Talk:Hollyhock Retreat

Summarizing list of programs

The list of programs has become quite unwieldy. I propose that i be shortened to a summary of the courses, instead of an exhaustive list. Drawing from a few cited articles, I suggest the following language:

Hollyhock offers programs and workshops in a broad variety of topics, ranging from health, wellness and spirituality to entrepreneurism and leadership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarefoot (talk • contribs) 00:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of edits 05-22-13

Quick explanation here:

First: My edits in the info section read '... on topics including wellness and wisdom practices, arts and culture, business and leadership development[3], relationships, nonviolent communication, Tibetan Buddhism, yoga, holistic health, integrative medicine, kayaking, leadership,[2] and social ventures.[4]'

The edits that ConcernedVancouverite has reverted to read '... on topics including animal communication, relationships, nonviolent communication,[3] spiritual chanting,[3] Tibetan Buddhism, Kabbalah,[4] yoga, morphic resonance, holistic health, integrative medicine, leadership,[2] and social ventures.[5]'

These are fairly similar - I do not see a reference for 'animal communication' anywhere, which was why I removed it. However, the items I added - arts and culture, business and leadership development, kayaking - are all sourced from ref #10, so those should remain.

Second: on the Political section, I find the Hollyhock Mafia/Vancouver City Hollyhock mention a little out of place. There are several sources in which the Hollyhock Mafia/Vancouver City Hollyhock names are mentioned, but out of five, three are newspaper articles that simply mention the fact, and the only two that actually directly apply those names appear to both be the City Caucus blog. Upon further investigation, this appears to be a partisan blog on city politics favourable to the city party currently in opposition to the Mayor's party, thus using this blog as a primary source is inherently biased.

While City Caucus may certainly have valid concerns, I am not sure that the Wikipedia page is the place to air them, or that they are relevant here. Including these as references introduces bias in itself, since City Caucus is the only outlet to actually use the Mafia/City Hollyhock names, and they only represent one side of politics.

Not only this, as City Caucus is a blog (evident from just the front page, which as of 5/22/2013 clearly states that it is a retired blog) as far as I understand, it does not pass Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.

Neither do the Hollyhock Mafia/City Hollyhock names: in fact, reference #10 (a link to a blog post reposting an official Vancouver Sun article) explicitly states that Bloggers have dubbed Cambie and 12th Avenue as "Vancouver City Hollyhock" or the "Hollyhock mafia."

On top of the above, Hollyhock is a retreat, much like the Omega Institute - not a political organization. Mentioning that several City Hall staffers have at some point in their lives had connections to Hollyhock would be akin to saying they had connections to UBC Engineering.

ConcernedVancouverite, I look forward to your response. Mountaincaribou (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted because you deleted a large chunk of cited content. If you would like to modify the initial description to add the various components you are talking about that they feature at Hollyhock that sounds appropriate to do. Both the Vancouver Sun and Globe and Mail have reported on the tight politican connections between Hollyhock, Solomon, and the Vision Vancouver party in cites such as these: [1] and [2] so it seems worthy of mentioning, and does not seem appropriate to remove reliably source content. As we can't delete it, what language change do you propose to it? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. OK, I will revert the list of activities to the combination of your and my lists.

Re the politician connections, I am not convinced that we can't delete it, to be honest. The Globe and Mail simply says 'But he shudders when the two of them are jokingly referred to as part of the Hollyhock mafia around Mr. Robertson', and does not label them that directly. The Vancouver Sun says 'But city hall watchers on websites such as citycaucus. com, founded by Daniel Fontaine, chief of staff to former NPA Mayor Sam Sullivan, have raised concerns about a half dozen or so new hires at city hall having ties to Hollyhock. Bloggers have dubbed Cambie and 12th Avenue as "Vancouver City Hollyhock" or the "Hollyhock mafia."'

The Sun seems clear in stating that bloggers have come up with these terms, and that bloggers have applied them. But the newspapers (which are certainly reliable sources as you say!) have done nothing but comment on the blogs' comments, which are naturally biased, as blogs tend to be! That's why I'm not sure this counts as being worthy of inclusion - i.e. the newspapers have only reported on what bloggers are saying... and bloggers aren't reliable sources. Hence the UBC engineering reference... bloggers could say that too, and newspapers might mention it, but it's not necessarily relevant. would that make sense?

Mountaincaribou (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally the criteria around discussing the notability and appropriateness of including things that happen in blogs and other types of similar sources is that once they are covered in reliable sources (if the blogs themselves are determined to be non-reliable, which is not the case here even) that they are notable. Not that it matters in this case as there is coverage in traditional newspapers, but in this particular case it appears that the blog in question is also categorized as a potentially reliable source on its own even without coverage in other reliable sources. But that would be up for discussion on a reliable sources noticeboard. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, noted on traditional coverage, though I am still not sure that City Caucus can be considered a potentially reliable Wiki source (is there another place where that has been discussed? Where is it considered reliable?)

