This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Moved from Waldorf School

This page has been moved from Waldorf schools. As per Wikipedia policy, I did put up a request at the Waldorf schools discussion page well over a week ago. Since nobody objected, I have now moved the page. Waldorf education is a major influence in special needs education, homeschooling, and other venues that are not within schools. This new titile reflects that.

Bias towards criticism

Upon reading this article, I have noticed that many of the critcisms (citations, links) quote a single parent having a bad experience at one particular Waldorf school. I think this is a heavy and unnecessary bias against Waldorf Education as a whole. Which school system doesn't have disillusioned parents? In fact, what in our society can be called perfect without single individuals dissatisfied with their individual experiences related to the particular item in question? These experiences in themselves don't warrant highlighting and giving them the same weight as over 80 years of development and overall success for the movement.

I will remove the following references from the article unless the majority of participating editors have a major objection:

David Gilmour, a member of the United Kingdom rock'n roll band Pink Floyd, had his first four children attend a Waldorf School. Gilmour, commenting to the media on their education, called it "horrific". [1]

Whats Waldorf? (salon.com) A prospective school parent's attraction to Waldorf education and ultimate decision to send her kids to the local public school.

An atheist's view at Skeptic's Directory

Waldorf education - one family's story A Waldorf parent of 17 years describes her increasing disillusionment with Steiner education.

Peter 15:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Following Up

As indicated above, I have now removed the four biased references following a week of silent debate.

Peter 02:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I dont understand your reasoning, personally (as an individual with no agenda), I found the article remarkably well balanced as it was. You remove testimonials (Dave Gilmore) critical to Waldorf Education yet let the other favourable testimonials stand. You remove links critical of Waldorf yet let all the advocate links stand. How does this make the article more objective? I am reverting your deletions. --Fergie 08:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Fergie, but one week had gone by before the removal of references. Explanations had been given as reason for removal. Where were you for that one week period? Why do you feel you need to revert my edits without discussion? Put forth your argument and wait for others to respond. Don't simply revert my edits because you don't understand my reasoning. That is reason to ask a question but not undo another's actions.

To explain again, one person's story cannot be taken as criticism applied to Waldorf Education as a whole. If there is a page describing the individual schools these people were involved with, then sure they are relevant. Just because one person had a bad experience in one particular Wladorf School (out of over 900 worldwide), that doesn't justify the criticism of the method of education. Not even if this person was David Gilmour. Put that reference in the David Gilmour page, that's relevant personal experience there. My point was that much of the cricism came from single individuals having bad experiences in individual schools, so the article was unbalanced as a result. I have reverted your reversion.

Before you go and revert my edit again, please explain why you do not agree with my reasoning. Let us have a discussion before jumping to conclusions. I have allowed one full week before the change, you will need to do the same, don't you think? Peter 22:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your point that testimonial should not be in an encyclopedia, but this is an 'either-or' situation: We either have balanced testimonial, or we have no testimonial at all. If personal experience is irrelevant, then we should remove ALL testimonial, not merely testimonial which is of a certain viewpoint. I think we should either reinstate the parts you cut, or keep your cuts and remove the following:

According to Willy Brandt, former Chancellor of West Germany, former Waldorf parent, and 1971 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate:

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

* Kenneth Chenault, the President and CEO of American Express Corporation, who is African American: from the Waldorf School of Garden City.

"My parents...felt that the Waldorf school would be a far more open environment for African Americans...I think the end result of Waldorf education is to raise our consciousness...It taught me how to think for myself, to be responsible for my decisions. Second, it made me a good listener, sensitive to the needs of others. And third, it helped (me) establish meaningful beliefs".--

Fergie 11:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Just an idea, Fergie and Peter, but to be balanced, why don't we just agree that each of the two sections - praise and criticism - be about the same length? They are (approximately) right now. If for example, Fergie feels we should cut the praise, then lets cut an equal amount of criticism.Wonderactivist

