Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Where does the name come from?

Where does the name Waldorf come from? I've asked people who have attended Waldorf schools and they didn't know. Does anyone know?

THX-1138 21:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

See the article: History

That is a complicated story: Johann Jakob Astor (born 1763 in Walldorf (in former times more correct 'Waldorf' with one 'l' because it's a village -dorf- within the wood -wald-, but nowadays wrongly with two 'l' -a village within the walls-; one could argue about the single 'd') 10 km south-west of Heidelberg/Germany, died 1848 in New York City) emigrated to North America and became one of the the richest men of his time with furs, his wife Sarah Todd and real estate. Some of his descendants (William Waldorf Astor (1848-1919) and John Jacob Astor IV (1864-1912)) separately in 1893/1897 founded the famous Waldorf=Astoria Hotel (twice, and on some other places than where it is since 1931 (see Empire State Building)). Mark the double hyphen! This made the words Waldorf and Astor noble. See <http://www.danielhindes.com/book/book_review.php?review=5> for the exact citations. I am citing: "Connected with the hotel was the "Waldorf=Astoria Cigar Store Company." Two of its managers, Mr Kramer and Mr Rothschild, had come to Germany around the turn of the century with the trademark rights. Originally, they produced their own brands..." ... Someone called Emil Molt (1876 Schwäbisch Gmünd -1936 ) became the German director in Stuttgart/Germany of this tobacco company named "Waldorf=Astoria" with about one thousand workers and "a vibrant name for the more elaborate necessities of smokers". ... I am citing again: "Molt first heard Rudolf Steiner speak in 1904, and became a member of the Theosophical Society in 1906. .... But Molt did take his idea of a school for his workers' children, which he had shared with the workers to great enthusiasm, to Rudolf Steiner, who took it up. Molt earmarked a substantial sum from the company profits to pay for the school. The school was opened within six months. ....". ... And this is why this first school in Stuttgart opened on April 23, 1919 was called the "Waldorf school".

In 1929 the company was liquidized as part of the big crash. But cigarettes named "Astor" were still on sale up to the 1980's.

seerassel

Teacher training

I have edited this section to be clearer and more accurate. Please do not revert to a vaguer and less detailed version!!! The edits are there because:

1. Teacher training programs do not include hundreds of lectures.
2. The 'spiritual teachings', a very vague phrase, are explained in more detail in the newer version.
3. Mention of how or if these teachings are used in schools is already found in another section of the article, and does not belong to a special section on teacher training.

I hope this makes sense to everybody! Hgilbert 01:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please give details of "later Waldorf educators". If there are other contributors to Waldorf Educational theory the article should say who they are/were. Lumos3 10:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A few of the many who have so contributed are now listed (see Zum Unterricht des Klassenlehrers an der Waldorfschule for many, many more).

Waldorf schools under the Nazis

In response to recent anonymous edits:

"The advent of the Waldorf Schools was in my opinion the greatest contribution to world peace and understanding in the century."

- Willy Brandt, Former Chancellor of West Germany, Nobel Prize Winner. (see here)

The Waldorf schools were formally closed by Nazi decree in the mid-1930s (by being forbidden to take new students). A few schools managed to get extensions until 1938 or 39. reference Hgilbert 10:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC) revised Hgilbert 15:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The truth is that Steiner believed and taught Aryan superiority and this "philosophy" helped build Nazi Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.127.170 (talk • contribs)

And what is truth? You must provide verification for any claim if it is to be included. Jefffire 13:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Some Glaring Omissions in the Waldorf Article

Every Waldorf school celebrates the same festivals that are not done in other school: "Michaelmas" and the "Advent Garden" or the "Advent Spiral," "Martinmas," -- why no mention?

This is not true; Waldorf schools celebrate the festivals of the local religion. Michaelmas and Martinmas are traditional Christian festivals;

Nope. Every Waldorf school I have ever heard celebrates Michaelmas or some equivelent, as well as other christian holidays.

If the Waldorf schools you know of are in mostly Christian countries, they would do.

Every Waldorf teacher must spend half of their two year training studying anthroposophy and must be accredited by an anthroposophic organization -- why is this not mentioned?

Waldorf schools, not teachers, are accredited. The accrediting organization is simply the association of Waldorf schools. Many Waldorf schools in the USA are also accredited by the state or regional accreditation authority for private schools.

That's not true. You don't know what your talking about. "Waldorf" is a trademarked term and in order to open one up in North America you have to be accredited by AWNSA.

In order to call your school a Waldorf school you have to have a connection to AWSNA; accreditation is a long process that goes through various levels of support until full accreditation is reached.

Please avoid ad hominem attacks. Please notice what people have said. The association of Waldorf schools is called AWSNA. Many American schools are also accredited by regional authorities that work with all private schools in that region.

Every Waldorf school is crawling with gnomes, telling stories about gnomes, asking gnomes if they can enter the forest, builing houses for gnomes in the forest... but no mention?

Waldorf schools are crawling with gnomes? Hmmm... Seriously, there are thousands of things that a few, some or all Waldorf schools do that cannot be mentioned in an overview. Taking the elemental beings - and all religious and spiritual traditions - seriously is certainly central to the schools.

You don't know what your talking about: As crazy as it sounds (and is) Gnomes are are a huge part of Waldorf schools.

Waldorf schools only have wooden toys and faceless dolls... but no mention?

pardon me? The children make dolls with faces in handwork classes, for example...Natural materials are emphasized in the early years, however. This could go in the article if it isn't already.

Faceless dolls and wood-only toys are a staple of waldorf schools.

ALL Waldorf schools make children act out reincarnation in the "avent spiral" ceremony -- why is this not mentioned?

Children walk an 'Advent spiral' in many Waldorf schools. It's a pretty fine detail for an overview; maybe we should have a sub-article: celebrations in Waldorf schools.

It's not a "fine detail" and you know it, its a big deal that parents come and watch (but can't videotape)

Christ is the central figure in anthroposophy, but he is not mentioned once?

See the article about anthroposophy; he is mentioned extensively there.

--Actually, he's not.

Look again.

Facts preferred

I have removed a quote that did not appear in the cited text.Hgilbert 10:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert -- As you are aware, only the last sentence in that paragraph does not match the cited material. I have removed the sentence in question. -paka33

Some factually incorrect edits have been accumulating. For example, all Waldorf schools teach academics from 1st grade on. To claim that they begin at third grade is simply false. Similarly, when the trial court judge states that he tried a case, to claim that he didn't is simply false (PLANS trial), and to claim that the trial was unfair because the plaintiffs had no legally admissible evidence is really just too much. The claim is pure opinion; the fact is that they had no legally admissible evidence and this should appear clearly without editorial whitewashing. The list could be extended indefinitely.

If you wish to write an article about PLANS' opinions about Waldorf education, it belongs in the PLANS article, and a link could be made to that. The alternative is to create a section about various organizations' opinions about Waldorf education; then the UN's support of Waldorf schools and the education generally could have place, the Americans4Waldorf Education group, and so on. There are a lot of organizations out there, though, and no one should be given priority. Hgilbert 21:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

hgilbert -- The third grade and academics was a mistake -- I meant to say "reading," which, as you know, is a common criticism. As far as the PLANS section, it was difficult to understand, so I edited it a bit. I think the main point legally was that the court decided the case "with prejudice" and that Waldorf schools have never been found to be in violation of church and state -- two point that I made that were not there previously. -paka33

Thank you for the latter points.

I don't know about the third grade criticism, having never heard it; reading is taught much earlier than 3rd grade in every Waldorf school. In particular, reading is taught in first grade primarily through the activity of writing, which is practised thoroughly, and more intensively apart from writing in second grade. Traditional schools practise more reading, less writing earlier; Waldorf schools more writing, less reading. The handwriting in Waldorf schools ends up superb, as a result, but the reading skills may develop slightly later...for some children. Since children who develop late in traditional schools are marginalized as deficient, however, a systematic comparison would have to be made to see if there is really a significant difference even in the early years.

It is a dangerous projection to assume that others know things; generally it's better to ask politely if they do know. I hope that's not too spiritual an approach! ;) Hgilbert 21:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am striking another claim. The claim was made that Waldorf schools hide their anthroposophical nature, while the article cited actually claims the opposite of what was claimed: that anthroposophy was overt and prominently featured in the school (for the parents' information, not for the children). Hgilbert 00:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am replacing yet another "cited claim" with the exact text of the source, which says something radically different than User:Paka33's summary. The latter claimed that reading instruction began in 2nd grade; the source said that "Literacy readiness begins in kindergarten with formal reading instruction beginning in grade one. Most children are reading independently by the middle or end of second grade."

Note that teaching the letters is normally considered part of teaching reading, and that children begin reading individual words and sentences they have written themselves or know from poetry, etc. in first grade. In second grade they concentrate on reading more fluently and independently of writing. Hgilbert 09:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Court case

I am abbreviating the court case, which is of relevance only to U.S. Waldorf charter schools, with a link to the PLANS site, which has a fuller description. Hgilbert 10:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

New sections of criticism

The criticism section has been pretty bare. I have added material with insufficient citations but attempting to summarize the gist of "what's around"; it is incredibly difficult to find published material to these themes, and much of the web stuff is pretty shoddy. Let me know what you think of the new sections. Hgilbert 13:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop using 'Grade' (1st Grade, 2nd Grade,...)

'Grade' is a North American term with little meaning to the rest of us. Use the median age instead: 'age 7 and above' or 'at 11 years of age'. This will then make the article meaningful to all readers. Fergie 08:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reflection. It is difficult to reconcile international usages; I have tried to include references to the ages as well as grades/classes and have added more age-references in response to your suggestion.Hgilbert 11:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not difficult to reconcile international usage of age- 7 year olds in the US are the same age as 7 year olds in the Ukraine. If we absolutely have to use one nations school-year system then by rights should be the German one, since this is where Waldorf education has its roots. Lets stick to the international ´age´ and drop the US-centric ´grade´--Fergie 18:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Article name

It looks like this article should be named Waldorf education rather than Waldorf Education. Does anyone have an opinion either way? Wmahan. 16:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right; we can move it and establish a redirect from the old name. Anyone object? Hgilbert 21:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article cannot be moved from Waldorf Education to Waldorf education. Perhaps we can try to do this through an intermediate step such as Waldorf-education? Aquirata 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the article to "Waldorf-education" as no objections have been put forth. Any ideas how to move it top the proper "Waldorf education" now? Would this suppose getting rid of the redirect page "Waldorf Education"? Aquirata 13:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have listed the "Waldorf Education" redirect page for deletion [1] so this page can be moved to "Waldorf education." Aquirata 14:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have posted this on Requested moves and closed the mistaken AfD, as Aquirata now knows how to accomplish this sort of thing in the future. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. The strange thing to me is that other, supposedly more experienced editors haven't stepped forward in moving this article properly. I thought everybody was in the dark on this, and so decided to move forward the only way I knew. Aquirata 17:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your comment until now. It looks like the situation is resolved. I'll try to help fix the links to redirects. Wmahan. 17:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone moved it to "Waldorf-education", which looked a little German to me, so I moved it again to "Waldorf education". Hope this makes everyone happy.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 19:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Hgilbert 21:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was the original intention, thank you. We've travelled a convoluted road, but arrived at the right place nevertheless! :) Aquirata 00:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that the move has been accomplished, can some of you veteran editors of this subject take it upon yourselves to make sure all of the redirects at Special:Whatlinkshere/Waldorf_education are appropriate/fixed? I'd work on it, but I don't know a thing about this topic... -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Critics home page

Let's look at what users would see if we gave them this reference, starting with the home page. It opens by calling anthroposophy an "occultist sect". This would be libel (if it wasn't true) if published in print; cases in various countries have ruled this (see article for some examples).