There is still also the question of bias, since it is a partisan blog. Even though these political links have been reported on by the G&M / Sun, I'm a little uncomfortable with the fact that they literally only come from one, partisan, source, so I feel like we should at the very least acknowledge and clarify that. City Hall is pretty big - is it really that surprising that several people have been to Hollyhock? Mountaincaribou (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

City Caucus has received significant independent reliable source coverage about its importance for Vancouver politics, so it is a reliable source. Yet you are correct that it seems to have a political slant. On the use of potentially biased reliable sources, there is a blurb here Wikipedia:Rs#Biased_or_opinionated_sources you may wish to refer to. What language do you propose to clarify the article? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, busy weekend and spring cleaning. OK, here's what I propose. For political language:

Several holders of political positions, including several Vancouver City Hall staffers, have attended Hollyhock programs in the past. The spectrum of attendees typically includes a wide range of people, from civic leaders and environmental activists to business executives.

For Hollyhock description:

Hollyhock Retreat is a holiday and/or lifelong learning and leadership institute based on Cortes Island, British Columbia, Canada, with a satellite campus in Vancouver. It is renowned for its natural beauty and offers a variety of workshops, classes, and peer learning conferences such as the Social Venture Institute.

Its main Cortes Island location is situated on the sunniest southeastern beach of the island, and offers a range of personal, spiritual, and professional development programs on topics including relationship building, cooking, creative writing, nonviolent communication, kayaking, Buddhism, yoga, holistic health, integrative medicine, business and community leadership, and social ventures. It was created in 1982 on the grounds of the former Cold Mountain Institute.

As a large employer at its campus on a small remote island approximately 100 km from Vancouver, Hollyhock is both appreciated and sometimes held in question by its local community.

All of this would obviously be sourced correctly in the actual article. Mountaincaribou (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A lot of that phrasing sounds promotional in nature, and more like an ad. Also it removes well cited content. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? I pulled it from a bunch of articles that I found while googling, so I thought it was fairly factual. I can tone down the first para of the description though - upon reading again I can see how that sounds promotional, sorry! The second paragraph is pretty much the same as what's there now, with a few additions. And the third paragraph seems to be accurate based on what I've seen (some disgruntled people, some happy people).

How about this for the first para: Hollyhock Retreat is a holiday and/or lifelong learning institute based on Cortes Island, British Columbia, Canada, with a satellite campus in Vancouver. It offers a variety of workshops, classes, and conferences. That seems to fit what is actually offered there.

Which cited content have I removed? I don't have references in the description para right now obviously but as I mentioned I'll add them back in. If you're referring to the political language, as you said the newspapers have noted the tight political links, which seems to be the main point of the section. I'd still cite the same newspapers.Mountaincaribou (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to fully understand what you are proposing without the citations you plan to include included in this discussion. I'd suggest you put the full text you propose here, including citations so we can hopefully reach consensus. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is going to be a bit messy since it's on the talk page, but here goes:

Hollyhock Retreat is a holiday, retreat, and/or lifelong learning institute based on Cortes Island, British Columbia, with a satellite campus in Vancouver. Its main Cortes Island location is situated on the sunniest southeastern beach of the island, and offers a range of personal, spiritual, and professional development programs on topics including relationship building, cooking, creative writing,, nonviolent communication,, kayaking, Buddhism, yoga, holistic health, integrative medicine, business and community leadership, and social ventures. It was created in 1982 on the grounds of the former Cold Mountain Institute. As a large employer at its campus on a small remote island approximately 100 km from Vancouver, Hollyhock is both appreciated and sometimes held in question by its local community.

==Political links==

The CEO is Dana Bass Solomon, and the current volunteer president is her husband, Joel Solomon, who has close ties to Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson. Several holders of political positions, including several Vancouver City Hall staffers, have attended Hollyhock programs in the past. The spectrum of attendees typically includes a wide range of people, from civic leaders and environmental activists to business executives.

==References==

"Hollyhocks mark the spot for peace and serenity"

"Hollyhock retreat: 'Paradise with purpose'", Surrey Now, May 26, 2009.

"Short Trips: Holistic programs work on body and soul", Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 21, 2007.

"What the world needs now... is more of Hollyhock on Cortes Island", Getaway BC, July 13, 2010.

"Spiritual retreats on Vancouver Island respond to life's challenges", Canadian Press, May 12, 2009.

