Talk:Waldorf education

Addition to lede

The recent addition to the lede repeated the three stages of W. education. Twice through in the lede is too much. Let's merge these. Also, the mention of body, soul, and spirit seemed out of place. This could appear in the lede, but where? Finally, the lede is already very long. Making it longer seems unwise.

I have reverted to the old lede but am encouraging merger and discussion. HGilbert (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

For the lede especially I think it is important to make use of wiki links. However, if there isn't an appropriate link, then we should find a better way of explaining things. For example the term idealism used to be linked to in the lede but Waldorf education does not foster philosophical idealism as the link would suggest. In another part I thought about linking to pages on body, soul and spirit but that just makes things more confusing than just linking to anthroposophy. There is also no reliable source that I know of that discusses the different between soul and spirit as it pertains to the theory or practice of Waldorf education so why bother having it in the lede? The lede is supposed to introduce and summarize the page's contents. On another note, I think having a separate curriculum page is burying this vital information. Why does this page spend so much effort trying to explain extraneous things while failing to answer the following questions: What is taught at a Waldorf school? When is it taught? How is it taught? Jellypear2 (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this lead is WAY TOO dense and extensive. per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be concise, and a nice overview/summary. As it stands, the lead is explaining so many elements of other articles, it isn't summarizing this one.--Shibbolethink (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition, I'll be adding the below mentioned criticisms to the lead as well. The lead should cover both the positive and negative reception of the subject, and right now all the criticism is condensed to one small sentence at the bottom of the lead. That's gotta change. --Shibbolethink (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Bravo!

i see that after many many years, you've managed to quell the criticism and create an article completely devoid of it. Congratulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.142.145 (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticism? RE: NPOV

I think this article deserves some love and attention. As one anonymous poster puts it elsewhere on this talk page, criticism and detractions have all been neutralized in this article. Basically, while I think this article includes elements of criticism, those elements deserve to be centralized in "Reception." A reader should be able to scroll to the Reception section, and quickly absorb both the positives and negative receptions of a Waldorf-style Education. I'm gonna be taking some of this on in my free time, but I'd like to add elements of criticism that exist throughout the web, notably those critics of Waldorf-style education as a religious practice, those critics of its foundation in pseudoscience, and those who believe the Waldorf system constitutes a pseudo-cult that inculcates its students. These criticisms have multiple sources, and deserve to be placed in a conveniently located and condensed section in "Reception."--Shibbolethink (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You have surely noticed that all of these critiques are already present in the article, with the exception of the cult claim, for which you have not offered a reliable source (blogs, especially by non-experts, do not qualify as sources for encyclopedias!).

Are you familiar with Wikipedia standards for WP:Reliable sources? If the general policy isn't enough: we've been repeatedly advised to keep a high standard for citations in this article.

Also: WP:Criticism states Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias. HGilbert (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what I said above. I don't think there should be a section of this article devoted to criticism. I think the Reception portion of this article should more clearly note the criticisms, in mirror to the positive reception. As it is, the criticism is buried in a wealth of less than concise information. The criticisms should be grouped, and they should all be mentioned in appropriate detail, as should the positive reception. The same is true of the lead. --Shibbolethink (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms deserve not equal treatment, but proportional treatment. As it is, neither is the case.--Shibbolethink (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, here are the sources for critics who claim the Waldorf school system is cult-like, pagan, new-agey, etc.--Shibbolethink (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Those are a lot more substantial than some of the earlier sources you listed. But these sources present many opinions and should not be cherry picked to emphasize selectively brief mentions of one aspect. HGilbert (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not cherry picking when I'm simply pointing to them as sources that some people believe the Waldorf system of education to be quasi-pagan, and filled with new-age thought. The sources say that, they also say other things. Cherry picking would be if I took things out of context. There's no context needed, and the context is accurate, in this quote: "Steiner was more interested in the opposite possibility. He believed the living could cultivate the ability to enter the spirit world. After World War I, the director of the Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory in Stuttgart, Germany -- an adherent of anthroposophy -- invited Steiner to create a school for the children of factory workers. This was Steiner's chance to train children who could initiate such spiritual contact." That's from the atlantic article.--Shibbolethink (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hgilbert:, thought I might just give you the heads up, I'm gonna start expanding on the role of gnomes and faceless dolls in Waldorf education.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Lead

I agree that the lead is somewhat overlong, but let's work on it section by section, and above all avoid introducing grammatically-confusing passages. HGilbert (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps now it is both shorter, and more grammatically adherent to WP:MOS.--Shibbolethink (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I've clarified some of the content -- when the philosophy, and when the actual practice, is meant, for example -- and restored the explicit reference to early childhood, elementary, and secondary education, which is fundamental.

