Talk:Waldorf education

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

Archives

Archive1

PLANS

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 Wikipedia. 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.

PLANS web-site

See here for discussion of the accuracy of this site. Hgilbert 04:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My - how quickly that was archived. Swiftly, remove the discussion from ready viewing. This, also, a very familiar tactic.DianaW 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There are three links from this talk page to the sub-page. I hope this is adequate to ensure ready access. Hgilbert 04:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Teacher training

I have edited this section to be clearer and more accurate. Please do not revert to a vaguer and less detailed version!!! The edits are there because:

1. Teacher training programs do not include hundreds of lectures.
2. The 'spiritual teachings', a very vague phrase, are explained in more detail in the newer version.
3. Mention of how or if these teachings are used in schools is already found in another section of the article, and does not belong to a special section on teacher training.

I hope this makes sense to everybody! Hgilbert 01:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please give details of "later Waldorf educators". If there are other contributors to Waldorf Educational theory the article should say who they are/were. Lumos3 10:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A few of the many who have so contributed are now listed (see Zum Unterricht des Klassenlehrers an der Waldorfschule for many, many more).

Where does the name come from?

Where does the name Waldorf come from? I've asked people who have attended Waldorf schools and they didn't know. Does anyone know?

THX-1138 21:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

See the article: History

That is a complicated story: Johann Jakob Astor (born 1763 in Walldorf (in former times more correct 'Waldorf' with one 'l' because it's a village -dorf- within the wood -wald-, but nowadays wrongly with two 'l' -a village within the walls-; one could argue about the single 'd') 10 km south-west of Heidelberg/Germany, died 1848 in New York City) emigrated to North America and became one of the the richest men of his time with furs, his wife Sarah Todd and real estate. Some of his descendants (William Waldorf Astor (1848-1919) and John Jacob Astor IV (1864-1912)) separately in 1893/1897 founded the famous Waldorf=Astoria Hotel (twice, and on some other places than where it is since 1931 (see Empire State Building)). Mark the double hyphen! This made the words Waldorf and Astor noble. See <http://www.danielhindes.com/book/book_review.php?review=5> for the exact citations. I am citing: "Connected with the hotel was the "Waldorf=Astoria Cigar Store Company." Two of its managers, Mr Kramer and Mr Rothschild, had come to Germany around the turn of the century with the trademark rights. Originally, they produced their own brands..." ... Someone called Emil Molt (1876 Schwäbisch Gmünd -1936 ) became the German director in Stuttgart/Germany of this tobacco company named "Waldorf=Astoria" with about one thousand workers and "a vibrant name for the more elaborate necessities of smokers". ... I am citing again: "Molt first heard Rudolf Steiner speak in 1904, and became a member of the Theosophical Society in 1906. .... But Molt did take his idea of a school for his workers' children, which he had shared with the workers to great enthusiasm, to Rudolf Steiner, who took it up. Molt earmarked a substantial sum from the company profits to pay for the school. The school was opened within six months. ....". ... And this is why this first school in Stuttgart opened on April 23, 1919 was called the "Waldorf school".

In 1929 the company was liquidized as part of the big crash. But cigarettes named "Astor" were still on sale up to the 1980's.

seerassel

External links

A friendly user drew my attention to the Wikipedia standards for external links. I have reorganized the link section but also tried to keep these standards in mind, in particular this.

Please explain exactly how this policy applies in these cases. There is history of removing anything critical of Steiner Education from this page. I am restoring these links. Lumos3 17:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the standards, in particular the links to normally avoid, which includes postings (thus discussion lists). The idea is that what you heard in your neighborhood bar is not an encyclopedia-quality citation; neither is a random discussion on the web. There is no indication that either is an authoritative source. I keep encouraging people to find citable material for adequate critical sections here; please do help find this!

The other standard is that pages (or publications) with demonstrably false material should not be cited; one frequently cited website (that of someone who has had no direct experience with Waldorf or Anthroposophy, but has garnered information off of discussion lists) includes such material, including the claim that Steiner was part of an organization called the OTO (a lawsuit over this claim in Germany found there was no evidence of this, and that it could be considered slander; the court ordered a book with this claim recalled from the market as a result).

By the way, the skeptics' dictionary link was not removed, it was simply moved to another list of links. I am leaving it where you have now put it; as long as it's somewhere, I'm happy. Hgilbert 19:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the Plans site http://www.waldorfcritics.org/ PLANS: People For Legal And Non-Sectarian Schools. This is not a Forum site but the site of the principal organisation world-wide of people voicing criticism of Waldorf education. It is, to quote the criteria for external links "a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view." For this article to be balanced it should also include a description of PLANS and its activities. Lumos3 08:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the first location is probably the best place for this mention if it has to be here. I do not think it is appropriate to have it linked to twice, and am removing the second location. I also have not seen any response to my criticisms of the site's appropriateness. I would like to see these addressed rather than ignored.

"World-wide" is an exaggerated term for the organization, incidentally; all of the organisation's 7 directors and 5 advisors listed on its webpage are from the United States of America. Hgilbert 23:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the external link to PLANS which is not duplicated in the article as you state, the other link is to Wikipedia's own article on PLANS. I know you disagree with the content of the PLANS site . Neverthless it is the pricipal critic of Waldorf education and needs to be described and noted in an article on the subject if it is to give the public a view of all opinions. Lumos3 08:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Having found yesterday's restoration of the links to PLANS removed, I once again, three days in a row now, restored the links to PLANS. Vandals who apparently think critical review of Waldorf doesn't belong on this site continually remove them. This is demonstrative of the deceptive tactics of Waldorf fanatics - and EXACTLY the reason criticism of Waldorf and these very tactics is necessary and should be abundant on these pages. Pete K 06:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm the individual who removed the links. I did so for the simple reason that you're repeatedly linking a reference that was already there in the listed references to begin with. I described the reason for the edit, and I've repeated this on the discussion page the third time now. Please read this page before jumping to conclusions about page changes, and please read wikipedia's rules against personal attacks against other editors. Professor marginalia 16:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What in what I have said do you perceive as a personal attack? I do not know you personally, nor do I address you personally. On the other hand, if you will read below, my name was brought up on this public site without my knowledge so that people here could discuss, of all things, my divorce and child custody. It is easy to grow tired of this nonsense. Please stop removing links to sites critical of Waldorf. There are many, many links to Waldorf Answers here, as well as Americans for Waldorf Education (a clone of Waldorf Answers). Both are personal blog sites and neither contains accurate information about Waldorf education. Pete K 15:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf and religion

Webster's is an authoritative source for word definitions but not for philosophical systems. Anthroposophy's religious status was tested recently in a court case brought in California; the courts indeed ruled that there was no admissible evidence that anthroposophy was a religion. Nor did Steiner himself believe or assert this, nor does any present-day member of the anthroposophical society. There is no anthroposophical ritual, dogma or church. The statutes of the anthroposophical society state that membership is open to anyone, regardless of religion, race, world-view, and so on. All this differs from every established religion. Hgilbert 01:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There are anthroposophic churches: they're called Waldorf Schools. Anthroposophy is taught their and Anthroposophic study groups for adults are held there. In addition, the church know as "The Christian Community" IS and another anthroposophic religious instition. Waldorf schools and the "The Christian Community" were both created and founded by Steiner and are both controlled by the same anthroposophist power base.

The Christian Community is a separate institution founded by Rittlemeyer and others. It has a separate leadership and is no way connected to the Waldorf schools, each of which is in any case a legally and economically independent entity. Anthroposophy is not taught in Waldorf schools; study groups are held for the parents on demand, which generally means not at all. Hgilbert 19:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert - Accoring to Salon magazine, HALF a of Waldorf teacher's training has to be in anthroposophy. There is nothing in Waldorf Schools that does not pass through the Steiner-anthroposophy filter. You only sound foolish when you make these ridiculous claims.

Waldorf teachers are educated in anthroposophy. But they do not teach this as a subject or bring it into the content of their teaching.

Waldorf, Anthroposophy, and the Religious Teachings of Steiner

Hgilbert -- We use words to describe things and communicate with one another. Words must have distinct meanings that are commonly understood by everyone and those meanings are found in a dictionary. Webster Dictionary says something is "religious" if it is: 1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes> 2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances 3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful

Anthroposophy meets every one of the aforementioned criteria. They study and STRICTLY adhere to the RELIGIOUS teachings of Steiner. Let me give you one example: Both Waldorf schools and Anthroposophists celebrate "Michaelmas." Here is Dr. Erst Katz on Steiner and his relationship to St. Michael at the American Anthroposophical Society's Annual General Meeting in 2004" “In this essay I want to give a personal description, not very scholarly, of the mission of Rudolf Steiner. What was this mission? We have no direct mission statement from his own hand. We have of course all that found external expression of his mission, all the practical applications of anthroposophy, in education, in medicine, in agriculture, in the arts, in the architecture of the Goetheanum and of many other buildings, in poetry and in drama, in jewelry making, and especially in eurythmy, but also in philosophy and in the guidance of inner development, and more. But to find what his mission actually was we should realize that it was a spiritual mission, an esoteric mission, which we can only find by contemplating what may be called his “esoteric biography.” There one finds revealed how Rudolf Steiner's life was guided and inspired by a lofty spiritual being, the world encompassing spirit of our time. In Western esotericism this being bears the name St. Michael. Rudolf Steiner can be seen as the human, earthly, Ambassador of St. Michael, who is the spiritual Ambassador of the divine Christ Being.” http://www.rsarchive.org/RelAuthors/KatzErnst/AGM_Address.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.127.170 (talk • contribs)

The Californian legal system isn't in charge of defining what is and isn't a religion. Jefffire 13:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeffire -- NOTE: The california courts never ruled on this case on it merits, it was thrown out for technical reasons.

It was thrown out because the plaintiffs were able to supply no admissible evidence whatsoever.

To join the Anthroposophical Society, one must agree to no dogmas, go through no rituals, attend no Waldorf school. Anthroposophists and Waldorf schools in Christian areas often celebrate the traditional Christian festivals (Michaelmas is an older Christian festival, not an anthroposophic invention). In Islamic or Buddhist or Jewish countries, the local festivals there are celebrated. This very adaptation illustrates anthroposophy's lack of a specifically religious element; it encourages all religions. Waldorf schools teach about the Books of Moses, the Hindu sacred scriptures, Buddha, Christ, etc.

There are no observances, required beliefs, or deities in anthroposophy. There is no faith to be faithful to. Hgilbert 18:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert -- Your not being intelectually honest. YES, Waldorf schools do the things you mention, but they are ALL still "steiner teachings" and when they do mention other religions it is not because they are being multicultural, its because it is Steiner's theory of how other religios mythology fits into christian mythology or Aryan history (aka anthroposophy). As for not being a religion, why is it that anthroposophists believe that high fevers and childhood illness are necessary for child development? Is it "scientific" to believe that high fevers (to the point of going into seizures) "burn-off" the child-parent "heredity" and allows the child's REINCARNATED spirit to successfully emerge? Is it "scientific" to believe that childhood diseases should NOT be prevent with immunizations because the exerocise evil personality attributes? Further: Is it "scientific" that anthroposophists believe that children should only play with wooden toys, because nonwood toys and electronic devices are inhabited by Ahriman, the god of darkness? Is it "scientific" that cancer be treated by eating misteltoe, wrapping oneself in silk, and doing eurythmic dance? Is it "scientific" that diabetes be treated by boosting one self esteem? Is it "scientific" that the Earth is only 30-40,000 years old and that the darwinian evolution is false? Is it "scientific" to believe that Steiner learned -- through clairvoyance -- that Aryans are descendents of Atlantis? Is it "scientific" that blacks have dark skin because they suck up all the light around them? Is it "scientific" that "knowing" something = scientific reasearch? The answer is no. That is religous faith that something is true. You may like to pride yourself that you are part of some great, "philosophy," but the truth is that you are just another religious fanatic.

Waldorf schools include all religions because Steiner, and Waldorf teachers generally, believe that all of these are interrelated and important. I don't know what Aryan history is. Not all anthroposophists believe that high fevers and childhood illnesses are important, but anthroposophic medicine sees these as developmental stages or crises that need to be accompanied carefully and healed properly, not simply suppressed. Too high fevers or fevers that last too long are brought down using conventional means. The debate about immunization is active within and without the anthroposophic community, and there are many solutions (most anthroposophists' children that I know of have at least some immunizations). Natural materials are encouraged for young children as being more stimulated to the senses and providing a connection to nature. Mistletoe is actually rather established as a therapy; in Europe it is accepted by conventional medicine and is slowly building a reputation in the USA; see the Talk:Anthroposophy page for citations from a host of respected medical journals. I wouldn't wrap myself in silk to cure cancer, not sure what you are referring to here. Modern medicine cannot cure diabetes; perhaps self-esteem would help...I'm not an expert here. Steiner spoke of Atlantis; so did Plato; modern geology speaks of lost continents as well. Why do the peoples of hot, sunny Africa have darker skin, anyway...is dark skin (or any dark surface) not connected with the absorption of sunlight? Knowing is not research, but research can bring you to know something.

Fanaticism is a dangerous thing; we should all be wary of it, don't you think? Hgilbert 03:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Cancer and diabetes cures... http://skepdic.com/anthroposophicmedicine.html

If these allegation are true please verify them with reliable sources. Jefffire 13:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeffire -- I'll be glad to provide sources:

Anthroposophic Medicine ENCOURAGES High Fevers in Children http://www.waldorfinthehome.org/childhood_fevers.html

This article says the exact opposite: that fevers can get too high and one should avoid this. It encourages using 'nonsuppressant therapies' to drive fevers down, and allowing mild fevers to run their course. It mentions the danger of febrile convulsions and states that these need to be avoided.

"Waldorf Teachers are required to study Waldorf for a year of their two-year training program" Salon: http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2004/05/26/waldorf/index.html

Well, yes, they would do.

"Steiner did not believe in biological evolution" http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/steiner.htm

Steiner praised Haeckel (one of the earliest writers on biological evolution) and spoke of the importance of the principle of biological evolution frequently. (See for example Steiner: GA262, p. 49)

"Humans, he taught, began as spirit forms and progressed through various stages to reach today's form. Humanity, Steiner said, is currently living in the Post-Atlantis Period, which began with the gradual sinking of Atlantis in 7227 BC" http://skepdic.com/steiner.html

The date given here is an invention, but Steiner did believe that there had been other continents. Geologists accept this today.

"According to Steiner Blacks absorb the light and heat from the Sun and process it in their "well developed afterbrain," from there it goes down the spine, where the Black's inner organs are cooked by the solar energy, which explains why the Black's metabolism and his instinctual life is so "hot." If the Black goes to the West, where is less Sun, he becomes an Amerind and his skin turns red, because the Reds are forced to radiate back some of the light and heat, and because of this energy discharge the Amerinds will die out. In contrast to this the Aryans are not dependent on external energy but are self-reliant. With their big forebrain they are capable of developing the spirit and, thus, only they are human beings in strict terms (8, 9)."http://www.w-reich.de/hdoeng11.htm

The w-reich website is a hodgepodge of misquotes. The skepdic website is much better, but has errors as well. Please give original quotations from Steiner; his complete works can be searched at the Rudolf Steiner Archiv (that's German, not a mis-spelling).Hgilbert 03:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf schools under the Nazis

In response to recent anonymous edits:

"The advent of the Waldorf Schools was in my opinion the greatest contribution to world peace and understanding in the century."

- Willy Brandt, Former Chancellor of West Germany, Nobel Prize Winner. (see here)

The Waldorf schools were formally closed by Nazi decree in the mid-1930s (by being forbidden to take new students). A few schools managed to get extensions until 1938 or 39. reference Hgilbert 10:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC) revised Hgilbert 15:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The truth is that Steiner believed and taught Aryan superiority and this "philosophy" helped build Nazi Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.127.170 (talk • contribs)

And what is truth? You must provide verification for any claim if it is to be included. Jefffire 13:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Some Glaring Omissions in the Waldorf Article

Every Waldorf school celebrates the same festivals that are not done in other school: "Michaelmas" and the "Advent Garden" or the "Advent Spiral," "Martinmas," -- why no mention?

This is not true; Waldorf schools celebrate the festivals of the local religion. Michaelmas and Martinmas are traditional Christian festivals;

Nope. Every Waldorf school I have ever heard celebrates Michaelmas or some equivelent, as well as other christian holidays.

If the Waldorf schools you know of are in mostly Christian countries, they would do.

Every Waldorf teacher must spend half of their two year training studying anthroposophy and must be accredited by an anthroposophic organization -- why is this not mentioned?

Waldorf schools, not teachers, are accredited. The accrediting organization is simply the association of Waldorf schools. Many Waldorf schools in the USA are also accredited by the state or regional accreditation authority for private schools.

That's not true. You don't know what your talking about. "Waldorf" is a trademarked term and in order to open one up in North America you have to be accredited by AWNSA.

In order to call your school a Waldorf school you have to have a connection to AWSNA; accreditation is a long process that goes through various levels of support until full accreditation is reached.

Please avoid ad hominem attacks. Please notice what people have said. The association of Waldorf schools is called AWSNA. Many American schools are also accredited by regional authorities that work with all private schools in that region.

Every Waldorf school is crawling with gnomes, telling stories about gnomes, asking gnomes if they can enter the forest, builing houses for gnomes in the forest... but no mention?

Waldorf schools are crawling with gnomes? Hmmm... Seriously, there are thousands of things that a few, some or all Waldorf schools do that cannot be mentioned in an overview. Taking the elemental beings - and all religious and spiritual traditions - seriously is certainly central to the schools.

You don't know what your talking about: As crazy as it sounds (and is) Gnomes are are a huge part of Waldorf schools.

Waldorf schools only have wooden toys and faceless dolls... but no mention?

pardon me? The children make dolls with faces in handwork classes, for example...Natural materials are emphasized in the early years, however. This could go in the article if it isn't already.

Faceless dolls and wood-only toys are a staple of waldorf schools.

ALL Waldorf schools make children act out reincarnation in the "avent spiral" ceremony -- why is this not mentioned?

Children walk an 'Advent spiral' in many Waldorf schools. It's a pretty fine detail for an overview; maybe we should have a sub-article: celebrations in Waldorf schools.

It's not a "fine detail" and you know it, its a big deal that parents come and watch (but can't videotape)

Christ is the central figure in anthroposophy, but he is not mentioned once?

See the article about anthroposophy; he is mentioned extensively there.

--Actually, he's not.

Look again.

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.

Facts preferred

I have removed a quote that did not appear in the cited text.Hgilbert 10:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert -- As you are aware, only the last sentence in that paragraph does not match the cited material. I have removed the sentence in question. -paka33

Some factually incorrect edits have been accumulating. For example, all Waldorf schools teach academics from 1st grade on. To claim that they begin at third grade is simply false. Similarly, when the trial court judge states that he tried a case, to claim that he didn't is simply false (PLANS trial), and to claim that the trial was unfair because the plaintiffs had no legally admissible evidence is really just too much. The claim is pure opinion; the fact is that they had no legally admissible evidence and this should appear clearly without editorial whitewashing. The list could be extended indefinitely.

If you wish to write an article about PLANS' opinions about Waldorf education, it belongs in the PLANS article, and a link could be made to that. The alternative is to create a section about various organizations' opinions about Waldorf education; then the UN's support of Waldorf schools and the education generally could have place, the Americans4Waldorf Education group, and so on. There are a lot of organizations out there, though, and no one should be given priority. Hgilbert 21:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

hgilbert -- The third grade and academics was a mistake -- I meant to say "reading," which, as you know, is a common criticism. As far as the PLANS section, it was difficult to understand, so I edited it a bit. I think the main point legally was that the court decided the case "with prejudice" and that Waldorf schools have never been found to be in violation of church and state -- two point that I made that were not there previously. -paka33

Thank you for the latter points.

I don't know about the third grade criticism, having never heard it; reading is taught much earlier than 3rd grade in every Waldorf school. In particular, reading is taught in first grade primarily through the activity of writing, which is practised thoroughly, and more intensively apart from writing in second grade. Traditional schools practise more reading, less writing earlier; Waldorf schools more writing, less reading. The handwriting in Waldorf schools ends up superb, as a result, but the reading skills may develop slightly later...for some children. Since children who develop late in traditional schools are marginalized as deficient, however, a systematic comparison would have to be made to see if there is really a significant difference even in the early years.

It is a dangerous projection to assume that others know things; generally it's better to ask politely if they do know. I hope that's not too spiritual an approach! ;) Hgilbert 21:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am striking another claim. The claim was made that Waldorf schools hide their anthroposophical nature, while the article cited actually claims the opposite of what was claimed: that anthroposophy was overt and prominently featured in the school (for the parents' information, not for the children). Hgilbert 00:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am replacing yet another "cited claim" with the exact text of the source, which says something radically different than User:Paka33's summary. The latter claimed that reading instruction began in 2nd grade; the source said that "Literacy readiness begins in kindergarten with formal reading instruction beginning in grade one. Most children are reading independently by the middle or end of second grade."

Note that teaching the letters is normally considered part of teaching reading, and that children begin reading individual words and sentences they have written themselves or know from poetry, etc. in first grade. In second grade they concentrate on reading more fluently and independently of writing. Hgilbert 09:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Court case

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

New sections of criticism

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

Stop using 'Grade' (1st Grade, 2nd Grade,...)

