Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 12

Reliable sources
Which is better: to use an original study, generating complaints of cherry-picking, or to use a newspaper report in a national paper summarizing the study, generating complaints of unreliable sources? I am thinking of the PISA results and other studies. hgilbert (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, PISA is a complex case. The first layer is a bunch of data; then there is research on top of that (which wavers between being primary and secondary in my view); and then there is commentary on that - which may or may not be sensational to meet the mode of the publication. Alexbrn talk 12:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Two queries on RS

 * 1) I am wondering about the series of Karlstad University Research Reports. These are reports on studies conducted by notable professors (there are usually three authors) but that have not been published in peer-reviewed journals. For example, I don't want to add the following until I am clear about the reliability of such a source:
 * A Swedish study found that, in comparison to state school pupils, students in Waldorf schools experience less bullying, and are more open to and tolerant of gay students, students with learning difficulties, immigrants, and minority religious groups, but less tolerant of criminals, Nazis, and racists. Waldorf students also evaluate their teachers to be more egalitarian in their treatment of pupils.


 * 1) I ran into the following in WP:RS: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals". I do believe that this would apply to the Humanists Association journal; it is certainly not "peer reviewed by the wider academic community" and it should probably be regarded as not a reliable source. hgilbert (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * First part last. Do you meet Free Inquiry, the journal of the secular humanist association? Yes. There was considerable discussion on this and I thought we had come to a reasonable solution based on the fact that they can be reliable sources for their own views. However, it may be that I was taking a liberal interpretation of that point. WP:ABOUTSELF says that such a source can be used for information about themselves but not for claims that involve third parties.
 * First part second. As I have noted elsewhere, these departmental research reports should be included. They are all university professors, the research was conducted by multiple people, etc. I think it would be a mistake to exclude white papers and manuscripts published by university departments or institutes because this is so frequently done. I have said this all along. If you take this issue to the RS/N, there will be push back from this because in the physical sciences this would be a very weak source. But the two areas of scholarship are so fundamentally different that it is comparing apples to oranges. I suspect you'll get your way on this one because disallowing this series would disallow direct quotation of Jelinek & Sun, and that would have a fundamental effect on the pseudoscience section. Jellypear (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we got guidance from RS/N on Free Inquiry and sorted it out. I think this is another attempt by Hgilbert to remove the statement of the British Humanist Association. Alexbrn talk 15:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have the energy to fight for this right now but, in general, wikipedia expects that the entire page is sourced in 3rd party materials and we haven't been doing this. For academic work, this would mean not the original research but peer-reviewed articles and university press books citing them. For some of the reception issues, it would mean only including those things that have appeared in newspaper accounts - places that a have an apparatus and reputation for accuracy. (The New York Times, etc.) I think taking such a hardline would fundamentally change (but shorten!) the page. Just some reflections, not necessarily something I am calling for. Whatever is done, however, must be applied across the board. Whatever process we're using is entirely open to POV-pushing (re:Hether), an especially bad thing for this page. Jellypear (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not quite right. To add to your exhaustion, consider WP:SELFSOURCE, which does allow otherwise bad sources to be used to report on themselves and their own views. We use the BHA, AWSNA, ECSWE, etc. according to this guideline. Alexbrn talk 15:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The crucial bit, which I don' think I had noticed until now, is that they can't be used for claims about third party sources. BHA's views being on this page is ok currently because they are being cited in a third-party source (the TES article). If it was say, an article circulated in a BHA newsletter about Waldorf schools I would say this guideline says that it can't be included, at least until the views are picked up by The TImes of London (or some such) and then we reported those views together with whatever contrary views were expressed in the reporting. But BHA looks fine to me right now. Jellypear (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And AWSNA and ECSWE are totally in the clear because they make no claims about third parties. They simply state their own views about themselves. I think that is what the guideline is supposed to protect, the right of groups to make statements about themselves, even if others think they are lying, duplicitous sacks-of-shite comments. :) Wikipedia only lets you talk about yourself. To talk about others, you've got to get it published in a third-party source that has a reputation and mechanism for checking facts. Jellypear (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Colourfully put, Jelly ;-) Alexbrn talk 16:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Dugan and Daar (again)
Dearest editors - we need to do something regarding sources so that we can focus on the comprehensiveness, neutrality, and clarity of this page. I am absolutely loathe to return to this topic again but after checking through the page I now see that this is just called "an article" and there is no mention that it is a publication of the Council for Secular Humanism, and not a peer-reviewed academic journal. Using the listing in Ullrich'sweb previously, I demonstrated how this is a POV publication. Papers that do not address or advance the goals of secular humanism in some way are not published. WP:Scholarship and WP:Sources indicates that such questionable sources can be used for their own ideas but not for claims about other parties, especially when they are controversial. My feeling now after being here longer, working with the guidelines, is that this is not the Council for Sec Humanism making a statement of their own views, but it is Dugan and Daar making statements about a third party. Wikipedia is free to report these views, so long as they appear in a nonPOV publication. What I would request at this point is that someone find these viewpoints being expressed in a newspaper (LA Times, Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle). I do think they exist. Then there would be no question as to there being a RS. If anyone remembers me banging on about there being a structural imbalance concerning statements against and statements for, I thought it was because of the unique RS ruling on this page. Now I see it is because of a misapplication of criteria concerning sources. Claims about others (not about one's self and one's own groups' views) must be sourced from reliable third-party sources that have a reputation and mechanism for fact checking---peer reviewed journals, academic publishers, general readership newspapers, etc. Jellypear (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ullrichs may be wrong of course; and in any case I think you're missing a whole category of sources between self-published statements and peer-reviewed journals (into which most books and periodicals fall, and into which this article falls). RS/N gave an opinion on this source: I agree with it. Alexbrn talk 17:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think Ullrich's is wrong - they are the periodical reference that librarians use. A comprehensive and respected source for information about different kinds of periodicals. And then there are the statements that Free Inquiry makes about itself and its intentions as a publication. It is a POV publication and that doesn't make it "not good," just not good given the guidelines we are expected to follow. I do get what you are saying about the area between self-published statements (like ECSWE for ex.) and peer-reviewed journals. We are running into this with Dahlin's papers, and in other places. I think the answer is that you don't use such sources. If it is worthy of reporting, a third-party has probably done it. What wikipedia gains by having this guideline is a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Original research that has not been cited elsewhere may be considered preliminary in the field or just plain-old no good. We, as editors, have no business making such evaluations. But if you can find the same finding elsewhere, in a book or a peer-reviewed journal it has been taken up by a subject matter expert who finds some value in it and you work with how they have synthesized the original research. Instead of us synthesizing the field, we are relying on them to do it for us. That is proper, especially for an encyclopedia entry that any idiot in the world can log on and try to edit. Jellypear (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My take: Self-published works by recognized authorities on a subject have a fairly respectable status. Works by non-recognized authorities in non-peer reviewed journals do not. hgilbert (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Too liberal, primarily because it puts all of the evaluation here amongst us were it doesn't belong. The guidelines are wikipedia's idiot default position. We shouldn't presume that we are not a bunch of idiots. :) Jellypear (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

We must not synthesize research on our own: an approach to handling studies
In light of recent discussion on the studies, here is a proposal that I believe is in accordance with all wiki guidelines. Wiki has a great caveat, which I can't find at the moment, that says if the idea is important a third-party source will have reported it. I am now totally committed to the fact that we must let scholars in the field and journalists do much more of the work we have been allowing ourselves to do on this page. So, here goes:


 * 1) A separate section on the results or outcomes of this education is an appropriate and expected aspect of this page.
 * 2) That section has a different purpose than the "Waldorf studies" subpage. The subpage can be a listing or summary of nearly everything from a credible academic source because that is it's topic. (I am not editing there but it should include whatever statements exist about the "state of the field" - ie., what's is missing, where consensus and disputes exist, etc., according to RS in a position to know.) What is on this page should provide additional information on issues raised on this page - what are the outcomes of the various approaches described.
 * 3) Only sources of the highest quality should be used in the study section (and throughout) so as to avoid WP:UNDUE and WP:ORIGINAL. This means peer-reviewed journals, academic books and government documents. If study results have been published in a general news publication, a place that has checks and balances for accuracy and neutrality, then the study may be included via that route but not by reverting and quoting the original. We do not synthesize original research or the field in general. Academics and journalists in the popular press to do it for us. We report what they report - that's it. See WP:PSTS
 * 4) Care should be made to report the findings as closely to the source as possible, which means noting if it is a cross-national comparison or if the results are only generalized to one country. Mention of what kind of study it was: case study, secondary data analysis, ethnography, etc., is important.
 * 5) Dissertations, unless they have been reported in a book, peer-reviewed journal or government document should not be included on this page. If their findings appear in a peer-reviewed journal they may be reported, but not by reverting back to the original, only as reported by the third party. WP:PSTS Again, we don't synthesize research. We rely on academics and journalists to do this for us through their own fact-checking review mechanisms and professional discretion.
 * 6) If the content of an original study mentioned on the page is easily linkable, we should offer this to readers.
 * 7) Exceptions can be made, in rare circumstances, for pieces of scholarship that fall outside of these boundaries provided that the work is of otherwise high credibility and cannot be sourced by using another scholar's peer-reviewed journal or book. If it can, the journal or book should be used instead. If it cannot this ought to be seen as a true exception that rightly deserves ample discussion. (I am thinking in particular of Heiner Ullrich's UNESCO piece and would personally offer an exemption for that for several reasons.)

