Talk:PLANS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A formal Request for Mediation related to this article was filed with the Mediation Committee on 02:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC). Please see the discussion on the case's request page. All users involved in an issue undergoing mediation must agree to the mediation within seven days; please indicate your acceptance or denial of the mediation on the case's request page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the PLANS article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Archives
Jun–Sep 2006

Contents 1 Waldorf Master Teacher section 2 Suggested revision Master Teacher 3 Sources 4 Restatement of the passage re: PLANS concept of anthroposophy 5 "Resolving" disputes 6 Unprotecting the page 7 History section 8 Criticism section 9 Bad sources 10 New fact tags 11 More references provided: 12 Request for Mediation Tag 13 Latest Edit - Schwartz 14 Ercolano 15 Latest Edits - anthroposophy vs Anthroposophy 16 Unpublished sources again 17 editors illegitimately censoring the article 18 Pattern of disruptive edits 19 Suggestion 19.1 Some principal comments on personal attacks 20 A rewrite in the works 21 This article should be deleted entirely

[edit] Waldorf Master Teacher section

I think this section needs major revision. First of all, lengthy quotations are generally unsuitable for encyclopedia articles. Second, the transcript of this talk isn't very professional. There are numerous redactions where the actual spoken text is substituted with the transcriber's "summary". Third, the quoted section makes no mention of PLANS, and it's unclear to what degree the attribution to Dugan also applies to PLANS. It is out-of-context, so it's not even clear how Schwartz is in agreement with Dugan in this quote, because Schwartz describes that the religious references have been taken "out" of the public schools' Waldorf program, which undercuts the PLANS lawsuit charging the public schools with practicing religion.

The words of just one teacher taken from a poorly transcribed presentation don't deserve a section all to itself. Presuming Dugan is synonymous with PLANS to Schwartz in this talk, presentation could be referenced, but to make the point, I think a better quote to take from the lecture might be, "Dan has not created the problem: he is casting a harsh and terrible light on it--but he's not the cause. The cause is already there in the Waldorf movement. He's just bringing it, in the worst way possible, to consciousness." Professor marginalia 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have no problem substituting the portion of the lecture you have proposed. But the portion of the lecture that is quoted currently describes how Waldorf is indeed teaching religion to a great degree and this supports the need for the court action. The degree to which religious references have been taken out of the public school version of Waldorf is, of course, for the court to decide. They still pray, for example. Regarding the "words of one teacher", it must be noted that Eugene Schwarts was the head of teacher training for Waldorf schools in North America... not just a teacher... the teacher of teachers. What he had to say here was of significant importance and cost him his job. --Pete K 18:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the portion of the lecture describes a practice in a private school, not public school, and Schwartz is lamenting that the public Waldorf methods students won't participate in the religious experiences which are allowed in private school. In any case, this article is about PLANS, and Schwartz is contradicting PLANS's argument in this particular passage, which is fine, but the passage would belong then in the "criticism" section, instead of where it is now, trying to make the point about the value of PLANS as a "watchdog". Even then, it's still too lengthy. Professor marginalia 18:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand why this particular passage from Schwartz (recently reinserted) is being used to illustrate this "watchdog" thesis. When this speech was made, public schools had already been told by the private Waldorf school association (which owns the name) they would not have permission to call themselves "Waldorf". Nobody on the private Waldorf side would be "punished" for agreeing with this in an oral presentation. The public schools that call themselves Waldorf are ignoring the private Waldorf association's copyright.Professor marginalia 00:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the *trademark* (not copyright) of the Waldorf name? The name "Waldorf" belongs to AWSNA - that's Association of Waldorf Schools in North America. It doesn't designate it's association with schools as public or private. Your case, BTW, is easy to make now that you've deleted the context of the lecture. The issue was that Eugene Schwartz publicly declared that Anthroposophy is a religion and that Waldorf schools are religious schools - WHILE Waldorf was trying to make a case that Anthroposophy is NOT a religion. It was, indeed, on this that the PLANS case was based. That public Waldorf schools had the Anthroposophical trappings removed was very easy to dispute in court. The issue was whether those trappings, the presence and influence of Anthroposophy in public schools - especially in the curriculum - constituted a religious enterprise. Eugene Schwartz, through his wonderful honesty, put the Waldorf people in a bad way with regard to this court case - because they were lying through their teeth about Anthroposophy not being a religion - and he pointed that out and asked them to come clean. That's why Mr. Schwartz was demoted. But as long as you continue to remove the relevant portions of the lecture, nobody here will see this. I'm guessing I might add them back in soon. --Pete K 02:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't "remove" this particular passage. I shared my concern on the discussion page in order to give editors a chance to respond. You agreed to the replacement I made. AWSNA does not permit public schools to use the name "Waldorf". Public schools are precluded from calling themselves "Waldorf" schools. And at no point in this lecture does Schwartz ever say that anthroposophy is a religion. We can't go so far to try and "connect dots" and fortify evidence to key disputes with specifics that aren't actually in the sourced text. Professor marginalia 04:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous waste of time to argue with you over what you pretend not to know or see. I'm going to replace the entire passage as it was. The best way for people to determine what was said is to see the actual words. --Pete K 14:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I can read perfectly well.

1. The transcription has been redacted throughout, including right in the middle of this quoted passage. The transcription has many, many instances where the actual quoted statements are replaced with another individual's summaries, which leaves questions about the legitimacy of the transcription.
2. In what's left, the speaker is complaining that the public school child is not allowed to pray in the Waldorf school. That's why he doesn't want public schools calling themselves Waldorf schools. It is not such a radical view that he would be fired over this-it's the official policy of AWSNA that it will support only private schools and schools must be qualified by AWSNA to call themselves Waldorf.
3. The passage doesn't even talk about PLANS's value as a "watchdog" group. It's a weird non sequitur to put it here.
4. Lengthy quotes don't belong in encyclopedia articles
5. And now a further challenge has been raised that the whole thing looks like it is taken from an unpublished source.

Admin has cautioned that concerns should be brought to this talk page before making major changes. When I brought the concern here, you agreed to my proposed change before I made it. Professor marginalia 15:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you *can* read perfectly well, then you *should*. That you question the transcription is not a valid reason to remove the quote. The speaker is explaining that Waldorf schools are religious schools - that this is their intent, and he implies that this is what new Waldorf teachers are taught - by HIM. You apparently are unable to comprehend why his dismissal took place, despite having it explained to you, so there is little reason to accept your misunderstanding of what happened here. Regarding the term "watchdog" - that is a term that is a common description of groups that cast a "hard light" on other groups. Regarding the length of the quote - it is preferable to produce a lengthy quote that demonstrates the context of what is being said, rather than an abreviated quote that distorts what was said. What you stripped away left a tiny quote that led the way for others to wipe out the entire section completely. Not kosher. The significance of this lecture, by master Waldorf teacher Schwartz, is that it confirms the religious nature of Anthroposohy - which is the point of the PLANS lawsuit. That he was fired then, and that you are trying to revise history by deleting the lecture now, demonstrates how important this lecture was. --Pete K 16:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. The dispute is not over whether or not private Waldorf schools have prayers and other religious practices. In an article written by Dan Dugan, founder of PLANS, he quotes the brochure given to him by his own son's private school (published in 1981). The brochure says virtually the same thing Schwartz says.

The brochure: "Are the schools religious? In the sense of subscribing to the tenets of a particular denomination or sect, the answer is No. However, the schools are "religious in a higher sense of the word, and they are based on the Christian perspective of Western civilization".

Schwartz: "we are schools that inculcate religion in children. But it's a different kind of religion, because it leaves them free to find their own religious path or not. We have Waldorf graduates who are devoutly orthodox Jews, who are now sending their own children to my own third grade class; we have Waldorf graduates who are Islamic, one of whom in fact took the teacher training with me recently; Waldorf graduates who are atheists. That is fine--we are not trying to create one [kind?] of person; rather we are trying to open up the religious font that is the child's right as a human being."

PLANS goes farther than this by claiming that anthroposophy is itself a religion, and all its schools are sectarian. Schwartz does not say this in the lecture. Instead he goes on at length about the various religions represented in private Waldorf classrooms. PLANS says that public Waldorf schools cannot successfully separate themselves from religion. Schwartz has the opposite complaint, that the public schools cannot be Waldorf schools because they aren't allowed to have any religion. Here Schwartz confirms the religious aspect of private Waldorf schools, yes, but does not say anthroposophy itself is a religion. From what I understand, he was later fired as Director of the teacher program, but continued as a teacher there. There is probably more to the story, because PLANS decided not to have Schwartz testify, though for awhile they listed him as a witness. PLANS ended up having no witnesses at all, they needed witnesses and claimed during the trial itself they couldn't find any. Obviously, they didn't think Schwartz agrees with them about this as much as you seem to. Professor marginalia 18:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is my understanding that they called two witnesses that were on the defense's witness list - one of them was, as I recall, Betty Staley - another master Waldorf teacher. The judge would not allow them to call these witnesses because they were defense witnesses (Waldorf teachers actually make excellent witnesses FOR the PLANS case) but there is a problem with the date of the ruling - it is based on something that superceded the conditions at the time of the calling of the witnesses. This is what the appeal is about. What is "obvious" however, is that you haven't a clue why Eugene Schwartz wasn't called - or whether he will be on future witness lists, or whatever. All your comments above are speculative. I happen to agree with Schwartz, BTW, I don't believe Waldorf schools can work as Waldorf schools without Anthroposophy. And that is really the issue because public Waldorf schools do NOT toss out Anthroposophy, they simply try to disguise it. If you read the Sac Bee articles referenced, you will see that many of the teachers didn't agree with the "philosophy" - what philosophy are they talking about? Anthroposophy, of course. --Pete K 19:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding is incorrect. PLANS intended Schwartz to testify as an expert witness, listed him as such, and later withdrew him from the list. You are correct that I don't know why. I am correct that PLANS needed witnesses, desperately. They lost the case due to the fact they didn't have any.Professor marginalia 20:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the case is being appealed so I don't think it's fair to say they have lost yet. We should at least wait until the appeals process has been exhausted. --Pete K 18:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

She hasn't a clue why *any* witnesses were called or weren't called at the PLANS trial. She has lots of opinions, obviously, but often stumbles before the obvious. If you ask for her documentation as to her proposed explanations for *why* this or that person was called or not called to testify, added or removed from the list etc., you will find she comes up short. (It will prove to be stuff like Sune Nordwall came up with purporting to explain that Lisa Ercolano was promoted to VP for "promoting a conspiracy myth." This is accomplished by attempting to correlate something she wrote on some mailing list with the date it was announced she had become the vice-president of PLANS; that is "documentation" for why she was "promoted." Keep your day jobs!) Professor Margarinalia has no access to information on the PLANS legal strategy, and has no basis for expecting her opinions on it to influence the content of a wikipedia article.DianaW 01:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Prof Marginarlia wrote: "PLANS says that public Waldorf schools cannot successfully separate themselves from religion. Schwartz has the opposite complaint, that the public schools cannot be Waldorf schools because they aren't allowed to have any religion." This is a narrow view; these two complaints are not opposite, they are the same. Schwartz is saying that the religious component is *desirable* in a Waldorf school, that it is part of a Waldorf school's essential nature and original mission, and that to lose or eliminate the religious character of this type of education is undesirable. This is far from the "opposite" of the position PLANS takes. Schwartz is essentially bemoaning the prospect of a less-religious version of Waldorf taking form; he would prefer the schools maintain their essentially religious character and feels that without anthroposophy, Waldorf will not be Waldorf. PLANS quite agrees with Schwartz there.

Continuing to quote the Professor: "Here Schwartz confirms the religious aspect of private Waldorf schools, yes, but does not say anthroposophy itself is a religion." No, probably because he does not think so. That is not the same thing as saying that his words nevertheless confirm for First Amendment purposes the ineluctably religious character of Waldorf schools. "From what I understand, he was later fired as Director of the teacher program, but continued as a teacher there. There is probably more to the story," Ya think? "because PLANS decided not to have Schwartz testify, though for awhile they listed him as a witness. PLANS ended up having no witnesses at all, they needed witnesses and claimed during the trial itself they couldn't find any." LOL!! That's not exactly what happened, is it? "Obviously, they didn't think Schwartz agrees with them about this as much as you seem to." Or else, perhaps you don't understand the legal issues involved, as much as you think you seem to, or in fact have any clue why a particular witness would be included or excluded.DianaW 01:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested revision Master Teacher

I found a better source to present Schwartz's position. This one is published, and Schwartz is quoted directly. This resolves the ambiguities in the passage we've been talking about, and doesn't resort to lengthy unencyclopedic quoting.

Info is taken from the June 20, 2001 issue of Education Week, by David Ruezel. He uses the term "prominent teacher and lecturer", which may be more supportable than "Master Teacher" which infers it's an official title or award as it is in public education--if it is an official title, is there a source? Also this references an article written by Gary Lamb. Both should be listed in endnotes.

"There are Waldorf education supporters who agree with PLANS' insistence that Waldorf education does not belong in the government schools. Waldorf educator, Gary Lamb, argued in a 1994 article that independence from state control was one of the key tenets in Steiner's original vision for the Waldorf schools. He also argued that by bringing the methods to the public school system, Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner will be attacked in court rooms and in the media by fundamentalists and secular humanists applying their own interpretations of the spiritually-based philosophy, Anthroposophy, in order to challenge the constitutionality of public Waldorf methods education.

"Eugene Schwartz is a prominent teacher and author who started a controversy with remarks made in his 1999 speech delivered during a conference held at Sunbridge College, where he served as director of Waldorf teacher training. During the speech, Schwartz agreed with PLANS founder Dan Dugan, who was also in attendance, that Waldorf education could not properly be separated from Anthroposophy. In his view, though Waldorf education was not sectarian, it means to make everything sacramental, and Schwartz objected to those educators who would reject the movement's religious aspect to suit the requirements of public education. Schwartz was fired from the position shortly after, and in a later interview, claimed there were many other Waldorf teachers who agreed but were afraid to speak out. In the interview, Schwartz claimed private Waldorf schools endeavor to bring religious experiences to children, and insisted that public Waldorf methods schools were watered-down imitations of authentic Waldorf." Professor marginalia 17:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I rather like that quote. I wouldn't object to using it. Would you object to referencing the 1999 lecture itself where it is mentioned? --Pete K 17:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean link it? The lecture itself is copyright by Eugene Schwartz, which he sells: http://millennialchild.com/CD02.htm . I don't think it's okay to link it at wikipedia because it's a commercial webpage. The transcript linked earlier sure seems like it's probably an unauthorized 'bootleg', so it shouldn't be included either. Professor marginalia 20:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting doing anything illegal. I'm suggesting if it can be linked in a legitimate way we should of course be able to link it. I wouldn't suggest violating copyright, of course. --Pete K 22:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

It seems that a lot of the article's content has been taken from an open "discussion list", a practice which wikipedia generally frowns on. Many of the assertions here which I've tried verifying through web searches appear on the discussion list, but I've been unable to find any published confirmation elsewhere.

For example, the passage, "Of the 350 published works by Steiner, most of them transcripts of lectures, a number describe spiritual aspects of religious traditions, including Judaism, Christianity and Buddism. In one lecture series, 'The Fifth Gospel" Steiner describes events, that according to him are based on clairvoyant observations, and not described in the original four Gospels. Other books, lectures or lecture series by Steiner are "Christianity as Mystical Fact and the Mysteries of Antiquity",[13] "The Bible and Wisdom",[14] "The Apocalypse of St. John", "The Easter Festival in relation to the Mysteries",[15] "Esoteric Christianity and the mission of Christian Rosenkreutz",[16] and "The four Seasons and the Archangels'. PLANS claims these works are the foundation of Anthroposophy. "

References to these texts appear in the discussion list by various individuals, but not that I could find in any statement supposedly coming from PLANS. Even in those mentions I found, the texts were not described as "the foundation of Anthroposophy", and they were also not included in the court documents I looked at as evidence PLANS intended to use in their lawsuit. So I'm going to ask for a reference on that statement, and I think in we need to be careful that statements made on that discussion list are not mistakenly assumed to be a valid reference for claims here. Professor marginalia 21:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Many of these sources are listed here - on the PLANS website in an article by a PLANS member. [1] I can edit the list to this one if you like. --Pete K 23:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's very iffy to take a member's statements as proof of the organization's position. We need verificiation that this is PLANS position if the article is identifying the list as such. Professor marginalia 00:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

PLANS isn't the United Nations. It's a small group of people. If you like, I'll ask the secretary of PLANS, Dan Dugan, to drop by here and confirm or deny that this is the case. Fair enough? --Pete K 02:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Find a published source that reflects the statement here accurately-that "would work". Professor marginalia 03:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you playing games? If this link confirms the statement I tagged, I couldn't find evidence in it anywhere. I also couldn't find this list of texts mentioned, and I couldn't find any statement in the article suggesting the opinions in it belonged to PLANS instead of the author of the article. It comes out. Professor marginalia 04:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

See WP:Verifiability: "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." This applies to the Schwartz lecture, too, which is not a published source. Hgilbert 10:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not interested in your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Go look at the Steiner article - NOTHING has been verified - it's all interpretation by Steiner supporters. Look at the Waldorf Ed article - same thing. The author was on the BOARD OF DIRECTORS of PLANS. That pretty much makes them a spokesperson for PLANS. You guys are the ones playing games here. I'll keep putting it back in. And you guys know my tenacity. --Pete K 14:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I take this as admission that you have no other source except the article you supplied earlier--and that article does not mention the texts, period, let alone claim that PLANS considers them the "foundation of Anthroposophy". It doesn't mention PLANS. And I have not seen any documents to show the author, Lombard, was ever on the board of directors, including court documents where PLANS directors names were revealed in depositions and interrogatories. The whole pitch for this source is BS, start to finish. It comes out until someone can properly source the statement. Professor marginalia 15:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked you if Dan Dugan's own confirmation would be adequate to confirm this for you. You have not replied. Who, of the PLANS member list would you like to show up here to confirm that these works are the foundation of Anthroposophy, in their view? Just name a name. Yours is the course of bullshit, my friend - start to finish. PLANS has always been insistent on the fact that the foundation of Anthroposophy is esoteric Christianity and the publications by Steiner cited here are exactly the source for Steiner's esoteric Christianity - they are what puts esoteric Christianity in Anthroposophy. --Pete K 16:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did reply. Do you understand that wikipedia doesn't allow original research? That the operating rule is "verifiability" through legitimately published materials? You can't bring PLANS people here to write new arguments for this article. You have to find where PLANS people have published the information or statements or opinions. And the discussion list doesn't qualify at wikipedia (besides, I already mentioned that I couldn't find this list of "foundational" books claim supposedly coming from PLANS in the discussion list). The "esoteric Christianity" claim is often made by PLANS-that's sourced. But rest, with the book list etc, is an invention. By you? It doesn't appear anywhere, not even in the article you pretended here claims this, written by an author you pretended was a PLANS board member. Professor marginalia 17:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, so if PLANS makes the claim TODAY, I can insert this sentence TOMORROW. The source is PLANS. I'm thinking I don't get why you don't get this. So if a representative of PLANS comes here TODAY and makes this claim, it can serve a reference for TOMORROW. I mean, I get that you want to waste everyone's time here, but other than that, I don't get what you are saying. --Pete K 00:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you part of PLANS? Because this is weird. I ask for a fact check on a statement attributed to PLANS in the article, and first you offer bogus sources, then you propose to snap your fingers and voila, PLANS generates a statement TODAY that corresponds to what you want to say in this article?

