Talk:Waldorf education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Requested move 24 January 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/c 16:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Waldorf educationSteiner Waldorf education – In some countries the schools are known as Waldorf schools, but in other countries they are known as Steiner schools. Choosing one of these name are confusing to people that only knows of the other one, so I suggest that the page name is changed to Steiner Waldorf education, so that everybody has a chance to make the correct association, no matter which of names they are used to or looking for. This is surely the reasoning behind the name "Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship", "the membership organisation for all the Steiner schools and independent Steiner Early Years settings in the UK and Ireland", as it says on their web site ( To mention Steiner in the page name is especially appropriate since we are talking about Steiner Waldorf education, and not purely the name of the schools; I would argue that the educational system is even more closely linked to Rudolf Steiner's name than the schools, per se. The exact page name could be written as Steiner Waldorf education or Steiner/Waldorf education, or something slightly different. The important thing is to mention both Steiner and Waldorf in the name. The old name should be a redirect to the new one, obviously. Dash (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a valid point. While the current redirects allow anyone looking for either name to find their way here, why should one name be preferred over the other?
The disadvantage to changing the article's name to Steiner Waldorf education is that virtually no one (other than the UK Fellowship) ever uses this mouthful in practice. People either say Waldorf education or Steiner education. WP:Article titles suggests the criteria are Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. We are faced with a choice between precision, on the one hand, and naturalness and conciseness, on the other. I don't know which should be given priority. HGilbert (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that this is a trade-off, but I would rather say that the choice is between Recognizability and Precision on one side versus Conciseness on the other. The Naturalness criterion is "unstable" in this case, since two completely different names are used on the same concept, thus Naturalness is not a criterion that will guide us in one particular direction. Dash (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure this proposed change would be an overall improvement to the current approach. The schools are known as Waldorf Schools (and trademarked as such) in North America. In addition, the international organization is translated as "Friends of Waldorf". The page title in German Wikipedia is "Waldorf School". "Steiner Schools" seems to be a term favored by the UK (but also Australia and New Zealand). For some reason "Waldorf" didn't catch on there as much as "Steiner" did. Although I can appreciate that "Waldorf" is unexpected for readers in the UK and these other English speaking countries, the term "Steiner-Waldorf" would be very strange to readers in North America as the schools are never called "Steiner-Waldorf" schools here and the trademark only encompasses the phrase "Waldorf School". Jellypear (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how relevant non-English speaking countries are in the naming of the English language wikipedia page, but since you mentioned the German name, I will add that the education/schools are known only as "Steiner" in Denmark, Finland, and Norway. I see that the French page is called Steiner-Waldorf. I don't know if that is because of the same type of compromise the UK Fellowship is using (and I am proposing here), or if they actually use the mouthful in normal parlance. My main argument for the change is that the leap from "Steiner" to "Steiner Waldorf", and from "Waldorf" to "Steiner Waldorf" surely is smaller than the leap from "Steiner" to "Waldorf" (or "Waldorf" to "Steiner"). The suggestion is a typical compromise - a solution no one really loves, but not a truly bad choice either (which the present is for the "Steiner" only camp). Dash (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with everything you say. HGilbert (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I continue to disagree and feel that the redirect handles the matter appropriately because entitling the page "Steiner-Waldorf Education" would mean imposing the UK-based variant for all English speaking Wikipedia readers rather than acknowledging that it is a variant unique to some countries but never used in the United States or in Germany, where Waldorf originated. In the UK people are already using the two terms Steiner-Waldorf both in public parlance and in the official names of their organizations. Since both words are commonly used together, the redirect shouldn't be a problem. This isn't the case in the United States. It is known simply as "Waldorf education" in public parlance and legally. Another matter to consider is that of the growing number of Waldorf-inspired schools in the United States. There is no such thing as a Steiner-Waldorf-inspired school. In my view, "Waldorf eduction" is something pursued by schools that call themselves "Waldorf schools" in North America (after the original "Waldorfschule" in Stuttgart, Germany and after waldorfpedagogik) and "Steiner Schools" in the UK, Australia and NZ. We needn't confuse the educational approach (which is directly translated as waldorf pedagogy) with how the schools are called in their local context. seems I am a Yank through-and-through on this topic!! Why must the page be re-titled to enshrine the daft British way when they should have called their schools Waldorf schools to begin with! ;) It seems a bigger issue for Wikipedia to use the parenthetical title rather than the original: either Waldorf pedagogy or, more simply, Waldorf education. Jellypear (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
In my view, Jellypear's reasoning is acceptable also from a UK pov with local knowledge (and see my Oppose below). Qexigator (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose : I would be inclined to leave as is, given that
_search for "Steiner education"[1] gives redirect[2], and sundry articles where "Steiner" is a keyword.
_Waldorf lists "Waldorf education, an educational philosophy".
_The opening words of the article itself resolves the point: ""Waldorf (Steiner) education..."
_A websearch (Google)[3] results:
"Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship – What is Steiner Education? Rudolf Steiner & Steiner Schools. The first Steiner school opened in Stuttgart in 1919 for children of workers at the Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory",
"Waldorf education - Wikipedia: Waldorf (Steiner) education is based on the educational philosophy of Rudolf Steiner...",
"Why are Steiner schools so controversial? - BBC News: ... My first encounter with Steiner education was some years ago.",
"About SEA - Steiner Education Australia: Steiner Education Australia is the not for profit national association/peak body representing over 40 Steiner/Waldorf schools and 10 Associate members ..."
Qexigator (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
+ Search page for "Steiner Education Australia"[4] gives: "Steiner Schools Australia", etc. Qexigator (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As stated above, there is no solution that works for everybody. By the official count, there are 84 schools located in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand and thus presumably using the term "Steiner school" and 143 schools located in the US and Canada, and thus presumably using the term "Waldorf school." There is no overwhelming consensus in either direction, albeit a slight advantage to the term "Waldorf school." Steiner-Waldorf or Waldorf-Steiner is almost never used. What about Waldorf (Steiner) education as a title, with redirects from all variants? (I'm just exploring options here.) HGilbert (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If acceptable to others, will not oppose. But when "Waldorf (Steiner)" was used as a search term, the only web result was the opening words of the article itself, followed by seven others which did not have that exactly but, eg "Characteristics of Steiner Waldorf Education | ECSWE: The European Council for Steiner Waldorf Education.", and then the eighth "DC's Improbable Science: The true nature of Steiner (Waldorf) education. Mystical barmpottery at taxpayers’ expense[5] Qexigator (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think the hyphenated or parenthesized "Steiner" is helpful. Follow the article naming conventions and stick to the common name—if it's enough to switch from one to the other so be it, but I have yet to see such an argument compellingly made. As it stands, I see no reason to change the status quo. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 01:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Leave it as is, link to it from whatever other terms are used, and clearly point out in the lede which terms are used where. Creating a bastardized version for the title doesn't seem like a good idea to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talkcontribs) 05:58, February 9, 2016‎
  • There seems to be no great enthusiasm for this. Let's leave it as is for now and ensure that redirects exist from every possible alternative. HGilbert (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Two science sections merged[edit]

