Talk:PLANS (non-profit)/Archive 1

message: This is obviously an article where NPOV language will be important to maintain. I suggest that saying that "PLANS declined to present" any further case is slanted; it implies that they had something left to present. Actually, they had no evidence or witnesses left which they legally could have presented. It would not be inaccurate to say that they had no case left. I've tried to find neutral language; they presented no further case.Hgilbert 19:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV language 

message: Hi Lumos3, what is the source for you addition of the statement in the Criticism section that the editor at DMOZ, that I mention at http://www.americans4waldorf.org/History.html in 2001 not only removed PLANS from the DMOZ Learning_Theories/Waldorf category, but also entered it in the Opposing Views: Esoteric and Occult category at that specific time instead? --Thebee 22:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This can be verified by looking searching for PLANS on DMOZ  Lumos3 20:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I repeat search engine claims can be verified by any reader by conducting searches themselves. Lumos3 10:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source on addition? 

message: Hi again, Lumos3. 16:34, 8 July 2006 (regrettably missing to log in first), I replaced a link to a Press Release by PLANS, telling it was going to appeal, with a link to the appeal itself. Then, 13:54, 10 July 2006, I removed a link to an article about the -- when the link to the article was put in -- coming appeal, as reference, telling that the appeal would be coming, as the article contained false information about the trial, as documented by the transcript of the trial, and I already had added a link to the full appeal. I also specified the reason for removing the partially untruthful and now unnecessary reference at the history page (Removal of link to article, contradicted by the transcript of the trial, as reference).
21:30, 11 July you have added a comment on the appeal and use the article as reference again, telling that PLANS has announced its intention to appeal, before the section on the Court case, that tells that PLANS has lost its case, and that it already has appealed. Isn't that out of place? The appeal is properly described after the description of the loss by PLANS of its case with a link to the already filed full appeal, and the article still contains false info on the trial, as documented by the trial transcript. --Thebee 23:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual Appeal or Article about Appeal 

message: I tagged the article on PLANS for swift deletion on the grounds that it is an attack. The tag was removed within half an hour.
Dan Dugan, Secretary, PLANS, Inc. 17:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article on PLANS should be deleted 

message: The section "In Support of PLANS"  appears to me to breach Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#The neutral point of view - specifically The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted.  This section as it stands presently appears to assert PLANS views.  It needs some modification to make it encyclopaedic.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Arktos talk 09:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV - In support of Plans 

message: For the same reasons we have decided that links to Waldorfanswers should not be allowed for court and legal documents in the Waldorf Education page, the same applies to links to Waldorfanswers on this page.  If the court documents are to be linked, they must be moved to the neutral Wikisource page and not the substantially biased Waldorfanswers page.  It is my understanding that these documents are in the process of being moved to a Wikisource page.  The links should be updated when this process is completed. --Pete K 02:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warehousing of Court Documents on Waldorfanswers 

message: Rest assured that if the entire article is not deleted, the correct information to set these cockamamie rumors to rest will be provided, and attempts to remove it will be energetically resisted. Actually, just getting AWE and Waldorf Answers disqualified as "neutral sources" will take care of most of this nonsense.DianaW 02:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "PLANS alleges witchcraft" and "Large web portals" material needs to be removed 

message: I found a better source to present Schwartz's position.  This one is published, and Schwartz is quoted directly.  This resolves the ambiguities in the passage we've been talking about, and doesn't resort to lengthy unencyclopedic quoting.
Info is taken from the June 20, 2001 issue of Education Week, by David Ruezel.  He uses the term "prominent teacher and lecturer", which may be more supportable than "Master Teacher" which infers it's an official title or award as it is in public education--if it is an official title, is there a source?  Also this references an article written by Gary Lamb.  Both should be listed in endnotes.
:"There are Waldorf education supporters who agree with PLANS' insistence that Waldorf education does not belong in the government schools.  Waldorf educator, Gary Lamb, argued in a 1994 article that independence from state control was one of the key tenets in Steiner's original vision for the Waldorf schools.  He also argued that by bringing the methods to the public school system, Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner will be attacked in court rooms and in the media by fundamentalists and secular humanists applying their own interpretations of the spiritually-based philosophy, Anthroposophy, in order to challenge the constitutionality of public Waldorf methods education.
:"Eugene Schwartz is a prominent teacher and author who started a controversy with remarks made in his 1999 speech delivered during a conference held at Sunbridge College, where he served as director of Waldorf teacher training.  During the speech, Schwartz agreed with PLANS founder Dan Dugan, who was also in attendance, that Waldorf education could not properly be separated from Anthroposophy.  In his view, though Waldorf education was not sectarian, it means to make everything sacramental, and Schwartz objected to those educators who would reject the movement's religious aspect to suit the requirements of public education.  Schwartz was fired from the position shortly after, and in a later interview, claimed there were many other Waldorf teachers who agreed but were afraid to speak out.  In the interview, Schwartz claimed private Waldorf schools endeavor to bring religious experiences to children, and insisted that public Waldorf methods schools were watered-down imitations of authentic Waldorf." Professor marginalia 17:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean link it?  The lecture itself is copyright by Eugene Schwartz, which he sells:  http://millennialchild.com/CD02.htm  .  I don't think it's okay to link it at wikipedia because it's a commercial webpage.  The transcript linked earlier sure seems like it's probably an unauthorized 'bootleg', so it shouldn't be included either.    Professor marginalia 20:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested revision Master Teacher 