Do you know what I'm thinking? I'm thinking, "why is this so hard?" "Why am I sent running round-and-round with faked sources." I'm thinking, "Why does it feel like this article is being deliberately subverted and sources distorted?" So to answer your question, I honestly can't say. If there isn't a prohibition against this in wikipedia, you're breaking new ground. And ruining wikipedia for everyone, because wikipedia will turn into nothing but a "free rent" website duplicating facts created "on demand". Wikipedia will collapse from the abuse of the self-serving propagandizing of its editors. Professor marginalia 01:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not affiliated with PLANS in any way. I participate on their discussion list sometimes. Here's the point - this article is about PLANS. It is here because someone thought it might be a good idea to have an article about PLANS. If you will follow the first few edits at the beginning of the article, you will see that this place became an extension of WaldorfAnswers, a website where slander and the defamation of PLANS is obviously the intention of the writer. PLANS, at one point, tagged the article for deletion, but the tag was removed almost instantly. I don't know how long this article was in that horrible state that but when I arrived here, I think it was in July, I was shocked at what was written here. There was stuff about PLANS being a "hate group" - and stuff about PLANS saying Waldorf practiced witchcraft, none of it true, of course, but this was supported by the same WaldorfAnswers person pushing his agenda - all, supposedly, within the Wikipedia guidelines. All the time I was editing the article, I was dealing with Waldorf fanatics working together to revert it - endlessly. It took a lot of time and effort for me to clean up this article so that it reads fairly neutral (you may not think so - I really don't know what you think).

So now, I'm going to fight to keep it neutral. Just yesterday, I had to remove the WaldorfAnswers guy's comments and links to his website - he drifted in without loggin in to hopefully fly under the radar. I'm quite tired of this edit war - but I'm sticking with it because if I don't, the article will end up being like it was before. Apparently Waldorf supporters have nothing better to do than to defame anyone who disagrees with them - and try to get Waldorf-critical editors kicked off this site. PLANS is one of their primary targets - and I am one of their primary targets. I personally think the article should stay locked up forever. Destroying PLANS in the eyes of the public is a major objective of some fanatics in the Waldorf movement, and they simply can't resist the temptation to get out their spray cans whenever they think nobody is looking. --Pete K 02:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"If there isn't a prohibition against this in wikipedia, you're breaking new ground. And ruining wikipedia for everyone, because wikipedia will turn into nothing but a "free rent" website duplicating facts created "on demand". Wikipedia will collapse from the abuse of the self-serving propagandizing of its editors." Well, I'd suggest to you that getting Mark Twain or Plato to say something to satisfy an editor might be a bit more difficult. So no, Wikipedia wouldn't collapse. If the article is unlocked, I'll change the wording to say something like "PLANS claims esoteric Christianity is at the foundation of Anthroposophy." Would that satisfy you? How about if I add "Indeed, Steiner wrote the following books:" and then list the books. How's that? It's not self-serving to get a truthful point across. --Pete K 02:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

On

If the article is unlocked, I'll change the wording to say something like "PLANS claims esoteric Christianity is at the foundation of Anthroposophy." Would that satisfy you? How about if I add "Indeed, Steiner wrote the following books:" and then list the books. How's that? It's not self-serving to get a truthful point across. --Pete K 02:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The books wrtten by Steiner are Volumes 1-28, found listed at http://www.rudolfsteinerweb.com/Rudolf_Steiner_Works.php Of the 28 books (some collections of articles, for the translation of most of them, see here) he wrote, only one mentions Christianity, and discusses Christianity in relation to the mysteries of Antiquity: Christianity As Mystical Fact and the Mysteries of Antiquity. But it does not mention "Esoteric Christianity" once according to a search of the work on the term. Neither does a search on all written works by Steiner, found ar RSArchive on "Esoteric Christianity" point to any mentioning of the term in one of them. The only search result mentioning "esoteric Christianity" - once - is an article on the personality of RS by Edouard Schuré. Using the written works by Steiner to prove PLANS' claim does not stand out as as a credible way, as one would have expected the term to have been used at least ... once?) in one of them. The problem is far more complex, to be possible to summarize with the simlified formula PLANS formula tries to use. And "Indeed" stands out as argumentative. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, stating facts, not argumentative articles for standpoints. --Thebee 15:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"The word "indeed" stands out as argumentative?DianaW 18:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done a search, so am not disputing Sune's claim. However, the terminology changes frequently, to reflect current sensibilities, and where Steiner used "occult" the term "esoteric" is now preferred. The terms have generally the same meaning but I think the publishers are now substituting "esoteric" because it is supposed to sound a little more high-brow, appeal to a more educated audience that would be embarrassed to be associated with "the occult" but thinks "esoteric" sounds more sophisticated. Perhaps what is available at the Steiner archive has not been "updated" in this fashion. I'm just speculating. I would suspect a search of the term "occult" would turn up a lot more than "esoteric." I do not know how in how many books or lectures Steiner used the phrase "esoteric Christianity." I know that anthroposophy is esoteric Christianity, whether or not Steiner himself used terms that, today, translate this way literally in English.DianaW 18:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's another source: [2] - But again, I think it would be much easier to simply have a PLANS representative arrive here and confirm this for you - IF you will accept that is confirmation of what PLANS believes to be true. --Pete K 17:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Another false source. These texts are not listed anywhere in the article...not once, neither are they described as "foundation of anthroposophy". Professor marginalia 17:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be much easier to simply have a PLANS representative arrive here and confirm this for you - IF you will accept that is confirmation of what PLANS believes to be true.

Any info gathered from such a discussion would be inadmissible by Wikipedia policies. There's no way to verify that a Wikipedia editor is who he says he is. — goethean ॐ 17:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not getting this at all... This is the Steiner material that represents Esoteric Christianity. I don't have to say "PLANS claims this is the foundation of Steiner's work" - it IS the foundation of his work. This is becoming more and more absurd. --Pete K 19:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is whether "PLANS claims these works are the foundation of anthroposophy", speaking of those seven or eight texts listed. I don't dispute the "esoteric" sentence, I dispute the rest of it. You don't get to say the texts are the foundation of anthroposophy, you don't get to say "PLANS claims these works are the foundation", you don't get to say anything unless the claim you make can be attributed to a legitimate source, already published. You're an editor, not an author who can contribute your own arguments. Get it yet? Professor marginalia 20:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

PLANS doesn't need to "claim" this, as if it were somehow in dispute - anthroposophists claim it. I have difficulty copying links right now or I would promptly supply this but you may verify it for yourself by going to the Steinerbooks.com. Click on Waldorf Education on the left, follow the arrows to "Foundations of Waldorf Education." This is a multi-volume series with this explicit title. All the books say this on the front cover. The Anthroposophic Press is the main supplier of books for the teacher training centers. It is Waldorf, and anthroposphy, that claims these books are the "foundation of Waldorf education."DianaW 21:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Another bogus reference. If the bogus references continue, it starts to look like vandalism. Not one of the texts that are listed in the passage currently under dispute is listed on the "Foundation of Waldorf Education" link. This is the third bogus reference offered so far to back up the same brief listed texts which PLANS supposedly "claims" are "foundation of anthroposophy". The article isn't about Waldorf and Anthropsophy, it's about PLANS. The sentence "PLANS claims" is IN the article, it's not sourced, and I'm under attack for arguing it should therefore removed. Now you attack me because "PLANS doesn't need to 'claim' this?" Am I left to guess whether this is an actual agreement on your part that the statement doesn't belong there then? Professor marginalia 21:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This was not a bogus reference. I directed you to the Steinerbooks web site - the anthroposophical press. The main anthroposophical publisher worldwide, at least in English. This you call a bogus reference? It is *anthroposophists* who claim it not PLANS. PLANS doesn't have to "take a position" on basic reality. It is like asking for a "reference" that "PLANS believes" that Rudolf Steiner is the founder of anthroposophy. Um . . . he *is* the founder of anthroposophy. He described anthroposophy as esoteric Christianity. You're not arguing in good faith - you understand what the basis of anthroposophy is as well as we do. Presumably this is merely an amusing way to waste everyone's time?70.20.234.16 01:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this Kafka? The books named in the article aren't mentioned on your detail-described link! The link doesn't describe claims by "PLANS", so regardless of whatever it says there it can't legitimately be attributed to PLANS! Upside-down, left-wise and right-wise, and backward, the reference is a dud. It's bogus.

I don't know how else to explain this. If this is an anthroposophy position, say so and offer a source. If this is Steiner's position, say so and offer a source. If this is PLANS position, then don't validate it with a list of very different texts attributed to completely different parties! Professor marginalia 02:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay - I should apologize for not having read all this closely enough before I jumped in. You're correct that I didn't give a page showing "PLANS claims" anything about that particular list of books. I (mistakenly) took the discussion to be about foundations of Waldorf rather than foundations of *anthroposophy*. (The Anthroposophic Press publishes a specific series of Steiner titles as "Foundations of Waldorf Education.") Of course, this makes the discussion even more absurd. You're literally disputing that esoteric Christianity is the foundation of anthroposophy? Why would PLANS need to "claim" this? Does PLANS have to "claim" that the sun comes up in the morning? Rudolf Steiner claims anthroposophy is esoteric Christianity, silly. To dispute a choice of 6 or 7 books to show this is absurd. Practically *every* book Steiner wrote, at least after a certain date, is esoteric Christianity. If it would make you happy to take out the statement that "PLANS claims" it why not take it out? There's neither any need for PLANS to "claim" this nor anything sacred about the particular titles Pete picked out; he was giving EXAMPLES. Practically any random collection of a half dozen Steiner titles would show the same thing. Pick one up and read a few paragraphs. Does, um, a title such as Christianity as Mystical Fact make an impression on you in this regard? What are the "Big Four" again, as designated by anthroposophists (not PLANS) -Philosophy of Freedom, Christianity as Mystical Fact, Knowledge of Higher Worlds, and Outline of Esoteric Science - right? Other than POF, written before Steiner began his in-depth spiritual research, these are works on esoteric Christianity. Each describes the spiritual evolution of humanity with the "Mystery of Golgotha" or "Christ Event" as the "turning point" in human history. That's esoteric Christianity.70.20.133.220 13:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So why not take out "PLANS claims these works are the foundation of Anthroposophy" and just say "These works are the foundation of Anthroposophy."70.20.133.220 13:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry once again that's me above, failing to log in.DianaW 14:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, this is getting us nowhere. I've restated the problem ad nauseum (including repeating it several times that I do not dispute PLANS believes A. is an "esoteric religon, I dispute the rest of the passage). The list of "Big Four" texts you've just given isn't the same as the one given in the article in the passage I've challenged. Is it? One title is close to a title given in the article, although in the article two titles seem to have been 'merged' into one.

We cannot say "these works are the foundation of anthroposophy" if most of the "works" listed aren't the right ones, and without a valid attribution beyond an editor say-so. Are you the same DianaW who is listed in the PLANS court documents as their board member? Professor marginalia 15:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in the list of books, and don't care which ones you include or don't include in this article. I already apologized for muddying the conversation by confusing the issue with "foundations of Waldorf education." I didn't read closely enough what you all were talking about. I think it's absurd to dispute whether anthroposophy is esoteric Christianity - of course it is. I don't really have time and doubt I will get around to a big dispute over this terminology, nor do I particularly care whether such a position is attributed to PLANS. I doubt PLANS cares either. I periodically show up at this discussion, on this article, to remove slander and make clear particularly to Sune Nordwall that such material will be rebutted very vigorously and in more than one public locale. No, I'm not a PLANS board member. I was, for a period of about a year, but am no longer on their board.DianaW 18:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think, by the way, that you will find anthroposophists disputing that those are the "Big Four." I am sure there would be consensus on listing these books as the foundation of anthroposophy. Sometimes there are arguments about whether POF really ought to count as anthroposophy, and I'm not clear on all those issues myself. Frankly, I don't think there's very wide disagreement that anthroposophy is esoteric Christianity. The only reason to publicly insist that it is some sort of generic, denominationally uncategorizable, don't-pin-a-label-on-us we're-spiritual-but-don't-call-us-a-religion is for the cynical purpose of pretending (in the US) that anthroposophy is "not a religion" so they can keep getting public funding for their schools.DianaW 18:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's one source that says one of the books listed is part of the "foundation" of Anthroposophy. [3] I'll find more sources or I'll revise the statement to say "esoteric Christianity - as represented by" and then list the texts. I have to say, however, that you have made it difficult by making up your own rule, apparently, that people who are members of PLANS cannot represent PLANS. --Pete K 00:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restatement of the passage re: PLANS concept of anthroposophy

The passage under dispute should be removed. It's wrong. It's not been verified despite many efforts to do so. The point to it is not very clear. It's a waste of time to keep trying to make it fit somehow.

The information here is taken straight from a PLANS court document and thus is probably the strongest published reference out there. The document was "Answer to Special Interrogatories", pages 3 and 4, prepared January 15, 2004, and signed by their attorney "under penalty of perjury". I propose the passage in the article regarding which texts are "foundations of anthroposophy" be completely removed, and the argument rewritten as follows:

"PLANS claims Anthroposophy has at its basis esoteric Christianity. In court documents, PLANS argued that Rudolf Steiner considered himself a Christian and that he considered Anthroposophy to be a Christian form of theosophy and Rosicrucianism. PLANS argued that Steiner himself described Anthroposophy as a training to access skills of psychic awareness latent in each human being, and argued that the discipline, 'spiritual science', is not a true science nor philosophy, but a theology. PLANS acknowledged that Steiner's supporters frequently concede the spiritual foundations of Anthroposophy and Waldorf education, but claimed they make a false distinction between 'spiritual' and 'religious'. It considered Anthroposophy as part of a New Age religious movement, characterized by its seekers' rejection of orthodoxy and creedal forms of religious expression in favor of a more eclectic and individualized path of spiritual-psychological transformation, a process which PLANS claimed to be generally acknowledged as 'religious experience'.

"PLANS wanted the court to agree that Waldorf methods schools lead students through New Age rituals and interpret them as 'religious' practices. It also wanted the court to agree that in the schools, Anthroposophy permeates every subject, and that the underlying theory of the education is based on theology, not philosophy. In order to do this, PLANS first needed to convince the court that Anthroposophy was a religion. This attempt was unsuccessful, and PLANS seeks to reverse the decision in appeals court."

The article itself has become repetitious in places and leaves a lot of gaps in others. I think that all the various edits have left this section very confused, and the points aren't very clear. Once we get the statements in it more accurate, then the section needs to be restructured so it makes more sense when you read it. Professor marginalia 17:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This part reads all right to me: "PLANS wanted the court to agree that Waldorf methods schools lead students through these eclectic New Agey rituals and interpret them as 'religious' practices. It also wanted the court to agree that Anthroposophy is inherent throughout the student's classwork, and that the underlying theory of the education was based on theology, not philosophy. In order to do this, PLANS first needed to convince the court that Anthroposophy was a religion (as the article points out, it wasn't successful)." - as long as it's clarified that the case is still being appealed. I think what you wrote there is a fair summary, maybe not perfect, but not too far off. I don't know if anthroposophy is "inherent throughout the student's classwork," but it's certain that many themes in the curriculum and many classroom activities are drawn from anthroposophy, and many of the schoolwide festivals are enactments of anthroposophic legends and rituals.DianaW 18:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. To keep the discussion from getting too big, I will edit the above rather than repeat it with edits. Editors can compare with diff if they wish. I'll replace "inherent" with "permeate". It's the verbiage used in the reference.Professor marginalia 19:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Resolving" disputes

The article is locked to prevent changes without first reaching a consensus. My first edit here was made only after getting agreement with an editor who arbitrarily reverted it, saying "it's a waste of time to argue". My second edit here was to tag a statement for its "source". The same editor offers a source that in no way whatsoever even addresses the disputed statement, not even remotely! A challenged statement should not be allowed at wikipedia without a legitimate source, thus I removed the statement, and the same editor gives an "I don't care about policy" rationale for putting it back, along with a promise to "keep putting it back in". There is no chance of consensus if editors are allowed to be fickle and arbitrarily reneg after agreeing, if they're allowed to provide illegitimate sources, and if they don't give a hoot about wikipedia policy. Professor marginalia 16:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Once it became clear to me that you are a meat-puppet, working with others here to push an agenda, I backed off my agreement. You, working as a team with others, remove a portion of an article, then another person sweeps in and removes another section, and before long, someone else sweeps in and deletes the entire section. This is organized disruption of the content of this article. That's not allowed here at Wikipedia. Your claim that illegitimate sources are provided falls on deaf ears when I have asked you repeatedly if the DIRECT source, the representatives of PLANS themselves could satisfy you of PLANS' position. You refuse to answer. You are just here to disrupt the article, and you brought your other meat puppets here with you to help. There is an unquestionable pattern forming here in this and other articles, of Anthroposophists and Waldorf supporters working in teams to prevent legitimate viewpoints from being presented. The article was very stable for a good period of time and read as an encyclopedia article should read - before your team showed up. Frankly, I think the entire article should be marked for deletion - but until that happens, these edit wars will continue as long as organized efforts by Waldorf people seek to discredit the work of PLANS and defame the participants of this lawsuit. Need I remind you of the "hate group" wars that one of your editors continued to rage here? This is childish and immoral on your part - please give it up. --Pete K 17:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not knowing what a "meat puppet" is, I looked it up on the urban dictionary. Two of the definitions are obscene, one definition given is "brainless" and the fourth given is "no mind of one's own". I don't see how it's possible to reach consensus when a single editor, who reacts irrationally to perfectly legitimate and rational challenges, promises continue paranoid "edit wars" and wastes editors time by providing bogus references as sources to backup statements which are questioned. Professor marginalia 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it is possible to reach consensus either. As long as you consider Wikipedia your playground for pushing a dishonest POV, there will be no agreement here. That you have the support of other like-minded fundamentalists is of no consequence. The information here will be an honest representation of the facts - not a smear campaign. There has been a lot of legitimate work done on this article to clean it up from it's previous defamatory POV - and you and your friends aren't going to revert it so easily. Again, I ask which representative of PLANS would you like to show up here to confirm what I have claimed is their position? I think that is a perfectly rational question. If you think presenting a challenge and not accepting the addressing that challenge is appropriate, maybe you should consider how rational your approach is. --Pete K 19:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A meatpuppet is when a Wikipedia editor has someone join Wikipedia or the sole purpose of buttressing the first person's arguments. I agree with Professor Marginalia that User:Pete_K's tactics are disruptive and detract from the project. — goethean ॐ 18:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was the first editor to raise the issues, and so far the only support I've received is agreement that all sources have to conform to wikipedia's guidelines. None of my edits were in any way, shape, or form "defamatory" to PLANS, they're not even negative, so Pete_K's attack on me is 100% phoney. Professor marginalia 20:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You can suggest this - but a quick look at the history of what happened disputes this. You all arrived at the same time - although I agree, somebody had to be first - after more than a week of no changes here. Then TheBee popped in without signing his name and predictably threw in his link to his defamatory website, then you removed a huge section of the article, others removed other huge sections and there it was - a buzzard-fest. It was dishonest and organized. Pretending that you're above this is what's 100% phoney. --Pete K 20:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I recommend other editors do "take a quick look at the history" before dealing with you. It explains a lot. I see that call yourself a "reformist" who founded "Waldorf School of the Oaks." Never heard of it. Neither has google. Or AWSNA. Is causing "dumbest ever" edit wars part of the "reformist" work you do? Professor marginalia 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep. The Waldorf school of the Oaks only lasted about four years and closed down more than 10 years ago. It was a Waldorf kindergarten and first grade. One of our teachers was Gail Blair (you may have heard of her). Are you suggesting I'm lying about this? My work as a reformist revolves around getting Waldorf to be honest and to stop working AGAINST and start working WITH people. The dishonesty of some people in Waldorf education is hurting the entire Waldorf movement. People look at Waldorf with suspicion. Eugene Schwartz saw this and I see it too - as do many Anthroposophists. This dishonesty has to stop. It wouldn't hurt if we started here. --Pete K 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Um... what "project" would that be? This is an article about PLANS, not a project to defame an organization you despise. Simply stating the facts is all that is necessary here. --Pete K 19:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the project of Wikipedia. — goethean ॐ 19:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting the page

It seems like we've reached agreement on changes to the "Master Teacher" section and the "foundation of anthroposophy" passage (see sections 14.1 and 15.1 above). What's next? Can the page be "unprotected" so the edits can be made? Professor marginalia 20:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was only speaking for myself - so I think we need others to weigh in on this - and on whether we have indeed reached an agreement on the "Master Teacher" section. --Pete K 22:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine, and thank you for doing it, professor marginalia.DianaW 02:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just copy edited the section on Schwartz a bit, and also changed the part about how Waldorf "means to make everything sacramental." That was a poor construction, so I went to Schwartz's speech to check for a better quote. I don't find anything about making everything sacramental in the speech. Seems better to quote directly so I added the part about giving children "religious experiences" and having them "learn about reverence."DianaW 20:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a few more (to me) fairly minor edits, and will check back in a day or two to see if anyone laid an egg when they saw it.DianaW 20:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't better to quote directly because the transcript isn't reliable, and it's not legitimately published. This has been discussed. The point Schwartz was making has also been heavily "distorted" because in the middle of this heavily redacted quotation, Schwartz talks about what goes on in the public Waldorf methods program. That part has been left out here--and in it Schwartz says that the public Waldorf methods program students do not get the experience his daughter is getting--that those children do not get the religious experience. That's why Schwartz objects to them. PLANS argued the exact opposite of this in the court room, so it's kind of a curious bit to leave out here. No? So that lengthy quoted section needs to come out. The phrase "religious experience" is ascribed to Schwartz in the published Edweek article, however he also does indeed say there, "make everything sacramental"--it's a direct quote from Schwartz. "Reverence" does not appear there, so I'd say if the term is used, the "quotes" need to come off.Professor marginalia 21:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

PeteK, your churlish and pointless interferences with legitimate edits in these articles needs to stop. It's as if the intention behind it is to deliberately make the article *more* academically sloppy, unreliable and amateurish rather than *less*. The need for the edit was described here last week, with no dissention expressed from you at all. I make the edit, and you revert. Editors have tried everything with you. In this case, I noted the need for the edit on the talk page, as recommended. Nothing. Others as well have tried reasoning, discussing, mediating, and collaborating via "wikipedia project", and you've rejected all of it. You've even reverted edits that you yourself *agreed* to before they were made. Either you decide you're going to start playing ball, or get off the damn court.