Next follows some purely personal description. One individual's experiences out of the say 1,000,000 who have been Waldorf parents or students. The allegations are unproven and they are stated as if they are general to the schools, whereas the writer is actually speaking of individual experiences:

• Why don't teachers allow students in the preschool through the early elementary grades to use black crayons in their drawings?
  • This is certainly not generally true.
• Why is mythology taught as history?
  • Mythology is taught as mythology, history as history.
• Where is the American flag, and why don't Waldorf schools teach civic lessons in America?
  • The American flag is where it belongs, over the courthouses and civic buildings. Private individuals and institutions are not required to fly a flag. Civics is taught as part of history, not as a separate subject.
• In a school system that promotes itself as "education toward freedom," why do students copy everything from the blackboard?
  • They don't. In the early years, they copy a lot; other schools use mimeographed or photocopied sheets that are standardized. Standardized material is not unusual to schools; Waldorf moves away from this earlier than most schools.
• Why do Waldorf teachers talk in high voices and sing-song directions to their classes?
  • What percent do this? Come on.
• Why is learning to read before the age of 8 or 9 considered unhealthy?
  • Instruction in writing and reading begins in first grade, when pupils are 6-7 years old.
• Why do so many Waldorf classes have problems with bullying, and what is the school's policy for dealing with this?
  • What percentage do, and how does this compare with other schools? Why do so many schools have problems with bullying? This is a serious question not particular to any one system.
• Why are teachers always lighting candles?
  • Always? What do you use to make a special evening or a special birthday? Floodlights?

The material is tendentious, misleading in the extreme, a considerable amount is false. That's just the home page. This is not a reliable analysis of Waldorf education, it is a personal rant.Hgilbert 14:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You claim there are inaccuracies in a site which holds an opinion different to yours . This is hardly suprising. It does not mean it should not be linked to. Wikipedia describes a range of opinion not one truth. Lumos3 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you: yes HGilbert, it is largely a personal rant, and yes Lumos3 it (or a link like it) is nonetheless worthy of inclusion as it reflects some widely held points of view. Personally I quite like the criticism section of this article http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/education/waldorf.html and also this one http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2004/05/26/waldorf/index_np.html. Although neither link is against particularly against the Waldorf system, they do a nice job of illustrating the challenges in a positive light. Could we try and include these?--Fergie 19:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

För some comments on the WC main page, see http://www.americans4waldorf.org/Comments.html The Salon.com article contains libel, and therefore is below Wikistandard, see http://www.waldorfanswers.org/OnSalonArticle.html But include the http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/education/waldorf.html article as a critical external link.

--Thebee 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Your (TheBee) intolerance of anything other than fawning praise of Waldorf Education is damaging both to you and your cause. The hysterical, defensive ranting of americans4waldorf and waldorfanswers does little to convince the impartial observer of the benefits of a Waldorf education. The links I mentioned are hardly what could be called critical, they merely present criticism in a balanced and intelligent manner as part of a broader, mostly positive, discussion. This reflects the tone that the article should be striking instead of the lowbrow mudslinging of extreme pro and anti Waldorf bigots that seems to crop up here with alarming regularity. --Fergie 10:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion to include the Mothering article as a 'critical' link was yours, not mine. I endorsed it as a friendly ironic teaser. The purpose of the section on PLANS at http://www.americans4waldorf.org/OnPLANS.html is not to convince an impartial observer of the benefits of Waldorf education, but do document and expose the nature of the WC. Neither does the WaldorfAnswers site have the primary purpose of convincing an impartial observer of the the benefits of Waldorf education, but to inform about what it is, and what it is not, and leave it to the reader of the site to make his or her own judgement and decisions about it. --Thebee 12:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Who says they are libellous? There is a history on this page of calling anything that that is slightly critical of Waldorf education a libel. The term libel should be reserved for instances of comment that has resulted in court action and found to be such, and not used as a way to show you disagree with an opinion. A range of opinions need to be cited here to produce a balance. Trust the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Lumos3 09:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think 'libellous' means 'balanced' in this context --Fergie 10:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"The term libel should be reserved for instances of comment that has resulted in court action and found to be such"? That interpretation is not supported by the actual situation regarding libel in the U.S. According to Wikipedia "Defamation is defined to be the tort or delict of "...publication of a false statement of fact, made with the requisite state of mind, that causes injury"." and "Libel is defamation that is published". http://www.waldorfanswers.org/OnSalonArticle.html documents in what way three central allegations about WE published in the article are libelous, that is, untrue and defamatory. In general, only individual living persons that are defamed can sue for libel and "No state allows the plaintiff to be a group of people" which makes it impossible for Waldorf organisations to sue for libel, even if it has been published as untrue defamatory statements, which is the case with the WC site and the Salon.com article. --Thebee 12:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you should take a look here before you continue editing--Fergie 13:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fergie: can you explain what that has to do with the current issue? I don't see any original research going into web pages here.

I actually have nothing against the Salon article; it was certainly libellous in its original form, but has been at least somewhat modified in the form linked to. It is more than a little bothersome that the present link includes a link to the original article, however; if they modified the article due to inaccuracies, as they seem to indicate, they should not make the original available as if it were still valid. Can we find it somewhere without this link? I think this gives due weight to the concerns about linking to misleading or inaccurate material. Hgilbert 13:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken waldorfanswers and americans4waldorf count as original research.--Fergie 18:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What is your specific argument? --Thebee 19:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that the Salon article was, it seems, not actually changed; they only issued a clarification that certain comments "These statements -- one saying the philosophy was "founded on racist and anti-Semitic beliefs," another referring to its "basis in racial and religious discrimination," another mentioning "the inherent racism and anti-Semitism of some of Steiner's philosophies" and another mentioning "Steiner's bigoted roots" might not be true, but were the opinion of the author. It is true that these would be possibly libellous comments, and that they only occur on a web-site and so

• those issuing them are protected from being responsible for their content, and
• they are not officially Wikipedia-standard. I am inclined to work around the guidelines when this seems sensible, but I'd rather do it for something that gave quotations and explanations rather than unsupported judgments.

I'd like to suggest that, when there is doubt about suitability, holding closer to the guidelines is to be preferred...The Mothering article qualifies by virtue of its appearing in print whatever its content (I haven't looked at it yet, actually, I will do so though).

Fergie is probably right about the original research question, now that I understand to what he is referring. The only justification for including such websites as waldorfanswers would be as self-descriptions of organizations, which are allowed, whereas third-party descriptions in the same material would be excluded. In so far as these sites are referenced to talk about Waldorf schools and anthroposophy, they might qualify as self-descriptions from within the movement (this is not quite the same as an organization, however) -- what do people think? Their comments about others - including PLANS - would certainly be excluded, on the same grounds as the PLANS comments about Waldorf are excluded; self-published material or websites are only permitted for self-descriptive information, and only then in so far as various other guidelines are met.

I suggest we formulate clear and in this case fairly conservative guidelines (actually, these are already formulated by Wikipedia, but perhaps they need restating here) and hold all sides to these. It will make everyone slightly uncomfortable, but will ensure that we are holding to our mission as an encyclopedia rather than following agenda. Hgilbert 01:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Self-descriptions from within the movement" qualifies a lot of sites. There is a reform movement within the movement, and critical sites, like my own, would be self-descriptions within the movement. If you look at Waldorf Answers site, most of the material is produced by a single person. I'm pretty sure that is the definition of original research. If the self-descriptions within the movement exception applies here, please let me know and I'll replace links to my own site. --Pete K 23:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines for notable opinion

I hope we are agreed that an encyclopaedia would not just describe the view on a topic which is held by its main proponents but would also note other views held by notable individuals or groups who have voiced criticism whatever they have said on the subject. These should be noted even if the main proponents consider them wrong, blasphemous or slanderous as long as they are notable views which have been part of a public debate prior to the writing of the article. I am talking about noting and describing points of view not citing them as a source of facts.

The disagreement here seems to be what constitutes notable. Wikipedia is cautious about self published printed word and websites because these can be used to make a view seem to have more prominence , and therefore be more notable , than it actually is.

No Lumos3, the problem here is NOT what constitutes a "notable" opinion. The "notable" opinion, that you argue should be "noted" in the article already IS noted twice in the article in two of the four sections on Criticism of Waldorf Education, describing its specific views on the two main points of criticism of the group, and with a link to a detailed Wikipedia article on the group, that gives several links to the site of the group.

The problem is that you - IN SPITE OF THIS - in full, in the article noted existence of the group and description in the article of its main criticism of Waldorf methods education, untruthfully described by the group as if it is identical with Waldorf Education, with a link to a more detailed description of the group, that contains several links to the site of the group, continue to argue as if this was not already the case, and - in addition to this full documentation of the existence and views of the group - insist on repeatedly adding a THIRD link on the group, in this case directly to its site, that violates at least two guidelines on sites not to be linked to as External links:

Links to avoid:

"2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material [...], as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources." Except for the examples given by HGilbert, I have mentioned how the site publishes and supports the self described "historical scholar" Mr. Staudenmaier, exemplifying his demonstrable repeated untruthfulness - if you care to check here - already in his introduction to this first article published at the site, (A study paragraph by paragraph of the first part of the article by Daniel Hindes, who actually HAS a degree in history, documents his repeated untruthfulness also in the rest of its first part) and further here and here for some more examples of his untruths, published at the WC-site of Mr. Dugan. The pages linked to in full both quote Mr. Staudenmaier and the sources he writes that he describes, quoting them from their publication on the internet, in full demonstrating his untruthfulness, and the defense of the publication of these untruths by the secretary and webmaster of the group, when they have been described and documented to him.

For a more full documentation of a number of his new and untruthful stories about this, when his first untruth in the article was documented, see here and onwards. I have mentioned this already earlier in this discussion, but for some reason you don't seem to have noted and checked the documentation of Mr. Staudenmaier's repeated untruthfulness (with links to the sources on the net, that he says he describes and his postings on this on the net).

One of the persons mentioned by Mr. Staudenmaier in his first article, a Rainer Schnurre, threatened to sue the Swedish publisher of the article, the Swedish branch of the CSICOP, for libel for what Mr. Staudenmaier untruthfully writes about him. This is noted in the article, and a publisher of an anthology of articles on anthroposophy, including the article by Mr. Staudenmaier (Leopard förlag), earlier published by the Swedish secular humanist group, decided not to publish a second edition of the anthology, after the first had sold out, when faced with a lawsuit for libel if doing it.

"9. Blogs, [...] and forums should generally not be linked to", because of the amount of unverified material published by them. The main part of the site of "PLANS Inc." consists of Megabytes and Megabytes of archives of such discussions, illegally - in violation of copyright - republished by Mr. Dugan at his "Waldorf-critical" site from discussion list he is the personal owner of. Most of the defamatory myths about Waldorf education, described here and above, are published in the archives of the list. This alone (that the main part of the site consists of such unverified material, and strange and unverified gossip of all sorts) disqualifies the site from linking to as an external link on "criticism of Waldorf Education". The main part of the argumentation of group is described IN the article. IN ADDITION linking to also its soup of unverified material in postings, because there ALSO is some in part more verified material at the site violates Wikipedia guidelines in general, as the group mixes the two parts at its site, and the unverified "blog" type of material constitutes such a large (main) part of it. For a description of the three types of arguments, from verifiable 'criticism' to unreliable demonization published at the site of the group, that you repeatedly insist of adding as an External link to the article, with different untenable arguments, see here.

Based on this, I have removed the link, that you again have inserted, based on limited consideration of the site and its nature. For a more full description of the hate nature of the argumentation, published by the group at its site, when you look closer not least at its "list archives", behind its at first seemingly civil surface, that it has worked to build during the last years, and that in addition disqualifies it as example of a "point of view" site on Waldorf education, see above, the Wikipedia page on the group and its site, and the Wikipedia description of hate groups.

--Thebee 22:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest 3 ways to judge a notable opinion:-

• Material published by an independent publisher is notable because the author has convinced a 3rd party (the publisher) of its importance.
• Membership organisations are notable since they are collectivised opinions by groups of people in support of an agreed set of views. ie they have at least convinced each other of the importance of their views.
• The more public (i.e. recorded in the news media) the action of an individual or organisation the more notable they/it become. Lumos3 09:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

These suggestions belong on the Wikipedia policy and guideline pages, not here.

Note that an active KKK group might be worth reporting for its actions without its ideas about races becoming thereby significant ideas. In this article, the actions of PLANS are reported (and have been much reported in the press). Their ideas do not thereby become more noteworthy. You have the problem of the squeakiest wheel getting the grease, otherwise.

I'll be interested to see what response you get on the policy/guideline pages, in any case! Hgilbert 08:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We are not using the PLANS site as a source of content for the article but a citation of it needs to be made. I am considering refering the issue to RFC if all parties will agree to abide by a decision. Lumos3 20:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's look at the guidelines for links, which include the criteria:

• Is it proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)?

I would suggest that this is not the case here.

• On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)

This could argue for inclusion

To be avoided:

• Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)

This is a contested point, obviously, but much of the material of the PLANS site must be considered either factually inaccurate or unverified original research (or both).

• Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard.

