Talk:Bar examination/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Bar examination. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Arguments against the bar examination should be taken out

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)

The following conversation has just taken place on my talk page regarding the above. I am copying it here so other editors following this article can see what is going on:

Hi fellow idiot

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)

I am taking out arguments for or against the bar examination

No one has responded in the past three weeks on this issue. I am taking out all such arguments. I will eventually formally research this issue although that may be 6 months from now since I am currently in the midst of a complete rewrite of Lawyer (see Talk:Lawyer). If any has an issue with the deletion, please respond below. --Coolcaesar 04:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

So essentially you belive that if *you* haven't researched the issue, it must not be worthy of this page. This also assumes that the current information on this Wiki has not been researched. How about you perform your own research, and if you have something to add, add it. Until then, leave it be, as it's perfectly relevant regardless if it's easy or hard.

You are clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia's official policies. Please review the following policies which the deleted content was in violation of: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia:Verifiability; and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. These policies represent the overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community, have been approved by Jimbo Wales, and are strictly enforced by the vast majority of Wikipedia administrators and editors.

Relevance is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Wikipedia article content. If you are unable to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions (which most lawyers understand by their second year of law school), that could explain why you have an issue with the bar exam. --Coolcaesar 03:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly unfamiliar with the concept of logical argumentation, a skill most people learn by the age of 18. This would explain your lack of detailed analysis of *how* exactly any of those fluid policies (which, I might add, can be edited by anyone at anytime) are being violated. This could explain why you have an issue with the need for inclusion of the materials. I can argue that it conforms to each of these provisions; however, I would rather not waste my time. You are the one that wants to remove content - you should explain exactly why. I strongly suggest you refrain from breeding.

You have no valid argument that your text conforms to Wikipedia policy (at least no argument that would pass the "straight-faced test"), which explains why you are resorting to personal attacks. I did not initially bother to provide concrete examples because (1) my time is probably more valuable than yours, dollar for dollar, and (2) the violations are self-evident.

However, since I find debating anonymous imbeciles on Wikipedia to be a refreshingly entertaining distraction, here are some concrete examples of policy violations:

(1) The text does not contain any citations to materials that have been published by a reputable publisher, in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Assertions about the law controlling the bar examination itself can be verified by reference to the appropriate cases, statutes, regulations, and court rules. Arguments for or against the law need to be verified against the books and published articles in which such arguments have been formally posited. Blogs are not reputable publishers. For an example of a heavily cited article, see my pet article, Roger J. Traynor.

(2) The arguments contain unsupported personal opinion in violation of the Wikipedia:No original research policy and the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" policy (a subset of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). For example, just because some believe that the California Bar Examination is designed to fail people does not mean that the assertion is true. I personally know several people who have failed more than 5 times (and not yet passed), but I do not think that the exam is intentionally designed to fail them in particular; rather, they have failed to demonstrate the ability to write like a lawyer under severe time constraints as required by the exam.

(3) The arguments have numerous unsupported statements, starting with "The bar exam as a qualification for licensure has regularly come under attack." When and from whom? Or, "it has been conceded." I've never heard of the NCBE or any bar association conceding that bar exams elevate answer format over substance (even if some BarBri instructors take that position). Or, "one could argue." Who is one? Or, the phrase "illegitimate some claim." Who is some and when did they make this claim? Or, "there has been pressure." From who and when? And where is this "considerable" criticism of the California bar examination? I've never heard of it (and I regularly read the Daily Journal, ABA Magazine, the State Bar Journal, American Lawyer, and the National Law Journal). As a judge (or my first-year Lawyering Skills instructor) would say, "Counselor, where's your evidence?"

(4) Because the arguments present a distorted, highly personal, and unsupported view of the bar exam, they also violate the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Wikipedia can present both sides of a debate on a controversial issue but must do so in a neutral fashion.