I think all of us, myself included, have been allowing our own discretion to play a role on this page. That is not our place. We should be able to edit this page reasonably well without any in-depth knowledge of Waldorf education. All evaluation of what is worthy to be used as a RS should be properly placed in the hands of educational scholars and journalists of general publications that have a reputation for fact-checking and can, frankly, be sued if they get it wrong. We learn if something is worthy when it appears as a peer-reviewed publication or book or is discussed in a peer-reviewed publication or book. If, and only if, a mention of Waldorf education appears in such places should we consider it good enough to use and then we do our darndest to stay as close to how it appears in this peer reviewed publication or media piece. In many ways, wiki has "controls" to make it idiot-proof. We have been sidestepping those inappropriately. Jellypear (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Science" section
I note hgilbert has duplicated the "Science" section from Curriculum of the Waldorf schools into this article; I have reverted that change and do not agree with this content being here. The Curriculum of the Waldorf schools article exists precisely for containing information about the curriculum; I can see no structural or topic-based reason to pluck just one subject out of it and duplicate it here. The only thinking I can see it for it to act as a "counterbalance" to the pseudoscience section; but as has been discussed multiple times before, we should not be editing to try and achieve a pre-conceived POV-balance, but should have a good topical backbone to the article, and treat subject neutrally according to suitable sources. Alexbrn talk 17:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the NPOV policy should not apply to the article? This is a clear POV-fork. hgilbert (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly the opposite: NPOV must apply. It is incorrect to label the sub-article a WP:POVFORK; it is a split-out article based on a topic. Your edit is, I think, what might be termed a "POV-splice" - lifting some content out of the sub-article and trying to duplicate it here as a POV "adjuster" in the main, destroying the logical hierarchy of content in the process. Alexbrn talk 17:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And I note, you have just reverted again to your preferred text, not so much BRD as BRR. Alexbrn talk 17:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You have added lengthy critiques of the science curriculum here but are trying to prevent any neutral or positive information about this aspect of the curriculum. I'm willing to go with your choice of where this belongs within the article, in the same section as the critiques or in a separate section, but not with a clear POV-fork. hgilbert (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no reason why academic subjects that have had notable "reception" shouldn't either have their own curriculum section or be included in the reception discussion. Science, technology studies and reading instruction fall into these categories at least. I sound like a broken record and am boring myself on this but this is a page about an educational system. People come to this page to gain an understanding of how these subjects are taught, as they would for all educational approaches. It isn't any kind of POV to include such topics here. I think one thing all of us are forgetting is that if you went to the library and pulled out every item on Waldorf education in a textbook/book or peer-reviewed journal the majority of it would concern what happens daily in these schools, how subjects are taught, and how that relates to educational theory and other forms of education. When we try to meet our obligations for WP:UNDUE, this is important to consider. Now, wikipedia can be something else and is expected to reflect issues being reported in the popular press but in general those issues are not found in what wikipedia considers the best sources to use when writing a page. I am under no circumstances trying to say these issues shouldn't be on this wiki page but in relation to this topic as a whole, there hasn't been as much emphasis on these topics and who are we to have any position on the that state of affairs? We ought to report what is there and that's it. The more I look at this page, the more I think that a liberal position regarding sources has been taken across the board and it has been accomplished via "one-off" dueling matches as is currently underway with Dahlin and Hether.  Jellypear (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This sentence could use some improvement to demonstrate what kind of study it was. Just a suggestion: "A 2003 study of science education in American Waldorf schools by David Jelinek and Li-Ling Sun found the scientific reasoning of Waldorf school pupils to be superior to the [comparison group of non-Waldorf students], with the greatest gains [for the Waldorf students] occurring in the later years of schooling." ??? Jellypear (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No - this science content should not be duplicated here. There needs to be consensus for this bold change, and there isn't: I object. I await further discussion on this topic and will note (again) that as a COI-compromised editor, and according to this guideline hgilbert should not be attempting to push a POV here. Alexbrn talk 10:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There are two editors supporting, and one editor objecting to its inclusion. Please do not revert again. It is certainly not a bold change to include material on the science curriculum; you have done so extensively already, but are trying to restrict this to negative coverage. Please reread NPOV. hgilbert (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not POV to include a "Science Curriculum" section in an education page. It is POV to claim it doesn't deserve to be there. Schools teach science - this is not controversial. And, I am sorry to tell both of you that Jelinek & Sun is out for both sections because they are an original source, and not a secondary source. You'll both have to use Woods or Østergaard et al (2008), or perhaps one of their 17 citations. You can't synthesize orginal research, you have to let a secondary source do it for you. This is fair warning that my future edits will be focused on this issue. Jellypear (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The Woods report has a good bit of material on Jelinek and Sun. I've already cited to it in one place. hgilbert (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of BHA content
Jellypear removed this content, and I have reverted the edit. In my view this "non-neutral" source is the best possible one for supporting information about BHA's notable viewpoints held on the subject of W.E. Alexbrn talk 11:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's great that you think so but wikipedia guidelines are clear. Unreliable sources may be used for claims about themselves. They may not be used for claims about third parties. BHA's viewpoints can be, and are, expressed through their presence in a RS - the TES article. Maybe there is more newspaper coverage. I would suggest that you use such sources for claims about other parties. Jellypear (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, "Sometimes 'non-neutral' sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". The claims about third-parties restriction you mention is in a section about what sources state about themselves. Thus it would not be okay to say that the BHA claims about itself that it is (say) accredited by the UK government; one would need to source that from the third party itself. Alexbrn talk 12:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Jellypear – I also note you have twice removed the Lemuria map (as you have done in the past). This has been discussed before and there is no consensus for its removal. It's fine to test the consensus with a bold edit, but not to repeatedly revert to your preferred version of an article without consensus. In the case of dispute, the status quo version of the article should hold while discussion takes place. Alexbrn talk 12:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I see you're now re-reverting rather than discussing, in spite of being informed about how things should be done. Alexbrn talk 12:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * BHA offering their opinion about a Waldorf teaching guide is perfectly legitimate per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. There is no good reason to remove this excellent analysis. Binksternet (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not trump the very clear policies related to sources, which are core and fundamental to wikipedia. You can make claims about yourself and your own group as much as you like even if there are other people who say you are wrong. "Our records show our protest had a million people." "We are an open, democratic religion that will eventually bring peace to all the world." But these unreliable sources cannot say "Our protest had a million people and Fox News lied about it because Rupert Murdoch has a vendetta against us" or "We are an open, democratic religion that will eventually bring peace to the world, unlike the Catholic Church which is entirely made up of a bunch of evildoers" and get it included in wikipedia. Now, if these latter statements are put forth in an otherwise reliable source like a report in The Los Angeles Times well then wikipedia can report these views. Otherwise, nada. This is very clear. Jellypear (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This would be true if it is a RS. That's what's under question. Perhaps this too needs to go to the RSnoticeboard. hgilbert (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We need to be doing our own work. We're all reasonably intelligent people and the guidelines are set up to make it so that every little thing doesn't have to get a consultation. Jellypear (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I notice Jellypear has now reverted User:Binksternet, and again to his own preferred version of the text. Jellypear - even by your own interpretation of policy (which I think is wrong), how is the BHA's description of a book's content disallowed? It's puzzling: one minute you are asking to be treated with kid gloves because you are a WP:NEWBIE, the next you are making bold deletions in the article backed by loudly voiced interpretations of policy! Alexbrn talk 14:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The BHA document is self-published. There should be no dispute about that. Self-published materials are generally viewed as non reliable sources to use in wikipedia, except under certain circumstances. From WP:ABOUT SELF
 * Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * Finally, in WP:SPS it says "take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." And, we do have a RS that published the BHA's views. Including both a RS and a non-RS raises WP:UNDUE as well. As I said earlier, add more newspaper coverage and you'll get no complaints out of me unless it repeats the same information or is excessively undue. Please state in what ways all of the criteria for WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SPS don't apply in this case. I am not interested in entertaining or advancing any "interpretations of policy." However, explicitly outlined criteria, such as this, cannot be ignored. Jellypear (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the policy. Did you not see what I put above: "The claims about third-parties restriction you mention is in a section about what sources state about themselves. Thus it would not be okay to say that the BHA claims about itself that it is (say) accredited by the UK government; one would need to source that from the third party itself."?
 * And you did not answer my question about how even your interpretation of policy would forbid a description of a book's content. Alexbrn talk 15:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes this is true that the bit about claims about others is in a section about what they can say about themselves. That is because the entire section is about reasons why self-published sources are not, in general, to be used in wiki ("sources that are not usually reliable.") The presumption is that self-published sources are not going to be used. They also describe a questionable source as one that "has an apparent conflict of interest" and advise that these sources are only be used "as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves...They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." Then there is the category of self-published media that are also "largely not acceptable as sources." On the other hand, a self-published expert source "may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article [Waldorf Education], whose work in the relevant field, has been previously published by reliable-third party publications." So, all in all, the guidelines are to not use self-published sources, especially if there is a conflict of interest, if they are making contentious claims about others, or if they are not considered reliable experts on the topic of the article [on Waldorf education] as demonstrated by having been recognized in this capacity by reliable third party publications in the past. BHA does have a conflict of interest related to Waldorf Education, they are making a contentious claim about others, and they have not been recognized by third parties as experts on Waldorf education for their previous work in the field. Not all of these need to apply to demonstrate the inappropriateness of using this self-published source, obviously. Moreover, their views can be found in a RS so we should be relying on that. Jellypear (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So are you seriously claiming the British Humanist Association is not a reliable source for relaying what the British Humanist Association say they found in a book (claims BTW which are not contended)? Really? Alexbrn talk 16:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No. If that is all they were saying, we'd be good to go. "The BHA reports they had a meeting and reviewed a Waldorf curriculum book at a three day Summit in late August 2012." That would be fine. The are entirely credible as a self-published source about their own activities. As for claims regarding others, no. "The BHA reports they had a meeting and reviewed a Waldorf curriculum book at a three day Summit in late August 2012 and determined the book contains numerous scientific innaccuracies that the Steiner-Waldorf Fellowship is attempting to hide from the public and the government." This is a claim about others. Under self-published questionable sources: "They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." SWSF and the UK DfE finds BHA's statements to be contentious claims. This needs to be reported in wikipedia via a secondary source, as is the case with TES. Aren't there any other news articles on their views that you could add so that we can move past this? Jellypear (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong claims; weak sources?
Wikipedia, in her own voice, gives us the following impressive global facts: The two sources here are: RS? Alexbrn talk 15:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A 1995 Ph.D. thesis from Columbia University Teachers College by Freda Easton (used 3 other times as a source in this article).
 * An article from Die Welt.
 * PhD thesis is out unless it has been cited elsewhere in a peer-reviewed publication or academic book in which case we should make use of the claims in that source. De Welt is fine if it is reporting the study. I haven't checked this citation. The reporting of it here should stick closer to that source. My gut says that this is probably too broad. We'll want to say where this study was conducted, who the comparison groups were etc. The authors themselves probably have a notation that the results shouldn't be generalized to all W students and all State students, as Alexbrn is alluding to. Jellypear (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Die Welt is a reliable secondary source for reporting primary data-based research studies; they will not be able to perform any kind of scientific review or analysis of that data, but will just relay the primary's claims. Or am I missing something? Alexbrn talk 16:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have the same concern as journalists routinely misreport data or mischaracterize things. There is a section on it somewhere but I am frankly tired and don't feel like looking for it. Wiki explains that even if these secondary sources get things wrong often it is better than editors doing write ups of original resource themselves or not including useful information on the page. I think there are some suggestions for how to mildly mitigate it without introducing WP:ORIGINAL. Large newspapers, like this one, sometimes have someone on staff who can edit stats-related data. We should report what they say as closely and accurately as possible. Jellypear (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Easton can go. WP:RS states " "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact....Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic." This is a clear case of the latter. hgilbert (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Does the article text need to be modified now that Easton has gone, or was she not actually supporting anything here? Also, can the other uses of Easton go too? Alexbrn talk 18:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the basis for my opinion that Easton has to go is because "all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." WP:PSTS But since you are elsewhere arguing that we can work directly with the content of such materials (original research)without making use of a secondary source, and/or that we can parse it into primary and secondary aspects, you ought to hold off on anything here. Let's stay consistent until some consensus can be reached about what I view as the requirement we work with secondary sources. Working on this issue in one-off fashion will have an impact on the page that you fear. Jellypear (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Before I read the last comment here I removed most of the refs. to Easton's dissertation. (Sorry. But none of it was critical, I think. I did remove the text that these were supporting when there were no other citations.) I'm leaving in one reference at the moment because it reflects the central thrust of this thesis, and speaks of the goals of the education, rather than an evaluation of its achievements. hgilbert (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Does the text quoted above need to change, though? Alexbrn talk 19:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the text draws on the Barz study as summarized in the Die Welt article. Incidentally, Easton has published an article based on her dissertation on "Educating the whole child, “head, heart, and hands”: Learning from the Waldorf experience" in Theory Into Practice Volume 36, Issue 2, 1997. This appears to be a good source. hgilbert (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Lemuria (Again)
It's time to get real about whether or not features of this page are following wiki guidelines and policies. There has been an awful lot of talk as if the guidelines and policies are deeply nuanced and that we need to talk about them ad nauseum. We don't. There are two very clear pieces of guidance for images.


 * 1) The first is WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Once again, the topic of this article is Waldorf Education.


 * 1) The second is WP:OI, which relates back to a core policy of wikipedia - no original research WP:ORIGINAL. The original research guideline for images states: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article.

Just to restate the facts with this image of Lemuria, and its caption, it has no significant and direct relation to the article's topic, which is Waldorf Education. Why do I say this? Because we don't have any RS on the page who explicitly says that Steiner's geological account of the earth includes the continent of Lemuria. Now, this may be a generally true statement for all I know. But that doesn't matter. For the image and the caption, there needs to be a reliable secondary source, used on the page, who discusses Steiner's geology and how that plays a role in Waldorf education. There is no such source. The closest one is in Jelinek & Sun where they say "the geological position that earth evolved through Lemurian and Atlantean epochs and is now in its fifth post-Atlantean epoch" [is suspect as a scientific theory]. But, we can't just go quote-mining in original sources and make synthesizing assertions about connections as we'd like. That constitutes original research, and is exacerbated by adding an image that has no relation to Steiner or Waldorf schools at all. There are problems like this all over the page (not just with images). Our job is to accurately report what reliable secondary sources say. Those sources do the synthesizing of the material. We don't. Jellypear (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Strongly agree. The image should be removed. In addition, Jelinek and Sun are a primary study; according to the discussion on the RS noticeboard these may no longer be available to be cited here. hgilbert (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is beginning to look like a case of WP:IDHT. We have heard these arguments several times before, and there has been no consensus to remove the images; repeating a rejected argument over and over does not make it any more valid. The image here is good and sits nicely alongside the text it illustrates. I will again refer you to WP:PERTINENCE and suggest you look at a featured article: The Origin of the Species - this is relevant as featured articles have had their content (including images) specifically reviewed as part of the approval process, and you will see the use of illustrations there ranges around the topic as a whole, not narrowly the headword meaning. Alexbrn talk 13:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is a case of willful disregard for the basic and fundamental tenets of WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, WP:OI as it relates to captions and WP:ORIGINAL, which is providing the word "Lemuria" that is then further 'riffed off to make the caption about the content of Steiner's geology, the content of which is described and discussed by no source. Further, this is not a "rejected argument." You have stated your opinion and have been backed up by others who don't challenge your edits. Then, you call out User:hgilbert's COI to neutralize him. Well, I am standing up to say that this kind of thing is not okay and violates wiki guidelines and policies, as do several other areas of this page although this is one of the most egregious. I encourage you, and the editors who support you, to state clearly why this picture of Lemuria (not sourced from a Steiner or Waldorf context) is significantly and directly related to the article's topic of Waldorf education and how this is sourced in the explicit cited statements of a reliable secondary source included on this page who drew the connection themselves and not in any original research of the editors of this page. Jellypear (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is an uncontested fact that Steiner believed in Lemuria's geological existence, and that it is mentioned in curriculum materials, as Jelinek and Sun relate (and as do multiple other sources). We do not need a super-strength source to relate an uncontested fact. We can even (as we did with Dugan and Daar) quote some original Steiner text if necessary (I think not). Coincidentally, Steiner refers specifically to W. Scott Eliott in this book, and it is a W. Scott Eliott map which we show. In my library I have a copy of that book, with its original maps, and could even make a superior photograph of them if required. The text mentions Lemuria as a "geological" phenomenon, we have a map illustrating this, we place the map by the text. Simple. Alexbrn talk 14:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is all very interesting. And it all amounts to original research by wikipedia's guidelines. "We do not need a super-strength source to relate an uncontested fact." Generally speaking, this is true. But wikipedia sets the expectation that all of the claims put forth on this page will be based in reliable secondary sources. Jelink and Sun is a primary source, btw - they are presenting their original research. If a primary source is used, and this is discouraged because it is easy to misuse them, wiki says "all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." WP:PSTS But setting that aside, Jelinek's and Sun's original sentence (such that it is): "So is the geological position that earth evolved through Lemurian and Atlantean epochs and is now in its fifth post-Atlantean epoch." Even if it were ok to make a synthetic or interpretive claim directly, that actual quotation provides no real content that would connect Steiner's views and this image to Waldorf education. It's a horribly useless sentence! Whatever use one could make of it unfortunately has to come from you synthesizing all these bits together...your knowledge of Steiner's geology...your knowledge that Steiner mentioned W. Scott Eliott in a book. Another reasonable interpretation of the purpose of that sentence - mine by the way - is that Jelinek and Sun are really taking issue with the content of Wilkinson's book and they want to call it out so teachers don't use it. Herein lies the reason why wiki wants editors to use reliable secondary sources and not their own interpretations of original source passages. Those folks will do the synthesis for us. And it won't matter if you and I disagree. It only matters what they say. Our role is to make use of already interpreted and synthesized content according to wiki's guidelines and we should not, and need not, call upon any other books on our bookshelves or extended knowledge of Lemurian geology. So, I'll ask again to please state clearly why 1) this picture of Lemuria (not sourced from a Steiner or Waldorf publication) is significantly and directly related to the article's topic of Waldorf education and how the connection between this image and the article's topic is sourced in the explicit cited statements of a reliable secondary source included on this page who drew the connection themselves. Although we are discussing this image, this issue of interpretation of primary sources on the part of editors is a problem on this page generally so me calling this out is not "pro" or "anti". I feel the same about other areas as well. Jellypear (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We show what the words say. Alexbrn talk 16:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Jelinek & Sun must be sourced through a secondary peer-reviewed academic article, book or even newspaper because "all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." WP:PSTS The image and the caption must not introduce original research and new ideas. WP:OI The image must be "significantly and directly related to the article's topic," Waldorf Education. WP:PERTINENCE You have drawn the majority of these connections by engaging in original research. There is no secondary source that does this. I guess we'll have to take this out for consultation if there is no more discussion to be had regarding the clear policies we are expected to follow regarding sources and images. Jellypear (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you're misunderstanding policy and this - combined with your aggressive editing - raises a concern about impact on the article. Jelinek &amp; Sun is neither simply a "primary" nor a "secondary" source. Where it gathers its own raw data and analyzes that then I would say those portions were leaning heavily towards being primary; where it comments on pre-existing materials not created by the research team (e.g. a curriculum book) then it is more in the way of being a "secondary" (the things-being-commented-on are the primaries there). In previous discussion here it has been mentioned that this report has been cited, that David Jelinek is an acknowledged expert, and is neutral (he was used by a Waldorf school to help construct their science curriculum) - all lending weight to the credibility of this source. Alexbrn talk 17:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the wiki criteria to parse a source in this way? Under that novel criteria, practically every piece of original research contains something that could be viewed as secondary because there is always a literature review and discussion of other papers. Wiki offers no guidelines for how editors might deal with different parts of source, it describes primary, secondary and tertiary sources in total. WP:PSTS And as for this paper, the comments on "the pre-existing" curriculum materials are their original research. It was their content analysis that created a set of materials to be sent out for panel review. Any conclusions in the paper derive directly from this work. If you think of it another way, they could have excluded some particularly noteworthy books and come up with a conclusion that no faulty or troublesome content existed in the curriculum. That would have been their work too. But all in all, this is a level of analysis that is inappropriate for us in our roles as editors. Again, "all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." WP:PSTS Why do you think we are exempt from this? You are forcefully maintaining the right of us as editors to take original or primary sources, peer-reviewed or not (and this one isn't) and synthesize or interpret them without relying on secondary sources. Please defend that, by citing the relevant wiki policies, why we are allowed to do this. I am just as concerned about the impact of the article as you are and I feel that we should not be reporting on materials that have not undergone peer-review using our own opinions of what are the most salient aspects of this article. Our role is to report on pieces that have been written about by second party sources. Otherwise, I could just decide that I am fixated on the t-tests, describing them in great detail and quoting the author's conclusions in Wikipedia. But perhaps the author has some serious problems in that area of the paper and I have overlooked that because I am so enamored with it. Or perhaps I think I understand how to report the results properly but I in reality do not. Whoops! Talk about making a fool of wikipedia. WIkipedia does not allow editors leeway to discuss findings on their own WP:NOR, without the extra protection of a peer-review process that is presumed to have occurred in a secondary source due to the high chance we'll get something horribly wrong or focus on something irrelevant. Anyone can edit wikipedia. Don't you see how these guidelines are protective of the content while not being overly restrictive to editors? Please respond by citing relevant policies that trump this one so that I can understand your position. Jellypear (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the policy: "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." We need to be engaged in applying that "good editorial judgement and common sense" to create a quality encyclopedia, not writing huge screeds of text uselessly pettifogging over the extremities of policy interpretation. Alexbrn talk 19:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. We agree that WP:PSTS is the guideline and policy that applies here. Although you do cite one element of it - mainly that it is a complex issue often deserving discussion – Wikipedia does provide both guidelines and policies so that discussion needn’t happen often. The clear expectation is that “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.” This is the first statement with regard to sources and is clear as a bell: secondary sources + tertiary sources are the recommended sources for our work here. Primary sources, while not completely disallowed, are an exception that have their own guidelines and policies that must be followed before any discussion about particularities is necessary.
 * The definition of a primary source that applies to our work: “a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment.” Wikipedia Policy on Primary Sources: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation…. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so… Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.
 * Secondary sources are defined as documents that “[contain] an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.” Wikipedia Policy on Secondary Sources: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.
 * Tertiary sources: publications such as encyclopedias and so on. Policy on Tertiary Sources: Can be helpful in providing broad summaries and in evaluating due weight (Making broader use of these sources would be good for us because we have so many NPOV challenges.)
 * I am sorry that you view my concern with us following wiki policies on this page as wikilawyering over the "extremities of policy interpretation." These definitions and policies are far from "extremities" and, as clearly stated policies, are not interpretations of any sort at all. Previously, I have referred to these policies by linking but you do not seem to see the same words when you get there and only manage to extract prose concerning the exceptions and special cases. But now that we agree this is the applicable guideline from wiki, could you please tell me why you feel that the policy regarding primary sources ("Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation") does not apply to you. Please don't take this personally even though we are discussing a section that you have written and added images to. There are other places on this page where this has occurred, and these are mistakes I would like to see corrected as well, but we cannot get closer to conforming to wiki policies and overall expectations if there is disagreement regarding the very existence of clear policies with regard to the use of primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I think you will find that applying these policies appropriately will have the effect of removing some of the glowing reports about Waldorf that you would like to see off the page. Jellypear (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