'Grade' is a North American term with little meaning to the rest of us. Use the median age instead: 'age 7 and above' or 'at 11 years of age'. This will then make the article meaningful to all readers. Fergie 08:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reflection. It is difficult to reconcile international usages; I have tried to include references to the ages as well as grades/classes and have added more age-references in response to your suggestion.Hgilbert 11:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not difficult to reconcile international usage of age- 7 year olds in the US are the same age as 7 year olds in the Ukraine. If we absolutely have to use one nations school-year system then by rights should be the German one, since this is where Waldorf education has its roots. Lets stick to the international ´age´ and drop the US-centric ´grade´--Fergie 18:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Article name

It looks like this article should be named Waldorf education rather than Waldorf Education. Does anyone have an opinion either way? Wmahan. 16:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right; we can move it and establish a redirect from the old name. Anyone object? Hgilbert 21:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article cannot be moved from Waldorf Education to Waldorf education. Perhaps we can try to do this through an intermediate step such as Waldorf-education? Aquirata 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the article to "Waldorf-education" as no objections have been put forth. Any ideas how to move it top the proper "Waldorf education" now? Would this suppose getting rid of the redirect page "Waldorf Education"? Aquirata 13:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have listed the "Waldorf Education" redirect page for deletion [1] so this page can be moved to "Waldorf education." Aquirata 14:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have posted this on Requested moves and closed the mistaken AfD, as Aquirata now knows how to accomplish this sort of thing in the future. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. The strange thing to me is that other, supposedly more experienced editors haven't stepped forward in moving this article properly. I thought everybody was in the dark on this, and so decided to move forward the only way I knew. Aquirata 17:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your comment until now. It looks like the situation is resolved. I'll try to help fix the links to redirects. Wmahan. 17:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone moved it to "Waldorf-education", which looked a little German to me, so I moved it again to "Waldorf education". Hope this makes everyone happy.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 19:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Hgilbert 21:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was the original intention, thank you. We've travelled a convoluted road, but arrived at the right place nevertheless! :) Aquirata 00:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that the move has been accomplished, can some of you veteran editors of this subject take it upon yourselves to make sure all of the redirects at Special:Whatlinkshere/Waldorf_education are appropriate/fixed? I'd work on it, but I don't know a thing about this topic... -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Link removal

See here for discussion of including a link to the PLANS web-site in this article. Hgilbert 04:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if links to PLANS and other websites critical of Waldorf, my own site - WaldorfQuestions for example, could remain. People looking for information on Waldorf are not necessarily always looking for information that supports Waldorf. By removing links to critical sites Waldorf supporters are ensuring that they do not get the information they are looking for. This ultimately hurts Waldorf when parents enroll only to find the schools objectionable. Whoever is continually removing the links to critical sites should refrain from doing so.Pete K 08:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pete_K --Thebee 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This website does not qualify as a suitable reference at wikipedia. Blogs or message boards are interesting to read but they are not legitimate references suitable for research. This is the rule throughout the wikipedia. There is no reason to make a special exception for your own personal message board. The wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a community bulletin board or the yellow pages. 67.166.154.140 16:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So links to WaldorfAnswers and Americans For Waldorf Education should also be removed under this guideline. Pete K 12:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless I hear an objection - I will be removing links to Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf Education under the guidline cited above. --Pete K 18:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The comment by 67.166.154.140 refers to the WC-site. Approximately 99% of the site consists of archives of a mailing list, comparable to a message board. http://www.waldorfanswers.org and http://www.americans4waldorf.org are not blogs or message boards, but just normal web sites, and the argument therefore does not apply to them. --Thebee 20:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You keep making this 99% claim, but this makes no sense. Yes, part of the site functions as a list archive, but it is not a discussion list, nor is discussion carried on there. The PLANS site is a "normal" website that has dozens of contributions, articles and links to various studies. Additionally it has a link to a discussion list. Many websites have links to discussion lists associated with them. The links here are not to the discussion list, they are to the website. Waldorfanswers and Americans4Waldorf are both original source sites and MOST of the information contained on them is by a single author - YOU. There is, indeed, good reason to exclude both these sites for this very reason. Can you support that the bulk of the material at WaldorfAnswers and AWE is not original source material? If not, I'll remove the links. --Pete K 22:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

On "You keep making this 99% claim, but this makes no sense." Of course it makes sense. The 99% of the site that republish a mailing list is used at the site as "source material" and "Education of the public about Waldorf education", and is continually added to - in chronological revers order - characteristic of blogs. You argued yesterday, that the guideline "Blogs or message boards are interesting to read but they are not legitimate references suitable for research." should be used to remove links to http://www.waldorfanswers.org and http://www.americans4waldorf.org and disregard that the argument by 67.166.154.140 refers to the WC-site. Then you remove the two links, to which the guideline does not apply, but reinstates the specific site the argument refers to and applies to.

Maybe some others here have some comments on the logic of this line of argumentation and action? --Thebee 10:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, time's up Sune. You continually remove the links in the Critical Review section. Now I'm removing AWE and WA links because they are original research. If I see them back again, I'll remove them... and we can continue this game forever. I never get tired of this. In fact, let's just get more people involved. You can pull Linda and Deborah off their duty babysitting Mothering.com and I'll alert a few people from PLANS, and we can keep the page in a 24 hour editing cycle. How's that? Why don't you just stop removing critical commentary and information and links without justification? Before adding your links back, you need to make a case that they aren't original research. Good luck!!! --Pete K 23:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

After I have pointed out that the Wikipedia guideline you refer to as argument that http://www.waldorfanswers.org and http://www.americans4waldorf.org should be removed does not apply to them, you remove them anyhow, and reinstate the one site discussed (the WC-site) to which it DOES apply, and tell that you never will get tired of this violation by you of the Wikipedia guidelines.

On the "original research" argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Citing_oneself writes:

"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable.

I have a professional Waldorf teacher training, and have worked with anthroposophy for 35 years and written articles related to it. I consider myself to be a reasonable expert on anthroposophy. I have also participated on the WC-mailing list for a number of years and contributed with some 1,000+ postings on the list. In addition to that, I have continued to follow what has been written on it by different people and checked up on a number of the sources discussed on it. The other main editor of the http://www.waldorfanswers.org site is a professional Waldorf teacher with many years of experience of teaching at different Waldorf schools. I consider this to represent expert knowledge of the subject. The sites demonstrate and reflect expert knowledge of the verifiable published sources in the field of Waldorf Education, including the defamation published by the WC-site. Wikipedia recommends using such expert knowledge of published sources as basis for writing articles, and does not consider this to be something that violates the "No original research" rule, as everything (as far as I'm aware of) is based on, quote, link to and reflect the verifiable published sources on the topic of Waldorf education, WCriticism, and anthroposophy.

Your second "argument" for deleting the links to the two sites http://www.waldorfanswers.org and http://www.americans4waldorf.org does not hold, as little as your first argument, based on a guideline that applies to the WC-site, and giving ONE of many reasons that including it in the article violates Wikipedia guidelines, that you in spite of this repeatedly reinstate, in violation of also other Wikipedia guidelines, and have argued that it applies to the two sites, to which it explicitly NOT applies.

One and half an hour after you have told that you don't agree with the argument against your first argument for deleting them, you then delete them with reference to another guideline, that also does not apply to the two sites.

You also warn that you will get a number of other people involved in your repeated violations of Wikipedia guidelines and standards, if they are now allowed.

Do you consider that to be responsible work and argumentation as editor of the article?

Again, I'd be interested in comments by other editors on this.

--Thebee 10:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sune, please be clear that your "expert" status, despite your claims, is dubious because anyone reading your site will see you have a fanatical viewpoint. Someone who washes their hands a hundred times a day may be an expert in hand-washing, but they may also have serious mental problems. Your actions, continually babysitting this site, removing ALL critical material that is posted regarding Waldorf, and your insistance in reverting all edits that don't meet with YOUR approval, show evidence of mental instability. Your site is replete with lies, half-truths, twisted agruments, mis-quotes and character assinations. I have demonstrated this publicly several times, the last being on Mothering.com. I will happily demonstrate it here once again if need be. Let's start with Steiner's racist remarks that you call his "sense of humor" - shall we? As you can see, I really don't assign your "expert" status any worth. I am just as much an expert on Waldorf education as you are - only my perspective is from a parent's point of view. I understand THROUGH EXPERIENCE what it means to be lied to, slandered and have your children threatened and abused by WALDORF TEACHERS. So you're barking up the wrong tree when you tell me what you write represents "expert" opinion. What you write is dishonest and that dishonesty is representative of many Waldorf teachers. Every week, I breakfast with experienced Waldorf teachers - some with names you would recognize - and we discuss Waldorf education. All are conviced your website does Waldorf more harm than good and that your actions represent the very worst of Waldorf teachers. Your self-proclaimed "expertise" is based on fanaticism and a vendetta. So, let's leave the self-inflated "expert" status aside and see your work at both Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf Education for what it truly is, original research, extremely biased, not based in fact, slanderous, fanatical and certainly not worthy of inclusion here under the "expert" status guideline you claim.

You wrote: "Your second "argument" for deleting the links to the two sites http://www.waldorfanswers.org and http://www.americans4waldorf.org does not hold, as little as your first argument, based on a guideline that applies to the WC-site, and giving ONE of many reasons that including it in the article violates Wikipedia guidelines, that you in spite of this repeatedly reinstate, in violation of also other Wikipedia guidelines, and have argued that it applies to the two sites, to which it explicitly NOT applies."

I'm not quite sure that was in comprehendable English, but I understand that you, one of the "Americans" for Waldorf Education is indeed a Swede, so I'll try to make sense of what you are stating. You are either saying that violation of one guideline isn't enough to exclude your two original research sites, or that the original research guideline does not apply in this case because of your "expert" status. I think we have established that your "expert" status doesn't hold water (see above), and so, of course, the original research guideline is all that's left. If your "expert" status is in question, and I would like that question to be answered by an INDEPENDENT participant representing Wikipedia, then the original research violation applies.

Here's what I would agree to in the mean time, in the interest of halting the link-editing wars. Why don't you replace one of the two links - since they are essentially the same website - i.e. they contain essentially the same information, pending review of the original research question. Leave the links critical of Waldorf alone as it has been agreed that both the PLANS link and the two other "foreign" links belong there. Let's ask for an INDEPENDENT review of Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf Education - to see if the information contained at those sites is original research or not and if it mis-represents the facts or not. If it is not original research, and if it represents GOOD research, then they should be included. If it is found otherwise, those links should be excluded. --Pete K 15:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me just add one more thing here... the Americans for Waldorf Education site, you and four other people, have throughout Wikipedia made claims that the Waldorf critcal group PLANS is tantamount to a "hate group". I will be removing these statements wherever I find them for your own good. It displays your dishonest intention to discredit all critical review of Waldorf. You really should be ashamed of yourself for these actions, but I am certain you aren't. --Pete K 15:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sune, I see you are continuing your tactic of removing the Critical Review section of the links and the link to PLANS. Please stop this. There has been no concensus opinion that this is a valid edit - that I know of. I'm sure it upsets you not to have complete control over this page, but unfortunately, continually editing out the links to critical sites and removing information critical of Waldorf is not productive. There is a re-write underway for the entire article and it would be wise, I think, if you stop this behavior while the re-write is going on.

On 28 August 2006, 11:22, HGilbert wrote:

"Let's agree here either to include both AWE and PLANS, or neither; both are web-sites, not published works. This either/or edit war is pointless. I hope it is clear that either both qualify or neither; it just remains to work out which we'd like to agree on. Let's go on to more productive work than reverts!!! (Get a life!!!) ;) Hgilbert 11:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)"

On 28 August, 15:55 you answered (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waldorf_education#Unified_standards_for_citations):

"I have agreed, as HGilbert has suggested, that either the AWE or WaldorfAnswers (as it's essentially the same site) and PLANS sites remain. I'm just as comfortable removing ALL the links until a review has been conducted by the project team who I anticipate will be unbiased. Nobody wants these edit wars to stop any more than I do. --Pete K 15:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)"

After that, you have violated this consensus agreement -- including you -- a number of times, when it has been implemented, and returned to the edit war, about which you also wrote, AFTER arguing against the AWE site above (15:40, 28 August 2006 and 15:48, 28 August 2006):

Nobody wants these edit wars to stop any more than I do.

Please stop doing it, and stay with your agreed to consensus on having both links, until another consensus agreement is reached. --Thebee 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sune (Thebee) you seem to misunderstand the agreement and continue to push this issue based on your misunderstanding. Here's what it says: "I have agreed, as HGilbert has suggested, that either the AWE or WaldorfAnswers (as it's essentially the same site) and PLANS sites remain. I'm just as comfortable removing ALL the links until a review has been conducted by the project team who I anticipate will be unbiased. Nobody wants these edit wars to stop any more than I do." (Emphasis was in the original message)

This is NOT an agreement that states a "critique" of the critical site PLANS is available to you as your link. This is NOT an agreement to remove both PLANS and WA/AWE links - but ALL links - until the dispute is settled. This is NOT an agreement to remove the Critical Review category as you have done several times a day since it was put up there. Please read the agreement carefully. If you want to add a link for AWE OR WA (one of the two) to the Waldorf Resources section, go ahead, be my guest. Or let's remove ALL the links including ALL Waldorf Resources links completely and we, the edit team, can review each one and decide which ones belong there. If you want to go that route, we can do this and I will recommend to the edit team that we make links our next priority. I'd recommend leaving the links alone and adding a link to one of your two original research sites. I suspect the edit team will want to review all the links eventually anyway, but for now, adding your link to the resources section or removing ALL the links including the resources links are the only things we have agreement on. I'm sorry that this is causing you such frustration. --Pete K 02:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

List of famous alumni

The link to a list of famous alumni has been removed (by Fergie). I notice that Montessori method, for example, even has such a list embedded in the article. I find that a bit much, but is there any reason not to have a link to a list? Or should we remove such lists wherever they are found? Hgilbert 13:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Eurythmy Addition

I have added to the formerly minimal topic of Eurythmy. I have included quotes directly from Steiner and have addressed questions that many people have about Eurythmy. I have avoided the temptation to note that Eurythmy was an attempt by Von Sivers to spiritually negate the dances of "negro savages". Also, I have avoided including comments by sports teachers who claim Waldorf kids are among the most physically uncoordinated kids they have run across and attribute this, in part, to Eurythmy's lack of jumping movements. If others think that information would be helpful, we can add it in. --Pete K 16:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sune, please discuss wholesale edits before making them. I have reverted the Eurythmy page to its condition. If you would like to discuss how the content is argumentative, we can do this here and agree on what the content should say. --Pete K 17:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A reminder: editorializing is not appropriate here. Quoting or summarizing sources is preferred; people can then make their own judgments about the ideas expressed. See WP:Citing sources for details.

Incidentally, excuse me for citing guidelines constantly, but in working with new users who may or appear to be unfamiliar with these, it seems vital, so that we all understand the standard we are working towards. Hgilbert 18:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the standard you are working towards is deleting any critical viewpoint. I'm quite aware of who you are and what you are trying to do.--Pete K 19:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

My "editorializing" as you call it, is supported DIRECTLY by Steiner's own quotes. If you would care to discuss how Eurythmy ISN'T Anthroposophy, please do so here before editing the article again. If you would like to discuss how parents are informed about Eurythmy's spiritual nature, and how it is thought to be so powerful an activity that it can correct crooked teeth, then please discuss it here before making any changes to the article. I completely understand that what I have added is not what you would like the article to say, but it is the truth and belongs where it is. If you want to work collectively on wording that we can both agree on, then let's please do that rather than waste each other's time in constant editing. Again, I want to assure you I have endless energy in this type of thing. It behooves us to work together instead of in opposition. Please don't edit the article again without discussing this HERE. --Pete K 19:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Earlier today you edited the section on Eurythmy in the article and made it into a POV argumentation without asking here about it first, and only told you had done it after you did it. When your argumentative POV was edited to make it NPOV, you have reverted this to your original argumentative POV, and ask here that your original argumentative POV edit, made without discussing it here first, be left as it is, and that any further edits of your argumentative POV edit be discussed here BEFORE making them. Do you find your request to be consistent with your own action? --Thebee 20:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted to the section on Eurythmy to the original, pending discussion of it here. --Thebee 20:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, your statement above is not true. I discussed it here - but there wasn't a Eurythmy section on this discussion page until I made one after adding to the section. My comment is in another section, I don't know where at the moment. I waited a couple of days before including the information in the Eurythmy section. If you believe you have provided a NPOV, you are quite mistaken. Please read my comments above again. If you would like to work together on a NPOV version, I'd be happy to do this with you or with Harlan. I really, really get that you guys don't think it's important to discuss the dirty little secrets of Waldorf, but they are certainly worth discussing. Eurythmy is REQUIRED at ALL Waldorf schools. I can dig up the quote in Confereneces with Waldorf Teachers for you that has Steiner saying exactly this. So please don't say "many" when the truth is "all". It isn't dance, it's spiritual activity. People who describe it as dance are being dishonest - just like it would be dishonest to describe Tai Chi as dance. So a NPOV would require honest about the issue. BTW, I don't necessarily see any reason to update the Eurythmy article that someone was kind enough to link today, because it is the way Eurythmy relates to Waldorf that is at issue here. Eurythmy is a REQUIRED SPIRITUAL activity in ALL Waldorf schools and Steiner was adamant about this, and the quotes I provided confirm this. If you want to sugarcoat this with Waldorf-ism's about dance and art form, please save that for Waldorf literature. This is, hopefully, a place for truth. I will therefore revert the page back. --Pete K 21:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote: "I have reverted to the section on Eurythmy to the original, pending discussion of it here." --Thebee 20:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To this you answer: "your statement above is not true. I discussed it here - but there wasn't a Eurythmy section on this discussion page until I made one after adding to the section. My comment is in another section, I don't know where at the moment."

Can you please search for it with your browser here at the page, and tell where I can find it? --Thebee 21:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. It's in the Science section. Here's the comment: "What I would like to see some discussion about (and what I mean by "deviates") is stuff like Eurythmy, which is REQUIRED for every student from 1st grade through 12th grade. In other words, it's a big deal. It is a deeply spiritual exercise that I think we should take a few sentences to talk about here. --Pete K 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)" Nobody objected to this, so I added to the almost blank section on Eurythmy with information supported by quotes from Steiner. Then I created a Eurythmy section here for further discussion.--Pete K 22:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

From Wikipedia:Verifiability

• As a rule of thumb, sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:

• It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
• It is not contentious;
• It is not unduly self-serving;
• It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

This seems pretty clear. How many more guidelines does the PLANS site have to fail to meet to convince you? Hgilbert 14:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

All the material that claims this is a dubious site comes from within the Anthroposophy movement. Please cite an independent opinion. A groups Website cannot fall under the heading 'self published'. Every corporate site would fall under this. This heading is clearly intended to prevent original researchers citing themselves. PLANS is a public actor on a public stage in a public debate and must e included in a list of critical opinion on Waldorf education. Lumos3 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The site of 'OpenWaldorf' is a one-man completely self published site. As such it does not qualify as a general linked to source on Waldorf Education. --Thebee 11:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The criteria say that a group's website can be used as a reliable source in an article about that group. (See added emphasis, above). There is no way of ensuring that it is a reliable source about other things. When it has a tendentious and aggressive style, and involves claims about third parties (see above) it is problematic. Hgilbert 15:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Critics home page

Let's look at what users would see if we gave them this reference, starting with the home page. It opens by calling anthroposophy an "occultist sect". This would be libel (if it wasn't true) if published in print; cases in various countries have ruled this (see article for some examples).

Next follows some purely personal description. One individual's experiences out of the say 1,000,000 who have been Waldorf parents or students. The allegations are unproven and they are stated as if they are general to the schools, whereas the writer is actually speaking of individual experiences:

• Why don't teachers allow students in the preschool through the early elementary grades to use black crayons in their drawings?
  • This is certainly not generally true.
• Why is mythology taught as history?
  • Mythology is taught as mythology, history as history.
• Where is the American flag, and why don't Waldorf schools teach civic lessons in America?
  • The American flag is where it belongs, over the courthouses and civic buildings. Private individuals and institutions are not required to fly a flag. Civics is taught as part of history, not as a separate subject.
• In a school system that promotes itself as "education toward freedom," why do students copy everything from the blackboard?
  • They don't. In the early years, they copy a lot; other schools use mimeographed or photocopied sheets that are standardized. Standardized material is not unusual to schools; Waldorf moves away from this earlier than most schools.
• Why do Waldorf teachers talk in high voices and sing-song directions to their classes?
  • What percent do this? Come on.
• Why is learning to read before the age of 8 or 9 considered unhealthy?
  • Instruction in writing and reading begins in first grade, when pupils are 6-7 years old.
• Why do so many Waldorf classes have problems with bullying, and what is the school's policy for dealing with this?
  • What percentage do, and how does this compare with other schools? Why do so many schools have problems with bullying? This is a serious question not particular to any one system.
• Why are teachers always lighting candles?
  • Always? What do you use to make a special evening or a special birthday? Floodlights?