The point is that Wikipedia cannot serve as a blog for any anonymous bozo to come along and post their own personal views; rather, it can only neutrally restate views that have already been asserted in verifiable publications. I am sure any Wikipedia administrator will agree with my analysis of Wikipedia policy. --Coolcaesar 05:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why you are an arrogant hypocrite

Oh my God, it's hilarious how much of a hypocrite you are. Where should I begin? I think the most painfully obvious example of hypocrisy is the statement: "You have no valid argument that your text conforms to Wikipedia policy . . . which explains why you are resorting to personal attacks." Congratulations, you are intelligent enough to at least recognize the logical fallacy of "ad hominem" statements.

Unfortunately, you are not intelligent enough to realize you were the first one to utilize such disingenuous tactics in our discussion. Specifically, you stated: "If you are unable to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions (which most lawyers understand by their second year of law school), that could explain why you have an issue with the bar exam." This first implies I am unable to understand the difference between "necessary and sufficient conditions" which is an insult. Secondly, the addition that "most lawyers understand by their second year of law school" implies that I am below the curve of other law students. (This of course assumes I'm even in law school or have ever been to law school . . . my, my, my . . . why do you assume that only someone related to the legal field must have interest in this subject?) Finally, "that could explain why you have an issue with the bar exam" implies that I most likely do in fact have an issue with the bar exam from the standpoint that I am unable to pass it because I must not be as intelligent as other law students that can at least discern between "necessary" and "sufficient."

Essentially, you have concluded I must be of less-than-average intelligence, at least relative to a law student, and therefore I am merely angry that the bar exam would keep stupid people like me out of the practicing profession. Congratulations, you have successfully insulted me instead of simply looking at the disputed part of the article in a vacuum. Sounds like a personal attack to me, Einstein. And then, to go right ahead after preaching about the evils of personal attacks, you state that you "find debating anonymous imbeciles on Wikipedia to be a refreshingly entertaining distraction." Wow, is that what I think it is? Yes it is! It's another personal attack, in which you call me an imbecile. Congratulations buddy, you are officially a hypocrite!

Of course, still concerning your hypocritical nature, it must be pointed out that you attack the fact that I am anonymous. So I thought to myself - this man (or woman, but that's doubtful by the attitude) must surely be identifiable. Dutifully I clicked on the link for your user page to find out your identify, but what did I find instead of a name and address? I found: "I am a young lawyer. I hold a J.D. from a well-known law school on the West Coast of North America." Well hot damn! That could be anyone! Hypocrisy once again . . . and of course if you are saying that at least you have a pseudo identity, that still means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Hell, my pseudo identity is my IP address which is unique at the time it was used. (Of course, that's assuming I was not going through a proxy.) If anything, based on your posts, you're a private criminal defense attorney that graduated from UCLA and you work in California.

Now, there is one last evidence of hypocrisy that is just too rich. You have gotten on your high horse of "I am holier than thou" by clutching the bible of Wikipedia standards in your hand, thumping it on your chest, and claiming that I clearly am in violation by posting information about abolishing the bar exam. Okay, before I even refute your juvenile notions of logic with respect to those standards, I must point out that there is another Wikipedia standard that expressly contrasts with your actions in the Wiki world. Specifically, I direct your attention to the policy that:

"Wikipedia is not a battleground Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter in an intelligent manner, and engage in polite discussion. If a user acts uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly or intimidatingly towards you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same unto them ("he started it!"). Either respond solely to the factual points brought forward and ignore its objectionable flavouring, or ignore the relevant message entirely. When a conflict continues to bother you or others, adhere to the procedures of dispute resolution."

Since I've already identified your inability to have civil discourse, you are in breach of this policy. Moreover, other critics on your user page have also stated that you are not an agreeable person. As this is the case, you are in clear violation of a Wikipedia policy. Based on your logic, the only way to properly deal with this violation is to remove the source of the offense. That means that you must delete your account and never post to Wikipedia again. And yes, I see the inevitable counter argument - "That's not the same thing! I can reform myself, just like the article can be reformed!" Unfortunately, you seem to think that only *you* can reform the bar exam article after *you* have done the undisputedly relevant and accurate research. This will be elaborated upon soon.

