Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thebee (talk | contribs) at 16:53, 3 November 2006 (→Health of Waldorf pupils: Correcting indent, question regarding disruptive edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:RFMF Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

This template has been replaced by Module:WikiProject banner

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

This template has been replaced by Module:WikiProject banner

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

PLANS, /Archive1, /Archive2

Criticism

I'm removing all unattributed criticism; I was trying to be gentle with edits, but you're right, the whole paragraph is unattributed and thus untenable for the Misplaced Pages. I'm trying to rewrite it in a form that respects the intent while recognizing that in none of the major studies done of Waldorf Education (by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in Britain, for example, or by UNESCO) have any of these issues been raised. There aren't any citable criticism of this particular issue, but it is something potential interested parties should know.

Many themes in the Support and Criticism sections under Debate were repetitive. There were also two sections labelled criticism, one with text and one with links. I have merged the two debate subsections thematically under the general aegis of 'Debate' and removed the 'support' and 'criticism' tags; if someone seeks criticism specifically, they will find the links.

In particular, the criticism that Waldorf 'hides its spiritual nature' has never been made by any reputable authority. In addition, since all published material on Waldorf education emphasizes this spiritual emphasis, the criticism has certainly not been relevant since the advent of the Internet. Dated at best.

recent additions:North American Waldorf Schools Connection to Christianity

Added recently:

AWSNA, the organization that certifies all schools in North America with the trademarked name "Waldorf," says that to be certified it is "essential" that schools have a "strong foundation" in a religious system developed by Rudolf Steiner

AWSNA did not use the term 'religious system'. This is misleading.

, called Anthroposophy. (AWSNA) Anthroposophy is a form of Christian mysticism

Steiner connected with many streams: Christian mysticism, Theosophy, natural science, Goethe, Fichte, and so on. Anthroposophy is not a form of Christian mysticism, however.

, where Christ remains the central figure, but other religions and philosophies are incorporated as well. (Steiner, 1914) Most private Waldorf schools

in Christian countries

celebrate Christian-based holidays, with an Anthroposophic interpretation, including the four seasonal festivals of Michaelmas (fall), Christmas (winter), Easter (spring), and St. John (summer), as well as Martinmas and the Advent Spiral or Garden. Most Waldorf schools also have other Anthroposophic

or non-anthroposophic: Hannukah, so far as I know, is not an anthroposophic festival

celebrations and festivals throughout the school year that are not Christian holidays, but the vast majority are Christian-based.

in Christian countries

I am removing the tendentious and in large part factually untrue section.

Waldorf Project

Is the Waldorf project moving forward, or should those of us actually interested in fixing this article start editing it? If the Waldorf project has come up with edits, I would suggest they be introduced here so the rest of us aren't wasting our time editing things that will get changed by the Waldorf project. Pete K 17:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete, as motivation for your removal of two links from the links section today (17:20, 18 October 2006), http://www.waldorfanswers.org and http://www.waldorfanswers.org/Studies.htm you describe the site as "defamatory". On 2 September 2006 you described it as:

"... replete with defamation and non-verifyable (outright lies) information." (BTW, 6 minutes after you wrote it, Longhair reported that had you been "blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and a violation of the three revert rule".)

