Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 5

message: I went to this article because a friend of mine was hired to teach a foreign language at a Waldorf school and she mentioned that it was 'quirky' and I wanted to hear a little more about it.  The article gives a pretty decent impression of 'quirky', but the talk page definitely underscores 'quirky'.
One thing that would really help is contextualizing Waldorf education a bit.  There could be a comparative section talking about antecedents in other educational philosophies and how Waldorf education has effected other movements (public education, etc).  Also, the varying degrees to which Waldorf schools adhere to the pure Waldorf philosophy would be good as would a discussion for how these schools are "accredited" as Waldorf schools.
Also, a discussion about how well Waldorf students do in college, later in life, etc. would be most illuminating.  I know nothing about educational databases, but google scholar isn't showing much, but somebody has got to be interested in this.  Even without objective studies of this kind, though, there has to be speculation from pro- and anti-Waldorf positions which could be mentioned.  Right now, there is nothing remotely critical in the article, which makes it seem a little biased.
129.2.180.156 18:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The severely biased presentation in this article is being disputed in arbitration.  Waldorf-produced studies are, of course, biased as well (note the way statements are carefully worded).  We typically find statements that suggest huge percentages of students are accepted into college.  A closer look reveals that two or three students were accepted into multiple colleges and a great number of students don't get into (or more importantly don't want to go to) college at all. Pete K 20:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context and Bias 

message: I'm wondering why section 3.10 includes a link to a Waldorf School Parent Handbook as a reference for Waldorf schools discouraging open communication among parents.
1) The arbitration Findings of Fact and Remedy state that "information gathered from Anthroposophical related sources which are for verification purposes [are] properly considered self-published by the Anthroposophy movement", and "Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications."  A Waldorf School Parent Handbook would fall under these criteria.
2) If the list begins with "Among the most common are" then more citations should be given showing that it is *common* for Waldorf schools to actively discourage open communication.  One citation does not prove a trend.
3) I would like to see the page number in the referenced handbook that shows that open communcation is discouraged.  Pages 14-16, "To Whom Should I Speak" and "School Wide Communcations Guidelines" state that if a community member has a problem, they should speak directly to the parties involved.  This reads like a guideline for discouraging gossip, not quashing open communication. 
I didn't edit the page itself because I'm not interesting in participating in an edit war.  However I'd like to see the Waldorf Education page comply with Wikipedia guidelines as well as provide neutral and factual information.
Henitsirk 02:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Discouraging gossip" and "discouraging open communications" is EXACTLY the same thing worded differently (except one has the POV characterization "gossip").  Let's let the reader decide for themselves what it means... OK?  "Anthroposophy-related publications" could technically mean any publication that discusses Anthroposophy - so we need to go with the intent of what the ArbCom decided.  A parent handbook is not being used to support brochure language (like that prevalent in the article) - but to support straight-forward factual information about how Waldorf schools deal with things like dress codes and media.  There's nothing here that says "Waldorf students thrive in wonderful environments developed specifically to enhance the imagination."  It's straight talk about what Waldorf tolerates and what it doesn't tolerate.  Regarding point 2 above, the entire article talks in this kind of language - about what is common in Waldorf (students commonly learn two foreign languages).  Should we take out all that language (maybe we should)?  Regarding "factual" information - are you suggesting anything that has been presented in the "What Waldorf Discourages" is not factual? It is all factual.  Pete K 07:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I'll see what I can come up with.  This particular thing is very difficult to establish, of course, without presenting a *pattern* - a bunch of schools doing the same or similar things.  Even if I show one school doing this, people will say it's only one school.  I already know of many that treat communications among parents as if it's gossip or destructive.  Very few (if any - I've actually yet to see one) Waldorf schools have a parent forum connected to their websites.  Why not?  Wouldn't it be better for students in any number of ways (safety being the first to come to mind) if parents could communicate more easily. This apparently never happens at Waldorf.  Controlling communications is something that is particularly appealing to Waldorf schools.  Anyway, getting off my soap box, I'll look for a source that talks about this. Pete K 03:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless you are moving up the timetable from the weekend to today, the agreement has been to leave uncited sources until the weekend.  Pete K 17:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pete K-Much of that material was put there by you after the arbitration.  It is very clear that material in the involved articles has to be sourced, and if it is controversial, sourced by non Steiner publishers.  When you put it there you said you would source it by the end of the day but that was more than 10 days ago.  Instead of edit warring over it, can you put in the sources?  How much more time do you need to find a source for the material you included?  I think after the arbitration editors need to be sure new material is sourced before it goes in.  Venado 18:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I sourced it immediately to Waldorf parent handbooks - which I felt was the appropriate souce for this information since it may vary from school to school.  These sources were rejected so I am now re-sourcing them.  Are you saying I should have less time to source my material than everyone else?  Why? Pete K 19:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm suggesting that its best to source the material, not edit war about it.  It is necessary in the involved articles to stick to the policy: no Steiner or Waldorf published material.  Every time some body tries to bend the rule for adding or keping there pet material some body will complain and revert it, and the articles are in probation because it is a long term problem with to much reverts.  Venado 19:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and we've given ourselves until the weekend to do this.  If some editors aren't going to comply with this, then they should let us know so all the unsourced material can be removed all at once.  Editors who are selectively removing the material they don't like and leaving the material they do are not helping here.  All the unsourced material should be removed at once so there is no edit-warring.  It is one editor's anxiousness to remove the material he doesn't like that is starting this up again.  Pete K 19:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey guys please stop arguing. Get on with finding these sources instead - the if, buts and maybes do not matter. I suggest leaving Pete's edit in until the weekend deadline, as for everything else, and delete if not sourced then - no big deal. In terms of adding info after the ArbCom - I have seen a number of editors add non-allowed sourced statements in since then - I suggest if this happens again delete the added source and any added statement. I only suggest making an exception in this case because the deadline is so near and better that you lot concentrate on that. Cheers Lethaniol 19:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Waldorf Discourages 

message: Pete K has removed four links from one of my postings above regarding research on Waldorf education. The first was to the probably most complete list of studies on or related to Waldorf education, made during the last 70 years, found on the net. The second was to a summary of the four first of six partial reports from a recent study on Waldorf education by a Swedish research group at the University of Karlstad (Sweden). The third was to a study of North American Waldorf graduates, published at the site of Waldorf Library. The fourth was to a study by the academic director of the Institute of Education at the University of Mainz, published in Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education (Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education). I have restored the links.  Thebee 11:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're Waldorf sources, they're not allowed.  BS studies by Waldorf people are outta here.  Independent studies can stay.  If they're independent studies, point to the independent source, not the Waldorf source. And please don't call me a vandal - I'm about to put fact tags on about 200 sentences (per your instructions) on this article and I'm also about to remove many more Waldorf sources.  That's part of what we're supposed to be doing here. Pete K 14:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The WHOLE ARTICLE is about educational philosophy.  The "Educational Philosophy" sub-section is redundant for the most part - the "Pedagogy" section covers the same material.  I'm inclined to merge the two sections.  If Waldorf education in its entirety isn't about educational philosophy, then what is it?  Merging this material would cut the already too long article down considerably.  I'd like opinions from editors who aren't encumbered by a conflict of interest. Pete K 15:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks for the definitions.  I already knew the difference.  Your comment above notwithstanding, the information doesn't need to be separated in this way especially when 75% of it is redundant from one section to the other.  People reading this will, in all likelyhood, become bored with the redundancy.  Not everybody who reads this will be as naturally excited about Waldorf as some of us.  Let's not make them read about main lesson books in every paragraph. Pete K 01:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be merging these two sections later this week since there is no support for keeping them separate. Pete K 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Educational Philosophy 

message: You repeatedly act as if you own not only the article on Waldorf education and all other articles related to it, but also this discussion, by telling who in your view should answer and who not, what people can do and what they cannot do. That violates the WP:OWN policy. The policy against it exemplifies the prohibited behaviour with:
:"The editor may state or imply that changes must be reviewed by him/her before they can be added to the article. This does not include egregious formatting errors.
:Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not. This does not include removing vandalism."
Thebee 15:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership attitude 

message: Perhaps we're so far down the page, that this just gets skipped. But, I'm really beginning to feel as though my pleas for courtesy and politesse in this regard are wasted. This is NOT a forum! Be polite! No personal attacks! Be welcoming!
Thebee: Your personal attacks since my arrival a mere 6 days ago, which are here (one attack), here (two attacks) and here (three attacks), in addition to your persistent and unapologetic references to materials rules as "self-published" by the ArbComm here and here, which are compounded by your aggressive editing here are worth their weight in gold if your trying to give the ArbComm ample cause to ban your editing privs. Is this what you really want? If it is, then by all means - keep it up!
Moreover, it's clear that you have me confused with someone else, as I am a 6'2", 190lb man - so don't refer to me as "Mylady." I also do not particularly advocate the use of first names in discussion, especially in controversial matters such as this. But if your so concerned about my "true colors" or an alternate way of addressing me in discussions - you may address me as "Captain" or "Sir," just like everyone but my closest friends and family do.
I introduced myself to you as a civil person. Believe me friend, when I say that your conduct tests the extreme limits of my restraint.
Pete K: I know Thebee is provocative and plays both sides of the rules. Indeed, the only reason I said "Oh for goodness sake!" in my prior post, was because I thought it a better option [and a responsible, Wikipedia-acceptable one] than swearing and referring to him in crude and unsavory terms - which believe me, I did do at length on this side of the monitor. 
That's no excuse though, to let him suck you in to his bad behavior and allow him to make you do the same in retaliation. You've demonstrated yourself as an important resource here. So, I implore you - don't blow it by playing Thebee's game. I know it's a challenge and he tests the limits of restraint - but don't give in to the temptation of personal retaliation through pejoratives.
So people, it's time for every editor here to decide what side they're on - meaning the side of the quest for knowledge and a well-written NPOV article on Waldorf Education, versus the side of edit-warring, barbs, jabs and generally personal attacks. If you're editing in favor of the latter, then you have no place here or on Wikipedia at all for that matter. So please go away, or I turn my focus to your removal; I have no more patience for this behavior.
I'm here to write the article and collaborate with those who are here for the same reason. I am not however, here to defend myself or scold people for breaking the rules they agreed to when they registered for their account.
I'll say it again - follow the rules, and we'll all get along just fine. 
But one more personal attack [I don't care who commits it] and I'm taking the matter to the ArbComm. Please don't make me do that.
- Wikiwag 15:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely hear you Wikiwag.  I have brought this to an administrator's attention here - where TheBee has questioned your identity.  When you first arrived, I offered to keep an eye on your edits for you - and I appreciate that you are keeping an eye on mine.  While I have a few years of experience dealing with TheBee (and similar), and despite truly believing I know best how to handle his behavior, I'll acquiesce to what you say above and redouble my efforts to keep from getting "sucked into" these side discussions.  Thanks for being the voice of reason here.  Pete K 15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiwag, if you think it is an insult to you to adress you as if you were a woman when I should have adressed you with "Captain", I apologize.  Thebee 16:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks and disruptive conduct. 