Much, but not all of the site is directed towards the forum

We could consider the RfC...What do others think? Hgilbert 01:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be arguing in circles here. Opinions need citations just as facts do. I do not claim that everything written on PLANS is factually accurate. However its an organisation that has taken collective and legal action on Waldorf education and has the largest collection of sourced opinion critical of Waldorf education to be found on the web. To refuse to externally link this in an article on Waldorf education is perverse. Just as it is perverse to hide critical opinion in a section called " outside opinion". This whole article suffers from a lack of courage to face up to criticism and let the reader decide. Lumos3 09:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that. Censorship has no place in an encylopedia--Fergie 10:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And Jewry suffers from "lack of courage to face up to criticism" of it from groups "critical" of it. The editors of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewry should accept inclusion of a link to http://www.jewwatch.com/, that probably has "has the largest collection of sourced opinion critical of (Jewry) to be found on the web", or http://www.webshells.com/adlwatch/ or http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/ as External links in a criticism section, and let the reader decide what they think of Jewry. You're overdoing it, Lumos3. Your last 'argument' for adding a third, additional, External link to the site or the group, in addition to the two links in the article to the Wikipedia article on the group, was such a third link "does not contravene Wikipedia guidelines". Clearly it does and your argument was untrue, and in violation of good and reasonable Wikipedia policy.

On 31 July, one week after HGilbert added a link to the Wikipedia article on the group in one of four sections on Criticism of Waldorf education, and you added it in another of the sections on Criticsm fof WE, you argue here on 'notable opinion' in a way that seems to imply that you don't think the group has been "noted" in the article. It has been noted where it belongs, Lumos3, twice in Sections on Criticism of WE, with links to the Wikipedia article on the group.

The webmaster of the site, and secretary of the group behind it started his campaign against Waldorf methods in public schools by instigating picketing of a public Waldorf methods charter school, that alleged that the schools teach Wicca. He himself in an Newspaper inverview insinuated that it was based on a satanic religion, to then tell during depositions for a trial, that he himself did not think that allegations were true, after these false allegations had been used to finance the initiation of against two public school districts for "supporting religion", based on the allegations, a "legal action" that you praise as evidence of a "collective and leagl action" against public Waldorf methods charter schools. Later, he and the president of the group, few days before a Christmas, hired a Private Detective to sneak in at a private, outside schools hours, off campus, voluntary advent celebration of the coming Christmas for K-3rd graders of one Waldorf methods charter school, with a videocamera hidden under his coat to "in secret" videotape it, to use as "proof" to school boards, considering to support the use of Waldorf methods at their schools, that Waldorf methods education is "religious".

At his mailing list, the archives of which constitute 140+MB, more than 99% of the site, he through the years has supported the publication of all sorts of demonizing allegations about WE at his mailing list, including repeated allegations that the secret agenda of WE is to train the future rulers of the world, a myth also published by the legal organization, that has supported the WC-group, and he himself not only publishes but also defends the publication of demonstrably untrue demonizing defamation of anthroposophy by a repeatedly untruthful self proclaimed con "historical scholar" at his site, when its untruthfulness is documented, adding a disclaimer to the section with the article at his WC-site, that "PLANS does not necessarily agree with or vouch for the veracity of everything posted in this section.".

You consider this to be "serious criticism", that the Waldorf movement should "face up to"?

You describe the naming and description of the group in two of four sections on Criticism of Waldorf education, linking to the Wikipedia article on the group at PLANS, that extensively links to the site of the group, as a "perverse" way of hiding their "critical opinion" in the article.

Fergie calls this "censorship". Right.

We're not arguing in circles, Lumos3. You disregard all arguments, based on a strife to apply the spirit of good and reasonable Wikipedia policy, against your view, when faced with them, and now resort to a purely emotional argument for inclusion: "Waldorf education should "build the courage" to "face up to criticism and let the reader decide" what they think, regardless of Wikipedia guidelines for reasonable and good editing polcies. Tell that to the editors of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewry You're overdoing it, Lumos3.

On the basis of the above, I have replaced the group with a link to the at least somewhat serious site of "OpenWaldorf".

--Thebee 11:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And an article, that reflects the allegations of the WC, and describes their litigation, based on false allegations of Witchcraft at Waldorf schools, and financing it with a description and a News Report of the false allegations.

--Thebee 11:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about WC (Waldorf Critics) an open discussion list, or PLANS? Allegations made on a discussion list by people are certainly different than allegations made by an organization. Please let's not confuse the two here. --Pete K 18:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Satanic religion"- and other allegations by PLANS

Your attempt to draw parallels between PLANS dispute with Waldorf education and anti-Semitism and racism is ludicrous. PLANS has clearly defined goals which are to make public the occult basis of the educational theory used in Waldorf education. That is it is arguing about ideas not using bigotry, hatred and racism as you claim. It asserts that people should be free to practise the religion of their choice. What it opposes is Waldorf educations lack of visibility to the public that its curriculum and the way pupils are assessed and treated are based on what to most people are irrational and even magical ideas. That some in Waldorf education respond with these kinds of distorted attacks, that try to blacken the critic rather than honestly respond to the criticism is very sad and reflects poorly on Waldorf education as a whole. Lumos3 23:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid one has to distinguish between the official goals of an organization and its actual actions. For all I know the KKK could have extremely noble official goals. Its methods and actions are those of a hate group, however. PLANS has been documented as accusing Waldorf education as practicing witchcraft (and then denying that they really believe this when faced down). They have a internet discussion site that is full of bigotry, hatred and false information (Steiner was a Nazi, leading Nazis were in favor of anthroposophy and Waldorf education, and so on).

People are free to practice the religion of their choice, in a Waldorf school or out; perhaps you are unaware that in the first Waldorf school, which had to provide religious instruction according to the school law of the time, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish religious instruction was available, as well as a "free religious instruction" for non-denominational but religious-minded families. It was also an option to have no religious instruction whatsoever. Any school chooses content; whether you teach the Jewish bible and Greek mythology (as Waldorf schools do) or not, you are making a critical choice that affects the child's whole worldview. This is the nature of the educational process. You can argue the choices, but don't start claiming that the very act of making choices is suspect.

Finally, it is hopelessly naive to claim that Waldorf's link to anthroposophy is invisible, and Anthroposophy's conception of child development is anything but irrational or magical. Honest critics and criticisms are welcome by me and many others who work with these matters (perhaps not by all, and there you have an honest and welcome critique). Add such and you will find us all thankful. Hgilbert 00:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This refers to an incident several years ago at which parents at a Waldorf school, looking at their children's lesson books, concluded the content showed witchcraft. The school was a public school that was being converted to a Waldorf school, with the long-time teachers required to undergo Steiner training in order to keep their jobs. One of the teachers objected to what she viewed as clearly religious content in the training (karma, reincarnation etc.). She held strong traditional Christian beliefs and may have been the one to originally describe what she was seeing in Waldorf as "witchcraft."

PLANS worked with parents at the school to protest the conversion of their local public school to an anthroposophical school. No one at PLANS told any of these people that anthroposophy was witchcraft; PLANS is on record numerous times saying just the opposite. A protest held at the school was reported in the press. The article *does not say* that PLANS alleged witchcraft - because they didn't. If parents there said this to reporters, that is the parents' business. The president of PLANS was later asked, on their mailing list, if they had contacted the media to contest the allegation of witchcraft. She replied no, she had not contested anything in the article, that she was happy that the case was in the news. She (nor anyone else at PLANS) never alleged witchcraft. She has every right to be happy when the case is in the news - most people who file a lawsuit regarding a public issue would like to see the case in the news!

This incident has later been distorted, and is repeated ad nauseum through Sune's multiple web sites, as "PLANS alleges witchcraft." I have personally debunked this false claim a number of times, in a number of places, and those responsible for spreading this rumor rarely reply.

The people who insist that this is some sort of ethical lapse on the part of PLANS - for working with fundamentalist Christian parents, or taking a grant from a fundamentalist organization - fail to understand the law suit. It is a lawsuit in support of separation of church and state. The parents at the school in question have their rights violated if their children are being taught religious content or made to participate in religious rituals without their knowledge, and which they disagree with and would not permit if they had been informed about it. Whether what is being taught is "witchcraft" is a matter of individuals' personal religious beliefs; to some Christians, anthroposophy is indeed indistinguishable from witchcraft. It diverges considerably from Biblical Christianity. This should not be confused with my personal view (I am not Christian) nor is it a view held at PLANS - there is a tendency to leap to this conclusion; we hear it repeated that "Oh, it's a Christian organization" if PLANS will defend the rights of Christians etc. The organization of PLANS takes no religious view at all. This is why Dan said he is happy to "pander" to Christians: many Christians want Waldorf to be ineligible for public funding and so does Dan. The lawsuit supports the rights of these parents to protest their children being taught "witchcraft" if this is how they view the material.

Other people have other objections. Waldorf parents are a wide variety of religious backgrounds. Generally, only anthroposophists are actually comfy with their children being taught anthroposophy. The material is inappropriate in the public schools. It violates numerous people's personal religious beliefs. It violates mine, for instance, for totally different reasons than the fundamentalist parents who alleged "witchcraft." (I do not think anthroposophy is witchcraft.) But the public schools are for everyone's children, not just anthroposophists'.

The Wikipedia entry on hate groups states: "A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, or other sector of society."

Neither PLANS, nor any critic of Waldorf to my knowledge, has ever done anything like the above. Criticism of an educational movement, or spiritual movement or religious institution, is not the same thing as "hating" it and is certainly not the same thing as encouraging violence or hostility against the people involved in it. None of these people calling a bunch of parents on the Internet describing our children's school experiences, and voicing our opinions on what happened to us in this movement, or sharing responses to Rudolf Steiner's works, can ever demonstrate any statement or action taken by a critic that would fit this definition of "hate." The claim is merely a way to discredit critics of their movement.

If Sune N[...] would like to go on alleging PLANS is a hate group, then he will need to do more than add links to his own web sites as a "source" for this opinion. He would need to either quote statements made by critics that express hate or encourage hate or hostility or violence. There is no such statement, and no such action, anywhere. Or, alternatively, come up with someone with a graduate-level expertise on hate groups, who can be quoted saying that PLANS is a hate group?

People criticizing reading instruction, people claiming that parents are not adequately informed, prior to enrollment, about the underlying spiritual agenda of the Waldorf schools, are not a "hate group."DianaW 21:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Diana

The statement that PLANS has been documented as accusing Waldorf education as practicing witchcraft is documented by an Editorial in The Sacramento at the time: The attack on Oak Ridge, 10 June 1997.

Everything that I have written on this point is based on Newspaper articles at the time, postings by Mr. Dugan and others on his mailing list, the published application for money to ADF for the lawsuit, and depositions by Mr. Dugan for the trial. See Witch Hunt --Thebee 09:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana replies here: The above accusations by Sune N[...] are false. PLANS has not accused anyone in Waldorf of practicing witchcraft.

Yes Sune I'm sure it's "based on" all that, but you are misrepresenting it with your own spin. I have nothing more to add; what I wrote below is correct. I believe the ball is in your court if you would like to show that "PLANS is a hate group." The "PLANS alleges witchcraft" is long since debunked.DianaW 14:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

We might note that this editorial also notes, wide-eyed, in response to parents' asking why there are no computers, that "The school says computers haven't been installed due to lack of proper wiring." That makes it clear this editorial writer believed what he was told, without researching. A Waldorf elementary school will *not* have computers for student use - it simply will not. If someone at the school told him there was just a wiring glitch, they were lying. There may have been a wiring glitch, but that is not why there were no computers. Again, tactics of a cult, covering its trail, putting a nice face forward in public. But the writer looked no further. He/she also apparently believed "PLANS alleges witchcraft."DianaW 14:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

We've had this discussion for years, and still Waldorf schools intentionally hide their connection to Anthroposophy. Anthroposophy is absolutely taught in Waldorf schools. Do Waldorf schools hide or downplay Anthroposophy's role in Waldorf? If you look at the individual websites of Waldorf schools you will see countless examples of the omission of Anthroposophy. It would be the equivalent of a Catholic school not mentioning Catholicism. If you go to a parent orientation meeting, you will almost never hear Anthroposophy mentioned unless a parent asks a question about it. Then you will receive the answer "Anthroposophy is something the teachers study but the SUBJECT of Anthroposophy is not taught to the students" - get it? There's no subject called Anthroposophy - but Anthroposophy is taught in EVERY subject. Math is infused with Anthroposophy, reading lists in English class are skewed toward books that agree with Anthroposophy, and every Waldorf school has Eurythmy, Steiner's occult movement form, as a requirement for all students. Eurythmy is said to straighten teeth because it is thought to be so powerful, yet it is described to parents as a "dance form" without mention of occultism or spiritual energies. All this stuff is Anthroposophy and none of it is made clear to parents. It would be to Waldorf's benefit NOT to conceal Anthroposophy's role in Waldorf schools. Pete K 00:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeatedly untruthful non-English language site

Sorry Lumos3, the site you have added like the WC-site contains a number of demonstrably untrue allegations: http://www.thebee.se/Steinermobbing/Osanningar.html ("Truth is not primary to the group Steiner bullying"). For some strange reason, the site, like the WC-site, can't refrain from it.