Charlie Smith, "Building Hollyhock’s legacy", Georgia Straight, April 26, 2007.

"Hollyhock retreat offers tool for change, hope and optimism", Canwest News Service, June 26, 2009.

"Joined at the hip: The mutually beneficial relationship of a mayor and his closest adviser", Globe and Mail, December 12, 2008.

How big money drives social change Green philanthropists are striving to turn Metro Vancouver into a sustainable nirvana, Vancouver Sun, August 8, 2010.

Mountaincaribou (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey ConcernedVancouverite - I didn't hear back from you and it's been almost a week, so I went ahead and made the edits. Hopefully they're ok with you too, otherwise happy to discuss further here. Let me know, thanks!Mountaincaribou (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, not ok with it - you removed substantial well sourced content as I expressed above. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you let me know exactly which well sourced content you are referring to? Last time I asked you suggested I post the text, so please specify. I left all the Vancouver Sun and G&M articles in and pretty much everything from the HH description, so please clarify. Thanks! Mountaincaribou (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you both removed cited sources as follows: [3], removed all mentions of the "Hollyhock mafia" term that was used in the media, and removed the content about the city staff connections to Hollyhock as well. These are all from valid reliable sources and are not appropriate to remove. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the one additional citation you had previously added with that other edit so that it is covered in the article. I note in that above mentioned diff you also removed the link to the official webpage and categories for no explained reason, as well as added original research/comments like, "As a large employer at its campus on a small remote island approximately 100 km from Vancouver, Hollyhock is both appreciated and sometimes held in question by its local community." that was not attributed to a source at all. That is not how Wikipedia works. Please review WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's deal with each paragraph at a time.

On the content of Hollyhock paragraph: There is no Kabbalah workshop nor animal communication as far as I can see, so I don't know what is wrong with the 'content' paragraph I proposed.

Political links paragraph: I did not remove the content about the city staff connections. I had a sentence reading: 'Several holders of political positions, including several Vancouver City Hall staffers, have attended Hollyhock programs in the past.' What is wrong with this?

Secondly, I don't see how your additions are relevant. Also, they again come from a blog. Wiki's WP:BLP article specifically states Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). The 'mafia' quote refers to living people, so I don't think this is appropriate. I also don't see anything stating that City Caucus is a reliable source. In fact, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Vancouver_Observer for a note from another editor saying he doesn't trust the impartiality of the blog.

I'm also a little concerned by why you are adding more info about the political links. It makes it seem like you are purposely trying to show as much of a link as possible... Mountaincaribou (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You have questioned if it was reported in reliable sources, so I've gone ahead and added more reliable sourcing for the claims. Once a major paper reports on activities (even on blogs) they become reliably sourced as it has been reported about. In terms of removing citations, you removed reliably sourced content. Some blogs are in fact determined to be reliable sources. That blog has been reported on as being a source, even if it is one that has a political angle it is still considered a valid source for Wiki as discussed earlier. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I remind you again of this Wikipedia:Rs#Biased_or_opinionated_sources where it states, "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." If you propose some well cited reliable source counter view to it, that may be the way for you to address your concern. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me a citation on Wiki for blogs becoming reliable sources after being reported about? Not that I don't believe you but would like to read it for myself. :) Also, did you get a chance look at the other editor's opinion? And/or the comment re: living people and not to use blogs?

Also, that only addresses the political links section. In the content section, you also removed things I had cited and reworded the paragraph - 'held in question' sentence aside - when you only needed to restore the 'animal communication' and 'Kabbalah' links in your edit. As for those, the article covers programs that Hollyhock 'offers' - present tense. It does not currently offer Kabbalah or animal communication etc., so I don't think that's accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountaincaribou (talk • contribs) 02:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In response to your question, please read the above links provided which give you the section to read you are requesting. In terms of removing content you added, when a single edit is reverted due to an issue with it the whole edit is reverted. I had gone back and re-added the source you had added (even though it may not be a reliable source). I also have now, since you keep requesting removal of content, added additional reliable source citations for that first paragraph, including an article in the New York Times. If you want to expand the section with additional reliable source citations that would be most helpful. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you asked me to post my proposed edits here before making them in the main page, which I did, and then made the edits because you didn't respond. You could at least do the same. I've reverted to your last version (before my edits), just as you reverted mine. We can leave it at that while we discuss.

I've read the above links and while that is fine concerning biased sources, that doesn't indicate to me that City Caucus is a reliable source. It reads like an attack blog to me, so clearly we have a difference of opinion. And in any case, at the bottom of that page it states Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. It also says self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. So I don't know how you can continue to claim City Caucus is fine in this regard.

