Talk:Bar examination/Archive 1

message: I'm not sure the arguments against the bar examination should stay.  While I am aware that Milton Friedman has made a strong argument against the bar examination in his writings, I don't think these particular versions of the argument should stay because they violate Wikipedia's official policy of No original research.  Rather, it would be best to paraphrase Friedman's argument and cite to the book in which he made it.  Even if it is true that the debate is coming back, Wikipedia does not report current news, especially news involving non-notable law professors; we have Wikinews for that! --Coolcaesar 18:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments against the bar examination should be taken out

message: I got your message on the "bar exam." Judging from the other messages sent to you, you have the manners of queen elizabeth.
At any rate, in response to your criticism of my "bar exam" change, surely you remember everything written from Professor Rhode's ethics class. You are proud to have a JD from a well-known law school on the west coast, and surely you must mean Stanford. As everyone at Stanford has to take ethics, and Rhode has been teaching since the dawn of time, you must have taken Rhode's class.
Hope to see you at the next big game. Or not. Jackass.
:First, the immature nature of your comments and your edits strongly supports the inference that you are among the small minority of Stanford students not smart enough to pass the bar examination on the first try (and most neutral third parties would agree that makes you the jackass). And to quote BarBri's performance exam lecturer, "it's not that hard!" 
:Second, any person with enough intelligence to pass the bar examination would have deduced immediately from a close analysis of my user page which law school I attended. And, no, it is not Stanford. 
:Third, my Professional Responsibility course was taught by a well-known clinical training expert. Because my law school, unlike Stanford, prefers to train practicing litigators instead of future judges or law professors, our Professional Responsibility course was directed towards the MPRE and developing the instincts necessary to deal with real-life ethics situations. We did not waste time on pointless libertarian discussions about whether the bar examination is really necessary (it is), since that topic is not covered on the MBE, the MPRE, the MPT, or any state's essay exam. --Coolcaesar 02:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi fellow idiot 

message: Well!  Your puerile imagery has brought forth your internal insecurities for the world to see, which is precisely what I had intended. I had "guesstimated" a 30 to 40% probability that the use of the word "imbeciles" would provoke such a visceral response, based on your known actions, writing style, and approximate location.  
Did I mention Ashton Kutcher is one of my favorite actors?  And no, I'm not going to type what Kutcher would say, I'm too busy smirking.
First, I fully concede the issue of my arrogant character but fail to see its relevance to the underlying issue; namely, whether the portion of the article at issue conforms to Wikipedia content policies.  
Also, I am further confirmed in my suspicion that you are not an attorney.  Anyone who passed the MPRE would know that bar associations are simply interested in ensuring that attorneys will practice law competently and will effectively balance the best interests of their clients (confidentiality, diligence, etc.) against those of the system (truthfulness, respect for the government and the law).  The single biggest issue for character evaluation committees is whether an applicant has a criminal record or a record of professional misconduct elsewhere.  During the early years of the NCBE, those were the only issues (the multistate exams came later).  
The size of an attorney's ego is completely irrelevant to the issue of professional competence.  If anything, it may be an advantage due to the prevalence of large egos in the profession, and the desire of many (if not most!) clients to have counsel who can make a strong impression on the other side.  Clients want counsel who will provide vigorous representation.
As for the issue of my alleged hypocrisy: if you were an attorney, you would be aware that an American attorney is trained and expected to be able to argue any position at any time regardless of the internal contradictions of one's positions.   That is a fundamental premise of the adversarial system of justice.  As they say, America, love it or leave it.  
Regardless of whether I have violated Wikipedia's procedural policies with the deliberate phrasing of my earlier posts, that does not change the fact that the content at issue violates Wikipedia's content policies, and you still have not provided any coherent argument that the content is in compliance.
Turning to the core issue, you completely missed the point (since it appears you did not closely read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability).  The authors of the material have inserted their personal viewpoint into the material by failing to attribute it to anyone in particular.  It is neutral to state that "A does not like B, and A has said that he believes that B has negative attribute C."  It is not neutral to say that "B has negative attribute C, because some person believes it to be so" where the identity of some person is never indicated.  In the latter case, the speaker could attribute anything they want (that is, something the speaker believes in) to B, since they are claiming that they are merely reporting the point of view of some unknown person about B and C.  Indeed, the passage you quoted indicates that "weasel words" are inappropriate and that a particular speaker should be credited for a particular opinion.  
As for the issue of verifiability, you apparently failed to read the most important passage from the policy (the very first paragraph in bold):
:Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories and claims in articles must only be included if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
I am simply challenging and removing unsourced material.
My behavior is also in compliance with the following paragraph: 
:The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. Editors should therefore provide references. Any edit lacking a source may be removed. If you doubt the truthfulness of an unsourced statement, remove it to the talk page. Otherwise, just request a source.