Also, it only has one page in English. All other pages at the site are in Norwegian, and links to non-English sites in the English version of Wikipedia in general violates Wikipedia policy.

--Thebee 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And a large part of the site consists of a blog ...

--Thebee 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the Norwegian site, that you repeatedly link to as a general External link on WE, violates Wikipedia guidelines on three points:

It publishes demonstrably untrue statements about Steiner and Waldorf education, see http://www.thebee.se/Steinermobbing/Osanningar.html The page only mentions some of them. Like the WC-site, they for some reason can't seem to refrain from demonstrably untrue defamation of WE, as demonstrated by other pages at the site itself. This violates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided point 2.

It has only one page in English. Everything else is in Norwegian at the site. Like you can't probably read, neither no other pages at the site, except the one page in English, nor the description of some of the demonstrable uutruths at the site, so can't the majority of the other en/Wikipedia readers. This violates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Foreign_language_links

A large part of the site consists of a blog (in Norwegian) This violates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided point 9.

In spite of that I've mentioned this before (above), you now again have added the site. You're an admin, Lumos3. Isn't it your task to uphold and implement the Wikipedia guidelines, not repeatedly violate them, based on your seeming strong bias against WE? --Thebee 12:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This site is a primary source collective statement of opinion on Waldorf education. As such I believe it can be used to cite the existance of such an organised opinion. By the way I am not an admin. Lumos3 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that we cannot link to the norwegian site as it is mostly not in English. That said, as a norwegian speaker, I think that it is interesting to hear the 'inside views' of the authors who are teachers at the Waldorf school in (I assume) Frogner, Oslo. Basically they are dissatisfied at the disorganisation of the curriculum (specific to this school- not waldorf as a whole), the deeply held anthropsophical belief of several memebers of staff, and several strange rules which the staff believe Steiner would have approved of (outlawing of football, defining childrens mental skills from their physical appearance).--Fergie 13:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Of the two webmasters of the site, one -- without a Waldorf teacher training -- has been working as a teacher at the Waldorf school in Moss. The other -- her husband -- is not, and to my knowledge has never been working as a Waldorf teacher. For more, see http://www.thebee.se/Steinermobbing/ --Thebee 15:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This page under discussion ( [link removed] ) should not be removed as foreign language sources are not specifically excluded from citation, and it would be foolish to assume that all truth and wisdom is written in English. The page linked to is in any case in English and is not part of the blog. A similarly formulated group Americans for Waldorf Education is cited frequently for expressing its own pro Steiner opinion and is used throughout the Waldorf education and related articles to back up assertions. Lumos3 13:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The main issue involved concerns the truthfulness and reliability of sites. The Norwegian site is repeatedly untruthful, and has not corrected the untruths, after its webmasters have been made aware of them. Noone has ever pointed to one untruth at the site of http://www.americans4waldorf.org If you find one, tell abiut it and document it, and if will be corrected. Also, it does not publish a blog, or miles of archived postings, +140MB, or appr 99% of the site as the WC, from a "free speech" mailing list with repeated nonsense and unsubstantiated defamation of WE and people related to it as "Education of the public" about WE. --Thebee 15:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Um... yes, people have found Americans4waldorf.org to be untruthful and have indeed pointed it out. Only yesterday, in fact, Peter Staudenmaier, who has been slandered repeatedly at the AWE site and Waldorf Answers, had this to say on Waldorf Critics:

"There's a further reason why the topic merits more scrutiny rather than less, even for those who find history relatively unimportant: misunderstandings about and misconstruals of the history of Waldorf during the Nazi era continue to distort public discussions of anthroposophy and Waldorf today. Consider as one example among many the Americans For Waldorf Education website. The authors of the site attribute to me the claim that "Waldorf schools today are racist and anti-Semitic systems of education" and are "dedicated to the furtherance of racist, anti-Semitic and fascist ideology". They also think I endorsed or encouraged the claim that Waldorf schools are "Nazi training camps". As you can see for yourself just from the last couple days of exchanges here (even setting aside all of my other writings on the topic), I do not hold any of these positions, and they play no role in the analyses I have put forward. And that's just for me, only one of a number of people who have tried to bring a more nuanced view to this question, in Europe as well as North America. It seems to me that both supporters as well as critics of Waldorf deserve a considerably more thorough and thoughtful attentiveness to this issue than they have so far received from within the Waldorf milieu."

Just because YOU, Sune, don't believe the information on a particular website aligns with what YOU perceive to be the "truth" doesn't give you the right to exclude it here - any more that MY perception of the truthfulness of YOUR websites would afford me the same right. Again, you continually display to everyone here that your agenda is to remove any comment critical of Waldorf. This, I can assure you, is not going to happen here, despite yours and hg's constant efforts to babysit this page and revert all edits that don't comply with YOUR perceptions of what Waldorf is. You have no authority in this regard. --Pete K 15:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone interested can read what specifically is written at http://www.americans4waldorf.org/MrStaudenmaier.html and decide for themselves if they think what Mr.Staudenmaier writes about it corresponds to what actually is stated at the page. Maybe it gives a hint of Mr. Staudenmaier's way of relating to and describing published sources. --Thebee 21:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Your continued interest in the defamation of this man's character notwithstanding, your claim, made above has been refuted. --Pete K 22:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Studies?

Have there been any studies regarding what sort of adults Waldorf kids grow into? Are they happy? Are they well-paid?

Secondly, how much does the "religion" factor into the education? (aka, how cultlike?)

68.192.173.170 02:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer the second question first: Anthroposophy is a spiritual path, not a religion. It's relation to teaching is very free: Steiner suggested that anthroposophy could inspire a methodology of teaching; a teacher is free to ignore anthroposophy and use others' (including Steiner's) results or take up whatever aspects of anthroposophy he/she finds inspiring to become a more creative teacher. This is for the purpose of developing methodology, understanding child development and finding age-appropriate curricula. The content of anthroposophy and its spiritual path are there for the teacher's self-development; they are expressly not taught to children.

For this reason, you will find that most of the schools have been founded by parents interested in good education for their children. Many of these parents have had no interest in or awareness of anthroposophy before they set out to found a school; their interest is purely in their children. But it helps to understand the basis out of which Waldorf grows, anthroposophy, and so they are encouraged to work to do so in the process of founding a school. Some do, some don't, however. The schools are evaluated by each country's Association of Waldorf Schools on the basis of their pedagogical work, not on the basis of their anthroposophical work.

In other words, there is no attempt to indoctrinate anybody, but there is an attempt to educate the adults as to the background -- especially in a teacher training, which is responsible for giving adequate tools to the teachers. There is no requirement that a teacher attend a Waldorf training, however, and many teachers at Waldorf schools have never done so; either they are trained state/public school teachers, or they are specialists in a field (science, art, music) that are employed for their special skills.

To answer the first question second, there have been studies in Germany and there is a large-scale study presently being conducted in the USA. I believe that studies have shown that a somewhat disproportionate number have tended to go into socially oriented/service professions (so are probably less likely to have high-paid jobs). They have a reputation for being very creative, engaged students in college who learn for learning sake, and -- if you will allow a little anecdotal evidence to conclude -- parents in our school have commented that they see the schools graduates finding their paths in life much more quickly than their generation, who tended to choose life partners, careers and life styles that they later felt were not good choices. I suggest visiting a Waldorf school and asking to talk to some of the seniors in high school; draw your own conclusions -- this is always best! Hgilbert 00:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with other articles on education

Puzzled how to continue this discussion, I have looked at the articles on the Montessori method, Paulo Freire, homeschooling, democratic schools and public Education in the United States to compare approaches. Though there have been extensive criticisms of all of these systems of education, none of these articles link to any critical sites, articles, or books. In the Montessori article, there is a brief "Criticisms" section which summarizes some critiques, analogous to the "Critical views" section in the Waldorf article; the other articles don't even have this.

It seems to me that there should be some reasonably comparable standard applied across articles. Hgilbert 15:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Could it be that, despite your assertion, Montessori and the others do not have anywhere near the amount of amassed criticism, online or elsewhere, that Waldorf generates? OF course there is criticism of any system, but there are not necessarily hordes of disgruntled former parents and students as there are in Waldorf.

It is foolish to suggest that a "reasonably comparable standard" for different educational approaches somehow requires a similar word count or a similar number of links devoted to criticism. It depends on how much criticism *exists*. Also, it depends on just exactly how fraudulent and misleading the articles themselves are. Possibly critics of Montessori do not find any significant misrepresentations of Montessori in that article (whitewashing of the founder's reputation, for instance), and so do not feel the need to come to Wikipedia to protest or argue about content of the articles. Of course there is criticism of any educational movement or system. One of the very telling things about how healthy the system may be is whether the criticism produces knee-jerk denial, outrage and defensiveness as we see in Waldorf - or people willing to babysit the article hour by hour, to delete rebuttals of the myths they treasure about their guru. DianaW 02:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There is substantial criticism of Montessori and public education, certainly; also of Freire education. The articles nevertheless focus on giving a clear picture of these rather than focus on their critics. This is a reasonable stance in an encyclopedia; the article on the Catholic church in Encyclopedia Brittanica also give little or no space to criticisms of the church; instead, it attempts to accurately represent the actual history and allows people to draw their own conclusions. Wikipedia has a similar policy of not issuing judgments, but providing the factual context for people to draw their own judgments. This should include things about which people might be critical, for example, that literacy is not taught until first grade (and in that grade chiefly through the activity of writing as well as extensive exposure to spoken verse and story).

"That literacy is not taught until first grade" is a typical misrepresentation; a typical attempt to downplay the truth.

I'm afraid that most articles in Wikipedia have quick response times to contributions that do not fit Wikipedia guidelines or are contrary to the article's purpose. As said, this article devotes far more space to criticisms than any comparable ones in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia guidelines about links exist; do read them.

Diana writes: I added comments in two sections above, and am not sure I put them in the right place. See under "Criticism" and under "Guidelines for notable opinion" above.

Hgilbert also wrote to Lumos, way up there somewhere, in a discussion of the PLANS website:

"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)"

- and I would like to note that, au contraire, it is the claims made *here* by Hgilbert that are easy to show are inaccurate and evidence of a transparent agenda. For hgilbert to be enforcing a so-called "neutral point of view" here is goofy.

To recapitulate: the historian in question *is* a historian (although he is not "our" historian; who does this refer to? PLANS? Has PLANS in some way claimed Peter Staudenmaier as "their" historian? There are numerous articles on the PLANS site; PLANS doesn't own or control the authors). There are no claims made by critics that Hgilbert has shown to be "falsified or manifestly untrue"; instead, he has shown that he either does not understand what is claimed, or is himself falsifying it for presentation here. Regarding me, for instance, he claims I have said things that are far fetched compared to what I've actually said. It does not seem to have mattered to him to understand what I said; he has my story and my views screwed up six ways from Sunday.

What are his academic qualifications (attained, not aimed at)? Wikipedia standards emphasize that these are a main criterion for an author's authority for the encyclopedia.

It also says if they have published works on the topic (not self-published) they are citable. What are your academic qualifications (attained, not aimed at)?

It is blatantly untrue to state that "many of the complainants do not even have guardianship over their children." I don't know *any* who don't. If I may be blunt, did you think you were going to get away with this, hgilbert? Of course it is true that not everyone participating on the mailing list has had children in the schools; many people come there who are *considering* putting their children in the schools, so this claim is irrelevant. It is true that one of their key claims has been tested in court and the court ruled against them; however, the case is under appeal. To leave out this key piece of information means your own credibility is kaput.DianaW 02:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Pete K. has said that this is his situation.

He has NOT said this. What you "believe" is hogwash. He has NEVER lost guardianship of any of his children. He lost a legal fight to *have them removed from the Waldorf school*. He certainly never lost custody. You step over the line to slander if you attempt to keep discussing an individual's children here, his marital situation or his parental fitness!

