Talk:The Teaching Company

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Full list of teachers[edit]

I've compiled a full wikified list of TTC professors (that had courses in print as of May 7, 2006), but only put those into the article that already have articles. What follows is the full list for future reference and/or incorporation. Sandstein 15:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


List of courses[edit]

I have a list of courses, but i am not sure if this should be incorporated. it is 280 courses or so....-- ExpImptalkcon 00:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest not. WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information or a duplicate of the company's website; plus the individual courses are hardly notable enough for their own articles. Sandstein 04:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The list will change all the time - TTC is better staffed to maintain such a database at their website. Of course, any course that has its own Wikipedia article could be listed -- some of these courses have transcripts longer than books - but that's a different question - since they are mostly survey style courses I'm not sure they would qualify as being notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but a few may. -- Stbalbach 15:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Here is the full list as of 20 April 2007, so that it's on file.

I agree that TTC should handle the list.

Courses Offered[edit]

--Seakintruth 17:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the course list from the article. The company is offering new courses every month and they have a web site which lists them - there is no reasons to repeat that list here, which will soon be out of date anyway. In fact the list of teachers should be converted into a category, and the list from the article removed as well.. it's on my list of things to do. -- Stbalbach 14:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are discontinued courses, I thinking keeping them might be more beneficial from a reader's point of view. But the teacher's list seems to be unnecessary and keeping it looks like promotional than that of encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.98.249.63 (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of instructors[edit]

Please note that Category:Instructors of The Teaching Company was deleted per this CFD discussion. If any editor should desire to restore the list of teachers to this article (it was removed on October 13), it is available here and in previous revisions. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author Link[edit]

The link to Arnold Weinstein is incorrect-it refers to another person (for example, Prof Weinstein isn't dead):http://research.brown.edu/pdf/10055.pdfDehughes (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)DEHughes July 10, 2008)[reply]

"Constitutional constraints"[edit]

"He initially tried to create a government program to produce tapes for the public, but due to Constitutional constraints was not able to." Huh? SOme clarification is probably a good idea, here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.246.4 (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked this up in the Kate Bales article and found the reference. I reworded it and clarified it in a footnote. --CaritasUbi (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References inlined[edit]

I matched up a number of reference to inline citations (and added a few new references). For that reason, I think it was OK to remove the {{No footnotes|date=April 2009}} tag.

--CaritasUbi (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV - Criticism section[edit]

While this section is well written and presents a consistent point of view, it is nonetheless a formulation of opinion, not an objective presentation of material suitable for an encyclopedia (see WP:NOT#OR). It does not cite, for example, criticisms published in reliable third-party sources, rather, it expresses the author's own criticism. As such, it violates a number of Wikipedia policies:

In particular:

  1. the overall direction of the company could be characterized as Eurocentric and patriarchal - the weasel words here are "could be characterized". "Has been characterized" would lend itself to citations of sources; otherwise it is the author's characterization (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words)
  2. Nearly all of the courses, even those dealing with non-white history, are taught by white men - completely unsupported by references. Where is the gender and color of the teachers described?
  3. taught almost exclusively by men of European descent - again, what citations are provided about either the gender or ethnicity of the teachers? You can't just infer it from their names (I know men named Beverly or Evelyn and women named Michael or George). Nor is ethnicity established simply by looking at the person's name or photograph.
  4. The neutrality is questionable because it is a set of conclusions drawn from the author's own opinions (none of which provide objectively verifiable references), essentially a criticism of the company's political correctness rather than facts about its offerings.

From the Wikipedia policy page on Neutral point of view:

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

It is possible to criticize cultural bias in an objective way - see for example the Wikipedia article on Political Correctness, but again, only by citing reliable sources for statements presenting the criticism.

I do not dispute the coherence of the argument (although I think it makes some sweeping generalizations), but I think , this whole section is essentially an editorial. According to the Wikipedia policy guidelines stated above, it does not belong on Wikipedia. --CaritasUbi (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current critiscism section reads like an outtake of the Republican party. It relies almost wholly on a city journal article as well, without bothering to mention the incredible right wing bias of this publication. While using biased right wing sources to praise it for its “lack of bias”, that clearly mention the companies predominate concern with European history and praising the censorship of professors for failing to cater to rightist biases, it is also apparently forbidden to mention that it is eurocentric and right leaning. This is typical of rightist thinking, they somehow believe that they are without bias and do not acknowledge their own biases while castigating everyone else as biased.2601:140:8900:1765:1081:E838:7904:D3A8 (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to "see also"?[edit]

I'm wondering if anyone out there knows of any other companies that exist that do this on a comparable same scale, with likewise comparable quality. Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 08:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Modern Scholar [1], which doesn't currently have an article, is the only equivalent I know of. --Pmsyyz (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Khan Academy and iTunesU come to mind as similar, but The Modern Scholar is the only other company of which I am aware. Senator2029 | talk | contribs 13:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two I can think of off the top of my head are MIT's OpenCourseWare [2] and Yale's Open Yale Courses ([3], both of which feature educational content in the same vein as TGC, but with one difference: OCW has the following disclaimer in audio form while the title of the course and lecture are displayed, read either by a male or female voice:"The following content is provided under a Creative Commons license. Your support will help MIT OpenCourseWare continue to offer high-quality educational resources for free. To make a donation, or to view additional materials from hundreds of MIT courses, visit MIT OpenCourseWare at https://ocw.mit.edu" while both OYC and TGC have no disclaimer before each lecture. Also, another difference between the three is that, while you can freely download audio and/or video versions of the lectures from the latter two, in order to be able to download either audio or video from TGC you have to buy the course and the appropiate lectures (in either video or audio format) will be available on the "My Digital Library" section of the website when you login. I wholeheartedly recommend you do that now in order to take advantage of the holiday season pricing, which ends in 19 hours and 36 minutes. For example, today the deal is for the course titled "Renaissance: The Transformation of the West" with prices as low as $34.95 for the audio download, $44.95 each for either the video download or the CD version, in the latter case including shipping and handling and $59.95 for the DVD version, again including shipping and handling. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of professors[edit]

