Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 3

message: Where does the name Waldorf come from?  I've asked people who have attended Waldorf schools and they didn't know.  Does anyone know?
THX-1138 21:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where does the name come from?

message: I have edited this section to be clearer and more accurate. Please do not revert to a vaguer and less detailed version!!! The edits are there because:
#Teacher training programs do not include hundreds of lectures. 
#The 'spiritual teachings', a very vague phrase, are explained in more detail in the newer version.
#Mention of how or if these teachings are used in schools is already found in another section of the article, and does not belong to a special section on teacher training.
I hope this makes sense to everybody! 
Hgilbert 01:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give details of "later Waldorf educators". If there are other contributors to Waldorf Educational theory the article should say who they are/were. Lumos3 10:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Teacher training

message: In response to recent anonymous edits:
:"The advent of the Waldorf Schools was in my opinion the greatest contribution to world peace and understanding in the century."
- Willy Brandt, Former Chancellor of West Germany, Nobel Prize Winner. (see here)
The Waldorf schools were formally closed by Nazi decree in the mid-1930s (by being forbidden to take new students). A few schools managed to get extensions until 1938 or 39. reference
Hgilbert 10:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what is truth? You must provide verification for any claim if it is to be included. Jefffire 13:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Waldorf schools under the Nazis

message: I have removed a quote that did not appear in the cited text.Hgilbert 10:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hgilbert -- As you are aware, only the last sentence in that paragraph does not match the cited material. I have removed the sentence in question. -paka33
Some factually incorrect edits have been accumulating. For example, all Waldorf schools teach academics from 1st grade on. To claim that they begin at third grade is simply false. Similarly, when the trial court judge states that he tried a case, to claim that he didn't is simply false (PLANS trial), and to claim that the trial was unfair because the plaintiffs had no legally admissible evidence is really just too much. The claim is pure opinion; the fact is that they had no legally admissible evidence and this should appear clearly without editorial whitewashing. The list could be extended indefinitely. 
If you wish to write an article about PLANS' opinions about Waldorf education, it belongs in the PLANS article, and a link could be made to that. The alternative is to create a section about various organizations' opinions about Waldorf education; then the UN's support of Waldorf schools and the education generally could have place, the Americans4Waldorf Education group, and so on. There are a lot of organizations out there, though, and no one should be given priority. Hgilbert 21:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: hgilbert -- The third grade and academics was a mistake -- I meant to say "reading," which, as you know, is a common criticism. As far as the PLANS section, it was difficult to understand, so I edited it a bit. I think the main point legally was that the court decided the case "with prejudice" and that Waldorf schools have never been found to be in violation of church and state -- two point that I made that were not there previously. -paka33
Thank you for the latter points. 
I don't know about the third grade criticism, having never heard it; reading is taught much earlier than 3rd grade in every Waldorf school. In particular, reading is taught in first grade primarily through the activity of writing, which is practised thoroughly, and more intensively apart from writing in second grade. Traditional schools practise more reading, less writing earlier; Waldorf schools more writing, less reading. The handwriting in Waldorf schools ends up superb, as a result, but the reading skills may develop slightly later...for some children. Since children who develop late in traditional schools are marginalized as deficient, however, a systematic comparison would have to be made to see if there is really a significant difference even in the early years. 
It is a dangerous projection to assume that others know things; generally it's better to ask politely if they do know. I hope that's not too spiritual an approach! ;) Hgilbert 21:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts preferred 

message: I am abbreviating the court case, which is of relevance only to U.S. Waldorf charter schools, with a link to the PLANS site, which has a fuller description. Hgilbert 10:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Court case

message: The criticism section has been pretty bare. I have added material with insufficient citations but attempting to summarize the gist of "what's around"; it is incredibly difficult to find published material to these themes, and much of the web stuff is pretty shoddy. Let me know what you think of the new sections. Hgilbert 13:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New sections of criticism

message: 'Grade' is a North American term with little meaning to the rest of us. Use the median age instead: 'age 7 and above' or 'at 11 years of age'. This will then make the article meaningful to all readers. Fergie 08:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not difficult to reconcile international usage of age- 7 year olds in the US are the same age as 7 year olds in the Ukraine. If we absolutely have to use one nations school-year system then by rights should be the German one, since this is where Waldorf education has its roots. Lets stick to the international ´age´ and drop the US-centric ´grade´--Fergie 18:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop using 'Grade' (1st Grade, 2nd Grade,...)