TBH, I'm no longer sure what you're getting at, though I can see you're describing me as having beliefs about editing that I don't recognize. An RS is determined in relation to some text, and the processing of the decision cannot be codified in advance, but needs the application of common sense and good judgement based on WP norms. What text/source combo is irking you, and why? Alexbrn talk 18:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The very simple point is that, as a general rule, we should not be using primary sources in presenting content on this page. We should endeavor to use secondary and tertiary sources. If, however, we develop consensus that use of a primary source is warranted, the policy states that it can be used for basic ideas. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation…. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." We don't report research findings from primary sources. We use secondary sources to do that for us. Jellypear (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what the policy says. And as you aware there is a continued effort to improve the article in this respect. Alexbrn talk 19:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jelinek & Sun is a primary source. If you want to discuss findings of this non-peer reviewed paper, you'll need to use a secondary source. I can attempt the rewrite or you can, but this needs to be done. Jellypear (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Jelinek &amp; Sun is a primary source when it is considering its own self-generated data; when it's considering stuff generated elsewhere (aka "primary sources") then it is a secondary source. Intelligence needs to be applied. Alexbrn talk 19:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Their panel did a content analysis of what Jelinek and Sun determined were the curricular materials. That is what they report in the paper...muddled and unclear as this aspect of the paper is. In any event, we'd still need to see this published in a peer-reviewed journal before it would cross the hurdles wikipedia expects as far as RS. I am sorry these are the facts regarding this paper but I assure you that this is my strongly held understanding of wiki policy. If and when the same issue relates to something you feel is "pro-Waldorf", you'll get the same answer from me. We must not engage in original research or synthesis of primary source materials, especially when they have not gone through any peer-review process at all. Jellypear (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Except you're arguing 180&deg; the other way when it comes to the Woods report. Alexbrn talk 07:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't remember exactly what I have said about Woods and please note that my disposition regarding sources on this page has grown stricter in the last week. This is what I think. 1. It's a government document, so not self-published. (I haven't reviewed all the policies with regard to handling government documents. If someone could direct me to them, I would appreciate it.) 2 It has not been peer reviewed. It would be best to use it via secondary sources. This is a shame for readers because this is a comprehensive document that doesn't lie behind a firewall. Jellypear (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, who knows what you'll think next week! ;-)

As I've written elsewhere the Woods report is not a "government document"; it was commissioned by a government department, but is entirely the work of three academics from the University of the West of England. Alexbrn talk 22:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very funny. I'm new here and I was going by what you guys were doing with sources which on the surface seemed reasonable. But after consulting with the policies, I began to see that a good part of the WP:NPOV issues were stemming from liberal use of sources across the board. So, I am not going to change my mind on this next week. We must base this article on secondary + tertiary reliable sources. I am 90% with you on Woods, provided that I understand if there is no government document aspect that would allow this content. (I'm just trying to be careful.) Enough time has gone by that we should be seeing this in secondary sources. Has anyone checked? Jellypear (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

POV tag
There is disagreement over the POV-fork over science education. I have added a POV tag to the relevant section. This template is meant to be removed only when consensus about the issue has been reached on the talk page. This has not been achieved. Please do not remove the tag until we have resolved the problem. hgilbert (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:COIU and WP:BESTCOI you should not be editing the article; in particular since you are not impartial you should not be taking it upon yourself to tag sections you don't like, without achieving some measure of agreement that the tag should be added, and as a last resort. This topic has been discussed before and there has been no consensus to pluck favourable information out of a sub-article and place it here to try and "mitigate" what you perceive to be negative material. Alexbrn talk 11:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides, even if you were in order to add this tag, you have added it incorrectly, since you do not dispute this neutrality of this section; rather you want to add content elsewhere in the article which you think will offset it. Please try not to disrupt the article to make a point. I have removed the tag and refer you (again) to WP guidelines on COI editing. Alexbrn talk 11:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I do dispute the neutrality of a section exclusively discussing negative views of the science curriculum. I have tried various approaches to remediate this: making the section more comprehensive by including a wider range of POVs; adding a section on the science curriculum itself -- you have removed all POVs but the ones you prefer. This is clearly a breach of NPOV and in removing this tag you are also in breach of WP policy about NPOV tagging . hgilbert (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This whole page needs a NPOV tag. Jellypear (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Hgilbert, you still have an open RfC. Alexbrn talk 18:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content
Why was this edit made? The edit summary refers to a decision on the Talk page, but I find no decision was made to remove Freda Easton's published work, only her unpublished early thesis.

The removed content is extremely COI-sensitive, as it bears on the central question (in the USA) of whether WE is religious, and hence whether it is eligible for state funding. Removing it gives the article a rather partial representation of views on this issue. Alexbrn talk 06:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I assumed that you were referring to all Easton citations and didn't check. You are right that there were two different works cited. Those relating to the published work should go back in. hgilbert (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Papers published in peer-reviewed journals should not be eliminated without ample discussion. Dissertations should not be included because they are primary source documents and have not had the same level of peer-review as a published paper. Jellypear (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already restored the journal citation. hgilbert (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Title of religion section
The old title, "Relation to religion", was neutral. For example, Waldorf education's curriculum includes a survey of many religions, and some may find this a positive thing, others negative. Also, Steiner's view that all education has a religious component (that both teaching young people and learning itself are in one sense acts of devotion), can be variously interpreted.

The new title, "Concerns that Waldorf education is religious", assumes that any relation to religion is a matter for concern. It is a loaded phrase. hgilbert (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not quite right, but neither is a title implying the question is settled. What we really want is some pithy way of saying "View over whether WE is religious or not and how it stands in relation to (other?) religion". Alexbrn talk 11:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not simply a title of "religion" in the meantime or, better yet, a reference to the PLANS vs. SACSUD lawsuit which makes up the majority of reliable secondary source material on this topic. Jellypear (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The latter could certainly be a subsection's title. It does seem that the topic of religion and Waldorf is much broader than one lawsuit, however. hgilbert (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would like to see all of these things discussed together: religiosity/spirituality/accusations of religious agenda. I am never going to push for this but I think the most informative discussion would pull all of these things together and explore various viewpoints. Jellypear (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jelly – I like your idea of "spreading it around"; I've thought about this but think the legal events are a bit difficult to account for this way. Do you have any ideas how they might be re-allocated somewhere else? Alexbrn talk 10:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions
I got the message about this. I put a note on the ruling page too. If we're allowed to talk about this here, please could someone inform me what this means we are supposed to do/not do. Thanks. Jellypear (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * AIUI it's mainly a technical change to the governance of this article (and related ones). Rather than having to approach the Arbcom in the case of severe problems, this article (and its editors) are now subject to special measures in case of problems. Alexbrn talk 22:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

More claims and sources
We have This is sourced to: RS? Alexbrn talk 08:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * An article from Die Welt.
 * The "Waldorf Education Today" web site.


 * Die Welt clearly qualifies as an RS. Read the section affirming using established newspapers' reports of studies. hgilbert (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And the other source? Alexbrn talk 18:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Die Welt is on the same order as The New York Times or The Washington Post. That being said, this is an interesting use of this article, which says a whole lot more than this.
 * The second line of the article says "Die Abschlussnoten von Schülern an Waldorfschulen unterscheiden sich nicht von den Noten an Regelschulen" -- The graduation grades of Waldorf students do not differ from those of normal students.
 * "Waldorfschüler lernen begeisterter, individueller und mit weniger Leistungsdruck" -- Waldorf students are more excited to learn, more individualistic, and under less stress (although I think we already have something along these lines in the article).
 * "Studien zeigen, dass es zwischen den Abschlussnoten von Waldorfschülern und denen von Schülern auf staatlichen Schulen keine statistisch bedeutsamen Unterschiede gibt, auch nicht, wenn man die Durchschnittsnoten nach der Art des Schulabschlusses vergleicht." -- Studies show that there is not significant statistical difference between the final grades of Waldorf and normal students, also not, when you compare the type of diploma they graduated with.
 * "Kausalität einwandfrei nachzuweisen sei allerdings fast nie möglich, warnte Schleicher. Zu welchem Prozentsatz ein erfolgreiches Schulprojekt auf die Pädagogik oder auf von vornherein bessere Startbedingungen der Schüler zurückzuführen ist, das sei in aller Regel nicht klar feststellbar." -- Schleicher warns that it's nearly to determine causality in these cases. In every case it's not possible to clearly determine what portion of academic success can be attributed to pedagogy or just better initial starting conditions for the student.


 * This similar has the same issues as several other sources -- in Germany people understand that when comparisons are made against normal students, this includes students in technical and trade schools in addition to college bound students, as stated explicitly in the article. This is why other articles, previously discussed here, break down the comparison between the different types of schools.  a13ean (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So how did we get to "students are significantly more capable in the sciences" as a summary of all that? How would a fairer summary go? Alexbrn talk 18:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The Die Welt article states, "Dieses Ergebnis passt zum Befund einer Pisa-Studie, nach der Waldorfschüler weit überdurchschnittliche naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen aufzuweisen haben." I do believe that "significantly more capable in the sciences" is a sound translation of "weit überdurchschnittliche naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen".


 * Incidentally, Jelinek and Sun made the same finding in the US: Woods summarizes their finding as "Scientific reasoning of Steiner school students was found to be superior, and the gains were greatest in the upper schools." Also compare the 2006 PISA study that concluded, "Auf Grund der relativ hohen Naturwissenschafts-Kompetenz der Waldorfschüler/innen in Kombination mit äußerst hohen motivationalen Merkmalen und selbstbezogenen Kognitionen in diesen Fächern ..." hgilbert (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to put those two findings together in a science section provided that an educational page is allowed to do the dastardly and decidedly non-neutral thing of discussing science curriculum and outcomes. :) Jellypear (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the content sourced to the Waldorf Today web site, as that seems clearly an insufficient source. Hope that's okay. Alexbrn talk 16:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought Waldorf sources could be used for non-controversial items? Was this controversial or reported incorrectly? Jellypear (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * both Alexbrn talk 08:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why was it controversial? Jellypear (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * because it was making a universal claim interpreting a data set; data set interpretations really require better sourcing that an advocacy newsletter! Alexbrn talk 13:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. No disagreements here. Jellypear (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

UNESCO on the Novalis Institute
This content was first inserted in November 2006 and expanded on here. In its current, not much different form, we have

As can be seen from above, originally these claims were sourced to this piece by Peter Normann Waage; later a reference to a UNESCO-isssued document (see here) was placed here too.