So, you are a hypocrite. However, my use of personal attacks are not hypocritical because I'm not the one whining like a little girl about it. So here's a great personal attack on you which I think needs to be said. We start with the premise that your username consists of the adjective "cool" along with the noun "caesar." While I'm sure you think you're a cool guy, chances are that you have the depth of a mud puddle and the importance of a pair of jeans. Now, let's get to the best part. The dictionary definition of "caesar" states that it was "used as a title and form of address for Roman emperors." Essentially, you suffer from egomania.

To further evidence that point, you state that "my time is probably more valuable than yours." Quite a high opinion of yourself no doubt. You also frequently imply that anyone that does not agree with your viewpoint is inevitably in disagreement because of a lower intellect. Just perusing your user profile, I found in the discussion area a note in which you say: "Whomever our anonymous visitor is, I hope he or she is not licensed to practice in the state of California. If so, it sounds like we need to toughen up our bar exam!" Also, looking at your past edits of the bar exam article, I noticed that you stated: "I doubt that most visitors to this page are interested in reading about bozos who can't pass the bar exam (I just passed on the first try, by the way))." So, anyone that can't pass the bar exam is a bozo. You also have the inexplicable need to state that you passed it on the first try, hammering the point home that you are by no means a bozo.

However, based on the discussion so far, I have done nothing but show how utterly incapable you are with respect to carrying on a logical discussion. And, one last point must be addressed with respect to your obsession with yourself. Let's suppose that you are in the 99th percentile of the world with respect to intelligence. There are 6,500,000,000 people in the world. So, assuming you are are in the 99th percentile, that means that 1% of that population is as smart or smarter than you. Accordingly, that means 65,000,000 people. Congratulations - you rank with sixty-five *million* people with respect to intelligence, making you about as unique as a bowel movement. You are certainly going to change the face of this earth no doubt. Next time you catch yourself staring in the mirror for more than ten minutes, which I assume happens at least once a day, think about that.

Why the material should stay

All right your highness, let's now tackle the most important question here: whether the information pursuant to arguments against the bar exam should be removed. I will of course concede up front that they do not fully satisfy the black letter law of Wikipedia standards. Unfortunately for your limited intellect, you are unable to realize the difference between the "letter" and the "spirit" . . . something most law students understand by the second year. This could explain your irrational desire to remove any offending material as opposed to modifying it in order to bring it into conformity.

Moreover, the only thing that I ever posted was the initial two sentence blurb about it, saying that Professor Solove was making arguments against it. Specifically, the only thing I have ever posted on this article was: "The idea of the bar exam as a qualification for licensure has fallen under attack again. Essentially, the arguments contend that it has no relationship to one's ability to practice law. Professor Daniel J. Solove has brought attention to the bar examination as potentially being nothing more than a wasteful hazing ritual. For more information, see http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/abolish_the_bar.html"

Therefore, I never broke conformity. Undeniably it was neutral, it was verifiable (a law professor from GWU holds significant weight in the realm of acadamia; he even participated in a symposium about the subject), and it was not original, as it came from Solove. I will, however, defend the additional information on the grounds that it should be there, even along with counter arguments as well in the future (as they should be added as well).

So, let's start with the validity of these standards before even delving into them. Our first premise is: what is Wikipedia? It considers itself "the free encyclopedia." Well, based on that, it obviously implies that it is attempting to be an encyclopedia. I don't know if you've ever read a *real* encyclopedia before, but it does not footnote every single assertion of fact. Hell, it does not even cite sources most of the time. If Wikipedia wanted to be "the free law review journal" then it would be a different story. As such, the need to verify every single assertion evaporates. Instead, Wikipedia standards allow for generalized references at the end of the article. Therefore, showing your "heavily cited article" about Traynor doesn't end the discussion; it's simply one acceptable style. You of all people should realize that simply following one style does not necessarily mean other styles must be excluded. Hell, your "Silda Wall" article doesn't cite any single reference - time to delete it I suppose. (See "hypocrite" reference, supra.)

