":::""#The one where you add ""and sometimes unfortunately"". You drift into pure editorializing; this needs some other formulation that isn't a pure projection of your opinion and/or personal experiences. I happen to be a champion within the Waldorf movement of revising the emphasis on the eight-year class teacher period. But the opposite of ""brochure speak"" is ""antagonist speak""; both may make statements that appear clear, objective and meaningful to the person making them - but are too broad and too vague simultaneously. It is ""weasel"" language; unattributed, both unprovable and undisprovable. ""  The percentage of teachers who make it through 8 years with a single class is staggeringly LOW - so what starts as a lofty goal often ends up as an interruption of the children's education - and often under difficult circumstances.  Making the claim that a teacher stays with the class for 8 years is brochure speech not supported by reality.  It's like saying - ""it is the intention of each baseball player to bat 1000"".  It is meaningless except for the purpose of sucking people into a set of ideals that aren't part of reality.  If you don't like the statement that points out the reality of the situation, then we should remove the claim completely.

""#The wholesale removal of the section on rhythm in the kindergarten. It needed revision, but not removal. I would replace it with something like: ""Waldorf early-childhood pedagogy believes that clear daily and weekly rhythms are essential for the child's healthy development and emotional security. [citation] [reference to the elements of this rhythm] It also believes that both the seasons and festivals relating to the course of the year provide central formative experiences.[citation]"" This is a huge part of Waldorf's approach to early-childhood education and needs mention.""  I don't disagree that this is part of the pedagogy, but the wording has to be concise.  ""Essential for the child's healthy development and emotional security"" - you sound like Donald Rumsfeld with your terrorist scare tactics here.  Yes, let's all just scare the parents into Waldorf education.  How about just saying ""rhythms during the day and through the year are thought to be important""?  What you wrote above is the type of brochure speech that riddles this article and makes it impossible to view it as other than a advertisement.

""Others of your edits I have already revised and a middle ground has been found; this process will continue, I would expect. I have not been reverting your edits generally; only blatant editorializing (which I have sometimes managed to convert into something meaningful)."" Your ""middle ground"" and mine are in very different places, my friend.  Blatant editorializing is what my edits have been removing.  Just because I haven't had time to go back and re-word what you believe you have made ""meaningful"" doesn't mean it has any validity in this article.  As long as you, a Waldorf teacher, is here making this article ""meaningful"" - there will be no end to the controversy here.

""The tag should go because it is presently unjustified, as you all agree; it is inaccurate in its present form; why are you advocating keeping something that is not accurate? If it becomes accurate, it should go back; that's easy enough to do."" Nobody agrees - as far as I know, with what you have said above - although one polemic editor besides yourself did remove the tag.  The tag is completely justified.  Here's the next paragraph that needs brochure speech removed: 

""According to Steiner, the child at this early stage learns through imitation and example,[4] so in Waldorf it is considered best to surround him with the goodness of the world and caring, practically active adults to emulate. The curriculum attempts to awaken the child's will and initiative; the teacher has the responsibility for providing an environment that stimulates imitation. In Waldorf, such an environment is believed to support the physical and spiritual growth of the child. Formal learning is absent, and experiences of the written language are consciously avoided. Oral language development is addressed through circle games (songs, poems and games in movement), daily story time (normally recited from memory) and the range of practical activities.""

And there are more and more similar paragraphs that require lots of work.  I'm sorry if it is offensive to you as a Waldorf teacher, to find out that lots and lots of people besides you feel it is best to surround children with goodness.  In fact, maybe you should point out schools who, as their goal, consider it best to surround children with something other than goodness.  There is absolutely no justification for removing the tag while this type of language fills the article.  There was, at one time, a promise of a re-write of the article (most of which, I belie