Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pete K (talk | contribs) at 18:19, 9 January 2007 (→Research on Waldorf Education). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors of this are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them. For further information see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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This template has been replaced by Module:WikiProject banner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This template has been replaced by Module:WikiProject banner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.

Whoevers asking i go to one of the Waldorf schools and they do tell us what religions are about and stuff but nuthing like worship so don't worry.

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 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 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)

Here's more brochure language that needs to come out: "Private Waldorf schools make up the largest independent school system in the world." To support this statement - we have a list of 921 schools... and a website reference in German by Anthroposophist Detlef Hardcorp. This is brochure speech at its finest, and listing the number of Waldorf schools doesn't support the statement. I will be removing it tomorrow. Pete K 04:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The relevant reference of the two is to the article by Detlef Hardorp; I have moved the other reference to a more appropriate location. The article was originally published in a standard multi-volume reference work on education, published by a mainstream publisher; I have added the reference to this source as well. (You cannot discriminate against an author due to his/her affiliations (see Misplaced Pages standards)). The citation is adequate unless you can find evidence that speaks against this statement. Hgilbert 22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, a reference in German by an Anthroposophist supporting an unbelievable claim. What a surprise. You will hopefully understand, then, why the advert tag is going to stay on the article until the brochure speech is removed. Why don't you guys at least TRY to make an attempt at a NPOV article - instead of pushing this silliness? Pete K 00:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Redundant Sections

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)

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)

Although the fact that students eat all organic and aren't allowed to bring sugar to school does keep the students in a healthier condition because they have a balenced nutrition, so I can see how that claim is made. Don't say that I don't know what i'm talking about because I go to a Waldorf school.

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)

Your harassment of me is well-documented. Buzz off little bee... Pete K 17:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to add my support for the inclusion of Theebee's edit on The Health of Waldorf Pupils, as it is supported by verifiable research published in the Lancet. The Lancet is routinely used as a refrence. I also want to add that Sally Fallon has given her support to this claim as well in her book Nourishing Traditions. Klocek 22:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And I believe I have read another research article on the subject, that is not the Lancet. I'll ask one of my doctor-friends if he knows. Klocek 23:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dennis (you're Dennis right?). Yes, as I said - if you guys feel so strongly about it, he should put it back in and I'll go ahead and add in all the health problems attributed to Waldorf. Let's not play the game of "we're out of room now" however. If you guys want the study, you will have to allow the studies that show the opposite as well. Not a threat - just a head's up. Pete K 00:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, in case you're interested - the study you are trying to add is not about Waldorf families but about Anthroposophical families and their lifestyle (so doesn't apply to Waldorf families) and The American Journal of Public Health discusses and refutes the findings of the study you are trying to add here. Additionally, this article also shown here describes the pertussis outbreaks at Shining Mountain school, and other problems at Waldorf schools because of the irresponsible practice of avoiding vaccinations. And here we have more people pointing fingers at Waldorf. Below is an excerpt:

• To some, beliefs about alternative therapies may seem harmless, but there was a recent case in Germany in which two homeopathic doctors who opposed the MMR vaccine were reportedly responsible for a measles epidemic involving over 700 children, thirty of whom were hospitalized. There is fear that the rising infection rate could result in children dying needlessly.

• A story in the London Times (March 6, 2002) by Alan Hall traces these practices to the Waldorf School, "which actively encourages people not to have their children vaccinated. Now we have an epidemic." The Waldorf School is described as "a holistic teaching centre based on the methods of the late Dr. Rudolf Steiner and is one of several in Germany that promotes alternative medicine." Parents also received anti-MMR letters from activists "advising them not to vaccinate their children."

• In the United States, a Waldorf School is among those schools in Boulder, Colorado where children are not receiving their pertussis and other immunization — with fatal consequences both for those children and their younger siblings who have not yet been vaccinated. A letter to the Lancet (August 24, 2002) indicates that in the United Kingdom in a twelve-month period, "eight infants of preimmunization age have required extracorporeal support for intractable cardiorespiratory failure due to Bordetella pertussis infection." Five of them died "despite extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, and one survivor has substantial neurological disability." Although the reported cases indicate infection by members of the same household, parents with infants who have not yet received their full complement of vaccinations might be wise to inquire of their New Age/alternative medicine friends whether their children have been immunized before allowing them to come over and visit.

And I found another dozen articles criticizing Waldorf within about 30 seconds. Again, not a threat, but just letting you know what can of worms you are opening by introducing the ridiculous Lancet claim that practically nobody will believe is a result of Waldorf education anyway. It's your call... Just be sure to leave plenty of room for the response. Pete K 02:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Pete K, the articles you brought up are interesting, but after I gave them a further look, I don't think any of them would stand. None of the articles you mentioned showed a definate link to problems in the Waldorf schools, just a link to problems in children who had not been vaccinated. For all we know, those children could have been illegal immigrants not recieving vaccinations. True, Waldorf encourages children to be vaccine-free, but saying that Waldorf is unhealthy based on studies of other kids getting sick is kind of a stretch, don't you think?

