Talk:Waldorf education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Notice: Pete K is indefinitely banned from editing this article.
The user specified has been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article.

Posted by Penwhale for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review.
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. For further information see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
To-do list for Waldorf education: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

This To Do box is only for controversial issues that still need to be to be resolved - see here for more information. Once an item has resolved please strike out using <strike> function.

  • Add fact tags where citations are still needed
  • Summarize reading controversy, reduce long quotes
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative education, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Alternative education. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Waldorf education article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

PLANS, 1, 2, 3, 4

Contents

[edit] Immunizations

Hi folks. In one of the sources on the banned WP:BLP issue, there was an immunization-related fact that the Hawthorne Valley School was closed down for several weeks due to an outbreak of pertussis. This was subordinate to the main crux of the article which focused on the WP:BLP-related material. My question is this: would use of this article be disallowed for other purposes, as well? - Wikiwag 23:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more sources:

Pete K 23:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say we should not use that Hawthorne Valley source at all, since there are enough other sources. Henitsirk 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Pete K 04:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Likewise. So who wants to take a whack at it? - Wikiwag 22:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag, I'm not sure what you want us to take a whack at: are you saying the immunization section needs more content, or more citations, or both? Henitsirk 02:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Henitsirk. I meant both. I'd be happy to add something - just didn't want to dupe someone else's efforts. - Wikiwag 17:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. There may be room for more, but let me know what you think. - Wikiwag 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag: I don't have access to the entire Atlantic online article, so I need your help to understand that last bit about "nostalgia". I don't see the connection with "an attack on childhood itself". In my experience, people who decline immunizations as an "attack on childhood" do so because they feel these diseases are a normal part of childhood, not because they look back fondly on being sick themselves! Perhaps if you could paste a quote from the online article here, I could better understand the statement and possibly help word it more clearly. Thanks. Henitsirk 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Henitsirk: Yeah - it's kindof a screwy point and perhaps I editorialized it - I've just made adjustments to bring it closer I think. But, the whole quote reads:

"Still others — parents whose recollections of their own bouts of chickenpox or measles are bathed in nostalgia — argue that the elimination of traditional childhood illnesses is an attack on childhood itself."

Sure sounds like they look back on it fondly [weird!]. Feel free to adjust it as you feel appropriate, but the quote is what it is and right or wrong, it seems to be a reason that some people decline to immunize their kids. - Wikiwag 17:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wikiwag, the quote makes more sense now. Henitsirk 17:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are a couple more sources.

Pete K 20:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these, Pete. I don't see how these relate to the article though. Am I missing something in the Poughkeepsie Journal article? - Wikiwag 21:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the part relating to Waldorf:

“It was a proactive approach,” Judith Jaeckel, administrator of the Mountain Laurel Waldorf School said of the response taken after two students tested positive for the disease in December. “We really practice community and civic-mindedness. We did not want to expose the unsuspecting public to anything.”
The school, which has 140 students, also had a false positive report on another student.
As at all schools throughout the state, students must be immunized or have a notarized letter seeking an exemption based on deep religious or personal beliefs. Jaeckel said more than 50 percent of the students at Mountain Laurel are immunized.

It gives a number of 50% immunized - if that helps. Pete K 22:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Well, I honestly think we have enough there. And considering the section's been allowed to stand essentially untouched since I fleshed it out, I'm not sure we need to add more...it's your call though. - Wikiwag 04:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parental choice not to immunise

My experience of talking to other S-W parents is that many would choose not to immunise their children regardless of whatever position their children's school (Steiner or otherwise) might take, and that the sorts of parents who make these choices are also the sorts who choose S-W education for their children. I think this point would be useful to make to illustrate that the high numbers of non-vaccinated children in S-W schools does not show that Steiner schools discourage vaccination: i.e. there is not necessarily a causal relationship (any more than there is between pirates and global warming).

We would need a reference for such a statement, which I don't have.

--John Stumbles 17:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any references perhaps you could provide the rationale. Why is non-immunization seen as preferable to immunization? Why would parents who send their children to Waldorf schools be less likely to immunize their children against disease? In what way are Waldorf parents different from non-waldorf parents?--Fergie 16:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There's an article (Vaccine controversy) on Wikipedia which probably does a better job of explaining the rationale for non-immunaisation than I can :-)

As for why Steiner-Waldorf parents may be different from non-SW parents in respect of immunisation I think there are two factors:

  1. along with other parents favouring Alternative education SW parents are more likely to question and choose alternatives in other areas of life e.g. diet, material and spiritual values as well as choosing alternative approaches to health and dealing with illness
  2. as I understand it (which isn't very deeply :-)) non-immunisation fits particularly well with Anthroposophical medicine so there's likely to be a particularly high proportion of non-immunisers among SW parents.

(In my experience of our local school some parents are 'into' Anthroposophy and chose S-W education for their children for that reason, whilst others - such as my family - choose S-W education simply because they like it as an educational practice, unconnected with its Anthroposophical roots.)--John Stumbles 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There has been some published research on the topic of what sort of parents choose not to vaccinate. When I have time I'll try to dig up a couple of examples. All I can remember off the cuff is that the non-vaccinating parents were overall more highly educated, as in more degrees and more advanced degrees.-- MinorityView 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.publichealthreports.org/userfiles/120_3/120252.pdf Here is a link to a published article on the topic. There seem to be lots of them around. I just took this one because it was available full-text, was fairly recent, and gave a decent overview of the topic.-- MinorityView 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That article would seem to be relevant to the Vaccine controversy article but doesn't have anything specific to say about whether the connection between S-W schools and non-immunisation is causal or casual.

Of the references in this section of the article [1] gives some indication of how the sort of people who chose non-immunisation may also be the sort of people who choose S-W education. However the only connection between that article, and [2], is that they use Waldorf schools as examples. There may be similar articles using other schools or communities as examples. The other reference[3] - the only one for the claim that "some Waldorf schools ... discourage parents from vaccinating their children ..." - is from the American Council on Science and Health which according to our own article "represents a very conservative interpretation of current science". I think that is the most charitable description of the ACSF article referenced: it presents a very non-NPOV spin on almost everything it discusses, misrepresenting the views of those with whom the author disagrees and using unsupported 'smears' such as: "biodynamic organic agriculture, homeopathic medicine, animal rights, etc. ... had avid proponents among the very top leaders of the [Nazi] regime: Hitler, Himmler, Hess, Darre, etc.". As for the Steiner-Waldorf connection, the article references a newspaper article which claimed that a German Waldorf School "actively encourages people not to have their children vaccinated" (adding "Now we have an epidemic") and "is one of several [Waldorf schools] in Germany that promotes alternative medicine.". If this ACSH article were a Wikipedia one I think it would be plastered with {{cleanup}} and {{fact}} notices!

As it is it seems to me that the opening of the section, from the wording of the title "Concerns over Immunizations" (my emphasis) presents the issue from a critical rather than neutral POV. The claim "Concerns have been raised that unvaccinated students, some of whom attended Waldorf schools, may be compromising public health by spreading disease" does not seem to be any more relevant to an article about Waldorf education than to one about any other form of alternative education in which parents may be more likely to choose non-immunisation, and not to be borne out by the first of the two references it quotes, whilst the third is partisan and un-authoritative. The claim "some Waldorf schools have promoted alternative medicine, and discourage parents from vaccinating their children against pertussis and other diseases" quotes the ACSH article as reference but even that article only claimed that one Waldorf school (the unnamed German school) had actually encouraged non-vaccination. If this whole article Waldorf education didn't seem to be such a touchy issue I'd wade right in and straighten it out, but I'm raising it here first to test the water :-)

--John Stumbles 22:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Concerns have been raised" sounds NPOV to me. It is a factual and verified statement. What is better is to say "concerns have been raised by" and say with who when and where. It would also be better to find a higher quality reference than news papers and ACSH opinions. ACSH does good analysis based on science research, but there mission is science activism. so I will see if they have better article to use naming research instead of Hitler rant. ACSH is strong anti smoking and so was Hitler. That is not a reason to go against ACSH or for smoking.Same for the argument the author ACSH made.Venado 23:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A big problem with any article that claims that a particular unvaccinated population is spreading diseases is observer bias. Unless every single case is lab verified, and every single child who may be sick in the local population is checked, you can have a high number of cases in the unvaccinated population and zero cases in the vaccinated population and the numbers are not science, but guesses. Pertussis (whooping cough) is easily misdiagnosed, especially in older children. Do doctors assume that vaccinations work? Of course they do, otherwise they wouldn't vaccinate. Does this assumption affect diagnosis? Yes. I can show CDC collected data on massive numbers of incorrectly diagnosed cases of pertussis in the U.S. population.

