Talk:Lennar Corporation

Sounds like advertising

I modified the article in the following areas. This sounds like advertising to prospective shareholders:

Over the past 20 years Lennar has:

Increased the number of new home deliveries from 2,978 homes to 49,568 homes in 2006.

Increased shareholders' equity from $151 million to $5.7 billion in 2006.

Grown net earnings from $12 million to $594 million, and revenues from $221 million to $16.3 billion in 2006.

So I kept the line on the increase in new home deliveries. That seems to illustrate the growth and current size of the company well—but the rest seems more like, "Buy our stock!" So that's out. (But the first part still needs citation.)

And then there was the line with a Lennar slogan. That line had no value beyond consumer advertising and has no place in this page.

Third is this line:

Lennar builds and sells: first-time homes, move-up homes, luxury homes, active adult homes and urban communities.

I removed it because most of it sounds like marketing lingo. Especially active adult homes. It would work for the purpose of the encyclopedia if the line discussed the demographic Lennar tries to reach (like first-time homebuyers or retirees) and the physical types of houses they build (such as single-family detached or condominium).

San Francisco Board of Whatever

The fact that this board passed a resolution and posted a notice on it's website is not really relevant to the article. If this fact were important, it would be picked up by a reliable, secondary source (such as CNN or the New York Times). In addition, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires us to report facts according to predominance. I am sure there are many facts about this company. It is wrong to cherry pick just a few negative facts and turn this article into a bash-piece. There is a strong appearance that critics of this company are attempting to use this article as a soapbox, which is not allowed. Wikipedia is not for advocacy, no matter how noble your cause. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound like CNN is an unbiased source. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since when does the corporate owned media get to decide what is true and what is not true? Or what is newsworthy and what is not? Or is it truth only that which money can buy? Does Wikipedia believe in that principle?--David Tornheim (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Two thoughts on this. First off, I have to disagree with the assertion that the link does not constitute a "reliable source". The San Francisco school board is a notable organization, one with considerable standing within its community. As such, a link to the board's own site is suitable for referencing a resolution passed by that organization. However, the bigger issue is whether or not the text should be there to begin with. Given the overall size of the article, we have to consider WP:UNDUE and the possibility that mentioning it places too much emphasis on the motion without any context. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

True, but I said, "reliable, secondary source". This is a reliable, primary source. In this article is not appropriate to use a political organization, even a notable one, as a primary source and to assert (without any external confirmation) that the information is relevant. I agree with you completely that this fact (the resolution against Lennar Corporation) is being given undue weight. Cherry picking has been going on here. Jehochman ^Talk 22:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Above there was a citation to the policy WP:UNDUE "Undue Weight", I will quote the beginning here.

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material ...

This is an interesting policy, one, I must confess, I find a quite puzzling and virtually unenforceable: a seemingly democratic definition of what is true as if truth were all part of some binary system of discrete things that either are or not true and the majority of "experts" on each topic have figured out just what those things are.

The first opening line makes sense--to put out major viewpoints, especially those that have been well articulated by those who know the subject intimately. But the next line gets fuzzy fast: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all"...I wonder about that. Often, I have found, it is the "minority" views that are both the most interesting and most ellucidating of the "majority views" by comparison and contrast, and when combined with the majority views are in total more likely to help the reader understand the complexity of the issue and wealth of perspectives available on it. After all, we learn from our mistakes.

This policy makes some sense if there is a wealth of information and high quality research, research that is verifiable, with, for example, repeatable hypothesis testing on the subject, such as in some scientific issues or the nature of particle movement, especially when the subject is somewhat objective in nature or quantifiable and measurable, like the movement of particles. But most of truth is, for better or for worse, not discrete and not measurable.

Some serious problems come up immediately in trying to define a MAJORITY or MINORITY view. How do you determine whether two views are "the same". It is rare that any two authors (or "experts") express their opinions in quite the same way, have the same emphasis or interest or depth of knowledge. Each often has their own focus. They will often concede subjectivity in their views and values. Freud and Adler for example had very similar views, but many were different as well. If you had all of Freud's followers and all of Adler's followers who had spent years in the profession, brought them all together, how do you determine the "majority" view. I don't think it exists or that it can be reliably determined. The "majority" view is a subjective view determined by the observer. It is true these professionals might come to some agreement on some issues but the more interesting topics are often those where competing views are expressed. Who gets to make the final decision about what the "MAJORITY" or "MINORITY" view is? Someone who is NOT AN EXPERT? I don't think this is an easy one at all to enforce because of this problem.

And what about this case, a very common one, and certainly the case here: What do you do when there are only a limited number of experts, or no experts at all, then what is the policy? If only a handful of people really know what is going on, but the the majority of more ignorant people think they know but actually don't (of course they have their credentials--by say working for the New York Times) and simply dismiss out right those who have something correct and unique and 100% correct to say. Is it Wikipedia's intention to suppress views that are 100% true simply because the majority of "experts" thinks they know what they are talking about, but actually don't, like the way Copernicus was? I think this is actually the most common case--the case that Socrates was so interested in.