As far as the conclusion goes: the science curriculum has empirically-verifiable excellence of results and has received criticism. The criticism should not overwhelm the empirical evidence (of multiple PISA and other studies) that demonstrates the science curriculum's quality and success. Either neither should be in the lead, or both should. HGilbert (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

See this is what I'm talking about in the criticism section. You're right! Both should be included. But the /style/ of how you include them is VITALLY important. If I give you two sentences which read like:

<criticism><BUT refutation></criticism></refutation>

then it is much more biased than

<criticism></criticism><refutation></refutation>. In one, the reader is given a criticism, which is then IMMEDIATELY refuted, but allowed to continue, whereas in the other the criticism and refutations are allowed to exist as standalone thoughts. It's subtle, but I think it's rampant throughout this article.--Shibbolethink (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Reincarnation

How could one reincarnate every seven years??? The cited NYTimes article is clearly not a competent source for Steiner's views. If we wish to refer to these views, we should use the many high-quality academic analyses of Steiner's thinking, none of which suggests any sort of 7-year reincarnation plan. Nor does anything in Steiner's works support this. I have removed this curious passage.

FYI: What Steiner actually suggested was that people generally reincarnate every thousand years or so, but that it is very variable. HGilbert (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but here are several more sources backing up the every 7 years claim. The Atlantic and The New York Times are both very reputable sources, as are Salon, the BBC, etc.I'm reverting your rollbacks. You have yet to produce sources directly refuting the claim that Steiner believed in the 7 year reincarnation, and I've provided several that verify it. Worthy sources for reference by WP:RS standards are not those of a high academic standing, but that:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"--Shibbolethink (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Also from WP:RS re: News Organizations:

"News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact."

So basically, if you produce a variety of scholarly sources refuting the 7 years claim, we can instead keep it in and say that "Several noted individuals from the BBC, Salon, the New York Times, and the Atlantic have reported that...." But you can't erase the fact that various different PRIMARY news agencies (the BBC and the Atlantic are both considered primary because they don't reprint stories from the AP.) have asserted the claim.--Shibbolethink (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry; none of these sources claim that Steiner either (1) believed in a 7-year reincarnation cycle, or (2) that reincarnation underlies the 3-stage theory. All that they claim is that Steiner believed in reincarnation, and that the idea of reincarnation is important for Waldorf education. This is true but has nothing to do with 7-year cycles. HGilbert (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are quotes, since you seem to be misreading these sources.

• "It was also the method that contributed to Mr. Steiner's view of child development, which forms the basis of Waldorf education. He believed that people experience a type of reincarnation every seven years, beginning with the physical birth and ending at age 21, when the spirit of a human being is fully developed and continually reincarnated on earth. Certain subjects are taught at times that he thought best coincided with these changes."
• "He also points out that the ultimate goal of Anthroposophy is to lead children through the stages of reincarnation, which blurs the line between education and religion to an even greater extent. Nancy Frost*, a former Waldorf instructor, concurs: “I heard in a faculty meeting that there were many important souls waiting to reincarnate in this century and that they would only be able to do so if there were enough Waldorf schools,” she says. “By the end of the year I taught there I was completely convinced that Waldorf constituted a cultlike religious movement which concealed its true nature from prospective parents.”
• "That is because of the particular views of Rudolf Steiner, the intellectual father of Steiner schools. The Austrian-born occultist, who died in 1925, left a vast body of work covering everything from biodynamic farming to alternative medicine. It is known, collectively, as "anthroposophy". The SWSF's guidelines from 2011 said that schools using the Steiner name were obliged to prove "an anthroposophical impulse lies at the heart of planning for the school". Since 2013, this has been made vaguer: they now need a commitment to "the fundamental principles of Waldorf education". Those ideas are based in a belief in reincarnation. Pupils may not have been sold this creed, but Steiner was very strict that teachers were not supposed to pass them on to children - just to act on them."
• "At other times, spirit serves as a kind of internal clock that orders the way subjects are taught. As the the New York Times explained in 2000, "Steiner believed that people experience a type of reincarnation every seven years, beginning with the physical birth and ending at age 21, when the spirit of a human being is fully developed and continually reincarnated on earth." As a direct consequence, at traditional Waldorf schools, "certain subjects are taught at times that he thought best coincided with these changes." Students also remain with the same instructor for periods of about seven years, a technique known as "looping." A Steiner biographer notes that "it's not unusual for many parents sending their children to Steiner schools to be unaware of his occult philosophy." Some of the school's more unusual practices turn potential families away -- for instance, the fact that children aren't taught to read until second or third grade. Day to day, though, the esoteric influence at Waldorf schools is practically invisible."