Can you be more specific about what you mean with this (replete with defamation and non-verifyable (outright lies) information), or maybe just "defamatory", as you write today? --Thebee 18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a few of the many lies on those pages have been exposed and discussed here and in the archives of this and the Rudolf Steiner articles. Please feel free to use them to refresh your memory. I think the best example of the defamation is available by simply looking at the sites themselves. I won't waste too much time on this as it would be an exercise in demonstrating the obvious. Is there some reason you are trying to connect the 3RR rule violation with this? And do you see what you are doing here in this example - connecting unrelated issues together to try to make some implication about me. This is what you do on your websites as I pointed out to you on a different page in an example - that you took claims that were made by others and suggested they were made by PLANS. There's really no point in discussing this with you as you apparently have no idea how dishonest your websites are. Just rest assured that I will remove references to them every time I see them. Pete K 19:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's no answer regarding Waldorf Answers. If you state that http://www.waldorfanswers.org is defamatory, and give this as one reason not to link to it in the article, you need to substantiate it and be specific. It you can't substantiate it, I'll have to ask you to retract your statement. Thanks, --Thebee 20:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't HAVE to do either. Your own website substantiates my statement for me. It's a waste of my time to continue to argue with you over the validity of your website. If you want to have this mediated - ask for mediation. Pete K 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can't share the reasons for your objection to the website, then that objection to it can be ignored. This whole issue is irrelevant as neither waldorfanswers.org nor waldorfcritics.org are reliable sources. — goethean ॐ 20:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum on numerous "talk" pages here related to Steiner. Sune's web sites, Waldorf Answers included, contain the assertion that PLANS is a hate group. (Or various weasely mouth-of-cotton constructions like, "includes argumentation characteristic of hate groups in their early stages" LOL.) All of the people that he and others routinely (whether accurately or not) associate with PLANS are defamed by association with this. The claims are completely, in total, 100% nonsense, and he has never posted a shred of evidence to support them. The charges are very serious and I've pointed out to him and his colleagues at AWE, his other web site, that if they truly believed them they should be reporting people associated with PLANS to law enforcement. They don't, of course, because it's merely propaganda. I have been interviewing for jobs, and a potential employer could google me and become worried that I am involved in a "hate group." Sune Nordwall knows that this is not true. He should remove these phoney accusations that he cannot substantiate, as they paint him rather than the people he is falsely accusing as lacking in ethics, but we can't force him, short of legal action. He should not be allowed to provide links to material like this here - this we can protest, and we will. Misplaced Pages does not allow defamation.DianaW 20:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not allow defamation.

This is irrelevant. What you are discussing is linking to alleged defamation, which is completely different. If you find a Wikipeia policy on that, then bring it up. As I said above, this is irrelevant since the site is not a reliable source. — goethean ॐ 21:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing "alleged" about describing a group of people as a hate group and refusing to give a shred of documentation for the claim. The fact is these web sites DO call PLANS a hate group; this is documented. It's further obvious to any reader of those web pages that there isn't any documentation on the web site of any activities that meet the definition of a hate group, or even close. There are no reported hate group activities, and no reported hate group speech. This is his propaganda to deter critics of anthroposophy. You've been party to long conversations with Sune Nordwall in which he continues to refuse to provide evidence for these atrocious claims. He argues things like, somebody got promoted to vice-president of PLANS because she "cultivated a myth about anthroposophical conspiracies." He has no information on the inner workings of PLANS, couldn't document why so-and-so became vice president if his life depended on it, and he doesn't even have the guts to provide links showing where the VP of PLANS supposedly did such a dastardly thing - becuase if he provided the link, everyone would see what the rest of us know - that it doesn't show that. It's general talk on a mailing list about anthroposophical projects and doctrines, in other words, it's people criticizing anthroposophy, mainly parents whose kids had a very bad time in their schools.DianaW 11:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's Original Research at the very least. No link. Pete K 21:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I to understand that you with this retract your statement from 2 September in this discussion, that http://www.waldorfanswers.org is

"... replete with defamation and non-verifyable (outright lies) information." --Thebee 23:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I absolutely DO NOT retract it - in fact it has been proven here countless times. I'm just not going to humor you while you whine about it here. Pete K 23:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"What you are discussing is linking to alleged defamation, which is completely different." There is no "alleged" defamation - it IS defamation to toss around words like "hate group". Pete K 01:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging Articles

I agree this article should be merged with the Transfering article and the History of Waldorf Schools article. There is no reason to have so many articles repeating the same information. The history of Waldorf is handled in this article - as is the transfering to/from Waldorf schools. A little embellishment maybe, but that's all we need. Pete K 21:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The sub-article Transferring to Waldorf Schools is far too long to incorporate here; that's why it was separated off. There is a question as to whether it should exist at all, however. (I separated it rather than deleting it to avoid offending whoever put it in; perhaps he or she could say why it is important to have here.)