So, we have a school with a higher population of unvaccinated students. There is a pertussis outbreak. Cause and effect, a slamdunk. Next door there is a school with a very low percentage of unvaccinated students. This school has an outbreak of several problems, depending on various doctor's preferred explanation: asthma and bronchitis and chronic coughing and lingering colds. Easy to get it wrong with pertussis, because older kids and adults don't always have that characteristic whoop.

This scenario would, admittedly, be much less likely with chickenpox or measles, but it is all to likely with pertussis.--MinorityView 02:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could write something along these lines, referencing the CDC data you mention, into Vaccine controversy? Actually I think much of this section should go in that article, with a reference from this article to it. --John Stumbles 07:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. focus in this article is just about immunization pattern in Waldorf education, not immunization controversy. We cant say much if immunizations in the schools is correlation or causation with out references that do it. The ACSH paper is weak because it does not discuss much of anything about the parts of interest here. That was the sentence about German outbreak from one school and maybe one more in Colorado. Better to find articles that discuss the relationship between schools vaccinations and public health. I didnt find anything else to use at ACSH and am to busy now to look for any more. Unless some one else finds something before, I will look for research references when I have time.Venado 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on the secret spiritual mission of Waldorf education

:You forgot to tell the WC-story about it, Pete, that the actual - but secret (ssch!) - agenda of Waldorf education, not told to the parents, is to train the future rulers of the world, telling the rest of the world what to think, feel and do ..., according to a Press Release issued by the evangelical legal organization (PJI) that on PLANS' behalf applied for the money from another evangelical organization (ADF), that made it possible for the WC to sue two public school districts in California for their support of the use of Waldorf teaching methods at two public schools in CA. According to the Press Release, issued on the day the group filed its lawsuit against the two public school districts in February 1998:

"Waldorf schools were founded in 1919 by Austrian born New-Age guru Rudolf Steiner. After Steiner’s attempt to found a spiritually-oriented party failed, he turned to education as a way to carry out his work by preparing souls for reincarnation as leaders in the next epic of history."
Almost as good as the Protocol of Zion story. Thanks, Thebee 11:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
TheBee, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please resist the temptation to conduct a smear campaign here. Thanks! Pete K 18:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about and apologize for my way of telling about it. I should have done it neutrally:

There are also other views of a secret agenda of Waldorf education, not told to the parents of pupils at Waldorf schools, except the one told about by Pete K. One - published by the respected legal organization Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) in San Francisco - is that the actual agenda and purpose of Waldorf education is to prepare the pupils to become the future rulers of the world in the next epic of history. The organization has sponsored the lawsuit by the small anti-Waldorf group PLANS in San Francisco against two public school districts in CA for their support of the use of Waldorf teaching methods at two public schools. The information was revealed by the organization in a Press Release in February 1998, in connection with the filing of the lawsuit by the group against the school districts. Thebee 21:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the retraction. I still don't see the connection you are trying to make. What I have added, above, is substantiated and sourced. If you want to source the PJI claim, we can add that as well, I suppose. Pete K 22:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


I'm new to Wikipedia, but I have studied various occultic traditions including those followed by Dr Steiner who founded Waldorf education. I think we will have difficulty substantiating many claims and counter-claims made about his methods and beliefs because the people involved in such exchanges often get their information from unreliable sources, and can be quite vitriolic in their arguments. It is an emotional topic for many. Out of interest, however, there was a book written by Trevor Ravenscroft, a respected historian, in 1973. It was published by Sphere Books. In it, he describes the role of Rudolf Steiner in opposing the brutal racism of the Third Reich. The book also describes some of Steiner's beliefs and the root from which he developed them. Evidence logically suggests that Steiner was neither racist nor 'in the service of Lucifer'. However, that doesn't mean his beliefs have translated into a viable education system. I am not an expert on Waldorf education, but the life and actions of Steiner, at least, do not imply a hidden agenda to control the youth of today and thus the future of the world, as has been suggested above. Nor is this a subject upon which you are likely to achieve consensus, as such speculation is nearly impossible to validate reliably. 81.178.120.35 16:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Kirsten

[edit] Citation format

Often there are multiple references to a single work. If footnotes are provided separately, giving specific page numbers in each case, an editor often complains that there are multiple references to the same work (and often changes these to a single reference sans page numbers). I am uncomfortable with this, as I believe the references should be specific and checkable, but have given up resisting. What is Wikipedia policy here? Hgilbert 14:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If they are all listed individually there will be almost 200 footnotes there. WP:FOOTNOTE#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once Venado 18:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Venado that 200 footnotes would be way too much (I think this is what they are saying). If there is a query with a particular source and checking what it says is important, then the provider of that source will I am sure be willing to highlight which pages are relevant on this talk page. For the average user who is reading this page, they do not need such detail and it would make the article untidy and unwieldy. Having said that, if there is a large reference but only a particular section of that source is where the content lies - then that section can be incorporated in the citation. E.g. chapters and sections written by different authors. Cheers Lethaniol 16:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to TheBee's website

In an article in the Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, I ran across the following passage: " One of the best sources of articles, written both from those outside of Waldorf education and those from within the tradition can be found at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/waldorf/links1.htm". That seems to make this link a verifiable one to be listed in the links section on this page, but as I know this will be controversial, I want to touch off the powder keg here on the discussion page before considering adding the link to the article. It might be one place we could use some guidance from arbitrators...Hgilbert 16:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A very interesting link - well done TheBee in your website getting quoted. Having said that I would be quite uncomfortable linking to TheBee's pages. Though I assume you are talking about using it as a "see also" reference, not in the main document (which would IMHO be inappropriate even still). Of course we run into a number of issues with TheBee's website - they have a WP:COI in any discussions about whether to use their website (and we need to avoid any self-promotion obviously).
I am not sure you mean that the website is verifiable (please read WP:V this applies to verifying content) as this is not really applicable, but the article does make it more notable - though maybe not sufficiently?
I think we have to ask ourselves a number of questions. Do we need TheBee's website as a "see also" link, or do other links/references cover the vast majority of information on the website? How reliable is TheBee's website, any third party involved or not, any moderation? We have to take extreme care in linking, also because TheBee's website might be considered more of a blog than not (blogs are not WP:RS and should not be linked to generally)?
Hmmm a number of issues here to be thought of. No offence against TheBee, but as Hgilbert has shown above, we need to think about this carefully before accepting this as an appropriate link. Currently IMHO we should not link, though my mind is not made up. Cheers Lethaniol 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention it is the extension of TheBee's defamation campaign against any and all critics of Waldorf... Oops, I guess I DID mention it. At the very least it is the definition of Original Research - and as such must be excluded here. Pete K 19:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
From the site itself: "This site represents the personal views of the authors and is not an official position statement of any Waldorf school, association of Waldorf schools or the Anthroposophical Society. Except for the articles which are duly noted as written by others, the views expressed on this site are solely those of the authors." I also note that TheBee has recently removed his own name from the page describing the authors (except in small print at the bottom of the page). This is the kind of disingenuous nonsense that goes on there. It is clearly not reasonable to link to that site here. Pete K 22:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete K:

"I also note that TheBee has recently removed his own name from the page describing the authors (except in small print at the bottom of the page). This is the kind of disingenuous nonsense that goes on there."

