Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 6

message: In line with the comments made by various people, I have considerably reduced the extent of quotation in the reception section and changed it from "positive reception" to "reception by mainstream educationalists". Both positive and negative reception would thus have place here, in line with the NPOV policy. 
I have kept the quotations in the footnotes for the moment; at some point we may want to drop these, as well. They may be useful to check the accuracy of my summations, or people may want to modify how I have changed the section. Hgilbert 09:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is better.  I still dont understand last one about "healing".  I dont know what that means.  Maybe this is a sign to why the quotes are not working for me.  I can figure out the meaning in the first two but all three quotes are isolated.  The integration of arts to curriculum was talked about in the article someplace else.But how does the article explain how Waldorf education teaches seven intelligences besides the quote?  I dont know what healing education means, and it isnt shown in the article how it ties to a Waldorf philosophy or practice.Venado 21:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: I think it would be better to write about controversies i there own section.
#Controversy about public waldorf and law suit in America.
#Controversy about Report Mainz TV show in Germany
#Controversy about outbreaks of illnesses in Colorado and Germany
#Controversy about reading (other sources talk about this and using them to would make this better)
The Urban school study and the Swedish school studies arent controversial so they should go somewhere else, probably a section about studies.Venado 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that the headings you use here are a lot more descriptive than the headings you seem to be happy with in the article. Why is that?--Fergie 06:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I was saying yesterday: "The section titles can be improved, but please dont make them worse. Dont add titles that distort the information found from the sources."  The ones in the article are at least accurate and because of that they are more "descriptive" than section titles that are completely inaccurate.  If we have a section "Controversies", the subtitles under it should just be "Report Mainz broadcast in Germany", "Outbreaks of illnesses in Colorado and Germany" ect.  It would not be good style to repeeat "controversy about" in each subtitle.  These controversies are sourced, and it is a good NPOV method I think to report them as controversies here.  Then all sides shown in the controversy given by the sources can be reported in the article.  It is not NPOV to just pick out parts on one side or another when more are given in the source.Venado 15:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion about controversies 

message: The history section has been changed to a "first Waldorf school" section. I'm not entirely happy with the resulting lack of a general history of the school movement. What do others think? Do we want both (first school and general history)? Just one or the other? Hgilbert 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any reference sources telling more about general history.One of the footnote articles says that history of the first school is significant memory to the other schools.  (Oberman).  May be the history section sticks out of place because there isnt transition to themes in the rest of the article.Venado 21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the schools growth chart by the history section it look like there were no schools after Hitler until 1962, then none again between 1965 and 1975 and they restarted after 1975.Venado 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Waldorf schools 

message: I looked up this article after reading a favorable comment on Waldorf education in a parenting community and wanted to know more. I didn't notice the article's neutrality was questioned when I first began reading, but by the end I thought 'this article can't be considered neutral/up to regular Wiki standards,' and when I scrolled back up to the top, yes, there was the tag I'd missed. 
The article felt very disjoint to me. Many parts of it felt random or out of place or perhaps badly integrated. For example, the racism controversy. I went attended a public school and heard racist comments all the time. Is there any particular reason to think that racism is more notable in Waldorf schools than other schools? If so, It seems that a more cogent explanation for these reasons could be presented at the beginning of the racism section, and the rest of the examples could be used to illustrate different sides of the issue. In the current article, I do not get a sense of any overall point to the racism section. 
Likewise, more broadly on the subject of NPOV, the article reads to me like it's swinging back and fort from favorable to unfavorable. The good parts read as too good and the bad parts read as too bad. Overall I felt like I didn't have a very clear view of the advantages and disadvantages of a Waldorf education for my child--which I speculate is a major reason people would look up this article. There's a lot of information here, but I think it could be better presented.
Keep up the good work!----Electron —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.100.52.149 (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outsider's Input 

message: I read this article, in particular the part on the study of the American Urban Waldorf School. I was a student there and I am appalled at the comments about racism in the Milwaukee Urban Waldorf School. I did not experience any racism at all while attending the school. Also I have read the report in question and I would like to point out it is very positive and the small quote defending their combat of racism does any justice. 
Also, I will point out some of the Teachers were African-American, and also the respect among teachers was paramount. 
If you have any questions on The Waldorf School System (because this site does not do it justice)or would like to challenge my statements please contact me at voteruud@hotmail.com. THANK YOU
I agree. The presence of the section is absurd and does not accurately reflect the study. You are correct in stating that the overall findings of the study were positive. I believe that the study should accurately reflect the study itself, or be deleted from this article. Bellowed 16:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Insiders View on the American Urban Waldorf School 

message: The extensive material about the advantages of teacher continuity seems not to relate particularly to Waldorf education; should it not be put in the Loop (education) article? Hgilbert 19:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elementary education/looping 

message: Hello everyone, I have been taking an extended break, and even still am only looking in to see what's been going on.  
A probably very minor thing caught my eye:  "The official position of Waldorf Education is that childhood immunization is a matter of parental choice."  I don't know if long discussion went into this, so I will not edit it directly but will say:  I don't think it's appropriate to say there is any "official position" given the independent nature of Waldorf schools, and given that the very beginning of the paragraph states "Waldorf schools have never taken an official stance on vaccinations."  Perhaps it would be more clear to say that "The official position of ECSWE is..."  Thanks, Henitsirk 03:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immunizations sections 

message: I have been looking at the article and in my opinion it could be made to sound more neutral, and I made one version. I tried to make it sound more like an encyclopedia. I also made some other kind of changes which I hope are understandable. There were two changes made after I started working with this: Eurythmy was removed from a wrong section, but in my version it's there in another place (I left it because it's something unique to Waldorf schools). And then another change which I didn't know whether it came from a source. Erdanion 12:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to clean up the English grammar of the revisions, which look great. The eurythmy section may still need some work. Hgilbert 20:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess I couldn't always be sure which reference connected which sentence there being so many of them, I tried to do my best but sorry if I made mistakes. About the sentence Waldorf methods been used by some other teachers, I only transfered it to the reception section. Erdanion 17:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: The to-do box at the top of the talk page still lists reducing the quotes for the reading/literacy section as a goal. I've had a look at this section; the main quotation actually summarizes the questions around this very succinctly, and I don't see how to reduce it without a danger of making it one-sided in one direction or another. Hgilbert 15:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reading/literacy 

message: OK; let's be clearer about what needs to be done. Please list specifics that should be improved; we should have the aim of having a neutral article. Please list here specific significant points of view not yet included (with references to sources for these!), or sections of the article that need cleanup.Hgilbert 14:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Path forward

message: The citation to the "imagination" passage is from Thomas William Nielsen's Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy Of Imagination: A Case Study Of Holistic Education. This and other independent descriptions of Waldorf pedagogy make it clear that the imagination plays a central role here, significantly beyond its role in other forms of education. It may well be that this role is insufficiently articulated in the present version, in which case clarification is needed.
In general, I would hope that we will not argue about cited material without presenting a case based upon verifiable sources. Obviously, all significant points of view should be included; in order to do so, they need to meet Wikipedia standards. 
Please avoid all personal attacks; they are both against Wikipedia policy and a poor replacement for supported argument in any situation. Hgilbert 21:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Imagination