That should be sufficient. See above as well, if you produce sources refuting the seven years claim, we can clarify the seven years claim by saying that prominent staff on these news sources have reported this fact, while scholars dispute it.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There is only one source that makes this claim: the NYTimes article, written by someone with no expertise and citing no source for the claim. The Atlantic article merely quotes the NYTimes; this is not an independent source. The rest of the citations above in no way connect reincarnation to a seven-year cycle.

If this were true, it would be possible to find a second source supporting this. Absent any, and any evidence whatsoever that either Steiner or any Waldorf source ever suggested such a thing, why would we put an evidently false claim in this article???HGilbert (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There are several sources linking reincarnation to practices in Waldorf schools. I gave you them. The NYT directly references the 7 year claim, and the other sources link reincarnation directly to practices in Waldorf schools. What more do you want? WP:RS does not mean an expert. WP:RS means published by an agency that fact checks. The NYT is incredibly well known for its fact-checking. As is the Atlantic. For instance, you already used the Atlantic elsewhere in the article! We don't need to prove that Steiner ever said it, we just need to prove that people believe that Waldorf schools use this ideology. I've done that.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Use of Ullrich's citation in claims

@Hgilbert:, I'm reverting your most recent edit. I just searched through the source you're citing in Ullrich, and I see no mention of Steiner's theories as closely following common sense theories proposed by Comenius and Pestalozzi. In fact, I see many sources saying the opposite is the case. I have a few sources that show that Steiner's theories ignore everything in Child Psychology since 1920, so the phrasing "since" seems incorrect. Can you give me a quote? --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The passage is quite clear: "Steiner’s pedagogics hold firmly to the principal perceptions of modern common sense educational theory since Comenius and Pestalozzi" (p. 10) HGilbert (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I do still think the use of since is misleading, but I'm willing to pick my battles. There's a lot of work in terms of creating a NPOV in this article, and this particular instance is not the most troublesome.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Merging of Theory and Practice

As far as I can tell, much of the ideas resident in the sections "Educational Theory" and "Educational Practice" are incredibly interrelated, if not the exact same. I'd like to embark on a small project to merge these two into a single section, "Educational Theory and Practice." The goal of this article should be to educate a layperson on the ideas inherent to Waldorf education and how the practice of education exists in Waldorf Schools. At the moment, I feel that is impeded by over-complication and overt verbosity. Thoughts? --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft of new Reception section

((I'm putting the current reception section here, and I'll be making periodic edits to a new draft, that I'll employ soon after as a whole.))--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Educational scholars

In 2000, educational scholar Heiner Ullrich wrote that intensive study of Steiner's pedagogy had been in progress in educational circles in Germany since about 1990 and that positions were "highly controversial: they range from enthusiastic support to destructive criticism." In 2008, the same scholar wrote that Waldorf schools have "not stirred comparable discussion or controversy....those interested in the Waldorf School today...generally tend to view this school form first and foremost as a representative of internationally recognized models of applied classic reform pedagogy" and that critics tend to focus on what they see as Steiner's "occult neo-mythology of education" and to fear the risks of indoctrination in a worldview school, but lose an "unprejudiced view of the varied practice of the Steiner schools."