I think the section should be added.

No, I think you have missed the point of the articles. Yes, a non-vaccinated child might become infected anywhere, but the "epidemic" that spread through the Waldorf school was due to the fact that huge percentages of the children were not vaccinated and Waldorf bears at least some of the responsibility for this because they discourage vaccinations. I don't know if you are familiar with the U.S. but Shining Mountain school in Boulder, Colorado, suggesting these kids were illegal immigrants is the stretch here. I'm quite happy to include both articles. The Lancet article, BTW, also could be excluded because of the point you mention above - a slight difference in the immune system observed in vaccinated vs non-vaccinated children - nothing to do with Waldorf. As I recall, the difference even then was something like only 1%. Pete K 17:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The articles EACH mention Waldorf specifically. They are talking about problems in Waldorf. The Shining Mountain case of the pertussis epidemic is Shining Mountain Waldorf School. The article in question (the Lancet article) is about Anthroposophist's lifestyle, not Waldorf. As I said, feel free to add the article back in - but I'll add my articles too. Pete K 21:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

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)

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)

This is a little backwards. To make such a claim, you must positively source or otherwise prove it - unsourced claims do not stand until disproved. I have provided a compromise wording that is indisputable. Hgilbert 19:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Harlan, 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)

What you call 'truth' is merely your opinion. What amount of information about 'anthroposophy' is "sufficient"? Once again, claims made have the burden of verifiability; you cannot merely claim anything and demand that others disprove it. Hgilbert 11:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Tearing off the Advertisement Tag

A few days ago, I removed the ad tag because it looked like the article no longer needed it. It was immediately changed back, and the person who changed it said "that an anonymous user can't decide this" and I didn't think that was fair, but thought "oh well, I'll just get a username and no longer be an anonymous user."

Well I did just that, I got a name. Well then I looked and saw that someone else took the tag off. So another person evidently agreed with me. Well, then the same person who reversed my edit, did the exact same thing with this other person's edit, saying a consensus hasn't been achieved yet. Well it looks to me, based on this person's other edits, that he is simply trying to edit to page according to his own personal viewpoint, and he needs to shelter himself under the advert tag to do just that.

Well I for one don't think a consensus needs to be achieved if just one person is against it. I don't think it is fair to the readers. I'm curious, what does Misplaced Pages have to say about it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rottentomatoe (talk • contribs)

PeteK is certainly not an editor who is afraid to go against the grain, and if it was not for him, this article would have been in a far worse state. Those who are interested in editing the article tend to have a personal investment in Waldorf education and in some extreme cases a religious devotion to it. Consequently the article has become brochure-like and the advert tag is justified until this is rectified.Fergie 21:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fergie: I have asked you several times on your user page to clarify what sections/sentences in the article, or what sorts of problems you see, giving concrete examples. You have never answered this. If you wish to maintain this, you need to give reasons/examples. I don't see the justification at present. Hgilbert 22:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just read through it and it's remarkably better than it was. I think you guys owe Pete a debt of gratitude. It makes Waldorf education look much more credible - much more *respectable* - like perhaps you are serious educators - to have an article like this, that describes content of the education and background of the education and largely refrains from a lot of overblown, Open House-style obvious puffery. You don't know what a favor he's done you. That slobbery stuff really does not do Waldorf any good at all with thoughtful customers, whom presumably you ought to want as customers. Yet, a few areas still contain "brochure talk."

The discussion of Main Lesson Books, for instance, is covering for the fact that the content of the books, both text and illustrations, is largely copied. "each pupil writes and illustrates a 'main lesson book', a self-created 'textbook' based upon the content learned." Well - they copy it off the chalkboard. They often aren't even allowed to decorate the borders with a little scroll pattern of their own design without teacher guidance. "Scope for independent creativity in these books progresses rapidly through the elementary years." That's spin - that's a reply to an unstated criticism, which is that there's precious little such "scope" for quite some time.

The teacher training section needs to have mention of anthroposophy moved up earlier. "The course of study normally includes methodologies of teaching, academic training in specialized disciplines, artistic development, and familiarity with child development (especially as researched by Steiner and later Waldorf educators)." It needs to read "normally ncludes anthroposophy, methodologies of teaching . . ." etc. "It also generally aims to develop an understanding of the inner, or spiritual, basis of teaching;" That's brochure talk - most people don't agree with you that Waldorf has got some kind of unique understanding of the "inner or spiritual basis of teaching." I see that you guys are trying, and that it is hard for you to sort out what critical outsiders want. What is objective and factual to say is that it is *Steiner's* notion of the "spiritual basis of teaching" that the teachers are studying in training. "They learn the spiritual basis of teaching" type stuff is brochure talk because it's like you know what the spiritual basis of teaching is. Um, not according to everyone. Moreoever there isn't one"spiritual basis of teaching" - there's potentially many.