@‎Totodu74 added a science section with nearly identical material to the existing section. I have merged the two. As the material on the PLANS case is already referenced in other sections of the article, I left this out, but am open to suggestions that it should be included in this section as well in some form or another. HGilbert (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No criticism section[edit]

The whole article is a too glowing overview of Waldorf education. A quick Google search show lots of critiques of the system. (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

WP relies on WP:reliable sources. Try searching Google Scholar instead of Google.HGilbert (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Generally criticism sections make articles into 'he said, she said' things, much better to discuss the full range of information in each section. As far as critiques, most of the ones i've found are personal anecdotes of someone's negative experience, or rants about Rudolf Steiner himself, and not the educational program, and not reported in a reliable source. If you find some, lets look at what can be included. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Excessive external links, moved from article[edit]

Per WP:ELNO and WP:NOTDIR, I've moved these from the article to here. If and as they are useful, they should be digested into the article as proper references.




- David Gerard (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to move the first two back to the article. The one is a library of related works, such as many articles on philosophical themes, etc., include. The second is a valuable resource of images of work by students. Since Waldorf is known for its artistic programs, this seems relevant. I don't see that either of these contravenes the guidelines you mention, @David Gerard. User:Clean Copy (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
fine by me :-) - David Gerard (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
done. Clean Copy (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)