message: Thanks guys. Apologies gratefully received and accepted. I'm confident we won't have to go down this path again - we're all adults, after all.
I think we can all accept there are rivalries of opinion here - let us find a way to work within them. Lincoln led a team of bitter rivals in his cabinet to save the Union, and I believe we can in principle, accomplish the same thing here - so long as we stick to the merits, the facts [independently confirmed and cited], the rules and establish an atmosphere of respect and good faith.
We all personally know Waldorf teachers, are teachers, or have been intimately involved in the process from a parental POV - so it's safe to say that we all have some idea of what we're talking about - much moreso than the average person who is looking for objective answers on Waldorf Education. That fact qualifies us all.
But, it's almost certain that we will disagree on certain points. If we can agree to disagree however - calling such matters "controversial" or "in dispute" and refrain from editing the actual article until the discussion is fully fleshed out on the discussion page, then we will all be stronger for it - and so will this article.
So with that said, let's get a sense of the points in the article that we agree on - and what we disagree on, starting with the General description that precedes the TOC and Pedagogy sections.
Hgilbert - I think it's safe for you to come back if you like. I know I personally would like your help to help cite facts that I know to be true, but I lack the actual familiarity to point to the definitive source. I likewise extend an invitation to any person with experience in Waldorf Education [and can follow the rules!] to join us in this endeavor.
I'll open two separate topics for the first to points for discussion.
Thanks in advance everyone for moving forward in good faith, and letting bygones be bygones.
- Wikiwag 18:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So let's get down to business. 

message: I personally and thoroughly edited this section and my edits seem to have been generally allowed to stand. What do you guys think? - Wikiwag 18:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Pedagogy Section 

message: Trueblood, you have deleted the following:  	
*Use of black art supplies [paint, crayon, dye, paper, cloth, yarn, etc.]
Is there a reason?  This is true in my experience as well and, in fact, Waldorf teachers are, again in my experience, also discouraged from wearing black.  I'm tempted to put it back in off-handedly but I'll see if I can find a source that supports this.  It would have been better to tag it, I think. Pete K 19:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unacceptable as sources. Thatcher131 07:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm not providing them as sources to a claim in the article.  I'm suggesting that these represent anecdotal evidence that the claim is a common practice in Waldorf and not a controversial issue that needs to be contested here. Pete K 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding that I fully understand that EVERYTHING at this point is controversial and nothing will be added without sources.  It was really a "just sayin'" comment (above). Pete K 15:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added back a different souce for this claim. Pete K 17:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black in Waldorf 

message: Thatcher 131 wrote above:
:"I also notice that these articles, despite the article probation, rely heavily on anthroposophy-published documents as sources, in spite of the arbitration ruling determining that they should be removed. Documents originating with anthroposophy, the Waldorf foundation, or Rudolph Stiener are not acceptable as sources either for claims that Waldorf is good, or for claims that Waldorf is bad. Things ranging from the complex (whether Steiner was racist) to the simple (whether Waldorf schools discourage parental communication) can not be sourced to primary documents. They are not considered reliable sources for several reasons. Generally if you are using Waldorf materials to describe the benefits etc., you run afoul of the self-serving limits of the reliable source policy, and if you are citing Waldorf documents to "prove" they have problems, you are violating the "interpreting primary sources to draw a conclusion is original research" limitation."
Coming off of two recent blocks, I'm not exactly comfortable having to be the one to do this, but rather than see the articles locked up, I'm going to stick my neck way out and try.  I have started going through the article and removing these sources - I am placing {fact} tags on the claims they refer to.  At some point, there will certainly be a lot of citations flags on the article (like there were when I did this months ago).  This is a difficult time and some will look at the article and cry "vandalism" (I know at least one person for sure will).  If I am doing something that is inappropriate, please let me know.  Weeks have gone by and as Thatcher131 says, the sources still remain.  It's a difficult job particularly when we have to edit war over each source.  I am, therefore, deleting all the sources and we can look at the new sources that replace them carefully.  I would say if we cannot find a source within a week, the claims should simply be removed. Again, if I have overstepped some line of good editing by doing this, please let me know.  Some of us actually believed we were going to get some assistance from the pro-Waldorf editors on this.  Instead, we are getting complaints when we do what the ArbCom has asked for.  Pete K 15:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone through and tagged most of everything.  Regarding external links, what is the ruling there.  Several of the links are to environments similar to TheBee's self-promoting, defamatory websites or other original research sites.  Can these be safely removed?  Should they be? Pete K 16:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there are going to be further rulings. They're waiting for us to eat each other alive.DianaW 00:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting Sources 

message: HGilbert, you have selectively deleted an unsourced statement that has been in the article.  Is it your intention to delete ALL unsourced statements or just the ones you want to delete.  If we're going to delete one, let's delete them all and re-write from scratch.  I'm going to replace the statement because what you are doing here is generating a pretext for ALL unsourced statements to be removed.  Please give editors time to re-source these statements.  Thanks! Pete K 15:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you give refers to the correction of a section title in accordance with the text it describes. Thebee 16:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant this one. Pete K 16:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TheBee, perhaps this one has slipped your mind - can we have an answer on this or should the claim be removed? Thanks! Pete K 18:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There are several claims made.  Again, I ask, are all the claims covered by the two remaining sources. Pete K 00:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting Unsourced Statements 

message: TheBee, a statement was previously sourced by three sources and you have here removed the fact tag that was put on when one of the sources was removed.  Can you confirm that the two remaining sources fully support the statement, or are you just assuming this? Pete K 16:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you give refers to the correction of a section title in accordance with the text it describes. Thebee 16:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant this one. Pete K 16:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TheBee, perhaps this one has slipped your mind - can we have an answer on this or should the claim be removed? Thanks! Pete K 18:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There are several claims made.  Again, I ask, are all the claims covered by the two remaining sources. Pete K 00:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Fact tag

message: Lethaniol, I wasn't sure how else to reply to your message about my adding a disallowed source, so I'm discussing it here.  Please let me know if there's a better way to do this.
I added a citation for the following: However, "no religion, including Christianity, is promulgated in a Waldorf school."
Since this is a quotation, I simply added the citation for that quote, which when Googled brings up the web site I cited.  Yes, it's from AWSNA, and the religion section is controversial, but I don't think it's right to have unattributed quotations. Perhaps the quotation needs to be deleted entirely. Any thoughts?  Thanks.Henitsirk 02:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think it's exactly the type of statement we shouldn't take AWSNA's word for.  If we can't find some source outside of Anthropsophy to confirm this, I think the statement cannot be defended and should come out.  Pete K 03:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, quoting AWSNA is not appropriate here.  We all get that AWSNA wants to paint a particular picture of Waldorf.  Having a quote from them talking about how great Waldorf is is exactly what the ArbCom said we can't do here.  AWSNA is not a good source to make this claim.  Pete K 16:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Uhrmacher article in "Curriculum Review" has a good description that could be useful.  "There is a spiritual dimension to Waldorf education, a nondenominational Christianity that manifests itself in an occasional verse, classroom decoration, or holiday celebration.  Waldorf educators do not proselytize, however.  They do not teach children to become Christians and they are not out to create young anthroposophists."  I think he would be a good source, a professor of education at University of Denver who has published education research papers and books which is better than some of the other sources suggested so far.  Venado 16:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like an acceptable source.  I ran across one study recently that said 2/3 of graduating Waldorf students in this particular study went on to become Waldorf teachers... so I'm not sure about the "create young anthroposophists" part (in fact I don't believe it's true).  I think the main intention of Waldorf education is to create Anthroposphists.  But back to the point - as references go, it seems, as you say, better than other sources. Pete K 16:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw you discussing this finding in the study before, and I read the link.  From what I read it looks like what happened was you misred the result.  What was linked was not a study about waldorf schools.  It was a study about waldorf teacher training program, meaning probably 2/3rd of the students who enrolled in the teacher training program went on to be waldorf teachers.  Venado 17:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I'll look it up again as I don't recall it saying this.  It doesn't change my view/experience, however, that Waldorf is used as an induction center, not just for children but for their parents as well. Pete K 18:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious orientation citation deleted 

message: I added a fact tag to this statement because it isn't sourced and the source I found called "Making Contact" discusses specifically some of the daily "rituals" including the opening of the day.  The first observation given is very detailed, with several verses quoted and none were Steiners or religious. It would also be controversial because the schools that were sued denied they were doing religious practices. Venado 19:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a source that said "Steiner verse" in all schools but not "religious Steiner verse", but the verse was quoted and didn't say God.  This is a confusion in this article I think because the offical schools are in some parts mixed with public and home schools and in other parts seperate, and most I saw are using sources that are looking at one type only.  So when the term "all" is used, even if it is reference sourced, is probably contradicted in another source, if applied in a strict way. One source is all about how the unique feature that the schools do not follow a blueprint, that the correspondence between all the Waldorf schools is through a cultural "memory"  transferance, not administrative or official policy.  I don't know enough to judge on the conflicting information but this might explain why "generally" or "always" type claims are to be avoided for describing this school system. Venado 05:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do the kids have to say anything then?  It's intended as a prayer. Pete K 17:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious verse by Steiner 

message: How are people feeling about the tone of the article now?  I'm thinking we could remove this tag, given the hard work people have done to remove the POV language.  Thanks. Henitsirk 03:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's worse than ever.  After we remove the unsourced material this weekend, we can have a better look.  Our regular Waldorf editors are working hard to source all the advertising claims - now the number of Waldorf schools has gone over 1000 even though even AWSNA only claims 800.  Many of the sources that are being produced to support the existing language are not acceptable.  It's pretty clear to me that some people didn't get the message.  I'll support the tag staying in place until the article reads NPOV and not brochure.  Pete K 22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are still some small concerns about it reading like an advertisement -  but the main problem is with NPOV and in particular the references that back up statements. Hence I have removed the advert tag and added the references tag - of course we could have three or four tags but that is unneeded - the article is becoming more balanced by the day - just one for the main current issue is fine. Cheers Lethaniol 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement tag 

message: Part of the secondary education section reads "...the child is now encouraged to begin a more independent development of knowledge, under the guidance of their teachers. Naturally, the nature of the "guiding" depends very much on the teachers doing the guiding." 
It seems to me that perhaps the whole last section could be dropped, leaving "...to begin a more independent development of knowledge". The second sentence appears to be editorializing, and the second half of the first sentence to be superfluous. Any thoughts? Hgilbert 01:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree but I think the whole Pedagogy section is a bit long - whereever possible cut it to the basics, remember this is encyclopaedia not a complete breakdown of every step of a child's education through a school. So anything that is repeated from the first section (Description) or just waffling on, or has unneeded detail - cut it out please. IMHO Cheers Lethaniol 01:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidance 

message: An argument has been made that a Waldorf teacher' book quoted in a World net daily newspaper article can be cited here, and this has been allowed on the basis that a mainstream publisher has taken this up (third party review principle). A Waldorf teacher published by a mainstream press has more credibility than the World net daily quotation, and at least the third-party review of that news source. Some sort of consistent principles are required. Hgilbert 10:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to remove any Steiner quotes I missed.  I'll be removing the quotes from AWSNA today as well.  Pete K 15:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency

message: Can we come to a consensus on the question of sources, because I don't think that one single editor should have the final say.  Venado 16:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer has already been given by the ArbCom.  It said no Anthroposophical sources.  Even if we all agreed otherwise, it wouldn't change the directive.  I'm going by what they said - even for material I need Anthroposophical sources to support.  Now that the unsourced and Anthroposophically-sourced material has been removed, I'm going to look at the poorly-sourced material... questionable sources.  On these, maybe we can work toward a consensus.  I really can't help it if I'm the only one here who has taken the ArbCom decision seriously enough to implement it. Pete K 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the decision:
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.
Please note the word controversial. Anthroposophical sources can be used for straight up facts - not all of them are controversial. It in no way said - no Anthroposophical sources. There use is limited yes but allowed sometimes - it is not a blanket ban. Cheers Lethaniol 19:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: THey arbcom said no anthroposophy publications because it was deemed a self-publish issue.  The aggressive editing in the past few hours is way out of control.  So much good work in the last few days is mowed down.  The editing isn't being taken seriously it looks like, many I looked at appear to be removed with falsified excuse, such as Unesco section which was veritified in the sources.  The study was renamed to say "racism in urban schools study" which is a distortion of the study and its findings. Bad editing is just making more work for every one.  Venado 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, we will never agree on what's "controversial" so there's no point laboring over this.  The way we determine if something is controversial is by asking for a citation.  If the source is being provided in reference to a citation request, it is controversial.  If YOU will read the decision it says to remove "ALL unverifiable information INCLUDING all controversial information".  So, what you are considering "so much good work" is just people introducing material into the article that doesn't belong and should come out.  Sorry. Pete K 19:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: "Finding a Waldorf School" is nothing more than free advertising for Waldorf.  One of the articles I keep an eye on is AutoCAD - a software product.  While it might be very useful to have a list of AutoCAD dealers right on the Wikipedia page, it's inappropriate to do so.  Waldorf is a commercial enterprise.  People needing to find a Waldorf school can simply look at one of the many links to AWSNA or other sites that have abundant lists on this.  Listing Waldorf schools here is no different than listing dealerships for every product discussed here at Wikipedia.  The direct link to lists should come out.  Same goes for the teacher training sites.  People who are interested can check AWSNA or other sites.  Wikipedia is not the place for free advertising.  Pete K 19:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be a need to cut down on the number of these external links, maybe in the total number of external links (too many for my liking) but I think Wikipedia should have a link to how to find their local Waldorf school - very useful info/link. Again may need to trim the number of these links though, but not the section. Cheers Lethaniol 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Advertising 

message: I think this is an important part of Waldorf education that has been ignored in this article. Pete K 19:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm - I have no idea what The Temperaments are - and why they are controversial. If you could copy the section (or just a draft of it) into this part of the talk page we can then discuss it. Cheers Lethaniol 21:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I wholeheartedly agree! I can't believe I forgot about that aspect [duh!]. I only remember two [reflective in each of my sons]: choleric [fiery, intense] and melancholic [reserved, quiet, "melancholy"]. It is part of the teaching, but I tended to give it only half credit for any real value in how to educate children. It seemed a lot like astrology/numerology/palmistry/phrenology to me and I tended to give it about as much credence - which is to say: not a lot. But it definitely needs to be discussed. - Wikiwag 17:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think thats good.Venado 20:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice job! Pete K 21:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Temperaments 

message: This source that has recently been added by HGilbert is an Anthroposophical source.  Here is the AWSNA page that identifies Mr. Barnes as the former chairman of the board at AWSNA.  Mr. Gilbert should remove this source from the article and any claims he has made that use this source as support. Pete K 17:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a copy of that article.  It is published by "Educational Leadership", a totally independent publisher that publishes articles by educators of all kinds of schools.  This souce should be okay. Venado 23:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're kidding right?  The former chairman of the board of AWSNA using Bob and Nancy as sources?  Incredible.  I don't want to hear any complaints about one-sided articles that interview Dan Dugan and Debra Snell then. Pete K 23:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This floated out of place: I meant to say the article is available online at the Teachers College Record (tcrecord.org). The article only has a couple sources, both are books by Rudolf Steiner.  It definitely is independent publisher.  I cant find any body nnamed "Bob" or "Nancy" in it, so I don't understand what you mean with this objection.  I also must say that some of the statements, like "education of the whole child, head and heart and hands" is repeated in other articles too I found.  They describe it too.  In most articles, if the references are written by experts they are the better kind of sources.   Venado 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There seem to be more Waldorf sources being re-introduced into the article.  I hope nobody minds when they are removed again tomorrow - along with Mr. Barnes.  Pete K 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discuss first.  The Barnes is not a Waldorf published text.  What others are you questioning?  Venado 23:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But you say there are new ones re-introduced.  The Steiner sources I see have been there a long time and I was curious to.  Are the old ones accepted by consensus or not controversial?  If they were not agreed and are controversial they should be fact tagged.  May be after the end of the week end.  Otherwise they will get mixed in with the old ones that have been given the deadline.  But I don't see any new sources added today that look like Steiner published sources when I looked at diffs. so which ones do you mean?  Venado 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack Petrash, for one.  Pete K 01:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry Barnes 

message: The reference to 'one parent' under the Teacher Education heading is quite misleading. Firstly I don't see how his opinion is relevant to this encyclopedia. Secondly this reference is taken from an article of an overall 'rant' about American Schooling; this does not relate to Wordwide Waldorf teacher programs.
What would seem much more relevant to me is to put in a reference a teacher training course like this one: http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/pages/dynamic.asp?page=module&id=0544&sort=stage+ASC%2Cmandatory+DESC&debug=&al=1&ss= so that readers can make up their own minds. Lkleinjans 11:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That parent was first called a "teacher" in this article but I changed to parent because that's what the article said, not teacher.  But when you read the original article that it came from (worldnetdaily again) you know that the "one parent" was really Deborah Snell the president of PLANS. The book is a diatribe against public schools.  Worldnetdaily reviewed the book and in the review characterized the author's overall argument as "It is a sin to send Christian children to public schools."Venado 15:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also there is another source I found that talked about the teacher trainings in the US, and said each one is different.  I will go back and find it.  Maybe the section could be redone to fit better sources than this parent comment.  Venado 15:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teacher Education 

message: It says in the third paragraph of the first section Description, that there are international governing bodies of Waldorf schools - can someone please give me an example/examples so that it can be added into this section. Cheers Lethaniol 00:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay these should be added into the Governance section - so I will do :0 Cheers Lethaniol 15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Governance of Waldorf Schools - request 

message: Venado, in the UNESCO section you added back, the claims are not supported by the citations.  I feel I have looked at the cited documents thoroughly and don't find support for the claims (perhaps some partial support - 3 or 4 Waldorf schools appear on a UNESCO list).  If you insist on the section being there, can you at least edit it to indicate exactly what is supported by the citations?  Otherwise, it needs to come out again. Pete K 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they did.  Lethaniel diplomaticaly change "many" which wasn't my term any way to "a number of" because there were at least 10 in one source.  Please stop using unreal excuses in edits and on talk pages to take out undeniable sourced parts of the articles.  The work done to source materiel to find references for the citation needed notes is thrown in the revert can with out on-point excuses behind it.  It looks like very biased POV editing, and then there follow just more edits (too much warring edits) and talk fights to get any idea if there is a real problem instead of "makes Waldof schools sound good, so it is not sourced".  Venado 03:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya know what... I don't need a scolding from you or anyone else.  Instead of asking you, I think I'll just take it out next time.  I asked you a legitimate question in a very nice way.  Lethaniol corrected your edit in the mean time.  If you don't like my edits - too bad for you - go complain to someone - I won't be intimidated by your nonsense.  The only POV editing here is NONSENSE about Waldorf somehow being "connected" to UNESCO.  They have been acknowledge - that's all.  BFD - it doesn't deserve a sentence, let alone a section and is intended to suggest more than what's there.  I may just remove it anyway.  This article isn't a billboard, it's supposed to read like an encyclopedia.  Sticking every Waldorf happy-face sticker you can find on it isn't doing anyone any favors - it's making a mess out of this process.  The whole section is PR nonsense. Pete K 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Agenda Fact Sheet, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization dated Apr 18, 2001, Annex VI, "Thus far, 16 Waldorf schools in 14 countries have become members of the UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network, which enables their innovative methods to be integrated into the national education system."  Thebee 20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNESCO 

message: Right nice to see we may be getting somewhere with these references - I have suggestion for the of multiple references - to help clean up the references/notes section.
Most people will not care which page the info is on, and if need that can be discussed on the talk page to check a particular resource. I suggest that one source = one reference used multiple times. In stead of linking to source A p44, and source A p55, just have one reference sources A p44-55 or even Source A Chapter X or just Source A. The current repetition is unwieldy. 
See  on how to do this. Cheers Lethaniol 15:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Reference Format 

message: Someone who has done a number of studies on Waldorf education is Ogletree, Earl J. According to A Research Report on "The Comparative Status of the Creative Thinking Ability of Waldorf Education Students: A Survey." published by Early Childhood and Parenting in 1996,
:"An international study was conducted to determine if there was a significant difference between the creative thinking ability of Waldorf students and state school students in England, Scotland, and Germany. The hypothesis was that disparate educational practices in Waldorf and state schools were influenced by disparate educational philosophies. The sample consisted of 1,165 third through sixth grade children--479 English, 193 Scottish, and 493 German students. The findings obtained from administration of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking Ability, suggested that Waldorf students were more creative than their state school peers. Particular credit for this was given to the maturational-readiness and nurturing curriculum of the Waldorf Schools, which includes: having the same teacher follow students from grades 1 to 8; de-emphasis on academic performance in early grades; use of art in instruction; and other teaching and curriculum considerations."
Thebee 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think ther are any more citations needed for curriculum.  I would like to understand why we keep going back to put references from off limits publishes?  The second Ogletree survey discussed here is Waldorf published.  The first is not so it should be okay, but I agree do not add anything that is like a sales pitch.  There is already a NPOV tag. Venado 20:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative thinking ability of Waldorf students 

message: I don't see how http://www2.whidbey.net/jmboyes/shortt-3.htm could possibly be considered a reliable source. Who is keeping it in and on what basis? Fred Bauder 22:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it has been discussed above - and this ref and the teacher statement that went with it were likely to be removed. I think people were concentrating on a few other things - we will get this sorted. Cheers Lethaniol 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to remove it several times and it has been replaced each time, I believe by PeteK. Hgilbert 01:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It has been talked about here and  here. Cheers Lethaniol 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This source is instantly obvious on its face it should not be used as a reference.  ANd also if you read it you will see that its source for that section is the same worldnetdaily article that many of us don't think is appropriate source either.  This and the other should come out.  Venado 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I removed the worldnetdaily one, when I moved the Lucifer section to Anthroposophy. We need to get another source(s) for the bit about whether teachers teach about / are influenced by Lucifer. Cheers Lethaniol 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Harsh Truth About Public Schools 