Professor of Education Bruce Uhrmacher considers Steiner's view on education worthy of investigation for those seeking to improve public schooling, saying the approach serves as a reminder that "holistic education is rooted in a cosmology that posits a fundamental unity to the universe and as such ought to take into account interconnections among the purpose of schooling, the nature of the growing child, and the relationships between the human being and the universe at large", and that a curriculum need not be technocratic, but may equally well be arts-based.

Thomas Nielsen, an assistant professor at the University of Canberra's Education Department, considers the imaginative teaching approaches used in Waldorf education (drama, exploration, storytelling, routine, arts, discussion and empathy) to be effective stimulators of spiritual-aesthetic, intellectual and physical development and recommends these to mainstream educators. Andreas Schleicher, international coordinator of the PISA studies, commented on the "high degree of congruence between what the world demands of people, and what Waldorf schools develop in their pupils", placing a high value on creatively and productively applying knowledge to new realms. This enables "deep learning" that goes beyond studying for the next test. Deborah Meier, principal of Mission Hill School and MacArthur grant recipient, whilst having some "quibbles" about the Waldorf schools, stated: "The adults I know who have come out of Waldorf schools are extraordinary people. That education leaves a strong mark of thoroughness, carefulness, and thoughtfulness."

Professor of Comparative Education Hermann Röhrs describes Waldorf education as embodying original pedagogical ideas and presenting exemplary organizational capabilities.

Robert Peterkin, Director of the Urban Superintendents Program at Harvard's Graduate School of Education and former Superintendent of Milwaukee Public Schools during a period when Milwaukee funded a public Waldorf school, considers Waldorf education a "healing education" whose underlying principles are appropriate for educating all children.

Waldorf education has also been studied as an example of educational neuroscience ideas in practice.

References

Relationship with mainstream education

Further information: Studies of Waldorf education

A number of national, international and topic-based studies have been made of Waldorf education and its relationship with mainstream education. A UK Department for Education and Skills (DfES) report suggested that each type of school could learn from the other type's strengths: in particular, that state schools could benefit from Waldorf education's early introduction and approach to modern foreign languages; combination of block (class) and subject teaching for younger children; development of speaking and listening through an emphasis on oral work; good pacing of lessons through an emphasis on rhythm; emphasis on child development guiding the curriculum and examinations; approach to art and creativity; attention given to teachers’ reflective activity and heightened awareness (in collective child study for example); and collegial structure of leadership and management, including collegial study. Aspects of mainstream practice which could inform good practice in Waldorf schools included: management skills and ways of improving organizational and administrative efficiency; classroom management; work with secondary-school age children; and assessment and record keeping.

Professor of Education Elliot Eisner sees Waldorf education exemplifying embodied learning and fostering a more balanced educational approach than American public schools achieve. Ernest Boyer, former president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching commended the significant role the arts play throughout Waldorf education as a model for other schools to follow.

In 2000 American state and private schools were described as drawing on Waldorf education – "less in whole than in part" – in expanding numbers. Many elements of Waldorf pedagogy have been used in all Finnish schools for many years.

Spiritual and Religious Origins

References

Advert Tag

I just added the advert tag, which I probably should have done before. In concert with the NPOV, this article uses a host of advert-like terms. To quote a few things that I noticed to be advert like:

"imbue the child with a sense that the world is good" "beautiful" "true" etc.

These are not objective terms, and we cannot say that Steiner's worldview is an objective reality.

"Seating arrangements and class activities may be planned taking into account the temperaments of the students[53] but this is often not readily apparent to observers."

This sentence smacks of a defense of Waldorfian temperament-based seating, etc. Like something you would find on a Waldorf school website, not an encyclopedia.

"Letter grades are generally not given until students enter high school at 14–15 years,[56] as the educational emphasis is on children's holistic development, not solely their academic progress"

holistic development is a buzzword-phrase if I've ever heard one.

"Waldorf pedagogical theory considers that during the first years of life, children learn best by being immersed in an environment they can learn from through unselfconscious imitation"

What exactly does "unselfconscious imitation" mean? At the end of the day, I don't think these, and the other numerous examples of advert-like buzzword non-NPOV are the result of /bad faith/ but rather a misunderstanding of the nature of Wiki style :/ I'll be going through and attempting to fix this in the near future. If anyone else wants to help, just post here on what sections you'd like to focus on.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I have reason to believe that Shibbolethink is a sockpuppet for the banned User:Pete K. Same style, edits, personal comments. There was a poorly disguised attempt to make a few edits on other pages to establish himself as an editor and then he promptly turned to massive, single-purpose editing. I am reverting the banned user's edits. HGilbert (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't you think you should prove that first? His edits were of good quality. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Good quality? How so. First of all there were far too many wild claims.