According to the copy of the page from 22 Dec 2005, documented by archive.org, the page looks the same today as it did more than a year ago.

What has changed from the first copy of the page at Archive.org on 12 June 2004 up to Dec. 2005 is that the page on Public Waldorf education, that was under construction, linked to from the page describing the authors (including the undersigned) in June 2004 is published in December 2005. Also, my name has not been removed from the text at page between June 2004 and Dec. 2005. What has been removed is a gif pic in parenthesis with my personal email address directly after my name in the text. The same is the case with a gif giving the personal email address to the other webmaster of the site. A link to an email address to us can (probably) be found at the bottom of all versions of the page at different times. This seems to be the "disingenious nonsense" Pete K refers to, in this instance. Thebee 20:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthroposophy criticism

I added a fact tag to "The extent of information schools provide to prospective parents about these particular topics varies widely, and schools have been criticized for not telling parents enough about anthroposophy as the basis for Waldorf education" because the claim is not made in the article reference to that discusion. The quote that begins "Waldorf teachers say they hide anthroposophy" is misleading when it follows that sentence because the "hiding" the author talked about in that case was about "hiding" anthroposophy from students in all teaching at the school. The Oppenheimer article says that anthroposophy is not supposed to be taught but does not say anything about how it is explained to parents. When quotes are used it is necesary to not use them to make new claims that arent in the source.Venado 06:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table of contents

Lethaniols analysis listed this problem and I agree. The toc is three screens long on my computer which is terrible at the top of the article. I think one possible fix is to try html ways to make the lower 'subsections' in ways that dont show up on the table of contents. I think the subsections make the long article easier to read, but unfortunately make the toc unecessarily long.Venado 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the way to remedy this is listed in the RFC section:

  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.

Henitsirk 21:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggested before that the curriculum section has excessive subsections; this is a major part of the problem. Perhaps this should become a separate subarticle (in which more space could be given to the subjects!) and be replaced here with a brief summary/overview. Hgilbert 01:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How about deleting all the stuff that you represent as "common" like math and science (even though it's quite different in Waldorf), and not spin any more new articles. As long as it's going to be represented as if it is "normal", there's no point in even mentioning it here. We certainly don't need more spin-off articles - we need far less. Just cover the stuff that's really unique to Waldorf. Pete K 01:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like there is going to be a fight even about reducing the table of contents. Maybe we should just try to start small, removing just some of the titles from the toc now. My suggestion is sub headings like "The Role of the Main Lesson teacher" and the sub headings under "Conerns about racism" numbers 10.2.1 through 10.2.3, also 11.1 through 11.3 can come out of the table of contents without impact to readers. It would be good to keep the headings in the text with right font size but I dont think they have to have a jump link lengthing the toc. Venado 14:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Though I agree with Henit here that it would be great to condense sections into continuous prose this may not always be possible. Have a look at what I have done to the Curriculum section (a HTML solution) - and please comment here. Cheers Lethaniol 15:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Your solution was elegant! Thanks Lethaniol. Pete K 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Good-I like it. Its down to barely more than 2 screens now and though I think it would be best to make it even shorter this is much much better. Thank you.Venado 18:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If you like it the same fix can be made of other sections where the sub-sections dont need to be in the title. Yes or no? Cheers Lethaniol 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I say yess. I think 10.2.1-10.2.3 and 11.1-11.3 dont need to be in toc. Would readers be coming to the article just to look them up individually? I dont think they would, so if not those sections wouldnt need a jump link from toc.Venado 19:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Walforf Education Admin Article

Please see my comments here User_talk:Luigi30#Waldorf_Education. I am not sure why this article was deleted, when at least it should have been merged here. Cheers Lethaniol 22:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical voices

As far as I understand, the arbitrators have dismissed the "Waldorf critics" website as polemical and unreliable. In any case, I don't think we want to start adding clearly polemical sites containing original research to this article - whatever their orientation. (There are such sites on all sides of this question.) I suggest this link be removed to conform to the verifiability standards. Hgilbert 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next articles

This article has been brought to the standards requested by the arbitration. Though work remains to be done, there are two more primary articles (and possibly more subsidiary ones) to take care of. I suggest we turn to the Anthroposophy article now, as work has already begun there, and bring this up to the same standard. This does not preclude further edits here, of course, but it has proved valuable to have the focused attention of many editors on a single article. Hgilbert 11:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description moved and cut

The description section overlapped with the pedagogy section. I have moved it into this and cut the following:

Waldorf education was founded in the early 20th Century out of the ideas of Rudolf Steiner, and has been developed through the research and work of Waldorf pedagogues since.[4][5] The "notion that imagination is the heart of learning animates the entire arc of Waldorf teaching."[6]

We can probably do without this, but if anyone wants to put it back in it's here for the taking. Hgilbert 01:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on controversy section

I brought this up before but nobody commented so I will mention it again though its much better than before. But now one source is used in two sections to say the same thing as if those were to different sources of the concern about racism. And that one source is given here three large quotes,one of them misleading because of the ... parts missing. I have report copy and i know Lethaniol did to. What is one big misleading part is when the racist comments heard in school is quoted. The report said that those comments were coming from the students (who were African American) because of the environment of racism in the US, in the home community, and media, not the school.The researchers were scepticle that the schools "individualist" philosophy could be strong enough social medicine to combat long history of racism endemic in the US and inner cities. Here it has been slapped or chopped together and stands as a misleading example of what the article really said was the problem. The article here does say the same point about influence toward racism from Steiner philosophy as in this article so that is a good use of quote with original meaning accurately conveyed in this article.

The concerns in McDermott article are good to put in article but to subtle for quotes to have parts left out because of the result of those gaps distorting original message. Really I just think there is to much quoting in the article period, especially from a some of sources like McDermott and Oppenheimer which lets face it recieve undue weight beyond the scope of there actual analysis. McDermott's article looks at just one school which the article shows is a completely unique Waldorf school. Oppenheimer looked at a few more schools but is just a journalist reporting anecdotal type statements. Nothing wrong with that, just its quoted so much, to much considering he's no kind of authority. Venado 03:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you improve and/or condense the quotes?
I think summarization would be better for McDermotts. What I am feeling is that editors are really just having a debate with each other there and for convenience picking out quotes from the study to make their own statement since by rule editors dont get to use there own voice. This creates what commenter Danielbirns picked up on, attack-y and excuse-y all in one. Quoting isnt giving enough reflective or objective distance and in the end not encyclopedic sounding. Venado 15:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The section on the Mainz broadcast also needs condensation; it also relies too heavily on quotations, some of which are not remotely relevant. For example, there are quotes not from the broadcast itself, but from claims made in a court case about what happened in the broadcast, though the court ruled that the points did not actually occur in the broadcast...this level of detail would only be appropriate in a specialized article about the broadcast dispute. I suggest the following formulation, which I think preserves the relevant information:
"A broadcast on German television on February 28, 2000, "Report Mainz", discussed Waldorf education's relationship to racism. According to the broadcast, experts found that with parts of the Waldorf curriculum "the children are being taught mythology as historical fact, and that a developmental theory placing special emphasis on Aryans is pedagogically untenable." Claims were also made in the broadcast that anti-Semitic statements had been made in Waldorf schools, although there was no claim that this was a regular occurrence. Some of the content of the broadcast was contested in court by the German Association of Free Waldorf Schools; the case is under appeal.[68]" Hgilbert 18:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It all took place in 2000 and after a renewed broadcast somewhat later. That's almost seven years ago. All legal processes have probably passed. There's probably some info on this at the site of http://www.waldorf.net ... http://www.waldorf.net/html/texte/report.htm ? I'll also probably be back on this. Thebee 22:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
See also http://www.waldorf.net/html/texte/judentum.htm for more info on the case. It tells among of a number of protests against the broadcast in the General Jewish Wekkly 13.4.2000 and also among other things that TAZ, one of the major newspapers in Germany published an interview with Evelyn Galinski, former waldorf pupil and daughter of former Chairman of the Jewish Council in Germany for a number of years, as also an article by D. Hardorp on Steiner and Jewry. The site also publishes a transcript of the full broadcast with comments in English translation. Thebee 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Didnt we already discuss problems with using interview with Evelyn Gallinski and remove it? There is already way to much space given to this one TV program. Size needs to be pared down and discussion go back to basics. This program is one reference. The topic should stick to the claims described in the report. After that there was a legal fight over showing it, but that is not independently sourced yet so it should stay out of this article. The TV program is not an objective source to tell this story about the fight. They were the subject of the story in that case, and cant be used as a source for facts or outcome of the fight. It is same as using the Waldorf schools to verify and cant use that. It is good point that the fight must be over now, can we get new source for update on this? I say drop it until there is an independent source. Report Mainz is an involved party and cant be a source to tell story about SWR court fight, only the report of theirs about schools. Wont edit without some agreement, so others please comment. Venado 17:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; I missed the discussion over this interview; The Bee just mentioned the interview and I saw it for the first time. If the section should be abbreviated, would someone like to look at what I have done above and make any necessary changes? Hgilbert 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions about comments given in RFC