message: Hi guys,
There may still be problems with some of the article being self-promoting or references needed - but not enough to require these tags. I believe there is still work to be done on the neutrality of the article - making sure gives all the info we want, in a balanced neutral way, so I have added POV tag.
My suggestion is that this tag stays till we are generally happy with it, and neutral editor unrelated to the article  thinks it is neutral. I then suggest that we look to get the article assessed to get outside feedback on where it can be improved, and maybe even go for GA status (the quality is getting there)! I hope you are all happy with this. Cheers Lethaniol 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a little unclear why the tag, given that essentially all the material is now referenced to non-POV sources. Given the enormous amount of work that has gone into this and the very strict criteria that have been applied to sources, I suggest that the article be reviewed section by section and the tag be applied to any sections that remain problematic - rather than the whole article. Hgilbert 01:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags removed - POV one added 

message: What facts are really under dispute in that tag?  I have found the trademark record for Waldorf and Steiner in the US, so thats okay. (TESS search service on website United States Patent and Trademark Office, tess2.uspto.gov - can't link to trademark record it has to be queried) What is the dispute.  Do we need to sort out which ones hold trademarks in different countries?  And the accreditation claim is verified in the note just after this to a accreditation website.  Is any of this really a controversy or disputed fact, if yes what part?  If no, can we just take the tag off.  Venado 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was intended to look for something confirming the accreditation process which is actually very loosely run and basically meaningless.  No school has ever had the use of the Waldorf name revoked or even challenged (as far as I know) so the accreditation process is not really serious. I don't really care if we remove the fact tag - nobody really cares enough to point out that accreditation in Waldorf is a joke.  Pete K 19:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You put the tag there to fish for a source of criticism of there accreditation?  I'll remove the tag. Venado 19:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I put the tag there because the "accreditation" portion is misleading. Pete K 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was already sourced in another footnote that they accredit schools.  The article said they accredit schools.  But you know they accredit schools, you just call it "loosely run" and "meaningless", so it wastes time to find more fact references to show they do accredation.  Like the foreign language fact tag, that you said "It's a LIE" the schools have two foreign languages, and then said, "And where do we hear about why one of the two languages is always German?"  How do you tell us "one of the two is always German" if you think its a lie they teach two languages?  Alot of time goes down the drain to find independent sources for noncontroversial facts.  Venado 00:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some Waldorf schools DO teach two foreign languages.  Why is that contradictory to what I have said?  Pete K 16:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact tag on trademark and accredication 

message: Okay as no one seems about to do it I will. I will remove this section and move the referenced stuff into Antroposophy. The worldnet source has been removed as per Thatcher above and cos Pete K said above Yes, I know that "teaching" about Lucifer will require additional sources. The references above are simply for discussion. So if anyone wants to add info about teachers being influenced by Lucifer or teaching about Lucifer new sources need to be found. Obviously the section that I will cut and paste into the Anthroposophy article will need work on, but that is your job guys. Cheers Lethaniol 15:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have connected Lucifer and Ahriman to Michael on the Anthroposophy article.  Please see if you object to the citation. Pete K 16:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking Action 

message: Any thoughts about why this page needs to exist separately from the WE article?  Thanks.  Henitsirk 02:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume it was split off as a separate page so that it could be discussed in more depth - but if people think that it would better to condense it and move it into this section - that's good with me. Cheers Lethaniol 15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the more I look at this the more I think that Waldorf schools' organization and administration should be condensed  merged and redirected into the Governance section. Can someone do this please - if not I will do, but I will strip it of much of the info - so better you check what you want from it first. Cheers Lethaniol 10:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging of organization and administration page 

message: Yeah, I get that the subheadings don't need to say racism, but then we have editors placing unrelated material in the wrong sections.  I moved one bit out of the racism section.  It seems editors need to infuse a positive note even if it's in the wrong section and has nothing to do with racism. Pete K 19:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You did the right thing moving the irrelevant research towards racism - there is no need then to over compensate by making such a heading, it does not you prove a point but just irrate other people. Nobody should mind a good faith move like this Cheers Lethaniol 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to irritate anyone - just {sigh} trying to edit the article while I have some time today.  Pete K 19:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism sub-heading 

message: I noticed that the title and introduction to this section were inconsistent with its actual substance. I've tried to bring them more into line, but am open to further refinements - I'm not sure I've captured the essence neutrally, without saying more or less than what is verifiable through the present citations. (Yes, Pete, I'm saying that you can change this - not revert it, please, but improve it - with my blessing.) Hgilbert 19:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title and intro

message: Hi folks. Once again, the Teacher Education section does not tell the full story. There is factual evidence on both AWSNA and Thebee's site that Waldorf schools may not be so discriminating as far as core education of a teacher is concerned. These two sources have been dismissed as unusable as citations for the article - but that doesn't change the underlying fact that compassion and kindness do not equal competence, as I have witnessed in our local Waldorf school.
How do we get this in? It's to important not to be there.
- Wikiwag 19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree.  I was forced to remove a statement yesterday to this affect because it had remained unsourced outside of AWSNA.  I'll keep looking for a source for this information.  You are right - many Waldorf teachers are taking advantage of the lack of qualification requirements of independent private and charter schools.  Pete K 19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all that said, I think we've all come a very long way in the last 15 days. This is a much better article and much less biased than when I first got here - and personal attacks aside - we seem to have worked through it all reasonably well. I think we're almost there! - Wikiwag 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have seen it when I first arrived... I was pulling my hair out.  I think we still have a long way to go, but yes, it's much better. As you can probably imagine, most everything was referenced to WaldorfAnswers.  Pete K 20:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Waldorf schools are notorious for under-educated teachers.  If we could use Waldorf sources, the case for this could be easily made - your confidence in Waldorf's mediocrity notwithstanding. Pete K 01:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is the case, that they are notorious - then there will be notable third party sources. If we can find them then we can talk about these criticisms. Cheers Lethaniol 15:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that someone's already uncovered the smoking gun here, and referenced it several times in the article. Bravo! I've linked the citations to the teacher education section of the article. Would it still be considered "editorializing" to build upon this in the teacher education section? Or more accurately, where does the line get drawn between editorializing and proper citation? I'm subscribing now so I can read the whole article. - Wikiwag 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teacher education 

message: Also from the to-do list.  I think we should include the religious/spiritual question in the criticism section.  Also I would suggest that someone draft the criticism section and put it here for discussion.  Thanks,  Henitsirk 21:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have made a level 2 tier heading Criticism - with Racism already in there. And new headings (level 3 tier) as discussed E.g. Religious nature. Cheers Lethaniol 22:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waldorf Criticism section 

message: Two works were placed in the bibliography; one does not refer to Waldorf education at all, the other only incidentally (less than half a paragraph). They are (web-)published by an anarchist press, not exactly a peer-reviewed source, but could probably be considered for the anthroposophy article's bibliography (though not as sources there). Hgilbert 07:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: ::Just as a note of how well-organized the Waldorf propaganda machine is, try selecting the links that Wikiwag produced above. None of them work! The links to Waldorf parent handbooks by the schools listed have all been removed by each individual school in the past four days. It's pretty clear to me that someone here has contacted the schools and told them to hide their handbook pages from prying eyes (like the general public) - all within the past four days.  This is just another reminder of how dishonorable Waldorf schools are.  This is a VERY creepy demonstration of what goes on in Waldorf. Pete K 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Just like the snake oil salesmen of old. Caveat emptor, people. - Wikiwag 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough of this kind of talk. The truth is that the links above were entered with a small typo in each. Fixed: this, this, this, this, this and this. Please read the guidelines about wikipedia:talk pages-- "Article talk pages are provided for discussion the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views".  The personal opinions and other soap boxing needs to be taken someplace else. Venado 22:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Just goes to show what happens when an organization loses the trust of the public. Pete K 22:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It just goes to show why original research by contributers shouldnt be (and luckily isn't) allowed at Wikipedia.  There is to many articles and no editor in chief to check on reporters and that there articles aren't total fantasies.  I am honest, it is getting old to see them keep clogging up the talk pages though. Venado 04:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waldorf Propaganda 

message: Could you explain what Oberman says about festivals in the Waldorf movement? Does she mention specific festivals and speak about them celebrated internationally? Hgilbert 17:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I tried to follow it without copyiing. "Around the world, the four seasonal festivals, "Michaelmas" in the fall, Christmas, Easter and St John in the summer are all celebrated in Waldorf classrooms with poems, songs and plays." Venado 21:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Festivals and Oberman 

message: The curriculum section appears to me to be unwieldy as it stands. Does anyone have an idea for compressing this without losing essential information? Hgilbert 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm - why...exactly? There is no Criticism section at this time, and every time one has tried to be put in place, it gets removed. I'm not going to allege motives here. I'm just going to ask again - why remove the criticisms that are properly cited without making a place for them elsewhere in the article? Thanks in advance for your forthright answer. - Wikiwag 16:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've indicated elsewhere here that I think criticism should be intermixed with praise in the article.  I renamed the last "Criticsm" section to "Racism" because it contained only discussion regarding racism.  I would prefer not to isolate criticism in its own section because I feel criticism of Waldorf is a significant part of the overall picture.  It was reported at one time (in an open board of directors meeting) that my local Waldorf school lost 25% of its student population every year.  Criticism of Waldorf is not, in my view, a side issue but a major issue and edits that remove or isolate criticisms under the pretense of "cleaning up" the article are not valid edits. Pete K 17:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How is what is currently there not the "bare facts" about what is taught in the curriculum?  There's even a quote from Eugene Schwartz suggesting science students are taught more about Steiner's science than Newton's.  Should we go into greater detail about this - about the first painting every child creates in Waldorf - a landscaped page divided in half, one color (usually red) on the bottom and another color (usually blue) on top - and the meaning of this?  We can certainly go into great, great detail about the Anthroposophical content here, about the wet-on-wet representing spiritual forms and the division of the page into heaven and earth.  Do you think parents who receive this first painting from their child realize what it means, why it is produced and that it represents a spiritual/Anthroposophical exercise? Pete K 19:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just adding a bit here - we can also talk about why beeswax is used in the younger grades and clay modeling is avoided until the older grades.  Does anyone know why this is?  It's because clay dries the skin - it removes essence from the child whereas beeswax imbues something - it adds something to the hands of the child.  All this stuff is Anthro/spiritual - there's an Anthroposophical reason for everything in Waldorf and it IS in the curriculum.  Why do young children study SO many different creation myths?  It's to prepare the way for the wildest creation myth of all, of course, Steiner's.  We can certainly get into all of this connectivity in the curriculum section if you think it would be better.  I'm not sure it can all be sourced properly without Anthroposophical sources, but we could try.  Pete K 20:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, thanks.  Yes sticking to the facts is a good thing. I don't want to speculate in either direction here.  Pete K 20:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curriculum section unwieldy 

message: Hi folks. I want to apologize for my last three edits from last evening appearing as anonymous. For some reason, either my computer or the wiki logged me out without me realizing it.
Therefore please note that edits by 24.38.65.114 are actually mine. 
Sorry for any confusion I caused. - Wikiwag 10:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grrr! It did it again. Edits by 69.160.7.226 are mine as well. - Wikiwag 23:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology and claim of credit 