• "Waldorf system has become a semi-official theory of education" in Europe?? Not true and uncited.
• Describing anthroposophy as "cyclical reincarnation, [[Anthroposophic medicine|pseudoscientific alternative medicine practices]], and the existence of an objective, intellectually comprehensible and accessible spiritual world"? Better to leave this as a link to a comprehensive article than pick out three random factors, one of which replaces a link to an article with a judgmental claim.
• "Rudolph Steiner believed that people experience a type of reincarnation every seven years" -- ridiculous claim unfounded by any reference to either Steiner's works or any authority on Steiner. (One newspaper article makes this mistaken claim.)

Etc.

Perhaps you could give an example of what you mean by an improvement in the article. HGilbert (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's why those edits were worth making:

1-this is a rephrasing of your previous statement, which said that the Waldorf system has been accepted widely in Europe. That's also an unsourced claim, and I simply rephrased it, knowing that there exists some talk of Waldorf being accepted and funded in Europe later on in the body. I made it NPOV.

2-These are elements of Anthroposophy which are important to the article. These are the three elements of the discipline which come in to play in Waldorf Schools. Notice how I didn't mention Biodynamic farming, etc? Because it wasn't relevant. These references are.

3-The reincarnation claim is sourced by 5 WP:RS articles on Waldorf Schools from newspapers and monthly magazines with wide readership, fact checking, and reputations for unbiased analysis. The Atlantic, The NYT, Salon, and The BBC all make mention of the role of reincarnation in Waldorf Education, and the first three reference the 7 years claim directly.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone, and I can prove it. This is a PROJECT of mine, it is not my single purpose in editing. You can see by my contributions and the relevant statistics that I'm editing many other articles as well, even while continuing this project. I posted about it in other Wikiprojects, I asked for help of other users, etc. I think what PeteK did is abhorrent and distasteful. If you disagree with my edits, improve the article by changing things to a wholly new state by going somewhere in the middle, don't just revert everything. I'm reverting your improper use of rollback, and reporting it. I don't speak like PeteK, I have used none of his tactics or w/e, I didn't even know PeteK existed til I read this article for the first time and saw the dispute! WP:PROVEIT. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna request some third parties from the relevant Wikiprojects above, and I'll post on noticeboards. If this keeps up, we can escalate to formal mediation.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to make changes in smaller ways, and you promptly reverted essentially every one. The ridiculous claim that Steiner believed in a seven-year reincarnation cycle is one example; see discussion above. If we could work together I would be happy. But that means working together, not just barreling through your own way. HGilbert (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I've actually kept many of your edits. See Talk:Waldorf_education#Use_of_Ullrich.27s_citation_in_claims for just one example. I also kept the way you revamped the Lead, and much of your phrasing in the Developmental Approach section. Re: the reincarnation claim, it's sourced!! I even gave you the alternative. If you can find sources refuting the 7 years claim, we'll just have to clarify it by saying that X, Y, and Z all have claimed this in their publications. The viewpoint about reincarnation's role EXISTS! It deserves mention. Above all, I'm interested in creating a NPOV in this article with most weight given to neutral statements, but proportional weight given to a small amount of positive promotional statements and negative critical statements. I'm also interested in working with you, but I'm not interested in allowing any soapboxing, biased POV, or sanitizing to occur. This article needs neutral third parties, desperately, and I'm one. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As the top of this talk page says, "Be Bold, but not reckless." I sincerely believe I am doing just that. Assume Good Faith, User:Hgilbert! :/ --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's how I found this article and started this project: I was sitting in my living room, having a conversation with a friend of mine from college about how he was raised in Waldorf Schools and attributes a lot of his eccentricities to the practices therein, and so I decided to look it up on Wiki, having never heard of the schools or of Steiner. What I found was an obvious promotional page, needing lots of love and attention. So I decided to devote a large portion of my free time to make this article NPOV. I have no dog in this fight, I have no relationship to Waldorf Schools or education, I only know this one person who's ever even gone to a Waldorf school, and even that was just until the second epoch. Pete K was clearly an activist editor, he published websites, all this other stuff elsewhere on the web and elsewhere in wikiland, all anti-Waldorf and particularly anti-Hgilbert. I have done none of that, I am not him, and I have no dog in the fight of this article. I'm purely interested in making it adhere to wiki standards.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Evidence

