 :::::Please understand that I am not expressing any of my own (amazingly empiricist) views of the subject matter in what follows, only my views on policy. I hope not to fan flames higher by offering up a contentious but universally accessible parallel: There's a reason why  is cited in the article on Evolution. Now, in this case anyone alive in America knows that this is a significant view, even if scientific consensus rules it false or at least unreasonable. But anecdotally, I can tell you that there is significant questioning of Nonviolent Communication (as a theory and movement) and that Gorsevski's (admittedly poorly written) critique does represent this strand of rarely-surfacing criticism. Since Nonviolent Communication is dismissed as sheer quackery in some other disciplines, it is unsurprising that there are few critiques in print, just as, despite the vast importance in society of the intelligent design debate, the percentage of evolutionary biologists discussing intelligent design (especially in their scholarly works) is vanishingly low. All of this is to say, in response to Rhentworth, that I agree with other editors that academic publication is fine evidence for significance and that we are not in the business of dismissing research that is bad. I agree with you, Rhentworth, that this article is far from the best, and that the countervailing academic community has done poorly in having little expressed the reasons for its dubiousness. However, there are statements like http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/40238203.pdf?acceptTC=true (ironically, a somewhat critical review of the Gorsevski book in question) that attest to the view that Nonviolent Communication, non-violent rhetoric, and non-violence in general are hopelessly utopian (p. 95), quite a different criticism from the narrow ones raised by Gorsevski, and one that is more widely held. Hope this helps!   