The following discussions were addressed points given in feedback Talk:Waldorf_education#The_Thoughts_of_Yellowpurplezebra

Thank you very much! I have tried to implement these suggestions - with the help of Lethaniol as well! Note that finding explicitly critical discussions of Waldorf education that meet the verifiability standards set for this article has been difficult. Any suggestions? Hgilbert 01:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Lethaniol has added a link to the WC site as external link in the Further discussion, outside views and reviews of Waldorf education section at the end. I have removed it. It does not qualify as an external link. The reasons for this have been discussed extensively last year. See Link removal and the site of Americans for Waldorf education on the group, and the myths about Waldorf education that it cultivates in different forms at its site. It disqualifies the site as external link in the article.

Add a section to the Reception and Controversies section instead, as it was found last year, telling that some have expressed concerns that the support by public school districts of Waldorf methods schools, appr 35 waldorf methods schools at present in North America, violates the U.S. Constitution, that one group of people, critical of Waldorf education has pursued a litigation regarding this since 10 years, that a trial was held in September last year, that the group lost its case, and that the case is under appeal, and give an internal wikilink to the Wikipedia article on the group, that in turn links to its site.

As such, what is published by the group at its site disqualifies it from linking to as an external link on Waldorf education in the article. Thebee 09:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is notable that such a group exists, irrespective of whether they are 'right' or 'wrong'. This was the point that Lumos3 (talk • contribs) was trying to make the last time this link was discussed. For the record, a consensus was never reached, Lumos3 was simply shouted down (I dont mean to be inflammatory here, this thread was literally the longest I have ever seen on the waldorf talk page which is saying something) by Thebee and HGilbert before he decided to spend his time doing something more productive. Personally, I do not agree with the PLANS point of view, but I think it is interesting to read what they think. More importantly, an article on Waldorf Education which does not impartially link to a significant movement such as PLANS, loses credibilty. Most neutral observers have the sense to see that the Waldorf movement has given more to humanity than PLANS, but we need to allow people to come to this conclusion on their own.--Fergie 18:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In archive discussion PLANS was already referenced and linked in the article and Lumos was trying to ad it in more times. I agree once is enough. In January Pete_K deleted the PLANS section, and so now it isnt there even one time. It is a bad website but a lot of bad websites are linked in other articles. When are allowed links chosen for September 11 conspiracies article? Dosent it have to go by guidelines to decide?Venado 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The issue is essentially whether links interpreted as unsupportive of Waldorf Education should be presented neutrally as 'further reading'/'external links'. In other words should they be presented to the reader who is generally interested in Waldorf Education, or should they only be presented to the reader who is interested in criticism of Waldorf Education. Bottom line: If this article is to maintain NPOV, the links in question should not be squirrelled away in obscure subsections, they should be given equal weight to the other external links. --Fergie 08:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The issue is twofold; 1) What links meet Wikipedia standards (waldorfcritics and TheBee's websites both appear not to), and 2) Of these links, how do we distribute or categorize them. We are discussing two different things at the same time, which is causing confusion. Arbitrators have repeatedly emphasized the principle (for this article especially) that if something is worth having in the article, a good standard source will be able to be found for it. They have repeatedly asked us to respect the quality of sources above the need to include a POV that we really believe in personally.
This applies to all aspects (or "sides") or this question. Note that I feel that the report of the Dutch commission, which was composed of a recognized human-rights expert and other academics, is also notable; far more so than material composed by unqualified persons. More equivalent to the critics' site would be the Bee's various sites, also quite notable (we even have a source that meets verifiability standards that states that these sites are amongst the most authoritative on Waldorf). Other people probably have lists of other sites they consider quite notable. Do we want to have a whole section of links to notable sites that do not meet verifiability standards? Aside from the fact that this would go against the spirit and letter of the arbitration, I suspect that no-one really wants to open this particular box. Hgilbert 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree and am happy with the solution proposed by TheBee
On the subject of External Discussions - is it possible to remove some of the links - surely we do not need so many - especially to randon newspaper articles. Cheers Lethaniol 11:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
For example the article [6] is really quite weak. One way to balance up this External links section is to remove links to short articles that really are not going into great depth but I pretty positive. The advantage of removing such links is that it will also make the links left stand out more, and give access to better quality articles.
I support this solution. Hgilbert 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teacher education section

For this section, I made the name just Education, which make more sense, from the citations. And rewrote it, much more now like plain information, all from the citations. The other parts, were not directly from the citations. I think the whole article should be like this. Nothing of the opinion of an editor. 1garden 13:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there was confusion over the subject of the "Teacher Education" section; it addresses the training of teachers in colleges and other training programs. It probably needs work (and perhaps is too long) but I have largely reverted to the prior condition as this is closer to the intention of the section. Please help improve this area of the article, however! Hgilbert 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did my comments get deleted - put them back please. Why did my edits get deleted? You have changed back to all uncitated material - this is against the arbitatraion idea, it is all original research and not with citations. I had improved so that everything was citationed. I read through the whole reference - the comments were not supported by the source given, its just a narration. I changed the title because the source material did not support teacher training instead education in general. I thought there must be commitment to have citationed material only? You cant just write what you like? This is meant to be an encyclopedia? Please put back. Now it reads like a panphlet again.1garden 14:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at the citations; the change you made removed all content relating to teacher training...which was the subject of that section. You are right that the content needs to conform to citable material, however. We should find citations that relate to the topic or remove the whole section, if there are none. Hgilbert 15:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
HGilbert is in charge now 1garden. Good luck in getting any reasonable edits past him. It's literally HIS article. Bye! Pete K 15:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a section on teacher education solely consisting of material totally unrelated to teacher education cannot be construed as a reasonable situation. Hgilbert 15:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the citations; one of them was accurate but did not refer to teacher education; I have moved this sentence to the spiritual foundations section. The rest was indeed uncited; I have re-removed part that 1garden had removed and I had restored, and fact-tagged the rest (only the claim that anthroposophy is part of curricula of training colleges has a citation, and that only applies to one college!) Hgilbert 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the teacher education section as the existing citation only covered a small aspect of this; we don't seem to have third-party sources for this. Here it is in case we want to pick it up later:
Waldorf education attempts to integrate these practical, artistic, and intellectual approaches into the teaching of all subjects.[7] Hgilbert 11:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoops...I don't seem to have implemented this. The section is criticized as being WP:OR both above and in the RFC comments. It stands above should anyone wish to restore it. Hgilbert 09:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reading and literacy

In line with requests to reduce the extent of quotations, we should rewrite this section as well. Can someone take it on? In the meantime, I am retitling it to more accurately reflect its actual content. Hgilbert 09:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brochure

Are you GETTING that this is still reading like a brochure? That's what I've been saying all along - not confirmed by independent people. As long as Waldorf teachers are writing the article - it will ALWAYS read like a brochure. Well, I'm off to enjoy my Sunday so have fun in the knowledge that you have distorted information and further diminished the public trust in Wikipedia. Pete K 15:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Bold suggestion

Hi folks. I apologize for my absence of late. Frankly, I found myself getting way to caught up in the unceasing tit-for-tat here. And to quote a farm-boy analogy someone once shared with me, "you have to walk out of the barn before you realize how much it stinks."

