Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Waldorf education. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Two basic scientific traditions

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

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

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

On

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

Context and Bias

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

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

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

129.2.180.156 18:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Resolved

Research on Waldorf Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

What Waldorf Discourages

I'm wondering why section 3.10 includes a link to a Waldorf School Parent Handbook as a reference for Waldorf schools discouraging open communication among parents.

1) The arbitration Findings of Fact and Remedy state that "information gathered from Anthroposophical related sources which are for verification purposes [are] properly considered self-published by the Anthroposophy movement", and "Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications." A Waldorf School Parent Handbook would fall under these criteria.

2) If the list begins with "Among the most common are" then more citations should be given showing that it is *common* for Waldorf schools to actively discourage open communication. One citation does not prove a trend.

3) I would like to see the page number in the referenced handbook that shows that open communcation is discouraged. Pages 14-16, "To Whom Should I Speak" and "School Wide Communcations Guidelines" state that if a community member has a problem, they should speak directly to the parties involved. This reads like a guideline for discouraging gossip, not quashing open communication.

I didn't edit the page itself because I'm not interesting in participating in an edit war. However I'd like to see the Waldorf Education page comply with Wikipedia guidelines as well as provide neutral and factual information. Henitsirk 02:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Discouraging gossip" and "discouraging open communications" is EXACTLY the same thing worded differently (except one has the POV characterization "gossip"). Let's let the reader decide for themselves what it means... OK? "Anthroposophy-related publications" could technically mean any publication that discusses Anthroposophy - so we need to go with the intent of what the ArbCom decided. A parent handbook is not being used to support brochure language (like that prevalent in the article) - but to support straight-forward factual information about how Waldorf schools deal with things like dress codes and media. There's nothing here that says "Waldorf students thrive in wonderful environments developed specifically to enhance the imagination." It's straight talk about what Waldorf tolerates and what it doesn't tolerate. Regarding point 2 above, the entire article talks in this kind of language - about what is common in Waldorf (students commonly learn two foreign languages). Should we take out all that language (maybe we should)? Regarding "factual" information - are you suggesting anything that has been presented in the "What Waldorf Discourages" is not factual? It is all factual. Pete K 07:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete, I agree with you that brochure language is inappropriate for a Widipedia article. Again, I think that more than one citation would show what is *common* about discouraging open communication. As you state, most Waldorf students learn two foreign languages, and I can provide multiple citations: http://www.gmws.org/, http://www.michael-hall.co.uk/, http://www.torontowaldorfschool.com/. Are there more citations about suppressing communication? I disagree that gossip and open communication are the same thing, and I think stating that Waldorf schools discourage open communication is a POV, not a fact.

I'm not sure who wrote the above, was it Henitsirk? I would love to cite Highland Hall's communication protocol, but their handbook is only available to parents online. It is the most blatant version of this - and it has been Highland Hall's policy to expel children whose parents have disobeyed the communication protocol (talked amongst themselves about problems). Most of the handbooks don't actually say this (why would they) but the policy against parents discussing the classroom amongst themselves instead of directly with the teacher is pretty much spelled out in each of the handbooks (that were) listed when they say to bring concerns directly to the teacher. I'll try to come up with a better source for this claim as it is a regular complaint among critics of Waldorf. Pete K 23:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete, yes it was me, sorry I forgot to sign my note. I would like to see more sources on this. I"m still not sure that a policy of "bring your concerns directly to the teacher" suppresses parent communication; it just sounds like common sense. But if that's what's happening, let's just make sure we have citations.Henitsirk 02:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll see what I can come up with. This particular thing is very difficult to establish, of course, without presenting a *pattern* - a bunch of schools doing the same or similar things. Even if I show one school doing this, people will say it's only one school. I already know of many that treat communications among parents as if it's gossip or destructive. Very few (if any - I've actually yet to see one) Waldorf schools have a parent forum connected to their websites. Why not? Wouldn't it be better for students in any number of ways (safety being the first to come to mind) if parents could communicate more easily. This apparently never happens at Waldorf. Controlling communications is something that is particularly appealing to Waldorf schools. Anyway, getting off my soap box, I'll look for a source that talks about this. Pete K 03:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this huge section virtually completely unsupported (thus apparently WP:Original research) and shortened it to correspond to the cited quotation. Material can be added back as citations are found. Hgilbert 17:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are moving up the timetable from the weekend to today, the agreement has been to leave uncited sources until the weekend. Pete K 17:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K-Much of that material was put there by you after the arbitration. [1] It is very clear that material in the involved articles has to be sourced, and if it is controversial, sourced by non Steiner publishers. When you put it there you said you would source it by the end of the day but that was more than 10 days ago. Instead of edit warring over it, can you put in the sources? How much more time do you need to find a source for the material you included? I think after the arbitration editors need to be sure new material is sourced before it goes in. Venado 18:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I sourced it immediately to Waldorf parent handbooks - which I felt was the appropriate souce for this information since it may vary from school to school. These sources were rejected so I am now re-sourcing them. Are you saying I should have less time to source my material than everyone else? Why? Pete K 19:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that its best to source the material, not edit war about it. It is necessary in the involved articles to stick to the policy: no Steiner or Waldorf published material. Every time some body tries to bend the rule for adding or keping there pet material some body will complain and revert it, and the articles are in probation because it is a long term problem with to much reverts. Venado 19:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and we've given ourselves until the weekend to do this. If some editors aren't going to comply with this, then they should let us know so all the unsourced material can be removed all at once. Editors who are selectively removing the material they don't like and leaving the material they do are not helping here. All the unsourced material should be removed at once so there is no edit-warring. It is one editor's anxiousness to remove the material he doesn't like that is starting this up again. Pete K 19:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys please stop arguing. Get on with finding these sources instead - the if, buts and maybes do not matter. I suggest leaving Pete's edit in until the weekend deadline, as for everything else, and delete if not sourced then - no big deal. In terms of adding info after the ArbCom - I have seen a number of editors add non-allowed sourced statements in since then - I suggest if this happens again delete the added source and any added statement. I only suggest making an exception in this case because the deadline is so near and better that you lot concentrate on that. Cheers Lethaniol 19:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Vandalism

Pete K has removed four links from one of my postings above regarding research on Waldorf education. The first was to the probably most complete list of studies on or related to Waldorf education, made during the last 70 years, found on the net. The second was to a summary of the four first of six partial reports from a recent study on Waldorf education by a Swedish research group at the University of Karlstad (Sweden). The third was to a study of North American Waldorf graduates, published at the site of Waldorf Library. The fourth was to a study by the academic director of the Institute of Education at the University of Mainz, published in Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education (Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education). I have restored the links. Thebee 11:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If they're Waldorf sources, they're not allowed. BS studies by Waldorf people are outta here. Independent studies can stay. If they're independent studies, point to the independent source, not the Waldorf source. And please don't call me a vandal - I'm about to put fact tags on about 200 sentences (per your instructions) on this article and I'm also about to remove many more Waldorf sources. That's part of what we're supposed to be doing here. Pete K 14:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Educational Philosophy

The WHOLE ARTICLE is about educational philosophy. The "Educational Philosophy" sub-section is redundant for the most part - the "Pedagogy" section covers the same material. I'm inclined to merge the two sections. If Waldorf education in its entirety isn't about educational philosophy, then what is it? Merging this material would cut the already too long article down considerably. I'd like opinions from editors who aren't encumbered by a conflict of interest. Pete K 15:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean encumbered by COI the way you are? Thebee 20:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a very rude and dishonest implication. I have no conflict of interest here at all. This fact was supported by the arbitration committee decision. Why are you here picking a fight? Don't you have anything better to do? Pete K 22:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake! Isn't this the kind of behavior that got this article put on probation in the first place? What good does that kind of attack do, Thebee? Does it help the article? Does it act in the spirit of the Arbitration? Just please quit it already, and stick to the task.

Pete: I was thinking the same thing. It will read better and be more concise. And BTW: don't let yourself get sucked into the negativity of others. The Tao says "one uses four ounces to deflect one-thousand pounds." Wikiwag 00:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wikiwag. I wonder how they came up with "four" ounces? I hope they weren't running tests on this...LOL! Pete K 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Educational philosophy describes the principles of the education, including the view of child development. Pedagogy describes the practical execution. They are distinct aspects of education; different courses in an education school would treat the two, etc. Hgilbert 01:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the definitions. I already knew the difference. Your comment above notwithstanding, the information doesn't need to be separated in this way especially when 75% of it is redundant from one section to the other. People reading this will, in all likelyhood, become bored with the redundancy. Not everybody who reads this will be as naturally excited about Waldorf as some of us. Let's not make them read about main lesson books in every paragraph. Pete K 01:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be merging these two sections later this week since there is no support for keeping them separate. Pete K 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Spiritual or religious philosophy

Please respect the guidelines on verifiable sources; web-published original research sites and quotes from unqualified individuals mentioned in newspaper articles are not authoritative sources. I have replaced these with the encylopedia brittanica, which says under "anthroposophy":

"philosophy based on the premise that the human intellect has the ability to contact spiritual worlds. It was formulated by Rudolf Steiner (q.v.), an Austrian philosopher, scientist, and artist, who postulated the existence of a spiritual world comprehensible to pure thought but fully accessible only to the faculties of knowledge latent in all humans. He regarded human beings as having originally participated in the spiritual processes of the world through a dreamlike consciousness. Because Steiner claimed that an enhanced consciousness can again perceive spiritual worlds, he attempted to develop a faculty for spiritual perception independent of the senses." There is no mention of religion here. Hgilbert 01:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - you are disrespecting not only the guidelines here, but the readers of the article and prospective Waldorf parents when you disguise what Anthroposophy is - ESPECIALLY in a Waldorf article. I'll change it back. You are not going to replace the definition just because you are trying to hide the religious nature of Anthroposophy. This attitude has shown up regularly in your edits. Sorry. Pete K 01:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

HGilbert, you should be very careful here. You ABSOLUTELY have a conflict of interest here and the issue of Waldorf disguising its religious nature is serious (It's basically the reason there are so many critics of Waldorf). If a neutral person feels the need to change the definition that has been referenced in 5 different places, to one that hides the truth, they should do it (I'll revert it back anyway). I think you would be making a mistake if you continue pushing for this edit considering your standing as a Waldorf teacher. Friendly advice. Pete K 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction - it's referenced in 6 different places. Pete K 01:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

None of which is a third-party reviewed source. Hgilbert 02:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What do other editors think? Comments by non-COI editors please. Pete K 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think calling anthroposophy a "religious/spiritual philosophy" is a good compromise. Many people don't want to use the word religion because it implies following a specific set of practices and worship. There are Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, etc. anthroposophists, so that implies that while spiritual in nature, anthroposophy does not require any specific practices or worship. However if religion is defined as a set of beliefs, usually including a higher spiritual power, then you could call anthroposophy a religion. I believe that Steiner did not want anthroposophy to be considered a religion; however if people today are following a set of beliefs developed by Steiner, then it has become religious in nature. Of course, then you could say that atheism is a religion because it is also a set of beliefs!Henitsirk 03:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Henitsirk wrote: "people don't want to use the word religion because it implies following a specific set of practices and worship." Look a little closer. They don't want to use the word "religious" because it means they can't get public funding in the US.DianaW 13:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is not for discussing the broad issue of Waldorf education, but for discussing the article. Diana's posting however makes it necessary to comment on what she writes.

After having had seven years, from February 10, 1998, when the WC filed a suit against two school districts in California for supporting the use of Waldorf methods at charter schools, that is, Waldorf education stripped of some more religious elements in it, like saying a morning verse grade 1-4, the morning verse in grade 5-12 being something between a reflective short morning meditation and a prayer (changed for its use at the public charter schools), and up to September 12, 2005, when the planned 16 days trial finally started, the WC failed to get together one piece or acceptible evidence or witness showing in court that anthroposophy as such is a religion and the trial ended after only 30 minutes. And that would only have been the first part of the trial.

The probably majority of the teachers at the now 19 Waldorf methods charter schools in CA (maybe 30 in North America) have themselves made a choice to train as Waldorf methods teachers, not as full Waldorf teachers. And the schools have themselves chosen to use Waldorf teacing methods, based on their own interest, or that of parents, not because some central Waldorf organization has worked to convice them about it. In fact the AWSNA is basically against using the term "Waldorf" to describe the schools, as they aren't Waldorf schools in a more full sense.

The only expert witness to be heard on the issue in the trial was Douglas Sloan, Professor of History and Education Emeritus at Teachers College, the graduate school of education of Columbia University, and adjunct Professor of Religion and Education at the Union Theological Seminary and The Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City.

In addition to his expertise in history, education and religion, Professor Sloan has been involved with the Anthroposophic Press, Sunbridge College and the Association of Waldorf Schools in North America as director of their boards within the past sixteen years.

In a declaration to the Court in support of the defendants (the two public school districts), Professor Sloan argued that in every fundamental respect anthroposophy - that addresses both the issues of science, art and religion, not from a devotion and worship perspective, but as direct human research problems - is not a religion and the Anthroposophical Society is not a religious organization.

Thebee 14:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"The WC" has never sued anybody; your summary becomes, as usual, less accurate from there. Failure to get even the most basic and easily verified facts about the case straight makes most of your summaries a sad joke, like this one. The case you reference was closed on a technicality unrelated to what you write above and is under appeal. I'm sure you imagine that quoting Professor Sloan backs up your argument here; most readers I'm sure can see it backs the other side of the case.DianaW 14:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A note to TheBee and DianaW - okay so we have covered the issue of the importance of religion - in fact I think the PLANS article covers it all - so enough of that and back onto what Wikipedia should say about Waldorf schools. For starters it should be remembered that if the article does/or does not state that Warldorf schools are religious in nature (either totally or partially) this is not going to be used in the court in the U.S. - as Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source.

So the question is, what describes Waldorf best for Wikipedia - is it religious, spiritual, or is a compromise between the two religious/spiritual - or are there other options? Cheers Lethaniol 14:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. if there is a lot of disagreement about whether it is religious or not a possible solution would be to have the article quoting an anthroposophical source saying that it is spiritual, and a section (much like the racism section) highlightening why Waldorf schools may be religious in nature and why that is important. Cheers Lethaniol 14:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Two sources which support using the word "religious" rather than "spiritual" here. I'll start by reminding folks that this discussion ensued following this edit by Hgilbert, in which he changed the word "religious" to "spiritual":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waldorf_education&diff=99892452&oldid=99889804

I propose citing Hanegraaff WJ, New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought (Albany, NY: State University of New York; 1998), where anthroposophy is described as religious on (just as instances) p. 10, p. 518 and pp. 521-22; and Ahern G, Sun at Midnight: The Rudolf Steiner Movement and the Western Esoteric Tradition (Wellingborough, Northamptonshire; The Aquarian Press; 1984), where anthroposophy is discussed as a cult on pp. 87-100 and p. 203 and discussed in the context of "new religious movements" on pp. 205-206.DianaW 16:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

People who follow anthroposophy do not consider it a religion, and the organizations that own the legal rights to the name do not consider it a religion. In the United States it doesn't define it self is a religion for taxes purposes or other kind of noninterference benefits given to religions. Some dictionaries might call it a religious philosophy, and others do not. it is original research to just "pick" a definition just to suit a personal opinion, especially when the definition is not even held by the people who follow it. Some people think it is religion. And some people think science is the new religion and some people think atheism is a religion. But that's a difference of opinion, or special exception for some cases but not all. But it would be poor scholarship to take the lesser shared definition over the more widely accepted definition. Describing the debate about the question should be left to the anthroposophy article. This article should be about the education method and schools. Venado 18:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that it should be up to Anthroposophists to decide this. In fact they should be excluded from weighing in here. Lots and lots of parents have enrolled their kids in Waldorf and later pulled them out because they discovered the religious bent of Anthroposophy. And this issue is extremely controversial in Waldorf and not at all a controversy in Anthroposophy. There is no reason to parents who find this article will go check the Anthroposophy article to see if there is a religion involved. That discussion belongs here. Pete K 19:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw the wikipedia guidelines say someplace that in articles about religions the definition of the religion or religious tenets have to be taken from the doctrines adopted by those in the religion. Catholics establish the official tenets of catholicism, not Jews or Baptists. Some muslims don't see Catholocs as monotheists, or some baptists say mormons aren't Christians. But the articles on those religions use Catholic documents as sources of Catholic article etc. I don't think you want to take it there. The debate can be written about, but not just take one side in the debate and make it the ruling definition. This article is just encyclopedia. Not a consumer watch for Consumer Reports. Just tell here about the dispute over if the schools are religious. They can be religious even if anthoropasophy is not a religion, a lot of schools are religious that aren't in a particular religion. So that almost is a seperate issue. Venado 19:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"I don't agree that it should be up to Anthroposophists to decide this. In fact they should be excluded from weighing in here."

Your suggestion violates some policy or guideline that I don't remember right now, telling opinions should not be excluded based on who holds them. That probably includes or specifically refers to Talks pages. Thebee 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Right - Vernado, I have asked and searched and I can not find any policy that covers the issue on the definition of religions. This is the closest I could find, from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Religion:

Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a human invention of some kind, is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which might be from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe.

Remember this is only guideline though and not official policy, but should generally hold true. The way I read this is that a religion's point of view does not define the definition. On the other hand, in this case I would personally go with Vernado's suggestion, we stick with Waldorf's view of things and have a section detailing the criticism of this position i.e. why people think Waldorf education is religious, and in the opening paragraph quote that Waldorf consider themselves to be non-religious, but then state that there have been some criticism of this position (and link to the relevant section).

To TheBee - nobody is barred from editing Wikipedia based upon their opinions - unless they are trying to force their POV on the article. ALL editors should aim for a NPOV and adding info that is POV is not allowed. So all editors can contribute, but not to push their POV just to counter an opposing POV - that is POV warring. I hope that is clear. You can info that is from your POV but only if it is done in NPOV way. Obviously there are grey areas, but on occasion people have obviously been adding only to push their POV. A good Wikipedian will add info even if not from their POV and when they add something that is from their POV will go out of their way to make it neutral. Cheers Lethaniol 23:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I referred to this discussion, as does Pete K, not the article.

My Apologies - am shattered and am soon off to bed. With respect to talk pages - they can be used present a particular POV - but only with respect to the article. The talk page is not to be used to push any point of view that is not relevant to Wikipedia i.e. it is not a soapbox - see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. Anything that is about the article on the talk page, anything about user conduct on the user talk page or appropriate noticeboard, anything not related to Wikipedia not welcome and likely to be deleted. Cheers Lethaniol 23:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the pages you refer to and take your comment to mean that you disagree with Pete K's expressed suggestion in the second sentence:

"I don't agree that it should be up to Anthroposophists to decide this. In fact they should be excluded from weighing in here."

Thebee 00:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I stand behind that statement. You are now, if I understand you correctly, invoking a Wikipedia guideline that is reserved for religions so that you may declare that Anthroposophy is not a religion. Pete K 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

DianaW wrote: "They don't want to use the word "religious" because it means they can't get public funding in the US." Waldorf schools don't use the word religious because they consider themselves non-denominational, and in the US there is no public funding for private schools. Waldorf charter schools do not use the word religious because by their very nature they are state schools and therefore must be secular. Please don't add meaning to my words that I didn't intend.

I agree with Lethaniol's suggestion: "a possible solution would be to have the article quoting an anthroposophical source saying that it is spiritual, and a section (much like the racism section) highlightening why Waldorf schools may be religious in nature and why that is important". I think trying to "decide" if Waldorf is religious or spiritual is impossible, and probably rests on splitting etymologic hairs. I agree that it is an important issue and should be included, but within reason given the scope of the article. Thanks. Henitsirk 02:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K:

"You are now, if I understand you correctly, invoking a Wikipedia guideline that is reserved for religions so that you may declare that Anthroposophy is not a religion."

No. I referred to a sort of freedom of speech clause (that I saw somewhere at some time) regarding discussions, saying something like views should not be prohibited because of who holds it. Above, Lethaniol tells exactly what holds for these discussions. Your suggestion as far as I see lacks support in any policy or guideline. It you think it does, point to it. That you personally don't like views held by others on one or other ground constitutes no basis for prohibiting their expression in these discussions. Thebee 13:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In relation to this Pete K might have been thinking about WP:COI guideline which says:

  If you have a conflict of interest, you should:

  1. avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  2. avoid breaching relevant policies on autobiographies and neutrality
  3. avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  4. avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Now point 1 has really been addressed by the ArbCom - basically they have allowed the pro-anthroposophy editors to carry on editing these articles. But as I have stated a number of times above, point 2 means in you have a COI or POV you need to try at all times to be neutral. Cheers Lethaniol 14:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Also from WP:COI - this also backs up a lot of what I have been saying Cheers Lethaniol 14:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC):

Conflict of interest in point of view disputes

Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor.

Can you clarify: Pete expresses the view, and has reasserted it a second time, that what some may refer to as "anthroposophists" in some sense should be excluded from weighing in in discussions here at this Talks page about whether anthroposophy is a religion or not. Do you support this specific view, and if you do, can you point to a specific policy or guideline in support of this view? Or, if you think that you already have answered this, can you point to that specific policy or guideline? Thanks, Thebee 15:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I have not made myself clear - I believe that "anthroposophists" have a right to talk about any issue on these talk pages including on the subject on whether anthroposophy is religious or not. But this is tempered by the fact that due to WP:COI and WP:NPOV "anthroposophists" should not push their point of view that it is not religious, similarly "non-anthroposophists" should not push their point of view that it is religious. All sides should try to push for a neutral point of view i.e. that Waldorf believe themselves to be non-religious but there is controversy over this (hence my compromise offer above). So the only time anyone should be excluded from these discussions is if they are being disruptive, they are relentlessly POV pushing or are not talking about issues that affect the article - otherwise all are welcome. Cheers Lethaniol 16:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There are dozens of religions whose members don't claim them to be a religion. This is nothing new. The article states both religious and spiritual and both are supportable. That seems like a very NPOV stance to me. Pete K 16:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lethaniol. I take your answer to mean that in your view, the suggestion by Pete K as expressed by him to exclude what he refers to as "anthroposophists" from all discussions of whether anthroposophy is a religion or not, lacks any policy or guideline basis beyond what applies to everyone else. Thebee 19:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Ownership attitude

You repeatedly act as if you own not only the article on Waldorf education and all other articles related to it, but also this discussion, by telling who in your view should answer and who not, what people can do and what they cannot do. That violates the WP:OWN policy. The policy against it exemplifies the prohibited behaviour with:

"The editor may state or imply that changes must be reviewed by him/her before they can be added to the article. This does not include egregious formatting errors.

Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not. This does not include removing vandalism."

Thebee 15:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Reference to WaldorfAnswers

Wikiwag, I saw (and chuckled) that you reluctantly referenced TheBee's website. I've off-handedly removed the reference because there were two other supporting references. I don't want to start a precedent here as it has taken a lot of debate to keep TheBee's original research websites out of these articles (they aren't allowed according to the ArbCom anyway) - you can see I've even been fighting to keep them off the talk pages (and hopefully will prevail). I'll go back and have a closer look at what was being referenced and see if it's available somewhere else. We are able to use "Wiki-source" to warehouse legitimate documents in a neutral location (this was the case with the PLANS court documents) so maybe that option is available. I'll have a peek at what was on TheBee's site. Donning body-condom now... Pete K 06:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm back... It's just referencing a statement by TheBee himself so it's meaningless as a source. I'll poke around the web and see if I can come up with a better third source. Pete K 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of this? Check out page 183 - 67% of Waldorf graduates at a school in Germany went on to be (drum roll) Waldorf teachers. Who says Waldorf doesn't prepare kids. I can tell I'm getting tired now - I'll stop and start again in the morning - so I'll leave you with this interesting Steiner quote to teachers:

"We must worm our way through...In order to do what we want to do, at least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because we want to, but because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them."

[Rudolf Steiner, Conferences with Teachers of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart, vol.1, 1919 to 1920 Forest Row, East Sussex, England: Steiner schools Fellowship Publications, 1986 pp. 125]

What a guy... I wonder if all Waldorf teachers here feel the same way (I know many who do). Pete K 06:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I knew I broke the rules when I posted that, but man - it was just too tempting to pass up. I agree with you of course, and he's been conspicuously silent on the Talk side - and didn't respond AT ALL to the interpretation I posted on his talk page. I promise I won't do it again.

And OMG! You sure that something wasn't lost in the translation [or a typo]? I mean yeah - German and English are similar ["worm" vs. "würm"], I'd love to read the original text. But considering you've already cited it - shouldn't it be posted? Any reason not to? Freakin' scary - and you're right - I've known my share of elitist Waldorf teachers. Wikiwag 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The book has undergone a few edits - new title is "Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner" and lots of the good stuff has been edited out. I don't have a copy of the book handy but yeah (chuckle) it would be great to put this one in huge quotes. This is SO much like what I have encountered (my ex wife is a Waldorf teacher so I've got some inside info here). I'll see if I can confirm the statement. Pete K 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had a peek at my web version of Faculty Meetings and the comment is not there - somebody must have had the good sense to remove it. Pete K 22:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Celebrations and Festivals

TheBee, you have changed the title and content of a section in one edit (to match another section) and removed the entire section because you have made it look similar (citing duplication). We know you guys don't like the "religious" stuff about Waldorf to get into this article, but it's there - deal with it. This is very bad faith editing on your part. Pete K 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I only discovered that the first part of the section had been duplicating what already was and still is found in an earlier section (Celebrations and Festivals) (and also partly in another section) after I had cleaned it up and condensed it. The second part was a discussion of non-encyclopedic anecdotal material regarding the views of "some individuals", the citation at the end did not adress the issue for which it was used as citation, the religious orientation of some festivals at Waldorf schools and reactions to it by some people at times. The citation also was to a polemical, not allowed site, not to its publication at the WaldorfLibrary site, already used earlier in the article. I assume that was a conscious choice. That's the reasons I removed it. Thebee 16:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Your aggressive editing is not helpful here. If you want to delete huge chunks of material, please discuss those intentions on the talk pages. Thanks. Pete K 19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're really interested in reducing redundancy, I'd support removing the first section "Celebrations and Festivals" as it is misleading and doesn't address that these are Anthroposophical festivals. The "Religious Orientation" section is the appropriate title and place for this information as they are religious festivals "Michaelmas", "Martinmas" etc. and they are part of an overall intention to infuse religious activities into Waldorf. I won't support edits that attempt to hide this fact. Pete K 19:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! Let the facts stand on their merits!

I do not feel Thebee, that you truly understand the definition of the word polemic, and instead use it as a catch-all excuse to remove anything you disagree with, properly cited or not. Pete's edits to not meet that definition by a long shot.

