Talk:History of Waldorf schools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Citations Needed

Here we go again... another Waldorf brochure page. The inflated numbers regarding kindergartens are estimated based on some optimistic view. These probably include "Waldorf inspired" groups. I'm pretty sure AWSNA has not permitted the use of the trademarked Waldorf name to every waldorf-inspired kindergarten that pops up in the US. Why can't any of these pages stick to the actual facts and stop trying to make Waldorf into something it isn't? --Pete K 15:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This article cites exactly one reference, and it's from a Waldorf promotional organization. Anybody want to do anything about this - or shall we delete it? It's been in violation of the arbitration ruling for months now. The anthroposophists will do nothing about this if they are not forced to. I will propose it for deletion unless I see that it gets fixed in the next week or so.DianaW 03:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you wish this article to be next for cleanup according to the arbitration guidelines, propose this and give it enough months - as were required with other articles - for this to be done properly. By the way, A. sources are permitted for non-controversial aspects of a subject. Hgilbert 11:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I *am* proposing it, and you've already had months. The arbitration was back in January and applied to the entire "family" of Steiner/Waldorf/anthroposophy articles on wikipedia. Fred Bauder was clear that the basic problem is using only or mainly anthroposophical sources to "document" that anthroposophy is the greatest thing since sliced bread. There are a couple dozen such articles that are exactly that - little mini-brochures that function to suggest anthroposophy does so many wonderful things for mankind. Like I say, the arbitration was in January, and it is clearly quite all right with the anthropsophists who have written all these articles that they sit forever and ever like this if no one hollers. I'm saying, either get to work fixing them or they should be deleted. Wikipedia isn't free advertising.DianaW 12:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Diana, what exactly about the content of this page bothers you? I see nothing at all that says "greatest thing since sliced bread" I also see nothing that is like advertising, but rather facts about the origin and formation of Waldorf schools. If you could be more specific, I would be happy to help. Thanks. Henitsirk 02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"greatest thing since sliced bread" is an expression used by Mr Bauder in a comment at one time in one discussion about about WE, I think. Thebee 09:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is now properly referenced and in accordance with the arbitration rulings. Hgilbert 17:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't be serious. It has three cited references and one item in the bibliography. Three of these four items are from anthroposophical sources.DianaW 17:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What I wrote is quite specific, Henitsirk. The anthroposophical references violate the arbitration ruling.DianaW 13:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Anybody unclear about what goes on here should merely read this page paying attention to the dates. September 2006 is the first complaint that the article is clearly full of bogus stuff. Numerous anthroposophists watch this page, but no one replied. The overall strategy was simple: flood wikipedia with dozens of anthroposophy-positive articles. Clean up the mess only if and/or when forced to. The next comment is 11 months later! Hgilbert then preposterously replies that he has not had enough time to work on this yet. Now he sits back to see whether I will follow through (which is an open question, since I have a life.)DianaW 13:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)