Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This page is for discussion of the PLANS web-site's appropriateness and accuracy vis a vis Waldorf education. It also archives discussion previously on the Talk:Waldorf education page.

This page archived material which was only a few days old. It is a political attempt to hide discussion of criticism of Waldorf education in a backwater. Debate is best continued on the Talk:Waldorf education page. Lumos3 15:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I am also removing the PLANS site link. This will be controversial in some quarters, so I am giving a full explanation of this here.

Diana writes: I am replying to some of Hgilbert's explanation for removing the PLANS link. (You have later noted that nobody ever replied to any of this.) I hope I am putting this in the right place as I haven't tried to make edits here before. I'm one of the people mentioned, without my name given, in this list of reasons PLANS supposedly should not be cited in the Waldorf article.

Hgilbert writes: "Grave concerns have become apparent about the honesty, transparency and standard of the site. In particular:

1) The 'historian' that is most frequently referenced has no academic qualifications in history."

Obviously the 'historian' whose credibility Hgilbert is attempting to call into question with the use of quotes round the word is Peter Staudenmaier. Peter Staudenmaier is a PhD candidate in history and has indeed published academic papers, in academic journals, as well as a book (not self-published) on the subjects in question here, all fully citable. (I will provide a list of his published works a bit later, in case this point is actually in dispute.) The numerous references here that merely lead to Sune [...]’s multiple web sites ("The Bee," "Waldorf Answers," and "Americans for Waldorf Education" are all the work of [...]) would also have to go, if a site that has used Peter Staudenmaier's work has to go, since to my knowledge Sune has no “academic qualifications” in history, and citing propaganda or product-promotion web sites is not usually acceptable in academic papers, unless perhaps they are being cited as *examples* of such.

Firstly: Is it not true that at the time of writing of writing these papers and book, and for a long period when P.S. was being cited as a historian on the PLANS site, and to this day, he had no academic qualifications as a historian? That he is now a candidate for such qualifications is to be praised.

You are missing the point. This is a person who does indeed have published articles, in scholarly journals, as well as a book on the subject, and numerous articles in other media. His publications meet the standards for citing here. There is no doubt about this. I offered a list but I really don't have time, I'd rather get an updated CV from him but also don't really want to bother him, as I don't think he's too interested in Wikipedia. Anyone interested can google him and find, in about 30 seconds, that he is a published author on various topics related to anthroposophy. He is not, however, "PLANS' historian." I don't see where he's cited as a historian on the PLANS site anyway. This is completely irrelevant. You could pick any one individual with an article on the PLANS site, and say, this person doesn't have a graduate degree, so we can't ever refer to the PLANS site? I don't think so. The fact that you have your facts all wrong in the first place is simply a reflection of the fact that you are barking up the wrong tree trying to discredit this one individual anyway. You don't have a graduate degree either, do you? Hm. Where does such an argument lead us next? Your academic degrees? Mine? Where do we even get off writing encyclopedia entries?

Actually, I do have a graduate degree. That's not the point, however; Wikipedia has criteria for sources to be used.

Where is your graduate degree from, what university? In what subject? Where was your undergraduate degree from?DianaW 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going into anthroposophists' activities in Nazi Germany. If you are the "enforcer" here of Wikipedian policies, it says clearly this page is not for discussing the issues in the article, but for discussing the *article*. The question was your bizarre assertion that because a certain individual who has articles on the PLANS web site doesn't have a PhD, the site could not be mentioned in the article! If this argument made any sense, why would you stop with Peter? Lots of us don't have PhDs. You could win that one much more easily than picking on Peter, but that is not the point, is it? The point is your sour grapes. (Hope I am indenting and signing things correctly now. There's more below.)DianaW 14:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Secondly: Peter was kind enough to send me the basis for claims he made on the PLANS site that a number of Nazis were friendly towards and supportive of anthroposophy/Waldorf education. One of those he mentioned was Rudolf Hess. The documents he sent spoke of Hess's staff, not Hess himself. I have since discovered that Hess was actually the person who signed the document forbidding anthroposophy in the Third Reich!!! If this was anthroposophy's friend in the Reich, what did its enemies do??? (Late edit; my apologies, I am wrong. Hess did lift a ban on anthroposophy in the Third Reich.)Hgilbert 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter also said that a Nazi named Bauemler "said good things about anthroposophy". Bauemler was in fact mentioned in the documents he sent -- with numerous criticisms of the education and a single point of interest - a way that, despite fundamental ideological differences, its pedagogical results in overcoming intellectualism could be useful to the Nazi goals. The documents show no friend of the schools, but someone interested in making use of them for his own ends. Nothing he sent supports his contention that Bauemler said anything good about anthroposophy.

2) Several of the prime complainants on the site have been either misleading or at least not fully disclosing about key information. One has repeatedly accused the Waldorf school of not teaching her child reading in the three years the latter attended the school, and said that the child had a slow recovery from this poor academic start. She recently revealed (in response to direct questioning) a) that these three years were spent in the kindergarten (Waldorf kindergartens tell parents they will not teach reading), and b) that her child was reading well by the second half of first grade, i.e. within a few months of leaving the Waldorf school."

The above is about me. (It would help, of course, to use people's names, if you are going to write on other web sites trying to make it sound like they - I - am some disreputable character. The casual reader cannot possibly check what you are saying about me here, since you don't even name me.)

What you write above about me is completely false. I have never once, anywhere, “accused the Waldorf school of not teaching [my] child reading.” My child attended 3 years of preschool and kindergarten at Waldorf, and I of course had no expectation he would learn to read in kindergarten. Hgilbert has not understood any of the many posts I have written on the critics list and elsewhere on the problems in reading instruction in Waldorf, if he thinks I have ever made a claim such as he attributes to me here.

It is flatly false to frame this as if I “revealed” this information (the years my child attended the Waldorf school) only under “direct questioning.” This implies I somehow wish the dates or ages my child attended the school to be a secret. My child’s story in Waldorf has been told on the critics list in detail many times – and I sign my full name and explain who I am, what my association with Waldorf is, and why I write what I write. Many, many posts from me explain the timeline and details of my family’s experiences in Waldorf explicitly. I wrote my first posts on the critics list in late 1999. I don’t tell the whole story of my family’s Waldorf experiences, with dates and timelines, in every post, of course – so if you asked me, I told you. My criticism of the reading instruction in Waldorf is based on much more than my own child’s experience. It is based on numerous other children’s experiences, my own observations in the school (I worked in the Waldorf kindergarten for parts of 3 different school years), Steiner’s suggestions for teaching reading, and other published material on reading in Waldorf schools.