message: The Urban Review article, cited earlier in the Racism section, is coauthored by seven ethnographers and educators (all academics), forming one of the highest quality sources on Waldorf. I have tried to integrate their descriptions of Waldorf generally into the main body of the article, and of the Milwaukee Urban Waldorf school into the "studies" sub-section dedicated to this. Hgilbert 14:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban Review article 

message: I'd like to follow up on Antelan's list of suggestions, point by point. Please help address each of these!
*Waldorf education emphasizes an imaginative approach to learning - This sounds like an ad 
**Changed to improve objectivity of statement. ("unusual emphasis on imagination") 
**The role of the imagination in Waldorf education is noted by nearly every independent reviewer, and often is so prominent as to form part of the title of works on Waldorf (Oppenheimer, etc.). 
*Artistry, autonomy and authority of an individual teacher is to be emphasized. - This sounds like a guidebook. If these things are emphasized, say so. If they're not, cut the sentence. 
**Resolved by rewording
*OK, they have "toys and dolls to encourage the imagination"; why don't we just say that they have toys and dolls - must we include an encouraging POV statement after every statement of fact? 
**Resolved by dropping the statement
*Standardized testing: Why are we comparing Waldorf schools with public schools? Shouldn't the comparison be with other private schools? 
**False "we": the original researchers, not Wikipedia's editors, are making this comparison. We are reporting comparisons made by verifiable sources. Comparisons of private with private schools, if available, should be given more weight in the article. 
::::Diana adds later: Yes, but if such comparisons aren't cited, but the relatively useless comparison is cited anyway, without the shortcoming of such an analysis being noted, this comparison is given undue weight. *That's* the type of problem you don't, won't, and never will address if somebody doesn't babysit you 24/7 here.DianaW 15:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Following up 

message: Should a lot of the discussion prior to maybe the middle of june or even latter be archived?  the page is really long, and we're not using most of that.  I don't want to act premptorily and I don't know that type of achiving that's been done.  --Rocksanddirt 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an automatic archiver bot removing discussions after 1 month of no activity.  I think it good to archive more now.  A lot is just soap opera any way.Venado 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems ok to me.  Especially if we keep creating new sections for things as we talk about them.  --Rocksanddirt 18:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Functional talk page 

message: I removed the following paragraph since it has nothing to do with Waldorf Education (as far as I can see). Perhaps it belongs in Vaccine controversy?
: In a different study of the vaccination moratorium period that occurred when Sweden suspended vaccination against whooping cough (pertussis) from 1979 to 1996, Swedish physicians found that 60 percent of the country's children contracted whooping cough, a potentially fatal disease, before the age of ten years.Arthur Allen, Bucking the Herd, The Atlantic Monthly, September 2002 In the United States, where vaccination has been practiced since the 1940's, the majority of deaths from whooping cough are in infants under 3 months of age. However, prior to widespread vaccination, pertussis was "a major cause of childhood mortality in the United States." Pertussis continues to be a major health problem in developing countries, with over 290,000 deaths resulting from the disease in 2002. "Chapter 7: Pertussis" Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases Centers for Disease Control (February 2007)

--John Stumbles 18:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of those hard questions (to keep that sort of stuff in).  Because who cares about vaccination at all if it just keeps kids from having to stay home from school?  If here are actual deaths involved....well then having them makes more sense.  The issue of vaccinations or not is much broader topic than waldorf education anyway.  --Rocksanddirt 18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I did just add a sentence to direct people to the broader vaccine controversy page.  Revert if that doesn't seem to get the idea out there.  I'm generally in favor of linking the full discusion of the issues rather than making a really long article. --Rocksanddirt 18:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this was good decision to remove that section, in line with earlier decision here this is not the article for general vaccination debate, it is about Waldorf schools.  The sources did describe vaccination controversie directly to Waldorf schools.  It is wrong to pad it with information about vaccination controversy in other places, such as Sweden.  Sweden's moratorium on vaccination had nothing to do with Waldorf.  It is against WP:OR policy to make a "synthesis" of Sweden example to make criticism or claim against Waldorf schools.  When the source attributes claim or criticism about vaccination direct to a Waldorf school, it belongs here.  Editors here cannot create new case statement about Waldorf vaccination by using unrelated stories such as Sweden as example.  Editors can not assemble non Waldorf material to show readers why "who cares" about vaccination in Waldorf.  That is WP:OR It is misleading also because putting Sweden story in this article it makes it confusing like what happened in Sweden was about Swedish Waldorf when it was not.Venado 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. Sorry if I overstepped. - Wikiwag 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns over Immunizations 

message: Hi, I noticed that the NPOV tag was removed today with the edit summary as per talk page discussion.  I havn't seen where the anti-waldorf education people have aggreed yet, but seem to have given up.  Now, I also don't understand their objections so I would really like to see one of them say what specific things are not following the WP policy of neutral point of view "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias" quote from the policy nutshell.  If the sources allowed by the arbitration arn't negative enough for them, what can be done?  --Rocksanddirt 19:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NPOV tag should only have been removed by an uninvolved user, although it seems that HGilbert has once again stretched the boundries of wikiquette by removing it himself. This article should be neutral and informative in tone, covering all aspects of Waldorf Education in a concise manner. There are several well established criticisms of Waldorf Education- they are censored out of this article which means the article loses credibity. The people you characterise as 'anti-waldorf' are for the most part like me- neutral wikipedians who want to improve the quality of this article. You are however right to say that such editors have 'given up'- any attempt to restore balance to the article is swiftly edited out by the article owners who are in clear breach of WP:COI. Expect a comment like this to be replied to with a combination of 'innocent' enquiries as to the exact nature of the article's shortcomings and some thinly veiled personal attacks.--Fergie 09:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be better placed at the bottom after the responses from venado.  And I agreee, which is why I asked the question about the removal.  That said, why did the arbitration rule that those sources were not valid?  I fully agree that the "pro-waldorf editors" of this article for the most part have behaved in a way that does not encourage good faith and had I been on the arbitration committee would likely have endorsed a ban of them from the articles as well.  Much of the critism of waldorf education I have read over the years, has been focused on a either a) individual teachers and schools and thier problems or b) that the program has a spiritual component and the critic thinks that doesn't belong in a school of any kind.  --Rocksanddirt 16:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The dispute on this question was going no where.  Fight over the NPOV tag was not even about the quality of the article at the end.it turned into bitter, purely personal, grudge match.  It was a game of capture the tag on talk page, but only one editor doing any work about NPOV in the article.  Childish fueding also poisons the well on talk page, which it discourages other editors from contributing.  I think it is best to clear the fight ring.  What article needs now is for uninvolved editors to give opinion, involved editors are a broken record.  And the article is open for editing, so it can still be improved where there is need to do it.Venado 21:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that's my question, what was the core of the real dispute?  I've observed this article periodically for a while, and read more of the talk pages, and arbcom pages than I wanted to in order to understand and I just don't.  I understand the PLANS people and where they are coming from.  As far as the personal stuff...if certain editors were still here I would not be getting involved now, I don't need that kind of personal negativity anywhere in my life.  As far as additional editing, I don't likely have time to research acceptable sources that have not already been used here to try and clearly explain the program.  I'd be another broken record.  Thanks for responding!  --Rocksanddirt 21:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As uninvolved editor, how do you have opinion how the article stands right now?Venado 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's pretty good (as I put at the beginning of the RfC section).  I'm not with out at least the appearance of COI, however as I'm on the Board of a Waldorf School.  The only real comment is that there is not slavish devotion to the principles outlined by stiener in many waldorf schools as the article kind of indicates, but rather individual schools are trying to do what his writings indcate (IMO) and that is to 1) try to honestly observe the children, 2) teach them where they are at in their development.  Not that there arn't schools/teachers/parents that take stiener's work as gospel and we struggle against them constantly. --Rocksanddirt 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sharing comment.  I saw this to in some academic references also that the schools very in many ways. Venado 23:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of NPOV tag 