With that said, it seems that we have a fair amount of commentary from independent readers that this article suffers from problems directly related to its length and the exhaustive nature of its content. I know we all [myself included] have spent a tremendous amount of time editing, re-editing and reaching consensus on controversial points. Nevertheless, I submit that the single best thing we can do with this article is to do some hard pruning and/or create of new pages. (I likewise think this is especially appropriate now that Pete K has been forcibly departed from the scene.)

This will aid in reducing the creep of brochure language and jargon into the article, as well as reduce the boredom factor experienced by at least one of the commentators so far; frankly - I get bored reading this from top to bottom and I helped write the thing! It's too long to read, too unwieldy to manage and there are too many parties here trying to push their own POV; that friends, makes fertile ground for abuse (either unwitting or deliberate).

So, what do we say that instead of spending even more time hammering away at the minutiae of every single point of every single question on every single subject, that we look at Goethe and Nietzsche, as well as other icons and paragons as examples to aspire to and cut this thing down to perhaps 1/3 its current size? - Wikiwag 10:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (dons his fire-proof suit)...

Our goals are similar in terms of making this a lean article, but while you were away we pruned away quite a bit and offloaded most of the curriculum section to a separate article. The bit on the Main Lesson teacher is still overly long, as most of it is about looping generally (and not just in Waldorf schools); this could link to a separate article about looping as used in education - perhaps such an article even exists somewhere on Wikipedia. I am in favor of this, certainly. Otherwise, it's hard to see exactly what might be pruned; the controversies section would certainly be a controversial choice and I won't be the one to propose this, and otherwise the sections are generally quite short now. Hgilbert 10:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that is so. Frankly, it's hard for me to see a substantive difference being as close to it has I am. However despite that, the issues evidently still remain, if we are to take the independent commentary to heart. That, I believe is the whole purpose of the RfC. - Wikiwag 12:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I think could be edited or moved to a daughter article:

  • Social Mission: I don't think the UNESCO bit is written in such a way to show how it relates to the "social mission" of Waldorf education.
  • History: the second paragraph seems extraneous given there is a daughter article, and the third paragraph isn't really about history.
  • Curriculum: Perhaps we should rename this section; Festivals and Media Influences don't seem to be part of the curriculum per se.
  • Reception and Controversies: I think this section is actually fine, given that the rest of the article is being trimmed down.
  • The Main Lesson/Looping section could be edited to link to another article about looping that would describe the pros and cons, while we might leave the beginning paragraph about how it works specifically in Waldorf.
  • Bibliography: I think this is redundant when we could simply link to the articles about Steiner's and others' books about Waldorf.

PS: Glad you're still around Wikiwag, I was starting to wonder! Henitsirk 19:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have trimmed the main lesson teacher section; the material on looping, which may someday be useful for a general article on this subject (I cannot find one at present), can be found here. Hgilbert 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hgilbert: and in so doing, removed the potential downsides in favor of the POV brochure language. Tell me, would you think it fair if someone did the reverse? I suspect not. I sincerely hope Pete K was incorrect in predicting that with his departure, this article would take a giant step backward and revert the Waldorf-centric POV that started all of this unpleasantness. While this move suggests he may have been right, I'll assume good faith for the moment and ask that you prove him wrong by restoring what you "trimmed" to the article. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Henitsirk: This sounds like a great way to start! Is there a way to "family" pages together? If so, how do we begin? And thanks for the "welcome back" ;-) Cheers! - Wikiwag 03:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this was done in accordance with Henitsirk's suggestion above; no-one disagreed with this suggestion. Please don't revert edits that have been discussed on this talk page in advance and for which agreement was found here; the next step would be to engage in the discussion yourself.

Second of all, the potential downsides are general to all looping in schools and don't belong in an article specific to Waldorf education; I suggest someone start a looping article and include this material in it.

Third of all, what POV/brochure language is left? Henitsirk suggested we keep the first paragraph; this was done. Hgilbert 11:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hgilbert: True. The issue of breaking out looping was first raised by Henitsirk in this very section. That however does not rise to the level of consensus, as you made the edit before anyone else had chimed in. I'll therefore thank you to spare me the admonition about engaging in the discussion. Moreover, I have not - nor do intend to revert anything; I'm asking you to do it, as I disagree with your edit and your interpretation. As such, we have not achieved consensus, making your edit antithetical to the framework we all promised to function within.
I'll concede your second point. I submit that since you were the one who removed it, that you likewise be the someone who starts the article you're recommending. Thank you in advance for doing so, or reverting your own edit until such an article can be a) established and b) reasonably fleshed out.
On your third point, the statement 'There is an emphasis on the "artistry, autonomy and authority of the individual teacher"' advocates a POV as a declarative statement, the citation not withstanding. Absent the counterpoint you deleted, the paragraph is now skewed in favor of Waldorf-promotional POV.
Thank you again in advance, for proving Pete wrong and restoring the content you deleted. Cheers! - Wikiwag 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that is a value judgement, POV claim, it is a job description. The Wikiwag, leave Pete_K out of these discussions. None of this is "proving him wrong" or "right" about anything. We cant use false choice fallacies to decide what to leave in the article or what to take out. I agree that looping discussion is NPOV now, and taking that part out was a reasonable edit. You say that part left is POV, but it is just description about what is purpose of looping. It should be edited to make that meaning more clear, thats all. If you disagree about parts taken out, it should be discussed instead of just put back so we dont get back into edit wars. I admit I dont think that looping section was all that good before. One reference did not talk about Waldorf, and another was about looping in general. That section either needed to be trimmed or expanded, and it is better idea to expand in another article. Wikipedia is good for that. Spin off articles can keep main articles more balanced and readable. The problem with the quote there now is that it is not directly tied to the looping in the reference, so it cant be tied to looping here because putting them together is a synthesis, or wp:OR claim, for wikipedia purposes. Venado 17:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Correction. The reference is used correctly in the article, not a synthesis, because it does not say it has to do with looping.Venado 18:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Perhaps I need to recuse myself from this article. I frankly find my time here very frustrating because there is little if any good-faith and the idea of "consensus" extends only so far as one is willing to accept the will of Hgilbert and or Thebee; this is their article and it looks as if it will remain so. Moreover, while Pete admittedly self-destructed toward the end of it, I find it outrageous that the arbitration focussed principally on his misconduct, and that he alone bore the brunt of the inquiry in addition to all of the consequences - leaving other equally-disruptive editors unsanctioned.
For my own part, there's plenty of other fertile ground on Wikipedia where I have an interest in editing and can contribute without the angst and drama that surrounds this article.
Don't get me wrong - it's been educational and I'm a stronger editor as a result - but I no longer wish to wrestle over minutiae and constantly question the intentions of the other editors. That is not who I am or who I want to be, and it is clear that nothing has changed post-arbitration. It is disappointing to say the least. - Wikiwag 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
O.K. You urge us to find ways to make the article smaller, and Henitsirk listed the best sections to do it. Hgilbert followed those suggestions and edited accordingly. He took out pros and cons of looping equally, but gets no credit for cooperating with the recommendations, just attacks. Whats left there is Neutral about looping because the article just says the schools do it. Thats all.
You said you wont talk about the content of the article or edits because you dont care about minutiae. But criticizing everybodies motives and telling others what to do by "Pete_K this" and "Pete_K that" is not meaningful. It is just a scolding but not the way to hold a consensus building discussion. Up until now, I saw a lot of improvement post-arbitration in terms of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK which are official rules because they are necessary for finding consensus on content in writing articles.Venado 21:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I really don't care any longer, Venado. I've taken everything and everyone related to this article off my watchlist. It's not worth the effort. It's yours. I quit. - Wikiwag 03:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Some days ago, I went through the article and have put up some suggestions on it here. After that, the article has been edited, and among other things the comments on looping removed. I think too that they belong in a special article on looping, not in this article. I have indented some of the sections, that I think need some further work. Thanks, Thebee 09:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I found an article about looping where the section that was removed can be used. loop (education) Venado 21:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody review the UNESCO section? I don't know anything about the topic or I would have a go at it. I think there needs to be further explanation of why this information relates to the social mission of Waldorf. Thanks. Henitsirk 01:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reception

In line with the comments made by various people, I have considerably reduced the extent of quotation in the reception section and changed it from "positive reception" to "reception by mainstream educationalists". Both positive and negative reception would thus have place here, in line with the NPOV policy.