It is clear to those who have observed in Waldorf classrooms that reading is discouraged among young children (this is not a point in dispute; I have listened to Waldorf teachers many times trade tips on *how* to discourage reading in young children), and I do believe this is harmful to these children’s later academic efforts.

I have never withheld information about the dates and times of my son’s Waldorf years. I have certainly never suggested that I wanted the Waldorf school to teach him to read in kindergarten. I did not and I do not now call for Waldorf schools to teach kindergarteners to read. I do not believe reading should be taught explicitly in kindergarten, though I also don’t believe children who wish to read should be discouraged or shamed. Of course, if someone “directly questions” me, I will provide information on the dates we were in Waldorf and my son’s age at the time; but to imply that I am *otherwise* dishonest or withholding about this, and that getting the facts from me requires “direct questioning,” is not playing fair, Hgilbert.

It has also become apparent through direct questioning that the main complainants on the site almost all or all had their children in the schools for extremely short periods. A number of them do not and/or did not even have custody of the children in question. Some do not mention the views of their spouses, who have more contact with the children, regarding the education; others mention that their spouse holds a diametrically opposed view, supporting the education and feeling it works well for the child."

The above claims are also demonstrably false. Again, it is easy to make this sort of insinuation without naming names. "Lots of the contributors . . ." etc. It is false. I doubt that you could name more than one individual who posts in a regular or visible way there who either does not have custody or his or her children, or who has a dispute with a spouse or ex-spouse about Waldorf education. This is an argument by ad hominem - implying that the criticisms come from people who have had custody of their children removed! Frankly, knowing a number of them personally, the regular contributors there are an unusually happily and long-married group! - not that anyone's personal situation is relevant. It is simply incorrect that among Waldorf critics there is a high proportion of divorced parents or parents with disputes about Waldorf. This allegation cannot possibly be backed up by Hgilbert.

The claims about the "extremely short periods" is also false. Among the regular contributors there, my own child's stay in Waldorf was one of the shorter ones: 3 years. (Ages 3-6 are formative years.) Many of the other regular contributors had children in Waldorf for 5 or 6 years.

I am sorry if I misrepresented the group; a X. certainly does not have custody of his Waldorf child,

Oh look! Now the name has been removed! It sure didn't say "X" a few hours ago!DianaW 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in response to your objection to names appearing here, the name has been removed. You cannot object to it appearing and object to it not appearing. This is a double bind, a tactic the PLANS discussions often use. Please avoid it here.Hgilbert 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My name does, however, still appear on the Waldorf discussion list and Hgilbert's comments are still there for everyone to see - so I know that I am the Mr. X who Mr. Gilbert is referring to. Since I have been drawn into these discussions by Mr. Gilbert, I will state for the record here as I did there that I have not lost custody of my children and, in fact, enjoy more custody timeshare than my ex-wife who is a Waldorf teacher. That my name was mentioned here is quite disturbing to me and my family, but not surprising at all as I have become quite accustomed to the types of tactics some people have tried to use against me to discredit me and others who voice a critical view of Waldorf education. --Pete K 23:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I can object to it appearing and then object to it not appearing. Try to understand the issue rather than continuing to point fingers at others for your own very poor behavior - behavior very much contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and the hypocritical "good faith" reminders you keep sending to me. It is not whether someone's name is used or not used either in the article or in the discussions here. I'm all in favor of everyone using their real name. It is mud slinging that is objectionable - the posting of false (and irrelevant even if they were true) personal accusations - the attempt to discredit people based on personal situations or characteristics, rather than the substance of what they have said. Bringing in people's family situations is stooping quite low. You named names directly in response to my calling you on your false (and in itself disreputable) accusation that many critics do not have custody of their children. In other words, you stooped lower and lower. *At that point* removing the name is merely covering your tracks. You've had your cake and eaten it too.DianaW 15:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are talking about. None. The above is completely false, and you are on shaky ground talking about individuals' children here, and their marital situations! You could at least get your facts straight. It is completely untrue that X. does not have custody of his Waldorf child. This is really shocking. Can this possibly be okay with Wikipedia policies?

I really think you should be more

and I had been (falsely?) informed that others had not had custody of their children in Waldorf as well. I apologize if this is not the case (note that I would never include such hearsay in an article; this talk page is a good place to clear up such misunderstandings).

Oh, please be serious. You are trying to "clear up misunderstandings" with this sort of thing? You are doing nothing of the sort, you should be ashamed. You are trying to slander and defame. You implied the critics are a bunch of people who have lost custody of their children! You stoop to *naming names* of individuals you think have lost custody of their children and it turns out not to even be true. There is NOT ONE PERSON there that I know of who has ever had custody of their children removed. There is ONE case of a person who disagrees with his ex-wife about Waldorf. You were never "misinformed" about this - you have chosen to believe nasty rumors behind the scenes. These are the tactics of a cult trying to discredit its critics. You have lowered yourself. Wikipedia should dismiss you. This is appalling.

Perhaps you could mention the length of time that Dan Dugan's child(ren) and those of other principle contributors - Peter Staudenmaier, Peter Farrell, Steve Walden, etc. - have attended the school. Have the former two's children never went to a Waldorf school, for example? I have understood that Steve Walden's did. Has Dan Dugan had custody of his children throughout? How long were his children in Waldorf?

First of all, the critics list is an open list, for anyone interested in the topic. It is not only for people who have, or have had, children in Waldorf schools. There are a variety of other topics there - biodynamics, Camphill, anthroposophical medicine in addition to Waldorf. So naturally there are interested people who don't have a child in a Waldorf school but have encountered or become interested in anthroposophy in other ways. Walden's children were in Waldorf for (I don't recall exactly) but it is *many* years. Peter Farrell is interested in anthroposophy because he is a scientist, he is interested in the pseudoscience that comes out of anthroposophy. Peter S. we have already discussed; his interest is historical. He is probably (I can't speak for him but last I heard) writing a dissertation on Steiner.

This is a case of trying to discredit *individuals* by reference to personal details, family history, marital status, "exactly how many years were you at the school" etc., and there cannot be any doubt this is completely unacceptable and inappropriate as a means to *improve the article on Waldorf education*. I am shocked. This sort of thing wholly discredits Wikipedia.