Schwartz did not use the term *reverence* in this article. He did use the phrase *make everything sacramental", which I written originally, in quotation marks, but which for some reason DianaW didn't like, preferring *reverence*. Fine, to me it's a minor distinction so long as the quotation marks aren't surrounding words different from those Schwartz actually said there. Since Schwartz didn't say the word *reverence* there, don't mislead readers here with the quotation mark. If you want to quote him, use the "make everything sacramental" which is what I had there before DianaW changed it. If you want *reverence*, take off the quotation marks. Professor marginalia 16:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I just took it out completely. It reads better anyway. Pete K 17:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You da man now <sarcasm>. Add this episode to your growing list of candidates for "stupidest edit war ever". Professor marginalia 23:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that as it stands, the transcript isn't ideal, and I apologize that I didn't fully take in the earlier discussions of this before I made the changes I made a week ago Friday. Perhaps the solution is to <sigh> shell out the seventeen dollars or whatever it is and buy the darn tape. Then, of course, it will become fully citable just as it was. (He does most definitely use the word "reverence" - it's hard for me to assume good faith on your part that you sincerely doubt this, professor; but I will try very hard). Then this lecture will be as citable as all these late-1990's articles from various local southern California newspapers (some of which sound like small community newspapers). Those dozens of news accounts that show PLANS disrupting many communities . . .DianaW 03:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does it sound like they're all discussing the same event? Pete K 03:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History section

I've added a good bit of detail to the history section. It's all sourced, and I've indicated those sources in those areas I understand or suspect most likely to be questioned. I don't think the section needs a reference on every single statement--that would compromise the readability, for one thing. So I haven't listed them all in laborious detail. However, I can provide these further sources if necessary on those facts or statements that others might have questions about.

There has been a lot of contention relating to this article among editors here. PLANS is an activist organization which has created a lot of controversy in some communities where it's challenged the Waldorf methods schools, and I think this provides a lot of the background to some of the controversy. PLANS brought together both secular/atheist activists and evangelical Christian activists. That odd alliance called for more background. PLANS has also been criticized by many educators, parents and others--for one thing, over some of their activist tactics. So the article needed some objective background related to that--to enable readers to understand where some of those disputes might have first come from. Professor marginalia 21:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with adding the history that you have added from the SacBee source articles is that much information supporting PLANS is also in those articles. If you add the bad stuff, I'll have to add in the good stuff and then we have what happened last time - the entire article quoted. Please re-think this and if you have to include this, just quote directly from the articles themselves. Pete K 00:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is not a board game, and the facts and sources in it aren't arbitrary artifacts to be traded between editors like baseball cards. The job of editors here is to use documents exactly such as these. There is "no trouble". It is also not the job of the editor to cut and paste quotes together rather than write the article. I've been completely fair in my copy: I cited the SacBee once in that entire section, and you object to it? All of the items I listed in that statement were in the SacBee's report. I believe every news account I've seen of the PLANS protest against the Oak Ridge school alluded to the furor over these kinds of allegations. That protest developed into the lawsuit, and was probably at least partly a factor influencing a conservative religious organization to financially back the suit. It's absurd to suggest this should be omitted from an article about PLANS, and there is nothing wrong with the source. It's as good as any you'll find. Professor marginalia 01:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear "Professor Marginalia" (anonymity is so nice, isn't it? - yet I have a hunch we are acquainted!) I am at least a week behind in following what is going on with this article, but if you don't mind my jumping in right here, you seem to be implying you've seen many, or at least a number of, news reports on the "PLANS protests" and on the controversy that supposedly PLANS has created in, you imply, a great many communities. (This is POV, of course; clearly, from another POV it is *Waldorf* that has created controversy in some communities. It is really very difficult to stir up communities against a school when parents are *happy* with the school.) What are all these other news sources you are referring to, that describe all these controversies PLANS has created, and what are your sources for all the criticism PLANS has so widely received?DianaW 22:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

God, I hope not. Are you trying to intimidate me? I've identified most references used in the article. I've read through probably two or three dozen articles all together. If you have questions about some statement of mine that doesn't have a reference, I'll provide it, but the article is going to be difficult to read if there are superscript footnotes numbers all over it. Professor marginalia 23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"God, I hope not." You hope you don't know me? You might want to refer to the "Be civil" policy here. You'll have to pardon me if I gave offense, I merely am curious whether you may in fact be someone I know. It is always friendlier to do these things on a first-name basis, I'm sure you'd agree. The "intimidation" remark is unintelligible, so I'll politely ignore it.DianaW 00:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of looking to me like all these many, many articles you've read on all the many, many communities that PLANS has stirred up trouble in come from a certain area in California in May and June of 1997. In other words, they all refer to the *same* controversy. But if you've read of several dozen such occasions where PLANS has disrupted entire peaceful communities, I'm sure you'll be popping those in here soon, too. It'll take me awhile, as I don't have handy access to hard copies of California newspapers from the late 1990s as you apparently do, but you know I can take this junk apart piece by piece. You might want to review the entire history here; Sune tried to get that "witchcraft" crap vetted here, with which I suspect you may also be familiar, and it didn't fly. It will be vigorously rebutted in detail every time - just another one of my "threats."DianaW 00:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't get you to identify any statements that you feel need to be verified. I'm defending parts I wrote and the reference sources I used, and you're attacking me for statements I haven't made. I assume you do want footnotes on all of it then. No problem. Professor marginalia 16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

I've also added to the criticism section. Again, it's all sourced. And again, I think this helps readers to understand the controversy better. None of the new material I've added comes from Anthroposophical or Waldorf education related printed sources, so it presents points of view gathered from numerous communities and individuals. I believe all of it has been drawn from published newspapers or court documents. The paragraph there originally has been reworded a bit, and I've tried to rearrange the issues to be somewhat chronological. Professor marginalia 22:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, "numerous communities" and individuals. In other words, Sacramento. All the new references are to Sacramento. Yeah - chronological. They cover about 4 weeks in May and June of 1997. I hope you've had fun, 'cus I'm on this now.DianaW 01:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad sources

The "Michaelmas" edit and revert points to a persistent problem I see happening in this article. Claims made there were initially marked with a 'citation tag'. And a Sharon Lombard article was offered (the same one I remember offered two or three other times in response to 'cit. tags'). And that article does not reflect in any way the statements made in this article. (Again, I remember this was the case the other two or three times this way.)

Why are so many bogus citations continually provided here that do not in any way verify the particular facts or claims given in the statements associated with them? Please STOP IT! This is totally unacceptable. And in this case, after providing the bogus cit., some editor seems to have add his or her own embellishments, further confusing the situation (in this case, the "for example, Michaelmas to Harvest Fair," and the 'key anthroposophical festival' etc. The Lombard article doesn't validate the statement. Lombard does not mention Michaelmas. Lombard does not discuss public Waldorf methods practices at all. And besides: the article doesn't have anything to do with PLANS. PLANS is not mentioned. The author does not put forth any claim to be speaking for PLANS. )

The footnote to the 'non-source' needs to come out, and I will replace it with the original cit. tag. The statements still need a legit citation.

And just underneath it, another bogus citation. Two false citations in a single paragraph. Rudolf Steiner obviously didn't confirm that there are prayers and Madonnas in the public Waldorf methods schools. Get real. I'm going to cit. tag that as well. Professor marginalia 22:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you have missed the point here. Verses are prayers - according to Steiner and the citation confirms this. Verses are STILL said in public Waldorf schools. I think by your reasoning, nothing of Steiner could exist in the public Waldorf schools - i.e. YOU are deciding this case. I'd like you to consider returning the reference or I'll do it myself. Thanks. Pete K 00:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

PeteK, no you're missing the point here. "Little Bo Peep" is not a prayer, though it is a verse. The fact check need there is for some source which describes the verse of the public school as really a prayer. A valid, published source, btw. Not Steiner--nowhere in Steiner will you find evidence of what goes on in the public schools. Please stop brushing off valid issues like this. Find a proper source, or take out the statement. Professor marginalia 01:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should provide a source that says "Little Bo Peep" is what they're saying in Charter schools. The very SacBee article you re-inserted described the morning verses as prayers as I recall. I'll have another look. Pete K 01:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is one of the SacBee references currently in the article that says the verses are prayers. Satisfied? [4]

Pete K 01:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Now you're catching on. That's what [fact] checks require, a valid source that actually verifies the statements attributed to it! It's not the Sacramento Bee, btw, but Sacramento News and Review--a different publication completely. Replace the citation there now with this one, and everything is kosher.

Now the other source you 'restored' needs a similar solution: a valid source that actually verifies the statements attributed to it. Not Lombard. The Lombard article does not, not that I can see. So the only options here are A) quote the passage where you believe Lombard validates the statement (I can't find it, maybe you can?) B) replace the Lombard cit. with a proper one or C) eliminate the statement. Professor marginalia 02:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'm catching on. You won't mind digging up a few published sources tomorrow will you? I think there are a few things in the article that need verification. Pete K 06:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to "dig up" any sources for the text I've uploaded. I sourced it first, before writing it. As editors properly should do. So drop the snarky tone, if you don't mind.

You won't mind identifying a source to replace the Lombard article, will you? The statement has been questioned by at least two editors now, and the Lombard article does not suffice without some kind of explanation. Professor marginalia 06:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana says: As I say I am way behind, and can't even figure out exactly what everyone has done. I must agree with you on the "Michaelmas" edit, I shouldn't have done that, I did not in fact check that the sources were still going to make sense, and they didn't. Everything you've said about the Lombard article makes good sense, and I went overboard, I really only meant to do a little copy editing that afternoon, but I got carried away and put my own opinions in, and you're correct they can't be sourced the way I left it. You're right that she neither speaks for PLANS nor mentions PLANS. I'll try to catch up soon to see what you've done.DianaW 22:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana, I produced a reference to a Waldorf charter school calendar that lists September 29th as "Dragon festival"... which proved the point, of course, that the Michaelmas festival was being disguised in charter schools. Pete K 16:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New fact tags

Editor PeteK has added three new tags to the short intro paragraph to this article. Starting with the first: a call for a fact reference to the two words "it campaigns" in describing the organization. Those two words have been in this article for 3 months or more, and only after I've included a somewhat comprehensive listing of the activities of this group, PeteK is challenging the phrase, "it campaigns". This list of activities includes delivering formal presentations, letter writing campaigns, making statements to news reporters, picketing of schools, leafletting, building coalitions with other organizations to advance their cause, issuing press releases, and targeting schools with lawsuits. Why do we need another source here? Seriously.

The second tag is attached to "The organization claims that Waldorf education has an occult spiritual basis". This claim appears in item #1 on the PLANS website page titled "concerns". The third cit tag in this paragraph also appears on that page in item #2. Let's not distract the reader by putting 5 footnotes in the very first 3 sentence paragraph, ok? And can't we expect editors to please supply a little of their "own" effort in this process? It takes practically none whatsoever in this case. Professor marginalia 07:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't you believe you need to support your statements? If you want to say PLANS "campaigns" - you need to find a source that says that. You really, in fact, should be supplying sources for everything that is said here. The notion that something has been in the article for three months - or three years for that matter, doesn't exclude it from a challenge of citation. I'm only getting started here I'm afraid. If you can't support the material, it has to come out. If I have to do it for my claims, you have to do it for yours. Let's not play games here - nobody gets a free ride in this article because it is hotly contested. Pete K 15:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write the statement. Here's a reference, "These sites are evidence that the informational campaign of PLANS has had some success." It comes from the PLANS website. Happy? And you're not playing games? I confess, I have my doubts about that. Professor marginalia 16:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Informational campaign" is not the same as "campaigning" - so no, that doesn't make me happy. Please show something that says PLANS is "campaignign" for anything - or change the claim. I don't have time for games - sorry. If we're going to challenge each other for every claim, then it is what it is. If it isn't a game for you, it isn't a game for me. My interest is challenging claims that aren't true or are implying something that isn't true. Yours seems to be challenging claims that you know are true in order to make busy work for me. Sune (TheBee) insists on trying to imply some reward was involved for Lisa E's activism. That's a lie - and I'll challenge it as well, despite that he has made a technically true statement. Pete K 17:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous. The word is fine. I didn't write it. I confirmed PLANS uses the term itself. I believe the editor who wrote it here consciously and deliberately adopted language from that website to satisfy earlier arguments on the language in the paragraph. This is a stupid, picauyne issue.

And each of fact checks I've requested have each pointed directly to statements in which bogus articles were offered to satisfy others' fact disputes. You've continually offered bogus references--if you don't want the "extra work", don't trivialize the articles here wikipedia by contributing text sources that do not support the facts given in the article. And if you're acknowledging that the Ercolano issue is technically true, I will remove the fact tag there. I was under the mistaken impression that you were challenging it, so I added the fact tag myself. I'll try to be more careful. Professor marginalia 18:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana adds: regarding: "And if you're acknowledging that the Ercolano issue is technically true, I will remove the fact tag there. I was under the mistaken impression that you were challenging it, so I added the fact tag myself." The nonsense that has been inserted regarding Lisa Ercolano is UTTER SLIME and should be removed immediately. There is NO CONCEIVABLE WAY to document such nonsense and NO WAY it belongs on wikipedia.DianaW 01:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Steiner says verses are prayers. That's not a "bogus" reference. It is a true and accurate reference that describes the complexity of the issue - that terminology is being used (as approved by Steiner) to confuse parents about the nature of the verses themselves - and I will add back the reference directly to Steiner in addition to the other reference that prayers are being said in charter schools. I will also add to the Ercolano statement to clarify that this had nothing to do with anything (not that I should have to). Again, that PLANS has campaigned for anything hasn't been shown. There was a very sensible suggestion a while back that someone representing PLANS views should provide the description for their organization. I think that makes sense since some editors here want to "charge" the opening paragraph with their POV. PLANS is an organization that represents a challenge to the separation of church and state issue claiming Waldorf charter schools have religious underpinnings. That's what it is. It's not a campaign, it doesn't (as previously was claimed) "lobby" for anything - it is an organization involved in a lawsuit. Pete K 18:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The claim made wasn't over whether verses are prayers in private Waldorf schools. Steiner only spoke about private schools. The claim made was that the public schools were changing a word here and there in prayers to meet constitutional requirements. With that source, you are attempting to prove another claim all together than the one in the statement.

I recall seeing other editors challenge your reference over this verses/prayers issue on the Waldorf education article. I suggest that you quote the text from the source before trying to say something about what Steiner had to say about prayers vs verses, because the suggestion made on the other board was that Steiner actually said the opposite in that book. And there has been a history here of offering sources that don't actually contain the claims attributed to them by some of the editors here.

Were you aware that the editor who first used the term "campaign" here has done much to defend PLANS' in at least two Waldorf related articles? I think that he's had very contentious arguments against the so-called Waldorf "supporters".Professor marginalia 19:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm reading this. What difference does it make who edited the article to use that word? We're not playing a team sport here. We are trying (at least I am) to accurately represent the truth. I didn't look at who used the term first, I only noticed that it isn't accurate. I think I am free to make claims and support them here, BTW, if they relate to the issues - which the prayer claim does. So again, I don't understand what you are getting at. Regarding the accuracy of the book I referenced, Faculty Meetings with Rudlof Steiner - if you are suggesting that what I claim is the opposite of what is in the book - why don't you read it for yourself on-line. It's available right here. AND, it has been on every teacher training book list I have ever seen. Pete K 19:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You: "I think that makes sense since some editors here want to "charge" the opening paragraph with their POV."

Me: "Were you aware that the editor who first used the term "campaign" here has done much to defend PLANS' in at least two Waldorf related articles? "

You: "What difference does it make who edited the article to use that word? "

Me: You thought it "made a difference", at least that's the factor you pointed to as you argued it should be changed.

I've discovered that a lot of what you share here doesn't check out. For the latest example, your claim "[Faculty meetings with Rudolf Steiner] has been on every teacher training book list I have ever seen." In the teacher training book list you linked in this article, this particular book does not appear there. So rather than simply assuring us that the book says what you say it does, why don't you do a little work and quote the passage here yourself, and make it easier for the editors of the article to assess these disputes and fact tags on these talk pages. Professor marginalia 04:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I think this is what we were talking about... from Faculty Meetings with Rudlolf Steiner - p60/61.

A teacher: "Wouldn't it be good if we had the children do a morning prayer?"

Dr. Steiner: "That is something we could do. I have already looked into it, and will have something to say about it tomorrow. We also need to speak about a prayer. I ask only one thing of you. You see, in such things everything depends upon the external appearances. Never call a verse a prayer, call it an opening verse before school. Avoid allowing anyone to hear you, as a faculty member, using the word "prayer." In doing that, you will have overcome a good part of the prejudice that this is an anthroposophical thing. Most of our sins we bring about through words."

And, in the future, I'll try to take my time when bringing references here - lest you confuse hurrying with inability to produce references. Pete K 00:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you mean you will try to take your time making 'edits' until you have the sources ready? So I won't confuse 'a delay' with 'inability' to produce references?