message: The Hopkins School was a featured article.  In one way I will say first, the Waldorf article is much better researched.  The Hopkins school relies almost exclusively on documents from or directly tied to the Hopkins school.  Only one other published source outside the school's is used as reference, and the publisher for it was a small local vanity press. Venado 17:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Hopkins school relies almost exclusively on documents from or directly tied to the Hopkins school." And so why again were you suggesting that it would be helpful to us to use this article as a model?DianaW 02:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Venado: your point is well taken. But I see no evidence that your example is remotely as controversial as this article has been. It's also just one school vs. an entire philosophy. - Wikiwag 02:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked for featured articles of related subject for comparison.  In some ways this article is much better than the featured article.  Now in terms of NPOV only though is a difference of opinions here. It seems like this is a difference of opinion focused on tone and weight in content, not fact claims. Venado 15:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other comparisons

message: Per Hgilberts comments around and about. My substantive comment is that I'm not sold on removing the Npov tag yet.  I would like to see allowable sources and a real section in the article for some of the various critisisms of the waldorf education system.  The critism section as it stands now is very weak.  All the sources I know of are either discussions by waldorf or anthroposophical authors or publishers (not allowed based on the artibration), or from forums or mailing lists (not reliable under any WP sourcing policy).  --Rocksanddirt 16:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At one time, there was a healthy and vigorous criticism section. The third and most recent attempt to create one is here. However over time, the phrasing is invariably massaged and criticism quashed by the COI editors of this article. That is the precise and substantive reason why it is absolutely inappropriate for any involved editor to either call for or much less remove the NPOV tag. I am delighted to see that there are those in agreement with this point, though it's unfortunate for those here that it took Fred's return to make it stick. - Wikiwag 14:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone suggest any allowable sources for this? If what you (Rocksanddirt) are saying is that the sources you have in mind are disallowed by the arbitration ruling because they do not meet Wikipedia's standards for a notable, verifiable point of view? If they have never been expressed by an independent and competent voice, how do they affect NPOV considerations? Hgilbert 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand what the last sentence in the Vacination Controversy section has to do with anything.  I just says that kids in Sweden got whooping cough since the government suspended vaccinations.  While updating the vaccination section is fine, it's not a pedagogical specific waldorf education thing.  --Rocksanddirt 15:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to clarify the issue. It is the Waldorf population that is largely unvaccinated.Hgilbert 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but if it's not part of Swedish waldorf schools recommendations to parents does it belong in the article?  We could go on and on about things that parents who put thier kids in waldorf schools do that is not "mainstream", I don't think that stuff is appropriate for an article about waldorf education.  --Rocksanddirt 16:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Substantive discussion

message: Wikiwag don't be to hasty to remove something that is just a fact based bit of information.  I don't want to start reverting things, but I will also.  --Rocksanddirt 16:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's misleading and based on data that is not allowed under the ArbComm decision, disallowing original research [the dissertation] and Anthroposophy-related publications [the waldorfschule.info website]. Therefore, it must be removed. - Wikiwag 16:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: However, I'm not about to engage in conduct that some might call "edit warring," and revert someone else's reversion. - Wikiwag 16:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither am I.  which is why I did not revert it, and asked for an explaination.  I would actually rather not edit the main article for the most part.  But rather understand here the edits people want to make.  I've got no problems if the document is from a source that's not ok, since it was in before, I had thought it was ok.  --Rocksanddirt 17:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And I also have no real issue leaving it out altogether.  --Rocksanddirt 18:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Many thanks :-) I do owe you an apology for connecting your comment with the fact that it had been reverted. I realize now that it was actually TheBee who reverted. That reversion is unfortunately representative of the challenges faced by those genuinely seeking NPOV. I'm grateful in advance for your vigilance. - Wikiwag 18:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does theBee participate on the talk pages any longer?  I know he's had plenty to say in the past.  --Rocksanddirt 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He seems to from time to time. He challenged me on my logic just a few days ago. Looks like he spends most of his energy on the Anthroposophy page these days, but still keeps an eye out for what's going on here, as his edit today demonstrates. - Wikiwag 19:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't be Hasty 

message: ::I've come across the idea that fevers are useful in childhood from other sources than Steiner, ditto the anti-Tylenol line. There are actually medical journal articles which describe the dangers of suppressing fever, but I guess doctors don't read them. So this one isn't exclusive to waldorf either, but would probably be found in any community of people who are interested in alternative health practices. Steiner may have had different reasons for the recommendation, so that might be worthy of note. MinorityView 23:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely my statement is totally anecdotal, and there is likely wide variation in practice at schools around the world.  The point of that is Who Cares About It in the context of Waldorf Education?  What does the anthroposophical and steiner in particulars view about fevers have to do with describing waldorf education.  --Rocksanddirt 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fevers and such 