For the record I added the probation tag to the article, as allowed by Wikipedia:Article_probation. Embarrassing? You bet! Properly posted? Indeed. Just remember, you played a prominent role in this article achieving that ignominious designation.

Get over it, move on, help with the healing and get with the supportive side of making a genuinely NPOV article.

If I haven't made myself clear before, hear me now - I [and I suspect the ArbComm] have no patience for these kinds of antics, as they are unbecoming of conscientious adults set on a common purpose, not to mention this initiative. Wikiwag 22:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Report on Racism

I haven't checked out the new report produced by TheBee - it sounds like it's another Anthroposophically produced report - but in case it isn't, it should probably be identified as independent. It's currently under a "Waldorf study" section which suggests it was produced by Waldorf people (again, that may very well be the case). If it is, indeed, an independent report, a new "Independent study of Racism in Waldorf" heading should be added. Pete K 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So tiring discussion. Check update. Thebee 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked it and reverted it. I'm REALLY not interested in teaching you English. "Anti-Racism" is NOT a word. That's two English goofs in less than an hour. Maybe there's a Wikipedia in Swedish that you can edit instead of the English version. Pete K 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted TheBee's edit again. You are not allowed to make up words to suit your views. It doesn't get any more basic than this. Please back away from the keyboard for a few minutes. Is this type fo behavior indiciative of ALL Waldorf teachers? Pete K 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Make up words"? Wikipedia has a whole article on "Anti-racism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racism They must have completely misunderstood it. The word does not exist. This means the article should be deleted. Will you request that, or should I? Can't have articles at Wikipedia on what does not exist!

That holds also for the 1.1 Million pages on the net that use it, like National Anti-Racism Council of Canada, or Indymedia UK, or The anti Racism project, or The Sioux Lookout Anti-Racism Committee? Or you just can't stand the hyphen?

You're not serious, right? Thebee 02:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I'm serious. You can call your organization XYZ. XYZ isn't a word. You can make a Wiki article called XYZ (or Steiner) - neither of which is a word. "Anti-racism" isn't a word. Pete K 03:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thebee is correct. According to the Oxford American Dictionary, "antiracism" is a noun defined as:

"the policy or practice of opposing racism and promoting racial tolerance."

Although I must admit that I have yet to examine its use in the article, I think the topic of racism in Waldorf Schools is too subjective and varied to raise with any sort of broad legitimacy. Our local Waldorf school has many children of differing ethnicities [African American, Korean American, Chinese]. Although they are in the extreme minority in the student body - which is mostly Caucasian owing to the fact that the school is almost 30 miles from the closest metropolitan area - they for the most part seem reasonably happy and not the focus of any kind of racism - covert, overt or otherwise.

IMHO - this section should be dropped or edited in such a way to undercut the controversy. - Wikiwag 13:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag, you're talking about "racial discrimination" - not "racism" here. Nobody is suggesting Waldorf racially discriminates in their admission practices (I think they do, but I don't suggest that here). But when we look at Waldorf physiology curriculum (that suggests white people are superior to other races), for example, or the curriculum as a whole (Euro-central), it becomes evident that Waldorf DOES TEACH racism and that teachers use Steiner's racist ideas in their expectations of and interactions with children of different races.

If you've got a dictionary with "anti-racism" in it, we can use the term - that's an appropriate references, not google hits on companies that have coined the term. Pete K 14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete: I do have a dictionary, which I referenced at the top of my last comment. Guess I should've highlighted it. I've corrected it - I apologize. - Wikiwag 14:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL... no, I wasn't questioning it at that point. Yes I know you have a dictionary that says this. I should have said "Since" you have a dictionary, not "if"... my mistake (and apology). Pete K 14:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the term "anti-racism", as your dictionary has defined it, wouldn't apply to the way TheBee is attempting to use it. "Less racism" (93% vs 72%) isn't "anti-racism" - even though it touches better on racism as an idea and not racial discrimination as a practice. I've been able to locate a dictionary that lists the term this morning - "The New Lexicon - Websters" which defines the term as "being opposed to racial discrimination". Again, "discrimination" in Waldorf admissions is not what we're talking about in the section here but racist theory in Waldorf curriculum and practices. Pete K 15:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K, I'd like to hear where you have read that the Waldorf physiology curriculum "suggests white people are superior to other races". I know there is controversy about some of Steiner's writing about race, but I've never seen anything meant for Waldorf school curricula that includes this. Thanks.Henitsirk 03:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been my direct experience (I've got two kids in Waldorf and one Waldorf graduate). Physiology class talks about "evolution" and how characteristics in the blood (complexity) suggest that Europeans are more evolved than Asian and African races. And no, this is not written in the curriculum. If it were, there would (hopefully) be an uproar. This is why it is so important for parents to monitor exactly what their kids are learning in school - not just Waldorf, but any school. Pete K 23:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Added double Article probation tag under already existing one?

What is this, Pete? One of the pissing contests you at times mention that you engage in? Thebee 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

One has a very nice graphic of a hand in a stop sign. That's a very good warning to people. You should heed it, in fact. Pete K 00:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

From where I'm sitting Thebee, you are the one on the (personal) attack.

Please, please continue. Then the ArbComm can see your behavior and we can be rid of your vitriol once and for all. And FYI - yours was an objectively "polemic" statement. Don't bother using it to describe the comments of others, if you can't avoid it yourself - it's insulting and serves only to diminish your own credibility. - Wikiwag 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Mylady, am I right that you are a person who likes people to tell their real names in discussions? If yes, do tell. Thebee 01:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're going fishing, you'll need a worm. Rudy has one for you:

We must worm our way through...In order to do what we want to do, at least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because we want to, but because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them."

[Rudolf Steiner, Conferences with Teachers of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart, vol.1, 1919 to 1920 Forest Row, East Sussex, England: Steiner schools Fellowship Publications, 1986 pp. 125] Pete K 01:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"We must worm our way through...In order to do what we want to do, at least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because we want to, but because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them."

You confuse me, making me all dizzy ... You sure you're talking of Steiner and not of "Wikiwag"? Right? Thebee 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Another personal attack at Wikiwag! OK, TheBee, I'm going to start keeping track now. Pete K 03:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I told you your comment confused me and made dizzy with the time difference and all, 0300 hrs at the time here in Sweden. Temporary confusion and dizziness. That's why I asked. But I feel much better now. :-)) Thebee 17:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For better or worse, the arbitration committee used more moderate language in their decision than contemplated in the general template. There is no provision for issuing article or talk page bans, so the second template is inaccurate and should not be used. Thatcher131 12:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Personal attacks and disruptive conduct.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Waldorf education/Archive 5 page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Perhaps we're so far down the page, that this just gets skipped. But, I'm really beginning to feel as though my pleas for courtesy and politesse in this regard are wasted. This is NOT a forum! Be polite! No personal attacks! Be welcoming!

Thebee: Your personal attacks since my arrival a mere 6 days ago, which are here (one attack), here (two attacks) and here (three attacks), in addition to your persistent and unapologetic references to materials rules as "self-published" by the ArbComm here and here, which are compounded by your aggressive editing here are worth their weight in gold if your trying to give the ArbComm ample cause to ban your editing privs. Is this what you really want? If it is, then by all means - keep it up!

Moreover, it's clear that you have me confused with someone else, as I am a 6'2", 190lb man - so don't refer to me as "Mylady." I also do not particularly advocate the use of first names in discussion, especially in controversial matters such as this. But if your so concerned about my "true colors" or an alternate way of addressing me in discussions - you may address me as "Captain" or "Sir," just like everyone but my closest friends and family do.

I introduced myself to you as a civil person. Believe me friend, when I say that your conduct tests the extreme limits of my restraint.

Pete K: I know Thebee is provocative and plays both sides of the rules. Indeed, the only reason I said "Oh for goodness sake!" in my prior post, was because I thought it a better option [and a responsible, Wikipedia-acceptable one] than swearing and referring to him in crude and unsavory terms - which believe me, I did do at length on this side of the monitor.

That's no excuse though, to let him suck you in to his bad behavior and allow him to make you do the same in retaliation. You've demonstrated yourself as an important resource here. So, I implore you - don't blow it by playing Thebee's game. I know it's a challenge and he tests the limits of restraint - but don't give in to the temptation of personal retaliation through pejoratives.

So people, it's time for every editor here to decide what side they're on - meaning the side of the quest for knowledge and a well-written NPOV article on Waldorf Education, versus the side of edit-warring, barbs, jabs and generally personal attacks. If you're editing in favor of the latter, then you have no place here or on Wikipedia at all for that matter. So please go away, or I turn my focus to your removal; I have no more patience for this behavior.

I'm here to write the article and collaborate with those who are here for the same reason. I am not however, here to defend myself or scold people for breaking the rules they agreed to when they registered for their account.

I'll say it again - follow the rules, and we'll all get along just fine.

But one more personal attack [I don't care who commits it] and I'm taking the matter to the ArbComm. Please don't make me do that.

- Wikiwag 15:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely hear you Wikiwag. I have brought this to an administrator's attention here - where TheBee has questioned your identity. When you first arrived, I offered to keep an eye on your edits for you - and I appreciate that you are keeping an eye on mine. While I have a few years of experience dealing with TheBee (and similar), and despite truly believing I know best how to handle his behavior, I'll acquiesce to what you say above and redouble my efforts to keep from getting "sucked into" these side discussions. Thanks for being the voice of reason here. Pete K 15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag, if you think it is an insult to you to adress you as if you were a woman when I should have adressed you with "Captain", I apologize. Thebee 16:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

So let's get down to business.

Thanks guys. Apologies gratefully received and accepted. I'm confident we won't have to go down this path again - we're all adults, after all.

I think we can all accept there are rivalries of opinion here - let us find a way to work within them. Lincoln led a team of bitter rivals in his cabinet to save the Union, and I believe we can in principle, accomplish the same thing here - so long as we stick to the merits, the facts [independently confirmed and cited], the rules and establish an atmosphere of respect and good faith.

We all personally know Waldorf teachers, are teachers, or have been intimately involved in the process from a parental POV - so it's safe to say that we all have some idea of what we're talking about - much moreso than the average person who is looking for objective answers on Waldorf Education. That fact qualifies us all.

But, it's almost certain that we will disagree on certain points. If we can agree to disagree however - calling such matters "controversial" or "in dispute" and refrain from editing the actual article until the discussion is fully fleshed out on the discussion page, then we will all be stronger for it - and so will this article.

So with that said, let's get a sense of the points in the article that we agree on - and what we disagree on, starting with the General description that precedes the TOC and Pedagogy sections.

Hgilbert - I think it's safe for you to come back if you like. I know I personally would like your help to help cite facts that I know to be true, but I lack the actual familiarity to point to the definitive source. I likewise extend an invitation to any person with experience in Waldorf Education [and can follow the rules!] to join us in this endeavor.

I'll open two separate topics for the first to points for discussion.

Thanks in advance everyone for moving forward in good faith, and letting bygones be bygones.

- Wikiwag 18:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Discussion of General Description

I think this is fine. It's concise and factual and serves as a good lead-in. - Wikiwag 18:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll bold the changes I would add and ~~strike~~ through what I would delete - my comments are in italics:

Waldorf education is founded on the ideas of Rudolf Steiner. The Waldorf movement as it is often called, is based on the research and work of believers in Steiner's philosophies and methods (pedagogues) since the early 20th Century.[citation needed] The Waldorf school curriculum focuses on perceived developmental stages in a child's life. Steiner believed that childhood was divided into three distinct seven-year phases:

Early childhood, when Steiner believed a) that children's consciousness was divided between the spiritual and physical realms [citation needed] and that b) learning (language and skill acquisition) is largely experiential, imitative and sensory-based;
During the elementary school years, Steiner believed learning naturally occured through the imagination and feelings. He believed learning at this stage was best conducted by creative (especially artistic) activity and movement, and;
Adolescence, when Steiner believed the capacity for abstract thought and conceptual judgment developed. [11][12]

~~The~~ Waldorf ~~movement~~ I don't like overdoing the "movement" part as it implies something progressive. often refers to itself as "education of head, heart and hands;" this refers respectively to intellect, feelings and practical ~~skills~~ activities. I don't like the word "skills" because it implies vocational skills - something Waldorf schools patently ignore.

The Waldorf approach to early childhood education (through age 6/7) emphasizes learning through doing (imitation of practical activities);[13]. The approach to the elementary years (ages 7-12 or 7-14) emphasizes learning through artistic expression, movement and the creation of forms.[citation needed][14]. The Waldorf approach to the middle (12-14 years) and high school (14-18 years) emphasizes learning through intellectual understanding.[15] ~~(Schools vary in how distinctly they differentiate a middle school and some Waldorf schools go directly from elementary to high school.[citation needed])~~ Sentence is out of place to me and could easily make these types of distinctions later in the article. Waldorf education attempts to integrate practical, spiritual/artistic and intellectual approaches into the teaching of all subjects. Just because we're talking about head, heart and hands, doesn't mean we can't be truthful. This usually takes the form providing artistic and practical experiences of academic subjects (cf. main lesson books, below).

There are coordinating bodies for Waldorf education at both the national level (e.g. the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America and the Steiner/Waldorf Schools Fellowship in Great Britain) and the international level. I don't agree with this statement. When it serves them, Waldorf people claim each school is independent. These organizations certify schools to use the registered names Waldorf and Steiner school and offer accreditations[16], often in conjunction with regional independent school associations[17]; some schools are also accredited by governmental authorities[18]. Within these restrictions, the schools are essentially self-governing. It is also a central tenet of ~~the~~ Waldorf ~~Method~~ need new word here (maybe "approach") or no word - not to confuse with Waldorf Methods/pubic Waldorf schools. that within the school itself, the classroom teacher (or Main Lesson teacher) has almost complete autonomy within his or her own classroom. [19] Pete K 18:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that AWSNA *is* a coordinating body for North American Waldorf schools, *and* that Waldorf schools are independent. These statements aren't mutually exclusive. I quote http://awsna.org/awsna.html: "AWSNA is an association of independent Waldorf schools and Waldorf teacher education institutes. AWSNA's mission is to strengthen and support the schools and to inform the public about the benefits of Waldorf Education."Henitsirk 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Henitsirk, I don't disagree with this description. Can we source it somewhere?

In the opening paragraph, "Spiritual values are central both to the curriculum and to the training of teachers." I agree with the statement - except that "spiritual values" is SOOOOO vague, and indeed, what Steiner meant by "karma" is not what other spiritual streams mean. I really, really think brushing Anthroposophy off as "spiritual" is not accurate. Anthroposophical values are central to the curriculum and training of teachers. Other spiritual values are definitely not part of the training or curriculum. One that comes to mind - off the top of my head - is "judge not, lest ye be judged" - ancient wisdom that isn't part of Steiner's teachings and not particularly "valued" by Steiner. Pete K 17:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K: about sourcing, do you mean other than the AWSNA website? I agree with you that "spiritual values" is pretty vague. I think this sentence could be removed as redundant to the first sentence of the article. By the way, I think calling anthroposophy a "religious/spiritual philosophy" is a good way to acknowledge the issue of religion in a neutral way.Henitsirk 21:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can source the AWSNA website. I think, however, that I wouldn't mind that sentence going unsourced as I don't find it controversial, per se, and it's (coincidently) true. It may work in the body of the article to discuss AWSNA's hold on the "Waldorf" trademark and how this affects Waldorf schools and initiatives. Thanks for the support on the "religious/spiritual" language - after being blocked for trying to introduce it, it means alot to me to have it supported. Pete K 22:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K, sounds good. Full disclosure: I've completed foundation studies in anthroposophy and am pretty pro-Waldorf. However that doesn't mean that I think the Waldorf/anthro world is perfect. And I'm also pro-Wikipedia, so I'd like this article to be neutral and comprehensive. I might not agree with some of your views, but we may coincide in our efforts toward that goal! Thanks. Henitsirk 02:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Discussion of Pedagogy Section

I personally and thoroughly edited this section and my edits seem to have been generally allowed to stand. What do you guys think? - Wikiwag 18:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Pre-school and kindergarten: birth to age 6 or 7 - This section looks fine to me. I see a couple things I would change but nothing too serious. I'm not sure the kids learn about "Lucifer" in the Anthroposophic sense. It might be worth some discussion about the archetypal (disturbing) images in the Grimm's material and how Waldorf justifies them. Pete K 18:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Elementary education: age 6 or 7 to puberty

The objective of Waldorf schools is to have a single teacher accompany a class throughout the elementary school years from Grade 1 through Grade 8.[26] The impracticality (and sometimes undesirable consequenses) of this has led some schools to reconsider the value of this goal. Some schools have already shortened this period to six years. Few teachers make it through all eight years. This teacher, usually referred to as the "Main Lesson" teacher, is responsible for teaching the principal academic lessons to a class. S/He may also have responsibilities for some of the artistic and/or practical lessons, however specialist teachers generally teach the latter. Academic instruction is integrated with arts, craft (handwork, woodwork, etc.), music and movement. [27]

Throughout the elementary years, an imaginative approach is encouraged; [citation needed] new material is introduced through stories and images rather than abstractly, and the children create their own "textbooks", known as "main lesson books".[28] The school day generally starts with the children reciting a religious verse written by Steiner for the start of a school day. The rest of the day then includes:

The "Main Lesson," which is a one-and-a-half to two hour daily lesson, devoted to a single academic subject that is conducted over the course of ~~about a month's time~~ two to four weeks.[29]
Singing and/or playing musical instruments
Reciting poetry
Movement, gym, recess or other exercise
Language
Handwork using natural materials such as yarn and beeswax[citation needed]

Science education in the early years

Until the child is 9-10, nature stories and outdoor experiences are ~~the only~~ considered "science education". A third grade (9-10 year olds) block introduces Steiner's ideas of the human being, animal, plant and mineral world in their interrelationship on a farm. Only after this (11-14 year olds) are biology, botany and mineralogy introduced as separate subjects in successive years. Many Waldorf schools introduce a "building" block at this time which generally involves the students in building a structure of some kind. Steiner recommended introducing animals as what he referred to as "a one-sided development of the unspecialized human being" and plants in relation to the earth's varied climatic zones, as well as the soil in which they grow.[30] Pete K 19:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Middle school years (12-14)

In the middle school years, when the child is twelve to fourteen years old, many schools employ specialist teachers for academic subjects including mathematics, science, and literature. These are seen as transitional years[31] when the pupils still need the support of a central teacher, but may also benefit from ~~the in-depth education possible only through~~ teachers with special competencies in these subjects. ~~The approach to teaching these years is changing in some schools, including shortening the class teacher cycle from the traditional eight years to six or seven years.~~ This would have been covered above.

Secondary education: after puberty

In most Waldorf schools, pupils enter secondary education (high school (USA) or upper school (UK)) in 9th grade/year nine, when they are about fourteen years old. The education is now wholly carried by specialist teachers. Though the education now focuses much more strongly on academic subjects, students normally continue to take courses in art, music, and crafts. Academic subjects are treated in parallel: ~~three~~ two to five-week subject block courses (main lessons) explore the historical evolution, philosophical significance, and social consequences of special themes This is a weasel-worded to hide that these "special" themes are Anthroposophy - as in Man and Animal types of blocks. We shouldn't hide what's going on here.in depth while track classes focus more on traditional The word "traditional" is a tip off here that "special themes" means Steiner stuff content. Pupils continue to create their own textbook ("main lesson book") in academic classes, depending strongly upon oral learning, while the use conventional textbooks is generally limited to math and English (in English-speaking countries). Some critics of Waldorf view the lack of textbooks as opportunities for non-conventional (Anthroposophical) ideas to enter the curriculum, particularly in the areas of history and science. [citation needed]

While the elementary education focuses the child's experience on the teacher as an authority, the child is now encouraged to begin a more independent development of knowledge, under the guidance of their teachers. Naturally, the nature of the "guiding" depends very much on the teachers doing the guiding. As stated in Education for Adolescents (1922), "The capacity for forming judgments is blossoming at this time and should be directed toward world-interrelationships in every field." [8] In Waldorf, idealism is central to these years.[citation needed] Pete K 19:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Black in Waldorf

Trueblood, you have deleted the following:

Use of black art supplies [paint, crayon, dye, paper, cloth, yarn, etc.]

Is there a reason? This is true in my experience as well and, in fact, Waldorf teachers are, again in my experience, also discouraged from wearing black. I'm tempted to put it back in off-handedly but I'll see if I can find a source that supports this. It would have been better to tag it, I think. Pete K 19:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example "We enrolled our child unaware of the aforementioned. We also discovered the following through trial and error. Had we known we would not have selected East Bay Waldorf:...

1. No parent visibility into teacher's competence. There was never an opportunity to volunteer during the primary teacher's class time, thus parents could not view first hand whether or not the teacher or curriculum were effective or how they were implemented. If you enroll your child there you must trust that they are doing what they say they are, and there is no real way to know how effective the teacher is due to a lack of accountability (test scores, independent student work, PTA, etc) to evaluate teacher competence.

2. Learning issues handled through a Anthroposophical doctor and/or their own anthroposophical therapies. If they have issues with your child they will require that you see an "anthroposophical doctor" at considerable expense to evaluate your child. They often ask children to partake in "therapeutic eurythmy" which is a form of dance while enunciating vowel sounds that is supposed to cure a multitude of issues; again at great expense. All of this is done in the guise of helping your child learn. However, we found out later that most of these therapies are geared toward saving your child's "soul", or making them more open to seeing "spirits". You may also be asked to rub a potion with gold and lavender in a crescent over your child's heart 3 times before bedtime. If this sort of new age medicine makes you uncomfortable do more research. In the end, our child was tested in another setting and had no learning issues and is thriving.

3. In the early years once you're in, you're behind. If you do enroll your child there during the early years (k - 3) please know that if you decide to later to attend another school your child may be significantly behind academically relative to most schools, especially in the areas of reading and writing. What this has meant for a couple of families is that their child was put back in other settings to learn the basics. If you plan to stick it out then I am told most Waldorf kids eventually learn to read, but we ran into horror stories of kids not reading till their teens.

4. Hidden spirituality in the curriculum. We were assured anthroposophy was not taught. But our teacher was definitely an anthroposophist and used it's language in casual conversation and at parent meetings. Concepts like "astral forces" and "etheric bodies" were thrown around without detailed explanation. Karma, reincarnation, racism, astrology are all part of Rudolf Steiner's philosophy. Please educate yourself about the underlying concepts that DO drive the curriculum as well as how you're child is viewed, assessed, etc. The more you learn about Anthroposophy and Steiner the more uncomfortable you may become.

5. Rote, copy-cat teaching method. After two years there we found out that all the lovely pictures, sentences, math problems our child had written in her "hand-made" text book were copied directly from the chalkboard. Word for word sentences had to be copied exactly, not created or broken down and understood. Math problems were copied from the board, both problem and answer, or figured out through "movement" games. Pictures were teacher creations copied from the board.

6. Strange, esoteric and usually unpublished "rules". No black crayons, no immunizations, photography at school events is discouraged, no cell phones on campus, no wearing black, no synthetic fibers, no brand names on clothing, rattan baskets for lunches, no "light-up" shoes for students or visitors to campus, puppet shows are not for children under 6 (once inside young children were asked to leave at a Harvest Faire Puppet show after waiting in line for 1/2 an hour), I could go on, and on......

Pete K 19:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See here the post on June 27. Obviously, people have encountered this issue in Waldorf. Pete K 20:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable as sources. Thatcher131 07:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not providing them as sources to a claim in the article. I'm suggesting that these represent anecdotal evidence that the claim is a common practice in Waldorf and not a controversial issue that needs to be contested here. Pete K 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding that I fully understand that EVERYTHING at this point is controversial and nothing will be added without sources. It was really a "just sayin'" comment (above). Pete K 15:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added back a different souce for this claim. Pete K 17:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Requesting Sources

Thatcher 131 wrote above:

"I also notice that these articles, despite the article probation, rely heavily on anthroposophy-published documents as sources, in spite of the arbitration ruling determining that they should be removed. Documents originating with anthroposophy, the Waldorf foundation, or Rudolph Stiener are not acceptable as sources either for claims that Waldorf is good, or for claims that Waldorf is bad. Things ranging from the complex (whether Steiner was racist) to the simple (whether Waldorf schools discourage parental communication) can not be sourced to primary documents. They are not considered reliable sources for several reasons. Generally if you are using Waldorf materials to describe the benefits etc., you run afoul of the self-serving limits of the reliable source policy, and if you are citing Waldorf documents to "prove" they have problems, you are violating the "interpreting primary sources to draw a conclusion is original research" limitation."

Coming off of two recent blocks, I'm not exactly comfortable having to be the one to do this, but rather than see the articles locked up, I'm going to stick my neck way out and try. I have started going through the article and removing these sources - I am placing {fact} tags on the claims they refer to. At some point, there will certainly be a lot of citations flags on the article (like there were when I did this months ago). This is a difficult time and some will look at the article and cry "vandalism" (I know at least one person for sure will). If I am doing something that is inappropriate, please let me know. Weeks have gone by and as Thatcher131 says, the sources still remain. It's a difficult job particularly when we have to edit war over each source. I am, therefore, deleting all the sources and we can look at the new sources that replace them carefully. I would say if we cannot find a source within a week, the claims should simply be removed. Again, if I have overstepped some line of good editing by doing this, please let me know. Some of us actually believed we were going to get some assistance from the pro-Waldorf editors on this. Instead, we are getting complaints when we do what the ArbCom has asked for. Pete K 15:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and tagged most of everything. Regarding external links, what is the ruling there. Several of the links are to environments similar to TheBee's self-promoting, defamatory websites or other original research sites. Can these be safely removed? Should they be? Pete K 16:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are going to be further rulings. They're waiting for us to eat each other alive.DianaW 00:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

New Edit War by TheBee

TheBee has insisted, even after all the discussion above, to introduce Waldorf sources to the now fairly clean article. It was considerable work on my part to delete all the non-approved sources. That he is adding them back is disheartening. Additionally, he's fighting for wording that is not supported by the reference he has presented - "Anti-Racism". That a school in Sweden has a different (more favorable) percentage regarding how kids perceive racism doesn't produce ANY support for putting "Anti-Racism" on the header of the section. It's not "Anti-Racism" to be slightly less racist than a counterpart. He is doing this, again today, without discussion or compromise. Could other editors please have a look? Thanks! Pete K 19:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message at the Rudolf Steiner talk page said you'd removed all the Steiner published references and since they were all really still there, I found out you meant you'd removed them all in this article from your "contributions" list. So I'm going to comment on this latest dispute here. First of all, both of you are adding a Steiner published article, maybe the same one. You are putting in the waldorcritics copy of the article, but it was published in a Steiner publication. Besides that it is a Steiner publication which should disqualify it here, at least that one article had an okay from an arbitrator. However, Waldorfcritics is not a publisher, and it doesn't have copyright permission for a lot of the material on they copy to their website. There is no message on that page to show they have permission to print it there. Wikipedia should not link to webpages that are maybe a copyright theft. And it's linked here three times, without authorship or publisher identified, making it harder to see that it was a Waldorf publisher, not independent. And 3 times is more attention than it deserves. Read the article--the author makes it clear that he has no direct knowledge of the extent of racism in schools at all, his advice is kind of a stern caution note because he has heard some rumors of it. It would be wrong to use this article as verification of the extent of the problem of racism in the schools. That would be exaggerating what the article's author said. He clearly doesn't know, but he's heard enough to be concerned about the possibility.

