Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Request for comment

The question is whether it is appropriate to include information about the science curriculum in Waldorf schools in this article on Waldorf education. Currently such information is split into two groups, based on the point of view:

1. Critiques of the science curriculum as being "pseudoscience" are included in the article in a special section devoted to these rich detail
2. Neutral information about as well as positive evaluations of the science curriculum have repeatedly been removed diff 1, diff 2 hgilbert (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Science curriculum RfC discussion

• Include information about Waldorf's science curriculum; expand Criticism section. The science curriculum is one of the most notable, as supported by evidence, aspects of Waldorf education. The overwhelming majority of mainstream science representatives condemn or disapprove of many of the contents of that curriculum. The relevant section should be expanded. In fact, the article, as it now stands, or at least significant parts of it, reads somewhat like a pamphlet for Waldorf. -The Gnome (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Pseudoscience is key to the criticism of Waldorf science curricula. Todd Oppenheimer writes in The Flickering Mind that prominent Waldorf critic Dan Dugan calls Waldorf "cult pseudoscience". It's a main theme. Binksternet (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  Just to reiterate, the question doesn't concern whether criticism should be on this page. If, as the Gnome says, "the overwhelming majority of mainstream science representatives condemn or disapprove of many contents of the curriculum," then the issue of expanding criticism can be accomplished through continued inclusion of applicable RS, according to wiki policies and guidelines. However, there are some editors on this page who prefer to handle discussion of the curriculum by having one section called "pseudoscience" and another section presumably called "science" (although it has been argued that that this section - whatever it is called - should exist on a subpage rather than the main page.) Assuming there will be various viewpoints on this topic, how do editors think this topic should be organized? Jellypear (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• For years the "Science" (or "Science and nature") section has lived happily in a sub-article. Now that pseudoscience is dealt with as part of the "Reception" of W.E., what has changed meaning the section has to be moved here? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So, your contention is that "science and nature" be in the subarticle. That may be a reasonable way to approach it but, as you know, this presents a challenge in how to deal with sources in a way that avoids WP:UNDUE, WP:CHERRYPICKING, etc. Most reliable sources discuss a range of viewpoints related to how science is taught and if we to report them the way we're supposed to WP:STICKTOSOURCE, they contain information that doesn't quite fit under the pseudoscience heading. Again, from my view this entire question concerns how to organize the content of reliable sources when the subject heading presumes either the existence of pseudoscience in the curriculum and/or sources that present a "pro" and "con" view. The picture in the RS is much more developed than that. Jellypear (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I was contending nothing. I asked a question. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought that since you have argued for two sections + one in the subarticle before that your question was rhetorical. I think the current structure makes it difficult to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. What do you want to do? Jellypear (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's very simple: NPOV requires that if one notable POV is presented, others should correspondingly be present as well. The Gnome's description is the normal one: criticism of the science curriculum is about the science curriculum. If the science and nature curriculum belongs in the sub-article, so does criticism of this. That's one clear option. If we are moving the discussion of the science curriculum into the main article, however, then we should be providing a well-rounded picture.

I'm happy with either location, so long as we retain a neutral and balanced perspective. hgilbert (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Widely agreed guidelines?

Another fact WP tells:

Though most Waldorf schools are autonomous institutions not required to follow a prescribed curriculum, there are widely agreed guidelines for the Waldorf curriculum

This is sourced to this article - but I'm not finding support for the text as given. Help! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern in wanting to be clear and precise on this page but I simply cannot keep up! Where do you get the time and stamina? Anyway, all I can say is that this is a true statement that could be sourced many places. Whether it is possible to find a good secondary source quickly is another matter. For the time being, I would suggest putting this on the back burner. As an uncontested issue, we could even source it in a Waldorf publication. There is no need to excise or eliminate this statement because the source is less than stellar. Jellypear (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Just had a chance to skim the source. It is a fine peer-reviewed secondary source on the curriculum but, yes, you right that she describes the guidelines of the curriculum and doesn't say they are "autonomous institutions not required to follow a prescribed curriculum." Again, this is a true statement but I agree it does need to be sourced and this article does not do it. Also, she does make note of reception controversies. This paper can be used in place of primary or non-peer reviewed sources that are currently being used in that area. Jellypear (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Are we using Ida Oberman's book? If so, she makes this claim about the organization of the schools and curriculum. Jellypear (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I propose this is removed for now until/unless some replacement text and source can be found. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the general recommendation is to leave text unless it is a clear case of something being contentious or wrong. Why do you think this is not true? Maybe there is something in Wood's DFE piece that can help you put this on ice for a while? If you think this is wrong, why don't you find a source that says so rather than just striking the text, which would make more work down the road? Jellypear (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Jelinek & Sun (2003) - Reliable Source?

I have moved discussion about Jelinek & Sun (2003) here because it was being entangled with discussion on other sources, namely Woods et al. (2005) and Ullrich (2008). I provide a summary of viewpoints on those below but seek to focus on only Jelinek & Sun (2003) in this section. Regarding Jelinek & Sun (2003), a ten-year old unpublished, not peer-reviewed monograph produced as part of consulting done for the Novato Charter School in California, Alexbrn says this ought to be considered a reliable source. I argue that this paper has the same limitation that he finds in Woods et al. (2005), namely that even though these pieces may have been carefully conducted, they were never subject to peer review---only delivery to their clients. Recently, we sent this topic of unpublished manuscripts to the RS/N board. The reasoned answer that came back was “Getting published in a peer-reviewed journal is a good step toward being WP:RS but even that is not enough [emphasis added], because many journals have disreputable peer-review processes, or somehow the study ended up in a decent journal but not one directly relevant to the field of study. Even when you have a study produced by a PhD and published in an appropriate, reputable peer-reviewed journal, that's not enough, because the study may have had undetected confounding problems or just be a statistical outlier. It's not until the study has been picked up in a review article or meta-analysis and combined with many other high-quality studies in a good secondary source that you can finally have some confidence in using it in a Wikipedia article.” The recommendation here sets an expectation even higher than we are applying elsewhere on this page. We could decide to set the bar in an even higher direction, but certainly including an un peer-reviewed monograph in one instance sets us in the opposite direction.

What is the basis for lowering the bar for this one paper? Let's look at what has been proposed. Being that Jelinek & Sun (2003) it is clearly not a reliable, peer-reviewed secondary source, the argument must be that it is allowable as a self-published source. Self-published expert sources “may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.” Google scholar shows that this paper has only one peer-reviewed citation and that Jelinek & Sun have never published a peer-reviewed paper on Waldorf education, (or Waldorf science education). So, there is no reason to believe that Jelinek & Sun are “established experts on the topic of the article.” In this case, rather than pushing on with a dubious source, wiki advises us to “take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.” But again, we find that no peer-reviewed sources have chosen to take this up. In the ten years since it was created only one other paper has cited Jelinek & Sun, which should suggest to all of us that the paper’s impact or import for scholars in this field was not very high at all. These two facts should give us pause in wanting to grant it a status not extended any other piece of scholarship on the page. All remaining studies on this page either are, or in the process of becoming, entirely sourced in peer-reviewed citations. There is no rationale, using wikipedia’s guidelines, to give an exemption to this paper. Doing so circumvents the role external expert peer-review is supposed to play in assisting us with finding reliable sources to use for this page. Everywhere you look the guidelines and expectations are set up for reliable secondary + tertiary sources. A non-peer reviewed primary source is the extreme exception to this rule and, in this instance, is not warranted by any evidence of their being "established experts on the topic of the article" or of the monograph itself having had a high impact - two factors which could possibly mitigate its existence as an unpublished research study.

• Just to recap some of that conversation for listeners just tuning in, I have argued the following: Woods et al. (2003) is a research report commissioned and distributed to the public by the UK Department of Education and Skills. However, it has not been peer-reviewed and it contains findings from original research. For these reasons, I have argued that this paper should not be used by wiki editors and instead we should use peer-reviewed publications that have chosen to cite it. I have also argued that Ullrich (2008) is a book written by education professor Heiner Ullrich who has previously had articles published on the topic of Waldorf education in peer-reviewed journals. His general area of expertise is alternative education and appears to be the most widely published German speaking author on Waldorf education. His 2008 book was published by CH Beck Verlag, a large German publishing house with branches in Munich and Frankfurt, 500+ employees, over 7,000 titles in print and publisher to 50 journals. In contrast to my views, Alexbrn feels that Ullrich’s book is not “peer-reviewed” and maintains the same concerns regarding Woods et. al (2005) not having been peer-reviewed and only submitted as a report to DfE. Jellypear (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Briefly, three points.

• You say that I think Jelinek and Sun is "a reliable source"; that over-simplifies it. A source needs to be considered in respect of some text it support, and in line with WP policy/guidelines. On this page I have described Jelinek and Sun as a "middling" source. If used, it must be used with care.
• You say "we find that no peer-reviewed sources have chosen to take this up". Incorrect. Jelinek and Sun are cited by this well-cited peer-reviewed review article - which we now cite as the basis of the Jelinek and Sun content (as it did before you arrived here, before it was removed as being superfluous).
• The Ullrich book cited in the article (12 times) is an English language book published by Continuum (a less than top-tier publisher, now absorbed by Bloomsbury). Is this the same book you're talking about?

It might help progress things if you described specifically what change(s) you want to make to the article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Ullrich, yes, we cite the translation but the book itself was written in German and published by CH Beck Verlag. I think the fact that it was translated and published in English lends credence to it being a book of some noteworthiness. As for Jelinek & Sun, you are still quoting their findings directly and not relying on Ostergaard et al. to do it for you. That is the purpose of using a reliable secondary source - they synthesize the material for you. You quote them.Jellypear (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I must be being dense, but I can't see a 2008 book published by Beck mentioned on Ullrich's cv. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to do links on this thing so here is the ISBN: 978-3406612053. The Book is Rudolf Steiner: Leben und Lehre. It appears there have been multiple printings so maybe we need to work that out. Jellypear (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a 2010 book, Rudolf Steiner - Leben und Lehre. How did this get translated into English to become the 2008 Continuum book, Rudolf Steiner? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll go to the library and check the book out but this is a really tangential issue. Heiner Ullrich is a German scholar who writes in German. The English book names translators. By all appearances it was a book written in German and then translated. Perhaps the dates aren't adding up because there were multiple printings of the German edition or that it was simultaneously translated into English-I don't know. I can't tell you what exactly happened but I see no reason to believe that he wrote the book in English and had it published by Continuum and that this has no relation to a book by the same name, on the same topic, published by CH Beck Verlag. I'm not interested in justifying Ullrich's status as a scholar in this field any longer - it is eating up my time. He is an educational scholar employed by the University of Mainz, a published author on Waldorf education, and we are not using any sources from him that have not appeared in a peer-reviewed publication or book form. These are indisputable facts. We clearly have other reliable source issues to deal with, starting with the very bottom of the heap---unpublished manuscripts. Jellypear (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A date wouldn't change because of a reprint. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