In addition, merger tags should go in the appropriate section of an article when they apply only to a sub-area, at the top of the article when two comparable articles are to be merged. Hgilbert 13:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the sub-article shouldn't exist at all. It apparently started out as "Waldorf Schools" and became "History of Waldorf Schools" - and really, much of the relevant material is covered here. Can we all agree to delete that article? Pete K 16:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops; two article merges are being confused here (my fault; I wasn't specific). The article Transferring to Waldorf schools is the one that probably shouldn't exist. The History of Waldorf schools article has substantial information independent of the nature of Waldorf schools; it should stay and will be developed further. Mea culpa - sorry for the confusion. Hgilbert 21:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, no confusion - the history of Waldorf education should also be deleted as most of the info is in the Waldorf article (currently) - and really, who cares about the rest? I don't know what the Waldorf Project team has in mind however so maybe they will be spinning off dozens of Waldorf articles and flood Misplaced Pages with Waldorf and Steiner stuff. Hey, aren't you part of that project? Pete K 00:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf Resources

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

Since you are the one who "fussed" with the links, perhaps you should take your own advice. The links you deleted cannot be criticized on any possible grounds. Their relevance to the article is also clear. Hgilbert 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

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)

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)

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)

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)

Perhaps this is helpful, from WP:Reliable sources:

"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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

As usual, you're citing of Misplaced Pages policy is another smokescreen. "poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time"

"Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources."

"The same reasoning applies to trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia.com, where the degree of editorial oversight is unknown."

If you have referenced UncleTaz, it's coming back out. Pete K 22:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Going from Bad to Worse

Having reviewed the latest edits, this article is going from bad to worse. Even some of the language we agreed to remove is re-entering the article by means of the same people who agreed to remove it. Can we have an official word that the Waldorf Project is not doing anything at this point? I'm inclined to reverse all of HGilbert's edits today but don't want to begin an edit war again. If nobody is willing to look at the brochure language here, I will go through the entire article and make a very coarse and thorough edit. It will bring the article down to size, I'm certain, and will remove the brochure talk. I would much rather a more "neutral" person perform this task as people perceive me to be opinionated in one direction - just as HGilbert is opinionated in the other direction - but in the absense of any interest by another reasonable reviewer, I'll go to the trouble of doing this. Pete K 14:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been asked not to "simply revert"; please respect this. We are trying to make the article conform to Misplaced Pages standards, for example by removing ambiguous language and vague phrases. What is problematic in these last edits???? Please discuss and come to agreements here.

I believe that the project has come to a standstill because of your (and Diana's) refusal to enter mediation; I at least, and apparently a number of others, find it impossible to work with users who refuse to compromise and refuse to mediate. Hgilbert 13:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, I'll be making corrections to the article directly. If you can add all this stuff in without discussion, you should expect to have it edited without discussion. If, instead, you choose to work with others to make valid edits by consensus on a controversial topic such as this one, then there is a greater likelyhood that your edits will stand. BTW, you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting the mediation process was derailed by Diana and myself. You saw, for six days, our diligent discussions about the problematic wording of the mediation request and did nothing to "compromise". Please don't try to pin the failed mediation on Diana or me. The Waldorf project was problematic from the beginning - all WALDORF people made up the project group. The chances of a non-biased article coming out of that group were nil. And what in the world do the Waldorf project and the failed mediation have to do with each other. Were you expecting to reprimand me into working on the project? If you find it impossible to work with me, you should, perhaps, let this article go. You have been unable to produce an unbiased version of this or several other articles - so why not just relax for a few days and let others give it a shot. Pete K 15:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, Harlan, I see you are busy adding back the brochure language I took out last night - so I'll let you have this evening and remove it again in the morning. Hope you are enjoying yourself. Pete K 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Health of Waldorf pupils

