Talk:PLANS (non-profit)/Archive 2

A rewrite in the works

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

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

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

Continuing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific issues raised:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does the article suggest that such threats were confirmed? No

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

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

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

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

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

who reported them – No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More spin:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it should be made clear here, Professor, that you are one of the 5-member group, Americans for Waldorf Education, who has been repeatedly cited here as the SOURCE for the claim that PLANS is a "hate group" [1]- and when challenged, the wording was revised to "a group that uses argumentation characteristic of hate groups" [2] in order to try to make the claim stick. It's pretty clear where you are coming from and what your motives are - to discredit an organization that challenges Waldorf education. It's a classic smear-campaign. That you have chosen to do this through dishonest, rather than honest means - self-citing, unattributed claims, weasel-words, attempting to associate disassociated elements, selective citation of editorials, etc., demonstrates the extents to which you will apparently go to make this repulsive and untruthful claim stick. You have repeatedly tried to associate PLANS with activities that are definitely NOT linked AT ALL to PLANS. It's dishonest editing and you are continuing to do it AND attempting to support your right to do it. You are being challenged to produce sources for the claims you have made - that ACTUALLY SUPPORT those claims. That is extremely reasonable considering what you and your partner, TheBee have personally introduced into the article. Pete K 18:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

This article should be deleted entirely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncited statements

Just a friendly public notice that I'm going to removed all {{Fact}} tagged statements if they don't get referenced in the next day or so. These have been out here unsourced far too long.--Isotope23 17:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please hold on. This article and a related family of articles are part of an arbitration case.DianaW 22:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. Uncited statements need to be sourced or removed. The Arbcom has no bearing on the status of these statments as uncited. If I remove them you can always add them back later with proper sourcing.--Isotope23 21:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't irrelevant. The exact nature of acceptable sources is being decided here. There is little point to sourcing anything while these decisions are being arbitrated. In fact, in all likelyhood, more citations will be needed here. It's bad form to heavily edit a contested article during arbitration - especially since the people involved in editing these articles are unlikely to respond to your demands in as timely a manner as you insist on. There is no intention to avoid supplying citations - and just because you're in a hurry to remove this material doesn't mean you should do this. Please be patient. Pete K 22:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Exposing Waldorf

"Expose" is the correct word. See PLANS mission statement. Pete K 21:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You can only use the word "expose" if you explicitly refer to the view by the WC of its actions, not from an outsider editor perspective, describing their action. It is not descriptive but interpretive from an editing perspective. See discussion here. Thebee 21:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Expose is a perfectly valid word to use when somebody is hiding something and somebody else is attempting to uncover it. Pete K 22:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your defense of the word "expose" proves that it isn't NPOV, even to you. From PLANS point of view, part of the mission is to "expose" the religious nature of the public Waldorf schools. But that is only one part of the overall mission. More importantly, this article cannot be written from PLANS point of view, it has to be written from NPOV. I understand you feel "campaign" is not NPOV, but my revision satisfied that concern as well. Professor marginalia 16:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

PLANS Board Members

Is there any reason to name the individual board members in the first paragraph of this article? It seems goofy to me. Are any of these people notable? If not, why do they need to be named? I'm inclined to delete this. Pete K 00:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Allowed sources for different types of statements

What sources are acceptable for different types of statements?

After the arbitration, partly new rules apply to the use of sources for different types of statements in the articles mentioned in the arbitration ruling. I copy this overview here of the issue, that I wrote for another discussion page, partly edited, as it is relevant here too.

There are two basic sources on this problem. One is the Arbitration decision. According to decision, the only one in this case:

"Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.

The other source are some statements by Fred Bauder at the Arbitration workshop page:

"Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources."

Also Fred Bauder:

"any polemical source is considered unreliable"

I:

"In a similar way as for works on controversial issues with regard to Waldorf education, published by anthroposophical or Waldorf publishers, I would also suggest that authors, who have worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy, be considered as unreliable sources with regard to controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy. Thebee 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder:

"Of course" Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean for this article?

I think one needs to distinguish between issues related to anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner, for which there exist published historical texts by Steiner, and issues related to practical activities, related to anthroposophy.

For issues related to Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy, his own lectures and produced texts are allowed citable primary sources, as long as the description of them is purely descriptive, and - as told by the WP:NOR policy - does not create a new primary sources, which means making "no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." in the article, based on them.

Also according to WP:NOR:

However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

SOME CONCLUSIONS:

This means for example that the insistence by PeteK to use the word "to expose" in the article on the WC, instead of the neutrally descriptive "against the use of":

"One of the first steps taken in PLANS' campaign to expose Waldorf methods public schools was to seek the support of members and associates with the Skeptics Society ..."

violates WP:NOR as the word "expose" is interpretive and evaluative.

I think you need to look at this issue more objectively from an external perspective, Pete. "Expose" IS a POV term used by the WC to describe how it views what it does. To include this in the description of its actions the way you do is not a neutral description of facts, as articles at Wikipedia should be. A neutral NPOV description would say:

"One of the first steps in PLANS' campaign agains the use of Waldorf methods at public charter schools, viewed by the group as illegal, was to seek the support of ..."

This holds also for your way of reinserting the text

"("Michaelmas," a key anthroposophic religious festival, becomes a "Dragon Festival"

"Key anthroposophic religious festival" is an interpretative synthetic term, unsourced in a reliable citation, which violates the WP:NOR policy. As one of your reverts, you have also reinserted an outdated citation, that does not exist anymore (as told in the summary of the edit removing it). As the citation now is outdated, and I therefore removed it and replaced it with a similar one, reinserting the outdated, violates Wikipedia policies on citations. Citations should not only be reliable, they must also exist.

Repeatedly re-adding the "expose" statement, that stands out as just blind stubborness, continued from before, also in re-adding a the non-existing citation, now has rendered you another 3RR block for this.