message: The introduction now reads:
"Waldorf education (also known as Steiner or Steiner-Waldorf education) is a pedagogical movement based upon the educational philosophy of Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy."anthroposophy."Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD 10 Jan. 2007 The education emphasizes the role of the imagination in both teaching and learning.Thomas William Nielsen, Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy Of Imagination: A Case Study Of Holistic Education, Peter Lang Pub Inc 2004  It aims to develop thinking that includes a creative as well as an analytic aspectFreda 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, 1995 and to provide young people the basis with which to develop into free, moral and integrated individuals.Peter Schneider, Einführung in die Waldorfpädogogik, Klett-Cotta 1987, "The overarching goal is to help children build a moral impulse within so they can choose in freedom what it means to live morally." - Armon, Joan, "The Waldorf Curriculum as a Framework for Moral Education: One Dimension of a Fourfold System.", (Abstract), Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24-28, 1997), p. 1Ronald V. Iannone, Patricia A. Obenauf, "Toward Spirituality in Curriculum and Teaching", page 737, Education, Vol 119 Issue 4, 1999"
===Notes===
I see no evidence that imagination is developed or encouraged in Waldorf Schools; that creative thinking is encouraged, or even tolerated from students or teachers; or that any basis is laid for development into freedom. What I see are laudable goals. Essentially a sales pitch. Fred Bauder 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can evidence like that be described in the introduction?  My recollection is that the sources which might have the kind of discussion of results "that creative thinking is encouraged, or even tolerated from students or teachers; or that any basis is laid for development into freedom" are happening were prohibited as polemically postive.  At least in the US, where they are primarily private schools there isn't the government paid testing and evaluation, though in a few years there might be enough info on waldorf charter schools to say something meaningful. I'd hope some independent researchers would want to do that.  I'll take a stab at something a bit later today.  --Rocksanddirt 18:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good point and a weakness for the article.  The education related reference sources take the Waldorf "imagination" education as more than a slogan.  It could be said that it is one of the most distinctive things in the sources in terms of how much importance is given to it and analysis about how the schools are trying to do it.  Even the title of one of the articles used most here from Atlantic Monthly put it in the title, "schooling the Imagination".  I found one of sources, a research study, that tested creativity of Waldorf students.  It is one source of this question of what evidence is there.  "Creativity and Waldorf Education"  This was a reference in the article before.  I do not know why it is not there now.Venado 22:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe some sources were lost in a complex edit by another editor in an attempt to reduce the first paragraph some time ago. I have re-added the above-cited source and there are now four sources actually studying what goes on in the education (not just its goals) that affirm the role of the imagination in Waldorf education. Add to this the "Schooling the Imagination" article, and that makes quite a number of independent studies: pretty substantial confirmation. There is an article in the current issue of the Christian Science Monitor (July 18, 2007, pp. 13ff) that also speaks about the role of imagination in the Waldorf kindergarten. Hgilbert 20:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nielson has presented extensive empirical evidence for Waldorf's imaginative approach; see this paper and "Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy of Imagination: A Phenomenological Case Study" as well as his book on Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy of the Imagination] Hgilbert 13:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This study of creativity in Waldorf students is also relevant; I have introduced it into the article in response to the above concern for documentation. Hgilbert 19:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I see no evidence that imagination is developed or encouraged in Waldorf Schools; that creative thinking is encouraged, or even tolerated from students or teachers; or that any basis is laid for development into freedom. What I see are laudable goals. Essentially a sales pitch. Fred Bauder 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can evidence like that be described in the introduction?  My recollection is that the sources which might have the kind of discussion of results "that creative thinking is encouraged, or even tolerated from students or teachers; or that any basis is laid for development into freedom" are happening were prohibited as polemically postive.  At least in the US, where they are primarily private schools there isn't the government paid testing and evaluation, though in a few years there might be enough info on waldorf charter schools to say something meaningful. I'd hope some independent researchers would want to do that.  I'll take a stab at something a bit later today.  --Rocksanddirt 18:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good point and a weakness for the article.  The education related reference sources take the Waldorf "imagination" education as more than a slogan.  It could be said that it is one of the most distinctive things in the sources in terms of how much importance is given to it and analysis about how the schools are trying to do it.  Even the title of one of the articles used most here from Atlantic Monthly put it in the title, "schooling the Imagination".  I found one of sources, a research study, that tested creativity of Waldorf students.  It is one source of this question of what evidence is there.  "Creativity and Waldorf Education"  This was a reference in the article before.  I do not know why it is not there now.Venado 22:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe some sources were lost in a complex edit by another editor in an attempt to reduce the first paragraph some time ago. I have re-added the above-cited source and there are now four sources actually studying what goes on in the education (not just its goals) that affirm the role of the imagination in Waldorf education. Add to this the "Schooling the Imagination" article, and that makes quite a number of independent studies: pretty substantial confirmation. There is an article in the current issue of the Christian Science Monitor (July 18, 2007, pp. 13ff) that also speaks about the role of imagination in the Waldorf kindergarten. Hgilbert 20:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nielson has presented extensive empirical evidence for Waldorf's imaginative approach; see this paper and "Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy of Imagination: A Phenomenological Case Study" as well as his book on Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy of the Imagination] Hgilbert 13:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This study of creativity in Waldorf students is also relevant; I have introduced it into the article in response to the above concern for documentation. Hgilbert 19:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: I would support Fergie's simplification of the court case, dropping the "small group" Hgilbert 18:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not object but it is how the group is described in the ed weekly article.  Supporter editors are accused of POV edits but I see here edits to emphasize criticism more than its sources do.  Is that POV editing?  Is this change adding undue weight.Venado 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The group is not mentioned before in the article. In Swedish, the standard for good language is to refer to something not known to the average reader of a text you write as "a" or "an", when it is mentioned the first time, and add some explanatory quality about it, before then referring to it in a determinate form (as many times as you like). Prof Marginalia's version did that. That's why I reverted the edit by Fergie to the version by prof Marginalia. Thebee 19:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the "small group" is my edit.  As written in edweek article reference "a small, loosely organized group".  I do not have strong object.  But do not know removing it out helps clarity.  Venado 19:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support leaving it out.  Other wise we have to qualify what small means and that gets into the whole issue of the group itself which has it's own article.  --Rocksanddirt 21:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The PLANS organization may be "small" in number of members but its effects have evidently not been small on the Waldorf movement, particularly the government Waldorf methods schools. So, saying it is a "small" organization gives the appearance of non-NPOV and so should be left out, in my view. --EPadmirateur 02:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I still don't care for it.  I would rather just link to the article about the group, but whatever.  The size is somewhat irrelevant, they are a (if not the) major internet critic of waldorf education/rudolf stiener's other works.  --Rocksanddirt 15:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  court case edit 

message: Wikipedia mc. Steiner members sure rely on computers....
Where did the name Waldorf come from educate the world in this aspect of the 'Steiner bible'...
'Steiner bible spin' This page is a little more 'free' than the sticker outside of the wall.
wink wolf wink wolf this level 3 'dated cult'. There are 'rapper basket ball gangs' that would like to sell a steiner child a used 'Radio Shack...' computer in a New York minute.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.234.102.60 (talk • contribs).
:See the origins and history section in the article. Hgilbert 10:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Wow. Hope this one's not a Waldorf graduate...) Hgilbert 00:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: easy....I think it's more a case of editing under the influence, and I still don't think I understand what was trying to be said.  --Rocksanddirt 15:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement from [[70.234.102.60]] 

message: The lead doesn't actually indicate what constitues a Waldorf education.  Perhaps merging the "Overview" section with the lead would work?  I'll leave it up to the regular editors to decide.  :)  --Iamunknown 19:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: just looking quickly we might just do away with the header for overview so that the lead becomes two paragraphs before the table of contents.  --Rocksanddirt 19:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is good idea. I think "overview" paragraph is better to come before "first school was opened" and the rest of the first paragraph.  Meaning I would reorder the overview discussion before the discussion about number and scope of schools. I know this was worked on by many already but I think this is awkword sentence: "Studies of Waldorf education describe it as aiming to develop[11] and succeeding at developing[12] thinking that includes a creative as well as an analytic aspect and to provide young people the basis with which to develop into free, moral[13] and integrated individuals.[14][15][5][16] Waldorf education seeks to integrate practical, artistic, and intellectual elements into the teaching of all subjects.[17]".  All the foot notes -8- in one sentence is to distracting.  I think one reference for this sentence is better.  One foot note can describe them all 9 in details and explain what each they say about it.Venado 23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the switch. I'll try to improve the wording.Hgilbert 20:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I have improved things, but please keep improving organization and flow and the footnotes. I commented out one of the latter and grouped others to reduce the sheer number in an opening paragraph. Hgilbert 21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great job, folks!  As a reader unfamiliar with the topic, I feel it is an excellent improvement, as the lead is now much more informative.  Cheers!  --Iamunknown 04:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