1. Shibbolethink has just over 500 edits. The first 125 or so were spaced out over several months and broadly over many articles. Then, over the last four days, he has made something like 375 edits, 90% of which have been on Waldorf education. This is a clear picture of a single-purpose editor, and a plausible picture of someone preparing a tapestry to hide their real interest.
2. He is personally aggressive in the same way that Pete K was: "Waldorf educaiton exists outside of your conception of reality, apparently."
3. Like Pete K, he systematically reverted every edit that in any way modified his additions or changes, failing to follow WP:BRD or to come to solutions on talk pages.
4. His edits from the beginning of this period do not sound like an editor with only 125 edits under his belt: referring to "mediation committee" and now to various Wikipedia committees he has apparently had no previous experience with.
5. He appeals, like Pete K, to a supposed conflict of interest on my part.
6. Pete K repeatedly threatened to return. This editor's behavior fits his in every respect and does not fit the behavior of a new editor with a casual interest in the theme. Nearly 400 edits in four days after an average of one a day from 3 December - 17 March?? Obviously this is the editor's real purpose. HGilbert (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed numerous other accounts as sockpuppets of this user. See [1], [2], [3]. I will prepare a Sockpuppet case, but this will take some time. HGilbert (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a by-the-by, all of those sockpuppet investigations of Pete K you mentioned are addressing anonymous IP addresses. So why am I, an autoconfirmed user, suspected by you?

ALSO, I just read over those sockpuppet reports again. Checkuser was never even involved! Not in any of them! It was declined in the first, and then never asked for in the 2nd and 3rd!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If you go through my edit history, you'll see there were several other times I was called a single purpose account, but for OTHER PURPOSES. Focusing on one group of articles or even one article for an extended period of time in one's history does not alone make one a single purpose account. Even while editing this page, and focusing here, I have edited numerous other pages.

The IPs I edit from tend to be in the 146.203.126.0 to 100 range or used to be in the 128.135.0.0-250 range. This is because I graduated from the University of Chicago last year and started attending the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Pete K has many websites that he used to use to attack Hgilbert, and others, in a pretty shitty way. The IP addresses of those pages, and the biographical information on those sites about Pete K, show that he and I are clearly completely unrelated people. You'll also see, if you go to those websites, that I have never posted there, there is no one resembling me on any other forums about Waldorf education or Anthroposophy. That is because I only found out that Waldorf education EXISTED by finding this ridiculously bad POV article here on Wiki.

I am a neutral third party, who only wants this article to adhere to wiki standards. If you go through my edit history on Waldorf education, you'll see that I made many edits, that could be construed as from BOTH sides. See here and here and here. To me, this entire sockpuppet charade seems like a tactic to prevent any editor who wants to fix up the POV issues on Waldorf Education from doing so. I would normally AGF, but in this case, I'm dumbfounded! --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm also gonna go through these point by point, to make this easier:

1-I edited many articles in that timeline, and in short stretches punctuated by when I had final and midterm exams to study for in my graduate school classes. I took on several projects, notably getting an article on a prominent facebook group deleted because I and many others thought it wasn't WP:Notable. 7 months of very diverse edits seems like a very long time investment for a sock puppet, and it completely is away from the pattern of this Pete K user. Also, I edit from completely different IPs, as stated above.

2-While that might have been an impolite statement, it does comport with the WP:COI you've previously been tagged with. I apologize for momentarily not assuming Good Faith. Perhaps you should do the same? I was asserting a very well sourced statement. It still is well sourced.

3-I DID follow BRD! I came here and talked about every change I was going to make, and all of the sources therein. You failed to respond with any counter-sources, so I reverted! That's the process.