In comparing the statement above to the statement made in this article, some clarification may be in order also. The above indicates Steiner said, "Never call a verse a prayer, call it an opening verse before school." And this is the statement in the article it supposedly verified, "[In] both public and private Waldorf schools [...] children say morning verses addressing God that some (including Steiner) describe as prayers." Obviously, the two statements are opposite to one another, and besides-the wp article also says God was not in the public school verses. The reference contradicts the statement, the statement contradicts other statements in the article; it's a bit of a mishmash I think. Professor marginalia 21:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to confuse anything you like. Pete K 05:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"[In] both public and private Waldorf schools [...] children say morning verses addressing God" This is confirmed in the article. "that some (including Steiner) describe as prayers." This is confirmed by Steiner himself. It doesn't seem like a "mishmash" to me - it seems like a statement that is well referenced. Steiner acknowledged - even promoted the notion that the children should say prayers - but disguised the language to call them "verses". Those "verses" are being recited in public Waldorf schools today. No we should also point out here that Steiner *encouraged* teachers to disguise the nature of what they were having the children recite - even to the parents of the children - in order to avoid criticism. That's well documented in the quote you asked me to provide. Steiner's deception is also evident in how he asked teachers to deal with the question of children who he believed were "possessed" by demonic spirits. Here's a quote from the same source pp36-37:

"The girl L.K. in class 1...is one of those cases that are occurring more and more frequently where children are born and human forms exist which actually, with regard to the highest member the ego, are not human at all but are inhabited by beings who do not belong to the human race...They are very different from human beings where spiritual matters are concerned. For instance they can never memorise sentences, only words. I do not like speaking about these things, as there is considerable opposition about this. Just imagine what people would say if they heard that we are talking about human beings who are not human beings. Nevertheless these are facts. Furthermore, there would not be such a decline of culture if there were a strong enough feeling for the fact that some people, the ones who are particularly ruthless, are not human beings at all but demons in human form.

"But do not let us broadcast this. There is enough opposition already. Things like this give people a terrible shock. People were frightfully shocked when I had to say that a quite famous university professor with a great reputation had had a very short period between death and re-birth and was a re-incarnated negro scientist."But don"t let us publicise these things."

So it becomes clear that Steiner was at the bottom of some very deceptive practices back in the early Waldorf days, and these, of course, set a precident for the deceptive practices of Waldorf schools today - both private and public. That's why when parents are picketing outside a public Waldorf school claiming to be surprised at the strange practices that are taking place, the responsibility for that deception should be laid at Steiner's feet. Pete K 05:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My response:

• Please do not interrupt my statements to leave comments within. Add your own comments at the bottom.
• The purpose of the talk page is to communicate with other editors. I have no idea what this means, "And, in the future, I'll try to take my time when bringing references here - lest you confuse hurrying with inability to produce references." Could you clarify what you mean, please?
• Your elaborations make it clear this is really your thesis. You've taken many opportunities to assure everyone you have no connection to PLANS. But when you harken back to 1920 statements from the Austrian, Steiner, to assemble together Exhibit A/Exhibit B testimony or other smoking weapons of some organized conspiracy to violate the post 1960 ban on public school prayer in the US, you're conducting "original research" of your very own about the schools or Steiner. Your "original research" cannot be attributed to PLANS in this article. We need to remember the reference sources needed here are about what PLANS says, not sources of what Steiner said.Professor marginalia 18:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I added to the article a sourced statement about a PLANS's claim, one that makes a point similar to the one I think you were heading for. Professor marginalia 19:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added a fact tag to the statement, "According to PLANS, public Waldorf teachers are required in most cases to take Waldorf teacher training and to read works almost exclusively by Rudolf Steiner". The original reference there was to a Teacher's training reading list, with comments added by Dan Dugan. However, after reading so many of the PLANS court documents, its clear to me this reading list was not used in the public Waldorf methods teachers training program. With the court record contradicting the claim made in this article, I think a better reference needs to be found--one that doesn't involve guesswork about whether this is PLANS's claim about both private and public schools. Professor marginalia 19:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I find this amazing. Dan Dugan is a representative of PLANS - he is the secretary of PLANS. The reading list with HIS comments represents PLANS' *claim*. This claim has nothing to do with whether this is confirmed in the court documents or not. If PLANS makes this claim, and the souce verifies this, why in the world do you need a different source? Pete K 19:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The reading list is dated 93-94. The note from Dugan asserts the list was given to teacher trainees in 1993 and 1994, before PLANS was even formed, and before there was a public Waldorf methods training program. What needs to be confirmed is if PLANS said this about the public teachers requirements, not the private teachers. As PLANS very clearly knew from the court documents, the public teachers program was different and separate from the program for the private, independent school teachers. What is amazing is the way you react to every legitimate question raised here. You are using a source document that predates both the organization you claim wrote it, and predates the public teachers curriculum it supposedly represents, before there even was one. Professor marginalia 20:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter if the reading list pre-dates PLANS - PLANS makes the claim based on the list. All that is being stated here is that PLANS made the claim. Pete K 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it says this at all in the reference; you're simply implying more there than it says. Since it's amply clear from the court record that PLANS knows very well that reading list was not used in the public Waldorf teachers training and those materials are not required of them, it looks like we have two choices here. You can either reread the claim made on that link and determine for yourself that you're inferring more from it than it really says there, i.e. that this private school training curriculum is also required of the public teacher trainees, or you can pretend to yourself that's what it means nevertheless. If that's the conclusion you draw from the source, I will be forced to add to this section of the article facts from the court records showing PLANS knows this claim isn't true, and in fact made completely different arguments in court against the public teacher training, arguments which acknowledged the public training program to be considerably different. I'd lean toward giving PLANS the benefit of the doubt and conclude simply that your inference from that particular source is wrong, as opposed to concluding PLANS is knowingly misrepresenting the Waldorf methods teacher training requirements of public charter school teachers to the general public. And simply eliminate that claim that public school teachers are required to study those materials exclusively. Professor marginalia 00:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement contained in the reference says

"This text is evidence for my allegation that Waldorf "teacher training" is actually training for a religious missionary ministry rather than for teaching.

Note how some of the Anthroposophical content is disguised behind conventional course titles, e.g. Rudolf Steiner's biography as "History 102."

-Dan Dugan"

I think if Mr. Dugan wanted to retract that statement, he would be able to do so. I'll be glad to ask him for you. Pete K 01:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We've plowed that ground already. If you're going to be ringing up PLANS headquarters to summon from them newly minted documentary support for statements you'd like to make here, that's something serious enough that it should be brought to admins attention.

As discussed several times already, that list predates the public teacher training programs. The public teacher training programs do not have that requirement, and nevertheless, those graduates of the programs are employed in schools that PLANS has sued. I will edit the article reflect the ample rebutting evidence found throughout the lawsuit's court records. Professor marginalia 02:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Any biodynamic gardener will tell you - you have to plow the ground regularly. Besides being an author, I'm an engineer. I work with ANSI standards - some pre-date the companies I work for. The validity of those standards or the appropriateness of their use doesn't change with the age of the company (or industry - for that matter) that they apply to. The reading list pre-dates Waldorf charter schools, sure, but it doesn't mean the same reading list isn't used year after year. If you want to present a different list - you should. It doesn't invalidate this particular reading list, however. If the statement is about a "claim" and the person making that claim stands behind that claim, you have absolutely NO business taking that claim out.

I plan to meet with Eugene Schwartz in the next couple of weeks. I may certainly ask him about the material that is produced here as I am interested in accuracy, not a POV. If he shines any light on that information, it may indeed influence how I feel the information should be presented here. You should consider not babysitting your POV, and actually getting at what is being claimed by the actual people who have made the claims. These people are still alive - and the article is writing and re-writing itself day by day. The court case is still active and in appeals. The information in this article is going to change regularly. Pete K 14:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Geez, where do I start? I'm not an engineer, but even I know that both your attempt to use ANSI as an some kind of indication about Waldorf teacher requirments, and your depiction of the the ANSI standards as unchanging year after year is absolutely ridiculous. Even I know there is a steady stream of printed revisions to those standards that pour out of the institute month after month.

As to your planned "consultation" with Eugene Schwartz, keep in mind that any ideas that come to you from that proposed meeting would clearly be "original research" and thus could not be used in this article. You have difficulty with this rule, but it's nonnegotiable at wikipedia. Published sources are allowed, direct conversations are not. Professor marginalia 16:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This is incredible. Now you claim to know about ANSI standards - better than I know about them even though I work with them EVERY DAY? The ANSI standard I work with in engineering is ANSI Y14.5M - 1982. There have been no revisions since 1982... get it? The ANSI standard I work with in architecture for measuring square footage is ANSI Z765-1996. There have been no revisions since 1996. I think your challenge here is based on a rather naive understanding of ANSI standards - but this, of course, is not the subject.

Regarding my conversations with Eugene Schwartz, if they transpire, I didn't say I would quote him now did I? I said the conversations would help me understand his position more accurately and would perhaps affect what I DO quote and what I DO attribute to his point of view. I have no trouble understanding what Original Research is. Again, the people discussed in this article are ALIVE and are able to speak for themselves so that we can better understand what they have to say.

Regarding Dan Dugan's claim - here is his response (today) to the comments you have made:

PM:>I have added a fact tag to the statement, "According to PLANS, public >Waldorf teachers are required in most cases to take Waldorf teacher >training and to read works almost exclusively by Rudolf Steiner". The >original reference there was to a Teacher's training reading list, >with comments added by Dan Dugan. However, after reading so many of >the PLANS court documents, its clear to me this reading list was not >used in the public Waldorf methods teachers training program.

DD: That's irrelevant. The summer classes for public Waldorf teachers are a brief introduction. Public (charter and magnet) Waldorf schools, like any Waldorf schools, prefer to hire fully-trained teachers. That could be documented with reference to want-ads for teachers, if necessary.

PM:>With the >court record contradicting the claim made in this article, I think a >better reference needs to be found--one that doesn't involve guesswork >about whether this is PLANS's claim about both private and public >schools.

PM:> The reading list is dated 93-94. The note from Dugan asserts >the list was given to teacher trainees in 1993 and 1994, before PLANS >was even formed, and before there was a public Waldorf methods >training program. What needs to be confirmed is if PLANS said this >about the public teachers requirements, not the private teachers.

DD: Irrelevant--both take the same training at the same colleges.

PM:>As >PLANS very clearly knew from the court documents, the public teachers >program was different and separate from the program for the private, >independent school teachers. What is amazing is the way you react to >every legitimate question raised here. You are using a source document >that predates both the organization you claim wrote it, and predates >the public teachers curriculum it supposedly represents, before there >even was one. > PK:> No, it doesn't matter if the reading list pre-dates PLANS >- PLANS makes the claim based on the list. All that is being stated >here is that PLANS made the claim. > PM:> I disagree that it says this at all in the reference; >you're simply implying more there than it says. Since it's amply clear >from the court record that PLANS knows very well that reading list was >not used in the public Waldorf teachers training and those materials >are not required of them,

DD: That assertion is false. There is no evidence to indicate that teacher training curricula have changed substantially since those were published. Both private and public schools hire trained Waldorf teachers.

So there you have it. The claim is, indeed, what Dan Dugan claimed and continues to claim. It is absolutely relevant and the teacher training coursework of 1993 is as relevant to Dan Dugan and for similar reasons as ANSI standard Y14.5M (1982) is to me and the rest of the engineering world. Pete K 20:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. The thousands of google hits pointing to various new or proposed ANSI revisions and updates and accomodations to, say, the new EU standards and so forth threw me for a minute. ANSI hasn't changed a thing since 1982, it just tries to make itself look busy by generating the paperwork.

The footnote has been left in regardless of your feedback. It's an interesting report you say comes straight from PLANS itself, but such feedback cannot influence editorial decisions made here. If this message comes from Dugan himself, he must be unfamiliar with the evidence given in deposition testimony in this case. If public Waldorf methods teachers ever took the private Waldorf training, they cannot be discriminated against in hiring for that. The question I raised here is whether or not PLANS claimed this was "required" of the public school teachers, and whether they were taught through Steiner texts almost "exclusively"--those are claims attributed to PLANS here in this article. And those claims weren't borne out in the case of the two school districts PLANS sued. In the one school, federal moneys were dedicated to develop a special public teachers training program. Documents were presented showing how courses offered were carefully delineated between those in the private Waldorf training which would not be covered or paid for in the public teachers training course. In fact, when one witness (largely responsible for developing the training program) explained that the public teacher training curriculum was different than the private curriculum, PLANS own attorney said, "I think we can all concede to that opinion." Later, this attorney asked the witness about this particular booklist. The only book used in the public training program which appears on the '93-'94 booklist is Steiner's "Philosophy of Freedom". (Actually, that's an important fact to note in the article itself. I'll do so.) So when Dugan told you there is "no evidence" that the public training is much changed from that '93-94 booklist, he's demonstrating ignorance of the evidence actually presented in the PLANS court case. I've read these documents. Perhaps he hasn't. Professor marginalia 22:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"I see. The thousands of google hits pointing to various new or proposed ANSI revisions and updates and accomodations to, say, the new EU standards and so forth threw me for a minute. ANSI hasn't changed a thing since 1982, it just tries to make itself look busy by generating the paperwork." Some specs change - some don't. Is this really that hard to understand? It's like some things change about Waldorf, some don't. That you use google hits to argue with someone whose living is based on working with such standards is, again, amazing.

Regarding the rest of what you have said above - I really couldn't care less about who you belive is ignorant. The claim was made and stands to this day. Frankly, I don't believe there is a booklist that you can point to that represents ALL charter schools or one that you can say ALL charter school teachers work from. As Dan suggested, maybe it's best to see the help-wanted ads for charter Waldorf schools and see if they are looking for new teachers without Waldorf training that they can train in the right way for charter schools, or seasoned Waldorf teachers (maybe some as seasoned as 1993-1994). Pete K 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More references provided:

1. Ercolano was not VP of PLANS in Oct 2000, but was VP of PLANS by Dec 2000. Sources are the archives of the PLANS web site taken from those dates.
2. PLANS lawsuit intimidation to school boards: PLANS mission statement, item # 3, "Litigate against schools violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the US." In Dan Dugan's account of an appearance in one school board meeting (reported on the PLANS website): "I yelled out PLANS was going to sue the District if they had a Waldorf program anywhere. Schenirer asked the policeman to remove me. I walked out before he got to me." From assorted news accounts, "The school was at the center of a broiling controversy, one filled with charges--made by an out-of-town anti-Waldorf group--that the Waldorf method was a cult-created system that used public funds to secretly indoctrinate children in esoteric New Age spiritual hocus-pocus. So inflamatory was the rhetoric, and so scary the threat of lawsuits, that the trustees of the CUSD were frightened off and turned thumbs down the application for sponsorship." Another, "Plus, [PLANS] said they'd sue. That was enough for trustees who voted to toss the Waldorf folks." Professor marginalia 18:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am still far from caught up as to what is going on here, but the pure humor value of all this is just superb. Whoooooooo . . . we have dates for when Ercolano became VP of PLANS and we are trying to calim WHAT EXACTLY Ms. Marginalia? Please, do tell. You got a Sacramento-area newspaper article explaining the purported reasons Lisa Ercolano became VP of PLANS at a certain date? Now please, we are none of us this stupid.DianaW 23:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is very hard for some people to see such things as Dan Dugan being REMOVED BY A POLICEMAN for trying to make comments critical of Waldorf education - as somehow, some way, reflecting positively on Waldorf education - as you apparently earnestly seem to believe. Having the police remove a critical person is a good thing in your view? When one side in a controversy believes a school should be funded by taxpayer money, and another side wishes to present arguments to the contrary, believing that this is in violation of taxpayers' interests or a poor expenditure of taxpayers' money, is it your view that the latter person needs to be removed from the room by force? That this is a good time to call the police? What are your views here? Do you believe that Dan Dugan was doing something that warranted police intervention? Please - do clarify for us who Schenirer is, and why he asked for a policeman to remove Dan Dugan. Is Dan, in your view, a dangerous person?DianaW 23:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation Tag

I have no idea why Sune has replaced the Request for Mediation tag on this talk page. The mediation request failed. Why does this page need this tag at this point? I really don't care but I'm always suspicious of Sune's motives since they almost always tend to have some twisted logic behind them. Pete K 01:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest Edit - Schwartz

"In his speech he exemplified this with the way the origin and dramatic history of the Jews is taught in grade three in independent Waldorf schools and the way the morning verse in his view should be said as a prayer, in contrast to the morning verse said in public Waldorf methods schools, changed not to violate the U.S. Constitution on the separation between church and state." I'm inclined to put a {citation needed} tag on this new addition - in fact I will. I don't believe this is covered by the reference at the end of the paragraph. Can anyone produce the text of the reference? Pete K 23:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's important to note here that you yourself have attempted to quote passages from this speech several times, text you drew (and further edited) from a bootlegged, amateurish transcript taken of it, as well as link the transcript here. As far as I know, there are no authorized transcripts published or available, and to spare the editors here another 16 rounds of ear-biting, kidney punching, and wheel spinning over what was supposedly really said in the speech, I think it would be wise for editors to focus on other reference sources altogether. Professor marginalia 15:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

IOW, we can remove this recently-added comment? Thanks! Pete K 16:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete K, remove the new fact tag already. The quotes are taken from the article that's already been footnoted once, okay? You don't need two footnotes in a row pointing to the same reference source in a single paragraph. I've described at least three times now in the talk page about the "the make everything sacramental" quote. This is getting ridiculous. Professor marginalia 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The source you provided doesn't link to anything. How is anyone supposed to know what it says? I'll check the original document from the PLANS page and see if it says anything about this. If you have a link to the resource you provided, please include it. Thanks. Pete K 20:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not the sources used in articles at wikipedia aren't always available via public links on the internet. This article is available on the internet but only with paid subscription, and there is a rule against linking to subscription only websites from wikipedia. But by all means, check it-your library will probably have the necessary access rights so you don't have to pay anything. I don't invent quotes, for godsakes. Professor marginalia 21:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will check it out. I understand sources aren't always available to links on the internet, however, it this article in particular, a lot of claims have been made that simply aren't true. That's why I feel it is important for each of us to check each other's sources particularly carefully. Pete K 22:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, the source I have doesn't say anything about "making everything sacramental". What it says is this:

"That's why I send her to a Waldorf school. She can have a religious experience. A religious experience. I'll say it again: I send my daughter to a Waldorf school so that she can have a religious experience. So that she learns something about reverence. So that she learns something about respecting a higher being. If she didn't learn that, she'd be out the door in a minute. I don't want her to go to a school that calls itself Waldorf, and denies her a religious experience."

