Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Health of Waldorf pupils

13:46, 27 October 2006 Pete removed a section, then titled "Health effects" from the article, arguing that "no source has been cited for this ridiculous claim - that Waldorf schools are responsible for heath effects.". I have added a section on ""Health of Waldorf pupils", sticking closely to what is stated in the studies on which the section is based. Thebee 16:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this section again. This kind of nonsense is what starts edit wars. There is NO support for the notion that simply by attending a Waldorf school, students are healthier. It's a ridiculous claim and that Waldorf people have made it doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Pete K 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Let me just add that this is another attempt by TheBee to start edit wars and lock up this article. Please stop making ridiculous claims that are supported by your own group. Pete K 16:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong and I have made no ridiculous claim. My addition is not an edit war. When you removed the section some days ago, you stated in your edit summary that you did it because it in your view is ridiculous to state "that Waldorf schools are responsible for heath effects". I did not revert your edit. The two studies it referred to were two purely empirical studies, one published in the Lancet, Vol. 353, No. 9163. (May 1 1999), pp. 1485-8, the other (a large study confirming the first one) in J Allergy Clin Immunol, Vol. 117, No. 1. (January 2006), pp. 59-66, that show that allergic diseases are less common among Waldorf pupils than among pupils in a corresponding control group.

I agree that it was a false overstatement to describe it this as an "effect" of Waldorf education, and did not write that in my addition of a section on the health of Waldorf pupils. I just described the empirical finding, that the two studies cited in the section describe, that allergic diseases are less common among Waldorf pupils. That's all. The studies document this, and it is interesting.

In the summary of the edit where you have removed the section, you write: "removed once by consensus". Can you point me to the consensus you refer to? Thanks, Thebee 17:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't say "You are wrong" - that's a personal attack. As to the studies, the claim is ridiculous. Waldorf is a private school system - primarily available to affluent people. Affluent people tend to be healthier than the general public for any number of reasons, not the least of which is being able to afford superior medical attention. The only thing that is interesting about your claim is that you apparently believe people won't see it for how ridiculous it is. Pete K 17:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

With "You are wrong" I meant that I did not make the edit to - as you write - start an edit war, but just to make a correct description of the studies referred to in the section, strictly based on their summaries, nothing else. In the earlier description, this in my view hade been exaggerated by asserting a direct causative relation between going to a Waldorf school as such (as "cause") and a lower incidence of allergic diseases among pupils at the schools ("effect").

I also did not make the edit to - as you write - get the article locked. I also think that you were wrong in writing that I - as you write - made "ridiculous claims", as what I wrote was strictly a short summary of what the two studies themselves give as summaries in the well known medical journals. The publication of the two studies in the journals probably would not have taken place, if the editors of the journals (the Lancet and J Allergy Clin Immunol) had considered the result of the studies - that I just describe - to be ridiculous. In these three senses I think it is clear that you were wrong in what you wrote.

On your: "... don't say "You are wrong" - that's a personal attack." Can you be more specific in what sense this in your view constitues a personal attack in relation to the examples of Personal attacks, respectively Not Personal Attacks, given at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples and my description of what I referred to?

We seem to have different views of what a personal attack is. Three days ago (31 Oct.), you wrote that you did not consider a comment by you to 15:34, 28 October: "Shove your reminders ", to have been a Personal attack on him. To my understanding (I may be wrong, as I'm not American) what you wrote is a Profanity, and - according to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples "Profanity directed against another contributor." falls in the category of Personal attacks. This just as some principal reflecions on our seemingly very different understanding of what "Personal attacks" mean according to Wikipedia policies.

Also, if you personally consider one or more empirical studies, published in well-reputed journal to be "ridiculous", that personal view probably cannot be used as basis to delete a description of them in a Wiki article, according to some Wikipedia policy or guideline. If just a personal view by someone was enough to remove material from an article, that would mean that I too could delete for example what you put in one article on Steiner, just because I think it is ridiculous, as you now have done.

Finally, again: Can you point to the consensus you refer to in your description of your edit of the article 16:30, 2 November 2006? Thanks, Thebee 23:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a peek at the Lancet controversies listed on Wikipedia:

The Lancet was severely criticized after it published a paper in 1998, in which the authors raised the possibility of a link between MMR vaccine and autism, a matter of continuing controversy. In February 2004 The Lancet published a partial retraction of the paper. Dr Horton went on the record to say the paper was "fatally flawed" because one of the authors had a serious conflict of interest that he had not declared to The Lancet.

The Lancet published a controversial estimate of the Iraq war's Iraqi death toll--around one hundred thousand--in 2004. In 2006 a followup study by the same team suggested that the violent death rate in Iraq was not only consistent with the earlier estimate, but had increased considerably in the intervening period (Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq ). The second survey estimated that the death toll in Iraq was somewhere between 426,00 and 793,000 people - with 601,000 being the agreed upon mid-way estimate. Over 12,000 people were surveyed.[1]

In January 2006, it was revealed that data had been fabricated in an article by the cancer researcher Jon Sudbø and 13 co-authors published in The Lancet in October 2005, [2]. The fabricated article was entitled "Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of oral cancer: a nested case-control study". [3]. Within a week after this scandal surfaced in the news, the high-impact New England Journal of Medicine published an expression of editorial concern regarding another research paper published on a similar topic in the journal.

Pete K 00:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought - go ahead and put in the wild-ass medical claims. This opens the door for me to bring in articles about whooping cough being rampant at Waldorf schools - and articles about abusive Waldorf teachers - who was that senator's sister who tied children to their chairs and taped their mouths shut? Never mind, I'll find it. I just don't see why making such a ridiculous claim that everyone will see through matters so much to you. Pete K 00:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You have deleted a correctly cited section describing lower incidence of allergic diseases among pupils at Waldorf schools (in Europe) by referring to an earlier reached consensus that the section - as it looked earlier - should be removed. I have asked you twice if you could point me to this consensus, and you have not answered, just threatened that if I add the section again, correctly describing the two, well researched and documented studies upon which the section was based, in revenge, you will add material that you find damaging to Waldorf schools. Is that a correct understanding of what you write?

As you don't seem inclined to point to documentation of the consensus, can someone (else?) who participated in it, point me to it, giving a date and maybe a difflink? Thanks. Thebee 16:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You insist on introducing a ridiculous claim for which there is no support - because it happened to be published in Lancet, a journal which publishes original research. That's what they do - publish original research - so peer review can transpire. It has nothing to do with the validity of the research at all. And, no, I have made no threats - I have indicated that I appreciate the opportunity to produce similar reports that show Waldorf schools as medical cesspools where the abundance of unvaccinated children leads to outbreaks of disease. This discussion, unlike the goofy article you want to include, actually has its basis in fact. So yes, go ahead, make my day. Pete K 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For a fourth time: When you deleted the section on the incidence of allergic diseases in the article, as documented by two well published studies, you wrote that you deleted it, based on an earlier consensus that it did not belong in the article. After I have asked three times where to find this conseusus, you still do not point to documentation of it. Instead you again refer to your own view that what the studies document is "ridiculous", and that they do not document what they document. Should I understand this to mean that the consensus, to which you referred does not exist, that no such consensus can be documented in discussions about the article, and that your edit (deletion)therefore lacked basis, both in a consensus and some Wikipedia policy or guideline? Would that not mean that the deletion you made was a disruptive edit of the type Centrx some days ago warned you to continue doing, telling if you did it, you'e be banned? Thanks, Thebee 16:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the section should be added.

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

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

There's another pertussis epidemic breaking. Let's see how the local Waldorf schools fare. Pete K 21:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucifer and www.worldnetdaily.com

I leave the house for 1hour and come back to find you all edit warring - stop it. You need to come to a consensus on the talk page before just deleting information -

Right on the ref [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17206] from www.worldnetdaily.com. First you deleted this saying:

Citation says nothing about Saint Michael, Saint Martin, or that children are being taught about "Lucifer". Check before readding.

This is obviously not correct as I have read the article - and it specifically mentions Lucifer - it does not mention the Saints so I suppose this article is being used as a citation about teaching Lucifer. So your reason for deleting it is incorrect - I will revert it back with after I have written. Only delete it after a consensus is reached here.

The article in question explicicty talks about teaching about Lucifer in Waldorf schools:

What is Anthroposophy? "The Waldorf Teacher's Survival Guide" is designated by the Sacramento City Unified School District as one of its resource materials for "training or instruction in Waldorf teaching methods or Waldorf curriculum." WorldNetDaily obtained a copy of the 67-page pamphlet, published in 1992 and written by Eugene Schwartz, head of the Waldorf teacher training program at Sunbridge College in Spring Valley, N.Y. The "Guide" says, on page 54: "Most of that which contributes to our work as teachers, preparation work, artistic work, even meditative work, is under the guardianship of Lucifer. We can become great teachers under his supervision, for he is responsible for much that has blossomed in the unfolding of civilization and culture in the past."

Lucifer?

In Anthroposophical doctrine, Lucifer is the god of light. His antagonist is Ahriman, the god of darkness. To balance these two opposing forces, Christ comes to earth as a sun god.

Now there are two main questions here:

1. Is this source reputable or not - read some reviews here [1] it is not cut and dry.
2. Is it possible to see the primary source, or get confirmation that this is correctly paraphrased?

Answering these two will help decide if it can be used as a citation or not. Cheers Lethaniol 16:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Good morning Lethaniol. I looked at the reviews. Looks like one of those - love it, hate it publications. Kinda like the LA Times. Most reviews were either one star or five stars - none of their readers seem to be middle-of-the-road... Reminds me of some articles on Wikipedia. I don't think it's less reputable because some people don't like what it says... to me that makes it MORE reputable. Pete K 16:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Say it isn't so - customer reviews on Amazon as a criterion for judging the appropriateness of a source?DianaW 17:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No you are right this is not the way to review sources - but it does raise alarm bells and hence we should be very careful about its use e.g. you would not normally use a non-sport reference from the The Daily Sport even though well read and respected (for its sport). Now this ref is not that extreme but doubts are there that need to be addressed. Cheers Lethaniol 17:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit cross about this - have just read the www.worldnetdaily.com - you lot should be able to sort it out for yourselves by TALKING on this page - but here are my two conclusions that mean I am deleting the Lucifer ref (and the Saints as also unref).

1. The Lucifer claim is, that is taught in schools, is incorrect, the ref says The "Guide" says, on page 54: "Most of that which contributes to our work as teachers, preparation work, artistic work, even meditative work, is under the guardianship of Lucifer., which TheBee is correct in saying does not mean it is taught to the kids (why you could not say this on this talk page I do not know TheBee).
2. The article is basically an interview with PLANS and therefore should not be used to ref fact as primary research, but can be used for opinions if applicable.

Cheers Lethaniol 19:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This issue still needs to be discussed with respect to the Lucifer connection section - because, I believe this follows the lines of the www.worldnetdaily.com - we do need to discuss if that can be kept or not, or even rewritten or turned into a quote??? Cheers Lethaniol 19:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's OK - finding another source that confirms that Waldorf teachers teach about Lucifer shouldn't be too difficult - since they have a festival devoted to Lucifer and St. Michael (Michaelmas) and St. Martin. Why this should be disputed is a question here but I don't think there's any problem finding sources for this. Many Waldorf school pages discuss this connection openly so there shouldn't be a big controversy here. I'll look for citable sources. Pete K 19:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Michaelmas has nothing to do with Lucifer. Bon chance on your search. Hgilbert 14:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you're really funny.

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

Here are three of 13,100 hits on Michaelmas Lucifer. Pete K 16:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and here are a couple Waldorf school sites:

• [5]
• [6]

Thanks for the opportunity to demonstrate this. Pete K 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think we should scrap the current Lucifer section, and make a new section in Antroposophy to cover the basics of what Lucifer and Ahriman are all about. It can then be written in another section of the Waldorf article that the antroposophical concepts of are taught and used by teachers - and then give link to the appropriate section of the Antroposophy article for more information. I think care should be taken in the way this is written so that it does not look like that the student are taught to worship Lucifer - using Lucifer from the traditional viewpoint - as this would be misinterpretation IMHO. Cheers Lethaniol 17:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"It can then be written in another section of the Waldorf article that the antroposophical concepts of are taught and used by teachers"

Please stick to what is reliable and verifiable truth, which is what Wikipedia should limit itself to. Thebee 17:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the links I have provided above will demonstrate that Lucifer, as taught in Waldorf schools, is not at all unlike the traditional Lucifer. When one gets into deeper Anthroposophical studies, of course, further embellishment of Lucifer's character occurs, along with his companion, Ahriman. Unfortunately, Lucifer's role (and Ahriman's) in Waldorf, just like in Anthroposophy, is HUGE. One activity may be labeled "Luciferic" meaning light, spiritual, idealistic while another may be "Ahrimanic" - mechanical or materialistic. Furthermore - a CHILD may be labeled as one or the other. Ahriman resides in the television set, or computer - that's why the Waldorf ban on TV. Lucifer is the light - that's why lighting candels is so significant in Waldorf. These are HUGE themes in Waldorf and of course the balance between Lucifer and Ahriman is found in the Christ - represented by Michael. The idea is not that the children worship Lucifer, but that Lucifer and Ahriman can be held in their place through the Christ. Of course this is exactly the type of discussion the pro-Waldorf people don't want to come out in the article. The teachers work in this way, and it is absolutely getting to the children. Why would we need to hide this? Pete K 17:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay if it is a big issue, and an important part of Anthroposophy, the concept still needs to be talked about in the Anthroposophy article first - in its own section - which preferably a follower of Antroposophy would right, but if not then anyone will do. Then, and I would have thought only then can it be discussed here.

For a comparison: one would not go into any detail about how the Holocaust is denied in the article Iranian culture, if there was not an article on Holocaust denial in the first place - the main article should get attention first or it does not make sense as you have to explain all the details in about Holocaust denial in the Iranian article which will just have to be cut out and placed into own article anyway. Cheers Lethaniol 17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I put a sentence in the Lucifer section that explains there's more to it for Anthroposophists than that - but in reality, the Lucifer the kids learn about is not unlike the traditional Lucifer (i.e. not the one that requires explanation by Anthroposophists). The kids learn about the archangel that was cast out of heaven by God (this is absolutely the traditional Lucifer) - and this is represented in the Michaelmas festival - the archangel Michael representing the Christ/God casting out the dragon/Lucifer from heaven. This image is so important in Waldorf, as I have shown in the PLANS article, the festival is disguised as "the Dragon Festival" in PUBLIC Waldorf schools to avoid the parents catching on that it is a religious festival. I don't see any reason why the section shouldn't stay. Lucifer is a big part of Waldorf, both to the teachers and to the students. Pete K 18:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay well I hope someone adds some info to the Anthroposophy article too. You do have a problem though Pete - we will need to have non-Anthroposophy non-WC/Plans notable sources that cover what you say about teaching about Lucifer and him being part of the festival (I have not checked the refs above to see if they fall into this cat.), for this info to be added into the article. Cheers Lethaniol 18:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that "teaching" about Lucifer will require additional sources. The references above are simply for discussion - Waldorf sites that demonstrate exactly what Waldorf is teaching. I don't think I will have trouble finding an independent source as there is little doubt that this occurs. Pete K 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Michaelmas at Waldorf schools would be a celebration of how Michael, or St George or someone similar would fight and from heaven throw out what at least one Waldorf teacher considers to be an inspirational force in his work? Maybe some logical sorting out of the issue would be in place?