Fergie, Wonderactivist: I am looking for a balanced presentation, that was the motive behind cutting what I considered to be noise and bias. I certainly agree with both of you that this is the key here. The only question is how to achieve that balance. Getting to specifics, I do not feel that a publicity article by David Gilmour (and I greatly admire his music), who has possibly had no time and therefore no chance to get involved with his children's school would measure up to a thoughtful remark by Willy Brandt. The three other articles again are totally irrelevant to Waldorf education as a whole. How many such stories could be written about any school system? These people had a poor understanding of Waldorf education and their children suffered as a consequence. Walford schools are not the uiversal solution, they are not for everyone. If I buy a box of matches for my three-year old and he lights up the house with them, should my dissatisfaction be included in an article describing match manufacturers? Perhaps a far-fetched analogy here, but this is what happened to those 'Waldorf' parents.

Looking at the article right now, I find that Praise and Criticism are roughly balanced (3 for 3). Looking further down, Criticism of Waldorf Schools outweighs Waldorf School Advocacy by 5 to 3 references. Why? I think references to Waldorf-Survivors and the salon.com article could be cut (the latter is also referenced by On What's Waldorf in Salon.com). PLANS represent a vocal minority of disillusioned parents with a mission to destroy Waldorf education. Is this a good reference here? I like OpenWaldorf as a reference becaue they try to present both sides of issues. The reference to Skeptic's Directory should be moved to the article on Steiner. In the final analysis, if we are to have 3 references in this section, perhaps OpenWaldorf, PLANS and the salon.com article could remain, even though the latter two are extremely low quality attempts.

Thoughts, gentlemen? Peter 02:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

You clearly have an agenda and that is not condusive to the creation of a balanced and informative article. You are looking for ways to edit out the criticism that Waldorf education recieves and thereby make the article conform to your own POV. Like it or lump it there are some valid criticisms of the system. If they are not included here, the article loses credibility. Why dont you try and replace the mindless testimonial in the praise section with some factual reasoning? --Fergie 07:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Fergie, that's a sweeping statement. How did you deduce that? What part of my comment gave evidence to this accusation of yours? You know, one of the things I have learned while associated with the Waldorf movement is that all our lives we keep talking about ourselves. Mirror, mirror on the wall...

Re "valid criticisms": I suppose these would be presented under the Criticism of Waldorf Schools section. Please tell me what is valid about those links or show me where I can find "factual reasoning" within.

What do you mean by "mindless testimonial" by the way?

Peter 01:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

As per the above, I am proposing to remove references to Waldorf-Survivors and Skeptic's Directory currently located in the 'Criticism of Waldorf Schools' section. Will wait for a week for any major objection to surface. Peter 03:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Peter, please start to comment properly. You can either start a new section, or indent a reply, but you should not add line breaks and bold text to reply or expand on an existing topic--Fergie 11:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to step in here, but while looking around Wikipedia today I found this article. Being a homeschooling/Waldorf person, and having read the critics in the past...my question became, "Why is the criticism and praise balanced in the article equally?" My research backgroud tells me that the criticism and praise should be weighted according to how the population is divided. Are there 50% for and 50% against? Or are the critics a small portion of people who are or have been involved in Waldorf Education? I took a look at articles on Public Education and Montessori Method and didn't find much criticism in either article....why are the critics given so much space in this Waldorf article? Because of the PLANS site I refused to put my daughter into a Waldorf school years ago....she missed a good start to her education. The more I was around Waldorf and learned about it, the more I realized that the PLANS people were putting out their own agenda based on defaming Waldorf due to a "bad" experience that seemed doubtful anyway. Just my two cents. kpetz 10 September 2005

Peter, Kpetz- Instead of cutting out more critical content, you should add some meaningful content to the praise section. At the moment, it seems that the only reason that Walforf education is any good is because a couple of rich guys say so. So- why is it good? What is good about it? In what ways is it superior to other education methods? --Fergie 11:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Lets be careful here

This article has recently been of a much higher quality than in the preceding months. I think it would be a shame if we were to lose that. Waldorf Education has a lot going for it, and should be presented in a positive and informed light.