Can we agree on that wording? Pete K 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't mince any words here. It is an absolute lie to say that the text you've just "quoted" actually appears in the article. I don't know where the hell you got that, but it wasn't from the real article. If you continue to profess otherwise, I will escallate--this time you've gone too far, and there has been too much monkey business from you already. Professor marginalia 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem a little irritable today. I NEVER lie. Above, you state "I don't invent quotes, for godsakes" - yet you apparently have no problem suggesting that I do. I might remind you to assume good faith (this appears to be at least the second time someone here has had to ask you to do this today). The text I quoted is from the source that was quoted here originally - the ACTUAL lecture given by Eugene Schwartz. It is available on the PLANS website. Here's the link to the transcript of the lecture. As I said above, I don't have access to the article you have substituted for the actual lecture. I find it incredible that you chastise me for not providing a quote from the article that I have said I cannot access. I provided a quote from the ACTUAL LECTURE that the article you provided talks about. If that represents "monkey business" to you, then there's little I can do about this... I suppose it's a case of monkey see, monkey do. Pete K 00:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't say you were talking about an altogether different text than the source used in this article. You have a fact check on my statements. I gave it to you. You want to read it for yourself, buy a subscription, or go to the library. We've gone 10 rounds on your new "source" already. The reasons it is an unsuitable "source" have been listed on this talk page many times, and I won't repeat them again and again. Editors are limited to published sources, and the transcript you point to doesn't qualify. After limiting ourselves to published sources, the editors here can decide how to word it. But forget that transcript, it doesn't qualify. Professor marginalia 00:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand. This must be very frustrating for you. I checked my source, the ACTUAL LECTURE to verify what you claim. It's not there. So, if it isn't in the actual lecture, then who really cares if it's in an article that describes the ACTUAL LECTURE. Well, apparently, you do... but really, why point to an article that makes claims about a lecture that are untrue? I haven't suggested referencing the ACTUAL LECTURE in this article, but I see nothing wrong with having a look at the ACTUAL LECTURE to determine if claims made by the article you have produced are factual or not. In this case, you have an article that makes claims about the ACTUAL LECTURE that are not supported by the ACTUAL LECTURE itself. So once again, we have an attempt to circumvent the truth, it appears. And that's the part that is very frustrating for me. Pete K 01:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The statement was made by Schwartz to the reporter interviewing him about his speech. The quote is taken directly from Schwartz in his conversation with the reporter, and isn't a literal quote taken from the speech itself. I have rearranged the section to make this distinction clearer, and removed the fact tag since the reference source is already footnoted in the article. The "religious experience" term is repeated in the reference source, but in the article here it's represented as coming from the lecture, so I will remove the quotation marks around the term in that instance. Again, unless we find a legit published transcript, we can't print direct quotes from the speech at wikipedia. Professor marginalia 01:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's much better... now you're learning. I'll talk with Eugene Schwartz and see if I can get him to release permission to use the actual text of the lecture here. Pete K 19:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ercolano

"A 1999 press release put forth by PLANS' financial supporter, the legal defense organization, Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), claimed there is a (secret) agenda in Waldorf education to train the pupils at Waldorf schools to become the future leaders of the world. The following year, a journalist from Baltimore, Lisa Ercolano, continued to cultivate the claim on the PLANS mailing list in cooperation with Dan Dugan. This claim has since been repeated by others at least as recently as April 2003. Ercolano was made Vice President of PLANS in late 2000." A serious weasel going on here! Either make a claim you can stand behind, and document, or delete this sly and stupid insinuation. Somebody here likes the word "stupid" a lot. Well, this is stupid, kids. No one with half a brain believes you have any kind of intelligent point to make, tho it's oh so clever to imply that the "cultivation" of a particular "claim" Lisa once made on a mailing list is the reason she became the vice president of the organization. I mean, she probably claimed a lot of other things, too; shall we dig up everything Lisa Ercolano may have said publicly in 2000, and argue about *which* of her claims resulted in her becoming vice president of their organization? Maybe she became VP in late 2000 because she complimented Deby Snell's hair style, for all you know. I always send Dan cookies for Christmas, myself, but maybe Lisa sends him better ones. If you haven't documentation for who became a member or an officer or whatever at a particular time, you need to remove idiotic and slanderous insinuations. CAN IT GET ANY STUPIDER?DianaW 01:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that this particular argument is simply moving from page to page. When these folks are challenged to document this, they simply go silent, and begin the discussion on one of the other Steiner/Waldorf-related pages. Sune Nordwall was challenged more than a week ago to provide some documentation for this little piece of dirt, and quit replying to the discussion.DianaW 01:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana, I recommend just going in and removing it. Let someone justify putting it back in. It's nonsense, of course, but until it is taken out, nobody has to do anything - and it just stays (like the black chalkboard picture on the Steiner page I suggested removing two weeks ago). You're an editor and are free to edit it out... OR... if you don't want to be as brash as me, one solution would be to separate the claims so they don't "look" like they're related. Maybe simply state at the top of the page that Lisa Ercolano is PLANS president and Dan is Secretary. If an editor wants to reconnect the statements, they will have to justify why they need to be connected. Just a thought. Pete K 02:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did that. I just put in the organizational chart. I hadn't studied the paragraph with this mysterious "cultivating world leaders" material previously, but realized in doing so that it was only there for the purpose of setting up this contrived crap with a sneaky implication that no one is even bothering to pretend they can document any other way.DianaW 02:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm repairing the material below, which somebody seems to have decided would read better (not) if all the entries were run in together.DianaW 02:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's some material of interest from the discussion page for the failed mediation effort for this and other Steiner-related articles. This pertains to the scurrilous material on Lisa Ercolano, and documents my attempt to even dislodge a response on these questions from Sune Nordwall (who is the source of these allegations):

I’ve also long been curious about the claims about Lisa. It all sounds very shady, the way you describe it, but I’m sure a lot of people wonder just what you’re implying. Your theory that she was sort of “promoted” because she “cultivated a myth” is intriguing. This is, of course, your speculation. Probably from comparing statistics from some mailing lists again? Unless you have some documentation? Do you have access to internal memos from PLANS explaining who decided Lisa should be vice president and why? Did Lisa tell you something like this? Can you document this? We might note that where the “world conspiracy” or “anthroposophists want to rule the world” thing is concerned, there was for a time a contributor to the WC mailing list named Michael Kopp who said things along these lines – that anthroposophists were scheming for greater influence etc. I notice you never link to him, however. I wonder if it’s because he’s not only not a member of PLANS, he’s a strong critic *of* PLANS, and thinks they're too soft on anthroposophists. He’s actually banned from their mailing list (generally for insulting anthroposophists). This is inconvenient for your characterization of PLANS as a “hate group.”DianaW 02:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to be too pushy but any chance you're going to reply with the requested documentation, Sune? How many times now? Where are the alleged statements from PLANS about anthroposophy aspiring to world domination? Where is the material documenting why Lisa became vice president of PLANS, confirming your theory that it was because she "cultivated a myth about a world conspiracy"? Where is the evidence that Dan somehow coerced someone at PJI to believe something about a world conspiracy? Remember now - your "witchcraft" story is dead in the water - last time we discussed it, you quit replying after I pointed out that the news article you had supplied supposedly showing PLANS charged somebody with witchcraft, contained absolutely no mention of PLANS charging anyone with witchcraft - not even a second-hand claim of such, let alone a corroborating statement from PLANS.DianaW 14:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Five postings in a row. Not bad. Do you expect me to keep up with this? --Thebee 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was 20 October. Nothing so far as of 31 October!DianaW 02:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"It's very iffy to take a member's statements as proof of the organization's position. We need verificiation that this is PLANS position if the article is identifying the list as such." Professor marginalia 00:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Even iffier, then, to use someone's statements on a mailing list as evidence of why they became a member or officer of the organization, in the absence of any statements or evidence to that effect.DianaW 12:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, do not take my comments out of context and relocate them to showboat in some kind of strawman debate with me. This section is about the Schwartz passage. You have brought an altogether unrelated debate here and juxtaposed it with statements I made in yet a third discussion! The Lisa Ercolano discussion was underway in the "criticism" section. I did not contribute statements regarding Ercolano, and I have not verified anything in it except to verify when she became VP. All I did was edit the paragraph to make it a little more readable. PeteK put a fact tag on it, and I left his fact tag there until he indicated on this talk page that he agreed the statements in it were true. I think he objected to the "innuendo", but indicated the facts were accurate. You don't put a fact tag on a statement you know to be true, so I took the fact tag back off. I did not take this information from any mailing list. It was already in the article. I am separating the Ercolano discussion from the Schwartz discussion--they have nothing to do with each other. And stop misrepresenting me. Professor marginalia 19:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has misrepresented you. Calm down. The above strikes me as borderline "uncivil," as does your initial suggestion that I was "intimidating" you when I asked if I know you. Moving comments is not against any wikipedia policies that I'm aware of - it is sometimes desirable in order to revive a past discussion, or connect it to later points. (And I *copied* it, I didn't cut and move it.) Many parts of the article or discussion relate to other parts, and you're violating "assume good faith" if you assume I've done it on purpose to misrepresent you in some way. I haven't. I'm pointing out that the same principles need to be applied to various parts of the article. There's been great concern here to make sure PLANS' positions and statements are accurately sourced - a concern which I share. I'm pointing out that the material in this article concerning Lisa Ercolano fell miserably short of this reasonable standard - it's speculation, innuendo, and "weaseling" (placing unrelated facts close to one another, hoping the reader will suspect a connection when there isn't one). I didn't accuse you of writing the material on Lisa Ercolano, or caring about it. The article is a collaborative endeavor, and its parts interrelate.DianaW 21:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Use your own words to make your own points. Don't help yourself to mine. Whether you meant to or not, your use of my statement here "sets me up" as a party to this, and insinuates I've a double-standard when it comes to sources. I have every right to object. Professor marginalia 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. "Don't help yourself to mine." I most certainly will. I quoted you. As far as I'm aware, there is no wikipedia policy that says I can't quote what you write here. Nothing is set up, nothing is insinuated, and no, you have nothing to object to in what I wrote above. If I had any further doubt as to who I was talking to, it's gone now. You know I will not be bullied by you. I stand by what I wrote above, and if you haven't noticed I'm not pushed around by people quoting "policies" to me here. There's no policy against quoting what someone said in one discussion in another discussion. The issue is the standard for what can be cited to officially represent PLANS' position. Your insistence that something someone said on their mailing list can't necessarily be taken as indicating their formal position is something I agree with and I am stating that I have applied this same standard to the discussion of when and why Lisa Ercolano became vice president. (I was stating it as a rationale for my own action in removing that material from the article.) That you don't *like* to see yourself quoted elsewhere, or don't like to see me considering the implications or possible applications of your words in another context, is your problem. Boy, does this sound familiar!DianaW 00:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any cause to assume good faith after you've gone out of your way to make me a target and slam me with sarcastic accusations. diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5. You might review diff2 where you attack me over the Ercolano section and compare it to the above where you deny assigning any responsibility for it to me. I don't know what your problem is, but get off my back and stop misusing my statements to misrepresent or distort my actions here. Professor marginalia

I hope you don't mind, Professor, but I also helped myself to your words above, to demonstrate that you have said that you don't make up quotes but feel comfortable suggesting that I do. That you haven't been assuming good faith is evident, to me, but accusations like the one above are not called for here. Pete K 00:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no misrepresentation on my part. Repeating this won't make it so, and is already boring me. If you have any substantive replies to the many issues I raise above (like actual documentation for all the communities PLANS has supposedly disrupted), feel free, otherwise, I'm done with stupid.DianaW 02:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt because I hadn't really sorted out just who was dishing this stuff out about Lisa. But in fact it was you. What is this: "Ercolano was not VP of PLANS in Oct 2000, but was VP of PLANS by Dec 2000. Sources are the archives of the PLANS web site taken from those dates." This was written by you, professor. The significance of this is what? Please explain what you believe this shows, what its value is to this article, or why you went to the trouble to document it. Do you believe it will show why Lisa Ercolano became the vice president of PLANS?DianaW 02:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write it in the article. The statement was [fact] tagged! I was contributing verification to satisfy a fact tag, which is what editors are supposed to do here. You've launched a flame war campaign against me for responding to a fact tag. Professor marginalia 17:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's kinda like the "hate group" label that Americans for Waldorf Education tried to paste on PLANS. Throw enough stuff against the wall and hope some of it sticks. I wonder how many of that group are involved in editing these articles. Pete K 03:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure if anyone from AWE was here, they'd identify themselves.DianaW 03:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right! Pete K 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest Edits - anthroposophy vs Anthroposophy

I've noticed Anthroposophy has now been changed to lower case now instead of initial caps. The names of religions should have initial caps. I expect to change anthroposophy to Anthroposophy. The jury is still out on this one. Pete K 00:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when is "religion" as opposed to "philosophy" the default position? Those insisting that it is a "religion" are in the minority, and the court decision itself is law unless it is overturned in appeal. Professor marginalia 01:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, no... have you looked in an encyclopedia lately? Almost EVERY encyclopedia - with the exception of the well-supervised Wikipedia - calls Anthroposophy a religion. Pete K 02:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's fun to agree with our noble ideological opponents at times . . . I agree with the Professor here. I prefer not to capitalize "anthroposophy." I have a general editorial preference for visually plainer text, which includes defaulting to lower case unless there is a compelling argument for upper case, and where anthroposophy is concerned, I don't feel anything's gained in meaning or clarity by using the initial capital. (If anything, the capital seems to convey a status or seriousness or officialness I'm not sure anthroposophy deserves.) I haven't looked at the multitudinous wikipedia style guides to see if there are any guidelines we ought to be following in this regard.DianaW 03:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course, I would defer to the guideline. But if you look at Anthroposophy's sister religion, Scientology, I think it's always capitalized. I could be wrong - running off to check. Pete K 03:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, from the Scientology article (always capitalized) "Although some scholars accept Scientology as a bona fide religion,it has also been characterized as a pseudoreligion, a cult or a transnational corporation." - so I think Anthroposophy should be capitalized as well as it seems to encompass many of the same characteristics. Pete K 03:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia style manual says, as you say, to capitalize religions, but not doctrines, theories, philosophies or systems of thought. I understand why some critics want to capitalize it to make a point. The pure copy editor in me prefers not to exercise this sort of editorial advocacy (like judicial advocacy, you know?) But I don't feel strongly about it either way.DianaW 04:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unpublished sources again

Quotes taken from an email discussion list have been recently added, and it has been made very clear on this talk page, repeatedly, that such material is unsuitable and not allowed at wikipedia. There is a 'no reverts' mandate in place in this article, but that unpublished material does not belong here and needs to come out. Professor marginalia 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, which material specifically are you referring to? I just went through the article and found some too. Pete K 02:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think you did. All the deletions I see of yours are your own whimsies again.

• • After fact tagging a passage in the introduction, you were given the sources. So you decide to remove all of it anyway--basically, you never did want it there because you don't like it, and simply wasted editors time sourcing it for you, then out it goes. Even though there is a "no revert" policy in effect.
  • Then you replace the word "philosophy" with "religion" in a section describing the lawsuit. That substitution is not only obviously motivated by your own views and not NPOV, but it conflates the issues in a way that confuses the description of the lawsuit. Half of the lawsuit itself focused on PLANS raising that direct question, trying to prove to the court that it was a religion. Your restatement conflates the two issues into one (1.religion v philosophy and 2.anthroposophy "inseparable" from Waldorf methods), and this wasn't done in the lawsuit. Again, no discussion first, which may have prevented time wasting reverts
  • The next deletion (besides the one mentioned below) is to remove what you call "weasel" words that are again published and the source is footnoted. It was not an email discussion list, it was a newspaper. Those "weasel" words as you defined them are about the only exculpatory material I could find published in PLANS defense in the context of the death threats. In the firestorm of the PLANS protests at this school, the report said death threats were made and the "weasel" words at least brought some balance to suggest that PLANS made some public statement in an effort to calm things down there. Again, no discussion first, and you revert despite the no-revert policy in effect.
  • This is the edit I was alluding to: diff. So it's still there, and none of your edits pertain to unsourced or improperly sourced material. I notice you added new text of your own without providing any source either. "Waldorf charter schools, however, routinely hire Waldorf trained (private) teachers who have been trained with religious texts and teaching methods." Not only is no source given, it doesn't even make any sense. Your "source" was the above private communication from PLANS, wasn't it? Then it's not allowed at wikipedia.Professor marginalia 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"No, I don't think you did. All the deletions I see of yours are your own whimsies again." - Please refrain from personal attacks. I didn't say I deleted them, I said I "found" them.

" After fact tagging a passage in the introduction, you were given the sources. So you decide to remove all of it anyway--basically, you never did want it there because you don't like it, and simply wasted editors time sourcing it for you, then out it goes. Even though there is a "no revert" policy in effect." I'm sorry - does "no revert" mean "no editing"?

"Then you replace the word "philosophy" with "religion" in a section describing the lawsuit. That substitution is not only obviously motivated by your own views and not NPOV, but it conflates the issues in a way that confuses the description of the lawsuit." I don't agree. The whole issue of the lawsuit is that a religion is involved.

"Half of the lawsuit itself focused on PLANS raising that direct question, trying to prove to the court that it was a religion. Your restatement conflates the two issues into one (1.religion v philosophy and 2.anthroposophy "inseparable" from Waldorf methods), and this wasn't done in the lawsuit. Again, no discussion first, which may have prevented time wasting reverts" No, that's not what it does. And if you want me to engage in discussions before making edits, you should extend me the same courtesy. You went in and changed lots and lots of stuff, all without discussion. Sauce for the goose...

"The next deletion (besides the one mentioned below) is to remove what you call "weasel" words that are again published and the source is footnoted. It was not an email discussion list, it was a newspaper. Those "weasel" words as you defined them are about the only exculpatory material I could find published in PLANS defense in the context of the death threats. In the firestorm of the PLANS protests at this school, the report said death threats were made and the "weasel" words at least brought some balance to suggest that PLANS made some public statement in an effort to calm things down there. Again, no discussion first, and you revert despite the no-revert policy in effect." This one is pure nonsense on your part. That you could try to associate PLANS with the death threats is amazing enough to me, that you don't think this would be challenged is incredible. PLANS had nothing to do with the death threats - they could have been made by Waldorf people for all we know. The implication you have made, however, is that PLANS had to somehow make it clear that they didn't produce the death threats. This is the definition of weasel-words. It's a false implication made to seem true by the way you have stated it. It's dishonest and will not stand. I had every right and even an obligation to remove it.

"This is the edit I was alluding to: diff. So it's still there, and none of your edits pertain to unsourced or improperly sourced material." Weasel-words can certainly be properly sourced. It doesn't make them any less dishonest.

"I notice you added new text of your own without providing any source either. "Waldorf charter schools, however, routinely hire Waldorf trained (private) teachers who have been trained with religious texts and teaching methods." Not only is no source given, it doesn't even make any sense. Your "source" was the above private communication from PLANS, wasn't it? Then it's not allowed at wikipedia." If you challenge this, please put a fact tag on it if you need a citation and I'll get a citation for you. Please don't assume my sources - or lack thereof. Pete K 20:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Those "weasel" words as you defined them are about the only exculpatory material I could find published in PLANS defense in the context of the death threats." What the hell!! Don't play dumb, writing stuff like this, and pretending you don't understand what "weasel words" are. No, it's not about whether something's sourced. It's about whether something's implied that can't be documented by the source, so when challenged (or to avoid an anticipated challenge), rather than remove the claim, the wording is changed in some slight way so that the claim is not direct but it's hoped the reader will pick up the insinuation. It's slimy. Yeah, I know I got reprimanded once for calling something like this from Sune "sleaze"; I think I'll take the risk. This kind of thing is sickening. Far over the edge.DianaW 03:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Slimey". "Sickening" and "far over the edge". Right. Here's the quote from the original sentence, "I don't wish any of these people ill. There is no one with evil intentions. But they're misguided into a questionable form of education." Here's how I put it, "prompting PLANS spokesperson, Dan Dugan, to respond to a reporter that he wished no ill to come to anyone, and to describe the educators as "misguided", not "evil". The statement I wrote is so faithful to the original text, it just barely avoids being plagiarism. And I've suffered more crazy like this from you in just two or three days to last me a lifetime. Professor marginalia 23:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You apparently still don't seem to understand what weasel words are. Maybe you should start by reading up on the definition and then come back and discuss this. You could have quoted his EXACT words here - and still, the fact that you put them after a statement on "death threats" makes an implied connection between the statement and the death threats. I suspect this is intentional on your part - hence it's "weasel words". Remaining faithful to the text you quoted doesn't alter the fact that you have produced it to form an implication that is neither there, nor truthful . I've explained this nicely now, and so has Diana. If you still don't understand what the problem is, you should probably just assume good faith and allow either Diana or myself to correct this. Also, it would be better if you cut down on the namecalling. Thanks! Pete K 23:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Now you join in making more crazy accusations. you: "the fact that you put them after a statement on "death threats" makes an implied connection between the statement and the death threats. I suspect this is intentional on your part" The sentence immediately preceding the statement was, "According to Anderson, Waldorf teachers at the training college in Fair Oaks have received death threats because of their methods." Very next sentence reads, "I don't wish any of these people...." I didn't associate that statement to the death threats, the PLANS spokesperson, Dugan, did. And any further attacks like this against me from you would be intentional harassment, as far as I'm concerned. Professor marginalia 00:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This is preposterous. Are you playing dumb here, as Diana suggested above? Why is it so important to you to try to make this death-threat claim stick? It isn't true and you are trying to imply that it IS. It would be better if you consider what your motives in this might be. I'm sorry that you feel harassed when editors try to get the article to read truthfully. Pete K 00:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because it is thus true to the original text! To remove the quote to away from the reason why Dugan said it is what more properly needs to be explained, not what I did. I followed the article exactly. And I just googled it, and the first hit given is to the PLANS website where it says,

"I was interviewed by reporter Raymond Shiu of the U.C. Davis campus newspaper today. He said people at Rudolf Steiner college have received death threats. Can anyone fill in more information on this? Rigby, you're close to RSC, what's the story?

