the substance edits quite so thoroughly. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

All of those edits are an attempt to bring this article to NPOV. If you want to see why individual small changes can become an overall NPOV problem, see this legal study at Harvard about this article.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

OK: let's see if we can make gradual changes. I have explained that significant parts of the new material are not justified by the citations. I will revert these and expect a discussion according to WP:BRD HGilbert (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You've attempted to explain but what you keep doing is removing well-sourced material without refuting the citations! We've had this discussion, and you've failed to provide WP:RS or quotes that show how material is refuted in the sources themselves.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What I think you should do, is make minor edits individually, instead of attempting to bundle minor edits with wholesale removal of well-sourced material. I won't revert edits that aren't removing that well-sourced material.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't much matter if you simply revert everyone else, whether the changes are small or large. Which is what you are doing. HGilbert (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I reverted the wholesale changes and removals of cited material. I then went through and added back the stylistic changes that weren't clearly in violation of WP:NPOV, and WP:CITE that you and User:EPadmirateur did.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

References

The Guardian article.

@Hgilbert: since you asked, here's the guardian article's quotes:

"[Steiner] called the resulting spiritual world-view "anthroposophy". It incorporated reincarnation, karma, astrology, a dash of numerology and assorted other tenets that a sceptic might well be tempted to throw in a box marked, "So far, so wackjob". But, at least as far as education is concerned, it resulted in a liberal, progressive attitude that resonates deeply with current concerns about individual and social development and responsibility - not to mention lovely organic school meals."

"But teachers who believe in reincarnation and in children having astral bodies - can they see how that might be unsettling for the parent in the street? "I absolutely see that," says Van-Manen. "Some of the terms Steiner uses are very scary and confusing. But it's just terminology. We might say among ourselves, 'astral body'. Well, another word is 'soul' and everybody uses the word soul. Or use 'psyche', if you're more comfortable with that. But we do have these terms and I accept that it is very off-putting." And reincarnation? "I say: 'Fine, we don't expect you to believe in reincarnation, but just listen to this. Do you think it's such a bad thing that teachers who work with your child think that your child comes from somewhere, brings certain qualities and then goes off somewhere else? No, it's a good thing. It doesn't really matter whether you accept it. The point is that a child has certain qualities. We try to work with those, bring them out, and feel that those qualities will go out and have a life beyond.""

You yourself, Hgilbert, even admitted here:

FYI: What Steiner actually suggested was that people generally reincarnate every thousand years or so, but that it is very variable. HGilbert (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

that Steiner believed in reincarnation. And these numerous WP:RSes show that that theory of reincarnation plays a very big role in the curricular design of Waldorf Schools. So why are all your and EPadmiratuer's reverts focused on removing every mention of reincarnation? Let's compromise, show that both theories of reincarnation and incarnation exist, and that there are some who believe it's a 7 year cycle of incarnation/reincarnation, and others who believe it was a 1000 year cycle. Compromise is WP:FUN, and it results in GAs.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. Many Waldorf teachers believe in reincarnation, which is a central tent of anthroposophy. Fine. No one is trying to remove all mention of reincarnation. It is amply covered in the anthroposophy article, has long appeared in this article in a critical discussion, and could appear more strongly. No problem at all.

What needs to go is the nonsense about 7-year cycles. Why are you so fixed on this? It is an absurd, false claim hanging on one journalist's mistaken statement. It has no support from any other authority and the journalist does not attribute the idea to any source.

Let it go. Please. And above all stop claiming that sources which do not support this idea, do so. HGilbert (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not wed enough to the 7 year cycle claim to force it in. But will you at least admit that Whedon references the 7-year claim in an Academic publication? What do you think of my draft? How would you change it?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Whedon does not say that there are "7 year periods of incarnation". She refers to incarnation from one lifetime to the next (p. 49), not within a single life. The seven-year periods are periods of development within a single life. We all agree that these are posited within Waldorf education, and the article explains this in detail. HGilbert (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Whedon does say "Gradual stages of incarnation" that last 7 years. We're arguing about semantics. Any way, why don't you copyedit my draft instead of trying to WP:WIN.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Incarnation and reincarnation are as similar as birth and rebirth. Mistaking a biological description of birth for a description of rebirth would not be merely a semantic mistake, but a fundamental confusion. Just so here. So the first thing would be to stop confusing the two terms. So my copy-edit of your draft would be:

Waldorf education describes the process of incarnation as taking place in seven-year stages.

Since you feel that this is a matter of semantics, you won't mind my using the term that academic sources prefer in this context: "incarnation". HGilbert (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

EPadmirateur

@EPadmirateur:, I reverted the most recent two of your edits, because they remove well-sourced material. You said "accuracy" in your edit summary, could you explain further what you mean by "accuracy?" We've had long conversations about this on the talk page. If we're going to change these references, it should be to clarify their nature as from several sources, and not the opinion of everyone in the field. To be clear, there was no WP:CONSENSUS about this issue, so the references shouldn't be removed until we reach one.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

There, User:EPadmirateur, now I've combined our diffs to reflect your style edits, but keep the facts that are directly sourced.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm striving for accuracy, too. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you explain how those WP:RS don't show the accurate nature of the reincarnation claim?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Once more: The NYTimes article is the only one that links reincarnation to seven-year cycles. The Atlantic is merely quoting this article and does not represent an independent source.

No other source says anything more than that the idea of reincarnation influences the education. That is true. The connection to seven-year cycles is completely bogus. HGilbert (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, I'd be glad to respond -- thanks for the opportunity. "Developmental stages" is the term of art in Waldorf pedagogy to describe the 7-year stages a child goes through in development from birth into adulthood. There is more to them than what "developmental stages" simply states but using the term "reincarnation" or "rebirth" is inaccurate and misleading as Hgilbert has been saying.

You will not find any WP:RS sources from independent academic authors that use the term "reincarnation" to explain the theory behind the 7-year developmental stages in Waldorf eduction. Relying on newspaper sources, however numerous, to support the introduction of the term "reincarnation" into the description of this theory is just plain wrong. If you're willing to hear more, I'd be very glad to explain more. --EPadmirateur (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you give some WP:RS to explain this term of art? In which case, we could explain it in the article itself instead of leaving the distinction to the talk page? Such as ((stages of reincarnation, referred to by insiders as...) I think at this point it should be abundantly clear that the origin of these stages IS a theory of reincarnation, whether seven years or not, as Hgilbert would love to contest.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I mean guys, @EPadmirateur:@Hgilbert: we can come to an agreement about this, we shouldn't have to escalate to mediation or an ArbCom or w/e. I'm willing to compromise on the 7 year number if we explicitly include the words reincarnation where appropriate, and don't replace it with the sanitizing "term of art." This is not an article for adherents to the Waldorf system, it's an article to be read by interested parents. They deserve to know where the concept comes from.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Great! Let me explain this in general terms. So far, I have one WP:RS that's already among the references -- Sarah Whedon (2007)., Hands, Hearts, and Heads: Childhood and Esotericism in American Waldorf Education, pp. 46-48. Hopefully Hgilbert and others who have access to acceptable WP:RS sources can add to this.