All three revert edits (repeadedly reinserting the "expose"-description, reinserting the original research term "Key anthroposophic religious festival", and reinserting a not existing citation after they had been removed/replaced) stand out as inappropriate bad editing. Thebee 13:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not allowed source

FAO of TheBee in particular:

Can you explain the removal of the following source [3]. A quote is obviously treated differently than a research claim. I would have thought that a quote should be assessed on whether relevant to the article or not (whether adds to its value), and the quote source needs only be something that can be reliably referenced.

Anyway please explain, Cheers Lethaniol 18:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh have just read issues at Talk:Rudolf Steiner about polemical sources in particular:

---

Also Fred Bauder:

"any polemical source is considered unreliable"

"In a similar way as for works on controversial issues with regard to Waldorf education, published by anthroposophical or Waldorf publishers, I would also suggest that authors, who have worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy, be considered as unreliable sources with regard to controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy. Thebee 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder:

"Of course" Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean with regard to the question "Are Rudolf Steiner authored/anthroposophic published references allowed?"

I think one needs to distinguish between issues related to anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner, for which there exist published historical texts by Steiner, and issues related to practical activities, related to anthroposophy.

For issues related to Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy, his own lectures and produced texts are allowed citable primary sources, as long as the description of them is purely descriptive, and does not create a new primary sources, which means making "no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." in the article, based on them.

---

So if this source was removed because it is polemical, then you should note the last paragraph also relates to Plans - and could be rewritten:

For issues related to PLANS, their own lectures and produced texts are allowed citable primary sources, as long as the description of them is purely descriptive, and does not create a new primary sources, which means making "no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." in the article, based on them.

So again the question here is whether the quote is note-worthy and important to Wikipedia i.e. for your average reader does it help them understand how PLANS view Waldorf Schools or not? Cheers Lethaniol 23:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner or anthroposophical texts aren't allowed as texts about issues related Waldorf education in these articles. This applies here just to the one statement I see, one that I wrote there originally myself, and that I tried to take out because I have an arbitration message telling me I have to remove this kind of text from the articles. (Pete K reverted it so it's still there.) Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy published materials probably aren't relevant to PLANS. The Waldorf related sources relevant about PLANS is what the Waldorf methods schools (defendants) have said in the press and in court, and what the ASA has said in the press and in court, neither are published by anthroposophical publishers. Professor marginalia 22:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Prof Marg, I have likely missed the point but what has this to do with the quote and source deleted? Cheers Lethaniol 23:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I think I see what you are talking about - the source that Pete K got 3RR blocked for reverting - I am talking about this [4] not that. Please read Cheers Lethaniol 00:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a separate issue from the arbitration, I believe. I've objected to that section as well and agree it should come out. That statement was made in a self-published discussion email list, which isn't allowed as source material at wikipedia. This rule needs to be held to very strictly in this article because Pete K has already highlighted what kinds of games could be played if that kind of reference source was allowed. [5] [6] [7] [8]. As I argued at time this "idea" was suggested, self-published, self-serving facts-to-order would be the likely outcome, and I can't think of a faster way to send wikipedia's credibility in the toilet than to see it "gamed" like that. [9] Professor marginalia 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I assume you are talking about WP:RS#Using_online_and_self-published_sources which says that self-published sources should not be used, of course there is the exception mentioned here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources for self-pub sources for the article on the self-publisher in question. To be an exception needs to meet:

• relevant to the self-publisher's notability;
• not contentious;
• not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
• about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;

So the quote What I say 'in defense of the Waldorfians' is that 'they don't eat babies.'", "Am I pandering to the prejudices of Christians? Personally, yes I am! - needs to be assessed by the above - not ruled out just because it is a self-pub source. As it happens this quote may be considered self-serving or self-aggrandizing, so probably best removed.

But please note, and this goes to everyone editing these articles, you can not just say I am removing this quote because of disallowed source - you need to look at relevance of quote to article, whether meets above requirements, and whether the it can be reliably sourced. No one owns an article and we need to look at each case logically. Cheers Lethaniol 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice because there has been a lot of battles here arguing those sorts of issues. But in this particular case, the same editor who put it in took it out. That doesn't look like WP:OWN. I argued earlier in the talk page to remove it, and it may be one of the rare instances in this article where there's willingness to listen to other's points. This is a bad source to begin with, the quote represents to be a personal comment, not an official company position. The statement is not about the subject (PLANS), but an insult against both Christians and Waldorfians, and it's certainly contentious. Frankly, I can think of little there at all to commend its inclusion here and I'm glad it's been removed. Professor marginalia 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - and I suppose this highlights the following point - give clear reasoning in your edit summary especially when deleting or changing contentious info. I did not know it was added by and removed by the same user - most Wikipedians will not scour through all diffs and talk pages to check for a reason - so clearer summaries need to be given - for example in this case, something like removed source and quote, that I previously added, not relevant - see talk page for discussions. It helps if people know if someone is reverting their own edit and it helps to say that there has been discussion on talk page if there has been. The way this edit summary in this diff was written it certainly looked like a revert of someone else's work. Anyway all clearer up Cheers Lethaniol 02:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is good to know, thank you. It might have helped avert the edit war over my own removal of my own edit. Professor marginalia 03:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I have tagged the introduction which now reads, "against Waldorf education's tendency to disguise ...", which clearly isn't a NPOV statement. It needs to be reworded, and then the tag can be removed. Professor marginalia 22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what they campaign against. It may not seem neutral to you - but it's what PLANS is about, it's what they say they're about, and it's exactly their complaint. No rewording is necessary. The whole article isn't NPOV - so the tag doesn't bother me AT ALL. In fact we should put a tag that puts the neutrality of the entire article into question. This article has been an extension of certain people's personal hate campaign - and that shows up in the article - and some people's need to name names. I'll ask the ArbCom about removing any names that don't need to be mentioned here. Even if these people were witnesses, they don't need to be mentioned here (it adds nothing at all to the article - and is personal vendetta stuff). Pete K 22:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The article needs to neutrally state the PLANS mission and attribute it to PLANS without language which disguises or confuses their position as general fact statement.