message: The curriculum section appears to me to be unwieldy as it stands. Does anyone have an idea for compressing this without losing essential information? Hgilbert 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm - why...exactly? There is no Criticism section at this time, and every time one has tried to be put in place, it gets removed. I'm not going to allege motives here. I'm just going to ask again - why remove the criticisms that are properly cited without making a place for them elsewhere in the article? Thanks in advance for your forthright answer. - Wikiwag 16:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've indicated elsewhere here that I think criticism should be intermixed with praise in the article.  I renamed the last "Criticsm" section to "Racism" because it contained only discussion regarding racism.  I would prefer not to isolate criticism in its own section because I feel criticism of Waldorf is a significant part of the overall picture.  It was reported at one time (in an open board of directors meeting) that my local Waldorf school lost 25% of its student population every year.  Criticism of Waldorf is not, in my view, a side issue but a major issue and edits that remove or isolate criticisms under the pretense of "cleaning up" the article are not valid edits. Pete K 17:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How is what is currently there not the "bare facts" about what is taught in the curriculum?  There's even a quote from Eugene Schwartz suggesting science students are taught more about Steiner's science than Newton's.  Should we go into greater detail about this - about the first painting every child creates in Waldorf - a landscaped page divided in half, one color (usually red) on the bottom and another color (usually blue) on top - and the meaning of this?  We can certainly go into great, great detail about the Anthroposophical content here, about the wet-on-wet representing spiritual forms and the division of the page into heaven and earth.  Do you think parents who receive this first painting from their child realize what it means, why it is produced and that it represents a spiritual/Anthroposophical exercise? Pete K 19:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just adding a bit here - we can also talk about why beeswax is used in the younger grades and clay modeling is avoided until the older grades.  Does anyone know why this is?  It's because clay dries the skin - it removes essence from the child whereas beeswax imbues something - it adds something to the hands of the child.  All this stuff is Anthro/spiritual - there's an Anthroposophical reason for everything in Waldorf and it IS in the curriculum.  Why do young children study SO many different creation myths?  It's to prepare the way for the wildest creation myth of all, of course, Steiner's.  We can certainly get into all of this connectivity in the curriculum section if you think it would be better.  I'm not sure it can all be sourced properly without Anthroposophical sources, but we could try.  Pete K 20:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, thanks.  Yes sticking to the facts is a good thing. I don't want to speculate in either direction here.  Pete K 20:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curriculum section unwieldy 

message: Hi folks. I want to apologize for my last three edits from last evening appearing as anonymous. For some reason, either my computer or the wiki logged me out without me realizing it.
Therefore please note that edits by 24.38.65.114 are actually mine. 
Sorry for any confusion I caused. - Wikiwag 10:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grrr! It did it again. Edits by 69.160.7.226 are mine as well. - Wikiwag 23:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology and claim of credit 

message: Wikiwag, great job on the article!  I'm wondering if the statement that Steiner created eurythmy is accurate.  It was really Marie von Sivers who came up with it and Steiner embraced it - the intention was to combat the "impulse" of modern dance (the Charleston and similar "jumping" dances were becoming popular and Marie decided they looked too much like "Negro savage" dances).  That's why in eurythmy, the dancer's glide over the floor rather than jump in any way.  Anyway, just thought I'd mention it - I wouldn't want to deny Marie what she deserves. Pete K 23:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Pete. Where I am in error, please correct me. I only edited the sentence for structure and readibility and took the facts at face value. Wikiwag 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly isn't the end of the world.  We can give Steiner credit for now, I'll look for a source that supports what I'm saying.  Thanks again for your efforts! Pete K 00:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess what... all the sources seem to be Anthroposophical ones... LOL!  And they seem to want to give equal credit to Steiner.  I guess Marie must have known her contributions would be overshadowed.  Let's just leave it for now.  Considering how much is misleading in the article already, this little tidbit is innocuous. Pete K 04:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, for me, the controversial part about Eurythmy is, of course, that Waldorf teachers don't tell parents what it is.  It isn't just a dance form, as we know, it is a spiritual activity but that part never gets to the parents.  That we have quoted Steiner saying that it is a part of Anthroposophy is, of course, a good first step in explaining this.  I think if Waldorf teachers believe eurythmy to be powerful enough to straighten teeth, they shouldn't pretend it's just some goofy dance steps when parents ask about it. I'll see if I can dig up the "negro savage" thing.  It's actually on paper so it's floating around my office in one pile or another - somewhere. Pete K 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurythmy 

message: Way back when we were actively working on this article :) we were talking about adding some new things.  I thought I would list them out so we can look at them afresh:
#The spiritual nature of anthroposophy and how it affects Waldorf.
#Perceived deficiencies in teacher training and oversight of teachers in schools.
#Handedness in children, i.e. writing must be done with the right but form drawing can be with the left.  I'm adding this as it recently occurred to me that this is something unique to Waldorf, and there have been many heated discussions (and misapprehensions IMO) about this among critics of Waldorf.
#Teaching of science via phenomenology.  I'm adding this also because of the many discussions I've seen, including recent ones by Jtfine.
Henitsirk 01:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion is that all new added be sourced first, not added with a fact tag.  The article should not be used like the sandbox or first draft of new content that isnt referenced yet.  Also Lethaniols To Do list is a good place to keep track for the new ideas.Venado 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the handedness question is general; most schools allow children to use their dominant hand, though I have also heard of exceptions (both in and out of Waldorf); I would be suprised if a general trend could be established here. Hgilbert 14:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: These quotes are from books that are on the teacher training reading list.  "Conferences with Waldorf Teachers" became "Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner" and I think the title has been changed yet again.  It is an issue and at least some Waldorf schools today take it seriously.  It is one of the ideas that Waldorf wants to keep hidden from the view of parents and prospective parents.  Pete K 16:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New topics 

message: Trying to push my buttons with your misuse of this talks page for unserious pure propaganda purposes with page long "quotes" about which you haven't sorted out even the basics with regard to what they refer to - "root races" (the stages of humanity during the stages in the development from beginning to end of our present solar system), "sub races of Atlantis" (the human forms developing from beginning to end of Cenozoic time, at first not even looking human) or actually "the five varieties of mankind" (starting to develop during Kenozoic time, but starting to fade with the end of the last glacial ages in Steiner's view)?
It does not fly with me - and I know what I'm talking about - but only shows you don't know what you're talking about, except how to use this page for pure catch word based propaganda. I'd recommend sorting out the concepts before referring to them, try "Three misunderstood concepts", "Races" - past and fading differentiations of humanity" and Myth: "Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner are anti-Semitic". Thanks, Thebee 23:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I'm not interested in your opinions.  The quotes I provided were in direct response to questions about the article.  There's no propaganda going on here other than what you provide here and on your own websites. Pete K 23:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we seem to be finding here, however, if the Waldorf teachers here are representative of Waldorf teachers everywhere, is an apparent inability to identify racism or to understand clearly what constitutes racism - and I believe that IS an issue related to this article.  I personally think that racism is so entwined in Anthroposophy that those who have accepted Anthroposophy have also accepted a degree of racism or racist belief.  That's why, in the more dogmatic Anthroposophists, we don't really see any rejection of the racist parts of Anthroposophy but rather a denial that racism is any part of Anthroposophy.  That isn't to suggest that many Anthroposophists don't reject racism, they do, but many others fail to recognize it for what it is, in my opinion and experience.  This is exactly what is referred to in the article by McDermott and worthy of discussion if, indeed, editors here want to attempt to soften the language that is clearly reflective of the source material. Pete K 01:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since TheBee insists on posting his original research, I'll post this and this. Pete K 01:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not my intention to make this personal and I didn't single anyone out (I believe we have several Waldorf teachers here).  I'm trying to identify what the issue really is here and it seems to be as much a naive version of what constitutes racism as it is a "naive version of the evolution of consciousness".  With regard to stating what is sourced in a neutral way, we've finally done this through great effort and now it seems some editors want to soften the language to favor Waldorf again.  I'm trying to understand why.  Pete K 06:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: How does this help anything!? Bee: quit with referencing your own site. It's not allowed. Pete: you were doing so well at remaining detached and not taking the bait. Henitsirk: I agree with you 100%. - Wikiwag 23:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Bee: quit with referencing your own site. It's not allowed."
I addressed this issue at this talks page a month ago, when you wrote something similar. Thebee 11:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TheBee - referencing your own website pages on this talk page is not helpful. Although probably not strictly disallowed, it is not acting in Good Faith to add many such links, because they slow down discussion considerably and take article discussions away from Wikipedia, where they belong. If there is something relevant and appropriate in such websites then copy and paste the information into the talk page for further discussion. Also note that off Wikipedia websites are likely to be loaded with disallowed sources under the article probation - so asking people to read them is wasting their time as a lot of it will be unusable Cheers Lethaniol 12:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiwag, sorry to have let you down.  He's much better at baiting than I am at resisting (title of this section for example).  Pete K 14:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thebee: The difference is that I was a newbie at the time and I actually learned from the mistake, taking the advice to heart to not repeat it - and I have not repeated it. I look forward to a time when you can and will do likewise. Consistency in standards and fidelity in actions, friend; that has been my central issue with you from the very beginning. You can start demonstrating both anytime, now. - Wikiwag 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. True to form, since I made this post Thebee has taken the opportunity to defend his conduct where it is possible to do so , while he has left this totally un-addressed. This would be a good opportunity Bee, to demonstrate good faith (and also undercut the complaints of your conduct by myself and others) by admitting error and apologizing for the offense. - Wikiwag 17:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of Talks page for pure propaganda purposes 

message: Hey everybody. Here it says clay is introduced in the early years. I'm not sure that's true, because clay was once described to me as "dead" and not appropriate for young children...that's why they use beeswax. Can someone clear this up for me? - Wikiwag 23:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clay is not generally used in the early years.  Clay dries the hands and the (spiritual) feeling in Waldorf is that this "removes" something from the child.  Beeswax moistens (waxes) the hands and this is thought to be "adding" something (spiritually).  Any source claiming that clay is used in the early years should be questioned - it just isn't so.  Clay may be introduced around 5th grade - not before.  I'm sure our resident Waldorf teachers will confirm what I have said. Pete K 01:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the paragraph says 5th or 6th grade for clay already.  That's about right. Pete K 01:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: True, but if you've ever seen this in practice, it's usually the teacher who warms up the beeswax for the children (that is - the children ask the teacher for help warming it up).  Occasionally a child with warm hands will be recruited to warm the beeswax up for the other children.  But yes, good point about the warmth angle. Pete K 06:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arts and Crafts 

message: Does anyone else feel that the History section should move to the top? I'm thinking after the Description section. - Wikiwag 23:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move History section? 