Diana edits one more time to add: In fact although taking part in improving this article is obviously a lost cause, as you folks have it in a vise grip, under apparently round-the-clock surveillance, I am considering reporting this for defamation, as apparently Wikipedia does take accusations of defamation seriously. Discussions of whether contributors have custody of their children is not a legitimate academic inquiry. When I first read this this morning, I missed the part (because the text did not wrap properly) where you not only don't back off this claim, go on naming individuals whom you believe (erroneously) do not have custody of their children, but go on asking me even more specific questions about specific individuals, Does this person or that person have custody of his children. Are you serious!DianaW 16:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[Removed inappropriate personal info] --Thebee 08:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not speak for Dan. The above is clearly an attempt to imply that he was either fighting with his ex-wife or that she gained custody of the child. Neither is correct AT ALL. They have never had a dispute about Waldorf - ever. The rest is simply self-evident slime - dragging into the public limelight, in a supposed attempt to "raise the professional standards of Wikipedia," somebody's long-ago allegations of somebody's child having "behavior problems" in sixth grade. (Mr. Dugan's children are all grown.)

These are the tactics of a cult.

[Removed inappropriate personal info] --Thebee 15:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the site gave me the clear impression that a poster blamed Waldorf for her own child's situation in reading. I actually don't know if it was you or not. I also didn't claim it was you; I used no names. You are the one who associated yourself with this.

This is a high level of dishonesty. I see that even this page can be mangled later, things that make you look bad can simply be removed. Previously, this said "Your own comments" referring to me. Now you have changed it to appear it may not have been me you were talking about. I'm not stupid, Hgilbert, and I'm not quite so easy to be done with as you might think.

Obviously, another poster may well have blamed her child's situation in reading on Waldorf. There are many posts like that on that list, since it's one of the main complaints about Waldorf schools. You are trying to disassociate yourself from the comments you made about *me* by pretending it may not have even been me you were referring to. It was an attempt to discredit *me*, and although it did not mention me by name, allowing you now to pretend this is a misunderstanding, it was intended to show that I, as a "main complainant," had misrepresented my family's experience in Waldorf - that if my child had reading problems, I was trying to hide the fact that he only attended the kindergarten, in which case it would not make sense to blame his reading problems on the Waldorf school. You implied that I did not want the true dates or timeline to come out, but only reluctantly provided this information under "direct questioning" (when in fact, the story is told several times over in the archive, easy to find; I'm sure Sune has his assistants working on the matter). I can't prove it was me you meant, since you never used my name, but you know it, and I know it. There is really no point in pretending later that this was some kind of misunderstanding. It was an intellectually dishonest attempt to manipulate opinions about the *people* who might criticize Waldorf - to suggest that there is something sticky-icky about some of the stories. You have no legitimate way to show this: you proved that when you resorted to inappropriate inquiries about who has custody of their children.

Just for the record: Note that I used no names; you said "that was me" and I assumed it was true. You also asked that names be mentioned and then objected when they were. I also agree with Ibyrnison that this discussion is totally off topic. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia discussion. Let's get back to working on articles. Hgilbert 00:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: What I object to is scurrilous accusations made against people not present, without names so that it is impossible for outsiders to even know who you may be talking about, let alone verify the statements that you have attributed to them. I don't have any general objection to my name being mentioned.

Do you deny you later amended this page to remove your own remarks that showed that this had happened? You removed them, so you could pretend that it maybe really hadn't been me you were talking about. The issue is not whether my name is mentioned somewhere but sly attacks of this nature. I take it quite seriously that you have attempted to imply in a public forum that I am a person who lies. You suggested things I had said on critics were deliberately misleading. I am way less than impressed by attempts to pretend later, or alter the record to appear, that this is not what happened. This only further damages your credibility.

I further object to your pretending that it is ME who is distracting people from "working on articles." It is YOU who attempt consistently to damage the article, in this case by your bizarre assertion that the PLANS web site should not be mentioned in an article about Waldorf education because (one example you gave) some questionable person over there said her child was damaged by not being taught to read in 3 years in Waldorf, and "only revealed under direct questioning" that the child had attended the kindergarten etc. The person attempting to distract from the topic at hand is the person using sleazy tactics like that to discredit voices that have something critical to say about your movement. It is experience of *this* sort of tactic that creates critics. We are all too familiar with the censorship and the personal insinuations to discredit individuals with a different point of view. Do not think I can be deterred by little scoldings from you and Byrnison telling me to be less emotional or stop being "off topic." YOU dragged progress in the article in this sleazeball, personal innuendo direction. You're just ticked now 'cus it was months ago that you did it, and it caught up to you unexpectedly.

Like I say, I haven't figured out entirely how things work here, but rest assured this effort to silence critics with the hysterical and slanderous "hate group" label is going to fail in the end. I'm not going to play games taking it out and watching it put back within the hour, but I'm going to figure out what the correct recourse is.

Anthroposophists write the article, then anthroposophists say "Some say our critics are a hate group." Oh - who says the critics are a hate group? Oh, it's *anthroposophists* who say the critics are a hate group? All the while wringing their hands because somebody's articles might be cited who doesn't have a PhD? *What* do you think this sort of charade makes people *really* think of anthroposophists?DianaW 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Note below, where I *reply* to your earlier remarks, now removed. The "Your own comments" came from you, and you have now removed it, so it will appear you might have meant someone other than me.DianaW 20:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That's flatly impossible, and you are digging yourself a deeper hole, Hgilbert. "My own comments" cannot possibly have given you that impression, because there are no such comments from me, anywhere on the site. You are either remembering wrong, misunderstanding what you read, I don't know, but this sort of thing clearly has no relevance to "improving the article." All you were trying to do was discredit *me*, or not me personally, I'm quite sure you presumed I'd never even read what you had said about me, namelessly, over here, to prove the whole site shouldn't ever even be mentioned because of your vague insinuations that people hangin' round over there aren't trustworthy.

I simply haven't made any comments that would lead anyone to believe I "blame Waldorf for my child's situation in reading." How could that be possible? My child is 13 and reads at the college level. He learned to read in the first grade in public school. There is not a word from me on the critics site, anywhere, ever, no how, no way, suggesting I "blame Waldorf" for his reading problems - considering he doesn't have reading problems, and never did. There is no claim from me anywhere in the universe that my child ever had reading problems.

If you can't be bothered to read what people are writing on that list, then how can you feel you are entitled to decide the whole web site is useless?

I have not reviewed these comments in detail.

Apparently not. Yet you felt they belonged over here to prove to the world that critics have no credibility. It's your own you damaged.

Certainly the tone and level of hostility to Waldorf typical of the PLANS discussion, and I believe it is fair to say of your own contributions to that discussion, are fairly represented. Hgilbert 04:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandering off now into vague generalities about "tone" will not salvage this.