So back to Jelinek & Sun, the problem with this, apart from it being a non-peer reviewed source, is that it is a primary source regarding its own findings. So, to go into the paper and pull out the aspects you feel are relevant amounts to original work on a primary source. You cannot do this. You need to rely on secondary sources to do this for you and the best that has been accomplished is that one sentence from Ostergaard et al. That is all you can use. Imagine if I were go to into the PISA results, or Suggate's results and pull out ideas and concepts and discuss them in various detail. I could cite them to the source-I wouldn't be making things up- but the synthesis and the expansion of ideas would be my own work. Would you support me going into PISA and pulling out aspects that were not discussed in Die Welt but that I felt were important? We cannot forget that wikipedia becomes a tertiary source through what we write. So, we have to be very careful that none of this is our own work, but the work of reliable experts in the field and sourced through peer-reviewed secondary sources (at a minimum). Another confounding factor is that this content is located in the "pseudoscience" section and so the majority of the findings in that paper would appear off-topic or contradictory so they are not discussed. Forcing the positive aspects of this study into a science section and the negative aspects into a pseudoscience section is pushing a POV. (And, BTW, you are on record in being against having a Science section at all.) What we need here is a secondary source that settles these matters for us. The best we have is Ostergaard and they don't say much to support the view you'd like to advance. What this says to me is that you need to wait for such a source to appear rather than engaging in original research with an unreliable primary source yourself now. If it is true that these schools teach pseudoscience, I am sure that you won't have to wait long. Jellypear (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I trimmed the title of this thread because it presumed guilt and asked for a pardon. I think the Jelinek/Sun study is a reliable source because it is cited by other scholars. For instance, it is cited in the Taylor & Francis reference book named Doing phenomenology in science education: a research review. It is cited in Exploring Things Seen and Unseen: Students Speak of Waldorf Education, by EK Beaven of the University of California, Davis. It is cited by S. Lyons of the California State University, Sacramento, in the paper, Toward a holistic approach to earth science education. It is cited by Suzani Cassiani, Professor Metodologia de Ensino, of the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Brazil, in her co-authored paper, Sentidos sobre ensino de ciências construídos por jovens professores de ciências e biologia que atuam em escolas Waldorf–um primeiro olhar. These people consider the research paper worthy of notice, which pushes it up to a position where we are confident to cite it, with attribution. (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Also, this conference paper and this book. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet We've already discussed those papers: 2 are master's papers, one is a dissertation - all unpublished. There is, as yet, (now 10 years later) only one uptake by a scholar publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. This is not adequate criteria to determine something is a reliable source as you are arguing here. What wikipedia recommends you do is actually use a reliable source instead of making novel criteria for how an unpublished manuscript could be a reliable source. Thanks to {User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn's] extra sleuthing we now have two reliable secondary sources to work with for this section. This section is no different than any other section on this page- you need to work with the reliable secondary sources to make statements in this section. You are not permitted to go into primary source material and pull out synthesize and interpret whatever aspects you feel are pertinent. Again, I refer you to the Die Welt example. PISA is a large and highly credible study - there is no question about that. More could be said regarding the findings of this primary source but until I can locate a reliable secondary source that does it for me, whatever I want to pull out and discuss and cite back to the primary source itself is my own research. It is now long past time that this issue is rectified on this page. You now have two reliable secondary sources to use for criticisms of the science teaching. Use them. Jellypear (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying it's a primary source; but it isn't when it's describing external material (books), then, it is a secondary source. You expressed some potential for doubt in the past about whether J&S had constructed a curriculum properly, but Østergaard et al. are happy to describe J&S's findings as being in regard to the Steiner curriculum - so that objection does not hold. I have removed, however, the evaluative statements of J&S from the text as we now have the extra words from Østergaard et al.. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a primary source for its own research findings. WP:PSTS "A scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment." Amongst this unpublished monograph's research findings - located under the heading "discussions of the findings in relation to the 4 research questions" - are these couple of sentences that you have pulled out of the paper. They are the result of their methodology which was to "draft" (their word) a curriculum and send it out for panel review. This is a research method called content analysis. One collects content that one finds pertinent to the research question and applies a method to compare and analyze what was felt to be the pertinent content. What they say under "discussions of findings" is the result of the research questions they asked and the method they used. They are findings and they explicitly name them as such. Wikipedia editors are not to "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary sources [ourselves]" and are asked to "refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Well, it just so happens that we have two reliable secondary sources that have done this for us. We must use them. By not using these reliable secondary sources, you are engaging in original research with an unpublished (read:unreliable or questionable) primary source. Wikipedia becomes a tertiary source through our work here. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that what appears on the page is the work of reliable secondary sources at minimum - they do the synthesizing for us. Who are we? A bunch of nobodies with an internet connections. If an idea is important enough to convey, chances are a reliable secondary source has done it. In this case, they have. So, report these reliable secondary sources to your heart's content. Jellypear (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You equate plainly describing what is in a book, with running an experiment. I'm not convinced. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You have not presented their plain descriptions of books here. You offer bullet points as to the pseudoscientific ideas that are alleged to be in the science curriculum. But apart from being a primary source for its own findings it is also a 10-year old unpublished monograph. The expectation is that we are using secondary, peer-reviewed sources. We are lucky to have some. This section should be based on those sources which fit wikipedia's expectations. Jellypear (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"Alleged" is your opinion. Østergaard et al. (2008) authoritatively relay that J&S found doubtful material in the curriculum. Of course the situation may have changed - but we'd need a source for that. The section is "based on" secondary, peer-reviewed sources; you seem to be arguing it needs to be exclusively constructed from them. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Good golly. It doesn't matter what words I use here on this talk page or even what I may or may not think. Who am I? No one. I am not asking you to insert any of my alleged opinions into this section. What I am asking you to do is to remove your work with an unpublished primary source and rely instead on the published secondary sources to make up the content of this section. You say Ostergaard et al authoritatively relays that J&S found doubtful material in the curriculum. Great! Go ahead and report their views. Report the views of Woods et al as well. Fantastic! What you should not be doing is working with an unpublished primary source yourself and pulling out bits that you would like to emphasize or discuss. Woods in particular has assembled a paragraph long summary of this paper. As a reliable secondary source, this should be used to craft the text for this section. By analogy, wouldn't you find it inappropriate if I took Jennifer Gidley's unpublished dissertation and expounded on various points contained within it? Her work has been cited. She is a published author in this field. What about the PISA study? I cannot do this because of the high chance that I will focus on the wrong things, or things that are irrelevant, or still unconfirmed. What protects wikipedia for those things not creeping into the article is the expectation that experts in the field, via reliable secondary sources, will have worked this out for me. You seem to have a great appreciation for the limitations imposed on editors in every other instance on this page except here. You have content that is cited to Jelinek & Sun, which is an unpublished monograph. I truly don't understand why you apparently see this to be a significant problem everywhere else on the page except here. Jellypear (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Err, well I don't. Which is why I haven't been removing all traces of the Wood report, or other uses of Jelinek and Sun. Ripping all that out would seem to be the result of applying your logic, which would smack of WP:POINT and maybe WP:NOSE. Anyway you're back to calling J&S a primary source which - when they are detailing book content - is something I don't agree with. Maybe this is a case of WP:STICK. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, as you notice I have not been editing the page, I have been attempting to resolve this in TALK to no avail. THe fact of the matter is that you have sourced content on this page to an unpublished monograph. The content is not a straightforward description of the content of books such as "Jelinek & Sun stated that book X says Y" but rather an assortment of claims that are contained in the "findings" section of their monograph. We need to be using reliable secondary + tertiary sources. There is nothing plainer in the wiki expectations. It is especially egregious to not be using reliable secondary sources when they in fact exist. Jellypear (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a life-sucking experience. I am no longer willing to participate in a round and round regarding an unpublished source, especially when reliable secondary sources exist on the matter. Nor can I assume WP:GOODWILL when another editor feels it is entirely appropriate to ignore the requirement for the caption of images WP:OI to not contain original research. Views on Steiner's geology are not to be found in any reliable secondary or tertiary source on this page. Wiki has a requirement that image captions also not be grounded in original research. I have attempted numerous times, over the course of weeks, to resolve this issue through TALK and by citing relevant and appropriate wiki policies. I am going to post this issue on the original research message board. Jellypear (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should replace the non-peer-reviewed study with the characterizations of it in peer-reviewed sources such as Woods and Ostergaard. The latter, for example, says the following, which would make a solid basis: hgilbert (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"The science teaching of Steiner Waldorf schools in the USA has recently been evaluated by Jelinek and Sun (2003). Among other things, the results of Waldorf and public school students on three different test variables were compared. Two tests measured verbal and non-verbal logical reasoning, respectively, and the third test was a task from the TIMSS test (about magnetism). The results for the Waldorf schools were better than Downloaded By: [University for Miljoe & Biovitenskap] At: 22:41 1 September 2008 112 E. Østergaard et al. those for the public school on the non-verbal reasoning task and on the TIMSS task, but about the same for the verbal logical reasoning task (on the TIMSS task the Waldorf group results were also higher than the international average). Concerning the two logical tests, the authors note that the results indicated that when the tasks ‘involve partwhole- relations, the Waldorf group outperformed the public school group’ (p. 43). The evaluation also included videotaped observations of Waldorf science classes. It was found that a lot of lesson time was spent on asking questions, considering possible answers to questions, noting unexpected phenomena and carefully observing specific phenomena (p. 49). These activities are in accordance with a teaching approach based on phenomenological principles. On the other hand, very little time was spent on exploring the differences between students’ perceptions and considering different answers and solutions, which also could be expected in a phenomenological teaching approach. On the positive side the researchers also noted a high degree of enthusiasm for science among the Waldorf students. On the negative side, the science curriculum for Waldorf schools was considered somewhat old-fashioned and out of date, as well as including some doubtful scientific material."

Indeed, using this source along with Woods (2008) is what I suggesting all day yesterday because it would meet wiki's expectations concerning proper use of sources. For some reason, Alexbrn feels it is preferable to work with the unpublished primary source itself rather than the two peer-reviewed secondary sources available to us because, unless there are more reasons not documented here: Jelinek & Sun aren't really presenting findings of their research, they're merely "detailing book content;" and/or because these two authors - who have no other peer-reviewed (or even unpublished) works on either Waldorf education or Waldorf science education - might be considered experts in the relevant field because as Binksternet has pointed out, several masters and PhD students have cited this paper---albeit in their own unpublished work; and/or because this unpublished primary source is being handled "with care" as evidenced by the fact that the findings are not discussed in toto using a secondary source for the evaluation and interpretation but rather bifurcated into two sections - one bit under the heading "pseudoscience" and the other under "reception." That all of this flies in the face of the expectations placed upon us as editors regarding WP:PSTS, WP:NOR and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, especially when reliable secondary sources do exist, is unacceptable. I believe I have WP:DGF in spending days outlining the various ways using this unpublished primary source violates applicable policies and guidelines only to be met again and again with edits that reverse even annotations of unsourced and unreliable content. So, good luck to you in getting anyone to pay attention to this issue - especially whilst these same editors are simultaneously suggesting that you be sanctioned. Jellypear (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Jellypear that a Jelinek & Sun should not be used in this article. It is a self-published source, which is at the bottom of the barrel of WP:RS. There is no known editorial policy, no known review. It has not been published by a well regarded publishing house, it has not been put through peer-review. It essentially has the weight of a blog post. If there are secondary sources that quote J&S, use them instead. DigitalC (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems quite clear. Unless other editors coming here from the RFC feel differently, we should use secondary sources rather than self-published work. hgilbert (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsuccessful court challenge in one country -- in lead?

Why should an unsuccessful court challenge be included in the lead? hgilbert (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it was one of the leading controversies surrounding W.E. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

At one time in this very long groundhog day I added a phrase concerning controversies surrounding to the state funding of Waldorf schools and then listed the accompanying concerns that have come with that. Alexbrn reverted that. Yet people who discuss pseudoscience, the religious nature, etc., are also against the state funding of these schools and we see that in the sources. Why not more forthrightly describe the debates that have occurred in the UK and the US. In the US the church-state issue is very important, elsewhere not so much. Why not approach it that way? Jellypear (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A while back hgilbert reversed an edit I did that expanded discussion of the PLANS v. SACUSD court case. I included a comment from the defendant's attorney (Sac Unified School District) who opined on which courts would hear further appeals. This was taken out. I think this page is unclear as to the court case's current status. I believe that the plaintiff's attorneys (PLANS) at the Pacific Justice Institute said there would be an appeal. Shouldn't we have something that summarizes the current status of the case in some way? Jellypear (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by the attorneys of either side are not really reliable sources. The current status of the case is very simple: the appeals have been denied and the case is settled. It could perhaps be reopened through another appeal, but at the moment there is no such appeal being made. Since considerable time has gone by, the clearest thing is to state that the case has been decided, at least until a motion is actually filed. hgilbert (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I see your point (although I would argue that from a RS perspective an attorney's views in a newspaper is a RS for their views about a case). I tried a new edit with the words "dismissed on its merits." I think it was the lack of judgment language, or mentioning further appeals, that caused me to question the current status of the case. Hopefully this makes the situation clearer. Jellypear (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

Yesterday, User:The Gnome came to this talk page after having been invited to participate by wikipedia. At that time, s/he decided to put up a neutrality tag, and referenced the talk page but did not make a new section. This has been reverted by User:Alexbrn because no talk has occurred. I am making a new section so that talk about this can occur. Given the difficulties related to this page, all editors should be careful about WP:OWN behavior and we should seriously consider the evaluations of experienced editors why may feel this page has neutrality issues. I would also like to point out that tagging the page as perhaps having neutrality issues doesn't suggest what they are - merely that an editor feels this may be an issue. The tag should stand. Jellypear (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV_dispute

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. (my emphasis)

Well, User:The Gnome did discuss his or her viewpoints related to neutrality in the RfC section. You may have to take it up with this person as to whether this is a "drive by" tagging or if this person intends to continue the discussion further. Now that I have reverted your edit, however, I now feel that this is my tag as well as gnome's. I am currently discussing all of the aforementioned policies and feel there are problems in those areas. Jellypear (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The tagging (edit summary: "bias-tagged article") should not have happened; it's a badge-of-shame tag. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that The Gnome added this tag because s/he felt the page didn't have enough criticism, don't you? Jellypear (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm arguing process, not sentiment. WP sets out what you should do (see above). You're ignoring it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion on this page regarding WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. In particular, we just had an item go to the NOR noticeboard and got a response that the items in question violate the policies. Moreover, you have noted that the reporting of studies has WP:NPOV and WP:V issues. The tag accurately represents issues currently under discussion and is warranted. Jellypear (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn - without having a specific section related to the tag, where specific concerns are addressed, the tag may linger forever. If specific concerns are tied to the tag, it can be removed when those concerns are addressed. If you would like the article tagged, I would suggest creating a new section outlying specific concerns (perhaps link to previous talk sections?) to be addressed. DigitalC (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't care to spend the time to do that but can recognize the reasons why that should be done. Therefore, I won't advocate for the tag any longer and won't reverse edits regarding it. Jellypear (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What did the Woods report conclude?

Another piece of text inserted by Hgilbert

A review of studies of Waldorf education concluded that the education is "successful in its aim to educate human beings, being particularly successful in stimulating imaginative thought and creating eager, confident and curious students."[8]:30

A bold claim for W.E. indeed! However, on investigation, the source has this:

None of the studies reviewed sought to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the extent to which learning and outcomes amongst Steiner pupils were successful in terms of Steiner education’s own educational philosophy and aims17. Jelinek and Sun’s (2003) study, however, does suggest that Steiner education is successful in its aim to educate human beings, being particularly successful in stimulating imaginative thought and creating eager, confident and curious students. (my emphasis)

So in fact the Woods report is tentatively mentioning one study (note: singular) in the context of a lack of research, rather than relaying it as the "conclusion" of their report (this in not the report's conclusion in any case).

I propose this claim is either heavily qualified, or removed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've condensed the wording and added citations to two more independent sources. hgilbert (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If the Jelinek and Sun report is too weak, we should remove all its conclusions, not just some of these. We could source directly to the original study, which includes comments such as, "Waldorf’s rich array of creative methods that stimulate imaginative thought and engage students in potentially meaningful activities could undoubtedly enrich secular education. Time and again as our researchers visited the many Waldorf schools across America we were impressed with the eager, confident and curious Waldorf students we encountered. These students demonstrated original thinking and innovative problem solving, leaving us with the impression that they cared about what they were doing, were intrigued by challenging situations, and penetrated matters with thoughtful and creative insights." prefacing their caveats about the science education itself. Should we use this quote instead, perhaps? hgilbert (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

How about all of us follow wikipedia policies and not work with unpublished primary sources to begin with because they are easy to misuse WP:PRIMARY, leading to problems of WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOR. The policy is that we "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source [ourselves]; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." This is any easy policy to follow, unless each of us wants to press a POV that prevents us from doing so. And the PVFORK that puts the positive stuff in one section and the negative stuff in another section only makes this worse. It is time for resolution because we reached WP:IDHT on this matter days ago. Jellypear (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Guys, carrying over arguments from other sections and continuing them in this section does not help solve the issue at hand, and bloats this Talk page even more than it already is. Have mercy!