message: HGilbert, you said: 
I don't think the handedness question is general; most schools allow children to use their dominant hand, though I have also heard of exceptions (both in and out of Waldorf); I would be suprised if a general trend could be established here. Hgilbert 14:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of instances where this is still practiced.  I don't like it when we use words like "not common practice" and "no clear primary side" to discount something like this which has the potential for a range of abuse.  Why should teachers "encourage" righ-hand dominance?  Why shouldn't the child decide this.  The issue is a spiritual one, again, and deserves attention if we can produce that attention.  If this practice is supportable with references, it belongs in the article.  Pete K 20:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Pete K on this one - references, references please. No one on Wikipedia wants to know your own personal experiences/knowledge on this issue. If Waldorf schools encourage left/right handedness, or even if they do not (i.e. allow children to make up their own minds), then it these statements can only be put into the article if it is backed up by third party non-Anthroposophy sources, as always. Again references, references please. I suggest no point in further discussion until references are produced because without them nothing can/should be added to the articleCheers Lethaniol 20:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left-handed children 

message: I'd like to start the discussion on this, which was partially discussed long ago in the "pseudoscience-a helpful link" section above.
I think we could use the quote from the conclusion of the research monograph as a place to start, and perhaps use it in the article itself since it is not from a Waldorf source:
Once again we return to the question: How Could Waldorf Offer a Viable Form of Science Education? We believe we have answered it by pointing to a rigorous process that distinguishes pseudoscience from science --with a rejection of pseudoscientific ideas, however pivotal they may have been to Waldorf science education in the past. This includes removal of Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy as sources of accurate scientific concepts, a separation of Waldorf science education from anthroposophy, specific attention to bringing the “good ideas” of Waldorf into a secular environment, a critical review Waldorf science resource materials, and expungement of materials that don’t make the grade. We then pointed to the five “big ideas” that Waldorf needs to come to terms with: (1) physics’ model of the Atom; (2) chemistry’s theory of Periodic Law; (3) astronomy’s “Big Bang” theory; (4) geology’s “Plate Tectonics” theory; and (5) biology’s theory of “Evolution”.
My reading of this quote (and I'll try to find the time to read the entire monograph) is that Waldorf has some deficiencies in the teaching of the 5 scientific ideas listed.
Here's my understanding of how phenomenology works in Waldorf:  children are taught scientific principles by first observing the phenomena, and then hearing the abstract theories.
Here's how I think we could write this topic:
*Concerns have been raised about deficiencies in Waldorf science education. (quote and cite the monograph) Obviously we could be a bit more eloquent, I'm just paraphrasing!
*Define phenomenology as it appears in Waldorf, and quote/cite why Waldorf educators think their methods are appropriate.
Henitsirk 19:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phenomenology 

message: I think the curriculum section is overly long at this point; it gives relatively little information in proportion to its space demands. I suggest compressing it to a list of subjects with the grades in which they are taught, with ranges where there is variation between schools. Notes could be added where there is supplemental information. A possible format might be:
*Mathematics (1-12)
*Foreign Languages (1-12)
**Two foreign languages are introduced starting in first grade. Students often choose one of these in high school.
*Woodwork (5/6 - 9/12)
Hgilbert 14:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I am from the UK I really do not get "grading", we have "years" here which may or may not be similar. I assume there are different systems in many other countries. Therefore I suggest ditching the term grading throughout the article, and change to ages - so instead of Grades X-Y, say from ages X to Y. I think this would make the article more universal. Cheers Lethaniol 14:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I agree. Pete K 15:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. - Wikiwag 17:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nonetheless, bullet-points need to be referenced properly (which was my point).  There will be, I predict, a tendency to leave bullet points unsourced and that would prove to be problematic.  As long as the bullet points are sourced, then I don't see a problem with the format.  Pete K 17:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curriculum 

message: TheBee, please stay on topic here.  In your usual way you are trying to divert attention from the issue which is documented.  I'm fairly sure nobody is interested in your nonsense.  We all know you hate the Waldorf Critics, and we all know you want to take another opportunity to smear them by diverting people to your website.  Please avoid the temptation.  The information I presented did not come from the Waldorf Critics or any "critic" of Waldorf.  And it is sourced.  Your nonsense has no place in this discussion.  Thanks! Pete K 15:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TheBee Rants 

message: Hi folks - I don't know about anyone else, but it seems like we have waaaaaaayyyy more content here than we really need to have at our fingertips, with the recent stuff being far, far, far down the page. So is there anything we can archive? - Wikiwag 04:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We used to have a bot that would put any threads that were inactive for 10 days into an archive.  It was nice because it was automatic, so nobody had to agree and nobody could suggest the person doing the archiving was archiving stuff he wanted to remove from view.  Maybe we could ask someone in the know how to get bots to handle the archiving for us.  Just a thought. Pete K 07:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I vote that we use the bot - can anybody figure out how to do this (if we all agree, of course)? Pete K 18:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like this has been taken care of by Venado.  Thanks! Pete K 20:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I put back the bot that was here before, werdnabot, and it is a different bot than essajaybot.  Its says it will run once a day so, tomorroa I think it would go into action.  I don't care how this page is archived but it needs to be because it is to long to load.  If a different bot is better, I don't know, but any bot can be turned off, or change the settings.  Removing something to archive can also be brought back if its revelant to a current issue.Venado 21:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Werdnabot is not really designed for article talk pages - but if you wish to use it I do not have a problem with it. I changed it to archive sections that are over 30 days only, because you will find that 10 days really is too short IMHO - see how it goes :). Note the main problems with this archieving like this is that a) some sections will be archieved that really have not been resolved even though not looked at for over a month e.g. the Health in Waldorf Schools section b) new editors to the artilce will not have obvious access to past discussions which would be useful to them. Cheers Lethaniol 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Lethaniol. I agree we will have lots of new people asking the same questions.  Is there a tag we can put at the top of the page that says something like Please Check the Archives First? Pete K 22:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nobody has objected, and still its a reason to have an argument?Venado 00:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: When I added the bot nobody called for consensus first.  Three editors wanted it made smaller, and you and Pete K asked who knew how to do a bot, so I did it for you.  But I got into edit conflict with you when you added more about consensus (because this page was to big and slow I have a lot of edit conflicts, including now)-so you and I were just editing at the same time.Venado 01:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think your right, and essjaybot could be better.  I just put back the bot that was here before.  Archiving has to be done because the page is just to big.  Edit conflicts can lock up my computer for long enough to go reheat my coffee because the page load is huge. Even more than twice as big as regular full talk page edits.  Then I go through the double loaded page again if I preview, so I skip preview more than I should because I should fix spelling but it takes so long I can get locked out again in an other edit conflict.Venado 19:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm good with it. Venado 20:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we archive anything here? 

message: In answer to Wikiwag, as obviously I will not always be able to help out with sorting/archiving this page - if you want to add a resolved tag use: .
And as before if someone disagrees delete the resolve tag and continue the argument. If you see that a section has had a resolved tag for a while be bold and archive it. :):) Cheers Lethaniol 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Lethaniol! I'll put it to work right away. - Wikiwag 04:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolved Template 

message: Hi all,
Hgilbert has suggested that we enact on my previous suggestion, of getting some neutrals editors involved in checking out the article after all the hard work that has gone on here over the last two months. Specifically I will be asking for a WP:RFC on the article - and I will ask the following questions of the editors that choose to respond:
Do you this article is written from neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV)?
Do you think the article is written in a brochure or advertisement style?
Do you think the controversies section is written in a appropriate format?
Is there anything you can think of to generally improve the style/format of the article?
Please note that I will not be asking for comments on user conduct, civility etc... only content. Also regular editors of this article should not get overly involved in arguing with the RfC contributors on their opinions, and I would foresee they would have minimal contribution to the process. Times when it would be IMHO acceptable to ask a RfC contributor a question is for a point of clarification or further development of an idea. So if someone says - I think this reads like an advert please correct we should not have people start a discussion with Oh no it it doesn't...
Obviously individual minor issues can be enacted upon immediately, but more major issues like whether the controversies section should exist or not, and whether the neutrality tag should stay or not should only be resolved once we have a few opinions in.
If you have anything to add - the time is now. E.g. any other questions you think are important to ask? I will put up the RfC with appropraite summary for the weekend unless there is any major issues.
Cheers Lethaniol 23:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Henitsirk - yes, I did miss this comment.  I really don't care one way or the other as long as we're consistent, one way or the other.  I agree with the "grade" vs "age" issue and I think that has been addressed.  As for Manchester United - I think the Jets could take them <G>. Pete K 02:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi folks - sorry I've been absent for awhile. I agree with the move for an WP:RFC. We've come a long way, I think. - Wikiwag 21:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: I have a question about this source.  It is a mainstream publisher, but looks like it is authored by Steiner and only edited by someone else.  If so, that again might be a case of "primary source" material.  Hgilbert, can you tell us if the claim it verifies was taken from Steiner or from the writing of the books editor?  There is only one claim here (in history) but many in the anthroposophy article. Venado 16:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A sensible question. I have only cited the author's commentary and introductory material, which is extensive, not the Steiner quotations in the book. Hgilbert 18:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Essential Steiner 

message: Most of the edits I made were inserting citations where needed. Pete has already been warned against reverting multiple edits when the majority are not even at issue. This has to stop. We have been asked to provide citations; please stop interfering with this process. If you have issues with individual edits, discuss them or even change them back, but don't lose a whole set of edits with which no umbrage can be taken with them.Hgilbert 01:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll continue to revert edits that have not been discussed.  I take umbrage with each one of your edits today for that reason among others.  Please discuss your intended edits.  While others here can certainly be considered neutral in their edits, and can have more leeway, you are definitely not a neutral editor and should know your own edits will be controversial.  When you string together a bunch of edits that alter the content of the page considerably (I see this even if others don't) then expect to have them reverted as long as I am here.  Please join us in discussing edits beforehand so we don't have this problem.  Thanks. Pete K 02:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I won't be doing that.  I'll be reverting this kind of editing wholesale.  Sorry, but if you're not going to discuss changes, and you want to go in and make 20 edits in a row and expect me to pick through them all because you have one or two good ones in there - that's not going to fly with me.  I neither have the time nor the energy to go through that process.  You should discuss edits like everyone else has been and edit through consensus or stop editing.  It's very simple.  It's a tremendous amount of extra work for other editors to have to go through and reconstruct the page after you have disemboweled it just to preserve the one or two of 20 edits that is legitimate.  So, wholesale reversions are appropriate when a POV editor behaves in an unconstructive way against the consensus policy established by the community.  If you will discuss edits first, like everyone else, you won't have this problem.  These are not your personal articles anymore and lots of people have made a tremendous investment in their time to fix what you initially perverted.  Please respect the work of other editors and work through consensus. Pete K 14:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how I can make it more clear.  If you can't hear what I am saying, don't be surprised when I revert your edits again.  I have no problem with you providing valid citations, I have problems with you editing the article without consensus.  You are not a neutral editor, you are a POV editor.  You have POV reasons for removing the Eurythmy quote - you don't like the connection it makes.  A consensus, therefore, should be reached before a controversial edit like that one - no matter how justified you feel in making it.  My stance is no different than your stance in continually inserting Anthroposophical sources in the Anthroposophy and Steiner articles.  You feel they are justified for special reasons in the instances you have provided them.  My point is the same. Pete K 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question comes down to what we consider factual and non-controversial material. Since the arbitration, when the standards were set, my edits in this regard have been supported by independent editors and arbitrators here; we seem to by and large have a common understanding of what a factual matter is. It would be great to see you sharing this common understanding. Hgilbert 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense.  Your edits are challenged regularly and other editors have quietly and tediously been revising your POV edits.  Everything is controversial - on this we have all agreed (except you and TheBee).  There are fresh challenges today.  We've all seen you in action producing obscure sources to support remarkable claims - like newspaper articles for which the text no longer exists and broad claims based on small samples of population.  So there is nothing factual going on here - only what can be supported by citations.  As I have said above, I have no problem with you producing citations.  The very instant you produce anything that is not citable, any language that is your own, you have a challenge from me.  Why?  Because you are a Waldorf teacher, because you have a conflict of interest that requires you to deceive the public, because you have shown me an intention to decieve readers, and because you are not working through consensus.  Why don't YOU JOIN US in the process we have agreed to and not try to turn this into what you perceive to be a "common" understanding or acceptance of your POV edits?  Pete K 13:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you'd better check your perceptions here with the current arbitration review process. 'Nuf said. Hgilbert 14:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't impress upon you, apparently, how truly insignificant what YOU think is to me.  'Nuf said. Pete K 15:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary and excessive reverts