The reason that this article used to be terrible, was that a minority of Waldorf advocates waded in and removed and/or defamed all contributions that were anything other than extremely pro-waldorf POV.

Waldorf education looks better when criticims are acknowledged and discussed. If this page returns to being a religious battleground, then Waldorf educators will simply be dissmissed by the outside world as nutters.

I urge everybody to concentrate on the positive, acknowledge/discuss the negative, and be objective. Shown in an unbiased light, Waldorf Education sells itself--Fergie 11:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Getting too long again

This is just my humble opinion, but it seems that the point of an encyclopedia is to give a brief, concise breakdown and central criticism. Then we have given places for more information - positive and negative. This is NOT the place to split hairs or debate the merits of any aspect of Waldorf.

I wholeheartedly disagree. The intent of an Encyclopedia is to be a storage of all human knowledge. If all other human writings disappear, it should be possible to re-establish the basis of Waldorf Education from this article. Nixdorf 09:53, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Some of the recent edits seem to almost be aimed at narrowing Waldorf ed.

Personally, I strongly resent the parts added about 'reincarnation,' and the 'ether body' because many Waldorf homeschoolers I know do NOT believe in these and Steiner stated quite clearly that one didn't need to be anthroposophical to practice Waldorf ed. I am removing them right now as they are misleading. The "milk teeth" are one tiny aspect of a First=grade assesment which would take longer than this page to explain. I have removed it as well, because it sounds like I'm shopping for a horse (smile everyone!).

Do not remove, expand and explain. Explain differences between different Waldorf schools and relation to belief in anthroposophy. It is highly relevant to the article. Size does not matter to Wikipedia. If you want simple and short-form information, edit the top paragraph. Nixdorf 07:31, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The article has a link to Anthroposophy; no other anthro reference is needed...and the physics comment is counter to my own and to my school experience with Waldorf. Why would we discuss physics when no other specific academic subject has been mentioned. Links have been provided for curriculum specifics and criticisms.

Uniforms are certainly not an issue in special ed or homeschooling, so I would suggest that that be added to your AWSNA school site if you feel it is important. Please state if you have a strong reason to leave it; otherwise I will remove it in three days.

Also, "pedagogy" - not everyone who reads this article is from academia. It will be read mostly by parents and other curious about Waldorf ed and thus should be written in mainstream English, not academic terminology. I have replaced it with "Stages of Development" Please let me know if you have a better, mainstream term.

When you make an article too long, you lose the point. Wonderactivist

No. When you make a text long enogh and broken down properly in sections, it provides for deepening the view of the subject. As you edited the article you tend to present a far too simplified and unproblematic view of the waldorf method. Nixdorf 07:31, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Do NOT edit to simplify!

As it says, if you want articles in simple English, simple to read, you can create an article at the Simple English Wikipedia at precisely this spot.

If you need to be informed about Wikipedias style please read the Manual of Style and the Style and How-to Directory. Reading the entry on encyclopedia will perhaps also help out.

I know from my own experience (I attended Waldorf school) that anthroposophy and also Waldorf Education contains an element of esotericism, which means that complex and advanced subjects regarding the philopsophy are only be introduced to those who has already reached a certain level of education. However the Wikipedia in not a place for esotericism. Always expand, elaborate, and add facts ad nauseam.

For example, the three stages involved in Waldorf Education has a clear background in Steiners thinking about the world. Trying to "simplify" the article by removing Steiners metaphysical ideas about this is out of the question. However present-day Waldorf teachers skeptical view of the subject are very welcomed. Elaborate and extend, thank you.