And Pete K you are saying that the study showed Swedish Wadlrof students are "less racist" but that doesn't mean "anti-racist". That would be a good point, however, that's not what the article said were the findings. It said they were equal in terms of not being racist. But it said the Waldorf students were more likely to do suggest solutions and actively oppose racism. If actively opposing racism isn't "antiracism", what is? You are twisting what the article actually says to make an objection that doesn't fit the circumstances. Again, it's like taking a document that says "the moon is made of mayonnaise" and arguing it says, "the moon is a giant oyster shell".

I'll step aside now but just commented because disagreements just like this have effected the articles I'm involved in. Venado 20:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Venado. The McDermott report was an independent investigation. That's why the arbitrator allowed it. I don't care if it is referenced in the Anthroposophical or the Waldorf Critics source, but it's not up to me. The Anthroposophical source is not allowed, as far as I know. Maybe it can be put in a neutral location. I'm not aware of any copyright violation regarding this report.

The Swedish report should be fairly presented for what it actually says. It doesn't say anything about "anti-racist" anything - if it says they were "equal" then that's what we should say here. If it says "more likely to oppose" then that's what we should say here. It has said NOTHING that justifies the changing of the section headers, in my view. Are you suggesting it has made a case that justifies this? Pete K 20:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. So it is to soon to "step away". The McDernott report was not an "independent investigation" of racism. He didn't study that issue at all. This report tells you what the purpose of it is, it is a general recommendation he has added separately from the investigation, because in his words his recommendation was not based on findings at the school they studied. If the arbitrator who gave the go ahead on this source was told that it was an "independent investigation" of the issue its used for here, racism, or that there were any "findings" at all about racism from their investigation, this was not true. This isn't the report prepared for the research study. This is a separate recommendation that was independent of the investigation, not attached to the investigation, and prepared to simply recommend care must be taken due to the "possibility" of racism developing in future inner city school programs. So the new heading calling it "Waldorf study on racism" is so wrong it isn't funny. It isn't a study about racism, end of story. The "study" wasn't about racism, and the researchers didn't find any racism. The title there now is completely false.

I think that fighting about how "actions taken to oppose racism" is different than "antiracism" is the kind of fight what is going to end up getting editors banned. It just proves how rigid and embattled they continues to be, how there biases are so strong they can't bring NPOV.

Also, the arbitration did not decide that sources from Waldorf websites weren't allowed. They decided that sources from Waldorf publishers weren't allowed. It makes no sense to say the source is okay, even if Waldorf published, but its link to a Waldorf library isn't allowed. Waldorf library is a library not a publisher. I think it is a misinterpretation of the decision, the intention or reason behind the decision. The key issue is the independence of the publisher, not who owns the website or library that's housing it. Probably the Waldorf library has permission to reprint the report, and I think Waldorf critics probably don't.Venado 00:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

May I just note here that you don't have the slightest idea who has permission or not to post that article somewhere, and such uninformed comments supposedly in the name of contributing to this discussion, don't.DianaW 00:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Three reasons to think this. It is not the only article there that doesn't look like there is permission to copy, such as the one taken from Atlantic Monthly magazine. Atlantic Monthly does not give away there whole articles to other websites for free, and when there is permission given, big publishers make you include the "permission given" message in the reprint. Atlantic magazine has there own website and want people to pay for it. Also there is no permission statement in the McDermott article. Publishers usually make this a condition to give there permission to reprint. And Waldorf critics is a website that only includes articles that are critical of Waldorf, why would a Waldorf publisher want to give them permission to recopy the article? Doesnt seem too smart if they did. The New York Times doesn't let there rival The New York Post put New York Times articles in its newspaper. Venado 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to try an underline this section - as the arguments are not helping.

Independence of the publisher is key - anthroposophical sources are not allowed for controversial or value based comments.
The Waldorf libraries should very rarely be linked, unless the source document can not be found elsewhere. Generally if it is peer reviewed research then it can be found elsewhere.
Any report on these controversial issues needs to be shown to be peer reviewed and independently published.

The arguments on the individual racism sections continue below - please continue there. Cheers Lethaniol 00:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Deleting Unsourced Statements

HGilbert, you have selectively deleted an unsourced statement that has been in the article. Is it your intention to delete ALL unsourced statements or just the ones you want to delete. If we're going to delete one, let's delete them all and re-write from scratch. I'm going to replace the statement because what you are doing here is generating a pretext for ALL unsourced statements to be removed. Please give editors time to re-source these statements. Thanks! Pete K 15:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Fact tag

TheBee, a statement was previously sourced by three sources and you have here removed the fact tag that was put on when one of the sources was removed. Can you confirm that the two remaining sources fully support the statement, or are you just assuming this? Pete K 16:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The link you give refers to the correction of a section title in accordance with the text it describes. Thebee 16:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant this one. Pete K 16:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

TheBee, perhaps this one has slipped your mind - can we have an answer on this or should the claim be removed? Thanks! Pete K 18:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

All three sources support the statement. Normally when multiple citations are given, and one is removed, there would not be cause for requiring further citation; this is also the case here. Hgilbert 00:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There are several claims made. Again, I ask, are all the claims covered by the two remaining sources. Pete K 00:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Appeal from Daughter

TheBee, Puhleeezzz... This is an encyclopedia article. Appeals from children aren't appropriate here. You really don't have to try so hard to refute EVERY source that doesn't care for Waldorf. Pete K 17:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

~~DianaW~~ Pete what you should be saying is this:

Anecdotal evidence should not be used to contradict a report by many. The German TV report ain't great, but it is not the opinion of one person, and you can't criticise it with emotional anecdotal references without giving massive undue weight to the anecdote. Much better the Swedish article which is a strong reference - which is in. You do not need this anecdotal ref then - so I will remove it, please do not replace. Cheers Lethaniol 17:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume you meant me. Pete K 17:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol sorry yes I did Pete Cheers Lethaniol 17:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Stop and have a look at the Racism section

Look at this [2] and the Racism section as of 17:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC) approx - this is the sort of standard we expect out of Wikipedia, and what all the content in these articles should be heading for. Barring any new refs or such like, only a little bit of work is needed to make that section Featured Article level :) Cheers Lethaniol 17:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Also unless people have a major problem with it - suggest copy and pasting the details into the main Anthroposophy article Cheers Lethaniol 17:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and disagree. Most of this material refers to Waldorf practices specifically. While there is some mention of the foundations of racism in Anthroposophy, there is a completely different picture about racism in Anthroposophy. Steiner's racism, even though it found its way into Waldorf, was not limited to Waldorf. I don't think the two sections can be exactly the same. Pete K 18:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point Pete - but if you are going to mention one of the studies there, then you should really be mentioning all three, so not giving undue weight to any of them. The Anthroposophy section should have more than just the racism issues in the Waldorf schools of course, but there is nothing there yet unless I am wrong. Cheers Lethaniol 18:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly certain many of the sources uncovered here will end up being used in the Anthroposophy and Steiner articles as well. Regarding Steiner's own words about Anthroposophy (his teachings) - would there be any leniency about quoting him directly to describe what his philosophy was? Or is Steiner not considered a reliable source? Yes, I don't mind putting all three Waldorf article sources in if they apply to the topic. Pete K 18:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Anthroposophy article seems like a good place to use them, but for Steiner, well how Anthroposophy is taught now is not necessarily directly related to what he said/did. Therefore really you want refs about him, and not about educational theory. In terms of using his quotes - great care needs to be taken as I think he said a lot of stuff, and so one quote will always be found to justify one point of view. Really need tertiary review of Steiner and his views of race - but all this is a discussion for another day and another article. Cheers Lethaniol 18:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"how Anthroposophy is taught now is not necessarily directly related to what he said/did" Actually it is directly related to what he said/did. Steiner's works are the Bible for Anthroposophists. They pore over them in study groups, revere them in quotations on their websites, require the children in Waldorf to recite his words. There has been no significant change in Anthroposophy since Steiner, only minor interpretational differences. But yes, one article at a time. I'm just wondering - if it's going to be up to me, again, to go through the Anthroposophy and Steiner articles and remove non-approved references - which ones I should leave in. I don't see anyone else interested in doing this, so I may end up having to do it (again) myself. Pete K 18:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would get one article sorted at a time (it has helped to concentrate on this article for 2 days). Once this one has had the inappropriate refs removed/replaced then move onto the next one - concentrate on high profile ones first e.g. Steiner and Anthroposophy, then slightly less high profile PLANs and Anthroposophy Medicine and then down to the sub articles (by then things should be easy compared to the high profile articles). P.S. could you please leave a list on my talk page of all the articles that all important here - if you can I would be grateful.

On the Steiner article what sources to leave in will be more difficult. There is always scope for his own quotes but not to drown out the article. Secondary/Tertiary sources should be found for any assertions/opinions. I would start with the ones from Anthroposophy sources, that are not-direct quotes from Steiner, and are value laden.

E.g. remove a ref and delete/tag comment if an Anthroposophy source is supporting "Steiner was the best" or "Steiner was a much respected man in his time".

E.g. keep a ref if an Anthroposophy source "Steiner was at X location at Y time doing Z", unless controversial.

Hope that helps Cheers Lethaniol 18:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I agree with the game plan. Regarding a list of the articles - there are about 30 articles (that we know of) that fall under this category - I don't have a list. I think Diana W compiled a list at one time of the ones she discovered. A better way to find them might be to look at the contributions of some of the Waldorf people. I suspect HGilbert created many of these articles. It may be that he has a list available and would be willing to share it. Pete K 18:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually created very few of these articles; most existed in some form or another. At least two for which my name appears as the first editor in the history I simply separated off from other articles (due to their disproportionate length), and are not my creation either (e.g. Social Threefolding, which had been part of the article on anthroposophy). A few biographical articles are my own creation (Ita Wegman and Bernard Lievegoed; I think you'll find these pretty straightforward). Not much more, if anything. Hgilbert 14:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Hgilbert, but it does matter who created them, what we need to focus on is improving all the articles up to the standard that Wikipedia demands - something that I think we can all agree on. So no more discussion on who created what and concentrate on how the article needs improving Cheers Lethaniol 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I am not thinking straight the majority should be found at Category:Anthroposophy of course Cheers Lethaniol 18:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you're thinking straight. This page doesn't even list Anthroposophical Medicine. There are many more than are found here. Pete K 18:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if anyone sees a page please add the appropriate categories to it - like all good Wikipedians should do Cheers Lethaniol 19:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Verification policy violations

Please hold to the verification policy established here. The Waldorf teacher's survival guide is published by Rudolph Steiner College, and does not meet the criteria set for sources of these articles. Hgilbert 11:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No a direct quote from a Rudolph Steiner College publication would not be allowed - as stated by the ArbCom - it is not clear though whether the SECONDARY source of www.worldnetdaily.com is good enough for Wikipedia or not. It does not fall under the ArbCom decision as it is not an Anthroposophy source, it is just quoting one, which is obviously allowed. The real problem with this source is whether it is notable enough and reliable enough - these are the issues that need to be discussed and I have already mentioned this above. Cheers Lethaniol 13:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The other part of the policy decision was that it was to be applied to "controversial" material. There is no controversy here - The existence of the Waldorf Teacher's Survival Guide is not contested as both Waldorf supporters and Waldorf critics refer to it. The document exists and the content of the document is available for view. There is no "controversy" about what it says and no reason not to point to it. Why would a controversy be claimed if both camps agree with the existence and the content of the document being quoted? Pete K 14:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The content of the publication is controversial, as is clear from the way it is misused by WC's in different contexts to falsely defame Waldorf education. What makes it controversial is also the way it is related to the issue of whether anthroposophy is to be considered a religion or not. It was the only piece of evidence presented by the Plaintiff (PLANS) during its trial against two public school districts in CA September 12, 2005 in alleged support of its argument that anthroposophy is a religion. As such it was disallowed for a number of reasons. Is it a controversial publication by an anthroposophical publisher related to a controversial issue? Yes it is. --Thebee 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. So I guess we're waiting to hear if Worldnetdaily.com is OK as a source. Pete K 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If using and quoting a disallowed publication from a waldorf publisher is prohibited as citation in the article on WE, what would make using and quoting the same publication as quoted in a second instance as citation on a controversial issue allowed? Thebee 17:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's allowed because it's a secondary source - a source removed from Waldorf. That means somebody besides Anthroposophists have looked at it, written about it and published their findings. Pete K 18:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Pete on this - secondary sources are selective in which Anthroposophical sources they quote, and they are not subject to any specific bias that the ArbCom has decided makes primary Anthroposophical sources to self-promoting to be used for these articles. On the otherhand we can not just use an Anthroposophical quote from such secondary sources - that is just quoting a primary source - it can only be quoted in the context of the article being written. I hope that all makes sense and people agree.

Having said all that I am still unhappy about this source - www.worldnetdaily.com - it has given a one sided argument here, only used one source, the Waldorf critical PLANS, and I am still not convinced on its reputation/reliability. Personally if I was to come across this source in another situation I would take there report as an opinion and not fact - and write it up in Wikipedia so. Again I hope you see how we treat opinions differently from facts on Wikipedia. Anyway this is my opinion and I think others should debate the standing and use of this source - as little has been done on this yet (except by me). Cheers Lethaniol 19:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So are we adding a new criteria here - the source cannot be biased? And who decides this? Which bias? Is it that the source says something Waldorf people don't care to hear? Because to me, what is said in the article is in agreement with my own experience at Waldorf and indeed seems like a very reasonable representation of what happens there - regularly. So, for me, if this is "opinion" and it agrees with my "opinion" and experience, then it may as well be "fact". Pete K 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No I am not adding new criteria here it is covered here - I don't think you can use polemical sources to back a controversial fact - maybe if you have a fair few you could? You can use such sources as opinions/quotes. And no just because your opinion and a source's opinion are the same that does not make it a fact. Opinion + opinion = more opinion. Cheers Lethaniol 21:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I can find more sources. I didn't say my opinion makes anything a fact, BTW, I said "for me"... "it may as well be fact". Pete K 22:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this one? It says:

"Because class teachers work so intensively in the artistic realm, transforming the mundane into the extraordinary, infusing the material with the spiritual, they are subject to the influence of Luciferic beings who work through the imagination, inspiring flights of creativity and fantasy, bringing warmth and light to the art of teaching. Although some of our work takes place in Lucifer’s domain, we must be careful not to succumb to his temptations, and we must take active steps to combat his influence."

Pete K 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you should find more allowed sources. The idea was, is, and will continue to be, stick to allowed sources. Venado 22:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I'm testing this one. Some people have said the www.waldorflibrary.org is just that, a "library" and therefore sources from that library should not be disallowed automatically for their location in this library. I'm seeing if that holds true for sources they don't want to see used here. Pete K 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was to avoid waldorflibrary at all possible, right? I think it's more productive to work with the process than set up little games to "test" what I can get away with to upset it. Venado 23:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Venado, you're right. I didn't realize the issue had been resolved. My apologies. Pete K 23:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Religious orientation citation deleted

Lethaniol, I wasn't sure how else to reply to your message about my adding a disallowed source, so I'm discussing it here. Please let me know if there's a better way to do this.

I added a citation for the following: However, "no religion, including Christianity, is promulgated in a Waldorf school."

Since this is a quotation, I simply added the citation for that quote, which when Googled brings up the web site I cited. Yes, it's from AWSNA, and the religion section is controversial, but I don't think it's right to have unattributed quotations. Perhaps the quotation needs to be deleted entirely. Any thoughts? Thanks.Henitsirk 02:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would think it's exactly the type of statement we shouldn't take AWSNA's word for. If we can't find some source outside of Anthropsophy to confirm this, I think the statement cannot be defended and should come out. Pete K 03:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It can probably be included as AWSNA's statement, clearly prefaced by "The Association of w.s. of N.A. states that ...." and showing AWSNA's stance on the subject. Hgilbert 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I re-read the section and this quote seems out of place anyway, so I removed it. The section is talking primarily about festivals, not that the schools are non-sectarian. I'm not saying that there should not be anything about the religion/non-sectarian question, it just didn't seem to fit in here and I didn't see anywhere else to incorporate it with HGilbert's suggestion. Thanks. Henitsirk 01:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, quoting AWSNA is not appropriate here. We all get that AWSNA wants to paint a particular picture of Waldorf. Having a quote from them talking about how great Waldorf is is exactly what the ArbCom said we can't do here. AWSNA is not a good source to make this claim. Pete K 16:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Uhrmacher article in "Curriculum Review" has a good description that could be useful. "There is a spiritual dimension to Waldorf education, a nondenominational Christianity that manifests itself in an occasional verse, classroom decoration, or holiday celebration. Waldorf educators do not proselytize, however. They do not teach children to become Christians and they are not out to create young anthroposophists." I think he would be a good source, a professor of education at University of Denver who has published education research papers and books which is better than some of the other sources suggested so far. Venado 16:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like an acceptable source. I ran across one study recently that said 2/3 of graduating Waldorf students in this particular study went on to become Waldorf teachers... so I'm not sure about the "create young anthroposophists" part (in fact I don't believe it's true). I think the main intention of Waldorf education is to create Anthroposphists. But back to the point - as references go, it seems, as you say, better than other sources. Pete K 16:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw you discussing this finding in the study before, and I read the link. From what I read it looks like what happened was you misred the result. What was linked was not a study about waldorf schools. It was a study about waldorf teacher training program, meaning probably 2/3rd of the students who enrolled in the teacher training program went on to be waldorf teachers. Venado 17:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look it up again as I don't recall it saying this. It doesn't change my view/experience, however, that Waldorf is used as an induction center, not just for children but for their parents as well. Pete K 18:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Citations for Pedagogy and Educational Philosophy sections

Hello all, I see that these sections direly need citations. I'm assuming that these citations would come from Waldorf/anthroposophical sources. How can we address this without third-party verified sources? Can't we use Waldorf sources since these sections aren't controversial? I'd like to help find citations but don't want to waste any time. Thanks.Henitsirk 03:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about the school but it looks like a lot of citation tags were put on things that would be easy to find in non anthroposophical sources. A lot of things that aren't controversial have become controversial in talk pages. Its easier to find reference to them than argue if they are controversial.Venado 21:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree - please do not make issues where there not be any - I suggest only fact tagging the most immediate and controversial issues. Other uncontroversial things can wait a bit - or if you know of a non-Anthroposophy reference just add it in. Cheers Lethaniol 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Henitsirk was asking whether Waldorf sources could be used as citations for the pedagogy and philosophy sections. Do we consider everything controversial (certain editors here may be ready to claim this) or are we willing to accept that Waldorf sources are acceptable for certain areas? Hgilbert 00:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was not trying to say these sections are controversial, I was just trying to be careful about spending time finding citations from WE/anthro sources when they would be disallowed. Thanks. Henitsirk 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I found two sources pretty quickly that can take care of quite a few of the tags. I'll try to clear up as many as I can with the two I have found online. Venado 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would steer clear of using any anthroposophy sources. I understand that may not always be possible - and there are certain facts that we may end up deciding to reference with anthroposophy sources - though they should be few and far between (e.g. there is a Waldorf school in X country called Y). Generally using an anthoposophy source otherwise will mean using it for a quote only. Cheers Lethaniol 11:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to comment that there are some very contraversial claims being made in this article. And I would suggest removing them unless some relevant and reliable sources can be shown for them. These include the Titles: 'What Waldorf Discourages'; 'Two faces of Evil'. Much of the text is written quite subjectively. I am new to Wikipedia, if I wish to edit, do I just go ahead or wait for you guys to respond to my comments? Thanks Lkleinjans 17:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. At this stage I think some time should be given to allow editors to find a source. If you see something controversial that doesn't have a [citation needed] on it, you should add a fact tag tp it instead of deleting it. But unsupported stuff shouldn't stay there for ever without references. I think some of it is of quaestionalbe interest to an encyclopedia too, such as the dress code rules. It seems like trivia to me. I thought almost every school or work place also has a dress code or even uniform of some kind, even two of them, one for "casual Fridays". Venado 18:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

At some point we need to go through and remove all uncited stagements that have been tagged. I was thinking this weekend might be a good time for this. Pete K 18:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of controversy: for my own part, it seems that if we keep the direct claims out of it [e.g. Waldorf does "this" where other methods "don't;" or citing something as fact, when in reality it's belief or anecdote], then we won't have an issue. This is the same "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" doctrine that supports all science and fact. It's also the same principle that governs pharmaceuticals vs. food supplements and other similar issues.

With that said, it must be noted that virtually EVERYTHING that comes out of anthroposophy as the foundation for an educational method [e.g. Waldorf] is in strictest sense - based on belief. I say this because as far as I'm aware, there is no independent scientific study that demonstrates that Waldorf-educated students are any more successful or happy in life than those who have gone through traditional educational models (please correct me if I'm wrong). Moreover, just because two things appear to be related, does not mean that they are - or "correlation is not causation."

The fact that the first African-American CEO of a Fortune 500 company was Waldorf educated is compelling. But there have been many more CEOs from traditional backgrounds who by all appearances are just as successful and just as happy [or unhappy]. By the same token, we won't know the effects [positive or negative] of NCLB for many years to come.

So that's my two cents. Time to go read what's happened in the last 10 days since I was last here. ;-) - Wikiwag 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a little surprised that Waldorf sources would not be permissible citations to show the pedagogical approach, e.g. that the curriculum specifies that foreign languages are taught beginning in first grade. This would be the normal source to research such questions. Hgilbert 01:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I found more than one independent source for the foreign languages but I only put one in. Venado 01:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This comment may be out of sequence but I think that a weekend deadline for unsourced sections would be fair. If anyone expresses confidence that they could source a particular section or sections with a short extension, that seems fair compromise. Or if someone is seeking consensus to allow a Steiner published text for some section with a tag maybe that would need an extra time allowance to. Venado 01:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf sources are not allowed here - not for pedagogical approach or for anything else. I'm going to object to the quoting of ASWNA as well as it makes no more sense than quoting Deborah Snell or Dan Dugan. Pete K 17:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Religious verse by Steiner

I added a fact tag to this statement because it isn't sourced and the source I found called "Making Contact" discusses specifically some of the daily "rituals" including the opening of the day. The first observation given is very detailed, with several verses quoted and none were Steiners or religious. It would also be controversial because the schools that were sued denied they were doing religious practices. Venado 19:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the more common morning verses written by Steiner does mention God...the one for the early grades that begins with "The sun with loving light/Makes bright for me each day". So that brings in the controversial religious/spiritual question. However I could not say what is the most common verse used or whether any or all other verses used mention God. Thanks. Henitsirk 03:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a source that said "Steiner verse" in all schools but not "religious Steiner verse", but the verse was quoted and didn't say God. This is a confusion in this article I think because the offical schools are in some parts mixed with public and home schools and in other parts seperate, and most I saw are using sources that are looking at one type only. So when the term "all" is used, even if it is reference sourced, is probably contradicted in another source, if applied in a strict way. One source is all about how the unique feature that the schools do not follow a blueprint, that the correspondence between all the Waldorf schools is through a cultural "memory" transferance, not administrative or official policy. I don't know enough to judge on the conflicting information but this might explain why "generally" or "always" type claims are to be avoided for describing this school system. Venado 05:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do the kids have to say anything then? It's intended as a prayer. Pete K 17:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Advertisement tag

How are people feeling about the tone of the article now? I'm thinking we could remove this tag, given the hard work people have done to remove the POV language. Thanks. Henitsirk 03:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worse than ever. After we remove the unsourced material this weekend, we can have a better look. Our regular Waldorf editors are working hard to source all the advertising claims - now the number of Waldorf schools has gone over 1000 even though even AWSNA only claims 800. Many of the sources that are being produced to support the existing language are not acceptable. It's pretty clear to me that some people didn't get the message. I'll support the tag staying in place until the article reads NPOV and not brochure. Pete K 22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There are still some small concerns about it reading like an advertisement - but the main problem is with NPOV and in particular the references that back up statements. Hence I have removed the advert tag and added the references tag - of course we could have three or four tags but that is unneeded - the article is becoming more balanced by the day - just one for the main current issue is fine. Cheers Lethaniol 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Guidance

Part of the secondary education section reads "...the child is now encouraged to begin a more independent development of knowledge, under the guidance of their teachers. Naturally, the nature of the "guiding" depends very much on the teachers doing the guiding."

It seems to me that perhaps the whole last section could be dropped, leaving "...to begin a more independent development of knowledge". The second sentence appears to be editorializing, and the second half of the first sentence to be superfluous. Any thoughts? Hgilbert 01:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree but I think the whole Pedagogy section is a bit long - whereever possible cut it to the basics, remember this is encyclopaedia not a complete breakdown of every step of a child's education through a school. So anything that is repeated from the first section (Description) or just waffling on, or has unneeded detail - cut it out please. IMHO Cheers Lethaniol 01:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

References from mainstream publishers

References have been deleted from a book published by a publishing house unconnected with Waldorf education or anthroposophy on the grounds that the author is a Waldorf teacher. It is my understanding that as long as there is a third-party review process, such resources are valid; this is clearly not a self-published source. We may need a third-party decision here; until then, please keep the references in. Hgilbert 02:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope - Petrash is coming out - as will all other Waldorf references. Sorry. Pete K 02:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Before we get into any edit warring over Petrash - can people explain why it should be allowed, and why it should not be. Also would like proof that it is non-Anthroposophy based and published. These issues may have covered elsewhere, but am off to bed now so do not have time to look. Cheers Lethaniol 02:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Petrash is a Waldorf SPOKESPERSON. He's even been to my kid's school - and visits Waldorf schools around the world talking about Waldorf. His JOB is to promote Waldorf. There's no question this is a Waldorf source. Pete K 02:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Petrash has been a public school and a Waldorf school teacher. His book is published by Gryphon House Press, which publishes general books on education, especially early childhood education. There is a normal third-party review process as for any mainstream publisher. Hgilbert 02:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He sometimes speaks on Waldorf education; this is not his job. He is not employed in any public relations capacity; schools call him in to speak about his area of expertise. Hgilbert 02:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Petrash is published by gryphon house books, ghbooks.com. That does not look like Steiner publisher either. I do not agree they come out. Show us how this is a Steiner publisher, or get consensus why it shouldn't be allowed. It is an independent publisher it looks like, this is not a self-publish issue then and it is acceptable source. Petrash sounds like an authority on the subject by this description. Is he paid to sell or paid to lecture? They aren't the same. "Promoting" could also be "educating". Venado 02:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes he is PAID to promote Waldorf. Pete K 02:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Look I am going to bed now - I so strongly suggest you two do not edit war on this - but put your arguments here as I suggested and let other people come chip in tomorrow and make a decision tomorrow. A lot of references have been added by Hgilbert - if they all need to be taken out it is a bit of work. Best to decide if they need to be taken out then do it - it will not harm to have these sources for a few hours if they are not appropriate. Cheers Lethaniol 02:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I am going to request an Admin keeps an eye on this page for the next few hours - so beware - have been asked to come over!