message: As a casual reader here with a casual interest in Steiner, etc., and having read some of the decisions that ended up putting this article on probation, I suggest that it seems a little too brochure-ish, and that there really is no coherent criticism section presented (the Reception and Controversy section, it seems to me, does not do justice to what ~I imagine~ -- and again, I'm not well informed here -- are probably more numerous, cogent complaints about Waldorf. If you reading this are a proponent of Waldorf, i'd say it behooves you to be the ones to find and include them.  I'm intrigued and mostly impressed by Waldorf education principles personally, but know that Wikipedia contains growing movements of a)making sure that articles about controversial concepts give proportionate room to the critiques of its detractors, and also b)"evidence-based" scientistic skeptics, or -- in my opinion, most of them -- "pseudoskeptics", who scrutinize any claims made by anyone with metaphysical or intuitive bases (observe: Project Rational Skepticism).  I know very little about Waldorf myself, but I'd recommend making perhaps a separate Criticism section (your Reception and Controversy section sounds advocational to me) that really presents the criticisms from the most cogent, well-known sources.  I'm sure it will have to happen at some point; don't wait til it's forced upon you by more than simply the specifically anti-Waldorf folks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friarslantern (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome casual reader!  actually to meet the terms of the arbitration, all the verifiable criticism we can find is used.  There just isn't much that's not either from completely unreliable sources (blogs, forums, email lists, and the like) or from "anthroposophical" publishers which are considered "self-published" by the interpretation of the arbitration committee.  We've tried several other ways to present the material but it comes off as either really undo weight to something that's not important (at one time there was a long couple of paragraphs on vaccinations) or the article reads like a sales pitch, with a small paragraph of whinning that it's bad at the end.  If you can find something, please let us know and lets try to work it in.  --Rocksanddirt 20:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A first step to improve the situation: I have moved the studies of Waldorf education before the reception and controversy, as they contain more objective material. Hgilbert 10:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: The article references Uhrmacher's 1993 paper "Making Contact: An Exploration of Focused Attention between Teacher and Students" and lists several arts that are part of the "arts-based curriculum". Are there other "arts" listed by Uhrmacher such as handwork and farming (gardening)? I don't think these latter two would be considered "arts" and part of the "arts-based" curriculum even though they are undoubtedly part of the elementary curriculum. What does Uhrmacher say specifically? Are there other references that would justify adding more "arts"? --EPadmirateur 21:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-disciplinary arts-based curriculum 

message: I have worked through a number of sections to bring these into tighter form. In addition, as the table of contents was a page-and-a-half long; I have deleted titles for subsections that were only a single paragraph anyway and brought this down somewhat. Hgilbert 16:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brevity 

message: The image of a Waldorf school recently added to the beginning of the article is very helpful. I find the following: , added to the elementary education section both misplaced (it belongs to early childhood education) and not as well-chosen. I have removed it for the moment; could we look for a more well-rounded image of an early childhood environment (and a better picture?) Hgilbert 16:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: hide rfc template  --Rocksanddirt 22:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall Neutral Point of View Review 

message: Once again, we have been through a cycle of edits for neutrality and the article has been proposed to be checked for neutrality with no responses. This is now a very thoroughly sourced article. Are we ready to drop the neutrality-check header, or where does further work remain to be done? Hgilbert 05:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any sense in maybe doing another article RfC?  I know that not many people came and looked at the last one and it seemed mostly to promote arguement between a couple of editors.  --Rocksanddirt 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it appears that nobody cares.  --Rocksanddirt 22:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Or anything else in this article regarding some of Steiner's controversial mystical views concerning education?
This is from Robert Todd Carroll's website:
"Steiner designed the curriculum of his schools around notions that he apparently got by special spiritual insight into the nature of Nature and the nature of children. He believed we are each composed of body, spirit, and soul. He believed that children pass through three seven-year stages and that education should be appropriate to the spirit for each stage. 
Birth to age 7, he claimed, is a period for the spirit to adjust to being in the material world. At this stage, children best learn through imitation. Academic content is held to a minimum during these years. Children are told fairy tales, but do no reading until about the second grade. They learn about the alphabet and writing in first grade.
According to Steiner, the second stage of growth is characterized by imagination and fantasy. Children learn best from ages 7 to 14 by acceptance and emulation of authority. The children have a single teacher during this period and the school becomes a "family" with the teacher as the authoritative "parent".
The third stage, from 14 to 21, is when the astral body is drawn into the physical body, causing puberty. These anthroposophical ideas are not necessarily taught as part of the standard Waldorf school curriculum to the students themselves, but apparently are believed by those in charge of the curriculum. Waldorf schools leave religious training to parents, but the schools tend to be spiritually oriented and are based on a generally Christian perspective.
Even so, because they are not taught fundamentalist Christianity from the Bible, Waldorf schools are often attacked for encouraging paganism or even Satanism. This may be because they emphasize the relation of human beings to Nature and natural rhythms, including an emphasis on festivals, myths, ancient cultures, and various non-Christian celebrations."
If this is in fact the actual basis that Steiner used to develop his ideas concerning Waldorf education, then I don't see why these types of things aren't mentioned in the article.
Geneisner 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few reasons.  1) due to a ruling by the arbitration comittee on what is a reliable source, most anthroposophical materials (such as Steiners writing about education) are not considered reliable sources.  2) the article is also about how the waldorf education is practiced today, not what Stiener proposed.  3) the anthroposophical ideas behind the curriculum are not taught to the students until the later years of high school, if at all.  The idea that Stiener developed the curriculum out of his anthroposphical ideas is in the text, and the article on Anthroposophy is referenced.  The souce you cite would certainly be considered "not reliable" by the arbitration ruling.  So, we end up with an article that describes what goes on today in waldorf schools, with some evaluation of public waldorf schools in a few areas, and that's about it.  Hope this helps, if you have other questions please ask!  --Rocksanddirt 15:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Steiner's theory of child development, which Carroll sketches out, is described in the article. As far as the spiritual background is concerned, I may have a good-quality source that could be used to bring this into the context of the article; I'll check at home. We should look at the anthroposophy article and see if it covers this subject sufficiently, as well. Hgilbert 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've put in a link to the Anthroposophical view of the human being.Hgilbert 16:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't Steiner's Dogma mentioned? 