"I told Shiu that in my opinion, and I believe I speak for all of the PLANS board, that we do not view Anthroposophy as evil, only misguided. "

The above comment is from their email list, so it can't be used as a source itself. But it's more than you need to vindicate me. So enough of this. Enough. Professor marginalia 01:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "Those "weasel" words as you defined them are about the only exculpatory material I could find published in PLANS defense in the context of the death threats." I repeat: the "only exculpatory material you could find"?! This is about as weasely as it gets, and sickening and slimy are the best thing I can say. You are implying that something is NEEDED to "exculpate" PLANS in the context of death threats! You are suggesting to readers that THERE IS SOME REASON TO BELIEVE, or that some reasonable people may have had some reason to believe, that SOMEBODY AT PLANS MADE A DEATH THREAT. Then you're sanctimoniously acting like you're doing somebody a favor trying to find something in their defense, as if all manner of damning evidence had piled up against them, and you in your noble fair-minded way went in search of some scrap of evidence on the other side. You know very well nobody at PLANS ever made a death threat against anybody. Just how low can you stoop? Nobody needs your help "exculpating" PLANS. If you would like to present some kind of evidence that somebody at PLANS ever DID make a death threat against somebody, then by all means, m'am, put in a source. We're done now hunting down evidence that they DIDN'T considering there has never been any evidence that they DID. Words like "sickening" are the best I can do.DianaW 04:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Enough. "Only, as in what the original texts or report gave me to work with to present the other side. Would it be better to leave out the "other side",ie PLANS POV, completely? This is what they said in denunciation of the threats which resulted during the protests, and I put it in the article. Professor marginalia 04:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. You want us to believe you put this in the article to show Dan Dugan denouncing threats. It is clearly meant to suggest he was BEHIND the threats. There is no "other side" that you can label "PLANS POV" because there is no "side" that credibly suggests Dan Dugan or anyone at PLANS ever made a threat against anybody. It is only in arguing by innuendo that you could possibly succeed in making anyone wonder whether PLANS made death threats - there will be no credible evidence, not even a whisper of a suggestion that can be cleared of malicious intent - that will suggest anyone had any reason to point fingers at PLANS in this regard. I will be arguing that this material needs to come out. The burden of explaining why innuendo about death threats belongs in this article will be on you. Anyone can hint anything about anyone, and if it is spectacular enough and directed against a public person or entity like a school, the accusations may be reported in the press. Whether this is noteworthy in the long run is not based merely on whether you can find reports of this in the media. I remember when I was in high school there was a long string of bomb threats against the school. Anyone with an axe to grind against the school, and there are always people with an axe to grind - or a CRITIC OF the school or someone with an axe to grind against a critic of the school? - could have speculated to a reporter that someone they didn't like might have made the threats. (Either believing this to be true, or just trying to make trouble.) In fact, the threats at my school were made by troubled kids. If the death threats against whoever at this Waldorf school turned out to be wild rumors, or if they were determined to have probably been made by some crazy person, that fact needs to be made explicit as well, or better yet, if the whole brouhaha never amounted to anything, there is a strong argument to remove it from the article, as not being really relevant to PLANS' history. You may rest assured that it will either be removed or the full facts will be represented here. It is not going to be so simple as, Somebody said there were death threats but Dan Dugan said he never meant any harm LOL.DianaW 15:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is just ridiculous - and that it is obvious in its intent is apparent when it is coming, as it does, from someone who is behind the unfounded, unsupportable and defamatory (if not outright libelous) claim that PLANS is a "hate group" (or weasel-words to that effect). It is clear that this entire section should be deleted. If I cannot delete it myself, I will ask administrators to remove the section completely. Pete K 16:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] editors illegitimately censoring the article

PeteK has arbitrarily reverted a statement about Dan Dugan's intentions when forming PLANS. After responding to the attacks launched against me trying to accuse me of not having legitimate published sources for this material, I went back and have listed the references in great detail. Though there is a 'no revert' policy in effect here, PeteK reverted this. The statement that PeteK is challenging comes from an organization which sat in on PLANS initial legal strategy planning session back in 1998 and was close ally of PLANS--not in opposition, but working together with PLANS. The sentence in the source reads, "[Dugan] hopes to form a nationwide, non-profit organization called People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools so he can publish and speak on the issue full time", and PLANS has republished the article on its own website. Here is what I said, "Dugan hoped forming the non-profit corporation would make it possible for him to publish and speak full time." I don't see how it's possible to be any more faithful to the source without quoting it word-for-word. There is no justification for removing this sentence. Professor marginalia 02:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I'll add it back in. Pete K 02:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops - tried to add it back in but the page has been protected since I removed it a few minutes ago. It should read:

"Dugan hoped forming the non-profit corporation would make it possible for him to publish and speak full time. ref Rob Boston, "Charter For Indoctrination", Church & State Apr 1996 /ref Pete K 02:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a mistake. It's your pattern. You make up excuses for your reverts. You don't even bother to read the original source first, before you revert. I see you've added new fact tags to statements which are already verified in the footnotes. I guess it's not enough to have 5 footnotes per paragraph. You want footnotes after every word. But why? After you get the footnote, you won't bother to read the source before deleting the whole thing after it's been footnoted.

But when it comes to the material you contribute here, you simply make up sources to back-up your own unsourced statements in the article. And you insist it's okay for you to verify information you want to say in the article by reporting on the talk page here that you have received personal communication of some sort that confirms it. You waste so much of everybody's time dealing with your whims. There is a 'no revert' policy in effect on this board which should encourage discussion FIRST and would cut down on these problems, but you act like it shouldn't apply to you. Professor marginalia 17:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks. They're killing me. Pete K 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Geez, professor, did anybody ever tell you to avoid making "You" statements at people all the time. You do this, you do that, you waste our time, you have a pattern . . . This is not productive, almost certain not to be true (you don't know what goes on in Pete's head, and you can't know what he has read or hasn't read). This violates about a dozen wikipedia policies. But no, I'm not planning to tattle on you to admins. Let's not keep lists on each other and file grievances, let's just talk about the article like grown ups.DianaW 03:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Just you. Professor marginalia 23:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Focus on content, not other editors. —Centrx→talk • 00:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying. I'm sorry I haven't been altogether successful. Professor marginalia 04:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pattern of disruptive edits

Just as a notice regarding what Professor Marginalia ascribed to PeteK as a pattern of disruptive edits.

On 31 October 2006, Admin Centrx warned PeteK:

The block on User:Professor marginalia may not have been warranted. Blocking you was certainly warranted, and if you continue with personal attacks and disruptive editing you will be banned. —Centrx→talk • 00:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

After that Pete has made the following new disruptive edits:

16:27, 31 October 2006 placing an answer to Hgilbert in the middle of a contribution by me on something else, and then, when I the following day removed it from the middle of my comment on something else, and placed it in the proper context, accusing me of "rearranging comments I don't like", and telling he will revert (all) my edits as soon I have made them, writing

"Today, TheBee is rearranging the Talk page here to remove or rearrange comments he doesn't like. I will be reverting his edits as soon as he :makes them - this is everyone's discussion page - it does not need his "clean-up" and he is not authorized to rearrange anything here in order to disguise the intent or content. Pete K 21:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC) "

(This is a repetition of a threat he has made a week before regarding this article, then writing:

"You have put a lot of crap in the PLANS article and now refer me to it for information? That's rich. I'll be removing whatever you put in there Sune - trust me. But thanks for the laugh. Unbelievable!!!")

When I tell that his accusation of rearranging things in order to disguise them is false, and that I just moved a misplaced comment by him from the middle of a comment by me on something else to its proper place, he answers that doing this is not my job, and that I should have left his answer to Hgilbert in the middle of my comment on something else, disrupting my comment:

"Not your job. That you want to play around hiding comments on your own talk page is your business - but this page is a history and your revision of the history are not welcomed here. Please leave things as they are. Pete K 21:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)"

15:26, 2 November 2006 making a destructive edit of a reference in the Waldorf article, making a section of the text appear in the reference section instead, writing as Edit summary about the references he has removed from Notes and references section:

"Removed influential figures. Boring, and not part of the description of Waldorf anyway. If someone wants them here - they should be referenced at the end."

The disruptive edit makes the section start:

"Waldorf education is founded on the intuitions of Rudolf Steiner as extended by the research and work of teachers and pedagogues since Steiner's time.[4] so it is considered best to surround him with the goodness of the world and caring, practically active adults to emulate."

The destructive edit is left uncorrected by Pete, until Hgilbert corrects it, ten hours later.

Ten minutes later, without any further discussion removing a comparison of Waldorf education to Piaget, simply describing the referred to connection as "false" and as "weasel-wording".

After Pete 13:46, 27 October 2006 deleted a section, misdescribing two studies on pupils at Waldorf schools, and I 15:56, 2 November 2006 replaced it with a correct description of the studies, strictly based on their summaries, Pete deletes the new, correct description of the studies too, referring to a stated earlier "consensus" on deleting the section, and writing:

"I have removed this section again. This kind of nonsense is what starts edit wars."

When I write that he is wrong about my addition of the correct description of the studies to the article and my reason for making it, and later specifying what I mean with this, he accuses me of making a personal attack on him by writing: "You are wrong".

After I four times ask him to point me to the stated consensus, that he referred to as basis for deleting the correct description of the two studies without getting an answer to it, except repeated statements of his view that what the studies document is "ridiculous" "nonsense", and that if I insist on putting the section in the article, he will add damaging statements to the article about "whooping cough" at Waldorf schools and "abusive Waldorf teachers", that this will "make his day", leaves the section deleted and ending his comments by describing my questions to him regarding the consensus he stated as basis for making the deletion, as "harassment", and the derogatory greeting "Buzz off little bee"

"Your harassment of me is well-documented. Buzz off little bee..."

Thebee 01:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, if you think this is the wrong place to comment on the seeming pattern of disruptive edits by PeteK, implied by you and mentioned by Professor Marginalia here in this discussion, where would you suggest I put it? Thanks, Thebee 01:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got a suggestion where you might put it... Pete K 01:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear here - put it on your talk page. What part of "focus on content, not other editors" didn't you get? Pete K 01:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I put together my comment before Centrx made his suggestion, and just saw it after I had posted my comment. That's the reason for my question to him, or her. Thebee 09:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Pete "I've got a suggestion where you might put it... ". That would be an implied profanity and as such yet another one of your many Personal attacks on different people, you were aware of this when writing it and therefore replaced it with your "clarification", is that correct? Why should I place a comment on your pattern of disruptive edits on my personal Talks page? Thebee 15:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Why should I place a comment on your pattern of disruptive edits on my personal Talks page?" - Because you are the only one interested in this - and you insist on cluttering up every single discussion page of every article I edit with this stuff. Put it on your own talk page if it means so much to you. That way you can look at it every night before you go to bed. I'm guessing just about everybody else is sick of it. Pete K 16:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

At present, the article writes

"One of the first steps taken in PLANS' campaign to expose Waldorf methods public schools was to seek the support of members and associates with the Skeptics Society, six of whom became members of the PLANS governing board and supporting advisors panel."

That sounds like a POV statement. I'd suggest changing it to

"One of the first steps taken in PLANS' campaign against the use of Waldorf methods at public schools was to seek the support of members and associates with the Skeptics Society, six of whom became members of the PLANS governing board and supporting advisors panel."

Thebee 10:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer it become *more* explicit and precise, not less. How about: "One of the first steps taken in PLANS' campaign to expose what they view as the religious underpinning of Waldorf methods public schools . . ." Writing always becomes stronger when it becomes more accurate, and weaker when the details are fuzzed. This is why critics object to vague characterizations that we (or PLANS) are "against Waldorf." PLANS doesn't "campaign against Waldorf" or against "use of Waldorf methods." PLANS campaigns against use of such methods where they are arguably illegal - public schools. PLANS has nothing against "Waldorf methods" as such, to my knowledge; in fact you can find many statements from people involved with PLANS describing the value in certain Waldorf methods. In the public school context, PLANS campaigns against the use of Waldorf methods because of their history of entanglement with anthroposophy and the difficulties if not impossibility of disentangling them in the public school setting. In the private school context, PLANS doesn't campaign against Waldorf methods at all, but rather campaigns *for* greater accountability from the schools in educating parents about the role of anthroposophy in the school before children are enrolled. The frequent characterizations we read that PLANS is "against Waldorf" or is an "anti-Waldorf group" are thus simplistic and POV, intended to make PLANS appear like just some negative people complaining about whatever. Waldorf supporters resist seeing the complaints stated more explicitly or seeing the nuances outlined because, of course, the merits of the argument are then more easily assessed.DianaW 15:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm therefore going to argue that the first sentence of the article be changed. The suggestion that PLANS campaigns "against Waldorf education generally" is POV. PLANS advocates that Waldorf should improve their public relations and enroll families who are fully informed about the role of anthroposophy in the school. No one knows, as there is no evidence on either side, whether this would help or hurt Waldorf schools' enrollment figures. There's a strong case to be made that it would help them *retain* for the long term families already enrolled. This could well be viewed as a positive thing for Waldorf education, and could certainly reduce turmoil in the schools, a lessening of management by crisis and more of a focus on the schools' deeper mission. Whether what PLANS advocates would help or hurt Waldorf in the long run is of course POV. The article needs to describe what they say and do and should not frame their mission in the "anti" terms preferred by those who don't like what PLANS advocates.DianaW 16:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - this article continues to have a negative tone toward PLANS that is unwarranted. Regarding what Diana wrote about disclosure, my local Waldorf school recently implemented a new policy of fuller disclosure for exactly the reasons Diana stated - to try to retain more students. It is, not surprisingly, due to criticism that this policy was implimented. Criticism for the purpose of reform takes many forms - "exposure" is certainly one of them. Pete K 16:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The history of PLANS points to that any negative tone it may have, based on well cited sources, is well warranted. To this history belongs, among the many examples, the way PLANS tries to misuse the speech by Schwartz, by not mentioning that the specific example he gives of "religious experiences" he wants pupils at Waldorf schools to have is the experience of the dramatic origin and history of the Jewish people, by quoting his speech with regard to "religious experiences" and leaving out the specific example of what experiences he wants Waldorf pupils to have, writing, without telling this

""I'm glad my daughter gets to speak about God every morning: that's why I send her to a Waldorf school . . . I send my daughter to a Waldorf school so that she can have a religious experience . . . when we deny that Waldorf schools are giving children religious experiences, ..."

and then - in addition - try to paint Waldorf schools as anti-Semitic, in addition to trying to falsely imply that he wants the pupils to have the experience of anthroposophy as a "religion", and not telling at its site, as far as I have noticed, that he complains about public Waldorf methods schools for not being "religious" the way he wants independent Waldorf schools to be, and with the president of PLANS ending her "Welcome" at the main page of the group:

"Until Waldorf promoters start being honest, PLANS will be here."

PLANS is honest. Right.

Thebee 17:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No, "history of PLANS" is not documented by links to other "summaries" written by you, either on other wikipedia talk pages or elsewhere. Are you ever going to figure this out? (I'm getting the feeling even your buddies are irked with you for continuing to do this.) "History of PLANS" is going to have to come from reputable sources. The rant above doesn't even relate to the suggestion you originally made, to which I responded. And I've heretofore ignored the comments you've made about Eugene Schwartz wanting to somehow make Waldorf education more Jewish because I just find them so appallingly craven and self-serving that I can't reply politely.DianaW 17:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And this is a typical deflection. I suggested that the article would be improved by clarifying and specifying PLANS' stances - that the label "anti" in itself is not particularly informative, we need to say "anti" what exactly, just what do they oppose and what do they propose. You reply with vaguely accusing material about PLANS' "tone." Comments about "tone" are usually evasive. When you'd rather distract people from the issues being raised, accuse the other person of having a bad "tone."DianaW 17:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Diana: "The suggestion that PLANS campaigns "against Waldorf education generally" is POV." "POV"? Try the Articles page of PLANS. That PLANS campaigns both against Waldorf education and against anthroposophy in general is a very precise and very true statement. Thebee 17:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, TheBee has disqualified himself from any serious discussions here by continually trying to represent PLANS as a hate group - something that is completely untrue and unsupported. Nothing TheBee can point to is anything but his own original research which as we have all seen, is extremely biased at the least and any reasonable person would see it to be clearly defamatory and, again, completely unsupported. His continued attempts to divert the discussion from the topic is also nothing but a distraction to prevent the actual editing of the article. I would suggest, Diana, that we ignore comments by TheBee and continue with the genuine scholarly work of editing the article in a NPOV way. I'll be happy to discuss your proposed changes here. So far, I think you're on the right track. Pete K 18:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. The replies from him are lame, and barely even on the topic that he himself raised. Referring me to look at a collection of articles on PLANS' web site does not get us anywhere in clarifying just what they are supposed to be "anti" about. If housing a collection of critical papers on a particular topic makes a group "anti" and nothing else, then any university library is an "anti" group. Maybe they're even a hate group! Yes, it is best to proceed without people who can't contribute substantively.DianaW 18:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

On:

Pete: "TheBee has disqualified himself from any serious discussions here by continually trying to represent PLANS as a hate group - something that is completely untrue and unsupported. Nothing TheBee can point to is anything but his own original research which as we have all seen, is extremely biased at the least and any reasonable person would see it to be clearly defamatory and, again, completely unsupported".,

and

Diana: "The replies from him are lame, and [...] it is best to proceed without people who can't contribute substantively."

saying

"The replies from Thebee are lame and it is best to proceed without Thebee as he can't contribute substantively". "Pete and I are better than you, Thebee".