To move forward: I propose this information is retained, but attributed - and qualified as it is in the source. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree it is generally bad form to carry over conversations from different sections but perhaps you are missing the point that these two items are linked --- it is the same faulty source! If the study findings need to be qualified here, they need to be qualified everywhere, if the source is unreliable here, it is unreliable there... and so on and so forth. Dividing up a single piece of scholarship to make different points in two different sections is abusing the source and pushing POV. You both need to find one place that the findings of Jelinek & Sun can be discussed using Ostergaard and Woods (2008) as sources. Horsetrading is not a solution. You actually need to solve the problem by using reliable secondary sources for synthesis, evaluation and interpretation of data. Jellypear (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should use the excellent secondary/tertiary sources available here that summarize Jel and Sun. Alexbrn, are you able to take this step? hgilbert (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We are using them; we can then use J&S to add detail. It makes for more informative and readable coverage of the topic. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOR Noticeboard

This note is to inform fellow editors that I have placed the issue of Jelinek & Sun (2003) and the image of Lemuria on the Original Research Noticeboard, as discussed previously. Thank you. Jellypear (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, here's the link - NORN This is my first time doing this so I apologize for any mistakes, omissions, proper formatting, etc. If there are some, it probably wasn't intentional. Jellypear (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Jellypear. I came here from NORN, and will add to the discussion above below. DigitalC (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jellypear that "The image must be 'significantly and directly related to the article's topic,'", and that the image does not meet this criteria. DigitalC (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been over 24 hours since this NORN item went up. We have received one response (thank you DigitalC). Given that this has been under discussion all month, and the Arbitration decision expects that all unsourced and original research be removed from this page, I am going to strike this image and caption. I will not, however, strike the Jelinek & Sun (2003) content because we have had no input on that yet. Since this also touches on RS policies, maybe listing it at RS/N will elicit more responses. We do need to come to resolution on this matter. Jellypear (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal and am reverting per BRD. The "topic" of an article is not just its headword; this interpretation can be verified by examining featured/good articles. Please continue discussion until consensus is achieved. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What is BRD? Also, Alexbrn, what constitutes consensus for you? Jellypear (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BRD or WP:BOLD. It consists of being bold, being reverted if there is disagreement, and discussion to resolve any disagreement. It doesn't work well on controversial articles (ie ones under ArbCom), and can lead to edit wars. As for consensus, see WP:CON if you have not already. DigitalC (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The image does not add anything to the article, and is not directly related to the article. Taking it away does not make the article worse. As such, I also think the "An autumn nature table at a Waldorf school in Australia" image should also be removed. It also does not add anything to the article. DigitalC (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn -- are you kidding with this, regarding WP:BOLD? This topic has been discussed since December 17th of last year. The viewpoints remain the same. You feel as if it's pertinent because other pages have many images that don't directly speak to the headword and have suggested Boy Scouts of America as an example. Other editors have noted that this image has no significant and direct relationship to the article's topic. Moreover, you have reverted even annotations to the caption showing that it needs to be attributed WP:OI. To resolve the issue - after extensive conversation here - I have brought it to NORN. I am not sure what else can be done to bring this to consensus. Are there any other editors out there who feel this does not violate WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE? If so, please speak up as soon as possible, cite the relevant policies and tell us why we are not in WP:IDHT territory after two months of discussion. Jellypear (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Jelly - as you are well aware, since you arrived here to edit this single article, you have been persistently trying to remove this image, and there has been no consensus to make a change; both I and binksternet judged the situation differently to you and have stated our views. Now, having posted a partial account of the circumstances on a noticeboard and seeing one other editor agreeing with you, you have immediately removed the image, are claiming consensus and invoking IDHT. I don't agree with the removal, and I don't agree with an interpretation of WP guidelines that suggests it should be removed. If your interpretation stood, a lot of images in a lot of high-quality WP articles would need to be removed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

So offer a comment on NOR if I haven't described the situation to your satisfaction. I appreciate that you and Binksternet disagree with me, but you have failed to provide a rationale that addresses the multiple policies that it's use intersects. It's not just the relationship between the "headword" and the image. It is the fact that in order to make a relationship to the headword, you needed to insert your own original research. There is no source on the page that discusses "Steiner's geology." In order to avoid original research, everything needs to be sourced in secondary + tertiary sources. Now, this issue of working faithfully with secondary + tertiary sources, rather than our own opinions and novel interpretation if wiki guidelines/policies is directly related to why I decided to participate here and why I am still here. I use wikipedia a lot for a quick reference and never had much interest in becoming an editor because for the most part what I found was pretty good. Not to mention the fact that I really don't have the time to be doing this and am setting aside other things that I ought to be doing. However, on this page I could tell that WP:CHERRYPICKING was going on with sources and the most glaring one to me originally was the exchange between Elkind & Whitehurst (now changed.) So, I went and looked at the source and saw that this was in fact the case. Then, I started reading the talk page. Then, I decided to participate. Yet after only a few hours and one extremely minor edit I was met with the suggestion that I might be a sockpuppet. Hmm...I then continued to participate, making very few edits, preferring to engage other editors in discussion instead. I thought that addressing straightforward wiki policies would be a rather easy thing to do and then I could move along. But that has not been the case. Far from being straightforward discussions of applicable policies and what they require of editors, I have been accused of involving everyone in debates about the "extremities of policy interpretation." Granted, there are always grey areas on a page, but this doesn't happen to be one of them. The situation for me now is that because I have invested considerable time in what I feel is an extremely basic issue, I am now "dug in." If such an issue cannot be resolved, there is no way that grey areas can be addressed effectively. So, this experience has turned a formerly happy free rider into a Wikipedian. Many people rely on wiki editors to set aside their personal POV, as best they can, and truly collaborate in order to provide a free-access and reasonably informative encyclopedic entry on a given topic. I was one of them. But this is clearly not happening on this page and now I care deeply about it. Clearly stated core wiki policies do not require consensus. They require that editors submit to them. Jellypear (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

To summarize the discussion that I have read so far, EPadmirateur, hgilbert, Jellypear and myself have opined that the image is not suitable for the article, and it should be removed and/or have a more appropriate illustration replace it. User:Alexbrn, you obviously believe it should be kept. Binksternet supports the image staying, based on Jelinek & Sun mentioning Lemuria & Atlantis in their discussion of poor science education. However Jelinek & Sun is not a reliable source. While WP is not a vote, there appears to be 4 editors favoring the removal of the image, and two favoring keeping the image. I have not seen discussion prior to December 2012, or discussion outside of this talk page - is there any? From what I have seen, there is certainly not a consensus to keep the image, and discussions so far would favor its removal. Since this has been recently posted to WP:NORN, I suggest waiting a few days, and if there is no further input, opening an RfC on the issue. In the mean time, we can keep the wrong version. DigitalC (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

DigitalC – I think it oversimplifies things slightly to say Jelinek & Sun is not a reliable source (as an absolute). It it one of two non-reviewed pieces (the other being the Woods report) used in this article. It was published as a research monograph (with no review) by the College of Education California State University. In previous discussion, what has tended to count in its favour as a potentially usable source is that:

• it has enjoyed some post-publication validation, most particularly from Ostergard et al, who specifically validate the "pseudoscience" point in their peer-reviewed article
• Prof. David Jelinek is an acknowledged neutral expert, as evidenced by the fact he has engaged by a Waldorf school to assist in the reform of their science curriculum
• We include the text "geologically, the Earth has evolved through Lemurian and Atlantean epochs, and is now in its fifth post-Atlantis epoch" – so the argument that Lemuria is not mentioned as a geological feature seems to be false.
• the points being raised are not contentious - no source claims counter to these observations ... and a lay reader may easily verify Steiner's views on Lemuria by referring to his writings. Steiner even refers to the very book from which these maps are drawn.

I have in the past referred to the Origin of the Species as an featured article which demonstrates a use of illustrations in accord with the view that they follow the narrative of the text, rather than cleaving closely to the headword. FAs are of course specifically reviewed for both image and caption use. From this it seems there is a degree of lassitude in the use of images on WP, and indeed image use is encouraged, so far as I can see. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Two points of clarification: The copyright for this paper is held solely by the primary author. It doesn't appear to be a "College of Education - Cal State" publication, although this is obviously their academic affiliation. Second, Ostergaard et. al and Woods (2008) do not use the word "pseudoscience" anywhere in their descriptions of this manuscript. WP:STICKTOSOURCE asks wiki editors to refrain from drawing connections that the authors of reliable secondary sources do not draw themselves. But thank you for laying out your criteria as I asked (even though I do note a conspicuous absence of references to actual wiki policies and how your views adhere to them.) Jellypear (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's very inclusion in secondary texts allows us to use these as our source. WP is very clear about preferring secondary reviews to primary research. hgilbert (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A backbone of good secondary sources using primaries and others to fill in detail in concord with those sources: a model of good WP writing. 15:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It would contradict the whole point of using secondary sources to use these and then add everything you liked best from primary sources that they didn't pick up. The whole point is that the secondary sources are a better judge of what is important than a WP editor. What they cite, and how they cite it, ensures a greater degree of objectivity. hgilbert (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Crass straw-man argumentation. Nobody is writing about "everything you liked". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I will repeat myself. Jelenik & Sun fails WP:RS. It is not a reliable source. It is self-published, not published through a reliable publishing house, and not peer-reviewed. It is equivalent to a blog post. If reliable sources have used J&S as a source, use those sources for the article. Just because other sources have used the source does not mean that we should. In fact, because the source fails WP:RS, we should not. DigitalC (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

As for the image, I might agree that the image was relevant to an article on Steiner, but it is not directly relevant to Waldorf Education. DigitalC (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI

FYI, I opened a thread at ANI with regards to my concerns about POV pushing on this page and related ones. a13ean (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

So what happened to this? Jellypear (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

[[1]] After a quick skim of the ani report and comments, there was no resolution because the process of discussion and editing has not broken down. While some editors are frustrated that their point of view is repeatedly challenged in a reasonable way that they call civil pov pushing, other than getting more editors involved in this side alley doorway of wikipedia there is not much going to change.

My suggestion to those who are frustrated is that your frustration will be reduced substantially if you back off from trying to label and categorize every percieved sin and weakness of waldorf education. stick to describing the problems you find. and work on your reliable sources, many of the ones discussed at length on this page are very weak, regarless of the work's POV. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

First comprehensive school

This page sure changes a lot! A while back, I put in a mention that the Stuttgart Waldorf school was the first comprehensive school in Germany and that is now gone. Anyone know what happened? Also, the bit about the Oxford conference has changed too and now its not clear what the relationship between those lectures and the establishment of Waldorf schools in English speaking countries a few years later was. As a page in the wiki series on Alternative Education, I think it is important to describe these aspects of the schools' growth because they relate to other progressive reforms during this time period. I am not saying we should go on and on about it but brief mention with links can help readers learn more on their own. Again, any idea what happened with this small section over the last month? Jellypear (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The Origins and history section still mentions that the school was the first comprehensive school in Germany.

I simplified the Oxford history. I didn't feel it was important to mention Millicent MacKenzie, for example, who is not a commonly known personality today; such detail would be more appropriate to the History of the Waldorf schools article. Much more important would be filling in the 60 year gap after WWII. But do feel free to add back what you feel is necessary here. hgilbert (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2013 (UT

Although it wasn't necessary, I liked the mention of Millicent MacKenzie. She was the first female professor in the UK. But probably better for the sub-article. The comprehensive school thing is important though because it represented a progressive reform that is still being debated. Wiki articles can help fill in the historical details of this idea through its unique linking capacity. Jellypear (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Jelinek & Sun (2003) - Reliable Source? continued

Continuing #Jelinek & Sun (2003) - Reliable Source? : As per the above discussion I propose we replace all citations to Jelinek and Sun with secondary sources that refer to them. hgilbert (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn and Binksternet continue to view it as a "middling" source that can be used with care. DigitalC has suggested opening an RfC on the issue, and I will do that. However, I am concerned that we have to. We should be able to resolve basic wp:rs and wp:original issues here. Jellypear (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Use of sources needs to be evaluated in respect of the text being supported. Also, why is J&S being mentioned but not the (comparable) non-reviewed Woods report? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Research or technical publications published by governmental agencies are generally considered reliable sources, though not at the level of academic sources. It's very clear that the Woods report is not self-published, but published by the UK government department responsible for education at the time of publication. J&S is self-published. There's a world of difference. hgilbert (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Also: Woods is a review, rather than a primary source. hgilbert (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Woods (2005) used multiple methods to create their report. A large part of it is synthesis but they also did survey research - see appendix for the interview schedule. So it is a primary source for those research findings. I have created a new section to discuss the DfES report. Jellypear (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We are not supposed to write text and then evaluate whether or not our source is reliable. WP:STICKTOSOURCE says

Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

The tertiary sources are silent on the issue of pseudoscience in the science curriculum. Reliable secondary sources who include this idea seem to be limited to Ostergaard et al. and Woods (2008) - although I am still looking. We have to be careful of wp:undue and wp:fringe issues if we are doing our jobs properly. We need to take our lead from the RS, rather than our own views. This much is clear. Even if it is 100% the case that these schools teach pseudoscience, wikipedia should not be discussing it until there are reliable secondary sources who do so. And then it should be done by following their lead. Wikipedia is not a forum for our own views or our own original research/synthesis. I am going to make a RfC out of this so please refer me to the policy (or which aspect of the policy) most supports your view. I will want to include that. Thanks. Jellypear (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Could someone else open the RfC for this? I can't figure out how to do it! Jellypear (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It's now active: see here hgilbert (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Two outside editors (Itsmejudith and DigitalC) have now agreed that we should follow the secondary source. I have used Ostergaard as the published, peer-reviewed work, but material from Woods could also be added; see [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Monograph_use_in_Waldorf_education|]]. Every RS on the subject, with the exception of an editorial by Barker (is this an RS?), discusses various sides of the science curriculum; I have adjusted the title of the section accordingly. hgilbert (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Woods (2005) - Report to Governmental Agency

Woods et al. (2005) is a report prepared for the UK Department of Education and Skills (DfES). It is a thorough synthesis of the topic of Steiner Schools in England and was prepared by three educational scholars. UK DfES Report However, this document has not undergone peer review, unless one interprets the willingness of the UK DfES to publish and circulate it as evidence that a peer-review process has taken place. If you look at how this source is being used on this page, I don't see any reason not to just excise it and rely instead on peer-reviewed secondary sources. The Woods' (2008) book reiterates a lot of material in their 2005 report anyway. We have no way of knowing what level of external review occurred before this report was made available to the public and so we are more in keeping with wiki guidelines if we refrain from using it. Jellypear (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Blindly ripping it all out would be as damaging as ripping J&S out. To repeat, use of sources must be judged in respect of the text the source is being used to support. For some uses, the Woods report is okay; for others, not. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There would be no damage to the page because it is only being used to reference ideas that can be found in other sources as well. Why not always use the most reliable sources?Jellypear (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just looked at the page and Woods (2005) mainly appears along with other sources for general statements. So, even just eliminating it across the board wouldn't change the page because the other RS would stand. I am only discussing this because you raised the concern about this paper (above). You are correct that we have no way of assessing the extent to which this has been peer-reviewed or not. So, why not go ahead and stop using it. It is only serving as a supplemental source anyway. Removing it would have little effect on the page. Jellypear (talk) 16:20, 7 February

2013 (UTC)

Have you checked the curriculum article, or what Woods is "covering"? Is it being used to report primary data studies for example? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I view that as a different page but maybe I shouldn't be. I haven't even been editing there. However, I did just look at that and yes, you are correct that there are more single sources to Woods on that subpage. On the other hand, with the exception of the direct quote about Eurythmy, everything else could be attributed to another RS. According to Arbcom even Waldorf sources could be used for much of this since it involves when things are supposed to happen, or that beeswax is a material used for sculpting, etc., and not any controversial or evaluative claims. These things could also be sourced to general readership news articles as well. Then we can be assured that it has appeared in a source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Since you are raising issues about the reliability of Woods (2005), what do you want to see done? Jellypear (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

While I am not familiar with the source (I will try to good look at it further this weekend), if we have better sources that say the same thing, use the better sources! Be Bold! With that said, I would assume that the UK DfES would be considered a reliable source of information (in general, depending on the information). DigitalC (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

See the comment(s) at the RSN. Woods looks good to go. hgilbert (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It is still a primary source for its own research findings. Jellypear (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

From my experience with this article: avoid Waldorf sources if at all possible. Even if they are for factual material, someone, sooner rather than later, will come and claim that they are controversial points and need RS. Been there, done that, don't want to go through it again...and in any case it's clearly much more objective to use DFES than self-published material. hgilbert (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I am seeing that from the edit history too. :) We should stick to sources that can fully meet the criteria for a reliable source. Jellypear (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Links between developmental approach, temperament and formative assessment