Some problems: Fix all this and there's not much of consequence left. I propose this material is removed entirely.
 * Waage is not a notable figure or a scholar and his piece is not published in a respectable publication so far as I can find. I have removed this source.
 * Although Waage cites the UNESCO document, on investigation it does not contain the word "apartheid" at all, nor anything that would support Waage's claim.
 * It is not quite right to say the views of this document are UNESCO's since "while the narrative text reflects the suggestions and contributions of all the UNESCO sectors, its formulation is the responsibility of the compiler, Prof. Betty A. Reardon of Teachers College, Columbia University of New York". As published, Reardon is given as the author. There is no evidence of peer-review or editorial oversight.
 * The quotation attributed to UNESCO is also not quite accurate; this is in a section where the document is recounting what the Novalis institute reports about itself.
 * You are correct in that this is not a peer-reviewed academic paper. It is a teaching guide produced by UNESCO. Thus it can be used as a reliable source for UNESCO's activities and the content of their published materials. Waldorf could also say they participated in UNESCO activities related to the Year of Tolerance but it is probably better to verify this with an other organization. So, perhaps its just a matter of changing the statement to something like this "In 1995, UNESCO prepared a teaching guide, Tolerance: the Threshold of Peace, as part of the United Nations Year for Tolerance. The work of the Novalis Institute in apartheid South Africa was described in the guide and Steiner-Waldorf schools were discussed as a type of educational approach that follows "a particular educational philosophy based on peace and tolerance." Jellypear (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't the peer-review aspect which worried me so much, it was that we've had the great big honking lie that UNESCO had labelled the institute "of great consequence in the conquest of apartheid" on WP for six years. Alexbrn talk 15:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it sort of falls into the category of that law professor who quotes a website and the quote is being used as if it is his own evaluation of the school's culture and thought leaders, rather than it being a choice to cite an evaluation from (for our purposes) an unreliable source. How would you like to see this re-written, because I agree that it needs to stick closer to the source. Jellypear (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You let that thread die; and in that case it was a quibble over whether some text (in a peer-reviewed journal) that was correctly put in quotation marks, was attributed to the sub-source; not, as here, of words that were entirely fabricated and admitted through a self-published sourced, and then mis-attributed to UNESCO via a reference. Alexbrn talk 16:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought you said that "It has prepared the way and laid the foundations for a new and integrated [community]" came from a description included in the document, albeit a description that was self-reported by that organization itself. For that reason, I think these items are very similar in terms of our obligations. On one hand, we are in no position to vet an author's assessment of the credibility of a source. On the other hand, we can try to be clear that these are not the author's own words but the words of one of their sources. Presumably, both authors agree with these sources otherwise they wouldn't have included them. On another note, I think your assessment of this document is splitting hairs. Yes, "UNESCO" did not write this document. It was written by a professor presumably upon their request. But it is a UNESCO publication, used for their activities, and they are supporting the views contained within it. All that aside, I do agree with your assessment that this needs to be rewritten to stick closer to the source. Do you like what I have proposed or do you envision something else? Jellypear (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Jelly &mdash; it's the more stunning claim, that the institute is an "organization which had a great consequence in the conquest of apartheid" that appears to be a complete fiction. Maybe I am splitting hairs, but as originator of documents for an International agency myself, I would find it quite wrong if any of them where ever referenced as "According to [agency] ..."; so it may be a small thing, but there is no harm in being correct - in fact, as Brit, it might be stereotypically correct of me to think of this as the main purpose :-) :-) Alexbrn talk 18:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Yes. That has not been sourced. It should be taken out immediately. How about this: "Under apartheid, the Waldorf school was one of the few schools in which children of both races attended the same classes, despite the ensuing loss of state aid. The Waldorf teacher training college, the Novalis Institute, was referenced during UNESCO’s Year of Tolerance for being an organization working towards reconciliation in South Africa.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jellypear (talk • contribs) 19:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Woods, Ashley and Woods
I note the Woods, Ashley and Woods report has recently been introduced into the article with the following text I think there is rather a lot of nuance, qualification and caution missing from this summary. Some quotations from the report follow: I'm not sure the summary as it stands gives a true flavour of all that the document states. Alexbrn talk 18:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "The research evidence has to be interpreted with caution, however. ... Overall, there is a lack of rigorous research on the impact of Steiner school education on learning and achievement and little research which systematically compares Steiner and mainstream schools."
 * "there are insufficient rigorous comparative investigations of Steiner and mainstream schools."
 * A striking contrast with the maintained sector is the lower pay and less favourable conditions that Steiner teachers enjoy. ... The majority hold a teaching qualification issued by a Steiner teacher training programme that would not be recognised by the DfES."
 * "The debate about racism, following the study of the Milwaukee Steiner-inspired school, also highlights the need to consider questions of institutionalised social exclusion. The point, recognised by some within Steiner education, is that Steiner teachers need to be critically reflective and self-questioning about the practical impact of what otherwise is taken-for-granted in the school’s ethos, curriculum and pedagogy."
 * It is a huge report, and it would be tedious to enumerate all the points contained within it in this section. Good news for readers is that its not behind a database firewall---anyone can download it. That being said, some of these ideas can be incorporated into other sections. Generally speaking, I wouldn't be opposed to having a sentence (citing Woods) saying that there is little research systematically comparing Steiner schools and mainstream schools. I think this is not only a true characterization (my opinion here) but faithfully uses a RS to characterize the status of the literature. What it should not be used for is implying that there is anything bogus or not credible in the existing research. It is a claim that more needs to be done to settle some questions with certainty. Many topics have this status. Jellypear (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that point rather significant. Here we have an RS making a secondary statement about the quality of research in general. That rather suggests the glowing praise of WE derived from primary sources elsewhere in the WE articles family need perhaps to be caveated. In general, I am uneasy with the presentation of so much data commentary without a proper systematic overview or meta-analysis. I wonder if we don't need some expert help in citing data-rich sources/research. Alexbrn talk 19:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a previous discussion where many of the same concerns were raised. a13ean (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We should be careful not to introduce a synthesis that amounts to original research. The studies are the studies, and one person's opinion about the studies are something else.
 * The Woods report material relevant to the particular section on Waldorf and mainstream was used in the section on that subject. I agree that the Woods comment on the lack of research is useful, and would like to suggest that it could serve as a good overview to the section.
 * In general, all sources say much more than will be used here. It's inevitable that choices are made. I chose a very balanced extract, in which the strengths of both state and Waldorf schools are brought out. Other material could clearly be used elsewhere in the article. hgilbert (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, the one voice that dominates the article in presenting these studies is yours: the voice of an editor with a COI. I disagree with your self-characterization of your summary as "very balanced". Given the above I judge it to be partial, in every sense of the word. You correctly state "it's inevitable that choices are made", but according to WP guidelines, COI-compromised editors are not sufficiently impartial to make such decisions. Alexbrn talk 07:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Each type of school could learn from the other type's strengths" was what they said in the report. You've been cherry-picking negative material the whole time you have been editing here. I included a balanced statement that has both negatives and positives. Which is the more neutral stance? hgilbert (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * a13ean – yes I must have read that (and it no doubt unconsciously influenced what I wrote here). It's a pity the issues raised weren't resolved and all the problematic text has now flooded back into the article. Is there some forum on WP for getting data experts to assist in editing? Alexbrn talk 09:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have also just noticed that this paragraph duplicates exactly one which occurs just a few lines later in the page, which is careless. Alexbrn talk 10:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn, I am very concerned with your comments here and think perhaps that you have some investment in this subject matter that is making it difficult for you to act as a Wikipedian. It is not our role to synthesize the research in any meaningful way. Wiki is very clear about this. Original research in any form is not to be tolerated and even individual sentences can be examples of original research. Please go back and review those guidelines. We don't need a data expert here, we report what has been written - full stop. (And, BTW, you don't know that you don't already have a data expert viewing or participating on this page.) All we're here to do is include RS, comprehensively, staying true to the sources, and engaging in healthy and productive discussion when there are disagreements of how to implement wikipedia's guidelines. It should be a relatively easy task which many people can participate without devoting excessive time and energy. If you would like to do something else, I kindly suggest that Wikipedia is not the forum in which to do it. I also have to say that deep questioning of this topic, such that it goes beyond "what did so-and-so say and are they a RS," when combined with pushing around other editors you feel are "pro-Waldorf" (as you put it yesterday) is creating a hostile and tedious environment for others to work according to their own obligation to be a Wikipedian. I am not only speaking of myself, but also for any potential editors who might like to join. And that is, after all, the whole point of Wikipedia. About three hours after I joined, I received a message from a13ean suggesting that perhaps I was a sock puppet or that I held multiple accounts. Yesterday, you said I was a single issue editor and that I was assisting a COI-tainted editor and now you are back at it with hgilbert. As you can see from the troubles both you and I had in writing and editing certain explanatory sections, there is a need for editors who know the subject. Until someone is banned from Wikipedia, I think it is our role as fellow editors to be welcoming and stick to the task at hand without a fortnightly COI digression. Collaborative groups can overcome the individual limitations of their members. Encouraging a "pro" "con" stance makes it hard for anyone to maintain a neutral point of view, and be a Wikipedian first and foremost. If this business is carried on any further, one may begin to think it is for the express purpose of discouraging current or future editors who disagree with the "in crowd" from participating at all. We must stay focused on that task and not fixate on our suspicions of other peoples' motives WP:GOODFAITH or on problems that are outside of our role as editors. Jellypear (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So you disagree we need a data expert's help (by which, to be clear, I mean a seasoned editor preferably who has experience with dealing with statistic-bases sources, preferably of educational data - maybe from WP:EDU). If you think I am proposing we include WP:OR, you are mistaken. I do a fair bit of editing on medical articles, and am aware from them that assessment and use of statistics-based sources is something that needs to be done with great care.
 * As for COI, if you are proposing that it (and the WP:BESTCOI and WP:COIU guidance) can be ignored, then I respectfully disagree.
 * I am sorry that you have experienced unusual scrutiny, but as a WP:SPA on a controversial article like this I'm afraid it is to be expected. FWIW, I admire your determination to probe sources, and in the Daar and Dugan instance I think it led to something of an improvement to the article. It would be great if you could assist in probing some of the sources mentioned in this section. Alexbrn talk 16:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made an offer to help. What I am objecting to is the inclination that we need some extra level of scrutiny with regard to the statistics, research designs, etc of any of the papers. We're not here for metanalysis of the field, nor are we here to adjudicate between the papers in any way and as I said elsewhere anything of this nature will waste time and goodwill. Most authors provide a sentence or two in either the abstract/discussion/or conclusion that can be reasonably cribbed to restate the main findings of their research in words as close to their own as possible. I encourage editors here to look for those paragraphs/sentences and then we can discuss that rather than any particular aspects of the study itself. Jellypear (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @JP, just to clarify the "agf-sock: assume good faith sock" warning it was only because you happened to register an account almost immediately after a sock of PeteK (who was staunchly anti-Waldorf) was blocked. We're all glad this turned out to only be a coincidence.  a13ean (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Bo Dahlin's report: biased use of a biased source?
This research report is cited here, in the following way: I have several concerns:
 * Bo Dahlin is also affiliated with Rudolf Steiner University College. One would not know that from the text above.
 * I have removed this text and source as non-RS. hgilbert has reverted it back with the comment "... published by academic press". On inspection however, Dahlin self-published this work through the University, and retained personal copyright. There is no academic press (in the normal use of the term), no editorial oversight, and no peer review in evidence. (This has been mentioned before, so ignorance is not a defense.)
 * Dahlin's paper mentions some comments from the Stockholm Institute for Education: "... they were also somewhat concerned about the presumed lack of objectivity and scientific grounds for the Waldorf educational methods and also slightly sceptical to what they called the 'semi-religious' feature". We wouldn't know about any such caveats that from the way it is presented here.
 * From Norway (a non-English speaking country where, Wikipedia has told us, there is no controversy) comes this skeptics' assessment of the Dahlin paper. Although (being a biased source too) it has its swivel-eyed moments, there are some substantive points made. Alexbrn talk 08:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I note the skeptics' site is citing Wikipedia as an example of what the "Waldorf-movement writes". I do think there's a danger that if we allow this accumulation of blatant COI-inflected POV on this page, Wikipedia's reputation as a whole will suffer. Alexbrn talk 08:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The report is published as part of the Karlstad University Studies series, which the university states is "the University’s official publication series for research reports, doctoral dissertations and licentiate theses. The series is administrated by the University publisher, Karlstad University Press." This is an academic press. The university press's site states that "All the doctoral dissertations and licentiate theses which are published as part of the series have been discussed in seminars and in this way have undergone a quality review."
 * Even if it we treat it as a self-published work (which it is clearly not), the author's status as a professor of education at an important university whose works have been extensively published by peer-reviewed journals and academic presses would qualify the report as a RS as per WP:SPS: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." We have done the same for comments by critics of WE that are either self-published or appear in non-peer reviewed journals such as news magazines.
 * We can certainly add in his status as a professor at RSUC. Again, you cannot exclude all viewpoints from individuals merely because they have some connection to Waldorf Education -- this would be a blatant violation of WP:NPOV policy. We agree, and recent comments on two discussion boards (arbitration and reliable source) agree that they need to be held to WP:RS. Neither more, nor less.
 * Are you seriously quoting an anonymous anti-Waldorf website as a serious critical evaluation? I would suggest you retract this, as doing this would destroy every claim to neutrality you have ever made. hgilbert (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, these publications are "administrated by the University publisher", not published by; there is no review or editorial oversight. Dahlin is clearly "deeply involved" in Waldorf and these claims must be treated as unreliable, especially given the "absurdly small sample sizes without controls" he uses. Alexbrn talk 09:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to interject here that I will not tolerate any future discussion with regards to sample sizes, controls, research design, etc. Any analysis at this level is explicitly outside our purview and a waste of precious time and goodwill. I will reverse any edits based on such criteria. If it has been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal or a university press, (which includes white papers published by a department or division of a university by university professors - especially if there are multiple co-authors), it is a RS for us. We are not a peer-review body ourselves. We report what has been written from RS. All discussion from us must remain strictly on whether the source meets RS guidelines or not. Jellypear (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He studied 11 of the 13 Waldorf high schools in Sweden and had responses from 68% of the 871 students. Given that Waldorf schools generally have one class per year, that's a very large sample size as a percentage of the total student body in Waldorf HSs in Sweden. The study was conducted by three university professors; the other two were Agnes Nobel, Associate Professor of Education at the University of Uppsala and Ingrid Liljeroth, retired Associate Professor of Special Needs Education at the University of Gothenburg. The project also "had a consulting group consisting of Solveig Hägglund, Professor of Education at Karlstad University, and Sven Hartman, Professor of Education at The Stockholm Insitute of Education." He cites peer review by "Mats Ekholm, Professor of Education (emeritus) at Karlstad University, who gave valuable critical comments on a first draft of this report." His involvement in Waldorf is not relevant to the standards of WP:RS that we are being asked to hold to. But we can bring this to the reliable sources noticeboard if you like, and I am very happy to abide by their decision. hgilbert (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We are still bound by the Arbcom ruling, and await their further decision. BTW, RS/N is not a place that decides things, but that provides additional input. Anybody can post advice there, as indeed I have done. However, if we can balance the Dahlin stuff out (by including some of the SEI caveats), then it would be good to get further input from RS/N on that text in relation to the source. Alexbrn talk 11:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Balance the Dahlin stuff out" ? There should be no quid pro quo concerning RS. Something is written by a RS - we include it. Something contradictory by a RS is written - we include it. If nothing contradictory is written by a RS, then that should have no effect on whether the first item is included in the page. Jellypear (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean, within itself, by fairly representing its own content (i.e. balance for neutrality, not in a pro/con sense). Alexbrn talk 17:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a research report, and unless it is specifically stated elsewhere, it's not peer-reviewed. The quote given by hgilbert above clearly shows that only the dissertations and theses are reviewed. Selfpub clearly applies, as well as the arbitration guidelines. Let's get more input. a13ean (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, posted at RS/N. Alexbrn talk 19:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Further to the follow-up at RS/N, for me it seems plain that since this is not a peer-reviewed source and from a Waldorf source, it should go (given this, the other concerns are moot). Alexbrn talk 09:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I just had a chance to follow-up on the RS/N for the Dahlin paper and was pleased to see that there was agreement with Zad from Alexbrn, Binksternet, and A13ean and myself concerning papers that have not been published in a peer-review journal. Zad does a great job outlining the intent behind sourcing issues - the reputation for fact checking. I recommend reading it if you haven't. My apologies if cutting and pasting is somehow bad wikipedia etiquette or something but there is also this from Zad:

"What I hope is my final comment on this RSN request: hgilbert and jellypear are both saying it's an "empirical study", but to that Wikipedia says, "So what? That's not enough." Getting published in a peer-reviewed journal is a good step toward being WP:RS but even that is not enough, because many journals have disreputable peer-review processes, or somehow the study ended up in a decent journal but not one directly relevant to the field of study. Even when you have a study produced by a PhD and published in an appropriate, reputable peer-reviewed journal, that's not enough, because the study may have had undetected confounding problems or just be a statistical outlier. It's not until the study has been picked up in a review article or meta-analysis and combined with many other high-quality studies in a good secondary source that you can finally have some confidence in using it in a Wikipedia article. The Dahlin study is really at the very bottom of this hierarchy, as it appears to be a primary research study not published in any journal and not subject to any kind of peer review, and it was done by someone with a signficant conflict of interest. As such, the answer is: Dahlin's report is only useful as attributed to Dahlin for Dahlin's own opinions, and without an independent secondary source picking up on Dahlin's findings, it's a very open question as to whether Dahlin's findings are notable enough to be quoting as suggested in the "Content" line at the top of this RSN request."

In response to this Binksternet says "Zad68 eloquently voices the concerns about the source. I think we should wait until the study is discussed in a secondary source; until then it is impossible to determine its accuracy or importance."