message: I have recently added a link to "The International List of Famous Waldorf Alumni (...and Waldorf Parents)". Subsequently, Rocksanddirt has suggested that it appeared to be like an advertising spam link and has asked me to explain why I think the link should be kept. I will be happy to do so:
In this list, Waldorf alumni who are recognized in their home countries or internationally for positive contributions to the arts, science, politics, commerce, industry, and other fields are collected. The list was founded more than 10 years ago by a private initiative of German Waldorf alumni calling themselves "theWaldorfs". Through the years, it has adopted the character of an international research project on "famous" Waldorf alumni. Among other things, the list is supposed to act against prejudices that are present worldwide, which claim, for example, that Waldorf education would not sufficiently prepare its students for the "real challenges of life" (see also "Motivation" of the list). The names have been collected with participation of numerous individuals from many countries and with active support of publicly recognized Waldorf alumni, to include bestselling authors, diplomats etc. Already two years ago, the list has received visits from more than 70 different countries within 1 month time. The list respectively selected names are frequently quoted in newspaper articles etc. As there is no other effort of comparable global extent researching biographies of publicly known Waldorf alumni, this list acts as exclusive and primary research output. Where to go if not into Wikipedia as an encylopedia? To sum up, I do think that it does indeed add value to the discussion on Waldorf education related topics and its link should be kept here.
The initiative is independent, unsalaried and in no way initiated or influenced by any official Waldorf related institution. Calling the list "spam" does certainly not do justice to the efforts that have been and continue to be invested by many people from all over the world who are supporting its development. If anyone has further questions as to the nature of the list, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best regards
Christof Jauernig
theWaldorfs
Editor-in-Chief
Cjauernig 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clearly not a commercial site. I see no great objection to having it. Based upon the similar pages for other schools, it could certainly be made into a Wikipedia page and linked to - and it makes sense that, for Wikipedia, links to external sites must be acceptable if the same material would be acceptable on an internal article page (assuming the site itself contains no objectionable material). Hgilbert 20:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I participated in two arbitration hearings which directly involved Waldorf related articles.  The result was that Waldorf published sources are not allowed as sources in the Waldorf related articles except in limited situations.  This remedy was imposed, in large part, to prevent use of Waldorf promotional materials and self-published materials.  The probation is still in effect, and the use of references that are self-published by Waldorf alumni would seem to fall under the probation's ban.  If it is not sourcing any claim but simply attached as an external link, then linking it may not present this problem.  But if edits creep back towards information that smacks of "promotional claims", editors could find administrators intervening.Professor marginalia 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I don't see anyone suggesting this material be cited in the article. Nor can matters of fact (a list) be critiqued as incorporating bias. Hgilbert 23:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, actually....I a) don't like even external links that arn't reliable sources and b) don't like external links that arn't some how related to the text.  However, I agree with prof.M. it is a self published (in fact wiki'ish) list.  --Rocksanddirt 00:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it seems that this is a principle more violated than upheld in Wikipedia lists of notable school alumni; they rarely cite their sources. Nevertheless, I found the superbly cited List of Harvard University people, with proper references for every entry. Perhaps the users who wish to include this information for Waldorf could convert the web-version to a Wikipedia list and work to reference the entries. Hgilbert 01:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "The International List of Famous Waldorf Alumni" and should it be linked in? 

message: Something to check out when you have some free time.  Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007.  Excersise one's responsibility to participate in the community governance and all that jazz.  --Rocksanddirt 18:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off Topic 

message: I think the opening sentence should include "(also known as Steiner or Steiner-Waldorf education)". 'Steiner School' is the commonly used term here in Australia for about 60 schools, kindergartens and playgroups; including the first such Australian school, Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School founded in 1956 (see ).--Design (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Hgilbert (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening para 

message: I think the wording that was recently introduced is better, that is, to say "cult-like 'Steiner based' religious sect" rather than "cult-like religion", because this is closer to the first reference (requires free registration or search via Google) which said "calling Waldorf an offshoot of a 'cult-like religious sect' " and also to the PLANS press release at the time which said "Waldorf education is a missionary activity of Anthroposophy, a cult-like religious sect". The second reference is less accurate by characterizing "the Waldorf educational movement is rooted in a New Age, cultlike religion called anthroposophy". I think the previous edit should be restored. We can also add (where possible) these links to the articles in the respective references. --EPadmirateur (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion vs religious sect 

message: The definition of anthroposophy doesn't seem to belong to the first paragraph of the introduction; first Waldorf education should be described before another theme is brought in. It is obviously relevant, but I wonder if this is the right place for it? It already is covered in a later section. I will try simplifying it to "Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy," which gives the reader who is unfamiliar with the latter term the chance to link to the article. Hgilbert (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the earlier introductory paragraph with the extensive definition of anthroposophy was a bit unbalanced. There is a description and link to the Anthroposophical view of the human being in the first section (on the pedagogy) and then later an entire section on the role of anthroposophy. Nazamo's point was that "most people would not be familiar with the term" anthroposophy, but the link is there if they need help. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition of anthroposophy in introduction 

message: I have removed the to-do box as it has no longer been in active use for some time. To put it back, insert    Hgilbert (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-do box 

message: a link was added today, that looks like advertising spam to me.  I am removing it.  If anyone has a reason to keep it, please revert me.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  spam? 

message: An ip editor put an NPOV tag on the article with the internal comment "no criticism?".  While there is no criticism section there are the available reliably sourced critical information in many sections.  I have removed the tag, but would invite discussion on the issue if there are editors who feel we need to reevaluate the criticism issue.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism sections are to be avoided according to WP:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure and WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure but all viewpoints need to be represented. I think one problem is that a lot of the criticism is not supported by reliable sources. It would be good to enumerate the criticisms that are embedded in the article, for example in the reception and controversy section. Also I think it would be quite good to look to specific criticisms that are not represented in the article and see how they can be incorporated without violating the rules of the arbitration ruling, for example, the controversy over the racial ethnography block in some Dutch schools. --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the current way is fine (prefereable really).  I was under the impression that noone has found reliable sources for additional criticisms (especially quite specific ones' like you mention).  To be honest, I have not looked very hard for any additional sources for this article and am unlikely to have much time or inclination to do so either (unless there seems to be some good reasons to do it).  So, unless anyone else has an opinion, I'm going to consider the matter dropped.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd call it a "drive-by" tagging. Still happening today. I'm reverting to support Rocksanddirt, not necessarily to claim that there are no problems with the article. If the IP editor wants that tag to stick, he or she is going to have to explain it and point to something specific. The IP editor could, for example, review the article History and Talk and see if criticism has been improperly removed, and restore it, or point to some reliable source for criticism, etc. Just replacing the tag without some detail is not acceptable. I'm sure there is some criticism with reliable source; for example the PLANS lawsuit can be cited, or coverage or analysis of it. That would have to be attributed, and if there are issues over this, I'd be happy to assist, ask me on my Talk page. --Abd (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I didn't have to, another editor reverted it. And if this keeps up, I could take it to AN/I and the IP could be blocked. By the way, I'm probably more of a critic of Waldorf education than a supporter, but, hey, this is an encyclopedia. I'm just not personally exercised right now to work on the article. Other stuff, you know. One comment, though, Steiner would like. NPOV is indeed the product of integrating, into a single "narrative," apparently opposing points of view. When we can see something from two points of view at the same time (Steiner would call this "affinity" and "aversion"), we get depth perception. He called it "higher consciousness."--Abd (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much agree.  The issue here is sources.  Due to the unpleasantess of a year - year and half a go, the sourcing requirements for these articles are a bit tighter than normal 'reliable source' criteria.  In a normal article, we could you the 'Renewal' Journal of the ASWANA for some things (especially about how waldorf education in the US presents itself), but since it's a movement published journal we can't.  And since nearly all critial matter is either in such journals of national associations or forum/blog posts at 'attack' sites, we have very little sourced criticism, which leads to articles that are less neutral than they probably should be.  Appearantly someone did block the ip's in question, I don't know if they are disruptive enough for that, however these recent ip's seem to have been evaluated as 'evading arb topic ban'.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Rocksanddirt wrote: "these recent ip's seem to have been evaluated as 'evading arb topic ban'". Yes, it seems they've been "evaluated" that way. If anyone is aware of when/where/how this was determined, and can find evidence of this or even anyone bothering to make a CLAIM or even post a HINT about what that evidence might be, it would be a service to post it here. Otherwise the very clear impression an objective person would gain is that the IP was blocked on no rationale other than other editors don't like what he or she was posting. If there was really some evidence, why would all the questions about it be ignored? What would be so hard about posting that evidence? The user (Shalom) who supposedly "evaluated" this ignored all my questions. The vague notion that the IP is in the same (enormous) region of the country as a previously banned user, and blocking an unknown person for this flimsy excuse, really makes wikipedia procedures a joke.DianaW (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov tag 