As to the subject of names. User:DianaW added all the director's names months ago. The reason given at the time was that this way the description look more "neutral".[10]. I don't think they all need be there in the introduction, except Debra Snell and Dan Dugan. It is a serious omission to leave them out. PLANS is mostly Dan Dugan's enterprise. The two of them are maybe the only spokespersons for the organization, and are widely quoted by reporters writing about the organization. Those two are the most active working in various communities to stop the Waldorf methods schools in them. They founded the organization and continue to guide its operations.

The reason other names were included in my recent reference edit is because you put a fact tag which requires it. [11] When you fact tagged the information, I found the references to sufficiently verify it. In turn, you're once again making new kook challenges that distort the reference as a "personal vendetta" or "hate campaign". I tune out most of the irrational tirades that already overfill this talk page, a pattern which it looks like time and even the intervention of enforceable arbitration hasn't cured. Crazy tirades are an unproductive use of time, and unfortunately, experience on this talk page proves that no amount of common sense facts or reasoning will make a difference to someone who is irrationally paranoid. Professor marginalia 01:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Compliance with arbitration

I have removed again the Lamb reference which was in a Waldorf school publication, a source no longer allowed for this article by arbitration decision. This was initially added to the article by me, but it now has to be removed. The remaining reference does verify that there are some Waldorf teachers besides Schwartz who don't agree the Waldorf method should be used in the public schools. Professor marginalia 01:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added it back in with different sources. Unless you contest the content of what is being claimed (Gary Lamb is famous for this position) there shouldn't be an issue here. Pete K 01:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw man argument since he knows that was my edit that put that discussion there in the article. I'd like another editor besides Pete K to comment. He is aggressively editing to keep it there, adding as support a reference he knows is the same anthroposophical publisher as the one that had to be removed. The second footnote is bogus, a mirage, just a mirror circling back to this article. The arbitration was intended to stop the edit wars, and he continues them by playing games and ignoring its decision. Professor marginalia 02:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And if this man is "famous for this position" there should be no problem finding an independently published source for the text here. If Pete K won't bother to find a qualified reference, maybe somebody else can. Professor marginalia 02:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I ask if you are contesting that this is his position, or just trying to avoid having it appear here? Since YOU put it in yourself, it doesn't seem reasonable to suggest now that you now contest it. Pete K 04:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I presume you received the same message I did. I think they went to every party involved in the arbitration. "The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been issued at the above link. Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them." Professor marginalia 05:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. And I can read too. So I'll ask you AGAIN, (third time now) do you contest this - do you find it controversial? You understand, of course, that controversial is one of the criteria for this action - right? Has this article, that you yourself produced for the PLANS article suddenly become controversial? Do you contest that Gary Lamb's position as presented in the article is accurate? If so, why? If not, then why frustrate the work of legitimate editors who are trying to produce good articles? Pete K 07:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of section

I would like to note that I will staunchly defend and debate if required the removal of the section as intended by this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PLANS&diff=99517954&oldid=99466435

Despite irrelevant comments on this talk page from Professor Marginalia, nothing in any of the sources cited suggests that "death threats," "threats of force" etc. came from PLANS or were even connected to the controversies around the school in question, the lawsuit etc. There has been no suggestion from any individual, whether connected to the school, Waldorf education, the police, the media, or anywhere else, at any time or place, that PLANS or anyone connected to PLANS or anyone critical of that school or of Waldorf, ever did or was ever suspected by anyone of doing anything illegal, inappropriate, threatening, violent, socially unacceptable, or ethically questionable. There's no way to know from whence came any threats, nor even any corroboration that they ever happened. (It also isn't hard to invent threats.) Many people connected to the school were dissatisfied with the school; nothing points any more in the direction of PLANS than to students, former students, parents, former parents, families, faculty, staff, neighborhood residents, Waldorf supporters or Waldorf critics, or simply crazy people attracted to a controversy. There is therefore no way to support the inclusion of this material; it is a non sequitur. It was included in order to imply in the face of no evidence that the threats may have been in some way related to PLANS. (This was the intention of immediately following with the quote from Dan saying that Waldorf educators are not evil; it was meant to plant the notion that maybe he did it, even if it can't be proved. Professor Marginalia disingenuously asserted that she had included this quote to "exculpate" PLANS; thereby implying that there is something to exculpate PLANS from.) If this material is reinserted, I will air the controversy very loudly and publicly for as long as it takes to discourage those who think they can win a public relations battle with sleazy unsupported insinuations.DianaW 16:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the whole thing is a joke and demonstrates the intentions of the two primary authors of this article - to defame PLANS in every way possible. That they do this on their own website is one thing, but to extend this to Wikipedia in unacceptable. Even the claims cited from the sources quoted (SacBee editorials) is selectively harvested out of a much more neutral picture. It would make sense to delete the defamatory stuff and leave the factual material about the court case. Wikipedia is a little bogged down at the moment (at my end) so I'll be removing the names of PLANS representatives later today - unless someone else wants to do it before that. This defamation campaign needs to end here - and it will. Pete K 16:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you two willing and capable of contributing to these articles without lambasting others over edits you don't agree to with ad hominem filled tirades? It's way past time for simply another gentle reminder about maintaining civility and good faith.