Lastly, concerning your edits themselves, it's a little concerning to me that you seem to be going out of your way to frame Hollyhock as a 'new age' retreat (with articles from 1997?!) and to point out every conceivable link to the Mayor. It seems to indicate an ulterior motive at the very least on your part. As I said, Hollyhock is similar to the Omega Institute and so I don't see why we can't phrase it similarly. And a mention of the political links is certainly warranted, but the 'mafia' stuff (in addition to the problems with citing City Caucus) is irrelevant to the actual article. Mountaincaribou (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that what you have just reverted contains numerous cites to well established reliable sources. What I reverted had no such cites. Removing well cited sources is not acceptable - particularly when such edits seem to have a specific intention to clean up an image of the subject. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not the point. The point is that you asked me to post my proposed text for discussion, which I did. I understand that you reverted to discuss further, and that's also fine. Similarly, you should not have made the edits before posting here on the talk page for discussion. That is why I reverted. I could add a zillion links too and accuse you of vandalism, but that's not the case.

You have not answered any of my points above.

I disagree that City Caucus is a reliable source, but you keep insisting that it is. I'm not trying to clean it up - I agree that political links are important and should be mentioned, but right now it reads like you are trying to prove a point. I didn't realize 'cleaning up' bias was a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountaincaribou (talk • contribs) 02:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "cleaning up" bias is a problem if it removes one side of a potentially controversial discussion. Wikipedia must present both sides as neutrally as possible from reliable sources. Deleting numerous reliable sources to highlight one view of a subject is definitely not appropriate behaviour. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no 'both sides' here, I never said that the political links shouldn't be included. My beef was with the 'hollyhock mafia' thing and as per below it appears I'm not the only one that thinks so. I'm fine with it as it is now, and none of my proposals were highlighting 'one view'.

Your list of courses offered at Hollyhock ('at one time' including far into the past), however, is too specific and seems purposely intended to paint a particular picture of HH. I suggest you neutralize it so it is more in line with Wikipedia entries for other similar places. Mountaincaribou (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I propose the removal of "Hollyhock mafia" from the Political links section. This seems like a classic example of Wikipedia:DUE#Undue_weightUndue weight, and does not merit inclusion. Unless we can demonstrate through reliable news sources that this viewpoint is held by more than a "an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" (I quote from the Undue weight section linked above), it shouldn't be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarefoot (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This proposed change which you made with this edit: [4] seems to resolve the issue while maintaining neutrality. Thank you for cleaning up the issue and representing both sides of it while retaining reliable sourcing. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed followup, things have been busy. Two issues of note: - The list of past/historical courses is irrelevant and not important to the entry. No other retreat page has a list of courses that the retreat may have ever offered at one time in the past. Including a list of every single course ever offered and then adding the words 'new age' to the retreat description makes it seem like you're trying to use the list of courses to paint a particular picture of the place. - We don't need 6 sources stating that there are connections to Gregor or that Dana Bass Solomon is the CEO or that Joel Solomon is the President(among other examples). 1-2 will suffice especially if they are reliable sources, which they are - but you have cited at least 4-6. As it stands it looks very unprofessional. If you wouldn't mind cleaning it up it would be great, otherwise I'll have a go at it later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountaincaribou (talk • contribs) 15:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Past and present programming gives a flavour to the reader of what the retreat offers. I disagree with censoring it as you suggest as it is reliably sourced. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, please stop using scare tactics such as labeling a suggestion 'censoring'. That is not the case. Secondly, you have specifically picked programming that paints the retreat a certain way, which does not represent what it presently is. Thirdly, you have labeled it a new-age retreat, but that is sourced from the Georgia Straight in 1996 - again that is out of date and does not necessarily reflect the situation today. Thus it is inappropriate as it is essentially being used to introduce your own personal opinion into the situation.Mountaincaribou (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Apparently your original research about what Hollyhock is and isn't is different than what cited sources say. As such, due to your great concern about the date of the original citation I have added additional more current citations that continue to refer to the retreat as new-age. Wikipedia is built upon reliable sourcing and not independent opinion. Please stick to what is cited in independent third party reliable sources as opposed to your own personal viewpoint. Thank you! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

move article?

Currently article titled "Hollyhock Retreat", but article starts with "Hollyhock Lifelong Learning Centre". (also, no external links section with link to Hollyhock Retreat and/or Centre) I was wondering if article should be moved to "Hollyhock Lifelong Learning Centre", BUT their website seems to be https://hollyhock.ca/ and the website seems to refer to themselves as just "Hollyhock" (they shortened name at some point?) --EarthFurst (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and "Discussion of edits 05-22-13" section above seems to have concluded in 2013. Move to Talk:Hollyhock_Retreat/Archive_1 ? --EarthFurst (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)