The picture and myth of the struggle between good and evil is central in many cultures, and is depicted in different pictures. At Waldorf schools the pupils learn about cultural history and the way it depicts different issues. One of these issues is the struggle between good and bad, outside man in the world, and inside man. That's part of learning to know the world of human culture and understand ourselves. The WCs twist this into "Teaching about Lucifer". At one time, one WC argued that if a Waldorf teacher in the lower grades uses a sea shell to call the pupils playing outside to class, instead of a bell, this "actually" means the Waldorf school is a mystery school, as maybe something similar was done in such at some time .... To WCs, EVERYTHING in Waldorf education actually is an indoctrination into spiritual mysteries, or "indoctrination" with anthroposophy and "should" be described as such. For some comments on this I think paranoid attitude, see here

Get real. Myths about good and evil are described in all human cultures. Waldorf education teaches the pupils about human culture through history. For how this can look like at a Waldorf school with regard to the struggle between good and evil and the (possible) victory of good over evil, as traditionally celebrated at Michaeli time, see here, or here, or here. Thebee 19:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not about to follow you down yet another rabbit hole of your Original Research (although I'll be glad to post some letters to refute your stuff again) - Waldorf TEACHES this stuff to children as if it is FACT. I will support this claim if I put it into the article. You can fight your imaginary enemy, the WC, all you like here. I'm not part of that or any group and comments about the WC don't interest or concern me. I am working out of my own experience and knowledge here - nobody elses. Maybe you dream about casting me out of Wikipedia in the spirit of Michael. What you are claiming above is weasel-worded nonsense (human culture through history). Michaelmas is NOT a historical fact. The casting out of Lucifer from heaven is not a historical fact. If someone needs to "get real" here, it's YOU. Pete K 19:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article that discusses Michael and Ahriman. Pete K 19:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: My experience with Michaelmas festivals has been that the image of Michael and the dragon is presented without mention of Lucifer, and this is in Waldorf schools not public schools--no disguises. Perhaps it is taught differently in the later grades but in early childhood I've never heard anyone talk about Lucifer in front of children. I think given that most people hear "Satan" when they hear "Lucifer", it could be misleading without a long discussion of what Lucifer means in anthroposophy...doesn't seem appropriate for this page. The section on The Two Faces of Evil does not seem to illuminate anything about Waldorf education as written.

Also: Lucifer and Ahriman are not seen as completely evil beings in anthroposophy. Without Lucifer, we would not have the arts. Without Ahriman, we would not have technology. It's when their influence is in *excess* that we experience evil. (My humble interpretation!) So, quoting about Lucifer's influence on teachers as written seems misleading without even more context. Henitsirk 02:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, so our direct experiences differ regarding whether Lucifer is taught in Waldorf. Philosophically, I would disagree with "in excess" and substitute "out of balance and without the Christ", but that's a sideline. I agree that the subject could be expanded. What acceptable sources have we got to expand the section with? Pete K 16:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Again I would like to come back to a compromise offer on this situation - have a section in the main Anthroposophy article about Lucifer and Ahriman explaining the concept - once that is done, any section/paragraph/sentence that talks about Lucifer or Ahriman in Waldorf Education can then link to this new section in Anthroposophy and explain that the Lucifer concept is different from traditional interpretations.

This solution would add useful information to Wikipedia, and if Lucifer is mentioned in this article allow to be done in a NPOV way. Thoughts please Cheers Lethaniol 16:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that compromise but if it means removing this section now (and I don't think it should), I would like to be able to re-insert it if nobody produces the Anthroposophy section within a reasonable time - say a week or so. It doesn't make sense to remove the material I have sourced and continue to work on sourcing based on some future edit that we hope someone will make. Does that seem unfair? Pete K 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding, if it does seem unfair, I'll accept the compromise as you envision it. Pete K 17:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two disputes in one. The first is whether to include the Michaelmas holiday. Above discussions include more "original research" on that, looking at school websites as a source. If you look on google waldorf schools have Christmas holiday, Easter, Columbus Day and Halloween. Besides the independent source question there is a question about notability. Is this one notable? Or are all the holidays all notable?

The other dispute is about worldnetdaily.com. The article is about a law suit. The quotes from the book in worldnetdaily.com were tried to go in for evidence in the trial in another wikisource page. [7]. Worldnetdaily's article is older. The more recent event was that Lucifer book was not accepted in court. And later, the court dropped the Lucifer book from evidence in the law suit. So including it poses questions about is it written in article to use for original research conclusion? Is it important notable fact about the school system? And also does the material come from a good fact source for verifiabilty. Venado 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lethaniol that a longer discussion of Lucifer and Ahriman would be more useful in the anthroposophy page, and just have a smaller reference on the WE page. Unfortunately I don't feel knowledgable enough to contribute to the anthro page, and finding a third party source for citation on the WE page may be difficult. Thanks. Henitsirk 01:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If Waldorf teachers are taught Anthroposophy (they are) and are expected to work through Anthroposphy when they interact with children (they are) then some understanding about what that means belongs in the Waldorf Education article. It is far less important to know that children can play the flute by age 12 than that teachers adhere to an unusual set of occult premises when dealing with children. If this information doesn't appear here, then it makes the entire article dishonest. Pete K 16:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Pete K that the Lucifer/Ahriman topic is integral to anthroposophy and Waldorf teacher training, and is something unusual enough about Waldorf that it should be included. I still think though that the section should be minimal and reference the main article for more detail. And again, we would need an approved citation for this controversial topic.

And could we perhaps think of a different title than Two Faces of Evil? I think that reads a bit sensationalist. Could we just call it "Lucifer and Ahriman"? Thanks. Henitsirk 03:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with those who feel it should go into the Anthroposophy article. While my children were specifically taught in 1st grade the Lucifer was the "god of light," created illustrations and recited stories to that effect - along with annual tellings of Michael and the Dragon and Eurythmy plays on that topic, I don't as much believe it belongs on the education article. - Wikiwag 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The clerk of the arbitration, Thatcher, has said in a reply to PeteK that the idea that the worldnetdaily article is a reliable source is "laughable"; this should be removed. The last part of the section cites an anthroposophic bookstore's review of a book written by an anthroposophist published by an anthroposophic press. Clearly inadmissible. That would leave the first sentence, at best, which has nothing whatsoever at all to do with Waldorf education.

Actually, none of this section as written connects to Waldorf education in any way. Hgilbert 11:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right - like your statement above :"Michaelmas has nothing to do with Lucifer." I don't know who you are trying to convince, but it certainly isn't me, or anyone familiar with Waldorf education (who isn't a Waldorf teacher intent on deceiving the public - as Waldorf teachers do). In any case, it's good that people reading these conversations get a good glimpse of your behavior here. HGilbert, hopefully, at some point, you will start working with the editors here and not against them. You might start by putting a section about Lucifer and Ahriman in the Anthroposophy article before trying to remove it from this one. This one will CERTAINLY be talking about Lucifer and Ahriman, but I think we have ALL agreed that the bulk of that material belongs in the Anthroposophy article. I'm sure we ALL get that you don't want mention of Lucifer and Ahriman in the Waldorf article - and we all get why. Difficult material, for you, is going to be in this article. Waldorf teachers ABSOLUTELY work through Lucifer and Ahriman and that's one of the most important, most foundation ideas of Anthroposophy, so please stop insisting that it doesn't need to be addressed here. It does, and it will be. Pete K 14:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources this section is based upon are all inadmissible for any article in this group: anthroposophical sources and the worldnetdaily source the arbitration clerk has called laughable. It should not be moved elsewhere, it should be struck.

I personally know of no connection between Michaelmas and Lucifer, at least within anthroposophy. Milton's Paradise Lost has Lucifer casting Michaelmas out of heaven; perhaps you are referring to this. Some Waldorf schools may teach Milton - I haven't researched this and don't know of any that do offhand. In any case, I am happy to create a section on Christ, Lucifer and Ahriman for the anthroposophy article (the three are interrelated subjects); I will look for sources. There may or may not be adequate ones out there. That has nothing to do with the present material, or its unjustifiable presence here. Hgilbert 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"The sources this section is based upon are all inadmissible for any article in this group: anthroposophical sources and the worldnetdaily source the arbitration clerk has called laughable. It should not be moved elsewhere, it should be struck." Nobody has made that decision.

"I personally know of no connection between Michaelmas and Lucifer, at least within anthroposophy." Gee, did you read the sources I provided above. This "I personally don't know of" thing is wearing thin... and it's hardly believable since now, at least, you know of a connection between Michaelmas and Lucifer. I have provided it for you above. If you don't have a good understanding of Waldorf festivals, why are you pretending to be an expert here?

"Milton's Paradise Lost has Lucifer casting Michaelmas out of heaven; perhaps you are referring to this." Oh brother. Did you even look at the links I provided above?

"Some Waldorf schools may teach Milton - I haven't researched this and don't know of any that do offhand." You can't seriously be this obtuse. There is NO point discussing this with you. I suggest here you are pretending to be confused. It won't work. Other editors here have stated that Lucifer was taught to their children in Waldorf. You are, perhaps, not being honest here. It's hard to assume good faith when you are pretending not to understand the Waldorf Michaelmas festival. It's just silly on your part.

"In any case, I am happy to create a section on Christ, Lucifer and Ahriman for the anthroposophy article (the three are interrelated subjects); I will look for sources. There may or may not be adequate ones out there. That has nothing to do with the present material, or its unjustifiable presence here." Thanks. The present material is here and it's justified, it represents Waldorf fairly and it is sourced. Hopefully, this will be the end of this question for you. Pete K 15:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The article [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17206] from www.worldnetdaily.com is obviously not a reliable source. The site is addressed to a conservative audience to whom "Lucifer" is simply another name of the devil. As this article is about the Waldorf Schools, what would be a reliable source would be published observations of teacher training and of the operation of Waldorf schools, by educational professionals or competent journalists. Interesting questions are raised, but they cannot be answered by anthoposophic homilies and apologetics or oppositional witchhunting. The question is, to what extent do esoteric anthoposophic beliefs affect Waldorf teacher training and practice, especially with relationship to how such practices affect children, for good or ill. Fred Bauder 21:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole point. Teacher training is nothing but Anthroposophy and so we need a solid Anthroposophy article that describes some of the stuff Anthroposophists don't necessarily want to talk about.

With regard to Lucifer being related to the "devil" - this is, indeed, where Michaelmas puts him and his companion Ahriman. The dragon in the festival represents the devil, the combination of Lucifer and Ahriman (the "two faces of evil" I think HGilbert called it). Anthroposophical sources talk about this commonly. The kids learn about this - in my experience and in the experience of at least one other editor here.

Here is one source that is a collection of interviews - seems pretty reliable but excluded because it is an Anthropsophical publisher. On p19 it talks about Ahriman's connection to the dragon in the Michaelmas festival. On p21 it talks about Michael as the face of Christ. On p25 it describes Michaelmas and other festivals as religious festivals that are sacred. I would think this source might be OK. There is a question as to whether the site - waldorflibrary.org is a library or an anthroposophically biased site. Thanks. Pete K 21:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This appear to be a primary source for our purposes. What is needed is an analysis by an outside observer, both of the Michael metaphor and of its use in the structuring of Waldorf School activities. Information about any effect on the children would also be useful, but that is likely to be too subtle. Fred Bauder 14:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So in the mean time? Even while Waldorf teachers clearly acknowledge this connection between Michaelmas and Lucifer/Ahriman, despite some editors here (HGilbert for example) suggesting there is no connection, even while Waldorf schools confirm this occurs, we are prevented from reporting it here. This is the part that is frustrating. If Waldorf says the connection exists, and critics of Waldorf say the connection exists, why is this topic "controversial" in any way? This Waldorf source should be allowed here. Pete K 20:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Taking Action

Okay as no one seems about to do it I will. I will remove this section and move the referenced stuff into Antroposophy. The worldnet source has been removed as per Thatcher above and cos Pete K said above Yes, I know that "teaching" about Lucifer will require additional sources. The references above are simply for discussion. So if anyone wants to add info about teachers being influenced by Lucifer or teaching about Lucifer new sources need to be found. Obviously the section that I will cut and paste into the Anthroposophy article will need work on, but that is your job guys. Cheers Lethaniol 15:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have connected Lucifer and Ahriman to Michael on the Anthroposophy article. Please see if you object to the citation. Pete K 16:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Previously from Todo list:

Do we want a section on alleged teaching about Lucifer? I don't think that has been decided - the only decision has been about the source. Teachers are teaching about Lucifer (as others here have testified) and if a different source says/confirms this, it definitely belongs in an article about Waldorf. Pete K 17:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Anthroposophy section should talk about Lucifer and Ahriman. There's no need to link this topic to teaching in that article. If there's a link to teaching, it belongs in the Waldorf article and should reference the more thoroughly covered treatment of this topic in the Anthroposophy article. Pete K 17:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging of organization and administration page

Any thoughts about why this page needs to exist separately from the WE article? Thanks. Henitsirk 02:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume it was split off as a separate page so that it could be discussed in more depth - but if people think that it would better to condense it and move it into this section - that's good with me. Cheers Lethaniol 15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the more I look at this the more I think that Waldorf schools' organization and administration should be condensed merged and redirected into the Governance section. Can someone do this please - if not I will do, but I will strip it of much of the info - so better you check what you want from it first. Cheers Lethaniol 10:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Racism sub-heading

Yeah, I get that the subheadings don't need to say racism, but then we have editors placing unrelated material in the wrong sections. I moved one bit out of the racism section. It seems editors need to infuse a positive note even if it's in the wrong section and has nothing to do with racism. Pete K 19:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You did the right thing moving the irrelevant research towards racism - there is no need then to over compensate by making such a heading, it does not you prove a point but just irrate other people. Nobody should mind a good faith move like this Cheers Lethaniol 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to irritate anyone - just {sigh} trying to edit the article while I have some time today. Pete K 19:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Title and intro

I noticed that the title and introduction to this section were inconsistent with its actual substance. I've tried to bring them more into line, but am open to further refinements - I'm not sure I've captured the essence neutrally, without saying more or less than what is verifiable through the present citations. (Yes, Pete, I'm saying that you can change this - not revert it, please, but improve it - with my blessing.) Hgilbert 19:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The introduction should not stray far from the citation's purport, however. In particular, it would be a POV claim to say that there is only one way to interpret a work (when there are a variety of interpretations out there). Hgilbert 07:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Teacher education

Hi folks. Once again, the Teacher Education section does not tell the full story. There is factual evidence on both AWSNA and Thebee's site that Waldorf schools may not be so discriminating as far as core education of a teacher is concerned. These two sources have been dismissed as unusable as citations for the article - but that doesn't change the underlying fact that compassion and kindness do not equal competence, as I have witnessed in our local Waldorf school.

How do we get this in? It's to important not to be there.

- Wikiwag 19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I was forced to remove a statement yesterday to this affect because it had remained unsourced outside of AWSNA. I'll keep looking for a source for this information. You are right - many Waldorf teachers are taking advantage of the lack of qualification requirements of independent private and charter schools. Pete K 19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

With all that said, I think we've all come a very long way in the last 15 days. This is a much better article and much less biased than when I first got here - and personal attacks aside - we seem to have worked through it all reasonably well. I think we're almost there! - Wikiwag 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You should have seen it when I first arrived... I was pulling my hair out. I think we still have a long way to go, but yes, it's much better. As you can probably imagine, most everything was referenced to WaldorfAnswers. Pete K 20:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In most U.S. states, private schools have complete freedom as to whom they employ. Waldorf schools in these states enjoy similar freedom. Some states require teacher certifications or undergraduate degrees for teachers in private schools. Since the situation for Waldorf schools is not any different than for other private schools, unless someone has studied the situation in these schools separately (and I know of no such study), not much can be said or known about it except anecdotally, which doesn't really qualify as an encyclopedic source. 68.193.184.127 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf schools are notorious for under-educated teachers. If we could use Waldorf sources, the case for this could be easily made - your confidence in Waldorf's mediocrity notwithstanding. Pete K 01:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case, that they are notorious - then there will be notable third party sources. If we can find them then we can talk about these criticisms. Cheers Lethaniol 15:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems that someone's already uncovered the smoking gun here, and referenced it several times in the article. Bravo! I've linked the citations to the teacher education section of the article. Would it still be considered "editorializing" to build upon this in the teacher education section? Or more accurately, where does the line get drawn between editorializing and proper citation? I'm subscribing now so I can read the whole article. - Wikiwag 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf Criticism section

Also from the to-do list. I think we should include the religious/spiritual question in the criticism section. Also I would suggest that someone draft the criticism section and put it here for discussion. Thanks, Henitsirk 21:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Have made a level 2 tier heading Criticism - with Racism already in there. And new headings (level 3 tier) as discussed E.g. Religious nature. Cheers Lethaniol 22:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing what I see as criticism (Anthroposophy in the curriculum, English language/literature) within the body of the article. Also the level 2 tier heading has been removed. I strongly feel that criticisms should be included in this article, but not within the sections that are designed to *describe* Waldorf education. Henitsirk 03:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

Two works were placed in the bibliography; one does not refer to Waldorf education at all, the other only incidentally (less than half a paragraph). They are (web-)published by an anarchist press, not exactly a peer-reviewed source, but could probably be considered for the anthroposophy article's bibliography (though not as sources there). Hgilbert 07:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf Propaganda

Just as a note of how well-organized the Waldorf propaganda machine is, try selecting the links that Wikiwag produced above. None of them work! The links to Waldorf parent handbooks by the schools listed have all been removed by each individual school in the past four days. It's pretty clear to me that someone here has contacted the schools and told them to hide their handbook pages from prying eyes (like the general public) - all within the past four days. This is just another reminder of how dishonorable Waldorf schools are. This is a VERY creepy demonstration of what goes on in Waldorf. Pete K 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just like the snake oil salesmen of old. Caveat emptor, people. - Wikiwag 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Enough of this kind of talk. The truth is that the links above were entered with a small typo in each. Fixed: this, this, this, this, this and this. Please read the guidelines about wikipedia:talk pages-- "Article talk pages are provided for discussion the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views". The personal opinions and other soap boxing needs to be taken someplace else. Venado 22:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Just goes to show what happens when an organization loses the trust of the public. Pete K 22:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It just goes to show why original research by contributers shouldnt be (and luckily isn't) allowed at Wikipedia. There is to many articles and no editor in chief to check on reporters and that there articles aren't total fantasies. I am honest, it is getting old to see them keep clogging up the talk pages though. Venado 04:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You sound like you've never encountered the type of thing I suspected above. I can assure you this sort of thing happens commonly in Waldorf environments. The control of information is a BIG DEAL to them, and that control extends from the parking lot, to their websites, to Wikipedia. The only fantasy presented here is your assumption that this sort of thing doesn't happen. Pete K 15:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Festivals and Oberman

Could you explain what Oberman says about festivals in the Waldorf movement? Does she mention specific festivals and speak about them celebrated internationally? Hgilbert 17:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I tried to follow it without copyiing. "Around the world, the four seasonal festivals, "Michaelmas" in the fall, Christmas, Easter and St John in the summer are all celebrated in Waldorf classrooms with poems, songs and plays." Venado 21:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Last chance

I have blocked Pete K and Hgilbert each for 24 hours for edit warring on Waldorf education. The next time these articles are disrupted by edit warring I will fully protect them and no one will be able to edit at all. In order to edit the article you will have to agree on the edit and then put the {{edit protected}} template on the talk page to get an admin to do it for you (assuming you can agree on anything).