message: The passage under dispute should be removed.  It's wrong.  It's not been verified despite many efforts to do so.  The point to it is not very clear.  It's a waste of time to keep trying to make it fit somehow.
The information here is taken straight from a PLANS court document and thus is probably the strongest published reference out there.  The document was "Answer to Special Interrogatories", pages 3 and 4, prepared January 15, 2004, and signed by their attorney "under penalty of perjury". I propose the passage in the article regarding which texts are "foundations of anthroposophy" be completely removed, and the argument rewritten as follows:
:"PLANS claims Anthroposophy has at its basis esoteric Christianity.  In court documents, PLANS argued that Rudolf Steiner considered himself a Christian and that he considered Anthroposophy to be a Christian form of theosophy and Rosicrucianism.  PLANS argued that Steiner himself described Anthroposophy as a training to access skills of psychic awareness latent in each human being, and argued that the discipline, 'spiritual science', is not a true science nor philosophy, but a theology.  PLANS acknowledged that Steiner's supporters frequently concede the spiritual foundations of Anthroposophy and Waldorf education, but claimed they make a false distinction between 'spiritual' and 'religious'.  It considered Anthroposophy as part of a New Age religious movement, characterized by its seekers' rejection of orthodoxy and creedal forms of religious expression in favor of a more eclectic and individualized path of spiritual-psychological transformation, a process which PLANS claimed to be generally acknowledged as 'religious experience'. 
:"PLANS wanted the court to agree that Waldorf methods schools lead students through New Age rituals and interpret them as 'religious' practices.  It also wanted the court to agree that in the schools, Anthroposophy permeates every subject, and that the underlying theory of the education is based on theology, not philosophy.  In order to do this, PLANS first needed to convince the court that Anthroposophy was a religion.  This attempt was unsuccessful, and PLANS seeks to reverse the decision in appeals court." 
The article itself has become repetitious in places and leaves a lot of gaps in others.  I think that all the various edits have left this section very confused, and the points aren't very clear.  Once we get the statements in it more accurate, then the section needs to be restructured so it makes more sense when you read it. Professor marginalia 17:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This part reads all right to me: "PLANS wanted the court to agree that Waldorf methods schools lead students through these eclectic New Agey rituals and interpret them as 'religious' practices.  It also wanted the court to agree that Anthroposophy is inherent throughout the student's classwork, and that the underlying theory of the education was based on theology, not philosophy.  In order to do this, PLANS first needed to convince the court that Anthroposophy was a religion (as the article points out, it wasn't successful)." - as long as it's clarified that the case is still being appealed. I think what you wrote there is a fair summary, maybe not perfect, but not too far off. I don't know if anthroposophy is "inherent throughout the student's classwork," but it's certain that many themes in the curriculum and many classroom activities are drawn from anthroposophy, and many of the schoolwide festivals are enactments of anthroposophic legends and rituals.DianaW 18:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restatement of the passage re: PLANS concept of anthroposophy 