Child development is viewed as a process progressive, gradual incarnation (NOT reincarnation) that goes in three 7-year stages. At birth, the etheric and astral bodies (the vehicles of the life force and the soul forces respectively) are wrapped in protective envelopes (as Whedon puts it). During ages 0-7 the etheric works to develop the physical body (hence the pedagogical focus on physical activity and imitation). At the change of teeth around age 6-7, the etheric is released. During ages 7-14 the astral forces (especially of feeling) work to develop the etheric (hence the pedagogical focus on the imagination, ideals and values). Puberty around age 13-14 then signals the release of the astral. During 14-21, the astral forces of thinking especially are the focus and the ego (the sense of I) is worked on. During this time the pedagogical focus is the development of the intellect and independent judgment.

I hope you can see from this that the journalists who describe this process as different stages of reincarnation have got it wrong. So a better description in the Waldorf education#Anthroposophical basis would be something like "Steiner believed that children pass through three developmental stages of seven years, beginning with birth and ending at 21 years of age, which involve a progressive incarnation of the different aspects of the child's being, the physical body, the etheric or life-force aspect and the astral or soul-force aspect.(ref Whedon, pp. 46-48) This idea informs the pedagogical focus and curricular content of the pre-school/kindergarten, elementary and secondary programs."

Other references to child development should then refer to "stages of development". If need be, words that explain the special nature of the child development theory should refer to "stages of development in accord with the child's progressive incarnation into physical existence", or something like that. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that sound about right. I mentioned that same Whedon source in my conversation with Hgilbert over at Wikiproject:Skepticism. So since we have these two groups of WP:RS, we should really put them side by side in the article, then. I think that's a good compromise. Deal?

Something like this:

"Journalists from the BBC, the NYT, the Chicago Tribune, and the Guardian have described these stages as modes of reincarnation of the soul developing in 7 year increments. Academics, such as Sarah Whedon, have described them rather as incarnation of the soul into physical existence." How's that? It's just my first draft. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

We could also then, of course, provide more academic sources to back up the incarnation assessment, and put them there with Whedon. and make it like "Academic researches<a number of citations>" or "Academic researches from X Y and Z journal <a number of citations>...." Or something like that. I'm a big fan. This would then meet the standard of presenting theories in proportion, not just a balance of opposing theories.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You really are not listening. The BBC, Tribune, and Guardian claim no such thing. Nothing you have quoted from these sources is remotely supportive of a reincarnation of the soul in 7-year increments. There is one source, a newspaper article about a different topic, and that is not sufficient to make a claim that every other source does not support. A journalist is not an expert on philosophy. Reliable sources would be academic publications; as previous admins have noted in previous arbitrations, there are ample such to rely on. HGilbert (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't get to decide what a WP:RS is. That's why this exists: WP:RS.Let's go through the facts: Your academic source, Whedon, says there are 7 year periods of incarnation. NYT says reincarnation in 7 year increments. Atlantic, BBC, Guardian, Chicago Trib, and Salon say reincarnation influences waldorf education. Can't we combine all of these things into a cohesive draft? Are you literally not willing to include anything from these WP:RSes? You're unwilling to compromise?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS states, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks...[or] material from high-quality mainstream publications" should be used, and emphasizes that "even the most reputable [news] reporting sometimes contains errors". As there are plenty of academic and peer-reviewed publications on the subject, these should be used rather than newspaper reports.

Sources that rank way higher on WP:RS' list and that give plenty of information on the topic include:

1. Olav Hammer, Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age. For example, "After centuries in a discarnate state, the essence of the individual is reborn in a new physical sheath" chosen by high spiritual beings. "One is often reincarnated twice in every astrological age [2160 years for Steiner], once as a man and once as a woman".
2. Heiner Ullrich, Rudolf Steiner, Bloomsbury Publishing. For example: "children, seemingly inexperienced and helpless, appear to their parents or caregivers as an age-old being with unknown abilities...All a person's traits must...be seen as the result of numerous previous spiritual and emotional lives" and "For Steiner, karma does not represent unchangeable destiny...at any moment one may begin to...change one's own destiny"
3. Helmut Zander, Reinkarnation und Christentum: Rudolf Steiners Theorie der Wiederverkorperung im Dialog mit der Theologie (a very mainstream academic with no affiliation to anthroposophy)
4. Jörg Ewertowski, "Anthroposophie als Geisteswissenschaft", in Uhlenhoff, Rahel (ed.) Anthroposophie in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag
5. Willmann Waldorfpädogogik, part of a series on various alternative pedagogies. (See p. 27-30.) HGilbert (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Per ArbCom, sources from Anthroposophists are off limits for statements of fact.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, none of these are anthroposophists. They are all academics.

Second, that's actually not remotely what the ArbCom said. It said sources published by anthroposophical presses should not be used as citations for controversial matters. For uncontested matters of fact they are fine. Furthermore, WP policy states that even self-published sources are legitimate for self-description; e.g. it is fine to use Steiner's work, or that of anthroposophical authors, to discover what Steiner believed. But this is irrelevant here; these are high quality academic sources. HGilbert (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Advert Tag (settled)

I just added the advert tag, which I probably should have done before. In concert with the NPOV, this article uses a host of advert-like terms. To quote a few things that I noticed to be advert like:

"imbue the child with a sense that the world is good" "beautiful" "true" etc.

These are not objective terms, and we cannot say that Steiner's worldview is an objective reality.

"Seating arrangements and class activities may be planned taking into account the temperaments of the students[53] but this is often not readily apparent to observers."

This sentence smacks of a defense of Waldorfian temperament-based seating, etc. Like something you would find on a Waldorf school website, not an encyclopedia.

"Letter grades are generally not given until students enter high school at 14–15 years,[56] as the educational emphasis is on children's holistic development, not solely their academic progress"

holistic development is a buzzword-phrase if I've ever heard one.

"Waldorf pedagogical theory considers that during the first years of life, children learn best by being immersed in an environment they can learn from through unselfconscious imitation"

What exactly does "unselfconscious imitation" mean? At the end of the day, I don't think these, and the other numerous examples of advert-like buzzword non-NPOV are the result of /bad faith/ but rather a misunderstanding of the nature of Wiki style :/ I'll be going through and attempting to fix this in the near future. If anyone else wants to help, just post here on what sections you'd like to focus on.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There should be, and is, no claim that WE does imbue children with these, but it is true and should be mentioned that it is its aim to do so. It is valid to include objectives of the education so long as these are clearly distinguished from its empirical attainments. To say that the Catholic Church intends the salvation of its members is not an advert for the Church; it merely describes its established purpose. So here, that the child learns in progressive stages of life that the world is good, beautiful, and true is merely a description of Waldorf's intention. As it is also a reliably sourced claim, taking it out would seem to violate RS.

The statement about seating arrangements is taken straight from a thesis about the education; it clearly represented the experience of the observing writer, not an attempt to defend the principle. As it is also RSourced, I question its removal. I am not attached to the sentence.

We can replace the term holistic development.

I don't know why "unselfconscious imitation" puzzles you. But we could just say imitation.

