Talk:Waldorf education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 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)
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of alternative education and related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Waldorf education article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
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.
Archive
Archives
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8


Contents

[edit] npov tag

An ip editor put an NPOV tag on the article with the internal comment "no criticism?". While there is no criticism section there are the available reliably sourced critical information in many sections. I have removed the tag, but would invite discussion on the issue if there are editors who feel we need to reevaluate the criticism issue. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are to be avoided according to WP:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure and WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure but all viewpoints need to be represented. I think one problem is that a lot of the criticism is not supported by reliable sources. It would be good to enumerate the criticisms that are embedded in the article, for example in the reception and controversy section. Also I think it would be quite good to look to specific criticisms that are not represented in the article and see how they can be incorporated without violating the rules of the arbitration ruling, for example, the controversy over the racial ethnography block in some Dutch schools. --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the current way is fine (prefereable really). I was under the impression that noone has found reliable sources for additional criticisms (especially quite specific ones' like you mention). To be honest, I have not looked very hard for any additional sources for this article and am unlikely to have much time or inclination to do so either (unless there seems to be some good reasons to do it). So, unless anyone else has an opinion, I'm going to consider the matter dropped. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd call it a "drive-by" tagging. Still happening today. I'm reverting to support Rocksanddirt, not necessarily to claim that there are no problems with the article. If the IP editor wants that tag to stick, he or she is going to have to explain it and point to something specific. The IP editor could, for example, review the article History and Talk and see if criticism has been improperly removed, and restore it, or point to some reliable source for criticism, etc. Just replacing the tag without some detail is not acceptable. I'm sure there is some criticism with reliable source; for example the PLANS lawsuit can be cited, or coverage or analysis of it. That would have to be attributed, and if there are issues over this, I'd be happy to assist, ask me on my Talk page. --Abd (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't have to, another editor reverted it. And if this keeps up, I could take it to AN/I and the IP could be blocked. By the way, I'm probably more of a critic of Waldorf education than a supporter, but, hey, this is an encyclopedia. I'm just not personally exercised right now to work on the article. Other stuff, you know. One comment, though, Steiner would like. NPOV is indeed the product of integrating, into a single "narrative," apparently opposing points of view. When we can see something from two points of view at the same time (Steiner would call this "affinity" and "aversion"), we get depth perception. He called it "higher consciousness."--Abd (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I very much agree. The issue here is sources. Due to the unpleasantess of a year - year and half a go, the sourcing requirements for these articles are a bit tighter than normal 'reliable source' criteria. In a normal article, we could you the 'Renewal' Journal of the ASWANA for some things (especially about how waldorf education in the US presents itself), but since it's a movement published journal we can't. And since nearly all critial matter is either in such journals of national associations or forum/blog posts at 'attack' sites, we have very little sourced criticism, which leads to articles that are less neutral than they probably should be. Appearantly someone did block the ip's in question, I don't know if they are disruptive enough for that, however these recent ip's seem to have been evaluated as 'evading arb topic ban'. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Rocksanddirt wrote: "these recent ip's seem to have been evaluated as 'evading arb topic ban'". Yes, it seems they've been "evaluated" that way. If anyone is aware of when/where/how this was determined, and can find evidence of this or even anyone bothering to make a CLAIM or even post a HINT about what that evidence might be, it would be a service to post it here. Otherwise the very clear impression an objective person would gain is that the IP was blocked on no rationale other than other editors don't like what he or she was posting. If there was really some evidence, why would all the questions about it be ignored? What would be so hard about posting that evidence? The user (Shalom) who supposedly "evaluated" this ignored all my questions. The vague notion that the IP is in the same (enormous) region of the country as a previously banned user, and blocking an unknown person for this flimsy excuse, really makes wikipedia procedures a joke.DianaW (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links to Waldorf homeschooling

So what links are acceptable as external links for Waldorf homeschooling? How about these two non-commercial resources:

Perhaps there should be a new section in this article on the subject. Or should there be a separate article on Waldorf homeschooling with links to homeschooling and alternative education? --EPadmirateur (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Those look much better than the previous links, which were arguably spam. Hgilbert (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Omit Sound Circle Teacher Training Center?