P.P.S. If you do revert - remember that a lot of other editing has been going on apart from Hgilbert's addition of sources - to remove all the good faith edits during an edit war WILL get you blocked. Remove the sources manually if you must. Cheers Lethaniol 02:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no way to remove the sources manually without an edit conflict - as HGilbert was editing constantly.

There's no way this guy is "manistream" - He is a Waldorf teacher - he has taken three classes through the grades (minimum 24 years) - his views are that of Waldorf - to suggest that his views, published or not - there is no way we can represent this person as "mainstream" or neutral. To suggest that his work can be used to support controversial material - even if technically the publication is not a Waldorf one, is a travesty. There is no way this should be allowed. Pete K 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Discuss it here - do not war - if needed will ask ArbCom their opinion on Anthroposophists that publish in third party publishers. With respect to not being able to make your revert - if you can't because of edit conflict NEVER just rollback five hours or whatever - unless you know that the vast majority of edits are bad faith/inappropriate - and this is not the case here!!!! Cheers Lethaniol 02:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Five hours? Naw... five minutes if that... And I consider stuffing the article with Anthroposophical sources after I went to the trouble of cleaning them out bad faith editing. Pete K 02:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K, I'm not sure I understand your perspective here. I don't see that using Jack Petrash as a citation for a neutral description of the curriculum is inappropriate. Arbcom only said we couldn't use unverified Waldorf/anthro sources for controversial subjects. I understand that Petrash is involved with Waldorf, but if the section is saying "In Waldorf they do this" and not "Waldorf is great," then what is the problem with citing him? It's not like this is from his original research.

For example, please explain why you think this is controversial and not factual: "The children sing daily with their class teacher. Generally, weekly singing lessons with a specialized music teacher begin at an early age and continue as choral instruction through to age 18. Music is also integrated into the teaching of subjects such as arithmetic, geography, history and science.

I hope I don't sound combative but I just don't understand your perspective on this. Thanks. Henitsirk 02:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Me either. In some places the termonology in the article can sound to sales promotional, but that is for editors to fix. You can't black ball all the Waldorf school experts as sources or it will get an article that is inferior in terms of the facts, not better. So I don't understand. Venado 03:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to source this stuff to Waldorf teachers, we might as well sit back and let HGilbert rewrite the article again. This is incredible, for me to understand, after personally spending half a year of working on this article, every free minute, going through arbitrations, that now with a clear decision at hand we would fall back into this type of thinking. First, let me say, we DON'T have to reference everything in the article - some of it needs to just come out completely. I'd say half of it needs to come out and never return. Why? Because it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, it belongs in a brochure. The reason it is here is because a Waldorf teacher produced it. And the only reason it could stay here is if it is allowed to be supported, again, by a Waldorf teacher. That's nonsense. The Waldorf teacher POV is what we're here trying to remove. I'm sure we all get that Waldorf teachers think everything about Waldorf is great. Here's our chance to produce an article that sticks to the facts and doesn't make wild claims (even if Waldorf teachers think they are true). So far, NOTHING has been produced to suggest Waldorf schools are any better than other private schools. So this article isn't going to be about how great Waldorf is, it's going to be about how Waldorf is - matter-of-fact without hype. There is NO reason that Jack Petrash needs to be referenced in this article once, let alone a dozen times to support the same nonsense HGilbert produced here in the first place. No reason at all. It is shameful that so much time has been wasted here, and all the while EVERYONE STILL AGREES that the articles still read like Waldorf brochures.

I understand that it is difficult for Waldorf supporters to see an article about Waldorf that doesn't describe how great Waldorf is. But that has nothing to do with out job here - which is to produce a NPOV fact-of-the-matter article about Waldorf. So, yes, we may have to take out lots of stuff about how music is incorporated in science classes - not only is this not true, it isn't important to ANYONE other than Waldorf pushers. We need to start describing what Waldorf is - not between ages 6-7 but for ALL ages including for the parents of the children there - because Waldorf is a huge committment and anyone reading this should get a good, honest picture about what it really is. They can get the brochure language written by Waldorf teachers anywhere. Our job is to tell them what's NOT in the brochures - it might mean talking about Anthroposophy's connection to the curriculum, or that eurythmy is spiritual, or that Waldorf teachers have some very different ways of looking at things... That's what I'm striving for, and I hope others here will support me in this. We can't get there by producing another Waldorf teacher-inspired brochure - we can only get there by insisting that the picture we look at will be what the world outside of Waldorf has to show us. Waldorf teachers might be experts on Waldorf, but they are also experts in representing (or misrepresenting) Waldorf. We don't need that here. This can be an excellent article if we start by stripping away the fluff and getting to work producing something that represents reality. We don't need Jack Petrash or AWSNA or other Waldorf sources for this. What is true need not be contested. What is not true need not be included - especially if Waldorf teachers are the only ones who say it's true. Pete K 07:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why do you keep putting a Waldorf source in (Waldorf teachers' survival handbook)? Hgilbert 10:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets keep the arguments separate - there is a separate discussion for the World net daily report with very different issues. From my opinion we need to investigate this area of grey - note Thatcher may not respond to our requests as stated on his talk page.

Okay this is my take on the situation - the ArbCom ruling on disallowing Anthroposophy sources is likely to apply to non-Anthroposophy publishers if the author is obviously extremely pro-Anthroposophy. At the end of the day not 100% of inappropriate Anthroposophy sources are going to be published in house. And though with an alternative publisher, that is only likely to have limited effect on the polemical nature of any work.

Petrash seems to be pretty pro-Anthroposophy from a little google search - maybe too much so to qualify to give value based statements on Waldorf education. On the other hand he may be "neutral" enough to use for straight up facts - and certainly better than linking to a Waldorf website maybe.

So here is my compromised offer - something that I think broadly follows the ArbCom ruling but users grey area sources in a common sense way. Any highly pro-Antroposophy or Waldorf teacher written third party published sources can not be used for value based statements (this is good, better, it improves, it produces etc...), only straight up facts (e.g. there are x number of y, or x is taught at age y). What do people think? Cheers Lethaniol 11:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "straight-up fact". If it isn't controversial, then someone outside of Waldorf has said it. Saying there are 1000 Waldorf schools when there are only 800 isn't a straight up fact. Neither is stuff like "children learn to speak two languages" - yet the Jack Petrash crowd will say this sort of thing without blinking an eye. It is incumbent on us as directed by the arbcom to remove this type of material - not make excuses for how we can keep it in. Anything that is a straight-up fact doesn't have a {fact} tag on it and needs NO citation at all. Everything that requires a citation requires a citation that goes outside the Waldorf community. This part of the decision is pretty clear. Pete K 15:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I found the source that said "about 1000" and one that said the schools teach two foreign languages and neither was a Steiner or Waldorf source, they were research papers. It is good If you believe there is more accurate information then give the sources. If you have them, then tell us so we can judge. But don't just give us your own opinion to over rule the sources no matter who they are. Venado 16:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Lethaniol. This is common sense. The parts I saw sourced to Petrash were not controversial and I think that overall except for exact specifics I saw a lot of articles that said the same basic things. The statements were more or less

consistent with lots of sources, not just Petrash. Venado 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Then feel free to find the other sources and provide them. I'm not going to support a dishonest representation of Waldorf, no matter what the source. Waldorf students do NOT learn how to speak two foreign languages. And it is best to assume EVERYTHING is controversial. In reading through the article again today, I found dozens of statements that require new fact tags. I also found sources that didn't support the wild claims that are being made. I want to assume good faith, but some of this looks like dishonest editing. Pete K 17:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K, I am confounded why you are challenging the veracity of basic parts of the Waldorf curriculum. Perhaps it would be better to say "in *many* Waldorf schools the children learn two languages", but that seems pretty minor. It's not a value judgment, it's fact. I do not agree that every single thing about the curriculum is controversial, and a good faith effort is being made to give the basic curriculum instead of value statements. Thanks. Henitsirk 20:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm confounded by why a claim like students learn two languages "seems pretty minor". It's a LIE. So do people want to send their kids to a school that lies about what they provide for them? And where do we hear about why one of the two languages is always German? So that Waldorf kids can read Steiner... and where do we hear about French being frowned upon because of Steiner's comments about the French language? If all we get is in these articles is going to be Waldorf BS, then it is going to have to be well-sourced BS. Pete K 21:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Consistency

An argument has been made that a Waldorf teacher' book quoted in a [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17206 World net daily newspaper article] can be cited here, and this has been allowed on the basis that a mainstream publisher has taken this up (third party review principle). A Waldorf teacher published by a mainstream press has more credibility than the World net daily quotation, and at least the third-party review of that news source. Some sort of consistent principles are required. Hgilbert 10:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, all quotes from Steiner are being removed by one editor, yet he insists on keeping one quote (in the Eurythmy section). Can we clarify the policy here?Hgilbert 11:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove any Steiner quotes I missed. I'll be removing the quotes from AWSNA today as well. Pete K 15:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Can we come to a consensus on the question of sources, because I don't think that one single editor should have the final say. Venado 16:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The answer has already been given by the ArbCom. It said no Anthroposophical sources. Even if we all agreed otherwise, it wouldn't change the directive. I'm going by what they said - even for material I need Anthroposophical sources to support. Now that the unsourced and Anthroposophically-sourced material has been removed, I'm going to look at the poorly-sourced material... questionable sources. On these, maybe we can work toward a consensus. I really can't help it if I'm the only one here who has taken the ArbCom decision seriously enough to implement it. Pete K 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the decision:

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors of this are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.

Please note the word controversial. Anthroposophical sources can be used for straight up facts - not all of them are controversial. It in no way said - no Anthroposophical sources. There use is limited yes but allowed sometimes - it is not a blanket ban. Cheers Lethaniol 19:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

THey arbcom said no anthroposophy publications because it was deemed a self-publish issue. The aggressive editing in the past few hours is way out of control. So much good work in the last few days is mowed down. The editing isn't being taken seriously it looks like, many I looked at appear to be removed with falsified excuse, such as Unesco section which was veritified in the sources. The study was renamed to say "racism in urban schools study" which is a distortion of the study and its findings. Bad editing is just making more work for every one. Venado 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we will never agree on what's "controversial" so there's no point laboring over this. The way we determine if something is controversial is by asking for a citation. If the source is being provided in reference to a citation request, it is controversial. If YOU will read the decision it says to remove "ALL unverifiable information INCLUDING all controversial information". So, what you are considering "so much good work" is just people introducing material into the article that doesn't belong and should come out. Sorry. Pete K 19:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Free Advertising

"Finding a Waldorf School" is nothing more than free advertising for Waldorf. One of the articles I keep an eye on is AutoCAD - a software product. While it might be very useful to have a list of AutoCAD dealers right on the Wikipedia page, it's inappropriate to do so. Waldorf is a commercial enterprise. People needing to find a Waldorf school can simply look at one of the many links to AWSNA or other sites that have abundant lists on this. Listing Waldorf schools here is no different than listing dealerships for every product discussed here at Wikipedia. The direct link to lists should come out. Same goes for the teacher training sites. People who are interested can check AWSNA or other sites. Wikipedia is not the place for free advertising. Pete K 19:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There might be a need to cut down on the number of these external links, maybe in the total number of external links (too many for my liking) but I think Wikipedia should have a link to how to find their local Waldorf school - very useful info/link. Again may need to trim the number of these links though, but not the section. Cheers Lethaniol 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Report from Mainz?"

And what you now describe as "The Report from Mainz" in the article is not a report from Mainz. "Report Mainz" in the name of the polemical TV-program, from which the quote is taken. It is not a "Report" in the sense of a reliable publication reporting on a serious study as you seem to try to indicate with your title describing it. And nothing in the program indicates that it has anything special to do with Mainz.

It is adressed here, and commented on in detail here. For a comment on it, published by Evelyn Hecht-Galinski, former Waldorf pupil and daughter of a former Chairperson of the Central Jewish Council in Germany, Heinz Galinski, in Allgemeine Jüdische Wochenzeitung, 30.3.2000 (General Jewish Weekly, March 3, 2000), see Action Solidarity against the Defamation of Waldorf education.

"Appeal to solidarity against the targeted defamation and smear of the Waldorf schools. I can't stand the defamation of them for being racist and anti-Semitic!

"I, a former Berliner Waldorf pupil and daughter of an Auschwitz-survivor and Chairman for many years of the Central Jewish Council in Germany, who very consciously and deliberately sent me to a Waldorf school, appeal to all former and present pupils of the Jewish faith to contact and tell me about their experiences. I personally have only had good experiences during my school time; it was liberal, antiracist, tolerant of every faith and not missionary.

"It was not without reason that the Waldorf schools were prohibited during the Nazitime!

"That makes it even worse to now verbally defame the Waldorf schools without presenting concrete proofs and names, as for example is being done by Report Mainz and Samuel Althof in Basel."

Thebee 22:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll change the section title. Pete K 22:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It does not change the nature of the citation; a polemical TV-program. Thebee 23:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry TheBee - just because a TV program is polemical does not mean it can not be referenced. In fact the vast majority of TV programs are polemical but they can be used as notable tertiary references. Of course if there is heaps loads of peer reviewed high quality journal articles to be had then you would ingore the TV program - but this is not the case from what I have seen so far. Cheers Lethaniol 23:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this point has been resolved. See the comments by Mr. Bauder, main arbitrator, on polemical sources during the arbitration:

"any polemical source is considered unreliable. Fred Bauder 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"

Thebee 12:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Previously in own section Reliable, allowed and not allowed sources for different purposes, have merged into this one, Cheers Lethaniol 23:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the Principles - Verifiability point (14.1.3) in the Arbitration decision:

"Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources."

It tells that with regard to controversial information in the articles, material published in Anthroposophy related publications are considered self published and thus not reliable sources. But for information that is not controversial, Anthroposophy (or Waldorf) related publications are to be considered as reliable sources.

The problem is what is to be considered controversial. The decision says nothing about this. There are two points that probably stand out as controversial. One concerns the issue if anthroposophy is a religion or more a philosophy. The other concerns the issue if Waldorf ed. would be and promote racism, as alleged in anti-Waldorf campaigns. I think the second point is seriously overblown in the article and takes a disproportionately large part of it.

As for what else could be considered "controversial", what is described as principal content in the curriculum, that probably must be considered uncontroversial as all Waldorf schools use the same basic curriculum. Telling what the curriculum, upon which Waldorf ed is based looks like this in uncontroversial. What could be controversial are statements about what is achieved at Waldorf schools with regard to the pupils, being empirical questions, that is something that needs verification from external sources. The issue of how much using Waldorf sources is allowed has nothing to do with amount of use of such sources as citations, but is a matter of principle, what they are used as citations for.

The main arbitrator, Mr. Bauder in discussion also made clear that

"any polemical source is considered unreliable. Fred Bauder 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"

His statement as main arbitrator at Wikipedia contradicts your view of the use of the German TV-broadcast in the article, Lethaniol. Asked by me:

"In a similar way as for works on controversial issues with regard to Waldorf education, published by anthroposophical or Waldorf publishers, I would also suggest that authors, who have worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy, be considered as unreliable sources with regard to controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy. Thebee 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)"

he answered:

"Of course Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)"

From that, it can probably be inferred that polemical publications, like that from "Christian Education Awareness Network (CEANet)", an organization that is strongly critical of Waldorf ed on an ideological basis is to be considered an unreliable, and thereby not allowed source, used by Pete K in the article.

This just to sort out some of the principal issue with regard to allowed sources in general, and allowed sources for what statements in the article.

Thebee 10:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Rereading this talks page, I see that an eternity ago (six days) and half a mile upwards, I wrote something similar to the above at this now 300 kB long page. It is closely based on the arbitration and comments by the main arbitrator during the process. I don't think the points are being enough considered in this discussion and in the article, the way they should be, and that this justifies repeating them again here. Thebee 12:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You're wasting your time TheBee. Pete K 17:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I have removed the resolved tag (you can remove this yourself by the way if you do not agree with it).

I 100% agree with what you say TheBee, above and here - but ONLY when applied to statements of fact. Polarised sources can not be used as citations for fact including PLANS/WC and pro-Anthroposophy sources - though some exceptions may be made for some very uncontroversial facts see other sections.

This is does not apply to quotes/opinions or reports. An anthroposophy source can be used for its quotes/opinions and they could be used for their reports (except they have been judged to be so heavily biased that they are prohibted by the ArbCom decisions).

In this case we have a polemical German source - that is being described - the language should be that of opinion not of fact - which I believe this section is - if it is not then change it. What should decide if it is included or not is whether it is notable enough - which I believe it is and we need it as we have only two other reports for the Racism section.

So all please remember polemical sources can not be used to support facts (unless very uncontroversial and no other neutral sources out there). Polemical sources can be used for quotes/opinions - but only if notable and relevant to the article (preferably should find neutral sources). User:Lethaniol

A source is determined to be non-neutral the moment it makes any statement of any kind. There is nothing any source can say about any part of this topic that would be agreed by the participants here to be neutral. That's just the way it is. Once any claim is made, the neutrality of the source becomes diminished in the eyes of the participants. There's no such thing as a neutral source - any more than there is a neutral POV on this topic. Just sayin'... Pete K 00:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to throw out this section but the article here says that the injunction against the program was refused because the claims made in the program were true. That is not what the source reads. The source tells that the court said the Mainz program was just interviewing or asking questions, not claiming the charges to be true or false. The source also said the court saw no reason to conclude what Althof said was false. But all Althof said was that he has collected complaints from parents and teachers, and the court said there was no reason to believe otherwise. In other words the court said it was not necessarily untrue that people shared complaints to Althof. The court did not say the ccusations themselves in the complaints were true. So the outcome has to be rewritten to be accurate. The court did not say that the charges were true, only that it could be very true real people were making them to the program and to the AKDH.Venado 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay if that is the case - change it the neutral language required - I already removed the emotive "demands" - this section has only been written by one editor, so is always going to need some tweaking. Cheers Lethaniol 16:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - thanks for a good edit. Pete K 17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

The Temperaments

I think this is an important part of Waldorf education that has been ignored in this article. Pete K 19:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm - I have no idea what The Temperaments are - and why they are controversial. If you could copy the section (or just a draft of it) into this part of the talk page we can then discuss it. Cheers Lethaniol 21:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think this is quite important, it is part of every teacher training I have seen. I would not say it's controversial though. Could also be something to be written about at more length on the main anthro page, since it's not limited only to children/education. There should be many third party sources out there about the medieval view of temperaments: choleric, sanguine, melancholic and phlegmatic...not sure about sources directly for WE. Thanks. Henitsirk 01:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree! I can't believe I forgot about that aspect [duh!]. I only remember two [reflective in each of my sons]: choleric [fiery, intense] and melancholic [reserved, quiet, "melancholy"]. It is part of the teaching, but I tended to give it only half credit for any real value in how to educate children. It seemed a lot like astrology/numerology/palmistry/phrenology to me and I tended to give it about as much credence - which is to say: not a lot. But it definitely needs to be discussed. - Wikiwag 17:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this as a start:

Waldorf teachers use the concept of the four temperaments to help understand the behavior and personalities of their students. Steiner's four temperaments are based on the the four humours of Galen: choleric, phlegmatic, melancholic and sanguine.

I found this as a citation. There is much more to be said about temperaments but again I think this might be expanded on the anthroposophy page. Any thoughts? Thanks. Henitsirk 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The article seems fine. Rene Querido had some interesting stuff about the temperaments - too bad we can't use that. I, of course, am concerned about how Waldorf teachers pigeonhole kids into these categories and what affect this has on the kids. I'll be looking for a source that discusses this (I doubt I will find it). Pete K 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OK how about this:

Waldorf teachers use the concept of the four temperaments to help understand the behavior and personalities of their students. Steiner's four temperaments are based on the the four humours of Galen: choleric, phlegmatic, melancholic and sanguine. Steiner related the temperaments to his fourfold conception of the human being: choleric - ego, sanguine - astral body, phlegmatic - etheric body, and melancholic - physical body.[3] Waldorf teachers often seat children of the same primary temperament together in the classroom, to help modulate excessive characteristics of each type.[4]

Thanks. Henitsirk 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think thats good.Venado 20:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I put this in the Pedagogy section, since it's not actual curriculum and doesn't seem to fit anywhere else. Thanks. Henitsirk 20:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice job! Pete K 21:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Christian Education Awareness Network

This publisher is hardly a source that qualifies as third-party reviewed and encyclopedic.
An extensive citation of a single parent's reaction to having read over a Waldorf teacher education course's syllabus is hardly worthwhile from any source.

I am removing this and suggest we keep to a good standard of source material. Hgilbert 01:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add it back in. There is relatively little source material available as it is and this is as good as any and far better than most. Nice of you to raise the bar NOW... Pete K 01:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, as I said in my edit summary, I'll be adding to this section tomorrow sometime to include Ahriman, Ahriman's role in Waldorf regarding television viewing, late attention to mechanics, late introduction of computers, materialism, etc. I think it is important for this article to give a good picture of Waldorf and this is very much a part of the picture. In fact, explaining "why we do things" is the most important information this article can provied. I think the article should spend less time talking about what happens between ages 6-7 and concentrate on what happens between ages 4-18... because breaking the picture down into small sections is of limited value when the whole picture is ignored. People want to know the *outcome* - what they should expect from Waldorf *throughout* the experience, not two or three years at a time. There is a social dynamic at Waldorf that has been completely ignored in this article - between teachers, students, parents, administrators and the general community. Less attention to the minutia and more attention to the big picture will improve this article considerably. Pete K 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I just read this section and I agree the source is unsuitable. The whole section there about Waldorf schools comes from the same worldnewdaily article I think is contested already for another section. So here this is a third source taking the material from the second source (worldnetdaily) which just goes back to the same law suit (Plans) and Lucifer book that's being discussed elsewhere here. And this source really looks like a religious tract, or more a religious sermon. "Our God is a jealous God and we must not put other gods before him" type text tells you it is not an NPOV, independent objective type research article. If this couldn't be a verifiable authority about humanism and evolution (two other usurpors in schools, according to the writer) why would it work as a source for this article. The quote taken up in this article is an anonymous comment from someone whose qualifications are wrongly identified in this article. This unnamed person quoted was a parent who looked at some document of some sort, not a teacher who went through the training. That is just a very poor section there in the article, not even accurately written. It is using a sermon-style editorial for a source which pulled its data from the same worldnetdaily article involved in Lucifer, which several editors agreed wasn't to good even on its own. And it is quoting an anonymous quote from some parent who said they got their facts from looking over a course study guide? That's a set of circumstances that does not do much for "verifiability".

Underneath it is not very good either. The sentence about "most private schools" degree requirements isn't sourced - it points to a job opening list which is not a source. Besides is obviously written to suggest that Waldorf teachers are different from the rest--when the same job list shows a Waldorf opening with the same general college qualifications of the applicant as the other schools there. That looks like original research and unsupported POV editing both. This kind of stuff shouldn't go in the article in the first place and that would help cut down on edit wars to get it back out. Venado 22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been asked by Hgilbert to comment on the suitability of the Christian Education Awareness Network - without looking into the source in detail - I think the quote is relevant to the religious argument. Once we have a section on the controversy on the Religious nature of Waldorf schools then it should be moved there as a source - and maybe be discussed further about its reliability or note-worthiness then. I do not think it is an appropriate source for a discussion on Teaching Education in this article as likely polemical. Could instead state in this Teaching Education section that there is some controversy about whether the teacher training is religious or not - and link to the religious controversy section.

Please can someone start a religious controversy section and move the PLANS trial and this there. Cheers Lethaniol 02:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Done.