Finally, NPOV does not say that no statements with positive valuations may appear, any more than it restricts statements with negative valuations. Its explicit point is that all points of view should be represented. Any attempt to throw in every negative reception of the education while attempting to exclude all positive reception is in danger of violating NPOV. HGilbert (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. Which is why the way that these are currently written into the text are much better than the way before I edited them. They should be separated as an intention instead of blended in like an empirical fact. These were examples of how I think we should more clearly delineate in-universe claims from anthropological empirical ones.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The wording now in the article is fine, except it would be better to say that this is the "declared" than that it is the "official" goal. I personally think the older wording also made it abundantly clear that this was a goal, but have no problem with the change.. HGilbert (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"Declared" is fine in my book.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Also yeah, just "imitation" is much better in my opinion.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Reincarnation

Steiner's human developmental construct is listed in Wikipedia under "Developmental Stage Theories" of which there are many similar physical, emotional, psychological, even spiritual constructs. "Reincarnation" is outside all Developmental Stage Theories as it occurs after death and not during life. One can only have one life at a time therefore one may not reincarnate while you are still alive. Should this reference be removed from this section? Greeddados (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I really don't think arguments from logic make sense when we're talking about theories steeped in magical thinking. So I'd prefer if we kept it to talking about WP:RSes take on what Steiner/Waldorf educators believe.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

How could one reincarnate every seven years??? The cited NYTimes article is clearly not a competent source for Steiner's views. If we wish to refer to these views, we should use the many high-quality academic analyses of Steiner's thinking, none of which suggests any sort of 7-year reincarnation plan. Nor does anything in Steiner's works support this. I have removed this curious passage.

FYI: What Steiner actually suggested was that people generally reincarnate every thousand years or so, but that it is very variable. HGilbert (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but here are several more sources backing up the every 7 years claim. The Atlantic and The New York Times are both very reputable sources, as are Salon, the BBC, etc.I'm reverting your rollbacks. You have yet to produce sources directly refuting the claim that Steiner believed in the 7 year reincarnation, and I've provided several that verify it. Worthy sources for reference by WP:RS standards are not those of a high academic standing, but that:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"--Shibbolethink (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Also from WP:RS re: News Organizations:

"News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact."

So basically, if you produce a variety of scholarly sources refuting the 7 years claim, we can instead keep it in and say that "Several noted individuals from the BBC, Salon, the New York Times, and the Atlantic have reported that...." But you can't erase the fact that various different PRIMARY news agencies (the BBC and the Atlantic are both considered primary because they don't reprint stories from the AP.) have asserted the claim.--Shibbolethink (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry; none of these sources claim that Steiner either (1) believed in a 7-year reincarnation cycle, or (2) that reincarnation underlies the 3-stage theory. All that they claim is that Steiner believed in reincarnation, and that the idea of reincarnation is important for Waldorf education. This is true but has nothing to do with 7-year cycles. HGilbert (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

-> Please see wikipedia's "Developmental Stage Theories" listing which refers to Steiner's, and other theoriests, 7-year phases. Greeddados (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are quotes, since you seem to be misreading these sources.

• "It was also the method that contributed to Mr. Steiner's view of child development, which forms the basis of Waldorf education. He believed that people experience a type of reincarnation every seven years, beginning with the physical birth and ending at age 21, when the spirit of a human being is fully developed and continually reincarnated on earth. Certain subjects are taught at times that he thought best coincided with these changes."
• "He also points out that the ultimate goal of Anthroposophy is to lead children through the stages of reincarnation, which blurs the line between education and religion to an even greater extent. Nancy Frost*, a former Waldorf instructor, concurs: “I heard in a faculty meeting that there were many important souls waiting to reincarnate in this century and that they would only be able to do so if there were enough Waldorf schools,” she says. “By the end of the year I taught there I was completely convinced that Waldorf constituted a cultlike religious movement which concealed its true nature from prospective parents.”
• "That is because of the particular views of Rudolf Steiner, the intellectual father of Steiner schools. The Austrian-born occultist, who died in 1925, left a vast body of work covering everything from biodynamic farming to alternative medicine. It is known, collectively, as "anthroposophy". The SWSF's guidelines from 2011 said that schools using the Steiner name were obliged to prove "an anthroposophical impulse lies at the heart of planning for the school". Since 2013, this has been made vaguer: they now need a commitment to "the fundamental principles of Waldorf education". Those ideas are based in a belief in reincarnation. Pupils may not have been sold this creed, but Steiner was very strict that teachers were not supposed to pass them on to children - just to act on them."
• "At other times, spirit serves as a kind of internal clock that orders the way subjects are taught. As the the New York Times explained in 2000, "Steiner believed that people experience a type of reincarnation every seven years, beginning with the physical birth and ending at age 21, when the spirit of a human being is fully developed and continually reincarnated on earth." As a direct consequence, at traditional Waldorf schools, "certain subjects are taught at times that he thought best coincided with these changes." Students also remain with the same instructor for periods of about seven years, a technique known as "looping." A Steiner biographer notes that "it's not unusual for many parents sending their children to Steiner schools to be unaware of his occult philosophy." Some of the school's more unusual practices turn potential families away -- for instance, the fact that children aren't taught to read until second or third grade. Day to day, though, the esoteric influence at Waldorf schools is practically invisible."

That should be sufficient. See above as well, if you produce sources refuting the seven years claim, we can clarify the seven years claim by saying that prominent staff on these news sources have reported this fact, while scholars dispute it.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There is only one source that makes this claim: the NYTimes article, written by someone with no expertise and citing no source for the claim. The Atlantic article merely quotes the NYTimes; this is not an independent source. The rest of the citations above in no way connect reincarnation to a seven-year cycle.

If this were true, it would be possible to find a second source supporting this. Absent any, and any evidence whatsoever that either Steiner or any Waldorf source ever suggested such a thing, why would we put an evidently false claim in this article???HGilbert (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There are several sources linking reincarnation to practices in Waldorf schools. I gave you them. The NYT directly references the 7 year claim, and the other sources link reincarnation directly to practices in Waldorf schools. What more do you want? WP:RS does not mean an expert. WP:RS means published by an agency that fact checks. The NYT is incredibly well known for its fact-checking. As is the Atlantic. For instance, you already used the Atlantic elsewhere in the article! We don't need to prove that Steiner ever said it, we just need to prove that people believe that Waldorf schools use this ideology. I've done that.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Clearly, at most, the NYT article from 2000 can be used in good consciousness at present, citing it as source for "a type of reincarnation" taking place every seven years, as a full reincarnation of the spirit would require first a full excarnation of the spirit, meaning that the person dies, and I very much doubt anyone, anywhere has claimed that as taking place at seven, or fourteen, or 21, and that it then has been published by a reliable fact-checking source. Thebee (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Might a newbie here offer that "seven-year reincarnations" is an interesting but highly misleading rendering of something actually well known? Namely, that the mineral content of the human body is cycled out, even from the teeth, so that isotope-marked chemicals are found to have completely disappeared within a span of seven years. (The teeth actually replace their content faster.) This is an extremely literal (but not inaccurate?) rendering of "re-in-carn-ation"; perhaps some fan or critic of Waldorf thought it was a clever insight to identify it as a "reincarnation."