The next paragraph says, "TRudolf Steiner's 'spiritual science' or Anthroposophy and developmental psychology are normally central courses at any Waldorf teaching college or training" - and this is good but needs to appear at the beginning of this discussion. The Foundation Year is anthroposophy - not "teaching methodologies" etc. Incidentally, just from a copy editorial POV, you should ditch words like "methodologies" when a simpler word like "methods," which means the same thing, will suffice. - I know, some educators or stuffed-shirt PhD's earnestly believe that "methodologies" means something fancier - but it doesn't.

"Academic training in specialized disciplines" - say what? What exactly would these specialized disciplines be? Does this mean English and math? This is a bit dolled up. I mean, they learn (supposedly) how to teach third grade English in two weeks in the summer before the third grade, and how to teach fourth grade English in two weeks the next summer, etc. Waldorf teachers, if their training has been only in a Waldorf teacher training program and their teaching experience limited to Waldorf schools, often have very little of what would elsewhere be recognized as "academic training" at all; never mind "specialized disciplines."DianaW 04:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing where it is. You are right that it could be further edited, things shifted around a bit - this is true of any article in any encyclopedia, and especially in Misplaced Pages where things grow by accumulative processes. Would you agree there is nothing in your suggestions that justifies calling the article in its present state an "advertisement"? I think we can continue to work on it, but the tag can be dropped.

"Specialized disciplines", incidentally, include math and english, of course, but also foreign languages, biology, physics, woodworking, and everything else. These play a very large role in both high school and specialist-teacher (e.g. foreign language) trainings, and a smaller but significant role in class teacher trainings, but even for the latter content of this kind (as opposed to general pedagogy) is much more prominent in the four-year Waldorf teacher training courses typical of continental Europe than in the one and two-year courses typical of the U.S..

The spiritual side of teaching could be reworded; there are usually courses addressing the "inner life" ("spiritual life") of a teacher: meditation, working with the spiritual beings, including the spiritual aspect of a child. Hgilbert 11:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Would you agree there is nothing in your suggestions that justifies calling the article in its present state an "advertisement"? I think we can continue to work on it, but the tag can be dropped." - I don't agree with this statement at all. Right up until the article was locked, I was removing brochure language - see my edits. As Diana pointed out, there is more brochure language that needs to be removed. What concerns me is that if the article is unlocked, your "team" will try to undo all the edits that brought the article closer to a non-advertisement. There's a lot more to be done here not even counting reverting the edits I know are forthcoming from the Waldorf support POV lobbiests. Again, the brochure-like language of the article has been in question here for at least three months and the Waldorf project team was supposed to address this. The best way to address this, however, might be to have non-Waldorf people look at it instead of a project team populated with Waldorf people. Why not show some good faith and not force the removal of the tag while the necessary edits are taking place? Just a thought. Pete K 21:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not set a good example and show some good faith yourself? The only edit war that has been happening during your last, rather large burst of editing has been over the tag. The tag should go. The editing should continue as an interactive process; some of your edits have been extremely POV, and they have been effectively moderated by other users. You cannot expect to change every one else's text and have yours remain untouchable; that's not how a collaborative process (even if a combatively collaborative one in this case) works. Mutual trust would take down the tag and go forward trying to accept each others' approaches and work with these. I think there's actually been a lot of that here recently, considering the circumstances. Hgilbert 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Pete wrote: "What concerns me is that if the article is unlocked, your "team" will try to undo all the edits that brought the article closer to a non-advertisement. There's a lot more to be done here not even counting reverting the edits I know are forthcoming from the Waldorf support POV lobbiests." This is my take as well. The tag should not be removed while the article is locked. Then after the article is unlocked, it leaves you free to go right back to reverting back all the things Pete succeeded in fixing. Then you'll say, 'What advertisement tag? All that got taken care of'.DianaW 23:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like my "POV" edits Harlan. They've mostly been removing or correcting *your* POV edits. But, in any case, it seems you are confirming, above, that you're ready to reverse my most recent edits - at which point the article would return to a brochure. Anyone reading the article now, and suggesting that it's not a brochure would be evaluating the wrong article - according to your suggestion above. So, yeah, the tag should definitely stay. If you've got some proposed edits that might let the article be unlocked, let's hear them... Pete K 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would revise only two of your many edits:

1. The one where you add "and sometimes unfortunately". You drift into pure editorializing; this needs some other formulation that isn't a pure projection of your opinion and/or personal experiences. I happen to be a champion within the Waldorf movement of revising the emphasis on the eight-year class teacher period. But the opposite of "brochure speak" is "antagonist speak"; both may make statements that appear clear, objective and meaningful to the person making them - but are too broad and too vague simultaneously. It is "weasel" language; unattributed, both unprovable and undisprovable.
2. The wholesale removal of the section on rhythm in the kindergarten. It needed revision, but not removal. I would replace it with something like: "Waldorf early-childhood pedagogy believes that clear daily and weekly rhythms are essential for the child's healthy development and emotional security. It also believes that both the seasons and festivals relating to the course of the year provide central formative experiences." This is a huge part of Waldorf's approach to early-childhood education and needs mention.