Initially here on the talk page there were legitimate, I think, objections raised about the negative slant towards PLANS that was largely either unsourced or coming from biased source references. There were also strong denials that there was anything to the criticisms at all, such as the denials of the witchcraft controversy. That turns out not to be the case. There were many published references describing it. There was a very big witchcraft controversy, a volatile situation well covered in the news, including the reported threats which the school took seriously. This controversy had a very big impact in the school and community. It was also addressed in the testimony given by PLANS witnesses. With many denials made here that any such thing happened, that's proof enough that the fact that it indeed did happen warrants addressing it here in the article.

It was emphasized above that editors can't remove sourced information without legitimate justification. It was also emphasized that editors aren't to wp:own articles, and this goes for the both of you just like everybody else in the wikipedia. Good reasons need to be offered here, legitimate concerns. And too often instead what's offered is angry smoke and dust. Case in point, the recent tirade surrounding this supposed "conspiracy to name names" when DianaW is the one who put them there. Besides, these are very public members, not a leaked company secret. PLANS prominently identifies them on their own website.

Another example, this accusation that I have misrepresented the references. I have demonstrated over and again that what I've written has been fair and accurate to their sources, and I will continue to do so. While you invent excuses to attack my edits, I could easily document, with diffs, the many edits of yours which fall into a number of dubious categories: obviously original research, completely unsourced material, inaccurate and in some cases even directly contradictory statements from the sources you reference it to, statements heavily slanted with bias, and in some regrettable circumstances, material you footnoted with bogus decoys after it was fact tagged.

To focus on the substance of problems with the article: In my opinion, I think that some of this material suffers from being just too wordy, even though I'm responsible for quite a bit of it. What contributing to this problem is a knee-jerk tendency of some editors to dispute anything they don't like as an excuse to get rid of it any way possible. Initial insistence that the witchcraft controversy was a fiction soon turned into a picking apart of every fact, source, or statement offered to verify it wasn't. This repetitive pattern required that in order to write a statement that would stand the knee-jerk challenges it had to be so thoroughly spelled out it that it would slide past the first gate of false excuses. Anything less and some editors just keep chipping away by at every opening left when details are left out. Any detail missing or any "I" not dotted within it was used like a loophole, an excuse to remove it completely. The talk page here is filled with questions and silly challenges over the minutia: "it's not provable", "you don't give names", "you say an 'official' but you don't give their title". The recent fact tag on PLANS outreach to Skeptics and other groups. A challenge like that requires editors to add more minutia in order to demonstrate or verify even simple fact statements like that one. (This exactitude is selectively applied.)

So the facts have been exhaustively verified. The information is very solid. It's just much longer than ideal. If in order to include the noteworthy elements editors have to lay out the complete array of pertinent data available to "prove" it, the article is going to continue to grow much longer than it otherwise needs to be. If the editing would stay objective, without overprotective reactions to every statement, much of boring detail there now would become unnecessary. (There are nearly 50 footnotes, which by any objective measure is overkill for this subject.)Professor marginalia 01:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice bluff. BTW, after the dishonest implications you have produced in this article (death threats), as Diana has correctly identified, and after having stated above that you will continue to put in false claims (witchcraft), you think I should be ashamed of my edits? ROFL... Please know that there will be A LOT more picking apart of every single statement and reference here (maybe every single word) - as long as untruthful information is being represented here. Just a head's up - I'll be going into the Sac Bee articles and selecting the statements supporting the OTHER side of the story - and presenting them in this article as well. We haven't even begun to edit this article - and the POV slant is still very apparent. Settle in for the long haul - it's going to be a lot of work getting this article to a NPOV. You got a nice long rest during the arbitration - you should be ready to dig in now... right? Pete K 02:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, here's what the Sac Bee article actually says:

"Marjie Espinoza said she walked the picket line to stand up for five nieces and nephews who attend the school. They and their classmates are being taught satanic beliefs and witchcraft, she said.

"One of the teachers who is against Waldorf showed me some lesson plans," Espinoza said. "To me, they were like satanic, witchcraft."

Get it... A TEACHER, NOT PLANS, produced a Waldorf lesson plan. Here's how this has been interpreted this in the Wikipedia article:

The Oak Ridge School in Sacramento became the target of threats and accusations that its teachers led children through witchcraft and sorcery practices in the classroom. School officials accused PLANS of playing to public prejudices and paranoia, and arousing anxieties in the community by presenting a distorted view of their teachings to the parents of the school, most of whom weren't English proficient.

In order to make this claim stick, you reference to an editorial in the same paper - published a month after the protest. The facts, and direct quotes are in the article and those are what we should be looking at. Anyway, we will be going over this stuff in great detail every night for the next few weeks. Pete K 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K accuses me above: "Nice bluff. BTW, after the dishonest implications you have produced in this article (death threats), as Diana has correctly identified, and after having stated above that you will continue to put in false claims (witchcraft), you think I should be ashamed of my edits?"

my response: The identified source for that passage in the article is ambigous only because DianaW edited in such a way as to disjoin the passage in the text, attempting to isolate Dugan's quote from the context (death threat) in which Dugan offered it, making it look something like a cloth I crafted together with parts. Not so. This is the relevant newspaper text, word for word, not pieced together, no gaps, no editing trickery on my part. "In addition, Anderson dismissed PLANS's charges that Waldorf education includes witchcraft or satanic beliefs. 'You light a candle to tell a story, and that means you're practicing witchcraft?' she asked. She added that PLANS's 'propaganda feeds fear and anxiety' about the Waldorf methods, and the hysterical reactions are due to 'fear and ignorance.' According to Anderson [the "she" quoted], Waldorf teachers at the training college in Fair Oaks have received death threats because of their methods. 'I don't wish any of these people ill,' Dugan said. 'They are all trying to do good. There is no one with evil intentions. But they're misguided into a questionable form of education.'"