message: I think there are to many quotes in this article. And many have the added problems of carrying undue weight and sometimes creating a misrepresentation of what it meant in its original context..  The Atlantic article is quoted directly at length about 3 or 4 times on different topics.  Thats way to much.  Venado 19:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Pete K 19:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in the course of the arbitration Fred Bauder unearthed quite a bit of secondary literature, much of which is available on the web but requires access permissions beyond the scope of my local library. Eventually we should mine this, however. Hgilbert 23:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We should discuss whether to have "reception" sections in this group of articles. One was added to the Rudolf Steiner article and I followed up here...but they are sure to be problematic, apparently POV-loaded even if not intentionally so.Hgilbert 02:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I do not like it at all.  I think it is to hard to do NPOV in these articles.  It will be battle after battle.  Venado 03:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with quotes in article 

message: Often there are multiple references to a single work. If footnotes are provided separately, giving specific page numbers in each case, an editor often complains that there are multiple references to the same work (and often changes these to a single reference sans page numbers). I am uncomfortable with this, as I believe the references should be specific and checkable, but have given up resisting. What is Wikipedia policy here? Hgilbert 14:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are all listed individually there will be almost 200 footnotes there.  WP:FOOTNOTE#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once  Venado 18:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Venado that 200 footnotes would be way too much (I think this is what they are saying). If there is a query with a particular source and checking what it says is important, then the provider of that source will I am sure be willing to highlight which pages are relevant on this talk page. For the average user who is reading this page, they do not need such detail and it would make the article untidy and unwieldy. Having said that, if there is a large reference but only a particular section of that source is where the content lies - then that section can be incorporated in the citation. E.g. chapters and sections written by different authors. Cheers Lethaniol 16:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation format 

message: Right I know I said that I was going to kick off a WP:RFC last weekend, well I did not - partly because of the brief edit war that occurred on Saturday while I was on the train. Also you will not have know this, but I spent one hour significantly copying editing the article on the train, only to find the article in a very different state when I got back online. I felt quite deflated and so focused my energies elsewhere for the weekend.
Anyway, I may have another go at the copy editing tonight (online this time), but suffice to say for this RfC lets have everything well sourced, as well as well as sorting out the little things like having ages and not grades, all in American (sigh) and well formatted. You may also be interested in the automated peer review that I have produced below for ways to improve the article.
If this RFC goes well I will be putting this article up for Wikipedia:Good articles status, because although some may disagree I think we have come a long way and this article is something we should feel real proud of.
=== Conduct during RfC ===
Remember I will be asking for this RFC based on content issues, and will be wanting to avoid any conduct issues (in fact I may move them if they come up to the ArbCom review where they belong). Please do not WP:BITE the contributors to the RfC - i.e. argue with them over minor points - but do ask for polite clarification if needed. Remember these guys will be doing us a favour by reviewing our content here. Okay on with the job Cheers Lethaniol 16:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note it would be useful if we do not add any new talk page sections below the RfC response section for a week or two. If a new section is needed insert it just before this section. Cheers Lethaniol 17:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment - note to current editors 

message: Remember I will be asking for this RFC based on content issues, and will be wanting to avoid any conduct issues (in fact I may move them if they come up to the ArbCom review where they belong). Please do not WP:BITE the contributors to the RfC - i.e. argue with them over minor points - but do ask for polite clarification if needed. Remember these guys will be doing us a favour by reviewing our content here. Okay on with the job Cheers Lethaniol 16:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note it would be useful if we do not add any new talk page sections below the RfC response section for a week or two. If a new section is needed insert it just before this section. Cheers Lethaniol 17:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conduct during RfC 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
*See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
*This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behaviour (B) (American: behavior), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), modelling (B) (American: modeling).
*Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): didn't.
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Cheers Lethaniol 16:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note though this looks like a lot of stuff, it is mostly cosmetic stuff that can be easily changed with careful copyediting - hmmm maybe I should go install an American dictionary - oh the pain. Cheers Lethaniol 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated Peer Review 

message: This article has been brought to the standards requested by the arbitration. Though work remains to be done, there are two more primary articles (and possibly more subsidiary ones) to take care of. I suggest we turn to the Anthroposophy article now, as work has already begun there, and bring this up to the same standard. This does not preclude further edits here, of course, but it has proved valuable to have the focused attention of many editors on a single article. Hgilbert 11:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next articles 

message: I added a fact tag to "The extent of information schools provide to prospective parents about these particular topics varies widely, and schools have been criticized for not telling parents enough about anthroposophy as the basis for Waldorf education" because the claim is not made in the article reference to that discusion.  The quote that begins "Waldorf teachers say they hide anthroposophy" is misleading when it follows that sentence because the "hiding" the author talked about in that case was about "hiding" anthroposophy from students in all teaching at the school.  The Oppenheimer article says that anthroposophy is not supposed to be taught but does not say anything about how it is explained to parents.  When quotes are used it is necesary to not use them to make new claims that arent in the source.Venado 06:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthroposophy criticism 

message: Lethaniols analysis listed this problem and I agree.  The toc is three screens long on my computer which is terrible at the top of the article.  I think one possible fix is to try html ways to make the lower 'subsections' in ways that dont show up on the table of contents.  I think the subsections make the long article easier to read, but unfortunately make the toc unecessarily long.Venado 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about deleting all the stuff that you represent as "common" like math and science (even though it's quite different in Waldorf), and not spin any more new articles.  As long as it's going to be represented as if it is "normal", there's no point in even mentioning it here.  We certainly don't need more spin-off articles - we need far less.  Just cover the stuff that's really unique to Waldorf. Pete K 01:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like there is going to be a fight even about reducing the table of contents. Maybe we should just try to start small, removing just some of the titles from the toc now.  My suggestion is sub headings like "The Role of the Main Lesson teacher" and the sub headings under "Conerns about racism" numbers 10.2.1 through 10.2.3, also 11.1 through 11.3 can come out of the table of contents without impact to readers.  It would be good to keep the headings in the text with right font size but I dont think they have to have a jump link lengthing the toc. Venado 14:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I agree with Henit here that it would be great to condense sections into continuous prose this may not always be possible. Have a look at what I have done to the Curriculum section (a HTML solution) - and please comment here. Cheers Lethaniol 15:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your solution was elegant!  Thanks Lethaniol. Pete K 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Good-I like it.  Its down to barely more than 2 screens now and though I think it would be best to make it even shorter this is much much better.  Thank you.Venado 18:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you like it the same fix can be made of other sections where the sub-sections dont need to be in the title. Yes or no? Cheers Lethaniol 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say yess.  I think 10.2.1-10.2.3 and 11.1-11.3 dont need to be in toc.  Would readers be coming to the article just to look them up individually? I dont think they would, so if not those sections wouldnt need a jump link from toc.Venado 19:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents 

message: Please see my comments here User_talk:Luigi30#Waldorf_Education. I am not sure why this article was deleted, when at least it should have been merged here. Cheers Lethaniol 22:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of Walforf Education Admin Article

message: As far as I understand, the arbitrators have dismissed the "Waldorf critics" website as polemical and unreliable. In any case, I don't think we want to start adding clearly polemical sites containing original research to this article - whatever their orientation. (There are such sites on all sides of this question.) I suggest this link be removed to conform to the verifiability standards. Hgilbert 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical voices 

message: I've had a good read through and have a few comments to make. Just to be open from the start I'm a friend of Lethaniol who I know is a regular editor of this page - not that this should make any difference.
These are my thoughts having read the whole article from start to finish...
*The references need to be consistant interms of whether or not there is a space before the number eg  hello [1] or hello[1].
*The word "pubity" is very vague for an age range in the Elementary Education section - surely a more specific age range can be used?
*I think you've mixed up the four humours with the four temperments. I think you're talking about Temperaments but are calling it Humours
*I'm a little confused about the curriculum section. Is the statement "Waldorf schools are autonomous institutions and are not required to follow a prescribed curriculum" true in all countries? Are there not government funded schools that have state curriculums to follow?
*Science and Nature - are the bits in italics books? This isn't clear and looks like a mistake.
*You need to keep the language consistant eg Secondary School not High School.
*Use of Grades should be avoided as these imply different ages in different countries - stick to ages
*I found that the Anthroposophy section under Curriculum felt odd because it is critical. To me this makes it stand out. Does this mean that the neutrality of the article is in dispute? Maybe.
*I feel that, untill you get to the Controvesies section, it reads a bit like an advertising brochure for the schools. Why? I don't think its the language used, but rather the detail that the article goes into. Due to what feels like the vast quantity of factual info about eg the curriculum, it feels like it is trying to sell itself. I don't think that reading one section in isolation would feel like this but reading the whole lot does to me.
*All the Reception section is positive - I think this should be deleted as it really does sound like advertising and doesn't add anything to the article.
*I would create a new article for the Pedagogy and Curriculum sections in the same way there is a seperate History of Waldorf schools article. This would work structure wise and make all of the articles a lot more manageble. It would also stop the article from reading like a brochure.
*Further discussion links section should have critical links also.
I think that over all this has the potential to be a very good article. Good luck!
Yellowpurplezebra 23:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Thoughts of Yellowpurplezebra 

