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