I will stop there, leaving further unsupportable claims about the PLANS lawsuit for PLANS' officers to respond on if they wish. Their case is under appeal; it is certainly not over. It is quite possible it will go to the Supreme Court eventually. I suppose it does make sense if PLANS is less often cited in the media after a judge dismissed the suit; however, this will undoubtedly change when the case is revisited at the next level of appeal.DianaW 20:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Diana Winters

3) Up to trial time, the PLANS group informed their audience that they had a solid case and were sure of winning their California lawsuit against school districts with Waldorf charter schools. When the case was tried, it turned out that they had no admissible evidence and that this had been clear for some time. This was rank misrepresentation.

4) One of the prime claims made on the site is simply absurd on the face of it. This is that Waldorf Schools 'hide' their spiritual background. Most or all Waldorf schools have parent libraries and/or school-run bookstores with a broad range of books on Waldorf education and on anthroposophy; new parents are especially encouraged to consult these. Every one of these books makes this spiritual foundation clear. Especially young schools tend to have study groups on Waldorf education; these generally read and discuss one of these published works. Steiner's works are readily available (and have been for decades); these can hardly be said to hide their spiritual nature. In fact, if one looks into the claims, it becomes apparent that what is really being said is that the people involved did not feel that the school made sufficient pro-active efforts to ensure that they knew about this background. No copies of the schools' promotional materials are provided to back up even this claim.

5) There is no attempt to provide a statistical breakdown or even numerical gauge of how often the problems cited crop up, thus whether they are anomalies or trends. What percent of parents are satisfied in Waldorf schools, Montessori schools, public schools, etc., in terms of questions of transparency, competency, etc.?

Given all the above, and the expressed desire (by the Wikipedia Alternative Education initiative) to raise the professional standards of Wikipedia sites about alternative education, I feel the link must go. I would encourage professionally-grounded critical evaluations of Waldorf education to be added to the site to replace this; if anyone knows of serious studies, please provide links to these. Hgilbert 16:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The third paragraph of this section is a response to a missing criticism. I have added a sentence about Plans which is the principal vocally critical body of Waldorf education so that the response is in context. Lumos3 15:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph you mention is on the Talk page. It would make sense to clarify it where it occurs, here on the Talk page. Note that the above, serious questions about the Plans site's bona fides have not been answered. Hgilbert 02:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand you disagree with what the PLANS site says about Waldorf education. However they have a point of view and your comments above do not discredit the site they just demonstrate that you disagree with it. The PLANS point of view on Waldorf education is something which a reader of an encyclopedia with a policy of presenting all points of view should encounter. The one line description of PLANS views followed by a paragraph of reply can hardly be said to be unfair to Waldorf education. Why have a reply to a criticism which is not clearly stated. This is just confusing. Lumos3 09:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem not to have read the above, five-point, detailed criticism of the accuracy, honesty and transparency of the website in question. It is not a question of agreeing with them or not; it is a question as to whether they are a source of accurate information or not. To recapitulate, their 'historian' is not a historian, some of their claims are falsified or manifestly untrue, many of the complainants do not even have guardianship over their children, others did not ever experience the education, or did so only briefly, and they misled the public about their legal case. Finally, one of their key claims (the religious nature of anthroposophy) has recently been tested in court and they were unable to submit a single piece of admissible evidence to support this. Speech is free but erroneous speech has no place in an encyclopedia. Hgilbert 11:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the above discussion has pretty much shown your 5 points to be nothing but nonsense. The "historian" you claim is not a historian, is indeed a PhD with published works on this exact topic. This is absolutely perfect for a link. That some claims are untrue, according to you, is your opinion of the truthfullness of the claims. If you have a specific claim that you believe is untrue, please bring it here so we can examine it. The issue of guardianship has been resolved, I hope, in a way that will satisfy you - especially in my case that you brought specifically to discredit me. Regarding experiencing the education, you are not in any position to make that assessment. Personally, I have 15 years with 3 kids in Waldorf, my ex wife was a Waldorf student and teacher, daughter of a Waldorf teacher, my kids are 3rd generation Waldorf. Before my kids attended Waldorf, I was part of a Waldorf initiative and founder of a Waldorf school. I've studied Steiner for more than a dozen years. Most of the people at PLANS know as much or more about Waldorf education than I do. Anthroposophy is indeed a religion, I should know because my daughter was baptised in an Anthroposophical church. If there is something erroneous about what I have said here, please show evidence of it so we can clear this up once and for all. Otherwise, please discontinue your disinformation campaign. --Pete K 23:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Link removal

I just ran into the following: "Unless you can find a reliable, solid source for ANY information in Wikipedia ... it must not be included in the article if it is under dispute.... We are not a forum for repeating gossip and rumors. "--Jimbo Wales 20:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC) And am deleting a link that is solely that. Hgilbert 17:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The link concerned is a Primary source for an opinion critical of Waldorf Education. It is the principal public body voicing such criticism. It has taken public action in law based on its views. Its views dont have to be true , it is sufficient that they exist in the public domain. An article has an obligation to present critical views. This is a source for those critical views. Your claim that they are gossip and rumours is your POV. SeeWikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_definitionsLumos3 20:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes...to quote from that guideline:

• Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing

• Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?

• Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects?

• Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

• Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them. In the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment, and there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking.

• Widely acknowledged extremist political, religious, anti-religious and other websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, the Aryan Nations website or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is, in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.

I count six explicit violations of these guidelines for this link. Hgilbert 21:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

But " An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion. " Your argument is the suppression of an opinion on the subject of the article . It is an attempt to remove another point of view and not in the spirit of Wikipedia Lumos3 22:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It is clear from the rest of the guidelines what kinds of persons or groups or meant; otherwise there would be no restriction on blogs -- after all, they are simply the free expressions of opinions. Not every opinion is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, especially not every opinion available on the web -- thus the emphasis on published material. If we were to include every opinion on evolution or climate change available on the web in the eponymous articles, for example, it would be a fiasco. (There are a lot of sites out there, fellow.)Hgilbert 23:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about just anyones opinion. Opinions make a difference if they are held by a group and if they are acted on in public. The opinon of any group on the public stage is a fact and should be reported. Thats not to say that the opinion itself is a fact. Lumos3 07:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, groups don't really have opinions...in any case the guidelines specifically warn against groups with their own agenda; these are not objective sources. Please read the guidelines again. The group consists of people with no academic qualifications (their leader's highest degree was from high school, their historian wrote the works they quote from having good intentions of going to graduate school in history (I believe he has now begun this and may learn how to be a historian), etc. The whole set of guidelines is clearly saying that not all opinions are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. And I repeat the quote that begins this section:

"Unless you can find a reliable, solid source for ANY information in Wikipedia ... it must not be included in the article if it is under dispute.... We are not a forum for repeating gossip and rumors." J. Wales

Read that and reread it. It is no justification that the rumors are being circulated in a group.