message: The article is locked to prevent changes without first reaching a consensus.  My first edit here was made only after getting agreement with an editor who arbitrarily reverted it, saying "it's a waste of time to argue".  My second edit here was to tag a statement for its "source".  The same editor offers a source that in no way whatsoever even addresses the disputed statement, not even remotely!  A challenged statement should not be allowed at wikipedia without a legitimate source, thus I removed the statement, and the same editor gives an "I don't care about policy" rationale for putting it back, along with a promise to "keep putting it back in".  There is no chance of consensus if editors are allowed to be fickle and arbitrarily reneg after agreeing, if they're allowed to provide illegitimate sources, and if they don't give a hoot about wikipedia policy. Professor marginalia 16:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not knowing what a "meat puppet" is, I looked it up on the urban dictionary.  Two of the definitions are obscene, one definition given is "brainless" and the fourth given is "no mind of one's own".  I don't see how it's possible to reach consensus when a single editor, who reacts irrationally to perfectly legitimate and rational challenges, promises continue  paranoid "edit wars" and wastes editors time by providing bogus references as sources to backup statements which are questioned.  Professor marginalia 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A meatpuppet is when a Wikipedia editor has someone join Wikipedia or the sole purpose of buttressing the first person's arguments. I agree with Professor Marginalia that User:Pete_K's tactics are disruptive and detract from the project. — goethean ॐ 18:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I was the first editor to raise the issues, and so far the only support I've received is agreement that all sources have to conform to wikipedia's guidelines.  None of my edits were in any way, shape, or form "defamatory" to PLANS, they're not even negative, so Pete_K's attack on me is 100% phoney.    Professor marginalia 20:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I recommend other editors do "take a quick look at the history" before dealing with you.  It explains a lot.  I see that call yourself a "reformist" who founded "Waldorf School of the Oaks." Never heard of it.  Neither has google.  Or AWSNA.  Is causing "dumbest ever" edit wars part of the "reformist" work you do?  Professor marginalia 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I was referring to the project of Wikipedia. — goethean ॐ 19:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Resolving" disputes 

message: It seems like we've reached agreement on changes to the "Master Teacher" section and the "foundation of anthroposophy" passage (see sections 14.1 and 15.1 above).  What's next?  Can the page be "unprotected" so the edits can be made?  Professor marginalia 20:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't better to quote directly because the transcript isn't reliable, and it's not legitimately published.  This has been discussed.  The point Schwartz was making has also been heavily "distorted" because in the middle of this heavily redacted quotation, Schwartz talks about what goes on in the public Waldorf methods program.  That part has been left out here--and in it Schwartz says that the public Waldorf methods program  students do not get the experience his daughter is getting--that those children do not get the religious experience.  That's why Schwartz objects to them.  PLANS argued the exact opposite of this in the court room, so it's kind of a curious bit to leave out here.  No? So that lengthy quoted section needs to come out.  The phrase "religious experience" is ascribed to Schwartz in the published Edweek article, however he also does indeed say there, "make everything sacramental"--it's a direct quote from Schwartz.  "Reverence" does not appear there, so I'd say if the term is used, the "quotes" need to come off.Professor marginalia 21:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I just took it out completely.  It reads better anyway. Pete K 17:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You da man now <sarcasm>.  Add this episode to your growing list of candidates for "stupidest edit war ever".   Professor marginalia 23:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it just me, or does it sound like they're all discussing the same event? Pete K 03:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotecting the page 

