User talk:Pete K

Please see these instructions about excessive use of links without relevant content. Please also see this guideline about not disrupting an article to prove a point. Also note that

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as Wikipedia sources." (from this guideline) Hgilbert 00:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pete, I totally respect your point of view on the Waldorf page and appreciate your willingness to join the project. At the same time, I feel that i must be clear that the point of view must be to briefly explain Waldorf ed. there will be a "Critical Views" section (or some other title) as with any other article.

I see your role on this as totally welcome as a balancing viewpoint for other parts of the page, and possibly writing the paragraphs in the critical views section. Is that how you see it?

Also, I know that this viewpoint is not welcome , but I think you should know that after discussing this in-depth with an administrator, I feel strongly that we will eventually go to no outside links other than scholarly articles. To set an example, I have removed my own site and all other homeschooling links from the page.

This is because the article has to move away from being a brochure, yes, and it also has to get away from being a war-zone for links and text.

I am open to any opinions on this.

Also, I will be setting up the project pages in the next day - sorry, I broke a finger on my left hand last week and typed very little. When I do, I plan to put you down as a member of the project team. Please let me know if you prefer not to be listed as such. Wonderactivist 15:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Talk:Waldorf education

I note your recent edit on the talk page of Waldorf education in reply to User:Thebee. Please make yourself aware of the official Wikipedia policy regarding No legal threats. Whilst I am not actively involved in the article, I have been asked to keep an eye on the apparent war that is ongoing there. Legal threats are best left off Wikipedia, and it's not uncommon for good editors to find themselves blocked for making them. -- Longhair 15:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should respond to you here or on your own talk page (fairly new here, sorry) but I don't recall making any legal threats. I have invited TheBee to make good on his own legal threats if he feels he as a basis for them. I find that it is difficult not to respond to unfounded challenges to my integrity. In any case, I'm very interested in giving this page a fair edit so I'll tone it down to a more level-headed roar and try to ignore his comments as much as possible. --Pete K 15:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You may respond on my talk page, or yours, whichever takes your fancy. I trust you'll allow me some time to absorb the entire debate that is raging at the Waldorf education article. The article and talk page discussions are quite long and there's a lot to learn about both sides. I'm sure you're not the only editor involved in the fierce debate, and other editors who are behaving against Wikipedia policy will be reminded in due course. It'd help if you could provide any diffs pointing to offensive behaviour or behaviour contrary to policy and I'll take the matter on personally and point those editors to the correct policies. Please don't feel as though I'm watching you with a fine tooth comb. I was asked to oversee the article by a concerned editor and am not interested in taking any side whatsoever. Any way I can be of assistance, please let me know. -- Longhair 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Longhair. You are definitely in for a challenge here as both sides of this issue have been at it for decades. I didn't assume you were singling me out in this. I appreciate how hard it will be to keep tempers on simmer instead of full boil. I appreciate the tip about diffs. Hopefully we won't have too many future problems as some of us are trying to iron out our differences (sometimes heatedly) on the discussion pages and not in the article. That has been a good first step. I'm hoping level heads will prevail here. --Pete K 16:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Welcome!

Hello, Pete K, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair 15:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

separate articles

Pete,

Wikipedia policy is not to consider whether things deserve separate articles; some of the weirdest things get these (rock albums, ....) If someone wants to bother writing up some aspect of the world of more than minimal note, so be it. That's the advantage of virtually unlimited storage capacity. There used to be true sub-articles; this structure was given up and everything that used to be a sub-article is now an article in its own right. It leads to an amorphous structure but is useful in tidying up articles; there's a place for everything.

In the case of the Steiner on races subject: this section of the article got very long and complex. It was eventually put into the current sub-article and the current summary agreed upon. Please don't start adding quotes, or the whole sub-article will end up back in the main article. Have some faith in past editors, who represented the whole gamut of opinion. Hgilbert 10:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the whole gamut of opinion has been represented here, but I'll have a look. On the discussion page, it seem that a lot of people wanted to put Steiner's significant discussion about race in the article. The "compromise" language that is in the article now is pretty much the type of "Waldorf speech" I have become accustomed to hearing - "to modern ears" is disingenuous. Steiner said racist things that were racist in HIS time. It wasn't customary to write racist material - and that is evidenced by the fact that most philosophers in his day DIDN'T write racist material. So a very careful review of this wording is still necessary and quotes that exemplify his thinking on race are relevant. Again, I have 25 or more pages of quotes by Steiner that are racist. It isn't as if he just brushed over the topic. His racist stance in spirituality is in large part what defines Steiner, IMO. --Pete K 14:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stay civil