Anyway, one of Steiner's major students, Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, spoke of this in 1958 in a public lecture on nutrition, as follows: "Now we must ask ourselves: what does metabolism mean? ... If I had stood seven years ago on this podium and one had made a little sign somewhere in the [chemical] substance in my body, and I had stood here again today, you would not find the smallest remnant of such a mark. Instead, a completely different substance would be here. This picture could be compared with the bed of a stream and the stream itself. The water in the stream is never the same; at every second it is different, while the bed of the stream remains. ... So it is also with our body. ... After seven years we have arrived, so to speak, at the end point, where one can be absolutely certain that nothing of the original substance remains anymore." This lecture was published in English in 1981 in a small booklet.. TomShoshoni (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Tom's note is interesting. If the physical substance is regarded as the body, then there is a new body every seven years, and whatever it is that incarnates is incarnated in a new body. But is that reincarnation? No one I'm aware of uses that conception, logical though it may be. Anthroposophists regard the body of life-formative forces (etheric body) as the enduring "life form" rather than the chemicals. — The quotes in the New York Times article are certainly interesting but they are reflect individual interviews. Every Waldorf school is independent; there is no kind of doctrinal authority as in religious schools. Every Waldorf teacher is called on to exert herself or himself to meet each of the unique persons in the class and to work with their development artistically, which doesn't leave a lot of time for other studies. Some teachers are anthroposophists, but that is an unavoidably loose term, since the scope of anthroposophy touches almost every aspect of culture and Steiner emphasized freedom as the basis of further human development; and some of them will take anthroposophy up in a literal and dogmatic way according to their characters. If some teacher has picked up the idea of seven-year reincarnation and mentions it to a New York Times reporter, that may get printed, but it doesn't make it a credible account of Waldorf education or anthroposophy. The most authoritative sources are Steiner and the various heads of the Pedagogical Section since 1924 at the Goetheanum. One wonders how reincarnation may be handled in India now, given that it is a traditional concept there, but that Steiner's view of it differed significantly from Hindu-Vedantic authorities. jb (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources

I would suggest that we rely on academic/peer-reviewed sources for general material about the education, and restrict newspapers to information about current events or disputes. HGilbert (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, as you already know. I think academic sources are liable to bias in this area, since very few sources study Waldorf education without having a COI. They exist, those NPOV WP:RS from academia, I'll readily admit it. And you have some in this article. But I think others, like Whedon, have shown plainly that they operate in-universe. They aren't studying it from an anthropological perspective.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I DO think academic sources on Waldorf's validity, like studies of its effectiveness, are totally WP:RS and I completely agree we should use them. I mean the academic papers in areas of non-data-based analysis.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

While scientific sources are preferred over newspapers for certain scientific claims, creating any broad claim that this is true for "general material about the education" would not fit with WP:Verifiability. However, in that light, this academic paper from the American Educational Research Association should find its way into this article at some point. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to lay down a hard and fast line here, but just to point us toward quality sources appropriate to the purpose. WP:RS clearly suggest that academic and peer-reviewed sources are the most reliable. Would an article on any philosophy rely on newspaper accounts of that philosophy to describe the fundamental principles of that philosophy? Or would it use academic books and peer-reviewed journals for this purpose, assuming these are available?

And yes, the paper you cite can certainly be used to establish critiques and recommendations. HGilbert (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Dubious (settled)

Here are quotes from these sources verifying the claims that User:Hgilbert has marked as dubious:

• "It was also the method that contributed to Mr. Steiner's view of child development, which forms the basis of Waldorf education. He believed that people experience a type of reincarnation every seven years, beginning with the physical birth and ending at age 21, when the spirit of a human being is fully developed and continually reincarnated on earth. Certain subjects are taught at times that he thought best coincided with these changes."

• "He also points out that the ultimate goal of Anthroposophy is to lead children through the stages of reincarnation, which blurs the line between education and religion to an even greater extent. Nancy Frost*, a former Waldorf instructor, concurs: “I heard in a faculty meeting that there were many important souls waiting to reincarnate in this century and that they would only be able to do so if there were enough Waldorf schools,” she says. “By the end of the year I taught there I was completely convinced that Waldorf constituted a cultlike religious movement which concealed its true nature from prospective parents.”

• "That is because of the particular views of Rudolf Steiner, the intellectual father of Steiner schools. The Austrian-born occultist, who died in 1925, left a vast body of work covering everything from biodynamic farming to alternative medicine. It is known, collectively, as "anthroposophy". The SWSF's guidelines from 2011 said that schools using the Steiner name were obliged to prove "an anthroposophical impulse lies at the heart of planning for the school". Since 2013, this has been made vaguer: they now need a commitment to "the fundamental principles of Waldorf education". Those ideas are based in a belief in reincarnation. Pupils may not have been sold this creed, but Steiner was very strict that teachers were not supposed to pass them on to children - just to act on them."

• "At other times, spirit serves as a kind of internal clock that orders the way subjects are taught. As the the New York Times explained in 2000, "Steiner believed that people experience a type of reincarnation every seven years, beginning with the physical birth and ending at age 21, when the spirit of a human being is fully developed and continually reincarnated on earth." As a direct consequence, at traditional Waldorf schools, "certain subjects are taught at times that he thought best coincided with these changes." Students also remain with the same instructor for periods of about seven years, a technique known as "looping." A Steiner biographer notes that "it's not unusual for many parents sending their children to Steiner schools to be unaware of his occult philosophy." Some of the school's more unusual practices turn potential families away -- for instance, the fact that children aren't taught to read until second or third grade. Day to day, though, the esoteric influence at Waldorf schools is practically invisible."

That should be sufficient. See above as well, if you produce sources refuting the seven years claim, we can clarify the seven years claim by saying that prominent staff on these news sources have reported this fact, while scholars dispute it.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hgilbert: If I change the mentions to "The NYT, BBC, the Atlantic, and the Guardian have reported that Waldorf education systems...blah blah blah 7 years reincarnation etc." will you remove the dubious claims? Then we're making it directly about it being said elsewhere.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There should be no mention of seven-year reincarnation periods, at all. This is nonsense. The BBC and the Guardian say nothing about it. The Atlantic merely quotes the NYTimes. You have one poor source (a newspaper is not a quality source to report on a philosophical movement) to support an evidently nonsensical claim. Steiner's complete works are available online. Find even one mention of a seven-year reincarnation cycle either in them, or in any other source than the one NYTimes article (or someone quoting this), and the discussion is worth having. Otherwise the passage should simply go. HGilbert (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean, no mention, at all? The NYT directly says it. The BBC and the Guardian directly reference the connection between reincarnation periods and the curriculum. If Newspapers and periodicals aren't quality sources for philosophical movements, then why are they used so commonly across the entire wikipedia to do just that? Also, we're talking about Anthroposophy as a pseudoscience, not as a philosophical movement in this case. We already went all over about this over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skepticism#Waldorf_Education_and_Anthroposophy. Finally, Wikipedia IS NOT ABOUT PRIMARY SOURCES. This has also been talked about up and down several times over in that ArbCom decision from like 8 years ago. This is getting repetitive. If a number of prominent newspapers say something, it deserves to be on Wikipedia. That's the WP:RS policy. It's policy!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, @Hgilbert:, if you could refrain from editing inline my comments on this talk page, that would be greatly appreciated.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The BBC says only that the idea of reincarnation is central to anthroposophy.