Again, it becomes clear these are simply cult tactics. You are dragging an individual's name through the mud to discredit him, and others simply by association, and haven't even bothered to get the facts straight. And if an individual over there *had* lost custody of his children, this would not discredit everyone else who writes to the mailing list, or everything posted on the web site - don't be absurd. This is, as I say, simply how a cult operates - dig up "dirt" on opponents. Have we discussed your marital status yet, or your children? I didn't think so.

I have been told that it is or has been true of others on the site;

In other words you like to gossip. I don't doubt you've been told several of us have two horns and a tail. How do you square this with "improving professional standards for Wikipedia"? I am done with this nonsense - there are not enough hours in the day to change a phrase back and forth with people who have nothing better to do but make sure hour by hour, that factual information about Waldorf and anthroposophy is discredited with hysterical, ever-escalating charges against its critics. This is a playground for lunatics. Enjoy yourselves.DianaW 14:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

if this is not the case, then change the statement to "one of the main complainants". The fact that the case is under appeal features prominently in the article, fortunately for my credibility, it appears. The court's ruling is the current standing of the case.

"Lbyrnison," the change *was* substantiated and the new text was *not* erroneous. It was what I deleted that was unsubstantiated. If you believe that PLANS is a hate group it is crystal clear *that* is what would require substantiation and none has ever been provided - no expert opinion, no documentation of actions or speech that would characterize a hate group has ever been attributed to PLANS. What is your evidence or the source of your opinion that PLANS is a hate group?DianaW 03:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

("Hate group" claim is undisputed: acknowledged by the PLANS organization itself http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/pressreleases/PR20040809.html)

That's totally absurd. That press release obviously does not say that PLANS is a hate group. Who are you trying to kid? Write the article your way - just don't imagine anyone is fooled. I try to get 8 hours of sleep a night, so don't worry, it can stay your way at least till morning.DianaW 03:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In case others don't see what has happened here, this person is using a PLANS press release, which points to the fact that *the best the Waldorf movement can do to rebut PLANS is to call them a hate group* . . . . as his/her justification for saying, in the article, that PLANS is a hate group. This individual is saying that PLANS has thereby "acknowledged" that they are a hate group. And so it stays, because I go to bed now.DianaW 03:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The Press Release is not evidence that "PLANS is a hate group". It is evidence that PLANS has been "described by some as a hate group", as this article originally stated. The claim as it appears on the page is not erroneous. The press release also suggests the charges relate in some way to an opposing motion filed in PLANS's lawsuit. The passage shouldn't be removed simpy because you or I may disagree with the charge itself. Ibyrnison 14:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

PLANS was, of course, referring to Sune's accusations. So their acknowledgement of the existence of such accusations becomes citable as confirmation that, I guess, the accusations are out there. So as long as an accusation appears somewhere on one of Sune N[...]'s many web sites, it will always be possible to say in a Wikipedia article, "Some say that . . . " or "Some describe it as . . . ." with another bogus reference that is actually just a link to Sune's web site. What can one say to this?

If that is what the standards are, and with guards ready to defend the bogus material hour by hour, you are going to win this one. You people were all over this Wikipedia thing so quickly, I admire the chutzpah. I think there is no doubt you will win the Wikipedia wars. Congratulations.DianaW 15:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your "of courses" don't meet wikipedia's standards of verifiability. Please take the personal, private, or partisan arguments some place else. This discussion page is becoming unduly cluttered with emotional and irrelevant quarrels. Ibyrnison 16:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Then presumably you have a real source for the "hate group" allegation. You are suggesting above that my "of course" is incorrect. So PLANS, in that press release, was *not* alluding to the accusations of Sune N[...]? These accusations can be found elsewhere than Sune N[...]'s web sites, and made by whom? N[...]'s web site is a clear example of self-published propaganda. There is no way it could ever be cited in a scholarly article. Will you answer this, this time, or do you imagine you are done with me, that I can be scolded for being "emotional" like a silly little girl, and you will appear somehow - what? scholarly? for the dishonesty that is being displayed here? I am certain that if you do have a source for the "hate group" accusation, other than the self-serving accusations of Sune N[...], that you will provide it here very soon.

I agree that personal and inappropriate remarks have been made on this page. They come from Hgilbert inquiring as to whether certain individuals - and he has felt free to name names - have custody of their children. He wants to know the dates certain people had custody of their children. This is clearly inappropriate for this discussion and clearly disqualifies either of you two as enforcers of a "neutral point of view" for this article. I'll look forward to your answer, yours or Sune's, regarding the source of the "hate group" comments.DianaW 20:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't care who did what! Will you both go argue over this somewhere else? This isn't Soap Opera channel, the discussion page is supposed to be reserved for issues raised in the wikipedia article.

I'm not sure I like your tone, Ibyrnison. We are indeed discussing issues raised in the Wikipedia article: the charge that ("Some say") PLANS is a hate group. The charge comes from 1) Sune N[...] - the bogus "reference" leads right back to one of Sune's web sites and 2) the Anthroposophical Society in North America. You provided a PLANS press release and tried to pass this off as PLANS "acknowledging" that they are a hate group! They were, "of course" (my "of course" is verifiable by reading the document) responding to the charges of the Anthroposophical Society.

Now I restored the text because I found this subject addressed in an old press release from PLANS, which I provided. This press release describes one source of the accusation as the "Anthroposophical Society in America", not any one particular individual. This press release was presumably widely distributed to various news media. The brief reference to the controversy as was made here has been verified! So please acquaint yourself of the policies and practices here at the wikipedia, and dispense with the personal insults. Ibyrnison 21:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no personal insults from me to anyone, and I'm getting a clear idea of the policies here.

If the source of the accusation that PLANS is a hate group comes from the Anthroposophical Society, that casts this in quite a different light. Anthroposophists call their critics a "hate group." No kidding. "Some say . . . ." slyly tries to imply some neutral source, hoping the reader won't check the source and see that this is an inside job.

I notice nobody has been at all interested in explaining actions or statements from PLANS that an outside observer could possibly characterize as coming from a hate group, or citing any neutral parties who call PLANS a hate group. If anybody's got anything, put it up here, or preferably, put it in the article. References to anthroposophists' own exaggerated, demonizing images of their critics are not kosher.

How bizarre can this get? This "Some say PLANS is a hate group" has got to go, and I intend to see it go. It may take me awhile, as I realize you folks sit here hour by hour watching it, but there's no way this sort of thing meets anybody's standards for an encyclopedia, and I intend to see this slanderous and unsupportable accusation ultimately deleted.DianaW 22:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record - I am the Pete K mentioned above. I have not lost custody of my children, I, in fact, have more custody of them than my former wife (a Waldorf teacher) has. Additionally, I did not lose a legal battle to remove my children, but settled the case out of court when it became obvious that continuing the battle was detrimental to the children. I have been involved with Waldorf education for 15 years and I am an outspoken critic. Anyone wishing to have a discussion with me about how Waldorf education has hurt my kids, please contact me through the Waldorf Critic's list or at http://lists.topica.com/lists/WaldorfQuestions/read. I have had to place this link here because the fanatical Waldorf supporters who safeguard this list continually edit out links to critical websites.

My discussion comments here have been clipped or edited by others while adding to this section or responding to me. Don't edit inside comments when responding, just append your own notes below them. Otherwise the discussion becomes too difficult to read, and it's impossible to follow anybody's points.Ibyrnison 02:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Censorship of these pages

The following 2 links to sites which are primary sources of collections of parents , teachers and commentators views critical of Steiner education are being repeatedly removed from these pages.

• People For Legal And Non-Sectarian Schools Campaigning Group critical of Waldorf Education. Waldorf critics site containing resources critical of Waldorf education including, parent and student testimony, and articles by academics and researchers.

• [link removed] Site created by teachers and parents at the Norwegian Waldorf-/Steiner school in order to share experiences.

The arguments used for their removal seem to boil down to the fact the editors don’t like what they are saying.

Your comment shows, I think, that you you have not more than superficially looked at the documentation showing the extent of the repeated untruthfulness and demonization of WE at the WC-site, and that you disregard the basic Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion of External links in articles, explicitly and repeatedly pointed to here in the discussion. --Thebee 12:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is wikipedia and opposing views on a subject must be given an airing.

In addition discussion of the actual issue of the inclusion of these sites has now been removed to a sub page to keep it from view.

".. discussion of the actual issue of the inclusion of these sites have now been removed to a sub page to keep it from view"? This stands out as a sweeping and untrue biased statement. The MAIN discussion on this, not archived, TALKs page on WE concerns the WC-site. The ONLY discussion of the second site you mention also is published here, not on the "Archive" page, as you write. This indicates, well, actually shows in full, that you do not quite know what you're talking about, or do not care if it actually is true, as what you write in the main is untrue. --Thebee 12:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is evidence of a consistent campaign to keep these pages on Wikipedia as close to a sales brochure for Waldorf education as possible and marginalise any independent criticism.

This issue of criticism needs to be discussed here on the discussion page of the article not on an archive sub page. Likewise attempts to hide and marginalise recent discussion are also attempted censorship and should be resisted. Lumos3 11:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You're not serious, Lumos, see above ... --Thebee 12:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Lumos. There is indeed a serious effort by Waldorf fanatics to hide critical views of Waldorf on this page. Looking at how many times a day this page is edited to remove criticism will make this clear. I have added links today to Waldorf Critics. Let's see how long they are available to parents and people who are interested in both supportive and critical viewpoints of Waldorf Education. --Pete K 08:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Does the site of the WC ("Waldorf Critics") show that it has the nature of a "hate group"?

The article on Waldorf Education in the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education#Basis_in_Anthroposophy says "Some parents have stated that they are uncomfortable with a teaching philosophy that has evolved out of such principles — while others choose the schools because of these very principles. The San Francisco based anti-Waldorf lobby group PLANS, described by some as a hate group [15], is the most vocal on this issue."

As reference it links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education#_note-14 that in turn links to http://www.americans4waldorf.org/Myths.html For more on the issue, see here --Thebee 17:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. That is the reference that is under dispute - it links to your own web site. You can either find a neutral source to reference this claim; agree to my wording change: "Anthroposophists call PLANS a hate group"; delete the unsubstantiated accusation; or, if you can't live with any of that, expect your own tactics to get lots of air play, here and elsewhere. Well Sune, "some people say" lots of things. I will make sure this issue remains front and center here and is well publicized elsewhere. PLANS is not a hate group by any objective criteria; it is only a "hate group" to people who feel picked on when someone says Waldorf isn't wonderful.

The other option is of course to explain what PLANS has done that makes them a hate group. Keep on bringing up witchcraft, and expect me to keep on rebutting, in my own clear English, your convoluted and largely unreadable version of the events in question, without multiple links and sentences that run on for paragraphs - just a clear explanation of what happened. Keep on saying PLANS is like jewwatch, expect Steiner's own statements on the Jews to appear in reply every time, here and elsewhere, to make clear to people why you need PLANS to be discredited. You can expect that I intend for this issue to become clear to the public.DianaW 18:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example of the prose at "Americans for Waldorf Education" (the page that the so-called reference takes us to):

"Behind the civil surface that Mr. Dugan tries to cultivate in public discussions on the "Waldorf Critics" mailing list, an objective observer will find there denigration, belittling and hateful reaction to anything remotely positive about Waldorf education, anthroposophy or Rudolf Steiner."

This is the say-so of Linda C[...], Deborah K[...], Serena B[...] and Sune N[...]. Who are they? People who don't like what they read on the Waldorf critics list.

This can't conceivably meet any standard for a "source" that "documents" that PLANS is a hate group. Realizing this, the defenders instead inform us, with straight faces, that it documents that "some people say" PLANS is a hate group.

And I can say that there really are Martians on Mars, canals, ancient cities, and little green men and everything. I can put up a web site where I describe the ancient ruins and the little green men who still roam the hills. Thank you Ray Bradbury. Then I can write a Wikipedia article on the possibilities of extraterrestrial life in the solar system. I can say that "Some people report that there are little green men on Mars." [15] Reference 15 will take readers to my web site describing the green men on Mars. When someone protests, I will retort, as IByrnison did, that my reference isn't meant to show that there *really* are little green men on Mars. All I am doing is referencing that "some people say" there are little green men on Mars.