I also notice that these articles, despite the article probation, rely heavily on anthroposophy-published documents as sources, in spite of the arbitration ruling determining that they should be removed. Documents originating with anthroposophy, the Waldorf foundation, or Rudolph Stiener are not acceptable as sources either for claims that Waldorf is good, or for claims that Waldorf is bad. Things ranging from the complex (whether Steiner was racist) to the simple (whether Waldorf schools discourage parental communication) can not be sourced to primary documents. They are not considered reliable sources for several reasons. Generally if you are using Waldorf materials to describe the benefits etc., you run afoul of the self-serving limits of the reliable source policy, and if you are citing Waldorf documents to "prove" they have problems, you are violating the "interpreting primary sources to draw a conclusion is original research" limitation.

If you think that reopening the arbitration case will get the other editors banned but leave you safe, I can almost guarantee you are wrong. Clean up these articles. Get the Waldorf sources and all the original research, conclusions and personal experiences out. Rely on what independent third parties have published in reliable sources, and if they haven't published anything about a topic, take it out. Trust me, you do not want the case reopened. Thatcher131 02:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not meant as an offense, Thatcher131, but I'm not quite sure I agree with your description:

"I also notice that these articles, despite the article probation, rely heavily on anthroposophy-published documents as sources, in spite of the arbitration ruling determining that they should be removed."

The point describing the principle to be applied for Verifiability in the Final decision says:

"Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources."

As far as I see, that means that for information that (on some unspecified ground) is to be considered controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered self published, and thus not reliable. But as far as I see, it also says that

with respect to information which is not controversial in the Waldorf related articles, material published in Anthroposophy or Waldorf related publications are to be considered reliable.

The not clearified issue is what is to be considered "controversial" in the article. This, as far as I see, is a complex issue, not easy to immediately sort out, and cannot be considered to be determined by one person simply stating "this is controversial", or that a fact tag on one or other point would make it controversial, in the sense that it cannot be cited using a Waldorf related source. Much can and is not controversial in any other sense than that it is not yet referenced with a citation.

There are two points that I think can be considered controversial in the article. One is the alleged "racism" issue. The other is whether anthroposophy should be described as a spiritual or a religious philosophy.

On the second point, ideologically based sources, like ideological atheist and ideological skeptical sources are not to be considered reliable and acceptible, for a similar reason that articles published by people who have held or hold offices in such organizations, on an ideological basis opposed to anthroposophy are not to be considered reliable sources. See Arbitration Workshop on the issue:

I:

"In a similar way as for works on controversial issues with regard to Waldorf education, published by anthroposophical or Waldorf publishers, I would also suggest that authors, who have worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy, be considered as unreliable sources with regard to controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy. Thebee 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Bauder:

"Of course Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)"

With regard to basically all other issues, they cannot be considered controversial in any serious sense, and in general possible to cite, using Waldorf related publications used with a common sense and judgement with regard to what is reasonable and not just flowery language. If for example there exists a list of all Waldorf schools in the world, giving addresses, telephone numbers and URLs for their web sites, that can probably be considered a reliable source regarding the number of Waldorf schools in different countries. I think at one time, Pete K deleted such a source. This just as a sorting out outline of the issue, that I think can be considered reasonable and based on the word and spirit of the Arbitration decision. Thebee 12:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the list of Waldorf schools was not disputed as a source for number of Waldorf schools world wide but for the claim that Waldorf is the "fastest growing" or "largest" independent school movement worldwide.DianaW 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And to clarify, the complaint there is not about the source, Waldorf or otherwise, but about whether a list of schools backs up a claim about how fast they are growing; it doesn't. I've noticed, at a slight remove after a few days, that people (on all these articles) are starting to act like the only question in the world is whether something can be referenced in a non-Waldorf source. There are still other aspects to editing these articles, such as biased language introduced by editors, topics or aspects of topics overemphasized to create a particular impression etc. People keep holding up sources and saying basically, Looky here I've got a source you can't criticize so I'm gonna put this in the article dammit. Come on guys. A list of schools doesn't show anything about rate of growth. Even multiple lists, comparing year by year, don't necessarily show that, as "rate of growth" also has to include schools that close or are reduced; and then you'd need lists from all the other possible candidates for "fastest growing," i.e., lists of all the Montessori schools, all the Catholic schools etc., in order to compare. But a simple list of Waldorf schools, come on, think! That shows nothing at all!DianaW 00:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Mr. Bauder's "Of course" in reply to your comment stands as a part of the final arbitration decision. Many things were proposed, batted around, discussed, various people's views considered, and some became incorporated into the final decision while others were rejected. At one point, for instance, Mr. Bauder proposed banning you, Bee. If we're going to propose everything anyone mentioned in the course of the arbitration process as final and binding, I don't think you'd like to see that applied consistently.DianaW 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The banning Mr. Bauder at one time mentioned was a question of temporary personal judgment, that he then changed, possibly after having looked closer at my personal page on the WC and written to me to ask if I had written it, which I confirmed.

His expressed view of what is to be considered unreliable sources with regard to controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy, like

"... authors, who have worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy ..."

(see above) meaning among others S O Hansson, (incl DD and others), more stands out as principal (standard position), and not an expression of a new, complicated problem to take a stand on. (The unreliability of SOH is also confirmed by comparison of what he has written with the sources he "describes" with the sources themselves, published on the net.) Thebee 20:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Peterson's

From their website:

"Peterson's data is found throughout the Web. From Yahoo and AOL to the Wall Street Journal and Time magazine, our information fuels the leading sites on the Internet."

I don't see any peer-reviewed material here. I even see them pointing to links like Americans4Waldorf (one of TheBee's websites). How do other editors feel about the integrity of this site and the information contained there. I'm inclined to remove it as a source. Pete K 16:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean this link Pete [8] - do not forget to explain exactly what you are talking about.

IMHO this is not a good source - is it clearly highly promotional and likely biased - and sounds like a sales pitch not a straight up neutral advice for parents - I would personally not use this article for any facts. If you do not believe that it is trying to soft to medium sell this read the first paragraph of [9]. Cheers Lethaniol 16:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is using it as a source. It seems suitable for the links section, however, as it does appear (from a brief web search) to be a standard reference source for information on schools. We need to confirm its authenticity in this regard, I suppose. Hgilbert 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to show I am not going mad - it was being used as citation see [10] put has been removed. Cheers Lethaniol 10:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see this diff shows it as an external link, actually, not as a citation within the article. Am I missing something?Hgilbert 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Elsewhere there has been discussion about trimming down the external links section. I think the Peterson's link doesn't really add any new information or opinions about Waldorf. Perhaps it could go, as it does seem promotional? Thanks, Henitsirk 01:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Curriculum section unwieldy

The curriculum section appears to me to be unwieldy as it stands. Does anyone have an idea for compressing this without losing essential information? Hgilbert 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reformatted the section to reduce bulk. I have also removed the reference to: "Gymnasia (selective high schools)" because I cannot find the original citation that supported it; I will replace it if and when I find this (low priority). Hgilbert 07:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited the subsection on English language/literature to remove criticisms.Henitsirk 03:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm - why...exactly? There is no Criticism section at this time, and every time one has tried to be put in place, it gets removed. I'm not going to allege motives here. I'm just going to ask again - why remove the criticisms that are properly cited without making a place for them elsewhere in the article? Thanks in advance for your forthright answer. - Wikiwag 16:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've indicated elsewhere here that I think criticism should be intermixed with praise in the article. I renamed the last "Criticsm" section to "Racism" because it contained only discussion regarding racism. I would prefer not to isolate criticism in its own section because I feel criticism of Waldorf is a significant part of the overall picture. It was reported at one time (in an open board of directors meeting) that my local Waldorf school lost 25% of its student population every year. Criticism of Waldorf is not, in my view, a side issue but a major issue and edits that remove or isolate criticisms under the pretense of "cleaning up" the article are not valid edits. Pete K 17:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll say again that in a section that is designed to describe the curriculum, the section should include fairly bare facts about what is taught to the children. Anything else I feel really belongs elsewhere. Perhaps each section could have a separate criticism header? These are only suggestions to improve the clarity of the sections. I'm not trying to banish criticisms. Henitsirk 19:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How is what is currently there not the "bare facts" about what is taught in the curriculum? There's even a quote from Eugene Schwartz suggesting science students are taught more about Steiner's science than Newton's. Should we go into greater detail about this - about the first painting every child creates in Waldorf - a landscaped page divided in half, one color (usually red) on the bottom and another color (usually blue) on top - and the meaning of this? We can certainly go into great, great detail about the Anthroposophical content here, about the wet-on-wet representing spiritual forms and the division of the page into heaven and earth. Do you think parents who receive this first painting from their child realize what it means, why it is produced and that it represents a spiritual/Anthroposophical exercise? Pete K 19:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just adding a bit here - we can also talk about why beeswax is used in the younger grades and clay modeling is avoided until the older grades. Does anyone know why this is? It's because clay dries the skin - it removes essence from the child whereas beeswax imbues something - it adds something to the hands of the child. All this stuff is Anthro/spiritual - there's an Anthroposophical reason for everything in Waldorf and it IS in the curriculum. Why do young children study SO many different creation myths? It's to prepare the way for the wildest creation myth of all, of course, Steiner's. We can certainly get into all of this connectivity in the curriculum section if you think it would be better. I'm not sure it can all be sourced properly without Anthroposophical sources, but we could try. Pete K 20:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As it currently stands I think the curriculum section looks great: neutral, sticking to facts. I guess I just see that section as pure data, and any commentary/criticisms need to be clearly delineated as such. This is more an editing/formatting thing than anything else.

How much detail to go into is another question, probably for a separate discussion about the article as a whole. Henitsirk 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag: sorry, I forgot to answer your question. I removed some criticisms without placing them elsewhere, my error in judgment. I've since contributed to that section with the criticisms replaced. Henitsirk 20:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yes sticking to the facts is a good thing. I don't want to speculate in either direction here. Pete K 20:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Anthro. in the Curriculum Section

I think this section reads like criticism, and does not describe anything about the curriculum. It reads more like opinion: "bad teachers" becoming "more devoted followers than even Steiner himself might have wished"????? Also, Eugene Schwartz is not employed by Sunbridge College. There is no anthroposophy in Waldorf curriculum (except for the 12th grade reference that used to be in the article) so this is misplaced.

I would like to see this section taken out, or at least corrected and put into the criticism section (did that get deleted too, now it's back to only the racism stuff?).Henitsirk 02:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"I think this section reads like criticism, and does not describe anything about the curriculum." It describes the curriculum very well - but it could be considered a criticism only because Waldorf denies the presence of Anthroposophy in the curriculum.

"It reads more like opinion: "bad teachers" becoming "more devoted followers than even Steiner himself might have wished"?????" It's apologetic for the very real bad behavior of Waldorf teachers who bring Steiner into the classroom.

"Also, Eugene Schwartz is not employed by Sunbridge College." Thanks, I've changed the article to read "former" director...

"There is no anthroposophy in Waldorf curriculum (except for the 12th grade reference that used to be in the article) so this is misplaced." There absolutely IS Anthroposophy in the Waldorf curriculum - everywhere you look it's there from the rainbow bridge story in kindergarten to science classes in middle school to the highschool literature assignments. It is in practically every lesson, of every class, of every grade. This is confirmed in the article. I'd be happy to discuss this in greater detail. Pete K 02:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K, I'm not going to argue that anthroposophy *informs* and *underlies* all of the curriculum. However the curriculum section as currently written describes what is taught to the students, not about the teachers themselves or their competency. I think these comments belong in a criticism section, not because I deny them, but because they're not curriculum. Henitsirk 03:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree - and I address the criticism section below. They ARE the curriculum - and what is taught to the students is every bit as much Anthroposophy as it is anything else. Wait until I embellish the Eurythmy section - which is PURE Anthroposophy. It is an Anthroposophical activity, performed by Anthroposophists outside of Waldorf, it is plainly said to be the embodiment of Anthroposophy, and it is part of the curriculum - in fact one of only two activities Steiner INSISTED should be required instruction for every student (it is taught to every grade right through high school) - the other being gardening. Can you say eurythmy is not part of the curriculum? There is much more, of course. Anthroposophy is IN the curriculum - it makes up at least part of the curriculum without contest, and influences the curriculum in immeasurable ways from what is taught to what is left out and why. There is no question about this (but if you have one, I'll be happy to answer it for you). Pete K 03:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not disputing that anthroposophy is the basis for Waldorf education. I'm just saying that what I'm seeing in the article is not balanced and neutral. Comments like "bad teachers" are not neutral. Calling the fact that anthroposophy "permeates every subject" (a true statement itself) a "problem" is not neutral. Saying "[Teachers] can find great comfort in Steiner's spirituality, and become more devoted followers than even Steiner himself might have wished." has nothing to do with describing the curriculum, it's a criticism of teachers.

Pete K, I'm trying to work with you to make a good article. I don't want us to be antagonistic. I just think that sometimes what you are adding has your POV and isn't neutral. Henitsirk 03:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "balance" you are looking for here. The truth is - teachers who bring Anthroposophy into Waldorf are either bad teachers working against Steiner's wishes - OR - they are doing what Steiner intended and COVERTLY instructing students on Anthroposophy. I didn't call them "bad teachers" by the way, the article said this. This particular article said some things critical of Waldorf (just like we have to accept articles that are supportive of Waldorf). I'm confident that by tomorrow, the Waldorf teacher contingent will provide balancing statements to undermine the truth. Let me just say, my own perscription for Waldorf is "say what you do - or do what you say". Either tell people Anthroposophy is in the curriculum, or take it out of the curriculum. Waldorf intends to do neither. So they will get a critical review from time to time.

Below is the stuff from Steiner's lecture on eurythmy Aug 26, 1923 - in case there's any doubt that eurythmy represents Anthroposphy:

The realisation of this fact of human evolution might well give one courage to develop ever further and further this art of Eurythmy, which has been borne on the wings of fate into the Anthroposophical Movement. For it is the task of the Anthroposophical Movement to reveal to our present age that spiritual impulse which is suited to it.