There is no quote from the Guardian here; I don't know what you are referring to.

The Atlantic is directly quoting the NYTimes article, and says so clearly.

The Salon article merely says that Waldorf education is meant to support the (re)incarnation process. (Also, Salon is hardly a RS.)

You are left with the NYTimes article as the only one that talks about "reincarnation periods". A side comment in a newspaper article is simply not sufficient to make an evidently spurious claim when there is absolutely no other supporting evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs) 11:20, 21 March 2015‎

Yep. You seem to have hit the nail on the head. If you combine the NYT source and the Whedon source, then we can clearly say that what some journalists (listed above) describe as reincarnation is done in 7 year cycles, whereas Whedon and other academics (that I presume you will produce) describe it as a gradual incarnation of the soul. Salon is a RS. It has fact checking in some cases, in others it's just an editorial thing, it has a wide readership. It's an opinion RS, which in this case is what we're using it for anyway. You keep saying there's no supporting evidence, but SOURCES (like the whedon article) already claim there's a 7 year period of incarnation. The NYT article just says it's REINCARNATION. So we have to give parity. we have to represent both sides in proportion to how they exist out there in the world. See further down in the page where I explain my draft of how I think that should be done, instead of wholesale dismissing evidence like this. Clearly people think reincarnation is involved, so we should use the word "reincarnation." somewhere in the article. I won't budge on that, because all these WP:RSes say it. but I will compromise for parity and proportionality. Why won't you do the same?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First of all, WP should not include statements that are factually wrong, so the use of the NYT source should not be in consideration at all, despite being ostensibly a WP:RS reliable source. There are several sources, both "allowed" academic sources and even more numerous anthroposophical sources, that demonstrate the NYT statement is factually wrong -- the child developmental stages in WE do NOT involve some sort of repeated reincarnation process, where "people experience a type of reincarnation every seven years". While the anthroposophical sources are not allowed as references in the WE article, they can be used by editors as sources to establish the factual correctness of a source.

Second, the appeal to WP:PARITY among sources can't apply in cases of factual errors. If you want to describe a "fringe" theory, then get the description right. WP should not be used to repeat and perpetuate factual errors about anything, even so-called fringe theories. The only reasons an editor might knowingly wish to promote a factually incorrect description of a theory would be to demean and mock its adherents and to mislead the public about it. Since we are WP:AGF assuming good faith here, that couldn't be the motivation among any editors here, right? --EPadmirateur (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added a thought about this "seven-year reincarnation" above under Reincarnation. TomShoshoni (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing with these replies, and see #The_Guardian_article. for clarification that Whedon talks about an incarnation process in seven-year cycles, which does not even remotely support the idea that there is reincarnation in seven-year cycles. HGilbert (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Lead

I agree that the lead is somewhat overlong, but let's work on it section by section, and above all avoid introducing grammatically-confusing passages. HGilbert (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps now it is both shorter, and more grammatically adherent to WP:MOS.--Shibbolethink (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I've clarified some of the content -- when the philosophy, and when the actual practice, is meant, for example -- and restored the explicit reference to early childhood, elementary, and secondary education, which is fundamental.

As far as the conclusion goes: the science curriculum has empirically-verifiable excellence of results and has received criticism. The criticism should not overwhelm the empirical evidence (of multiple PISA and other studies) that demonstrates the science curriculum's quality and success. Either neither should be in the lead, or both should. HGilbert (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

See this is what I'm talking about in the criticism section. You're right! Both should be included. But the /style/ of how you include them is VITALLY important. If I give you two sentences which read like:

<criticism><BUT refutation></criticism></refutation>

then it is much more biased than

<criticism></criticism><refutation></refutation>. In one, the reader is given a criticism, which is then IMMEDIATELY refuted, but allowed to continue, whereas in the other the criticism and refutations are allowed to exist as standalone thoughts. It's subtle, but I think it's rampant throughout this article.--Shibbolethink (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to have an approximate balance to positive and negative evaluations in the lead, and also to vary the order in which these occur. Further rearrangements are certainly possible.

I have also removed one evaluative comment that was completely unsupported by the source given. HGilbert (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Loose wording

Recent edits have added a lot of loose wording that ends up being very misleading. I will begin to list these here. Feel free to comment inline.

The term "official" (settled issue)

Calling WE a "semi-official theory of education" in Europe is misleading. The lead should be changed to reflect the real situation, which is one of wide acceptance and influence. Look at the old wording (why was this changed???) for a clearer statement of the facts. HGilbert (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing with that comment, and after reading the above discussion (as from 17:25, 17 March 2015) in my view the use of a more than dubious source attributing to Steiner a theory of seven-year cycle of reincarnation in child development may have been in good faith but, to anyone acquainted with the content of the article here (Waldorf education) and its presentation of the known and public information on the topic, is absurdly naive and ignorant, and gives no confidence in the edits of the person who is claiming to have adopted the article as a personal project, with no prior knowledge and after a conversation with a friend. In fact, the attempt to use a decision to adopt the article as a project for revision is unconvincing, and becomes less so the more one sees the responses to knowledgeable, npov, criticism. Qexigator (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what exactly are you accusing me of here?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you think I'm like some sort of anti-Waldorf POV activist editor or Whackjob or something? Be plain, please.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, Re: The semi-official wording, it should be made clear that Waldorf education is and is not official in Europe in different contexts. It gets governmental funding in a lot of places, but is governed by different accreditation committees etc. Is this wrong? Waldorf is not the only form of accepted official education in Europe, that much is certain.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "semi-official" means in this (or any) context, and therein lies a problem already; wording should be clear. Yes, governmental funding is available for private schools generally in many parts of Europe. Does that make every pedagogy that receives funding semi-official? Why not just say that WE receives government funding, if that's all you mean? And why change a clear wording (what the article originally said) for an unclear one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs)

Yeah, that's fair. Let's just include an element that means says some WE schools have received governmental funding, but that others have received controversy in this context. It was a very minor edit, and I think it's fine you want to revert it.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hooray! Agreement on a subject! Thanks; let's work to resolve the other issues, as well. HGilbert (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Magical thinking

Waldorf Education does have a lot of roots in magical thinking. When I first read this article, I did not get that at all anywhere in the text. I think that's a failure of the former structure of the article and the issues with NPOV. other WP:RSes made that clear, including actually reading in depth the academic sources referenced here. It seemed to me there was a systematic de-emphasis on the magical thinking elements. Do you disagree?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Magical thinking is a curious term in this context. I have seen the term used to describe homeopathy, and thus anthroposophic medicine where it employs homeopathy, and it makes sense to me in this context. I have not heard it used to refer to the education, nor does it make sense to me. Do you have a RS for this?? HGilbert (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

From David Jelinek, Ph.D. over at the American Educational Research Association (AERA), a paper so generously provided by User:Dkriegls:

"As a first step Waldorf should disregard Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy as the source of accurate scientific concepts. The basis for this recommendation is that Steiner’s teachings do not pass the tests of empiricism (a,b,c and d), are not testable by anyone (e), have not changed much, if any, since Steiner introduced them (f), and rely on paranormal statements that cannot be verified (g)."