message: I've added a good bit of detail to the history section.  It's all sourced, and I've indicated those sources in those areas I understand or suspect most likely to be questioned.  I don't think the section needs a reference on every single statement--that would compromise the readability, for one thing.  So I haven't listed them all in laborious detail.  However, I can provide these further sources if necessary on those facts or statements that others might have questions about. 
There has been a lot of contention relating to this article among editors here.  PLANS is an activist organization which has created a lot of controversy in some communities where it's challenged the Waldorf methods schools, and I think this provides a lot of the background to some of the controversy.  PLANS brought together both secular/atheist activists and evangelical Christian activists.  That odd alliance called for more background.  PLANS has also been criticized by many educators, parents and others--for one thing, over some of their activist tactics.  So the article needed some objective background related to that--to enable readers to understand where some of those disputes might have first come from.  Professor marginalia 21:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with adding the history that you have added from the SacBee source articles is that much information supporting PLANS is also in those articles.  If you add the bad stuff, I'll have to add in the good stuff and then we have what happened last time - the entire article quoted.  Please re-think this and if you have to include this, just quote directly from the articles themselves. Pete K 00:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not a board game, and the facts and sources in it aren't arbitrary artifacts to be traded between editors like baseball cards.  The job of editors here is to use documents exactly such as these.  There is "no trouble".  It is also not the job of the editor to cut and paste quotes together rather than write the article.  I've been completely fair in my copy: I cited the SacBee once in that entire section, and you object to it?  All of the items I listed in that statement were in the SacBee's report.  I believe every news account I've seen of the PLANS protest against the Oak Ridge school alluded to the furor over these kinds of allegations.  That protest developed into the lawsuit, and was probably at least partly a factor influencing a conservative religious organization to financially back the suit. It's absurd to suggest this should be omitted from an article about PLANS, and there is nothing wrong with the source.  It's as good as any you'll find.  Professor marginalia 01:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear "Professor Marginalia" (anonymity is so nice, isn't it? - yet I have a hunch we are acquainted!) I am at least a week behind in following what is going on with this article, but if you don't mind my jumping in right here, you seem to be implying you've seen many, or at least a number of, news reports on the "PLANS protests" and on the controversy that supposedly PLANS has created in, you imply, a great many communities. (This is POV, of course; clearly, from another POV it is *Waldorf* that has created controversy in some communities. It is really very difficult to stir up communities against a school when parents are *happy* with the school.) What are all these other news sources you are referring to, that describe all these controversies PLANS has created, and what are your sources for all the criticism PLANS has so widely received?DianaW 22:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: God, I hope not.  Are you trying to intimidate me?  I've identified most references used in the article.  I've read through probably two or three dozen articles all together.  If you have questions about some statement of mine that doesn't have a reference, I'll provide it, but the article is going to be difficult to read if there are superscript footnotes numbers all over it.  Professor marginalia 23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "God, I hope not." You hope you don't know me? You might want to refer to the "Be civil" policy here. You'll have to pardon me if I gave offense, I merely am curious whether you may in fact be someone I know. It is always friendlier to do these things on a first-name basis, I'm sure you'd agree. The "intimidation" remark is unintelligible, so I'll politely ignore it.DianaW 00:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's kind of looking to me like all these many, many articles you've read on all the many, many communities that PLANS has stirred up trouble in come from a certain area in California in May and June of 1997. In other words, they all refer to the *same* controversy. But if you've read of several dozen such occasions where PLANS has disrupted entire peaceful communities, I'm sure you'll be popping those in here soon, too. It'll take me awhile, as I don't have handy access to hard copies of California newspapers from the late 1990s as you apparently do, but you know I can take this junk apart piece by piece. You might want to review the entire history here; Sune tried to get that "witchcraft" crap vetted here, with which I suspect you may also be familiar, and it didn't fly. It will be vigorously rebutted in detail every time - just another one of my "threats."DianaW 00:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't get you to identify any statements that you feel need to be verified.  I'm defending parts I wrote and the reference sources I used, and you're attacking me for statements I haven't made.  I assume you do want footnotes on all of it then.  No problem. Professor marginalia 16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: I've also added to the criticism section.  Again, it's all sourced.  And again, I think this helps readers to understand the controversy better.  None of the new material I've added comes from Anthroposophical or Waldorf education related printed sources, so it presents points of view gathered from numerous communities and individuals.  I believe all of it has been drawn from published newspapers or court documents.  The paragraph there originally has been reworded a bit, and I've tried to rearrange the issues to be somewhat chronological.  Professor marginalia 22:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, "numerous communities" and individuals. In other words, Sacramento. All the new references are to Sacramento. Yeah - chronological. They cover about 4 weeks in May and June of 1997. I hope you've had fun, 'cus I'm on this now.DianaW 01:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: # Ercolano was not VP of PLANS in Oct 2000, but was VP of PLANS by Dec 2000.  Sources are the archives of the PLANS web site taken from those dates.
# PLANS lawsuit intimidation to school boards:  PLANS mission statement, item # 3, "Litigate against schools violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the US."  In Dan Dugan's account of an appearance in one school board meeting (reported on the PLANS website): "I yelled out PLANS was going to sue the District if they had a Waldorf program anywhere.  Schenirer asked the policeman to remove me.  I walked out before he got to me."  From assorted news accounts, "The school was at the center of a broiling controversy, one filled with charges--made by an out-of-town anti-Waldorf group--that the Waldorf method was a cult-created system that used public funds to secretly indoctrinate children in esoteric New Age spiritual hocus-pocus.  So inflamatory was the rhetoric, and so scary the threat of lawsuits, that the trustees of the CUSD were frightened off and turned thumbs down the application for sponsorship."  Another, "Plus, [PLANS] said they'd sue.  That was enough for trustees who voted to toss the Waldorf folks."  Professor marginalia 18:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I am still far from caught up as to what is going on here, but the pure humor value of all this is just superb. Whoooooooo . . . we have dates for when Ercolano became VP of PLANS and we are trying to calim WHAT EXACTLY Ms. Marginalia? Please, do tell. You got a Sacramento-area newspaper article explaining the purported reasons Lisa Ercolano became VP of PLANS at a certain date? Now please, we are none of us this stupid.DianaW 23:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, it is very hard for some people to see such things as Dan Dugan being REMOVED BY A POLICEMAN for trying to make comments critical of Waldorf education - as somehow, some way, reflecting positively on Waldorf education - as you apparently earnestly seem to believe. Having the police remove a critical person is a good thing in your view? When one side in a controversy believes a school should be funded by taxpayer money, and another side wishes to present arguments to the contrary, believing that this is in violation of taxpayers' interests or a poor expenditure of taxpayers' money, is it your view that the latter person needs to be removed from the room by force? That this is a good time to call the police? What are your views here? Do you believe that Dan Dugan was doing something that warranted police intervention? Please - do clarify for us who Schenirer is, and why he asked for a policeman to remove Dan Dugan. Is Dan, in your view, a dangerous person?DianaW 23:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More references provided: 

