User talk:Clean Copy/Archive Waldorf project
Invitation to Join Waldorf Project
Dear HGilbert,
I am writing to invite you to join a project to revamp the Waldorf page and bring a close to the unending edit wars. With the help of unbiased administrators and Wikipedians, I hope to create a balanced article about Waldorf education with a balanced section on critical views. In my own view of this, the article will contain no outside links except to scholarly articles. The project participants, however, with the help of comment and input from unbiased Wikipedians, will make the final call on that.
We could use your expertise and experience in turning this into a Wiki page rather than a war zone.
Thanks for your consideration,
Wonderactivist 15:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Update on Waldorf Project
Dear HGilbert, I am sending each project member a copy of the note I am sending to the adminsitrators about our project. I remain very optimistic that this project can make a big difference in the quality of the Waldorf page as experienced by the Wiki reader. I am pasting the letter below my signature and invite feedback on my Talk. Wonderactivist 04:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Longhair and Cormaggio, Thank you immeasurably for your help with the Waldorf project so far. As you will note below, I am planning shortly to move the project pages to within alt ed - just want to clarify structure first. It is currently at User:Wonderactivist/Waldorf Project Team Page
With your admin experience, and the amount of back-n-forth this article has undergone - actually speeding up since the proposed project - I would like your opinion on strategies to manage the project if you should have time.
I see two major issues:
1 there are "sides" within the group instead of a single focus on creating a good article. While this is somewhat to be expected, I also expected a greater level of professionalism. Is there a known strategy to begin to turn this around?
2 Unbelievably, I think,we have actually reached almost a consensus on the Introduction. I would like to focus on this positive and if possible have it become a springboard for examining just one section at a time. 3 On the current project page, a format for the article has been proposed, while the person actually rewrote the whole article, I propose taking just the OUTLINE - the section names 0- and beginnning with agreeing upon the sections.
Other than the administrative questions, my project strategy will be to set up two pages within the alt ed project:
1 to lay out a structure - outline only - for the page 2 to finalize with formal agreement, the introduction. 3 ONLY begin work on the next section when we have agreed upon the above two, then moving just one section at a time.
My hope is that it will disarm the ongoing wars over fine points and pet projects.
What is your opinion?
And thank you from the bottom of my transplanted Texas heart! Wonderactivist 04:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Proposal at Waldorf Project
With advice from an admin, I have taken the next step in the Waldorf project and invite your opinions or alternative suggestions for a first formal proposal. In the face of the ongoing conflict it will be necessary to work especially hard toward NPOV and to establish groundrules before we can begin our real editing work. I invite you to be part of that process at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Waldorf_Project_Proposals Wonderactivist 14:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello Waldorf Project Team Members
I just wanted to let you know that two proposals have passed on the Waldorf project and two more - one based on Fergie's starting place - have been set out for discussion here. Feedback has been given that the project has been going slow. I apologize as I had hand surgery a week ago, but truly nothing should wait for one person. If we each check in once or twice a week, we should be able to get through the article in a month or two. I would appreciate your valuable insights on the proposals and timing. Wonderactivist 12:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Waldorf Edits In clicking around to user pages to send the note, I have seen that the edit wars are truly still raging - they just have moved from the Waldrof page to user pages. As a result, I do not advise speeding up this project - time will be well-spent hashing out the disagreements civilly, with the result being a better page for Wikipedia and its readers. The problem with this page, overall, has been each person's need to push their own agenda without taking time to consider other viewpoints. Please do not resume your edit wars on the page. Wonderactivist 12:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Waldorf_Project"
Mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
Hello HGilbert, I did go ahead and sign the mediation thing on the 11th and place the project on hold. Thanks for the note to besure I saw it in time. Please let me know if I should do anything else as I am not very familiar with the mediation process. Wonderactivist 13:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
|
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner.
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
|
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Wisdom
I'm wondering about the wisdom of adding brochure language to the Waldorf article at this time - as your last edit did. It's completely up to you, of course. I'll wait until you're done and review the damage. Pete K 03:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Information describing Waldorf education's pedagogical principles, as supported by cited authorities, is naturally appropriate, however. :) Hgilbert 13:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Here, let me hand you some more rope... Pete K 14:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
(When paying out rope, make sure it's not wrapped around your own neck. - Ancient Chinese saying) Hgilbert 16:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Pages
H,
I just happened on some of the Waldorf/Steiner pages that you have been involved with. I just wanted to say that my heart goes out to you and others dealing with this struggle.