That the group in question brought a legal suit is objective and deserves reporting, as is the fact that they were unable to present any evidence or witnesses to support their contentions. They have been completely discredited in the press (since the lawsuit they are no longer quoted in articles about Waldorf education). Surely you can find sources that meet the guidelines.Hgilbert 08:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that giving PLANS exposure is not the task of Wikipedia. They are not a notable and reliable source to quote with respect to Waldorf education. These are a bunch of disgruntled parents trying to get back at WE. Aquirata 09:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The PLans group is not being cited as a source of information on Waldorf but as evidence that an organised group exists which opposes it and is taking action against it. Whether you like it or not the PLANS group has become part of the cultural landscape of Waldorf education. I believe you are attempting to censor mention of this. Lumos3 10:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure you can mention them but not in the External Links section. They fail more than one criteria of reliable sources. Aquirata 12:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that what is relevant is the group's action, which is reported in the section on the charter schools. I am not trying to remove this. I agree with Aquirata that they fail the criteria for external links (see the above 6 violations of standards), however. You did not respond to my question about evolution and climate change; should an active pro-Creationist blog be listed in the External Links of the evolution page? I believe not. Where they do belong is on a page about the Creationist viewpoint. How would you respond to this very parallel situation?Hgilbert 23:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I beleieve that an article should give the reader access to all Points of View. So certainly there should be links to Creationism views on the evolution page. Lumos3 08:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The critical link which has been left extant The Skeptics Dictionary also falls foul of the criteria you list above. Is this because its criticism is more muted?. If the other goes then it should go also. Lumos3 09:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The skeptics' dictionary is not an extreme point of view, and is not a blog. The author has some academic credentials (probably not enough to get quoted as much as he does, but far more than the PLANS folks). I assume it's published in print, but perhaps I'm wrong about that. He reports facts reliably. The only point which is problematic is that he definitely takes a certain POV, but this is upfront and he is presented as such (by being listed in the critical views section).

I would turn your question around; is his criticism more muted because he has some academic background and knows how to present material fairly, because he is not an extremist, though certainly someone with a stance, because he is able to publish his material in print (thus subject to libel laws), because he feels a responsibility to present facts reliably generally, and because he's not running a blog where any purely subjective opinion has place, but is attempting to give an objectively valid presentation. These are all the kinds of things an encyclopedia should be looking for when referring people to sources.64.166.43.146 23:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If I can summarise - You agree with what he says so you are inclined to be sympathetic and include him. However he falls fouls of the criteria set out above. Specifically:-

Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing -He does not have a post grad degree

Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? He does have an agenda

Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? How are we to evaluate this as its a web page published by one person and many people contest it.

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. It is self published.

PLANS is as open to being prosecuted for libel as any other body but has not been. I believe PLANS deserves to be here as much as Skeptics Dictionary. I dont want to see the link removed but I do want some consistancy here.Lumos3 07:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has come up with a reason which is consistant across both sites, I assume they can both stay as the criteria applies equally to both of them. Reinstating Lumos3 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry: I have been away and only now have seen your last comments. Thank you for your comments about the Skeptics Dictionary; I had no idea what sort of source this is; it is a chief source on the Pseudoscience page, and assumed that it was of some validity. Both should go if neither conforms to the criteria, not both stay. Removing both. Hgilbert 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Skeptics' Dictionary seems to be a published work (at least, it has an ISBN!). The question as to whether the author could be considered to have published expertise in the field based upon this one work is a real one. It is not self-published, however, nor is it a blog and so on. The two sources are definitely on quite different levels...It comes down to Carroll's real level of expertise...if this is minimal, he should definitely not be cited on the pseudoscience page either!! If he has some recognition value, perhaps he should be returned to this page, however. Do you not agree?

Actually, Carroll seems to have a PhD in philosophy and to be a professor in philosophy at the Univ. of California. I think you are making a big error comparing the sources!!! Hgilbert 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Both are cited as evidence of the existance of critical opinion not as sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Some definitions. Lumos3 21:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The WC - an extremist, repeatedly untruthful, and unreliable site, not qualified to link to as external resource on Waldorf education

I think the following constitute aspects of the group and site of PLANS, that disqualifies it as an external link for further "information" about Waldorf education in an article on the subject.

1. After it was founded, PLANS started its public anti-Waldorf media campaign in 1997, much initiated by its secretary and webmaster since then, Mr. Dugan, by spreading and supporting allegations that Waldorf schools are based on a satanic religion and teach the pupils witchcraft, something PLANS later repeatedly has cultivated as similar allegations, see also here in its anti-Waldorf campaign.

The false allegations of witchcraft and satanism in Waldorf education, published by media, were then used by a Christian Law firm, that supported PLANS, to apply for funding on PLANS' behalf from an evangelical organization of the initiation of a law suit by PLANS, filed in 1998, against two public California schol districts for funding two - not waldorf - but waldorf methods school, alleging that the operation of the two Waldorf-methods schools by the school districts was "to advance religion, including the religious doctrines of Anthroposophy", something ruled against by the court already the following year (1999).

When criticized by a supporter on his mailing list, for the way PLANS used and spread allegations of satanism and witchcraft at Waldorf schools in their anti-Waldorf campaign, Mr. Dugan answered: "What I say 'in defense of the Waldorfians' is that 'they don't eat babies.'" and defended his argumentation with: "Am I pandering to the prejudices of Christians? Personally, yes I am!". Later, during depositions for the trial, Mr Dugan stated that he did not believe the allegations were true (source specifying original sources).

When criticized for a number of untruths at his PLANS site, Mr. Dugan did not remove them more than marginally, and instead added a disclaimer to his site, denying any responsibility for the untruths he was publishing, stating: "PLANS does not necessarily agree with or vouch for the veracity of everything posted in this section."

The choice of policy and argumentation by Mr. Dugan and PLANS stands out as consistent with the argumentation earlier used by Mr. Dugan in a former campaign of his against audiophiles, described by a surprised reporter of the Stereophile Magazíne at the time as "Audio Mc Carthyism", and is sufficient to put PLANS in the category of extremist groups and websites, that according to Wikipedia guidelines should not be used as sources for articles at Wikipedia, implying that it it would be similarly inappropriate to link them as external links for further "information" about subjects.