The material is tendentious, misleading in the extreme, a considerable amount is false. That's just the home page. This is not a reliable analysis of Waldorf education, it is a personal rant.Hgilbert 14:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You claim there are inaccuracies in a site which holds an opinion different to yours . This is hardly suprising. It does not mean it should not be linked to. Wikipedia describes a range of opinion not one truth. Lumos3 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you: yes HGilbert, it is largely a personal rant, and yes Lumos3 it (or a link like it) is nonetheless worthy of inclusion as it reflects some widely held points of view. Personally I quite like the criticism section of this article http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/education/waldorf.html and also this one http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2004/05/26/waldorf/index_np.html. Although neither link is against particularly against the Waldorf system, they do a nice job of illustrating the challenges in a positive light. Could we try and include these?--Fergie 19:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

För some comments on the WC main page, see http://www.americans4waldorf.org/Comments.html The Salon.com article contains libel, and therefore is below Wikistandard, see http://www.waldorfanswers.org/OnSalonArticle.html But include the http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/education/waldorf.html article as a critical external link.

--Thebee 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Your (TheBee) intolerance of anything other than fawning praise of Waldorf Education is damaging both to you and your cause. The hysterical, defensive ranting of americans4waldorf and waldorfanswers does little to convince the impartial observer of the benefits of a Waldorf education. The links I mentioned are hardly what could be called critical, they merely present criticism in a balanced and intelligent manner as part of a broader, mostly positive, discussion. This reflects the tone that the article should be striking instead of the lowbrow mudslinging of extreme pro and anti Waldorf bigots that seems to crop up here with alarming regularity. --Fergie 10:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion to include the Mothering article as a 'critical' link was yours, not mine. I endorsed it as a friendly ironic teaser. The purpose of the section on PLANS at http://www.americans4waldorf.org/OnPLANS.html is not to convince an impartial observer of the benefits of Waldorf education, but do document and expose the nature of the WC. Neither does the WaldorfAnswers site have the primary purpose of convincing an impartial observer of the the benefits of Waldorf education, but to inform about what it is, and what it is not, and leave it to the reader of the site to make his or her own judgement and decisions about it. --Thebee 12:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Who says they are libellous? There is a history on this page of calling anything that that is slightly critical of Waldorf education a libel. The term libel should be reserved for instances of comment that has resulted in court action and found to be such, and not used as a way to show you disagree with an opinion. A range of opinions need to be cited here to produce a balance. Trust the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Lumos3 09:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think 'libellous' means 'balanced' in this context --Fergie 10:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"The term libel should be reserved for instances of comment that has resulted in court action and found to be such"? That interpretation is not supported by the actual situation regarding libel in the U.S. According to Wikipedia "Defamation is defined to be the tort or delict of "...publication of a false statement of fact, made with the requisite state of mind, that causes injury"." and "Libel is defamation that is published". http://www.waldorfanswers.org/OnSalonArticle.html documents in what way three central allegations about WE published in the article are libelous, that is, untrue and defamatory. In general, only individual living persons that are defamed can sue for libel and "No state allows the plaintiff to be a group of people" which makes it impossible for Waldorf organisations to sue for libel, even if it has been published as untrue defamatory statements, which is the case with the WC site and the Salon.com article. --Thebee 12:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you should take a look here before you continue editing--Fergie 13:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fergie: can you explain what that has to do with the current issue? I don't see any original research going into web pages here.

I actually have nothing against the Salon article; it was certainly libellous in its original form, but has been at least somewhat modified in the form linked to. It is more than a little bothersome that the present link includes a link to the original article, however; if they modified the article due to inaccuracies, as they seem to indicate, they should not make the original available as if it were still valid. Can we find it somewhere without this link? I think this gives due weight to the concerns about linking to misleading or inaccurate material. Hgilbert 13:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken waldorfanswers and americans4waldorf count as original research.--Fergie 18:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What is your specific argument? --Thebee 19:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that the Salon article was, it seems, not actually changed; they only issued a clarification that certain comments "These statements -- one saying the philosophy was "founded on racist and anti-Semitic beliefs," another referring to its "basis in racial and religious discrimination," another mentioning "the inherent racism and anti-Semitism of some of Steiner's philosophies" and another mentioning "Steiner's bigoted roots" might not be true, but were the opinion of the author. It is true that these would be possibly libellous comments, and that they only occur on a web-site and so

• those issuing them are protected from being responsible for their content, and
• they are not officially Wikipedia-standard. I am inclined to work around the guidelines when this seems sensible, but I'd rather do it for something that gave quotations and explanations rather than unsupported judgments.

I'd like to suggest that, when there is doubt about suitability, holding closer to the guidelines is to be preferred...The Mothering article qualifies by virtue of its appearing in print whatever its content (I haven't looked at it yet, actually, I will do so though).

Fergie is probably right about the original research question, now that I understand to what he is referring. The only justification for including such websites as waldorfanswers would be as self-descriptions of organizations, which are allowed, whereas third-party descriptions in the same material would be excluded. In so far as these sites are referenced to talk about Waldorf schools and anthroposophy, they might qualify as self-descriptions from within the movement (this is not quite the same as an organization, however) -- what do people think? Their comments about others - including PLANS - would certainly be excluded, on the same grounds as the PLANS comments about Waldorf are excluded; self-published material or websites are only permitted for self-descriptive information, and only then in so far as various other guidelines are met.

I suggest we formulate clear and in this case fairly conservative guidelines (actually, these are already formulated by Wikipedia, but perhaps they need restating here) and hold all sides to these. It will make everyone slightly uncomfortable, but will ensure that we are holding to our mission as an encyclopedia rather than following agenda. Hgilbert 01:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Self-descriptions from within the movement" qualifies a lot of sites. There is a reform movement within the movement, and critical sites, like my own, would be self-descriptions within the movement. If you look at Waldorf Answers site, most of the material is produced by a single person. I'm pretty sure that is the definition of original research. If the self-descriptions within the movement exception applies here, please let me know and I'll replace links to my own site. --Pete K 23:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines for notable opinion

I hope we are agreed that an encyclopaedia would not just describe the view on a topic which is held by its main proponents but would also note other views held by notable individuals or groups who have voiced criticism whatever they have said on the subject. These should be noted even if the main proponents consider them wrong, blasphemous or slanderous as long as they are notable views which have been part of a public debate prior to the writing of the article. I am talking about noting and describing points of view not citing them as a source of facts.

The disagreement here seems to be what constitutes notable. Wikipedia is cautious about self published printed word and websites because these can be used to make a view seem to have more prominence , and therefore be more notable , than it actually is.

No Lumos3, the problem here is NOT what constitutes a "notable" opinion. The "notable" opinion, that you argue should be "noted" in the article already IS noted twice in the article in two of the four sections on Criticism of Waldorf Education, describing its specific views on the two main points of criticism of the group, and with a link to a detailed Wikipedia article on the group, that gives several links to the site of the group.

The problem is that you - IN SPITE OF THIS - in full, in the article noted existence of the group and description in the article of its main criticism of Waldorf methods education, untruthfully described by the group as if it is identical with Waldorf Education, with a link to a more detailed description of the group, that contains several links to the site of the group, continue to argue as if this was not already the case, and - in addition to this full documentation of the existence and views of the group - insist on repeatedly adding a THIRD link on the group, in this case directly to its site, that violates at least two guidelines on sites not to be linked to as External links:

Links to avoid:

"2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material [...], as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources." Except for the examples given by HGilbert, I have mentioned how the site publishes and supports the self described "historical scholar" Mr. Staudenmaier, exemplifying his demonstrable repeated untruthfulness - if you care to check here - already in his introduction to this first article published at the site, (A study paragraph by paragraph of the first part of the article by Daniel Hindes, who actually HAS a degree in history, documents his repeated untruthfulness also in the rest of its first part) and further here and here for some more examples of his untruths, published at the WC-site of Mr. Dugan. The pages linked to in full both quote Mr. Staudenmaier and the sources he writes that he describes, quoting them from their publication on the internet, in full demonstrating his untruthfulness, and the defense of the publication of these untruths by the secretary and webmaster of the group, when they have been described and documented to him.

For a more full documentation of a number of his new and untruthful stories about this, when his first untruth in the article was documented, see here and onwards. I have mentioned this already earlier in this discussion, but for some reason you don't seem to have noted and checked the documentation of Mr. Staudenmaier's repeated untruthfulness (with links to the sources on the net, that he says he describes and his postings on this on the net).

One of the persons mentioned by Mr. Staudenmaier in his first article, a Rainer Schnurre, threatened to sue the Swedish publisher of the article, the Swedish branch of the CSICOP, for libel for what Mr. Staudenmaier untruthfully writes about him. This is noted in the article, and a publisher of an anthology of articles on anthroposophy, including the article by Mr. Staudenmaier (Leopard förlag), earlier published by the Swedish secular humanist group, decided not to publish a second edition of the anthology, after the first had sold out, when faced with a lawsuit for libel if doing it.

"9. Blogs, [...] and forums should generally not be linked to", because of the amount of unverified material published by them. The main part of the site of "PLANS Inc." consists of Megabytes and Megabytes of archives of such discussions, illegally - in violation of copyright - republished by Mr. Dugan at his "Waldorf-critical" site from discussion list he is the personal owner of. Most of the defamatory myths about Waldorf education, described here and above, are published in the archives of the list. This alone (that the main part of the site consists of such unverified material, and strange and unverified gossip of all sorts) disqualifies the site from linking to as an external link on "criticism of Waldorf Education". The main part of the argumentation of group is described IN the article. IN ADDITION linking to also its soup of unverified material in postings, because there ALSO is some in part more verified material at the site violates Wikipedia guidelines in general, as the group mixes the two parts at its site, and the unverified "blog" type of material constitutes such a large (main) part of it. For a description of the three types of arguments, from verifiable 'criticism' to unreliable demonization published at the site of the group, that you repeatedly insist of adding as an External link to the article, with different untenable arguments, see here.

Based on this, I have removed the link, that you again have inserted, based on limited consideration of the site and its nature. For a more full description of the hate nature of the argumentation, published by the group at its site, when you look closer not least at its "list archives", behind its at first seemingly civil surface, that it has worked to build during the last years, and that in addition disqualifies it as example of a "point of view" site on Waldorf education, see above, the Wikipedia page on the group and its site, and the Wikipedia description of hate groups.

--Thebee 22:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest 3 ways to judge a notable opinion:-

• Material published by an independent publisher is notable because the author has convinced a 3rd party (the publisher) of its importance.
• Membership organisations are notable since they are collectivised opinions by groups of people in support of an agreed set of views. ie they have at least convinced each other of the importance of their views.
• The more public (i.e. recorded in the news media) the action of an individual or organisation the more notable they/it become. Lumos3 09:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

These suggestions belong on the Wikipedia policy and guideline pages, not here.

Note that an active KKK group might be worth reporting for its actions without its ideas about races becoming thereby significant ideas. In this article, the actions of PLANS are reported (and have been much reported in the press). Their ideas do not thereby become more noteworthy. You have the problem of the squeakiest wheel getting the grease, otherwise.

I'll be interested to see what response you get on the policy/guideline pages, in any case! Hgilbert 08:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We are not using the PLANS site as a source of content for the article but a citation of it needs to be made. I am considering refering the issue to RFC if all parties will agree to abide by a decision. Lumos3 20:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's look at the guidelines for links, which include the criteria:

• Is it proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)?

I would suggest that this is not the case here.

• On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)

This could argue for inclusion

To be avoided:

• Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)

This is a contested point, obviously, but much of the material of the PLANS site must be considered either factually inaccurate or unverified original research (or both).

• Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard.

Much, but not all of the site is directed towards the forum

We could consider the RfC...What do others think? Hgilbert 01:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be arguing in circles here. Opinions need citations just as facts do. I do not claim that everything written on PLANS is factually accurate. However its an organisation that has taken collective and legal action on Waldorf education and has the largest collection of sourced opinion critical of Waldorf education to be found on the web. To refuse to externally link this in an article on Waldorf education is perverse. Just as it is perverse to hide critical opinion in a section called " outside opinion". This whole article suffers from a lack of courage to face up to criticism and let the reader decide. Lumos3 09:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that. Censorship has no place in an encylopedia--Fergie 10:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And Jewry suffers from "lack of courage to face up to criticism" of it from groups "critical" of it. The editors of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewry should accept inclusion of a link to http://www.jewwatch.com/, that probably has "has the largest collection of sourced opinion critical of (Jewry) to be found on the web", or http://www.webshells.com/adlwatch/ or http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/ as External links in a criticism section, and let the reader decide what they think of Jewry. You're overdoing it, Lumos3. Your last 'argument' for adding a third, additional, External link to the site or the group, in addition to the two links in the article to the Wikipedia article on the group, was such a third link "does not contravene Wikipedia guidelines". Clearly it does and your argument was untrue, and in violation of good and reasonable Wikipedia policy.

On 31 July, one week after HGilbert added a link to the Wikipedia article on the group in one of four sections on Criticism of Waldorf education, and you added it in another of the sections on Criticsm fof WE, you argue here on 'notable opinion' in a way that seems to imply that you don't think the group has been "noted" in the article. It has been noted where it belongs, Lumos3, twice in Sections on Criticism of WE, with links to the Wikipedia article on the group.

The webmaster of the site, and secretary of the group behind it started his campaign against Waldorf methods in public schools by instigating picketing of a public Waldorf methods charter school, that alleged that the schools teach Wicca. He himself in an Newspaper inverview insinuated that it was based on a satanic religion, to then tell during depositions for a trial, that he himself did not think that allegations were true, after these false allegations had been used to finance the initiation of against two public school districts for "supporting religion", based on the allegations, a "legal action" that you praise as evidence of a "collective and leagl action" against public Waldorf methods charter schools. Later, he and the president of the group, few days before a Christmas, hired a Private Detective to sneak in at a private, outside schools hours, off campus, voluntary advent celebration of the coming Christmas for K-3rd graders of one Waldorf methods charter school, with a videocamera hidden under his coat to "in secret" videotape it, to use as "proof" to school boards, considering to support the use of Waldorf methods at their schools, that Waldorf methods education is "religious".

At his mailing list, the archives of which constitute 140+MB, more than 99% of the site, he through the years has supported the publication of all sorts of demonizing allegations about WE at his mailing list, including repeated allegations that the secret agenda of WE is to train the future rulers of the world, a myth also published by the legal organization, that has supported the WC-group, and he himself not only publishes but also defends the publication of demonstrably untrue demonizing defamation of anthroposophy by a repeatedly untruthful self proclaimed con "historical scholar" at his site, when its untruthfulness is documented, adding a disclaimer to the section with the article at his WC-site, that "PLANS does not necessarily agree with or vouch for the veracity of everything posted in this section.".

You consider this to be "serious criticism", that the Waldorf movement should "face up to"?

You describe the naming and description of the group in two of four sections on Criticism of Waldorf education, linking to the Wikipedia article on the group at PLANS, that extensively links to the site of the group, as a "perverse" way of hiding their "critical opinion" in the article.

Fergie calls this "censorship". Right.

We're not arguing in circles, Lumos3. You disregard all arguments, based on a strife to apply the spirit of good and reasonable Wikipedia policy, against your view, when faced with them, and now resort to a purely emotional argument for inclusion: "Waldorf education should "build the courage" to "face up to criticism and let the reader decide" what they think, regardless of Wikipedia guidelines for reasonable and good editing polcies. Tell that to the editors of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewry You're overdoing it, Lumos3.

On the basis of the above, I have replaced the group with a link to the at least somewhat serious site of "OpenWaldorf".

--Thebee 11:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And an article, that reflects the allegations of the WC, and describes their litigation, based on false allegations of Witchcraft at Waldorf schools, and financing it with a description and a News Report of the false allegations.

--Thebee 11:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about WC (Waldorf Critics) an open discussion list, or PLANS? Allegations made on a discussion list by people are certainly different than allegations made by an organization. Please let's not confuse the two here. --Pete K 18:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Satanic religion"- and other allegations by PLANS

Your attempt to draw parallels between PLANS dispute with Waldorf education and anti-Semitism and racism is ludicrous. PLANS has clearly defined goals which are to make public the occult basis of the educational theory used in Waldorf education. That is it is arguing about ideas not using bigotry, hatred and racism as you claim. It asserts that people should be free to practise the religion of their choice. What it opposes is Waldorf educations lack of visibility to the public that its curriculum and the way pupils are assessed and treated are based on what to most people are irrational and even magical ideas. That some in Waldorf education respond with these kinds of distorted attacks, that try to blacken the critic rather than honestly respond to the criticism is very sad and reflects poorly on Waldorf education as a whole. Lumos3 23:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid one has to distinguish between the official goals of an organization and its actual actions. For all I know the KKK could have extremely noble official goals. Its methods and actions are those of a hate group, however. PLANS has been documented as accusing Waldorf education as practicing witchcraft (and then denying that they really believe this when faced down). They have a internet discussion site that is full of bigotry, hatred and false information (Steiner was a Nazi, leading Nazis were in favor of anthroposophy and Waldorf education, and so on).

People are free to practice the religion of their choice, in a Waldorf school or out; perhaps you are unaware that in the first Waldorf school, which had to provide religious instruction according to the school law of the time, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish religious instruction was available, as well as a "free religious instruction" for non-denominational but religious-minded families. It was also an option to have no religious instruction whatsoever. Any school chooses content; whether you teach the Jewish bible and Greek mythology (as Waldorf schools do) or not, you are making a critical choice that affects the child's whole worldview. This is the nature of the educational process. You can argue the choices, but don't start claiming that the very act of making choices is suspect.

Finally, it is hopelessly naive to claim that Waldorf's link to anthroposophy is invisible, and Anthroposophy's conception of child development is anything but irrational or magical. Honest critics and criticisms are welcome by me and many others who work with these matters (perhaps not by all, and there you have an honest and welcome critique). Add such and you will find us all thankful. Hgilbert 00:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This refers to an incident several years ago at which parents at a Waldorf school, looking at their children's lesson books, concluded the content showed witchcraft. The school was a public school that was being converted to a Waldorf school, with the long-time teachers required to undergo Steiner training in order to keep their jobs. One of the teachers objected to what she viewed as clearly religious content in the training (karma, reincarnation etc.). She held strong traditional Christian beliefs and may have been the one to originally describe what she was seeing in Waldorf as "witchcraft."

PLANS worked with parents at the school to protest the conversion of their local public school to an anthroposophical school. No one at PLANS told any of these people that anthroposophy was witchcraft; PLANS is on record numerous times saying just the opposite. A protest held at the school was reported in the press. The article *does not say* that PLANS alleged witchcraft - because they didn't. If parents there said this to reporters, that is the parents' business. The president of PLANS was later asked, on their mailing list, if they had contacted the media to contest the allegation of witchcraft. She replied no, she had not contested anything in the article, that she was happy that the case was in the news. She (nor anyone else at PLANS) never alleged witchcraft. She has every right to be happy when the case is in the news - most people who file a lawsuit regarding a public issue would like to see the case in the news!

This incident has later been distorted, and is repeated ad nauseum through Sune's multiple web sites, as "PLANS alleges witchcraft." I have personally debunked this false claim a number of times, in a number of places, and those responsible for spreading this rumor rarely reply.

The people who insist that this is some sort of ethical lapse on the part of PLANS - for working with fundamentalist Christian parents, or taking a grant from a fundamentalist organization - fail to understand the law suit. It is a lawsuit in support of separation of church and state. The parents at the school in question have their rights violated if their children are being taught religious content or made to participate in religious rituals without their knowledge, and which they disagree with and would not permit if they had been informed about it. Whether what is being taught is "witchcraft" is a matter of individuals' personal religious beliefs; to some Christians, anthroposophy is indeed indistinguishable from witchcraft. It diverges considerably from Biblical Christianity. This should not be confused with my personal view (I am not Christian) nor is it a view held at PLANS - there is a tendency to leap to this conclusion; we hear it repeated that "Oh, it's a Christian organization" if PLANS will defend the rights of Christians etc. The organization of PLANS takes no religious view at all. This is why Dan said he is happy to "pander" to Christians: many Christians want Waldorf to be ineligible for public funding and so does Dan. The lawsuit supports the rights of these parents to protest their children being taught "witchcraft" if this is how they view the material.

Other people have other objections. Waldorf parents are a wide variety of religious backgrounds. Generally, only anthroposophists are actually comfy with their children being taught anthroposophy. The material is inappropriate in the public schools. It violates numerous people's personal religious beliefs. It violates mine, for instance, for totally different reasons than the fundamentalist parents who alleged "witchcraft." (I do not think anthroposophy is witchcraft.) But the public schools are for everyone's children, not just anthroposophists'.

The Wikipedia entry on hate groups states: "A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, or other sector of society."

Neither PLANS, nor any critic of Waldorf to my knowledge, has ever done anything like the above. Criticism of an educational movement, or spiritual movement or religious institution, is not the same thing as "hating" it and is certainly not the same thing as encouraging violence or hostility against the people involved in it. None of these people calling a bunch of parents on the Internet describing our children's school experiences, and voicing our opinions on what happened to us in this movement, or sharing responses to Rudolf Steiner's works, can ever demonstrate any statement or action taken by a critic that would fit this definition of "hate." The claim is merely a way to discredit critics of their movement.

If Sune Nordwall would like to go on alleging PLANS is a hate group, then he will need to do more than add links to his own web sites as a "source" for this opinion. He would need to either quote statements made by critics that express hate or encourage hate or hostility or violence. There is no such statement, and no such action, anywhere. Or, alternatively, come up with someone with a graduate-level expertise on hate groups, who can be quoted saying that PLANS is a hate group?