Pete K accuses me above: "BTW, here's what the Sac Bee article actually says: ", again disjoining his accusations, the article here's statements, and the references attached to them.

my response: The footnote proves the above attack on me is a fraud because the statement itself was not verified by any Sacramento Bee article; the source which was given by me in the article is to an article in the California Aggie newspaper.

Pete K continues in the above accusation against me: "BTW, here's what the Sac Bee article actually says: 'Marjie Espinoza said she walked the picket line to stand up for five nieces and nephews who attend the school. They and their classmates are being taught satanic beliefs and witchcraft, she said. "One of the teachers who is against Waldorf showed me some lesson plans," Espinoza said. "To me, they were like satanic, witchcraft." Get it... A TEACHER, NOT PLANS, produced a Waldorf lesson plan. Here's how this has been interpreted this in the Wikipedia article: "The Oak Ridge School in Sacramento became the target of threats and accusations that its teachers led children through witchcraft and sorcery practices in the classroom. School officials accused PLANS of playing to public prejudices and paranoia, and arousing anxieties in the community by presenting a distorted view of their teachings to the parents of the school, most of whom weren't English proficient. '"

my response: The truth is, the PLANS article here says nothing at all about any episode over the "lesson plan", and I didn't write anything to that effect myself. Neither a teacher nor PLANS were accused of doing anything related to this "lesson plan". As properly noted in the article, the reference indicated verifies the article's statement, "school officials accused PLANS of playing to public prejudices" etc. The reference source reads (again, direct quote except [my comments in brackets]), "Lum [identified in prior paragraph as a school official] asked parents not to rely on what others told them about the school's curriculum but to instead observe their children's classes first hand. Lum later said he suspects that members of the People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools [PLANS] are taking advantage of the fact that many parents at the school are from other countries and cultures, which is creating paranoia." Another article, not footnoted there, corroborates the claim by quoting another "on the record" school official. I believe I described it as well a few months ago here on the talk page.

Pete K accuses me: "In order to make this claim stick, you reference to an editorial in the same paper - published a month after the protest. "

my response: Here is this WP article's treatment of the one passage referenced to any editorial: "The paper's editor accused PLANS of alarming parents with claims for which there was no evidence, including the suggestion that Waldorf methods were disguised witchcraft teachings." Another statement faithfully represented, by me, faithfully referenced, by me.

Pete K tries to suggest these accounts all come from a single newspaper.

my response: This is patently untrue. There are at least three different newspapers with the same general account, the same "take" on the events, and each of them appear somewhere in the footnotes to substantiate different details of the same general story. These publications were the Sacramento Bee (numerous articles there, by a variety of reporters, plus one editorial), The Sacramento News and Review, and the California Aggie.

All this is just a slanderous feint, against me and my faithfulness in edits to the original sources. This incivility is not just beyond the bounds of behavior editors at the wikipedia are expected to exercise here. It is also transparently manipulative. Several stunts like this have been pulled here; faked personal attacks like this above are just one game among a handful of other card tricks played here. Tricks pulled with references, tricks pulled with made-to-order "research", and more. His apparent motivation here is to offer an excuse for his vetoes, reverts and rewrites; by undermining the credibility of elements he doesn't want to see there through fraudulent means, in this case by trying to attack me personally. However, these edits of mine were solidly and accurately referenced, and I have demonstrated this in the quotes taken from the referenced articles above, which are 100% accurate. I'm sure those quoted passages are also readily verifiable independently. Professor marginalia 07:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Selective research and selective quotations all to promote your POV. Like I said, sorting it all out will take months. And it will be sorted out. I've got time. Pete K 14:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest example of revolving excuses to remove text

Pete K - you do not own this article. First you challenge that very simple statement with a fact tag. When the facts are verified, you complain that the verification names names. So edit out the names, and return to your the complaint that the statement wasn't verified. This kind of game playing is a clear demonstration of bad faith, simple as that. And in an article which is currently under probation in an attempt to resolve such ongoing problems. Professor marginalia 02:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Right... like I own the article. Have you actually read it? Oh, yeah, I forgot, you WROTE it. We will be verifying facts until only facts remain. That's the way a good article should read anyway. I'm not embarassed by requesting citations for this stuff. I happen to know a lot of what you are implying here just isn't true. Pete K 02:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed Court Characterizations

I have removed characterizations about the court documents. This stuff needs third-party sources. Editors here are not assumed to be qualified to understand or interpret the decisions or meanings or impact of legal issues relating to the court case and should not be making such assessments for the reader. Pete K 20:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm coming in late in the game, but with the Waldorf Education article locked, I'm looking at new stuff :)

I'm not sure what Pete thought was so technical in the discussions of the court proceedings. Was it terms like amicus curiae? I'm not a lawyer, but I know what that means, and there's a link to the wiki page about it anyway.

Just trying to clarify...if the sources weren't verifiable/third-party neutral then that's one thing, but I don't agree that Wikipedia articles need to be edited because readers or editors aren't "qualified" to understand the content. After all, an encyclopedia is meant to impart information! Henitsirk 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If we want to link to the court documents that's one thing, but when we say stuff like "PLANS was unable to" that's a characterization that requires a lot of insight into the legal system. Sometimes, in court, lawyers do things for very specific reasons that are not apparent to people reading the documents. If there are, for example, technical reasons why PLANS didn't produce witnesses, then the fact that the didn't produce witnesses doesn't mean they couldn't produce witnesses. We have to be very careful about what is represented - even if it's what is contained in the court transcripts. Linking to the court transcripts would be fine in my view, synopsis about what happend - provided by laymen editors here is, in my view, inappropriate. Pete K 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia assumes that amateur editors are actually able to accurately summarize information; if you don't believe this is so, I don't know why you'd use or edit Wikipedia -- you'd go to another source. The network of editors is intended to help each other improve the accuracy and well-roundedness of presentations, not to eliminate others' work. Hgilbert 13:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest everyone reads up at WP:RS#Types_of_source_material, where court records are considered Primary Sources hence may be used so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources.