message: I have no idea why Sune has replaced the Request for Mediation tag on this talk page.  The mediation request failed.  Why does this page need this tag at this point?  I really don't care but I'm always suspicious of Sune's motives since they almost always tend to have some twisted logic behind them. Pete K 01:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Mediation Tag 

message: "In his speech he exemplified this with the way the origin and dramatic history of the Jews is taught in grade three in independent Waldorf schools and the way the morning verse in his view should be said as a prayer, in contrast to the morning verse said in public Waldorf methods schools, changed not to violate the U.S. Constitution on the separation between church and state."  I'm inclined to put a {citation needed} tag on this new addition - in fact I will.  I don't believe this is covered by the reference at the end of the paragraph.  Can anyone produce the text of the reference? Pete K 23:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to note here that you yourself have attempted to quote passages from this speech several times, text you drew (and further edited) from a bootlegged, amateurish transcript taken of it, as well as link the transcript here.  As far as I know, there are no authorized transcripts published or available, and to spare the editors here another 16 rounds of ear-biting, kidney punching, and wheel spinning over what was supposedly really said in the speech, I think it would be wise for editors to focus on other reference sources altogether. Professor marginalia 15:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IOW, we can remove this recently-added comment?  Thanks! Pete K 16:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pete K, remove the new fact tag already.  The quotes are taken from the article that's already been footnoted once, okay?  You don't need two footnotes in a row pointing to the same reference source in a single paragraph.  I've described at least three times now in the talk page about the "the make everything sacramental" quote.  This is getting ridiculous.  Professor marginalia 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source you provided doesn't link to anything.  How is anyone supposed to know what it says?  I'll check the original document from the PLANS page and see if it says anything about this.  If you have a link to the resource you provided, please include it.  Thanks. Pete K 20:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe it or not the sources used in articles at wikipedia aren't always available via public links on the internet.  This article is available on the internet but only with paid subscription, and there is a rule against linking to subscription only websites from wikipedia.  But by all means, check it-your library will probably have the necessary access rights so you don't have to pay anything.  I don't invent quotes, for godsakes.  Professor marginalia 21:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I will check it out.  I understand sources aren't always available to links on the internet, however, it this article in particular, a lot of claims have been made that simply aren't true.  That's why I feel it is important for each of us to check each other's sources particularly carefully.  Pete K 22:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "That's why I send her to a Waldorf school. She can have a religious experience. A religious experience. I'll say it again: I send my daughter to a Waldorf school so that she can have a religious experience. So that she learns something about reverence. So that she learns something about respecting a higher being. If she didn't learn that, she'd be out the door in a minute. I don't want her to go to a school that calls itself Waldorf, and denies her a religious experience."
Can we agree on that wording? Pete K 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I won't mince any words here.  It is an absolute lie to say that the text you've just "quoted" actually appears in the article.  I don't know where the hell you got that, but it wasn't from the real article.  If you continue to profess otherwise, I will escallate--this time you've gone too far, and there has been too much monkey business from you already. Professor marginalia 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem a little irritable today.  I NEVER lie.  Above, you state "I don't invent quotes, for godsakes" - yet you apparently have no problem suggesting that I do.  I might remind you to assume good faith (this appears to be at least the second time someone here has had to ask you to do this today).  The text I quoted is from the source that was quoted here originally - the ACTUAL lecture given by Eugene Schwartz.  It is available on the PLANS website.  Here's the link to the transcript of the lecture.  As I said above, I don't have access to the article you have substituted for the actual lecture.  I find it incredible that you chastise me for not providing a quote from the article that I have said I cannot access.  I provided a quote from the ACTUAL LECTURE that the article you provided talks about.  If that represents "monkey business" to you, then there's little I can do about this... I suppose it's a case of monkey see, monkey do. Pete K 00:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't say you were talking about an altogether different text than the source used in this article.  You have a fact check on my statements.  I gave it to you.  You want to read it for yourself, buy a subscription, or go to the library.  We've gone 10 rounds on your new "source" already.  The reasons it is an unsuitable "source" have been listed on this talk page many times, and I won't repeat them again and again.  Editors are limited to published sources, and the transcript you point to doesn't qualify.  After limiting ourselves to published sources, the editors here can decide how to word it.  But forget that transcript, it doesn't qualify.  Professor marginalia 00:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you misunderstand.  This must be very frustrating for you.  I checked my source, the ACTUAL LECTURE to verify what you claim.  It's not there.  So, if it isn't in the actual lecture, then who really cares if it's in an article that describes the ACTUAL LECTURE.  Well, apparently, you do... but really, why point to an article that makes claims about a lecture that are untrue?  I haven't suggested referencing the ACTUAL LECTURE in this article, but I see nothing wrong with having a look at the ACTUAL LECTURE to determine if claims made by the article you have produced are factual or not.  In this case, you have an article that makes claims about the ACTUAL LECTURE that are not supported by the ACTUAL LECTURE itself.  So once again, we have an attempt to circumvent the truth, it appears.  And that's the part that is very frustrating for me. Pete K 01:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement was made by Schwartz to the reporter interviewing him about his speech.  The quote is taken directly from Schwartz in his conversation with the reporter, and isn't a literal quote taken from the speech itself.  I have rearranged the section to make this distinction clearer, and removed the fact tag since the reference source is already footnoted in the article.  The "religious experience" term is repeated in the reference source, but in the article here it's represented as coming from the lecture, so I will remove the quotation marks around the term in that instance.  Again, unless we find a legit published transcript, we can't print direct quotes from the speech at wikipedia. Professor marginalia 01:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's much better... now you're learning.  I'll talk with Eugene Schwartz and see if I can get him to release permission to use the actual text of the lecture here. Pete K 19:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Edit - Schwartz 