Then I can ask all my friends to sit at their computers in shifts, swiftly reverting the changes any time someone points out that the web site I have linked to is not, uh, credible, and that no one else has seen the little green men.DianaW 19:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that a threat? Wikipedia does not like threats. Or Ad hominems. --Thebee 20:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana replies: It meant just what it said. It promises that I will keep this issue visible if the wording changes are rejected (or repeatedly revert). It is actually just this sort of tactic that you are using here, that I am interested in exposing. You say PLANS is a hate group - that is basically a criminal charge - and now Diana Winters is a dangerous and threatening person? I do not think that is going to work, Sune.DianaW 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reformulated the sentence into the more specific *The San Francisco based anti-Waldorf lobby group PLANS, described by one support group of Waldorf Education, Americans for Waldorf education as a group that publishes argumentation characteristic of hate groups against Waldorf education[15], is the most vocal on this issue." Does it? I think this documents this in full. --Thebee 20:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana replies: I like the wording better. I definitely do. I will say more in a day or two. But I like it much better. It makes clear that it is a group of people who don't like that they're being criticized, who are turning around and lobbing accusations of their own at the people criticizing them. I'll be away for a little while. We'll see how long this change lasts!DianaW 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you like a wording that says that PLANS argues against Waldorf Education using argumentation characteristic of Hate groups, but don't think this 'talking like a hate group', 'walking like a hate group', and 'looking like a hate group', when looked at closer, described and documented here and linking to a description of it here, also described here and here makes it into one. How interesting. --Thebee 22:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is PLANS, an organization critical of Waldorf, a "hate group"? What is a hate group? Does anyone other than anthroposophists call PLANS a hate group?

PLANS meets nobody's definition of a hate group. A hate group dislikes people due to their religion or their ethnicity or skin color and targets them because of this, if not for outright violence at least for verbal bashing. A hate group is not the same thing as a group, organized or otherwise, of people who have criticisms of an institution, movement, or doctrine. The latter - criticism of religious movements - is a simple matter of free speech, at least in the US. In the US, we are not only allowed but *obligated* to criticize religious and other institutions when they misbehave, the same as we criticize politicians or others who betray a public trust.

A group does not become a "hate group" by virtue of having a web site or running an email list where people who have had unsatisfactory experiences with an institution or movement report their stories, or where people with a critical view of the doctrines or teachings of the religion or movement discuss their views, or where aspects of the movement's history that are embarrassing to the movement are openly discussed.

A hate group *hurts* people. A hate group hurts people because of *who they are* rather than *what they do*. Criticizing the behavior of an institution, or individuals affiliated with these institutions, is not hate speech. For instance, complaining that the reading instruction in these schools is poor is not hate speech. The claim itself may be true or false, but parents complaining that their child was poorly served academically in Waldorf schools, is not hate speech. Likewise parents, or others with academic or other personal interests, discussing the racist and antisemitic writings of Rudolf Steiner do not thereby become members of a hate group.

Does anyone have a source that calls PLANS a hate group, other than anthroposophists? I am no expert on hate groups, but I certainly cannot find one online. The first hit when you google "hate groups" is the Southern Poverty Law Center, a very reputable source, and they certainly don't mention PLANS anywhere. I didn't keep googling as just going through google hits is not a very reliable way to research something.

I am confident no such non-anthroposophical source for this view exists.

If it does, I would like to see it here. I would like it posted right here. If no one can find such a source, I propose that where the article says "Some say PLANS is a hate group," this be amended to read "Anthroposophists say PLANS is a hate group." (Actually, it would be better if it said, "Some anthroposophists say PLANS is a hate group," as many anthroposophists no doubt recognize that this claim is absurd, and are embarrassed by the lunatic antics of a few.)

And in fact, I'd like you to keep the comment, as I think it discredits anthroposophists rather than PLANS. It only helps you *as long as* its origin is not clear.

Which is of course clear evidence of your dishonest motives. Once the origin of the claim is made transparent, it's no use to you. At that point you may find me arguing to keep it rather than delete it entirely.

Just take responsibility for what you are saying. 'Fess up. No one thinks PLANS is a hate group except anthroposophists.

And please note: We are not talking about citing other people citing anthroposophists. Linking to "AmericansForWaldorfEducation" will not do it. *Original* sources - people who know something about hate groups, rather than bending this slanderous notion to their own defense, and then quoting each other as if "lots of people think so" - are what is needed.

If this change is objectionable, I would like to hear why.

If these proposals are reasonable, I would like Byrnison or whoever it is to cease reverting this change in the article. If you intend to keep reverting it, I would like to see a source given *that is not anthroposophical or that does not quote anthroposophists* for the contention that critics of anthroposophy (PLANS or anyone else; there are many critics, especially in Europe, who are not affiliated with PLANS) are a "hate group." Otherwise, the intellectual dishonesty, self-serving nature of the claim, and the tortured circuitous logic of the claim are fully exposed, and no one can argue this claim belongs in an encyclopedia.

You can keep changing it if you like; that is the way Wikipedia works. But I intend that if you do, your efforts will be widely exposed and discredited.[]] 13:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The above was written by Diana. Again not trying to be anonymous- forgot to log in.DianaW 13:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

archive and special page

I have archived all material pre-2006 (see top of talk page for a link to the archive) Hgilbert 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved two huge discussions, one about the PLANS web-site generally and one about linking to that site from this article, to a special page for this subject only; this brings the two together and allows this talk page to regain a sense of proportion. I hope that all can see the sense of this (I am not trying to cut off discussion, which can continue on that page). Hgilbert 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and you have also "moved" or rather removed my comment *on this action*. Lumos comments on it below but you have simply eliminated my comment on this censorship. It is not at this page now or at the subpage you created, as far as I can see. If that isn't vandalism, I don't know what is. You are simply removing comments that reflect others' views not only on anthroposophy but on how you handle the discussion. I am still investigating but it must surely be against Wikipedia policies to tamper with the Discussion page.DianaW 11:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana writes 5 minutes later: I was mistaken - see that it is still there - just moved to a far less prominent and visible location.

I didn't move it at all. Look at the history; it is exactly where you put it. In any case, personal accusations are to be avoided on Wikipedia; please see the guidelines WP:Civil and WP:Assume good faith. Hgilbert 14:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert, it is not going to be helpful for you to go on pointing out my supposed violations of protocol. Little scoldings do not deter me. There is no "personal accusation" from me. All my comments refer to the material. I assume good faith until good faith is violated. You violated good faith here pretty early on. The reasons you moved all that material are transparent.

I recognized and acknowledged my mistake in saying that the material had been deleted, within moments, you might note. That is an example of "good faith." I didn't just delete my own mistake, or move it somewhere else hoping people wouldn't notice.DianaW 15:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You recognized your mistake...but continued to claim it was moved.

Hgilbert writes: "I have moved two huge discussions, one about the PLANS web-site generally and one about linking to that site from this article." This makes it sound like these are just two issues . . . and like there are so many other issues that the page can now "get back to," as byrnison also puts it, "let's get back to working on the article." Guys - newsflash: there isn't any *other* issue to discuss, in terms of improving this article. The inclusion of critical material is *the* issue. Everything else looks hunky-dory. There aren't any spelling mistakes or typos that I have noticed. The issue is whether the Wikipedia entry on Waldorf should be, as lumos notes, a sales brochure for Waldorf schools, or an article giving enough perspective on differing views of Waldorf that an uninformed person can begin to understand what the issues might be. Nobody is objecting to all the brochure copy you've pasted in on eurythmy or pentatonic recorders or the head, the heart and the hands. What we are asking is that the downsides of all this blinding beauty and wonder also be accessible. - And without resort to preposterous and slanderous revenge tactics such as labeling critics of your movement a "hate group."

This slanderous action - the labeling of the organization PLANS as a "hate group" in the absence of any evidence of this is also a topic I see you would rather not be highlighted on this discussion page. Again, my debunking of the ludicrous old "PLANS alleges witchcraft" discussion was dismissed by Sune N[...] with a few quick phrases, oh, there was an article in the Sacramento Bee, well that settles it. Comments clearly showing the editorial to have been unreliable don't get a reply. Your response is to kinda shove the discussion to a less visible place on this site. It is quite obvious that the mere existence of the preposterous "hate group" discussion is something you would rather not be so readily readable by interested parties. You hope for the casual denunciation of the main body of organized critics as a "hate group" to have its impact on the casual reader of the article, while discussion of the origin and motivation for this outrageous claim is not readily accessible.DianaW 12:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:Assume good faith again. First of all, the discussion has achieved such monumental proportions that it deserves its own page; this is normal Wikipedia policy with specialized parts of articles that become overwhelmingly long. Second of all, I'm afraid that there are many aspects of Waldorf education, and this one link remains a highly specialized question, whatever its dominance in any individual's or group's thinking. Filling out and improving the actual description itself are also important tasks. There are now four links to the page in question, one at the very top of the page for quick access. Please be WP:Civil; this is not optional behavior at Wikipedia, but is "official policy and is considered a standard that all users should follow". Hgilbert 05:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fergie

Thanks, Fergie, for moving the whole discussion with DianaW to the bottom of the page, where it belonged. When DW put it at the top of the page instead of where it should have been, at the bottom, I put my comment on the issue just before DW's, for purely logical reasons, as DW's discussion was an answer to what I had written, and an answer normally comes after what it is an answer to.

Maybe the contributions by DW here have given a taste of the discussion culture on the WC-list, that is pursued there day in and day out, week in and week out, year in and year out, since soon ten years, draining the soul of all life, and then republished by the secretary of the goup as "archives", now 140+ MB, at his site for search engines to index and spread world wide for anyone interested in WE, as "Education of the public about Waldorf education". Is it fair to characterize it as hate speech, far beyond reasonable criticism? In my view, yes. --Thebee 10:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression that you guys are pusuing old vendettas from elsewhere. Maybe you should both try to take a couple of steps back, and try to be less emotional on Wikipedia.--Fergie 13:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Multiple links to same site

Before adding reference links, please check that they aren't already provided. Please do not add the same reference over and over, and do not link usenet or other email lists as reference material, nor message boards, blogs, etc. These are not to be used as reference material on wikipedia. Professor marginalia 22:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

1) All external sites should have just one link

so we can allow 24 hours for individuals to fix the links to their own sites - by choosing the one link. If you are "involved" with this page, please do not add more links at this point to replace others as we are trying to reduce links. I agree with Garrie on the placement of the critics site, but I also think that a PLANS person should choose the placement of their link.

I applaud the effort toward peacemaking, but I don't think that affiliates or factions of any sort should be given the exclusive power to choose their own choice of territory within the article or external link section. I think we should discourage any further identification or faction forming by editors to any particular group or "side", and establish more objective criteria. Including a section given to "criticism" looks like the common method used in countless other articles here at wikipedia. The pages on Freud, psychology, alternative medicine, Marxism, etc all handle it this way so though I'm not sure it has to be this way here, but I'm not sure why it should be changed here either. Seems to me that the number one purpose of the external link and reference sections would be to provide readers the sources used as background support for facts in the article itself, what if we agreed to guidelines that all the references and links posted here should roughly correspond to categories where the material or subject appears in the article itself?Professor marginalia 14:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

More on links I'm concerned that many of the links here just don't meet wikipedia's standards. Many are simply links to the main pages of personal websites filled with self-authored treatises or advice of one sort or another, another one added for the first time today that doesn't even mention the name of the school it supposedly criticizes. I propose that these kinds of links, pro or con, should be discarded. The personal reports of various web-diarists or web-fan sites don't cut it. An exception could be made to links to certain pages on those type websites which display reprints of published articles or research studies.Professor marginalia 14:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree professor, but so far this group is not ready for this. Ideally, we should have only Wikilinks or those to scholarly articles, and I think at some point in this process we should go there. To set en example, I will remove all homeschooling links as the page already links to the homeschooling page which has a few selected links. Wonderactivist 16:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I regret that it took extensive and repeated linking and editing to bring this issue to scrutiny. I agree, it makes sense for an Wikipedia to link to scholarly articles and not to blogs. I like the idea of linking to open discussion lists, however, as those tend to have fairly balanced and helpful discussions (when they are not heavily moderated) that would indeed be of interest to people researching Waldorf education. Again, as a 15-year Waldorf parent with kids still in Waldorf, and former founder of a Waldorf school, I feel that it is absolutely imparitive to have a balance of critical material and links - and believe that this balance ultimately assists Waldorf education to attract clientele that truly want what they have to offer. --Pete K 16:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Open discussion lists are absolutely not appropriate at wikipedia. They may be helpful resources in other contexts, but they do not meet the criteria as a reliable information resource for an encyclopedia. While the broader intention to include them may be good, such would be an inappropriate misuse of the wikipedia. Professor marginalia 17:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks. So where a single author, for example Sune, the owner of Waldorf Answers, discusses things on his own site without review by anyone, how is that not a blog? What does it take to make the opinions of a single person not a blog - a few links to other sites? What service are we providing by linking to a site like Waldorf Answers where NO contrary discussion is possible and critics of Waldorf are maligned without any recourse? And when he clones his site and calles it Americans for Waldorf Education, and provides two links - why is that OK with everyone here? --Pete K 22:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

For a definition of "blog", see the article at Wikipedia, here: Blog. "A weblog, which is usually shortened to blog, is a type of website where entries are made (such as in a journal or diary), displayed in a reverse chronological order." Approximately 99%, 140MB of the WC-site consists of archives of a mailing list, where the archives are displayed in reverse chronological order. This corresponds to the Wiki definition of blogs. Linking to such a blog violates Wikipedia guideline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided point 9.