Nixdorf 09:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Moved the above section down here to preserve chronology. Peter 02:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

From Ed: Response to Peter and Others:

I'm a supporter of Waldorf and a long time student of anthroposophy, but my feeling at the moment is that Peter's notion of getting rid of some criticisms is not a great one. Better to just add more praise links from other famous people. Controversy is provocative and great for selling books -- maybe it would be equally good for Waldorf. In any event, I say don't censor, rather expand. Seems to me an unhealthy instinct to remove criticisms when space is not really at a premium here. It is true that many of the criticisms are tendentious and have a hidden agenda. But the fact is that people will be fascinated to know Gilmour's reaction. That in itself seems a strong reason to leave it in. We should err on the side of openness and more info, not censorship and less info. My personal policy is that the only things that should be changed are bad writing and writing that is inaccurate or poorly informed. On that basis I have certainly excised a bit here or there. But if a critic is saying something that is at least a half-truth or a quarter-truth, then instead of excising it, I add a sentence to try to balance the picture, and perhaps argue with the assertion. I only excise a statement if there is really vanishingly little or zero truth to it and the person who wrote it is just plain uninformed.

Meanwhile, I notice that somebody keeps removing the link to the Stereophile article about Dugan's McCarthyite smear tactics. How can I blame that censor (who is no doubt a waldorf critic), now that I discover Peter, the Waldorf supporter, has been censoring critics' links?

I even think that Dugan (secretary of PLANS and critic of Waldorf public schools) may be a blessing in disguise or a sort of avenging angel inadvertently helping Steiner -- after all, Steiner was pretty clear that he didn't think Waldorf should merge with the State -- and that is Dugan's main point too -- he wants to keep Waldorf out of the public system -- though Dugan has very different reasons for stating it than did Steiner. But we anthroposophists have arguably brought Dugan on ourselves by too much ignoring Steiner's statements about how Waldorf should be independent of the State. If we stopped ignoring Steiner on the question of educational independence, Dugan's smears and quarter-truths would dry up and disappear for want of any target.

Dugan, like many today, is misguided in thinking that if you remove spirituality and religion from public schools, you will thus have removed metaphysical commitments of any sort. In reality, most school boards, whether in secular Manhattan or in the Bible Belt, select which books will be in a school's library, and by that very fact censor other books, and do so on the basis of value commitments, even if there is talk only of 'selection,' not censorship, and blather about 'value-neutrality', not value-commitments. "Value-neutrality" itself is not value-neutral. Agnosticism, atheism, or just "value-neutral" bureaucratism are all metaphysical statements of a sort, all entail value commitments as unverifiable as any religion, all permeate teaching and subject matters as thoroughly as any religion permeates teaching and subject matters, and the only way to solve the problem is the one that many (not just Steiner, but for example liberal legal scholar Stephen Arons of U.Mass) have suggested: make all schools independent of the State, allow freedom of choice as between religions, atheism, agnosticism, or spirituality, and let a thousand flowers bloom, while making sure people from all economic backgrounds have means to choose from and start such independent schools. Culture and education require freedom if anything does. If you can only afford to send your child to a state school however, Dugan wants to restrict your choice to atheism/agnosticism as a values background for your child's education. In that, Dugan is a little unconscious totalitarian, like the Orwellian People for the American Way. Nevertheless, Dugan may be doing a favor for -- strengthening -- the independence of the Waldorf movement -- if he slows its spread into the state system, where it arguably does not belong.

-- Ed

Intro, Link & Teeth

Again, Waldorf ed is practiced in many environments, not just schools. Please stop changing the intro back to "schools." In doing so, you completely diminish the accuracy of the article. I have added a link to Camphill communities to emphasize that.

Also, I am about to go in separately and take out two of the three long blocks of text you have put in on the change of the teeth. The change of the teeth is one indicator of larger changes which signal new stages of development. This is ONE point of development. It definitely deserves a mention, but not a third of the article. Waldorf ed mostly takes place well past the change of teeth, so perhaps we should talk about the education mostly.

I think we are supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia article about Waldorf ed; if you wish to go into great depth on the change of teeth, perhaps start a new article on that subject.