message: I've noticed Anthroposophy has now been changed to lower case now instead of initial caps.  The names of religions should have initial caps.  I expect to change anthroposophy to Anthroposophy.  The jury is still out on this one. Pete K 00:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is "religion" as opposed to "philosophy" the default position?  Those insisting that it is a "religion" are in the minority, and the court decision itself is law unless it is overturned in appeal. Professor marginalia 01:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no... have you looked in an encyclopedia lately?  Almost EVERY encyclopedia - with the exception of the well-supervised Wikipedia - calls Anthroposophy a religion. Pete K 02:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it's fun to agree with our noble ideological opponents at times . . . I agree with the Professor here. I prefer not to capitalize "anthroposophy." I have a general editorial preference for visually plainer text, which includes defaulting to lower case unless there is a compelling argument for upper case, and where anthroposophy is concerned, I don't feel anything's gained in meaning or clarity by using the initial capital. (If anything, the capital seems to convey a status or seriousness or officialness I'm not sure anthroposophy deserves.) I haven't looked at the multitudinous wikipedia style guides to see if there are any guidelines we ought to be following in this regard.DianaW 03:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course, I would defer to the guideline.  But if you look at Anthroposophy's sister religion, Scientology, I think it's always capitalized.  I could be wrong - running off to check. Pete K 03:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, from the Scientology article (always capitalized) "Although some scholars accept Scientology as a bona fide religion,it has also been characterized as a pseudoreligion, a cult or a transnational corporation." - so I think Anthroposophy should be capitalized as well as it seems to encompass many of the same characteristics. Pete K 03:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The wikipedia style manual says, as you say, to capitalize religions, but not doctrines, theories, philosophies or systems of thought. I understand why some critics want to capitalize it to make a point. The pure copy editor in me prefers not to exercise this sort of editorial advocacy (like judicial advocacy, you know?) But I don't feel strongly about it either way.DianaW 04:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Edits - anthroposophy vs Anthroposophy