Any claim that "cannot be verified by observation or reason" is, by definition, Magical thinking.

Also this MotherJones source describes Waldorf education as another anthroposophical belief that derives from Steiner's view of the soul, which is not empirically verifiable.

Also this paper from Research on Steiner Education self-describes Waldorf as a process that instills "magical thinking" from ages 2-7 (pp 79). That's not a WP:RS, but it is for statements in-universe.

Finally, it's clear enough that others, particularly those involved in PLANS, believe Waldorf to be based on magical thinking. See this article from the Atlantic monthly: "These notions make Dugan, who is a sound engineer, smile and shake his head. "I'm opposed to magical thinking; I'm a secular humanist," he told me as we chatted recently in an office stuffed with electronic equipment on one side and dozens of anthroposophy books on the other, all of which he claims to have read. In Dugan's view, Steiner's theories are simply "cult pseudo-science." After Waldorf began spreading into public school classrooms, Dugan formed a group called PLANS (People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools) to declare what he calmly calls "epistemological warfare." His goal, he says, is to sort out two questions: "What is reliable knowledge? How is it obtained?"" --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a lot of OR. What I take away: Anthroposophy is based on non-empirically verifiable ideas. That's true of every philosophy, by the way.

And PLANS is not a RS. HGilbert (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Incarnation/reincarnation

1. The mistake discussed above reappears where the article states that "the structure of Waldorf education follows Steiner's theories of child development and reincarnation, which divide childhood into three developmental stages of reincarnation or rebirth". This should read, "the structure of Waldorf education follows Steiner's theories of child development and reincarnation, which divide childhood into three developmental stages of reincarnation or rebirth". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs)

How about "the structure of Waldorf education follows Steiner's theories of child development and gradual spiritual incarnation, which divide childhood into three developmental stages of incarnation of souls from 1000 years prior."--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

We need to avoid confusing incarnation (essentially child development) and reincarnation (the reappearance of a previous individuality in a new life). How about The structure of Waldorf education follows Steiner's theories of child development and progressive incarnation, which divide childhood into three developmental stages. and Waldorf Education understands children's traits to be "the result of numerous previous spiritual and emotional lives. (In a case where we are struggling with wording, quoting a RS avoids arguing over differing interpretations.)

Comment on above: 'Incarnation' is described as meaning embodied in flesh or taking on flesh. It refers to the conception and birth of a sentient creature who is the material manifestation of an entity, god or force whose original nature is immaterial. Given that it is applicable to child development generally, would a link to that be acceptable here, if it is what the source intends? Qexigator (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That direct link between childhood development and (re)incarnation that you're making, Hgilbert, and Qexigator for that matter, is Original Research. I never made that link, and I don't think you should do it for the reader, in lieu of letting them make their own conclusions about the relatedness of childhood development and spiritual incarnation.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No; Whedon, for example, explains their direct connection on the page you cite (p. 46). Other sources can easily be found, too. HGilbert (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I won't budge. We would be doing a disservice to the readers of this page if we don't include the word reincarnation. This wiki page is for people who are interested in learning about Waldorf Education, and you want to include terms of art instead of what the discipline is based on. It's based on principles of magical thinking, specifically reincarnation. We should include that. Even your WP:RSes say that. Why don't you want to include it?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I want to stick to reliable sources, which clearly distinguish

• developmental stages as progressive incarnational process, and
• reincarnation as an event between human lives.

Both of these have their place. Just don't try to confuse them. Perhaps it would defuse the situation if we would simply quote any academic source on the subject instead of using either of our wordings. HGilbert (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again: I am proposing to include both progressive incarnation and reincarnation (i.e. not excluding any topic listed here), but not confusing them. So, for example (these can certainly be tweaked or changed):

• "The structure of Waldorf education follows Steiner's theories of child development, which divide childhood into three developmental stages, sometimes regarded as progressive stages of incarnation".
• "Waldorf teachers are tasked with helping each child's soul and spirit grow in accordance with" the anthroposophical belief that each is a reincarnating individual, descending from and destined to return to a spiritual world.

Early childhood

1. "These practical activities are provided in lieu of reading, writing, and other academic disciplines traditionally present in pre-school curriculums." The cited source does not say that these are traditionally present in such curricula, but the opposite: that there is a trend today toward including such disciplines. Including academic work in KG is a relatively recent trend, not the tradition. HGilbert (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite to be: "These practical activities are provided in lieu of reading, writing, and other academic disciplines present in other pre-school curriculums."--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 07:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

They are not provided "in lieu" of anything, and to say so verges on (or crosses over into) OR. How about: The curriculum centers on practical activities and opportunities for imaginative play. Reading, writing, and other academic disciplines are not introduced until the elementary school (first grade). Then the section on Waldorf_education#Reading_and_literacy, which can be revised to be more comprehensive if we find more Rsources, should follow. HGilbert (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Done HGilbert (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Merging of Theory and Practice

As far as I can tell, much of the ideas resident in the sections "Educational Theory" and "Educational Practice" are incredibly interrelated, if not the exact same. I'd like to embark on a small project to merge these two into a single section, "Educational Theory and Practice." The goal of this article should be to educate a layperson on the ideas inherent to Waldorf education and how the practice of education exists in Waldorf Schools. At the moment, I feel that is impeded by over-complication and overt verbosity. Thoughts? --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This duplication arose from a previous editor who criticized the lack of a separate theory section. I agree that there is no real reason to run through the developmental sequence three times, however, which the current article does. I have begun a merge process. HGilbert (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Unsupported material

I am finding many statements that are "supported" with citations which do not even mention the specific topic, e.g.

• Anthroposophical belief in developmental cycles is also the origin of many practices in Waldorf Schools, including the delay of reading and writing education until after age seven, and the removal of televisions and computers from a young child's environment.

  These articles do not mention the relationship of televisions and computers to developmental cycles. In fact, I don't see that they mention television at all.

  The introduction of academic subjects such as reading and writing education is covered in a separate section. This should be merged HGilbert (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Holistic education

The term "holistic education" is not a buzzword or advert; it is a descriptive term used frequently in contemporary discussions of education. A Worldcat search for the term reveals numerous mainstream publications that use the term in the title or self-description. A Google scholar search reveals more than 700,000 hits.

That it is applicable to WE is verifiable by numerous RS, notably Thomas William Nielsen's Rudolf Steiner's pedagogy of imagination : a case study of holistic education, published by a mainstream press. HGilbert (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this issue resolved, or are there further questions? HGilbert (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of cooperation needed to work on the issues related to the numerous tagging of this article. It is not fair to our editors when an editor places so many tags on a long-standing article that an editor such as myself is left at a loss as to where to help with the removal of the tags. And in the meantime our readers remain just as confused as to the reliability of the article and don't understand where the problems may lie. If the editor that did all the tagging continues to refuse to take part in all the discussions he/she started, I'm going to start removing tags that seem settled to me. Gandydancer (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the {{advert}} ("article contains content that is written like an advertisement"), {{peacock}} ("article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information"), and {{copy edit}} ("article may require copy editing for style and tone") templates are redundant and at least two of them should be removed. Since we can specify what's wrong with the copyedit tag then maybe we should keep that one and maybe replace the "style and tone" with something longer or more specific.