Is this a valid and recognized Waldorf teacher training center? Even though "David-Michael and Glenda are no longer in Seattle"? This center is currently listed as an "AWSNA Developing Institute" by the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America. It has what appears to be a bona fide Board of Trustees and faculty and appears to be offering a bona fide on-going Waldorf teacher training program. So why can't this program be listed among the teacher training external links? It certainly appears still to be in operation despite the claim "IT'S NOT THERE ANY MORE!" I don't understand.... --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, it seems to be there. revert the removal. just because the founders moved on doesn't mean the center fell apart. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acknowledge sources

The actual sources used in the article are third-party and peer-reviewed studies of the education. Thus, it is more correct to say that the education is how they describe it, than that "proponents" (whom the article does not cite) describe it this way. We are not looking at how proponents describe it, we are looking at how it is described by objective reviewers. In case of conflicting descriptions (show that this is the case) it would be better, of course, to write that some reviewers/studies have described it as being this way. Otherwise, we are using verifiable sources that describe a phenomenon and should accept their descriptions as accurate unless there are reasonable grounds to doubt this (e.g. conflicts between studies).

Similarly, that it is the aim of the education to nurture children's destiny has been established with reference to verifiable sources. This is true whether or not they have such a destiny; this is a philosophical argument that doesn't belong in an education article.

There is a distinction between independent academic sources and proponents. The material sourced here is explicitly not from Waldorf sources, but from independent studies. Wording should reflect this. Hgilbert (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"The education's claimed goal..." - 1) this is simply misleading, as it is not internal sources that are cited, but (three!) independent analyses from verifiable sources. 2) The phrasing contradicts the policy on weasel words. Hgilbert (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources for the goal are:

  • Hether, Christine Anne, The moral reasoning of high school seniors from diverse educational settings, Ph.D. dissertation, Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center, 2001, 209 pages; AAT 3044032
  • Peter Schneider, Einführung in die Waldorfpädogogik, Klett-Cotta 1987, ISBN 3-608-93006-X
  • Armon, Joan, "The Waldorf Curriculum as a Framework for Moral Education: One Dimension of a Fourfold System.",
  • Abstract), Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24-28, 1997), p. 1
  • Ronald V. Iannone, Patricia A. Obenauf, "Toward Spirituality in Curriculum and Teaching", page 737, Education, Vol 119 Issue 4, 1999
  • Thomas William Nielsen, Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy Of Imagination: A Case Study Of Holistic Education, Peter Lang Pub Inc 2004 ISBN 3039103423

These are all peer-reviewed authors independent of the Waldorf movement. Hgilbert (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"These are all peer-reviewed authors independent of the Waldorf movement." Can you back that statement up? Anyway, since there are critics, the goal cannot be stated as universal.--Svetovid (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you cite a (verifiable) source that disputes the point or suggests anything different? The question is not whether the education has critics, but whether they have disputed that the aims of the education are as cited. Absent any contrary voices, the statement stands as not just one claim among many, but a valid description of the education.

Nevertheless, in acknowledgment of your concerns I have added wording indicating that the sources for the statement are studies of the education. It still appears superfluous, as the citations (footnotes) serve the same purpose, but at least it is accurate now. Hgilbert (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the general point that the "overarching" goals of the education are matters of demonstrable fact from reliable sources both within the movement and from independent researchers. However, the revised wording of the introduction, I think, is actually very good, so this interchange has been very helpful in my view. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick comment on references

an IP editor just added some stuff and references "Renewal" which is a Journal of AWSNA and may not be appropriate (the whole section it's in is leaning away from the topic). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the edit. The rewording was OK, but the added reference was not per the arbitration ruling (Waldorf publisher).Henitsirk (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So let's keep some of the wording. It improves the article. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There are aspects of the Arbitration decision that are problematic. ArbComm was created and designed to arbitrate editor behavior, not to interfere with editorial consensus, and if we keep the policies of the encyclopedia and its ultimate goal in mind, strict reading of a decision that seems to have been rather incautiously worded by current ArbComm standards may not be appropriate. If text inserted into the article is verifiable, and reliably so, that it is published by an anthroposophical source does not necessarily mean that it cannot be used; it might, however, be required that it be attributed. "According to Renewal, a journal published by the American Waldorf School Association, ...." The journal is notable. On the other hand, if the mere fact of a claim in the article in Renewal introduces some imbalance, then it *might* be excludable, but, normally, the solution to imbalance is more material, not less. For example, PLANS is also notable.... and thus PLANS opinion may be notable, particularly where expressed in a public document like the court filings. Perhaps, in light of the article probation, we should work on any controversial text here, first, seeking editorial consensus. That's not a bad idea in any case. There is also WP:BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss. Make a bold edit, wait for someone to revert it, and then, if it is reverted, do not revert it back, but engage the editor(s) in discussion. However, any editor under restriction should not do this, unless the editor immediately self-reverts. (And that COI editor may then invite support for the edit from someone who is not COI; making the change then is simply a matter of reverting it back in. If an editor agrees.)--Abd (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)