I speak in all humility when I say that within the Anthroposophical Movement there is a firm conviction that a spiritual impulse of this kind must now, at the present time, enter once more into human evolution. And this spiritual impulse must perforce, among its other means of expression, embody itself in a new form of art. It will increasingly be realised that this particular form of art has been given to the world in Eurythmy.

It is the task of Anthroposophy to bring a greater depth, a wider vision and a more living spirit into the other forms of art. But the art of Eurythmy could only grow up out of the soul of Anthroposophy; could only receive its inspiration through a purely Anthroposophical conception.

Pete K 04:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K, I'm in total agreement that teachers who bring Anthroposophy into Waldorf are working against Steiner's wishes. I have never personally experience anything in the Waldorf teachers that I've known, or the teacher trainings that I have attended, that anyone is "covertly" indoctrinating children to be anthroposophists. If they are, they are going against the very core of anthroposophy, that of freedom.

I also agree that Waldorf schools should probably be more forthright about anthroposophy as the root of the curriculum. But again, I'm not convinced that anyone's hiding anything in a malicious way.

And, you are preaching to the choir with the quotes about eurythmy! It is an artistic and curative movement form that was created by anthroposophists. Henitsirk 02:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some changes to this section. Re-reading it and looking at the Atlantic Monthly article, I see that it was unclear who was saying "bad teachers" and "more devoted followers" etc... I thought it was Pete K asserting these things, when it was actually in the citation. So I tried to make it more clear by expanding the quotation and the introductory sentences. Henitsirk 03:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm quite sure I couldn't get away with making my own "bad teachers" statement in the article <G>. I try to introduce very little of my own wording here but I admit that I focus on exposing some of the more dark topics to the light of day. Pete K 17:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

TheBee questioned the word "permeates". The article says: But anthroposophy still "leaks into the curriculum," as Dan Dugan puts it. "They try to hide it, but they can't," Rebecca Bolnick, a recent graduate of the Sacramento Waldorf School, told me.

"Permeates" and "leaks in" mean the same thing Sune. Pete K 17:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah! "Leaks in" means "permeates"! You checked that with an arbitrator? I mean, just to be sure you've got it right ... And DD, "informational" minister of the WC has told it leaks in, sorry permeates the curriculum and backs this up with one former graduate at one Waldorf school, meaning this is the case. I get it. Thebee 18:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think arbitrators are here as human dictionaries. LOOK IT UP if you don't believe me. The author of the article is responsible for its content. He made a statement and used Dan Dugan's characterization "leaks in" - which is a very valid (and polite) way of putting it - but the author was expressing his own view. A Waldorf graduate confirmed this. BTW, IT'S TRUE!!!! If he would have asked me, I would have said - "Anthroposophy is the FOUNDATION of the curriculum". In this article, we have dozens of statements taken from Anthroposophists and being related by third parties. We all have to live with those. I think you would save yourself a lot of anguish if you stopped thinking of this article as another press-release for Waldorf. Pete K 19:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, I used the word permeate because I felt that word truly described Waldorf, which after all is a pedagogy based on anthroposophy. Every part of the curriculum is based on the anthroposophical concepts of human development, applied to math, science, reading, etc. Thebee, if you don't like my word choice, you are free to edit it. However I would disagree with any editing that changes what I have said about the curriculum. Henitsirk 19:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Permeate" is a good word - and I hope I've struck a compromise with TheBee by saying "permeates the curriculum" instead of "permeates every subject" (even though it does). Thanks! Pete K 20:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

There are very valid criticisms of Waldorf that belong within the article - not in a criticism section. There's no rule that says everything in an article needs to be positive with a small section for criticism. Look at the PLANS article, which is ENTIRELY critical of PLANS. The criticism of Waldorf belongs in the section where it applies - if we talk about reading - then both supportive and critical views can be presented about whether Waldorf's approach to reading is considered best. Criticism of Waldorf is not some kooky uncle we need to lock up in the attic - it belongs in the article with all the other material about Waldorf. Pete K 03:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, well if we are going to decide to insert criticisms throughout the article, then I think we need to come to some consensus as to balance. I don't think it's appropriate to insert a section (Anthroposophy in the Curriculum) that is entirely critical. Henitsirk 03:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to enhance it. What can we say about Anthroposophy in the curriculum that's nice? I know it's not nice that Waldorf pretends it's not there. I'd be happy to see some nice things said about it - some honesty and acknowledgement that it IS in the curriculum and what benefit it has. Personally, I like Michaelmas (I even made the dragon head for my kid's school) - and kids learn about Michaelmas. Why pretend Anthroposophy isn't in Waldorf? To me, it's strange to know something like eurythmy, which Waldorf teachers believe has etheric benefit and potential to STRAIGHTEN CROOKED TEETH, is described to parents (and readers of this article) as an artistic form of dance. Pete K 03:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you: anthroposophy is what the curriculum is based upon. Looking at the overall article though, I think this stuff should be in the general description, not in the section meant to describe details of the curriculum. And while I'm sure I could "enhance" the section with some "nice" things about anthroposophy, I don't think what you've written is neutral. I do think criticisms have a place here, but they need to be worded without POV. Henitsirk 03:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My biggest problem, these days, is finding information that is acceptable to be used here. While it may seem critical to some, it seems extremely honest to me. And we have lots of editors here who only insert material that is biased toward Waldorf (or delete information that is critical) - so I've got my hands full presenting this type of information. I don't know that the NPOV is that Waldorf is great but has a few problems (I think that's what most people in the Waldorf camp would like to see). I think the NPOV is that Waldorf has serious problems that can be traced to the influence of Anthroposophy and strange ideas derived from it (Ahriman lurking in TV sets) and that reform needs to be accomplished. A truly critical POV would be that Waldorf represents an international network of indoctrination centers for Anthroposophists (both students and their unsuspecting parents), that Steiner himself intended this, that this dishonest missionary work is carried on by Waldorf teachers, that many Waldorf schools behave like cults and that this cult-like setting which includes the entire faculty and staff devoted to a single religious philosophy produces environments where higher levels of physical and emotional abuse than one would expect are common AND that such abuses are easily covered up. I could indeed support each of these points fairly well and my personal experience has been that each point is 100% true. My own experiences are corroborated by dozens and dozens of people I have spoken with around the world. So I think as NPOV's go, what we're arriving at here is relatively neutral. Pete K 04:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything Pete wrote - including every single one of the criticisms of Waldorf he raised. Let's remember that we HAD a criticism section here. It was deleted, restored and deleted again.

IMO, this has less to do with the so-called proper place for criticism, than it does with the almost pathological aversion that Waldorfers seem to have to any criticism what-so-ever. Which apparently extends now, to the incredible level and highly-suspicious recent development of Waldorf school websites removing their parent handbooks from view, because they were being cited as references here. Why do Waldorf pedagogues fear the revelation of the truth of what they believe and what they practice getting out into the open, anyway? Our local school had a "no negativity" rule that even extended outside the school [e.g. on the trip home, at home].

I'm sorry, but once any institution begins dictating an individual's or family's lifestyle outside societal norms: what you can and can't read [Harry Potter was banned because it was made into a movie], what you can and can't say [no criticising/don't question what we do], what you can and can't do [the only "approved" out-of-school activities were bowling, skating, swimming - no dance, no martial arts, no sport leagues, no visiting science or history museums, no attending the symphony], who you can and can't talk to [no playing with those hopelessly-polluted non-Waldorf kids] that meets the very definition of harm that is often associated with the term cult.

Such behavior is very suspicious and warrants explanation when observed and exposure when necessary.

So that's the experience I bring to this article as an editor. And whenever I can cite independent third-party evidence to suport all of this, you'd better believe I'll post it as fact.

With that said though [and I know I'm repeating myself], I still think that much of the very positive things that Waldorf did for my kids on character and creativity levels was like nothing they could've gotten anywhere else. That counts for a great deal as far as I'm concerned.

But any legitimate institution or philosophy must either be able to stand up to criticism on its own merits, field it, discuss it and deal with it, or cease to be legitimate [the earth is flat/the center of the universe, you can gauge individual or racial intelligence by the bumps on their head].

So let's make a decision and stick to it. But rest assured that as long as there is support of Waldorf, there will be criticism of Waldorf insofar as the Arbitration and the rules of good, encycolpedic research allow. The [bias of the] pro-Waldorf crowd does not own the monopoly on truth any more than the [bias of the] anti-Waldorf crowd. Deal with it people and learn to accept it, because more such evidence will come as time goes on. As Ghandi said: "Some things cannot be long hidded: the sun, the moon and the truth."

- Wikiwag 12:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag and Pete K: I just want to say that if there are criticisms of ANY kind that are verifiable and citable, then let's put them in, with POV-neutral language. There will always be disagreement on things like "cult" status, and different experiences with specific schools and teachers (I went to parochial and public schools, and there were doozies in each). If citations are given, then I'm personally going to feel much more able to field, discuss and deal with criticisms than when the arguments are simply personal or anecdotal.

I wish we could get away from the us vs. them mentality and just try to write a good article! I'm an editor by trade and hope to make a positive contribution here. Henitsirk 02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree proper citations are absolutely required. Pete K 17:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Henitsirk: I'm glad there are reasonable people like you here and I am in 100% agreement with you on your final point. Suffice to say that others are not so civil and seem to thrive more on conflict than content, engaging in edit-warring and throwing about baseless accusations. I feel such behavior has no place here and I've said so on many occasions.

I'm willing to take a leap of faith and one more whack at the criticisms section. But, if the main individual who has instigated this sort behavior generally (and towards me specifically), cannot behave himself and allow the section to stand on the facts, or allow the editors of the section go unmolested by vitriol and rhetoric, then I will go to WP:ANI. I have no more patience for mudslinging and misbehavior and he's already been warned more times than he [IMO] deserves.

- Wikiwag 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it is worth it. If there's a criticism section, then you-know-who will introduce sketchy discussion to refute it. It will then (believe me, I know this from experience) change from a "criticism" section to a debate section. But you're of course welcome to try. BTW, thanks for the good edits today (both Wikiwag and Henitsirk)! Pete K 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. I've just restructured the section and added an intro. Let's see if an ill wind blows...smelling of meat. - Wikiwag 18:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Henitsirk: I believe that among the biggest issues that people like Pete and myself take with Waldorf compared with your example of Catholic [parochial] schools is - saying a Catholic school is founded on Christianity is the same as saying that a car has wheels. People know what it is and what to expect. So, when religion class is a part of the core curriculum, the only people who are surprised by it are those who are completely out of it and are lucky to have kids in the first place.

The same in my experience [and the experience of others including Dan Dugan and presumably Pete], absolutely cannot be said of Waldorf. Perhaps it comes out of the naive belief of pedagogues that since anthroposophy is not actively taught in the classroom that it's acceptable not to discuss it at all - even when it comes from legitimate parental concerns. In my experience though, it seems much more like an active, concerted effort to cover up the roots and more esoteric practices of anthroposophy as it pertains to Waldorf education, by glossing over concerns with broad and non-substantive statements.

In my experience, any criticism at all is similarly handled by Waldorf pedagogues and teachers.

Now if we can get beyond this here, then perhaps we can make some actual progress.

- Wikiwag 18:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, for me, if a parent wants to consider a Catholic school, they need only read one book, the Bible, to find out what may be taught to their children. Steiner's philosophy is represented across 30+ books and 6000 lectures. A parent would need to spend a lifetime investigating Anthroposophy. That teachers are guarded with straight-forward answers to concerned parents makes it next to impossible for parents to find out what they need to know (especially when every Anthro website resembles TheBee's own original research websites). They may come here for straight answers and we have a responsibility to provide them. Pete K 19:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A few additional comments: When I said parochial, I was actually referring to a Lutheran school, but the point is the same. I agree that it is clear from the start that a parochial school will include religion. (Though actually, much of Catholic doctrine is not included in the Bible: the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, intercession of saints, etc.) And I agree that it would serve parents better to be made more aware of anthroposophy from the start, yet as Pete K points out, it's pretty complex and the philosophy is presented in many texts (most of those 6000 lectures have not even been translated from German!)

Perhaps we can include fairly small criticisms throughout and then save "big" ones like racism for the separate section? Henitsirk 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

By "big" criticisms I mean things like immunizations being discouraged, problems of children with learning disabilities (e.g. dyslexia), lack of oversight (as Pete K has mentioned elsewhere). The problem, as always, will be verifiability with proper citations. And at least with the immunization one, I'm foreseeing a conflict in world-views, i.e. public health problem (epidemics) vs. the view that immunizations are harmful/ineffective/prevent proper maturation of the immune system. Henitsirk 20:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the immunization debate will not be resolved here - but we don't even talk about it. We should have added it in the "What Waldorf Discourages" section when we had the chance <G>. Maybe there's still a place for it other than discussing it as necessarily a criticism. I've got material that talks about the down side - e.g. epidemics of pertussis in Waldorf schools. I'm sure TheBee will want to produce his report that Waldorf students are healthier because they aren't immunized. I'll leave it up to you. Pete K 20:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I added immunizations to the criticism section, and I did include the "Waldorf students are healthier reference" but in what I hope is a neutral way. I thought it should be included, even though it doesn't actually say that immunizations are the reason the children are healthier, it just says that lack of immunization is one of the multiple factors that produced fewer allergies. Let me know what you think. Henitsirk 21:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I just read it. It sounds fine to me. Good job!!! Pete K 21:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The lead-in sentence talking about "two groups" seemed kind of goofy to me (I didn't bother looking up who introduced it - so please everyone - don't take offense). There's no reason to suggest that there are polarized camps here and, as we have seen right here with various editors, opinions about Waldorf are all across the board. I tried to just remove the sentence but the section seems to need some kind of lead-in sentence. Feel free to revise the one I introduced. Pete K 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I had to make a change in the immunizations section to clarify the alergies as *atopic* alergic reactions (what the article is actually talking about). Pete K 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and I almost hate to say it, but the atopic alergy study should come out of this article as it really has nothing to do with Waldorf. It's a study of "Anthroposophical families" not Waldorf families and a further study said the issue had to do more with diet than with lifestyle. Anthroposophical families and Waldorf families are not the same thing. This study should be moved to the Anthroposophy article. Any disagreement? Pete K 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind... I made an executive decision here and moved it to the AM section of the Anthroposophy article. Pete K 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you guys have been playing nice, while I have been having a wee little Wikibreak for the last few days. IMHO the Criticism section should contain those criticism that need to be discussed in depth the best two examples are whether Waldorf schools are racist or/and religious, where a significant amount of text needs to be used to cover the issue, which would break up the flow of other sections if put there.

A criticism that is less notable/important and needs less discussion, can be summed up in a couple of lines and put in with the relevant section. A good example of this might be that Waldorf education teaches two foreign languages from age X (appropriate reference 1), but this has been found not to be true in some schools (appropriate reference 2). Of course some statements and criticisms of those statements might not have the appropriate references.

I hope this helps Cheers Lethaniol 23:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't sound too unreasonable <G>. Pete K 02:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, removing the allergy study seems reasonable. I think Lethaniol described what I've meant to say before about having a separate section, but in more detail.

I'd like to see some drafts of other topics for this section. The religious nature of Waldorf is a big one, and I think it would be in everyone's best interests to discuss it here before doing lots of edits and reverts. Henitsirk 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I hope the removal of the allergy study didn't seem inappropriate or too abrupt and that my reasons were clear. After TheBee added the Anthroposophy phrase, I went back and re-read the reference and it made perfect sense to move it. I probably should have discussed it here (as I intended to) but I had already put in 9 hours straight by that time and I wanted to get it taken care of before signing off. My apologies to you Henitsirk for not discussing it further since you were the one that placed it here in the first place. Pete K 06:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Wish I had 9 hours straight to devote to this! I'm not able to devote that much time or I would draft something further about criticisms. Henitsirk 20:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is like the 20th weekend in a row I've devoted to this. Maybe I'll luck out and be banned <G>. Pete K 21:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology and claim of credit

Hi folks. I want to apologize for my last three edits from last evening appearing as anonymous. For some reason, either my computer or the wiki logged me out without me realizing it.

Therefore please note that edits by 24.38.65.114 are actually mine.

