User talk:Jtfine

Welcome
Hi Jtfine. Well, as a relatively new user myself, I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia. However as you've probably already discovered, you've planted yourself in the middle of a very ugly situation. I learned that the hard way about a month ago and I don't mind telling you that while my experience here so far has been educational, it hasn't been especially pretty. The Waldorf article needs reasonable people who can follow the facts [as in "third-party verifiable"], no matter where they lead. For my own part, I'm a supporter of Waldorf (still involved with our local school) who believes that the movement needs to open up about its motivations - which alone earns me the title of "critic" among the solidly Waldorf crowd.

So with that said, I hope we can work together to make this a well-rounded article. Regards, - Wikiwag 16:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also welcome you Jtfine. All these articles benefit from multiple viewpoints.  I look forward to yours.  Like Wikiwag, I too am a supporter of Waldorf with one graduated senior, one high-schooler and one middle-schooler.  I've been involved in Waldorf for over 15 years.  Oddly, everyone working on these articles wants Waldorf to succeed even though we may not all agree on how this needs to happen. Pete K 16:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jtfine. I'm glad to see a new voice coming into this discussion and hopefully into the editing process once the WE article is unlocked. I'm pretty firmly entrenched in Waldorf/anthroposophy, but my goal is to see without bias and to reform where necessary, similar to Wikiwag.

I'd like to say one thing: if you seek to help create an unbiased article, I'd suggest leaving off asking Pete to go away, and just focus on the article itself. I think this particular group has fallen into a trap of being too personal and forgetting what we're here for: to write an encyclopedia article. Maybe if we all stop the personal comments we'll have more time to research valid citations and write an article without bias.

Not trying to shut you up or discount your opinions, I'd just like to see less bickering and more work getting done.

Thanks. Henitsirk 21:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys. I'm not interested in trading ad hominems. The bickering has definitely been a problem for the WE article. I have suggested to Pete K there's a disproportionate amount of input from his direction, but that's up to his judgment. I do think we need a consensus of information.


 * I've played the part of the Waldorf critic often enough during my 14 years of education there. I see plenty of room for disagreement on topics like anthroposophy, and some of the esoteric philosophy behind the education. I think it's important to note that the philosophy is taught to 8-year class teachers (with varying success), but not subject teachers or students. I myself know very little about anthroposophy. So the philosophy and the education really aren't the same thing. Keep in mind we're talking about an education system with hundreds of schools in numerous countries around the globe. If you find an article on Rudolf Steiner (who died 82 years ago) which finds him Eurocentric or says that anthroposophy is a religion, that's really a far cry from the education. And if you know of a report on something that did happen along these lines at a specific school, that still can't supplement as general information on Waldorf Education, but makes sense in a "criticism" or "controversy" section.
 * I'm glad to have found a controversial subject to effectively (I hope) contribute to. --Jtfine 21:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying you're a former Waldorf student? If so, that would be a very interesting perspective that I believe would be very unique to the discussion - and one we could all benefit from. Pete K 03:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, I'm a "lifer". I'd be glad to share. --Jtfine 03:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. So are all three of my kids - 3rd generation Waldorf students. Pete K 03:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)