People criticizing reading instruction, people claiming that parents are not adequately informed, prior to enrollment, about the underlying spiritual agenda of the Waldorf schools, are not a "hate group."DianaW 21:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Diana

The statement that PLANS has been documented as accusing Waldorf education as practicing witchcraft is documented by an Editorial in The Sacramento at the time: The attack on Oak Ridge, 10 June 1997.

Everything that I have written on this point is based on Newspaper articles at the time, postings by Mr. Dugan and others on his mailing list, the published application for money to ADF for the lawsuit, and depositions by Mr. Dugan for the trial. See Witch Hunt --Thebee 09:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana replies here: The above accusations by Sune Nordwall are false. PLANS has not accused anyone in Waldorf of practicing witchcraft.

Yes Sune I'm sure it's "based on" all that, but you are misrepresenting it with your own spin. I have nothing more to add; what I wrote below is correct. I believe the ball is in your court if you would like to show that "PLANS is a hate group." The "PLANS alleges witchcraft" is long since debunked.DianaW 14:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

We might note that this editorial also notes, wide-eyed, in response to parents' asking why there are no computers, that "The school says computers haven't been installed due to lack of proper wiring." That makes it clear this editorial writer believed what he was told, without researching. A Waldorf elementary school will *not* have computers for student use - it simply will not. If someone at the school told him there was just a wiring glitch, they were lying. There may have been a wiring glitch, but that is not why there were no computers. Again, tactics of a cult, covering its trail, putting a nice face forward in public. But the writer looked no further. He/she also apparently believed "PLANS alleges witchcraft."DianaW 14:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

We've had this discussion for years, and still Waldorf schools intentionally hide their connection to Anthroposophy. Anthroposophy is absolutely taught in Waldorf schools. Do Waldorf schools hide or downplay Anthroposophy's role in Waldorf? If you look at the individual websites of Waldorf schools you will see countless examples of the omission of Anthroposophy. It would be the equivalent of a Catholic school not mentioning Catholicism. If you go to a parent orientation meeting, you will almost never hear Anthroposophy mentioned unless a parent asks a question about it. Then you will receive the answer "Anthroposophy is something the teachers study but the SUBJECT of Anthroposophy is not taught to the students" - get it? There's no subject called Anthroposophy - but Anthroposophy is taught in EVERY subject. Math is infused with Anthroposophy, reading lists in English class are skewed toward books that agree with Anthroposophy, and every Waldorf school has Eurythmy, Steiner's occult movement form, as a requirement for all students. Eurythmy is said to straighten teeth because it is thought to be so powerful, yet it is described to parents as a "dance form" without mention of occultism or spiritual energies. All this stuff is Anthroposophy and none of it is made clear to parents. It would be to Waldorf's benefit NOT to conceal Anthroposophy's role in Waldorf schools. Pete K 00:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeatedly untruthful non-English language site

Sorry Lumos3, the site you have added like the WC-site contains a number of demonstrably untrue allegations: http://www.thebee.se/Steinermobbing/Osanningar.html ("Truth is not primary to the group Steiner bullying"). For some strange reason, the site, like the WC-site, can't refrain from it.

Also, it only has one page in English. All other pages at the site are in Norwegian, and links to non-English sites in the English version of Wikipedia in general violates Wikipedia policy.

--Thebee 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And a large part of the site consists of a blog ...

--Thebee 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the Norwegian site, that you repeatedly link to as a general External link on WE, violates Wikipedia guidelines on three points:

It publishes demonstrably untrue statements about Steiner and Waldorf education, see http://www.thebee.se/Steinermobbing/Osanningar.html The page only mentions some of them. Like the WC-site, they for some reason can't seem to refrain from demonstrably untrue defamation of WE, as demonstrated by other pages at the site itself. This violates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided point 2.

It has only one page in English. Everything else is in Norwegian at the site. Like you can't probably read, neither no other pages at the site, except the one page in English, nor the description of some of the demonstrable uutruths at the site, so can't the majority of the other en/Wikipedia readers. This violates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Foreign_language_links

A large part of the site consists of a blog (in Norwegian) This violates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided point 9.

In spite of that I've mentioned this before (above), you now again have added the site. You're an admin, Lumos3. Isn't it your task to uphold and implement the Wikipedia guidelines, not repeatedly violate them, based on your seeming strong bias against WE? --Thebee 12:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This site is a primary source collective statement of opinion on Waldorf education. As such I believe it can be used to cite the existance of such an organised opinion. By the way I am not an admin. Lumos3 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that we cannot link to the norwegian site as it is mostly not in English. That said, as a norwegian speaker, I think that it is interesting to hear the 'inside views' of the authors who are teachers at the Waldorf school in (I assume) Frogner, Oslo. Basically they are dissatisfied at the disorganisation of the curriculum (specific to this school- not waldorf as a whole), the deeply held anthropsophical belief of several memebers of staff, and several strange rules which the staff believe Steiner would have approved of (outlawing of football, defining childrens mental skills from their physical appearance).--Fergie 13:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Of the two webmasters of the site, one -- without a Waldorf teacher training -- has been working as a teacher at the Waldorf school in Moss. The other -- her husband -- is not, and to my knowledge has never been working as a Waldorf teacher. For more, see http://www.thebee.se/Steinermobbing/ --Thebee 15:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This page under discussion ( http://www.steinerkritikk.no/waldorf.htm ) should not be removed as foreign language sources are not specifically excluded from citation, and it would be foolish to assume that all truth and wisdom is written in English. The page linked to is in any case in English and is not part of the blog. A similarly formulated group Americans for Waldorf Education is cited frequently for expressing its own pro Steiner opinion and is used throughout the Waldorf education and related articles to back up assertions. Lumos3 13:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The main issue involved concerns the truthfulness and reliability of sites. The Norwegian site is repeatedly untruthful, and has not corrected the untruths, after its webmasters have been made aware of them. Noone has ever pointed to one untruth at the site of http://www.americans4waldorf.org If you find one, tell abiut it and document it, and if will be corrected. Also, it does not publish a blog, or miles of archived postings, +140MB, or appr 99% of the site as the WC, from a "free speech" mailing list with repeated nonsense and unsubstantiated defamation of WE and people related to it as "Education of the public" about WE. --Thebee 15:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Um... yes, people have found Americans4waldorf.org to be untruthful and have indeed pointed it out. Only yesterday, in fact, Peter Staudenmaier, who has been slandered repeatedly at the AWE site and Waldorf Answers, had this to say on Waldorf Critics:

"There's a further reason why the topic merits more scrutiny rather than less, even for those who find history relatively unimportant: misunderstandings about and misconstruals of the history of Waldorf during the Nazi era continue to distort public discussions of anthroposophy and Waldorf today. Consider as one example among many the Americans For Waldorf Education website. The authors of the site attribute to me the claim that "Waldorf schools today are racist and anti-Semitic systems of education" and are "dedicated to the furtherance of racist, anti-Semitic and fascist ideology". They also think I endorsed or encouraged the claim that Waldorf schools are "Nazi training camps". As you can see for yourself just from the last couple days of exchanges here (even setting aside all of my other writings on the topic), I do not hold any of these positions, and they play no role in the analyses I have put forward. And that's just for me, only one of a number of people who have tried to bring a more nuanced view to this question, in Europe as well as North America. It seems to me that both supporters as well as critics of Waldorf deserve a considerably more thorough and thoughtful attentiveness to this issue than they have so far received from within the Waldorf milieu."

Just because YOU, Sune, don't believe the information on a particular website aligns with what YOU perceive to be the "truth" doesn't give you the right to exclude it here - any more that MY perception of the truthfulness of YOUR websites would afford me the same right. Again, you continually display to everyone here that your agenda is to remove any comment critical of Waldorf. This, I can assure you, is not going to happen here, despite yours and Harlan's constant efforts to babysit this page and revert all edits that don't comply with YOUR perceptions of what Waldorf is. You have no authority in this regard. --Pete K 15:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone interested can read what specifically is written at http://www.americans4waldorf.org/MrStaudenmaier.html and decide for themselves if they think what Mr.Staudenmaier writes about it corresponds to what actually is stated at the page. Maybe it gives a hint of Mr. Staudenmaier's way of relating to and describing published sources. --Thebee 21:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Your continued interest in the defamation of this man's character notwithstanding, your claim, made above has been refuted. --Pete K 22:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Studies?

Have there been any studies regarding what sort of adults Waldorf kids grow into? Are they happy? Are they well-paid?

Secondly, how much does the "religion" factor into the education? (aka, how cultlike?)

68.192.173.170 02:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer the second question first: Anthroposophy is a spiritual path, not a religion. It's relation to teaching is very free: Steiner suggested that anthroposophy could inspire a methodology of teaching; a teacher is free to ignore anthroposophy and use others' (including Steiner's) results or take up whatever aspects of anthroposophy he/she finds inspiring to become a more creative teacher. This is for the purpose of developing methodology, understanding child development and finding age-appropriate curricula. The content of anthroposophy and its spiritual path are there for the teacher's self-development; they are expressly not taught to children.

For this reason, you will find that most of the schools have been founded by parents interested in good education for their children. Many of these parents have had no interest in or awareness of anthroposophy before they set out to found a school; their interest is purely in their children. But it helps to understand the basis out of which Waldorf grows, anthroposophy, and so they are encouraged to work to do so in the process of founding a school. Some do, some don't, however. The schools are evaluated by each country's Association of Waldorf Schools on the basis of their pedagogical work, not on the basis of their anthroposophical work.

In other words, there is no attempt to indoctrinate anybody, but there is an attempt to educate the adults as to the background -- especially in a teacher training, which is responsible for giving adequate tools to the teachers. There is no requirement that a teacher attend a Waldorf training, however, and many teachers at Waldorf schools have never done so; either they are trained state/public school teachers, or they are specialists in a field (science, art, music) that are employed for their special skills.

To answer the first question second, there have been studies in Germany and there is a large-scale study presently being conducted in the USA. I believe that studies have shown that a somewhat disproportionate number have tended to go into socially oriented/service professions (so are probably less likely to have high-paid jobs). They have a reputation for being very creative, engaged students in college who learn for learning sake, and -- if you will allow a little anecdotal evidence to conclude -- parents in our school have commented that they see the schools graduates finding their paths in life much more quickly than their generation, who tended to choose life partners, careers and life styles that they later felt were not good choices. I suggest visiting a Waldorf school and asking to talk to some of the seniors in high school; draw your own conclusions -- this is always best! Hgilbert 00:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with other articles on education

Puzzled how to continue this discussion, I have looked at the articles on the Montessori method, Paulo Freire, homeschooling, democratic schools and public Education in the United States to compare approaches. Though there have been extensive criticisms of all of these systems of education, none of these articles link to any critical sites, articles, or books. In the Montessori article, there is a brief "Criticisms" section which summarizes some critiques, analogous to the "Critical views" section in the Waldorf article; the other articles don't even have this.

It seems to me that there should be some reasonably comparable standard applied across articles. Hgilbert 15:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Could it be that, despite your assertion, Montessori and the others do not have anywhere near the amount of amassed criticism, online or elsewhere, that Waldorf generates? OF course there is criticism of any system, but there are not necessarily hordes of disgruntled former parents and students as there are in Waldorf.

It is foolish to suggest that a "reasonably comparable standard" for different educational approaches somehow requires a similar word count or a similar number of links devoted to criticism. It depends on how much criticism *exists*. Also, it depends on just exactly how fraudulent and misleading the articles themselves are. Possibly critics of Montessori do not find any significant misrepresentations of Montessori in that article (whitewashing of the founder's reputation, for instance), and so do not feel the need to come to Wikipedia to protest or argue about content of the articles. Of course there is criticism of any educational movement or system. One of the very telling things about how healthy the system may be is whether the criticism produces knee-jerk denial, outrage and defensiveness as we see in Waldorf - or people willing to babysit the article hour by hour, to delete rebuttals of the myths they treasure about their guru. DianaW 02:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There is substantial criticism of Montessori and public education, certainly; also of Freire education. The articles nevertheless focus on giving a clear picture of these rather than focus on their critics. This is a reasonable stance in an encyclopedia; the article on the Catholic church in Encyclopedia Brittanica also give little or no space to criticisms of the church; instead, it attempts to accurately represent the actual history and allows people to draw their own conclusions. Wikipedia has a similar policy of not issuing judgments, but providing the factual context for people to draw their own judgments. This should include things about which people might be critical, for example, that literacy is not taught until first grade (and in that grade chiefly through the activity of writing as well as extensive exposure to spoken verse and story).

"That literacy is not taught until first grade" is a typical misrepresentation; a typical attempt to downplay the truth.

I'm afraid that most articles in Wikipedia have quick response times to contributions that do not fit Wikipedia guidelines or are contrary to the article's purpose. As said, this article devotes far more space to criticisms than any comparable ones in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia guidelines about links exist; do read them.

Diana writes: I added comments in two sections above, and am not sure I put them in the right place. See under "Criticism" and under "Guidelines for notable opinion" above.

Hgilbert also wrote to Lumos, way up there somewhere, in a discussion of the PLANS website:

"You seem not to have read the above, five-point, detailed criticism of the accuracy, honesty and transparency of the website in question. It is not a question of agreeing with them or not; it is a question as to whether they are a source of accurate information or not. To recapitulate, their 'historian' is not a historian, some of their claims are falsified or manifestly untrue, many of the complainants do not even have guardianship over their children, others did not ever experience the education, or did so only briefly, and they misled the public about their legal case. Finally, one of their key claims (the religious nature of anthroposophy) has recently been tested in court and they were unable to submit a single piece of admissible evidence to support this. Speech is free but erroneous speech has no place in an encyclopedia. Hgilbert 11:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)"

- and I would like to note that, au contraire, it is the claims made *here* by Hgilbert that are easy to show are inaccurate and evidence of a transparent agenda. For hgilbert to be enforcing a so-called "neutral point of view" here is goofy.

To recapitulate: the historian in question *is* a historian (although he is not "our" historian; who does this refer to? PLANS? Has PLANS in some way claimed Peter Staudenmaier as "their" historian? There are numerous articles on the PLANS site; PLANS doesn't own or control the authors). There are no claims made by critics that Hgilbert has shown to be "falsified or manifestly untrue"; instead, he has shown that he either does not understand what is claimed, or is himself falsifying it for presentation here. Regarding me, for instance, he claims I have said things that are far fetched compared to what I've actually said. It does not seem to have mattered to him to understand what I said; he has my story and my views screwed up six ways from Sunday.

What are his academic qualifications (attained, not aimed at)? Wikipedia standards emphasize that these are a main criterion for an author's authority for the encyclopedia.

It also says if they have published works on the topic (not self-published) they are citable. What are your academic qualifications (attained, not aimed at)?

It is blatantly untrue to state that "many of the complainants do not even have guardianship over their children." I don't know *any* who don't. If I may be blunt, did you think you were going to get away with this, hgilbert? Of course it is true that not everyone participating on the mailing list has had children in the schools; many people come there who are *considering* putting their children in the schools, so this claim is irrelevant. It is true that one of their key claims has been tested in court and the court ruled against them; however, the case is under appeal. To leave out this key piece of information means your own credibility is kaput.DianaW 02:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Pete K. has said that this is his situation.

He has NOT said this. What you "believe" is hogwash. He has NEVER lost guardianship of any of his children. He lost a legal fight to *have them removed from the Waldorf school*. He certainly never lost custody. You step over the line to slander if you attempt to keep discussing an individual's children here, his marital situation or his parental fitness!

Again, it becomes clear these are simply cult tactics. You are dragging an individual's name through the mud to discredit him, and others simply by association, and haven't even bothered to get the facts straight. And if an individual over there *had* lost custody of his children, this would not discredit everyone else who writes to the mailing list, or everything posted on the web site - don't be absurd. This is, as I say, simply how a cult operates - dig up "dirt" on opponents. Have we discussed your marital status yet, or your children? I didn't think so.

I have been told that it is or has been true of others on the site;

In other words you like to gossip. I don't doubt you've been told several of us have two horns and a tail. How do you square this with "improving professional standards for Wikipedia"? I am done with this nonsense - there are not enough hours in the day to change a phrase back and forth with people who have nothing better to do but make sure hour by hour, that factual information about Waldorf and anthroposophy is discredited with hysterical, ever-escalating charges against its critics. This is a playground for lunatics. Enjoy yourselves.DianaW 14:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

if this is not the case, then change the statement to "one of the main complainants". The fact that the case is under appeal features prominently in the article, fortunately for my credibility, it appears. The court's ruling is the current standing of the case.

"Lbyrnison," the change *was* substantiated and the new text was *not* erroneous. It was what I deleted that was unsubstantiated. If you believe that PLANS is a hate group it is crystal clear *that* is what would require substantiation and none has ever been provided - no expert opinion, no documentation of actions or speech that would characterize a hate group has ever been attributed to PLANS. What is your evidence or the source of your opinion that PLANS is a hate group?DianaW 03:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

("Hate group" claim is undisputed: acknowledged by the PLANS organization itself http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/pressreleases/PR20040809.html)

That's totally absurd. That press release obviously does not say that PLANS is a hate group. Who are you trying to kid? Write the article your way - just don't imagine anyone is fooled. I try to get 8 hours of sleep a night, so don't worry, it can stay your way at least till morning.DianaW 03:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In case others don't see what has happened here, this person is using a PLANS press release, which points to the fact that *the best the Waldorf movement can do to rebut PLANS is to call them a hate group* . . . . as his/her justification for saying, in the article, that PLANS is a hate group. This individual is saying that PLANS has thereby "acknowledged" that they are a hate group. And so it stays, because I go to bed now.DianaW 03:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The Press Release is not evidence that "PLANS is a hate group". It is evidence that PLANS has been "described by some as a hate group", as this article originally stated. The claim as it appears on the page is not erroneous. The press release also suggests the charges relate in some way to an opposing motion filed in PLANS's lawsuit. The passage shouldn't be removed simpy because you or I may disagree with the charge itself. Ibyrnison 14:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

PLANS was, of course, referring to Sune's accusations. So their acknowledgement of the existence of such accusations becomes citable as confirmation that, I guess, the accusations are out there. So as long as an accusation appears somewhere on one of Sune Nordwall's many web sites, it will always be possible to say in a Wikipedia article, "Some say that . . . " or "Some describe it as . . . ." with another bogus reference that is actually just a link to Sune's web site. What can one say to this?

If that is what the standards are, and with guards ready to defend the bogus material hour by hour, you are going to win this one. You people were all over this Wikipedia thing so quickly, I admire the chutzpah. I think there is no doubt you will win the Wikipedia wars. Congratulations.DianaW 15:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your "of courses" don't meet wikipedia's standards of verifiability. Please take the personal, private, or partisan arguments some place else. This discussion page is becoming unduly cluttered with emotional and irrelevant quarrels. Ibyrnison 16:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Then presumably you have a real source for the "hate group" allegation. You are suggesting above that my "of course" is incorrect. So PLANS, in that press release, was *not* alluding to the accusations of Sune Nordwall? These accusations can be found elsewhere than Sune Nordwall's web sites, and made by whom? Nordwall's web site is a clear example of self-published propaganda. There is no way it could ever be cited in a scholarly article. Will you answer this, this time, or do you imagine you are done with me, that I can be scolded for being "emotional" like a silly little girl, and you will appear somehow - what? scholarly? for the dishonesty that is being displayed here? I am certain that if you do have a source for the "hate group" accusation, other than the self-serving accusations of Sune Nordwall, that you will provide it here very soon.

I agree that personal and inappropriate remarks have been made on this page. They come from Hgilbert inquiring as to whether certain individuals - and he has felt free to name names - have custody of their children. He wants to know the dates certain people had custody of their children. This is clearly inappropriate for this discussion and clearly disqualifies either of you two as enforcers of a "neutral point of view" for this article. I'll look forward to your answer, yours or Sune's, regarding the source of the "hate group" comments.DianaW 20:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't care who did what! Will you both go argue over this somewhere else? This isn't Soap Opera channel, the discussion page is supposed to be reserved for issues raised in the wikipedia article.

I'm not sure I like your tone, Ibyrnison. We are indeed discussing issues raised in the Wikipedia article: the charge that ("Some say") PLANS is a hate group. The charge comes from 1) Sune Nordwall - the bogus "reference" leads right back to one of Sune's web sites and 2) the Anthroposophical Society in North America. You provided a PLANS press release and tried to pass this off as PLANS "acknowledging" that they are a hate group! They were, "of course" (my "of course" is verifiable by reading the document) responding to the charges of the Anthroposophical Society.

Now I restored the text because I found this subject addressed in an old press release from PLANS, which I provided. This press release describes one source of the accusation as the "Anthroposophical Society in America", not any one particular individual. This press release was presumably widely distributed to various news media. The brief reference to the controversy as was made here has been verified! So please acquaint yourself of the policies and practices here at the wikipedia, and dispense with the personal insults. Ibyrnison 21:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no personal insults from me to anyone, and I'm getting a clear idea of the policies here.

If the source of the accusation that PLANS is a hate group comes from the Anthroposophical Society, that casts this in quite a different light. Anthroposophists call their critics a "hate group." No kidding. "Some say . . . ." slyly tries to imply some neutral source, hoping the reader won't check the source and see that this is an inside job.