--Daniel Birns
The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been issued at the above link. Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.
For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Request for opinion
I have answered your question by giving MHO on the talk page in the relevant section. Cheers Lethaniol 02:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Gymnasium
Do you have a source that the comparison between Waldorf students and the state school students was to the Gymnasium schools? Oppenheimer source dos not say this. Thanks Venado 17:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
New citations
Some more, seemingly problematic citations have been introduced to the anthroposophy article.
- Doyletics (sp?) seems to be a curious splinter group and surely not what we want to be citing here.
- Are Steiner citations allowed or not? They keep recurring but I thought we were avoiding these in favor of third-party sources. Hgilbert 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, use of the Doyletics website is questionable. The use made of the Steiner quotations seems Ok though, as I don't think they are controversial, at least in the sense that it is not controversial that he used the Michael metaphor in that way. Using them to illustrate the truth about the Archangel Michael would be a different story. My opinion might change if I looked the edit and what it is trying to show more closely. Fred Bauder 19:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Reopening of arbitration
I have reopened the arbitration case concerning this article for review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. Fred Bauder 15:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Reverting edits
Hi Hgilbert,
Have replied to your comments on my userpage, to try and keep the discussion in one place, hope that is okay. Cheers Lethaniol 16:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Small Correction
You revised a footnote today on the Waldorf education page. I think it is Joan Almon, not Joan Armon, but I didn't change it because I don't have access to the original and I could be wrong. MinorityView 00:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Armon is the correct spelling. Almon is a different Joan. Hgilbert 00:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The reviewing of the case has finished. You may view the decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
For now, I'll refrain from marking the couple dozen articles found under "Anthroposophists" for deletion, giving you a few weeks to work on the ones under "Anthroposophy." There are also quite a few articles on individual Waldorf schools that ought to be similarly noted: either source appropriately, in some reasonable time frame, or delete. If it takes "months" to clean up each one, obviously they do not belong here; there are obviously not enough credible sources, and you will wear yourself quite thin scrounging for them.DianaW 14:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Articles on schools do not need special references unless they go beyond purely factual information; the schools' websites or publicity material is sufficient for factual detail. Hgilbert 14:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The articles in question have been extensively worked through vis a vis sources. Hgilbert 16:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Waldorf education
You wrote
- Thank you for contributing to the Waldorf education page. We are under arbitration rulings requiring us to cite references for all material; do you have one for the comparison (which I find very apt) to Teilhard? If not, it probably qualifies as original research and should be dropped. Sorry... Hgilbert 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe the reference was from a little book called "Teilhard in the Ecological Age" by Thomas Berry, but I currently don't have my copy and so cannot check it out. I will do so as soon as I can.
Regards John D. Croft 22:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Waldorf education
You wrote on my talk page
We have had an Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education arbitration decision that excludes quotes from Steiner from the articles; third-party sources are preferred. I took out the quote from the Waldorf article and rearranged the order (from general to specific) of the reading discussion; hope this meets with your approval. Hgilbert (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I've read the Request for Arbitration page and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I think a distinction has to be made between using a partisan source or unreliable source - whether it's Steiner's teachings, Henderson's Flying Spaghetti Monster website, the Bible, the Little Red Book or Mein Kampf - as reference for what the source itself says as opposed to using it as a source of facts about something it discusses. For example the Bible is a source for Creation according to Genesis although it's not everybody's idea of a Reliable Source :-)
However I'll leave the article as you edited it. I know this article has been a bit of a battle-ground between pro- and anti- factions and I haven't the time, energy, knowledge and motivation to attempt to radically improve it (and I don't want to get involved in a flame-fest!).
all the best
--John Stumbles (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
And then there's also the small fact that the arbitration did *not* say that Steiner could not be quoted.DianaW (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm following-up to DianaW's comment on my own talk page --John Stumbles (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)