"Complete citations, also called 'references,' are collected at the end of the article under a 'References' heading. Under this heading, list the comprehensive reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one bullet per reference work."

"[T]he most important thing is to provide all the information one would need to identify and find the source. If necessary, put this information in the talk page, or in a comment on the main page, and ask others how to format it correctly for that article."

I will admit that the other authors have not given any reference for the most part to their claims. However, pursuant to the policy that the "talk page" is an appropriate forum for citation, you even admit that "Milton Friedman has made a strong argument against the bar examination in his writings." The next pertinent question - must it be deleted? No. The standards you cling to state: "If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor."

"What follows is a description of Wikipedia's best practices. 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."

Based on that, it seems that deletion is permissive, as opposed to mandatory. (You should realize the difference between 'shall' and 'may' as most second year law students do.) So all we have here is permission to delete the content. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that you "should" delete the content. As you are probably aware, Wikipedia is all about contribution. Thus, verifying content is a function that users can do to otherwise unverified text. Hell, the quote above even says you should provide useful information if you can. This is in stark contrast to your policy of deletion as opposed to biased contribution based on your disdain for the argument. Instead of helping the process by expanding upon your reference to Milton Friedman, you decided to remove the material. Your actions are far from neutral, especially based on your prior statements about the bar exam keeping bozos out of the practice of law. . .

"You can add sources even for material you didn't write if you use a source to verify that material. Adding citations to an article is an excellent way to contribute to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check for organized efforts to do this. Direct quotes, used as a method of easing factual verification, can be provided (in whatever format is agreed on by the main editors of the article) for any statement."

Moreover, you claim that the information is not coming from a "reputable publisher, in violation of" the standards pursuant to verifiability. Funny, when I read it, it stated: "When dispute arises regarding whether a publication is reputable, you can attempt to get more editors involved and work toward a consensus. There is no clear definition, but don't ignore your intuition." No clear definition? Wow, then I guess a "blog" is not explicitly foreclosed. The blog is also posted on the professor's personal law school webpage. Moreover, the consensus is that the references to the blog should stay.

Moreover, if you actually looked at the blog, you would notice it was prompted by an article in the Wall Street Journal. "The recent story in the WSJ that Kathleen Sullivan (law, Stanford) failed the Bar Exam raises anew whether the exam ought to be abolished." Moreover, the NCBE has recently published articles about this subject in recent days. Surely that's reliable even in your all-knowing eyes.

(See generally: http://www.ncbex.org/pubs/articles_set.htm)

1) http://www.ncbex.org/pubs/pdf/2005/740405/740405_Essay.pdf

2) http://www.ncbex.org/pubs/pdf/2005/740205/740205_darrowkleinhaus.pdf

3) http://www.ncbex.org/pubs/pdf/2005/740105/740105_kane.pdf

4) http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05340/618227.stm

5) http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013316.html

You also state that the "not a soapbox" policy applies here. Well that's well and good, but I fail to see how the authors of the material have inserted their own personal beliefs into the matter. Rather, they are merely referring to original sources which have voiced personal belief into the matter. That's like saying a discussion on Hitler could not say "Hitler did not like the Jews" because that would mean the speaker must be adopting this opinion as his own. Faulty logic, once again. Clearly, Wikipedia standards do not like general statements that "some people belive." However, citing these personal beliefs by others is acceptable.

"The need for citations is especially important when writing about the opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to some place where they can be seen or heard expressing that opinion. "

In other words, you are clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia's official policies. Based on the character flaws that I've pointed out, as well as your inability to understand the entire purpose of Wikipedia, along with your aggressive arrogance, I fear for your clients. The fact that you passed the character and fitness investigation is a scary thought with respect to the ability of the committee to accurately screen out real problem cases. That implies that the other side of the coin with respect to licensure, the bar exam, is equally flawed.