I have kept the quotations in the footnotes for the moment; at some point we may want to drop these, as well. They may be useful to check the accuracy of my summations, or people may want to modify how I have changed the section. Hgilbert 09:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is better. I still dont understand last one about "healing". I dont know what that means. Maybe this is a sign to why the quotes are not working for me. I can figure out the meaning in the first two but all three quotes are isolated. The integration of arts to curriculum was talked about in the article someplace else.But how does the article explain how Waldorf education teaches seven intelligences besides the quote? I dont know what healing education means, and it isnt shown in the article how it ties to a Waldorf philosophy or practice.Venado 21:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we think that the reception section should only repeat elements already mentioned in the article? It could simply reflect the reception of Waldorf education amongst mainstream educational authorities (both positive and critical). If someone wants to know more about Gardner's theory of intelligences s/he can follow the relevant link, for example; it is not necessarily the purpose of the Waldorf article to explain this as well.

The quote about healing education is less easy to follow up on; there is no Wikipedia article on the subject to link to, for example. Nevertheless, it is a significant focus of Waldorf educators (for example, there are regular conferences on the subject, called the Kolisko conferences, attended by both doctors and teachers). I don't know of material that would meet our verifiability standards to further explain what is meant by this, however. It is obviously a significant point for Peterkin, and will be understood, I suspect, by many educators. So I would suggest leaving this in, but how do others feel? Hgilbert 12:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Social mission/Harduf

An editor noticed that the material about Kibbutz Harduf was uncited (and removed it). I have found a source for this project, the Foundation that supports this work; I am supposing that the material qualifies as factual and that such a citation is sufficient. I have rewritten the section to correspond to the cited material; please review this and let me know what you think. Hgilbert 21:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article status

After the arbitration the priority in the articles was to find new sources and removed unsourced claims. Now that this is mostly finished, the work to make this a "good" article is harder. I am looking at as many articles about schools and education as I can for a model but nearly all are much worse condition than this. Most have neutrality or unverified tags, and trivia. This tells how hard it is to make exemplary article for this kind of subject. But this is a good beginning. This article has more footnotes than Harvard University. Now the article needs better structure and choice between what to leave in, what to take out, and what to explain better. And I think it needs work to figure out why it is still brochure like because the reasons arent easy. I think that if it is long and detailed thats part of it. And the reception quotes are very advertisy to me. I see quotes used in this way on bookcovers, movie ads, sales brochures. Without the original context the quotes were made in, here there is no premise. Its just a brag.

There arent very many education articles with "good article" status and most are about universities. Here is one grammar school Royal Grammar School Worcester and one high school Broad Run High School. They both can sound brochure like to. But they stand out because they use nice charts and lots of pictures.Venado 15:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:GOOD is a sensible goal to aim for when a significant numer of editors are expending a significant amount of effort on an article, and Waldorf Education has certainly reached that point. Venado is wrong to point us in the direction of Royal Grammar School Worcester and Broad Run High School, as these are articles that relate to specific schools rather than education systems. We would be better served by going through Category:School_types and Category:Educational_philosophy to find equivalent articles. Frankly, the Waldorf Education article has a lot of room for improvement, and agreeing to achieve the goal of Good Article Status is the best way to ensure that the desired standard is met.--Fergie 15:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you point us straight to some with good article status in those categories? They are hard to find any better than this one. Thanks. Venado 16:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


Update. I looked at every article in those categories. None have good article status. One did at one time but lost it. So many are terrible. Some even copy word-for-word from literature of the school system, like Sensitive periods is copied from Montessori texts. We have to look at articles in other subject areas to see "good article" models.Venado 17:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I worked on this article some time ago when it was in turmoil and a wikipedia project was began to bring it into line. The project went nowhere because of the strong antipathies of the editors involved. The article is so much better now, I think credit is due everyone involved. Even back then, Montessori and other articles were looked at for comparison, and the Waldorf article was so much better than those it was just an excuse for committing the same problems, such as using self published website references and commercial websites. I agree that this could become a good article candidate. Look here: Wikipedia:Good_articles and you will find controversial articles that have made it to good article candidacy. If the article is heavily edited and changes frequently it won't qualify, however, so it's best to find consensus with other editors. If editors will work together, a wikipedia project is a good system to use to reach the goal. Professor marginalia 18:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I take your point that Category:School_types and Category:Educational_philosophy are not places you are likely to find a Good Article™, but they are the articles that Waldorf Education should be measured against. They can be used as a reminder of what this article used to be and what it could again become if unwikipedian partisans are not kept in check.--Fergie 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


O.K. But this article is now one of the best compared to the others but it still needs improvement. I am trying to say we could learn what is best from looking at those that are better as models.Professor marginalia 19:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wiki project

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bangladesh is another great model to try to learn from. The team is credited with eight or nine featured articles, an incredible accomplishment by itself, but especially so considering the politically controversial issues covered in some of them. It's a large group, and they have the luxury of delegating tasks to those best suited for them. But what is really important is how they strategize. They have a written strategy in place to handle controversial issues Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bangladesh/General. And they've distilled the steps to take for successful Featured Article candidacy, practically down to a science.Professor marginalia 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncitationed narratives

Please put a Template:Fact tag after the narrative that still needs a citation. That way they can get referenced. Thanks. Venado 17:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Waldorf schools

The history section has been changed to a "first Waldorf school" section. I'm not entirely happy with the resulting lack of a general history of the school movement. What do others think? Do we want both (first school and general history)? Just one or the other? Hgilbert 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited that section because I thought some of it was redundant to the daughter page. Also the third paragraph was not about history. Perhaps a little bit could be added here, but I don't think anything lengthy would be appropriate. Henitsirk 19:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there any reference sources telling more about general history.One of the footnote articles says that history of the first school is significant memory to the other schools. (Oberman). May be the history section sticks out of place because there isnt transition to themes in the rest of the article.Venado 21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
By the schools growth chart by the history section it look like there were no schools after Hitler until 1962, then none again between 1965 and 1975 and they restarted after 1975.Venado 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Stuttgart school reopened in 1945 under the American occupation of Germany.--MinorityView 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange edits