Others of your edits I have already revised and a middle ground has been found; this process will continue, I would expect. I have not been reverting your edits generally; only blatant editorializing (which I have sometimes managed to convert into something meaningful).

The tag should go because it is presently unjustified, as you all agree; it is inaccurate in its present form; why are you advocating keeping something that is not accurate? If it becomes accurate, it should go back; that's easy enough to do. Hgilbert 07:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"#The one where you add "and sometimes unfortunately". You drift into pure editorializing; this needs some other formulation that isn't a pure projection of your opinion and/or personal experiences. I happen to be a champion within the Waldorf movement of revising the emphasis on the eight-year class teacher period. But the opposite of "brochure speak" is "antagonist speak"; both may make statements that appear clear, objective and meaningful to the person making them - but are too broad and too vague simultaneously. It is "weasel" language; unattributed, both unprovable and undisprovable. " The percentage of teachers who make it through 8 years with a single class is staggeringly LOW - so what starts as a lofty goal often ends up as an interruption of the children's education - and often under difficult circumstances. Making the claim that a teacher stays with the class for 8 years is brochure speech not supported by reality. It's like saying - "it is the intention of each baseball player to bat 1000". It is meaningless except for the purpose of sucking people into a set of ideals that aren't part of reality. If you don't like the statement that points out the reality of the situation, then we should remove the claim completely.

"#The wholesale removal of the section on rhythm in the kindergarten. It needed revision, but not removal. I would replace it with something like: "Waldorf early-childhood pedagogy believes that clear daily and weekly rhythms are essential for the child's healthy development and emotional security. It also believes that both the seasons and festivals relating to the course of the year provide central formative experiences." This is a huge part of Waldorf's approach to early-childhood education and needs mention." I don't disagree that this is part of the pedagogy, but the wording has to be concise. "Essential for the child's healthy development and emotional security" - you sound like Donald Rumsfeld with your terrorist scare tactics here. Yes, let's all just scare the parents into Waldorf education. How about just saying "rhythms during the day and through the year are thought to be important"? What you wrote above is the type of brochure speech that riddles this article and makes it impossible to view it as other than a advertisement.

"Others of your edits I have already revised and a middle ground has been found; this process will continue, I would expect. I have not been reverting your edits generally; only blatant editorializing (which I have sometimes managed to convert into something meaningful)." Your "middle ground" and mine are in very different places, my friend. Blatant editorializing is what my edits have been removing. Just because I haven't had time to go back and re-word what you believe you have made "meaningful" doesn't mean it has any validity in this article. As long as you, a Waldorf teacher, is here making this article "meaningful" - there will be no end to the controversy here.

"The tag should go because it is presently unjustified, as you all agree; it is inaccurate in its present form; why are you advocating keeping something that is not accurate? If it becomes accurate, it should go back; that's easy enough to do." Nobody agrees - as far as I know, with what you have said above - although one polemic editor besides yourself did remove the tag. The tag is completely justified. Here's the next paragraph that needs brochure speech removed:

• "According to Steiner, the child at this early stage learns through imitation and example, so in Waldorf it is considered best to surround him with the goodness of the world and caring, practically active adults to emulate. The curriculum attempts to awaken the child's will and initiative; the teacher has the responsibility for providing an environment that stimulates imitation. In Waldorf, such an environment is believed to support the physical and spiritual growth of the child. Formal learning is absent, and experiences of the written language are consciously avoided. Oral language development is addressed through circle games (songs, poems and games in movement), daily story time (normally recited from memory) and the range of practical activities."

And there are more and more similar paragraphs that require lots of work. I'm sorry if it is offensive to you as a Waldorf teacher, to find out that lots and lots of people besides you feel it is best to surround children with goodness. In fact, maybe you should point out schools who, as their goal, consider it best to surround children with something other than goodness. There is absolutely no justification for removing the tag while this type of language fills the article. There was, at one time, a promise of a re-write of the article (most of which, I believe you personally have written) and this promise was not fulfilled. Now it's time for you to, perhaps, sit back quietly for a while and allow the article to be repaired, instead of wringing your hands at every edit and denying what is plain for everyone else (who isn't a Waldorf teacher) to see. Pete K 16:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You fail to note that these parts of the article articulate Waldorf's conscious goals, easily citable and expressed in this article as goals, not as achievements - the eight year teacher period, etc. Surrounding a child with moral goodness and with practical activities to emulate in early childhood are particularly strong themes in Waldorf early childhood work. They thus deserve mention, whether or not they are important in other educational impulses. Waldorf's differentiation of goodness as the central theme for early childhood, beauty for the middle years of childhood and truth for the adolescent (12-14 and up) is unique to Waldorf. That may sound like brochure talk to you but the articulated aims of a movement deserve mention - as do the methods by which the schools attempt to realize this.