Hi. I have been doing some reading it it seems to me that assessment and the temperaments are all part of the the formative evaluation approach that Waldorf teachers take. I put all of this stuff together rather than them hanging out individually. Jellypear (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't look at what you wrote, yet, but while the idea has merit, the question of sythesis comes into play if the sources don't treat it as one thing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please look at what I did and let me know if you think it is a problem. (I am aware I have a faulty link. I'll fix that next.) I did a lot of reading today and I was struck by the fact that if the 4 temps were discussed---and they weren't always discussed---it was in terms of the developing three-fold human being. Some authors would leave it at that but others would later talk about how the teacher's whole view of the child would reveal itself in their formative assessment activities. This latter link seems to be rather lightly done and I think might represent some synthesis on my part if I were to put it on the page. However, grouping it structurally is perhaps less of an issue in that regard. This page is tricky because the whole point of this educational form is that it is holistic. Breaking it down into parts imposes something that might not be there. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Jellypear (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It hangs together reasonably as it now stands. hgilbert (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Immunization & Student Health

I was going through the previous discussions on studies to make sure that all the issues that had been raised were dealt with. Thanks, Alexbrn for closing up the ones that have been addressed. One that remained was "Allergic disease and sensitization in Steiner school" from 2006. Although this is a primary study, it has been cited about 117 times so the findings can (and should be) sourced through another paper. I haven't had time to read through any of those because I wonder how strongly do people feel that student health should be discussed on this page at all? We don't have a tertiary source that tells us what to make of any possible connection between Waldorf education and various health outcomes or decisions. This is a problem for this section and our ability to evaluate WP:UNDUE. WP:CSECTION and WP:INDISCRIMINATE instruct us not to make lists of criticisms but ground them in some way to other sources - "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Is it a problem that there aren't any sources that have worked out possible causal links between Waldorf education and various health outcomes or decisions? Or, is it ok to view this as a "news" section that merely reports media events? If so, I would say that we need to stick closer to those media sources rather than offering a synthetic view by "filling in" this section with anything that also fits the topic. I am genuinely perplexed about what is the appropriate course of action considering this is an encyclopedia entry. What do others think? Jellypear (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe another way of addressing this is to have a "Student Health" section that discusses all of the studies done on Waldorf student health? For people interested in highlighting low vaccination compliance, this section would have to include Ernst's study of anthroposophic lifestyle as a risk factor for measles. If approached in this way, we wouldn't put ourselves in a place of having to figure out some of the issues I mentioned above. We could just accurately describe every credible study that has been made of Waldorf student health. ?? Jellypear (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a plausible approach. hgilbert (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Science and pseudoscience

I see there is a new section and I have set aside time in my schedule to check back in with this TALK page! :) But what I'd like to know is why should this be in the reception section? Science is a curricular topic. On the other hand, should a curricular area have "pseudoscience" in the title? I have been thinking lately that if there were a section devoted to the controversies of public funding in the US and the UK then those sections could rightfully be "filled" with whatever RS are available to help us describe the controversy. Could that be preferable? Jellypear (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Heiner Barz and Dirk Randoll, eds., 2007. Absolventen von Waldorfschulen: Eine empirische Studie zu Bildung und Lebensgestaltung. Wiesbaden

I have identified this book and it appears to be a reliable source. The publisher is Springer VS, and they used to be called VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. The book presents what appears to be the most comprehensive study of Waldorf schools compared to mainstream schools. Some of this material was quoted in Die Welt and is on this page already. Unfortunately for me the book is written in German and I do not know German. Has anyone editing here taken a look at this? Also, it has been cited 25 times but the articles it is cited in are also mainly in German. What interested me in this is the health information concerning Waldorf students. I feel this is a tangent for a "Waldorf education" page - and it also must vary by local context - but if research has been done in this area maybe it should be included. Jellypear (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Myself, Hgilbert, and possibly some others speak German, I will look it over when I have a chance. The health section might refer to the PARSIFAL study, but note should be taken of WP:MEDRS for medical claims originally sourced to that. a13ean (talk)

It appears that this is the book that came out of their own study (Barz & Randoll) and includes the sleeping better and less stress stuff. Of course since this is a primary source for their own findings we should be relying on those 25 citations that have reviewed it. But, as I said, they are all in German too. What do you think about the relevance of discussing student health at all on this page? Personally I think it is a side issue for the topic of the article. I think if anything is here, it should all be here rather than focusing on one aspect of student health. On the other hand, we also have a responsibility not to present a synthetic argument about "waldorf student health" given that the local/national contexts vary so much. Being a "waldorf student" may be the least salient aspect of these health outcomes and there could be unobserved heterogeneity within the global population of waldorf students. Obviously none of this is any of our concern but we are responsible for not placing undue emphasis on topics for which there is not a lot of information and no literature review to draw upon. Jellypear (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The book is huge and I have looked over it, but summarizing it is a daunting task that I would urge us to avoid. In lieu of a professional review article, the "Die Welt" article is the best thing we have found to date.

More generally: student health seems to be a recurrent theme in discussions about Waldorf students. We should not make judgments about the cause, but simply report the results as we find them in RSs. hgilbert (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it is not our place to make judgements of the cause. However, once we bring it up and make a section out of it we're saying that it is noteworthy. Yet wikipedia provides guidelines that not everything- even if from a reliable source - ought to be on the page. This is a severely underdeveloped area of research. Who knows if anyone will ever fund the kind of research that is required to make valid, cross-national comparisons of "waldorf students" vis a vis state schooling students. The whole thing seems rather tangential to me but I am open to what others think. Jellypear (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The PISA studies are just such a large scale, cross-national database. Their results should be promoted to the lead, actually. hgilbert (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

History of waldorf schools chart: best-fit curve

It seems to me that a best-fit curve (below, right) is likely to more accurately represents the actual progress in school numbers than a series of arbitrarily drawn straight lines connecting the data points (below, left). Otherwise expressed: an "unsmoothed" graph is simply a first-order best-fit curve. A higher order curve clearly gives a better fit to this data set. On the other hand, I like the overall format of A13bean's graph (on the left below). Could we perhaps use this, but with a smoothed curve? hgilbert (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Graph showing the growth in the number of Waldorf schools in the world from 1919-2012

Graph showing the growth in the number of Waldorf schools in the world from 1919-2012

While I agree that the smoothed curve is aesthetically more pleasing, I would argue that it doesn't "clearly give a better fit", after all, the true distribution is to the best of my knowledge unknown. Additionally, it doesn't mark the data points as is done on the run-of-the-mill line plot, thus making it impossible to see for which years we actually have data (if I only looked at the best-fit curve I would have assumed that we had data points at least on an annual basis since 1919). I would vote for sticking to a line plot but making it look less like it came out of a word processor from the 90;s (I also really like the horizontal lines of the best-fit plot). -- Dront (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to A13ean for making the graph. Do you feel one is more accurate than the other? They read the same to me. The big takeaway seems that after a period of quiescence, interest in founding schools grew around the mid-1970s...which was (perhaps not incidentally) also the aftermath to a war. Jellypear (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As we're showing data for which there's not an obvious functional dependence, I didn't fit to the data or apply any smoothing. Using straight lines to connect discrete data points is fairly standard to help draw the eye -- see for example figure 2 here. There's not any particularly strong reason to do it, and we can just as well leave it out. I don't think we should use a smoothed line however, as this implies that we have more information than we actually do, and also because the function Word uses to do this (a piecewise defined bezier curve if I remember right) has no particular significance. I tried to make the graph as per the suggestions in VDQI, although I should probably get rid of the box around the title and make the text a bit larger so it shows up better at 300 px. I'm surprised to find that WP doesn't have an explicit style guideline for graphs. a13ean (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

In your same example, Figures 4, 6, 10 use best-fit curves. Choosing straight lines clearly results in just as arbitrary intermediate positions as choosing a best-fit curve, but the latter is much more likely to be accurate when the data is the result of many independent, self-organizing events. Either method is viable, of course. I do agree that the data points should be (subtly) displayed....but would prefer to see a best-fit curve between them. hgilbert (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

These show a fit because the data has a known functional dependence. If there was some evidence that the growth was, say, exponential, it would make sense to have a fit, but there's not. What excel does is not a fit at any rate, it's just smoothing via bezier splines. Straight lines between data points don't imply a piecewise-linear functional dependence -- they are only there to guide the eye. Still, as I said before, there's no harm in removing them. a13ean (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all I want to thank A13ean for taking the time to work on this. I really am happy with both versions. But, as I do have a favorite, I've revised the original file to show the data points; see above. Have a look, but I am happy with either! (I do have a favorite, however, thus one more try:)

Any connection (whether line or curve) between the data points gives a misleading sense that we have some idea of what happened "in between". A line graph is also a "best-fit" graph, one that uses a series of first-order approximations rather than a higher-order curve to indicate the likely path. Both line and curve are merely there, in my colleague's words, to guide the eye. In a given case, one may do this more fluently, another more awkwardly. Also, as it is more probable that the growth rate fluctuated slowly, rather than abruptly changing at the exact moments when someone recorded data, the curve is likely to be a better match to the reality. But we are arguing over fictions! hgilbert (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; I removed the connecting lines from the graph to only show the data points and also enlarged the text. a13ean (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for providing plots and also for the above discussion. I really like the left-most plot, it is "vanilla" and expresses as much as we know and by introducing the data points into the right-most plot the point I was trying to make earlier becomes apparent. You can now see that the curve is forced into shape and actually doesn't hit the data points (misguiding the eyes?). Briefly about the comments from Hgilbert about the growth rate, the problem is that we have no way of backing up your intuition. Perhaps there was a financial slow-down leading to fewer schools between two points or other events, we simply don't know what the underlying function is. As A13ean said, the lines are for guiding the eyes and for this purpose a simple linear fit is that of least surprise (as opposed to Bezier curves). -- Dront (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Steiner vs. Waldorf

I wonder how relevant the critical reception of Steiner (vs. Steiner education) is here. For example, might it be better to condense the first sentence of the following to what is really pertinent to WE? "Bruce Uhrmacher considers Steiner a polymath whose areas of interest do not neatly correspond with any singular modern category of knowledge, and whose views on such topics as pantheism and Angelology have provoked an adverse reaction from modern academics and scientists. Nevertheless, Urhmacher considers Steiner's view on education worthy of investigation for those seeking to improve public schooling; they serve as a reminder that "holistic education is rooted in a cosmology that posits a fundamental unity to the universe and as such ought to take into account interconnections among the purpose of schooling, the nature of the growing child, and the relationships between the human being and the universe at large", and that a curriculum need not be technocratic, but may equally well be arts-based." hgilbert (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what to do about it but I think the issue you raise here is an important one for the page and it hasn't been resolved because of competing editorial viewpoints. Yes, Rudolf Steiner initiated Waldorf education. But so did the constellation of first teachers in Stuttgart and so on and so on. I think it is POV (and incorrect) to write this page as if Steiner was the only person who had anything to do with Waldorf education. A good example of this problem is that the Stuttgart school only had a kindergarten for about 6 months during Steiner's lifetime. The unique form of Waldorf early childhood education was developed by teachers. And then there are those distinct aspects of the education that as far as I know cannot be found anywhere in Steiner's own lectures or writings. Bruce Uhrmacher wrote a paper for Curriculum Inquiry in 1993 about "focal activities" unique to a Waldorf classroom like shaking students' hands, singing attendance, or using music to help students transition into the work of the classroom. I have no idea where these practices came from but there seems to be little evidence that their exact form came from Steiner's lips. The collegial structure of these schools isn't simply a matter of how official decisions are made as is implied when the whole page is about this guy Rudolf Steiner and his ideas. Teachers have had a significant impact on what waldorf education is. Especially in light of its global diffusion, this is also true today. What will Waldorf schools in China look like? Certainly knowing about Rudolf Steiner's ideas will give us a clue, but the ultimate form they take will have much more to do with what teachers (and increasingly parents) decide to do. So in response to your query I think perhaps this bit you mention is an issue only in that the whole page is focused on Steiner, a man who is treated as a the Alpha and Omega of this education with there being little to no mention of the schools as learning communities (see Easton 1997; Stehlik 2002 & 2003). Jellypear (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Tags

There are not really current discussions about the article tagging -- is this still necessary? hgilbert (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It was advised in a previous discussion that the latest tag should be under discussion and should relate to a section. Personally, I would like to see the page better conform to tertiary sources which, for the most part, would make it shorter. Lately I have amassed quite a little reading library for myself on this topic and now feel there are some WP:UNDUE issues and no mention of other items that are well-represented, with the role of art and creativity being a primary example. What do you propose regarding the tags? Jellypear (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that - the tags should be by section and tie into existing discussions. {{POV-section}} can be used to tag for POV issues, for example. Since you're aware of sectional problems, perhaps you could replace the article tagging with sectional tagging? Or, if these are straightforward matters of adding material that no one disputes (such as on the role of art and creativity), you don't need to tag -- just begin to add the appropriate material.

I see no ongoing discussion of the primary issues. I feel uncomfortable bringing this one up, but it needs to be said: To take the one that touches me personally, the COI has been taken to arbitration, but no arbitrator found it significant enough to respond to. I don't know what would justify keeping this on. To take the other, NPOV: it belongs in any area that gives undue weight to one side of the story. hgilbert (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

With regard to NPOV, I think there has been a good attempt to have neutral language throughout the page. What I don't like about this page---and I haven't had the time to make bold changes---is with regard to the reception section. If you go and look at the RS, the criticisms are mostly tied to public funding of Waldorf schools yet the page lists reception issues in the absence of this central fact. It is not really a WP:NPOV issue but more WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE, although I do think that criticisms certainly have a place on the page. Perhaps this is what User:Rocksanddirt was alluding to in the note above on the ANI? As for your issue, I'd like to hear from others concerning what ought to be done. On one hand, you have edited this page quite a bit. On the other hand, I think there has been a pretty thorough investigation of sources. I don't know what to do. However I still don't find this page to be as high quality as it could be. Jellypear (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of work to do. Both the NPOV and COI issue have been taken to arbitration in various ways and the results of the arbitration applied to the article. Tagging is meant to refer to active discussions. This is not true of either tag. I am removing them, and suggest discussion here before restoring these (if indeed anyone feels they are still needed). hgilbert (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Charter and Non-charter schools

Two sources have been combined to reach a total number. Wikipedia has rules about math. I don't know if there is any issue here but please confirm, User:Hgilbert that this is allowed and not WP:SYNTH. If this is allowed, you could also annotate it in the quotes for the sources so that readers can do the math themselves. Jellypear (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations, which states: Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources.

I appreciate your caution here. Balancing conciseness with clarity is always a delicate matter. I originally clarified the breakdown in a comment visible to editors. It could be done within the references as well.hgilbert (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Largest independent educational movement

An IP address inserted the following short paragraph into the lead.

• (NOTE: The sources for this claim seem weak and perhaps biased. The next paragraph states there are about 3,500 Waldorf schools and education centers worldwide. One Montessori community website - url: http://www.montessori.edu/FAQ.html - estimates that there philosophy has about 7,000 schools across the globe. More sources are needed to clarify the numbers, since the average class size of the schools is unknown. I know from personal experience that in the areas in America where I've lived (suburbs of LA and NYC), there are definitely more Montessori schools.)