2. The secretary and driving force of PLANS in addition through the years has cultivated and supported a number of additional demonizing myths about Waldorf education, anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner on his mailing list, that he then has republished and now are found at the site of PLANS as archives of his discussion list and "education of the public about Waldorf education".

To these belong "Rudolf Steiner was an Aryan supremacist, and anthroposophy and Waldorf education are anti-Semitic" and that Steiner was ideologically allied to Hitler. This is contradicted by an analysis of the main arguments used to cultivate this, and further analysis of the facts, also here and here and research on Waldorf pupils (in Sweden), showing that the the proportion of pupils who suggested anti-Nazi and anti-racist solutions, i.e., solutions that involved counteracting or stopping Nazism and racism was considerably greater among the Waldorf pupils (93%) than among pupils at municipal schools (72%). Summary, original in Swedish. For a comparison of the thinking of Hitler and Steiner, a connection Mr. Dugan repeatedly works at cultivating on his mailing list as part of his and PLANS "education of the public about Waldorf education", see here, showing their completely opposite views on the importance of belonging to any special ethnic group.

Other allegations coached, supported and never contradicted by Mr. Dugan on his mailing list and republished by him at his "PLANS" site as "education of the public about Waldorf education" are that Rudolf Steiner as founder of Waldorf education was a schizophrenic (repeatedly discussed Feb 1997 - Aug 2004 and available in the archives), a megalomaniac (Dec 1995 - April 2002), and a drug addict, and that he probably practiced sex magic (June 1997 - Dec 2001), see overview of a number of the myths cultivated by PLANS as "education of teh public about Waldorf education".

Two elements in the mythology cultivated, published and supported by PLANS at its site together show similarities to the main anti-Semitic myth "Protocol of Sion" published and spread by anti-Semitic groups as hate speech against Jewry and Judaism since the beginning of the 20th century.

One is an "Anthroposophical World Conspiracy" myth, alleging that the secret agenda of Waldorf education, not told to Waldorf parents, is to train the future rulers of the world. In 1999, the Law firm Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), that in 1997 had used false allegations of witchcraft and satanism at Waldorf schools to apply for money on PLANS' behalf from an evangelical organization to finance the initiation of its law suit, probably based on "information" provided by Md. Dugan, in a Press Release seemingly was the first to publish the myth, claiming that the agenda of Waldorf education is to train the pupils at Waldorf schools to become the future leaders of the world.

Supported by Dan Dugan, Lisa Ercolano, a journalist in Baltimore, in October 2000 then started to cultivate the myth on Mr Dugan's mailing list. As a follow up the myth continued to be cultivated also by others up to April 2003 on Mr. Dugan's mailing list, and is published at the site of PLANs as part of the group's "education of the public about Waldorf education". After the cultivation of the myth, Ms. Ercolano was made vice President of PLANS, one of the three central positions of PLANS, that she still holds. The whole discussion is published by PLANS at its site as part of its "education of the public about Waldorf education".

The other is a "Protocol of Steiner" myth, especially cultivated by the repeatedly untruthful self proclaimed "historical scholar" Peter Staudenmaier, and published extensively at the site of PLANS. According to the myth, Steiner traveled around Norway in 1910, starting with a lecture in Oslo, to lay the groundwork for an Aryan supremacist style ideology. According to Mr. Staudenmaier, Steiner in the first lecture of a lecture series, as also in the lecture series as a whole, asserted that "The 'national souls' of Northern and Central Europe were [...] components of the 'germanic-nordic sub-race,' the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of the highest of five historical 'root races.'. Mr. Staudenmaier writes about this "This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the 'Aryan race.' "

The story is a demonizing, untruthful complete fantasy by Mr. Staudenmaier, with no correspondence in the lecture series, and has been published by Mr. Dugan at his PLANs site from 2000 up to 2005, when it was replaced with a slightly edited, but similarly untruthful fantasy. The theme of the first lecture of the series is a description of the nature of man as a spiritual being and the nature of higher spiritual beings as described by the Judeo-Christian tradition, and the culmination of the lecture series is a prediction that an increasing number from the 20th century and onwards will have a similar experience of Christ as that of Paul at Damascus.

When this has been pointed out to Mr. Staudenmaier, he has created a number of smoke screens and new fantasy stories about the truthfulness of what he has written up to last year, when he in a private mail to two U.S. professors, with a CC to the undersigned, has asserted among other things one of his ever new smoke screeens about himself, after repeatedly having trying to find some way of anchoring his description of the first lecture, or rather the fantasy lecture he refers to in his introduction to his article, and repeatedly specifically referred to by him in the discussion, in the series _somewhere_ in, or rather outside of the actually published lecture series: "I did not at any point refer solely to a single lecture rather than the full lecture series, ...".

When the untruth of the article has been pointed out also to Mr. Dugan as webmaster of his PLANS site, he has defended Mr. Staudenmaiers' obvious demonizing untruthfulness already in his introduction to his article, and continued to publish the whole story from 2000 up to 2005, in spite of its obvious demonstrated untruthfulness. For the different repeatedly untruthful stories of Mr. Staudenmaier on his own article, and the source he allegedly describes in his introduction to it, see here and onwards.

A further detailed analysis by Daniel Hindes documents the extent of fabrications in the article by Mr. Staudenmaier, published and supported by Mr. Dugan at his site from 2000 up to this day as "education of the public about Waldorf education". For some comments by Hindes on his experiences of discussions with Mr. Staudenmaier, see here.

One of the many further untrue myhs about Waldorf education cultivated by PLANS, related to myths of child-murders by Jews in anti-Semitis propaganda through the centuries, is that Waldorf education wants children to suffer, by supporting non-vaccination of children and thereby exposing them to life-threatening dangers of getting child diseases like the measles, and that Waldorf schools are haunted by bullying. The myth is published by PLANS as part of its "education of the public about Waldorf education". The first part of the myth is contradicted by the expressly stated view by the European Council for Steiner Waldorf Education, where the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America is an affiliate member, and the second part of it is contradicted by a study in UK and research on Waldorf students in Sweden, telling that Waldorf students felt to a lesser extent than the municipal students that they were bullied or unfairly treated, and that they to a greater extent than the students at municipal schools, felt that teachers or other adults quickly intervened if a student was bullied.