I am naturally open to revising the wording to make it clearer; there is always a danger of words that mean something to insiders meaning little or nothing to outsiders. But removing all mention of what Waldorf emphasizes as its own aims would exclude one important aspect of an article about it. Perhaps each phase of life should have differentiated sections: stated goals, methods and curriculum - there may be others as well. Hgilbert 01:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Gimme a break Harlan. I find it incredible that you seem to think these are "Waldorf" goals. Educating the "whole child" - right - like anyone sets as their goal the education of half a child. These are, to be sure, Waldorf buzz words - the kind of language Waldorf brochures are filled with - of course. But they are meaningless in the framework of an encyclopedia article. They are sensationalism. They don't deserve mention at all - except in Waldorf brochures - and that's NOT what we are creating here. And, really, there are lots and lots of examples in which the reality contradicts the "surrounding the child with moral goodness" you are describing. The easiest to point to is that Waldorf teachers read Grimms fairy tales to the children and promote them to parents to read to their children. These are the uneditied versions with the "grimm" stuff in them - the types of stories that are filled with immorality and horrible images for young children. I can recite examples directly from them here but I'm sure everyone knows what I'm talking about - think Hansel and Gretel and all the immorality that goes on in that one. These are definitely NOT themes of "moral goodness" - they are outrageous themes of depravity. So again, what we have here is brochure language that, in this case, doesn't even reflect what goes on in Waldorf. It needs to come out. Setting up more sections and going into greater detail about each of the "stated goals" is a bunch of hooey as well. Every school has fantastic goals for their students, just like every parent has wonderful goals for their child. This article is NOT about the goals of the Waldorf Schools, it is about Waldorf education - what it actually is, what it actually does, what it actually means. If you want to state goals and ideals, write yourself a brochure - this article is not the place for it. Sorry. Pete K 02:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The education has certain goals which it repeatedly states. If a reader finds these obvious or banal, it will work to the detriment of the approach; nevertheless, the stated goals of an educational approach deserve mention. I have been thinking that for each phase of childhood, there could be subsections "goals", "methods", "curriculum", (and perhaps others) to clarify what is what; then the stated goals would not be in danger of being confounded with a judgement of the approach. Hgilbert 12:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"The education has certain goals which it repeatedly states. If a reader finds these obvious or banal, it will work to the detriment of the approach;" No, it won't. It will work toward the detriment of the writer. Any reader reading this stuff will say to themselves "Oh brother, who wrote this - a Waldorf teacher?" - and they would be right, now, wouldn't they.

"nevertheless, the stated goals of an educational approach deserve mention." No, they don't. They are nonsense that deserve mention in brochures. "Educating the whole child" - and "head, heart and hands" are exactly as I have described above, buzz words that Waldorf has latched onto. They do NOTHING but promote Waldorf - and that's NOT what this article is here to do.

"I have been thinking that for each phase of childhood, there could be subsections "goals", "methods", "curriculum", (and perhaps others) to clarify what is what; then the stated goals would not be in danger of being confounded with a judgement of the approach." Sure you have... the more you write, the more important all this stuff sounds. All schools have the goal of educating children in the best possible environment with the best possible intentions, using the best possible methods and providing the best possible curriculum. EVERY school in the world has this as its goal. NONE of this stuff belongs in the article in the first place - and certainly not in the way you present it. The article is a brochure, and listening to you describe Waldorf education is like listening to Bill Gates describe Microsoft. You have a financial interest in attracting people to a school system you work for... and a personal interest in believing you are providing something better than everyone else. I admire that you believe in Waldorf, but this article is NOT the place for your beliefs - it is the place for legitimate, supportable information. You should consider writing brochures for Waldorf schools - I'm sure you would be great at it... seriously. Pete K 14:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Pete, you said that nobody sets out to educate half a child, yet this is exactly what most other school systems do! So I think it is important to distinguish Waldorf education in this way. If you can think of a better term than "education for the whole child" that still captures the essence of what Waldorf is, ie. not just cerebral education, then be my guest. But the reason I think the advert tag should come off is because that is exactly not what you are doing. You are deleting terms like "education for the whole child" instead of replacing them with something equal.Rottentomatoe 19:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Pete, you said that nobody sets out to educate half a child, yet this is exactly what most other school systems do!" LOL! Do you guys practice the "brochure" voice? OK, name a school that sets out to educate half a child.