That would be at least yet another Personal attack from each of you. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples_of_personal_attacks "Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life." "

Just as a notice, it also means that it adds yet another personal attack to the disruptive edits and personal attacks Centrx has warned you not to continue making, Pete. Thebee 23:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see these as personal attacks. They are not discussing (or attacking) you personally, they address your arguments, misrepresentations and contributions. There's a difference between saying YOU are lame and your REPLIES are lame. And that's noted in the Wikipedia personal attacks page as well. Please re-read it before accusing me of personal attacks. The accusations you make ARE personal and constitute personal attacks. Again, I'm sorry you don't see the difference here. And again, you've made the discussion revolve around YOU. We're trying to do some serious work here - so if all you can do is complain about stuff unrelated to the article, please take it to your own talk page as I suggested earlier. Thanks. Pete K 00:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Er . . . excuse me, but I wrote that your reply was lame and I wrote that it was best to proceed without someone who couldn't contribute substantively. As you may have noticed by now, I *always* stand by what I wrote. I did not, however, write "Pete and I are better than you, Thebee". You invented that and inserted it in my comments. I never wrote that. You are a busy bee aren't you!DianaW 01:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"You invented that and inserted it in my comments." LOL! What else is new? Pete K 02:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly what a riot. I looked back in a panic for a moment, thinking maybe I disociated and one of my other personalities wrote that . . . nope. It wasn't in the original.DianaW 03:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that by informing TheBee that he has "invented" something he attributed to you, you are committing some kind of "personal attack" against him. I'd watch myself if I were you. He's making a list, and checking it twice. BTW, I'm struggling a little with the first two paragraphs of the Waldorf Ed article (it seemed every third word was "developed" or "developing"). If you have a minute, would you mind taking a look? Thanks! Pete K 03:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I went and looked but not enough brain cells left at this hour for line editing, sorry. One useful tip when a word is repeated too often is to simply start deleting it. You often don't have to bother replacing it. I enjoyed reading that Waldorf education is the largest independent school movement in the world - sourced to 1) a list of Waldorf schools and 2) Detlef Hardorp. Well, that settles it!DianaW 03:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I tried replacing "Steiner developed" with "Steiner created" - we'll see how many people object to the change. The article is full or the kind of references you describe. Wild claims about the success of Waldorf supported by Waldorf schools themselves. Technically, these types of references are OK at Wikipedia. The only way to undo them is to find someone else who has made the opposite claim. As if someone's going to come out and say "Waldorf is NOT the largest independent school movement in the world." Anyway - I may remove the claim anyway as it's basically brochure speak and we're trying to get the article to read more NPOV. Pete K 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some principal comments on personal attacks

Just some comments as a matter of principle regarding what constitutes a personal attack according to Wikipedia. I put them here, as they refer to comments made here on this page by PeteK and DianaW. Personal attacks include

"Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks".

Above, Pete describes me with

"Nothing TheBee can point to is anything but his own original research ..."

That is a reference to what you consider my ability and is obviously untrue, as I just before have referred to the page of articles at the site of PLANS as something that shows that it is engaged, not only in preventing the public financing of the use of Waldorf methods at public schools, based on the view that anthroposophy is a religion, and trying to show that it is a religion. The page - titled "Criticism of Waldorf, Steiner and Anthroposophy" also publishes a number of texts, that try to defame anthroposophy and Waldorf education and schools as such in different ways. Pointing this out can hardly be considered "original research", and makes the statement "Nothing TheBee can point to is anything but his own original research " into a false statement about my ability to do things. You also write, comparing what I and others have written at http://www.waldorfanswers.org with what you write that you do:

"I would suggest, Diana, that we ignore comments by TheBee and continue with the genuine scholarly work of editing the article in a NPOV way."

As I think I'm quite aquainted with what scholarly work means, having studied a number of years at different universities in Sweden and Norway, the comment does not bother me personally as anything but ignorant with regard to what it seems to try to imply. What is found at http://www.waldorfanswers.org that you seem to refer to as comparison to what you write however is not intended as scholarly papers, but as public information about what Waldorf education is, and its relation to anthroposophy. The comment in that sense constitutes an additional implied personal attack of the type "You Diana, and I, are better than Thebee. We do scholarly work. He doesn't. Let's ignore what he writes.".

DianaW writes, in a response to Pete, referring to me:

"it is best to proceed without people who can't contribute substantively".

That's also a defamatory comment regarding my ability to do things, not any specific action or actions. As such, it makes it into a personal attack (one of the many from you both) on other editors. Pete also writes

"...again, you've made the discussion revolve around YOU."

As what you write so repeatedly constitutes personal attacks on me and others in violation of the Wikipedia policies regarding civility, and I've gotten quite tired of them, I comment on this. A number of people have noted your repeatedly aggressive style here, including three administrators. They have commented on this, and requested - without impressive success - that you stop making them and stay civil. At your personal Talks page, Pete, you have commented on this, after Centrx warned you about them some days ago, first from your Talks page deleting the expressed request from another admin to you that you refrain from further personal attacks, specifying which personal attack from you he (or she) referred to, and after you shortly before had made the personal attack on Hgilbert, "Shove your reminders Harlan.", just one of the latest in your long row of personal attacks on other editors, then writing:

"For the record - I don't believe I have broken ANY Wikipedia rules with one exception - the 3RR rule a couple of months ago. Pete K 17:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)"

Do you think most people reading it - aware of your long row of incivilities and personal attacks on other editors since you arrived at Wikipedia two months ago - took your comment to be a truthful description, in the sense that you - wich ONE exception - have not violated ANY Wikipedia rules regarding Civility, not even after three admins have told you you have, and you just had violated the policy against personal attacks again, this time with regard to Hgilbert? Thebee 12:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to step in over Diana here - but since this remark was directed at me (more harassment) - I always tell the truth Sune. That may be the key difference between us. Pete K 17:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack. Thank you Pete. Thebee 17:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: What you write would mean that after three admins (AYArktos/Golden Wattle, Durova and Centrx) - that one maybe would expect to know what they talk about - have requested that you to stop making personal attacks, and Centrx tells you:

The block on User:Professor marginalia may not have been warranted. Blocking you was certainly warranted, and if you continue with personal attacks and disruptive editing you will be banned. —Centrx→talk • 00:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

you don't believe him, first delete the warning by AYArktos/Golden Wattle, documenting one specific such personal attack, from your Talks page as belonging to "irrelevant stuff"(?), to some minutes later write at your Talks page

"For the record - I don't believe I have broken ANY Wikipedia rules with one exception - the 3RR rule a couple of months ago. Pete K 17:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)"

That would mean that you then thought, after you for more than two months had made hundreds of edits here at Wikipedia, and today still think that you actually had not broken any Wikipedia rules, as the three admins told you, as you - in your view - always tell the truth? This not meant as a personal attack, just as a question out of curiosity, as you write that you (in by you alleged contrast to me) "always tell the truth" with such bold certainty. Thebee 17:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That you have been untruthful has been proven here - several times. Sorry that you have made your own bed. Pete K 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Diana has put the following comment into my comment above. I move it here, to prevent further mixup of the different comments.

Me:

Just some comments as a matter of principle regarding what constitutes a personal attack according to Wikipedia. I put them here, as they refer to comments made here on this page by PeteK and DianaW. Personal attacks include

"Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks".

Diana:

Excuse me and pardon me for interrupting your text but please stop repeating that, especially with quotes around it, as I DID NOT SAY IT.DianaW 13:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thebee 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, ""Nothing TheBee can point to is anything but his own original research" is not a personal attack. It is not a reference to yur "abilities." It means there ISN'T anything for you to point to that isn't your own personal research, because the material doesn't exist. It's about the MATERIAL. All you have to do to prove us wrong on this is provide OTHER material - material that isn't your own original research that will support your claims. I've had a half-dozen or so dialogues with you now at wikipedia; at this point in the conversation you always stop replying, because, apparently, you can't provide any suitable material. Nobody's "attacking" you - you just can't or won't do it. This is exactly what wikipedia dialogue regarding appropriate sources and how to use them is supposed to be about. Please stop wasting everyone's time whining about your personal feelings - they're irrelevant. Other people don't agree that the various articles on the PLANS web site "defame" anthroposophy or you etc. If you want to show that you'd need to point to the material, and we could discuss it. You have a bad habit of pointing to either entire web sites as proof of one very specific claim, or referring to your own summaries found on your own web sites, and people have explained to you over and over and over again that this won't fly on wikipedia. Even your friends realize this. This is the meaning of comments that you aren't contributing substantively, and when asked over and over again and yet you fail, people suggest moving on without you. It's not a personal attack - it's a comment on your contributions here, and their lack of useful content.DianaW 13:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sune: "The comment in that sense constitutes an additional implied personal attack of the type "You Diana, and I, are better than Thebee. We do scholarly work. He doesn't. Let's ignore what he writes.". I'm going to ask you again to stop misrepresenting me, or perhaps an administrator needs to advise on this. Quotes are around all kinds of things I did not write. Nowhere do I claim to be doing scholarly work. I'm not a scholar. Try to at least stick to what's written.DianaW 13:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to get into a long discussion with you on what I've written above, and will just comment on one point.

Diana:

"Sune: "The comment in that sense constitutes an additional implied personal attack of the type "You Diana, and I, are better than Thebee. We do scholarly work. He doesn't. Let's ignore what he writes.". I'm going to ask you again to stop misrepresenting me, or perhaps an administrator needs to advise on this."

What you refer to is not a misrepresentation of you. It is a paraphrase of PeteK, not of you, as you seem to imply, in seemingly answering it. It is the type of mixup that makes discussion difficult to pursue. Thebee 14:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"What you refer to is not a misrepresentation of you. It is a paraphrase of PeteK, not of you, as you seem to imply, in seemingly answering it." Gee - I wonder how that could have occurred. Could it be because you wrote that this came from PeteK and DianaW and you put quotes around it? And then there's the small detail that Pete didn't say it either!

No, I don't want a long discussion of it either. I'd like to point out that you raised a suggestion, it got a substantive reply, with an additional suggestion for refining the material and a detailed explanation - a suggestion that PLANS' position be further specified and clarified, rather than a one-word dismissive term like "anti." Your reply has been off the mark every time, changing the subject, and inserting a several-paragraphs long whinge that people are mean to you. Your behavior here is simply unbelievable. It's hard to tell if you're doing it on purpose to derail discussions, or are honestly this self-centered. And apparently, this isn't the only place you're doing this.DianaW 14:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the only relevant issue here is that TheBee has essentially PROVEN what I actually DID say. Again, ignoring his comments and complaints would be the best course of action here. Pete K 17:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A rewrite in the works

Okay, in the spirit of cooperative collaboration, I'm starting to rewrite this. All changes will be discussed here first. I'm still in the process of obtaining some of the sources Professor Marginalia has cited in her contributions to this article. In case you weren't around at the time, Professor, I've been through quite a bit of this already with "Thebee." A good place to start is the following text:

"In response, PLANS redirected its efforts from school district officials toward the parents, teachers and students of the school itself, and began privately counseling some of the teachers. On April 30, 1997, PLANS officials distributed leaflets entitled, "Save Oak Ridge School From the Steiner Cult". Some parents reacted by forming a local committee called "Concerned Citizens for Oak Ridge School". In May, news media reported that controversial statements had been made during an Oak Ridge meeting, accusing the school of teaching the students about witchcraft, human sacrifices, and religious altars, and charging that the children were being initiated into a cult.[8] Soon after, PLANS held protests in front of the school, and picketers waved flags and anti-Waldorf signs, some demanding the termination of two staff members in the school."

Reference 8, the Sac Bee article, says nothing like what is attributed to it above. There is no mention of an Oak Ridge meeting in the article. This will come out. The statement that "controversial statements had been made" is one of those classic weasel things. Yeah, statements were made, no doubt. In meetings, people quite often make statements. But who made the statements about witchcraft and human sacrifices? No claim is made regarding by whom, is it? If you want the article to say that somebody made such a statement, you're going to need to say by whom, and document it. Weaseling is not going to stand. The only people in the Sac Bee article who said anything of this nature (and no meeting is alluded to, but perhaps that's a trivial error) were parents or other relatives of the students, and teachers. PLANS is not cited as making any statements regarding witchcraft, human sacrifices, or religious altars. The picketers, later, who waved flags etc. were parents. (If you have some evidence someone at PLANS was waving a flag, please present it.) Further, if this article is going to be cited in the wiki article, some of its other substantive concerns need to be included; the emphasis on "witchcraft" is your POV angle that PLANS did naughty things stirring up people to be afraid of witches. The fact that the parents who were concerned were Christians, and the potential violation of their family's religious rights, needs greater emphasis. The article can easily be rewritten from that angle, but NPOV would require BOTH. But we can't get started on NPOV until we remove things that are not properly cited in the first place. Also, we can add things like the mother's statement that her fourth grader could not read. This will give a fairer presentation as to what caused these parents to become concerned that a religious curriculum was replacing a more standard academic curriculum. Perhaps these parents wanted their kids to read and write, not draw lemniscates. More to come.DianaW 14:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Continuing:

"In June 97, the school district superintendent mailed letters to parents of the school warning that threats of force had been reported, raising concerns about safety at the school. It also described reports of attempts made to intimidate and bribe students to discourage them from attending school.[11] One school official quoted in a news report indicated that Waldorf teachers in the training college had received death threats.

PLANS spokesperson, Dan Dugan, confirmed to a reporter that he wished no ill to come to anyone, and to describe the educators as "misguided", not "evil". [12]"

I would very much appreciate it if you would quote for us the wording in reference 11. I will be obtaining a copy eventually, but it's going to take a bit of time. It would be collegial and collaborative of you to quote it for us. "Threats of force had been reported" - there's that passive voice again that raises alarms of weaseling. Threats of force were reported by whom? Does the article have a suggestion as to whence came these threats of force? Does the article specify the nature of the threat - what kind of "force" might be used, and against whom? Does the article quote anyone speculating as to whence came these threats of force? Does the article quote anyone suggesting there is evidence as to the origin of the threats? Does the article suggest that such threats were confirmed? Was there police investigation of these threats? That might go a long way toward suggesting whether such rumors even belong in this article. There are quite a few issues here but let's start with what the heck this article actually says about the incident, as the way it is written it is 100% impossible for a reader to even speculate as to what may have really happened.

So this letter "described reports of attempts made . . ." Who did the letter describe as making these attempts? Does the school official quoted in the news report - and which news report is this? -is this also ref 11? Who is the school official quoted please? Does the school official state an opinion or give any other facts that might lead the reader toward a suspicion as to who the death threats came from, who reported them, and what the outcome of any investigation into the threats might have been?

We can take it from there. Any idiot can see that placing the "exculpatory" quote from Dan Dugan in the following sentence is meant to show that SOMEBODY suspected or possibly still suspects Dan Dugan. Readers of wikipedia are not stupid. But let's get to the bottom of what these sources say, first. Thanks!DianaW 15:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Diana, for undertaking this enormous effort. I will try to help wherever I can. I would ask of the administrators how we should proceed if we do not get responses from the editors who have introduced this material and prefer to take their time about reviewing it - seeing that it is still available to readers during the "lock-up". Pete K 16:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is getting very long and difficult to read. I'll try to simplify this.

1. The article needs to reflect the original sources accurately, and editors can't make associations of their own, nor rearrange the statements to present an altered account than what is given in the original texts.
2. PLANS was repeatedly characterized in the news accounts as planting the seeds of the controversy at Oak Ridge. "Then Dan Dugan came to town," from one report. Another reads, "Throughout this school year parents seemed mostly satisfied [...] But in recent weeks, at the urging of a Bay Area-based group called PLANS and a few disgruntled teachers, a protest movement has brewed among parents marked by picketing and a boycott[...] PLANS suggests that Waldorf methods involve the teaching of witchcraft." Another reads, "Roused by Dan Dugan, a self-proclaimed anti-Waldorf crusader, parents first began protesting in the school board chambers." Even the picketers gave PLANS credit for informing them of what their children were exposed to. And PLANS was criticized for "planting fears" in a community with a large percentage of parents who were immigrants and didn't speak English well. As recently as last January, one news account described PLANS as "single-handedly keeping alive the local debate over Waldorf methods in public schools."
3. It's important to describe the nature of these protests. The report doesn't say who made the threats, they appear to be anonymous. I have tried to be very faithful to the reference sources, including presenting Dugan's response after he was asked about the death threats. But the details are important to characterize the level of fear and panic that developed after PLANS brought their campaign to that school. One important factor to remember is that parents and teachers in that community joined PLANS. At the Oak Ridge school, PLANS took in new members from that community, PLANS wasn't just Dugan. And PLANS was contractually allied with "Concerned Parents for Oak Ridge School" for furnishing evidence to PLANS for use in the trial.
4. In court ordered interrogatory questioning, the school was demanded to identify all documents relating to complaints by parents or other persons about the Waldorf methods program since its inception. Answer, "No official complaints were filed by parents. Some parents did indicate in writing that they objected to certain Waldorf methods that were implemented (ie handwork). These written objections were not submitted until after May 1, 1997." May 1, 1997 comes immediately after PLANS visited the school and passed out their leafelets.
5. There is no problem with including concerns expressed about the academic performance due to the Waldorf program. But to accurately reflect the original articles, it's important to note such complaints didn't start until after PLANS came to the school. The school hadn't had the program a full year yet, and the schoolwide academic scores weren't even available yet--all this is addressed in the news articles. The school was reported to be extremely low performing academically before the Waldorf methods program was implemented, and had "no place to go but up". So before it became a Waldorf methods school, "on districtwide reading and mathematics achievement tests, [Oak Ridge] students in third through sixth grade scored near the bottom of the district's 60 elementary schools--in a district where only a handful of schools scored above national averages."

Specific issues raised:

1. You're correct about reference #8. That footnote has "drifted" from where it belongs. There has been a lot of editing, and that footnote looks like it has shifted out of place. It belongs on the $238,000 sentence. The footnote that belongs in place of current #8 is to the article titled, "Educators Spurn Witchcraft, Cult Allegations by Critics". As to "who" made the accusations, it says "school parents and teachers", and later in the article quotes two by name. At least one of the two was a PLANS member for at least a year and participated in PLANS protest planning meetings with several of PLANS' directors (court testimony). That individual accused the school of teaching witch rituals and was a PLANS witness for the trial.
2. Requested quote from "Waldorf Hysteria". "(PLANS), a San Francisco-based fringe group led by a disgruntled ex-Waldorf parent, has held disruptive protests in front of the Oak Park school in recent weeks, claiming its use of the internationally renowned Waldorf teaching methods bring religion into the classroom in violation of the U.S. Constitution's separation of church and State. On June 5, James Sweeney, the school district's interim superintendent, mailed a letter to Oak Ridge parents, alleging that the 'district has received threats to use force to close the program, giving rise to safety concerns'. Sweeney also said the district has received reports 'of students and parents being intimidated and offered bribes to keep students from attending school.'" Professor marginalia 19:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"The article needs to reflect the original sources accurately, and editors can't make associations of their own, nor rearrange the statements to present an altered account than what is given in the original texts." Unfortunately, this is not the case. By making a statement and then supporting it with a reference in the original texts, editors are doing exactly this. Anybody can take a fair editorial piece, one that covers both sides of the issue, and extract claims and comments from one side of the issue only - and make it look like the piece was saying something it wasn't. That is what has been happening here and it is dishonest. The SacBee story, for example, has had only one side of the issue quoted here. A couple months ago, I went through an exercise with TheBee in which I started quoting the positive side, and he quoted the negative side - and we ended up with the entire article reproduced here. The "account" given in the original texts is almost never as one-sided as it has been (mis)represented here. Pete K 21:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

PLANS is noteworthy primarily because it has sued two public school districts. PLANS campaigned against both of them prior to the lawsuit, and campaigned against several others. Two editors here were in disagreement over the witchcraft, one arguing there was "no evidence" besides a self-published website. But in looking at newspapers, corporate documents, and court documents, the witchcraft issue is raised in those places as well. At one of the schools PLANS sued, the witchcraft issue figured prominently. It was a very significant element to the organized protests in that school, and played some role in securing a religious underwriter for the lawsuit. So the information has been verified, it's obviously a significant episode in the history of the organization. And now the goalpost is being moved to a new objection: that this gives an "altered" account. This objection continues to be raised even after I've provided here direct quotations from the original texts, which demonstrate that controversial elements in this article have been very faithful to those sources, almost to a fault. So this is getting frustrating. The article is a long way from perfect. Maybe it would help if the critiques were more focused on difficulties which exist in the article as it is now, and not get distracted arguing about old problems which seem to be fixed now. Professor marginalia 18:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you now, again, repeating the claim that PLANS was behind any of the "witchcraft" allegations? Pete K 19:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm obtaining hard copies of much of this material. I am far from done. Don't get too complacent after a couple days of no reply from me. I will fight the witchcraft thing every step of the way, and it won't stand. I don't care how many stupid rumors you heard. Sune Nordwall and I have been over it all, and I don't believe you have other sources that are going to document that PLANS accused somebody of witchcraft. Pop it up here, anytime, if you have sources that show that PLANS accused somebody of witchcraft. Keep in mind, when the issue was discussed back in June, along with your charges of "lies" on a grant application, you eventually refused to reply to the discussion entirely - you just went away then, faded into the mist. Substantive responses from me showed every one of your accusations to be absurd - base innuendo without even the possibility of showing *motive* for the stupid things you were implying. I can do it all again as many times as you can, and I've got the facts on my side. You've had a good run with the "witchcraft" propaganda thing, and I can't get it off of Sune's and your private web sites. I can get it off wikipedia.DianaW 23:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on what you've so far provided above, regarding what information is in those articles about all these supposed "threats" and "bribes" and "intimidation" etc.: the answer to all my questions, does the article show this, or this, or that or that? The answer in every case would appear to be: No.DianaW 23:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Professor wrote: "But in looking at newspapers, corporate documents, and court documents, the witchcraft issue is raised in those places as well. At one of the schools PLANS sued, the witchcraft issue figured prominently. It was a very significant element to the organized protests in that school, and played some role in securing a religious underwriter for the lawsuit. So the information has been verified," Whew. Slithery stuff. "The issue is raised." Um - yes, the issue is raised. You can say that again! Oh, and the issue "figured prominently." It was a "significant element." All of this weasely junk will be batted back at you. You can't say in this article that PLANS accused somebody of witchcraft, or that anybody ever suspected PLANS of "death threats" "bribes" etc. because you can't show that (because they didn't). You can fill the talk pages with this kind of innuendo as long as it's giving you a thrill, and I can rebut it each time. It's not exactly noble, what you're doing, is it?DianaW 23:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm replying now to Professor Marginalia's post of 5 November. This isn't a complete reply but as it's very long already, we're clearly going to have to take many of these issues point by agonizing point.