Sorry for any confusion I caused. - Wikiwag 10:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My computer also does the same periodically. It's a little unpredictable. Hgilbert 17:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Grrr! It did it again. Edits by 69.160.7.226 are mine as well. - Wikiwag 23:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Provide Citations

I've asked for citations to several sections for which HGilbert has applied a reference to Waldorf schools in England. This says nothing about Waldorf schools in general and the source, talking about Waldorf schools in England specifically, cannot be used to support Waldorf schools everywhere. I will go back in and ask for citations unless the statements are altered to indicate that they apply ONLY to England. HGilbert, please do not remove {fact} tags - I'm inclined to revert all your edits - indeed I think I will. Pete K 17:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fact tags should not be inserted where citations are already present.

Unless there is reason to believe that the curriculum differs in different countries, given the international nature of the education a study in one country can be assumed to be relevant for others (assuming that there is absolutely no evidence that there are differences, as is the case here); Waldorf-published curricula (not usable as article citations under current policy but relevant to the conversation here on the talk page) support the fact that they are the same. Note that the criticisms in the Milwaukee school study are based on a single school; a similar logic would require that a corresponding limitation be applied here.

Also - large sections of undocumented and controversial material are being added. At this point, this seems unwise. If there is a potentially controversial subject, I suggest finding documentation first. If there is a reason to include it before such documentation exists, I suggest doing this through a short reference to the subject, and extending this when documentation is available; in addition, providing one's own fact tag, indicating an awareness that citations are still needed, would be good etiquette. Hgilbert 17:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Fact tags should not be inserted where citations are already present." You're right. If the citation doesn't cover the material, I should just remove the material. I produced the fact tag as a courtesy to you so that you could properly reference the material there. I'll just remove it from now on like you do.

"Unless there is reason to believe that the curriculum differs in different countries, given the international nature of the education a study in one country can be assumed to be relevant for others (assuming that there is absolutely no evidence that there are differences, as is the case here); Waldorf-published curricula (not usable as article citations under current policy but relevant to the conversation here on the talk page) support the fact that they are the same. Note that the criticisms in the Milwaukee school study are based on a single school; a similar logic would require that a corresponding limitation be applied here." Gee... isn't that what you do when a critical report is produced? Limit it to the "individual" or the "country" or the specific school? You need to produce material that confirms that what is claimed in this source applies to all Waldorf schools. That's how we do things here. Otherwise, I could take the situation about the Waldorf teacher who bound and gagged children and apply it to ALL Waldorf teachers. You can't insist on good sources one day and dismiss that criteria the next - when it suits YOU.

"Also - large sections of undocumented and controversial material are being added. At this point, this seems unwise. If there is a potentially controversial subject, I suggest finding documentation first. If there is a reason to include it before such documentation exists, I suggest doing this through a short reference to the subject, and extending this when documentation is available; in addition, providing one's own fact tag, indicating an awareness that citations are still needed, would be good etiquette." I'm not taking your suggestions, but thanks anyway. If material is being added that you feel is controversial (not everyone feels the same way about the same material) and requires verification, place a {fact} tag on it. I think etiquette went out the window a long time ago, frankly. Pete K 18:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find your comments here and your edits to be repeatedly arrogant.

Your own disregard for your own question, first telling your view and asking:

This study should be moved to the Anthroposophy article. Any disagreement? Pete K 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

and then, just seven minutes later telling that you don't really care about the view of others:

Never mind... I made an executive decision here and moved it to the AM section of the Anthroposophy article. Pete K 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

and your comment above:

"HGilbert, please do not remove {fact} tags - I'm inclined to revert all your edits - indeed I think I will."

being just two of the latest in the row of examples.

Thebee 23:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite your efforts to stall progress as long as possible, some of us are here WORKING TOGETHER to improve these articles and move them toward a NPOV. Every day we wake up to ridiculous edits and extremely controversial inclusions and deletions that are not discussed - simply jammed into the article. These types of pushy, mean-spirited edits get reverted immediately. One way to avoid this is by discussing these issues beforehand and coming to consensus. In the case you describe above, where I ask for disagreement and then make the edit - it really wasn't a matter that needed discussion as the cited article clearly applied to Anthroposophist families and not to Waldorf families - so there was no question it needed to go in the Anthroposophy article. You may think it's arrogant - I really don't care. I will care about your opinions when you start working with and not against the editors here. In fact I'm sure we will all be very relieved if you make the decision to work cooperatively instead of polemically. Thanks! Pete K 02:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the atopy study, it belongs here, as the study was done specifically on children who went to waldorf schools, in this case in Jaerna, south of Stockholm. Different waldorf schools have very different pupil populations. In that specific case, the pupils with an anthroposophical family background very much dominated the pupil population, as Jaerna is the main centre of anthroposophy related activities in Sweden, and the noting of a markedly less incidence of atopy among the children at the schools was the background for the study. It has a place here in the waldorf article, as one of the seemingly main factors behind the lower atopy incidence was the type of vegetarian food associated with an anthrop life style, the same type of food was served to the children at the schools, and the same type of vegetarian food probably is served at many Waldorf schools world wide. For that reason, the study belongs here in the Waldorf article, describing this specific connection.

As to a number of further of your personal comments on me, they stand out as strong projections, that I however won't comment on further here. Only one:

Your comment:

"You may think it's arrogant - I really don't care."

proves the point you dispute.

Thebee 16:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... does the study SAY Waldorf? If not, your own personal characterizations about the make-up of the group in the study are meaningless. Please, let's stick to the facts contained in the study. Pete K 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about this article from the Lancet [11] - please confirm - also it is not always obvious what people are talking about so remember to link to relevant info Cheers Lethaniol 17:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, no mention of Waldorf. Pete K 17:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay if this is the article in Question then please take this on board. Note I have I have Athens access so have skim read the whole paper - (The Lancet: Volume 353, Issue 9163, 1 May 1999, Pages 1485-1488).

1. When this is discussed remember to link to Atopy so people know what we are talking about.
2. The study is comparing 2 Steiner schools (Aka WE) to 2 non-Steiner neighbouring schools - from abstract.
3. Although the study is looking at children that attend Steiner schools, it is looking at the effect of an anthroposophical upbringing as related to parental choices not on the effect of Steiner schools.

Results of interest:

Only half of the children at the Steiner schools had ever received antibiotics, compared with 90% in the control schools. A similar pattern is apparent for use of antipyretics. Immunisation against measles, mumps, and rubella had been given to only 18% of the children at the Steiner schools, compared with 93% at the control schools. As a result, 71% of the children at the most typical Steiner school (A) got measles during an epidemic in 1995.

Fermented vegetables had been consumed by 63% of the children at the Steiner schools, compared with only 4•5% in the control schools. A similar pattern was shown for consumption of organic or biodynamic food during childhood. Breast feeding in infancy was of longer duration for children in Steiner schools than for controls.

In the Steiner schools, 13% of children had a history of atopy or of symptoms consistent with atopy, compared with 25% of children at the control schools (p<0•001). The difference was most pronounced for current atopic dermatitis and bronchial asthma.

Discussion of Interest:

We have shown that factors associated with an anthroposophic way of life are also associated with a lowered prevalence of atopy in children, Measles has been inversely related to atopy ... other diseases are, however, generally more difficult to verify by history and their roles in atopy are uncertain. Dietary factors may have been important ... frequent consumption of fermented vegetables may affect the intestinal microflora, and the difference in duration of breast-feeding may have an influence on risk of atopy ... other characteristics of an anthroposophic lifestyle, which were not investigated, could also have contributed to the differences in atopy between study groups.

We could not identify a single lifestyle exposure factor primarily responsible for the lower prevalence of atopy in children at the Steiner schools, because behavioural characteristics of an anthroposophical lifestyle are strongly correlated ... However, an anthroposophical lifestyle mainly resulted from parental choice, and was experienced by the children during their whole life.

Note the following from the editorial comment accompanying the article (The Lancet: Volume 353, Issue 9163, 1 May 1999, Pages 1457-1458):

They found a lower prevalence of allergic diseases and positive responses to objective tests of atopy among children with anthroposophic families attending Rudolf Steiner schools, than among children attending other schools in the same area of Sweden. These differences could be due to the many unusual features of the anthroposophic lifestyle, including various aspects of diet, incomplete immunisation, and limited use of antibiotics. Thus, the intriguing findings are of limited value in testing of specific aetiological hypotheses.

What this means is that the variables of decreased drug (antibiotic/antipyretic), decreased immunisation and altered diet can not be separated from each other with respect to their effects. What can be taken though is that these three factors lead to less atopy related disorders, but an increase in infectious diseases including outbreaks of the potentially life threatening measles.

Now this report is about Anthroposophy not Waldorf Schools directly - so it belongs in the Anthroposophy article. But once there it should be linked from the Immunisation criticism section, maybe saying something like - as Waldorf schools encourage an Anthroposophy upbringing (you must be able to find reference for this), there is less likelihood of atopy but increased infectious diseased - see link...

I hope that sorts things out. Cheers Lethaniol 18:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It does for me. Thanks! I agree that it belongs where it is, in the Anthropospohy article, and further agree that a link to that page and section would be appropriate. If there is a "lifestyle" associated with Anthroposophy (a set of religious/spiritual values) then that lifestyle should also be described in the Anthroposophy section - don't you agree? If I'm correct, the study pointed to a second study that identified the results as diet-related, as you said concerning fermentation, etc. Pete K 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I above:

"In the case of the atopy study, it belongs here, as the study was done specifically on children who went to waldorf schools, in this case in Jaerna, south of Stockholm."

Pete K:

"Um... does the study SAY Waldorf? If not, your own personal characterizations about the make-up of the group in the study are meaningless."

Lethaniol:

"I assume you are talking about this article from the Lancet [12] - please confirm ..."

Pete K

"Yep, no mention of Waldorf."

From abstract:

"In a cross-sectional study, 295 children aged 5-13 years at two anthroposophic (Steiner) schools near Stockholm, Sweden, were compared with ..."

Shall we try again?

Thebee 23:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes TheBee, Pete K was wrong it does mention Steiner/Waldorf schools, but it is not about the relation of Waldorf Education with immunisation uptake or atopy prevalence - it is talks solely about anthroposophical followers and how their life style changes e.g. immunisation uptake or food consumption, affect atopy prevalence. The schools were not picked because they taught anthroposophical life styles, but because the children who attended them had parents that followed anthroposophical life styles. In the whole article it mentions nothing about how Waldorf schools teach/advise/ recommend on anything at all. Hence this research belongs in Anthroposophy and that section can be linked to from this article, as stated above

I am afraid your quote picking is really starting to annoy me. Stick to the issue at hand - trying to win cheap points is causing a lot of frustration and likely to be a factor in the ArbCom review. Stick to the issue at hand Cheers Lethaniol 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal Arguments

Please no more personal comments - either take to user talk pages, or if you want re-evaluation by ArbCom take it to them. I am going through this talk page and deleting any personal arguments that I find, I am sure you have or can find the differences. Cheers Lethaniol 00:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I should expand on this - the article talk pages are fine to raise an personal issue e.g. I found your comment X a bit aggressive - because that shows all users that the issues has been recognised. But as soon as it gets into a discussion on these personal issues, then it should be moved to user talk pages and deleted from these discussions, as they bare no relation to the article. Cheers Lethaniol 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you understand that we are in a "process" here and we have editors from very different POV's trying to edit this article. The personal discussions are, hopefully, intended to iron out differences by discussion of various POV's. Yes, it gets heated sometimes - but I think we're trying to focus on the issues and not each other (at least I am). The hope is that at some point we will iron out these differences and work cooperatively to improve the articles. Pete K 02:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lethaniol, it's a problem for everyone who feels passionately about this topic. I wondered where you've been! Henitsirk 04:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Lethaniol! I left you a message on your Talk page about this.

Honestly after his last tirade, I was on the verge of asking the appropriateness of calling a vote of the other editors here about whether or not we want Thebee's continued "input." Passionate as we all are, the rest of us seem to be reasonable people from both sides of the aisle [so-to-speak] and seem able to overcome our differences in the interest of creating a good article based on the facts. Is there a precedent for such a vote? If so, how do we proceed? If not, how do we set one? I for one, am frankly sick to death of Thebee's constant baiting. - Wikiwag 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well now that the ArbCom has been reopened - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review, you will get your say - I suggest you write up your opinions backed up with differences if you have them, and present them as evidence. As for a vote - we can not do this - it is up to Admins to decide if a user should be topic blocked - and in this case it will be up to the ArbCom to decide. Cheers Lethaniol 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Last chance

I have blocked Pete K and Hgilbert each for 24 hours for edit warring on Waldorf education. The next time these articles are disrupted by edit warring I will fully protect them and no one will be able to edit at all. In order to edit the article you will have to agree on the edit and then put the {{edit protected}} template on the talk page to get an admin to do it for you (assuming you can agree on anything).

I also notice that these articles, despite the article probation, rely heavily on anthroposophy-published documents as sources, in spite of the arbitration ruling determining that they should be removed. Documents originating with anthroposophy, the Waldorf foundation, or Rudolph Stiener are not acceptable as sources either for claims that Waldorf is good, or for claims that Waldorf is bad. Things ranging from the complex (whether Steiner was racist) to the simple (whether Waldorf schools discourage parental communication) can not be sourced to primary documents. They are not considered reliable sources for several reasons. Generally if you are using Waldorf materials to describe the benefits etc., you run afoul of the self-serving limits of the reliable source policy, and if you are citing Waldorf documents to "prove" they have problems, you are violating the "interpreting primary sources to draw a conclusion is original research" limitation.

If you think that reopening the arbitration case will get the other editors banned but leave you safe, I can almost guarantee you are wrong. Clean up these articles. Get the Waldorf sources and all the original research, conclusions and personal experiences out. Rely on what independent third parties have published in reliable sources, and if they haven't published anything about a topic, take it out. Trust me, you do not want the case reopened. Thatcher131 02:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not meant as an offense, Thatcher131, but I'm not quite sure I agree with your description:

"I also notice that these articles, despite the article probation, rely heavily on anthroposophy-published documents as sources, in spite of the arbitration ruling determining that they should be removed."

The point describing the principle to be applied for Verifiability in the Final decision says:

"Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources."

As far as I see, that means that for information that (on some unspecified ground) is to be considered controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered self published, and thus not reliable. But as far as I see, it also says that

with respect to information which is not controversial in the Waldorf related articles, material published in Anthroposophy or Waldorf related publications are to be considered reliable.

The not clearified issue is what is to be considered "controversial" in the article. This, as far as I see, is a complex issue, not easy to immediately sort out, and cannot be considered to be determined by one person simply stating "this is controversial", or that a fact tag on one or other point would make it controversial, in the sense that it cannot be cited using a Waldorf related source. Much can and is not controversial in any other sense than that it is not yet referenced with a citation.

There are two points that I think can be considered controversial in the article. One is the alleged "racism" issue. The other is whether anthroposophy should be described as a spiritual or a religious philosophy.

On the second point, ideologically based sources, like ideological atheist and ideological skeptical sources are not to be considered reliable and acceptible, for a similar reason that articles published by people who have held or hold offices in such organizations, on an ideological basis opposed to anthroposophy are not to be considered reliable sources. See Arbitration Workshop on the issue:

I:

"In a similar way as for works on controversial issues with regard to Waldorf education, published by anthroposophical or Waldorf publishers, I would also suggest that authors, who have worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy, be considered as unreliable sources with regard to controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy. Thebee 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Bauder:

"Of course Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)"

With regard to basically all other issues, they cannot be considered controversial in any serious sense, and in general possible to cite, using Waldorf related publications used with a common sense and judgement with regard to what is reasonable and not just flowery language. If for example there exists a list of all Waldorf schools in the world, giving addresses, telephone numbers and URLs for their web sites, that can probably be considered a reliable source regarding the number of Waldorf schools in different countries. I think at one time, Pete K deleted such a source. This just as a sorting out outline of the issue, that I think can be considered reasonable and based on the word and spirit of the Arbitration decision. Thebee 12:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the list of Waldorf schools was not disputed as a source for number of Waldorf schools world wide but for the claim that Waldorf is the "fastest growing" or "largest" independent school movement worldwide.DianaW 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And to clarify, the complaint there is not about the source, Waldorf or otherwise, but about whether a list of schools backs up a claim about how fast they are growing; it doesn't. I've noticed, at a slight remove after a few days, that people (on all these articles) are starting to act like the only question in the world is whether something can be referenced in a non-Waldorf source. There are still other aspects to editing these articles, such as biased language introduced by editors, topics or aspects of topics overemphasized to create a particular impression etc. People keep holding up sources and saying basically, Looky here I've got a source you can't criticize so I'm gonna put this in the article dammit. Come on guys. A list of schools doesn't show anything about rate of growth. Even multiple lists, comparing year by year, don't necessarily show that, as "rate of growth" also has to include schools that close or are reduced; and then you'd need lists from all the other possible candidates for "fastest growing," i.e., lists of all the Montessori schools, all the Catholic schools etc., in order to compare. But a simple list of Waldorf schools, come on, think! That shows nothing at all!DianaW 00:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Mr. Bauder's "Of course" in reply to your comment stands as a part of the final arbitration decision. Many things were proposed, batted around, discussed, various people's views considered, and some became incorporated into the final decision while others were rejected. At one point, for instance, Mr. Bauder proposed banning you, Bee. If we're going to propose everything anyone mentioned in the course of the arbitration process as final and binding, I don't think you'd like to see that applied consistently.DianaW 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The banning Mr. Bauder at one time mentioned was a question of temporary personal judgment, that he then changed, possibly after having looked closer at my personal page on the WC and written to me to ask if I had written it, which I confirmed.