"So I think it is important to distinguish Waldorf education in this way." Yes, I'm sure you do.

"If you can think of a better term than "education for the whole child" that still captures the essence of what Waldorf is, ie. not just cerebral education, then be my guest. " How about "a dogmatic religious education that seeks to separate rather than unite children with information about the world they live in"?

"But the reason I think the advert tag should come off is because that is exactly not what you are doing. You are deleting terms like "education for the whole child" instead of replacing them with something equal." I don't need to replace them with anything "equal" - Waldorf education is nothing special in this regard. I had a public school education. Guess what, my public school education taught the "whole" me... head, heart and hands... also eyes and ears. When I compare Waldorf education to my own public school education, Waldorf falls far SHORT of it. So wild claims don't impress me. If you want to make a claim, make one that you can support and I'll support it too. Unsupportable and sensational claims are for brochures. Pete K 19:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe some of the juniors should step back and let the seniors fix up the language here. Diana, (or anybody) read the first paragraph in the article and tell me it couldn't use a little work. Somebody looking at that would go running for the hills. This is an article about a school for crying out loud! Whether you like or dislike Waldorf education, they don't deserve this kind of article here on Misplaced Pages. They deserve something readable. There is too much editing and not enough talking going on here. That's the real reason the article is locked up. Maybe if we could come to an agreement on the wording, one paragraph at a time, the administrators could replace it for us without unlocking the article. The advert tag we're apparently deadlocked on. Why don't we see if there are things we can agree on? Pete K 22:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a proposal: We could agree that any changes could be made to the article freely by any editors; if acceptable they would stand. If not, they could be reverted once by any other editor. At that point the change would go to the talk page for further discussion. This would have the same effect as the above, except that we would be responsible for our own behavior. We would thus seek consensus on new formulations when these are controversial. What do you think? Hgilbert 07:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest

Actually, Harlan, there has been some talk about you excluding yourself voluntarily from editing the Waldorf Education page. See Durova's talk page for the discussion - as well as Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest and WP:VANITY. Essentially, since you're a Waldorf teacher, and have a financial interest in the success of Waldorf, we hope you would voluntarily recuse yourself from editing this page as it is a conflict of interest. What do you think? Pete K 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The talk is from you, Pete. Interesting idea; I am not paid to edit Misplaced Pages, however, as WP:Conflict of interest indicates would be required to establish such a conflict. It's true, however, that all scientists should avoid editing science articles (especially in their area of expertise), as they have a financial interest in the success of science generally and their area of expertise especially. Musicians (and music critics) should avoid editing articles on music. Teachers should avoid editing articles on education and childhood generally. And so on. "We hope..." - this is you and Diana?

For someone who has shouted to the administrators that others are "trying to get you banned from Misplaced Pages", you are employing interesting tactics here. For the record, my salary as a Waldorf teacher is minimal enough that I doubt anyone could call this a financial conflict of interest; I'd certainly have a better income if the Waldorf movement failed!!! Hgilbert 02:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, it is clear to me you realize there is a conflict of interest here - but want to continue editing the article. Who can blame you. If I was selling snake oil, and got to edit the article claiming how good snake oil is, I would benefit from editing the article... right? The right thing to do is to recuse yourself. You're salary is not of any interest. You even write books about Waldorf. Wouldn't your books sell better if Waldorf was more successful? Of course they would. One of the articles I have edited here is the AutoCAD article. AutoCAD is a CAD software product and I have written about how to use AutoCAD. In the Misplaced Pages article, I added a section describing a command set as "powerful" - because to me, to someone who uses AutoCAD, this is powerful. Another editor claimed that this was POV language. I had to agree with him in the article (even though I didn't agree with him IRL). Even though I know this command set is powerful, I can't say this in the article. Now before you claim conflict of interest here - my book was written in the 1995 and I don't get any royalties any more. Still, if someone claimed I should be excluded from editing that article, I would in all likelihood recuse myself as a matter of principle.

"For someone who has shouted to the administrators that others are "trying to get you banned from Misplaced Pages", you are employing interesting tactics here." I probably shouldn't qualify this remark with an answer, but let me just say that I am pointing out a conflict of interest where one exists. I have not asked for you to be banned - like you have been trying to do to me - I have asked the administrators to take a look at a conflict of interest situation. That is absolutely appropriate for me to do - especially since you have been instrumental in blocking reasonable edits on this page. Since you don't seem to want to accept that this is, indeed, a problem, it looks like it will be good to have another set of eyes on the issue. Pete K 22:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's note also that the administrator raised this issue, and suggested the conflict of interest. Not Pete. So this is not Pete's "interesting tactics." Pete has not sought a way to have you removed from anything, as you and thebee have repeatedly done with him. I'm getting the feeling that Harlan is slowly catching on to what we've been saying about brochure language. I'm not sure he does this deliberately - he's just used to writing in glowing Waldorf-is-wonderful We-have-so-many-gifts-from-Steiner style. If you're in Waldorf and you write for them, you learn quickly what they want, what rhetoric makes everyone beam and ask you for more, what words they always change to sound more spiritual etc. It's hard to get out of the habit, if you then have to write something else. I think this is what afflicts Hgilbert, probably this rather than a desire for financial gain.DianaW 22:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's note that it was exactly the opposite; Durova says to Pete on his talk page, "If you're serious about the allegation that one editor's financial conflict of interest affects the article then I hope you can present supporting evidence." Pete has raised the issue for obvious reasons. Interesting tactics, as is your denial of what is clearly so.