With regards to your comments on Talk:Waldorf education: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. In particular, I am referring to this comment you made recently where you said Sune, none of your criticisms are supportable so don't even start. Yours are the ravings of a lunatic. I think it's good for ordinary people to get a peek at what some Waldorf teachers are like.--Arktos ^talk 00:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know who you are, but civility is a two way street. --Pete K 06:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• No personal atttacks is an absolute, retaliation is not an excuse I am afraid.--Arktos ^talk 08:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Then please let me know where I can go to lodge complaints about others on this list. I know this sounds retaliatory, but I'm only here because I was notified of a false (libelous) statement by a Waldorf supporter who said I don't have custody of my own kids - as if the custody share arrangment of my divorce settlement is somehow a topic appropriate for discussion on the back pages of Wikipedia. Where should I go to complain about that? --Pete K 18:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• The right place for complaints is WP:PAIN. First you should warn the contributor - see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and remember to subst - ie the text would be {{subst:npa2}} or whatever. I recommend using a diff to clarify (as I did above) so it is absolutely clear what it is you are talking about. Check that it falls within the scope of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The rest of the instructions are on that noticeboard and somebody should come along and help. The advantage will be they are unlikely to know anything about the content dispute and will look at it objectively. --Arktos ^talk 20:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Saw your latest comment about your weekend's work. I think you should be using {{fact}} to call for references or when you remove references - ie leave the assertion in there, replace the reference with {{fact}} and then perhaps comment out the reference with <!- ... -> tags and why you think the ref is unacceptable. Give people a chance to respond. Otherwise you are likely to escalate an edit war (or escalate even further). Just a suggestion - Good luck.--Arktos ^talk 20:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks AyArktos! I'll make myself familiar with these notations and take your advice. It would be great if this procedure could be used across the board for all editors instead of people's work being deleted willy nilly. I've spent several hours a day for the past several days with the total accomplishment of having one sentence removed and one sentence and one link added. I don't know about you but I get very frustrated when so much effort goes into so little progress. --Pete K 22:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

AyArktos, I took your advice above and spent two hours adding in ((verify source}} and to the information that was doubtful, only to have my edits reverted. When I reverted them back, they were again reverted. The third time got me blocked. Others who reverted my edits, HGilbert, for example, have not been blocked. Is this blocking policy going to be applied fairly? I don't know how to display this information to you and how to lodge a complaint. HGilbert reverted the article at least three times on September 2nd and the article history shows this clearly. If I am to be blocked, so should he. --Pete K 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:3RR#Enforcement - If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeat violation. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally. The other user reverted 3 times not 4 based on my reading of the article history.--Arktos ^talk 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal issues

Pete,

I realize that I haven't personally apologized for bringing your personal situation into the PLANS debate, and for accidentally misrepresenting this on top of this. I had been told that your child was in the Waldorf school against your wishes, and drew what I now know to be the false conclusion that you did not have custody. I apologize for the misrepresentation, and for naming you at all (in response to Diana's demand for names).

Deep and heartfelt apologies. I feel we are working slowly toward a mutual understanding around editing, though many battles surely lie ahead, and hope we can engage with ever increasing mutual respect and civility. Hgilbert 00:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Harlan, I am happy to have this from you - and your apology is accepted. This is why I, when pressured by others to name names, prefer to keep those names to myself - even if it makes me look bad. People know they can talk to me in confidence about problems with Waldorf and that I will never betray them. In my personal case, my ex wanted my kids in Waldorf, and the only way I would consider allowing this is by getting additional custody of them so that I could monitor their experiences closely. I'm living literally across the street from the school so I can be available to them at a moment's notice.

For the record, there are a few people at Highland Hall that dislike me because I don't let them get away with the types of cover-ups they are accustomed to. I have had several teachers fired through my relentless efforts to expose wrongdoing. I've made a few enemies there (even some teachers hate other teachers there so it's not surprising), but I have also gained the respect of, I'd say, most of the parent body and the majority of the teachers. The thing that most people will say about me is that I never compromise integrity. So as far as editing goes, if it's true, you won't get a fight from me. If it's false, I don't care if God is the source of the citation, it's not going to end up on the page.

Again, thanks for the apology - it sincerely means a lot to me. --Pete K 01:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I respect your stance. If I can continue on the basis of your exceptional frankness, I agree that all institutions, including Waldorf schools, need people willing to stand up for the truth. They also need people who can see and respect others' points of view; as Steiner said :), there are always at least twelve equally valid viewpoints. I hope that we can bring both a respect for truth and a respect for other points of view (including each others') to this and all our work.