Also, the personal attacks and defamatory remarks on this page simply have to stop -- this is no place for your personal vendettas and it really discredits everything else you may have to say when you throw in such remarks about ANYONE. Wonderactivist 06:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)wonderactivist

One suggestion: Someone needs to do a major edit on the "advocacy" links section. Once again. it really discredits the article when people try to make it a personal complaint page. Maybe one of the "advocates" will do it so that I won't waste my time only to have you undo my edits.

If you want this page to be very generic about Waldorf Education, either: 1. Move everything that has to do with schools specifically back to the Waldorf school page and keep both: one of the pages is generic and the other (about schools) is specific. 2. Make a special subsection about schools and move all the stuff about schools specifically into that section. Personally I'd opt for alternative 1.) so we can also keep the article size down. Nixdorf 15:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Howdy Nixdorf! Actually, the stuff about schools was not removed at all, it is just below the part that explains what Waldorf ed is. I really think that having a separate article about schools will just really dilute the effectiveness, but maybe others feel differently.

I'm not sure I understand fully why it would be important to an understanding of Waldorf to separate, Also, in your reverts, you took away my Pedagogy edits. I left to go out and returned so it probably automatically logged me out. I've put them back.

I did suggest that someone edit the link comments, but not that anything be taken away...and I did not edit them. It appears at least 5 people have edited since me. Wonderactivist 00:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Wonderactivist

P.S. I ask again: if anyone can put forward a sound reason why an article on Waldorf ed should be 1/3 about the teeth and not talk about the education, then we can discuss it...but please don't start a revert war without comments and discussion.

Response to Nixdorf -- or Is It Wonderactivist?

At least at this stage of the discussion, I think I disagree with whoever it was who expressed a desire for a 'major edit' of the advocacy links as they now stand, and your desire to remove what you call the 'personal' element. Perhaps if you flesh out your objections more, describing the specific phrases you think should be removed from the advocacy links, and why you think those phrases should be removed, I might be convinced. Or if not completely convinced, I might compromise. It seems to me that provided this advocacy is confined under a heading that says "advocacy", it's understood that it is coming from from an 'interested' or 'biased' point of view, namely that of those Waldorf educators who put in the links, hopefully in good faith belief that the links are justified as they stand.

Consider the link describing Dan Dugan, for example. Before you tar it as 'personal', remember that the adjectives it uses to describe Dugan are backed up by an independent third party: Stereophile magazine, which in its article characterized Dugan in the exact terms used in the link. If something is backed up by independent evidence, it is more than just personal. -- Ed

Hi Ed, it wasn't me as I only changed the parts I outlined above and added a link to Camphill. Everything I did, however, was reverted. If I revert back to add the edits back, I think I would lose any links you have added back, so instead I will dupe my work out and paste it in the current page. 71.113.237.140 23:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)wonderactivist

BTW, ED, when you call people names and use words like "lies," it discredits the article more than the person whom you are intending to discredit. Perhaps you can find a more literate way to say the same thing -- less offensively. Like maybe "makes many claims not supported by credible sources" or "the accuracy of this source has been highly questioned." As I said before, this is an encyclopedia, not a gossip tree or message board. Please refrain from personal attacks. Wonderactivist 00:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Wonderactivist

Why were the praise links removed? And without any explanation?

I put in links from quite a few famous people -- Nobel laureates, artists, scientists, etc. These are relevant to an appraisal of Waldorf. No explanation is given for their removal. So I'll put them back until I hear a justification. - Ed

Spam - even well-intentioned

Hi again, I'm sorry, but I think that no matter how well-intentioned we may be, Wikipedia cannot be used to spam within articles. Steiner's writings are available in many editions from many resources. Steinerbooks is a business and when you place their link here as the only source for books, that is spam -- even if unintentional. Please let me know if I am wrong.

