Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 4

message: Pete, after I deleted a link to one site, "OpenWaldorf", giving as expressed reason that it is a one-man self published site, that noone but himself has checked before he published it or he has gotten approved by some institutionalized Waldorf authority as authorative, and I added one link to the Online Waldorf Library at http://www.waldorflibrary.org/ you have deleted all three remaining links in the category without giving any other reason for this than: "they seem to be the next front for edit wars.".
The three resources you deleted are:
* The Online Waldorf Library
* Waldorf Research Institute
* List of well-known Waldorf alumni
I have specified the reason for deleting the one-man self published site, which is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. http://www.waldorflibrary.org like http://www.waldorfresearchinstitute.org are basic institutionalized authorative informational sites on Waldorf Education, giving an extensive overview of literature and articles on Waldorf education. In no way do my edits constitute an "edit war". As you do not give any specific reasons for deleting the three links, your deletion of them however stands out as pure edit warring. Maybe an administrator can look at this?  --Thebee 16:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I hope administrators look at this.  The Waldorf Project is, in fact, working on the issue of links as well as other issues related to this article.  Rather than getting this article locked up over links, we should probably delete all the links until the Waldorf Project makes a decision.  They have taken on the responsibility of producing an NPOV article AND NPOV links.  I would suggest to you that you should let them do their work and stop fussing with links. Pete K 16:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Waldorf Resources

message: The neutral point of view policy is laid out clearly. Material in this article is from cited references (general references appear at the end of the article, specific in footnotes). Please specify exactly what parts of the article are not meeting which aspects of the WP:NPOV policy rather than general tagging; then these can be improved. 
Please compare this article with, e.g. the Montessori article; the use of language is much more careful here. Please specify what more is sought. Hgilbert 18:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think it is helpful to compare this article with other articles that have the same or similar problems.  This article reads like a Waldorf brochure - everybody agrees with this.  That's why the Waldorf Project Team was created - to FIX the article and bring a NPOV to it.  We're all waiting patiently for them to fix it.  Meanwhile, the tag is very appropriate.  Here's an example of what I could easily write in the article and reference - if I were so inclined: "Waldorf schools were developed by Rudolf Steiner as a process by which children could be indoctrinated into Anthroposophy.  Steiner instructed teachers to conceal the underpinnings of Waldorf education and to not let students OR parents know the Anthroposophical trappings that are infused in the curriculum."  I could support this statement with "Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner" easily - and it would be just as valid as the description you have hoisted up there.  I think we can agree that some language between what you have written, and what I would like to write would be appropriate.  Yours is no more a NPOV than mine is.  In the mean time - while we are looking into the issue, the tag should remain. This is literally a brochure for Waldorf - and that should be made apparent with a tag. Pete K 20:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another suspicious website has been referenced as a source for warehousing information.  UncleTaz (Tarjei Staumme) is similar to Sune(TheBee) in the misinformation he provides on his website.  I would like to request that a neutral party look at the UncleTaz website and determine if links to this original research website for warehousing legitimate information are irresponsible and should be redirected directly to the articles themselves.  I believe it is a dangerous idea to store good information on defamatory websites and direct readers there.  Let's use Wikisource whenever possible for warehousing legitimate information.  I'll leave the link for today.  A neutral person should evaluate this. Pete K 17:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another reference to the problematic website has been produced.  Still no discussion. OK, tomorrow morning - out it goes. Pete K 02:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source.
Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources." 
(I have replaced the above-mentioned webpage citation with a direct citation to the original publication.) Hgilbert 21:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view  

message: There are two sections that are redundant. "Anthroposophy's role in Waldorf Education" and "Basis in Anthroposophy" say almost exactly the same things.  I'm removing the latter and preserving any information contained therein by adding it to the former. Pete K 00:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant Sections

message: Phrases like "Some schools do not give sufficient information about..." without any citation or backup is pure weaseling. This is editorializing at its worst; it is simply an editor's opinion dressed up as fact. Hgilbert 00:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense.  The truth is NO schools give sufficient information about Anthroposophy on their websites.  But I'll challenge you to find some that do.  Not links to information - but actual information on the website.  I could easily take out the "some" and make the sentence a lot less weasly. Pete K 01:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks , but that's not truthful.  I'll adjust your "compromise" wording to be more in line with the truth.  Thank goodness I'm here and able to do this. Pete K 21:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: I have no idea what it is, but from a read through the article I agree it is a bit salesmanly. I hope this gets resolved because it sounds interesting and like useful information to me, if it could get cleaned up correctly.
Resonanteye 22:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: waldorf? like salad?

message: I just happened across this article, read it, found no reason for the "sounds like an advert" tag to be there, and removed it. User:Pete K reverted it and said in his edit summary, "Please don't start an edit war over the tag again. Thanks." I have no idea what's going on here but I do know the article doesn't really sound like an advert, and that there's no reason Pete K couldn't just FIX IT instead of replacing the tag. Would Pete or anyone else care to tell me just what it is in the article that necessitates the tag?  Highfructosecornsyrup 19:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This tag has been removed and replaced more than a dozen times.  Attempts to repair the article have been blocked by some editors.  The issue has gone to arbitration.  If you can hold off until the arbitration process is completed, we will get a ruling on whether the tag belongs there or not.  Thanks! Pete K 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, the arbitration can be found here.  Feel free to weigh in if you like.  Thanks!  Pete K 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "advert" tag 

message: I have removed the "concerns" paragraph as it now gives a totally fallacious reference. I don't know what happened to this. Hgilbert 07:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Concerns" in racism section 

message: HGilbert - I noticed you deleted the merge tag.  I have replaced it.  It would be better, since you have a history of aggressively deleting tags, and you have a conflict of interest in this particular article, if you discuss these types of edits here beforehand.  Thanks. Pete K 18:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting Tags (again)