13:46, 27 October 2006 Pete removed a section, then titled "Health effects" from the article, arguing that "no source has been cited for this ridiculous claim - that Waldorf schools are responsible for heath effects.". I have added a section on ""Health of Waldorf pupils", sticking closely to what is stated in the studies on which the section is based. Thebee 16:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this section again. This kind of nonsense is what starts edit wars. There is NO support for the notion that simply by attending a Waldorf school, students are healthier. It's a ridiculous claim and that Waldorf people have made it doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Pete K 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me just add that this is another attempt by TheBee to start edit wars and lock up this article. Please stop making ridiculous claims that are supported by your own group. Pete K 16:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong and I have made no ridiculous claim. My addition is not an edit war. When you removed the section some days ago, you stated in your edit summary that you did it because it in your view is ridiculous to state "that Waldorf schools are responsible for heath effects". I did not revert your edit. The two studies it referred to were two purely empirical studies, one published in the Lancet, Vol. 353, No. 9163. (May 1 1999), pp. 1485-8, the other (a large study confirming the first one) in J Allergy Clin Immunol, Vol. 117, No. 1. (January 2006), pp. 59-66, that show that allergic diseases are less common among Waldorf pupils than among pupils in a corresponding control group.

I agree that it was a false overstatement to describe it this as an "effect" of Waldorf education, and did not write that in my addition of a section on the health of Waldorf pupils. I just described the empirical finding, that the two studies cited in the section describe, that allergic diseases are less common among Waldorf pupils. That's all. The studies document this, and it is interesting.

In the summary of the edit where you have removed the section, you write: "removed once by consensus". Can you point me to the consensus you refer to? Thanks, Thebee 17:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't say "You are wrong" - that's a personal attack. As to the studies, the claim is ridiculous. Waldorf is a private school system - primarily available to affluent people. Affluent people tend to be healthier than the general public for any number of reasons, not the least of which is being able to afford superior medical attention. The only thing that is interesting about your claim is that you apparently believe people won't see it for how ridiculous it is. Pete K 17:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

With "You are wrong" I meant that I did not make the edit to - as you write - start an edit war, but just to make a correct description of the studies referred to in the section, strictly based on their summaries, nothing else. In the earlier description, this in my view hade been exaggerated by asserting a direct causative relation between going to a Waldorf school as such (as "cause") and a lower incidence of allergic diseases among pupils at the schools ("effect").

I also did not make the edit to - as you write - get the article locked. I also think that you were wrong in writing that I - as you write - made "ridiculous claims", as what I wrote was strictly a short summary of what the two studies themselves give as summaries in the well known medical journals. The publication of the two studies in the journals probably would not have taken place, if the editors of the journals (the Lancet and J Allergy Clin Immunol) had considered the result of the studies - that I just describe - to be ridiculous. In these three senses I think it is clear that you were wrong in what you wrote.

On your: "... don't say "You are wrong" - that's a personal attack." Can you be more specific in what sense this in your view constitues a personal attack in relation to the examples of Personal attacks, respectively Not Personal Attacks, given at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples and my description of what I referred to?

We seem to have different views of what a personal attack is. Three days ago (31 Oct.), you wrote that you did not consider a comment by you to Harlan 15:34, 28 October: "Shove your reminders Harlan", to have been a Personal attack on him. To my understanding (I may be wrong, as I'm not American) what you wrote is a Profanity, and - according to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples "Profanity directed against another contributor." falls in the category of Personal attacks. This just as some principal reflecions on our seemingly very different understanding of what "Personal attacks" mean according to Misplaced Pages policies.