message: So what links are acceptable as external links for Waldorf homeschooling? How about these two non-commercial resources: 
* The Future of Waldorf Homeschooling article by Barbara Dewey, published by The Peridot and re-published by Mother's Nature web site 
* Waldorf homeschooling resource directory by Waldorf Family Network web site
Perhaps there should be a new section in this article on the subject. Or should there be a separate article on Waldorf homeschooling with links to homeschooling and alternative education? --EPadmirateur (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those look much better than the previous links, which were arguably spam. Hgilbert (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Waldorf homeschooling 

message: Is this a valid and recognized Waldorf teacher training center? Even though "David-Michael and Glenda are no longer in Seattle"? This center is currently listed as an "AWSNA Developing  Institute" by the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America. It has what appears to be a bona fide Board of Trustees and faculty and appears to be offering a bona fide on-going Waldorf teacher training program. So why can't this program be listed among the teacher training external links? It certainly appears still to be in operation despite the claim "IT'S NOT THERE ANY MORE!" I don't understand.... --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, it seems to be there.  revert the removal.  just because the founders moved on doesn't mean the center fell apart.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omit Sound Circle Teacher Training Center? 

message: The actual sources used in the article are third-party and peer-reviewed studies of the education. Thus, it is more correct to say that the education is how they describe it, than that "proponents" (whom the article does not cite) describe it this way. We are not looking at how proponents describe it, we are looking at how it is described by objective reviewers. In case of conflicting descriptions (show that this is the case) it would be better, of course, to write that some reviewers/studies have described it as being this way. Otherwise, we are using verifiable sources that describe a phenomenon and should accept their descriptions as accurate unless there are reasonable grounds to doubt this (e.g. conflicts between studies).
Similarly, that it is the aim of the education to nurture children's destiny has been established with reference to verifiable sources. This is true whether or not they have such a destiny; this is a philosophical argument that doesn't belong in an education article. 
There is a distinction between independent academic sources and proponents. The material sourced here is explicitly not from Waldorf sources, but from independent studies. Wording should reflect this. Hgilbert (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "These are all peer-reviewed authors independent of the Waldorf movement." Can you back that statement up? Anyway, since there are critics, the goal cannot be stated as universal.--Svetovid (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite a (verifiable) source that disputes the point or suggests anything different? The question is not whether the education has critics, but whether they have disputed that the aims of the education are as cited. Absent any contrary voices, the statement stands as not just one claim among many, but a valid description of the education. 
Nevertheless, in acknowledgment of your concerns I have added wording indicating that the sources for the statement are studies of the education. It still appears superfluous, as the citations (footnotes) serve the same purpose, but at least it is accurate now. Hgilbert (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

message: was added with information relating to the numbers of waldorf schools.  This seems like another ref that's sort of grey area-ish, the information used seems non-controvertial, but I've been wrong about that sort of thing.  please comment.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  another grey area ref 

message: I removed a new addition on anthroposophy:
:Anthroposophy holds that the human being passes between stages of existence, incarnating into an earthly body, living on earth, leaving the body behind and entering into the spiritual worlds before returning to be born again into a new life on earth, with the dependence between different lives termed as karma. Rudolf Steiner, Theosophy, ISBN 0-85440-269-1Rudolf Steiner, An Outline of Esoteric Science, ISBN 0-88010-409-0
While a summary description of anthroposophy might be appropriate here, it isn't easy to summarize in a sentence, and reference to massive works without specific pages is not enough, and it may be better to simple let it lie with the link to the article on the subject. That summary is only one view of anthroposophy, there are others. So, I'd suggest that, if there is going to be such a summary, it should be discussed here and enjoy consensus before insertion. --Abd (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with removal, the subject is far to broad to get into in this article.  Folks should be directed to the main article and the cubic feet of material written by others on the subject.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed description of anthroposophy 

message: Thanks to User 130.88.0.52 for this reference. Could you provide the specific wording in the Giesenberg article that supports the text ("[Waldorf education] is centred on the belief that humans possess an innate spirit that will develop in the right environment according to karma before returning to the spirit world and reincarnating in another body") that you've included? Many thanks, EPadmirateur (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 

message: This info and ref was added recently by EPadmirateur.  While I don't dispute the information, it doesn't seem to add much to the section.  Is there a reason that there seem to have been excess funds diverted to that section of the school?  Is there some manner of fraud going on?  I'm not sure what it adds.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The news article mentions allegations of misappropriation of funds (i.e. improper allocation). I think mention of this controversy is relevant because it is one more instance of the on-going controversies in Victoria, in particular with the Footscray school, relative to public-funding of Steiner "streams". I think it should be included for completeness and neutrality. All three of the instances that are mentioned in this section (California, Australia and UK) are controversial. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything with relevance to just one school probably should go in an article about that school. Why is this more noteworthy than, for example, the purchase of an old, famous, listed library by one Waldorf school for their new site (as happened recently in Canada)? Or the new school in Nairobi? Or.... hgilbert (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I have removed some of the school-specific information about Footscray, leaving a mention that there is controversy over the Steiner stream. Detailed information about that particular school belongs in the school's own article, which should be NPOV. Someone feel like doing this? hgilbert (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  relevance? 