Does this mean we have achieved consensus regarding the use of non-peer reviewed papers and the importance of at least waiting for secondary source synthesis? Jellypear (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree on applying WP policy (which is not generally subject to editors' consensus). And I also agree with Zad's comments on the Dahlin case. And I agree with Binksternet's view that the Arbcom ruling clinched the matter. Alexbrn talk 18:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Heiner Ullrich's long-term study
Wikipedia tells us, glowingly, Where is this "long-term study" detailed (and what is the source for so characterizing it?) Alexbrn talk 09:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * He specifically cites

but see also
 * Grasshoff, Gunther, Davina Hoeblich, Bernhard Stelmaszyk and Heiner Ullrich (2006), 'Klassenlehrer-Schuler-Beziehungen als biografische Passungsverhaltnisse', in ZeitschriftfiirPddagogik (Weinheim)
 * Helsper, Werner, Ullrich, Heiner, Stelmaszyk, Bernhard, Hoblich, Davina, Grasshoff, Gunther,Jung, Dana (2007), Autoritdt und Schule. Eine empirische Rekonstruktion der Ktassenlehrer-Schiiler-Beziehung an Waldorfschulen. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag
 * Ullrich, Heiner (1991), Waldorfpädagogik und okkulte Weltanschauung (3rd edn). Weinheim, Munchen: Juventa.
 * Ullrich, Heiner (1994), 'Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925)', Prospects: The Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 24.3-4
 * Ullrich, Heiner (1995), *Vom AuBenseiter zum Anfuhrer der Reformpadagogischen Bewegung', in Vierteljahrsschrifi fur wissenschaftliche Pädagogik (Bochum), 71, 284, ff.


 * He had been studying the schools for at least 27 years at the time of the book's publication. I can change the wording so it does not imply a single published study; I can see how it could be understood in this way, which is not what is meant. hgilbert (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, so are you now saying he didn't "visit a number of schools in a long-term study"? Alexbrn talk 09:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am saying he did and clarifying the context. One can refer to an academic's "life-long" study of a topic; I meant it in this sense, and have tried to eliminate any ambiguity. Is the new wording clear enough? hgilbert (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So unlike the other usages in this article where a "study" from which the author "finds" things refers to a focused and data-rich academic project, hear you in fact meant "he wrote about it a lot, and came up with an opinion". Can you see how your original wording might be misleading, and in which way? Alexbrn talk 10:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that's why I changed it, isn't it? Did you not read my above posts? hgilbert (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is better now. Alexbrn talk 19:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Universal claims
Wikipedia gives us some facts, in its own voice, as follows: I have a concern about this text:
 * Although it sounds good, we're not told explicitly what the "twice as many" is in relation to (one assumes state school pupils, mentioned in the previous paragraph). As a universalized statement, this is a bold claim. However the source links to a study of 800 students between 15 and 18 years in Germany. How do we get from the restricted national study to the global statement?
 * We are also told, as a universalized fact, that Waldorf pupils "have significantly less[sic] physical ailments ...", based on a European study. However, it should probably be made plain that the study is European, that the authors think the reduction may be due to "anthroposophic lifestyle" rather than WE per se, and that they caveat their conclusion thus: "However, the lifestyle factors investigated in our study represent only a selection of various characteristics of the anthroposophic lifestyle. Therefore, we cannot exclude that other factors need to be considered to understand completely the background for this lower risk." Alexbrn talk 10:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree completely. Can you find wording to clarify this? Thanks! hgilbert (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be helpful to create a task list of studies that need a review of their summaries. This is a universally difficult thing to do - journalists mess this up all the time. If there are some that need to be re-written, and there is also no question as to their being a RS, I'll take a stab at it. I am not going to waste my time doing it just to have the citation go into a cycle of edit/undo because there is a dispute over the reliability of the source. Jellypear (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be good if you could have a go at this text, I don't think it's contentious that it needs reform. Extra points if you don't increase the word count :-) Alexbrn talk 17:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jellypear? were you going to see to this, or shall I ? Alexbrn talk 10:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Glowing words from a marginal source
Wikipedia tells us An impressive finding! Until, that is, we find that the "study" is an unpublished Ph.D. awarded by a distance learning institution, that has not received up-take from reputable academic sources in the 11 years since it was completed. Alexbrn talk 12:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is an empirical study and significant for that reason; if it were a subjective opinion I would not otherwise include it. Again, we can take this to the RSnoticeboard if you like. hgilbert (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it this text? Alexbrn talk 13:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, definitely not. That appears to be a summary by the author. I wouldn't use it, but rather the original dissertation, which is available from the standard dissertation service. hgilbert (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool - what page number(s) in the source are pertinent to the use here? Alexbrn talk 14:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to use this unpublished work. Hether says "The impetus for my topic arose from personal observations made while my two daughters attended the Haleakala Waldorf School..." which makes me think she cannot be trusted to construct unbiased test questions. She wanted to defend and promote her choice of school. Binksternet (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, nice example of OR and jumping to conclusions.
 * An empirical study done in the course of Ph.D. work would normally qualify as an RS. It is a distance learning institution; it would help to know who the dissertation advisors were. Can someone find this out? Or shall we take this to the notice board? hgilbert (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weighing in on this one. I do think that distance learning programs are different than traditional universities and for my own purposes, would generally discriminate against these sources to some level. On the other hand, this university is accredited, which is not an unrigorous thing in the United States. And distance learning and non-traditional universities are something growing on the landscape. I don't think we are in any position to set alternative criteria for different accredited institutions of higher learning. So, I say it stays in as a RS. That being said, it would be preferable to get more than one viewpoint on this aspect of the education from another university-based source. This is a source best used in triangulation with other sources. I will try to look. Jellypear (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This one can go straight to RS/N I think. Just waiting for the page numbers and it can go ... 18:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Completed dissertations written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and can be cited in footnotes if it is shown that they have entered mainstream academic discourse and therefore have been vetted by the scholarly community." I still see no evidence that this condition is satisfied.  This is as clear cut as it gets, but feel free to take it to RS/N.  a13ean (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you feel strongly about dissertations having to have been cited in order to get into this article as a RS - I am not sure how else one would show they have entered the discourse - then the whole matter needs to be taken out for consideration since this article uses a lot of dissertations. We need to get an overall ruling and not attempt to adjudicate this on a case by case basis. We could be working ourselves into situation in which media articles are ok across the board, but types of scholarship are not and this will pose a challenge in providing informative content. As a side note, I see that she uses a validated measure, which gives it points in my book. Jellypear (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten about that qualification about mainstream discourse. So yes, this need to be excised. We don't want to create needless discussion on RS/N. We can measure a disseration's impact reasonably well thanks to Google Scholar and other search engines. (FYI, I excised Lyon's highly critical dissertation from this article for precisely that reason). Alexbrn talk 18:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are misremembering. Lyons was a Master's degree paper - whole different ball of wax. Having just gone back to look at the guideline, I can agree with the dissertation + citation index thing. However, we are dealing with a rather small subfield of education and so citation chances may not be high. In addition, there is a lag time for citations to appear. And, because of the unique self-published source thing on this page we are forced to be overly reliant on dissertations. So, depending on how much this affects the pool of RS, we may have to get a global ruling. I really think we need one on the topic of white papers/research manuscripts produced by University-based researchers and published or distributed by their departments or institutes. Let's get this kind of stuff settled so that we can have more productive and clear-cut conversations about RS. Jellypear (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Masters theses are okay if they "have had significant scholarly influence"; I considered Lyons hadn't and so deleted that content. I don't think it is possible to have a global ruling - at some level common sense has to apply. This ones needs to go. Alexbrn talk 19:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? It's been cited in a peer review journal. D. Graber / Journal of Media Literacy Education 4:1 (2012) 82 - 92. Jellypear (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Good find! (Google Scholar missed that). Can we solve this then by simply using the Graber source? Alexbrn talk 19:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I don't see why that would be necessary. It is a PhD dissertation from an accredited American university that has received a citation in a peer-reviewed journal. Its good to go. Jellypear (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is a single cite evidence that it has entered "mainstream scientific discourse"? I have a feeling RS/N is not going to like us by the time we are done going through these.  a13ean (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good golly. We should not consider ourselves in the business of evaluating how many citations of an academic piece are enough. Dissertations are one of the highest quality resources we have to work with in this article given the RS parameters. There was just a good dissertation written on this topic at Harvard but according to the expectation of citation, it will probably be 2 years before that dissertation can be included on this page. Are we editors really trying to advance the view that someone who just got a doctorate in Education at Harvard should have less informative things for readers of this page than Joe Blow getting quoted in a newspaper? I'll say it again, what a very strange little wiki page this is. Jellypear (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not cite a dissertation from my own university, in my own field, for a scientific statement, unless it was published elsewhere (and then I would cite the actual publication). Some theses enter mainstream scientific discourse, (Louis de Broglie comes to mind), but this one has not.  Citing a news article to quote someone is entirely different.  Again, this can easily be resolved: if you think this should be a RS, take it to RS/N and see if it floats.  a13ean (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then please kindly make a review of all of the dissertations here, how they have been cited, and designate which ones have entered "mainstream scientific discourse" according to your opinion and/or reading of the wiki guidelines. This is what I am saying about getting a global ruling that we can all abide by. It is tedious to have this level of conversation about each citation from university-based researchers. Their views and statements are among the most credible ones we can include here. Jellypear (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify so there is no confusion with the other ongoing discussion, when I referred to "university-based researchers" I meant people who are either obtaining a doctorate degree or have gotten one and are publishing and participating as professionals in their discipline. Jellypear (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Jellypear – a couple of weeks ago I made a pass through the sources and checked out the dissertations, so what remains meets at least some notion I had of being acceptable; I may well have made mistakes but I don't think there's anything appalling here. However, if you want to get your magnifying glass out and examine them, that would be useful I am sure.

I think if we're going to use marginal sources it's inevitable there will be a need for case-by-case discussion. The way out is to prefer quality independent sources: that will save us bother in the longer run. Alexbrn talk 09:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been reviewing the RS guidelines and agree that this is not a RS given the absence of citations. hgilbert (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree with both alexbrn and hgilbert here. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "completed dissertations written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and can be cited in footnotes if it is shown that they have entered mainstream academic discourse and therefore have been vetted by the scholarly community. This can be done by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indices." There is nothing to say about how many citations a dissertation has to receive. Moreover there is the problem of time lag. I just mentioned a fine dissertation coming out of Harvard. Editors are now of the mind that this person's work should be excluded on the page because, as something that was recently completed, it has not gotten any other citations. Because of the unique RS guidelines, editors are challenged to find third party sources for claims on this page. And, in many cases we're not talking about anything controversial, just something that needs to be cited in the work of a third-party source/publication with a reputation for fact-checking. On the other end of the spectrum, we have a citation in the immunization section that says that an Australian newspaper reports that parents had concerns that the Australian schools were discouraging immunization. Yet you go and read the news article and no parents or specific schools are quoted in this discussion - the reporter says "we heard from parent" and lists a number of issues.  Now, I have no doubt that someone- who knows how many-told a reporter in Australia that immunizations were discouraged at a school they were involved with. But as a point of information in this controversial discussion, it is pretty shallow. Yet, because it is in a reputable newspaper it is fine to leave there. Why in the world are we scrutinizing credible, qualified third-party academic sources, especially when they are being used for uncontroversial matters? There is no question that Hether conducted a dissertation at an accredited American University, used a validated measure, and found certain results. These results were subsequently reported in a peer-review publication, offering editors some sense that it has "entered the academic discourse." It is not our place to say how many citations are required, and once again, because of the time lag with these things we are not in a position to know that there won't be 20 more citations to this dissertation in the next 3 years. It is not our place to offer any evaluation of the state of scholarship in this field. Jellypear (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am appending this conversation to note that my views on the use of dissertations has changed since this conversation occurred. What is written here may not reflect the current status of my views which can be found in more recent discussions. I have begun to advocate for the removal of dissertations on this page, mainly for the difficulties that relate to their being primary sources for the research conducted within them. We have too many difficulties related to RS and the use of primary sources as it is and using dissertations makes the challenge worse. I now maintain the position that if the content of a dissertation is interesting to an editor, it should be sourced through a peer-reviewed secondary source (at minimum). Dissertations could be used for descriptive, non-controversial content (in following with wiki policy) but from my experience anything and everything on this page has been, or could possibly be, viewed as controversial by editors so it is better to simply start from the point of a peer-reviewed journal or book rather than a dissertation. In the specific case of this dissertation, editors should discuss the findings (if they wish) by referencing the peer-reviewed secondary source noted above. Jellypear (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Glowing words from a marginal source 2
Wikipedia tells us:

A very bold claim, amounting to Waldorf students outperforming all others (even those from expensive private schools) in all areas at university.

The source backing this is a proprietary media stream from a Australian local radio station (does not play for me). One of the guests from the show (and look: that word "controversy" again) is billed as "Executive Officer, Rudolf Steiner Schools of Australia, Anthroposophist" - no doubt the source of the comment. RS? Alexbrn talk 13:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like a Steiner source that we cannot use. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Never mind the Steiner source: even if the whole radio station staff were chanting in Unison, they are hardly RS for this momentous research finding. Where is this mythical Australian study? it sounds like something that would have sent shock-waves through the educational world... Alexbrn talk 14:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, actually no, that's not the source of the comment. There was a radio interview with the researcher who actually performed the study. hgilbert (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So it's RS? Alexbrn talk 16:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * hgilbert, we need the source on this sooner rather than later but not for the reason others have expressed. According to the standards of this page a media account is absolutely fine for getting quoted on this page. However, I object to the placement in the studies section if the viewpoints expressed cannot be sourced to an academic RS. Jellypear (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looked into this a bit more. It is badly sourced for such a strong claim. I can't make my link work either. It is up to the other editors and their discretion as to whether this comes out immediately or time is given to come up with a RS - but this needs to happen within the next 24 hours or I will do so. Jellypear (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I put this passage in the article in 2007, when the radio program first aired. At the time it sounded as if the researcher involved was about to publish his thesis containing the study. He may have done so, but I have no access to academic work in Australian Universities. Perhaps someone can find this; I agree that it is time to replace the radio citation with a direct citation to his research results, assuming these came out. If no one else can find the thesis, we can and should remove the whole passage. Unfortunately, I have to confess that I don't even remember the researcher's name, and if the link doesn't work any more, this will be difficult to unearth. hgilbert (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So, bearing in mind your COI and the above, just what do you think you are doing inserting this extremely misleading content here? Are you expecting other editors to give everything you do the tenth degree as I have done? Alexbrn talk 20:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it could stand on its own as a RS just by virtue of the media coverage although I wouldn't like the placement of it with the studies. Can anyone else hear the program? I don't have RealPlayer and that is what it is calling for. But no doubt this has to come out of the article. I'll let you do the honors, Alexbrn. :) If anyone can get the researcher's name I'll see if I can find a study. Jellypear (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool off. There is nothing misleading about it. I would hope that we could find the study that was cited in the media report. Having said that, on the RS noticeboard, to establish notability we are being asked to use reports that mention studies, rather than the original study. Perhaps this should be kept on this very basis. But I'll not push the point. Just try to keep civil, please. hgilbert (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Creative thinking
What Wikipedia says: What the source says:
 * "The sample consisted of 1,165 third through sixth grade children--479 English, 193 Scottish, and 493 German students. The findings obtained from administration of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking Ability, suggested that Waldorf students were more creative than their state school peers."
 * "The validity of the Torrance test to measure creative thinking is an issue. The consensus is that they do not measure a kind of universal creative thinking ability. But it is held that the tests do measure certain intellectual processes as well as non-intellectual characteristics, divergent thinking, which standard IQ tests do not measure."