Warmly, Hgilbert 18:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Excessive use of tags

In your recent edit of Waldorf education, you put tags on numerous sentences with cited sources, as well as many other areas that are reasonably considered common knowledge, or which can be found in numerous sources cited in the bibliography. Please use common sense and moderation in editing articles. Hgilbert 18:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Common sense tells me to remove the material that is erroneous, but having attempted this only to have my edits reversed, tagging those areas appears to be my only option. Please read the discussion page for information about why multiple tags were used. In the mean time, I'll keep reverting the article until the issues are addressed. --Pete K 18:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for a violation of WP:3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

-- Longhair 21:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

We can't unblock you at this time, because you haven't given us the information we need to even look into your block. If you still want to be unblocked, feel free to add the {{unblock}} tag back to this page, and be sure to include a reason why you want to be unblocked. Without that information, we won't unblock you.

It's been 24 hours give or take. This is a first offense of a rule I was not aware of. I can wait out the 24 hours but I have some time in my schedule to do some work on the Waldorf project. It's not a big deal, just an inconvenience for me. If necessary, I'll wait until the block has been lifted. --Pete K 19:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

AyArktos, I took your advice above and spent two hours adding in ((verify source}} and [citation needed] to the information that was doubtful, only to have my edits reverted. When I reverted them back, they were again reverted. The third time got me blocked. Others who reverted my edits, HGilbert, for example, have not been blocked. Is this blocking policy going to be applied fairly? I don't know how to display this information to you and how to lodge a complaint. HGilbert reverted the article at least three times on September 2nd and the article history shows this clearly. If I am to be blocked, so should he. --Pete K 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to buy into it, I htink you went over the top in a big way and hence you just put every bodys' back up. Editing is a collaborative effort. You can request sources but as the following is an example, I will comment on an example of your tagging taken from a recent diff of yours reinstating tags:

'''Waldorf education''' (also called '''Steiner education''') is a worldwide movement {{verify source}} based on an [[educational philosophy]] first formulated by [[Austria]]n [[Rudolf Steiner]] and which grew out of his [[spiritual science]] {{specify}} , [[Anthroposophy]]. Waldorf education aims to educate the "whole child" {{specify}} by maintaining a balance between physical activity, artistic [[creativity]] and academic work against a backdrop of well-defined stages in child development {{verify source}}, which is seen as a process of [[incarnation]] of the child's [[soul]] and [[spirit]].<ref>Carlgren, Frans, ''Education Towards Freedom'' ISBN 0-906155-04-5</ref> {{verify credibility}} Its curriculum focuses on the [[arts]], [[social skill]]s, {{verify source}} [[spirituality|spiritual]] {{verify source}} values as well as practical and integrated learning {{verify source}} . The typical Waldorf school is described as the school of the ''head, heart and hands''.<ref>[http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/RB3105.pdf Essentials of Waldorf Education Study]</ref>

which produced the following:

Waldorf education (also called Steiner education) is a worldwide movement based on an educational philosophy first formulated by Austrian Rudolf Steiner and which grew out of his spiritual science , Anthroposophy. Waldorf education aims to educate the "whole child" by maintaining a balance between physical activity, artistic creativity and academic work against a backdrop of well-defined stages in child development , which is seen as a process of incarnation of the child's soul and spirit. Its curriculum focuses on the arts, social skills, spiritual values as well as practical and integrated learning . The typical Waldorf school is described as the school of the head, heart and hands.

There are 107 words in four sentences. It is the lead paragraph which means one would expect any of its assertions to be dealt with later in the article. You added 8 tags. It is too many.

Let's take it tag by tag:

1. citation requested as to whether it is worldwide or not
   • http://www.waldorfworld.net/Waldorf/Directories/ (which was easily reached via one of the external links listed) shows Waldorf (Steiner) Schools in the UK, Colegio los Charcos San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, Directory of Waldorf Schools in Denmark, French Waldorf School in Paris, New Zealand Waldorf (Steiner) Schools, Steiner Schools in Austalia, Waldorf Education Directory for South America, Waldorf movement in Ukraine and Russia, Waldorf Schools in Italy, Waldorf Schools in Norway, Waldorf Schools in Switzerland
   • It was easy enough to provide your own citation if one was required. It was not to my mind necessary to request a citation, the information was likely to be easily verifiable - what were you trying to prove by calling for a citation?
2. You added a specificity tag to an educational philosophy first formulated by Austrian Rudolf Steiner and which grew out of his spiritual science. The tag is a fixit tag for cases where statements and the terms used therein are too general, and thus need to be specified. Immediately following the tag was a link to Anthroposophy which provides more than enough specification for the term and /or concept. This is clearly a gratuitous tag.
3. Similarly the specificity tag was added to the term "while child" which was already in quotes and seems to be specified by the rest of the sentence, ie the words immediately following are by maintaining a balance between physical activity, artistic creativity and academic work against a backdrop of well-defined stages in child development which is seen as a process of incarnation of the child's soul and spirit which procvides specificity.
4. Next you ask to verify the source of the assertion about well-defined stages in child development - not clear at all what you are calling for here. However the article has aa whole section on pedagogy which goes level by level and links to the philosphy of Jean Piaget which in turn links to Theory of cognitive development. It does not make sense to me why you are challenging this. Certainly not int he lead papra but in fact anywhere. My response to this sort of thing in fact is, is there an educational philosophy that ignores "well-defined stages in child development"?
5. The next tag seeks to verify the credibility of a book by Frans Carlgren. Not clear under Wikipedia:Reliable sources how you are challenging the book. The author is not one who is held by the National Library of Australia. He is held by the Library of Congress with one translated work (all the others in foreign languages). The work cited is not self-published. Is held in a library. Not sure if this search will be accessible later by link but here is the full catalogue record from the Library of Congress [1] What are you trying to prove by requesting verification? How does it not meet WP:RS? As I suggested above, you should probably have used comment tags to clarify your request.
6. The last tags all seek citations for elements of the curriculum. I would again turn the question around. Is there a curriculum that does not focus on the arts, social skills, spiritual values as well as practical and integrated learning? Secondly requesting three citations within a sentence within the lead paragraph is just over the top. That material is dealt with in the lengthy article below.