{{POV}} ("neutrality of this article is disputed") and {{condense}} ("article may have too many section headers dividing up its content") seem to point at the same problem which is possibly covered by the {{overly detailed}} ("article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience") tag.

Or maybe POV and advert point at the same problem, in any case there's a lot of redundancy here and Shibbolethink should explain why he added each tag and/or suggest which ones he thinks we should keep (for the article as it is in its current state). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Because maintenance tags aren't supposed to be badges of shame but if we over-tag the article like so then it kinda seems like an effort to accentuate how horrible this article is. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Jeraphine Gryphon's above comments. Qexigator (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, maintenance tags are not a badge of shame. So why don't we reduce to just NPOV and Excessive detail? Those are my two main problems with the page. For examples of the first, see the reception section. For examples of the second, see the many stages of Waldorf Education. The first has a lack of cohesion and lacks many critical receptions that exist in WP:RSes mentioned elsewhere on this talk page. The second restates many of the features of each developmental stage in two redundant headings. This is an excessive detail that detracts from the goal of all articles on wiki: to educate a general interest individual with the important and pertinent details on a subject. for what I mean, see WP:NOTJOURNAL, etc.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

OK; let's move forward on this. I have established a discussion and archiving sections for some of these problems below. I have also tried to merge parallel topics repeated in several places, a work that needs to continue. For what it's worth, I'd like to note that this fragmentation did not arise through my editing work.

For the NPOV problems you cite, a discussion was opened above to revise the current Reception section. I agree that a balanced solution should be found on the talk page before replacing the current section. HGilbert (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't see that the stages of WE are duplicated any more now that I have removed the run-through of these @Shibbolethink added to the Anthroposophy section. Is there something I'm missing, or is this problem resolved? HGilbert (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Begin to work on issues

I would like to help to satisfy the issues that an editor has listed. I will start with:

This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. (March 2015)

Please list the details which have been considered to be excessive and I will work on it. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Doing that is probably not as simple as you make it sound. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If it is so complicated that I can't figure out how to work to fix the problem, is that not a problem? It is quite easy to tag an article, but the editor must be able to specify the problem so that others can work to remedy it. Where would you suggest I start if I'm not even sure of what it is that I need to work on? Gandydancer (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the largest problem of overcomplication is in the explanation of the discipline itself. Like in terms of how complicated all the explanations of the different stages of education are, etc, there's lots of repetitive clauses and things are said multiple times in the same section. I think that could be condensed, without losing actual information or description. See: everything between Developmental Approach and Reception.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I can give you explicit examples after an exam I have tomorrow morning, but those are the sections I was thinking of when I put this tag in.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, as I said, I will be glad to help when I understand the problems you see. Perhaps you could start with explaining who the "specific audience" is with a few examples I can work on. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Are the promised explicit examples of the problem still coming? HGilbert (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

One example is given below: repeated descriptions of the 3 phases of education. I think this has been resolved. Are there other issues to be dealt with? Please list these promptly or the on-going lack of concrete direction will begin to make the tag rather useless.HGilbert (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization

I have reorganized the theory and practice section topically: Early Childhood and connected themes, elementary school and connected themes, high school, curriculum and connected themes, etc. (Themes were somewhat scrambled previously.) The actual text is unchanged.

I have also moved the section on evaluations of the education to the reception section. HGilbert (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I have reason to believe that Shibbolethink is a sockpuppet for the banned User:Pete K. Same style, edits, personal comments. There was a poorly disguised attempt to make a few edits on other pages to establish himself as an editor and then he promptly turned to massive, single-purpose editing. I am reverting the banned user's edits. HGilbert (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't you think you should prove that first? His edits were of good quality. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Good quality? How so. First of all there were far too many wild claims.

• "Waldorf system has become a semi-official theory of education" in Europe?? Not true and uncited.
• Describing anthroposophy as "cyclical reincarnation, [[Anthroposophic medicine|pseudoscientific alternative medicine practices]], and the existence of an objective, intellectually comprehensible and accessible spiritual world"? Better to leave this as a link to a comprehensive article than pick out three random factors, one of which replaces a link to an article with a judgmental claim.
• "Rudolph Steiner believed that people experience a type of reincarnation every seven years" -- ridiculous claim unfounded by any reference to either Steiner's works or any authority on Steiner. (One newspaper article makes this mistaken claim.)

Etc.

Perhaps you could give an example of what you mean by an improvement in the article. HGilbert (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's why those edits were worth making:

1-this is a rephrasing of your previous statement, which said that the Waldorf system has been accepted widely in Europe. That's also an unsourced claim, and I simply rephrased it, knowing that there exists some talk of Waldorf being accepted and funded in Europe later on in the body. I made it NPOV.

2-These are elements of Anthroposophy which are important to the article. These are the three elements of the discipline which come in to play in Waldorf Schools. Notice how I didn't mention Biodynamic farming, etc? Because it wasn't relevant. These references are.

3-The reincarnation claim is sourced by 5 WP:RS articles on Waldorf Schools from newspapers and monthly magazines with wide readership, fact checking, and reputations for unbiased analysis. The Atlantic, The NYT, Salon, and The BBC all make mention of the role of reincarnation in Waldorf Education, and the first three reference the 7 years claim directly.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone, and I can prove it. This is a PROJECT of mine, it is not my single purpose in editing. You can see by my contributions and the relevant statistics that I'm editing many other articles as well, even while continuing this project. I posted about it in other Wikiprojects, I asked for help of other users, etc. I think what PeteK did is abhorrent and distasteful. If you disagree with my edits, improve the article by changing things to a wholly new state by going somewhere in the middle, don't just revert everything. I'm reverting your improper use of rollback, and reporting it. I don't speak like PeteK, I have used none of his tactics or w/e, I didn't even know PeteK existed til I read this article for the first time and saw the dispute! WP:PROVEIT. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna request some third parties from the relevant Wikiprojects above, and I'll post on noticeboards. If this keeps up, we can escalate to formal mediation.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to make changes in smaller ways, and you promptly reverted essentially every one. The ridiculous claim that Steiner believed in a seven-year reincarnation cycle is one example; see discussion above. If we could work together I would be happy. But that means working together, not just barreling through your own way. HGilbert (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I've actually kept many of your edits. See Talk:Waldorf_education#Use_of_Ullrich.27s_citation_in_claims for just one example. I also kept the way you revamped the Lead, and much of your phrasing in the Developmental Approach section. Re: the reincarnation claim, it's sourced!! I even gave you the alternative. If you can find sources refuting the 7 years claim, we'll just have to clarify it by saying that X, Y, and Z all have claimed this in their publications. The viewpoint about reincarnation's role EXISTS! It deserves mention. Above all, I'm interested in creating a NPOV in this article with most weight given to neutral statements, but proportional weight given to a small amount of positive promotional statements and negative critical statements. I'm also interested in working with you, but I'm not interested in allowing any soapboxing, biased POV, or sanitizing to occur. This article needs neutral third parties, desperately, and I'm one. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As the top of this talk page says, "Be Bold, but not reckless." I sincerely believe I am doing just that. Assume Good Faith, User:Hgilbert! :/ --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's how I found this article and started this project: I was sitting in my living room, having a conversation with a friend of mine from college about how he was raised in Waldorf Schools and attributes a lot of his eccentricities to the practices therein, and so I decided to look it up on Wiki, having never heard of the schools or of Steiner. What I found was an obvious promotional page, needing lots of love and attention. So I decided to devote a large portion of my free time to make this article NPOV. I have no dog in this fight, I have no relationship to Waldorf Schools or education, I only know this one person who's ever even gone to a Waldorf school, and even that was just until the second epoch. Pete K was clearly an activist editor, he published websites, all this other stuff elsewhere on the web and elsewhere in wikiland, all anti-Waldorf and particularly anti-Hgilbert. I have done none of that, I am not him, and I have no dog in the fight of this article. I'm purely interested in making it adhere to wiki standards.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Evidence