Also, if you personally consider one or more empirical studies, published in well-reputed journal to be "ridiculous", that personal view probably cannot be used as basis to delete a description of them in a Wiki article, according to some Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. If just a personal view by someone was enough to remove material from an article, that would mean that I too could delete for example what you put in one article on Steiner, just because I think it is ridiculous, as you now have done.

Finally, again: Can you point to the consensus you refer to in your description of your edit of the article 16:30, 2 November 2006? Thanks, Thebee 23:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a peek at the Lancet controversies listed on Misplaced Pages:

The Lancet was severely criticized after it published a paper in 1998, in which the authors raised the possibility of a link between MMR vaccine and autism, a matter of continuing controversy. In February 2004 The Lancet published a partial retraction of the paper. Dr Horton went on the record to say the paper was "fatally flawed" because one of the authors had a serious conflict of interest that he had not declared to The Lancet.

The Lancet published a controversial estimate of the Iraq war's Iraqi death toll--around one hundred thousand--in 2004. In 2006 a followup study by the same team suggested that the violent death rate in Iraq was not only consistent with the earlier estimate, but had increased considerably in the intervening period (Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq ). The second survey estimated that the death toll in Iraq was somewhere between 426,00 and 793,000 people - with 601,000 being the agreed upon mid-way estimate. Over 12,000 people were surveyed.

In January 2006, it was revealed that data had been fabricated in an article by the cancer researcher Jon Sudbø and 13 co-authors published in The Lancet in October 2005, . The fabricated article was entitled "Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of oral cancer: a nested case-control study". . Within a week after this scandal surfaced in the news, the high-impact New England Journal of Medicine published an expression of editorial concern regarding another research paper published on a similar topic in the journal.

Pete K 00:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought - go ahead and put in the wild-ass medical claims. This opens the door for me to bring in articles about whooping cough being rampant at Waldorf schools - and articles about abusive Waldorf teachers - who was that senator's sister who tied children to their chairs and taped their mouths shut? Never mind, I'll find it. I just don't see why making such a ridiculous claim that everyone will see through matters so much to you. Pete K 00:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You have deleted a correctly cited section describing lower incidence of allergic diseases among pupils at Waldorf schools (in Europe) by referring to an earlier reached consensus that the section - as it looked earlier - should be removed. I have asked you twice if you could point me to this consensus, and you have not answered, just threatened that if I add the section again, correctly describing the two, well researched and documented studies upon which the section was based, in revenge, you will add material that you find damaging to Waldorf schools. Is that a correct understanding of what you write?

As you don't seem inclined to point to documentation of the consensus, can someone (else?) who participated in it, point me to it, giving a date and maybe a difflink? Thanks. Thebee 16:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You insist on introducing a ridiculous claim for which there is no support - because it happened to be published in Lancet, a journal which publishes original research. That's what they do - publish original research - so peer review can transpire. It has nothing to do with the validity of the research at all. And, no, I have made no threats - I have indicated that I appreciate the opportunity to produce similar reports that show Waldorf schools as medical cesspools where the abundance of unvaccinated children leads to outbreaks of disease. This discussion, unlike the goofy article you want to include, actually has its basis in fact. So yes, go ahead, make my day. Pete K 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For a fourth time: When you deleted the section on the incidence of allergic diseases in the article, as documented by two well published studies, you wrote that you deleted it, based on an earlier consensus that it did not belong in the article. After I have asked three times where to find this conseusus, you still do not point to documentation of it. Instead you again refer to your own view that what the studies document is "ridiculous", and that they do not document what they document. Should I understand this to mean that the consensus, to which you referred does not exist, that no such consensus can be documented in discussions about the article, and that your edit (deletion)therefore lacked basis, both in a consensus and some Misplaced Pages policy or guideline? Would that not mean that the deletion you made was a disruptive edit of the type Centrx some days ago warned you to continue doing, telling if you did it, you'e be banned? Thanks, Thebee 16:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics