Talk:Genius Training Student Workbook

biased as hell, incomplete, should be deleted

This asinine entry is based on a series of articles written about one specific leak of very little of the training manual. Not much is known to the public besides a few specifics which do not give the whole picture of the manual. Incomplete information is not a good basis for an encyclopedia entry...the information here is too ambiguous to warrant the conviction with which this entry describes the subject, and quite possibly misrepresents the subject. Also it's clearly written from an unbiased point of view, similar to many of the cited articles' points of view. It uses language that sheds an unfavorable light on Apple's practices, making inferences based on very scant data, rather than describing the subject in a straightforward, factual way. It's also clearly written by someone who knows little about the subject, based on the original version's claim that every employee gets this training, which is untrue. I don't think this entry should even exist given the little information we know about the training manual, or should at least be changed to be an entry on the leak itself and the small media blitz it received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.17.157 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely. This article is extremelly biased and make some fairly siginificant remarks about the business practices without any useful sources. This page should be deleted until some more substantial information is available to support the page. 203.166.241.193 (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

We could merge whatever bits of info are useful/significant here into Genius Bar instead of entirely deleting it. It doesn't make sense on its own as an article anyway. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)