Is this material presented with sufficient accuracy and nuance? Alexbrn talk 09:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is important to mention that it was a cross-national study. One could describe what the torrance test of creative thinking ability is, but that will add more words and will require sourcing a discussion on the differences between a test that measures universal creative thinking ability, IQ and Torrance. (I haven't read this paper.) If there an internal wiki link to Torrance, I'd do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jellypear (talk • contribs) 14:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Another bold claim
stated as fact, in WP's voice:

This universalized claim is sourced to an issue of Der Spiegel from 31 years ago (no page number or quotation given) and a 2008 press release. (N.B. This wording also makes little sense since even worse achievements will fit into one of the categories: "comparable, slightly better, or far better".) Alexbrn talk 10:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the study? Not knowing anything else, my first blush says that the sentence should be changed to say something like "A study of German Waldorf students' achievement on university entrance examinations found their scores to be comparable, slightly better, or far better than the achievement scores of pupils who attended state schools." Jellypear (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a study? Alexbrn talk 14:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This questionable sources are still there; I've tagged them for now. I propose removing them. Alexbrn talk 17:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

✅ Hearing no opposition.

Fatal consequences
Some text has been changed in the Immunization section to read as follow I have some concerns with this as it stands: In general I think it may be better to use DeGregori's references to the UK reports from The Lancet, rather than the Boulder case. Alexbrn talk 08:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Labelling DeGregori as "an economist" might make it seem he is writing outside his area of expertise. He is an active professor of economics yes, but also a board member of the American Council on Science and Health, the author of several more widely scoped books and describes himself as a "development economist" and "policy advisor".
 * Similarly, the labelling of his piece as an "op-ed column" is a bit editorially dismissive, since - as the piece states - these are extracts from DeGregori's book, published by Blackwells (unfortunately not wholly available online), and an MS in preparation. The piece lists a good number of sources.
 * Stating that DeGregori is merely noting "a newspaper report" is editorial eyebrow-raising; DeGregori treats the Boulder reports as factual evidence without caveat. We should not be inserting content that implies he might have been less-than-diligent in doing so. (Do we know he was using a newspaper report alone; this story was run in at least The Atlantic too)?
 * Saying that immunization "may have" fatal consequences misrepresents the source, which does not use these words. The source states "children are not receiving their pertussis and other immunization — with fatal consequences both for those children and their younger siblings". Using "has had" rather than "may have" would therefore be accurate.

In fact, based on what I have just written above about sources, why don't we save ourselves time, lose this marginal source and rely on the stronger ones in this section? They are enough, I think, to represent the necessary views and findings. Alexbrn talk 09:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Leave the citation in or take it out - either way is fine with me although I am not quite sure what status this website has as a RS being that it is part of an advocacy organization. I do know I have no time or energy to squabble about it. A few notes: I added his credentials (he is a professor of economics) because I feel this page needs that in general. I have been doing that all over. Readers need to know who these people are rather than "Oberski" and "Ullrich." The aspects of someone's credentials (if they have many) can be discussed but usually if there is an academic status I feel this is good to note. As for referring to this as an op-ed piece, well, that is where it is listed on the website. About the Boulder thing, I was not trying to insert any editorializing, only trying to describe his source because it was not his own data. He only mentions the school in one sentence! A far cry from the previous description which implied the whole citation was about this school in Colorado. Jellypear (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

✅ Hearing no opposition, I removed the stricken content. Alexbrn talk 18:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

KITA Aktuell
We learn The source is this; I'm not quite sure what ... a newsletter? More particularly, how is this relevant? The source does not appear to mention Waldorf/Steiner education. Alexbrn talk 16:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I propose removing this, as it seems irrelevant. Alexbrn talk 07:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. But it belongs in some article, somewhere, I'm sure! hgilbert (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

✅ Hearing no opposition.

Lower levels of harassment and bullying
Wikipedia states as fact, in its own voice:

(lower than what, we are not told). Some issues: Alexbrn talk 17:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is this given as a universal statement?
 * The primary sources here appear to be two case reports, one limited to a single UK school; another to a set of interviews with 4 pupils.
 * The UWE report's statement about the more substantial of these is rather more guarded than we might think from the text above: "Its findings suggest that there may be lower levels of bullying in Steiner schools" (my emphasis)
 * Is the UWE research report - not itself peer reviewed - RS when it comes to assessing the data from case reports (I am comfortable with using it for general evaluative and descriptive statements - but interpreting data sets requires a bit more)?


 * The UK DFES report is certainly one of the best reviews of literature we have. (In fact, as far as I can tell, that report and Ullrich's book seem to be essentially the only comprehensive, neutral reviews of studies of Waldorf education.) It states, "Its findings suggest that there may be lower levels of bullying in Steiner schools." On the one hand, we should be reporting the authors' conclusions, not trying to re-interpret these. On the other hand, I agree that, looking at the study they are citing, to phrase the conclusion the way they did is an irresponsible jump. In any case, the article text needs to be modified to a more modest claim. hgilbert (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not looked at this paper but in general I like the wording of "Its findings suggest that there may be lower levels of bullying in Steiner schools". That is exactly how findings are to be reported and our verbiage should not deviate from this. Jellypear (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A few observations: These are all middling sources, usable with care. I am concerned however that between them, the Ullrich book and the Woods report now account for a whopping 27 citations in this article. Alexbrn talk 08:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Woods report is not a UK DFES report, it is a report commissioned by the DFE; although small I think it's important to make this distinction as this is a document not produced by government; merely re-produced by it.
 * Like Jelinek &amp; Sun, it mixes its own original research with evaluative/descriptive content on external material.
 * Like Jelinek &amp; Sun, it appears to have had no independent editorial oversight or peer review.
 * Ullrich's book is also not peer-reviewed. It was published by Continuum, a slightly "out there" (but respectable) publisher at the time (since taken over and now just an imprint).


 * An observation: Citations to these two works have vastly increased since we've tried to replace direct citations to studies with citations to reviews of studies. I suspect that the pressure to do this came from editors used to sciences where "reviews of research" play a much larger role than in pedagogy. Nevertheless, I think the point is well-taken; a study's mass of conclusions is better summarized by someone with a comprehensive overview of the field, than by a WP editor. The best thing would be to find another comprehensive literature review. hgilbert (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. The more "scientific" a claim, the more appropriate scientific levels of sourcing rigour are. For critical evaluations, opinion and descriptions in softer areas, the requirements are different - which is why I categorized the above sources as usable with care. If they were doing something scientific, like setting out and analyzing biomedical data - then they wouldn't be usable. Alexbrn talk 12:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding Woods, Jelinek & Sun and Ullrich. Sorry for reposting here but there seems to be discussion of this in several places. 1- Woods. This piece needs to go, provided there is no nuanced exception as a government document. I am not currently finding anything in wikipedia to that effect so it can go. 2-Jelinek & Sun. Not peer reviewed, and a primary source. This needs to go. 3-Ullrich. This a book by an educational scholar and part of the content of the book comes from his previously peer-reviewed works. I see no grounds for excluding it. Jellypear (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sources don't "go" - use of sources is evaluated in respect of content. Besides, I'm not following your logic. You seem to be saying that Ullrich's book (non-peer-reviewed by adjunct professor) is good whereas the research monographs - by teams led by full professors of education - are "out". Alexbrn talk 06:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that the use of those two sources does not meet wikipedia guidelines that we should be using peer-reviewed secondary sources for this page. The first, Woods. has not been peer-reviewed. The second Jelinek & Sun has not been peer-reviewed. In addition, it is a primary source for the findings we are interested in. There is no acceptable use of these sources. We should not be using such sources. If we are interested in their content, we need to find it in a secondary source. Let's not go round and round about this. These are the guidelines. What else is left to discuss? As for Ullrich's book, he is an educational professor, who has published in the area of alternative education/Waldorf education in peer-reviewed journals and his book was published by CH Beck Verlag. I appreciate the need to scrutinize our sources but now that we understand the facts about these sources we need to make the appropriate changes to the page. Jellypear (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You are mis-stating policy to claim "there is no acceptable use of these sources". Articles use non peer-reviewed and primary sources all the time; however they should not be the foundations of an article, and need to be used carefully. When Jelinek and Sun are evaluating a book, that book is the primary source; they are secondary. Also I still do not understand how can you argue one non-peer-reviewed source is okay because it was written by "a professor", while other non-peer-reviewed sources by professors are somehow not okay. Alexbrn talk 14:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. You are mistating the policy. The first criteria for a reliable source is that there is some evidence of "many people checking facts, analyzing legal issues and scrutinizing the writing." Evidence that this has occurred is it being found in "peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."  In the case of Woods, and Jelinek & Sun, there is no evidence that a peer-review process has occurred. (And, even then, there is no guarantee that it was a good one, which is why just having one at all is the recommended bar.) Secondly, both present original research which makes them primary sources. For us to use them, we would need to ground any interpretive claims or exceptional claims they make in a secondary reliable source, such as a peer-reviewed paper or book. I would argue this is especially crucial given the fact that they, as primary sources, have not been peer-reviewed. We cannot go into either of these documents and just pull stuff out, as doing so brings us into original research territory. We must rely on the peer-review process to tell us whether these documents are accurate and good and what parts of them are relevant---or even if the whole document is relevant at all. These are decisions and judgment calls are not for us but for the experts in this field. I understand the basis upon which you feel that Jelinek & Sun are operating as secondary sources for books published by Waldorf or Steiner sources. There are two problems with your reasoning. First, this is not a peer-reviewed paper so they are not a reliable secondary source for our purposes. Second, these statements are a result of the content analysis they conducted (i.e.., they are the result of "an experiment" so to speak.)  The authors indicate that they "drafted" a Waldorf science curriculum from various resources so that it could be evaluated. ("The Waldorf science curriculum that was drafted for this study is derived from Steiner’s curriculum teachings and these resources, plus unpublished Waldorf school curriculum documents.") This is their own compilation. It could improperly include or exclude relevant items. We are in no position to judge how well this was done. That is the role of peer-review, which hasn't occurred. Then, their thoughts on these issues are placed in a section called "Discussion of the Findings in Relation to the 4 Research Questions." In other words, they asked 4 research questions, designed a methodology, conducted analysis according to it and are reporting their results. This makes it a primary source for the findings of their research. You say "articles use non peer-reviewed and primary sources all the time." This may be true but there are very clear guidelines for how to use non-peer reviewed and primary sources. I suggest you revisit those guidelines and the use that is allowed is very circumscribed. In order to bring this matter to resolution, why don't we both propose how Jelinek & Sun could be used as a non-peer reviewed primary source and how our usage fits the criteria. Then, the same could be done for Woods however it appears to me that Woods is mainly being used not for findings but in a synthesizing way. These could be replaced by another peer-reviewed secondary source to bypass the matter altogether. Jellypear (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. In reference to this: "I still do not understand how can you argue one non-peer-reviewed source is okay because it was written by "a professor", while other non-peer-reviewed sources by professors are somehow not okay." I am not arguing this nor would I. Articles are either peer-reviewed or not and non-peer reviewed articles should not be included. Could you restate which of Ullrich's publications we are talking about? Which one is not peer-reviewed and therefore "self-published" such that determining his expert status is something we need to discuss. Jellypear (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the consensus - when this was discussed before, the fact that the report had enjoyed some academic uptake, that Jelinek was an acknowledged neutral expert, and that he had subsequently been hired by a Waldorf school to sort out their science curriculum all weighed in the text's favour; that's the evidence this is usable under the category of "with care", which is what is being done. (P.S. Ullrich's general book on Steiner is not peer-reviewed). Alexbrn talk 16:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean his book was not peer-reviewed? How can a book be peer-reviewed (or not)? A reliable book source according to wiki includes "books published by respected publishing houses." His book was published by CH Beck Verlag. What other criteria would you apply? We cannot be applying novel criteria because this is exactly how we get into---and stay---in disputes about npov and undue. We need to let the applicable field of experts do that for us in confluence with wiki policies. This sets us up well for success, provided that we don't resist these limitations upon ourselves. What kind of a mushy category is "some academic uptake"? Google scholar shows Jelinek & Sun being cited by two unpublished masters papers, an unpublished dissertation and one peer-reviewed journal. And if Jelinek is an acknowledged expert, why in the world are you questioning Heiner Ullrich? I am still looking for any recent papers from Jelinek on Waldorf education but so far I have come up short. We must not make up our own criteria and should stick closely to wiki policies and guidelines. Just because a few students decided to cite this paper does not circumvent our need to strongly vet non-peer reviewed sources, and if they are determined to be of use, use them not just "carefully" but exactly according to wiki policy. Jellypear (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, "with care" is the wording of the policy. The peer-reviewed citing source gives us (in reference to J/S): "On the negative side, the science curriculum for Waldorf schools was considered somewhat old-fashioned and out of date, as well as including some doubtful scientific material" (my emphasis). That this is relayed without question gives further weight to the J/S comments; we are then using their monograph to fill in the details for the benefit of the reader. All perfectly in order - in fact, good! How about, to meet your concerns, we also cite the comment of Østergaard et al. as a prelude to the J/S stuff? Alexbrn talk 17:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going to move further discussion of Jelinek & Sun to its own section. Jellypear (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The original question at the head of this thread has not been resolved. I propose removing the content in question. Alexbrn talk 11:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not a good solution, as the content is clearly sourced to a RS. We should adjust the wording as per above to "findings suggest". hgilbert (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the point is it isn't. It's sourced to the (unreviewed) Woods report - so needs to be treated with caution. That said, I could live with the inclusion so long as it was very carefully qualified as being (1) very small scale and (2) UK only, and (3) in the context of the authors' concerns about research quality. Alexbrn talk 14:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This snippet also suggests there may be more pertinent content out there. Alexbrn talk 14:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Bold facts; confusing sources
Another fact/own-voice statement from Wikipedia This is sourced to: Gidley, J. (1998). "Prospective Youth Visions through Imaginative Education." Futures 30(5), pp395–408, cited in Gidley, Batemen, and Smith, Futures in Education, Australian Foresight Institute Monograph Series, 2004 Nr. 5 Some concerns: I propose this content is removed. Alexbrn talk 11:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The source appears to be a non-peer-reviewed monograph, but (oddly) is a two-stage source. The "inner" source (a journal article) gives a case of the lead author - Gidley - citing herself from the non-peer-reviewed "outer" wrapper. Which raises a red flag.
 * The "inner" source appears to be a primary source: some data research (on "senior secondary students who had been substantially educated within the Rudolf Steiner schooling system in three major cities in Australia") with consequent analysis from Gidley. The work is evidently based on her contemporaneous Masters thesis.
 * Gidley has been employed by Steiner Education Australia in the interim; but because we are citing a monograph there is no formal COI disclosure.
 * Even if the source were in order, why is Wikipedia mentioning "studies" (plural) and "schools" (universalized)?


 * I have attributed and edited the content so at least the article is not actively misleading, while this topic is discussed. Alexbrn talk 16:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I support the changes made. Her employment (after writing this monograph) as an advisor to a wide range of organizations that also include Steiner Education Australia should certainly not affect its value as a source. hgilbert (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * But isn't this a primary source? (albeit wrapped in an unacceptable source) Alexbrn talk 22:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I propose removing this content entirely. Alexbrn talk 19:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * First off, I should say that I do not like Jennifer Gidley's writing, although she makes interesting points and seems intelligent. She is part of this breed of Anglophone academics that manages to write things that Americans have immense difficulty understanding at all. She is not alone - there is a prominent professor at Oxford who published something so scattered and ale-battered in minutia I felt it should be ignored completely. It turns out one of his friends saw his work was laid to the wayside and became incredulous that anyone would feel that way about his work. Anyhow, personal feelings aside, this is a tricky one. It appears to be an edited volume so there is some expectation of fact checking, etc - the first criteria for reliability. But the publishing aspect of it is questionable. From some quick checking, it appears that this content can be found in something that has been more reliably published. I propose that the claim be sourced elsewhere. It appears that can be done but will require going through some more citations. Jellypear (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that it be sourced to the original. I have done this. hgilbert (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Monographs
I agree that non-peer reviewed monographs are not ideal as RS for this article. Note that Jelinek and Sun's is also a non-peer reviewed monograph. hgilbert (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ullrich Schmullrich
Heiner Ullrich's opinions are very heavily represented in this article:

In the lead, Wikipedia states as fact and in her own voice This is, as it turns out, an opinion taken from Ullrich's (non-peer-reviewed) book and stated as a general truth. I have at least attributed it for now to avoid the unfortunate statement of opinion as fact.

