Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 1

message: This page is for discussion of the PLANS web-site's appropriateness and accuracy vis a vis Waldorf education. It also archives discussion previously on the Talk:Waldorf education page.
This page archived material which was only a few days old. It is a political attempt to hide discussion of criticism of Waldorf education in a backwater. Debate is best continued on the 
Talk:Waldorf education page. Lumos3 15:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

message: Hgilbert has commented on your arguments against excluding a link to an extremist group as external link in the article, when I was just ready with a draft of the following comment. To substantiate further that the group does not qualify, neither as an external link or informational source on Waldorf education, I post it anyhow.
You write
"First it is included as evidence that it exists as an organised opinion."
:There are many groups of a hate-type character like PLANS that exist on and off the net. It does not qualify them as such for linking to as 'information' on subjects according to Wikipedia standard. Your argument on this point is therefore insufficient for inclusion and against exclusion of it. For a description of the nature of hate groups, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group
You also write
"All the criticism of the site is from Steiner based organisations or sympathisers."
:That is an insufficient and invalid argument as such against exclusion of the link.
:What IS relevant is: Is what places PLANS in the extremist hate type of group, and described above, verifiable, and it is.
:This refers to its use of false allegations and (later repeated) insinuations of witchcraft and satanism at Waldorf schools, described by Sacramento Bee at the time here and here, to "pander to "prejudices of Christians" according to a posting by Mr. Dugan at his own mailing list and the use of these false allegations to get financing for the initiation of a lawsuit against two public schools districts, documented in a document for the IRS at the site itself, that it repeatedly has lost, and the following denial by Mr. Dugan during depositions for the trial that he believed the allegations were true.
:This also includes the support, cultivation and publication of an Anthroposophical World Conspiracy myth by the webmaster and driving force of PLANS, dates for postings in the archives at the site are given here at the site you mention.
:This also refers to the "Protocol of Steiner" myth, cultivated by the repeatedly untruthful self proclaimed "historical scholar" Mr. Staudenmaier. For documentation of his repeated untruthfulness, see here and onwards with links to the sources allegedly described by Mr. Staudenmaier and his own published postings on them on the net, here, here, here, here and here.
:It also refers to the fact that Mr. Dugan, knowing of the untruthfulness of the demonizing introduction to an article by Mr. Staudenmaier, not only has continued to publish it for five years, but also has defended it, and added a disclaimer to his PLANS site after criticism of misleading info at his site, telling that he does not vouch for the truthfulness of what he publishes, thereby denying any responsibility for the untruths he knowingly publishes or links to.
:All of these elements, and the others described and in the main specifically verified here with links to futher details puts PLANS in the hate group category (for a description of what characterizes hate groups, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group
You also write
"No content from the PLANS site is used in the article."
:That argument is irrelevant with regard to its inclusion as external, additional "informational" site on Waldorf education in the article.
:Based on this, I would have removed the link, that you repeatedly include as external link in the article in repeated violation of Wikipedia guidelines for links as described here, requiring that factually inaccurate material (implicitly thereby also sites, that publish, let alone consciously defends its own publication of untruthful material), not be linked to as external links, if Hgilbert had not already just done it.
--Thebee 12:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the site

message: Even advocates would agree that there are many legitimate criticisms that can be levelled at Waldorf education. Since it is the duty of wikipedians to ensure that a complete, concise description of every subject is given, we should include a link to further reading on this subject to give the article balance. I agree that the PLANS site is a little trashy, is there a better link to critical opinion that can be found?--Fergie 18:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If not PLANS, which link to criticism of Waldorf education will we include in the article?