1. Shibbolethink has just over 500 edits. The first 125 or so were spaced out over several months and broadly over many articles. Then, over the last four days, he has made something like 375 edits, 90% of which have been on Waldorf education. This is a clear picture of a single-purpose editor, and a plausible picture of someone preparing a tapestry to hide their real interest.
2. He is personally aggressive in the same way that Pete K was: "Waldorf educaiton exists outside of your conception of reality, apparently."
3. Like Pete K, he systematically reverted every edit that in any way modified his additions or changes, failing to follow WP:BRD or to come to solutions on talk pages.
4. His edits from the beginning of this period do not sound like an editor with only 125 edits under his belt: referring to "mediation committee" and now to various Wikipedia committees he has apparently had no previous experience with.
5. He appeals, like Pete K, to a supposed conflict of interest on my part.
6. Pete K repeatedly threatened to return. This editor's behavior fits his in every respect and does not fit the behavior of a new editor with a casual interest in the theme. Nearly 400 edits in four days after an average of one a day from 3 December - 17 March?? Obviously this is the editor's real purpose. HGilbert (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed numerous other accounts as sockpuppets of this user. See [19], [20], [21]. I will prepare a Sockpuppet case, but this will take some time. HGilbert (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a by-the-by, all of those sockpuppet investigations of Pete K you mentioned are addressing anonymous IP addresses. So why am I, an autoconfirmed user, suspected by you?

ALSO, I just read over those sockpuppet reports again. Checkuser was never even involved! Not in any of them! It was declined in the first, and then never asked for in the 2nd and 3rd!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If you go through my edit history, you'll see there were several other times I was called a single purpose account, but for OTHER PURPOSES. Focusing on one group of articles or even one article for an extended period of time in one's history does not alone make one a single purpose account. Even while editing this page, and focusing here, I have edited numerous other pages.

The IPs I edit from tend to be in the 146.203.126.0 to 100 range or used to be in the 128.135.0.0-250 range. This is because I graduated from the University of Chicago last year and started attending the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Pete K has many websites that he used to use to attack Hgilbert, and others, in a pretty shitty way. The IP addresses of those pages, and the biographical information on those sites about Pete K, show that he and I are clearly completely unrelated people. You'll also see, if you go to those websites, that I have never posted there, there is no one resembling me on any other forums about Waldorf education or Anthroposophy. That is because I only found out that Waldorf education EXISTED by finding this ridiculously bad POV article here on Wiki.

I am a neutral third party, who only wants this article to adhere to wiki standards. If you go through my edit history on Waldorf education, you'll see that I made many edits, that could be construed as from BOTH sides. See here and here and here. To me, this entire sockpuppet charade seems like a tactic to prevent any editor who wants to fix up the POV issues on Waldorf Education from doing so. I would normally AGF, but in this case, I'm dumbfounded! --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm also gonna go through these point by point, to make this easier:

1-I edited many articles in that timeline, and in short stretches punctuated by when I had final and midterm exams to study for in my graduate school classes. I took on several projects, notably getting an article on a prominent facebook group deleted because I and many others thought it wasn't WP:Notable. 7 months of very diverse edits seems like a very long time investment for a sock puppet, and it completely is away from the pattern of this Pete K user. Also, I edit from completely different IPs, as stated above.

2-While that might have been an impolite statement, it does comport with the WP:COI you've previously been tagged with. I apologize for momentarily not assuming Good Faith. Perhaps you should do the same? I was asserting a very well sourced statement. It still is well sourced.

3-I DID follow BRD! I came here and talked about every change I was going to make, and all of the sources therein. You failed to respond with any counter-sources, so I reverted! That's the process.

4-You know, you're right. I had previously edited a lot from different IPs, and when I became an editor, I spent a lot of time reading policies instead of just diving into editing. That's probably why I had so few edits in my month or so. Doesn't mean I'm a sockpuppet. -__-

5-It's not a supposed conflict of interest, it's certified. See the relevant ArbCom decision. You aren't supposed to use Anthroposophists as sources, and yet you continue to do so.

6-You know, you're right, it's not just a casual interest. I was STRICKEN with how much this article violates every element of WP:NPOV, WP:ADVERT, WP:CONCISE, etc. etc. I started to read about the various ArbCom decisions, and started to suspect that the reason these policy violations continue is that many Anthroposophists have relied on other users avoiding the pages altogether. And perhaps, now, accusing them of being sockpuppets?

I asked for other users' help on several wikiprojects, notified prominent copy editors, and posted on several relevant noticeboards. None of that is at all similar to the behavior of the previously banned user in question. All we have alike is that Hgilbert doesn't like our edits. Otherwise, Pete K was abusive, insulted Hgilbert, posted about it on numerous other websites, etc. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah this user is definitely not a sockpuppet. After looking through his history, he has done many things other than edit this article. His edits to this article were constructive, and personally I think this article should have a topic ban re: Hgilbert, who clearly can't restrain himself from slanting the POV and publishing original research. Whitehat2009 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

...and where did you come from? o_O — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Whitehat2009 and I were both passionate about that AfD for CFWC, mostly because he and I had both encountered the Facebook page itself and remarked on its esoterica. I won't out him, etc, but he and I know each other in Meatspace, and he's worked on other nonwiki projects with me, some of which are mentioned on my user page. He probably found this article because we're friends on wikipedia and browse each other's contribs once in a while. NOTICE how Whitehat2009 has no edits at all in relation to Pete K. Probably because Pete K and I aren't related whatsoever. :P --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha. Okay, thanks. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah he doesn't really contribute on the English Wiki much. He's done a lot on the UChicago specific wiki, but I had to teach him sooo much about wiki markup.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I withdraw this supposition. It is clear that Shibbolethink and Pete K are entirely different people. My apologies. Furthermore, if my fellow editors think it appropriate, I am happy to delete this entire section. HGilbert (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Let that be done. Qexigator (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)