I notice nobody has been at all interested in explaining actions or statements from PLANS that an outside observer could possibly characterize as coming from a hate group, or citing any neutral parties who call PLANS a hate group. If anybody's got anything, put it up here, or preferably, put it in the article. References to anthroposophists' own exaggerated, demonizing images of their critics are not kosher.

How bizarre can this get? This "Some say PLANS is a hate group" has got to go, and I intend to see it go. It may take me awhile, as I realize you folks sit here hour by hour watching it, but there's no way this sort of thing meets anybody's standards for an encyclopedia, and I intend to see this slanderous and unsupportable accusation ultimately deleted.DianaW 22:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record - I am the Pete K mentioned above. I have not lost custody of my children, I, in fact, have more custody of them than my former wife (a Waldorf teacher) has. Additionally, I did not lose a legal battle to remove my children, but settled the case out of court when it became obvious that continuing the battle was detrimental to the children. I have been involved with Waldorf education for 15 years and I am an outspoken critic. Anyone wishing to have a discussion with me about how Waldorf education has hurt my kids, please contact me through the Waldorf Critic's list or at http://lists.topica.com/lists/WaldorfQuestions/read. I have had to place this link here because the fanatical Waldorf supporters who safeguard this list continually edit out links to critical websites.

My discussion comments here have been clipped or edited by others while adding to this section or responding to me. Don't edit inside comments when responding, just append your own notes below them. Otherwise the discussion becomes too difficult to read, and it's impossible to follow anybody's points.Ibyrnison 02:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Censorship of these pages

The following 2 links to sites which are primary sources of collections of parents , teachers and commentators views critical of Steiner education are being repeatedly removed from these pages.

• People For Legal And Non-Sectarian Schools Campaigning Group critical of Waldorf Education. Waldorf critics site containing resources critical of Waldorf education including, parent and student testimony, and articles by academics and researchers.

• www.steinerkritikk.no Site created by teachers and parents at the Norwegian Waldorf-/Steiner school in order to share experiences.

The arguments used for their removal seem to boil down to the fact the editors don’t like what they are saying.

Your comment shows, I think, that you you have not more than superficially looked at the documentation showing the extent of the repeated untruthfulness and demonization of WE at the WC-site, and that you disregard the basic Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion of External links in articles, explicitly and repeatedly pointed to here in the discussion. --Thebee 12:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is wikipedia and opposing views on a subject must be given an airing.

In addition discussion of the actual issue of the inclusion of these sites has now been removed to a sub page to keep it from view.

".. discussion of the actual issue of the inclusion of these sites have now been removed to a sub page to keep it from view"? This stands out as a sweeping and untrue biased statement. The MAIN discussion on this, not archived, TALKs page on WE concerns the WC-site. The ONLY discussion of the second site you mention also is published here, not on the "Archive" page, as you write. This indicates, well, actually shows in full, that you do not quite know what you're talking about, or do not care if it actually is true, as what you write in the main is untrue. --Thebee 12:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is evidence of a consistent campaign to keep these pages on Wikipedia as close to a sales brochure for Waldorf education as possible and marginalise any independent criticism.

This issue of criticism needs to be discussed here on the discussion page of the article not on an archive sub page. Likewise attempts to hide and marginalise recent discussion are also attempted censorship and should be resisted. Lumos3 11:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Does the site of the WC ("Waldorf Critics") show that it has the nature of a "hate group"?

The article on Waldorf Education in the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education#Basis_in_Anthroposophy says "Some parents have stated that they are uncomfortable with a teaching philosophy that has evolved out of such principles — while others choose the schools because of these very principles. The San Francisco based anti-Waldorf lobby group PLANS, described by some as a hate group [15], is the most vocal on this issue."

As reference it links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education#_note-14 that in turn links to http://www.americans4waldorf.org/Myths.html For more on the issue, see here --Thebee 17:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. That is the reference that is under dispute - it links to your own web site. You can either find a neutral source to reference this claim; agree to my wording change: "Anthroposophists call PLANS a hate group"; delete the unsubstantiated accusation; or, if you can't live with any of that, expect your own tactics to get lots of air play, here and elsewhere. Well Sune, "some people say" lots of things. I will make sure this issue remains front and center here and is well publicized elsewhere. PLANS is not a hate group by any objective criteria; it is only a "hate group" to people who feel picked on when someone says Waldorf isn't wonderful.

The other option is of course to explain what PLANS has done that makes them a hate group. Keep on bringing up witchcraft, and expect me to keep on rebutting, in my own clear English, your convoluted and largely unreadable version of the events in question, without multiple links and sentences that run on for paragraphs - just a clear explanation of what happened. Keep on saying PLANS is like jewwatch, expect Steiner's own statements on the Jews to appear in reply every time, here and elsewhere, to make clear to people why you need PLANS to be discredited. You can expect that I intend for this issue to become clear to the public.DianaW 18:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example of the prose at "Americans for Waldorf Education" (the page that the so-called reference takes us to):

"Behind the civil surface that Mr. Dugan tries to cultivate in public discussions on the "Waldorf Critics" mailing list, an objective observer will find there denigration, belittling and hateful reaction to anything remotely positive about Waldorf education, anthroposophy or Rudolf Steiner."

This is the say-so of Linda Clemens, Deborah Kahn, Serena Blaue and Sune Nordwall. Who are they? People who don't like what they read on the Waldorf critics list.

This can't conceivably meet any standard for a "source" that "documents" that PLANS is a hate group. Realizing this, the defenders instead inform us, with straight faces, that it documents that "some people say" PLANS is a hate group.

And I can say that there really are Martians on Mars, canals, ancient cities, and little green men and everything. I can put up a web site where I describe the ancient ruins and the little green men who still roam the hills. Thank you Ray Bradbury. Then I can write a Wikipedia article on the possibilities of extraterrestrial life in the solar system. I can say that "Some people report that there are little green men on Mars." [15] Reference 15 will take readers to my web site describing the green men on Mars. When someone protests, I will retort, as IByrnison did, that my reference isn't meant to show that there *really* are little green men on Mars. All I am doing is referencing that "some people say" there are little green men on Mars.

Then I can ask all my friends to sit at their computers in shifts, swiftly reverting the changes any time someone points out that the web site I have linked to is not, uh, credible, and that no one else has seen the little green men.DianaW 19:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that a threat? Wikipedia does not like threats. Or Ad hominems. --Thebee 20:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana replies: It meant just what it said. It promises that I will keep this issue visible if the wording changes are rejected (or repeatedly revert). It is actually just this sort of tactic that you are using here, that I am interested in exposing. You say PLANS is a hate group - that is basically a criminal charge - and now Diana Winters is a dangerous and threatening person? I do not think that is going to work, Sune.DianaW 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reformulated the sentence into the more specific *The San Francisco based anti-Waldorf lobby group PLANS, described by one support group of Waldorf Education, Americans for Waldorf education as a group that publishes argumentation characteristic of hate groups against Waldorf education[15], is the most vocal on this issue." Does it? I think this documents this in full. --Thebee 20:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana replies: I like the wording better. I definitely do. I will say more in a day or two. But I like it much better. It makes clear that it is a group of people who don't like that they're being criticized, who are turning around and lobbing accusations of their own at the people criticizing them. I'll be away for a little while. We'll see how long this change lasts!DianaW 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you like a wording that says that PLANS argues against Waldorf Education using argumentation characteristic of Hate groups, but don't think this 'talking like a hate group', 'walking like a hate group', and 'looking like a hate group', when looked at closer, described and documented here and linking to a description of it here, also described here and here makes it into one. How interesting. --Thebee 22:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is PLANS, an organization critical of Waldorf, a "hate group"? What is a hate group? Does anyone other than anthroposophists call PLANS a hate group?

PLANS meets nobody's definition of a hate group. A hate group dislikes people due to their religion or their ethnicity or skin color and targets them because of this, if not for outright violence at least for verbal bashing. A hate group is not the same thing as a group, organized or otherwise, of people who have criticisms of an institution, movement, or doctrine. The latter - criticism of religious movements - is a simple matter of free speech, at least in the US. In the US, we are not only allowed but *obligated* to criticize religious and other institutions when they misbehave, the same as we criticize politicians or others who betray a public trust.

A group does not become a "hate group" by virtue of having a web site or running an email list where people who have had unsatisfactory experiences with an institution or movement report their stories, or where people with a critical view of the doctrines or teachings of the religion or movement discuss their views, or where aspects of the movement's history that are embarrassing to the movement are openly discussed.

A hate group *hurts* people. A hate group hurts people because of *who they are* rather than *what they do*. Criticizing the behavior of an institution, or individuals affiliated with these institutions, is not hate speech. For instance, complaining that the reading instruction in these schools is poor is not hate speech. The claim itself may be true or false, but parents complaining that their child was poorly served academically in Waldorf schools, is not hate speech. Likewise parents, or others with academic or other personal interests, discussing the racist and antisemitic writings of Rudolf Steiner do not thereby become members of a hate group.

Does anyone have a source that calls PLANS a hate group, other than anthroposophists? I am no expert on hate groups, but I certainly cannot find one online. The first hit when you google "hate groups" is the Southern Poverty Law Center, a very reputable source, and they certainly don't mention PLANS anywhere. I didn't keep googling as just going through google hits is not a very reliable way to research something.

I am confident no such non-anthroposophical source for this view exists.

If it does, I would like to see it here. I would like it posted right here. If no one can find such a source, I propose that where the article says "Some say PLANS is a hate group," this be amended to read "Anthroposophists say PLANS is a hate group." (Actually, it would be better if it said, "Some anthroposophists say PLANS is a hate group," as many anthroposophists no doubt recognize that this claim is absurd, and are embarrassed by the lunatic antics of a few.)

And in fact, I'd like you to keep the comment, as I think it discredits anthroposophists rather than PLANS. It only helps you *as long as* its origin is not clear.

Which is of course clear evidence of your dishonest motives. Once the origin of the claim is made transparent, it's no use to you. At that point you may find me arguing to keep it rather than delete it entirely.

Just take responsibility for what you are saying. 'Fess up. No one thinks PLANS is a hate group except anthroposophists.

And please note: We are not talking about citing other people citing anthroposophists. Linking to "AmericansForWaldorfEducation" will not do it. *Original* sources - people who know something about hate groups, rather than bending this slanderous notion to their own defense, and then quoting each other as if "lots of people think so" - are what is needed.

If this change is objectionable, I would like to hear why.

If these proposals are reasonable, I would like Byrnison or whoever it is to cease reverting this change in the article. If you intend to keep reverting it, I would like to see a source given *that is not anthroposophical or that does not quote anthroposophists* for the contention that critics of anthroposophy (PLANS or anyone else; there are many critics, especially in Europe, who are not affiliated with PLANS) are a "hate group." Otherwise, the intellectual dishonesty, self-serving nature of the claim, and the tortured circuitous logic of the claim are fully exposed, and no one can argue this claim belongs in an encyclopedia.

You can keep changing it if you like; that is the way Wikipedia works. But I intend that if you do, your efforts will be widely exposed and discredited.[]] 13:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The above was written by Diana. Again not trying to be anonymous- forgot to log in.DianaW 13:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

archive and special page

I have archived all material pre-2006 (see top of talk page for a link to the archive) Hgilbert 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved two huge discussions, one about the PLANS web-site generally and one about linking to that site from this article, to a special page for this subject only; this brings the two together and allows this talk page to regain a sense of proportion. I hope that all can see the sense of this (I am not trying to cut off discussion, which can continue on that page). Hgilbert 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and you have also "moved" or rather removed my comment *on this action*. Lumos comments on it below but you have simply eliminated my comment on this censorship. It is not at this page now or at the subpage you created, as far as I can see. If that isn't vandalism, I don't know what is. You are simply removing comments that reflect others' views not only on anthroposophy but on how you handle the discussion. I am still investigating but it must surely be against Wikipedia policies to tamper with the Discussion page.DianaW 11:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana writes 5 minutes later: I was mistaken - see that it is still there - just moved to a far less prominent and visible location.

I didn't move it at all. Look at the history; it is exactly where you put it. In any case, personal accusations are to be avoided on Wikipedia; please see the guidelines WP:Civil and WP:Assume good faith. Hgilbert 14:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert, it is not going to be helpful for you to go on pointing out my supposed violations of protocol. Little scoldings do not deter me. There is no "personal accusation" from me. All my comments refer to the material. I assume good faith until good faith is violated. You violated good faith here pretty early on. The reasons you moved all that material are transparent.

I recognized and acknowledged my mistake in saying that the material had been deleted, within moments, you might note. That is an example of "good faith." I didn't just delete my own mistake, or move it somewhere else hoping people wouldn't notice.DianaW 15:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You recognized your mistake...but continued to claim it was moved.

Hgilbert writes: "I have moved two huge discussions, one about the PLANS web-site generally and one about linking to that site from this article." This makes it sound like these are just two issues . . . and like there are so many other issues that the page can now "get back to," as byrnison also puts it, "let's get back to working on the article." Guys - newsflash: there isn't any *other* issue to discuss, in terms of improving this article. The inclusion of critical material is *the* issue. Everything else looks hunky-dory. There aren't any spelling mistakes or typos that I have noticed. The issue is whether the Wikipedia entry on Waldorf should be, as lumos notes, a sales brochure for Waldorf schools, or an article giving enough perspective on differing views of Waldorf that an uninformed person can begin to understand what the issues might be. Nobody is objecting to all the brochure copy you've pasted in on eurythmy or pentatonic recorders or the head, the heart and the hands. What we are asking is that the downsides of all this blinding beauty and wonder also be accessible. - And without resort to preposterous and slanderous revenge tactics such as labeling critics of your movement a "hate group."

This slanderous action - the labeling of the organization PLANS as a "hate group" in the absence of any evidence of this is also a topic I see you would rather not be highlighted on this discussion page. Again, my debunking of the ludicrous old "PLANS alleges witchcraft" discussion was dismissed by Sune Nordwall with a few quick phrases, oh, there was an article in the Sacramento Bee, well that settles it. Comments clearly showing the editorial to have been unreliable don't get a reply. Your response is to kinda shove the discussion to a less visible place on this site. It is quite obvious that the mere existence of the preposterous "hate group" discussion is something you would rather not be so readily readable by interested parties. You hope for the casual denunciation of the main body of organized critics as a "hate group" to have its impact on the casual reader of the article, while discussion of the origin and motivation for this outrageous claim is not readily accessible.DianaW 12:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:Assume good faith again. First of all, the discussion has achieved such monumental proportions that it deserves its own page; this is normal Wikipedia policy with specialized parts of articles that become overwhelmingly long. Second of all, I'm afraid that there are many aspects of Waldorf education, and this one link remains a highly specialized question, whatever its dominance in any individual's or group's thinking. Filling out and improving the actual description itself are also important tasks. There are now four links to the page in question, one at the very top of the page for quick access. Please be WP:Civil; this is not optional behavior at Wikipedia, but is "official policy and is considered a standard that all users should follow". Hgilbert 05:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fergie

Thanks, Fergie, for moving the whole discussion with DianaW to the bottom of the page, where it belonged. When DW put it at the top of the page instead of where it should have been, at the bottom, I put my comment on the issue just before DW's, for purely logical reasons, as DW's discussion was an answer to what I had written, and an answer normally comes after what it is an answer to.

Maybe the contributions by DW here have given a taste of the discussion culture on the WC-list, that is pursued there day in and day out, week in and week out, year in and year out, since soon ten years, draining the soul of all life, and then republished by the secretary of the goup as "archives", now 140+ MB, at his site for search engines to index and spread world wide for anyone interested in WE, as "Education of the public about Waldorf education". Is it fair to characterize it as hate speech, far beyond reasonable criticism? In my view, yes. --Thebee 10:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression that you guys are pusuing old vendettas from elsewhere. Maybe you should both try to take a couple of steps back, and try to be less emotional on Wikipedia.--Fergie 13:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Multiple links to same site

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

Length and spam

Hey folks, according to Wikipedia: "an edit warning is displayed when a page exceeds 32 KB of text in total, to act as a reminder that the page may be starting to get too long" This page is over 112 kb long - it is RIDICULOUSLY long.

The constant allusions to anthroposophy have made this article completely useless as a basic encyclopedia reference article on WALDORF ED. There is another article on anthroposophy, and another on Steiner. Link to them.

As a Waldorf educator for over 6 years, I am almost offended by the length - it makes it impossible for a person who just wants to Waldorf to go to the encyclopedia, read a brief description, and understand the basics. After receiving a note from someone who was perplexed after reading this article, I propose 2 things:

1) We remove all anthroposophical info to the anthroposophy page - and place a reference that Waldorf teaching is based in an anthroposophical view of the child - with a link to "anthroposophy."

2) Speaking of links - we have so much overlap that it is ridiculous.

1) The homeschool section has recently picked up links from curriculum sellers - not non-profit guides to curriculum, but direct sellers. This is just plain dangerous as there are over 30 sources of Waldorf-inspired curriculum for homeschooler - hmmm, are we going to provide links for all. There were already links to 3 sources that together, list them all, review them all, and then provide additional resources for special needs children.

2) In one place there is a link to a list of all Waldorf schools and training centers, yet then there's a list where only a few training centers are linked to directly - I say remove that list.

3) Go through and remove all other duplicated links.

I will wait 72 hours before changing anything, and I invite conversation on this. As I received an email from a prospective Waldorf family who got SO perplexed after reading this article last week, I feel that an overhaul is in order.

Reminder - this is an encyclopedia article about Waldorf Education. It isn't anyone's boxing ring, free ad space for their business (no matter how wonderful that business might be), or soapbox. Wonderactivist 13:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Separating the topic of Anthroposophy from Waldorf Schools is one of the main criticisms of Waldorf education. It's not a good idea to prune Anthroposophical references from this article. Links to critical websites should be included as part of this article, as well as critical viewpoints. Pete K - Waldorf parent and critic.

Dear Pete, I'm not talking about separating anthro from Waldorf or hiding anything - I'm talking about making Waldorf the focus of this article and anthro the focus of the anthro article - and for that matter, Steiner should be the focus of the Steiner article, not this one. It is a simple reflection of the past conflicts here that you allude to "links to critical websites" when it was never suggested that we prune links to critical websites - only spam.

There is too much water under the bridge of this article. For a change, someone needs to look at this article from the perspective of making it a better article for the READER, not by how it represents the various factions surrounding Waldorf ed.Wonderactivist 14:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wonderactivist: these are some good suggestions. I think that the page is full of solid information, but it is very long. Perhaps some of the material warrants a separate topic page, or relocation to more appropriate existing topics. This might reduce the size of reference lists, since some links will be move with the associated material to wherever it is relocated. And commercial links aren't allowed. Professor marginalia 15:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

After going for a walk, I have decided to submit this article for Wikipedia clean-up. That means their experts will help us to make this a better article - and I suggest that all interested parties put opinions here. The fact is that no matter how passionate someone is about Waldorf, some browsers will just cut this article off because of the length - and I'm not sure I should edit it as surely I would upset someone. This way an unbiased person can help us first and then the unending evolution of the article can continue.

I will wait 24 hours in case someone would like to suggest otherwise. Wonderactivist 14:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Much of the bulk and unevenness has come from people who desperately needed to see references to some particular detail or another of the education that they had encountered (Advent Garden, gnomes, etc.) and rather than have endless edit wars, the editors have padded the article. This has made it very imbalanced. May I suggest we try to create a trimmed version here, with non-essential material (Administration of schools?) in linked articles, first? This could be done as a draft on a separate page accessible to all, and then, when it seems satisfactory, moved into the current article space. 24.190.149.18 20:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear 24..., I think your idea is great and quite a lot of info could be moved to other pages, but the problem here is the constant environment of conflict and 'tit for tat.' I really think a fresh eye would be best - someone who hasn't been involved in Waldorf...I don't think Wikipedia is repesented well here. As you say, the editors are not at fault - just attempting to keep the peace...and maybe if the Cleanup Squad cannot take it on, we could do the separate page thing. Wonderactivist 21:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The clean-up list is has huge backlogs. The wikipedia position on long articles is "This category is for pages which exceed a size of 100 Kilobytes. Pages of this size are hard to load for viewing, tax a user's attention-span, and even harder to edit. If you can, please see if the page can be reduced to a more manageable size by archiving, or split into multiple articles."

It would be best to form some concensus here, but if that isn't possible, add it to the clean-up queue. It does look like much of the conflict on the discussion pages has violated the spirit and policies at wikipedia, and wikipedia is not represented well by the flame wars. Regardless who revises the page here, those rules need to be kept in mind or the mess will continue. One of the official rules that seems to have been ignored here is the rule to "assume the good faith" of other editors; questioning each other's motives isn't the way editors are invited to contribute around here. Professor marginalia 23:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Professor, I think that Clean-up being busy is not enough reason to forego their much-needed service. My fear is very valid considering that 23 edits were made on this page in less than 30 hours. In its history there are also multiple reverts and referrals to "outsiders" which show an utter disregard for the very spirit of Wikipedia - an open encyclopedia.

Since I am also not wanting to overwhelm cleanup, I have asked an administrator for an opinion on the next best step.