So in conclusion yes you took my advice but you did so in a way that makes me despair. I have difficulty assuming good faith when I look at the tagging. It is hard to look at the tags and understand what you are trying to do - none of the examples above would have helped to clarify the article. The use of excessive tags had already been drawn to your attention several times.

In future, I suggest you add one tag at a time, and only at the end of a sentence. You discuss that tag on the talk page - ie provide a rationale for why you think the tag is necessary. For example, it seems you want to challenge the assertion that "All students learn to play instruments" You assert they don't.[2] Tag the assertion, provide discussion on that tag on the talk page about that and that only. Allow responses. I would be very surprised if a child made it through any education system without being offered a triangle, drum or some other instrument. If you don't like the assertions at Waldorf_education#Music, make clear on the talk page what it is you object to. Do they not sing? Do they not sing each day? Do they not play the recorder? Do they not play string instruments? Are pupils not "generally required to take private music lessons"? Does orchestral instruction not continue through to 18, though as an elective in many schools?

Before you add a tag, make sure there is not citation available in the extensive list of references and external links already available - or a wikilink providing the specificity you are requesting. For example, before adding a tag about music, is there a citation available already that deals with music int he waldorf curriculum? (I can't see one at a quick glance.)

When there is a response, move on to the next one. Leave lead paragraphs alone. Check that the assertion is not dealt with in a wikilinked article. Above all else, don't violate the 3RR. You will be blocked again. Note admins are not obliged to block - you ask why HGilbert was not blocked - he reverted three times, not a fourth - it is the fourth that is the violation. S/he also had the agreement of other editors - others also reverted your tagging and commented on the article's talk page.--Arktos ^talk 23:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for going to this effort.

1) "citation requested as to whether it is worldwide or not" - no I want clarification about what connotes it as a "movement". Nothing is moving - enrollment numbers aren't moving, there is nothing progressive about Waldorf education, it is exactly the same as it was 80 years ago when Steiner died. In my kid's school, they don't have computers in any of the classrooms. Waldorf education is like Mrs. Havisham's wedding cake - no movement at all. Labeling it as a "movement" is saying it's going some place. Great if there's some verification that it IS, then let's leave the wording. Otherwise it's brochure talk.

2) "You added a specificity tag to an educational philosophy first formulated by Austrian Rudolf Steiner and which grew out of his spiritual science. The tag is a fixit tag for cases where statements and the terms used therein are too general, and thus need to be specified." - I've already discussed that the term "spiritual science" needs to be specified and at the very least put into quotes. It is not "science" by any stretch of the imagination (even Steiner's). That's what the tag to specify was for. "This is clearly a gratuitous tag" - maybe others may think so. Making a statement that calls Steiner's ideas "science" and then expecting someone to follow a link to get the explanation that it's NOT science (if that were on the Anthroposophy page - and I don't believe it is) is silly. Just put quotes around "spiritual science" to make it clear it was Steiner's term.

3) "Similarly the specificity tag was added to the term "while child" which was already in quotes and seems to be specified by the rest of the sentence, ie the words immediately following are by maintaining a balance between physical activity, artistic creativity and academic work against a backdrop of well-defined stages in child development which is seen as a process of incarnation of the child's soul and spirit which procvides specificity." - You mean "whole child" here. The problem here, for me, is that there is no "balance" maintained here. Children in early grades are only kept in the spiritual - their questions are not answered for them because asking "why are Johnny's eyes blue and mine are brown" is too intellectual - it brings them "into their heads" too soon - answering questions can cause them to incarnate too soon. There is a problem with the sentence in may areas and I'm trying to identify the problem completely since nobody here will allow me to edit it myself without having my edits reverted.