I encourage the author to come to this TALK page to discuss this rather than altering the flow of the lead. I am not sure how this can be rectified with the alternative information offered - a website and the author's reflections on living in LA and NYC can't be used as RS in wikipedia. Anyone have any thoughts? Jellypear (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Looked into this further. Montessori sources say there are 7,000 schools worldwide which would be larger than the 3.500 claimed here. Anyone know how this sentence came about? There are multiple RS to back it up but the numbers don't make sense. 7,000 is bigger than 3,500. Maybe it would be more prudent to say "one of the largest"...? Jellypear (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Numbers for Montessori schools are a little uncertain. One of their websites says that there are 4,000 M. schools in "America", but that only 1,500 are members of the American Montessori Society, and only 10% of these are actually accredited.[2] Another site lists 635 North American schools.

In contrast, the Waldorf school count only includes accredited schools. This excludes charters and public schools in the USA, as well as "Waldorf-inspired" private initiatives.

I'm also not sure how to handle this. The text read "one of the largest" until fairly recently an editor found the current, up-to-date, very reliable source (TES) claiming the superlative form and reinstated the current wording. Certainly a claim that depends upon the interpretation of statistics should not lead off the lead! hgilbert (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: some time ago, I moved this claim away from the beginning of the lead. I'm still not sure how to treat it. hgilbert (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Undue material

Having a whole paragraph in the lead section of this general article discussing the WP:FRINGE views and strawmen unrelated to Waldorf education of some obscure organisation in Florida or whatnot that are completely discarded by a government evaluation is grossly WP:UNDUE, also such focus on the UK and the US is undue and Anglo-centric. The centre of Waldorf education is Europe, not the US. Waldorf education is widely recognised, not controversial in any way (except among some (very few) loonies/fringe groups) and state-funded in much of Europe. Members of the Norwegian royal family attend Waldorf schools which are almost entirely state-funded. Views of fringe groups such as "PLANS" can be discussed in the article on that organisation, having it here is like having the views of obscure conspiracy theorists like the moonies presented in the introduction of the general article on the Moon.

Also, universities teaching biology today are usually not held accountable (again, except by the occasional loonie) for various views which would be interpreted as racist today held by the 19th century biologists upon whose work their science is based. This is a classical strawman and logical fallacy, completely unrelated to Waldorf education (which didn't even exist at the time). The only works of Steiner which are relevant in an article on Waldorf education, are works on Waldorf education, that are also relevant (i.e. employed in Waldorf education and theory to a notable extent). If Albert Einstein also wrote something on e.g. race or the topic of Palestine, it would't be relevant to discuss it in the introductions of the articles on his theories on physics. Vittoria Gena (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It has been very difficult to work through WP:UNDUE issues here given the POV of the editors who decide to get involved in this page. To recap, I see you making three points. 1) the Anglo-centric nature of this page. 2) The views of PLANS and BHA are "fringe." 3) Steiner's pedagogical views & texts are what applies here but not his entire works. My responses: 1) I agree it is Anglo-centric. I was under the impression that this is presumed since this is wikipedia for English speakers. If there are other considerations in wiki guidelines that should be better taken into account, I'd like to understand more. 2) Given that PLANS initiated a lawsuit, a discussion of this and the separation of church + state belongs on this page. Likewise, the BHA came out publicly against state funding of Steiner schools and they may have had something to do with the BBC piece. (It is very frustrating that the reporter didn't name the person who was standing at the gates and only identified the two people affiliated with Steiner schools. That never would have happened in the United States!) There has been controversy surrounding the public funding of Waldorf schools in both these countries. Wikipedia describes controversies. All that being said, however, wikipedia is not here for exhaustive lists of grievances. WP:Criticism Working from wiki guidelines only, how would you approach what you feel is an WP:UNDUE emphasis on the views of these groups. Is it just the lead or the whole page? Jellypear (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think BHA and PLANS, and even DfES, should stay in the lead section. The reason is so very simple: the WP:LEAD guideline says to summarize major article body points in the lead section. The idea is that someone reading only the lead section will have an idea of the topic. Well, the topic is a pseudoscientific one, according to multiple sources. We should tell the reader that there have been prominent critics of Waldorf, and who they are. PLANS was prominent enough for DfES to issue a statement about them. We should, of course, summarize the main points for the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your views, Binksternet, because these issues need a good hearing. I agree that the lead must summarize major article points. Not mentioning any controversy would be wrong. The question is in what detail so as to address WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Clearly, people are reading that paragraph very differently. I don't think, however, that it is correct to say that "the topic is a pseudoscientific one." The sources who claim that Waldorf education is pseudoscientific (PLANS, BHA, and Eugenie Scott) are not considered expert sources on the topic of Waldorf Education. Their views may haven been published in some reliable media sources but as of yet the views are not reflected in peer-reviewed articles by educational scholars. In contrast, there are many reliable sources viewing Waldorf education as a legitimate form of alternative education. This wiki article has to express that condition clearly in order to fulfill WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I know you feel that the article is WP:SOAP for Waldorf, but it is also important that the article not be WP:SOAP for criticisms either. The reliable sources have to help us figure this out and trust me I have been looking for a reliable source that has evaluated PLANS/BHA's claims. Finally - as a point of clarification - the DfES did not release a statement about PLANS as far as I know. The commentary came from one of the study's authors who was reviewing the DfES report in an edited volume on alternative ed. Under the subheading "Occult Status and Accusations of Racism," there are six sentences about the existence of sustained criticism of Waldorf education by PLANS. The author says that their own research "found very little to substantiate the claims of PLANS..." and then goes on to discuss pseudoscience and pseudoscientific fads in state schools. In wikipedia, contrarian viewpoints must be handled with the same scrutiny as for the general topic. We need to know what reliable sources say about these views, not simply that these views exist. We need to follow the lead of these third party sources to give us a sense of whether WP:FRINGE is an issue. I struggle with this because I have found very few reliable sources (apart from media sources) that discuss the criticisms at all. In my opinion, this should tell us something as editors. Jellypear (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet that some summary is necessary, with Jellypear that it is difficult to find a balance here, and with Vittoria Gena that the paragraph as it stands is too long and detailed for a lead. I have attempted a revision summarizing the key elements of the debate as reflected in verifiable sources. I am open to seeing change in this; this is just a trial balloon. hgilbert (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The US view (separation of church and state) needs to go back in. I think the immunization thing is a side issue and needs to come out of the article entirely. Immunization decisions are made in the United States before school enrollment and are overseen through the laws of each state. States with "philosophical exemptions" have higher rates of noncompliance and these are filed before a student crosses the threshold of the school building. Who knows which way the causal arrow goes but as of yet no reliable secondary source has said that enrolling in a Waldorf school is a risk factor for vaccine noncompliance. There are big WP:SYNTHESIS issues with that section. Also, if you're going to include the views of BHA or PLANS I think the reception of their views by DfES, the Sacramento School Board (and/or the federal court) and the 2005 report are warranted to maintain WP:NPOV. Of course, that doesn't make it any shorter which is why a part of me is sympathetic to the "it has been controversial" issue and leaving the details to the main body. Jellypear (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the church and state issue belongs in the article, but why in the lead? It was a private court case that was lost, and the issue has died with it. If it had ever been a larger public debate (beyond citations to the one quite small group) and/or if the concern continued to be active, it would make more sense to me to include it in the lead. Can we show that either of these is the case? hgilbert (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hgilbert, your reversion here is inappropriate given the dispute about what goes in the lead section. Per ArbCom final decision in 2006, you will want to revert yourself.

The church and state, and the pseudoscience definitions, belong in the lead section because they are major issues in the topic. Did the Waldorf community scramble to respond to the accusations? Yes, certainly. If the Waldorf community had ignored it, the lack of importance would be obvious. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The pseudoscience controversy is still in the lead. On further reflection, remembering now that a similar controversy arose in Australia over public schools there, I agree with both of you that the church/state issue does belong in the lead as well. hgilbert (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

ReVision

I have removed a citation to ReVision, which is not on this list of peer-reviewed journals; if there is reason to keep this, do replace it and we can discuss the matter here. hgilbert (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have two sources that say this is a peer-reviewed academic journal (Ullrich's web & EBSCO). But the bigger problem is that the citation in question makes exactly one mention of Waldorf schools - in a footnote no less! Here it is: "...the director of the Misty Mountain Montessori Education Center is exploring an integral approach to Montessori education. He is expanding the right quadrant in traditional Montessori programs (cognitive development in relation to social and emotional factors) to include more left quadrant elements, often associated with Waldorf schools (imaginal, creative/artistic, explorative, and cultural dimensions.)" So, um, I am not sure where the former statement in Wikipedia came from. Seems to be WP:SYNTHESIS. I concur with removing the citation. Jellypear (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference, this is the text that has been removed. "Sean Esbjorn-Hargens writes that as a holistic education method, Waldorf education de-emphasizes the acquisition of knowledge and competitive achievement over a more individually-centred approach drawing on elements of each individual’s spirituality and culture." As noted above, the only mention of Waldorf education in this article is the footnote referenced above. Given how dissimilar these two sentences are, that the reference to Waldorf education occurred in a footnote, and that the whole paper is about integral education in a higher education psychology classroom, I maintain that this is WP:SYNTHESIS, it was correct to remove it and that removing it had a negligible effect on the page. Jellypear (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know how to check how something that has been here for a long time got in the article? I am curious how this got in. Jellypear (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There's always the "article blamer" tool, which occasionally works great for me but mostly not. http://toolserver.org/~tparis/blame/. Good luck, sincerely! Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the diff; the disputed text was added by Alexbrn on 10 Jan 2013. hgilbert (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking this up again, I note that both reasons given for the removal of this material (that the journal is not peer reviewed; that only a single mention in a footnote is pertinent) are false. Yet, it has been done: as a result helpful information has been removed from WP. There may be a legitimate discussion to be had about how the material here is summarized from the source, but deleting this information on the basis of incorrect statements probably isn't the way to go. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link to the article. I've read through it again, and also done a PDF search through it for the term Waldorf, and only discover the content Jellypear mentions, located in footnote 12. Can you explain what other passage talks about Waldorf, and where you found the material cited to this? hgilbert (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Search for "Steiner" not "Waldorf". He references the Steiner approach as a holistic one, and then describes how holistic education is contrasted with the mainstream; maybe my summary was too elided, but this material could be retained in some form. It's helpful and uncontroversial. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The only mention of "Steiner" is "A number of substantive approaches to alternative education find their expression in the schools of today, including those informed by the metaphysical perspectives of philosophers such as Rudolph Steiner, Alfred North Whitehead, Jiddu Krishnamurti, and Sri Aurobindo. A growing number of schools along the entire spectrum of education (from elementary school programs to doctorate degrees) provide various expressions of alternative education in action. These approaches are often referred to as “holistic” and are associated with the educational approaches of individuals like John Dewey and Maria Montessori." I agree that using a general description of holistic schools which the author says applies to "the entire spectrum of [holistic] education (from elementary school programs to doctorate degrees)" as if it defines Waldorf specifically is pretty clearly WP:SYNTH. hgilbert (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Categorization

From WP:Categorization: Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Calling WE pseudoscience clearly violates this; this is not one of the "categories to which it logically belongs", but one that critics have attempted to associate with it. hgilbert (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I have noticed this guideline and agree. I think that the reception area should be organized by reception in various countries. The pseudoscience critique exists in both contexts. I also think that the three curricular approaches that are different from other schools: late introduction of reading, ICT, and phenomenological science could warrant discussion under their own section. Maybe "distinctive practices" or something like that? Jellypear (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Waldorf Education was categorized as "pseudoscience" on the basis of PLANS and BHA's viewpoints even though the governmental bodies in both countries tasked with evaluating the science teaching disagree that pseudoscience is taught?! I'd like to know how long this has been the case and which editor did it. Jellypear (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hgilbert, what part of the ArbCom final decision allows you to make controversial edits such as this removal of the Pseudoscience category? Because of your COI, you must propose such edits on the talk page and gain consensus for them. Your actions require ArbCom attention.

German scholar Helmut Zander argued "convincingly" that Waldorf curricula can only be understood from the vantage point of Steiner's instructions to his Waldorf teachers, regarding the teaching of Anthrosophy. Anthrosophy itself is pseudoscience. Steiner's instructions included such nonsense as the human heart not serving primarily as a pump, and that the teaching of reading must be kept from children until they get some adult teeth. Steiner promoted a racial theory that assigns the different races "lower" and "higher" characteristics related to a soul's incarnation. A close reading of Zander's work ties the pseudoscience Anthrosophy to Waldorf education. Zander is an academic, and academics define the topic.

As well, science educator and curricula evaluator Eugenie Scott has determined Waldorf education to be pseudoscience. [3] "Waldorf Schools Teach Odd Science, Odd Evolution", 1994, National Center for Science Education. "Do Waldorf schools teach pseudoscience?", 1991, Utne Reader.

Education researchers David Jelinek and Li-Ling Sunn determined that the teaching at Waldorf schools was founded on Steiner's pseudoscientific beliefs such as the seven-year recapitulation of a soul's spiritual progress. This seven-year cycle is used to limit the teaching of certain things to the students until they are 7 or 14 or 21. Jelinek and Sunn concur "with a position expressed by Waldorf critics Dan Dugan and Judy Daar",[4] the position being that Waldorf education is based on the pseudoscience of Anthrosophy,[5] and that the only way to prevent that is to incorporate Waldorf schools with teachers who are "not indoctrinated by Anthrosophical training."

Jelinek offers a very differentiated picture; he actually suggests that Waldorf and anthroposophy are separable, and his critiques are of the latter. He seems to clearly state the position that Waldorf is a viable form of education, but that its philosophical foundation is doubtful. That is far from calling the education pseudoscientific. hgilbert (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Mental health researcher Richard Byng and the scholarly British Humanist Association call Waldorf schools pseudoscience. [6][7]

"The scholarly British Humanist Association"??? In any case, there's a concern by a group with a clearly defined belief structure of their own that some science education at the schools is pseudoscientific. That is not the same as saying that the education is pseudoscientific, and it is a contested belief. Letters to the editor of newspapers are not reliable sources, in any case. hgilbert (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Skeptic author Tom Flynn writes in The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief that "Anthroposophical pseudoscience is easy to find in Waldorf schools."[8]

That's also not saying that WE is pseudoscientific. It's also easy to find desks in Waldorf schools, but Waldorf schools are not desks. hgilbert (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The point here is that scholars define the topic, not governmental agencies. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Scholars define the topic. Of the above citations listed the following are reliable secondary sources for use in Wikipedia: Chicago Tribune 1999; Utne Reader 1991; The Atlantic 1999 and the review of Zander's book. (BTW: Look at how old that news coverage is btw.) You say "Anthroposophy itself is pseudoscience" but for this page, we need reliable secondary sources that say "Anthroposophy is pseudoscience AND Waldorf education is pseudoscientific" and I would say that to put this page under the pseudoscience category there should be some broad consensus. I am not seeing that at all. The majority of sources make no mention of it whatsoever. The argument you present here contains a level of synthesis that Wikipedia does not allow. We need reliable secondary sources (preferably published in peer-reviewed academic journals) that say that Waldorf education is pseudoscientific.Jellypear (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that there are a number of sources who declare WE to be based on, or include some elements of, pseudoscience. It's equally clear that there are others who deny this. Categories are meant to be neutral in point of view, not as promoting one side of a controversy. We can take this to some sort of category arbitration, however. What is the appropriate forum? hgilbert (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Zander talked about two different things: whether the science taught to children by Waldorf schools was pseudoscience, and whether Waldorf was structurally based on Anthrosophy. The former he found that there was no single answer, that various Waldorf schools taught various things. The latter he found to be true, that Waldorf was generally structured on Anthrosophy.

