Well, I'm more optimistic.  When the Waldorf fanatics get past the notion that Wikipedia is a great place to advertise their schools, we will, perhaps, see an honest and fair article.  The article has to describe what Waldorf isn't as much as it describes what Waldorf is.  The flowery language has to disappear, and actual facts need to be presented.  The Waldorf supporters here feel that by linking to Waldorf sources that use the flowery language, they are following Wikipedia policy - and that might be true to some degree in some cases.  The point, however, is that the flowery language is not encyclopedia language, it is brochure language.  So justified as they may feel about their inclusion of this language, it will be deleted little by little.  That people think it is innocuous to say stuff like "Waldorf education's described aim is to educate what it terms the "whole child", incorporating a balance of physical activity, artistic creativity and academic work against the backdrop of its well-defined stages of child development" - is part of the problem.  It would be JUST AS CORRECT to say "Steiner's described aim for Waldorf education was to induct children into Anthroposophy and Waldorf schools represent Anthroposophical indoctrination centers."  That's just as true as the previous statement (and can be supported by the text of "Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner") - so why aren't we putting that language in the article?   

 Finding some "neutral" language means both sides have to give A LOT in order to make this article work.  The editors here, who are primarily Anthroposophists, aren't about to let this version of the truth make it into the article, and, having experience the true nature of Waldorf education for over 15 years, I'm not about to let the dishonest flowery brochure language stay either.  So, for the time being, the edit wars will continue - whether it be on the project pages, the discussion pages or on the article itself.  I am no more responsible for this than the Waldorf supporters who refuse to allow an honest evaluation of Waldorf reside in this article.  If you want to work on getting a resolution to this problem, Wonderactivist, you might want to start with where the problem itself started, the Waldorf supporting editors on your project team.  They are responsible for the brochure that is here, and they aren't willing to budge from this language.  I went to the trouble (in good faith) of re-writing the existing article to produce what I believe is a reasonable starting point.  It hasn't been taken seriously by your project team.  Not a problem for me - I'll start putting in the language from my starting point in the article and we can hash it out in the article itself I guess.  It will be up to you guys to point out what's unacceptable with it.  That's the only way I can see to proceed from here. Obviously, the rest of the project group can work as a team now, and can childishly revert my edits endlessly - so it shouldn't be too much of a problem for you guys.