I requested sources. No one provided them.  As I did not provide that information, I do not have an obligation to defend it (and yes, I have provided citations for my own factual assertions when challenged, see Talk:Roger J. Traynor).  Therefore, I removed the opinionated, flawed, and just plain wrong statements.  Wikipedia is not a blog.
Furthermore, I have no interest or obligation to research a viewpoint which I disdain with regard to a topic which I consider peripheral.  The burden is upon editors adding such opposing viewpoints to support them.  With regard to subjects that I do care deeply about, I do respect, research, and summarize opposing views in a neutral fashion (as I have done with Freeway and as I plan to do with Lawyer).  
Also, blogs are not appropriate sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability): 
:Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website. Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a website and to claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group", "human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. They are not regarded as acceptable sources for Wikipedia. 
I acknowledge that Professor Daniel Solove is a well-known expert in the field of privacy law.  But when it comes to professional responsibility law, he is not an expert in that field and he is out of his depth.  I believe that an appropriate exception could be made for statements on a personal blog by well-known experts in the field like Jerold Auerbach and Richard Abel, both of whom have written at length on the issue of bar examinations and the professional monopoly.  But I know of no such statements, so they are not at issue here.  
As for the NCBE materials, they are irrelevant as sources for arguments against the bar examination.  In those articles, NCBE personnel simply defend the validity of the bar exam as a method for testing professional competence and do not concede any flaws.  Those articles are excellent sources for an argument for the bar examination, and not an argument against it.  --Coolcaesar 06:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Personal response
---------------------
Yes, I bet the world is indeed watching this conversation. Damn, now everyone can see my internal insecurities. Woe is me! You on the other hand have stated that you concede arrogance. I'm not sure why you think arrogance and ego are logically related to zealous advocacy. You state that making "a strong impression on the other side" is a desired trait, but why do you think arrogance is the right way to do it? Are you implying that arrogance is the most sure-fire way to provide representation? From what I hear, settlement occurs in most cases (and in the case of criminal cases, plea bargains). Settlement implies cooperation. 
Of course, putting up a ferocious battle can motivate the other side to cooperate, but there is no reason why arrogance is the only way to do it. Let the facts speak for themselves; argue your points aggressively, but with respect. If you are reading up on your NCBE articles, as you state you do, you'd understand that professional reputation is in the gutter. You also state: "As for the issue of my alleged hypocrisy: if you were an attorney, you would be aware that an American attorney is trained and expected to be able to argue any position at any time regardless of the internal contradictions of one's positions." I think you're confusing this discussion with a courtroom battle. This is supposed to be a logical discussion; you are not representing anyone but yourself. You obviously have a strong bias in favor of the bar exam. Instead of properly researching your bias and posting the original views of others as a counter to the arguments against the bar exam, you have decided to simply censor the material. (Yes, it's a little more complicated than that, but see the discussion about content, infra.)
You are also right that the MPRE tests your knowledge of the model rules of professional conduct. I am not sure why you raise the point. The only related personal dig I made was the fact that the character evaluation process is flawed. You state that it only tests criminal record or professional misconduct elsewhere. That's a *description* of what it does. However, the committees exist because of state law. That law has a much broader *normative* view about the role of the committee. For instance, substance addiction is a very relevant factor. Moreover, the character committees supposedly are there to protect the integrity of the profession. Clearly, arrogance and lack of respect for others smears the reputation, as the NCBE itself recognizes. 
So, if the committee primarily looks for those two limited factors, then that's great proof that they do not/cannot execute their purpose properly. That would also imply that the bar exam, as it exists, does not properly evaluate an applicant's competency either. Indeed, the idea of being able to screen for competency is great! However, it fails miserably at doing just that.
By the way, what would Ashton Kutcher say? I have made it my perosnal duty in life to avoid any shows with him on it. He's the kinda guy that would hang out with: 
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=4153372
With that aside, I'm glad to see your level of civility has increased. I came to the conclusion that you lashed out originally because you thought I was the person that had contributed most of the content and the person that had originally personally attacked you, calling you an idiot. If that is the case, then I suppose we were both attacking each other for no reason. If that was not the case, and you just wanted to attack someone that did not agree with your opinion about the majesty of the bar exam, then I do not retract my personal attacks.
Substantive response
-------------------------
Before I even analyze the article with respect to the Wiki policies, I must point out that "consensus" clearly cannot be proven. Just do a history of the "Verifiability" standard, for example. There have been 500 posts since August 2003. A lot of the posters are repeats. So, let's assume there have been 250 unique posters since August 2003. There are just about 1 million articles on Wikipedia: English. In order to assume "consensus" of  50% or more with respect to this standard, let's just assume a very maximum bound of 1 user per every 20,000 articles. So, that makes 500 editors, with 250 collaborating on a standard. However, in all likelihood, the ratio is much different. I would guess 1 user per every 100 article as simply a very high upper bound. Now, there would be 10,000 editors, meaning that 250 average users (this is pure democracy I suppose as opposed to a representative one) are actively creating a "consensus" . . . but that's only 2.5% of the Wiki community. I strongly doubt that you can argue that true consensus exists in Wikipedia, except for some very broad principles laid out by the founders. Hell, there was so much debate about what "neutral point of view" stands for that the page has been locked until "consensus" can be reached on the discussion page.