I notice that you have no answer for Eugenie Scott. Her conclusion was damning, that Steinerian methods were followed by the schools, and that pseudoscience leaked into the curricula. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for providing "answers" to Eugenie Scott. Her views were not published in a peer-reviewed publication. The fact that they were published in a media outlet that has a reputation for fact-checking makes them useable in a wikipedia article. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of reliable secondary and tertiary sources make no mention of Waldorf education and pseudoscience whatsoever. Even the best source you mention here (Zander) came to no firm conclusion on whether "Waldorf education" (the topic of the page) teaches pseudoscience or even that Anthroposophy itself is pseudoscience. So, what are we talking about here? Jellypear (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The National Center for Science Education publishes the journal in which Scott's article appeared: Reports, page 20, volume 14, Winter 1994. [9] Scott's severe criticism cannot be dismissed. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not about dismissing or not dismissing anyone's views. That is not what wiki editors are here to do. We are here to use reliable, secondary + tertiary sources to write and edit an on-line encyclopedia, which in turn becomes a tertiary source itself. Wikipedia spells out the difference between peer-reviewed academic journals and advocacy organization publications WP:SOURCE, no matter how well-written and persuasive we may find them. Scott's article is in this latter category. Moreover, when there is a difference of opinion we are supposed to take the whole field of reliable sources into account. Even with the citations you offered it is unclear if any of them explicitly say that Waldorf education (the topic of the article) is pseudoscience. To say that it is requires relying on some people having said that Anthroposophy is pseudoscience and then that some people view Waldorf education and Anthroposophy as inseparable - in other words WP:SYNTHESIS. Even Eugenie Scott makes a distinction concerning the method and asks her readers to write in if they share the views of Dan Dugan, member of the organization, who has found pseudoscience in the education. So, again, what are we talking about, Binksternet? Categorizing this as pseudoscience - along with every snake oil remedy on the planet - is not WP:NPOV when there is no clear consensus on the part of the reliable secondary and tertiary sources on this topic. Most sources are completely silent on this issue. That should tell us something. To recognize that is not "dismissive" of, or failing to "answer", the few sources that have made an issue of it. It is just responsible WP:NPOV editing. Jellypear (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this looks a lot like dismissing material because you don't like it. I suggest you read WP:FRINGE, which requires the topic to be put into perspective with regard to the mainstream. Saying that it's an advocacy journal is quite frankly completely ridiculous. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

None of the sort. WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:RS are quite clear about what kinds of publications are appropriate for inclusion in wikipedia. These are not peer-reviewed academic publications, nor are they mainstream general topic newspapers. Sources like newsletters or journals produced by organizations may be generally good- even exemplary - but wikipedia instructs editors not to use them as sources for anything other than their own activities because the level of fact checking and peer-review that goes into these publications is less clear than with books from large publishing houses, encyclopedias, peer-reviewed academic journals and pieces from the mainstream press. Simple, really. Jellypear (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The pseudoscience category is appropriate; I have restored it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Now may be a good time to review the wiki guidelines on categories, which exist to help readers of wikipedia better navigate the site. See WP:Categorization for more information.

• Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.
• Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate.
• A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the ''defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having.

Alexbrn and Binksternet please present evidence that all of these criteria are met. How is categorizing Waldorf Education as pseudoscience neutral? How do the reliable sources commonly and consistently define Waldorf education as having the defining characteristic of being pseudoscience? Jellypear (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Scott is just such a reliable mainstream source; but is there any source which addresses the question of whether WE is pseudoscientific and states that it isn't? It seems any scientist addressing the issue comes to the same conclusion (see discussion above); there is no controversy in the community. And as has been mentioned, WP:FRINGE may be pertinent here too. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiki doesn't really have guidelines about people being reliable mainstream sources. It speaks to documents. Scott's views are available to us through a source that wikipedia does not classify as a reliable source. As for other sources, you are downplaying the relevance of silence on this issue in otherwise comprehensive explorations of the topic of Waldorf education. Tertiary sources, who have similar classificatory goals do not classify Waldorf education as pseudoscience. There are countless other books, academic articles and dissertations that don't take up this claim either way and address it. Classifying Waldorf education as pseudoscientific is not a consensus opinion by any stretch. Given that categories are not discussed, it is unwarranted and does not meet the criteria laid out above.Jellypear (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources quoting Scott are, at the very least, RS for Scott's views. It's a dangerous business, interpreting silence. We've got a number of people stating WE is pseudoscientific, indicating a general agreement that it is PS. Furthermore isn't this a case of obvious pseudoscience? Or is there anybody who really believes (e.g) that teaching early reading causes physical disease in later life. Maybe we could call on some expert opinion from WP:FTN ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The Chicago Tribune article is a reliable source. The TES article on the BHA is a reliable source. There is no need for an expert opinion at WP:FTN because in the absence of a collection of reliable sources to review, that would amount to original research on the part of those editors. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. If there are not reliable sources that say that Waldorf education is pseudoscience, and it is not classified as pseudoscience by such reliable sources, then there is nothing for us to do. Maybe someday sources will tell us Waldorf education is pseudoscience. But before then, it is not our place to act as if that state of affairs has already arrived just because we think it is an obvious case of pseudoscience. There is nothing to do. Jellypear (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Some eminent people among the signatories to this letter in The Guardian are telling us ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No one is arguing that there is not criticism out there that should be included in the article. That's a long way from a category inclusion, however. Many eminent voices describe recent US incursions via drone strike and special forces as terrorism, but putting the US in the "terrorist organization" category would not be justified on this basis. Too much of Waldorf is acknowledged as good educational practice, and often by the same people who critique aspects of the science curriculum or the spiritual philosophy out of which it arose. hgilbert (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The "drone strike" parallel is informative because it's so different. There, the categorization is hotly contested. What I'm seeing here so far is an uncontested categorization of W.E. as pseudoscientific from mainstream experts in the field. WP needs to be in line with respected scientific thought. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:Categorization#Overview begins by stating that WP categories should be "essential—defining—characteristics" of the education. For these, we might look at entries in standard encyclopedias of education: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. None of these articles make any mention of pseudoscience. (And yes, I have read the complete articles, not just those parts visible in Google's preview feature.) It would be odd for every encyclopedia of education to miss the essential and defining characteristics of the education. Contrariwise, it seems challenging to substantiate the claim that this is an essential and defining characteristic if standard reference works on education do not seem to think so.

Many of the "mainstream experts" you refer to are not educationalists at all (one is a professor of pharmacology, another a mental health researcher, another a "Humanist Society", etc.) As far as I can tell there are only one or two educationalists in your list above. Scott, though director of National Center for Science Education, is actually a physical anthropologist, not an educationalist by training. Jelinek, the only real education expert, gives a very differentiated picture of WE. hgilbert (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The category of pseudoscience is not appropriate, as it is not a defining characteristic of the educational approach. I am removing it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't the involved parties just go to DRN to discuss it? (I don't count myself as an involved party as I don't particularly care one way or the other, so please don't invite me if you start something at DRN). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Austrian Institute for Educational Research report

From a Austrian National Institute for Educational Research Innovation and Development (BIFIE) report, ”Kompetenzen und individuelle Merkmale der Waldorfschüler/innen im Vergleich”: hgilbert (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The results of pupils at Waldorf schools in the sciences are better than the average for pupils in OECD countries with 524 points and 500 points respectively and are also higher than the average for Austrian schools. In comparison, the average results in this area lie between the two higher school types (AHS, BHS) and the occupational middle schools. The difference in results is smallest in the sciences in relation to the AHS with 50 test points and to the BHS with 30 test points in comparison to the two other areas of competence (reading and mathematics)....Recommendations for educational policies based on the PISA results can be made especially for the teaching of natural science. Based on the relatively high competence of Waldorf pupils in natural science, combined with exceptionally high indicators of motivation and reflective cognition in these subjects as well as the different pedagogical principles, it is reasonable to conclude that public education can learn from the Steiner Waldorf schools, in particular with regard to being able to concretely apply knowledge in natural science.

I don't speak German. What is the peer-review status of this paper? Has it been cited anywhere else? Jellypear (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a section of an official report put out by a department of the Austrian government. The report's introduction is written by the education minister. As with the Woods report, this is clearly an official governmental document that we can assume has gone through a peer review process. hgilbert (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The "Woods Report" is not peer-reviewed. Who is making the "assumption" that it is? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Woods' report being an acceptable source for use in wikipedia, it was taken out to the RS message board.[[10]] We could certainly pursue this question more aggressively with the wider wikipedia community. With more and more countries funding Waldorf education, there will continue to be documents and research reports created and distributed by government departments of education. Jellypear (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

So are you proposing that this be included in the page or used in some way? Or, is this supposed to combat the pseudoscience thing? So far, I see two government spokespeople (in the UK and now Austria) not only saying pseudoscience is not taught (UK) but actually showing high-quality data that would suggest that the science teaching is good (Austria). Jelinek & Sun showed positive science outcomes too. I am trying to stay open-minded about this pseudoscience point but I have to say, I'd like to see some evidence that Waldorf teaches pseudoscience rather than just quotations in a newspaper to that effect. Ernst and Scott are obviously credible scientists. Moreover, I personally support Scott's efforts to combat single-minded creationism in US schools. [Insert deity] help us all if Americans start believing that human beings were able to ride dinosaurs once upon a time! But I do think as wiki editors we have an obligation to be mindful of wp:undue and wp:npov. The label "pseudoscience" can be see an pejorative and so some care needs to be made in using it in an encyclopedia entry. Where is the evidence? As the Woods' report says, asserting that pseudoscience is taught means making the paradoxical claim that improved scientific understanding is possible by learning pseudoscientific ideas. Students that are taught pseudoscience should score significantly lower on standardized tests than their peers who have not been taught pseudoscience. I'm sorry but it just doesn't make sense to me.Jellypear (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

More Undue Material

While the paragraph or two on the religion issues is fine, wtf is a picture of Judge Damrell doing here? All he has done related to the subject is rule on the issues of an extremely poorly presented lawsuit. If we must have a picture in this area of the article, perhaps one of something that relates to the subject better? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Take it off. hgilbert (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as the image [[11]] that was there before Judge Damrell [[12]] doesn't go back in! Jellypear (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration discussion

There is a discussion relevant to this article going on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hgilbert. hgilbert (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

sigh. After a quick read of that, I'm sorry. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Zajonc

In this edit, the affiliation of Arthur Zajonc given in the cited source, as former general secretary of the Anthroposophical Society in America, was removed. Why? It has the unfortunate effect of omitting Zajonc's interests, which need to be stated (per the source) given the position he is taking. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There are three credentials given in the Tribune article for Zajonc. Since this news article is 14 years old, these credentials are now all out-of-date (except having co-founded a Waldorf high school). Since this is a living person I felt we should primarily identify both he and Scott by linking to their pages, which presumably have the most accurate and up-to-date information about their biographies. However, if you feel all three credentials given at the time should be in this article then go ahead and include them all. On the topic of sticking to the source, I am still concerned that what is included here does not even mention the central "paradox" that made this topic newsworthy to begin with. The article is about a charter school's 7th graders having the top reading, language arts & math grades in the state at a time when age predicts a decline in academic achievement. Yet rather than being taken up as a success story, this mode of education was under strong criticism and (at the time) being taken to court. This wiki article reports on the second part of the story, and not the first. [[13]] Jellypear (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's normal to summarize relevant affiliations or positions. It's not a BLP concern. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Zajonc's former position is highly relevant to this topic and should be stated plainly. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Great. This seems to be three votes for all three credentials/positions. Now, how are we going to deal with the WP:CHERRYPICKING issue? Jellypear (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Frame the text to reflect the balance of the article in a neutral way. hgilbert (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Arts

In taking another look at this page I see that there is little reference to the integrated arts curriculum, which is arguably the aspect these schools are most known for. I have attempted to sketch out a basic description of this. I realize that I have not included citations. I will add sources (and amend as necessary) as soon as possible. Hopefully other editors will agree that this is a basic description that can be found almost anywhere Waldorf schools are described. I can't believe I hadn't noticed that nothing to this effect was on the page before. Jellypear (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ullrich: critical reception

Ullrich's critical reception of the education was divided into two areas; I have merged these under "educational scholars". hgilbert (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Evaluations of Student Progress

I was looking over the footnoting on the page and came across this item (now deleted): "A number of studies of Waldorf education have concluded that the education is "particularly successful in stimulating imaginative thought and creating eager, confident and curious students." There were multiple sources listed, but I wanted to know which study had concluded this. The conclusion is in the Woods report but it refers to Jelinek & Suns conclusions. Therefore I see no justification for this quote & "a number of studies." It is the conclusion of one study. Instead, I inserted Woods actual conclusion regarding the field. Jellypear (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding critical viewpoints of Waldorf education

I am someone who has never actually heard of Waldorf education until recently — in fact, I was only made aware of it by looking through Arbitration Committee archives. Given that it was subject to a full case and has since been placed under discretionary sanctions, I made the logical assumption that it has to be a pretty divisive topic. Needless to say, I wanted to learn more about Waldorf schooling, its history, goals, approach to education, and a variety of different opinions on the matter. In particular, I made sure my eyes were peeled for critical viewpoints that I might be interested in examining on the side. Yet as I was reading through the entirety of this article, I couldn't help but develop the impression that it contains a very heavy, albeit subtle, pro-Waldorf bias. In other words, I don't feel as if I've gotten the full story.

One of the main things I noticed was the fact that several important sections included some sort of external appraisal towards a specific aspect of Waldorf education. For instance, under the "Developmental Approach" subsection, the last paragraph is closed with the following sentence:

“ A 2005 overview of research studies concluded that research results suggest that Waldorf schools successfully develop "creative, social and other capabilities important in the holistic growth of the person," but that more research is needed to confirm the generally small scale studies conducted to date. ”

This was referenced to a 2005 survey conducted by the UWE Bristol, which generally noted several positive aspects of Waldorf education while stressing the very limited nature of the study. Also, the relevant information is found on page 39; however, this is specified in the form of a superscript directly beside the footnote, rather than within the reference itself. The same is true for many other links throughout the article. Some readers will likely find this confusing and difficult to understand.