Like the use of the false allegations of witchcraft and satanism at Waldorf schools used by PLANS during the initiation of its first public anti-Waldorf campaign in 1997, the continued activities of PLANS since, including the support and publication of the "Anthroposophical World Conspiracy" myth, the "Protocol of Steiner" myth, and the "Waldorf schools want children to suffer" myths at its site, stand out as consistent with what the journal Stereophile wrote of Mr. Dugan's anti-audiophile campaign in 1991, comparing it to argumentation technique used by the otherwise quiet, undistinguished Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy at the beginning of the 1950s in his use of irresponsible accusations, militant attacks and self aggrandizing witch-hunting in his efforts to try to crash his opponents, though more polished during later years, after he got help from a professional journalist to give his PLANS site a more civilized surface.

3. When checking the site of PLANS, a number of large web portals have decided that it does not qualify as informational site on Waldorf education. In in 2001, a meta editor at DMOZ decided that it did not qualify as informational site on Waldorf education according to the standards of DMOZ, and removed it from the Waldorf theory category.

In 2002, the site was removed from the "Waldorf organizations" category of Google's web directory, and Google AdWords canceled an ad from the group.

After the group started to advertise for its site at Overture, in 2003, Altavista after looking at the site deleted all links to it from its web index, and stopped publishing all ads from Overture for searches on "waldorf", "waldorf education", and "Rudolf Steiner", regardless of their origin, to get rid of the ads for PLANS, after Overture in a first instance had removed the ads for PLANS at the request of Altavista, and PLANS had set them up again.

Based on the above, I find that PLANS does not qualify as an external "informational" link on Waldorf education according to the standards of Wikipedia, and therefore have removed it as such. --Thebee 09:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

PLANS is cited as evidence of the existance of critical opinion not as an information source on Waldorf Education. See Opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Some definitions. Lumos3 21:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, PLANS is not cited in the article as evidence of the existence of critical opinion, as described by Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Some definitions:

• "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion."

It is linked to at the end as an external informational source on Waldorf education, but does not qualify as such.

It also does not qualify as an "opinion" IN the article, as its actions and argumentations put in the category of Extremist groups, and using this as source of text in Wikipedia articles violates Wikipedia guidelines:

• "Widely acknowledged extremist political, religious, anti-religious and other websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, the Aryan Nations website or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is, in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source."

This also takes place with the WC, that is described and discussed in a separate article on it at Wikipedia.

--Thebee 09:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:EL#What should be linked to item 4 "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each". This supports linking to the major site critical of waldorf education. Lumos3 18:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

However, as documented bove, PLANS is an extremist group, and its site an extremist site, if you look closer at how it has run its anti-Waldorf campaign, and what it publishes in different forms as myths about Waldorf education.

If it had limited itself to serious criticism, it would have qualified as one of multiple points of view on Waldorf education. But it has and does not, as documented above. NPOV does not request that articles link to extremist groups and sites, in which the WC-site belong, and is not applied for example to the article on Judaism, that does not have a category in External links section on 'Critical views', linking to one or several sites, critical of Judaism, just to 'balance' it with one of several points of view, as basically all of them probably belong in the extremist group, as does the WC, with regard to Waldorf education.

You argument on this is therefore untenable, and I have removed the link to the extremist group 'PLANS' on this basis, as its extremist nature, as documented above, outweighs and deprives it of its 'right' to be included as a site 'critical' of Waldorf education.

--Thebee 20:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The accusations of extremism all come from inside the Anthroposophy movement and so can hardly be claimed to be unbiased. This citation is to the most organised and active group critical of waldorf education and so should be mentioned in the Waldorf education page. Please provide evidence of legal action against PLANS if it is as libelous as you say. Censorship of views you disagree with it not a part of the Wikipedia ethos. Lumos3 15:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor is inclusion of biased, false or unverifiable information, or links to such sources. As has been repeatedly suggested, comparable policy in other articles is to find sources of a high standard; if the topic has validity, it should be possible to locate such sources. Hgilbert 20:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that the PLANS site is too "trashy" to be included.

First it is included as evidence that it exists as an organised opinion.

All the criticism of the site is from Steiner based organisations or sympathisers.

No content from the PLANS site is used in the article.

I have therefore reinstated it. Lumos3 05:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The PLANS organization is already included in the article "as evidence that it exists" (?!) by virtue of the court case.

The criticism links include the Skeptics' dictionary and the Open-Waldorf site (where anything goes). Note that the latter is included in PLANS' own "links to independent sites".

No content from the PLANS site is used in the article because Wikipedia standards explicitly say that web-pages are not reliable sources. Want to know just how unreliable? Read PLANS' press release about their own court case, where they say the organization 'refused to present its case'. That's a bald-faced lie; the judge struck down all their evidence and witnesses. They are simply not a reliable source, even about verifiable facts about which they clearly know the truth.

Consensus here is clearly that it is not of a good standard. I have therefore re-removed it.

By the way, Lumos, just so you don't think this is unfair, I track news about Waldorf schools. Since they lost their court case, the PLANS organization has disappeared completely from the media, and I mean completely. They have lost all their credibility; having no legally-acceptable evidence or witnesses after seven years of preparation has made them appear totally unreliable and unserious. Hgilbert 11:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

PLANS is an organisation who are active , exist , have members publish material and have brought a court case against Waldorf education. The court did not dismiss the evidence on its credibility but on its legal admissibility. The case awaits appeal. It is a current issue. PLANS continues to exist . An objective survey of all Waldorf education views and issues would include a reference to PLANS. The repeated attempts to remove a simple link to it are evidence of the near cult like behaviour of some elements in Anthroposophy. Furthermore the critical references of PLANs all come from groups within Anthroposophy. A NPOV article must include a simple link under the external links, criticism section. Lumos3 16:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's not exaggerate. 1) They don't publish material. 2) The only evidence the court disqualified was a humorous book called "A Waldorf Teacher's Survival Guide"; it was disqualified as hearsay...that's a credibility issue. Why, if the court only disqualified one piece of evidence, wasn't there any presented at the trial? Because that's all the plaintiffs had brought. 3) There are now two mentions of PLANS in the article (you just added another one) relating to their activities. They are not, however active, a credible source. Applying Wikipedia standards is not "cult-like" here, any more than it is in the articles on Homeopathy or elsewhere -- despite similar accusations (against scientific skeptics) on those pages. Hgilbert 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We are not attempting to decide here if the PLANS case was a valid one or not but to establish that they are a body campaigning against Waldorf Education and notable enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article on the subject. They are the main forum of critical opinion and have brought a court case. Whether the case was successful or not is immaterial. They are noteworthy and should be mentioned. Lumos3 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I repeat my list of Wikipedia guidelines you never responded to above: Yes...to quote from that guideline:

• Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing
• Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?
• Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects?
• Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
• Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them. In the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment, and there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking.
• Widely acknowledged extremist political, religious, anti-religious and other websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, the Aryan Nations website or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is, in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.