Deletion of Praise Section

I have deleted the overblown praise section. This is an encycopedia not a publicity brochure. I know of no other article that has a section which sings the praise of its subject (can anyone cite one?). As I understand Wikipedia, we keep to a fair factual description of the subject and a fair summary of its critics. We are not trying to sell anything to anyone. Lumos3 14:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Although I think we should have a praise section I wholeheartedly agree with the deletion of the spamlike scree of testimonial. Maybe somebody more knowledgable than me could come up with a shortish summary of what is good about Waldorf education.Fergie 17:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Response to Fergie

Ok, based on your response, I accept the idea that the praise section was far too long for this setting. However I hope you will accept a compromise, as I have added a short version of the praise section, which I think is justified because three very famous people are quoted, and if I were a newcomer to this article on Waldorf Ed, those opinions would interest me at least as much as the article itself. It seems to me highly relevant to an information search to know that an African-American who is the head of American Express, a NASA astronaut who went to the moon, and a Nobel Prize winning former chancellor of Germany all find Waldorf of value. I also disagree that articles on this site do not contain praise. Check out, for example, the Aesthetic Realism site. Furthermore, since the article on Waldorf also contains criticism as well as links to people attacking Waldorf, not always fairly or objectively, it is justified, it seems to me, to have a short praise section, especially if the praise comes from three people who are world-class authorities in the fields of science, politics and business. What do you think? - Ed

We have to be clear that we are writing an encyclopedia article which describes Waldorf education fairly in its own terms and also does justice to those who criticise it. Having quotations from satisfied users of the education starts to sound like we are selling it. There is nothing similar in Aesthetic Realism to support this and I know of nowhere else in Wikipedia where an article has gone in this direction. A list of notable people who've sent there children to the schools ( & linked to their own WikiP articles) and a similar list of alumni, would be in scope of a good article and I think we should go in this direction. Lumos3 08:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that this is fair enough if two criteria are satisfied-

1) That quotes are not used as a means unto themselves, rather that they are used to support a point that is being made. If you only include favourable quotes, it reads like spam/infomercial/tv shopping, and undermines reader confidence in the thing that is being advocated.

2) That all quotes are referenced, preferably to an online source. (this is a wikipedia requirement)

In other words- by all means have a praise section, but do not make it a list of spammy testimonial (although you could of course include a referenced quote to back up a point that you are making). Maybe the 'Praise' section could more appropriately be called something like 'The Strengths of Waldorf Education'.

Fergie 08:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Fergie, Stop removing the 'trashy' advocate links, or I will start removing the trashy critical links

How foolish to assert that a link to statements of university scholars of education and Nobel laureates is out of place here, especially when put under a heading that announces "Waldorf Advocacy"! The statements linked to are not made by just anybody. They are not made by people with stock in Waldorf schools. They are made by famous persons with a good deal of at-large intellectual and cultural authority. These statements are of objective interest, even if, from some God's eye view, they might turn out to be wrong. To disallow this link is to deprive people of significant information -- I don't mean that the content of the statements constitutes information -- no, the statements are only opinion. What I mean is that the fact that, for example, Albert Schweitzer respected Steiner, mistakenly or not, is important information, and it is information relevant as one part of an objective appraisal of what Steiner and Waldorf are about. If the critics can have links to their stuff and their statements, it is hardly balanced to disallow a link, placed under a section called "advocacy," a link that links to university scholars of education, Nobel laureates, and famous and successful artists. Their opinions are all relevant to an appraisal of Waldorf.

And how foolish to assert that an article by Stereophile magazine about the behavior of one of the main critics of Waldorf, Dan Dugan -- an article describing his behavior as that of a McCarthyite smear tactician -- is not relevant!! Stereophile is not a Waldorf organization! It is an independent magazine. Nevertheless, it might be reasonable for you to remove the link to the Stereophile article if you also deleted the links to Dugan's various organizations smearing Waldorf. But if you persist, as a vandal, in removing the advocacy links and the links to the Stereophile article giving an independent view of Dugan, I will be forced to remove the critic-links to Dugan's sites on Waldorf and Steiner. Are you perhaps a stooge for Dugan? Perhaps Dugan himself?