Later, as the opening words of a section, we are told

My question is: so what? Ullrich seems to be a scholar with a solid research record who has risen to the moderately lofty heights of adjunct professor. But are his opinions - when taken from general books - notable enough to be worth quoting? In particular I don't think his opinion belongs in the lead; and I don't think the warm and wooly view in the second extract above really adds much heft to the article.

Thoughts?
 * We would have to put this on par with Jelinek and Sun's opinions about pseudoscience. Either judgments like this, grounded on study of the schools, belong in the article and/or lead, or they do not. But we cannot have the decision depend upon whether the evaluation is positive or negative. hgilbert (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't see that argument. You could argue that Ullrich's view might be considered against Jelinek and Sun's opinions in general (rather than on pseudosciene in particular). Also, J&S certainly do add some heft to the article with their various content. But, their opinion does not appear in the lead; nor is it stated as fact. Alexbrn talk 21:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Another way to look at Ullrich is that he is acknowledged as an export in this field, on this topic, by several third party sources. So, even something self-published from him might be allowable. He's probably the only source that I can think of that would raise to this level. I don't personally like the heavy reliance on him but we can only work with what raises to the level we're expected to work with. One thing to take seriously as editors is just to dial back the page (provided this can be done uniformly across the board), to only discuss aspects that can be found in reliable secondary + tertiary sources. If you look at tertiary listings of WE, they are about 1/3 the size. Jellypear (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the evidence for him being an acknowledged expert? What started me thinking was he wasn't cited by the Woods (2002) article or Uhrmacher (1995) article, despite having apparently been a Waldorf guru since 1991. Alexbrn talk 21:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He's not a Waldorf guru. Waldorf boosters consider him rather hostile to Waldorf education, I believe. Jellypear (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer your other question, he is a professor of education and writes widely on the topic of progressive education. He's certainly an expert on progressive educational reforms in Germany and Waldorf education is a subset of that. He has been published in many peer-reviewed journals and has written books on these topics. Wiki has guidelines about expert opinions and how closely aligned with the subject matter they have to be---not just being an education professor, for example, but being a recognized expert on this type of education. I think he even wrote the Waldorf entry in an encyclopedia I once read (can't remember what). It's that kind of stuff that tips you off to what their peers think of them. Jellypear (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, he's an adjunct professor who, despite having writing a load on Steiner, doesn't seem to be a "go to" source from recent educational articles, and whose 2008 big book on Steiner wasn't placed with a top-tier publisher. So I ask again, what is the evidence that he's an acknowledged expert? Alexbrn talk 06:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is his CV. He appears to have been academic director of the Pedagogical Institute of Mainz University since 1991, among other significant positions he holds. Given this and his extensive familiarity with and writings on the subject at hand, he appears to be the best qualified expert we have. hgilbert (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Quite possibly &mdash; I'm simply asking for some evidence of this "top expert" status. What I'm seeing is some good earlier peer-reviewed work; a career plateaued at adjunct professor for the last 8 years; that when he writes in a team he's not the lead author; when other professors write on W.E. they don't appear to cite him; and his latter publications are from less than top-tier publishers. What we want to avoid is a situation where the only publication treating him as "the best qualified expert we have" is Wikipedia. Alexbrn talk 09:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that he writes in German, and his research is mainly about German pupils, so that is a very good reason why two English speaking writers wouldn't have cited him. I can see that you would like to have this field be more robust. Unfortunately, it is not and there is nothing any of us can do about it. It is what it is. Educational scholars tend to write about and research state schools rather than alternative or private ones. It is ok to be cautious but again, I think it is beyond our role as editors to make too many judgements that extend beyond the type of source and whether or not it was peer-reviewed. I hope you will lend such a critical eye to things on this page such as Eugenie Scott and her "being scathing" to Waldorf education. If she can have some prominence on this page just by being quoted in the Chicago Tribune (20 years ago?), and you feel that Free Inquiry is a peer-reviewed publication, then certainly a professor who has been publishing on Waldorf education for years, and has an ongoing research project in this area, is an expert view we can rely on. Jellypear (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you're changing the subject. But, to the point, I'm not hearing any evidence that Ullrich is this super-scholar he's been made out to be. I'm perfectly fine using his non-peer-reviewed writing to "fill in" stuff in the article - but (to return to my original question) what I'm asking is: are his opinions as his opinions worth stating, especially as stand-alone pronouncements in the lead and as section openers? Alexbrn talk 13:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do think the expert status is warranted. But what here is non peer-reviewed such that it would have to trigger the expert status exemption for self-published works? Jellypear (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From Ullrich's book you mean? bold claims and/or speculative opinions would raise a red flag. Alexbrn talk 11:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Social competency
In the lead Wikipedia gives the following statement as fact, in her own voice (this text added by Hgilbert) This is sourced to an article by Ullrich, and the Woods report.

Some concerns: So I don't think these limited and caveated claims can fairly be synthesized into a bold universal claim stated as fact by WP, especially in the lead: it is doing precisely what the text cautions against, and generalizing the findings to other settings. In general, per WP:LEAD the lead should be summarizing content found in the body, and not introducing novel material. Alexbrn talk 09:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Ullrich text (presumably the source bit of it) refers to just one school: "a recent qualitative study of the educational biographies of former pupils of a Rudolf Steiner school. ... They ... were particularly willing to accept social responsibility". Ullrich goes on to argue that this school is representative of "many other" Waldorf schools; but that is his opinion, and should not be stated as bare fact. Furthermore, he qualifies his comments by observing "the educational successes of these schools do not result solely from their particular educational slant and from the strong identification of the parents with the school that they have chosen for themselves, but also from the privileged social status of their clientele." This is a qualification that Wikipedia omits.
 * The Woods report has


 * This is a critique of the studies available generally, not any one particular study. Indeed, at one point, when there was a study section (how did we lose this, by the way), such a broad-based caveat prefaced the whole section, so readers could view the research aware of its limitations. I think this worked well.
 * Incidentally -- a familiar point -- as this critique of research studies applies to all studies, it also applies to Jelinek and Sun. hgilbert (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I propose this material is removed from the lead and placed in the body, with attribution - and qualification as contained in the source. We may then consider how/if it is summarized in the lead. Alexbrn talk 09:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added a number of citations to the corresponding area in the body. It is widely agreed that the schools seek to foster social responsibility. Perhaps the lead should reflect this rather than the one limited study. hgilbert (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

V. Dion Haynes, Chicago Tribune (1999) - Cherrypicking?
The Chicago Tribune article cited in the "pseudoscience" section neither primarily concerns pseudoscience (its title is Waldorf School Critics Wary of Its Religious Aspect) and includes other information, such as a charter school's 7th graders are reported to have the top reading, language arts & math grades in the state at a time when age predicts a decline in academic achievement (rather than an increase). This is not included. WP:CHERRYPICKING says "In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." Given that only one view from this source is expressed - that of Eugenie Scott regarding pseudoscience - how do we avoid the problem of cherry-picking in this case? Jellypear (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The article also quotes two authorities with opposing viewpoints, only one of which had been included here hitherto...an even clearer case of CHERRYPICKING. I have added the other for balance. hgilbert (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The article contains no contrary view on pseudoscience, just information about a different topic: science (as well as commentary on religion etc.) Science and pseudoscience should not be given co-equal status as one is a fringe theory, as set out in WP:GEVAL. OTOH, the claim by the head of the Anthroposophical Society might be placed in the Science section - with suitable attribution of course. Alexbrn talk 20:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see it as a problem when articles cannot be presented in line with their own sense of balance because the section heading is making a circumscribed claim. In many ways, the pseudoscience issue is a subset of the "religious aspect issue." Shouldn't we be taking some guidance from the sources themselves in how we arrange these reception issues? And what about tertiary sources? I see the religious aspect included but not pseudoscience. Shouldn't that factor into the organization of this page in some way? Jellypear (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever structure is picked for this article, there is going to be dissonance with the structure picked by some of the sources: that is inevitable. If we re-cast the article in tune with the Tribune's model (Waldorf religious?) that that would jar with what other structures want to say. We need to provide a good topical backbone and allocate information to that. What we also want to avoid is "giving up" and just have an incoherent listing of standalone digests of sources; that would represent a failure of consensus and give a horrid unencyclopedic article. Ultimately this all comes down to common sense and editorial judgement. Alexbrn talk 09:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I dislike the recent changes even more than I disliked the previous version! I was not calling for a tit-for-tat kind of change so that it is +1 for pseudoscience and +1 for "real" science or whatever this latest instantiation is. What I was referring to is the fact that the article is not about pseudoscience, even though one commentator mentioned it. The point of the article runs deeper, mainly that a charter school following these methods not only displayed top-level results but that these results also run contrary to what is predicted for all students in this age group. This created a paradox worth reporting, especially given the concurrent lawsuit (at the time). So do such desirable results come at the expense of pseudoscience or of religious teaching? What might be the evidence for that? Who feels this way and why? Thus the news article itself provides us with some guidance for how we could approach this thoughtfully and if we weren't doing this before with cherry picking Eugenie Scott's quote, we certainly are not making it better now. I think the problem for me is that this section presumes that pseudoscience in the schools exist, and then seeks out supporting documentation to flesh out the section. This is in contrast to how sources themselves have treated this issue. Would anyone hate it if I changed it back? It's this kind of blatant attempt at equivalence that made me interested editing this page to begin with. Jellypear (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Jelly - I think you're right in some senses. Re-reading the Tribune piece I think the quote could be here, or not. But on your pseudoscience point, is there any source anywhere that says W.E. does not teach pseudoscience? What is notable about both Waldorf responses here is that they don't take that line, but instead go for a "no single truth" statement. Alexbrn talk 05:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The article quite carefully presents two contrasting viewpoint. If we are to pick up on either of these here, the other should be presented as well. Otherwise it is a clear case of cherry-picking and a complete falsification of the article's thrust. If, on the other hand, we feel that the article's thrust is wholly different, both quotes might need to disappear and a more accurate depiction of the charter school results (as Jellypear describes) appear in their place. hgilbert (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "But on your pseudoscience point, is there any source anywhere that says W.E. does not teach pseudoscience?" With this question I think you are missing a vital point in that tertiary sources are absolutely silent on this issue. And, the academic research, as we know, currently rests on one unpublished manuscript from 10 years ago. And even though that has been cited, no new data has been added. One could take this in three ways. The first is to view this as people being uninformed as to this issue or perhaps even not paying attention to the evidence before them. The second is to see this as some (perhaps tacit and unacknowledged) consensus having been reached that pseudoscience being taught is not an issue. The third perspective is that perhaps there is currently not enough credible evidence and until that time, statements in one direction or the other are ill-advised and could have the unintended effect of advancing an incorrect view. In order to avoid WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE Wikipedia editors have to take seriously all of these possibilities. Hotel operators generally don’t go around announcing that they clean their toilets. Even though they don’t make this announcement, this doesn’t mean they have dirty toilets. And then there is the schools’ view of what science is. They relate, and others confirm, that they take a phenomenological approach to science. They purposely do not start with the theorem or law and are instead interested in developing tools of observation, evidence collection and documentation, etc., with the hope that students work their way back to the law/truth/current scientific consensus on their own (or as a classroom). It reflects a position that “science is” a process primarily. Similarly, people who feel that “science is” the body of codified knowledge also have a position. This is how I would personally explain why spokespeople, when faced with the allegation that they “teach pseudoscience,” answer with something besides a simple “we don’t teach pseudoscience.” Although this is my view on the situation, such discussion is irrelevant. As Wikipedia editors, our role is to neutrally report what is contained in reliable sources. I think coming from a standpoint in which it is presumed that WE teaches pseudoscience because it has not been proven false smacks of being an 'absence of evidence argument' that has no place in a tertiary source that is expected to be neutral. This is a serious issue. What I would recommend is placing concerns about pseudoscience in a "Science Instruction" section in the curricular areas and also introducing a "State Funding of Waldorf Schools" in the reception area. I think we need to be following the organization of our sources more closely. We are having trouble working with the pro and con viewpoints because so much has been bifurcated structurally. As I have been advancing elsewhere, the presentation of this issue should follow what Woods (2008) does. How do outcomes relate to the input? How much do we know about either? Jellypear (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The article presents one opinion that the Waldorf science curriculum teaches pseudoscience and one opinion that it teaches "sound science". The two are clearly talking about the same thing, the science curriculum, in directly contrary ways. These are all talking about the science curriculum, as is a study (such as PISA) that shows that Waldorf students have solid understanding of science is also about the teaching of science in the schools. Otherwise you create a POV fork; it would be equivalent to having a section in Obama's biography on his being born in Kenya, and treating any evidence that he was actually born in Hawaii as being about a completely different subject (what does Kenya have to do with Hawaii???). The subject at hand is the Waldorf approach to science. (If the topic is pseudoscience the whole thing should move to the pseudoscience article.) If the topic is the science curriculum at Waldorf schools, which it appears to me to be, then all sides of this are relevant and should be presented in accordance with NPOV.

Would you argue that if, asked if an art work were a forgery of a Monet, I answered "it's a true original Monet", my answer is irrelevant to the question of the forgery? Similarly, if I answer the question "does W. teach pseudoscience" with the response "it teaches sound science", I am directly addressing the question. Two authors do not have to use exactly the same jargon to be talking about the same subject. (And if you claim this is OR or SYN, I would respond that too artificially separate two positions clearly presented as contrasts in an article on the pretense that they are unrelated, when the article's author clearly believed they were related, is far more clearly taking editorial liberty, or OR if you will.) hgilbert (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jellypear that the principal sources, including Jelinek and Sun, all talk about the science curriculum, and mention pseudoscience in this context. We should integrate these back into a single section on Science Curriculum, with all the concerns that have been expressed about this. hgilbert (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Aids to development via play
(which might be better termed "educational toys") are described thus: and sourced to this.