Please note that I have summarized the extensive quote which records one person's reaction to reading a teaching college brochure. I'm not clear that we want to weight anecdotal evidence heavily in this article. The UNESCO book on Waldorf education extensively quotes a parent's reaction to the school there (very positively), and I'm sure other parents have reactions reported in other newspaper articles and magazines and books. If we quote each of these, I'm not sure it will make for a good article. Hgilbert 12:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That some parents are actually satisfied with Waldorf and continue to put their kids there is not noteworthy. Pete K 01:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Henry Barnes

This source that has recently been added by HGilbert is an Anthroposophical source. Here is the AWSNA page that identifies Mr. Barnes as the former chairman of the board at AWSNA. Mr. Gilbert should remove this source from the article and any claims he has made that use this source as support. Pete K 17:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of that article. It is published by "Educational Leadership", a totally independent publisher that publishes articles by educators of all kinds of schools. This souce should be okay. Venado 23:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding right? The former chairman of the board of AWSNA using Bob and Nancy as sources? Incredible. I don't want to hear any complaints about one-sided articles that interview Dan Dugan and Debra Snell then. Pete K 23:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This floated out of place: I meant to say the article is available online at the Teachers College Record (tcrecord.org). The article only has a couple sources, both are books by Rudolf Steiner. It definitely is independent publisher. I cant find any body nnamed "Bob" or "Nancy" in it, so I don't understand what you mean with this objection. I also must say that some of the statements, like "education of the whole child, head and heart and hands" is repeated in other articles too I found. They describe it too. In most articles, if the references are written by experts they are the better kind of sources. Venado 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be more Waldorf sources being re-introduced into the article. I hope nobody minds when they are removed again tomorrow - along with Mr. Barnes. Pete K 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Discuss first. The Barnes is not a Waldorf published text. What others are you questioning? Venado 23:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There are lots. Just go through the references section. Pete K 23:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

But you say there are new ones re-introduced. The Steiner sources I see have been there a long time and I was curious to. Are the old ones accepted by consensus or not controversial? If they were not agreed and are controversial they should be fact tagged. May be after the end of the week end. Otherwise they will get mixed in with the old ones that have been given the deadline. But I don't see any new sources added today that look like Steiner published sources when I looked at diffs. so which ones do you mean? Venado 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Jack Petrash, for one. Pete K 01:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Teacher Education

The reference to 'one parent' under the Teacher Education heading is quite misleading. Firstly I don't see how his opinion is relevant to this encyclopedia. Secondly this reference is taken from an article of an overall 'rant' about American Schooling; this does not relate to Wordwide Waldorf teacher programs. What would seem much more relevant to me is to put in a reference a teacher training course like this one: http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/pages/dynamic.asp?page=module&id=0544&sort=stage+ASC%2Cmandatory+DESC&debug=&al=1&ss= so that readers can make up their own minds. Lkleinjans 11:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That parent was first called a "teacher" in this article but I changed to parent because that's what the article said, not teacher. But when you read the original article that it came from (worldnetdaily again) you know that the "one parent" was really Deborah Snell the president of PLANS. The book is a diatribe against public schools. Worldnetdaily reviewed the book and in the review characterized the author's overall argument as "It is a sin to send Christian children to public schools."Venado 15:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also there is another source I found that talked about the teacher trainings in the US, and said each one is different. I will go back and find it. Maybe the section could be redone to fit better sources than this parent comment. Venado 15:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I found this as a possible citation for the second sentence about the course of study. The section of the PDF titled "Programme Description" lists all the courses in this teacher training program. It's completely third party. What do you guys think? (I don't know how to cite a PDF attached to a web page, would the web page itself suffice?) Thanks. Henitsirk 01:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

International Governance of Waldorf Schools - request

It says in the third paragraph of the first section Description, that there are international governing bodies of Waldorf schools - can someone please give me an example/examples so that it can be added into this section. Cheers Lethaniol 00:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Coordinating bodies would be a better description. One is the Pedagogical Section at the Goetheanum; the German language site has a fuller description, I believe. Another is known as the Hague Circle. A third is the International Association for Waldorf Education. A fourth is the The European Council for Steiner Waldorf Education (ECSWE). Others include Die Freunde der Erziehungskunst R. Steiners and the International Federation of Waldorf Kindergartens. 68.193.184.127 01:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay these should be added into the Governance section - so I will do :0 Cheers Lethaniol 15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What Waldorf Discourages removed

Hgilbert has removed the What Waldorf Discourages section and kept only the TV part (as there is a quote) - all the uncited info has gone as well as the black art supplies (which Hgilbert says is not backed up by the source - have not checked this personally).

Suggest only adding in bits about what Waldorf discourages when information can be sources. Also I like Hgilbert's idea of having separate sections - therefore media section for TV, films etc..., any literacy stuff to the Introduction to Reading and writing section etc... Cheers Lethaniol 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the whole section needs to go back in as it makes total sense in this article and Waldorf is known for what they discourage. HGilbert is really going crazy here - he wrote the article, wouldn't let anyone change it for a year, and now is still keeping legitimate edits from making it into the article. He is continuing to source Waldorf teachers (Jack Petrash) and other Anthroposophical sources. I can certainly wait until he is done and revert everything, but I'm hoping others will talk some sense into him. I went through and deleted some of the inapporpriate references but he's going too fast this evening. Most of what he has added will come out tomorrow anyway. This is the type of frustrating editing that makes people angry - I'm sure it will make him angry tomorrow when these edits come out again. I will be removing sourced statements tomorrow along with unsourced ones if they are to Anthroposophical sources. Just sayin'... User:Pete K

To All - I highly recommend that this section does not get added back in, in its current form, unless it is all cited appropriately. Doing so would be breaking with the ArbCom's rulings, and self imposed time line for addition of sources (this weekend) - all unreferenced statements especially controversial ones must be removed if they can not be cited. If this section is added back in without the sources (and there are a lot of statements unsourced not just a few), and an edit war likely starts - then I suspect people will be getting blocked very quickly - and that is not needed please. Cheers Lethaniol 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Perhaps I don't really understand what constitutes a legitimate citation of fact. So could someone please explain why it is that the publications of the practitioners and purveyors of the method themselves do not qualify as proper citations? I specifically refer to this, this, this, this, this and this. Moreover, one of my initial edits on this point was deleted by Thebee, that specifically cited this fact.

Thank you in advance for clearing this up for me. - Wikiwag 18:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidently the arbcom decided that even though Waldorf/anthroposophical sources are "practicioners and purveyors", they are considered self-published. We have to use sources that are third-party reviewed, mainstream publications. Thanks. Henitsirk 02:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep see the ArbCom decision - it is quite clear in on this. Cheers Lethaniol 15:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

UNESCO

Venado, in the UNESCO section you added back, the claims are not supported by the citations. I feel I have looked at the cited documents thoroughly and don't find support for the claims (perhaps some partial support - 3 or 4 Waldorf schools appear on a UNESCO list). If you insist on the section being there, can you at least edit it to indicate exactly what is supported by the citations? Otherwise, it needs to come out again. Pete K 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes they did. Lethaniel diplomaticaly change "many" which wasn't my term any way to "a number of" because there were at least 10 in one source. Please stop using unreal excuses in edits and on talk pages to take out undeniable sourced parts of the articles. The work done to source materiel to find references for the citation needed notes is thrown in the revert can with out on-point excuses behind it. It looks like very biased POV editing, and then there follow just more edits (too much warring edits) and talk fights to get any idea if there is a real problem instead of "makes Waldof schools sound good, so it is not sourced". Venado 03:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ya know what... I don't need a scolding from you or anyone else. Instead of asking you, I think I'll just take it out next time. I asked you a legitimate question in a very nice way. Lethaniol corrected your edit in the mean time. If you don't like my edits - too bad for you - go complain to someone - I won't be intimidated by your nonsense. The only POV editing here is NONSENSE about Waldorf somehow being "connected" to UNESCO. They have been acknowledge - that's all. BFD - it doesn't deserve a sentence, let alone a section and is intended to suggest more than what's there. I may just remove it anyway. This article isn't a billboard, it's supposed to read like an encyclopedia. Sticking every Waldorf happy-face sticker you can find on it isn't doing anyone any favors - it's making a mess out of this process. The whole section is PR nonsense. Pete K 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Agenda Fact Sheet, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization dated Apr 18, 2001, Annex VI, "Thus far, 16 Waldorf schools in 14 countries have become members of the UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network, which enables their innovative methods to be integrated into the national education system." Thebee 20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual values in Waldorf

I've transferred a comment written by Pete K from Thatcher131's talk page in order to begin the conversation here instead:

"I think it should be made clear in the article that EVERYTHING in Waldorf is done for spiritual reasons. This point does not come across in the first sentence. Gardening is spiritual, eurythmy is spiritual, science is spiritual, math is spiritual, geography is spiritual, recess, snack, lunch - all spiritual, morning verse, spiritual/religious. Ringing bells to get the children's attention - spiritual, lighting candles when reading a story, spiritual. Everything from making eye contact with the child each morning to the tone of voice used during the day by the teacher, to lighting a candle in parent conferences and faculty meetings long after the children have gone to bed is intended to be spiritual. If we include a paragraph like the one above instead of a "mention" of spiritual, then we wouldn't have to keep saying this. The whole point of the article is to give a legitimate, truthful representation of Waldorf. "Mentioning" that they are spiritual is nothing close to giving a complete picture of the extent of the spiritual nature of these schools. So, for now, all we have is the citation request as a tool for getting to a true picture of Waldorf - and as long as we have sentences that disguise the spiritual aspects of everything, I will be asking for citations to support this. It is, of course, frustrating to me how many people can write articles about something they have such a superficial understanding of. This naiveté on the part of reporters works greatly to Waldorf's advantage - reporters can be fooled by the brochures and the wooden toys just like anyone else. Very few are willing to investigate deeply into what is being claimed and what is actually happening in Waldorf. Pete K 17:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)"

I have two comments on this:

1) I agree that most publications meant for mainstream consumption (as opposed to an anthroposophical audience) do not delve into the spiritual underpinnings of Waldorf. However I don't think that anyone is trying to "fool" anyone else. I think most people find it difficult to explain these things. Anthroposophy is complex, and just like any other set of beliefs there is a continuum of understanding. Perhaps there are instances where teachers or others do not give justice to the spiritual reasons for the practices in Waldorf. I just think it's incorrect to assume malicious intention in that.

2) I've said before that I think that which is unusual or unique about Waldorf should be included here. I don't think we need to burden each little section with details about how everything is spiritual. I think an expanded paragraph in the Spiritual Foundations section would suffice. However, I'm not sure we're going to find an allowable source for citation. And I think it would be best to draft this section here in discussion before adding to the article, to avoid any conflicts. Thanks. Henitsirk 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

On #1, I've been told faculty meetings are good places to find out the extent of this. The reports I have heard is that there is INDEED a conscious intention to hide the spiritual nature of these things from parents. Steiner himself proposed this and it is documented in Conferences with Waldorf Teachers / Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner - p61 where he says "We also need to speak about a prayer. I ask only one thing of you. You see, in such things everything depends upon the external appearances. Never call a verse a prayer, call it an opening verse before school. Avoid allowing anyone to hear you, as a *faculty* member, using the word "prayer." In doing that, you will have overcome a good part of the prejudice that this is an anthroposophical thing." If hiding the truth about what Waldorf is teaching from parents isn't considered malicious, what is?

On #2, I agree, let's draft a section here and insert it into the article. Then we can start looking at the spiritual references and begin removing them. Thanks! Pete K 01:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad these two issues have been separated. Yes if we could have a spiritual nature of Waldorf Education section that would be good.

The other issue of Waldorf Education deliberately hiding their spiritual nature will need to be backed up by good sources - and then placed in a criticism section. Cheers Lethaniol 15:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Reference Format

Right nice to see we may be getting somewhere with these references - I have suggestion for the of multiple references - to help clean up the references/notes section.

Most people will not care which page the info is on, and if need that can be discussed on the talk page to check a particular resource. I suggest that one source = one reference used multiple times. In stead of linking to source A p44, and source A p55, just have one reference sources A p44-55 or even Source A Chapter X or just Source A. The current repetition is unwieldy.

See [5] on how to do this. Cheers Lethaniol 15:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Creative thinking ability of Waldorf students

Someone who has done a number of studies on Waldorf education is Ogletree, Earl J. According to A Research Report on "The Comparative Status of the Creative Thinking Ability of Waldorf Education Students: A Survey." published by Early Childhood and Parenting in 1996,

"An international study was conducted to determine if there was a significant difference between the creative thinking ability of Waldorf students and state school students in England, Scotland, and Germany. The hypothesis was that disparate educational practices in Waldorf and state schools were influenced by disparate educational philosophies. The sample consisted of 1,165 third through sixth grade children--479 English, 193 Scottish, and 493 German students. The findings obtained from administration of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking Ability, suggested that Waldorf students were more creative than their state school peers. Particular credit for this was given to the maturational-readiness and nurturing curriculum of the Waldorf Schools, which includes: having the same teacher follow students from grades 1 to 8; de-emphasis on academic performance in early grades; use of art in instruction; and other teaching and curriculum considerations."

Thebee 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh please... this is a survey not a study. Are you sure you want this in the article? "Seventy percent thought that Waldorf education influenced students to be open to the spiritual world and Anthroposophy." It's here. Pete K 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should steer clear of anything that smacks of "Waldorf is good" or "Waldorf is better than other schools". However I was interested to see that this may be an acceptable source for the curriculum section:

Over 80 percent of respondents indicated that their school program included the following practices: balanced school day, teaching in a main lesson format, student-written and illustrated notebooks, meditation/prayer at the beginning of the day, form drawing in grades 1 to 5, and a continuous teacher from grades 1 through 8.

If you all agree, let's use this as a citation. Thanks, Henitsirk 19:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think ther are any more citations needed for curriculum. I would like to understand why we keep going back to put references from off limits publishes? The second Ogletree survey discussed here is Waldorf published. The first is not so it should be okay, but I agree do not add anything that is like a sales pitch. There is already a NPOV tag. Venado 20:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Once you have introduced the first source and the author as an unbiased expert, then I'm pretty sure the second source is admissible. Pete K 22:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Petrash/Barnes as sources

I'm starting a new topic on this as it's in the to-do list and the previous comments are scattered all over. Here's a summary of what I see:

1) Some editors feel that Waldorf/anthro people should be allowable as sources for non-value/fact statements if published in a third-party reviewed publication.

2) Pete K has pointed out: "Anything that is a straight-up fact doesn't have a {fact} tag on it and needs NO citation at all. Everything that requires a citation requires a citation that goes outside the Waldorf community."

3) Some editors feel that Waldorf/anthro people should not be allowable as sources at all.

4) Jack Petrash and Henry Barnes are definitely Waldorf/anthro. Jack Petrash was a Waldorf teacher for 30 years, and publishes and lectures publicly on Waldorf. Henry Barnes was also a long-time Waldorf teacher and was General Secretary for the Anthroposophical Society in America.

Thanks, Henitsirk 21:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would you to add that what ever we decide for this, will also apply to Waldorf critical authors i.e. if we allow for fact based uncontroversial citations from pro-Anthro author published by third party, then the same definitely will go for Waldorf critical authors. I think that is fair. Cheers Lethaniol 22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this point. Waldorf critical authors are allowed now, aren't they? Venado 23:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really - if too polemical they can not be relied on to back up controversial statements, would be used for opinions, at most, instead. But again, if it falls into a grey area with uncontroversial statements. E.g. if the head of PLANS wrote a book published by a third party publisher - we would not use it if we could help it - but could we want to use it for uncontroversial facts if we had to? Its the flip side of the same coin.

But again as said - maybe all uncontroversial facts do not need citations, but if they do then get a neutral one?Cheers Lethaniol 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I interpreted the arbitration decision means that Steiner published books were "in house" self-published documents and were not to be used on that basis for source in controversial statements. A blanket ban against any source written by an author who is called as "anthroposophist", no matter if it is published by an independent publisher, is just prejudice practice. A blanket ban here against any independently published author because they have experience as an Waldorf teacher is hard to defend. I heard a big reported story of a case that happened at wikipedia when a published scientist with research work on global warming was pushed out of fixing the wikipedia article by other editors because his expertise was considered "bias", and then dissident views of the global warming theory written by those who did not have the expertise were given more weight than the better experts. I think the problem was corrected in that article, but think how dumb that is that experts who work in the field could not be used as sources for the articles. That's not a real rule at wikipedia. So why would it be a rule just for this article? Venado 23:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a rule just for this article - all articles should be as neutral as possible - with all the statements/facts being backed up by neutral third party sources (peer reviewed if possible). The problem with all polemical sources (even if third party published) is it is difficult to split bias/COI from the true facts, hence why you treat them with caution. (I won't list the relevant policies here - as I am sure we all know them - do say if you need the links)

In wikipedia your (as an editor) real world expertise counts for nothing - the only expertise that matters is that which is found in the cited references. Hence just because you know XXX, means nothing, you have to show XXX with appropriate sources. Hence why some "experts" do not like Wikipedia - they have no authority based on their knowledge - they have to argue the hard way (with all facts backed up). All "authority" comes from the better argument backed up with the best sources...

Again I say the problem is in the grey areas - where there are expert sources on Anthroposophy (pro and con) but when are they too biased to use for value statements and when too biased even for facts. Our problem is compounded by the limited amount of third party peer reviewed research that we known about. I hope that answers your concerns Venado

Cheers Lethaniol 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that we are on different angles. The confusion is not about a writing that is polemical, it's about whether the experts of a field are automatically assumed to be unreliable. Republican party is very controversial, however well known Republicans are used as sources of Republican thought and deed in the wikipedia article. George Will is biased, Jon Podhoretz is biased, but they are sources.

I agree editors cannot use there experience as a source for the article. But I do not think authors are banned because of there experience. Sports writers are sources for sports. Even Jimmy Wales gets a say in his article, because his view was published. Ronald REagan's article has a lot of references which are written by people who worked in Ronald Reagan's administration. When I see this all over wikipedia I don't think there is a rule against this kind of reference. Republicans can edit the article about Republicans and Republican authors can be sources.

I agree it depends on the claim needing the source whether or not Ronald Reagan's best friend would be a good one to use. If the claim was "Ronald Reagan has been judged as one of the most popular president", and his best friend is the source, it is not good. But Waldorf educators are a good source for things like what subjects the schools teach and how they work. They are probably not a good source for something like "Waldorf students are more successful than public school students", thats when you need to find a source that researched it. And you don't use books by experts in Waldorf to be the expert sources about Plans either. I am confused because the parts I saw sourced to Barnes and Petrash were about the curriculum they use in the schools. Do the schools consider those two experts and apply what they say? I assume yes if they are in high demand by the schools. Then they probably are pretty good sources about the specifics about curriculum.Venado 01:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To be straight up Venado I agree with everything you say - the only problem is some of those facts that would seem to be straight forward, seem to be highly controversial - e.g. the curriculum including 2 languages.

In fact the ArbCom have come to the unusual decision (for Wikipedia) that Anthroposophy sources are so biased/unreliable that they are not to be used to support facts (especially controversial ones) even on their own articles, that they are experts in. Now this is something you may want to bring up with the ArbCom, but they were very particular about this, so they obviously had some grave concerns.

It is a sad state of affairs that the editors involved used biased Anthroposophy sources to push their POV in the first place (I am assuming this is what happened - as the most logical situation to lead to this ArbCom ruling) - cos now no one can use the Anthroposophy sources that are relatively neutral or expert in nature, and which should have been used in the first place!

So we are left with a situation where we might not have such a complete encyclopaedia as we would like - we have decided that quality (in terms of neutrality) is more important than depth/scope. Better to have a high quality shorter article have a longer one with a few possibly dubious statements. So I suggest best accept the ArbCom decision, if it can not be sourced, no worries, concentrate on quality and using what can be sourced. Obviously Anthroposophy can still be used for quotes that are relevant and in proportion.

As said there will be always be grey areas, and these two authors I believe fall into this area, hence my effort to try and get a decision/consensus on this - because it could help define a cleaner line for all sources used in all related articles. Cheers Lethaniol 02:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what your saying but the problem was mainly that the article was to "brochure like", and thats why the independence of the publisher is important. Independent publishers are probly not publishing advertising for some body else's company and paying there authors to write the copy.

And I think may be some agreement should come together on when editors are satisfied there really is a controversy related to the material. Why do we accpet that there is a controversy about the teaching of two languages in the schools? Why aren't we looking for independent evidence there really is a controversy? I have seen several references that languages are taught in the schools but no references saying they arent. The spiritualism in public schools and the law suit, late reading, and concern about racism are some of the real noteworthy controversies in independent references. But with the arb com decision, the article can be easily gamed if we don't have some kind of independent evidence for labeling something as a controversy . Venado 18:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is the better for the strictness of the criteria now being applied, though it has made finding citations much more difficult. At the moment it seems that virtually everything must be assumed to be controversial here on the talk page, whether or not that is the case elsewhere, and editors must be prepared to back up anything here with a neutral citation. This is different than claiming that something is controversial in the article itself, of course; the latter would require a different kind of verification.

Now that we've gone through this somewhat challenging process, I would support maintaining the now high standard of the citations, not least because anything else would lead to endless and fruitless debates. Hgilbert 19:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Harsh Truth About Public Schools

I don't see how http://www2.whidbey.net/jmboyes/shortt-3.htm could possibly be considered a reliable source. Who is keeping it in and on what basis? Fred Bauder 22:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it has been discussed above - and this ref and the teacher statement that went with it were likely to be removed. I think people were concentrating on a few other things - we will get this sorted. Cheers Lethaniol 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to remove it several times and it has been replaced each time, I believe by PeteK. Hgilbert 01:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been talked about here and here. Cheers Lethaniol 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This source is instantly obvious on its face it should not be used as a reference. ANd also if you read it you will see that its source for that section is the same worldnetdaily article that many of us don't think is appropriate source either. This and the other should come out. Venado 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I removed the worldnetdaily one, when I moved the Lucifer section to Anthroposophy. We need to get another source(s) for the bit about whether teachers teach about / are influenced by Lucifer. Cheers Lethaniol 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and Fred if you are reading this - a comment/suggestion/answer in the section above would save us a lot of time - Talk:Waldorf_education#Petrash/Barnes as sources Cheers Lethaniol 23:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To do

Hi all,

You may have noticed that there is now a To Do box now at the top of the page - the idea that instead of entering into a revert war you put a note in the to do box about any controversial issue, discuss on this talk page and once resolved strike out the issue in the to do box. This means that all editors can keep track of the controversial issues that still need to be resolved and help out if they can. I will add a few of the controversial issues to this box first - and please note issues will not be able to stay in this box indefinitely they will need to be sorted relatively quickly. Cheers Lethaniol 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Some further notes:

Of course this is an experiment to see how it goes.
Do not put anything in the to do box that MAY be controversial. Try to make edits, using the edit summary or talk page to explain reasons clearly - and there turns out to be disagreement then add it to the to do - do not get into a revert war.
People who abuse this system and revert everything just to slow things down will be reported as per standard procedure.
Do not keep adding to the To Do box if there is a backlog of issues - sort those first.

Okay Cheers Lethaniol 17:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. This talk page is almost 300k. Can it be reduced to archive old discussions? Also I can't find temperaments question to read or comment. Venado 19:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If people are happy for me to do it, I can archive completed discussions where and when - and if needed they can always be brought back if the issue turns out not to be resolved. Cheers Lethaniol 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I heartily agree that some archiving would be great. Thanks. Henitsirk 02:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay to avoid any arguments - I will add the following template to sections that I will archive in a few days. If people believe the issue is not resolved then they can remove the template and continue the debate, Cheers Lethaniol 11:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC):

Resolved

"New question is do we ~~have need~~ have sources for the influence of Lucifer on teaching?"

The whole point here is we don't need sources for the influence of Lucifer on teaching to produce this material in the Anthroposophy section (which doesn't require "teaching" as any part of the belief system). Lucifer and Ahriman should be thoroughly described in Anthroposophy. If there is a link between teaching and Lucifer and Ahriman (and there is) then that link should be produced here to connect the undisputed Anthroposophical beliefs in Lucifer and Ahriman to Waldorf education. Pete K 17:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry yes I agree Pete K, we now have a L and A section in Anthroposophy, we just need to find the sources regarding its role in teaching, and then we can link to the L and A section. Cheers Lethaniol 17:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Tags removed - POV one added

Hi guys,

There may still be problems with some of the article being self-promoting or references needed - but not enough to require these tags. I believe there is still work to be done on the neutrality of the article - making sure gives all the info we want, in a balanced neutral way, so I have added POV tag.

My suggestion is that this tag stays till we are generally happy with it, and neutral editor unrelated to the article thinks it is neutral. I then suggest that we look to get the article assessed to get outside feedback on where it can be improved, and maybe even go for GA status (the quality is getting there)! I hope you are all happy with this. Cheers Lethaniol 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a little unclear why the tag, given that essentially all the material is now referenced to non-POV sources. Given the enormous amount of work that has gone into this and the very strict criteria that have been applied to sources, I suggest that the article be reviewed section by section and the tag be applied to any sections that remain problematic - rather than the whole article. Hgilbert 01:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fact tag on trademark and accredication

What facts are really under dispute in that tag? I have found the trademark record for Waldorf and Steiner in the US, so thats okay. (TESS search service on website United States Patent and Trademark Office, tess2.uspto.gov - can't link to trademark record it has to be queried) What is the dispute. Do we need to sort out which ones hold trademarks in different countries? And the accreditation claim is verified in the note just after this to a accreditation website. Is any of this really a controversy or disputed fact, if yes what part? If no, can we just take the tag off. Venado 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It was intended to look for something confirming the accreditation process which is actually very loosely run and basically meaningless. No school has ever had the use of the Waldorf name revoked or even challenged (as far as I know) so the accreditation process is not really serious. I don't really care if we remove the fact tag - nobody really cares enough to point out that accreditation in Waldorf is a joke. Pete K 19:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You put the tag there to fish for a source of criticism of there accreditation? I'll remove the tag. Venado 19:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I put the tag there because the "accreditation" portion is misleading. Pete K 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It was already sourced in another footnote that they accredit schools. The article said they accredit schools. But you know they accredit schools, you just call it "loosely run" and "meaningless", so it wastes time to find more fact references to show they do accredation. Like the foreign language fact tag, that you said "It's a LIE" the schools have two foreign languages, and then said, "And where do we hear about why one of the two languages is always German?" How do you tell us "one of the two is always German" if you think its a lie they teach two languages? Alot of time goes down the drain to find independent sources for noncontroversial facts. Venado 00:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Some Waldorf schools DO teach two foreign languages. Why is that contradictory to what I have said? Pete K 16:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So...it looks like the fact tag has been removed, and no-one is currently stating that the section needs any changes. Can we archive this and move on? Thanks. Henitsirk 01:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Health of Waldorf pupils

13:46, 27 October 2006 Pete removed a section, then titled "Health effects" from the article, arguing that "no source has been cited for this ridiculous claim - that Waldorf schools are responsible for heath effects.". I have added a section on ""Health of Waldorf pupils", sticking closely to what is stated in the studies on which the section is based. Thebee 16:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this section again. This kind of nonsense is what starts edit wars. There is NO support for the notion that simply by attending a Waldorf school, students are healthier. It's a ridiculous claim and that Waldorf people have made it doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Pete K 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Although the fact that students eat all organic and aren't allowed to bring sugar to school does keep the students in a healthier condition because they have a balenced nutrition, so I can see how that claim is made. Don't say that I don't know what i'm talking about because I go to a Waldorf school.

Let me just add that this is another attempt by TheBee to start edit wars and lock up this article. Please stop making ridiculous claims that are supported by your own group. Pete K 16:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong and I have made no ridiculous claim. My addition is not an edit war. When you removed the section some days ago, you stated in your edit summary that you did it because it in your view is ridiculous to state "that Waldorf schools are responsible for heath effects". I did not revert your edit. The two studies it referred to were two purely empirical studies, one published in the Lancet, Vol. 353, No. 9163. (May 1 1999), pp. 1485-8, the other (a large study confirming the first one) in J Allergy Clin Immunol, Vol. 117, No. 1. (January 2006), pp. 59-66, that show that allergic diseases are less common among Waldorf pupils than among pupils in a corresponding control group.