Fergie has made some strange edits. One is the change of the sub title "Swedish study" to "Study: Nazism and Racism Amongst Swedish Waldorf Pupils". The twisted title says: Nazism and racism is found among Swedish Waldorf pupils. The opposite is the truth. They display a markedly greater anti-Nazism and anti-racism than pupils at public schools. I have therefore changed the subtitle to correspond to what the study described says. Thebee 20:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Another edit by Fergie has been to change "Concerns over Immunizations" to "Refusal to Vaccinate Pupils". The sub title implies that Waldorf schools refuse to vaccinate Waldorf pupils. This is untrue. Waldorf schools do not vaccinate or refuse to vaccinate Waldorf pupils. Parents do. Changing the title to imply that Waldorf schools refuse to vaccinate pupils is another twisted distortion by Fergie for some strange reason also of what the text in this section says. Thebee 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Those edits were to tabloid and did not represent with any accuracy what the sources say. We are trying to work to good article. It has to be accurate. I dont think this is the time for careless language and mispresented references. Do schools vaccinate pupils, or doctors and nurses do this? There was no claim made in any reference given I see that the schools refused to vaccinate pupils. There was a claim in one reference that one school in Germany discouraged vaccinations. We have been discussing how to find better sources so the WP article can say more about this subject, but we dont have any that say schools refuse to vaccinate pupils.
The title change of the Swedish study was distorted because the findings were huge (93% Waldorf compared to 72% municipal) to show the opposite (active antiracism and antinazism, not racism and nazism).The title change served no good purpose. I do not agree this new reverted title though either. The subsections make no sense any more. The swedish study is not about "reception" or about "controversy".
I also disagree with the other section title change on German TV program because it leaves debate out. I would not disagree with something about "debate about racism". The TV show claimed it did not accuse or imply proof there was racism, only broadcast accusations made by others, and thats what the court debate was about.
The section titles can be improved, but please dont make them worse. Dont add titles that distort the information found from the sources. Maybe rethink if the titles and sections still make sense.THe Swedish study was in a section about racism and antiracism.That made sense. Now it is in controversy -reception section, but we dont describe any reception or controversy of this study.Venado 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I forgot the last change. Changing "mainstream educationalists" to "a mainstream educationalist" is not accurate. three different ones are quoted. We have also have above a discussion in process how to do that section better, but it is a misprepresentation in title to say those quotes there now are all the same person.Venado 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The section titles are vague and non-descriptive and they could be improved. I am by no means a 'Waldorf-Critic', yet it has been a very long time since any edit I have made on the page has been allowed to stand, and I usually get a good flaming to boot (see this thread). I am going to rise above the hysterical cries of 'flasehood', 'twisted distortion' and 'untruth' and instead direct Thebee, once again, to WP:OWN, and WP:AGF. I would also caution Thebee that he has been walking on thin ice since arbitration, and continuing to confrontationally edit in the absence of PeteK will not be looked upon kindly--Fergie 06:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly support your comment about flaming; we need to avoid all personal comments here.
At the same time, the section titles should be accurate; obviously edits that make them less so should not stand. Given the history of this article there are understandably strong allergic reactions to what may seem like polemical edits from any side. Our best strategy is to avoid any sense of polemical intent; we need to rebuild mutual trust. We need productive, objective editors here; please do contribute positively. Hgilbert 11:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Edits can be criticisized and called so if the information is false and distort sources. We are trying to raise this article to good article status, and those edits were not NPOV, inaccurate distortions of the sources, and the section headings were changed so they no longer follow WP:Style. Every ones edits have been changed again and again to get exactly accurate, NPOV, without disporportionate weight, and every one has been told to justify with reasons on the talk page. Even things people worked hard to write is being removed by there author to make the article better overall. Every editor is entitled to WP:AGF when they give good reasons to justify edits. Section headings can stand to be changed or improved but not turned into inaccurate distortions. The Featured Article for today is vague in all of its section titles. "Modern era", "Language", "Religion", "Institutions". Vague is better than wrong.Venado 15:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Venado, you are describing edits in terms of 'right', 'wrong', 'true' and 'false'. I will remind you that what we are aiming for here is verifiability- assigning value judgements such as right/wrong or true/false to content is a sure road to an edit war. Also, I suggest you review WP:AGF, as you seem to be a little confused as to what this guideline is all about.--Fergie 06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you have not understood what I am saying. What is "wrong" or "false" is how the sections were retitled, not whether the information in them was verified true or false. The sections involved were verified. But when the section title was changed to say "Schools refuse to vaccinate" and that does not match the content of its section or the statements in the sources used to verify the content of that section, then the title is false, it is inaccurate, it is wrong. Similar happened repeatedly before the arbitration.Sometimes for biased effect. The sources said one thing, and how it was written here was altered or misrepresented to say something else.Because of that problem arbitrators in Review voted unanimously to Principal "Proper Use of Sources: The information used from a source in an article should accurately reflect the information contained in the source". When words chosen by editors are not accurate description of there sources, it isnt a dispute about verified/unverified. The dispute is about mischaracterization of content. I believed I understood WP:AGF, and rereading it did not changed my understanding. All editors are entitled to it. So am I. "Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence." During arbitration, one person treated me just the opposite.Then I was accused only of having a bad motive while this one accuser refused to identify even one of my actions or edits as unfair or inappropriate.Venado 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion about controversies

I think it would be better to write about controversies i there own section.

  1. Controversy about public waldorf and law suit in America.
  2. Controversy about Report Mainz TV show in Germany
  3. Controversy about outbreaks of illnesses in Colorado and Germany
  4. Controversy about reading (other sources talk about this and using them to would make this better)

The Urban school study and the Swedish school studies arent controversial so they should go somewhere else, probably a section about studies.Venado 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the headings you use here are a lot more descriptive than the headings you seem to be happy with in the article. Why is that?--Fergie 06:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As I was saying yesterday: "The section titles can be improved, but please dont make them worse. Dont add titles that distort the information found from the sources." The ones in the article are at least accurate and because of that they are more "descriptive" than section titles that are completely inaccurate. If we have a section "Controversies", the subtitles under it should just be "Report Mainz broadcast in Germany", "Outbreaks of illnesses in Colorado and Germany" ect. It would not be good style to repeeat "controversy about" in each subtitle. These controversies are sourced, and it is a good NPOV method I think to report them as controversies here. Then all sides shown in the controversy given by the sources can be reported in the article. It is not NPOV to just pick out parts on one side or another when more are given in the source.Venado 15:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment - note to current editors

Right I know I said that I was going to kick off a WP:RFC last weekend, well I did not - partly because of the brief edit war that occurred on Saturday while I was on the train. Also you will not have know this, but I spent one hour significantly copying editing the article on the train, only to find the article in a very different state when I got back online. I felt quite deflated and so focused my energies elsewhere for the weekend.

Anyway, I may have another go at the copy editing tonight (online this time), but suffice to say for this RfC lets have everything well sourced, as well as well as sorting out the little things like having ages and not grades, all in American (sigh) and well formatted. You may also be interested in the automated peer review that I have produced below for ways to improve the article.

If this RFC goes well I will be putting this article up for Wikipedia:Good articles status, because although some may disagree I think we have come a long way and this article is something we should feel real proud of.

[edit] Conduct during RfC

Remember I will be asking for this RFC based on content issues, and will be wanting to avoid any conduct issues (in fact I may move them if they come up to the ArbCom review where they belong). Please do not WP:BITE the contributors to the RfC - i.e. argue with them over minor points - but do ask for polite clarification if needed. Remember these guys will be doing us a favour by reviewing our content here. Okay on with the job Cheers Lethaniol 16:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Also note it would be useful if we do not add any new talk page sections below the RfC response section for a week or two. If a new section is needed insert it just before this section. Cheers Lethaniol 17:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Cheers Lethaniol 16:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Note though this looks like a lot of stuff, it is mostly cosmetic stuff that can be easily changed with careful copyediting - hmmm maybe I should go install an American dictionary - oh the pain. Cheers Lethaniol 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request for Comment on Content

Thank you for taking the time to come over to Waldorf Education and comment on the development of this article.

Please note this Request for Comment is only concerned with the content of article, and not with any user conduct. If you wish to comment on issues relating to user conduct please do so at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. Also note that with respect to content, the ArbCom have been quite strict with the type of references allowed - see [[7]] for more info - so please take that into account if commenting on the referencing of this article.

Having said that, these are the following questions we would most like addressed (the first two questions relate to issues that for a long time have been a problem with this article):

  1. Do you think this article is written from neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV)?
  2. Do you think the article is written in a brochure or advertisement style?
  3. Do you think the controversies section is written in a appropriate format/style?
  4. Is there anything else you can think of to generally improve the content/style/format of the article specifically with the aim of reaching Good Article status?