To Anonymous: Many of these edits were taken correcting some of the problems on the page. The size has been much reduced, only 55 K now, to help address the problem of length. Commercial sites and duplicates in the external links have also been removed, and the reverts don't seem directed at any of those edits. I just wanted to give kudos to those editors whose constructive efforts are among those edits. Professor marginalia 00:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I have never looked at this article before today but came here from a talk page. I don't know anything about Waldorf education, and I am not an expert in the field of chilren's education / school-age learning.

This article is too long to be easily read on-line. Many of the sections within it are complete enough to form their own article.

For example, Waldorf education#Social mission should be a two to three line paragraph with a link to a main Social mission of Waldorf education article. Simlarly, the educational model should be moved to it's own article with only a brief summary included in this artice. (perhaps, the lead paragraph of the Pedagogy section only should remain the rest should be moved).

Under the External Links section there is a section "Finding a Waldorf School". In a Wikipedia article, such a heading should be a discussion about how to systematically compare schools which each offer Waldorf education. That list looks like spam to me.

If Rudolf Steiner is so important to Waldorf education then he is probably a notable individual (he already has an article). The extensive bibliography belongs on that article.

Other than the Notes and References there is very little need for all the list of information about works regarding Waldorf education.

This is the only article I have seen on Wikipedia which (other than for footnoting purposes and Table of Contents) refers one section back to another section within the same article. That is a clear indication the two sections should be in different articles, each of which is referenced from this main article.

While all of this is only my opinion I hope the opinion of someone who is disinterested in this article and the subject itself can lead to improvements in this work.

I really don't want to become engaged in ongoing debate about what should be "in" and "out" of the article. But the conduct of editors on this talk page is not conducive to reaching concensus. Garrie

Thank you Garrie for sharing an unbiased opinion. The Talk page he is referring to must be that opf the administrator I wrote - and it says on that page that he is quite busy and it may take a couple of days for a response. In the meantime, I would like to suggest three changes that we could make quite quickly to deal with the length issue (again, let's wait 24 hours for discussion and comment)

1) All external sites should have just one link

so we can allow 24 hours for individuals to fix the links to their own sites - by choosing the one link. If you are "involved" with this page, please do not add more links at this point to replace others as we are trying to reduce links. I agree with Garrie on the placement of the critics site, but I also think that a PLANS person should choose the placement of their link.

I applaud the effort toward peacemaking, but I don't think that affiliates or factions of any sort should be given the exclusive power to choose their own choice of territory within the article or external link section. I think we should discourage any further identification or faction forming by editors to any particular group or "side", and establish more objective criteria. Including a section given to "criticism" looks like the common method used in countless other articles here at wikipedia. The pages on Freud, psychology, alternative medicine, Marxism, etc all handle it this way so though I'm not sure it has to be this way here, but I'm not sure why it should be changed here either. Seems to me that the number one purpose of the external link and reference sections would be to provide readers the sources used as background support for facts in the article itself, what if we agreed to guidelines that all the references and links posted here should roughly correspond to categories where the material or subject appears in the article itself?Professor marginalia 14:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

More on links I'm concerned that many of the links here just don't meet wikipedia's standards. Many are simply links to the main pages of personal websites filled with self-authored treatises or advice of one sort or another, another one added for the first time today that doesn't even mention the name of the school it supposedly criticizes. I propose that these kinds of links, pro or con, should be discarded. The personal reports of various web-diarists or web-fan sites don't cut it. An exception could be made to links to certain pages on those type websites which display reprints of published articles or research studies.Professor marginalia 14:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree professor, but so far this group is not ready for this. Ideally, we should have only Wikilinks or those to scholarly articles, and I think at some point in this process we should go there. To set en example, I will remove all homeschooling links as the page already links to the homeschooling page which has a few selected links. Wonderactivist 16:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I regret that it took extensive and repeated linking and editing to bring this issue to scrutiny. I agree, it makes sense for an Wikipedia to link to scholarly articles and not to blogs. I like the idea of linking to open discussion lists, however, as those tend to have fairly balanced and helpful discussions (when they are not heavily moderated) that would indeed be of interest to people researching Waldorf education. Again, as a 15-year Waldorf parent with kids still in Waldorf, and former founder of a Waldorf school, I feel that it is absolutely imparitive to have a balance of critical material and links - and believe that this balance ultimately assists Waldorf education to attract clientele that truly want what they have to offer. --Pete K 16:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Open discussion lists are absolutely not appropriate at wikipedia. They may be helpful resources in other contexts, but they do not meet the criteria as a reliable information resource for an encyclopedia. While the broader intention to include them may be good, such would be an inappropriate misuse of the wikipedia. Professor marginalia 17:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks. So where a single author, for example Sune, the owner of Waldorf Answers, discusses things on his own site without review by anyone, how is that not a blog? What does it take to make the opinions of a single person not a blog - a few links to other sites? What service are we providing by linking to a site like Waldorf Answers where NO contrary discussion is possible and critics of Waldorf are maligned without any recourse? And when he clones his site and calles it Americans for Waldorf Education, and provides two links - why is that OK with everyone here? --Pete K 22:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

For a definition of "blog", see the article at Wikipedia, here: Blog. "A weblog, which is usually shortened to blog, is a type of website where entries are made (such as in a journal or diary), displayed in a reverse chronological order." Approximately 99%, 140MB of the WC-site consists of archives of a mailing list, where the archives are displayed in reverse chronological order. This corresponds to the Wiki definition of blogs. Linking to such a blog violates Wikipedia guideline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided point 9.

I'm quite familiar with what a blog is - and no, a mailing list is not a blog. A blog is written by one person and comments to that one person's entries are permitted. A mailing list does not conform to that format and certainly the fact that the PLANS site has an storage archive of a separate Waldorf Critics mailing list doesn't qualify it as a blog. My site, Waldorf Questions, does not qualify as a blog either, but the rule that I violated was linking to my own site. This is, I'm sure, the same rule you violate when you link to Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf. Waldorf Answers is your own site and AWE is a site run by you and three other people. --Pete K 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.waldorfanswers.org is a site, published at one time, not an endless list of postings by anyone, displayed in reverse order. That makes into a non-blog.

No, that's what makes it into a non-discussion list. --Pete K 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.americans4waldorf.org contains little of what is found at http://www.waldorfanswers.org. But it contains a large section on the WC-site: http://www.americans4waldorf.org/OnPLANS.html http://www.waldorfanswers.org doesn't. This makes "Americans for Waldorf Education" into a non-clone of "Waldorf Answers" --Thebee 08:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It is, indeed, a subset of WaldorfAnswers. A huge percentage of the material there is cut and pasted from WaldorfAnswers. You are using silly technicalities to sidestep the intent of Wikipedia. --Pete K 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And now the PLANS link has been moved and no section for CRITICAL REVIEW is available. So the PLANS link is buried in a section called "Further Discussion, Outside Views and Reviews of Waldorf Schools". Again, what's wrong with a reader having easy access to information critical of Waldorf? I would like to recreate a section labeled something with the word "Critical" in it so users can find links to critical information. Unless there's an objection to this, I'll do it tomorrow sometime. --Pete K 03:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before you arrived. This violates the standard for articles on Education at Wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waldorf_education#Comparison_with_other_articles_on_education The article also has four sections describing criticism of WE, two of which link to the WC-site here: PLANS, that contains several links to the WC-site. It contradicts your statement that readers of the article do not have easy access to what is published by the WC-group, that you support. --Thebee 08:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Until two days ago, the link was available in a separate section of Critical links. I will restore a section like this for it. It is obvious, again, that it is your intention to bury the link now that the concensus here has been to include it. Again, your interpretation of the guidelines here is contrary to the intent of Wikipedia, which is to present a "Neutral point of view" and to allow both sides of the discussion. --Pete K 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "both sides". One group's critical opinion is just "another side". This is becoming silly--hours earlier you objected to the organization being described as "critical of Waldorf" and changed it, and now you place it in a section all by itself and label it "Critical view"? There is no reason to limit a section "critical views" arbitrarily to this one website. It was formerly in a section with "critical" in the title, and you weren't content with that either, but had placed it in three or four other subsections in addition to it. Then you moved it out altogether. Now you're moving it back to where it was to start with, presumably because all the other links have now been removed from it leaving your favorite link all by itself. Not cool. Professor marginalia 15:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Pete K, like you, first removing critical answers to the criticism by the WC-site, that does not meet the basic demands on External links and publishes repeatedy extreme and untruthful argumentation and material characteristic of hate groups, according to the approved wording of your co-representative of the WC, and now arguing that the NPOV policy is not met by linking to it within a comprehensive Further Discussion, Outside Views and Reviews of Waldorf Schools, but requires a special "CRITICAL REVIEW" link section (with no answers to the defamation of WE at the WC-site) to meet the the NPOV policy does not hold, and clearly violates the NPOV policy of Wikipedia.

It also violates the standard in articles on Education at Wikipedia. Not cool, as Professor Marginalia tells. --Thebee 15:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

To address Professor marginalia's comments first, and I have already addressed them once, but I'll address them again, to truthfully represent a NPOV, or more specifically a balanced POV, a critical viewpoint should be available where it is appropriate, not hidden in a list of other non-related stuff. So, when people are looking for Waldorf resources, for example, one cannot assume that the resources a person is looking for must be supportive of Waldorf. Someone looking for an objective view of Waldorf resources should have critical as well as supportive information at their fingertips. IF this is impossible within the guidelines of Wikipedia (and I don't believe it is) then a section for critical viewpoints should be available. This section should indeed be for critical viewpoints, and not unbiased viewpoints such as unbiased articles which may have said one or two things Waldorf supporters don't agree with. Critical means critical, and the expression of a critical viewpoint is absolutely acceptable and encouraged by Wikipedia.--Pete K 19:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

To address Sune's (TheBee) comments: First, I don't have a "co-representative of the WC" - I am an independent Waldorf parent with no connection to PLANS nor to Waldorf Critics, but I do post on their discussion list, as you have also done. There is nothing untruthful about the information contained there, and that it doesn't meet with your approval or view of Waldorf is not surprising. Please read my comments above to Professor marginalia regarding the Critical Review. And no, there should not be rebuttal available to a cite linking critical information. Fairness would require a link to rebut every link to Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf Education. BTW, that Waldorf is a great educational system is a minority view. As we well know, most of the world doesn't go to Waldorf schools or look favorably upon Waldorf education - and for good reason. Most people who discover Waldorf DON'T send their children there for many reasons not related to finances. That a critical viewpoint is not MORE prominent on this page is highly suspect. --Pete K 19:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

HGilbert, please read the instruction at the top of this section. We have been directed to describe edits that we intend to make here - 24 hours before we make them so that discussion can take place and the edit-wars can hopefully stop. Please do not remove the link heading "Critical Review" - even though it is containing a single link currently, there will be more critical sites linked here in the future. It has been decided, above, that a PLANS person will determine where the link to PLANS will go. I will confer with PLANS and confirm its location, but for the time being I feel comfortable representing them in this minor issue, so it should remain as it was before you deleted the section it was in. If this is unsatisfactory, please explain why. I'll check in tomorrow and replace the section if you haven't gotten to it. --Pete K 05:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to take Wonderactivist's suggestions as instructions, please note her suggestion above about only having links to Wikipedia or scholarly articles. I'm willing to agree to follow all her suggestions, which I find quite sensible taken as an entirety, but not a pick and choose your favorites approach. "We have been directed"...these are still suggestions by another editor (as I said, sensible ones). Shall we agree to follow all of them? Perhaps wonderactivist could list them clearly as a group and we could see if we can have agreement of all parties. Hgilbert 10:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I think we should all follow MY suggestions, but I'm pretty sure you won't agree to it. So we will continue with EDIT WARS until the clean-up team is available. Are you suggesting the links to AWE and Waldorf Answers are scholarly articles? They're bullshit. And that you have the time and energy to completely revise this site to YOUR impression of what it should be is not going to discourge me and others from correcting your corrections. This article and the intent of Wikipedia is to present a balanced view. If that is not possible with your presence here, then perhaps you should leave it to others. How about if we stop with this silliness and create a good article. It sounds like that's what Lucie has in mind. Why don't you follow her suggestions. If you think you are going to bully me into submission - please ask around, you've picked the wrong guy to try to bully. --Pete K 16:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind us all of the need to be civil and professional in our work together and that"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia". The article, or any encyclopia article, is meant to have solidly founded material, not random opinions, as its basis. I'm happy to follow Lucie's suggestions; one of them is to remove certain kinds of links. You seem to have begun this process with sites that do not conform to your POV. Are you satisfied if we follow through systematically? One result would be that the PLANS link would also have to go; it is not a scholarly article. Hgilbert 18:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering you have systematically reverted every edit I have made, I'm being extremely civil with you. Unfortunately, for you, you don't get to make decisions of what's scholarly. If PLANS links go, so do Americans for Waldorf Education and Waldorf Answers links. The article would be far better without them anyway - but frankly, I think Waldorf Answers is great reading - it turns more people off of Waldorf than PLANS does. But back to your didactic comment that characterizes my contributions as "random opinions" - again, I suggest you consider that a balanced view would require more than just YOUR opinions. I will be happy to support everything I include in this article with words from Steiner's own mouth, if necessary. But you're not going to like that either. So, I ask you again to adapt a cooperative attitude so that we can come up with an article that will be truthful and satisfactory to both Waldorf supporters and critics alike. I'm quite optimistic that it's possible but some effort has to be made. --Pete K 22:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

2) I was going to move all of the science parts to

a page called Goethean science, however there is already a holistic science page so I propose just adding a line that says "Waldorf teachers base science instruction in holistic science which is woven throughout the curriculum. Feel free to suggest a different line. It will then link to the holistic science page. There are already plenty of links to site which feature Waldorf curriculum - so the specifics are not needed. And yes, critics, the holistic science page already has a section called opposing views, but feel free to add a touch. Steiner folks, he isn't mentioned, but there's a link to Nature Institute and I added one to Rachel Carson's site. Please, let's not add too much to that page - Steiner could maybe get a line there, referring to his page .

Are you suggesting that the detailed Waldorf curriculum be eliminated altogether, or simply relocating or removing the science parts? I think the entire Waldorf curriculum discussion should be kept together if possible. I don't think that the science curriculum is exactly equivalent to either Goethean science or holistic science, but maybe a 'see also' pointer or other type link to those pages would be good for further background. I'd section out the History and Social Mission sections rather than divide out just one or two elements from the rest out of the currently practiced curriculum. Professor marginalia 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's get opinions on this. I originally saw an easy way to drop a large section, because really as a teacher I see the Waldorf curriculum as a direct reflection of holistic science. Let's openthis for more discussion - why do you feel a detailed curriculum should be here and which school's curriculum will you use - they vary? Wonderactivist 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The primary topic of interest in Waldorf curriculum is in where it deviates from what one would expect at any school. Someone looking for the curriculum breakdown would be better advised to research the curriculum at the school they are interested in sending their children to. Better to concentrate on what make Waldorf unusual. --Pete K 16:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good idea to ask how much detail is important. I think a broad curriculum discussion is important. (I mean the curriculum itself, without any particular focus on whether it is *unusual* or not. The article should talk about waldorf education, and whether or not somebody finds some particular aspect of it unusual doesn't make it more significant.) The science discussion seems disproportionately detailed, but it's good detail. I think some other curricular areas could benefit from a little more detail. There's a balance between making it just too cursory and too detailed, and overall length of the article is one of the concerns here. The point that it may not be consistent across the board to all schools is a good one. What sources have been consulted to describe the curriculum, and are they are widely accepted as "standard"? Professor marginalia 18:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a study done about the Waldorf science program. I'll look for the link. I'm pretty sure it was even referenced on AWSNA's website. Maybe providing a link to that study would be helpful. As for the curriculum itself, as a Waldorf parent, I know the wording gets a little fuzzy. Sometimes what you might find in a class called "economics" - is really more along the lines of Steiner's theories about a three-fold social order. So I'm not sure even listing the topics here is all that helpful in that it might (would) be misleading readers. Regarding the "standard" - in my experience, the curriculum and when each subject is taught is indeed standard throughout the world in Waldorf schools. The curriculum follows Steiner's prescription exactly and Waldorf schools haven't deviated from it in 85 years. What I would like to see some discussion about (and what I mean by "deviates") is stuff like Eurythmy, which is REQUIRED for every student from 1st grade through 12th grade. In other words, it's a big deal. It is a deeply spiritual exercise that I think we should take a few sentences to talk about here. --Pete K 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

3) I propose we take Garrie's advice

on the social mission page and then link to it, or is there already reference to that on Steiner's mega-page? Perhaps someone would like to write that page and then reduce the sizeof both this page and Steiner's by linking to it...and yes, crtics, I think one critical link would be appropriate - again, just one.

What does everyone think of these first proposed steps? I am very open minded on this. Wonderactivist 13:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've left opinions above, and think that the social mission section would be one of the better candidates to devote to its own separate article. Maybe we could move the "teacher education" section to the new school administration section, since the two subjects might be closely related. Also perhaps put the links with the data about existing schools and steps for starting new schools? They seem to me to be a natural fit, and help keep this page from feeling too chopped up, hit-and-miss, while making the new section into a fuller picture of the nuts and bolts inside the actual school houseProfessor marginalia 15:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the teacher education section, I have issue with the use of the word "college" which implies college-level training. Waldorf teacher-training centers are not colleges - they do not provide college training, and a teacher who has participated in these training courses could never claim that, on that basis, he or she went to college. --Pete K 16:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pete K: I don't understand this objection. The section is labeled "Teacher Training Programs". The only reference to "college" is in the names of the institutions, and you're not suggesting that editors here change these names to something else? Professor marginalia 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How are these sentences talking about the names of the institutions?

"Specialist Waldorf education teaching colleges are in operation throughout the world." "Rudolf Steiner's "spiritual science" or Anthroposophy and developmental psychology are normally central courses at any Waldorf teaching college." "Much of the education of any Waldorf teacher happens after graduation from teaching college,"

They are not called "colleges" everywhere. There is one literally across the street from me at Highland Hall School in Northridge. It is called WISC - the "Waldorf Institute of Southern California". No mention of "college" in the title. It only serves to confuse and deceive people to call teacher training institutes "colleges" and the truth is, they are not colleges. If anything would be appropriate as a description for them, it would be "training centers" - and everyone routinely calls the experience "teacher training" - not "teaching college" as is suggested above. That is the most accurate terminology. I'm not interested in contributing to the editing wars, but I will be happy to make those edits if, after you research this, you agree. --Pete K 02:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. I thought you were speaking of the link section, my mistake. I think it appropriate to change one, but the other makes a specific claim about the content of the instruction. I say one particular use of it should be left alone rather than be changed on one editor's say-so. If this is a disputed issue, reference sources should be cited. Professor marginalia 15:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following rewording that would be consistent with the wording used in Waldorf environments and would help avoid confusion between teacher training institutions and colleges:

"Special Waldorf education teacher training centers are in operation throughout the world." "Rudolf Steiner's "spiritual science" or Anthroposophy and developmental psychology are normally central courses at Waldorf teacher training institutions." "Much of the education of any Waldorf teacher happens after graduation from teacher training,"

Please advise me if you have an objection to this change. --Pete K 22:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf's social mission is integral to its being; it was part of its original concept and has been one of its most powerful defining traits. I have moved it lower down in the article. I do feel it should stay here.

Now that some sections have been moved to subsidiary articles, I don't see that there are very many sections left that should be moved out. There is a general introduction for those who only want that. Then there is a table of contents to help guide those who are interested in special aspects; they can jump to their section of interest. The educational philosophy definitely needs to be represented!! Improving the balance of this is certainly a worthwhile goal, however.

