Talk:PLANS (non-profit)/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This article should be deleted entirely 

message: Just a friendly public notice that I'm going to removed all  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)
replies: text: Please hold on. This article and a related family of articles are part of an arbitration case.DianaW 22:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Uncited statements 

message: "Expose" is the correct word.  See PLANS mission statement. Pete K 21:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Exposing Waldorf 

message: 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)
thread_title:  PLANS Board Members 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Compliance with arbitration 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Latest example of revolving excuses to remove text 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed Court Characterizations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of link to critical site 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: 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)
thread_title:  off topic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  expert and percipient witnesses 

message: Press Release from Pacific Justice Institute on the lawsuit and support of plans 
--Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  any use?