Copied from User talk:Sandstein

I somewhat agree with your choice to remove the list. Please understand that it took me some time to create it. I had not realized that it would have been that long; my sense is that a shorter list might have been more acceptable, and it bothered me when it came out so long. But I was wondering perhaps a stand-alone article for these courses, but not just for The Great Courses -- there are competitors now such as the Modern Scholar series. Wikipedia has all kinds of lists. What about a list of online courses, sortable by professors last name, teaching affiliation, course title, subject area, company. I myself would find that kind of information useful; I use material that I come across in these courses to help improve Wikipedia. Wondering what you think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your understanding. I agree that a sortable List of online courses would be a great resource, and your table would be a good basis for starting it (although it would need wikification, of course).  Sandstein  07:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. And wikification -- meaning wiki-links to professors' articles and such? So I am wondering how to do this so it passes muster and doesn't get deleted. Title of article, as you suggested, List of online courses. Or should it be courses on CD audio (or DVD); what fields should there be to make it most useful -- possibly these (1) course title (2) professor last name (3) prof first name (4) company (ie TTC or Modern Scholar or whatever) (5) subject area -- any other possible fields? Possibly format (ie online, DVD, CD-audio, tape etc). Possibly year of publication? Or is this too many fields. I haven't looked yet to see whether Wikipedia already has any such list. What I would love to have would be some kind of indicator saying which ones people found the best -- but I suppose we'd have to keep that out; but that's what I'd like to know. I've gone through a great many of the Teaching Co. courses, and know which ones I liked the best; I'm working my way through the Modern Scholar series. What's amazing is how new courses keep springing up faster than I can plow through them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, the relevant criteria are at WP:SALAT, and they don't seem to exclude such lists, although depending on the exact scope the list may be contested. It's important that the list delineates its inclusion criteria in the lead paragraph. I recommend including only one field for first and last name, to allow wikilinking the names; there are templates that allow sorting by last name. There may be examples in Wikipedia:Featured lists.  Sandstein  06:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also see WP:LISTN: I assume the topic of online education as such is notable.  Sandstein  06:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This long "partial" list of notable instructors doesn't seem encyclopaedic to me. Perhaps it can be moved to a category for those pages or a stand-alone list page? Tayste (edits) 19:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Q: I have started buying used/second-hand courses and I would like to know the list of discontinued courses. Unfortunately, that list is not available on The Great Courses website and I was unsuccessful at finding one via a quick search on Google. My gut feeling is that another wikipage should be created using a "List of..." template. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states as an example. Does anyone have an opinion? Kuujuak 20 Dec 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 07:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I favor having a list of courses. I did a list a while back of courses on DVD and CDs but it got erased since it somewhat overburdened this article; maybe a separate list article would be appropriate? I think my list was only Great Courses, not Modern Scholar, but maybe a sortable list (sortable by company, topic, author, date) would be useful all around, including perhaps discontinued courses too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disfavor, even as a list article. Such a list becomes WP:NOTDIRECTORY and based purely on what Teaching Company provides (WP:SPS and primary source). Then, to find discontinued courses, we'd be looking at WorldCat (for example, the 94 items found at [4] or the 53,000 listings for "Teaching Company" on Amazon) to see who has or who is selling what. Better to stick with the general description of what courses are available, and leave the searches for individual courses to readers – on their own. – S. Rich (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's more to it. Increasingly, college courses on DVD and CD, online too, will serve as references for so many other articles here at Wikipedia, so it might help users find more information if they could see easily what sources were available (without having to exit Wikipedia). A trend favors the opening up of information -- sooner or later, these courses may be searchable online with text references -- and if this happens, this list would facilitate rapid checking of information, and would be helpful to clarify, resolve disputes, etc. Last, 53,000 listings? No way there are that many Teaching Company or Modern Scholar courses. More like several hundred, easily put into Wikipedia; if a list becomes too long, it can be handled by subdividing the list. What I think should happen is the list have multiple companies, not just TC or MS but as many sources as there are, by topic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opps, I did not mean to suggest there were 53k different titles. Only that the Amazon Teaching Company seach came up with 53k. In any event, we do not/should not list publishers' outputs or university catalogs/course schedules in articles. (Sorry, the WP:NOTCATALOG policy would have been clearer.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link to the policy but I still feel it is not as straightforward as you think. It wouldn't be a course catalog, per se, since the courses would not be from only one company (ie Teaching Co or Mod.Scholar or others). It would be helpful to me (I'm a big fan of these courses) when I research, plus to others researching here, plus (in my view) it's directly related to the informational nature of this encyclopedia. Someone wants to know about world literature -- enlightenment, romantic, realism, modernism, postmodernism -- what courses are there out there on this subject? Could be helpful. Plus the policy is a matter of judgment (like everything here): consider List of courses and colleges affiliated with GGSIPU or List of colleges and universities in North Carolina or List of university hospitals. In a sortable table, it could be particularly useful -- all courses about Dadaism, for example, or all courses covering history during the 19th century, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As this article is about TGC provided by the one company (TTC), I saw the question as brought up in a narrow sense. And per the policy cited, we can't go and list their various courses either past or present. Developing a Modern Scholar article might be worthwhile too, but we could not go and start listing their courses. Nor can we go about listing all of the various courses available via ITunes#iTunes U. The list of "courses" at GGSIPU is not quite accurate -- it has a list of "programs" available. But even that article is problematic when it treads into catalog territory. The next problem we face is in developing list articles that show various single courses that might be offered by multiple universities in off-campus environments. Do we start listing physics courses provided by TTC, MS, iTunes U, and perhaps hundreds of other university extensions or correspondence course providers? Egad, no. We also see a List of virtual schools; but this article does not and should not contain listings of the individual courses. Again, for the same policy reason cited. – S. Rich (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Q: What is the name of the musical piece that The Teaching Company and The Great Courses use as intro music? It sounds like it's Classical and it might be a famous work. I have been trying to Google this and the answer isn't there. Also, I think this intro music is only on the CDs because the YouTube video lectures use different music. Ibnsina786 (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC) I found the answer to this. The piece is Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 2 Ibnsina786 (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Great Courses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog is gutting this article[edit]