The science section could certainly be moved out if replaced with a brief summary, however. This would allow it to be expanded in its new site; it is one area about which there are often questions, unclarity and/or critiques. Hgilbert 01:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

PLANS

This is becoming ridiculous. There is no reason to post the reference to PLANS a hundred times. You don't provide balance by granting one opposing reference more weight than any others by repeating it ad nauseum. It's of highly questionable value as a legitimate reference source to begin with, but it certainly doesn't deserve to be duplicated five times! Professor marginalia 14:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Professor, I agree - whether a critic or anything else, nothing should have 5 links on a Wiki page - absolutely nothing. Wonderactivist 15:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And the same person is removing other sites...including one critical of the critics. What's that about not suppressing criticism? He seems to be suppressing criticism of his favorite site... 24.190.149.18 20:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Since links are broken up into sections and categories, it makes good sense to provide a link to a critical site in the category where it is appropriate. Researching a Waldorf school, for example, is a good place to have a link to a site critical of Waldorf because people researching a Waldorf school could certainly be interested in information critical of Waldorf. I will shortly be providing a link of a site critical to the Camphill movement as well. There is nothing sinister about adding links to critical sites where they make sense instead of grouping them all under the category of critical. The pro-Waldorf links on these pages are overwhelming and even many of the links listed in the "critical" section point to very soft articles. Also, it is absolutely inappropriate for a "rebuttal" to a critical link to be posted - as it would be for a critical rebuttal to be posted for every supportive link. And somebody continually changes the description of the link to PLANS to say something like "The Anti-Waldorf" blah blah... Should I continually change the Waldorf Answers site description to "The Waldorf Fanatic site" blah blah? There should be a balance here between supportive and critical information and this is hardly the case. Wikipedia, I'm sure, is not intended to be a site for promotional material, nor is it intended, in my view, as a place where watchdogs can continually excuse themselves while removing corrections to the article content and links to critical sites. There are many inaccuracies in the main article page itself that critics have let slide - with the understanding that links to critical sites will be available. People who research Waldorf education should have access to both sides of the issue. Pete K 1:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have developed and merged the section on Outside views with the section Further Discussion and Reviews, and removed a direct link to the anti-Waldorf lobby group PLANS, as such a link would violate Wikipedia guidelines by the site to approximately 99%, 140+MB, being an archive of a mailing list, comparable to a blog, and publishing and supporting defamatory untruths and argumentation comparable to hate groups, see here. The views of the group are presented by articles in San Francisco Chronicle, listed in the section. --Thebee 13:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sune, until you get a handle on your temper about this, you will be wasting everyone's time here. I will replace the link to PLANS yet again. Your OPINION that it is "hateful" or "untruthful" does not give you any right to continually remove the link and continually rename it when it is there. Links to YOUR OWN sites which are WaldorfAnswers and Americans for Waldorf Education could easily be removed for some of the same reasons you site above. And as far as renaming the links - I don't think this is your responsibility. If you need me to continually rename the Waldorf Answers link to - "Waldorf Answers, a fanatical group of Waldorf zealots", then continue with this childish nonsense. Otherwise, please consider that your opinion is ONLY your opinion. --Pete K 16:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added back the links to PLANS and to Waldorf Critics. I have correctly labeled two websites as fanatical. Sauce for the goose... Level-headed people in this discussion, please note I have done this to make a point. Somebody in authority needs to please take control of the edits on these pages and, at some point, lock them. This is just plain ridiculous. --Pete K 16:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are not backed up, neither by reference to specific guidelines, nor to specific documentation in support of your view. When making edits, please provide them. --Thebee 17:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who may be new or unfamiliar with wikipedia protocols, please note that editors are not to perform "breach experiments" within the article in order to demonstrate your point. We're not to break the rules to prove a rule.

The talk page and talk page archives reveal disputes over the worthiness of the PLANS link has been extensively explored, and at least at one point the consensus seemed to be that it should be included as it pertains to the lawsuit mentioned in this article. The mere fact that Waldorf education, or any other subject of topics here at wikipedia, has critics or others with personal gripes against it doesn't merit they each be exhaustively catalogued in the articles here, nor given a spot of real estate here to air their complaints.

I'm appealing to a halt to the edit wars over this link, and ask that we abide by the earlier consensus formed here, and focus our efforts now on working together to improving the structure and length of this article, including its reference section. Professor marginalia 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

On the reason to include a special direct link to the WC-site, that "it should be included as it pertains to the lawsuit mentioned in this article.":

The section that mentions this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education#U.S._Waldorf_methods_public_schools, as also a previous section on 'criticism of WE' gives a direct link to the Wikipage on the group at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLANS that extensively describes the lawsuit, lost by PLANS after a 30-minute trial, after having had seven years to prepare for it, with a direct link to all the legal documents involved at http://www.waldorfanswers.org/Lawsuit.html and numerous links to the WC-site itself. In addition giving a third link on the WC-group, directly to the WC-site itself here in the article on Waldorf education, that would violate/violates several Wikipeida guidelines, adds nothing to this, except acceptance of a conscious violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and repeated disregard of these guidelines, because of bullying by one participant here, using another violation of yet another of the Wikipedia guidelines here: a "breach experiment" to to implement the violations. All essential viewpoints of the group also already are presented in two articles by San Francisco Chronicle, listed in the Further discusson section, without violating Wikipedia guidelines. --Thebee 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sune, I've asked you several times now and so have others - please discontinue this childish editing of the PLANS link. Let's please just call it PLANS without some comment beside it that attempts to discount its legitimacy. I am going to remove the "group of lobbyists" comment you added. Again, if you think it's appropriate to characterize PLANS in the way you see it, then I'm sure you won't mind if I do the same with your own (multiple) links. --Pete K 22:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

First you write "... as far as renaming the links - I don't think this is your responsibility." Now you again accuse me -- without any factual basis -- of "childish editing of the PLANS link". The only thing I've done -- one time -- is to add PLANS to the name. For some reason, you seem to have been misreading the hístory page of the WE article. --Thebee 10:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This statement in the article "The San Francisco based anti-Waldorf lobby group PLANS, described by one support group for Waldorf Education (Americans for Waldorf education) as a group that publishes argumentation characteristic of hate groups, has been extremely vocal on this issue." is about to get a footnote that says "Not surprisingly 'Americans for Waldorf Education' and sister site 'Waldorf Answers' are considered by Waldorf critics and Waldorf supporters alike to be comprised of fanatical Waldorf supporters. Additionally, much of the information contained in these two sites is unfounded and libelous. Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf Education site owner, Sune Nordwall, once voted one of the 250 craziest people on the internet, is known among critics for his dishonest portrayal of Waldorf education..." And I'll add lots of links to discussions with and about Sune. And that can continue for a few pages. It makes perfect sense to me to discredit the people who continually seek to discredit critical viewpoints concerning Waldorf. Again, why in the world is it of any value to a Wikipedia article to have this sort of statement present (The one that's actually in the article now, not the one I am proposing - tongue-in-cheek)? Yes, some idiots have said PLANS is a hate group, and we have had a discussion about this - and clearly PLANS is not a hate group. I don't belong to PLANS, but I post on their discussion list, and now, because some crackpots have sought to discredit PLANS with this "hate group" nonsense, my name is associated with a supposed "hate group". Again, the integrity of Wikipedia is at stake here - if that means anything to anybody, and this kind of inflammatory dialog doesn't belong in an article about schools. --Pete K 01:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana, one of the foremost supporters and promoters of the WC-group in discussions on the net, has written that she likes the rewording of the first direct characterization of PLANS as a hate group into "The San Francisco based anti-Waldorf lobby group PLANS, described by one support group of Waldorf Education, Americans for Waldorf education as a group that publishes argumentation characteristic of hate groups against Waldorf education[15], is the most vocal on this issue.".

Besides DianaW, you're the most energetic supporter and promoter of the WC-group on the web. Why are you not a "member" of it? It only costs 15$/year, and they really need it. Or are you?

You do not like to see the WC-group very neutrally characterized by Professor Marginalia as a "Lobbying group critical of Waldorf education" as description after the name. But you yourself have added a link to a completely self published, one man site (looked at the Wiki guidelines on this?) and describe it with "Critical viewpoint of Camphill Communities." That would be one violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and one inconsistency of argumentation, no?. --Thebee 10:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not Diana, so I'm going to remove the hate group stuff. If you insist that you want to include the completely unfounded "hate group" comment, I will add comments characterizing the group that makes these comments. BTW, suggesting that I should join or am secretly a member of a particular group (especially one that you have labeled a hate group) in this discussion is completely out of line here Sune. It is part of your attempt to discredit all critics. That's part of why you and your ilk have dragged discussion about my divorce into these pages - an act that was incredibly insensitive. It's the kind of stuff hate groups do. The one-man site you are talking about is no different than the one man site Waldorf Answers that you run, and link here repeatedly. --Pete K 14:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, like your statement on my having edited the description of the WC was untrue, so is your statement that I have "dragged discussion about (your) divorce into these pages". I have not written one word on it. As for the question om membership of WC, it was quite natural. If not even you, one of the most vocal supporters of the WC supports it with 15$, who does? And why (not)? --Thebee 16:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the discussion about my divorce was produced by "your ilk", but the blame for attempting to discredit all critics of Waldorf is correctly placed on you too. And why in the world is discussion of who supports membership in WC of any relevance to this and being discussed on Wikipedia? Get a life will you?. I've left your "approved" wording about the "hate group" and added my qualifications - as promised. If you need more people to call AWE fanatics, I'm sure it will be no trouble for me to round them up and link to them. --Pete K 17:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Libel and loose slander (or Is it Slander when someone makes a false claim of Slander)

Pete, you wrote here on 26 August 2006: "Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf Education site owner, Sune Nordwall, once voted one of the 250 craziest people on the internet, is known among critics for his dishonest portrayal of Waldorf education..."

The first part of the sentence is untrue. I don't own the domains you mention

The third part of the sentence looks like unsubstantiated POV "original research" among those that constitute the core WC-group.

The middle part is yet another untruth by you (the third in two days: 25-26 Aug), maybe written by you as alleged support for your view that AWE represents a group of 'Lunatics', and in this case constitutes libel in the sense of a published, defamatory and verifiably untrue statement for the following reason:

What you refer to probably is the fact that one individual in Australia, critical of Alternative medicine, in 2002 put a link to my main personal site at the time on a page at his personal site, where he lists a number of sites on the internet that he characterizes as pages by 'Loons'. The reason for this, that he gives is his description of the site, is:

"I have mentioned before that I like a good synthesis. Nothing gets my heart beating faster than a good dose of synthesis (except for a lump of conspiracy, of course), so I was pleased to find this site where physics, astronomy, biology, religion, politics and the nature of man are all rolled up into a neat package that anyone can absorb in an afternoon."

Except for the overview of research on and a discussion of some basic issues with regard to homeopathy at my site, that probably was what caught his attention in the first place, it contains a paper on the concept of science, an article on the pattern of the development of the EC/EU, and a page on the pattern of the cell cycle of eucharyote cells.

The paper on the concept of science was an academic paper that I wrote 26 years ago, as part of academic studies of Philosophy of Science at the time. It is a short paper, that discusses the different historical origins of the tradition of Spiritual Science, as represented by Anthroposophy, and "Natural Science", and the relation between them from an ontological and epistemological perspective. The Professor I had, one of the probably only two in Sweden on that specific subject at the time gave it "Excellent" marks. Since I published it at my site in 1998, the page has had about 80,000 visits.

The paper on the development of the EC/EU-process from the middle of the 1980's and onwards seems to be something one of the few macro historians in the world, a Prof. Nikolai Rozov at the University of Novosibirsk considers serious enough to link to it from his site at the university, that also lists a number of other papers on macrohistorical problems.

The paper on the pattern of the stages of the cell cycle of eucharyote cells was written as the result of an academic study of biology at the end of the 1980s'. It is listed and linked to from a number of professional sites on cell biology on the internet, and has had about 50,000 visits since I published it in 1998.

Do they the papers and pages mentioned, and the judgment of them by professional people and sites in the field they discuss document that I am, as you write "one of the 250 craziest people on the internet"? Well, I leave that to the reader of this comment to judge.

--Thebee 14:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I didn't attach any of this to the article. If you will read my comments above, I describe the comments as tongue-in-cheek. But your characterization of them typifies the way you take comments out of context and then produce a diatribe (as you have above) to discredit what someone hasn't really said. This is why it is, IMO, dangerous to have you here making edits and linking to your websites. There is little of value at all in them and they contain mostly ravings like the one above - again often about a sentence that you have misinterpreted or taken out of context, as you have above. If it were up to me to choose words to describe you, words like "crazy" and "lunatic" wouldn't be discarded so offhandedly... but then that's just me (and most of the Waldorf world) --Pete K 19:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You write: "If you will read my comments above, I describe the comments as tongue-in-cheek. But your characterization of them typifies the way you take comments out of context and then produce a diatribe... ".

I did not characterize what you wrote. I quoted you.

Your documented libel on this public discussion page on the internet constitutes as much libel as it would be if it was published in the article. Or you actually have another source than what I describe above on what you have written as "... Sune Nordwall, once voted one of the 250 craziest people on the internet ..."?

Otherwise, it is actual libel, you know that?

On 26 Aug, you also wrote: "Not surprisingly 'Americans for Waldorf Education' and sister site 'Waldorf Answers' are considered by Waldorf critics and Waldorf supporters alike to be comprised of fanatical Waldorf supporters." (This is not a characterization either, but a quote.)

So, who are the supporters of Waldorf Education, who consider http://www.americans4waldorf.org and http://www.waldorfanswers.org to be comprised of what you call "fanatical Waldorf supporters"? --Thebee 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You say "I did not characterize what you wrote. I quoted you." Well, then you characterized whether you felt each part of what I said was true or untrue and why. I don't need another source or, for that matter, any source to make a comment that I describe as tongue-in-cheek. The fact that you WERE described in this way, however, is enough. When you and your four teammates continually attach a label to PLANS that says "Americans for Waldorf Education says PLANS uses language characteristic of a hate group" - you are being less honest than what I wrote above about you - because in my case, what I said jokingly about how somebody characterized you was accurate. As to whether I have committed libel with my statement, this serves to further demonstrate how irresponsible you are with labels about people. Nobody could mistake what I said as libelous, but you're welcome to try to make that charge stick. Regarding the "Waldorf Supporters" you mention above and wish to have me name, I'm not about to do that here - but if you decide to take this case to court, and I invite you to try, I'll be happy to name them there. BTW, this discussion seems to have nothing at all to do with Wikipedia, and if you think you are somehow clearing your good name with threats of libel, if I can stop laughing long enough to catch my breath, I'll suggest that you are gravely mistaken. --Pete K 22:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not characterize what I felt about the three parts of your sentence. I told what was the factual case, and gave verifiable references that showed that what you wrote was untrue.

You also write: "The fact that you WERE described in this way, however, is enough." Described by whom as source, except by you as untruthful libel? And enough for what?

On "what I said jokingly about how somebody characterized you was accurate.": It is not interesting if someone has characterized me the way you wrote here. What is interesting is that YOU published the defamatory statement here and that is was untrue. You can't make others responsible for what you write here. YOU make the untrue statements here, and are responsible for making them here, not the people you refer to as alleged source.

You also write: "When you and your four teammates continually attach a label to PLANS that says "Americans for Waldorf Education says PLANS uses language characteristic of a hate group" - you are being less honest than what I wrote above about you ..."

The description is based on the description of the argumentation by hate groups, given in the article on the issue here at Wikipedia, and what I have summarized here regarding what is published by Mr. Dugan at his WC-site, showing in what way what is found at the WC-site as postings and articles corresponds to the description in the Wikipedia article of the argumentation that characterizes hate groups. But 'argumentation similar to hate groups' may be slightly closer description of the truth than 'argumentation characteristic of hate groups'. What do you find to be untruthful in the extensively referenced summary?

On "Nobody could mistake what I said as libelous, but you're welcome to try to make that charge stick." What you wrote was untruthful and defamatory. The publication of defamatory and untrue statements about a living person is what defines libel. Disagree? Nothing in what you wrote indicated that it was a joke. On the contrary it gave the impression of beig a quite upset statement. meant to be understood as truthful.

On "Regarding the "Waldorf Supporters" you mention above and wish to have me name, I'm not about to do that here." If you can't document that what you write is true, what you write is "original non-verifiable research" and you can't publish it here at Wikipedia, as you did 23:13, 26 August 2006 in the PLANS article.

A simple question then: Do you refer to anything more and else than Keith's joking comment on the WC-list, as "Waldorf supporters" who agree alike with WCs that, as you write http://www.americans4waldorf.org and http://www.waldorfanswers.org are comprised of "fanatical Waldorf supporters"? Just no, or yes and a link to where on the internet the statements are found.

This is Wikipedia, not a forum for loose, unverified or unverifiable slander, Pete.

If you can't answer that simple question regarding a denigrating statement that you have published in an article here at Wikipedia, why should anyone here believe anything you write here? --Thebee 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This coming from the person who has devoted an entire website to defaming Dan Dugan and Peter Staudenmaier. I won't qualify any of your ravings with a comment tonight. I will answer you tomorrow. If you think you have a case for libel with what I have said above, you are welcome to bring it - in fact I invite you to bring it. You and your defaming friends are on notice - you are going to be exposed for exactly what you are doing. I'll answer your ravings in detail tomorrow. I don't have time for this nonsense now. --Pete K 03:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sune, in your latest message, you wrote:

"I did not characterize what I felt about the three parts of your sentence. I told what was the factual case, and gave verifiable references that showed that what you wrote was untrue."

So what? It was intended as an example to demonstrate what YOU have been doing with this "hate group" language you and your team has been spouting. I never claimed it was true, only an example of the type of language you are using and the flimsy sources you are justifying it with.

"You also write: "The fact that you WERE described in this way, however, is enough." Described by whom as source, except by you as untruthful libel? And enough for what?"

You were described in this way on a list of craziest people on the internet. But that's completely besides the point here, the point is exactly what I have said above, your tactics at defamation of people you don't like. Now you make a ridiculous clame of libel against me in an attempt to defame me. I've been around your type of Waldorf teachers before - threats don't scare me. As I said above, if you have a claim against me here or anywhere, avail yourself of the legal channels available to you.

"On "what I said jokingly about how somebody characterized you was accurate.": It is not interesting if someone has characterized me the way you wrote here. What is interesting is that YOU published the defamatory statement here and that is was untrue." No, it wasn't untrue. I saw the website where you were listed. It may or may not be the one you are talking about, I don't remember the name of it, but I saw it with my own eyes. Again, my comment was a demonstration of the flimsy logic you use in your defamation campaign. This is very much like YOU using a statement where PLANS complains that YOU have called them a hate group - to support the claim that they have been called a hate group. Again, this is evidence of your own twisted hatred for people who criticize Waldorf and the extents you will go to in order to defame them.

"You can't make others responsible for what you write here. YOU make the untrue statements here, and are responsible for making them here, not the people you refer to as alleged source."

I didn't make any untrue statements here. The only untrue statements here are coming from you. Go back and re-read what I wrote originally, that you are taking out of context, and re-think what you are saying here. My credibility is unshakeable. I've never, ever lied about anything having to do with Waldorf. Your credibility is highly suspect, however.

"You also write: 'When you and your four teammates continually attach a label to PLANS that says "Americans for Waldorf Education says PLANS uses language characteristic of a hate group" - you are being less honest than what I wrote above about you ...'

The description is based on the description of the argumentation by hate groups, given in the article on the issue here at Wikipedia, and what I have summarized here regarding what is published by Mr. Dugan at his WC-site, showing in what way what is found at the WC-site as postings and articles corresponds to the description in the Wikipedia article of the argumentation that characterizes hate groups. But 'argumentation similar to hate groups' may be slightly closer description of the truth than 'argumentation characteristic of hate groups'. What do you find to be untruthful in the extensively referenced summary?"

Um... other than it is YOUR OWN group who paints this untruthful picture of PLANS - and no support for this claim can be found anywhere outside of your group of five people? Well, I demonstrated by my tongue-in-cheek comment above how easy it would be to produce this kind of nonsense here on Wikipedia and within Wikipedia's guidelines. I can document that people have called Americans for Waldorf Education a lot of things, including fanatics. I can even document people saying THEY are a hate group. All I have to do is get a few of my friends to say this publicly. You already saw how relatively easy it was to do this - in one case. The tactics you are using here are underhanded, dishonest and shameful. They might be fine for your own websites, but they are not OK here.

"On "Nobody could mistake what I said as libelous, but you're welcome to try to make that charge stick." What you wrote was untruthful and defamatory."

Yep. It was intended to be. It was intended to demonstrate the tactics you use. Because you were able to identify it as such, it seems my point got through to you.

"The publication of defamatory and untrue statements about a living person is what defines libel. Disagree? Nothing in what you wrote indicated that it was a joke. On the contrary it gave the impression of beig a quite upset statement. meant to be understood as truthful."

Tell it to the judge Sune. My words are clear, so you don't scare me with these threats. My intention was made obvious and your apparent inability to understand simple English is probably at the root of your problems here. It's great that you are turning this into a flame war. You should be proud of yourself at wasting even more internet bandwidth than your own websites are already wasting.

"On "Regarding the "Waldorf Supporters" you mention above and wish to have me name, I'm not about to do that here." If you can't document that what you write is true, what you write is "original non-verifiable research" and you can't publish it here at Wikipedia, as you did 23:13, 26 August 2006 in the PLANS article."

I'm not publishing anything. This is the discussion page, not the article. This is a forum for discussion about the article. If you think everything here is worthy of publishing, you're quite mistaken. If you want to discuss the PLANS article, let's not waste this space with that. I'll be happy to discuss it in the PLANS article discussion section.

"A simple question then: Do you refer to anything more and else than Keith's joking comment on the WC-list, as "Waldorf supporters" who agree alike with WCs that, as you write http://www.americans4waldorf.org and http://www.waldorfanswers.org are comprised of "fanatical Waldorf supporters"? Just no, or yes and a link to where on the internet the statements are found."

Sure. I've made the comment myself as a matter of fact - and I'm a Waldorf supporter... Yeah, really Sune... I support the good parts of Waldorf, I support my kid's school, and I support good Waldorf teachers. Ask anyone who knows me personally. I've always said people like you hurt Waldorf much more than they help. It's the dishonest elements of Waldorf I don't support. Do you want a link to my own website where I made the comment? This example is exactly as stupid as you linking Americans for Waldorf Education with a weak comment about PLANS being a "hate group".

"This is Wikipedia, not a forum for loose, unverified or unverifiable slander, Pete."

Can you support the claim of "slander" Sune? If you can, I'd like to see you do that. Otherwise, please retract this claim.

