![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Stuart A. Miller was copied or moved into Lennar Corporation with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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)
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)
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.
I am not going to claim to be an independent observer here. Full disclosure that Lennar is one of my clients.
David Tornheim is clearly using WikiPedia as a tool to advocated his political agenda with regards to Lennar. David is a neighborhood activist with a history of opposing Lennar's Hunters Point development. He was 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. He actually created the fact that his is so enraged has been removed from the article.
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)
http://www.aliotolawoffices.com/hl/articles/031807sfgate.html
http://www.aliotolawoffices.com/hl-mcintyre.html
(unindent) I made the details for all bases except Hunter Point. Need to fill the details of that one and then add the criticism. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I added some sources to the page. I believe he is notable as he presided over the expansion of Lennar Corporation, making it the 3rd largest homebuilder in the USA. In addition, he has made significant charitable contributions including a $100 million donation to the University of Miami. Patapsco913 ( talk) 00:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This article should be restored to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lennar_Corporation&oldid=804343288 A lot of relevant information was cut from it, and because the overall size of the edit was similar to the previous file size is it possible that this massive change was overlooked? Any and all critical information was cut out, and the article is now nothing more than an ugly massive timeline (not formatted correctly) with a bunch of completely irrelevant information that reads like it came straight from Corporate HQ. Nothingbeforeus ( talk) 08:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know where to source this, since not all listed on this are in the acquisitions section, I ended up putting this in the external links section. Let me know if it's okay, or if I should move/remove it. Thought it could be helpful. https://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/efxapi/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHtmlSection1?SectionID=1531671-257659-266328&SessionID=p4FTevrxjHoIHs7
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Stuart A. Miller was copied or moved into Lennar Corporation with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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)
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)
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.
I am not going to claim to be an independent observer here. Full disclosure that Lennar is one of my clients.
David Tornheim is clearly using WikiPedia as a tool to advocated his political agenda with regards to Lennar. David is a neighborhood activist with a history of opposing Lennar's Hunters Point development. He was 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. He actually created the fact that his is so enraged has been removed from the article.
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)
http://www.aliotolawoffices.com/hl/articles/031807sfgate.html
http://www.aliotolawoffices.com/hl-mcintyre.html
(unindent) I made the details for all bases except Hunter Point. Need to fill the details of that one and then add the criticism. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I added some sources to the page. I believe he is notable as he presided over the expansion of Lennar Corporation, making it the 3rd largest homebuilder in the USA. In addition, he has made significant charitable contributions including a $100 million donation to the University of Miami. Patapsco913 ( talk) 00:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This article should be restored to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lennar_Corporation&oldid=804343288 A lot of relevant information was cut from it, and because the overall size of the edit was similar to the previous file size is it possible that this massive change was overlooked? Any and all critical information was cut out, and the article is now nothing more than an ugly massive timeline (not formatted correctly) with a bunch of completely irrelevant information that reads like it came straight from Corporate HQ. Nothingbeforeus ( talk) 08:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know where to source this, since not all listed on this are in the acquisitions section, I ended up putting this in the external links section. Let me know if it's okay, or if I should move/remove it. Thought it could be helpful. https://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/efxapi/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHtmlSection1?SectionID=1531671-257659-266328&SessionID=p4FTevrxjHoIHs7