Here is what I wrote on Jytdog's page after he gutted this article, and then reverted my partial restoration: Hey it's one thing to rightfully call out spam, and delete dubious references such as those to the Teaching Company's website. But gutting an article by rather wantonly stripping out half of the content, and removing correct and useful information that has been put there by the many Wikipedian contributors who appreciate the excellent Great Courses series -- I am one of them -- your act is borderline vandalism. The list of types of courses and teachers (many of whom have articles in Wikipedia -- they are excellent teachers generally) is valuable information for pretty much everybody. Instead of gutting an article, why not add a tag saying more sources are needed? Then, when I attempted to restore some of the deleted non-promotional content, you reverted my restoration which is edit warring. You're going to have to learn a lesson here, that there are other contributors to this encyclopedia, and they may have viewpoints that differ from yours, and you, acting unilaterally, can get you in trouble with the Wikipedia community.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Gutting" is relevant in the context of nominating a page for deletion which I have no intention of doing.
This article was full of PROMO and unverified content; signs of conflicted or advocacy editing. I would have no objection to there being more high quality, well sourced content in this article, and I left what was good and even added some - the City Journal ref is just the kind of source a WP article can be built from and it wasn't used at all. All we do here is summarize high quality sources. Please act as a WP editor, not an author creating content here that doesn't exist elsewhere, or just copying from the company website. Per WP:PROMO WP is not a proxy for a company website. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Getting rid of promotional content is a good thing but you're going hogwild here with your deletions. What you may not understand how many Wikipedians appreciate The Great Courses for their superb content, and we often refer to TC content as references for all kinds of subjects. The teachers are outstanding: great lecturers, top researchers, experts in their field -- why did you DELETE the entire list of TC teachers? This list has been built up over years by many Wikipedians who've done their courses, and is not promotional content. And I hardly think that it's promotional content to simply list what course fields are offered (eg, economics, history etc). It's what they do. This article is not all about selling, and treating the TC as if it was just another business selling widgets is truly unfair. Keep the list of courses and teachers; tag the sections as needing further references; keep the references to the TC website out; but Wikipedians and others count on this article for valuable information which does play a part in building Wikipedia. I've often cited TC courses in articles I've written.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is drama. If you want to build the encyclopedia please follow WP:BURDEN and find reliable sources for the content, check the content against them, and then restore what complies with the policies and guidelines. I notice from the discussion above that you have been swimming upstream against consensus on the list of professors. I am only the most recent to disagree with you on that. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are blind if you cannot see the incredible political bias in that city journal article. You may as well be citing The Daily Worker, The Daily Stormer, or Breitbart.2601:140:8900:1765:1081:E838:7904:D3A8 (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC -- Course categories and professor names[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Their is no consensus apparent in this discussion and almost 45 days after the last !vote, none is likely to develop with further time. No consensus usually results in ...retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. In this case, the issue was first raised here after Jytdog boldly removed many courses and teachers. The lack of clarity in the responses may be due to lack of clarity in the original RfC, which asks both about courses and about individual teachers in a single question. There is a possible rough consensus that the first type of content is useful and the second promotional but the normal editing cycle should be able to determine if such a rough consensus is widely-shared. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article include course types (economics, history etc) and names of professors?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Course categories are these: business, economics, fine arts, music, ancient and medieval history, modern history, literature and English language, philosophy and intellectual history, religion, science, mathematics, social sciences, professional development and better living. Professor names can be found on here on this older version.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Course categories and professor names are inherently non-promotional in nature, and the information is a nuisance to reference individually and is more accurately referenced using the company's website. Further, the information is important for Wikipedia contributors working on related articles such as ones about Teaching Company professors -- there are dozens. And not including the courses and professors skews the article into something that really doesn't make much sense such as this gutted version.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
well, seems like a lot of name-dropping which is a form of promotion. But the real question is - what are the sources for this? No sources have been brought much less discussed, in any of the discussions on the talk page above about the list of professors, nor even here. Content about the categories is a new discussion but the same thing applies. Everything in WP starts with sources; it is not just about what people "like" or what they want. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the (notable) professor names and broad course categories are useful. Primary sources like the company website are fine for this. Sandstein 21:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