I agree that it was a false overstatement to describe it this as an "effect" of Waldorf education, and did not write that in my addition of a section on the health of Waldorf pupils. I just described the empirical finding, that the two studies cited in the section describe, that allergic diseases are less common among Waldorf pupils. That's all. The studies document this, and it is interesting.

In the summary of the edit where you have removed the section, you write: "removed once by consensus". Can you point me to the consensus you refer to? Thanks, Thebee 17:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't say "You are wrong" - that's a personal attack. As to the studies, the claim is ridiculous. Waldorf is a private school system - primarily available to affluent people. Affluent people tend to be healthier than the general public for any number of reasons, not the least of which is being able to afford superior medical attention. The only thing that is interesting about your claim is that you apparently believe people won't see it for how ridiculous it is. Pete K 17:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

With "You are wrong" I meant that I did not make the edit to - as you write - start an edit war, but just to make a correct description of the studies referred to in the section, strictly based on their summaries, nothing else. In the earlier description, this in my view hade been exaggerated by asserting a direct causative relation between going to a Waldorf school as such (as "cause") and a lower incidence of allergic diseases among pupils at the schools ("effect").

I also did not make the edit to - as you write - get the article locked. I also think that you were wrong in writing that I - as you write - made "ridiculous claims", as what I wrote was strictly a short summary of what the two studies themselves give as summaries in the well known medical journals. The publication of the two studies in the journals probably would not have taken place, if the editors of the journals (the Lancet and J Allergy Clin Immunol) had considered the result of the studies - that I just describe - to be ridiculous. In these three senses I think it is clear that you were wrong in what you wrote.

On your: "... don't say "You are wrong" - that's a personal attack." Can you be more specific in what sense this in your view constitues a personal attack in relation to the examples of Personal attacks, respectively Not Personal Attacks, given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples and my description of what I referred to?

We seem to have different views of what a personal attack is. Three days ago (31 Oct.), you wrote that you did not consider a comment by you to 15:34, 28 October: "Shove your reminders ", to have been a Personal attack on him. To my understanding (I may be wrong, as I'm not American) what you wrote is a Profanity, and - according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples "Profanity directed against another contributor." falls in the category of Personal attacks. This just as some principal reflecions on our seemingly very different understanding of what "Personal attacks" mean according to Wikipedia policies.

Also, if you personally consider one or more empirical studies, published in well-reputed journal to be "ridiculous", that personal view probably cannot be used as basis to delete a description of them in a Wiki article, according to some Wikipedia policy or guideline. If just a personal view by someone was enough to remove material from an article, that would mean that I too could delete for example what you put in one article on Steiner, just because I think it is ridiculous, as you now have done.

Finally, again: Can you point to the consensus you refer to in your description of your edit of the article 16:30, 2 November 2006? Thanks, Thebee 23:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a peek at the Lancet controversies listed on Wikipedia:

The Lancet was severely criticized after it published a paper in 1998, in which the authors raised the possibility of a link between MMR vaccine and autism, a matter of continuing controversy. In February 2004 The Lancet published a partial retraction of the paper. Dr Horton went on the record to say the paper was "fatally flawed" because one of the authors had a serious conflict of interest that he had not declared to The Lancet.

The Lancet published a controversial estimate of the Iraq war's Iraqi death toll--around one hundred thousand--in 2004. In 2006 a followup study by the same team suggested that the violent death rate in Iraq was not only consistent with the earlier estimate, but had increased considerably in the intervening period (Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq ). The second survey estimated that the death toll in Iraq was somewhere between 426,00 and 793,000 people - with 601,000 being the agreed upon mid-way estimate. Over 12,000 people were surveyed.[1]

In January 2006, it was revealed that data had been fabricated in an article by the cancer researcher Jon Sudbø and 13 co-authors published in The Lancet in October 2005, [2]. The fabricated article was entitled "Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of oral cancer: a nested case-control study". [3]. Within a week after this scandal surfaced in the news, the high-impact New England Journal of Medicine published an expression of editorial concern regarding another research paper published on a similar topic in the journal.

Pete K 00:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought - go ahead and put in the wild-ass medical claims. This opens the door for me to bring in articles about whooping cough being rampant at Waldorf schools - and articles about abusive Waldorf teachers - who was that senator's sister who tied children to their chairs and taped their mouths shut? Never mind, I'll find it. I just don't see why making such a ridiculous claim that everyone will see through matters so much to you. Pete K 00:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You have deleted a correctly cited section describing lower incidence of allergic diseases among pupils at Waldorf schools (in Europe) by referring to an earlier reached consensus that the section - as it looked earlier - should be removed. I have asked you twice if you could point me to this consensus, and you have not answered, just threatened that if I add the section again, correctly describing the two, well researched and documented studies upon which the section was based, in revenge, you will add material that you find damaging to Waldorf schools. Is that a correct understanding of what you write?

As you don't seem inclined to point to documentation of the consensus, can someone (else?) who participated in it, point me to it, giving a date and maybe a difflink? Thanks. Thebee 16:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You insist on introducing a ridiculous claim for which there is no support - because it happened to be published in Lancet, a journal which publishes original research. That's what they do - publish original research - so peer review can transpire. It has nothing to do with the validity of the research at all. And, no, I have made no threats - I have indicated that I appreciate the opportunity to produce similar reports that show Waldorf schools as medical cesspools where the abundance of unvaccinated children leads to outbreaks of disease. This discussion, unlike the goofy article you want to include, actually has its basis in fact. So yes, go ahead, make my day. Pete K 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For a fourth time: When you deleted the section on the incidence of allergic diseases in the article, as documented by two well published studies, you wrote that you deleted it, based on an earlier consensus that it did not belong in the article. After I have asked three times where to find this conseusus, you still do not point to documentation of it. Instead you again refer to your own view that what the studies document is "ridiculous", and that they do not document what they document. Should I understand this to mean that the consensus, to which you referred does not exist, that no such consensus can be documented in discussions about the article, and that your edit (deletion)therefore lacked basis, both in a consensus and some Wikipedia policy or guideline? Would that not mean that the deletion you made was a disruptive edit of the type Centrx some days ago warned you to continue doing, telling if you did it, you'e be banned? Thanks, Thebee 16:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Your harassment of me is well-documented. Buzz off little bee... Pete K 17:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to add my support for the inclusion of Theebee's edit on The Health of Waldorf Pupils, as it is supported by verifiable research published in the Lancet. The Lancet is routinely used as a refrence. I also want to add that Sally Fallon has given her support to this claim as well in her book Nourishing Traditions. Klocek 22:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And I believe I have read another research article on the subject, that is not the Lancet. I'll ask one of my doctor-friends if he knows. Klocek 23:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dennis (you're Dennis right?). Yes, as I said - if you guys feel so strongly about it, he should put it back in and I'll go ahead and add in all the health problems attributed to Waldorf. Let's not play the game of "we're out of room now" however. If you guys want the study, you will have to allow the studies that show the opposite as well. Not a threat - just a head's up. Pete K 00:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, in case you're interested - the study you are trying to add is not about Waldorf families but about Anthroposophical families and their lifestyle (so doesn't apply to Waldorf families) and The American Journal of Public Health discusses and refutes the findings of the study you are trying to add here. Additionally, this article also shown here describes the pertussis outbreaks at Shining Mountain school, and other problems at Waldorf schools because of the irresponsible practice of avoiding vaccinations. And here we have more people pointing fingers at Waldorf. Below is an excerpt:

To some, beliefs about alternative therapies may seem harmless, but there was a recent case in Germany in which two homeopathic doctors who opposed the MMR vaccine were reportedly responsible for a measles epidemic involving over 700 children, thirty of whom were hospitalized. There is fear that the rising infection rate could result in children dying needlessly.

A story in the London Times (March 6, 2002) by Alan Hall traces these practices to the Waldorf School, "which actively encourages people not to have their children vaccinated. Now we have an epidemic." The Waldorf School is described as "a holistic teaching centre based on the methods of the late Dr. Rudolf Steiner and is one of several in Germany that promotes alternative medicine." Parents also received anti-MMR letters from activists "advising them not to vaccinate their children."

In the United States, a Waldorf School is among those schools in Boulder, Colorado where children are not receiving their pertussis and other immunization — with fatal consequences both for those children and their younger siblings who have not yet been vaccinated. A letter to the Lancet (August 24, 2002) indicates that in the United Kingdom in a twelve-month period, "eight infants of preimmunization age have required extracorporeal support for intractable cardiorespiratory failure due to Bordetella pertussis infection." Five of them died "despite extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, and one survivor has substantial neurological disability." Although the reported cases indicate infection by members of the same household, parents with infants who have not yet received their full complement of vaccinations might be wise to inquire of their New Age/alternative medicine friends whether their children have been immunized before allowing them to come over and visit.

And I found another dozen articles criticizing Waldorf within about 30 seconds. Again, not a threat, but just letting you know what can of worms you are opening by introducing the ridiculous Lancet claim that practically nobody will believe is a result of Waldorf education anyway. It's your call... Just be sure to leave plenty of room for the response. Pete K 02:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Pete K, the articles you brought up are interesting, but after I gave them a further look, I don't think any of them would stand. None of the articles you mentioned showed a definate link to problems in the Waldorf schools, just a link to problems in children who had not been vaccinated. For all we know, those children could have been illegal immigrants not recieving vaccinations. True, Waldorf encourages children to be vaccine-free, but saying that Waldorf is unhealthy based on studies of other kids getting sick is kind of a stretch, don't you think?

I think the section should be added.

No, I think you have missed the point of the articles. Yes, a non-vaccinated child might become infected anywhere, but the "epidemic" that spread through the Waldorf school was due to the fact that huge percentages of the children were not vaccinated and Waldorf bears at least some of the responsibility for this because they discourage vaccinations. I don't know if you are familiar with the U.S. but Shining Mountain school in Boulder, Colorado, suggesting these kids were illegal immigrants is the stretch here. I'm quite happy to include both articles. The Lancet article, BTW, also could be excluded because of the point you mention above - a slight difference in the immune system observed in vaccinated vs non-vaccinated children - nothing to do with Waldorf. As I recall, the difference even then was something like only 1%. Pete K 17:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The articles EACH mention Waldorf specifically. They are talking about problems in Waldorf. The Shining Mountain case of the pertussis epidemic is Shining Mountain Waldorf School. The article in question (the Lancet article) is about Anthroposophist's lifestyle, not Waldorf. As I said, feel free to add the article back in - but I'll add my articles too. Pete K 21:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There's another pertussis epidemic breaking. Let's see how the local Waldorf schools fare. Pete K 21:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucifer and www.worldnetdaily.com

I leave the house for 1hour and come back to find you all edit warring - stop it. You need to come to a consensus on the talk page before just deleting information -

Right on the ref [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17206] from www.worldnetdaily.com. First you deleted this saying:

Citation says nothing about Saint Michael, Saint Martin, or that children are being taught about "Lucifer". Check before readding.

This is obviously not correct as I have read the article - and it specifically mentions Lucifer - it does not mention the Saints so I suppose this article is being used as a citation about teaching Lucifer. So your reason for deleting it is incorrect - I will revert it back with after I have written. Only delete it after a consensus is reached here.

The article in question explicicty talks about teaching about Lucifer in Waldorf schools:

What is Anthroposophy? "The Waldorf Teacher's Survival Guide" is designated by the Sacramento City Unified School District as one of its resource materials for "training or instruction in Waldorf teaching methods or Waldorf curriculum." WorldNetDaily obtained a copy of the 67-page pamphlet, published in 1992 and written by Eugene Schwartz, head of the Waldorf teacher training program at Sunbridge College in Spring Valley, N.Y. The "Guide" says, on page 54: "Most of that which contributes to our work as teachers, preparation work, artistic work, even meditative work, is under the guardianship of Lucifer. We can become great teachers under his supervision, for he is responsible for much that has blossomed in the unfolding of civilization and culture in the past."
Lucifer?
In Anthroposophical doctrine, Lucifer is the god of light. His antagonist is Ahriman, the god of darkness. To balance these two opposing forces, Christ comes to earth as a sun god.

Now there are two main questions here:

Is this source reputable or not - read some reviews here [6] it is not cut and dry.
Is it possible to see the primary source, or get confirmation that this is correctly paraphrased?

Answering these two will help decide if it can be used as a citation or not. Cheers Lethaniol 16:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Good morning Lethaniol. I looked at the reviews. Looks like one of those - love it, hate it publications. Kinda like the LA Times. Most reviews were either one star or five stars - none of their readers seem to be middle-of-the-road... Reminds me of some articles on Wikipedia. I don't think it's less reputable because some people don't like what it says... to me that makes it MORE reputable. Pete K 16:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Say it isn't so - customer reviews on Amazon as a criterion for judging the appropriateness of a source?DianaW 17:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No you are right this is not the way to review sources - but it does raise alarm bells and hence we should be very careful about its use e.g. you would not normally use a non-sport reference from the The Daily Sport even though well read and respected (for its sport). Now this ref is not that extreme but doubts are there that need to be addressed. Cheers Lethaniol 17:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit cross about this - have just read the www.worldnetdaily.com - you lot should be able to sort it out for yourselves by TALKING on this page - but here are my two conclusions that mean I am deleting the Lucifer ref (and the Saints as also unref).

The Lucifer claim is, that is taught in schools, is incorrect, the ref says The "Guide" says, on page 54: "Most of that which contributes to our work as teachers, preparation work, artistic work, even meditative work, is under the guardianship of Lucifer., which TheBee is correct in saying does not mean it is taught to the kids (why you could not say this on this talk page I do not know TheBee).
The article is basically an interview with PLANS and therefore should not be used to ref fact as primary research, but can be used for opinions if applicable.

Cheers Lethaniol 19:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This issue still needs to be discussed with respect to the Lucifer connection section - because, I believe this follows the lines of the www.worldnetdaily.com - we do need to discuss if that can be kept or not, or even rewritten or turned into a quote??? Cheers Lethaniol 19:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's OK - finding another source that confirms that Waldorf teachers teach about Lucifer shouldn't be too difficult - since they have a festival devoted to Lucifer and St. Michael (Michaelmas) and St. Martin. Why this should be disputed is a question here but I don't think there's any problem finding sources for this. Many Waldorf school pages discuss this connection openly so there shouldn't be a big controversy here. I'll look for citable sources. Pete K 19:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Michaelmas has nothing to do with Lucifer. Bon chance on your search. Hgilbert 14:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you're really funny.

Here are three of 13,100 hits on Michaelmas Lucifer. Pete K 16:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and here are a couple Waldorf school sites:

[10]
[11]

Thanks for the opportunity to demonstrate this. Pete K 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think we should scrap the current Lucifer section, and make a new section in Antroposophy to cover the basics of what Lucifer and Ahriman are all about. It can then be written in another section of the Waldorf article that the antroposophical concepts of are taught and used by teachers - and then give link to the appropriate section of the Antroposophy article for more information. I think care should be taken in the way this is written so that it does not look like that the student are taught to worship Lucifer - using Lucifer from the traditional viewpoint - as this would be misinterpretation IMHO. Cheers Lethaniol 17:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"It can then be written in another section of the Waldorf article that the antroposophical concepts of are taught and used by teachers"

Please stick to what is reliable and verifiable truth, which is what Wikipedia should limit itself to. Thebee 17:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the links I have provided above will demonstrate that Lucifer, as taught in Waldorf schools, is not at all unlike the traditional Lucifer. When one gets into deeper Anthroposophical studies, of course, further embellishment of Lucifer's character occurs, along with his companion, Ahriman. Unfortunately, Lucifer's role (and Ahriman's) in Waldorf, just like in Anthroposophy, is HUGE. One activity may be labeled "Luciferic" meaning light, spiritual, idealistic while another may be "Ahrimanic" - mechanical or materialistic. Furthermore - a CHILD may be labeled as one or the other. Ahriman resides in the television set, or computer - that's why the Waldorf ban on TV. Lucifer is the light - that's why lighting candels is so significant in Waldorf. These are HUGE themes in Waldorf and of course the balance between Lucifer and Ahriman is found in the Christ - represented by Michael. The idea is not that the children worship Lucifer, but that Lucifer and Ahriman can be held in their place through the Christ. Of course this is exactly the type of discussion the pro-Waldorf people don't want to come out in the article. The teachers work in this way, and it is absolutely getting to the children. Why would we need to hide this? Pete K 17:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay if it is a big issue, and an important part of Anthroposophy, the concept still needs to be talked about in the Anthroposophy article first - in its own section - which preferably a follower of Antroposophy would right, but if not then anyone will do. Then, and I would have thought only then can it be discussed here.

For a comparison: one would not go into any detail about how the Holocaust is denied in the article Iranian culture, if there was not an article on Holocaust denial in the first place - the main article should get attention first or it does not make sense as you have to explain all the details in about Holocaust denial in the Iranian article which will just have to be cut out and placed into own article anyway. Cheers Lethaniol 17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I put a sentence in the Lucifer section that explains there's more to it for Anthroposophists than that - but in reality, the Lucifer the kids learn about is not unlike the traditional Lucifer (i.e. not the one that requires explanation by Anthroposophists). The kids learn about the archangel that was cast out of heaven by God (this is absolutely the traditional Lucifer) - and this is represented in the Michaelmas festival - the archangel Michael representing the Christ/God casting out the dragon/Lucifer from heaven. This image is so important in Waldorf, as I have shown in the PLANS article, the festival is disguised as "the Dragon Festival" in PUBLIC Waldorf schools to avoid the parents catching on that it is a religious festival. I don't see any reason why the section shouldn't stay. Lucifer is a big part of Waldorf, both to the teachers and to the students. Pete K 18:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay well I hope someone adds some info to the Anthroposophy article too. You do have a problem though Pete - we will need to have non-Anthroposophy non-WC/Plans notable sources that cover what you say about teaching about Lucifer and him being part of the festival (I have not checked the refs above to see if they fall into this cat.), for this info to be added into the article. Cheers Lethaniol 18:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that "teaching" about Lucifer will require additional sources. The references above are simply for discussion - Waldorf sites that demonstrate exactly what Waldorf is teaching. I don't think I will have trouble finding an independent source as there is little doubt that this occurs. Pete K 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Michaelmas at Waldorf schools would be a celebration of how Michael, or St George or someone similar would fight and from heaven throw out what at least one Waldorf teacher considers to be an inspirational force in his work? Maybe some logical sorting out of the issue would be in place?

The picture and myth of the struggle between good and evil is central in many cultures, and is depicted in different pictures. At Waldorf schools the pupils learn about cultural history and the way it depicts different issues. One of these issues is the struggle between good and bad, outside man in the world, and inside man. That's part of learning to know the world of human culture and understand ourselves. The WCs twist this into "Teaching about Lucifer". At one time, one WC argued that if a Waldorf teacher in the lower grades uses a sea shell to call the pupils playing outside to class, instead of a bell, this "actually" means the Waldorf school is a mystery school, as maybe something similar was done in such at some time .... To WCs, EVERYTHING in Waldorf education actually is an indoctrination into spiritual mysteries, or "indoctrination" with anthroposophy and "should" be described as such. For some comments on this I think paranoid attitude, see here

Get real. Myths about good and evil are described in all human cultures. Waldorf education teaches the pupils about human culture through history. For how this can look like at a Waldorf school with regard to the struggle between good and evil and the (possible) victory of good over evil, as traditionally celebrated at Michaeli time, see here, or here, or here. Thebee 19:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not about to follow you down yet another rabbit hole of your Original Research (although I'll be glad to post some letters to refute your stuff again) - Waldorf TEACHES this stuff to children as if it is FACT. I will support this claim if I put it into the article. You can fight your imaginary enemy, the WC, all you like here. I'm not part of that or any group and comments about the WC don't interest or concern me. I am working out of my own experience and knowledge here - nobody elses. Maybe you dream about casting me out of Wikipedia in the spirit of Michael. What you are claiming above is weasel-worded nonsense (human culture through history). Michaelmas is NOT a historical fact. The casting out of Lucifer from heaven is not a historical fact. If someone needs to "get real" here, it's YOU. Pete K 19:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article that discusses Michael and Ahriman. Pete K 19:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: My experience with Michaelmas festivals has been that the image of Michael and the dragon is presented without mention of Lucifer, and this is in Waldorf schools not public schools--no disguises. Perhaps it is taught differently in the later grades but in early childhood I've never heard anyone talk about Lucifer in front of children. I think given that most people hear "Satan" when they hear "Lucifer", it could be misleading without a long discussion of what Lucifer means in anthroposophy...doesn't seem appropriate for this page. The section on The Two Faces of Evil does not seem to illuminate anything about Waldorf education as written.

Also: Lucifer and Ahriman are not seen as completely evil beings in anthroposophy. Without Lucifer, we would not have the arts. Without Ahriman, we would not have technology. It's when their influence is in *excess* that we experience evil. (My humble interpretation!) So, quoting about Lucifer's influence on teachers as written seems misleading without even more context. Henitsirk 02:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, so our direct experiences differ regarding whether Lucifer is taught in Waldorf. Philosophically, I would disagree with "in excess" and substitute "out of balance and without the Christ", but that's a sideline. I agree that the subject could be expanded. What acceptable sources have we got to expand the section with? Pete K 16:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Again I would like to come back to a compromise offer on this situation - have a section in the main Anthroposophy article about Lucifer and Ahriman explaining the concept - once that is done, any section/paragraph/sentence that talks about Lucifer or Ahriman in Waldorf Education can then link to this new section in Anthroposophy and explain that the Lucifer concept is different from traditional interpretations.

This solution would add useful information to Wikipedia, and if Lucifer is mentioned in this article allow to be done in a NPOV way. Thoughts please Cheers Lethaniol 16:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that compromise but if it means removing this section now (and I don't think it should), I would like to be able to re-insert it if nobody produces the Anthroposophy section within a reasonable time - say a week or so. It doesn't make sense to remove the material I have sourced and continue to work on sourcing based on some future edit that we hope someone will make. Does that seem unfair? Pete K 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding, if it does seem unfair, I'll accept the compromise as you envision it. Pete K 17:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two disputes in one. The first is whether to include the Michaelmas holiday. Above discussions include more "original research" on that, looking at school websites as a source. If you look on google waldorf schools have Christmas holiday, Easter, Columbus Day and Halloween. Besides the independent source question there is a question about notability. Is this one notable? Or are all the holidays all notable?

The other dispute is about worldnetdaily.com. The article is about a law suit. The quotes from the book in worldnetdaily.com were tried to go in for evidence in the trial in another wikisource page. [12]. Worldnetdaily's article is older. The more recent event was that Lucifer book was not accepted in court. And later, the court dropped the Lucifer book from evidence in the law suit. So including it poses questions about is it written in article to use for original research conclusion? Is it important notable fact about the school system? And also does the material come from a good fact source for verifiabilty. Venado 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lethaniol that a longer discussion of Lucifer and Ahriman would be more useful in the anthroposophy page, and just have a smaller reference on the WE page. Unfortunately I don't feel knowledgable enough to contribute to the anthro page, and finding a third party source for citation on the WE page may be difficult. Thanks. Henitsirk 01:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If Waldorf teachers are taught Anthroposophy (they are) and are expected to work through Anthroposphy when they interact with children (they are) then some understanding about what that means belongs in the Waldorf Education article. It is far less important to know that children can play the flute by age 12 than that teachers adhere to an unusual set of occult premises when dealing with children. If this information doesn't appear here, then it makes the entire article dishonest. Pete K 16:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Pete K that the Lucifer/Ahriman topic is integral to anthroposophy and Waldorf teacher training, and is something unusual enough about Waldorf that it should be included. I still think though that the section should be minimal and reference the main article for more detail. And again, we would need an approved citation for this controversial topic.

And could we perhaps think of a different title than Two Faces of Evil? I think that reads a bit sensationalist. Could we just call it "Lucifer and Ahriman"? Thanks. Henitsirk 03:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with those who feel it should go into the Anthroposophy article. While my children were specifically taught in 1st grade the Lucifer was the "god of light," created illustrations and recited stories to that effect - along with annual tellings of Michael and the Dragon and Eurythmy plays on that topic, I don't as much believe it belongs on the education article. - Wikiwag 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The clerk of the arbitration, Thatcher, has said in a reply to PeteK that the idea that the worldnetdaily article is a reliable source is "laughable"; this should be removed. The last part of the section cites an anthroposophic bookstore's review of a book written by an anthroposophist published by an anthroposophic press. Clearly inadmissible. That would leave the first sentence, at best, which has nothing whatsoever at all to do with Waldorf education.

Actually, none of this section as written connects to Waldorf education in any way. Hgilbert 11:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right - like your statement above :"Michaelmas has nothing to do with Lucifer." I don't know who you are trying to convince, but it certainly isn't me, or anyone familiar with Waldorf education (who isn't a Waldorf teacher intent on deceiving the public - as Waldorf teachers do). In any case, it's good that people reading these conversations get a good glimpse of your behavior here. HGilbert, hopefully, at some point, you will start working with the editors here and not against them. You might start by putting a section about Lucifer and Ahriman in the Anthroposophy article before trying to remove it from this one. This one will CERTAINLY be talking about Lucifer and Ahriman, but I think we have ALL agreed that the bulk of that material belongs in the Anthroposophy article. I'm sure we ALL get that you don't want mention of Lucifer and Ahriman in the Waldorf article - and we all get why. Difficult material, for you, is going to be in this article. Waldorf teachers ABSOLUTELY work through Lucifer and Ahriman and that's one of the most important, most foundation ideas of Anthroposophy, so please stop insisting that it doesn't need to be addressed here. It does, and it will be. Pete K 14:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources this section is based upon are all inadmissible for any article in this group: anthroposophical sources and the worldnetdaily source the arbitration clerk has called laughable. It should not be moved elsewhere, it should be struck.

I personally know of no connection between Michaelmas and Lucifer, at least within anthroposophy. Milton's Paradise Lost has Lucifer casting Michaelmas out of heaven; perhaps you are referring to this. Some Waldorf schools may teach Milton - I haven't researched this and don't know of any that do offhand. In any case, I am happy to create a section on Christ, Lucifer and Ahriman for the anthroposophy article (the three are interrelated subjects); I will look for sources. There may or may not be adequate ones out there. That has nothing to do with the present material, or its unjustifiable presence here. Hgilbert 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"The sources this section is based upon are all inadmissible for any article in this group: anthroposophical sources and the worldnetdaily source the arbitration clerk has called laughable. It should not be moved elsewhere, it should be struck." Nobody has made that decision.

"I personally know of no connection between Michaelmas and Lucifer, at least within anthroposophy." Gee, did you read the sources I provided above. This "I personally don't know of" thing is wearing thin... and it's hardly believable since now, at least, you know of a connection between Michaelmas and Lucifer. I have provided it for you above. If you don't have a good understanding of Waldorf festivals, why are you pretending to be an expert here?