Thank you for “simplifying” things because it was “difficult to read.” What you actually did was write a long apology that you hope will justify leaving these insinuations in this article even though they aren't supported.

So to take my questions, you didn't give specific answers to most, but left me to piece it together myself. Fine. I asked, and the answers are:

Threats of force were reported by whom? No reply; unknown

Does the article have a suggestion as to whence came these threats of force? No

Does the article specify the nature of the threat - what kind of "force" might be used, and against whom? No

Does the article quote anyone speculating as to whence came these threats of force? No

Does the article quote anyone suggesting there is evidence as to the origin of the threats? No

Does the article suggest that such threats were confirmed? No

Was there police investigation of these threats? Apparently not; not reported here

(regarding the “reports of intimidation” and “bribes”) Who did the letter describe as making these attempts? Doesn’t say

Does the school official quoted in the news report - and which news report is this? -is this also ref 11? Apparently

Who is the school official quoted please? James Sweeney (wow! A question that has an answer)

Does the school official state an opinion or give any other facts that might lead the reader toward a suspicion as to who the death threats came from - No

who reported them – No

and what the outcome of any investigation into the threats might have been? No

My turn to simplify. Nnothing in this article or elsewhere implicates PLANS in “death threats,” “threats of force,” “intimidation,” “bribes” etc. This is not in the article you have cited, and apparently, there are no witnesses, no police reports, no evidence, and no quotes from anyone even *speculating* that PLANS could have been the source. I’m sure if you had other sources, you’d be quoting them.

This “death threat” thing is dead in the water (pun intended). It functions as innuendo in the wiki article. It is yellow journalism at its very very finest. Putting the quote from Dan Dugan disavowing involvement immediately following unsubstantiated reports of “threats” – and then claiming you did this in order to “exculpate” PLANS - clearly functions in a dishonest manner as innuendo of something that you cannot substantiate. It must be removed from this article.

Threats against schools do happen, especially when you have a lot of unhappy, disenfranchised families. We have absolutely no evidence of where these threats came from, or whether the fact of threats was ever substantiated; if there were threats, there is nothing to suggest they were even related to the protests, or more than coincidental in timing. They may have come from parents unhappy with the school, or unhappy students, or they may have been more or less random (troubled kids, or other troubled individuals who target schools for reasons completely removed from the Waldorf methods controversy). Threats against schools happen for quite a variety of reasons. (As I mentioned, I attended a high school that received repeated threats at one point . . . and considering it wasn’t a Waldorf school and happened 20 years before the formation of PLANS, PLANS probably wasn’t involved).

It’s quite easy to “spin” something like this, but the wikipedia article shouldn’t favor either side’s spin. The relevance of the entire incident to an article on PLANS is dim. You write, for instance, that “It's important to describe the nature of these protests.” But the “nature” of these protests is not encylopedia content; there’s nothing there other than spin. Maybe you were there at one of these protests or something; if so, keep in mind that your personal recollections aren't exactly encyclopedia material either.

Your spin, for instance, on the fact that many of these families were not native English speakers is that PLANS took advantage of this to tell them something about witchcraft. An equally plausible alternative is that there were families unhappy with the school, or who would have been unhappy had they been able to understand what was going on at the school, and people from PLANS were the first to lend an ear, or to suggest a means of recourse.

Another spin: you clearly hope readers will deduce that since no parent complaints were filed at the school till *after* contact with folks from PLANS, this means PLANS fed them this stuff and encouraged them to complain about things they hadn’t previously been unhappy about. Equally plausible is that no one had listened to them before this, and they didn’t even know how to file a complaint, possibly because of the language barrier. Schools don’t really enjoy having parents complain, and it's not uncommon to hear that public schools sometimes don't make it easy. It also isn’t unusual for schools in low-income neighborhoods to have parents who, due to working long hours and having poor skills themselves, don’t have the time, the self-confidence, or the language skills to effectively challenge their child’s school in a substantive way. They could even have been intimidated *from* filing a complaint. These things get much easier to do when you find someone else on your side. When one parent complains, it is easier for a school to blow them off than when a group of parents complains - and when most of the parent body doesn’t speak English it is very easy to imagine no one had the nerve, or parents had not previously shared their complaints with one another, perhaps believing they were the only ones dissatisfied or uncertain about what was happening at school.

No information on this is available in the articles you cite. The truth may be somewhere in the middle, or none of the above. We are left with “spin.” Due to the language barrier it is possible that prior to PLANS’ involvement these parents couldn’t really figure out some of the things happening at the school at all, good or bad. Even parents who DO speak English often find what is going on in the Waldorf school baffling.

More spin:

“But the details are important to characterize the level of fear and panic that developed after PLANS brought their campaign to that school.” That’s also spin. I could rewrite it, “It’s important to characterize the level of fear and panic that parents at the school felt on realizing that their local public school had been infiltrated by a religious sect.” That would also be spin, of course. The article needs to give FACTS. You can’t pretend to be in these people’s heads (maybe know some of them, or *are* one of them, but this isn’t a forum for your friends to tell their version of a PLANS protest or a school board meeting, however). We know there were protests; there was a picket; PLANS distributed leaflets; PLANS attempted to speak at various meetings etc. “Fear and panic generated by PLANS” type stuff is NOT going to stand in this article. You’ve got me to deal with in the meantime.DianaW 23:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am determined to focus on the article, not other editors. I'm not going to read through lengthy diatribes filled with personal attacks and unsubstantiated hypotheticals to spot out the valid, verifiable content in these discussions. What looks to me has happened is that the objections keep shifting.

1. First, the information needed verifiable sources. There were repeated requests on this talk page for verifiable sources, raising a very valid objection. But now numerous sources have been found.
2. Next, the information was challenged as a misrepresentation of the verified sources. This objection was repeated many times by editors who admitted not reading those sources. Therefore the sources were quoted at length to demonstrate how the subject is addressed in the sources.
3. After that, the information was challenged because in places it's vague. For example, the school district official who notified the parent body of the threats and increased security risks wasn't given a name in this article, and an editor demanded one. So the name was shared, the name of the school district superintendent, who by any definition qualifies as a "school district official".
4. Now the objection raised is that there is no mention in the sources of the outcome of any police investigation resulting from the threats. Many of these questions attempt to discount the reports found in the sources because the sources haven't exhaustively detailed every who, what, when, where why and neither have they described and verified all of it through law enforcement reports. I think that's rarely *ever* going to be the standard required in articles at wikipedia, but this is something that we editors can discuss. This is a controversial organization, obviously. My thinking was that the events at Oak Ridge should be described in a matter-of-fact way so that readers of the article will see a depiction of the controversy. The article about PETA, for example, gives examples and readers can see some of what some find so controversial about the organization.

This is an accurate account of the nature of the PLANS protest against this school. PLANS passed out leaflets claiming the school was engaging in occult practices, and met with, counseled and recruited parents and teachers to engage in this protest. They later sued the school, and in that suit repeated accusations that the teachers work under Lucifer, and that things the students are doing in the classroom are occult rituals. PLANS took pictures of the student work to enter into evidence, and argued that things like drawings of stars in the assignments are some examples of occult symbols taught to children. Professor marginalia 01:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks in what I wrote. (If you disagree, point to them.) The "hypotheticals" are in what you've provided here, not what I've provided. You write: "the information needed verifiable sources. There were repeated requests on this talk page for verifiable sources, raising a very valid objection. But now numerous sources have been found." No - no sources have been found at all that suggest that PLANS made threats against anyone, bribed or intimidated anyone. Nothing suggesting this is found in the material you have provided - nothing. I am sure if it were, you would be able to point me to it without the need for this sort of vague generality.

You continue: "This objection was repeated many times by editors who admitted not reading those sources. Therefore the sources were quoted at length to demonstrate how the subject is addressed in the sources." Yes - I "admitted" not having read local newspapers in California in the late 1990's. I don't live in California and the sources you pointed to aren't (in most cases) online. That's why I asked you to quote them. Now that you have quoted them, we see that they don't support what you want to cite them as supporting. Thank you. Yes, you have demonstrated how the material is "addressed" in those articles. You have not shown that the material *supports* the claims you wish to make in the article. It does not. You write smoothly, but saying "Now we see how it is addressed" or "we see that it figures prominently" isn't getting past me, as actual support for very specific claims.

"After that, the information was challenged because in places it's vague. For example, the school district official who notified the parent body of the threats and increased security risks wasn't given a name in this article, and an editor demanded one. So the name was shared, the name of the school district superintendent, who by any definition qualifies as a "school district official". Wow, pretty lame. You point to the ONE piece of additional information we gained from this lengthy process: the name of the official quoted in the article. Do you think this will direct attention from the fact that the official didn't say anything to suggest that PLANS made the threats? And that the answer to every single other question (were the threats verified, were the threats reported to the police, was PLANS implicated, was there an investigation pointing to PLANS, were there accusations or evidence against PLANS? etc.) was: "No."

"Many of these questions attempt to discount the reports found in the sources because the sources haven't exhaustively detailed every who, what, when, where why and neither have they described and verified all of it through law enforcement reports. I think that's rarely *ever* going to be the standard required in articles at wikipedia, but this is something that we editors can discuss." Indeed we'd better discuss it. If you want to imply someone made DEATH THREATS, indeed you are going to need a good deal of pesky "who, what, when, where, why" stuff. Otherwise - get that junk out of the article. Simple. Innuendoes about "death threats" are NOT going to remain in this article unless you have some basic info. of the who, what, where why variety. You haven't got so much as a shred (and excuse me if this is too personal, but I suspect you don't actually believe anyone at PLANS threatened anybody).

"This is an accurate account of the nature of the PLANS protest against this school. PLANS passed out leaflets claiming the school was engaging in occult practices," Yes, occult practices - PLANS does claim the school engaged in occult practices, as anthroposophy is an occult sect - and you're hoping you can throw in "witchcraft" (why exactly? I'm not sure why the charge is so important to you, I surmise merely because it sounds very inflammatory). You can't, however, just add stuff because you think it will sound cooler or make PLANS sound nastier.

"and in that suit repeated accusations that the teachers work under Lucifer, and that things the students are doing in the classroom are occult rituals. PLANS took pictures of the student work to enter into evidence, and argued that things like drawings of stars in the assignments are some examples of occult symbols taught to children." That all sounds probably correct to me, why not put that in the article instead of the witchcraft thing which you can't support? (incidentally, it's clearer than ever that you can't support it; I haven't got ALL those articles yet so I've been still giving you the benefit of the doubt. It seems fair to assume, though, that if you had it, you'd be popping it in here.)DianaW 01:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The talk page is filled with taunts, attacks, and school yard grandiousity such as, "you'll have me to deal with". It is also filled with distracting arguments over statements allegedly made some where else or some other argument at some time or another. The more the talk page becomes filled with irrelevant or private quarrels, the more likely substantive concerns are overlooked completely.

• In the History of the public activity section, the text is about the history of their campaign, not about the arguments they made in court. How was the organization formed and what did they do? What circumstances unfolded in the particular schools PLANS targeted? What were the events that led to the lawsuit? The reference sources which pertain to the protests at the Oak Ridge school say "witchcraft". The term is used in headlines. It would be propaganda to pretend otherwise in describing the protests in that school.
• This article does not imply *anybody* made the death threats. It describes the degree of tension which developed as a result of the protests. PLANS comes to the school, passes out leaflets, argues against the Waldorf methods in gathered presentations, counsels teachers and parents in the school, pickets, and gives statements to the media. Within a week, there are accusations of witchcraft. And before a month is out, half the students have boycotted, picketers are demanding the termination of two school officials, the superintendent cancels a public meeting over concerns about safety, hires two guards at the school, and alerting the community that complaints that students have been threatened and intimidated. And a there is a death threat reported to the Waldorf methods training program.Professor marginalia 17:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"The talk page is filled with taunts, attacks, and school yard grandiousity such as, "you'll have me to deal with"." It refers to our discussion of this article. I'm happy to repeat it. I am telling you that whatever nonsense you want to post here, you will be dealing with me rebutting it. This can go on as long as you like. You know me well enough to know I mean what I say, and also to know that I am not going to be intimidated or go away when people try maneuver to get me in trouble with petty authorities. This is the meaning of "You'll have me to deal with." It is not a threat that I am going to come and beat you up or something. If I recall, the only one here who's suggested they've been having violent urges is thebee.

"This article does not imply *anybody* made the death threats." This is the center of this dispute. The way it is written now - and locked - that is exactly what it implies. That I believe to be your intention in stating that there were reports of threats and then in the next sentence the comment that Dan Dugan said he doesn't believe anything evil of anthroposophists or smtg like that. That's called yellow journalism. It is an attempt to imply something, or plant a suggestion in the reader's mind, that cannot be supported with reference to the documents. And obviously you can see that I have little patience with it on a personal level because I know beyond reasonable doubt that you know it is not true. And I know that you have, nevertheless, worked to figure out how to get away with inserting this material in this article, for this purpose - for the purpose of suggesting something really nefarious about PLANS. You're hoping the article will eventually be able to convey that perhaps people at PLANS are violent - perhaps if they can't get their way through the courts they'll resort to violence. People should be afraid of PLANS. They aren't just people on an informational campaign or with a legal challenge to this system - they may in fact be dangerous people. You have been strategizing this to figure out how material of this nature can be inserted in the article over reasonable objections. You know the material *doesn't* imply that - you're working on extremely careful wording that will allow you to suggest it anyway. Sorry if my interpretation of what is going on here is getting too personal - feel free to report me to, er, somebody.DianaW 18:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

P.M. wrote: "PLANS comes to the school, passes out leaflets, argues against the Waldorf methods in gathered presentations, counsels teachers and parents in the school, pickets, and gives statements to the media. Within a week, there are accusations of witchcraft." Your spin on this is that PLANS whispered in their ear: "This school is teaching your children witchcraft." The other explanation is that the parents - already concerned that their children were not learning to read - took a closer look at their children's lesson materials, at PLANS' suggestion, and found many things that they found personally reprehensible based on their own religious beliefs. We've been over this countless times - Biblically oriented Christians DO think anthroposophy is witchcraft. They didn't need Dan Dugan to suggest it to them. Dan Dugan DOESN'T think anthroposophy is witchcraft, so it makes little sense to suggest he was running around telling people this. He would have a credibility problem with these people, then, when they found out he was an atheist, wouldn't he? and considering this is not something he makes a secret of, there are so many problems with this scenario it's ridiculous. But the bottom line is that you can't get away with spinning this article to suggest it when you have nothing to back it up.DianaW 18:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be made clear here, Professor, that you are one of the 5-member group, Americans for Waldorf Education, who has been repeatedly cited here as the SOURCE for the claim that PLANS is a "hate group" [5]- and when challenged, the wording was revised to "a group that uses argumentation characteristic of hate groups" [6] in order to try to make the claim stick. It's pretty clear where you are coming from and what your motives are - to discredit an organization that challenges Waldorf education. It's a classic smear-campaign. That you have chosen to do this through dishonest, rather than honest means - self-citing, unattributed claims, weasel-words, attempting to associate disassociated elements, selective citation of editorials, etc., demonstrates the extents to which you will apparently go to make this repulsive and untruthful claim stick. You have repeatedly tried to associate PLANS with activities that are definitely NOT linked AT ALL to PLANS. It's dishonest editing and you are continuing to do it AND attempting to support your right to do it. You are being challenged to produce sources for the claims you have made - that ACTUALLY SUPPORT those claims. That is extremely reasonable considering what you and your partner, TheBee have personally introduced into the article. Pete K 18:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Pete wrote: "That you have chosen to do this through dishonest, rather than honest means - self-citing, unattributed claims, weasel-words, attempting to associate disassociated elements, selective citation of editorials, etc.," - and anonymous editing. Why aren't you willing to use your name, and tell us what organization you represent? Some day this stuff is going to stop surprising me.DianaW 15:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article should be deleted entirely

I'm not familiar with the Wiki culture. I don't understand why previous comments that I made on this page have disappeared.

This article only exists because supporters of Anthroposophy, a cult-like religious sect, want to "get even" with PLANS, an all-volunteer organization dedicated to blowing the whistle on Anthroposophy's habitual deceptive practices.

There is no reason why there should be an encyclopedia article about PLANS. Anybody who wants to know about it can Google it and see the PLANS page and pages attempting to rebut PLANS' arguments.

Propagandists have subverted the principles of Wikipedia, which is based on an assumption of truthfulness and good will.

-Dan Dugan, Secretary, PLANS, Inc. Dan Dugan, Secretary, PLANS Inc. 03:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Earlier discussion regarding the article can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PLANS/Archive_1 The history of the article documents that one admin, User:Fang_Aili, disagreed with the request for speedy deletion, that you added to the article 16:28, 23 August 2006, and deleted your request seven minutes after it was made. According to the history of the article, it was created 24 February 2006, not by a critic of the WC, but by someone who repeatedly has argued for the inclusion of an external link to PLANS as further "informational" source on 'Waldorf education in the Waldorf_education article. Thebee 11:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and then what happened Sune? It seems you and Harlan proceeded to fill the article with weasel-words and nonsense. It became a platform for your hateful dialog. Then you got Professor Linda involved and now we have an article that attacks, rather than describes PLANS. Don't you already have several websites devoted to doing exactly this? Why not give up this battle and let this article, if it stays, do what it's supposed to do - describe PLANS, describe the PLANS lawsuit - and stop with the nonsense about hate groups and death threats - nonsense you KNOW isn't true. Anybody can look at the history of the article and notice who said what, when and where. You have shown your true colors here and now that you have been discovered and exposed, you should go away and let the article read honestly and factually. You three, with this activity, represent Waldorf. Very nice. Who would want to put their children in a school system that has dishonesty as its flagship? Pete K 14:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)