Durova quoted one example of brochure language; this was something that two editors hostile to Waldorf, Paka and Pete, put in. I'm waiting to see his further examples. Yes, you should get out of the habit. Hgilbert 23:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope - not what happened. You've perhaps forgotten, since Durova archived part of the discussion right at the beginning. *You* were whining to admins as usual - it was your initiative. As usual, Pete and I were just scrambling around trying to keep up with whoever you are whining to on a given day. You complained, disingenuously, merely on the assumption that the admin would not know what had gone on, that Pete and I had derailed the mediation attempt. Pete and I began pointing out what had really happened there. Pete complained about your "brochure language" and pointed out - completely obviously - that you do this because you are a Waldorf teacher. Waldorf teachers are often pretty good at writing Waldorf brochures. He did add the phrase "dependent on Waldorf for his livelihood." It reads to me like his concern was your *bias*. We all tend to be biased in favor of things from which we draw our livelihood (or against them as the case may be; we are not likely to be neutral). Pete was not making an attempt to have you removed from wikipedia, disciplined, blocked, or any of the various processes that you and the bee are continually dreaming up to either remove him or slow him down, working your way down lists of administrators. Durova then brought the possibility of financial conflict of interest to his attention. Durova suggested that he look into this, in fact. (To be honest, Pete didn't even read the rest of the discussion. I pointed out to him Durova's suggestion a day or two later. He was not exactly coming after you, Harlan.) Durova had also then taken a closer look at the article and saw what is wrong with the article: the Waldorf supporters have stuffed it with obvious nonsense.

Boy - reality versus spin eh?DianaW 23:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What Durova pointed out was wrong with the article was a statement that neither I, nor any supporter of Waldorf had added; it was from Paka/expanded on by Pete (according to a statement on Durova's talk page). So the problem he is identifying is coming from the anti-Waldorf side.

I had not seen the discussion until very recently; I can't know what happened in any deleted material. Your statement of the events demonstrates that Pete raised the issue and implied that there was a financial relationship. Durova states clearly that Pete has alleged that an "editor's financial conflict of interest affects the article" - and that he is reacting to this allegation; see the talk page. Hgilbert 23:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I did, indeed raise the issue first, only in passing - I think it was in describing the who's who of these editors. I'm sure it would be easy for your to suspect sinister motives here - especially since you've been engaging in the activity you accuse me of yourself, but I don't look at this as some sort of game here. I'm here to edit what is currently a horrible article (in my view). I even suggested to Durova that for me to say something would be misconstrued by you as retaliatory. I don't know who this Paka person is - so please hold me responsible for my own edits (maybe you think that person is me - it is not). My edits did not put that language into the article... and characterizing me or anyone else as "hostile" to Waldorf is not only unjustified, it borders on a personal attack. FYI, I think people who exagerate the virtues of Waldorf education are as harmful to Waldorf as people who exagerate the problems. Pete K 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Who the heck is Paka?DianaW 23:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Paka's last edit (that I could find) was May 17th. I didn't even show up here until July. Connecting my edits to this person's edits seems a little bit of a reach, wouldn't you say? Pete K 23:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You two were the ones who edited the very section that Durova criticized as being brochure language. See diff for your own edit of the paragraph criticized. If you were so interested in taking out brochure language, why did you add to that paragraph (put in by Paka) instead of removing it? I'd say your complaint has backfired on you; it turns out that the worst "brochure language" found by Durova was your own contribution! Hgilbert 02:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Your statement of the events demonstrates that Pete raised the issue and implied that there was a financial relationship. Durova states clearly that Pete has alleged that an "editor's financial conflict of interest affects the article" - and that he is reacting to this allegation; see the talk page." You're very clever, Harlan, but your spins are getting a little desperate. Pete implied there was a financial relationship because there is one. He pointed to this to explain your bias. *You* were the one attempting to have *him* censored in this process - not the other way around. Now you're mad of course because it backfired on you. Durova took one look and said Well obviously this guy has a conflict! It wasn't even a wikipedia policy Pete was previously aware of let alone attempting to have imposed on you. The suggestion came from an administrator and you can spin this into the night if you want, but that's what happened.DianaW 02:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't backfired on me, given the fact that Durova is upset about one of Pete's paragraphs as being obvious brochure language! Hgilbert 02:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd give Durova a little more credit than you're giving her here - she apparently compared two random versions, one of them from last May, and I'm not sure why. Maybe that's a standard procedure. I agree that she misunderstood what she read there, but I think we have to give her credit that she gained an impression of the article overall before commenting. This has given me the impetus to review some of the much earlier versions of this article. Absolutely unbelievable. It certainly gives a sense of how you, Harlan, and other Waldorf supporters would ideally prefer it to read. Every single scrap of "brochure talk" that has been removed has been a fight - every single scrap, with you one of the main impediments to progress at each stage. The part that's really kind of sad about it is that you apparently think you're doing Waldorf a favor this way, when in fact the earlier versions of the article are an absolute embarrassment.DianaW 03:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We might note that one of your early edits to this article, Harlan - speaking of "conflict of interest" - was to add your own book to the reference list! I'm not sure at what point it got taken out, but perhaps someone pointed out to you the impropriety of this. Obviously, there's been a steep learning curve here.DianaW 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Misplaced Pages conflict of interest rules says, "You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's." This is not a COI. I removed the book partly because I felt that it was probably too specialized for the general reader, partly because the article did not actually rely on this as a source. Note that Misplaced Pages does give the right to cite one's own publications, however.