His expressed view of what is to be considered unreliable sources with regard to controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy, like

"... authors, who have worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy ..."

(see above) meaning among others S O Hansson, (incl DD and others), more stands out as principal (standard position), and not an expression of a new, complicated problem to take a stand on. (The unreliability of SOH is also confirmed by comparison of what he has written with the sources he "describes" with the sources themselves, published on the net.) Thebee 20:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Peterson's

From their website:

"Peterson's data is found throughout the Web. From Yahoo and AOL to the Wall Street Journal and Time magazine, our information fuels the leading sites on the Internet."

I don't see any peer-reviewed material here. I even see them pointing to links like Americans4Waldorf (one of TheBee's websites). How do other editors feel about the integrity of this site and the information contained there. I'm inclined to remove it as a source. Pete K 16:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean this link Pete [13] - do not forget to explain exactly what you are talking about.

IMHO this is not a good source - is it clearly highly promotional and likely biased - and sounds like a sales pitch not a straight up neutral advice for parents - I would personally not use this article for any facts. If you do not believe that it is trying to soft to medium sell this read the first paragraph of [14]. Cheers Lethaniol 16:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is using it as a source. It seems suitable for the links section, however, as it does appear (from a brief web search) to be a standard reference source for information on schools. We need to confirm its authenticity in this regard, I suppose. Hgilbert 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to show I am not going mad - it was being used as citation see [15] put has been removed. Cheers Lethaniol 10:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see this diff shows it as an external link, actually, not as a citation within the article. Am I missing something?Hgilbert 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Elsewhere there has been discussion about trimming down the external links section. I think the Peterson's link doesn't really add any new information or opinions about Waldorf. Perhaps it could go, as it does seem promotional? Thanks, Henitsirk 01:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Curriculum section unwieldy

The curriculum section appears to me to be unwieldy as it stands. Does anyone have an idea for compressing this without losing essential information? Hgilbert 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reformatted the section to reduce bulk. I have also removed the reference to: "Gymnasia (selective high schools)" because I cannot find the original citation that supported it; I will replace it if and when I find this (low priority). Hgilbert 07:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited the subsection on English language/literature to remove criticisms.Henitsirk 03:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm - why...exactly? There is no Criticism section at this time, and every time one has tried to be put in place, it gets removed. I'm not going to allege motives here. I'm just going to ask again - why remove the criticisms that are properly cited without making a place for them elsewhere in the article? Thanks in advance for your forthright answer. - Wikiwag 16:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've indicated elsewhere here that I think criticism should be intermixed with praise in the article. I renamed the last "Criticsm" section to "Racism" because it contained only discussion regarding racism. I would prefer not to isolate criticism in its own section because I feel criticism of Waldorf is a significant part of the overall picture. It was reported at one time (in an open board of directors meeting) that my local Waldorf school lost 25% of its student population every year. Criticism of Waldorf is not, in my view, a side issue but a major issue and edits that remove or isolate criticisms under the pretense of "cleaning up" the article are not valid edits. Pete K 17:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll say again that in a section that is designed to describe the curriculum, the section should include fairly bare facts about what is taught to the children. Anything else I feel really belongs elsewhere. Perhaps each section could have a separate criticism header? These are only suggestions to improve the clarity of the sections. I'm not trying to banish criticisms. Henitsirk 19:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How is what is currently there not the "bare facts" about what is taught in the curriculum? There's even a quote from Eugene Schwartz suggesting science students are taught more about Steiner's science than Newton's. Should we go into greater detail about this - about the first painting every child creates in Waldorf - a landscaped page divided in half, one color (usually red) on the bottom and another color (usually blue) on top - and the meaning of this? We can certainly go into great, great detail about the Anthroposophical content here, about the wet-on-wet representing spiritual forms and the division of the page into heaven and earth. Do you think parents who receive this first painting from their child realize what it means, why it is produced and that it represents a spiritual/Anthroposophical exercise? Pete K 19:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just adding a bit here - we can also talk about why beeswax is used in the younger grades and clay modeling is avoided until the older grades. Does anyone know why this is? It's because clay dries the skin - it removes essence from the child whereas beeswax imbues something - it adds something to the hands of the child. All this stuff is Anthro/spiritual - there's an Anthroposophical reason for everything in Waldorf and it IS in the curriculum. Why do young children study SO many different creation myths? It's to prepare the way for the wildest creation myth of all, of course, Steiner's. We can certainly get into all of this connectivity in the curriculum section if you think it would be better. I'm not sure it can all be sourced properly without Anthroposophical sources, but we could try. Pete K 20:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As it currently stands I think the curriculum section looks great: neutral, sticking to facts. I guess I just see that section as pure data, and any commentary/criticisms need to be clearly delineated as such. This is more an editing/formatting thing than anything else.

How much detail to go into is another question, probably for a separate discussion about the article as a whole. Henitsirk 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag: sorry, I forgot to answer your question. I removed some criticisms without placing them elsewhere, my error in judgment. I've since contributed to that section with the criticisms replaced. Henitsirk 20:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yes sticking to the facts is a good thing. I don't want to speculate in either direction here. Pete K 20:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Anthro. in the Curriculum Section

I think this section reads like criticism, and does not describe anything about the curriculum. It reads more like opinion: "bad teachers" becoming "more devoted followers than even Steiner himself might have wished"????? Also, Eugene Schwartz is not employed by Sunbridge College. There is no anthroposophy in Waldorf curriculum (except for the 12th grade reference that used to be in the article) so this is misplaced.

I would like to see this section taken out, or at least corrected and put into the criticism section (did that get deleted too, now it's back to only the racism stuff?).Henitsirk 02:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"I think this section reads like criticism, and does not describe anything about the curriculum." It describes the curriculum very well - but it could be considered a criticism only because Waldorf denies the presence of Anthroposophy in the curriculum.

"It reads more like opinion: "bad teachers" becoming "more devoted followers than even Steiner himself might have wished"?????" It's apologetic for the very real bad behavior of Waldorf teachers who bring Steiner into the classroom.

"Also, Eugene Schwartz is not employed by Sunbridge College." Thanks, I've changed the article to read "former" director...

"There is no anthroposophy in Waldorf curriculum (except for the 12th grade reference that used to be in the article) so this is misplaced." There absolutely IS Anthroposophy in the Waldorf curriculum - everywhere you look it's there from the rainbow bridge story in kindergarten to science classes in middle school to the highschool literature assignments. It is in practically every lesson, of every class, of every grade. This is confirmed in the article. I'd be happy to discuss this in greater detail. Pete K 02:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K, I'm not going to argue that anthroposophy *informs* and *underlies* all of the curriculum. However the curriculum section as currently written describes what is taught to the students, not about the teachers themselves or their competency. I think these comments belong in a criticism section, not because I deny them, but because they're not curriculum. Henitsirk 03:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree - and I address the criticism section below. They ARE the curriculum - and what is taught to the students is every bit as much Anthroposophy as it is anything else. Wait until I embellish the Eurythmy section - which is PURE Anthroposophy. It is an Anthroposophical activity, performed by Anthroposophists outside of Waldorf, it is plainly said to be the embodiment of Anthroposophy, and it is part of the curriculum - in fact one of only two activities Steiner INSISTED should be required instruction for every student (it is taught to every grade right through high school) - the other being gardening. Can you say eurythmy is not part of the curriculum? There is much more, of course. Anthroposophy is IN the curriculum - it makes up at least part of the curriculum without contest, and influences the curriculum in immeasurable ways from what is taught to what is left out and why. There is no question about this (but if you have one, I'll be happy to answer it for you). Pete K 03:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not disputing that anthroposophy is the basis for Waldorf education. I'm just saying that what I'm seeing in the article is not balanced and neutral. Comments like "bad teachers" are not neutral. Calling the fact that anthroposophy "permeates every subject" (a true statement itself) a "problem" is not neutral. Saying "[Teachers] can find great comfort in Steiner's spirituality, and become more devoted followers than even Steiner himself might have wished." has nothing to do with describing the curriculum, it's a criticism of teachers.

Pete K, I'm trying to work with you to make a good article. I don't want us to be antagonistic. I just think that sometimes what you are adding has your POV and isn't neutral. Henitsirk 03:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "balance" you are looking for here. The truth is - teachers who bring Anthroposophy into Waldorf are either bad teachers working against Steiner's wishes - OR - they are doing what Steiner intended and COVERTLY instructing students on Anthroposophy. I didn't call them "bad teachers" by the way, the article said this. This particular article said some things critical of Waldorf (just like we have to accept articles that are supportive of Waldorf). I'm confident that by tomorrow, the Waldorf teacher contingent will provide balancing statements to undermine the truth. Let me just say, my own perscription for Waldorf is "say what you do - or do what you say". Either tell people Anthroposophy is in the curriculum, or take it out of the curriculum. Waldorf intends to do neither. So they will get a critical review from time to time.

Below is the stuff from Steiner's lecture on eurythmy Aug 26, 1923 - in case there's any doubt that eurythmy represents Anthroposphy:

The realisation of this fact of human evolution might well give one courage to develop ever further and further this art of Eurythmy, which has been borne on the wings of fate into the Anthroposophical Movement. For it is the task of the Anthroposophical Movement to reveal to our present age that spiritual impulse which is suited to it.

I speak in all humility when I say that within the Anthroposophical Movement there is a firm conviction that a spiritual impulse of this kind must now, at the present time, enter once more into human evolution. And this spiritual impulse must perforce, among its other means of expression, embody itself in a new form of art. It will increasingly be realised that this particular form of art has been given to the world in Eurythmy.

It is the task of Anthroposophy to bring a greater depth, a wider vision and a more living spirit into the other forms of art. But the art of Eurythmy could only grow up out of the soul of Anthroposophy; could only receive its inspiration through a purely Anthroposophical conception.

Pete K 04:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K, I'm in total agreement that teachers who bring Anthroposophy into Waldorf are working against Steiner's wishes. I have never personally experience anything in the Waldorf teachers that I've known, or the teacher trainings that I have attended, that anyone is "covertly" indoctrinating children to be anthroposophists. If they are, they are going against the very core of anthroposophy, that of freedom.

I also agree that Waldorf schools should probably be more forthright about anthroposophy as the root of the curriculum. But again, I'm not convinced that anyone's hiding anything in a malicious way.

And, you are preaching to the choir with the quotes about eurythmy! It is an artistic and curative movement form that was created by anthroposophists. Henitsirk 02:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some changes to this section. Re-reading it and looking at the Atlantic Monthly article, I see that it was unclear who was saying "bad teachers" and "more devoted followers" etc... I thought it was Pete K asserting these things, when it was actually in the citation. So I tried to make it more clear by expanding the quotation and the introductory sentences. Henitsirk 03:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm quite sure I couldn't get away with making my own "bad teachers" statement in the article <G>. I try to introduce very little of my own wording here but I admit that I focus on exposing some of the more dark topics to the light of day. Pete K 17:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

TheBee questioned the word "permeates". The article says: But anthroposophy still "leaks into the curriculum," as Dan Dugan puts it. "They try to hide it, but they can't," Rebecca Bolnick, a recent graduate of the Sacramento Waldorf School, told me.

"Permeates" and "leaks in" mean the same thing Sune. Pete K 17:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah! "Leaks in" means "permeates"! You checked that with an arbitrator? I mean, just to be sure you've got it right ... And DD, "informational" minister of the WC has told it leaks in, sorry permeates the curriculum and backs this up with one former graduate at one Waldorf school, meaning this is the case. I get it. Thebee 18:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think arbitrators are here as human dictionaries. LOOK IT UP if you don't believe me. The author of the article is responsible for its content. He made a statement and used Dan Dugan's characterization "leaks in" - which is a very valid (and polite) way of putting it - but the author was expressing his own view. A Waldorf graduate confirmed this. BTW, IT'S TRUE!!!! If he would have asked me, I would have said - "Anthroposophy is the FOUNDATION of the curriculum". In this article, we have dozens of statements taken from Anthroposophists and being related by third parties. We all have to live with those. I think you would save yourself a lot of anguish if you stopped thinking of this article as another press-release for Waldorf. Pete K 19:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, I used the word permeate because I felt that word truly described Waldorf, which after all is a pedagogy based on anthroposophy. Every part of the curriculum is based on the anthroposophical concepts of human development, applied to math, science, reading, etc. Thebee, if you don't like my word choice, you are free to edit it. However I would disagree with any editing that changes what I have said about the curriculum. Henitsirk 19:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Permeate" is a good word - and I hope I've struck a compromise with TheBee by saying "permeates the curriculum" instead of "permeates every subject" (even though it does). Thanks! Pete K 20:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

There are very valid criticisms of Waldorf that belong within the article - not in a criticism section. There's no rule that says everything in an article needs to be positive with a small section for criticism. Look at the PLANS article, which is ENTIRELY critical of PLANS. The criticism of Waldorf belongs in the section where it applies - if we talk about reading - then both supportive and critical views can be presented about whether Waldorf's approach to reading is considered best. Criticism of Waldorf is not some kooky uncle we need to lock up in the attic - it belongs in the article with all the other material about Waldorf. Pete K 03:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, well if we are going to decide to insert criticisms throughout the article, then I think we need to come to some consensus as to balance. I don't think it's appropriate to insert a section (Anthroposophy in the Curriculum) that is entirely critical. Henitsirk 03:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to enhance it. What can we say about Anthroposophy in the curriculum that's nice? I know it's not nice that Waldorf pretends it's not there. I'd be happy to see some nice things said about it - some honesty and acknowledgement that it IS in the curriculum and what benefit it has. Personally, I like Michaelmas (I even made the dragon head for my kid's school) - and kids learn about Michaelmas. Why pretend Anthroposophy isn't in Waldorf? To me, it's strange to know something like eurythmy, which Waldorf teachers believe has etheric benefit and potential to STRAIGHTEN CROOKED TEETH, is described to parents (and readers of this article) as an artistic form of dance. Pete K 03:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you: anthroposophy is what the curriculum is based upon. Looking at the overall article though, I think this stuff should be in the general description, not in the section meant to describe details of the curriculum. And while I'm sure I could "enhance" the section with some "nice" things about anthroposophy, I don't think what you've written is neutral. I do think criticisms have a place here, but they need to be worded without POV. Henitsirk 03:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My biggest problem, these days, is finding information that is acceptable to be used here. While it may seem critical to some, it seems extremely honest to me. And we have lots of editors here who only insert material that is biased toward Waldorf (or delete information that is critical) - so I've got my hands full presenting this type of information. I don't know that the NPOV is that Waldorf is great but has a few problems (I think that's what most people in the Waldorf camp would like to see). I think the NPOV is that Waldorf has serious problems that can be traced to the influence of Anthroposophy and strange ideas derived from it (Ahriman lurking in TV sets) and that reform needs to be accomplished. A truly critical POV would be that Waldorf represents an international network of indoctrination centers for Anthroposophists (both students and their unsuspecting parents), that Steiner himself intended this, that this dishonest missionary work is carried on by Waldorf teachers, that many Waldorf schools behave like cults and that this cult-like setting which includes the entire faculty and staff devoted to a single religious philosophy produces environments where higher levels of physical and emotional abuse than one would expect are common AND that such abuses are easily covered up. I could indeed support each of these points fairly well and my personal experience has been that each point is 100% true. My own experiences are corroborated by dozens and dozens of people I have spoken with around the world. So I think as NPOV's go, what we're arriving at here is relatively neutral. Pete K 04:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything Pete wrote - including every single one of the criticisms of Waldorf he raised. Let's remember that we HAD a criticism section here. It was deleted, restored and deleted again.

