"

Philosophy of education
I was surprised that you did not propose to move Constructivism (philosophy of education) to Constructivist epistemology. Why discriminate against Constructivism when you feel so strongly about Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Humanism?  

Constructivism seems to be more consciously employed within the philosophy of education. I prefer to err on the side of leaving material if there might be a basis for doing so. (In addition, there is an extant article on this with considerable substance.)
There are many schools which strive to provide a humanistic education, and an article could be written about this if there are sufficient sources. This would probably be a little different than an article on humanism as a philosophy of education. Why (I ask rhetorically)? Isn't it less a coherent philosophy of education, than a coherent philosophy, which some have tried to apply in an educational context?
Behaviorism in the philosophy of education, could perhaps be a helpful section of the behaviorism article, but it doesn't seem to justify an article in its own right.   

I write in historical context about what has already happened in education not about what might be or could be, which leads me to suggest that your viewpoint is not one of an educator. As an educator, philosophies of learning and philosophies of instruction are distinct and that distinction is very important. The descriptive and the perscriptive are frequently confused in Wikipedia articles. Unraveling that confusion is a monumental task. the vocabulary used by Philosophy majors and Psychology majors overlaps with the work of Education majors but one does not exempt the other . . . and where there are differences, the differences are significant. Please exercise care in exempting the work of other disciplines . . . it does not lead to cooperation.   

  The Civility Barnstar Thanks for your help with the Philosophy of education article!  

Biodynamic agriculture
I think you need to review the ArbCom findings once again. It doesn't seem you've learned from all that's been discussed on the matters in general, or the specific concerns pertaining to you.   

There were specific concerns raised in that ArbCom about skeptics pushing their viewpoint. Placing an NPOV template on an article that uses exclusively mainstream sources because ""the topic is by definition pseudoscientific"" is a classic example of the latter. I still have seen no justification for the template on the talk page that addresses the actual framework of the article. For example, which sources would you add, use less, or remove?   
Seems like you're setting yourself up for further ArbCom actions, and are sticking to a battleground mentality. Good luck with that.   
I'm really interested in sorting out the article, not battling. Please indicate what concrete issues there are on the talk page. Perhaps we can find some productive way of actually improving the article. (That would be nice.)   
Useful?
The approach has ""a holistic interpretation of the inter-relationship between soil, plants and animals as a self-nourishing system""

 Re: Spirituality 

Hi fellow editor, could you do me a favour and read over the Sikh section to see if it makes sense? Thanks  

I've compressed it considerably. I hope not too much, but only a brief overview is needed here. Sikhism should provide further details.   
No that's good. Sometimes like me when you are clo