message: It looks like this article should be named Waldorf education rather than Waldorf Education. Does anyone have an opinion either way? Wmahan. 16:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right; we can move it and establish a redirect from the old name. Anyone object? Hgilbert 21:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article cannot be moved from Waldorf Education to Waldorf education. Perhaps we can try to do this through an intermediate step such as Waldorf-education? Aquirata 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the article to "Waldorf-education" as no objections have been put forth. Any ideas how to move it top the proper "Waldorf education" now? Would this suppose getting rid of the redirect page "Waldorf Education"? Aquirata 13:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have listed the "Waldorf Education" redirect page for deletion  so this page can be moved to "Waldorf education." Aquirata 14:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have posted this on Requested moves and closed the mistaken AfD, as Aquirata now knows how to accomplish this sort of thing in the future. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing this. The strange thing to me is that other, supposedly more experienced editors haven't stepped forward in moving this article properly. I thought everybody was in the dark on this, and so decided to move forward the only way I knew. Aquirata 17:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't notice your comment until now. It looks like the situation is resolved. I'll try to help fix the links to redirects. Wmahan. 17:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you!!! Hgilbert 21:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was the original intention, thank you. We've travelled a convoluted road, but arrived at the right place nevertheless! :) Aquirata 00:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: Have there been any studies regarding what sort of adults Waldorf kids grow into? Are they happy? Are they well-paid? 
Secondly, how much does the "religion" factor into the education? (aka, how cultlike?)
68.192.173.170 02:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studies? 

message: The following 2 links to sites which are primary sources of collections of parents , teachers and commentators views critical of Steiner education are being repeatedly removed from these pages.
*People For Legal And Non-Sectarian Schools Campaigning Group critical of Waldorf Education. Waldorf critics site containing resources critical of Waldorf education including, parent and student testimony, and articles by academics and researchers.
*[link removed] Site created by teachers and parents at the Norwegian Waldorf-/Steiner school in order to share experiences.
The arguments used for their removal seem to boil down to the fact the editors don’t like what they are saying.
:Your comment shows, I think, that you you have not more than superficially looked at the documentation showing the extent of the repeated untruthfulness and demonization of WE at the WC-site, and that you disregard the basic Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion of External links in articles, explicitly and repeatedly pointed to here in the discussion. --Thebee 12:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ".. discussion of the actual issue of the inclusion of these sites have now been removed to a sub page to keep it from view"? This stands out as a sweeping and untrue biased statement. The MAIN discussion on this, not archived, TALKs page on WE concerns the WC-site. The ONLY discussion of the second site you mention also is published here, not on the "Archive" page, as you write. This indicates, well, actually shows in full, that you do not quite know what you're talking about, or do not care if it actually is true, as what you write in the main is untrue. --Thebee 12:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You're not serious, Lumos, see above ... --Thebee 12:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Lumos.  There is indeed a serious effort by Waldorf fanatics to hide critical views of Waldorf on this page.  Looking at how many times a day this page is edited to remove criticism will make this clear.  I have added links today to Waldorf Critics.  Let's see how long they are available to parents and people who are interested in both supportive and critical viewpoints of Waldorf Education.  --Pete K 08:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship of these pages 