I'm quite familiar with what a blog is - and no, a mailing list is not a blog. A blog is written by one person and comments to that one person's entries are permitted. A mailing list does not conform to that format and certainly the fact that the PLANS site has an storage archive of a separate Waldorf Critics mailing list doesn't qualify it as a blog. My site, Waldorf Questions, does not qualify as a blog either, but the rule that I violated was linking to my own site. This is, I'm sure, the same rule you violate when you link to Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf. Waldorf Answers is your own site and AWE is a site run by you and three other people. --Pete K 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.waldorfanswers.org is a site, published at one time, not an endless list of postings by anyone, displayed in reverse order. That makes into a non-blog.

No, that's what makes it into a non-discussion list. --Pete K 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.americans4waldorf.org contains little of what is found at http://www.waldorfanswers.org. But it contains a large section on the WC-site: http://www.americans4waldorf.org/OnPLANS.html http://www.waldorfanswers.org doesn't. This makes "Americans for Waldorf Education" into a non-clone of "Waldorf Answers" --Thebee 08:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It is, indeed, a subset of WaldorfAnswers. A huge percentage of the material there is cut and pasted from WaldorfAnswers. You are using silly technicalities to sidestep the intent of Wikipedia. --Pete K 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And now the PLANS link has been moved and no section for CRITICAL REVIEW is available. So the PLANS link is buried in a section called "Further Discussion, Outside Views and Reviews of Waldorf Schools". Again, what's wrong with a reader having easy access to information critical of Waldorf? I would like to recreate a section labeled something with the word "Critical" in it so users can find links to critical information. Unless there's an objection to this, I'll do it tomorrow sometime. --Pete K 03:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before you arrived. This violates the standard for articles on Education at Wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waldorf_education#Comparison_with_other_articles_on_education The article also has four sections describing criticism of WE, two of which link to the WC-site here: PLANS, that contains several links to the WC-site. It contradicts your statement that readers of the article do not have easy access to what is published by the WC-group, that you support. --Thebee 08:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Until two days ago, the link was available in a separate section of Critical links. I will restore a section like this for it. It is obvious, again, that it is your intention to bury the link now that the concensus here has been to include it. Again, your interpretation of the guidelines here is contrary to the intent of Wikipedia, which is to present a "Neutral point of view" and to allow both sides of the discussion. --Pete K 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "both sides". One group's critical opinion is just "another side". This is becoming silly--hours earlier you objected to the organization being described as "critical of Waldorf" and changed it, and now you place it in a section all by itself and label it "Critical view"? There is no reason to limit a section "critical views" arbitrarily to this one website. It was formerly in a section with "critical" in the title, and you weren't content with that either, but had placed it in three or four other subsections in addition to it. Then you moved it out altogether. Now you're moving it back to where it was to start with, presumably because all the other links have now been removed from it leaving your favorite link all by itself. Not cool. Professor marginalia 15:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Pete K, like you, first removing critical answers to the criticism by the WC-site, that does not meet the basic demands on External links and publishes repeatedy extreme and untruthful argumentation and material characteristic of hate groups, according to the approved wording of your co-representative of the WC, and now arguing that the NPOV policy is not met by linking to it within a comprehensive Further Discussion, Outside Views and Reviews of Waldorf Schools, but requires a special "CRITICAL REVIEW" link section (with no answers to the defamation of WE at the WC-site) to meet the the NPOV policy does not hold, and clearly violates the NPOV policy of Wikipedia.

It also violates the standard in articles on Education at Wikipedia. Not cool, as Professor Marginalia tells. --Thebee 15:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

To address Professor marginalia's comments first, and I have already addressed them once, but I'll address them again, to truthfully represent a NPOV, or more specifically a balanced POV, a critical viewpoint should be available where it is appropriate, not hidden in a list of other non-related stuff. So, when people are looking for Waldorf resources, for example, one cannot assume that the resources a person is looking for must be supportive of Waldorf. Someone looking for an objective view of Waldorf resources should have critical as well as supportive information at their fingertips. IF this is impossible within the guidelines of Wikipedia (and I don't believe it is) then a section for critical viewpoints should be available. This section should indeed be for critical viewpoints, and not unbiased viewpoints such as unbiased articles which may have said one or two things Waldorf supporters don't agree with. Critical means critical, and the expression of a critical viewpoint is absolutely acceptable and encouraged by Wikipedia.--Pete K 19:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

To address Sune's (TheBee) comments: First, I don't have a "co-representative of the WC" - I am an independent Waldorf parent with no connection to PLANS nor to Waldorf Critics, but I do post on their discussion list, as you have also done. There is nothing untruthful about the information contained there, and that it doesn't meet with your approval or view of Waldorf is not surprising. Please read my comments above to Professor marginalia regarding the Critical Review. And no, there should not be rebuttal available to a cite linking critical information. Fairness would require a link to rebut every link to Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf Education. BTW, that Waldorf is a great educational system is a minority view. As we well know, most of the world doesn't go to Waldorf schools or look favorably upon Waldorf education - and for good reason. Most people who discover Waldorf DON'T send their children there for many reasons not related to finances. That a critical viewpoint is not MORE prominent on this page is highly suspect. --Pete K 19:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

HGilbert, please read the instruction at the top of this section. We have been directed to describe edits that we intend to make here - 24 hours before we make them so that discussion can take place and the edit-wars can hopefully stop. Please do not remove the link heading "Critical Review" - even though it is containing a single link currently, there will be more critical sites linked here in the future. It has been decided, above, that a PLANS person will determine where the link to PLANS will go. I will confer with PLANS and confirm its location, but for the time being I feel comfortable representing them in this minor issue, so it should remain as it was before you deleted the section it was in. If this is unsatisfactory, please explain why. I'll check in tomorrow and replace the section if you haven't gotten to it. --Pete K 05:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to take Wonderactivist's suggestions as instructions, please note her suggestion above about only having links to Wikipedia or scholarly articles. I'm willing to agree to follow all her suggestions, which I find quite sensible taken as an entirety, but not a pick and choose your favorites approach. "We have been directed"...these are still suggestions by another editor (as I said, sensible ones). Shall we agree to follow all of them? Perhaps wonderactivist could list them clearly as a group and we could see if we can have agreement of all parties. Hgilbert 10:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I think we should all follow MY suggestions, but I'm pretty sure you won't agree to it. So we will continue with EDIT WARS until the clean-up team is available. Are you suggesting the links to AWE and Waldorf Answers are scholarly articles? They're bullshit. And that you have the time and energy to completely revise this site to YOUR impression of what it should be is not going to discourge me and others from correcting your corrections. This article and the intent of Wikipedia is to present a balanced view. If that is not possible with your presence here, then perhaps you should leave it to others. How about if we stop with this silliness and create a good article. It sounds like that's what Lucie has in mind. Why don't you follow her suggestions. If you think you are going to bully me into submission - please ask around, you've picked the wrong guy to try to bully. --Pete K 16:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind us all of the need to be civil and professional in our work together and that"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia". The article, or any encyclopia article, is meant to have solidly founded material, not random opinions, as its basis. I'm happy to follow Lucie's suggestions; one of them is to remove certain kinds of links. You seem to have begun this process with sites that do not conform to your POV. Are you satisfied if we follow through systematically? One result would be that the PLANS link would also have to go; it is not a scholarly article. Hgilbert 18:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering you have systematically reverted every edit I have made, I'm being extremely civil with you. Unfortunately, for you, you don't get to make decisions of what's scholarly. If PLANS links go, so do Americans for Waldorf Education and Waldorf Answers links. The article would be far better without them anyway - but frankly, I think Waldorf Answers is great reading - it turns more people off of Waldorf than PLANS does. But back to your didactic comment that characterizes my contributions as "random opinions" - again, I suggest you consider that a balanced view would require more than just YOUR opinions. I will be happy to support everything I include in this article with words from Steiner's own mouth, if necessary. But you're not going to like that either. So, I ask you again to adapt a cooperative attitude so that we can come up with an article that will be truthful and satisfactory to both Waldorf supporters and critics alike. I'm quite optimistic that it's possible but some effort has to be made. --Pete K 22:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

2) I was going to move all of the science parts to

a page called Goethean science, however there is already a holistic science page so I propose just adding a line that says "Waldorf teachers base science instruction in holistic science which is woven throughout the curriculum. Feel free to suggest a different line. It will then link to the holistic science page. There are already plenty of links to site which feature Waldorf curriculum - so the specifics are not needed. And yes, critics, the holistic science page already has a section called opposing views, but feel free to add a touch. Steiner folks, he isn't mentioned, but there's a link to Nature Institute and I added one to Rachel Carson's site. Please, let's not add too much to that page - Steiner could maybe get a line there, referring to his page .

Are you suggesting that the detailed Waldorf curriculum be eliminated altogether, or simply relocating or removing the science parts? I think the entire Waldorf curriculum discussion should be kept together if possible. I don't think that the science curriculum is exactly equivalent to either Goethean science or holistic science, but maybe a 'see also' pointer or other type link to those pages would be good for further background. I'd section out the History and Social Mission sections rather than divide out just one or two elements from the rest out of the currently practiced curriculum. Professor marginalia 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's get opinions on this. I originally saw an easy way to drop a large section, because really as a teacher I see the Waldorf curriculum as a direct reflection of holistic science. Let's openthis for more discussion - why do you feel a detailed curriculum should be here and which school's curriculum will you use - they vary? Wonderactivist 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The primary topic of interest in Waldorf curriculum is in where it deviates from what one would expect at any school. Someone looking for the curriculum breakdown would be better advised to research the curriculum at the school they are interested in sending their children to. Better to concentrate on what make Waldorf unusual. --Pete K 16:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good idea to ask how much detail is important. I think a broad curriculum discussion is important. (I mean the curriculum itself, without any particular focus on whether it is *unusual* or not. The article should talk about waldorf education, and whether or not somebody finds some particular aspect of it unusual doesn't make it more significant.) The science discussion seems disproportionately detailed, but it's good detail. I think some other curricular areas could benefit from a little more detail. There's a balance between making it just too cursory and too detailed, and overall length of the article is one of the concerns here. The point that it may not be consistent across the board to all schools is a good one. What sources have been consulted to describe the curriculum, and are they are widely accepted as "standard"? Professor marginalia 18:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a study done about the Waldorf science program. I'll look for the link. I'm pretty sure it was even referenced on AWSNA's website. Maybe providing a link to that study would be helpful. As for the curriculum itself, as a Waldorf parent, I know the wording gets a little fuzzy. Sometimes what you might find in a class called "economics" - is really more along the lines of Steiner's theories about a three-fold social order. So I'm not sure even listing the topics here is all that helpful in that it might (would) be misleading readers. Regarding the "standard" - in my experience, the curriculum and when each subject is taught is indeed standard throughout the world in Waldorf schools. The curriculum follows Steiner's prescription exactly and Waldorf schools haven't deviated from it in 85 years. What I would like to see some discussion about (and what I mean by "deviates") is stuff like Eurythmy, which is REQUIRED for every student from 1st grade through 12th grade. In other words, it's a big deal. It is a deeply spiritual exercise that I think we should take a few sentences to talk about here. --Pete K 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

3) I propose we take Garrie's advice

on the social mission page and then link to it, or is there already reference to that on Steiner's mega-page? Perhaps someone would like to write that page and then reduce the sizeof both this page and Steiner's by linking to it...and yes, crtics, I think one critical link would be appropriate - again, just one.