Again we all thank you for your time. Cheers Lethaniol 17:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I AM happy to have a look and make some comments soon.1garden 20:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(Note I have deleted all the comments from the regular editors (link here [8] to see what was said) not because I disagree but because I do not want to put outside people off which is most important. We can discuss the relevance and weight of their comments later or elsewhere Cheers Lethaniol 11:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

Hello, I have read the article. I saw the RFC and thought this is a good way to get involved in WP, no conflict of interest. I have read about WP policies.

1) Generally, I think it is NPOV. But some things dont have citations.

Some examples:

Other evidence indicates substantial downsides to looping

The Teacher education section - has a lack of citations, and is very discursive - is probably orginal research.

While Oppenheimer mentions prodigious evidence that late readers ultimately fare better at reading and other subjects than early readers doesnt follow from the quote above it - might be original research.

About the German references - I think good faith is needed.

2) no. I dont think this.

3) yes, quite good.

4) The article discusses too much. It is not as just informative as should be. I think if statements with citations are taken out this will help with this. 1garden 05:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In #4, do you mean statements WITHOUT citations? Pete K 14:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, sorry, I mean without.1garden 05:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC) I did a bit of work on this, edited this section Teacher education, first paragraph. The citation does not give this information, exactly in actual detail, so I think it needs to be deleted. I will go through this section some more, to compare with the report.212.29.211.18 04:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


May I suggest that their is far too much opinion-based content in this article? Lines and lines of quotes from various people and institutions with their opinion on Waldorf education do not contribute much to the article, particularly as some of them are similar to each other. Wouldn't it be more suitable to have references like this given as: 'institutions / people A,B, and C, have put forward this view. In contrast, institutions / people D, E, and F disagree and think dot dot dot' and then have a brief sum-up of where the debate is today. And I mean brief - this article gets very boring after the umpteenth quote! Kirsten 81.178.120.35 16:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Thoughts of Yellowpurplezebra

I've had a good read through and have a few comments to make. Just to be open from the start I'm a friend of Lethaniol who I know is a regular editor of this page - not that this should make any difference.

These are my thoughts having read the whole article from start to finish...

  • The references need to be consistant interms of whether or not there is a space before the number eg hello [1] or hello[1].
  • The word "pubity" is very vague for an age range in the Elementary Education section - surely a more specific age range can be used?
  • I think you've mixed up the four humours with the four temperments. I think you're talking about Temperaments but are calling it Humours
  • I'm a little confused about the curriculum section. Is the statement "Waldorf schools are autonomous institutions and are not required to follow a prescribed curriculum" true in all countries? Are there not government funded schools that have state curriculums to follow?
  • Science and Nature - are the bits in italics books? This isn't clear and looks like a mistake.
  • You need to keep the language consistant eg Secondary School not High School.
  • Use of Grades should be avoided as these imply different ages in different countries - stick to ages
  • I found that the Anthroposophy section under Curriculum felt odd because it is critical. To me this makes it stand out. Does this mean that the neutrality of the article is in dispute? Maybe.
  • I feel that, untill you get to the Controvesies section, it reads a bit like an advertising brochure for the schools. Why? I don't think its the language used, but rather the detail that the article goes into. Due to what feels like the vast quantity of factual info about eg the curriculum, it feels like it is trying to sell itself. I don't think that reading one section in isolation would feel like this but reading the whole lot does to me.
  • All the Reception section is positive - I think this should be deleted as it really does sound like advertising and doesn't add anything to the article.
  • I would create a new article for the Pedagogy and Curriculum sections in the same way there is a seperate History of Waldorf schools article. This would work structure wise and make all of the articles a lot more manageble. It would also stop the article from reading like a brochure.
  • Further discussion links section should have critical links also.

I think that over all this has the potential to be a very good article. Good luck! Yellowpurplezebra 23:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from a part-time Waldorf teacher

I should reveal up-front that my children went to a Waldorf school, my wife taught at several, and I have done some part-time Waldorf teaching. Having said that, I don't think the article reads with a Neutral Point of View. I don't know that I'd say it sounds like a brochure, because it would be a poor brochure if it were. But it reads like a combination of defensive and sales-y and attacking all at the same time. (Viva la Wikipedia!)

Length It's inappropriately long. As a comparison, I looked at the page for Goethe, which is about half as long. Is Waldorf education as an entry twice as important or interesting as Goethe? I don't think so. If it were about 1/3 as long, and kept to the most objective facts about Waldorf education, it would serve everyone better. A simple link to, for example AWSNA, is really all that's needed to give the reader everything else they want to know.

Here's the kind of facts I mean: It was started by Rudolf Steiner at a school in Stuttgart, Germany in 1919. It takes its inspirations from the philosophical teachings of Steiner, called Anthroposophy. There are nnn Waldorf schools throughout the world today. And so on...

These statements are facts and aren't by themselves debatable. Leave the controversy to external websites.

Jargon and catchphrases Some words used are jargon, or nearly so and really should be avoided.

For example:

Waldorf schools aim to "educate the whole child - head, heart, and hands" - to develop the intellect, emotional life, and practical abilities in harmonious balance.

I tried to rewrite this, but there's so many problems with it. First off, to be more neutral, how about "Waldorf schools state that their aim..."? But I'm much more concerned about "developing the emotional life". What could that possibly mean? I think it's jargon -- Waldorf teachers would probably agree on what it means but to anyone else it's vague and unhelpful. The whole sentence reads like a wine enthusiast's description of a fine Chardonnay. In fact there's a reason why wine taster's use and must use language like this -- and it's the same perfectly good reason that Waldorf teachers use jargon, but it has no place in an article like this. And this kind of jargon does the Waldorf movement no favors. I realize that writing this article without jargon will be harder, just as it would be for a wine taster to describe a wine without jargon. Perhaps he can't. Then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the right place to even attempt it. Maybe the article needs to say "Waldorf schools state that their education goals address more than a child's intellect. For a better understanding of this, see the link below." There's nothing debatable here -- this is a simple fact.

Enemies Apparently, Waldorf has its enemies, or perhaps I should say detractors. They should not be given forum here, just as the article should not attempt to "sell" the reader on Waldorf. Should the article remove its jargons and assertions, the sections about racism and controversies should also be removed. This isn't the place for them. This is like a judge not allowing certain evidence because it will be too inflammatory for the jury -- these accusations, by themselves, are too inflammatory.

(I'm afraid my comments are now becoming inappropriately long!) Danielbirns 21:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Its much better now, after the last editing, but still lots of uncitationed narratives. I have begun to edit the Intercultural links in socially polarized communities section that has many uncitationed wordings and information.1garden 17:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outsider's Input

I looked up this article after reading a favorable comment on Waldorf education in a parenting community and wanted to know more. I didn't notice the article's neutrality was questioned when I first began reading, but by the end I thought 'this article can't be considered neutral/up to regular Wiki standards,' and when I scrolled back up to the top, yes, there was the tag I'd missed.

The article felt very disjoint to me. Many parts of it felt random or out of place or perhaps badly integrated. For example, the racism controversy. I went attended a public school and heard racist comments all the time. Is there any particular reason to think that racism is more notable in Waldorf schools than other schools? If so, It seems that a more cogent explanation for these reasons could be presented at the beginning of the racism section, and the rest of the examples could be used to illustrate different sides of the issue. In the current article, I do not get a sense of any overall point to the racism section.

Likewise, more broadly on the subject of NPOV, the article reads to me like it's swinging back and fort from favorable to unfavorable. The good parts read as too good and the bad parts read as too bad. Overall I felt like I didn't have a very clear view of the advantages and disadvantages of a Waldorf education for my child--which I speculate is a major reason people would look up this article. There's a lot of information here, but I think it could be better presented.

Keep up the good work!----Electron —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.100.52.149 (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/l/Talk%7EWaldorf_education_0f19.html"