Talk:Studies of Waldorf education

No controversy?

The page seems too positive for a school that teaches that animals are the by-products of human development or that the lost continent of Atlantis really existed. Because I could not find what it is said about PISA test in the PISA web, some links are broken or don´t exist, and seeing that most links are from Waldorf sites, even those that are reference as indepedent pages, I suspect it needs a serious revision. I have tried to find independent studies about Waldorf education but it is taking me a great effort. If someone wants to help... --Lmalena (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There are very few studies comparing Waldorf and non-Waldorf systems; if you find any others, it would be great. But what could be more independent than the PISA results? Your not finding this study on the PISA website does not affect the validity of cited information (see below). Respected newspapers are WP:Reliable sources. HGilbert (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

PISA study apparently does not exist.--Lmalena (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

German study

Both references are from the same person and both are newspapers article. I don´t want to delete them because these horrible references are the best references in the article I have found so far. Can someone check for the actual study? --Lmalena (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Why remove studies?

Many studies were recently removed by an editor without explanation. Could you justify this? HGilbert (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I've updated a few dead links, thanks for spotting these.

I've also had time to look at the edit summaries. That you can't find a study on the DFES or PISA website is absolutely no justification for removing it (see Wikipedia:Offline sources). The citations, which are to reliable secondary sources, can be easily checked, and in any case Wikipedia prefers secondary to primary sources for such material. See WP:RS. HGilbert (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed them because they didn´t have valid references. The references about the PISA study where blogs (tertiary sources) and apparently, it doesn´t exist. Wikipedia prevents against tertiary sources --Lmalena (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The die Welt reference is to a newspaper article, not a blog. The other article is in a Waldorf journal, also not a blog, and is only used as a supplementary reference. HGilbert (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

PISA STUDY

PISA study is only referenced in Waldorf supporter pages, always with the exactly same words, with could indicate a hoax. It doesn´t exist in PISA webpage. If no one can found the original study, I suggest not mention it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmalena (talk • contribs) 01:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not true that the study was only referenced in such pages, as you know since you removed a citation to a mainstream newspaper, die Welt, which published a readily available article about the study. The fact that other webpages have drawn on this article clearly does not invalidate it as a source. See WP:RS. HGilbert (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

being in a mainstream newspaper does not confirm its existence. And I cannot check anything it says being in deutch and all. --Lmalena (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

With the help of google traslate, the article seems to be speaking about PISA studies in Finland, about an indepent study, an interview and an ongoing study in Germany. On going, as not finish when the note was written. The graphics is about Germany as a country, not about Waldorf schools.--Lmalena (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This was tidied up long ago: The original text of the 2006 study is cited in the relevant section. HGilbert (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

DFES citation broken

You've also made a mess of the DFES citation; could you fix this, please? HGilbert (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? If it is about the pdf, no, I already tried to find a webpage with the link and not a direct link to the pdf. --Lmalena (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggate Study

What I assume is part of (or a continuation of) the unpublished doctoral dissertation referenced as cite 4 was published in 2013 in Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Here's the citation and here is a pre-print copy of the paper. I assume the published paper is preferable to the unpublished dissertation for citation in the article, but I'd like someone else to chime in on whether the paper is sufficiently broad. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Tag

Are there other studies that should be included? Or why is this article tagged as unbalanced? (If it is because criticisms circulating in the press are not included, these are not studies.) Clean Copy^talk 02:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Avoid unclear references

"Studies have found" is not good language. The study was by whom? On a page listing studies this is simply not clear enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.64.28.44 (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Value of separate page?

It does not seem like there is enough content to justify separation from the main article. Most of the sections are only a couple of sentences. This should easily fit in the main article Philipwhiuk (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd check for agreement on the main article talk page first -- this ended up here because it was felt that it was too much detail for Waldorf education Clean Copy^talk 20:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)