4) "Next you ask to verify the source of the assertion about well-defined stages in child development - not clear at all what you are calling for here. However the article has aa whole section on pedagogy which goes level by level and links to the philosphy of Jean Piaget which in turn links to Theory of cognitive development. Certainly not int he lead papra but in fact anywhere. My response to this sort of thing in fact is, is there an educational philosophy that ignores "well-defined stages in child development"?" Here I'm questioning the "well-defined stages in child development" - which are "well defined" by Steiner. In the next portion, they try to present Steiner's ideas as if they are similar to Piaget's (which is not accurate). Piaget's work is something Waldorf schools have latched on to because of its popularity. It has nothing to do with Steiner, doesn't agree with Steiner at all. It's a Waldorf buzzword to legitimize Steiner's ideas. Nothing more.

5) "The next tag seeks to verify the credibility of a book by Frans Carlgren. Not clear under Wikipedia:Reliable sources how you are challenging the book. The author is not one who is held by the National Library of Australia. He is held by the Library of Congress with one translated work (all the others in foreign languages). The work cited is not self-published. Is held in a library. Not sure if this search will be accessible later by link but here is the full catalogue record from the Library of Congress [3] What are you trying to prove by requesting verification? How does it not meet WP:RS? As I suggested above, you should probably have used comment tags to clarify your request." I'll admit, I don't trust Anthroposophical sources because, like the Anthroposophical commission in the Netherlands who concluded that Steiner didn't make racist remarks in his work, Anthroposphists verifying the work of Waldorf is akin to Catholics supporting Catholic schools. Yes, sure, Anthroposophists have been published, and sure, their work may be in the Library of Congress, but validation of Waldorf activities by Anthroposophists is not something that I don't find very reassuring - especially when claims are unbelievable (like claims that kids in Waldorf schools are healthier than kids in other schools - and attributing this to Waldorf education).

6) "The last tags all seek citations for elements of the curriculum. I would again turn the question around. Is there a curriculum that does not focus on the arts, social skills, spiritual values as well as practical and integrated learning? Secondly requesting three citations within a sentence within the lead paragraph is just over the top. That material is dealt with in the lengthy article below." - The issue I have is, again with each of the elements of the sentence. No, social skills are not focused on - in fact bullying is a huge issue in Waldorf schools, much more common than ordinary schools because Waldorf schools believe in a karmic relationship between the children - and teachers will often watch fights on the playground without helping children resolve their differences. Also, socialization is an issue because children are in a very small class for 12 years - they are only accustomed to the kids in their class - and in the older grades, still only with the kids in their, often very small, school. Waldorf kids generally don't socialize well in the outside world and it is common to see high school graduates come unglued when they have to move into a college environment. I've also discussed my concern with the words "spiritual values" which are really meaningless, especially when one doesn't know what spiritual bent Anthroposophy has. A reader will assume it means their own spiritual values - and it is almost certain NOT to mean these. The words "practical and integrated learning" are also misleading. Two of my own kids who have been in Waldorf from kindergarten - one is in high school and one in 7th grade - cannot name more than 5 presidents. I don't find that very practical. Their learning experience is absolutely full of holes and certainly not "integrated". This is common of most kids in Waldorf. Kids are never taught about dinosaurs, for example, because Steiner didn't think this was necessary. My cite requests were intended to challenge each of these things individually. I understand it looked ugly. The article needs a lot of work.

":So in conclusion yes you took my advice but you did so in a way that makes me despair. I have difficulty assuming good faith when I look at the tagging. It is hard to look at the tags and understand what you are trying to do - none of the examples above would have helped to clarify the article. The use of excessive tags had already been drawn to your attention several times."

If I would be allowed to actually edit the article, as is the intention of Wikipedia, without my edits being removed offhandedly by the Waldorf police, I would certainly not have needed to go to this effort. I tried to tag every instance where the language is problematic. If I simply tag a sentence, most of these are compound sentences, then there is even less clarity about what I find problematic. If I could just edit the article, an activity everyone else apparently has available to them, I could make some headway toward cleaning it up. The problem is some overzealous Waldorf defenders won't allow it - and they outnumber me, so they can revert the article to their heart's content. In each discussion where I've made a legitimate point for change, they have just dropped the discussion - no agreement is arrived at - and so the change doesn't happen. Everybody seems to agree that the article needs work - but nobody can agree that any changes by a critic of Waldorf should belong there. Even on the project page outline, critical comments are labeled as "hysterical". This is not conducive for honest good faith. It makes me wonder if being on the editing project is better than not. Trying to work cooperatively with people who characterize critics as hysterical doesn't make good sense to me.