And what happens to a highly subjective topic, such as what makes good art? or philosophy? literary criticism? These subjects often don't even have agreed upon definitions, e.g. Post-Modernism or Existentialism. Many of those labeled existentialist or post-modernists, eschewed the label and insisted that the "experts" did not understand them and were putting them in a bin they had no interest of being in--that seems like a fair argument to me. On these subjects, there often is NO MAJORITY VIEW and the experts more or less agree on that. Now what? And for better or worse, I think life is more like art than it is like science--not discrete, not a binary or discrete system of right and wrong--I think the author(s) of the above policy made an epistomological mistake in their characterization of knowledge and truth--one that becomes obvious from looking at the editing history and discussion pages of controversial topics. What is more likely are there are diverse views that experts identify themselves with or put more research and investigation into, and often these diverse views contradict each other, despite the fact that each can be solidly defended, or show things from such radically different perspectives you can't really say they are entirely true or entirely false, they simply make good logical, cogent and coherent sense. Or they are very interesting in and of themselves, for example because of their style, even if they appear logically untrue. Compare, for example, [Hegel] and [Kant] regarding the subject of subjectivity vs. objectivity--is there a majority view on either of these two authors other than that they are very hard to read???. In graduate level classes in academia, you learn a number of these diverse competing views, and you don't decide what is the CORRECT MAJORITY VIEW, you simply learn to understand and appreciate the validity and limitations of each of these views often ones the professor has a big interest in, always keeping in mind that before any of these views gained widespread interest, acceptance or repetition, that when that view first appeared were, it was, in fact, a minority or "tiny minority view" and dismissed by the "experts". The above policy seems to frown upon the value of unique and extremely well put together cogent argument with solid evidence and/or just plain good writing. It seems to instead encourage some sort of vague mushy definitions of things that are supposedly agreed on by a "majority" of "experts" creating just a shallow sense of a subject, again as if it were a binary or discrete system of things of verifiable facts, rather than a rainbow of infinite colors of beauty, which could only be appreciated by looking at the diversity of numerous well written opinions on the subject.

So, given the above critique, I really don't understand how one can say whether the fact that the Board of Education passed a particular resolution that directly related and commented on Lennar, whether the fact of its approval, makes it a "majority" opinion or a "minority" opinion. Also, I believe all the Board approved it, so does that make it a "majority" opinion, or are there other voices--unknown at this time--that must also be counted. Whose opinions on Lennar count or don't count? Do customers opinions count? Do workers opinions count? How about management? Or can we only trust CNN and the New York Times--they are after all the "experts", they can be trusted to "get it right." How is it objectively possible to determine whether it is a majority opinion or not? I don't see it.

To me it's simply a fact about a judgment or conclusion that the Board agreed to and it is RELEVANT to Lennar, it comes from a prominent institution with a substantial amount of power and influence, and it is an undeniable fact that this conclusion was reached. That to me makes it worthy of inclusion. There may be other opinions by other major institutions or entities, experts or the the like, and I welcome those differing, opposing similar or disparate views, without trying to judge them as part of a "majority" or "minority" view. I base it on the quality of the evidence and the quality of the argument put forth in that view and the effect that entity's view has (even if the entity is clearly wrong)...--David Tornheim (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is also discussed on Jehochman's talk page.

In case there is any question, I'm not satisfied with the status quo, where my deleted text remains deleted. Although reasons were given for the deletion, I don't really see any of them as valid or convincing, which I explained in detail here and at Jehochman's talk page. The Board's decision (regardless of whether the Board's opinion is biased or based on false information, reached through questionable processes, etc.) is a documented fact and, for better or for worse, has some affect on the company and people's impression of the company.

I'm stating my dissatisfaction with the status quo of having that text deleted, because according to the rules, during a discussion of opposing views "consensus" is to be reached. Also, according to the policy, the goal is "that all the major participants will agree that their views are presented sympathetically and comprehensively." (quoted from NPOV section). No consensus of the parties has been reached. Assuming I'm a "major player" in the debate about the deletion of the text I added, I do not believe the view/fact I presented is "sympathetically" and definitely not "comprehensively" presented. It has simply been erased ENTIRELY. No compromise has been proposed or offered by those who have deleted the well sourced text other than to leave it deleted--certainly that's not a compromise.