4-You know, you're right. I had previously edited a lot from different IPs, and when I became an editor, I spent a lot of time reading policies instead of just diving into editing. That's probably why I had so few edits in my month or so. Doesn't mean I'm a sockpuppet. -__-

5-It's not a supposed conflict of interest, it's certified. See the relevant ArbCom decision. You aren't supposed to use Anthroposophists as sources, and yet you continue to do so.

6-You know, you're right, it's not just a casual interest. I was STRICKEN with how much this article violates every element of WP:NPOV, WP:ADVERT, WP:CONCISE, etc. etc. I started to read about the various ArbCom decisions, and started to suspect that the reason these policy violations continue is that many Anthroposophists have relied on other users avoiding the pages altogether. And perhaps, now, accusing them of being sockpuppets?

I asked for other users' help on several wikiprojects, notified prominent copy editors, and posted on several relevant noticeboards. None of that is at all similar to the behavior of the previously banned user in question. All we have alike is that Hgilbert doesn't like our edits. Otherwise, Pete K was abusive, insulted Hgilbert, posted about it on numerous other websites, etc. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah this user is definitely not a sockpuppet. After looking through his history, he has done many things other than edit this article. His edits to this article were constructive, and personally I think this article should have a topic ban re: Hgilbert, who clearly can't restrain himself from slanting the POV and publishing original research. Whitehat2009 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

...and where did you come from? o_O — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Whitehat2009 and I were both passionate about that AfD for CFWC, mostly because he and I had both encountered the Facebook page itself and remarked on its esoterica. I won't out him, etc, but he and I know each other in Meatspace, and he's worked on other nonwiki projects with me, some of which are mentioned on my user page. He probably found this article because we're friends on wikipedia and browse each other's contribs once in a while. NOTICE how Whitehat2009 has no edits at all in relation to Pete K. Probably because Pete K and I aren't related whatsoever. :P --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha. Okay, thanks. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah he doesn't really contribute on the English Wiki much. He's done a lot on the UChicago specific wiki, but I had to teach him sooo much about wiki markup.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring

From the end of Shibbolethink's large series of edits, there have been several full reverts of the material. Please do not escalate this into an edit war where folks have their participation restricted (or removed). Just because a particular user has not conducted three reverts, does not mean what is happening is not edit warring and will not be treated as such by drive by admins. There has been some good discussion on the talk page here, and articles can always get better (not just longer). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I would think that a series of explained and valid edits should not be reverted wholesale for literally no reason at all (other than an "I think this user is a sockpuppet" complaint coming from an editor with an established conflict of interest). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, But....the number of wholesale reverts by everyone is what's going to get someone sanctioned. The important point is to be clear, and explain anything large on the talk page. My overly quick scan of Shibbolethink's edits is that a lot of them are nit picky to the point of being filler, compared to some of the very real questions and suggestions that he/she's made for improving the article. It might have been best to not mix the copyedits with the substance edits quite so thoroughly. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

All of those edits are an attempt to bring this article to NPOV. If you want to see why individual small changes can become an overall NPOV problem, see this legal study at Harvard about this article.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

OK: let's see if we can make gradual changes. I have explained that significant parts of the new material are not justified by the citations. I will revert these and expect a discussion according to WP:BRD HGilbert (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You've attempted to explain but what you keep doing is removing well-sourced material without refuting the citations! We've had this discussion, and you've failed to provide WP:RS or quotes that show how material is refuted in the sources themselves.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What I think you should do, is make minor edits individually, instead of attempting to bundle minor edits with wholesale removal of well-sourced material. I won't revert edits that aren't removing that well-sourced material.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Dubious

Here are quotes from these sources verifying the claims that User:Hgilbert has marked as dubious:

• "It was also the method that contributed to Mr. Steiner's view of child development, which forms the basis of Waldorf education. He believed that people experience a type of reincarnation every seven years, beginning with the physical birth and ending at age 21, when the spirit of a human being is fully developed and continually reincarnated on earth. Certain subjects are taught at times that he thought best coincided with these changes."

• "He also points out that the ultimate goal of Anthroposophy is to lead children through the stages of reincarnation, which blurs the line between education and religion to an even greater extent. Nancy Frost*, a former Waldorf instructor, concurs: “I heard in a faculty meeting that there were many important souls waiting to reincarnate in this century and that they would only be able to do so if there were enough Waldorf schools,” she says. “By the end of the year I taught there I was completely convinced that Waldorf constituted a cultlike religious movement which concealed its true nature from prospective parents.”

