Please understand that I am not expressing any of my own amazingly empiricist views of the subject matter in what follows only my views on policy I hope not to fan flames higher by offering up a contentious but universally accessible parallel Theres a reason why  is cited in the article on Evolution Now in this case anyone alive in America knows that this is a significant view even if scientific consensus rules it false or at least unreasonable But anecdotally I can tell you that there is significant questioning of Nonviolent Communication as a theory and movement and that Gorsevskis admittedly poorly written critique does represent this strand of rarelysurfacing criticism Since Nonviolent Communication is dismissed as sheer quackery in some other disciplines it is unsurprising that there are few critiques in print just as despite the vast importance in society of the intelligent design debate the percentage of evolutionary biologists discussing intelligent design especially in their scholarly works is vanishingly low All of this is to say in response to Rhentworth that I agree with other editors that academic publication is fine evidence for significance and that we are not in the business of dismissing research that is bad I agree with you Rhentworth that this article is far from the best and that the countervailing academic community has done poorly in having little expressed the reasons for its dubiousness However there are statements like httpwwwjstororgstablepdfpluspdfacceptTCtrue ironically a somewhat critical review of the Gorsevski book in question that attest to the view that Nonviolent Communication nonviolent rhetoric and nonviolence in general are hopelessly utopian p  quite a different criticism from the narrow ones raised by Gorsevski and one that is more widely held Hope this helps