Do I seem angry? Yes, I am. I am angry that valid links I have inserted are repeatedly removed, and that into the bargain I get called a 'vandal' for returning them.

Let me note that dates of entries show you were the first to use the term 'vandal,' so please don't whine about my use of it for you here. -- Ed

The Stereophile article does not mention Steiner or Waldorf education. It adds nothing to this article and should be removed. Lumos3 08:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I hesitate to rise to this, but I will note down my logic for the record. I am an advocate of Walforf education. These links have been discussed several times before- the Dan Dugan link is a largely ad hominem argument concerning stereo cables, it is neither a valid argument nor an argument relevant to Waldorf Education and should on this basis be removed. The walforfanswers link is included twice (once to its home, once to a sublink) therefore one of them should be removed.

Allow me to suggest a compromise-

1)If you must insist on trashing Dan Dugan, then start an article for the poor fellow, and include all of your criticism of him there.

2)Include the sublink to waldorfanswers (famous people who like waldorf) on the same line as the main waldorfanswers link

--Fergie 10:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Fergie, your 'compromise' asks too much. Can we come up with a better one?

I might be open to compromise, but the one you have suggested asks too much and gives too little.

You refer to ad hominem as inappropriate, but if you go to the Wikipedia article on ad hominem, you will find this:

Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility

[I added the boldface]. It seems to me this applies to Dan Dugan -- It makes sense to study the logical connective tissue of his arguments purely on the logical merits, and ignore entirely his character while you do that -- but as for the 'evidence' he presents and the premises he relies on, his credibility or lack of it should be taken into consideration.

Lumos 3 and Fergie, there are two or three links to sites related to or organized by Dugan in the Waldorf Critics section. So the link to his McCarthy-like bahavioral background should remain in the Advocates section, until you or I or someone else provides a better argument against doing so.

If you want to have Dugan's links in the critics section, then his credibility is relevant, somewhat as you apparently thought your position, Fergie, as a 'Waldorf advocate' (that's what you called yourself) was relevant to the evaluation of your statements here.

In any event, calling oneself a 'Waldorf advocate' can mean just about anything. You will no doubt be aware that Dugan or one of his flacks might adopt such a virtual internet identity, if it suited them as the best means to help themselves or hurt Waldorf. Dugan seems quite prepared to use predatory means to further the ends he no doubt sincerely believes in.

As for the other link you have removed, the one to Nobel laureates, scientists etc., who like Waldorf, I will compromise by putting a qualifier in to the link -- "who like Waldorf" -- that should meet any objection, especially since this is under a section that announces itself clearly as 'advocacy'.

I am reverting to Fergie's one line solution. The links can remain but the extended commentaries beside each link are an attempt to introduce POV arguments into Wikipedia . Let the reader decide how to interpret each one. Lumos3 17:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to Lumos3

Lumos3, you said 'the links can remain' but the link on Dugan has been removed. Did you remove it despite saying "the links can remain"? The answer to this question matters because if you didn't do it then that suggests that Dugan or his enablers have done it anonymously. If you did do it, I'd want to know why you said, "the links can remain," and then removed it anyway -- why say one thing and do another? If that is your modus operandi, should I trust your motives?

As to the other link, "comments on Waldorf..." you say "let the reader decide how to interpret each link", that you want to remove a 'POV' from the link, and you give that motive as the reason you make the link into a 'one liner'.

But what you deleted from the link was merely a short, two-line list of the kinds of people who are commenting -- "Nobel laureates, scientists, artists, professors of education" How is there any "POV" involved in saying what kinds of people the commenters in fact are?

If you follow the link, you will find that the kinds of people listed are indeed at the other end of the link, with their comments on Waldorf.