This means only the facts can be taken from these court proceedings - and absolutely zero interpretation. For any interpretations secondary/tertiary sources would be required. With respect to writing a summary, only a condensation of the facts can be used, extreme care needs to be taken when rephrasing or rewording during such as summary in case in alters the meaning. Cheers Lethaniol 13:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Descriptions of Court Documentation

According to WP:NOR:

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

"Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."

Thebee 21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't apply here TheBee. The editor was drawing conclusions and analysing the material for the reader. Additionally, special knowledge is required to evaluate court documents and their implications. The information I removed failed on both counts. Pete K 23:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What you write as "Doesn't apply here" is contradicted by the description of Official policies at Wikipedia. The described and quoted Wikipedia policy is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia Policies and guidelines, the Official policies are "policies that are widely accepted and that everyone is expected to follow." It tells the described policy is meant to be followed and applied also here as stated, as in all articles at Wikipedia. Thebee 00:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for explaining this. I stand by my statement and I'm not about to debate interpretation of policy with you as you clearly don't understand what this means. There are two criteria that must be met and the article failed to meet either one. The two criteria are as much part of the policy as anything else. Pete K 01:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think TheBee, Pete K was saying the policy doesn't apply here because the editing was drawing conclusions and/or analysing - which looked at in another way means that the policy does apply here showing that original research is not allowed if an editor is drawing conclusions and/or analysing a primary source.

Can I suggest Pete K that you give a few examples / list where editors have been drawing conclusions and/or analysing the court proceedings in this case. Having looked at this difference by Hgilbert [12] the vast majority of information appears to be factual, though I may be wrong. Cheers Lethaniol 13:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Lethaniol, you write:

"I think TheBee, Pete K was saying the policy doesn't apply here [...] which looked at in another way means that the policy does apply here ..."

Meaning the policy as such applies here, which was exactly what I was saying, nothing else or more. I just quoted it and did not add anything to the quote. I am perfectly aware of and understood what Pete K meant, and think he wrote what he wrote about the WP:NOR, that I quoted without commenting on it:

"Doesn't apply here ..."

not because the WP:NOR policy does not apply here, but - in my understanding - purely as a matter of the principle of at all times oppose to and contradict basically everything I write, independently of what I write, in one way or another. Does this stand out as a misinterpretation to you, Lethaniol? Just curious. (Feel free to answer at any place you like and find most proper.) Thanks, Thebee 14:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I will answer here for brevity but if Pete or TheBee wish to discuss this further please do so on my talk page, or even at the ArbCom discussions if you wish.

I do not wish to get into a discussion about the reasons that editors do certain things, in particular why Pete and TheBee always seem to end up in arguments, whoever's fault that may be. My only concern here, by getting involved was to try and get things cleared up with respect to interpretation of court cases. As I have always said, forget the egos, concentrate on the article and the principles relating to that article, and the whole process of article improvement will be a lot smoother.

Note I would still like examples of content that are interpretations of the court cases involved. Cheers Lethaniol 15:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to discuss this further either, but just became curious about the way you argued that on the one hand the WP:NOR policy does apply here, but that on the other hand it does not apply here and tried to penetrate somewhat further what you actually meant and how you viewed the issue you commented on, as you (not I ...) brought it up. Cheers, Thebee 18:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to limit my time here as a lame duck, but I'll address this. I'm not really interested in defending PLANS, but this cuplet is simply there to mislead the reader into thinking that PLANS had no case: "The trial was scheduled on September 12, 2005, and was expected to run for 16 days." "The trial convened as scheduled, but ended after 30 minutes after PLANS failed in their legal burden to present an offer of proof (proffer) of evidence sufficient to prove Anthroposophy was a religion."

Then there's this: " PLANS' attorney told the court PLANS could not meet its burden, and that it could furnish no witnesses. " - Um... yeah, if you read further you will see why.

"The appeal claims that the earlier rulings preventing PLANS from calling two defense expert witnesses for their own case-in-chief left them no witnesses able to give evidence that Anthroposophy was a religion, and that the two witnesses they were disallowed were irreplaceable. The earlier rulings resulted from pretrial motions submitted six months prior to trial. The appeal also argues the court ruled improperly when it refused to allow PLANS to enter its one piece of documentary evidence." But you have to go to the next section to find that.

It's amazing that so much language can be introduced here by these pro-Waldorf editors without sourcing ANY of it. Their interpretations about what happened in court are not the only interpretations and should be excluded from the article completely. The court documents speak for themselves.

I see our editors here have again tried to connect PLANS with the threats received by the school "The Oak Ridge School in Sacramento became the target of threats and accusations that its teachers led children through witchcraft and sorcery practices in the classroom. School officials accused PLANS of playing to public prejudices and paranoia, and arousing anxieties in the community by presenting a distorted view of their teachings to the parents of the school, most of whom weren't English proficient. " No connection between PLANS and the threats is made in the article - which is an EDITORIAL, not a news story. Additionally, the claim that PLANS had anything to do with suggesting "witchcraft" is referenced to the EDITORIAL but is refuted in the news story in the same paper. A teacher made that claim, not PLANS. It's yellow journalism at its finest and a distortion of the truth.

Let's not forget the reason for this edit here today - by HGilbert, hoping that I will again revert the article (and I'm tempted to). This article should be about the very honorable right and responsibility of any American or group of Americans to challenge the constitutionality of the separation of church and state. The tone that there is nothing to this challenge is ridiculous. Anyone reading along in the Waldorf and Anthroposophy articles knows there absolutely something to this. This case very well may end up in the supreme court. That's what this article should be about, not the mis-perceived and poorly reported "activities" of PLANS, supposedly frightening non-English-speaking parents in a picket line. The case for this is made by exacly the type of selective harvesting of information from the article that I am accused of (I won't bother to point that out in the arbitration but anyone reading the article will see both positive and negative comments). The whole PLANS article is a smear in its current form - and previous forms were much worse. Pete K 15:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Lethaniol, may I offer comment on these issues?