Now, you state that I have not provided a coherent argument. By coherent, are you referring to what *you* view as coherent, or what any logical person would view as coherent? Certainly you cannot pass the "laugh test" you mentioned earlier and declare that it's not coherent. I will now summarize my prior arguments.
I am aware that you are *allowed* to delete the content of the article. However, that does not mean that you *should* delete it. There are three different tiers with respect to one's right to do something, when there are at least two choices. In this case, let's examine the right to choose between removal and non-removal of the offending material. They are: shall, should, may. "Shall" would mean that you must remove the content if it's unreliable and your choice not to remove the content would be clearly wrong. "Should" would mean that you have the option of non-removal, but removal would be the better choice. "May" would mean that either option you chose would be equally valid. 
The statement only says you "may" remove the material. If you removed it, based on the criteria stated, then you'd be no better or worse than if you did not remove the content. However, there exists a competing principle in the Wiki world. It's the concept of collaboration, which qualifies the statement that you "may" remove it. I argue that it combines into a larger principle that says you should not remove something unless it is clearly not accurate. (If I were so inclined, I could simply put this in bold at the very beginning of the Verifiability page.) Let me repeat the relevant principles once more, with analysis. This is the "nutshell" of verifiable information:
"Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories and claims in articles must only be included if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."
You have appropriately pointed out the fact that you *may* remove the unsourced material. However, examine a "best practice" policy:
"Many articles may fall short of this standard until one or more editors devote time and effort to fact-checking and reference-running. (See efforts to identify reliable sources.) In the meantime, readers can still benefit from your contributions, bearing in mind that unsourced edits, or edits relying on inappropriate sources, may be challenged at any time."
What is this saying? It means that "many" articles start off with problems, such as reliability and citation. It also specifically says that even in this less-than-perfect form, readers can benefit from it, as it gives the general idea. Look how Cardozo dealt with indefinitness in contracts:
"The law has outgrown its primitive stage of formalism when the precise word was the sovereign talisman, and every slip was fatal. It takes a broader view today. A promise may be lacking, and yet the whole writing may be 'instinct with an obligation,' imperfectly expressed."
Here too we have the policy that an article is something that is built upon when it needs building, as opposed to simply destroying when it's imperfect. If the article as it stands is more beneficial than not, with respect to getting a view of the matter out, then it should stay. This is something completely separate from whether you or anyone else thinks the view is good or bad. The point is that it is a relevant view about a subject. Whether it's "sufficient" is not the point. As long as it's relevant and it essentially points out the starting point (a "stub") of a detailed analysis, Wiki policy seems to embrace the idea of keeping it and adding upon it. That is what Wikipedia is all about.
Your major contention is that you have asked for verification of the sources. Having none, you decided that you do not want to research the issue because you have personal disdain for it. Therefore, you have concluded that no citations are forthcoming at this time and therefore you are exercising your right to remove it, as you are allowed to. However, that mistakes the point. Your personal disdain for arguments against the bar exam should not influence your decision. Rather, it's whether you truly believe the arguments are not reflective of the actual arguments out there in the general discussion about the bar exam.
So, the next question is this: do you think that the material in the article inaccurately portrays the arguments *against* the bar examination? By your own admissions, this clearly cannot be the case. When you first raised the entire issue, you stated:
"While I am aware that Milton Friedman has made a strong argument against the bar examination in his writings, I don't think these particular versions of the argument should stay because they violate Wikipedia's official policy of No original research. Rather, it would be best to paraphrase Friedman's argument and cite to the book in which he made it. Even if it is true that the debate is coming back, Wikipedia does not report current news, especially news involving non-notable law professors; we have Wikinews for that!" --Coolcaesar 18:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: There are now links to reputable articles verifying the stubs about arguments for & against the bar exam, as well as alternatives.
:In response to the above anonymous poster:
:After much reflection, I believe you are correct that this is a case of mistaken identity and I apologize if I confused you with the other person who posted some unpleasant remarks on my talk page.  I continue to disagree with your interpretation of the Verifiability policy.  But I will accept the current state of the article as it stands, and allow you or others to paraphrase the SALT materials as well as any others that have been published and can be directly cited to a reputable publication.  I hope this concludes our dispute.--Coolcaesar 08:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article has been edited

message: I propose archiving the above discussion, or at least the part starting with the word "idiot". Any useful stuff could be re-added. rewinn 19:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  --Coolcaesar 05:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur with this most excellent proposal. Erechtheus 01:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POLL: Archiving quarrelsome discussion