":In future, I suggest you add one tag at a time, and only at the end of a sentence. You discuss that tag on the talk page - ie provide a rationale for why you think the tag is necessary. For example, it seems you want to challenge the assertion that "All students learn to play instruments" You assert they don't.[4] Tag the assertion, provide discussion on that tag on the talk page about that and that only. Allow responses. "

Again, discussions don't seem to go anywhere. They dead-end whenever I've made a point. I've got three students here that don't play any instruments. So, no, all students don't learn to play instruments. You saw how many issues are in the article. Discussing each and every one is something nobody has time for. I have seen some effort in the last day or so by the Waldorf people to address some of the citations, but it's basically an exercise in finding Waldorf sources that confirm the brochure dialog.

"I would be very surprised if a child made it through any education system without being offered a triangle, drum or some other instrument. If you don't like the assertions at Waldorf_education#Music, make clear on the talk page what it is you object to. Do they not sing? Do they not sing each day? Do they not play the recorder? Do they not play string instruments? Are pupils not "generally required to take private music lessons"? Does orchestral instruction not continue through to 18, though as an elective in many schools?" - But that's not what is being claimed here. They claim that all children "learn" to play instruments, not that they are offered a triangle or drum. The claim is that children come away with an abilty to play instruments. Some do, some don't - certainly not ALL.

":When there is a response, move on to the next one. Leave lead paragraphs alone."

For the time being, I'm still part of the editing project team. We're working on the lead paragraph right now. It is full of flaws and everyone agrees with this.

"Check that the assertion is not dealt with in a wikilinked article. Above all else, don't violate the 3RR. You will be blocked again. Note admins are not obliged to block - you ask why HGilbert was not blocked - he reverted three times, not a fourth - it is the fourth that is the violation. S/he also had the agreement of other editors - others also reverted your tagging and commented on the article's talk page."

Yes, it's no surprise that other editors reverted my edits. And I read that the 3RR doesn't apply to groups - so a team effort by Waldorf supporters is OK, I suppose - so they slide because they have more people involved. I commented on the talk page and on the project page as well. I was told what to do on the talk page - how to tag the problem areas. I guess my problem was that I thought the issues I have with the article might be taken seriously. I'm not inclined to invite a team of critics here to support me, yet I'm facing a team of Waldorf supporters working together to ensure that my edits don't make it on to the page. Please know that my efforts are in earnest. The article is riddled with problematic language and the reality of Waldorf education, one of the most controversial educational systems in the world (as you have no doubt guessed), is not expressed fairly here. I'll settle in for the long term and fight the edit wars by the rules - which I guess I'll be learning as I go along. --Pete K 01:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf Project Update

Dear Pete, I am sending each project member a copy of the note I am sending to the adminsitrators about our project. I remain very optimistic that this project can make a big difference in the quality of the Waldorf page as experienced by the Wiki reader. I am pasting the letter below my signature and invite feedback on my Talk. Wonderactivist 04:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Longhair and Cormaggio, Thank you immeasurably for your help with the Waldorf project so far. As you will note below, I am planning shortly to move the project pages to within alt ed - just want to clarify structure first. It is currently at User:Wonderactivist/Waldorf Project Team Page

With your admin experience, and the amount of back-n-forth this article has undergone - actually speeding up since the proposed project - I would like your opinion on strategies to manage the project if you should have time.

I see two major issues:

1 there are "sides" within the group instead of a single focus on creating a good article. While this is somewhat to be expected, I also expected a greater level of professionalism. Is there a known strategy to begin to turn this around?

2 Unbelievably, I think,we have actually reached almost a consensus on the Introduction. I would like to focus on this positive and if possible have it become a springboard for examining just one section at a time. 3 On the current project page, a format for the article has been proposed, while the person actually rewrote the whole article, I propose taking just the OUTLINE - the section names 0- and beginnning with agreeing upon the sections.

Other than the administrative questions, my project strategy will be to set up two pages within the alt ed project:

1 to lay out a structure - outline only - for the page 2 to finalize with formal agreement, the introduction. 3 ONLY begin work on the next section when we have agreed upon the above two, then moving just one section at a time.

My hope is that it will disarm the ongoing wars over fine points and pet projects.

What is your opinion?

And thank you from the bottom of my transplanted Texas heart! Wonderactivist 04:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi - I have been asked if I "can suggest a next stage of action, or intervene in some constructive way" to the perception that you have made a large number of edits to talk pages with personal comments.

I guess once again I draw your attention to WP:NPA and also WP:NOT - wikipedia isn't a soap box ...