1. 1. As to these two statements: "The trial was scheduled on September 12, 2005, and was expected to run for 16 days." and "The trial convened as scheduled, but ended after 30 minutes after PLANS failed in their legal burden to present an offer of proof (proffer) of evidence sufficient to prove Anthroposophy was a religion.": These are not interpretations, they are straightforward facts taken from the court documents. The 16 days appears in court documents, a timeline set by the judge following discussion with the attorneys for both sides; most trials address the anticipated trial length in pretrial documents and both sides and the Court calendar those days and are expected to show up at least that long if the case goes that long. The second statement is not an interpretation. As the plaintiff in the case, PLANS had the burden of proof at trial. If a plaintiff doesn't produce evidence, they fail this legal burden of proof. Here is text from the court order's "Findings of Fact": "At start of trial September 12, 2005, the court required plaintiff to make an offer of proof as to how it would prove that anthroposophy was a religion for Establishment Clause purposes given its listed witnesses and exhibits." In the conclusions, the order states, "Plaintiff failed to carry its evidentiary burden that anthroposophy is a religion for purposes of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or the other California constitutional provisions involved in this case, as stated in the Court's pretrial order dated April 20, 2005."
   2. "PLANS' attorney told the court PLANS could not meet its burden, and that it could furnish no witnesses. " This is from the court order Findings of Fact (names out) : "2. At the final pretrial conference on February 11 2005, the Court excluded [two people] from Plaintiff's witness list since, (1) they had been previously disclosed as Defendants' experts, (2) they were subsequently listed by Plaintiff as "Defendant's Experts", and (3) were never disclosed by Plaintiff as its expert witnesses prior to the deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses on April 16, 2004 (the court affirmed this finding at the April 1, 2005 hearing on the parties' motions in limine)...6 Plaintiff's counsel first stated that he had "no proffer" based on the court's prior ruling described above in paragraph 2."
   3. Apparently Pete K does not dispute the other section of the article, taken from PLANS appeal, given as example above. But what needs to be kept in mind is that this section is PLANS' argument in objection to the court's earlier orders. But the court's final order looks like it is accurately represented here as well as PLANS objection to it in the appeal. Professor marginalia 17:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is not whether or not these things are even technically true, the point is that they don't serve any purpose other than to produce the slant that the pro-Waldorf (or anti-PLANS) people are intent in producing in the article. By producing this material in this way, there is an obvious bias represented. It would be better to let the court documents speak for themselves and stop trying to make them say something they don't. One way to view these same facts is, the case came to trial, but within the first minutes of the trial it became apparent that a point of law had been neglected by the judge. PLANS chose not to present their case. The press release from PLANS makes this very clear as I recall (I don't have it in front of me). I'm not going to take the time to go into the details, but the interpretation of the court documents is not for non-legal experts to make (even those who profess to be professors <G>). Theres a WP:something somewhere that says this but I'm not going to bother looking it up. And, yes, I object to other sections of this - but I don't feel strongly enough about PLANS' image to waste my time butting heads here. My only interest here is the integrity of what is being represented (or misrepresented as the case may be). Pete K 19:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the information is true and verifiable (both technically and otherwise). The purpose of the truth is to enable people to make their own judgments. Hgilbert 23:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's selectively harvested from an article and an editorial. Without balance, the *truth* gets lost in the biased POV. Hmmm... the word "truthiness" comes to mind. If you really want people to make their own judgments, then a good approach is to stop slanting the article and smearing the participants of PLANS. It's clear the Waldorf-fanatical people have an ax to grind against PLANS here and intelligent readers, I trust, will see that easily. So, knock yourselves out... the more slanted, the better at this point. Pete K 00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The information is true, verifiable, the sources being court records, not an "article and an editorial". The sections cited in the examples above aren't an "interpretations" of the findings, they're a straightforward description of them. Instead of gutting the article wholesale to remove the text suspected of being an "interpretation", discuss first. Then editors can hone in better on what the legitimate concerns are. The reason to remove the amicus curiae section, for example, is unclear. The section read, "The Anthroposophical Society in America (ASA), which is the legal representative of Anthroposophy in the United States, has challenged PLANS over PLANS' characterizations of Anthroposophy, as well as PLANS' suggestion that the Anthroposophical movement has a direct interest or involvement in the growth of Waldorf teaching methods in the public schools. These were two claims PLANS made in its May 28, 2004, 'Motion for Summary Judgement'. Though not a direct party to the case, the ASA petitioned the court's permission to respond to this trial motion as a "friend of the court". The court granted ASA's petition, and in July 2004, the organization submitted an 18 page legal brief to the court challenging PLANS' assertions". The reason given in the summary was "Removed another section that draws legal conclusions. Need 3rd party source for this." There is no questionable interpretation in there whatsoever, again this was a completely straightforward account. There was no "legal conclusion" described in that section except the "legal conclusion" that the court did in fact accept the friend of the court petition. I think it's a self evident conclusion that the court accepted the petition since it is part of the official court record and was later cited by the court in court rulings. ("Accepted" simply means the court agreed to consider the arguments given in the non-party brief. It's a legal offense, "tampering", for any non-party in the case to try to persuade a judge, and present arguments about the case before the court, outside this official process.) Rather than removing the section, it should have been fact tagged and discussed, then the appropriate reference could easily be provided. Professor marginalia 19:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"The information is true, verifiable" Gee, didn't I already answer this? You aren't qualified to even say if it is an interpretation or not. You don't know if you are interpreting anything because it seems like the "facts" to you. This is a silly approach and the subtle way you misrepresent the "facts" is clear enough. Oh dear, the trial was scheduled for days and PLANS' case folded after only 30 minutes. Gee, there must not have been anything there. It's hogwash. If you're being honest here - why not sign your real name to the edits? Truth is, if people knew where this slant was coming from they would discard it without even reading it. Like I said, knock yourselves out. Pete K 16:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete, might I make a suggestion? If you feel that the edits are misrepresenting the court documentation, then there are two options: quote directly from the documentation, or rewrite it yourself to include what you feel was left out or skewed. If PLANS was "unable" to offer any witnesses because the court had disallowed them earlier, then let's just say that. I think this article needs to be reformatted at the very least as it is very hard to follow; additional information about the outcome of the trial seems a minimum addition. Henitsirk 04:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think I could re-write this article without some bias any more than the people who are responsible for its current content. My best hope for this article would be for someone who is unbiased to take a run at it. Pete K 07:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Henitsirk, I will add the necessary reference sources to that section and can give explanatory quotes either in the text or in the endnote reference. That's a good solution. I think that the drastic "cutting" of that section explains in part why it's hard to follow, since right now you wouldn't even know there was a trial court decision against PLANS in this case. All that's left is PLANS filed a lawsuit in 1998 and appealed in 2005. Why does anyone appeal a case? To challenge a court finding against them. That finding is no longer described in the article, so it's very confusing on that one fact alone, even though it is undoubtedly the most significant development of the case so far. Professor marginalia 17:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Update. I've added the references and appropriate quotes to the restored passages. Though it can be sourced, I removed the discussion of the one expert witness statement that was offered in the trial as it is perhaps giving undue weight to the one allowed expert witness opinion since it was offered in a witness statement in response to a motion before the court a year before the trial date. I also removed the section describing the appeal of the disallowed documentary evidence, since although those issues described in the article related to its removal in the district court's earlier rulings were addressed in the appeal to the 9th circuit, I can't find any backup to show that PLANS actually appealed to the 9th circuit to reverse that particular earlier ruling. I also changed the title of the section, it's a misnomer to call it a "Charter school case" since one of the schools involved is not a charter school.Professor marginalia 02:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I think the use of endnotes works well here in that the main article isn't bogged down by detail. I also see that the article makes more sense now. The only thing missing is the result of the Nov. 2005 appeal. Henitsirk 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of link to critical site