LOL early versions of this article find Lumos having to explain to you all that "a Praise section is not part of an encyclopedia article" and other people trying to reign Waldorf enthusiasts in by removing lists of celebrities, individuals homeschoolers' web sites, verbiage about Waldorf being "internationally acclaimed," and comments such as "The critics come across as xenophobic."DianaW 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not put in the praise section, or any others you mention. Note, however, that Misplaced Pages guidelines discourage separate criticism sections "In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged." Sections including both positive and negative reception (praise and critique) of an author's work are preferred. See also here. I have begun trying to ensure that the articles are encyclopediac in their approach here, as well. Hgilbert 06:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, just to be clear, once again, your diff does not show me introducing the language that Durova quoted. Durova quoted the following: "A Waldorf school is not just an alternative to public schools or another independent school; its curriculum and philosophy proceed from the worldview and the insights into the nature of the child that Rudolf Steiner has given us in Anthroposophy." Your diff shows that I added the text "; but even schools that mention Anthroposophy generally do not give much detail as to what Anthroposophy is." to the sentence before this one. Please back up your accusation that I have provided the brochure language that Durova objected to. Pete K 04:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I made no such accusation; I said that you added to the objected-to paragraph (that included the language Durova objected to) rather than removing it. It was brochure language; why did you extend the paragraph instead of removing it? I suggest because you have put in and fought to retain extensive "brochure language" and editorializing with no verification (

The whole thing was a misunderstanding, so why don't we drop it? Durova thought it was actual text someone had added to the article, when it was added as an *example* of the kind of rhetoric found on school web sites; Pete later added to it in a discussion of whether the rhetoric on Waldorf school web sites sufficiently explains anthroposophy to prospective parents. *That's* the context in which this material found its way into the article in the first place. Durova was mistaken to believe it was the type of material that Waldorf supporters want to add verbatim to the wikipedia article. Okay? (I mean, supporters *do* want to add stuff like that, but understand now, I think, that they can't.) Why not stop a silly turn-the-tables argument claiming "Pete added brochure language." It was essentially being discussed as an *example* of brochure language. It's quite difficult to get an admin here to pay attention long enough or deep enough to understand the issues here. There's no sense in the editors of the article continuing to fight about a point that was an admin's misunderstanding in the first place, after the admin has told us already to knock it off.DianaW 15:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Actually, Misplaced Pages conflict of interest rules says, "You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's." Again, Harlan, try to understand the big picture here. I am not citing this as an example of "conflict of interest," nor have I attempted to have you removed or censored for a conflict of interest. That suggestion came from an admin - that's a fact, try as you may to spin it. I pointed to your citing your own book, and later apparently removing it realizing its inappropriateness, as an example of how your *bias* and personal investment in Waldorf education - certainly including the fact that you earn your living in it - blind you to the big picture of what is appropriate here. Even if your book were the right citation to stick in at a particular place, it would be almost certainly inadvisable for you to stick it in yourself. The fact that this wasn't immediately obvious to you suggests the sort of problem we keep running into here.DianaW 15:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Harlan wrote: "I made no such accusation; I said that you added to the objected-to paragraph (that included the language Durova objected to) rather than removing it." So you make no claim that I produced the language Durova referenced. " It was brochure language; why did you extend the paragraph instead of removing it?" Um.. because I edited the paragraph above it. You're complaining that I didn't edit the article thoroughly enough and in accordance with what YOU think I should have edited? " I suggest because you have put in and fought to retain extensive "brochure language" and editorializing with no verification (