I count six explicit violations of these guidelines for this link. Hgilbert 20:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedy responded, I can only repeat again that the reason for the mention is not as a source of facts as your argument assumes, but as evidence that an opinion exists. I quote

An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion. see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Some definitions

It is Wikipedia practise to cite confirmation that a person or group of persons hold a particular opinion. This is the basis on which the link must remain extant. Lumos3 23:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; I hadn't understood your point. You're quite right, we should keep the link as a reference for the citations. Hgilbert 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Lumos; you are proliferating links to this site in the article. One mention, about the legal case, is obvious. A second is questionable given the objections to the site above; a third, which you are now trying to insert, is simply unreasonable and looks like an attempt to unbalance the POV, given that the group is a very small number of people in comparison with the 1000 schools and thus perhaps 300,000 people involved in Waldorf education. Hgilbert 12:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the whole editorializing end of the section on Waldorf and Anthroposophy. The section makes the situation clear, both as to the social consequences ("Some have been surprised...") and the pedagogical situation. I am trying to keep all editorializing out of this article, both pro- and con-. Hgilbert 13:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

On the site

Hgilbert has commented on your arguments against excluding a link to an extremist group as external link in the article, when I was just ready with a draft of the following comment. To substantiate further that the group does not qualify, neither as an external link or informational source on Waldorf education, I post it anyhow.

You write "First it is included as evidence that it exists as an organised opinion."

There are many groups of a hate-type character like PLANS that exist on and off the net. It does not qualify them as such for linking to as 'information' on subjects according to Wikipedia standard. Your argument on this point is therefore insufficient for inclusion and against exclusion of it. For a description of the nature of hate groups, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group

You also write "All the criticism of the site is from Steiner based organisations or sympathisers."

That is an insufficient and invalid argument as such against exclusion of the link.

What IS relevant is: Is what places PLANS in the extremist hate type of group, and described above, verifiable, and it is.

This refers to its use of false allegations and (later repeated) insinuations of witchcraft and satanism at Waldorf schools, described by Sacramento Bee at the time here and here, to "pander to "prejudices of Christians" according to a posting by Mr. Dugan at his own mailing list and the use of these false allegations to get financing for the initiation of a lawsuit against two public schools districts, documented in a document for the IRS at the site itself, that it repeatedly has lost, and the following denial by Mr. Dugan during depositions for the trial that he believed the allegations were true.

This also includes the support, cultivation and publication of an Anthroposophical World Conspiracy myth by the webmaster and driving force of PLANS, dates for postings in the archives at the site are given here at the site you mention.

This also refers to the "Protocol of Steiner" myth, cultivated by the repeatedly untruthful self proclaimed "historical scholar" Mr. Staudenmaier. For documentation of his repeated untruthfulness, see here and onwards with links to the sources allegedly described by Mr. Staudenmaier and his own published postings on them on the net, here, here, here, here and here.

It also refers to the fact that Mr. Dugan, knowing of the untruthfulness of the demonizing introduction to an article by Mr. Staudenmaier, not only has continued to publish it for five years, but also has defended it, and added a disclaimer to his PLANS site after criticism of misleading info at his site, telling that he does not vouch for the truthfulness of what he publishes, thereby denying any responsibility for the untruths he knowingly publishes or links to.

All of these elements, and the others described and in the main specifically verified here with links to futher details puts PLANS in the hate group category (for a description of what characterizes hate groups, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group

You also write "No content from the PLANS site is used in the article."

That argument is irrelevant with regard to its inclusion as external, additional "informational" site on Waldorf education in the article.

Based on this, I would have removed the link, that you repeatedly include as external link in the article in repeated violation of Wikipedia guidelines for links as described here, requiring that factually inaccurate material (implicitly thereby also sites, that publish, let alone consciously defends its own publication of untruthful material), not be linked to as external links, if Hgilbert had not already just done it.

--Thebee 12:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The PLANS link is being cited here as the evidence of the existence of an organised opinion. Your attempts to vilify the group are not supported by any legal action taken against it. Rather they seem to represent a campaign from with Anthroposophy to silence a voice critical of Waldorf education, as evidenced by all critical voices coming from within the A'posophy movement. Lumos3 19:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The group is 1) very small (about 8 people post regularly on its list), 2) has no special academic or other qualifications, 3) has no notable publications, 4) has an extremist point of view, 5) has demonstrably false information on its site. It fails Wiki criteria in every way. The question is not whether they are 'a voice'; there are millions of voices with websites and blogs and mail-lists. The question is whether they meet an encyclopedia's criteria for verifiability. They do not. Hgilbert 14:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If not PLANS, which link to criticism of Waldorf education will we include in the article?

Even advocates would agree that there are many legitimate criticisms that can be levelled at Waldorf education. Since it is the duty of wikipedians to ensure that a complete, concise description of every subject is given, we should include a link to further reading on this subject to give the article balance. I agree that the PLANS site is a little trashy, is there a better link to critical opinion that can be found?--Fergie 18:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Here, here. But where? The skeptics' dictionary link is solid.

I have just re-removed a site-link that has been extensively discussed before on this talk page; this is actually a collection of links to articles either not in English, which refer specially to the Netherlands, are highly inflammatory ('Waldorf salad with Aryan mayonnaise') or are links to the PLANS site. Please feel free to check through these; I'm really not trying to knock all critical sites out, but we can surely do better than this collection. It's pretty bad, though, if a collection of sites like this doesn't have anything of quality in it (really, look at the sites, I'm not making this up!!) Hgilbert 19:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

A few minutes later. I just know someone is going to get upset about the Stelling link removal. So I'd like to suggest that before anyone does, that person go to the page, which is a list of at least 50 links, probably considerably more, with perhaps 10 or 15 on Waldorf education. Now, find a single one of the Waldorf education links which is of a standard suitable for Wikipedia. Or, alternatively, find 2 or 3 links suitable for any other page: anthroposophy, Steiner, etc. If you're having trouble finding these on the page, perhaps you'll better understand the removal. If you do find any...I can't...let's put them directly on the appropriate page, rather than linking to a page full of unsuitable links. Hgilbert 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Creating Archive