IMO, this has less to do with the so-called proper place for criticism, than it does with the almost pathological aversion that Waldorfers seem to have to any criticism what-so-ever. Which apparently extends now, to the incredible level and highly-suspicious recent development of Waldorf school websites removing their parent handbooks from view, because they were being cited as references here. Why do Waldorf pedagogues fear the revelation of the truth of what they believe and what they practice getting out into the open, anyway? Our local school had a "no negativity" rule that even extended outside the school [e.g. on the trip home, at home].

I'm sorry, but once any institution begins dictating an individual's or family's lifestyle outside societal norms: what you can and can't read [Harry Potter was banned because it was made into a movie], what you can and can't say [no criticising/don't question what we do], what you can and can't do [the only "approved" out-of-school activities were bowling, skating, swimming - no dance, no martial arts, no sport leagues, no visiting science or history museums, no attending the symphony], who you can and can't talk to [no playing with those hopelessly-polluted non-Waldorf kids] that meets the very definition of harm that is often associated with the term cult.

Such behavior is very suspicious and warrants explanation when observed and exposure when necessary.

So that's the experience I bring to this article as an editor. And whenever I can cite independent third-party evidence to suport all of this, you'd better believe I'll post it as fact.

With that said though [and I know I'm repeating myself], I still think that much of the very positive things that Waldorf did for my kids on character and creativity levels was like nothing they could've gotten anywhere else. That counts for a great deal as far as I'm concerned.

But any legitimate institution or philosophy must either be able to stand up to criticism on its own merits, field it, discuss it and deal with it, or cease to be legitimate [the earth is flat/the center of the universe, you can gauge individual or racial intelligence by the bumps on their head].

So let's make a decision and stick to it. But rest assured that as long as there is support of Waldorf, there will be criticism of Waldorf insofar as the Arbitration and the rules of good, encycolpedic research allow. The [bias of the] pro-Waldorf crowd does not own the monopoly on truth any more than the [bias of the] anti-Waldorf crowd. Deal with it people and learn to accept it, because more such evidence will come as time goes on. As Ghandi said: "Some things cannot be long hidded: the sun, the moon and the truth."

- Wikiwag 12:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag and Pete K: I just want to say that if there are criticisms of ANY kind that are verifiable and citable, then let's put them in, with POV-neutral language. There will always be disagreement on things like "cult" status, and different experiences with specific schools and teachers (I went to parochial and public schools, and there were doozies in each). If citations are given, then I'm personally going to feel much more able to field, discuss and deal with criticisms than when the arguments are simply personal or anecdotal.

I wish we could get away from the us vs. them mentality and just try to write a good article! I'm an editor by trade and hope to make a positive contribution here. Henitsirk 02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree proper citations are absolutely required. Pete K 17:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Henitsirk: I'm glad there are reasonable people like you here and I am in 100% agreement with you on your final point. Suffice to say that others are not so civil and seem to thrive more on conflict than content, engaging in edit-warring and throwing about baseless accusations. I feel such behavior has no place here and I've said so on many occasions.

I'm willing to take a leap of faith and one more whack at the criticisms section. But, if the main individual who has instigated this sort behavior generally (and towards me specifically), cannot behave himself and allow the section to stand on the facts, or allow the editors of the section go unmolested by vitriol and rhetoric, then I will go to WP:ANI. I have no more patience for mudslinging and misbehavior and he's already been warned more times than he [IMO] deserves.

- Wikiwag 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it is worth it. If there's a criticism section, then you-know-who will introduce sketchy discussion to refute it. It will then (believe me, I know this from experience) change from a "criticism" section to a debate section. But you're of course welcome to try. BTW, thanks for the good edits today (both Wikiwag and Henitsirk)! Pete K 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. I've just restructured the section and added an intro. Let's see if an ill wind blows...smelling of meat. - Wikiwag 18:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Henitsirk: I believe that among the biggest issues that people like Pete and myself take with Waldorf compared with your example of Catholic [parochial] schools is - saying a Catholic school is founded on Christianity is the same as saying that a car has wheels. People know what it is and what to expect. So, when religion class is a part of the core curriculum, the only people who are surprised by it are those who are completely out of it and are lucky to have kids in the first place.

The same in my experience [and the experience of others including Dan Dugan and presumably Pete], absolutely cannot be said of Waldorf. Perhaps it comes out of the naive belief of pedagogues that since anthroposophy is not actively taught in the classroom that it's acceptable not to discuss it at all - even when it comes from legitimate parental concerns. In my experience though, it seems much more like an active, concerted effort to cover up the roots and more esoteric practices of anthroposophy as it pertains to Waldorf education, by glossing over concerns with broad and non-substantive statements.

In my experience, any criticism at all is similarly handled by Waldorf pedagogues and teachers.

Now if we can get beyond this here, then perhaps we can make some actual progress.

- Wikiwag 18:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, for me, if a parent wants to consider a Catholic school, they need only read one book, the Bible, to find out what may be taught to their children. Steiner's philosophy is represented across 30+ books and 6000 lectures. A parent would need to spend a lifetime investigating Anthroposophy. That teachers are guarded with straight-forward answers to concerned parents makes it next to impossible for parents to find out what they need to know (especially when every Anthro website resembles TheBee's own original research websites). They may come here for straight answers and we have a responsibility to provide them. Pete K 19:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A few additional comments: When I said parochial, I was actually referring to a Lutheran school, but the point is the same. I agree that it is clear from the start that a parochial school will include religion. (Though actually, much of Catholic doctrine is not included in the Bible: the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, intercession of saints, etc.) And I agree that it would serve parents better to be made more aware of anthroposophy from the start, yet as Pete K points out, it's pretty complex and the philosophy is presented in many texts (most of those 6000 lectures have not even been translated from German!)

Perhaps we can include fairly small criticisms throughout and then save "big" ones like racism for the separate section? Henitsirk 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

By "big" criticisms I mean things like immunizations being discouraged, problems of children with learning disabilities (e.g. dyslexia), lack of oversight (as Pete K has mentioned elsewhere). The problem, as always, will be verifiability with proper citations. And at least with the immunization one, I'm foreseeing a conflict in world-views, i.e. public health problem (epidemics) vs. the view that immunizations are harmful/ineffective/prevent proper maturation of the immune system. Henitsirk 20:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the immunization debate will not be resolved here - but we don't even talk about it. We should have added it in the "What Waldorf Discourages" section when we had the chance <G>. Maybe there's still a place for it other than discussing it as necessarily a criticism. I've got material that talks about the down side - e.g. epidemics of pertussis in Waldorf schools. I'm sure TheBee will want to produce his report that Waldorf students are healthier because they aren't immunized. I'll leave it up to you. Pete K 20:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I added immunizations to the criticism section, and I did include the "Waldorf students are healthier reference" but in what I hope is a neutral way. I thought it should be included, even though it doesn't actually say that immunizations are the reason the children are healthier, it just says that lack of immunization is one of the multiple factors that produced fewer allergies. Let me know what you think. Henitsirk 21:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I just read it. It sounds fine to me. Good job!!! Pete K 21:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The lead-in sentence talking about "two groups" seemed kind of goofy to me (I didn't bother looking up who introduced it - so please everyone - don't take offense). There's no reason to suggest that there are polarized camps here and, as we have seen right here with various editors, opinions about Waldorf are all across the board. I tried to just remove the sentence but the section seems to need some kind of lead-in sentence. Feel free to revise the one I introduced. Pete K 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I had to make a change in the immunizations section to clarify the alergies as *atopic* alergic reactions (what the article is actually talking about). Pete K 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and I almost hate to say it, but the atopic alergy study should come out of this article as it really has nothing to do with Waldorf. It's a study of "Anthroposophical families" not Waldorf families and a further study said the issue had to do more with diet than with lifestyle. Anthroposophical families and Waldorf families are not the same thing. This study should be moved to the Anthroposophy article. Any disagreement? Pete K 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind... I made an executive decision here and moved it to the AM section of the Anthroposophy article. Pete K 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you guys have been playing nice, while I have been having a wee little Wikibreak for the last few days. IMHO the Criticism section should contain those criticism that need to be discussed in depth the best two examples are whether Waldorf schools are racist or/and religious, where a significant amount of text needs to be used to cover the issue, which would break up the flow of other sections if put there.

A criticism that is less notable/important and needs less discussion, can be summed up in a couple of lines and put in with the relevant section. A good example of this might be that Waldorf education teaches two foreign languages from age X (appropriate reference 1), but this has been found not to be true in some schools (appropriate reference 2). Of course some statements and criticisms of those statements might not have the appropriate references.

I hope this helps Cheers Lethaniol 23:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't sound too unreasonable <G>. Pete K 02:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, removing the allergy study seems reasonable. I think Lethaniol described what I've meant to say before about having a separate section, but in more detail.

I'd like to see some drafts of other topics for this section. The religious nature of Waldorf is a big one, and I think it would be in everyone's best interests to discuss it here before doing lots of edits and reverts. Henitsirk 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I hope the removal of the allergy study didn't seem inappropriate or too abrupt and that my reasons were clear. After TheBee added the Anthroposophy phrase, I went back and re-read the reference and it made perfect sense to move it. I probably should have discussed it here (as I intended to) but I had already put in 9 hours straight by that time and I wanted to get it taken care of before signing off. My apologies to you Henitsirk for not discussing it further since you were the one that placed it here in the first place. Pete K 06:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Wish I had 9 hours straight to devote to this! I'm not able to devote that much time or I would draft something further about criticisms. Henitsirk 20:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is like the 20th weekend in a row I've devoted to this. Maybe I'll luck out and be banned <G>. Pete K 21:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology and claim of credit

Hi folks. I want to apologize for my last three edits from last evening appearing as anonymous. For some reason, either my computer or the wiki logged me out without me realizing it.

Therefore please note that edits by 24.38.65.114 are actually mine.

Sorry for any confusion I caused. - Wikiwag 10:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My computer also does the same periodically. It's a little unpredictable. Hgilbert 17:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Grrr! It did it again. Edits by 69.160.7.226 are mine as well. - Wikiwag 23:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Provide Citations

I've asked for citations to several sections for which HGilbert has applied a reference to Waldorf schools in England. This says nothing about Waldorf schools in general and the source, talking about Waldorf schools in England specifically, cannot be used to support Waldorf schools everywhere. I will go back in and ask for citations unless the statements are altered to indicate that they apply ONLY to England. HGilbert, please do not remove {fact} tags - I'm inclined to revert all your edits - indeed I think I will. Pete K 17:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fact tags should not be inserted where citations are already present.

Unless there is reason to believe that the curriculum differs in different countries, given the international nature of the education a study in one country can be assumed to be relevant for others (assuming that there is absolutely no evidence that there are differences, as is the case here); Waldorf-published curricula (not usable as article citations under current policy but relevant to the conversation here on the talk page) support the fact that they are the same. Note that the criticisms in the Milwaukee school study are based on a single school; a similar logic would require that a corresponding limitation be applied here.

Also - large sections of undocumented and controversial material are being added. At this point, this seems unwise. If there is a potentially controversial subject, I suggest finding documentation first. If there is a reason to include it before such documentation exists, I suggest doing this through a short reference to the subject, and extending this when documentation is available; in addition, providing one's own fact tag, indicating an awareness that citations are still needed, would be good etiquette. Hgilbert 17:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Fact tags should not be inserted where citations are already present." You're right. If the citation doesn't cover the material, I should just remove the material. I produced the fact tag as a courtesy to you so that you could properly reference the material there. I'll just remove it from now on like you do.

"Unless there is reason to believe that the curriculum differs in different countries, given the international nature of the education a study in one country can be assumed to be relevant for others (assuming that there is absolutely no evidence that there are differences, as is the case here); Waldorf-published curricula (not usable as article citations under current policy but relevant to the conversation here on the talk page) support the fact that they are the same. Note that the criticisms in the Milwaukee school study are based on a single school; a similar logic would require that a corresponding limitation be applied here." Gee... isn't that what you do when a critical report is produced? Limit it to the "individual" or the "country" or the specific school? You need to produce material that confirms that what is claimed in this source applies to all Waldorf schools. That's how we do things here. Otherwise, I could take the situation about the Waldorf teacher who bound and gagged children and apply it to ALL Waldorf teachers. You can't insist on good sources one day and dismiss that criteria the next - when it suits YOU.

"Also - large sections of undocumented and controversial material are being added. At this point, this seems unwise. If there is a potentially controversial subject, I suggest finding documentation first. If there is a reason to include it before such documentation exists, I suggest doing this through a short reference to the subject, and extending this when documentation is available; in addition, providing one's own fact tag, indicating an awareness that citations are still needed, would be good etiquette." I'm not taking your suggestions, but thanks anyway. If material is being added that you feel is controversial (not everyone feels the same way about the same material) and requires verification, place a {fact} tag on it. I think etiquette went out the window a long time ago, frankly. Pete K 18:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find your comments here and your edits to be repeatedly arrogant.

Your own disregard for your own question, first telling your view and asking:

This study should be moved to the Anthroposophy article. Any disagreement? Pete K 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

and then, just seven minutes later telling that you don't really care about the view of others:

Never mind... I made an executive decision here and moved it to the AM section of the Anthroposophy article. Pete K 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

and your comment above:

"HGilbert, please do not remove {fact} tags - I'm inclined to revert all your edits - indeed I think I will."

being just two of the latest in the row of examples.

Thebee 23:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite your efforts to stall progress as long as possible, some of us are here WORKING TOGETHER to improve these articles and move them toward a NPOV. Every day we wake up to ridiculous edits and extremely controversial inclusions and deletions that are not discussed - simply jammed into the article. These types of pushy, mean-spirited edits get reverted immediately. One way to avoid this is by discussing these issues beforehand and coming to consensus. In the case you describe above, where I ask for disagreement and then make the edit - it really wasn't a matter that needed discussion as the cited article clearly applied to Anthroposophist families and not to Waldorf families - so there was no question it needed to go in the Anthroposophy article. You may think it's arrogant - I really don't care. I will care about your opinions when you start working with and not against the editors here. In fact I'm sure we will all be very relieved if you make the decision to work cooperatively instead of polemically. Thanks! Pete K 02:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the atopy study, it belongs here, as the study was done specifically on children who went to waldorf schools, in this case in Jaerna, south of Stockholm. Different waldorf schools have very different pupil populations. In that specific case, the pupils with an anthroposophical family background very much dominated the pupil population, as Jaerna is the main centre of anthroposophy related activities in Sweden, and the noting of a markedly less incidence of atopy among the children at the schools was the background for the study. It has a place here in the waldorf article, as one of the seemingly main factors behind the lower atopy incidence was the type of vegetarian food associated with an anthrop life style, the same type of food was served to the children at the schools, and the same type of vegetarian food probably is served at many Waldorf schools world wide. For that reason, the study belongs here in the Waldorf article, describing this specific connection.

As to a number of further of your personal comments on me, they stand out as strong projections, that I however won't comment on further here. Only one:

Your comment:

"You may think it's arrogant - I really don't care."

proves the point you dispute.

Thebee 16:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... does the study SAY Waldorf? If not, your own personal characterizations about the make-up of the group in the study are meaningless. Please, let's stick to the facts contained in the study. Pete K 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about this article from the Lancet [16] - please confirm - also it is not always obvious what people are talking about so remember to link to relevant info Cheers Lethaniol 17:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, no mention of Waldorf. Pete K 17:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay if this is the article in Question then please take this on board. Note I have I have Athens access so have skim read the whole paper - (The Lancet: Volume 353, Issue 9163, 1 May 1999, Pages 1485-1488).

1. When this is discussed remember to link to Atopy so people know what we are talking about.
2. The study is comparing 2 Steiner schools (Aka WE) to 2 non-Steiner neighbouring schools - from abstract.
3. Although the study is looking at children that attend Steiner schools, it is looking at the effect of an anthroposophical upbringing as related to parental choices not on the effect of Steiner schools.