I offer this compromise: I'm not at all opposed to someone with some alternative perspective attempting to incorporate it into the article, hopefully backing up that view with evidence, sources (if available), and good, high quality, concise and to the point writing. That seems like a reasonable solution to me. And of course, that would require that the deleted text be restored. Agreed? [copied from Jehochman's talk page]--David Tornheim (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is STILL AT-ISSUE Three Days have passed and the issue remains unresolved. If I don't hear back, I assume those who deleted the material regarding the San Francisco Board of Education have lost interest and/or do not want to negotiate in good faith. However, I don't know what the deadline for a response is and/or counter-proposal. If there is Wikipedia policy on deadlines regarding responses to disputes, please point me to the code.--David Tornheim (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm preparing some stuff here to expand the article, but today I had other stuff to do. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I struck out the vandalism warning. I misunderstood the rules. I thought the deletion of my well-referenced sentence was vandalism. I felt that the arguments made were superficial and I have discussed at length at the the Lennar site why I continue to believe the statement should be restored. I do not claim "ownership" of the site any more than the company, its employees, customers, competitors, owners, stock-holders, CEOs, legislators, commentators, stock analysts, magazine writers, historians, neighbors, regulators, disinterested parties, etc., etc. do, etc. I do think there are many voices and room should be made for them. I do not understand why factual statements are stricken. I did not write a long diatribe against the company. I simply stated ONE FACT, a fact I think the company wants to hide and CENSOR. (I have no objection to having an alternative interpretation of that fact presented--no alternative has been presented.) Is that what Wikipedia is about, censoring certain truths? Letting CNN and the New York Times decide what is true and what is not? I'll keep my ears open.

As for blocking the company, I agree that's not an acceptable route either. I think they should also have an opportunity for comment. I would like you all to use the PROCESS described in the rules--dispute resolution and consensus forming rather than muffling and censorship. I don't see that happening yet. I look forward to it. It just seems like who ever edited last and has the most power administrative gets the final say. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I know of both these admins that are involved. I assure you their edits are in good faith, and that they have the best interest of the encyclopedia in mind. To be perfectly honest, I don't have any real interest in this article. I try and stay as far away from content disputes as I can. If you haven't noticed, my only edits to this article are reverting vandalism. You misunderstood me on what constitutes vandalism; deleting large swaths of text, without using the edit summary to provide a good reason for doing so (one which pertains to our policies or guidelines) is vandalism. The admins you are referring to are making good faith edits. These editors being admins is completely irrelevant, they are not using their tools to gain an upper hand, their not using their tools at all. Administrators do not any more "power" than you or I. Administrators are more like janitors than anything, their opinion carries no more weight than ours in situations like these. You need to ask for a third opinion, or seek dispute resolution. I think you were given instructions on how to do both, right? If not tell me and I'll help you. Landon1980 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said the edits were "not in good faith". I'm not sure what definition of "good faith edits" Wikipedia uses. If there is one, please point to it. I simply said the factual content is effectively being censored. I don't want to bring in other parties at this point. I believe the Wikipedia process is consensus, and that the PARTIES are to resolve the dispute amongst THEMSELVES first, as in mediation. I would prefer to resolve this with all the INTERESTED parties first. When I asked for a response from Jechochman, what the deadline for responding was he gave me template saying "there are NO Deadlines" and asked me to bring in more parties. Why can't we work this out amongst ourselves? Also giving "no deadline", that seems inappropriate and not a good faith effort to compromise either. No compromise can be reached if one of the parties refuses to respond and states no intention to do so. I think the "no deadline" rule ignores the fact that while one person is waiting, the status quo edit is what is displayed to the public. The last editor has the upper hand in the dispute. Saying no response will be provided says he will retain said advantage in the dispute. He has power to block me, so I wouldn't dare undo his edit while he makes me wait interminably for a good faith response to my request for a consensus compromise. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to claim to be an independent observer here. Full disclosure that Lennar is one of my clients. David is clearly using WikiPedia as a tool to advocated his political agenda with regards to Lennar. David Tornheim is a neighborhood activist opposing Lennar's Hunters Point development and a vocal proponent of the bill the San Francisco Board of Education passed a resolution concerning a proposed development by Lennar in the Hunters Point area of San Francisco.

I applaud David's commitment to what he believes in and his advocacy. I am impressed by his tactics, including trying for historic status for a 12 unit building and trying to block parking permits to prevent the Lennar project. Abrogating the Wikipedia listing about a company to spin it to his own world view, using the wikipedia listing concerning Lennar to advocate his political position and punishing a company who has actually already won a voter initiative to move forward with this project, is blatantly dishonest. Much more dishonest than a Lennar employee attempting to delete ("censor") "facts" they regard as inflammatory and prejudicial. This type of information no more belongs in WikiPedia than blatantly commercial messages from Lennar about their values, their financial data or even the number of house they have build in the last 10 years.

For the record, I have advised Lennar NOT to attempt to make edits to the wikipedia page, although they are more than ready to provide information to any neutral editor who decides to settle this matter.(talk) Jonahstein 22:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)