I can't find the ext in the source supporting this. I've no doubt it's right but it should at least be sourced correctly (and is The Atlantic really the best source for this?). Also, the chief characteristic of Waldorf dolls (small or absent facial features) is not mentioned. Alexbrn talk 13:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the citation is just for the media influence comment. As for the earlier sentences: I would urge us, in line with WP policy, not to require citations for generally accepted material, assuming no editor disputes these. hgilbert (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * On the burning issue of facial features in dolls: there is great variety here. The features of dolls meant to be used by very young children tend to be, as you suggest, limited in detail, though there is considerable variety even here. Dolls for somewhat older children tend to have much more detail. Dolls are often made by middle school children as part of the handwork/crafts curriculum; these dolls tend to have extremely detailed features. Like many other things in Waldorf education, it is developmental rather than rule-based. hgilbert (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, you are asking for a source for the sentences preceding the media influence? I don't have one. I have no objections to providing a source but text should not be changed in the interim. There is a lot of ongoing "work" related to this page. I simply do not have hours upon hours each day to participate - nor do I want to. Let's try to prioritize. I don't see this as a pressing issue. Pottery Barn and other upscale children's toysellers sell cloth dolls that look just like Waldorf dolls. Jellypear (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV in the Lead
There have been a series of edits/undo's regarding the Lead, and they all link back to prior discussions we have had concerning the lead's purpose, NPOV, intext attribution, etc. This is an ongoing source of disagreement so I am opening up a section to discuss it rather than making more edits. I think it might be fruitful to work through WP:YESPOV and discussion where issues remain. With regard to one of the more recent edits in this area, Alexbrn appears to further attribute WE's reception in central Europe to H. Ullrich, even though he is the source for the citation given. Alexbrn feels that this is necessary because this is H. Ullrich's opinion. I think this minimizes the fact that Ullrich's statements, when published in a book about all aspects of Waldorf Education, and written after many years of publishing in peer-reviewed journals on the topic, are not merely opinions. They are evaluative and interpretive claims. However, because they are not necessarily true and correct, they must be sourced. The books contents are as follows: Thus the quotation comes from his evaluation of how his work has been received and the influence that it has made. These are expert claims, not merely opinions and although they must be properly sourced. Adding an additional qualifier, which seeks to identify his view as merely an opinion, is not only unnecessary but introduces its own WP:NPOV issues.Jellypear (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Intellectual biography
 * 2. Critical exposition of the thinker's work
 * 3. The reception and influence of the work
 * 4. The relevance of the work today
 * 5. Bibliography


 * I agree that the statement is presented as a fact by a notable scholar. If we have equally strong sources for any conflicting interpretations, we should present and attribute both. If not, we should accept it as presented. hgilbert (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd say this was a basic case. As YESPOV says, even "evaluations" like "genocide is evil" need to be attributed! Alexbrn talk 17:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Alexbrn, I want you to know that I am taking your concerns here seriously and I do share your concern that things are attributed neutrally and according to wiki policies. If I am understanding you correctly, you feel that Ullrich's evaluation of the landscape in central Europe is a contestable one. If that is the case, then I would ask you to provide a reliable source who says so because Ullrich's statement is more than just his opinion, it is an evaluative claim coming from his research. As such, we do need to source it and that has been done. Another way of approaching this is that his statement only got in here because of our difficulties with "Waldorf Education is controversial" which as you note above in the "genocide is evil" comparison, that needs to be attributed as in So-and So says that "genocide is evil" kind of way. However, we are not using Ullrich to say "Waldorf education is not controversial," rather the page says "the Waldorf approach has achieved general acceptance as a model of alternative education [in Central Europe]." These are vastly different claims (one is declarative and the other is descriptive) and rather surprising coming from you after we have already had extensive discussion as why "Waldorf education is controversial" would be perfectly acceptable as a statement on its own by sourcing - among others - an herbalist magician. ;)  I think perhaps the way to move forward is to keep rewriting this paragraph. Can you offer other ways of doing so that don't reduce Ullrich's evaluation as an opinion because there is no comparable educational scholar who has stated the opposite? Jellypear (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification
From Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment: Comment: The situation remains unclear. Given the "probably" in the second comment, however, I suggest we should be more liberal about accepting these publications for factual, non-controversial statements (such as content of the curriculum, number of schools, etc.)
 * 1) "The ArbCom ruling did not forbid using Anthroposophy related publications, but found in 2006 that for controversial statements those publications were unreliable."
 * 2) another editor agrees with Alexbrn, however: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so".

Reliable sources noticeboard
At Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, there is the following discussion (that starts with a question I posed): "What about these, then, two of which are also not peer-reviewed journals:


 * Content: 'Waldorf education is controversial', or 'Waldorf education has experienced controversy in English-speaking countries' (two proposed versions of text)
 * Source 1: Melissa Benn, School Wars: The Battle for Britain's Education, Verso Books, isbn 978-1-84467-736-8
 * Source 2: The Financial Times, David Turner, 'Steiner school switches to city academy status', March 1, 2008
 * Source 3: Heiner Ullrich,'Rudolf Steiner', Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education, Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, vol.XXIV, no. 3/4, 1994, p. 555-572.

hgilbert (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Benn: journalist book, not expert educationist, OK for uncontroversial facts. FT: good for news fact only. Ullrich: good source. Rather than the lede saying 'it's controversial', which is not informative, it should summarise the detail in the 'Responses' section. It doesn't need to introduce new sources. The article needs some copyedits by the way. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)"


 * We should remove the two sources that are good only for news or uncontroversial facts and edit according to the recommendation above (which seems to fit Jellypear's ideas, as well!!!). hgilbert (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact the Waldorf education is controversial, is not controversial! However, in the interests of obeying WP:OVERCITE all these can go: we just need to summarize the article in the lead; and stating it is controversial is part of that. Alexbrn talk 18:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn, it doesn't seem as if the lede debate involves whether or not Waldorf education has had controversies. Newspaper reports, people issuing statements, a lawsuit, testifies to the fact that controversies have occurred. However, the crucial issues for us to contend with as editors are WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Stating something has had, or is currently undergoing a controversy is a qualitatively different thing than stating it is controversial. Look at the sources for the various controversies, there is a lot of self-published material which is fine for expressing its own views but we don't have a RS that discusses the controversy itself---putting it into any kind of context that would allow us, as editors, to be assured that we are offering a balanced wiki entry that doesn't make claims about a state of the world we are in no position to know about. Heiner Ullrich comes closest, but you will note that his position is that the criticism overlooks the differences amongst the schools. We, as wikipedia editors, must realize we have no place in characterizing the controversial nature of WE ourselves. We can use RS to show that controversies exist - that is all.Jellypear (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS is a pretty good enumeration of my concerns with the "Waldorf education is controversial" statement. I have not seen anything like this from a RS or even something like this: "Waldorf schools are a controversial form of education..." The existence of controversies does not necessarily make the entirety of something controversial. Jellypear (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's clear from the discussions here that the claim "WE is controversial" is itself controversial, and the dissonance between various sources (even Ullrich comments on this differently in two different places) is striking. Jellypear's description seems clearer: there are controversies over particular aspects of the education (immunization, etc.) Precision is helpful. hgilbert (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hgilbert – as WP:BESTCOI and WP:COIU recommend, you have no business POV-pushing here. We have a stack of sources matter-of-factly stating that WE is controversial; however I thought we'd gone beyond the need to use those since it is simply a good summary of the article to say that WE is controversial (sometimes I wonder if people understand what the word means!). Wheedly words watering down this plain meaning should not be used: this is an encyclopedia article, not a PR exercise. The lead is now misleading by suggesting that controversy is limited to English-speaking countries (itself a curious watering-down), when we mention pseudoscience in Stockholm, and by subtly misusing Ullrich to imply as fact and in Wikipedia's voice that there is no controversy in "central Europe". It is also badly written with the weird personification of "Waldorf Education has experienced controversy ...".
 * What I am seeing here is POV-pushing from a COI-tainted editor, now again making aggressive edits to the article in this and other respects, and aided by a WP:SPA who is making strongly pro-Waldorf edits and removing criticism from the lead. Given the COI aspect, I have replaced the COI tag on the article until these matters can be resolved. Alexbrn talk 10:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you ignoring the fact that the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard discussion has clearly evaluated your sources as not reliable in this context? In addition the following suggestion was made there "Rather than the lede saying "it's controversial", which is not informative, it should summarise the detail in the "Responses" section. It doesn't need to introduce new sources." This is an independent editor's voice, not mine. hgilbert (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole paragraph about controversy is written in "Wikipedia's voice". We could deconstruct the whole thing, giving particular attributions, and perhaps we should. hgilbert (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Alexbrn, I am taking offense that you have chosen to characterize me as someone who is a WP:SPA "aiding" a COI-tained editor. This is not helpful or productive and such comments run counter to WP:FIVE. While you may have gotten your account long before me and currently have lots of time to edit multiple pages within the anthroposophical series making it such that you are not WP:SPA, this does not give you the authority to make assertions about me that run counter to assuming good faith. Don't bite the newbies. I have a life and limited time to be editing wikipedia. There are lots of other areas I could participate but the fact of the matter is that this page has multiple problems that I have now begun to feel strongly about the more I have become involved. The content of studies has been misrepresented via quote mining in several sections, peer-reviewed studies are somehow not considered important on this page, there is the ongoing difference of opinion about the use of illustrations, the unique RS ruling on this page sets up WP:UNDUE issues that have to be mitigated by editors working together, just yesterday I discovered the content of an un-RS blog being presented as the assertion of an attorney in a peer-reviewed publication, and now there is input from the noticeboard saying that "it's controversial" is not informative and another approach should be taken. Should I just ignore these things? Why does mentioning them and trying to discuss them and come to resolution on them make me "aiding" a COI-tainted editor? Again, I will refer back to why I decided to start editing wiki in the first place - as a reader of this page that could tell that sources were being misrepresented.


 * Now, as for the lede, we don't have to stick with what is currently on the page but that ought to be discussed here - with serious consideration being made to this third party opinion - rather than making assertions about each other. You make valid points about personification and the characterization of "English-speaking" is probably not as accurate as it could be. Lets work out here what some alternatives may be. How about "There have been several recent controversies involving Waldorf education. For example, so-and-so says..." Would something along those lines be better? Jellypear (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of misunderstanding and misdirection:
 * The opinion from RS/N was that we don't need to use sources in the lead. That is correct. We should say WE is controversial as that is a fair summary of the article content. We can use Wikipedia's voice for this since the bases of the summary are themselves sourced as they should be. The sources discussed at RS/N are fine for facts, so we may use them in the body if we wish.
 * However, introducing novel content (i.e. that is not in the body) into the lede, in Wikipedia's voice, as hgilbert has done is wrong. First because (here) it misrepresents the source in an attempt to water-down criticism, secondly because we should not generally put novel content in the lede, and thirdly because we don't generally need to source content in the lede. This is pure POV watering-down. The theme of this third paragraph is to outline controversies. Hgilbert is trying to spin the article in line with his COI. Again.
 * Jellypear's (no doubt unwitting) aiding of this is in removing critical content from the lead that fairly summarizes some body content. The effect again is to swing the POV of the article unduly. Alexbrn talk 17:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Alexbrn:"We should say WE is controversial as that is a fair summary of the article content." What!? Where do you get this idea from based on the 3rd party editor's comments? She said "Rather than the lede saying "it's controversial", which is not informative, it should summarise the detail in the "Responses" section." I am not sure how much clearer this opinion could be. When she uses the word "rather" she is proposing doing something else, not keeping that approach. The recommendation is to not use the phrase "WE is controversial"....rather we should describe the controversies as enumerated in the reception section. Our job is to describe controversies and differences in opinion, that is it. Have you read the wiki guidelines as to what constitutes original research on the part of editors? I will get the citations if that helps Jellypear (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want we can include something more in the body about it being controversial, so we can summarize it in the lead. Stating that Waldorf is controversial is an excellent topic sentence for that paragraph. Alexbrn talk 18:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The lede does not need to be sourced, but the content does. If the content is not sourced in the body of the article, it should not be in the lede. If you have a good source that states that Waldorf is controversial (and why), use it to say that in the body, and reflect that paragraph in the lede. If you don't have a source that states that Waldorf is controversial, it should definitely not be in the lede. Above all, we must follow WP:V. Further, it would be better to attribute that "Waldorf is controversial" to the source, as that cannot be a fact, and must be an opinion. DigitalC (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please pardon me for going on about this (rather than ignoring it and sticking to the task at hand) but I am rather hot-under-the-collar about these comments. User:Alexbrn has said that I am "making strongly pro-Waldorf edits and removing criticism from the lead." For the record, I have not removed criticism from the lead. What I did do, is remove a sentence that said (paraphrasing from memory here) "Views differ on Waldorf's stance on teaching reading and ICT skills later than mainstream schools." When I took this out, I cited WP:Weasel. There are no RS on the page that offer differing views on these topics. The discussion between Elkind & Whitehurst is not about Waldorf education, it is about academic kindergartens more generally. While Elkind says positive things about Waldorf's overall approach - albeit without offering any data about the approach's effectiveness - Whitehurst does not address reading instruction in Waldorf schools at all. The one author (Suggate) who does address Waldorf specifically presents research findings that show similar longterm reading gains between early-starters and late-starters. So, I fail to see a difference of opinion about Waldorf teaching reading later in the RS that can be summed up as "views differ." As for ICT, there is only one RS and they say "our view would be that it is to the credit of the [DfE] that Steiner schools have been recently exempted from the requirement to teach ICT." So where is the difference of opinion there?


 * As you say, the differing views on reading are in the article (which is on Waldorf education). If you think Elkind & Whitehurst should not be in the article, then that is a different matter. As things stand, it is fair to summarize them, and unfair to remove that summary. On ICT the view is also expressed that the approach is not a "reasoned assessment of twenty-first century children's needs". Sounds like a different view to me. Alexbrn talk 18:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that we have very different ways of reading texts that will probably result in future disagreements. I appear to parse paragraphs differently than you do and find levels of context and argumentation that you do not consider important. So for ex in this case, when the authors use the phrase "not a reasoned assessment of 21st century children's needs" I see this as referring to their overall opinion that Waldorf educators allow what things are made of to be of more importance than whatever use it could have as a learning tool. So, in their view computer technology is "out" because it is made of plastic and non-organic parts. They view this stance as not being a "reasoned assessment of the 21st century children's needs" (ie., it shouldn't matter what things are made of) but not that the overall approach to ICT - which they end up supporting. And, we can see from the Waldorf spokesperson response, we can see that Waldorf people disagree with this assertion about their views. They feel that it is not about the materials but the timing. Ideally there would be a third or fourth (academic) RS to make heads or tails of this. Don't know if there is one. Jellypear (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are misreading the text :-) And as I see now it's not quite properly represented in the article. The authors disagree with the prohibition ("ideological stand") on ICT but on balance (i.e. despite that) think it's good that the exemption has been granted, because of other Steiner goodness. As their discussion is in the clear context of ICT experience, I think this is plain. We need to include in the lead a summary of the fact that there is controversy over this. I think adding A13ean's suggested source will help too. Alexbrn talk 19:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A13ean's recommendation is fine to include. Please provide what your summary of this issue would be. I am not sure where we disagree now.24.1.137.227 (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As to the issue of "strongly pro-Waldorf edits" well, I guess that is a difference of opinion that we may never be able to resolve. I would suggest, however, that seeing any edit on this page as either "pro" or "con" is a bad way to go about it. Here is my stance on any topic on this page and I believe this fully conforms to wiki policy. 1. I want to see the most important and fundamental claims on this page backed up by a RS, preferably a peer-reviewed publication by an academic scholar. 2. All applicable publications on the topic should be included within reason, and reporting of each should be as accurate as possible to the authors' own words. A good guide for this is to read the author's own abstract, if available. My disposition is to be a hard-ass about this - sorry. 3. For those topics that are not widely discussed, and for which there is no academic peer-reviewed source, we must take care to evaluate WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, and this includes not having them on the page at all btw. This is a rather subjective task and requires editors working together to discuss wiki's policies. This is not a pro- or con- task, it is about interpreting policies and guidelines. If you can't see a discussion of this nature as anything other than "pro" or "con" - even amounting to collusion between other editors - then I would suggest something is interfering with your primary responsibility here, which is to be a Wikipedian above all else. Jellypear (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is easily sourced, for example this NYT article says "But the contrarian point of view can be found at the epicenter of the tech economy" about teaching IT skills (my emphasis). a13ean (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In general I agree very much with the approach and context you give. However, protecting Wikipedia against POV is part of editing it, so unfortunately that consideration sometimes comes into play. Alexbrn talk 18:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)