"Milton's Paradise Lost has Lucifer casting Michaelmas out of heaven; perhaps you are referring to this." Oh brother. Did you even look at the links I provided above?

"Some Waldorf schools may teach Milton - I haven't researched this and don't know of any that do offhand." You can't seriously be this obtuse. There is NO point discussing this with you. I suggest here you are pretending to be confused. It won't work. Other editors here have stated that Lucifer was taught to their children in Waldorf. You are, perhaps, not being honest here. It's hard to assume good faith when you are pretending not to understand the Waldorf Michaelmas festival. It's just silly on your part.

"In any case, I am happy to create a section on Christ, Lucifer and Ahriman for the anthroposophy article (the three are interrelated subjects); I will look for sources. There may or may not be adequate ones out there. That has nothing to do with the present material, or its unjustifiable presence here." Thanks. The present material is here and it's justified, it represents Waldorf fairly and it is sourced. Hopefully, this will be the end of this question for you. Pete K 15:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The article [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17206] from www.worldnetdaily.com is obviously not a reliable source. The site is addressed to a conservative audience to whom "Lucifer" is simply another name of the devil. As this article is about the Waldorf Schools, what would be a reliable source would be published observations of teacher training and of the operation of Waldorf schools, by educational professionals or competent journalists. Interesting questions are raised, but they cannot be answered by anthoposophic homilies and apologetics or oppositional witchhunting. The question is, to what extent do esoteric anthoposophic beliefs affect Waldorf teacher training and practice, especially with relationship to how such practices affect children, for good or ill. Fred Bauder 21:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole point. Teacher training is nothing but Anthroposophy and so we need a solid Anthroposophy article that describes some of the stuff Anthroposophists don't necessarily want to talk about.

With regard to Lucifer being related to the "devil" - this is, indeed, where Michaelmas puts him and his companion Ahriman. The dragon in the festival represents the devil, the combination of Lucifer and Ahriman (the "two faces of evil" I think HGilbert called it). Anthroposophical sources talk about this commonly. The kids learn about this - in my experience and in the experience of at least one other editor here.

Here is one source that is a collection of interviews - seems pretty reliable but excluded because it is an Anthropsophical publisher. On p19 it talks about Ahriman's connection to the dragon in the Michaelmas festival. On p21 it talks about Michael as the face of Christ. On p25 it describes Michaelmas and other festivals as religious festivals that are sacred. I would think this source might be OK. There is a question as to whether the site - waldorflibrary.org is a library or an anthroposophically biased site. Thanks. Pete K 21:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This appear to be a primary source for our purposes. What is needed is an analysis by an outside observer, both of the Michael metaphor and of its use in the structuring of Waldorf School activities. Information about any effect on the children would also be useful, but that is likely to be too subtle. Fred Bauder 14:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So in the mean time? Even while Waldorf teachers clearly acknowledge this connection between Michaelmas and Lucifer/Ahriman, despite some editors here (HGilbert for example) suggesting there is no connection, even while Waldorf schools confirm this occurs, we are prevented from reporting it here. This is the part that is frustrating. If Waldorf says the connection exists, and critics of Waldorf say the connection exists, why is this topic "controversial" in any way? This Waldorf source should be allowed here. Pete K 20:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Taking Action

Okay as no one seems about to do it I will. I will remove this section and move the referenced stuff into Antroposophy. The worldnet source has been removed as per Thatcher above and cos Pete K said above Yes, I know that "teaching" about Lucifer will require additional sources. The references above are simply for discussion. So if anyone wants to add info about teachers being influenced by Lucifer or teaching about Lucifer new sources need to be found. Obviously the section that I will cut and paste into the Anthroposophy article will need work on, but that is your job guys. Cheers Lethaniol 15:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have connected Lucifer and Ahriman to Michael on the Anthroposophy article. Please see if you object to the citation. Pete K 16:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Previously from Todo list:

Do we want a section on alleged teaching about Lucifer? I don't think that has been decided - the only decision has been about the source. Teachers are teaching about Lucifer (as others here have testified) and if a different source says/confirms this, it definitely belongs in an article about Waldorf. Pete K 17:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Anthroposophy section should talk about Lucifer and Ahriman. There's no need to link this topic to teaching in that article. If there's a link to teaching, it belongs in the Waldorf article and should reference the more thoroughly covered treatment of this topic in the Anthroposophy article. Pete K 17:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Merging of organization and administration page

Any thoughts about why this page needs to exist separately from the WE article? Thanks. Henitsirk 02:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume it was split off as a separate page so that it could be discussed in more depth - but if people think that it would better to condense it and move it into this section - that's good with me. Cheers Lethaniol 15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the more I look at this the more I think that Waldorf schools' organization and administration should be condensed merged and redirected into the Governance section. Can someone do this please - if not I will do, but I will strip it of much of the info - so better you check what you want from it first. Cheers Lethaniol 10:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Racism sub-heading

Yeah, I get that the subheadings don't need to say racism, but then we have editors placing unrelated material in the wrong sections. I moved one bit out of the racism section. It seems editors need to infuse a positive note even if it's in the wrong section and has nothing to do with racism. Pete K 19:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You did the right thing moving the irrelevant research towards racism - there is no need then to over compensate by making such a heading, it does not you prove a point but just irrate other people. Nobody should mind a good faith move like this Cheers Lethaniol 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to irritate anyone - just {sigh} trying to edit the article while I have some time today. Pete K 19:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Title and intro

I noticed that the title and introduction to this section were inconsistent with its actual substance. I've tried to bring them more into line, but am open to further refinements - I'm not sure I've captured the essence neutrally, without saying more or less than what is verifiable through the present citations. (Yes, Pete, I'm saying that you can change this - not revert it, please, but improve it - with my blessing.) Hgilbert 19:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The introduction should not stray far from the citation's purport, however. In particular, it would be a POV claim to say that there is only one way to interpret a work (when there are a variety of interpretations out there). Hgilbert 07:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Teacher education

Hi folks. Once again, the Teacher Education section does not tell the full story. There is factual evidence on both AWSNA and Thebee's site that Waldorf schools may not be so discriminating as far as core education of a teacher is concerned. These two sources have been dismissed as unusable as citations for the article - but that doesn't change the underlying fact that compassion and kindness do not equal competence, as I have witnessed in our local Waldorf school.

How do we get this in? It's to important not to be there.

- Wikiwag 19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I was forced to remove a statement yesterday to this affect because it had remained unsourced outside of AWSNA. I'll keep looking for a source for this information. You are right - many Waldorf teachers are taking advantage of the lack of qualification requirements of independent private and charter schools. Pete K 19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

With all that said, I think we've all come a very long way in the last 15 days. This is a much better article and much less biased than when I first got here - and personal attacks aside - we seem to have worked through it all reasonably well. I think we're almost there! - Wikiwag 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You should have seen it when I first arrived... I was pulling my hair out. I think we still have a long way to go, but yes, it's much better. As you can probably imagine, most everything was referenced to WaldorfAnswers. Pete K 20:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In most U.S. states, private schools have complete freedom as to whom they employ. Waldorf schools in these states enjoy similar freedom. Some states require teacher certifications or undergraduate degrees for teachers in private schools. Since the situation for Waldorf schools is not any different than for other private schools, unless someone has studied the situation in these schools separately (and I know of no such study), not much can be said or known about it except anecdotally, which doesn't really qualify as an encyclopedic source. 68.193.184.127 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf schools are notorious for under-educated teachers. If we could use Waldorf sources, the case for this could be easily made - your confidence in Waldorf's mediocrity notwithstanding. Pete K 01:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case, that they are notorious - then there will be notable third party sources. If we can find them then we can talk about these criticisms. Cheers Lethaniol 15:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems that someone's already uncovered the smoking gun here, and referenced it several times in the article. Bravo! I've linked the citations to the teacher education section of the article. Would it still be considered "editorializing" to build upon this in the teacher education section? Or more accurately, where does the line get drawn between editorializing and proper citation? I'm subscribing now so I can read the whole article. - Wikiwag 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf Criticism section

Also from the to-do list. I think we should include the religious/spiritual question in the criticism section. Also I would suggest that someone draft the criticism section and put it here for discussion. Thanks, Henitsirk 21:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Have made a level 2 tier heading Criticism - with Racism already in there. And new headings (level 3 tier) as discussed E.g. Religious nature. Cheers Lethaniol 22:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing what I see as criticism (Anthroposophy in the curriculum, English language/literature) within the body of the article. Also the level 2 tier heading has been removed. I strongly feel that criticisms should be included in this article, but not within the sections that are designed to *describe* Waldorf education. Henitsirk 03:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

Two works were placed in the bibliography; one does not refer to Waldorf education at all, the other only incidentally (less than half a paragraph). They are (web-)published by an anarchist press, not exactly a peer-reviewed source, but could probably be considered for the anthroposophy article's bibliography (though not as sources there). Hgilbert 07:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf Propaganda

Just as a note of how well-organized the Waldorf propaganda machine is, try selecting the links that Wikiwag produced above. None of them work! The links to Waldorf parent handbooks by the schools listed have all been removed by each individual school in the past four days. It's pretty clear to me that someone here has contacted the schools and told them to hide their handbook pages from prying eyes (like the general public) - all within the past four days. This is just another reminder of how dishonorable Waldorf schools are. This is a VERY creepy demonstration of what goes on in Waldorf. Pete K 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just like the snake oil salesmen of old. Caveat emptor, people. - Wikiwag 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Enough of this kind of talk. The truth is that the links above were entered with a small typo in each. Fixed: this, this, this, this, this and this. Please read the guidelines about wikipedia:talk pages-- "Article talk pages are provided for discussion the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views". The personal opinions and other soap boxing needs to be taken someplace else. Venado 22:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Just goes to show what happens when an organization loses the trust of the public. Pete K 22:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It just goes to show why original research by contributers shouldnt be (and luckily isn't) allowed at Wikipedia. There is to many articles and no editor in chief to check on reporters and that there articles aren't total fantasies. I am honest, it is getting old to see them keep clogging up the talk pages though. Venado 04:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You sound like you've never encountered the type of thing I suspected above. I can assure you this sort of thing happens commonly in Waldorf environments. The control of information is a BIG DEAL to them, and that control extends from the parking lot, to their websites, to Wikipedia. The only fantasy presented here is your assumption that this sort of thing doesn't happen. Pete K 15:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Festivals and Oberman

Could you explain what Oberman says about festivals in the Waldorf movement? Does she mention specific festivals and speak about them celebrated internationally? Hgilbert 17:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I tried to follow it without copyiing. "Around the world, the four seasonal festivals, "Michaelmas" in the fall, Christmas, Easter and St John in the summer are all celebrated in Waldorf classrooms with poems, songs and plays." Venado 21:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Last chance

I have blocked Pete K and Hgilbert each for 24 hours for edit warring on Waldorf education. The next time these articles are disrupted by edit warring I will fully protect them and no one will be able to edit at all. In order to edit the article you will have to agree on the edit and then put the {{edit protected}} template on the talk page to get an admin to do it for you (assuming you can agree on anything).

I also notice that these articles, despite the article probation, rely heavily on anthroposophy-published documents as sources, in spite of the arbitration ruling determining that they should be removed. Documents originating with anthroposophy, the Waldorf foundation, or Rudolph Stiener are not acceptable as sources either for claims that Waldorf is good, or for claims that Waldorf is bad. Things ranging from the complex (whether Steiner was racist) to the simple (whether Waldorf schools discourage parental communication) can not be sourced to primary documents. They are not considered reliable sources for several reasons. Generally if you are using Waldorf materials to describe the benefits etc., you run afoul of the self-serving limits of the reliable source policy, and if you are citing Waldorf documents to "prove" they have problems, you are violating the "interpreting primary sources to draw a conclusion is original research" limitation.

If you think that reopening the arbitration case will get the other editors banned but leave you safe, I can almost guarantee you are wrong. Clean up these articles. Get the Waldorf sources and all the original research, conclusions and personal experiences out. Rely on what independent third parties have published in reliable sources, and if they haven't published anything about a topic, take it out. Trust me, you do not want the case reopened. Thatcher131 02:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not meant as an offense, Thatcher131, but I'm not quite sure I agree with your description:

"I also notice that these articles, despite the article probation, rely heavily on anthroposophy-published documents as sources, in spite of the arbitration ruling determining that they should be removed."

The point describing the principle to be applied for Verifiability in the Final decision says:

"Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources."

As far as I see, that means that for information that (on some unspecified ground) is to be considered controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered self published, and thus not reliable. But as far as I see, it also says that

with respect to information which is not controversial in the Waldorf related articles, material published in Anthroposophy or Waldorf related publications are to be considered reliable.

The not clearified issue is what is to be considered "controversial" in the article. This, as far as I see, is a complex issue, not easy to immediately sort out, and cannot be considered to be determined by one person simply stating "this is controversial", or that a fact tag on one or other point would make it controversial, in the sense that it cannot be cited using a Waldorf related source. Much can and is not controversial in any other sense than that it is not yet referenced with a citation.

There are two points that I think can be considered controversial in the article. One is the alleged "racism" issue. The other is whether anthroposophy should be described as a spiritual or a religious philosophy.

On the second point, ideologically based sources, like ideological atheist and ideological skeptical sources are not to be considered reliable and acceptible, for a similar reason that articles published by people who have held or hold offices in such organizations, on an ideological basis opposed to anthroposophy are not to be considered reliable sources. See Arbitration Workshop on the issue:

I:

"In a similar way as for works on controversial issues with regard to Waldorf education, published by anthroposophical or Waldorf publishers, I would also suggest that authors, who have worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy, be considered as unreliable sources with regard to controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy. Thebee 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Bauder:

"Of course Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)"

With regard to basically all other issues, they cannot be considered controversial in any serious sense, and in general possible to cite, using Waldorf related publications used with a common sense and judgement with regard to what is reasonable and not just flowery language. If for example there exists a list of all Waldorf schools in the world, giving addresses, telephone numbers and URLs for their web sites, that can probably be considered a reliable source regarding the number of Waldorf schools in different countries. I think at one time, Pete K deleted such a source. This just as a sorting out outline of the issue, that I think can be considered reasonable and based on the word and spirit of the Arbitration decision. Thebee 12:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the list of Waldorf schools was not disputed as a source for number of Waldorf schools world wide but for the claim that Waldorf is the "fastest growing" or "largest" independent school movement worldwide.DianaW 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And to clarify, the complaint there is not about the source, Waldorf or otherwise, but about whether a list of schools backs up a claim about how fast they are growing; it doesn't. I've noticed, at a slight remove after a few days, that people (on all these articles) are starting to act like the only question in the world is whether something can be referenced in a non-Waldorf source. There are still other aspects to editing these articles, such as biased language introduced by editors, topics or aspects of topics overemphasized to create a particular impression etc. People keep holding up sources and saying basically, Looky here I've got a source you can't criticize so I'm gonna put this in the article dammit. Come on guys. A list of schools doesn't show anything about rate of growth. Even multiple lists, comparing year by year, don't necessarily show that, as "rate of growth" also has to include schools that close or are reduced; and then you'd need lists from all the other possible candidates for "fastest growing," i.e., lists of all the Montessori schools, all the Catholic schools etc., in order to compare. But a simple list of Waldorf schools, come on, think! That shows nothing at all!DianaW 00:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Mr. Bauder's "Of course" in reply to your comment stands as a part of the final arbitration decision. Many things were proposed, batted around, discussed, various people's views considered, and some became incorporated into the final decision while others were rejected. At one point, for instance, Mr. Bauder proposed banning you, Bee. If we're going to propose everything anyone mentioned in the course of the arbitration process as final and binding, I don't think you'd like to see that applied consistently.DianaW 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The banning Mr. Bauder at one time mentioned was a question of temporary personal judgment, that he then changed, possibly after having looked closer at my personal page on the WC and written to me to ask if I had written it, which I confirmed.

His expressed view of what is to be considered unreliable sources with regard to controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy, like

"... authors, who have worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy ..."

(see above) meaning among others S O Hansson, (incl DD and others), more stands out as principal (standard position), and not an expression of a new, complicated problem to take a stand on. (The unreliability of SOH is also confirmed by comparison of what he has written with the sources he "describes" with the sources themselves, published on the net.) Thebee 20:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Peterson's

From their website:

"Peterson's data is found throughout the Web. From Yahoo and AOL to the Wall Street Journal and Time magazine, our information fuels the leading sites on the Internet."

I don't see any peer-reviewed material here. I even see them pointing to links like Americans4Waldorf (one of TheBee's websites). How do other editors feel about the integrity of this site and the information contained there. I'm inclined to remove it as a source. Pete K 16:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean this link Pete [13] - do not forget to explain exactly what you are talking about.

IMHO this is not a good source - is it clearly highly promotional and likely biased - and sounds like a sales pitch not a straight up neutral advice for parents - I would personally not use this article for any facts. If you do not believe that it is trying to soft to medium sell this read the first paragraph of [14]. Cheers Lethaniol 16:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is using it as a source. It seems suitable for the links section, however, as it does appear (from a brief web search) to be a standard reference source for information on schools. We need to confirm its authenticity in this regard, I suppose. Hgilbert 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to show I am not going mad - it was being used as citation see [15] put has been removed. Cheers Lethaniol 10:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see this diff shows it as an external link, actually, not as a citation within the article. Am I missing something?Hgilbert 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Elsewhere there has been discussion about trimming down the external links section. I think the Peterson's link doesn't really add any new information or opinions about Waldorf. Perhaps it could go, as it does seem promotional? Thanks, Henitsirk 01:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Curriculum section unwieldy

The curriculum section appears to me to be unwieldy as it stands. Does anyone have an idea for compressing this without losing essential information? Hgilbert 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reformatted the section to reduce bulk. I have also removed the reference to: "Gymnasia (selective high schools)" because I cannot find the original citation that supported it; I will replace it if and when I find this (low priority). Hgilbert 07:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited the subsection on English language/literature to remove criticisms.Henitsirk 03:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm - why...exactly? There is no Criticism section at this time, and every time one has tried to be put in place, it gets removed. I'm not going to allege motives here. I'm just going to ask again - why remove the criticisms that are properly cited without making a place for them elsewhere in the article? Thanks in advance for your forthright answer. - Wikiwag 16:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've indicated elsewhere here that I think criticism should be intermixed with praise in the article. I renamed the last "Criticsm" section to "Racism" because it contained only discussion regarding racism. I would prefer not to isolate criticism in its own section because I feel criticism of Waldorf is a significant part of the overall picture. It was reported at one time (in an open board of directors meeting) that my local Waldorf school lost 25% of its student population every year. Criticism of Waldorf is not, in my view, a side issue but a major issue and edits that remove or isolate criticisms under the pretense of "cleaning up" the article are not valid edits. Pete K 17:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll say again that in a section that is designed to describe the curriculum, the section should include fairly bare facts about what is taught to the children. Anything else I feel really belongs elsewhere. Perhaps each section could have a separate criticism header? These are only suggestions to improve the clarity of the sections. I'm not trying to banish criticisms. Henitsirk 19:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How is what is currently there not the "bare facts" about what is taught in the curriculum? There's even a quote from Eugene Schwartz suggesting science students are taught more about Steiner's science than Newton's. Should we go into greater detail about this - about the first painting every child creates in Waldorf - a landscaped page divided in half, one color (usually red) on the bottom and another color (usually blue) on top - and the meaning of this? We can certainly go into great, great detail about the Anthroposophical content here, about the wet-on-wet representing spiritual forms and the division of the page into heaven and earth. Do you think parents who receive this first painting from their child realize what it means, why it is produced and that it represents a spiritual/Anthroposophical exercise? Pete K 19:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just adding a bit here - we can also talk about why beeswax is used in the younger grades and clay modeling is avoided until the older grades. Does anyone know why this is? It's because clay dries the skin - it removes essence from the child whereas beeswax imbues something - it adds something to the hands of the child. All this stuff is Anthro/spiritual - there's an Anthroposophical reason for everything in Waldorf and it IS in the curriculum. Why do young children study SO many different creation myths? It's to prepare the way for the wildest creation myth of all, of course, Steiner's. We can certainly get into all of this connectivity in the curriculum section if you think it would be better. I'm not sure it can all be sourced properly without Anthroposophical sources, but we could try. Pete K 20:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As it currently stands I think the curriculum section looks great: neutral, sticking to facts. I guess I just see that section as pure data, and any commentary/criticisms need to be clearly delineated as such. This is more an editing/formatting thing than anything else.

How much detail to go into is another question, probably for a separate discussion about the article as a whole. Henitsirk 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag: sorry, I forgot to answer your question. I removed some criticisms without placing them elsewhere, my error in judgment. I've since contributed to that section with the criticisms replaced. Henitsirk 20:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yes sticking to the facts is a good thing. I don't want to speculate in either direction here. Pete K 20:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Anthro. in the Curriculum Section

I think this section reads like criticism, and does not describe anything about the curriculum. It reads more like opinion: "bad teachers" becoming "more devoted followers than even Steiner himself might have wished"????? Also, Eugene Schwartz is not employed by Sunbridge College. There is no anthroposophy in Waldorf curriculum (except for the 12th grade reference that used to be in the article) so this is misplaced.

I would like to see this section taken out, or at least corrected and put into the criticism section (did that get deleted too, now it's back to only the racism stuff?).Henitsirk 02:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"I think this section reads like criticism, and does not describe anything about the curriculum." It describes the curriculum very well - but it could be considered a criticism only because Waldorf denies the presence of Anthroposophy in the curriculum.

"It reads more like opinion: "bad teachers" becoming "more devoted followers than even Steiner himself might have wished"?????" It's apologetic for the very real bad behavior of Waldorf teachers who bring Steiner into the classroom.

"Also, Eugene Schwartz is not employed by Sunbridge College." Thanks, I've changed the article to read "former" director...

"There is no anthroposophy in Waldorf curriculum (except for the 12th grade reference that used to be in the article) so this is misplaced." There absolutely IS Anthroposophy in the Waldorf curriculum - everywhere you look it's there from the rainbow bridge story in kindergarten to science classes in middle school to the highschool literature assignments. It is in practically every lesson, of every class, of every grade. This is confirmed in the article. I'd be happy to discuss this in greater detail. Pete K 02:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K, I'm not going to argue that anthroposophy *informs* and *underlies* all of the curriculum. However the curriculum section as currently written describes what is taught to the students, not about the teachers themselves or their competency. I think these comments belong in a criticism section, not because I deny them, but because they're not curriculum. Henitsirk 03:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree - and I address the criticism section below. They ARE the curriculum - and what is taught to the students is every bit as much Anthroposophy as it is anything else. Wait until I embellish the Eurythmy section - which is PURE Anthroposophy. It is an Anthroposophical activity, performed by Anthroposophists outside of Waldorf, it is plainly said to be the embodiment of Anthroposophy, and it is part of the curriculum - in fact one of only two activities Steiner INSISTED should be required instruction for every student (it is taught to every grade right through high school) - the other being gardening. Can you say eurythmy is not part of the curriculum? There is much more, of course. Anthroposophy is IN the curriculum - it makes up at least part of the curriculum without contest, and influences the curriculum in immeasurable ways from what is taught to what is left out and why. There is no question about this (but if you have one, I'll be happy to answer it for you). Pete K 03:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not disputing that anthroposophy is the basis for Waldorf education. I'm just saying that what I'm seeing in the article is not balanced and neutral. Comments like "bad teachers" are not neutral. Calling the fact that anthroposophy "permeates every subject" (a true statement itself) a "problem" is not neutral. Saying "[Teachers] can find great comfort in Steiner's spirituality, and become more devoted followers than even Steiner himself might have wished." has nothing to do with describing the curriculum, it's a criticism of teachers.

Pete K, I'm trying to work with you to make a good article. I don't want us to be antagonistic. I just think that sometimes what you are adding has your POV and isn't neutral. Henitsirk 03:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "balance" you are looking for here. The truth is - teachers who bring Anthroposophy into Waldorf are either bad teachers working against Steiner's wishes - OR - they are doing what Steiner intended and COVERTLY instructing students on Anthroposophy. I didn't call them "bad teachers" by the way, the article said this. This particular article said some things critical of Waldorf (just like we have to accept articles that are supportive of Waldorf). I'm confident that by tomorrow, the Waldorf teacher contingent will provide balancing statements to undermine the truth. Let me just say, my own perscription for Waldorf is "say what you do - or do what you say". Either tell people Anthroposophy is in the curriculum, or take it out of the curriculum. Waldorf intends to do neither. So they will get a critical review from time to time.

Below is the stuff from Steiner's lecture on eurythmy Aug 26, 1923 - in case there's any doubt that eurythmy represents Anthroposphy:

The realisation of this fact of human evolution might well give one courage to develop ever further and further this art of Eurythmy, which has been borne on the wings of fate into the Anthroposophical Movement. For it is the task of the Anthroposophical Movement to reveal to our present age that spiritual impulse which is suited to it.

I speak in all humility when I say that within the Anthroposophical Movement there is a firm conviction that a spiritual impulse of this kind must now, at the present time, enter once more into human evolution. And this spiritual impulse must perforce, among its other means of expression, embody itself in a new form of art. It will increasingly be realised that this particular form of art has been given to the world in Eurythmy.

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

Pete K 04:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K, I'm in total agreement that teachers who bring Anthroposophy into Waldorf are working against Steiner's wishes. I have never personally experience anything in the Waldorf teachers that I've known, or the teacher trainings that I have attended, that anyone is "covertly" indoctrinating children to be anthroposophists. If they are, they are going against the very core of anthroposophy, that of freedom.

I also agree that Waldorf schools should probably be more forthright about anthroposophy as the root of the curriculum. But again, I'm not convinced that anyone's hiding anything in a malicious way.

And, you are preaching to the choir with the quotes about eurythmy! It is an artistic and curative movement form that was created by anthroposophists. Henitsirk 02:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some changes to this section. Re-reading it and looking at the Atlantic Monthly article, I see that it was unclear who was saying "bad teachers" and "more devoted followers" etc... I thought it was Pete K asserting these things, when it was actually in the citation. So I tried to make it more clear by expanding the quotation and the introductory sentences. Henitsirk 03:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm quite sure I couldn't get away with making my own "bad teachers" statement in the article <G>. I try to introduce very little of my own wording here but I admit that I focus on exposing some of the more dark topics to the light of day. Pete K 17:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

TheBee questioned the word "permeates". The article says: But anthroposophy still "leaks into the curriculum," as Dan Dugan puts it. "They try to hide it, but they can't," Rebecca Bolnick, a recent graduate of the Sacramento Waldorf School, told me.