What does everyone think of these first proposed steps? I am very open minded on this. Wonderactivist 13:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've left opinions above, and think that the social mission section would be one of the better candidates to devote to its own separate article. Maybe we could move the "teacher education" section to the new school administration section, since the two subjects might be closely related. Also perhaps put the links with the data about existing schools and steps for starting new schools? They seem to me to be a natural fit, and help keep this page from feeling too chopped up, hit-and-miss, while making the new section into a fuller picture of the nuts and bolts inside the actual school houseProfessor marginalia 15:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the teacher education section, I have issue with the use of the word "college" which implies college-level training. Waldorf teacher-training centers are not colleges - they do not provide college training, and a teacher who has participated in these training courses could never claim that, on that basis, he or she went to college. --Pete K 16:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pete K: I don't understand this objection. The section is labeled "Teacher Training Programs". The only reference to "college" is in the names of the institutions, and you're not suggesting that editors here change these names to something else? Professor marginalia 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How are these sentences talking about the names of the institutions?

"Specialist Waldorf education teaching colleges are in operation throughout the world." "Rudolf Steiner's "spiritual science" or Anthroposophy and developmental psychology are normally central courses at any Waldorf teaching college." "Much of the education of any Waldorf teacher happens after graduation from teaching college,"

They are not called "colleges" everywhere. There is one literally across the street from me at Highland Hall School in Northridge. It is called WISC - the "Waldorf Institute of Southern California". No mention of "college" in the title. It only serves to confuse and deceive people to call teacher training institutes "colleges" and the truth is, they are not colleges. If anything would be appropriate as a description for them, it would be "training centers" - and everyone routinely calls the experience "teacher training" - not "teaching college" as is suggested above. That is the most accurate terminology. I'm not interested in contributing to the editing wars, but I will be happy to make those edits if, after you research this, you agree. --Pete K 02:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. I thought you were speaking of the link section, my mistake. I think it appropriate to change one, but the other makes a specific claim about the content of the instruction. I say one particular use of it should be left alone rather than be changed on one editor's say-so. If this is a disputed issue, reference sources should be cited. Professor marginalia 15:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following rewording that would be consistent with the wording used in Waldorf environments and would help avoid confusion between teacher training institutions and colleges:

"Special Waldorf education teacher training centers are in operation throughout the world." "Rudolf Steiner's "spiritual science" or Anthroposophy and developmental psychology are normally central courses at Waldorf teacher training institutions." "Much of the education of any Waldorf teacher happens after graduation from teacher training,"

Please advise me if you have an objection to this change. --Pete K 22:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf's social mission is integral to its being; it was part of its original concept and has been one of its most powerful defining traits. I have moved it lower down in the article. I do feel it should stay here.

Now that some sections have been moved to subsidiary articles, I don't see that there are very many sections left that should be moved out. There is a general introduction for those who only want that. Then there is a table of contents to help guide those who are interested in special aspects; they can jump to their section of interest. The educational philosophy definitely needs to be represented!! Improving the balance of this is certainly a worthwhile goal, however.

The science section could certainly be moved out if replaced with a brief summary, however. This would allow it to be expanded in its new site; it is one area about which there are often questions, unclarity and/or critiques. Hgilbert 01:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

PLANS

This is becoming ridiculous. There is no reason to post the reference to PLANS a hundred times. You don't provide balance by granting one opposing reference more weight than any others by repeating it ad nauseum. It's of highly questionable value as a legitimate reference source to begin with, but it certainly doesn't deserve to be duplicated five times! Professor marginalia 14:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Professor, I agree - whether a critic or anything else, nothing should have 5 links on a Wiki page - absolutely nothing. Wonderactivist 15:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And the same person is removing other sites...including one critical of the critics. What's that about not suppressing criticism? He seems to be suppressing criticism of his favorite site... 24.190.149.18 20:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Since links are broken up into sections and categories, it makes good sense to provide a link to a critical site in the category where it is appropriate. Researching a Waldorf school, for example, is a good place to have a link to a site critical of Waldorf because people researching a Waldorf school could certainly be interested in information critical of Waldorf. I will shortly be providing a link of a site critical to the Camphill movement as well. There is nothing sinister about adding links to critical sites where they make sense instead of grouping them all under the category of critical. The pro-Waldorf links on these pages are overwhelming and even many of the links listed in the "critical" section point to very soft articles. Also, it is absolutely inappropriate for a "rebuttal" to a critical link to be posted - as it would be for a critical rebuttal to be posted for every supportive link. And somebody continually changes the description of the link to PLANS to say something like "The Anti-Waldorf" blah blah... Should I continually change the Waldorf Answers site description to "The Waldorf Fanatic site" blah blah? There should be a balance here between supportive and critical information and this is hardly the case. Wikipedia, I'm sure, is not intended to be a site for promotional material, nor is it intended, in my view, as a place where watchdogs can continually excuse themselves while removing corrections to the article content and links to critical sites. There are many inaccuracies in the main article page itself that critics have let slide - with the understanding that links to critical sites will be available. People who research Waldorf education should have access to both sides of the issue. Pete K 1:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have developed and merged the section on Outside views with the section Further Discussion and Reviews, and removed a direct link to the anti-Waldorf lobby group PLANS, as such a link would violate Wikipedia guidelines by the site to approximately 99%, 140+MB, being an archive of a mailing list, comparable to a blog, and publishing and supporting defamatory untruths and argumentation comparable to hate groups, see here. The views of the group are presented by articles in San Francisco Chronicle, listed in the section. --Thebee 13:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sune, until you get a handle on your temper about this, you will be wasting everyone's time here. I will replace the link to PLANS yet again. Your OPINION that it is "hateful" or "untruthful" does not give you any right to continually remove the link and continually rename it when it is there. Links to YOUR OWN sites which are WaldorfAnswers and Americans for Waldorf Education could easily be removed for some of the same reasons you site above. And as far as renaming the links - I don't think this is your responsibility. If you need me to continually rename the Waldorf Answers link to - "Waldorf Answers, a fanatical group of Waldorf zealots", then continue with this childish nonsense. Otherwise, please consider that your opinion is ONLY your opinion. --Pete K 16:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added back the links to PLANS and to Waldorf Critics. I have correctly labeled two websites as fanatical. Sauce for the goose... Level-headed people in this discussion, please note I have done this to make a point. Somebody in authority needs to please take control of the edits on these pages and, at some point, lock them. This is just plain ridiculous. --Pete K 16:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are not backed up, neither by reference to specific guidelines, nor to specific documentation in support of your view. When making edits, please provide them. --Thebee 17:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who may be new or unfamiliar with wikipedia protocols, please note that editors are not to perform "breach experiments" within the article in order to demonstrate your point. We're not to break the rules to prove a rule.

The talk page and talk page archives reveal disputes over the worthiness of the PLANS link has been extensively explored, and at least at one point the consensus seemed to be that it should be included as it pertains to the lawsuit mentioned in this article. The mere fact that Waldorf education, or any other subject of topics here at wikipedia, has critics or others with personal gripes against it doesn't merit they each be exhaustively catalogued in the articles here, nor given a spot of real estate here to air their complaints.

I'm appealing to a halt to the edit wars over this link, and ask that we abide by the earlier consensus formed here, and focus our efforts now on working together to improving the structure and length of this article, including its reference section. Professor marginalia 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

On the reason to include a special direct link to the WC-site, that "it should be included as it pertains to the lawsuit mentioned in this article.":

The section that mentions this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education#U.S._Waldorf_methods_public_schools, as also a previous section on 'criticism of WE' gives a direct link to the Wikipage on the group at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLANS that extensively describes the lawsuit, lost by PLANS after a 30-minute trial, after having had seven years to prepare for it, with a direct link to all the legal documents involved at http://www.waldorfanswers.org/Lawsuit.html and numerous links to the WC-site itself. In addition giving a third link on the WC-group, directly to the WC-site itself here in the article on Waldorf education, that would violate/violates several Wikipeida guidelines, adds nothing to this, except acceptance of a conscious violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and repeated disregard of these guidelines, because of bullying by one participant here, using another violation of yet another of the Wikipedia guidelines here: a "breach experiment" to to implement the violations. All essential viewpoints of the group also already are presented in two articles by San Francisco Chronicle, listed in the Further discusson section, without violating Wikipedia guidelines. --Thebee 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sune, I've asked you several times now and so have others - please discontinue this childish editing of the PLANS link. Let's please just call it PLANS without some comment beside it that attempts to discount its legitimacy. I am going to remove the "group of lobbyists" comment you added. Again, if you think it's appropriate to characterize PLANS in the way you see it, then I'm sure you won't mind if I do the same with your own (multiple) links. --Pete K 22:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

First you write "... as far as renaming the links - I don't think this is your responsibility." Now you again accuse me -- without any factual basis -- of "childish editing of the PLANS link". The only thing I've done -- one time -- is to add PLANS to the name. For some reason, you seem to have been misreading the hístory page of the WE article. --Thebee 10:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This statement in the article "The San Francisco based anti-Waldorf lobby group PLANS, described by one support group for Waldorf Education (Americans for Waldorf education) as a group that publishes argumentation characteristic of hate groups, has been extremely vocal on this issue." is about to get a footnote that says "Not surprisingly 'Americans for Waldorf Education' and sister site 'Waldorf Answers' are considered by Waldorf critics and Waldorf supporters alike to be comprised of fanatical Waldorf supporters. Additionally, much of the information contained in these two sites is unfounded and libelous. Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf Education site owner, Sune N[...], once voted one of the 250 craziest people on the internet, is known among critics for his dishonest portrayal of Waldorf education..." And I'll add lots of links to discussions with and about Sune. And that can continue for a few pages. It makes perfect sense to me to discredit the people who continually seek to discredit critical viewpoints concerning Waldorf. Again, why in the world is it of any value to a Wikipedia article to have this sort of statement present (The one that's actually in the article now, not the one I am proposing - tongue-in-cheek)? Yes, some idiots have said PLANS is a hate group, and we have had a discussion about this - and clearly PLANS is not a hate group. I don't belong to PLANS, but I post on their discussion list, and now, because some crackpots have sought to discredit PLANS with this "hate group" nonsense, my name is associated with a supposed "hate group". Again, the integrity of Wikipedia is at stake here - if that means anything to anybody, and this kind of inflammatory dialog doesn't belong in an article about schools. --Pete K 01:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana, one of the foremost supporters and promoters of the WC-group in discussions on the net, has written that she likes the rewording of the first direct characterization of PLANS as a hate group into "The San Francisco based anti-Waldorf lobby group PLANS, described by one support group of Waldorf Education, Americans for Waldorf education as a group that publishes argumentation characteristic of hate groups against Waldorf education[15], is the most vocal on this issue.".

Besides DianaW, you're the most energetic supporter and promoter of the WC-group on the web. Why are you not a "member" of it? It only costs 15$/year, and they really need it. Or are you?

You do not like to see the WC-group very neutrally characterized by Professor Marginalia as a "Lobbying group critical of Waldorf education" as description after the name. But you yourself have added a link to a completely self published, one man site (looked at the Wiki guidelines on this?) and describe it with "Critical viewpoint of Camphill Communities." That would be one violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and one inconsistency of argumentation, no?. --Thebee 10:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not Diana, so I'm going to remove the hate group stuff. If you insist that you want to include the completely unfounded "hate group" comment, I will add comments characterizing the group that makes these comments. BTW, suggesting that I should join or am secretly a member of a particular group (especially one that you have labeled a hate group) in this discussion is completely out of line here Sune. It is part of your attempt to discredit all critics. That's part of why you and your ilk have dragged discussion about my divorce into these pages - an act that was incredibly insensitive. It's the kind of stuff hate groups do. The one-man site you are talking about is no different than the one man site Waldorf Answers that you run, and link here repeatedly. --Pete K 14:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, like your statement on my having edited the description of the WC was untrue, so is your statement that I have "dragged discussion about (your) divorce into these pages". I have not written one word on it. As for the question om membership of WC, it was quite natural. If not even you, one of the most vocal supporters of the WC supports it with 15$, who does? And why (not)? --Thebee 16:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the discussion about my divorce was produced by "your ilk", but the blame for attempting to discredit all critics of Waldorf is correctly placed on you too. And why in the world is discussion of who supports membership in WC of any relevance to this and being discussed on Wikipedia? Get a life will you?. I've left your "approved" wording about the "hate group" and added my qualifications - as promised. If you need more people to call AWE fanatics, I'm sure it will be no trouble for me to round them up and link to them. --Pete K 17:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)