message: PLANS meets nobody's definition of a hate group. A hate group dislikes people due to their religion or their ethnicity or skin color and targets them because of this, if not for outright violence at least for verbal bashing. A hate group is not the same thing as a group, organized or otherwise, of people who have criticisms of an institution, movement, or doctrine. The latter - criticism of religious movements - is a simple matter of free speech, at least in the US. In the US, we are not only allowed but *obligated* to criticize religious and other institutions when they misbehave, the same as we criticize politicians or others who betray a public trust.
A group does not become a "hate group" by virtue of having a web site or running an email list where people who have had unsatisfactory experiences with an institution or movement report their stories, or where people with a critical view of the doctrines or teachings of the religion or movement discuss their views, or where aspects of the movement's history that are embarrassing to the movement are openly discussed. 
A hate group *hurts* people. A hate group hurts people because of *who they are* rather than *what they do*. Criticizing the behavior of an institution, or individuals affiliated with these institutions, is not hate speech. For instance, complaining that the reading instruction in these schools is poor is not hate speech. The claim itself may be true or false, but parents complaining that their child was poorly served academically in Waldorf schools, is not hate speech. Likewise parents, or others with academic or other personal interests, discussing the racist and antisemitic writings of Rudolf Steiner do not thereby become members of a hate group.
Does anyone have a source that calls PLANS a hate group, other than anthroposophists? I am no expert on hate groups, but I certainly cannot find one online. The first hit when you google "hate groups" is the Southern Poverty Law Center, a very reputable source, and they certainly don't mention PLANS anywhere. I didn't keep googling as just going through google hits is not a very reliable way to research something.
I am confident no such non-anthroposophical source for this view exists.
If it does, I would like to see it here. I would like it posted right here. If no one can find such a source, I propose that where the article says "Some say PLANS is a hate group," this be amended to read "Anthroposophists say PLANS is a hate group." (Actually, it would be better if it said, "Some anthroposophists say PLANS is a hate group," as many anthroposophists no doubt recognize that this claim is absurd, and are embarrassed by the lunatic antics of a few.)
And in fact, I'd like you to keep the comment, as I think it discredits anthroposophists rather than PLANS.  It only helps you *as long as* its origin is not clear.
Which is of course clear evidence of your dishonest motives. Once the origin of the claim is made transparent, it's no use to you. At that point you may find me arguing to keep it rather than delete it entirely.
Just take responsibility for what you are saying. 'Fess up. No one thinks PLANS is a hate group except anthroposophists.
And please note: We are not talking about citing other people citing anthroposophists. Linking to "AmericansForWaldorfEducation" will not do it. *Original* sources - people who know something about hate groups, rather than bending this slanderous notion to their own defense, and then quoting each other as if "lots of people think so" - are what is needed.
If this change is objectionable, I would like to hear why.
If these proposals are reasonable, I would like Byrnison or whoever it is to cease reverting this change in the article. If you intend to keep reverting it, I would like to see a source given *that is not anthroposophical or that does not quote anthroposophists* for the contention that critics of anthroposophy (PLANS or anyone else; there are many critics, especially in Europe, who are not affiliated with PLANS) are a "hate group." Otherwise, the intellectual dishonesty, self-serving nature of the claim, and the tortured circuitous logic of the claim are fully exposed, and no one can argue this claim belongs in an encyclopedia.
You can keep changing it if you like; that is the way Wikipedia works. But I intend that if you do, your efforts will be widely exposed and discredited.[]] 13:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above was written by Diana. Again not trying to be anonymous- forgot to log in.DianaW 13:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is PLANS, an organization critical of Waldorf, a "hate group"? What is a hate group? Does anyone other than anthroposophists call PLANS a hate group?

message: Thanks, Fergie, for moving the whole discussion with DianaW to the bottom of the page, where it belonged. When DW put it at the top of the page instead of where it should have been, at the bottom, I put my comment on the issue just before DW's, for purely logical reasons, as DW's discussion was an answer to what I had written, and an answer normally comes after what it is an answer to.
Maybe the contributions by DW here have given a taste of the discussion culture on the WC-list, that is pursued there day in and day out, week in and week out, year in and year out, since soon ten years, draining the soul of all life, and then republished by the secretary of the goup as "archives", now 140+ MB, at his site for search engines to index and spread world wide for anyone interested in WE, as "Education of the public about Waldorf education". Is it fair to characterize it as hate speech, far beyond reasonable criticism? In my view, yes. --Thebee 10:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the impression that you guys are pusuing old vendettas from elsewhere. Maybe you should both try to take a couple of steps back, and try to be less emotional on Wikipedia.--Fergie 13:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks, Fergie

message: Before adding reference links, please check that they aren't already provided.  Please do not add the same reference over and over, and do not link usenet or other email lists as reference material, nor message boards, blogs, etc.  These are not to be used as reference material on wikipedia. Professor marginalia 22:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple links to same site 

message: a page called Goethean science, however there is already a holistic science page so I propose just adding a line that says "Waldorf teachers base science instruction in holistic science which is woven throughout the curriculum.   Feel free to suggest a different line.  It will then link to the holistic science page.  There are already plenty of links to site which feature Waldorf curriculum - so the specifics are not needed.  And yes, critics, the holistic science page already has a section called opposing views, but feel free to add a touch.  Steiner folks, he isn't mentioned, but there's a link to Nature Institute and I added one to Rachel Carson's site.  Please, let's not add too much to that page - Steiner could maybe get a line there, referring to his page .
:Are you suggesting that the detailed Waldorf curriculum be eliminated altogether, or simply relocating or removing the science parts?  I think the entire Waldorf curriculum discussion should be kept together if possible.  I don't think that the science curriculum is exactly equivalent to either Goethean science or holistic science, but maybe a 'see also' pointer or other type link to those pages would be good for further background.  I'd section out the History and Social Mission sections rather than divide out just one or two elements from the rest out of the currently practiced curriculum. Professor marginalia 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2) I was going to move all of the science parts to