• "That is because of the particular views of Rudolf Steiner, the intellectual father of Steiner schools. The Austrian-born occultist, who died in 1925, left a vast body of work covering everything from biodynamic farming to alternative medicine. It is known, collectively, as "anthroposophy". The SWSF's guidelines from 2011 said that schools using the Steiner name were obliged to prove "an anthroposophical impulse lies at the heart of planning for the school". Since 2013, this has been made vaguer: they now need a commitment to "the fundamental principles of Waldorf education". Those ideas are based in a belief in reincarnation. Pupils may not have been sold this creed, but Steiner was very strict that teachers were not supposed to pass them on to children - just to act on them."

• "At other times, spirit serves as a kind of internal clock that orders the way subjects are taught. As the the New York Times explained in 2000, "Steiner believed that people experience a type of reincarnation every seven years, beginning with the physical birth and ending at age 21, when the spirit of a human being is fully developed and continually reincarnated on earth." As a direct consequence, at traditional Waldorf schools, "certain subjects are taught at times that he thought best coincided with these changes." Students also remain with the same instructor for periods of about seven years, a technique known as "looping." A Steiner biographer notes that "it's not unusual for many parents sending their children to Steiner schools to be unaware of his occult philosophy." Some of the school's more unusual practices turn potential families away -- for instance, the fact that children aren't taught to read until second or third grade. Day to day, though, the esoteric influence at Waldorf schools is practically invisible."

That should be sufficient. See above as well, if you produce sources refuting the seven years claim, we can clarify the seven years claim by saying that prominent staff on these news sources have reported this fact, while scholars dispute it.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hgilbert: If I change the mentions to "The NYT, BBC, the Atlantic, and the Guardian have reported that Waldorf education systems...blah blah blah 7 years reincarnation etc." will you remove the dubious claims? Then we're making it directly about it being said elsewhere.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There should be no mention of seven-year reincarnation periods, at all. This is nonsense. The BBC and the Guardian say nothing about it. The Atlantic merely quotes the NYTimes. You have one poor source (a newspaper is not a quality source to report on a philosophical movement) to support an evidently nonsensical claim. Steiner's complete works are available online. Find even one mention of a seven-year reincarnation cycle either in them, or in any other source than the one NYTimes article (or someone quoting this), and the discussion is worth having. Otherwise the passage should simply go. HGilbert (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean, no mention, at all? The NYT directly says it. The BBC and the Guardian directly reference the connection between reincarnation periods and the curriculum. If Newspapers and periodicals aren't quality sources for philosophical movements, then why are they used so commonly across the entire wikipedia to do just that? Also, we're talking about Anthroposophy as a pseudoscience, not as a philosophical movement in this case. We already went all over about this over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skepticism#Waldorf_Education_and_Anthroposophy. Finally, Wikipedia IS NOT ABOUT PRIMARY SOURCES. This has also been talked about up and down several times over in that ArbCom decision from like 8 years ago. This is getting repetitive. If a number of prominent newspapers say something, it deserves to be on Wikipedia. That's the WP:RS policy. It's policy!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, @Hgilbert:, if you could refrain from editing inline my comments on this talk page, that would be greatly appreciated.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Thebee

Thebee, why are you reverting such absurdly minor edits? Templates in that format just LOOK better when they're at the top of a section. We already have inline "dubious" to make it clear which part is considered dubious. Could it be this is animosity in action?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

EPadmirateur

@EPadmirateur:, I reverted the most recent two of your edits, because they remove well-sourced material. You said "accuracy" in your edit summary, could you explain further what you mean by "accuracy?" We've had long conversations about this on the talk page. If we're going to change these references, it should be to clarify their nature as from several sources, and not the opinion of everyone in the field. To be clear, there was no WP:CONSENSUS about this issue, so the references shouldn't be removed until we reach one.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

There, User:EPadmirateur, now I've combined our diffs to reflect your style edits, but keep the facts that are directly sourced.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm striving for accuracy, too. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you explain how those WP:RS don't show the accurate nature of the reincarnation claim?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)