message: The topic of sports isn't really fully addressed here; one editor would like to put something in about it, it appears, but without a citation. Does anyone know of a source that discusses sport in Waldorf schools? hgilbert (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea....I don't recall any of the magazine type articles mentioning it.  I know some of the 'unallowable' sources will have something regarding sports/games/play stuff.  I know that specific schools do have sports programs (The Sacramento Waldorf School's high school won the state championship in baseball, and plays a number of highschool sports with similar sized schools in their area.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: snort - a quick google news search on sacramento waldorf school has the first 10 results all being about girls basketball.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

text: About 15 minutes of Googling led to pretty much nothing except disallowable Waldorf school web sites. Perhaps there is something in one of the references already used -- I recall one about Steiner schools in the UK with a curriculum overview???--Henitsirk (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did find one place for US schools, for example Sandpoint, that at least lists the sports offered: http://www.privateschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/8284. And this mentions Sac Waldorf's basketball and baseball teams: http://www.sacbee.com/preps/story/1524988.html. And this has a list of Michael Hall's sports offerings: http://www.schoolsguidebook.co.uk/schools/view/293/Michael-Hall/Steiner-Waldorf-Schools-Fellowship/Michael-Hall-School-Kidbrooke-Park-Forest-Row-East-Sussex-RH18-5JA. --Henitsirk (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports 

message: User:Earlypsychosis proposes to delete the section on two "specific schools" with the reason given "Overdetailed to have information on a couple of specific schools. the article is about a worldwide educational approach." 
These are two studies that have focused on the results in these two specific schools and the section is part of an entire section on studies of Waldorf education. In addition, these two schools are highlighted because of their unusual character relative to the general Waldorf movement and so in my opinion deserve space because they are atypical. These studies highlight the breadth of possible Waldorf schools and shows that they can be successful in urban areas serving minority students and serving high-risk juvenile offenders. For both reasons this section should remain, in my opinion. It adds an important perspective on the subject and is not just "information about a couple of specific schools". --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was using wikipedia to read about I subject I knew nothing about and decided to be WP:bold - Found this section to unhelpful as it was too narrowly focused on a minor area and did not add to the overall article.  Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree that, in principle, information relevant to particular schools should be in articles about those schools, not in the main article. I think that these two have been included for various reasons that grew out of the history of this article's creation. If their relevance is primarily their atypical social context, the information should probably be moved to the section on social engagement, possibly in an abbreviated form. hgilbert (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I continue to agree with the suggestion to consolidate the section on specific schools, moving the information to articles specifically on these schools. Any objections? hgilbert (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't leave much time to respond! --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing specific schools section 

message: I changed the bullet-pointed "subheadings" into real subheadings. Having subheadings with a bullet point in front, followed by a large body of text was weird. It bothered me, so I fixed it. Quillaja (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it back; the table of contents becomes way too long (it's already pretty extended). Can we find another solution that doesn't have this consequence? hgilbert (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think theres a way to suppress some of the table of content info, but I don't know what it is.--Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I see 3 easy solutions. (1) Make the TOC float on the right side where it's not a bother, and make that first picture of the school into a smaller (default thumb size) floater on the left. Not a "solution" per se, but then the long TOC isn't so bad. I tried the "TOClimit" template, but I couldn't make it show only level 1 headers. (2) (recommended) Instead of using unordered lists (*), why not use the term-definition list (; for 'header' and : for 'content')? I think the limitation on this is that the 'content' must be one paragraph. (3) Just make the pseudo-headers bold text, since that's all they look like anyway. Quillaja (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studies headings 

message: The UNESCO quote reads, "Cooperation with UNESCO: Contacts with the Waldorf Education movement, the ideals and ethical principles of which correspond to those of UNESCO, have intensified, especially during the International Conference on Education held in Geneva in September 1994, at which the foundation mounted an exhibition on its educational projects." On the basis of the title and first words alone ("Cooperation with UNESCO: Contacts with the Waldorf Education movement...") it is clear that the passage is about cooperation/contacts between UNESCO and the Waldorf education movement. In addition, the conference cited as the primary example did not serve to intensify contacts between the foundation and the educational movement, but between UNESCO and the "Waldorf Education movement". As I read it, the sentence clearly and explicitly refers to contact and cooperation between UNESCO (see title) and the Waldorf education movement (see first sentence), which the foundation helps to mediate.
Nevertheless, I can see how in good faith the passage could have been interpreted differently, as it comes in the middle of an annex about the foundation. For the above reasons, I'm not sure how a careful reading can maintain this interpretation.hgilbert (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! I see I have been editing the article while this discussion has been happening. Sorry. I think the version on UNESCO that's there now should be acceptable to both parties? --EPadmirateur (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at my editing where I've tried to ensure that the article text is supported fully by references.  --HighKing (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes look fine to me, more accurate. I archived the Kathmandu reference in web citation so it's available permanently. --EPadmirateur (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  And I never thought of a web archive.  BTW, why is it in the Kathmandu section if the conference was in Geneva?  Just an idle question. --HighKing (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

text: A reference to the exhibit also appears in another UNESCO citation, which is online; the relevant section is quoted already at the top of this subsection.hgilbert (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you a reference for the other online UNESCO citation that supports the fact that UNESCO sponsored an exhibit?  Thank you.  --HighKing (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put this reference in the text of the article now. By the way, Kathmandu is simply the location of UNESCO's publishing house that put out the work. The exhibit took place in Geneva. hgilbert (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably best to leave in the archive.org reference too, since publications without ISBN numbers frequently get challenged.  --HighKing (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: UNESCO quotation

message: ;The complete text of the relevant passage in the original arbitration ruling is:
:"Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources."
;Later clarifications:
:In Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Proposed_decision an arbitrator wrote: "Articles should rely on secondary sources, not primary sources like Waldorf documents or Steiner quotations. (For example, in most cases, editors should not directly quote Steiner, a primary source about himself, but should rely on articles about Steiner in newspapers, education journals, and so on.)"
:Further clarification: "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 [sic] are not acceptable as sources either for claims that Waldorf is good, or for claims that Waldorf is bad."
:Further clarification: "wouldn't anthroposophy press material be similarly acceptable for the narrow purpose of describing anthroposophy? DurovaCharge! 03:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrator's comments relating to verifiable sources

message: By the way. The English Wikipedia's 3 millionth article is on the Norwegian actress Beate Eriksen who is head of the drama department at the Bærum Waldorf School, Oslo. Lumos3 (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia's Three Millionth Article 

message: " Early use of antibiotics and fever reducers, along with the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination were also associated with increased risks of several allergic symptoms and doctor's diagnoses."!!!
It is an argument for the schools and the anthroposofic movement? don't we need a better source for such statement?(rather than a science magazine)
Don't we have enough scientific evidence with much better sourcing to justify, recommend and even mandate MMR vaccination?
Do we have enough evidence to imply that Waldorf schools are "healthier" than the average school ( adjusted for the $/student)?
Isn't it more epidemiologically accurate to imply that the average Waldorf student has a better family income than the average inner city student, and that income  imply in better living conditions and lower allergic phenomena?( as I understand we do have good quality data for the last statement).
Please omit the section. it is a fallacy, and does little to advance the "Waldorf" cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.0.149 (talk • contribs) 
:Income and other socio-economic factors were taken into account in the study. hgilbert (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: In the section on Anthroposophy's role, User:121.217.12.37 added Ullrich's valuable critical question; Ullrich answers this in a differentiated way, essentially suggesting that Waldorf education is more strongly rooted in Steiner's sound pedagogical principles than in his dubious esoteric philosophy. I've tried to reflect this differentiated stance here, but please help! (The article cited is available here). hgilbert (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paradox of pedagogy