User:75.28.155.147 proposes to remove a link to a critical assessment of PLANS on the web site Americans4Waldorf.org. The reasons for removing the link might be? --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is currently under article probation and for all intents and purposes, only independently published content is acceptable under the terms of the probation. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If we go back to the original objections User:Pete K had to the link to the Americans4Waldorf.org site that's critical of the PLANS organization, his only assertion was that "that site may not be linked". What do other editors think about the validity of this site? Should the link be removed, and on what grounds, for example as given in WP:ELNO? --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, the Americans for Waldorf page on PLANS claims that much of what PLANS asserts about Waldorf and anthroposophy is incorrect, deliberately falsified, "with defamatory exaggeration, distortion, and delusion about Waldorf education, about its founder Rudolf Steiner, and about anthroposophy". The myths proposed by PLANS are "defamatory even to the point of demonization" with a number of demonstrably untrue allegations. All of these points may be true, and a number of the issues are backed up with arguments and countervailing facts. In this way, the site provides balance to the PLANS site itself, helping to achieve a neutral point of view. However, the site appears to me to be too aggressive and polemical. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Per my reasons stated above, I have removed this link. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that based on the probation source requirements that site does not meet the independence/reliable source test. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC

NPOV tag was put in place by a sock evading his topic ban. RFC is not needed at this point. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a confident assertion, Professor. Got any facts to back it up with? I may have missed where a check-user was conducted which revealed the identity of the person you have called a "sock."DianaW (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well? What were the results of the check-user?DianaW (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do I have the impression there may be a feeling that since the NPOV tag is not there now, further questions on the topic can be ignored unless the NPOV tag is put back? Is that how it is supposed to work at wikipedia, Professor?DianaW (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Answering my own question, no, there has been no check user, at least not publicly reported.

At 18:41 on 13 May, the Professor opened a case accusing Pete K of sock puppetry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets&diff=prev&oldid=212168103

At 23:30 on the same day she began referring to a poster here whose edits she doesn't like as a "banned user" and reverting his or her edits with the sock puppetry accusation (unresolved as of this writing) only hours old:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PLANS&diff=prev&oldid=212231544

I hope you're angling for "adminship," Professor, you're showing all the necessary qualities . . .

She has made numerous edits to wikipedia since I posed my question two days ago, so it strikes me as unlikely she is unaware of the questions I have raised here about her behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DianaW (talk • contribs) 02:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: I would like to see the evidence that the poster was a sock of Pete K.DianaW (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, I see that the explanation on your talk page from Shalom was not clear to you and that you have asked for further clarification from him. I think he would be the better source to answer your question. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is simultaneously taking place and properly belongs on Pete K's entry on the Wikipedia sock puppet page. The conclusion by admins is that this is indeed to be considered as a sock puppet. Please continue the discussion on that page, as it is the admins who make the call here. Hgilbert (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No evidence has been posted in *any* of those places that the user in question was Pete K. If I have missed it, please point me to that evidence.DianaW (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

off topic

I saw an article that said the lawsuit's second trial was set for Aug 31, 2010 to start. Has any of the regulars seen/heard anything about what happened? especially anything published that can be used in the article? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

expert and percipient witnesses

The judge actually described the situation exactly as characterized here (see pp. 6-7 of transcript); I will restore this version, as it makes more sense syntactically as well. 01:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

any use?

Press Release from Pacific Justice Institute on the lawsuit and support of plans [13]

--Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)