Not all of the diffs are in my view personal attacks. In fact most of them to my mind fall within the scope of Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Examples that are not personal attacks - but not all, and perhaps you could tone it down just a little and still get your point across - I am not sure.

At one stage you state - I don't speak German and I'm not going to take your word for it as to what it says - nothing personal. - even though you qualify with nothing personal, it isn't really satisfactory. If the source is available only in German and it serves to verify the assertion in the article and it is, apart from the language issue, a reliable source. The source does not need to be accessible to you or any other particular editor, it needs to meet the verifiability criteria of Wikipedia. It probably does. Similarly if someone quotes from a book that I have not got access to, for example it is no longer published and there is no copy in an Australian library, it does not make it an unsuitable source - the assertion can be verified - just not by me.

Please try to abide by WP:AGF and work with other editors towards producing the best possible article on Waldorf and related topics - the best possible article will be neutral - not merely an attack, not merely puffery. It will not be based on unpublished sources. It will not reflect the views of any one editor or a very few editors. After reading these articles, any reasonable person will say - that was fair, I am better informed, I know where to go for more information or to follow up on some of the points made. A good article will develop collaboratively and will not be written overnight.

As per the advice above on requesting citations, go slowly, one assertion at a time. Fix that to a good standard and with concensus and then move on to the next ... It is obviously not easy and especially when there are strong views on both sides.--Golden Wattle ^talk 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All I can say in response is that this is an effort by others to have me removed from Wikipedia. You are the third moderator they have contacted to try to accomplish this. They have been complaining about me ever since I got here. This is because I can back up what I say with actual references. Some of us have bad blood going back many years. Harlan Gilbert, in fact, characterized my custody and divorce situation HERE of all places, and when I was alerted to this by a friend, I was drawn into these discussions. Regarding my edits, I believe I have made responsible edits that are continually rejected by a group that wants to preserve their side of a controversial issue. My friends on the other side of this debate have, indeed, twisted translations of quotes in German to make them seem like they say something different. That's why I don't trust them to translate anything - my view is based on experience. I wouldn't trust a card shark in a poker game either - and yet, I could say this about the person without insulting him. What we have here is an effort to use material published by a religious group to support the view of that same group. It would be like pointing to the gospels and saying this proves Jesus is God. While that may be proof enough for some, it would be improper for an encyclopedia to exclaim that, indeed Jesus is God, based on this type of reference. So, when I see a reference to someone within the Waldorf schools supporting ridiculous claims by Waldorf schools - simply because this information was published in a Waldorf resource, I feel compelled to speak out. I've seen far too many children AND parents AND teachers hurt, physically, emotionally, psychologically by some factions within Waldorf education to just be quiet about this. And this is what makes me dangerous to our editors on the other side of the isle. My righteousness is supported by the fact that I know where the bodies are buried. I've seen the worst (hopefully) of Waldorf, and I am quite sure my fellow editors have also seen it but refuse to discuss it. I honestly don't feel Wikipedia is a place that would allow a group on one side of any debate to push out the single voice on the other side of the debate. If you will carefully look at the edits I have made, not just the ones Harlan Gilbert sent you, but all of them, you will see that there is validity to what I am trying to do. They don't like that I continually quote Steiner's own words. How does it make sense that an article about a man should not include quotes from him. Even the article about Steiner's RACISM is guarded over by this group to swiftly remove all quotes by the man himself. Each quote I've supplied has a citation and page number reference. And the efforts by these people to whitewash all the articles relating to their belief system is obvious if one were to take the time to look at it. AND this was going on long before I got here. --Pete K 00:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't delete links to relevant and useful material

The transcripts of the PLANS trials are relevant and useful. If you can find other places that they exist, feel free to replace the existing links. Otherwise, they fit the WP:External links guidelines of including links to accurate and relevant material. Please avoid unnecessary edit wars. Hgilbert 01:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Harlan - but I'm not about to agree to link this stuff to the defammatory Waldorfanswers site. I agree with the need to have the transcripts available, but directing people to Waldorfanswers is not an option here. Let's make a sub-page of the PLANS page and post the transcripts there. In the mean time, I'll continue removing the links. --Pete K 01:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think the guidleine you should both be referencing is Wikipedia:Reliable sources Regards --Golden Wattle ^talk 01:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't the source of the material that is in question here (we're talking about court transcripts and we both agree they should be linked to the article) - it is linking to a website that is replete with false information. Once a person has been directed, via an innocent-looking link, to this site, they are likely to look around the site. Per the guideline:

"Partisan, religious and extremist websites

The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source.

Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist groups, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they may be used in articles discussing the opinions of that organization. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources."