Here's another example of an outside opinion that is inserted into the article in such a way as to make it seem like a subtle form of Waldorf advocacy. This one is under the "Spiral Curriculum" subheader:

“ There are a few subjects largely unique to the Waldorf schools. Foremost among these is Eurythmy, a movement art usually accompanying spoken texts or music which includes elements of role play and dance and is designed to provide individuals and classes with a "sense of integration and harmony". Ernest Boyer, former president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has noted how the arts generally play a significant role throughout Waldorf education, and commended this as a model for other schools to follow. ”

This article did not help to clear things up, either. It basically lists out a bunch of studies in reverse chronological order, most of which were already mentioned in this article. There are no contrasting opinions; the coverage is uniformly positive.

But the biggest issue for me is best illustrated in the context of this quote:

“ Educational Scholar Heiner Ullrich suggests that critics tend to focus on what they see as Steiner's "occult neo-mythology of education" and to fear the risks of indoctrination in a worldview school, but lose an "unprejudiced view of the varied practice of the Steiner schools." ”

Steiner's "occult neo-mythology of education"? What's that? Virtually nowhere else in this article is such a thing even alluded to. The whole "Reception" section lists out several vaguely-worded criticisms presented as misconceptions, but nothing about mythology or the occult (everything collected under the "Religion" subheader is completely tangential to whatever system of beliefs is practiced within the schools themselves). Are there several people who consider Waldorf education to be occultist in nature? Is it seen as imposing an ideology of some sort? Indeed, I went around to other websites and have found anecdotal accounts of Waldorf pratfalls — with some even likening it to a cult! There are large organizations out there that exist for the sole purpose of berating Waldorf education and anthroposophy; they have gathered extensive testimonial evidence from several different people who were once associated with the system.[14][15] I don't consider any of these domain names to be reliable sources in themselves, but I do get the instinct that there are professional journalists and academics who have spoken out in opposition to Waldorf education.

As an independent observer with no prior stance on the matter, I think my perspective might be valuable in developing this article into a comprehensive, unbiased source of information. Coverage of alternative viewpoints does seem to be limited, but I'm sure it exists in larger numbers than it may seem. If anyone else is willing to offer up some assistance, that would be greatly appreciated. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't need any assistance, as far as I can tell. You have rightly hit the nail on the head. The article is continually fluffed by pro-Waldorf editors such that the context of dispute is muffled. For instance, science curricula analyst Eugenie Scott is a prominent critic of Waldorf education, but her detailed criticism (see a copy of her scholarly journal article hosted here) of Waldorf is introduced to the reader in a belittling manner, making her look like a crank instead of a serious researcher and respected topic expert. This method of treatment can be seen throughout the article. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This piece was published in a membership journal/newsletter, not a peer-reviewed publication. It may be scholarly but cannot be viewed as scholarship according to wiki guidelines. Our task will be considerably easier if we focus on the body of reliable sources. Jellypear (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Whew! Good thing I'm not the only one who thinks so. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read back through the talk page archive to see I have recorded some concerns which intersect with those you raise. However, after the recent arbcom outing I have come to the conclusions WP's mechanisms are currently inadequate to deal with the POV spin being put on this article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of editing this wiki article, Kurtis!! I have a few comments on the items you have discussed. Firstly, I am not sure what you mean by "outside opinion that is inserted into the article." Wiki articles are supposed to include synthesizing evaluations from RS and subject matter experts. The first item you mention (we've been calling it the Woods Report/DfES Report around here) was a study of Steiner schools in England commissioned by the United Kingdom Department for Education and Skills (DfES). There are two parts of the report. The first is a synthesis of current research (as of 2005) on Steiner/Waldorf education (mainly in English). The second part is original survey research on Steiner schools in England. IMO, and in the opinion of others consulted on the RS/N, this is a highly RS for the topic. I am not sure I understand your difficulty with it? The Ernest Boyer item is an expert opinion about the presence and role of arts in this education. (BTW: there is very little on this page about the arts education, even though this is what it is known for.) I am not sure I am following your concern other than perhaps it should not be included. Finally, with respect to Heiner Ullrich's quote, you may be right that it is not balanced out by further information in the religion section. Unfortunately, while this opinion does exist (Ie that the schools are religious and indoctrinate) it seldom appears in the form of a WP:RS. You may notice that one Chicago Tribune article from 1995 is cited for the bulk of this viewpoint. IMO, this issue has been the root of many disputes related to this page. Editors feel as if there should be way more criticism to include but there are very few WP:RS to rely on. Moreover, some of the things that are claimed are directly disputed by other reliable sources, such as H. Ullrich as you mention. As a way to move forward, I would say that all of the editors here know this field and past discussions pretty well. Perhaps we could save you some time by suggesting some reliable sources on the subtopics that interest you. Do you have some specific questions or edits in mind? Jellypear (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

@Jellypear — Oh, the views I've listed are fine in and of themselves and actually should be included. It's just that they shouldn't be right there, but rather within the "Reception" section. The description of the system itself should be completely neutral, but as it stands, they are often followed up by positive commentary which gives the impression of a bias. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I see. I think there was a concern in earlier drafts that each section should include some sort of commentary/evaluation of the subtopic rather than being a straightforward description. Those sentences might be a result of that but I haven't been editing here long enough to say for sure. Personally, I think this page is too long and I think your suggestion might help with that. Jellypear (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There used to be an extensive "study" section which included many more external evaluations. This was taken down by Alexbrn, but you can find it in the article history. The decision was made, in conjunction with discussion on a WP advisory board, that reviews of studies would be preferred over the original studies themselves.

In addition, in an arbitration proceeding long ago we were strongly advised not to use internal Waldorf-published material (or other non peer-reviewed sources) for any possibly controversial findings. Between these two criteria, the available source material became very limited. Thus there are many citations to certain sources. Rather than increase the number of footnotes immoderately (there are already well over 100 in the article), we have been using the standard WP page reference template to reference specific page numbers in-line. Since these are seen with the footnote, they seem quite clear, and nobody has ever raised any concern about them before. On reflection, does this style still trouble you? What would you prefer?

Much of the "controversy" you cite is outside the scholarly world, and stems from aggrieved parents. To the extent that this is reported on in professional media outlets and the like, it can be and is reflected here. There are very few educational scholars who really critique Waldorf education, partly because it performs so well in objective measures of achievement such as the PISA studies and comparisons of medium- and long-term reading ability. Are there reliable sources you have in mind for inclusion? hgilbert (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Kurtis, the organization you mention above has its own wiki page. See: PLANS if you haven't clicked through to it already. Jellypear (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Then why is PLANS barely mentioned in the article? It's presented as a mere footnote, yet it seems to be a pretty important topic to cover. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

PLANS is barely mentioned because it really has very little to do with Waldorf Education. They have a very specific and negative viewpoint (if you read any of their mailing list/forum stuff) and it has nothing to do with education, but rather with the vernacular and what one might call 'religious stienerism'. Their activities regarding waldorf method charter schools are to poorly try to sue school districts that the waldorf methods charter schools are religious schools promoting a 'new age' religion first and foremost. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Links to critical sources

I have found several valid references (ie. news reports, opinion pieces) that could be used somewhere in the article:

• An article published by the Atlantic about a young boy who believes in gnomes.

I like the article, but it is in the form of a very personal and slightly quirky essay by a fond parent of the school. Still, something might be usable... hgilbert (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• This New York Times article discusses a specific Waldorf institution's opposition to allowing children access to computer technology until late adolescence.

done hgilbert (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• A critical piece published by the Chicago Tribune in 1999 acknowledges the successes of Waldorf education, but asserts that it is in fact a form of institutionalized religion, and that its effective methods could be used elsewhere.

already cited in article hgilbert (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• A more recent story (January of this year, to be precise) about an observed tendency among Waldorf students to be exempted from immunization.

Actually an opinion piece; the Sacramento Bee article below is a better source for the same information

• An article written around the same time as the preceding News Review publication about that very same subject (ie. low vaccination rates).

• This one pertains less to Waldorf and more to the actions of one of its teachers; this article could actually ignite a debate over the purpose of standardized testing. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that we could in fact find use for this link in the article somewhere.

Too specific to an individual teacher, I suspect

• An essay written by Peter Staudenmaier and published by the Institute for Social Ecology.

No peer review, and the author had no academic credentials at the time he wrote the essay. Probably falls afoul of RS, especially given the stricter interpretation required of this article by the arbitration proceedings

• Here is a critical piece about it featured at DC's Improbable Science, a website run by David Colquhoun. It can be assumed that this criticism of Waldorf education was written by Colquhoun himself.

A blog that cites as its sources Twitter feeds...the author is not an educationalist...it could be used to indicate that skeptics are skeptical, but not much more

These articles (that was part 1 of 3) were largely guest-written by ThetisMercurio (aka Melanie Byng), a former Steiner parent and now prominent antiSteiner activist, and another contributor (Lovelyhorse). John Stumbles (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is just a start, but I think these would be useful in covering the opposing side of the Waldorf dispute. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, covering both sides; many of these articles speak to positive and negative aspects of the education. hgilbert (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear. It has been difficult enough to edit this page without anonymous twitter authors in the mix! Even sources that qualify as WP:RS - like the LA Times - may be unsuitable in terms of WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:UNDUE depending on how they are used. Jellypear (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The same could be said of any source, though. These could have a practical application if used to cover criticism of Waldorf Education. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I recently read the link that an IP address provided as a source for "it is widely agreed among scholars of Early Childhood development that Waldorf Education or Waldorf Kindergarten is not entirely sufficient in present times." If only I could get back the 30 minutes of my life that I wasted taking this sourcing seriously! Nothing supporting that statement exists there whatsoever. Experienced editors should not be recommending that blogs be used as reliable source material for wikipedia content. Jellypear (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Multiple intelligences

Someone has been going around wikipedia pages on education and inserting claims and references to Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences hypothesis. The poster does not cite verifiable sources and usually links to vague editorial references. I've removed them for being irrelevant as there is little, if any, significant connection between waldorf education and the MI hypothesis.

Please read the page cited next to the reference to MI hypothesis: http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/strategies/topics/Arts%20in%20Education/The%20Center%20for%20Arts%20in%20the%20Basic%20Curriculum/oddleifson3.htm Is it not meaningless, pseudo-scientific psychobabble? Matbury (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly meaningless babble. Not appropriate here. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It is "An Address to the Council of Elementary Principals Meeting" of the Boston, MA Public Schools by the Chairman of the Center for Arts in the Basic Curriculum. As this was an organization with which Howard Gardner was closely associated, I think we can assume that the speaker is reasonably expert on matters related to Gardner. Perhaps we should take it to the reliable source noticeboard for discussion, however. Though active in trying to shape education in the US, the speaker was not a conventional educationalist. hgilbert (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The question is not reliability of the source, it is relevance, and opacity. We don't need vague, incomprehensible text to confuse the reader. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

What the heck is "opacity" of a source supposed to mean? Jellypear (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible summary paper source?

I came across this earlier, didn't have time to read it all the way, or see if we use it currently. Twenty Years and Counting: A Look at Waldorf in the Public Sector Using Online Sources --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It is primary research and has not yet been discussed in other peer-reviewed papers. Jellypear (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems a mixture, but much of it looks to be a review of, as the title says, available online sources. hgilbert (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That is primary research (content analysis). Jellypear (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

vaccines

The section on immunization has always bothered me. I have recently read through whatever materials I could find on the topic and made some edits because I assumed that simply deleting the section would be met with resistance. While I grant that it is true that the data show a correlation between low levels of vaccine compliance and enrollment in a Waldorf school, I have a few difficulties with WP:TOPIC and WP:REL that no amount of editing seems able to resolve for me.

1. First, immunization will be nearly completed by the time a child is old enough to enroll in a Waldorf preschool. If given the choice between the following two statements, it would be more logical to say: "vaccine non-compliance causes Waldorf school enrollment" than "Waldorf school enrollment causes vaccine non-compliance". And, if this is the case, how pertinent is this issue for a page on Waldorf education? What does Waldorf education itself have to do with vaccine compliance? Not every parent who chooses to deny or delay vaccinations for their child will enroll them in a Waldorf school and plenty of families who are fully compliant will do so. People make different choices. How is the school central to a decision that occurs before enrollment?
2. Second, the possibility of avoiding immunization varies by locale. For example, there are no Waldorf schools in Mississippi but if there were, the rate of vaccine compliance would be nearly 100% because only medical exemptions are allowed in that state. What would 100% compliance at a Waldorf school say about vaccines and Waldorf education in that case? Not much. So, why is the converse particularly meaningful?
3. Third, the epidemiological literature seems to have settled on a consensus that there is no single story that explains vaccine refusal. However, refusers do tend to be middle/upper-middle class whites living in affluent areas. For various reasons, these people cluster together but they are not homogenous in their health/life style choices and personal beliefs.

All in all, I continue to find this issue tangential. Thoughts? Jellypear (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the issue is completely tangential to the subject. As a subgroup in an article on vaccination choices it might have a place. I would be very accepting of complete removal. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I was WP:Bold and removed the section. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Free Inquiry

This seems to be a non-peer reviewed source, and definitely not of the quality demanded by the various administrative reviews of this article.hgilbert (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

What source? I am perhaps under-caffeinated this morning. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

In the religion section: "Daar, Judy; Dugan, Dan (1994). "Are Rudolf Steiner's Waldorf schools 'non-sectarian?'". Free Inquiry". Neither the authors nor the publication justify considering this a RS for an article that has been repeatedly under advisement for strict adherence to and a high bar with the RS guideline. hgilbert (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

We've discussed this before. It is the journal of the Council of Secular Humanism. It is not listed as a peer-reviewed publication in library periodical resources. I can't remember the reason why this was allowed to remain but I know I was tired arguing about it! :) Jellypear (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• The paper has been cited by several scholars, notably by U of Canberra Associate Professor Thomas William Nielsen in his Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy Of Imagination: A Case Study Of Holistic Education, and by Tom Stehlik, Senior Lecturer, School of Education, University of South Australia, in his "Thinking, Feeling, and Willing: How Waldorf Schools Provide a Creative Pedagogy That Nurtures and Develops Imagination". The notice by scholars raises the status of this paper. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Both Stehlik and Nielsen merely list it as an example showing that there is criticism of the schools. I can't see how this raises its status -- if a review of cigarette production described the content of advertisements by tobacco companies, these would not suddenly become reliable sources, nor, closer to home, does the fact that Nielsen quotes from a publication of the Mt Barker Waldorf School Parent Association make this publication a reliable source for Wikipedia. But Stehlik and Nielsen are themselves excellent sources, and their conclusions can certainly be used. hgilbert (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review the requirements regarding WP:RS. We are looking for publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal, newspapers/mainstream media, academic books and other encyclopedias for our editing in this article. The salient quality with all of these sources is that there is a reputation for fact-checking. If other reliable sources have discussed a document in some way, that may raise the topic to a certain level of WP:NOTABILITY, but this doesn't suddenly turn a non-RS into a RS for this article. Of course, things written in Free Inquiry can be used for the views of the article authors on themselves. However in this case, the quotes are to make claims about third parties. Claims about third parties get into Wikipedia through reliable sources, because of their reputation for fact checking. Jellypear (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Waldorf-inspired schools

I have included two new sections: Waldorf-inspired homeschooling and Waldorf-inspired state schools. These two types - or applications - of Waldorf education have not been represented on this page. Given the growth of these two areas in recent years, I think this is a significant omission. In due time they might even deserve their own page. With respect to Waldorf-inspired state schools, I have also figured out a way to incorporate some of the "reception" items into the "Waldorf-inspired state schools" section. However, in total this would be a WP:BRD step, and so I decided to make an intermediate one and see what other editors think. Thoughts? Jellypear (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:Criticism suggests that: "The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections." So this sounds sensible. hgilbert (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is a sensible reorganization, especially as so many of the studies used for references include state sponsored Waldorf-ish programs. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I went ahead and did the re-org. Comments welcome, of course! :) Jellypear (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Paring down & images

I was wondering if anyone else thought that the "spirituality" and "religion" sections could be combined? Also, what about "educational scholars" & "relationship to the mainstream"? This page is so very long and maybe not as focused as it could be? Can anything be cut? Also - towards the end of the page - there is a lot of text and it could benefit from some images but I can't find anything but buildings in wikimedia, although images of charters or academies would fit well here. Jellypear (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both groupings. Also: could not the reading and information technology sections be moved from the reception section to an appropriate place within the curriculum/educational practices section?