message: :You forgot to tell the WC-story about it, Pete, that the actual - but secret (ssch!) - agenda of Waldorf education, not told to the parents, is to train the future rulers of the world, telling the rest of the world what to think, feel and do ..., according to a Press Release issued by the evangelical legal organization (PJI) that on PLANS' behalf applied for the money from another evangelical organization (ADF), that made it possible for the WC to sue two public school districts in California for their support of the use of Waldorf teaching methods at two public schools in CA. According to the Press Release, issued on the day the group filed its lawsuit against the two public school districts in February 1998:
::"Waldorf schools were founded in 1919 by Austrian born New-Age guru Rudolf Steiner. After Steiner’s attempt to found a spiritually-oriented party failed, he turned to education as a way to carry out his work by preparing souls for reincarnation as leaders in the next epic of history."
:Almost as good as the Protocol of Zion story.  Thanks, Thebee 11:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TheBee, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  Please resist the temptation to conduct a smear campaign here.  Thanks! Pete K 18:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, thanks for the retraction.  I still don't see the connection you are trying to make.  What I have added, above, is substantiated and sourced.  If you want to source the PJI claim, we can add that as well, I suppose.  Pete K 22:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the secret spiritual mission of Waldorf education 

message: Thank you for taking the time to come over to Waldorf Education and comment on the development of this article.
Please note this Request for Comment is only concerned with the content of article, and not with any user conduct. If you wish to comment on issues relating to user conduct please do so at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. Also note that with respect to content, the ArbCom have been quite strict with the type of references allowed - see [] for more info - so please take that into account if commenting on the referencing of this article. 
Having said that, these are the following questions we would most like addressed (the first two questions relate to issues that for a long time have been a problem with this article):
#Do you think this article is written from neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV)? 
#Do you think the article is written in a brochure or advertisement style? 
#Do you think the controversies section is written in a appropriate format/style? 
#Is there anything else you can think of to generally improve the content/style/format of the article specifically with the aim of reaching Good Article status?
Again we all thank you for your time. Cheers Lethaniol 17:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In #4, do you mean statements WITHOUT citations? Pete K 14:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment on Content 

message: The description section overlapped with the pedagogy section. I have moved it into this and cut the following:
:Waldorf education was founded in the early 20th Century out of the ideas of Rudolf Steiner, and has been developed through the research and work of Waldorf pedagogues since.Freda Easton, The Waldorf impulse in education:Schools as communities that educate the whole child by integrating artistic and academic work, Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University Teachers College, 1995Helmut Neuffer, Zum Unterricht des Klassenlehrers an der Waldorfschule,  The "notion that imagination is the heart of learning animates the entire arc of Waldorf teaching." 
We can probably do without this, but if anyone wants to put it back in it's here for the taking. Hgilbert 01:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description moved and cut 

message: Are you GETTING that this is still reading like a brochure?  That's what I've been saying all along - not confirmed by independent people.  As long as Waldorf teachers are writing the article - it will ALWAYS read like a brochure.  Well, I'm off to enjoy my Sunday so have fun in the knowledge that you have distorted information and further diminished the public trust in Wikipedia. Pete K 15:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brochure 

message: In line with requests to reduce the extent of quotations, we should rewrite this section as well. Can someone take it on? In the meantime, I am retitling it to more accurately reflect its actual content. Hgilbert 09:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading and literacy 

message: An editor noticed that the material about Kibbutz Harduf was uncited (and removed it). I have found a source for this project, the Foundation that supports this work; I am supposing that the material qualifies as factual and that such a citation is sufficient. I have rewritten the section to correspond to the cited material; please review this and let me know what you think. Hgilbert 21:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social mission/Harduf 

message: After the arbitration the priority in the articles was to find new sources and removed unsourced claims.  Now that this is mostly finished, the work to make this a "good" article is harder.  I am looking at as many articles about schools and education as I can for a model but nearly all are much worse condition than this.  Most have neutrality or unverified tags, and trivia. This tells how hard it is to make exemplary article for this kind of subject.  But this is a good beginning. This article has more footnotes than Harvard University. Now the article needs better structure and choice between what to leave in, what to take out, and what to explain better.  And I think it needs work to figure out why it is still brochure like because the reasons arent easy. I think that if it is long and detailed thats part of it.  And the reception quotes are very advertisy to me.  I see quotes used in this way on bookcovers, movie ads, sales brochures.  Without the original context the quotes were made in, here there is no premise. Its just a brag.
There arent very many education articles with "good article" status and most are about universities.  Here is one grammar school Royal Grammar School Worcester and one high school Broad Run High School.  They both can sound brochure like to.  But they stand out because they use nice charts and lots of pictures.Venado 15:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:GOOD is a sensible goal to aim for when a significant numer of editors are expending a significant amount of effort on an article, and Waldorf Education has certainly reached that point. Venado is wrong to point us in the direction of Royal Grammar School Worcester and Broad Run High School, as these are articles that relate to specific schools rather than education systems. We would be better served by going through :Category:School_types and :Category:Educational_philosophy to find equivalent articles. Frankly, the Waldorf Education article has a lot of room for improvement, and agreeing to achieve the goal of Good Article Status is the best way to ensure that the desired standard is met.--Fergie 15:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point us straight to some with good article status in those categories?  They are hard to find any better than this one. Thanks. Venado 16:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Update.  I looked at every article in those categories.  None have good article status.  One did at one time but lost it.  So many are terrible.  Some even copy word-for-word from literature of the school system, like Sensitive periods is copied from Montessori texts.  We have to look at articles in other subject areas to see "good article" models.Venado 17:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked on this article some time ago when it was in turmoil and a wikipedia project was began to bring it into line.  The project went nowhere because of the strong antipathies of the editors involved.  The article is so much better now, I think credit is due everyone involved.  Even back then, Montessori and other articles were looked at for comparison, and the Waldorf article was so much better than those it was just an excuse for committing the same problems, such as using self published website references and commercial websites.  I agree that this could become a good article candidate.  Look here: Wikipedia:Good_articles and you will find controversial articles that have made it to good article candidacy.  If the article is  heavily edited and changes frequently it won't qualify, however, so it's best to find consensus with other editors.  If editors will work together, a wikipedia project is a good system to use to reach the goal.  Professor marginalia 18:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I take your point that :Category:School_types and :Category:Educational_philosophy are not places you are likely to find a Good Article™, but they are the articles that Waldorf Education should be measured against. They can be used as a reminder of what this article used to be and what it could again become if unwikipedian partisans are not kept in check.--Fergie 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K.  But this article is now one of the best compared to the others but it still needs improvement. I am trying to say we could learn what is best from looking at those that are better as models.Professor marginalia 19:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article status 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bangladesh is another great model to try to learn from.  The team is credited with eight or nine featured articles, an incredible accomplishment by itself, but especially so considering the politically controversial issues covered in some of them.  It's a large group, and they have the luxury of delegating tasks to those best suited for them.  But what is really important is how they strategize.  They have a written strategy in place to handle controversial issues Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bangladesh/General. And they've distilled the steps to take for successful Featured Article candidacy, practically down to a science.Professor marginalia 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki project

message: Please put a  after the narrative that still needs a citation.  That way they can get referenced. Thanks. Venado 17:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncitationed narratives 

message: I should reveal up-front that my children went to a Waldorf school, my wife taught at several, and I have done some part-time Waldorf teaching.  Having said that, I don't think the article reads with a Neutral Point of View. I don't know that I'd say it sounds like a brochure, because it would be a poor brochure if it were.  But it reads like a combination of defensive and sales-y and attacking all at the same time.  (Viva la Wikipedia!)
Length
'''
It's inappropriately long. As a comparison, I looked at the page for Goethe, which is about half as long. Is Waldorf education as an entry twice as important or interesting as Goethe? I don't think so. If it were about 1/3 as long, and kept to the most objective facts about Waldorf education, it would serve everyone better. A simple link to, for example AWSNA, is really all that's needed to give the reader everything else they want to know.
Here's the kind of facts I mean: It was started by Rudolf Steiner at a school in Stuttgart, Germany in 1919. It takes its inspirations from the philosophical teachings of Steiner, called Anthroposophy. There are nnn Waldorf schools throughout the world today. And so on...
These statements are facts and aren't by themselves debatable. Leave the controversy to external websites.
Jargon and catchphrases
'''
Some words used are jargon, or nearly so and really should be avoided.
For example:
:Waldorf schools aim to "educate the whole child - head, heart, and hands" - to develop the intellect, emotional life, and practical abilities in harmonious balance.
I tried to rewrite this, but there's so many problems with it. First off, to be more neutral, how about "Waldorf schools state that their aim..."? But I'm much more concerned about "developing the emotional life". What could that possibly mean? I think it's jargon -- Waldorf teachers would probably agree on what it means but to anyone else it's vague and unhelpful. The whole sentence reads like a wine enthusiast's description of a fine Chardonnay. In fact there's a reason why wine taster's use and must use language like this -- and it's the same perfectly good reason that Waldorf teachers use jargon, but it has no place in an article like this. And this kind of jargon does the Waldorf movement no favors. I realize that writing this article without jargon will be harder, just as it would be for a wine taster to describe a wine without jargon. Perhaps he can't. Then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the right place to even attempt it. Maybe the article needs to say "Waldorf schools state that their education goals address more than a child's intellect. For a better understanding of this, see the link below." There's nothing debatable here -- this is a simple fact.
Enemies
'''
Apparently, Waldorf has its enemies, or perhaps I should say detractors. They should not be given forum here, just as the article should not attempt to "sell" the reader on Waldorf. Should the article remove its jargons and assertions, the sections about racism and controversies should also be removed. This isn't the place for them. This is like a judge not allowing certain evidence because it will be too inflammatory for the jury -- these accusations, by themselves, are too inflammatory.
(I'm afraid my comments are now becoming inappropriately long!)
Danielbirns 21:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from a part-time Waldorf teacher 

message: My experience of talking to other S-W parents is that many would choose not to immunise their children regardless of whatever position their children's school (Steiner or otherwise) might take, and that the sorts of parents who make these choices are also the sorts who choose S-W education for their children. I think this point would be useful to make to illustrate that the high numbers of non-vaccinated children in S-W schools does not show that Steiner schools discourage vaccination: i.e. there is not necessarily a causal relationship (any more than there is between pirates and global warming).
We would need a reference for such a statement, which I don't have.
--John Stumbles 17:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any references perhaps you could provide the rationale. Why is non-immunization seen as preferable to immunization? Why would parents who send their children to Waldorf schools be less likely to immunize their children against disease? In what way are Waldorf parents different from non-waldorf parents?--Fergie 16:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Concerns have been raised" sounds NPOV to me.  It is a factual and verified statement.  What is better is to say "concerns have been raised by" and say with who when and where.  It would also be better to find a higher quality reference than news papers and ACSH opinions.  ACSH does good analysis based on science research, but there mission is science activism. so I will see if they have better article to use naming research instead of Hitler rant.  ACSH is strong anti smoking and so was Hitler.  That is not a reason to go against ACSH or for smoking.Same for the argument the author ACSH made.Venado 23:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. focus in this article is just about immunization pattern in Waldorf education, not immunization controversy.  We cant say much if immunizations in the schools is correlation or causation with out references that do it.  The ACSH paper is weak because it does not discuss much of anything about the parts of interest here.  That was the sentence about German outbreak from one school and maybe one more in Colorado.  Better to find articles that discuss the relationship between schools vaccinations and public health.  I didnt find anything else to use at ACSH and am to busy now to look for any more.  Unless some one else finds something before, I will look for research references when I have time.Venado 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parental choice not to immunise