So while the good information is warehoused at this site, it is not, I feel, appropriate to link to this particualr site, even though the exact page that is being linked to contains accurate information. I feel that the court transcripts could be a sub-page of the PLANS article and the link could go directly to that sub-page. --Pete K 01:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You probably need to place the transcripts at wikisource - that seems to me to be the appropriate repository for transcripts and probably more appropriate than a sub-page of another article.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll make that suggestion. --Pete K 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• For an example of how it might work, see Bermagui, New South Wales - the link to the associated piece by Lawson is just after the info box and is done by the code {{wikisource|Bermagui - In a Strange Sunset}}. which produces the box to the right and which in turn will take you to Lawson's piece. Regards--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like that approach. Thank you Golden Wattle. I don't know if I'm able to do this without help, but I can try it as soon as the lock is removed from the Waldorf Education article. Or, if someone else wants to do it, that's fine by me. Thanks again! --Pete K 20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel you should be stalled by the lock on the main article. In the meantime, you could probably usefully start to put the stuff on wikisource. It is another project so you need to sign up for it (you can edit as an anon but it perhaps makes it easier for people to identify you if you have the same login there.)

Have a look at how case law is presented at Wikisource:Wikisource:Case law, see for example Wikisource: Cetacean Community v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004). I don't like that example - no header or links (I prefer my work on Bermagui and think it helps the reader more as it has an intro with some context and links back to wikipedia for people and places). Wikisource:United States v. Dominguez Benitez has some headings. A much better write up is Wikisource:Marbury v. Madison - note also the associated wikipedia article Marbury v. Madison.

The Waldorf education article in my opinion is getting too long - or perhaps off-tangent - not very readable anyway. I would suggest that perhaps a separate article on legal challenges in the US might be useful. Firstly, the legal challenges are US specific and the education system is worldwide. Notwithstanding that we have separation of church and state here in Australia, such a challenge would not for example be successful in Australia - the article on Waldorf Education should as much as possible have worldwide scope. For an example of a lengthy article broken down with other articles and referenced, see for example Indigenous Australians#Languages - there is still some reference to languages on the primary article but there are two other articles which tackle the same subject in more detail thereby improving readability of the overall topic. There are already some references from the main article to other articles in the Waldorf Education article.

For examples of other articles on court cases, see Dietrich v The Queen - though no transcript is at wikisource - Coomonwealth Law reports transcripts are referenced. This article is a featured article, in other words regarded as a good example of an article.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner edit warring

This edit warring has to stop. I am warning all three parties involved, yourself, Thebee and Hgilbert. I am also not going to be a mediator in this content dispute. But I am warning all three of you, if anymore diffs I see are revert warring on this article or any other related article, all three of you will be reported for 3RR vioations. Please don't put yourself and others in conflicts which result in edit warring. Please discuss this until resolved and then make the appropriate change, ok? — The Future 19:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If you will see the discussion pages, I have continually tried to discuss this issue. All that happens is the continued clipping of quotes. I am quite sure what I am doing is within the guidelines of Wikipedia, but if I am doing something wrong, please tell me exactly what it is. I have posted as an example of Steiner's racism - several different quotes. I have gone to the discussion pages and made my case for putting the quotes there and the other two editors you mentioned continually remove them - with NO discussion other than to call my edits vandalism. I feel I have behaved appropriately in this issue and that others who are continually reverting the article should be cautioned about their activities and held to the 3RR rule. Having once violated this rule in the past, I don't believe I have violated this rule at all in this instance. --Pete K 21:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want third party intervention, you may want to try the Incidents noticeboard, where you can get an unbiased third person's opinion on the situation. But I do find something wrong with what you said above. You stated: "I have posted as an example of Steiner's racism", which doesn't fully comply with our Neutral Point of View policy, and that very well may be the reason it is being removed. Or if there's somewhere else thier posting this information, you may want to find out where that is. And you said you violated 3RR before, and which you believe you haven't done so now. I can safely say that you have, at least reverted 3 times in the last 24 hours. 4 reverts and you would be blocked. So please take caution around reverting on that article for now on. — The Future 00:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is NO POV in quoting what the person the article is about has said. I'm not interjecting any POV in this - it is a quote of his exact words. If anything it is Steiner's POV, not mine. The subsection I am posting this in deals exactly with Steiner's racism. I have not reverted the article, as I understand revert to mean undoing the edits of someone else. I have put different quotes in the article, not the same quote. The effect, however is the same as NO quote demonstrating Steiner's racist views is acceptable to the "editors" who are removing this material. If anybody is reverting the article it is they who continually remove my edits to bring it back to the condition they want to maintain. --Pete K 01:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This comment constitutes a personal attack against me. Please stop attcking me personally. — goethean ॐ 14:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)