Do you really think there are conflicting 'POVs' about who the commenters at the end of that link are? Do you think, for example, that there is some unresolved philosophical dispute among experts, about whether Willy Brandt is really a Nobel laureate? Do you think that it is a matter of religious debate whether Joseph Weizenbaum, of MIT, is really of MIT, and really a computer scientist? Or that it is a matter of subjective taste whether Douglas Sloan is really a professor of education from Columbia U.? Not so. Anyone can easily check the credentials of these people and verify.

I guess you see my point. To say "Nobel laureates, scientists, artists.." is not to introduce any "POV". It is to inform readers about who is commenting.

And you seem to forget that all this is under a heading called "Waldorf Advocacy." That means the things under the heading ANNOUNCE that they support Waldorf, and take a POV. Just as the links under Waldorf Criticism section definitely have a POV.

The problem is that Waldorf is controversial and disputed right now, and for good reasons, so it is very difficult to present a completely objective POV -- people are generally at loggerheads about it --all one can really do, in my view, is let the critics have their section and the advocates have their section. So if you persist, without careful justification, in removing stuff from the advocate section, I will consider removing links from the critic section, on the evidence that you are either a Dugan representative or other 'critic' acting in bad faith.

This goes for the link about Dugan, which merely describes what the linked-to article itself says. To do that is not to introduce a POV. Remember that the Stereophile article was not written by Waldorf advocates. It does not introduce a Waldorf advocate point of view. It gives an independent evaluation of the behavior of one of the Waldorf critics, behavior directly relevant to his current activities against Waldorf, and relevant to the Wikipedia Waldorf entry because Dugan himself has a link or two under the Waldorf Critics section. So if the link to the Stereophile article is to be removed, then the link to Dugan's site will be removed. Unless you can give a decent argument why not, or we can come up with a compromise solution.

I am open to discussion and compromise about this, but your argument for shortening the Waldorf comments link made no sense (at least none that I could understand), as can be seen by anyone who thinks about it for a half minute or reads my criticism in the above paragraphs. As for the Dugan link, you seem to have removed it despite saying 'the links can stay'. With such interventions on your part you make it difficult to cooperate with you. But perhaps I have misunderstood something. Care to explain? -- Ed

Ed I did not intend to remove the Dugan link if I had a hand in its removal. I have rephrased the descriptions of the links so they describe the sites they point to without trying to summarise the argument that may be carried on the site. We are not trying to make a neutral article about Waldorf education here . We are following Wikipedia's NPOV policy -

Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased

I get the impression that you are trying to pursue an argument here and not describe one that is taking place elsewhere. See Neutral point of view Lumos3 08:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed- read and take heed

This is a topic that should not be here, but seeing as you (Ed) post anonymously, I cannot contact you via your user talk page. Wikipedia would appreciate it if you started following wikiquette- please take heed of the following

1) This is the most important- stop posting and editing anonymously. Log in to your account before editing and sign your contributions when discussing. This is expected for a prolific editor such as yourself.

2) Do not start topics on the waldorf talk page with the names of other users in the title. What you really talking about is a concern related to the article. This concern should make up the title of your topic.

3) If you really do have a concern that is directed at another user, then this concern belongs on that users talk page- not on the waldorf talk page.

4) Instead of starting a load of topics under the heading "response to...(user)" you should be actually responding to the comments made by that user using the appropriate indented text under the pertinant comment.

5) Learn to use the "Show preview" button. This way you will stop registering several edits in the system when you are in fact only making one edit

6) Please try to be more polite and a little more neutral. Your style is confrontational and paranoid- this undermines confidence in what you are trying to say.

I am being cruel to be kind. I think it is commendable that you stand up for what you believe in.--Fergie 08:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevance of Celebrity Lists

Howdy folks! OK, I LOVE Waldorf ed and I think it is great that so many celebrities choose Waldorf ed...

...but,I just don't see the relevance of placing long celebrity lists on this article. Especially when a link to the list has been on this article for quite some time. I just don't think that celebrities are in any way involved in determining the definition or an understanding of Waldorf ed, so I am removing the long list...but leaving the link as it is quite appropriate. --Wonderactivist 16:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)