Results of interest:

Only half of the children at the Steiner schools had ever received antibiotics, compared with 90% in the control schools. A similar pattern is apparent for use of antipyretics. Immunisation against measles, mumps, and rubella had been given to only 18% of the children at the Steiner schools, compared with 93% at the control schools. As a result, 71% of the children at the most typical Steiner school (A) got measles during an epidemic in 1995.

Fermented vegetables had been consumed by 63% of the children at the Steiner schools, compared with only 4•5% in the control schools. A similar pattern was shown for consumption of organic or biodynamic food during childhood. Breast feeding in infancy was of longer duration for children in Steiner schools than for controls.

In the Steiner schools, 13% of children had a history of atopy or of symptoms consistent with atopy, compared with 25% of children at the control schools (p<0•001). The difference was most pronounced for current atopic dermatitis and bronchial asthma.

Discussion of Interest:

We have shown that factors associated with an anthroposophic way of life are also associated with a lowered prevalence of atopy in children, Measles has been inversely related to atopy ... other diseases are, however, generally more difficult to verify by history and their roles in atopy are uncertain. Dietary factors may have been important ... frequent consumption of fermented vegetables may affect the intestinal microflora, and the difference in duration of breast-feeding may have an influence on risk of atopy ... other characteristics of an anthroposophic lifestyle, which were not investigated, could also have contributed to the differences in atopy between study groups.

We could not identify a single lifestyle exposure factor primarily responsible for the lower prevalence of atopy in children at the Steiner schools, because behavioural characteristics of an anthroposophical lifestyle are strongly correlated ... However, an anthroposophical lifestyle mainly resulted from parental choice, and was experienced by the children during their whole life.

Note the following from the editorial comment accompanying the article (The Lancet: Volume 353, Issue 9163, 1 May 1999, Pages 1457-1458):

They found a lower prevalence of allergic diseases and positive responses to objective tests of atopy among children with anthroposophic families attending Rudolf Steiner schools, than among children attending other schools in the same area of Sweden. These differences could be due to the many unusual features of the anthroposophic lifestyle, including various aspects of diet, incomplete immunisation, and limited use of antibiotics. Thus, the intriguing findings are of limited value in testing of specific aetiological hypotheses.

What this means is that the variables of decreased drug (antibiotic/antipyretic), decreased immunisation and altered diet can not be separated from each other with respect to their effects. What can be taken though is that these three factors lead to less atopy related disorders, but an increase in infectious diseases including outbreaks of the potentially life threatening measles.

Now this report is about Anthroposophy not Waldorf Schools directly - so it belongs in the Anthroposophy article. But once there it should be linked from the Immunisation criticism section, maybe saying something like - as Waldorf schools encourage an Anthroposophy upbringing (you must be able to find reference for this), there is less likelihood of atopy but increased infectious diseased - see link...

I hope that sorts things out. Cheers Lethaniol 18:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It does for me. Thanks! I agree that it belongs where it is, in the Anthropospohy article, and further agree that a link to that page and section would be appropriate. If there is a "lifestyle" associated with Anthroposophy (a set of religious/spiritual values) then that lifestyle should also be described in the Anthroposophy section - don't you agree? If I'm correct, the study pointed to a second study that identified the results as diet-related, as you said concerning fermentation, etc. Pete K 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I above:

"In the case of the atopy study, it belongs here, as the study was done specifically on children who went to waldorf schools, in this case in Jaerna, south of Stockholm."

Pete K:

"Um... does the study SAY Waldorf? If not, your own personal characterizations about the make-up of the group in the study are meaningless."

Lethaniol:

"I assume you are talking about this article from the Lancet [17] - please confirm ..."

Pete K

"Yep, no mention of Waldorf."

From abstract:

"In a cross-sectional study, 295 children aged 5-13 years at two anthroposophic (Steiner) schools near Stockholm, Sweden, were compared with ..."

Shall we try again?

Thebee 23:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes TheBee, Pete K was wrong it does mention Steiner/Waldorf schools, but it is not about the relation of Waldorf Education with immunisation uptake or atopy prevalence - it is talks solely about anthroposophical followers and how their life style changes e.g. immunisation uptake or food consumption, affect atopy prevalence. The schools were not picked because they taught anthroposophical life styles, but because the children who attended them had parents that followed anthroposophical life styles. In the whole article it mentions nothing about how Waldorf schools teach/advise/ recommend on anything at all. Hence this research belongs in Anthroposophy and that section can be linked to from this article, as stated above

I am afraid your quote picking is really starting to annoy me. Stick to the issue at hand - trying to win cheap points is causing a lot of frustration and likely to be a factor in the ArbCom review. Stick to the issue at hand Cheers Lethaniol 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal Arguments

Please no more personal comments - either take to user talk pages, or if you want re-evaluation by ArbCom take it to them. I am going through this talk page and deleting any personal arguments that I find, I am sure you have or can find the differences. Cheers Lethaniol 00:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I should expand on this - the article talk pages are fine to raise an personal issue e.g. I found your comment X a bit aggressive - because that shows all users that the issues has been recognised. But as soon as it gets into a discussion on these personal issues, then it should be moved to user talk pages and deleted from these discussions, as they bare no relation to the article. Cheers Lethaniol 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you understand that we are in a "process" here and we have editors from very different POV's trying to edit this article. The personal discussions are, hopefully, intended to iron out differences by discussion of various POV's. Yes, it gets heated sometimes - but I think we're trying to focus on the issues and not each other (at least I am). The hope is that at some point we will iron out these differences and work cooperatively to improve the articles. Pete K 02:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lethaniol, it's a problem for everyone who feels passionately about this topic. I wondered where you've been! Henitsirk 04:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Lethaniol! I left you a message on your Talk page about this.

Honestly after his last tirade, I was on the verge of asking the appropriateness of calling a vote of the other editors here about whether or not we want Thebee's continued "input." Passionate as we all are, the rest of us seem to be reasonable people from both sides of the aisle [so-to-speak] and seem able to overcome our differences in the interest of creating a good article based on the facts. Is there a precedent for such a vote? If so, how do we proceed? If not, how do we set one? I for one, am frankly sick to death of Thebee's constant baiting. - Wikiwag 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well now that the ArbCom has been reopened - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review, you will get your say - I suggest you write up your opinions backed up with differences if you have them, and present them as evidence. As for a vote - we can not do this - it is up to Admins to decide if a user should be topic blocked - and in this case it will be up to the ArbCom to decide. Cheers Lethaniol 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

pseudoscience-helpful link?

found this link at german discussion site to the newsletter of the science group of uk anthropop society [18]. quote: " Conclusion: Once again we return to the question: How Could Waldorf Offer a Viable Form of Science Education? We believe we have answered it by pointing to a rigorous process that distinguishes pseudoscience from science – with a rejection of pseudoscientific ideas, however pivotal they may have been to Waldorf science education in the past. This includes removal of Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy as sources of accurate scientific concepts, a separation of Waldorf science education from anthroposophy,...", or maybe this is more interesting for the article on anthroposophy... trueblood 10:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The quote above is actually taken from "A Research Monograph" [19] which is referenced in the Waldorf Education article already. Here's the Conclusion where this text and language was copied from:

Conclusion

Once again we return to the question: How Could Waldorf Offer a Viable Form of Science

Education? We believe we have answered it by pointing to a rigorous process that distinguishes pseudoscience from science --with a rejection of pseudoscientific ideas, however pivotal they may have been to Waldorf science education in the past. This includes removal of Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy as sources of accurate scientific concepts, a separation of Waldorf science education from anthroposophy, specific attention to bringing the “good ideas” of Waldorf into a secular environment, a critical review Waldorf science resource materials, and expungement of materials that don’t make the grade. We then pointed to the five “big ideas” that Waldorf needs to come to terms with: (1) physics’ model of the Atom; (2) chemistry’s theory of Periodic Law; (3) astronomy’s “Big Bang” theory; (4) geology’s “Plate Tectonics” theory; and (5) biology’s theory of “Evolution”.

Is it worth the trouble? Is it realistic to assume that the “good ideas” of Waldorf could be

extracted from the pseudoscientific ones and emerge a strong and vibrant (and viable) form of science education? The evidence from this study indicates that Waldorf will have its work cut out and will have to lose some ideas and people (some anthroposophists are not going to accept the changes that have to be made) along the way, but Waldorf’s rich array of creative methods that stimulate imaginative thought and

engage students in potentially meaningful activities could undoubtedly enrich secular education.

Ultimately, our case for encouraging the effort comes anecdotally and is about the students. 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. One can only imagine how far they could go with sound scientific ideas as part of their repertoire. We think it is worth finding out.

It pretty much says Waldorf science needs an overhaul before it can be useful, and that getting Waldorf to perform this overhaul will be, not surprisingly, difficult. The assessment of David Jelinek, Ph.D. and Li-Ling Sun, Ph.D. was that Waldorf science was, for the most part (almost entirely) lacking. Psuedoscience is an excellent term to describe what is taught there. I encourage everyone to read the entire report. Pete K 14:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"which is referenced in the Waldorf Education article alread", i was not aware of that, anyway

trueblood 16:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this discussion has strayed very far from the realities of a Waldorf classroom. To quote the article referenced above,

We then pointed to the five “big ideas” that Waldorf needs to come to terms with: (1) physics’ model of the Atom; (2) chemistry’s theory of Periodic Law; (3) astronomy’s “Big Bang” theory; (4) geology’s “Plate Tectonics” theory; and (5) biology’s theory of “Evolution”.

The spiritual philosophy of anthroposophy does determine the pace and structure of the curriculum, but anthroposophy itself is not a classroom subject (nor is any "twisted" or other spirituality the subject of Waldorf science classes). To give a comparison, a university founded by Christians based in Christian ideals does not generally teach against evolution, big bang theory, or other modern scientific understandings. To give a more specific insight into science at Waldorf, here are some very mainstream science topics covered between 5th & 8th grades. You can check these against any Waldorf curriculum--don't take my 14 years of Waldorf education as reliable:

Botany, Geometry, Geology, Astronomy, Acoustics, Optics, Mechanics, Inorganic Chemistry, Physiology, Thermodynamics, Electricity & Magnetism, Meteorology, Organic Chemistry WaldorfCurriculum.com

These are not electives, they are part of the mandatory Main Lesson (and a conservative list). I think you will find this list pretty complete relative to your average American junior-high. I could go on into the high school curriculum, but I think the point comes across. There seems to be a lot of conjecture on the education, originating mostly from referenced opinion-pieces and less from peer-reviewed research sources. Information on the curriculum is publicly available and it's really no secret what goes on in a Waldorf science classroom, but you wouldn't know that by reading most of the discussion. --Jtfine 02:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but the names of the topics don't give any insight into what is taught. That's EXACTLY why these issues require specific attention. The names sound mainstream enough, but the content of the curriculum is anything BUT mainstream. The report correctly pointed out that these topics are not handled properly in Waldorf and that attention must be drawn to these areas and significant work must be done to ensure the content (and not just the name of the class) actually agrees with what we know of science. We can get into details if you like, the strange ideas taught in the optics classes for example... or how the physiology class is Eurocentric and implies the superiority of the white race, but I'm not sure we want this discussion here. The report is clear on what Waldorf's deficiencies are in the area of science. If you have another report or study that says Waldorf science is mainstream, I'd love to see it. Pete K 07:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes lets talk about it then. You made some pretty strong claims there. You didn't cite any references for them. I can tell you, I've been through all 14 years of Waldorf education, and these ideas you have about the school are totally off. Physiology doesn't deal with race at all. Not even a little. Optics mostly consisted of simple experiments with camera obscura, reflection, refraction. Not strange by my estimation. You can dismiss this as original research, which it is, but it's a one-up on no research at all, since I do in fact know what I'm talking about. Are you possibly referring to a specific incident in a Waldorf class or a specific school? Be very clear when you make racial or dismissive claims about any organization. If there is some question of the content of these science classes (assuming the names of the classes are deceptive) there's plenty of information on the Waldorf curriculum and very specific methodology that the teachers follow. I'm sure you can find copies in English. If there's some doubt about it I'll look it up for you. --Jtfine 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"I can tell you, I've been through all 14 years of Waldorf education, and these ideas you have about the school are totally off." I'm guessing you meant to add "in my experience". You have slightly less time in Waldorf than I do, so please don't discount my experience. "Physiology doesn't deal with race at all. Not even a little." In your experience, not in mine. Physiology class, in my experience, deals with stuff like the "evolution of blood" and describes that the complexity of the blood in the different races indicates that the African race has the simplest bloodtype, that the Asian race has a more complex bloodtype and that the European race has the most complex (and they use the word "evolved") bloodtype. Overlooking the absurdity of the premise for a moment, it is clear that this connection of blood to race is a Steiner notion without scientific basis. "Optics mostly consisted of simple experiments with camera obscura, reflection, refraction. Not strange by my estimation." Again, this is in your experience, not mine. Let's see what Anthropsophists say:

"In the twelfth grade, the students study visual phenomena. This

includes the phenomena associated with color, reflection and refraction, as well as some of the physiological and psychological relationships that are important in constructing a "picture" of the world. Now the students have to deal with basic philosophical questions such as: How do we know what we know? What is the foundation for knowing?" Renewal, Fall/Winter 2004 - Volume 13, Number 2. Phenomenology and the

Waldorf Science Curriculum by Michael J. D'Aleo - p33.

Hmmmm... not strange? Optics requires constructing a "picture of the world"? Now students have to ask themselves "How do we know what we know?" That's very interesting. Suddenly, science became philosophy... and Optics is used to introduce the philosophical questions that will lead them to Steiner's own ideas. I'm quite sure kids in manistream science classes don't get a tablespoon of Anthroposophy with their science classes. Is there any doubt still that Waldorf is softening kids up for Anthroposophy? I'll plagiarize myself and add something I wrote a couple of years ago on this topic:

When Waldorf science classes lead up to the questions in the 12th grade of "How do we know what we know?" and "What is thefoundation for knowing?" - this, of course, plays completely into the hands of Anthroposophists. When students come out of Waldorf high school, in which they are supposedly learning science by observation, the intention of Waldorf education seems to be that one cannot observe science - one has to "know" what is real and not trust reality itself. Why do Waldorf schools introduce philosophy into science? The question should be - How can people justify Steiner's "Spiritual Science" without introducing philosophy into science. If one cannot trust reality, if one cannot rely on one's senses of observation, one must instead fall back on philosophy - guess who's philosophy? Since belief in Steiner requires disbelief in science, Waldorf science at the 12th grade level culminates with optics (visual distortions) to show how distorted things can appeared when viewed through one lens or another. This is not accidental - it is intended to show students not to trust what they see and ultimately not to trust what they believe. When one loses faith in reality, something must fill that void and that, of course, is Anthroposophy. When science loses its legitimacy and is replaced with faith-based ideas of "knowing" without evidence, then one must question if legitimate science is really being taught in Waldorf schools - or if the intention is to prove to students that there is no such thing as legitimate science and that the lines between proof-based ideas and faith-based ideas can be blurred.

I know what I'm talking about too.Pete K 22:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Questioning "how do we know what we know" and "what is the foundation for knowing" are fundamental questions of Western science and have been since the Greeks. You will certainly find these questions asked in Waldorf classrooms, and they're common for university-level education as well, "in my experience". Since you know something about "evolution of blood", which I certainly didn't encounter in Waldorf physiology class, and which is undocumented in the Waldorf curriculum, I think YOU carry the burden of proof & should follow the claim with "in my experience", or maybe even a reference. --Jtfine 08:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The questions are philosophical questions, not scientific ones - at university or any other level. Scientists are careful to separate science from philosophy. Waldorf blurs the difference. And it's not the "questions" I'm so concerned about, it's the "answers" they are leading kids to. And, no, Waldorf doesn't publish the physiology stuff in any of the curriculum literature. I've had it misrepresented to me as "Out of Africa" theory (which doesn't agree with the conclusions that are presented - i.e. Eurocentric) by Waldorf teachers. I'll look for sources to support this but I can't make it a priority. It's not as if I'm trying to make this claim in the article. I will claim, however, that Anthroposophy is infused in the curriculum, and I think I can support this pretty well. Pete K 20:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)