"If you can't answer that simple question regarding a denigrating statement that you have published in an article here at Wikipedia, why should anyone here believe anything you write here? --Thebee 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)"

Yeah, start the defamation campaign on me now Sune. You don't have a leg to stand on trying to defame me. You've got nothing - but don't let that stop you. I'm a disgruntled Waldorf parent, so you think I need to be discredited. It doesn't matter if what you are saying is true - your misunderstandings about what you read are good enough. Why don't you stop wasting everyone's time here and find another place to play. This site is for serious work. --Pete K 05:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is NO extensively referenced summary of "argumentation characteristic of hate groups" (or, excuse me, now you've changed it to "similar to" hate groups). We could give you the benefit of the doubt that you do not know what a hate group is, but then you need to learn. This charade is offensive to victims of *real* hate groups. You have NEVER ONCE presented a summary of ANYTHING that shows hate speech or actions (or anything "similar") coming from PLANS. The material DOES NOT EXIST. You've ignored my questions regarding your "summary" on the discussion page for the PLANS article, no? Where you claim you've got "newspaper articles from 1997," depositions, press releases, all kinds of official-sounding things that you claim will document that PLANS is a hate group, yet you don't post it. Yes, you have given repeated links to your own multiple web sites MAKING THIS CLAIM, with long, unreadable tangled wads of prose supposedly "summarizing" all this - but that is not the same thing as providing a summary of evidence showing PLANS to be a hate group.DianaW 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't understand my English, and don't know how to follow the links given in the mentioned overview to find the original published sources it is based on and refers to, mostly published on the internet, there's not much I can do to help you. --Thebee 08:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a chance, buddy. The link above AGAIN goes to your own web site. I understand English very nicely. NOT ONE of the items cited in

your "summary" shows PLANS to be a hate group. NOT ONE ITEM in the ENTIRE list presents evidence, quotes, actions etc. that suggest the behavior of speech of a hate group. There isn't anything in anything you have posted yet that provides this. Your links are to things like, some Waldorf group's policy on immunization. We could discuss that if you like, but nothing there is even relevant to PLANS. It doesn't *mention* PLANS, let alone document or reflect anything anyone at big bad ol' PLANS supposedly did to hurt somebody.

As always, what you are trying to say is that people writing on PLANS' mailing list have *criticized* practices and experiences in Waldorf schools, in this case in relation to finding vaccination of their children discouraged. You are linking to things that will show that your critics have a *difference of opinion* with you on this question. Nobody bashed you, nobody set your house on fire, nobody threatened you, nobody urged violence against you or mocked you or harassed you or said you are ugly, nobody even said anything nasty to you, other than the occasional exchange of childish insults. You consider a *discussion of issues* in which other people disagree with you to be an attack. You like to say critics "demonize" you etc. but anyone reading the discussion quickly sees you just hope that your own inflammatory language will reflect poorly on other people, when it merely reflects poorly on *you*. (And embarrasses the whole Waldorf movement.) You couldn't get away with calling your goofy "summary" a "source" or "documentation" for a claim that an organization is a "hate group" even if you were in maybe fifth grade. It isn't stuff like, "So-and-so doesn't like me." The teacher would have to keep patiently explaining to you what it means to "document" something - and that personally getting your feathers ruffled doesn't mean somebody "hates" you and you ought to call the police or something. Your behavior is very childish.DianaW 11:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Gee. I wonder where Harlan Gilbert's musings about who has got custody of their children, on *these pages*, falls in this realm of "original research" versus documented claims? (He quickly quit trying to document it, and just dashed back putting X's in to replace the names of people he had slandered.) "You can't publish it here at Wikipedia." Hm.DianaW 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote "This is Wikipedia, not a forum for loose, unverified or unverifiable slander, Pete."

On this, you comment, Pete:

Can you support the claim of "slander" Sune? If you can, I'd like to see you do that. Otherwise, please retract this claim."

If you can't and don't document which "supporters" you refer to with "Not surprisingly 'Americans for Waldorf Education' and sister site 'Waldorf Answers' are considered by Waldorf critics and Waldorf supporters alike to be comprised of fanatical Waldorf supporters.", except yourself, that you describe as a "waldorf supporter" above:

"I've made the comment myself as a matter of fact - and I'm a Waldorf supporter"

I would tend to stick with my characterization.

I somewhat doubt that most, who read what you write, would understand you to in general be a supporter of Waldorf education.

My question concerns the extent of the "waldorf supporters" you refer to in your statement. If you can't give anyone else than yourself as reference, in terms of a noticeable group of Waldorf supporters, that would correspond to what you write, I'd consider your statement to be unverified slander. If you document any noticeable group of Waldorf supporters, that corresponds to what you write, I'll retract my characterization of it as unverified slander. So far you haven't. --Thebee 07:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, YOUR characterization of me is of no interest to me - so characterize me however you like. If you think you have a case of slander (it would be libel in any case) bring me to court. As I said, I don't frighten that easy. In my opinion, you're a raving lunatic with nothing better to do than to defame people. I'm actually honored to be among the people you choose to defame. It means I'm doing some good in the area of Waldorf reform. As to naming Waldorf supporters who describe your site in a certain way, I'm not about to do that publicly because AWSNA, apparently, still supports your activity. I'll hopefully have the opportunity to talk with their representatives about you and your actions this year when they visit my local school. While you have the support of AWSNA and the Waldorf community, I'm not about to dole out names of Waldorf supporters who speak out against you. We all know what happens in Waldorf environments when someone steps out of line - they are removed from their positions. There is no room in Waldorf for reformists, you're either a supporter or a critic - and that you have gone to great lengths to paint critical viewpoints intolerable and dishonest notwithstanding, many Waldorf supporters understand and appreciate critical review of Waldorf. If you need me to name names of people who have referred to you as I claim ON THIS DISCUSSION PAGE, I'll present them in court - not before. If you continue to call me a slanderer without support for this claim, you may find yourself having to support THAT claim. --Pete K 14:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You write, Pete:

This is very much like YOU using a statement where PLANS complains that YOU have called them a hate group - to support the claim that they have been called a hate group.

Again, this is another untruth. I have not done that. What you refer to is a comment by someone else. --Thebee 08:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting YOU are not one of the five members of Americans for Waldorf Education? Are you suggesting that the reference to PLANS being tantamount to a "hate group" wasn't planted here several times by YOU? It's easy enough to prove. --Pete K 14:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not (in the discussion here) used a statement by PLANS, complaining that I have called them a hate group, to support the claim that they have been called a hate group. That has been done by someone else here at this page. --Thebee 15:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You write, Pete: "If you continue to call me a slanderer without support for this claim, you may find yourself having to support THAT claim."

I do not characterize you as a slanderer as some general unsubstantiated slander of you.

I have just asked your for substantiation of one claim by you, with regard to the Waldorf supporters you refer to in your statement: "Not surprisingly 'Americans for Waldorf Education' and sister site 'Waldorf Answers' are considered by Waldorf critics and Waldorf supporters alike to be comprised of fanatical Waldorf supporters.". You have not provided any such substantiation. You also say that you will not do it if I don't sue you for libel first.

That's putting the burden of proof in the wrong place. YOU need to show that what you write with regard to Waldorf supporters is true and not slander. You have not and refuse to refer to anyone else than yourself as Waldorf supporter, as substantiation of what you write.

As you refuse to substantiate what you write in ANY other way, even when I explicitly ask you to, your statement remains a loose, unsubstantiated statement, that has the character of slander. If you prove me wrong, I'll immediately retract my expressed view of it. So far, you have not. Instead you complain that I ask you for substantiation, and have changed the title of this section, trying to imply that characterizing something you write as slander, as you you refuse to substantiate it, constitutes slander ... Sounds like strange logic to me. Why not stop writing what you can't substantiate in the first place instead? --Thebee 16:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You have pruned the full context of my original statement in this section so that you can attack me. I wonder why? This is typical of the nonsense you and your ilk continually try to do to discredit people critical of Waldorf. Not interested in pursuing this further with you Sune. You've got nothing here and I'm not going to play this game with you. I've got work to do correcting many Anthroposophically biased articles here. I can't waste my time with this. There is NO question about whether I can substantiate my claim, if I need to. I don't need to substantiate it here because it was made in a context that doesn't require substantiation. Give it up... you're looking like a fool again. --Pete K 16:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to answer the questions I posed to you above? --Pete K 15:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're having trouble finding the questions I've asked you to answer, above. Here they are again: Are you suggesting YOU are not one of the five members of Americans for Waldorf Education? Are you suggesting that the reference to PLANS being tantamount to a "hate group" wasn't planted here several times by YOU? --Pete K 02:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Project Clean-up Notice

Please note that this page is currently undergoing a clean-up in a community effort to improve its quality. Please read the clean-up section below before editing and place comments on this page to correspond with the edits. Perhaps take a moment to read over [Wikipedia: the perfect article]

For best results, place your edit ideas on this page 24 hours before making any additions.

If you wold like to join a project to completely overhaul this page, please leave a note on my Talk page.Wonderactivist 16:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have written each person who expressed interest in the project and am now waiting for word from the Alt Ed project as to whether they want us to be a sub-project or independent. I believe it would be for the benefit of this page to make it a sub-project with many more unbiased editors to consult. I will set up project pages upon their response. I appreciate the input from Longhair (on my Talk page) and Garrie. They are both experienced Wikipedians with no bias on this issue. Wonderactivist 15:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. please let me know if you wold like to join the project on my Talk page.

Unified standards for citations

Let's agree here either to include both AWE and PLANS, or neither; both are web-sites, not published works. This either/or edit war is pointless. I hope it is clear that either both qualify or neither; it just remains to work out which we'd like to agree on. Let's go on to more productive work than reverts!!! (Get a life!!!) ;) Hgilbert 11:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hgilbert, I would vote for no outside links at all on this page until after the project is completed. The links have been a major component in the ongoing edit wars - which are not in the best interests of the reader or Wikipedia. Most other pages do not have so many and there are multiple cases where the pages restrict outside links for such reasons. But then, maybe let's let the project make the final decision - by consensus. Wonderactivist 15:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also draw Hgilbert's attention to wikipedia's civility policy. Comments such as "get a life" don't do us any good. Jefffire 15:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire: Sorry, that was a joke, not an insult. I don't know if you're American; it is a pet phrase here.

Rather amusing to have a comment on this and not on the extensive personal comments made earlier in this discussion... Perhaps you've come in late. Hgilbert 11:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, well I wish I would have read this before commenting above to Sune (theBee). I have agreed, as HGilbert has suggested, that either the AWE or WaldorfAnswers (as it's essentially the same site) and PLANS sites remain. I'm just as comfortable removing ALL the links until a review has been conducted by the project team who I anticipate will be unbiased. Nobody wants these edit wars to stop any more than I do. --Pete K 15:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

HGilbert writes: "Rather amusing to have a comment on this and not on the extensive personal comments made earlier in this discussion... Perhaps you've come in late." Maybe Jefffire HAS a life. Glad you are amused so easily Harlan. --Pete K 15:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Eurythmy

Wikipedia policy states that there should be no Original research, meaning you can't just write what you think about a subject. In addition, there is a separate Eurythmy article for a detailed analysis of this; if we have five paragraphs about every subject taught in a Waldorf school, the article will swell beyond belief. Please help create a readable article. Hgilbert 11:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I would agree and that's just the type of thing we can do with this project. The eurythmy could be two lines with the second one linking to the Wiki page on eurythmy. On that page, there can then be a link to a scholarly article, a literary reference (or 2) and maybe two or three external links. Wonderactivist 13:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Eurythmy is unspectacular in and of itself EXCEPT that it is a spiritual exercise revered by Steiner and Anthroposophists and underhandedly taught to Waldorf students. I'll replace the full out of context quote from Steiner without my own commentary. Shortening the quote and taking it out of context is not good policy. There is not justification to hide its spiritual nature on the Waldorf page. Also, the typeface previous to my edit was odd. --Pete K 14:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Normally, the aspects of eurythmy special to Waldorf schools, its pedagogical nature, would be presented in an article that is actually about Waldorf education; general information about eurythmy itself belongs in the eurythmy article. The quote is rather long considering it is about eurythmy generally, and not speaking about the educational uses particularly. I know you consider it vital information relevant to the education... Hgilbert 20:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not such a long quote at all. Additionally, the Eurythmy article here talks more of performance art. This is not why or how Eurythmy is used for children. No sense in pretending you don't know this. Eurythmy is a spiritual activity in Waldorf. It makes no sense to hide this fact - and it IS a fact. --Pete K 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

All the more reason to add more pedagogical material to the Eurythmy article. I am ok with leaving the quote in at the moment; no one is hiding a fact, and putting material in linked articles on subsidiary topics is hardly hiding it, when it is Wikipedia policy anyway to do so and include a brief summary.

BTW, if you want to save space, why not consider moving the ridiculous study that says kids who go to Waldorf are healthier than other kids - as if Waldorf education contributed to this. People who like to live healthier are attracted to Waldorf's brochures. The study has little, if anything, to do with Waldorf and it's just there to make yet another fantastic and controversial claim. Why not free up that space to talk about things the kids are required to do every day by Waldorf schools? --Pete K 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We could consider putting the study in a subsidiary article on the health-giving effects of Waldorf education and an anthroposophical lifestyle (the study actually confirmed the latter as well); could you help us gather more material for this to make it worthwhile to make the move? :> Hgilbert 01:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the "health-giving" change certainly helped the appearance on this page. Thanks Harlan. I'm not sure the study deserves its own article, but I'm not going into that here. I like the addition of the information about Eurythmy performances. Good job!--Pete K 05:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Project Update

I have written now to two more members of the Alt Ed project team. Since my note has been on their project page for several days now, I hope to get this project set up today whether I hear back or not - their page is asking for someone to take on Waldorf, so I simply will set it up as part of the project with all of the team members who have volunteered. Also Hgilbert, did you know that you are listed on that project? Perhaps as a member of that team you can approve our being part of it. I am so looking forward to working with everyone on this. I think it would be great if each person who is involved - or just interested in becoming involved - created a general idea of what parts they would like to work on. I will write again this afternoon.

In the meantime, I do suggest that we all look over the community pages in Wiki, so that we have a good idea of all of the fabulous resources at our disposal. Longhair is one administrator in particular who has offered to help us on this project - as an unbiased consultant when needed. Let's not overwhelm him, but feel free to ask him questions as we progress...and also let's utilize the other folks in the Alt Ed project. So get some ideas churning while I set up the pages - if that's OK with everyone? Wonderactivist 13:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Our main project page is located at the Waldorf Project Team Page please sign up and feel free to begin discussion of the introduction. Wonderactivist 13:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving the newly created Waldorf project page away from the main encyclopedia namespace, as this namespace is to be used for encyclopedia articles only. The project is now located at a temporary location of User:Wonderactivist/Waldorf Project Team Page. If there's a more suitable place for this project to be located please let me know and I'll move it to a more suitable home. If there's any other way I can be of assistance please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. -- Longhair 01:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Which wikipedia editors are responsible for which external websites?

For the benefit of Wikipedia, could we list up which individuals are associated with which external websites? I guess Thebee is responsible for www.thebee.se, but I have the impression that there are other wikipedia users who are linking to their own sites. This list will help neutral users takle the ongoing original research problem- please add to the list as you see fit.

External websites maintained by editors of Wikipedia: Waldorf Education

Editor	External website
Thebee	http://www.thebee.se Personal site, not linked to at Wikipedia
Thebee	http://www.waldorfanswers.com One of two editors
Thebee	http://www.americans4waldorf.org One of five editors
Pete K	http://lists.topica.com/lists/WaldorfQuestions
Pete K	(non-public website)

Is there some reason why Sune(Thebee) needs to characterize my website? Or describe how many editors are on his websites? The question was "For the benefit of Wikipedia, could we list up which individuals are associated with which external websites?" - nobody asked for characterizations about the links. It sounds to me like Sune is getting ready to use this innocent question as his next battleground. --Pete K 19:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There's an ongoing problem with original research linked in this article. Personal webpages and private or public member email lists don't belong here, nor websites filled with material with unknown or unidentified authorship. There are also a lot of clearinghouse resource websites, which I don't see the purpose for in any article in wikipedia. Ibyrnison 19:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Question to Admins

http://www.waldorfanswers.com and http://www.americans4waldorf.org are not my websites. I don't own them and in both cases, I'm just one of member in the two respective teams that are responsible for them. Most of what is found at http://www.waldorfanswers.com is not found at http://www.americans4waldorf.org and http://www.americans4waldorf.org has one large section on the WC (http://www.americans4waldorf.org/OnPLANS.html) not found at http://www.waldorfanswers.com

On "Is there some reason why Sune(Thebee) needs to characterize my website?": Just for clarification for the benefit of Wikipedia readers and editors. Mailing list archives of a personal mailing list at the site of a public mailing list provider are normally not characterized as personal websites.

Also, who owns or is related to which website in some way has nothing as such to do with the question of if what is found at it constitutes original research. The issue it has to do with is if it can be called a self-published site or not. The site of OpenWaldorf, that I think you repeatedly add as link(?) is a completely self-published personal one man site. This is also the case with a site that you insist on adding as external link, a self published site by one person, critical of the Camphill.

As for the WC-site, that you repeatedly add as link, Pete, appr. 99% of it consists of archives of the personal anti-Waldorf mailing list of the secretary or the site, where numerous postings are made by anonymous posters, and much of it can be characterized as "original research".

While you give "no original research" as expressed argument for deleting links to http://www.waldorfanswers.com and http://www.americans4waldorf.org you repeatedly reinstate the link the WC-site that probably publishes most "original research" all categories on the net with regard to Waldorf education, much of it completely unverified, in violation of the same argument, that you use to repeatedly delete links to WaldorfAnswers and Americans for Waldorf Education.

Maybe the admins looking at the article can take a look at this? --Thebee 19:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Critical Views - another still unsubstantiated claim

Another edit war is beginning over the Critical Views section. Are the Waldorf supporters going to be the ones to express the critical viewpoint or should this be left up to the critics? Specifically, the criticism is that Waldorf schools teach Anthroposophy indirectly, not as a subject but as part of the entire education process. That many, many critics feel this way is easily documented and this is the view that needs to be represented in this section. Anthroposophist's opinion about whether this is "true" or not, or whether it belongs here or not shouldn't matter. The section is intended to describe the "Critical View". I have replaced the wording in the article for this reason.

I also intend to support the claim (currently called anecdotal by the person who removed it) that Waldorf schools are not forthcoming about Anthroposophy. I feel this support can be satisfied by linking to many Waldorf school websites that don't mention Anthroposophy, some don't even mention Steiner. I'd like to have a discussion here about these issues before people re-edit the article. --Pete K 15:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to find a publisher and pitch your argument, and write a paper presenting your evidence, research findings, and conclusions. After you do so, then the issue could be described here, and your article would be identified as an academic reference for it. However, you cannot simply present the argument here, absent any publication by a bona fide publisher. Ibyrnison 20:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If Pete can support his claim by linking to or listing a good number of school websites that are missing this reference, then it deserves to appear in a neutral tone: he could say that many W.school websites do not mention anthroposophy. It would be OriginalReserach or editorializing to claim that this is a cover-up or that the schools are not forthcoming, however. Wikipedia practice is to present the facts and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions. Hgilbert 20:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.americans4waldorf.org/Links.html lists about 125 websites of North American Waldorf schools, maybe a place to start. Check the links at the sites too. --Thebee 21:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

On

"Are the Waldorf supporters going to be the ones to express the critical viewpoint or should this be left up to the critics?"

Critical viewpoints includes also Critical viewpoints with regard to Waldorf Critics. Wikipedia requires both sides of issues to be presented. What would you suggest? A special section on Criticism of Waldorf critics? --Thebee 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ibryrnison, my book is in the works. In the mean time, the critical viewpoint is published at sites like PLANS on a daily basis. There are dozens if not hundreds of contributors to those pages. It is the warehouse for critical review of Waldorf, and in my opinion, should be considered a source for critical review and presentation of the critical viewpoint. I will lobby for this with unbiased Wikipedia personnel. There are dozens of claims made here by Waldorf supporters that cannot be supported - the number of Waldorf schools is a recent example found to be in error. I'll just occupy my time pulling out all those claims without consulting anyone if that's what you folks want to get into. Every sentence about Rudolf Steiner, for example, will require documentation that supports it. You guys are going to be pretty busy, believe me. Do you really want this to turn into the Scientology page? The Critical Views section is for critical "views". If you want a new section called Critical Publications, you should start it yourself. --Pete K 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, yes, I can support my claim by linking to Waldorf schools who don't mention Anthroposophy or Steiner. More important, however, is WHY they don't mention Anthroposophy, and WHY they claim it isn't in the curriculum (when it is). Now they have learned to say "it isn't taught" but then really that's how Waldorf education works - nothing is really taught in the early grades, it is absorbed. Subjects like "spirit beings" aren't taught in Waldorf, but from day one, children learn about spirit beings. The deception about what is being taught is really something that hurts Waldorf.

I know you guys don't like that I am bringing this stuff here, but it has to be brought out into the open. I'll be doing a lot of editing over the weekend, so we have another day of discussion before that takes place. How about working in earnest to clean up this Waldorf brochure of an article, instead of giving up our weekends editing this back and forth. Again, the critical view must be heard here. --Pete K 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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. If you guys hadn't made this article into a puff piece for Waldorf already, it would be just fine with me to hear critique of the critics. But as it stands, the article is slanted WAY in one direction. Maybe after the edit team gets through with it, and we will hopefully have a balanced article, we should consider linking to your wackiness. --Pete K 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)