"Permeates" and "leaks in" mean the same thing Sune. Pete K 17:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah! "Leaks in" means "permeates"! You checked that with an arbitrator? I mean, just to be sure you've got it right ... And DD, "informational" minister of the WC has told it leaks in, sorry permeates the curriculum and backs this up with one former graduate at one Waldorf school, meaning this is the case. I get it. Thebee 18:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think arbitrators are here as human dictionaries. LOOK IT UP if you don't believe me. The author of the article is responsible for its content. He made a statement and used Dan Dugan's characterization "leaks in" - which is a very valid (and polite) way of putting it - but the author was expressing his own view. A Waldorf graduate confirmed this. BTW, IT'S TRUE!!!! If he would have asked me, I would have said - "Anthroposophy is the FOUNDATION of the curriculum". In this article, we have dozens of statements taken from Anthroposophists and being related by third parties. We all have to live with those. I think you would save yourself a lot of anguish if you stopped thinking of this article as another press-release for Waldorf. Pete K 19:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, I used the word permeate because I felt that word truly described Waldorf, which after all is a pedagogy based on anthroposophy. Every part of the curriculum is based on the anthroposophical concepts of human development, applied to math, science, reading, etc. Thebee, if you don't like my word choice, you are free to edit it. However I would disagree with any editing that changes what I have said about the curriculum. Henitsirk 19:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Permeate" is a good word - and I hope I've struck a compromise with TheBee by saying "permeates the curriculum" instead of "permeates every subject" (even though it does). Thanks! Pete K 20:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

There are very valid criticisms of Waldorf that belong within the article - not in a criticism section. There's no rule that says everything in an article needs to be positive with a small section for criticism. Look at the PLANS article, which is ENTIRELY critical of PLANS. The criticism of Waldorf belongs in the section where it applies - if we talk about reading - then both supportive and critical views can be presented about whether Waldorf's approach to reading is considered best. Criticism of Waldorf is not some kooky uncle we need to lock up in the attic - it belongs in the article with all the other material about Waldorf. Pete K 03:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, well if we are going to decide to insert criticisms throughout the article, then I think we need to come to some consensus as to balance. I don't think it's appropriate to insert a section (Anthroposophy in the Curriculum) that is entirely critical. Henitsirk 03:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to enhance it. What can we say about Anthroposophy in the curriculum that's nice? I know it's not nice that Waldorf pretends it's not there. I'd be happy to see some nice things said about it - some honesty and acknowledgement that it IS in the curriculum and what benefit it has. Personally, I like Michaelmas (I even made the dragon head for my kid's school) - and kids learn about Michaelmas. Why pretend Anthroposophy isn't in Waldorf? To me, it's strange to know something like eurythmy, which Waldorf teachers believe has etheric benefit and potential to STRAIGHTEN CROOKED TEETH, is described to parents (and readers of this article) as an artistic form of dance. Pete K 03:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you: anthroposophy is what the curriculum is based upon. Looking at the overall article though, I think this stuff should be in the general description, not in the section meant to describe details of the curriculum. And while I'm sure I could "enhance" the section with some "nice" things about anthroposophy, I don't think what you've written is neutral. I do think criticisms have a place here, but they need to be worded without POV. Henitsirk 03:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My biggest problem, these days, is finding information that is acceptable to be used here. While it may seem critical to some, it seems extremely honest to me. And we have lots of editors here who only insert material that is biased toward Waldorf (or delete information that is critical) - so I've got my hands full presenting this type of information. I don't know that the NPOV is that Waldorf is great but has a few problems (I think that's what most people in the Waldorf camp would like to see). I think the NPOV is that Waldorf has serious problems that can be traced to the influence of Anthroposophy and strange ideas derived from it (Ahriman lurking in TV sets) and that reform needs to be accomplished. A truly critical POV would be that Waldorf represents an international network of indoctrination centers for Anthroposophists (both students and their unsuspecting parents), that Steiner himself intended this, that this dishonest missionary work is carried on by Waldorf teachers, that many Waldorf schools behave like cults and that this cult-like setting which includes the entire faculty and staff devoted to a single religious philosophy produces environments where higher levels of physical and emotional abuse than one would expect are common AND that such abuses are easily covered up. I could indeed support each of these points fairly well and my personal experience has been that each point is 100% true. My own experiences are corroborated by dozens and dozens of people I have spoken with around the world. So I think as NPOV's go, what we're arriving at here is relatively neutral. Pete K 04:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything Pete wrote - including every single one of the criticisms of Waldorf he raised. Let's remember that we HAD a criticism section here. It was deleted, restored and deleted again.

IMO, this has less to do with the so-called proper place for criticism, than it does with the almost pathological aversion that Waldorfers seem to have to any criticism what-so-ever. Which apparently extends now, to the incredible level and highly-suspicious recent development of Waldorf school websites removing their parent handbooks from view, because they were being cited as references here. Why do Waldorf pedagogues fear the revelation of the truth of what they believe and what they practice getting out into the open, anyway? Our local school had a "no negativity" rule that even extended outside the school [e.g. on the trip home, at home].

I'm sorry, but once any institution begins dictating an individual's or family's lifestyle outside societal norms: what you can and can't read [Harry Potter was banned because it was made into a movie], what you can and can't say [no criticising/don't question what we do], what you can and can't do [the only "approved" out-of-school activities were bowling, skating, swimming - no dance, no martial arts, no sport leagues, no visiting science or history museums, no attending the symphony], who you can and can't talk to [no playing with those hopelessly-polluted non-Waldorf kids] that meets the very definition of harm that is often associated with the term cult.

Such behavior is very suspicious and warrants explanation when observed and exposure when necessary.

So that's the experience I bring to this article as an editor. And whenever I can cite independent third-party evidence to suport all of this, you'd better believe I'll post it as fact.

With that said though [and I know I'm repeating myself], I still think that much of the very positive things that Waldorf did for my kids on character and creativity levels was like nothing they could've gotten anywhere else. That counts for a great deal as far as I'm concerned.

But any legitimate institution or philosophy must either be able to stand up to criticism on its own merits, field it, discuss it and deal with it, or cease to be legitimate [the earth is flat/the center of the universe, you can gauge individual or racial intelligence by the bumps on their head].

So let's make a decision and stick to it. But rest assured that as long as there is support of Waldorf, there will be criticism of Waldorf insofar as the Arbitration and the rules of good, encycolpedic research allow. The [bias of the] pro-Waldorf crowd does not own the monopoly on truth any more than the [bias of the] anti-Waldorf crowd. Deal with it people and learn to accept it, because more such evidence will come as time goes on. As Ghandi said: "Some things cannot be long hidded: the sun, the moon and the truth."

- Wikiwag 12:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag and Pete K: I just want to say that if there are criticisms of ANY kind that are verifiable and citable, then let's put them in, with POV-neutral language. There will always be disagreement on things like "cult" status, and different experiences with specific schools and teachers (I went to parochial and public schools, and there were doozies in each). If citations are given, then I'm personally going to feel much more able to field, discuss and deal with criticisms than when the arguments are simply personal or anecdotal.

I wish we could get away from the us vs. them mentality and just try to write a good article! I'm an editor by trade and hope to make a positive contribution here. Henitsirk 02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree proper citations are absolutely required. Pete K 17:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Henitsirk: I'm glad there are reasonable people like you here and I am in 100% agreement with you on your final point. Suffice to say that others are not so civil and seem to thrive more on conflict than content, engaging in edit-warring and throwing about baseless accusations. I feel such behavior has no place here and I've said so on many occasions.

I'm willing to take a leap of faith and one more whack at the criticisms section. But, if the main individual who has instigated this sort behavior generally (and towards me specifically), cannot behave himself and allow the section to stand on the facts, or allow the editors of the section go unmolested by vitriol and rhetoric, then I will go to WP:ANI. I have no more patience for mudslinging and misbehavior and he's already been warned more times than he [IMO] deserves.

- Wikiwag 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it is worth it. If there's a criticism section, then you-know-who will introduce sketchy discussion to refute it. It will then (believe me, I know this from experience) change from a "criticism" section to a debate section. But you're of course welcome to try. BTW, thanks for the good edits today (both Wikiwag and Henitsirk)! Pete K 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. I've just restructured the section and added an intro. Let's see if an ill wind blows...smelling of meat. - Wikiwag 18:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Henitsirk: I believe that among the biggest issues that people like Pete and myself take with Waldorf compared with your example of Catholic [parochial] schools is - saying a Catholic school is founded on Christianity is the same as saying that a car has wheels. People know what it is and what to expect. So, when religion class is a part of the core curriculum, the only people who are surprised by it are those who are completely out of it and are lucky to have kids in the first place.

The same in my experience [and the experience of others including Dan Dugan and presumably Pete], absolutely cannot be said of Waldorf. Perhaps it comes out of the naive belief of pedagogues that since anthroposophy is not actively taught in the classroom that it's acceptable not to discuss it at all - even when it comes from legitimate parental concerns. In my experience though, it seems much more like an active, concerted effort to cover up the roots and more esoteric practices of anthroposophy as it pertains to Waldorf education, by glossing over concerns with broad and non-substantive statements.

In my experience, any criticism at all is similarly handled by Waldorf pedagogues and teachers.

Now if we can get beyond this here, then perhaps we can make some actual progress.

- Wikiwag 18:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, for me, if a parent wants to consider a Catholic school, they need only read one book, the Bible, to find out what may be taught to their children. Steiner's philosophy is represented across 30+ books and 6000 lectures. A parent would need to spend a lifetime investigating Anthroposophy. That teachers are guarded with straight-forward answers to concerned parents makes it next to impossible for parents to find out what they need to know (especially when every Anthro website resembles TheBee's own original research websites). They may come here for straight answers and we have a responsibility to provide them. Pete K 19:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A few additional comments: When I said parochial, I was actually referring to a Lutheran school, but the point is the same. I agree that it is clear from the start that a parochial school will include religion. (Though actually, much of Catholic doctrine is not included in the Bible: the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, intercession of saints, etc.) And I agree that it would serve parents better to be made more aware of anthroposophy from the start, yet as Pete K points out, it's pretty complex and the philosophy is presented in many texts (most of those 6000 lectures have not even been translated from German!)

Perhaps we can include fairly small criticisms throughout and then save "big" ones like racism for the separate section? Henitsirk 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

By "big" criticisms I mean things like immunizations being discouraged, problems of children with learning disabilities (e.g. dyslexia), lack of oversight (as Pete K has mentioned elsewhere). The problem, as always, will be verifiability with proper citations. And at least with the immunization one, I'm foreseeing a conflict in world-views, i.e. public health problem (epidemics) vs. the view that immunizations are harmful/ineffective/prevent proper maturation of the immune system. Henitsirk 20:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the immunization debate will not be resolved here - but we don't even talk about it. We should have added it in the "What Waldorf Discourages" section when we had the chance <G>. Maybe there's still a place for it other than discussing it as necessarily a criticism. I've got material that talks about the down side - e.g. epidemics of pertussis in Waldorf schools. I'm sure TheBee will want to produce his report that Waldorf students are healthier because they aren't immunized. I'll leave it up to you. Pete K 20:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I added immunizations to the criticism section, and I did include the "Waldorf students are healthier reference" but in what I hope is a neutral way. I thought it should be included, even though it doesn't actually say that immunizations are the reason the children are healthier, it just says that lack of immunization is one of the multiple factors that produced fewer allergies. Let me know what you think. Henitsirk 21:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I just read it. It sounds fine to me. Good job!!! Pete K 21:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The lead-in sentence talking about "two groups" seemed kind of goofy to me (I didn't bother looking up who introduced it - so please everyone - don't take offense). There's no reason to suggest that there are polarized camps here and, as we have seen right here with various editors, opinions about Waldorf are all across the board. I tried to just remove the sentence but the section seems to need some kind of lead-in sentence. Feel free to revise the one I introduced. Pete K 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I had to make a change in the immunizations section to clarify the alergies as *atopic* alergic reactions (what the article is actually talking about). Pete K 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and I almost hate to say it, but the atopic alergy study should come out of this article as it really has nothing to do with Waldorf. It's a study of "Anthroposophical families" not Waldorf families and a further study said the issue had to do more with diet than with lifestyle. Anthroposophical families and Waldorf families are not the same thing. This study should be moved to the Anthroposophy article. Any disagreement? Pete K 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind... I made an executive decision here and moved it to the AM section of the Anthroposophy article. Pete K 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you guys have been playing nice, while I have been having a wee little Wikibreak for the last few days. IMHO the Criticism section should contain those criticism that need to be discussed in depth the best two examples are whether Waldorf schools are racist or/and religious, where a significant amount of text needs to be used to cover the issue, which would break up the flow of other sections if put there.

A criticism that is less notable/important and needs less discussion, can be summed up in a couple of lines and put in with the relevant section. A good example of this might be that Waldorf education teaches two foreign languages from age X (appropriate reference 1), but this has been found not to be true in some schools (appropriate reference 2). Of course some statements and criticisms of those statements might not have the appropriate references.

I hope this helps Cheers Lethaniol 23:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't sound too unreasonable <G>. Pete K 02:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, removing the allergy study seems reasonable. I think Lethaniol described what I've meant to say before about having a separate section, but in more detail.

I'd like to see some drafts of other topics for this section. The religious nature of Waldorf is a big one, and I think it would be in everyone's best interests to discuss it here before doing lots of edits and reverts. Henitsirk 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I hope the removal of the allergy study didn't seem inappropriate or too abrupt and that my reasons were clear. After TheBee added the Anthroposophy phrase, I went back and re-read the reference and it made perfect sense to move it. I probably should have discussed it here (as I intended to) but I had already put in 9 hours straight by that time and I wanted to get it taken care of before signing off. My apologies to you Henitsirk for not discussing it further since you were the one that placed it here in the first place. Pete K 06:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Wish I had 9 hours straight to devote to this! I'm not able to devote that much time or I would draft something further about criticisms. Henitsirk 20:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is like the 20th weekend in a row I've devoted to this. Maybe I'll luck out and be banned <G>. Pete K 21:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology and claim of credit

Hi folks. I want to apologize for my last three edits from last evening appearing as anonymous. For some reason, either my computer or the wiki logged me out without me realizing it.

Therefore please note that edits by 24.38.65.114 are actually mine.

Sorry for any confusion I caused. - Wikiwag 10:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My computer also does the same periodically. It's a little unpredictable. Hgilbert 17:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Grrr! It did it again. Edits by 69.160.7.226 are mine as well. - Wikiwag 23:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Provide Citations

I've asked for citations to several sections for which HGilbert has applied a reference to Waldorf schools in England. This says nothing about Waldorf schools in general and the source, talking about Waldorf schools in England specifically, cannot be used to support Waldorf schools everywhere. I will go back in and ask for citations unless the statements are altered to indicate that they apply ONLY to England. HGilbert, please do not remove {fact} tags - I'm inclined to revert all your edits - indeed I think I will. Pete K 17:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fact tags should not be inserted where citations are already present.

Unless there is reason to believe that the curriculum differs in different countries, given the international nature of the education a study in one country can be assumed to be relevant for others (assuming that there is absolutely no evidence that there are differences, as is the case here); Waldorf-published curricula (not usable as article citations under current policy but relevant to the conversation here on the talk page) support the fact that they are the same. Note that the criticisms in the Milwaukee school study are based on a single school; a similar logic would require that a corresponding limitation be applied here.

Also - large sections of undocumented and controversial material are being added. At this point, this seems unwise. If there is a potentially controversial subject, I suggest finding documentation first. If there is a reason to include it before such documentation exists, I suggest doing this through a short reference to the subject, and extending this when documentation is available; in addition, providing one's own fact tag, indicating an awareness that citations are still needed, would be good etiquette. Hgilbert 17:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Fact tags should not be inserted where citations are already present." You're right. If the citation doesn't cover the material, I should just remove the material. I produced the fact tag as a courtesy to you so that you could properly reference the material there. I'll just remove it from now on like you do.

"Unless there is reason to believe that the curriculum differs in different countries, given the international nature of the education a study in one country can be assumed to be relevant for others (assuming that there is absolutely no evidence that there are differences, as is the case here); Waldorf-published curricula (not usable as article citations under current policy but relevant to the conversation here on the talk page) support the fact that they are the same. Note that the criticisms in the Milwaukee school study are based on a single school; a similar logic would require that a corresponding limitation be applied here." Gee... isn't that what you do when a critical report is produced? Limit it to the "individual" or the "country" or the specific school? You need to produce material that confirms that what is claimed in this source applies to all Waldorf schools. That's how we do things here. Otherwise, I could take the situation about the Waldorf teacher who bound and gagged children and apply it to ALL Waldorf teachers. You can't insist on good sources one day and dismiss that criteria the next - when it suits YOU.

"Also - large sections of undocumented and controversial material are being added. At this point, this seems unwise. If there is a potentially controversial subject, I suggest finding documentation first. If there is a reason to include it before such documentation exists, I suggest doing this through a short reference to the subject, and extending this when documentation is available; in addition, providing one's own fact tag, indicating an awareness that citations are still needed, would be good etiquette." I'm not taking your suggestions, but thanks anyway. If material is being added that you feel is controversial (not everyone feels the same way about the same material) and requires verification, place a {fact} tag on it. I think etiquette went out the window a long time ago, frankly. Pete K 18:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find your comments here and your edits to be repeatedly arrogant.

Your own disregard for your own question, first telling your view and asking:

This study should be moved to the Anthroposophy article. Any disagreement? Pete K 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

and then, just seven minutes later telling that you don't really care about the view of others:

Never mind... I made an executive decision here and moved it to the AM section of the Anthroposophy article. Pete K 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

and your comment above:

"HGilbert, please do not remove {fact} tags - I'm inclined to revert all your edits - indeed I think I will."

being just two of the latest in the row of examples.

Thebee 23:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite your efforts to stall progress as long as possible, some of us are here WORKING TOGETHER to improve these articles and move them toward a NPOV. Every day we wake up to ridiculous edits and extremely controversial inclusions and deletions that are not discussed - simply jammed into the article. These types of pushy, mean-spirited edits get reverted immediately. One way to avoid this is by discussing these issues beforehand and coming to consensus. In the case you describe above, where I ask for disagreement and then make the edit - it really wasn't a matter that needed discussion as the cited article clearly applied to Anthroposophist families and not to Waldorf families - so there was no question it needed to go in the Anthroposophy article. You may think it's arrogant - I really don't care. I will care about your opinions when you start working with and not against the editors here. In fact I'm sure we will all be very relieved if you make the decision to work cooperatively instead of polemically. Thanks! Pete K 02:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the atopy study, it belongs here, as the study was done specifically on children who went to waldorf schools, in this case in Jaerna, south of Stockholm. Different waldorf schools have very different pupil populations. In that specific case, the pupils with an anthroposophical family background very much dominated the pupil population, as Jaerna is the main centre of anthroposophy related activities in Sweden, and the noting of a markedly less incidence of atopy among the children at the schools was the background for the study. It has a place here in the waldorf article, as one of the seemingly main factors behind the lower atopy incidence was the type of vegetarian food associated with an anthrop life style, the same type of food was served to the children at the schools, and the same type of vegetarian food probably is served at many Waldorf schools world wide. For that reason, the study belongs here in the Waldorf article, describing this specific connection.

As to a number of further of your personal comments on me, they stand out as strong projections, that I however won't comment on further here. Only one:

Your comment:

"You may think it's arrogant - I really don't care."

proves the point you dispute.

Thebee 16:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... does the study SAY Waldorf? If not, your own personal characterizations about the make-up of the group in the study are meaningless. Please, let's stick to the facts contained in the study. Pete K 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about this article from the Lancet [16] - please confirm - also it is not always obvious what people are talking about so remember to link to relevant info Cheers Lethaniol 17:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, no mention of Waldorf. Pete K 17:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay if this is the article in Question then please take this on board. Note I have I have Athens access so have skim read the whole paper - (The Lancet: Volume 353, Issue 9163, 1 May 1999, Pages 1485-1488).

When this is discussed remember to link to Atopy so people know what we are talking about.
The study is comparing 2 Steiner schools (Aka WE) to 2 non-Steiner neighbouring schools - from abstract.
Although the study is looking at children that attend Steiner schools, it is looking at the effect of an anthroposophical upbringing as related to parental choices not on the effect of Steiner schools.

Results of interest:

Only half of the children at the Steiner schools had ever received antibiotics, compared with 90% in the control schools. A similar pattern is apparent for use of antipyretics. Immunisation against measles, mumps, and rubella had been given to only 18% of the children at the Steiner schools, compared with 93% at the control schools. As a result, 71% of the children at the most typical Steiner school (A) got measles during an epidemic in 1995.

Fermented vegetables had been consumed by 63% of the children at the Steiner schools, compared with only 4•5% in the control schools. A similar pattern was shown for consumption of organic or biodynamic food during childhood. Breast feeding in infancy was of longer duration for children in Steiner schools than for controls.

In the Steiner schools, 13% of children had a history of atopy or of symptoms consistent with atopy, compared with 25% of children at the control schools (p<0•001). The difference was most pronounced for current atopic dermatitis and bronchial asthma.

Discussion of Interest:

We have shown that factors associated with an anthroposophic way of life are also associated with a lowered prevalence of atopy in children, Measles has been inversely related to atopy ... other diseases are, however, generally more difficult to verify by history and their roles in atopy are uncertain. Dietary factors may have been important ... frequent consumption of fermented vegetables may affect the intestinal microflora, and the difference in duration of breast-feeding may have an influence on risk of atopy ... other characteristics of an anthroposophic lifestyle, which were not investigated, could also have contributed to the differences in atopy between study groups.

We could not identify a single lifestyle exposure factor primarily responsible for the lower prevalence of atopy in children at the Steiner schools, because behavioural characteristics of an anthroposophical lifestyle are strongly correlated ... However, an anthroposophical lifestyle mainly resulted from parental choice, and was experienced by the children during their whole life.

Note the following from the editorial comment accompanying the article (The Lancet: Volume 353, Issue 9163, 1 May 1999, Pages 1457-1458):

They found a lower prevalence of allergic diseases and positive responses to objective tests of atopy among children with anthroposophic families attending Rudolf Steiner schools, than among children attending other schools in the same area of Sweden. These differences could be due to the many unusual features of the anthroposophic lifestyle, including various aspects of diet, incomplete immunisation, and limited use of antibiotics. Thus, the intriguing findings are of limited value in testing of specific aetiological hypotheses.

What this means is that the variables of decreased drug (antibiotic/antipyretic), decreased immunisation and altered diet can not be separated from each other with respect to their effects. What can be taken though is that these three factors lead to less atopy related disorders, but an increase in infectious diseases including outbreaks of the potentially life threatening measles.

Now this report is about Anthroposophy not Waldorf Schools directly - so it belongs in the Anthroposophy article. But once there it should be linked from the Immunisation criticism section, maybe saying something like - as Waldorf schools encourage an Anthroposophy upbringing (you must be able to find reference for this), there is less likelihood of atopy but increased infectious diseased - see link...

I hope that sorts things out. Cheers Lethaniol 18:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It does for me. Thanks! I agree that it belongs where it is, in the Anthropospohy article, and further agree that a link to that page and section would be appropriate. If there is a "lifestyle" associated with Anthroposophy (a set of religious/spiritual values) then that lifestyle should also be described in the Anthroposophy section - don't you agree? If I'm correct, the study pointed to a second study that identified the results as diet-related, as you said concerning fermentation, etc. Pete K 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I above:

"In the case of the atopy study, it belongs here, as the study was done specifically on children who went to waldorf schools, in this case in Jaerna, south of Stockholm."

Pete K:

"Um... does the study SAY Waldorf? If not, your own personal characterizations about the make-up of the group in the study are meaningless."

Lethaniol:

"I assume you are talking about this article from the Lancet [17] - please confirm ..."

Pete K

"Yep, no mention of Waldorf."

From abstract:

"In a cross-sectional study, 295 children aged 5-13 years at two anthroposophic (Steiner) schools near Stockholm, Sweden, were compared with ..."

Shall we try again?

Thebee 23:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes TheBee, Pete K was wrong it does mention Steiner/Waldorf schools, but it is not about the relation of Waldorf Education with immunisation uptake or atopy prevalence - it is talks solely about anthroposophical followers and how their life style changes e.g. immunisation uptake or food consumption, affect atopy prevalence. The schools were not picked because they taught anthroposophical life styles, but because the children who attended them had parents that followed anthroposophical life styles. In the whole article it mentions nothing about how Waldorf schools teach/advise/ recommend on anything at all. Hence this research belongs in Anthroposophy and that section can be linked to from this article, as stated above

I am afraid your quote picking is really starting to annoy me. Stick to the issue at hand - trying to win cheap points is causing a lot of frustration and likely to be a factor in the ArbCom review. Stick to the issue at hand Cheers Lethaniol 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal Arguments

Please no more personal comments - either take to user talk pages, or if you want re-evaluation by ArbCom take it to them. I am going through this talk page and deleting any personal arguments that I find, I am sure you have or can find the differences. Cheers Lethaniol 00:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I should expand on this - the article talk pages are fine to raise an personal issue e.g. I found your comment X a bit aggressive - because that shows all users that the issues has been recognised. But as soon as it gets into a discussion on these personal issues, then it should be moved to user talk pages and deleted from these discussions, as they bare no relation to the article. Cheers Lethaniol 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you understand that we are in a "process" here and we have editors from very different POV's trying to edit this article. The personal discussions are, hopefully, intended to iron out differences by discussion of various POV's. Yes, it gets heated sometimes - but I think we're trying to focus on the issues and not each other (at least I am). The hope is that at some point we will iron out these differences and work cooperatively to improve the articles. Pete K 02:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lethaniol, it's a problem for everyone who feels passionately about this topic. I wondered where you've been! Henitsirk 04:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Lethaniol! I left you a message on your Talk page about this.

Honestly after his last tirade, I was on the verge of asking the appropriateness of calling a vote of the other editors here about whether or not we want Thebee's continued "input." Passionate as we all are, the rest of us seem to be reasonable people from both sides of the aisle [so-to-speak] and seem able to overcome our differences in the interest of creating a good article based on the facts. Is there a precedent for such a vote? If so, how do we proceed? If not, how do we set one? I for one, am frankly sick to death of Thebee's constant baiting. - Wikiwag 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well now that the ArbCom has been reopened - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review, you will get your say - I suggest you write up your opinions backed up with differences if you have them, and present them as evidence. As for a vote - we can not do this - it is up to Admins to decide if a user should be topic blocked - and in this case it will be up to the ArbCom to decide. Cheers Lethaniol 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)