Response

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)

Reply

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)

What is the significance of this? This recognizes that there are in fact strong arguments against the bar examination and you are well aware of it. It also implies that you have in fact read the arguments. (I just did a brief look at one of his arguments. From his economist point of view, he implies that rent-seeking is one motivation for the licensure process.)

Also, the status of a movement is not something appropriate for Wikinews. For instance, suppose there was a Wiki article about the Atkins diet. In the "history" section of it, would a timeline of its prominence be inappropriate if it happened to be recently coming back? Of course not, as it's engrained in the concept of a timeline. Here, with the debate against the bar exam, a reference to it coming back is quite appropriate, as the link to Solove's article has the date of 2005. (Of course, a specific reference to 2005 in the Wiki article itself is optimal, which I'll change.)

For the sake of argument, let's suppose you are unfamilar with any other arguments against the bar exam. In the "Verifiability" standard, there is a section entitled: "Checking content" which goes about procedure for any disputes you might have with an article. One of the steps is to try and do your *own* research to see if it's verifiable or not. Specifically:

"4. Use your common sense to work out what other resources would help, and check them. If you can find credible sources that support the statement using these resources, leave it in; otherwise, continue. "

So you haven't even attempted to see if you can find verifiable arguments. If you had simply gone to the NCBE website and seen the recent articles, you'd have seen an article that stated it was from an excerpt from “A Response to the Society of American Law Teachers Statement on the Bar Exam” which was refuting the dispute raised by SALT in 54 JOURNAL OF LEGAL EDUCATION 442–458. Even assuming NCBE was biased for the bar exam, their responses to criticisms would be prima fascia evidence that the criticisms existed. They would have to identify the specific criticisms (listed in the bar exam Wiki article) before refuting them. Hell, the first NCBE article I posted was entitled: "ESSAYS ON OTHER LAWYER LICENSING PROCESSES AND ALTERNATIVES TO THE BAR EXAMINATION." The entire point of the article, in its own words, was to show both sides of the issue.

"In this issue, we have invited essays describing the lawyer licensing processes in a handful of foreign countries and essays on alternatives to or suggestions for improving the bar examination. While there are many criticisms of the bar examination as it is currently administered, there are fewer proposals for other feasible assessment methods, and we are happy to present the views of a number of authors to our readers. The views expressed by each of the authors are not necessarily endorsed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, as our intent was merely to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas."

I'm not even going to get into a viewpoint discussion because it's proven moot by the fact it can be verified as existing views. Therefore, the verifiability issue shows that you failed to take the simple steps to verify the views on your own (which took me about 5 minutes) and that if you had done so, it would have mooted the neutrality and original source complaints. If you don't agree with the arguments against the bar exam, paraphrase some NCBE articles when you have the chance. Until then, these arguments are verifiable (I just did it) and relevant (which you already conceded). Therefore, leave in the article, let others take the references and perhaps turn them into more scholarly footnotes or inline citations.

Compromise

I'll tell you what. I am leaving the decision to put the statements back in the article entirely up to you. (If you were the one that asked for my IP to be blocked, in order to prevent this, know that it didn't work because I can change my IP at will.) In any case, I have the power to revert it once again. You are the only one protesting. We have both presented powerful points, zealously and intelligently. I even put references that verify the information, until it was reverted back this morning. If you are so biased in favor of the bar exam that you cannot assume a stance of neutrality and allow the statements to remain in their imperfect but valid form, then I will personally take it upon myself to rephrase the entire reference to the arguments.

However, I'd prefer not to, as I really just like to create stubs (I created the stub on the Erie Doctrine, which has really blossomed). However, your entire removal of the material removed my original stub about it as well, thereby undoing *my* work. I became very upset about it as I'm sure you have gathered. This was also affected by the way you spoke to me, which I think now was simply a case of mistaken identify.

This article has been edited

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)

I think it concludes it as well. -Anonymous poster

POLL: Archiving quarrelsome discussion

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)

I concur. --Coolcaesar 05:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this most excellent proposal. Erechtheus 01:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)