Thanks for all your work! hgilbert (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I agree they could be moved. However, they are both kind of wordy and I wonder if they are necessary at all - although this is probably just me. This page is long! Jellypear (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I moved some stuff around but didn't edit much text. Maybe a new ordering will provide other editors with a new vantage point from which to view the content. Jellypear (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Work space for religion section

While I think the recent edits to the religion section are generally good, I am concerned that they may not be sticking to the sources as closely as we need to for this page. Firstly, this sentence is a little unwieldy. "Waldorf education was founded with spiritual roots — for Steiner, education was an activity which fosters the human being's connection to the divine and is thus inherently religious — yet a universal orientation: "one of Steiner's primary aims with his new school at Stuttgart was to have a non-sectarian setting for children from all religious backgrounds." I think more can be done to present the arguments of individual RS on this issue and not mix them up together (i.e.., Zander and Nielsen in one sentence.)

1. How about something like this, "Thomas Nielsen, professor of educational philosophy, explains that Waldorf education is founded on the belief that morality and goodness are innate within all human beings and that an essential task of education is to develop students' capacity for moral discernment. Nielsen says that according to Steiner this capacity will not be developed by telling a child what is right or wrong but by stimulating their imagination and their capacity for empathy. Nielsen says that Steiner therefore advocated putting moral questions into "artistic form" so as to not impose "morality on the child but merely [lay] the foundation for moral judgement to develop later in the student's life". Neilsen states that Steiner believed that such experiences didn't have to occur in a particular religious framework. As a result, one of the aims of the first Waldorf school was that it be non-sectarian and open to children of all religious backgrounds. Ullrich describes Steiner's view as follows: "The strongest impulses can come from religious tales because these may be envisioned through man's position within the world as a whole." [maybe expand this a bit more...]
2. As a result of both the unusual character of the intention behind the pedagogy and the concrete pedagogy developed within specific (originally primarily European) contexts, there are many opinions on the relationship between Waldorf education and religion. I think that in order to stick closely to the sources, it may be better to just have the sentence start with "There are many opinions". As a result of..." makes a quasi-causal claim and I think it would be better to source that to a RS who speaks about this issue rather than in the voice of Wikipedia. Nielsen sort of does this. I dunno.

I hope these comments make sense! This is a tricky topic to cover briefly, but I think it is important to be clear about who has what ideas concerning "religion" in Waldorf education. These are just suggestions, BTW, assuming that others can follow my train of thought here! Jellypear (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that sourcing especially this material, which can be somewhat controversial is a good idea. Somewhere there is a balance, however.

As regards the opening: It is my impression that many sources agree on these two fundamental points: that Waldorf is both religious-spiritual, and non-sectarian, and that it clarifies the whole discussion to have this somewhat paradoxical combination laid out up front.

I agree. What is interesting about what people have to say is how they define and describe "religious" - especially as it relates to the aims of education. Spirituality and religiosity in education are considered quite good things by these scholars because these dimensions speak to the holism of the educational approach. However, they are defining religious experience in a wholly different way than as in organized religion. This is how the education can be both religious AND non-sectarian although this would appear to be a paradoxical claim to people not working with their definitions of religion and spirituality. But rather than put these distinctions in wikipedia's voice, they should be cited to authors who claim this. Jellypear (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

1. If citations are needed to back this up, I think these could be found.

That was what I was suggesting with Nielsen and his argument, but maybe it was too heavy on the "he says" stuff. Jellypear (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

1. I'd be happy to go along with reformatting of the complex, somewhat klutzy syntax
2. I'll bow to others' opinions about the helpfulness of such an intro

In terms of your next suggestion, with Nielsen: I find the text appropriate, but wonder if it is really necessary to name Nielsen so often. Perhaps it is possible to distinguish between statements that are clearly controversial (A said X, B said Y), and thus need inline citations, and others that are more factual in character and quite uncontroversial, which might only need a footnote. Where the line between these lies is a dynamic exploration, of course.

I agree completely with the third; I will make the change you suggest. (Actually, I have now removed the "there are many opinions", which seems to me unnecessary metacommentary, in favor of simply listing the opinions. But if you like the sentence please do add it back!) hgilbert (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A little bit off-topic but I was just reading about how teachers are trying to stimulate "moral imagination" at their Jewish-Arab Waldorf school. Link to page It made me think of Nielsen's argument concerning religion in Waldorf schools. I think he is right. Of course, that is just my opinion and to the extent that there are differing views his should not be presented above others in this piece. On the other hand, I am not on top of how much difference there is. Anyway, I thought this was interesting in light of having just read Nielsen's argument. Jellypear (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I would encourage you to go ahead with the Nielsen material, and perhaps add the moral imagination example.hgilbert (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

I consider this article essentially an advertisement. The addition of two shorts paragraphs of criticism is not what is meant by NPOV. What is needed is a clearer discussion of their distinctiveness, and a lesser use of sources from within the movement. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by " a clearer discussion of their distinctiveness"? As noted below, the extensive list of citations for this article come primarily from peer-reviewed academic journals, books published by academic or large reputable presses and tertiary sources like encyclopedias of education. While completeness and NPOV are always something to discuss in an article, there is no basis to say that the article is heavily based on "sources within the movement." That is simply untrue. Such sources have already been excluded per the arbitration decision stipulations. Jellypear (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The phrase that caught my attention was "Waldorf education is the largest independent alternative education movement in the world.[6]". This is a broad generalization that depends on the definitions of at least two of the terms (independent and alternative) and needs to be supported by hard numbers/statistics. In fact, the citation appears to be an opinion piece originally published 10 years ago and the term "alternative" is added to this article where it doesn't exist in the article it cites. Furthermore, the article cited states, "the schools are state-funded in many northern European countries" which to me means they are NOT independent, thus lending credence to the original poster's characterization of this article as being advertising. 81.47.179.40 (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I see explicit discussion of distinctiveness in many areas, including: timing of the introduction of reading, block teaching, looping, textbooks created by students, not grouping by ability, qualitative rather than quantitative assessment, delayed use of media, eurythmy, early introduction of foreign languages, approach to physical education, phenomenological approach to science, values orientation, exemption from the ICT requirement, differences in student attitudes, achievement on PISA tests, career choices, community-building effect, philosophical basis.

All this comes before the Waldorf_education#Relationship_with_mainstream_education section, which (among a number of other things) quotes a major study of the education's contrasting state and Waldorf approaches as follows: state schools could benefit from Waldorf education's early introduction and approach to modern foreign languages; combination of block (class) and subject teaching for younger children; development of speaking and listening through an emphasis on oral work; good pacing of lessons through an emphasis on rhythm; emphasis on child development guiding the curriculum and examinations; approach to art and creativity; attention given to teachers’ reflective activity and heightened awareness (in collective child study for example); and collegial structure of leadership and management, including collegial study. Aspects of mainstream practice which could inform good practice in Waldorf schools included: management skills and ways of improving organizational and administrative efficiency; classroom management; work with secondary-school age children; and assessment and record keeping.

As regards sources: essentially all of the more than 120 citations are from peer-reviewed, reliable sources (standard, accepted journals and publishers); the only exceptions I see are 1) Statistics for numbers of the schools, an accepted use of in-house sources, and 2) extremely brief material in the Intercultural links in socially polarized communities section cited to the website of two schools in Tibet and in Israel, and solely referencing the situation of those particular schools.)

There has been a recent effort to integrate criticism into the relevant sections, rather than isolating this in a separate appendage, as WP:Criticism suggests this is best practice. Are there further, specific areas and sources you can suggest?hgilbert (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion between this article and the Curriculum of the Waldorf schools article, which was the one originally tagged by DGG. The latter indeed draws primarily on "in-house" sources. This one does not rely to any significant extent on such sources.

I suggest that the tag be removed from this article and the discussion moved to the curriculum article, where responses and comparisons are indeed very lacking. hgilbert (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Rawson & Richter is a Waldorf movement source and it is used for many aspects of the curriculum subpage. The tag should be removed here but can be left there (where that Waldorf movement source is important for the page). I will take a look at the curriculum page and see if it can be improved by using a more diverse set of reliable sources. It would help to have more clarification to know where it viewed as being lacking or even non-neutral on that page. As for this page, the tag says the following two things are needed 1) "rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view" and 2) removing any inappropriate external links. In order for this tag to stick, someone needs to point out "promotional content" on the page as well as any "inappropriate external links." Jellypear (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see my recent comment above about the statement: "Waldorf education is the largest independent alternative education movement in the world.[6]". That kind of language is usually associated with promotional materials. It would be better to support it with actual statistics (a table of schools by country, for example) that compares it to other "independent alternative" education movements. And just out of curiosity, does Montessori count as independent and alternative?81.47.179.40 (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the statement sounds somewhat doubtful, particularly given Montessori's population. The citation, however, is to an article in one of the world's most respected education periodicals, TES, and is written by an established journalist who specializes in education. Given WP's WP:Truth policy, this seems to be a situation where the quality of the source might trump our uncertainty about whether the claim is true or not, especially in the absence of evidence that it is false.

The standard of comparison is also unclear. Do state-funded charter schools and academies count as independent? Are they independent if their governance and curricular decisions are independent, even if financing is provided from an external source? Are we counting officially accredited schools (which is how Waldorf counts) or schools that have chosen the philosophy, whether or not they are accredited (which is how Montessori usually counts)? McGavin, the author of the TES piece, does not specify the basis for his comparison.

Any suggestions for how to deal with the situation? HGilbert (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Dubious claim

With the previous single source being an opinion article that is light on statistics, I think the statement "Waldorf education is the largest independent alternative education movement in the world." is intentionally misleading. I have edited it to reflect a more nuanced version that more accurately displays the contents of that source, despite its lede in addition to adding a more reputable source. Andrew (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Good change; thanks. HGilbert (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Poorly Sourced Reference

I can see the Waldorf guards are busy at work here.

Whoever put the reference in for "bad science" - Look at http://www.novatocharterschool.org/wp-content/uploads/waldorf-science.pdf to support the bad Waldorf science claim. 2605:E000:24C0:E400:F44E:F9F3:A10E:C103 (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

see this Talk Page's archives. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Why hide it in the archives if people are going to keep asking about it? How long is this whitewash of Waldorf going to go on? How about letting an editor who doesn't have a conflict of interest add something to this article? Any chance of that happening? 2605:E000:24C0:E400:F44E:F9F3:A10E:C103 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Alexbrn is hardly susceptible to such charges. HGilbert (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The user specified has been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article. You get that I'm not editing the ARTICLE, right? Just leave the comments. 2605:E000:24C0:E400:455F:149F:143B:CC2F (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I've linked this talk page to my own blog and to the Waldorf Critic's list - and will continue to link it on blogs every chance I get. Your edits and the complaints about them are going to get a lot more scrutiny from now on. If you *really* think you are honest editors, you won't mind the whole world watching. In reality, you're taking the famous Waldorf BULLYING to the next level - ensuring nobody can tamper with your article. Somebody with integrity needs to step in here - and the conflicted authors need to step out. 2605:E000:24C0:E400:455F:149F:143B:CC2F (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

HGilbert AGAIN hid my discussion. I'll keep bringing it back. Whaddaya gonna do? Send the Wikipedia police to my house? 2605:E000:24C0:E400:455F:149F:143B:CC2F (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Go to WP:AN3 for edit warring? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 23:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

above discussion was by an IP sock puppet of a banned user, Pete K. The IP sock has now also been blocked. Also violated:

WP:OUTING HGilbert (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Humanism and anthroposophy are an oxymoron

"Waldorf (Steiner) education is a humanistic approach to pedagogy based on the educational philosophy of the Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy." Isn't humanism and anthroposophy a fine example of an oxymoron? 67.230.215.213 (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand the term "oxymoron", but the answer to your implied question is in any case "no", the two are not incompatible, as the source indicates. HGilbert (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent problematic edits

• In this edit (summary: "put studies before personal opinions not backed by evidence"), content was not just moved as the summary implied, but some content was also deleted - e.g. mentioning that a school faced a Federal lawsuit.
• This addition, about attention "now" being given to diversity, introduced material sourced to an unpublished thesis of 2007 and to a 1993 book about festivals, so does not seem good or accurate.

I have reverted accordingly. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Format of list by country

I'm not sure that I've improved things by compressing this table to leave less white space. The two versions follow; any thoughts? HGilbert (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Recognized independent Waldorf schools by continent

	Africa	Asia	Europe	N. America	Oceania	S. America
Schools	22	51	718	146	47	55
Countries	5	12	36	4	2	5

and

Recognized independent Waldorf schools by continent

Continent	Schools	Countries
Africa	22	5
Asia	51	12
Europe	718	36
North America	146	4
Oceania	47	2
South America	55	5

As a reader, but not editing here, I find the 3 column version much to be preferred, due to shorter span and more informative listing. There may be an ease-of-viewing-and-comprehension standard for such things? Qexigator (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Unclear whether or not anthroposophy is taught in the schools?

These two sentences right next to each other seem to contradict one another. Both are cited yet they can't both be right. "While anthroposophy underpins Waldorf schools' organisation, curriculum design and pedagogical approach (and frequently, the design of the buildings, as well as pupil and teacher health and diet), it is explicitly not taught within the school curriculum.[34][12]:6" AND "The curriculum of Waldorf teacher education programs includes both pedagogical texts and other anthroposophical works by Steiner.[35]" Sgerbic (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see why they are puzzling together. One refers to the schools, the other to the teacher education. I will try to clarify this in the article. HGilbert (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks HGilbert that helps a little, but I'm still confused. The article now seems to claim (and the reader is led to believe) that Anthroposophy, which is taught to the teachers as part of their TRAINING, is NOT the "spirituality" that is in the Waldorf curriculum. What "spirituality" are we talking about in the curriculum if it isn't Anthroposophy?Sgerbic (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Does the Spirituality section not answer just that? It's a non-sectarian approach. I wonder how this can be clarified. Any thoughts, anyone, or better yet sources? HGilbert (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)