user:Sandstein, an article dominated content-wise by self-sourced content is no longer an encyclopedia article but is rather a proxy for the company's website. That violates pretty much every content policy we have outside of raw V. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a service to readers who want to read about particular notable professors. They can't do that on the company's website. Sandstein 22:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing a person's name in a list is not reading about them; what an odd thing to say. Perhaps we are not talking about the same content. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Sandstein. Listing faculty, especially notable faculty, of a learning institution is not promotional but simply informative. The institution itself is a definitive source for who it hires and who teaches and is so an acceptable use of a primary source. If the list here is too long and violates weight it can be shortened and presented as a sample of the teaching faculty.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
This company is not an "institution" and none of these people are employees. It is a for-profit company that pays people to lecture. It apparently has a big fan base here in WP. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
People are employed and are employees especially if they are paid. Do you think university professors aren't paid to lecture? Do you think universities, for example, aren't for-pay institutions? And yes this is an institution. You may be defining institution in a way specific to your opinion or experience. To reiterate, listing employees whether they are long term, tenured, adjunct or hired lecturers is information that is important to an article about that institution. And why would anyone assume that because someone doesn't agree with him or her position that they are part of a fan base. As well, I believe you are confusing non-negative content or content that might be positive with deliberately promotional content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
No. There is significant distinction in law and reality between an independent contractor and an employee. You have just written speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog you have three editors here disagreeing with you. Describing my or any editor's comment as bull shit is personal attack. You can't win an argument by calling people names or labeling their comments in this way.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
No, saying that what you wrote is bullshit is not a personal attack. And the RfC just started and I look forward to comments from others, which is of course the purpose. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on, and by this I mean your behaviour and I'll see what the community has to say.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Littleolive oil, no more than the photographer, florist, and DJ at your wedding are your employees, or the kid you paid to mow your lawn. If you sent them a W-2 form on January 31, detailing how much you withheld from their pay all year for Social Security, Federal and state tax, then they are your employees. Oversimplified, of course, but close enough. Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No sources provided, much less any independent ones for any of the proposed content.
Dealing with hypothetical sources... sourcing the professor list from the company website alone would be WP:UNDUE weight to content that amounts to promotional name-dropping listcruft/fancruft. I could see the categories being source-able from something independent, but no sources have been proposed for that either.
But the RfC is a nonstarter and am surprised to see any support for it. (!voting now since this has been made into an actual RfC) Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summarize - I'm thinking yes and no -- that general nature should be stated but not a lengthy list. This means a mix - restore the "Courses" section with categories of courses, but change the Partial list of Notable Instructors to a summary statement, something about prominent instructors chosen from major universities. Markbassett (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The primary source is appropriate for a list of contributors - whether they are employees or not - and is common practice for other articles to list people associated with the company. E.g., many company pages list "notable former employees". It isn't promotional to write "Michael Shermer has produced two courses for the company" any more than it is promotional to write "Issac Asimov contributed to The Astounding Science Fiction Anthology" - which that article includes. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Oppose - (invited randomly by a bot) We should not be creating a catalog of products offered by this business. I think a list of course categories and half a dozen of the most notable lecturers would be sufficient. Jojalozzo (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support with conditions: A. There would definitely have to be supporting material for everything mentioned; secondary sources would be great but primary sources are acceptable here, in which case the text should read something like, "The company lists among its contributors so-and-so". B. No complete or extensive lists; just mention some of the titles of the main courses, along with the names of teaching persons. No more than half a dozen each would do. That's one small paragraph, since I agree that we should not be offering a catalogue of the services or the products of a business. -The Gnome (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Teaching_Company&oldid=1193215282"