Talk:Sterling Institute of Relationship

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sterling Institute of Relationship article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Sterling Institute of Relationship appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 April 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that participants in the Sterling Institute of Relationship dance naked in a ritual while being videotaped?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/April.

Wikipedia

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment on progress

Terrific progress on this page. Yowsa! Rorybowman 23:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Note that at this time every single sentence in the article is backed up by (14) citations from reputable secondary sources... Smee 05:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"John Bly meets Est"?

We are told that the program has been described as "John Bly meets Est", but given the program's description, surely Robert Bly is more appropriate. A mistake on the part of MSNBC, or of whoever added the quote to this article? -- 192.250.34.161 15:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a mistake from MSNBC. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
While editing same paragraph, I added an interwiki link to clarify "[sic]" intent (esp. for those not familiar with Robert Bly). — DennisDallas (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied Word-of-Mouth Attendees

Presumably there are reliable sources that can support the assertions that attendees are happy with their experiences and come into the program. Please cite them or remove the paragraph which asserts this. I suspect the statement is true, but should still comply with WP:RS Rorybowman (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Removed as unsourced WP:POV violations of WP:OR. Cheers, Cirt 16:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This Page is not up to "standard"

Having known many individuals involved in some of Sterlings programs and having read this page, I would like to ask editors to do a serious "edit," removing what I see as a very strong, negative bias. This line in particular, "Once a participant is hoodwinked into a tentative agreement..." makes the article deviate from any level of unbiased documentation and eliminates any credibility it may otherwise have. As with any psychological undertaking there will be those that agree and those that disagree. All references appear to be made to "documented" sources without the benefit of thousands of participants to provide a counter-point. Sterling is not for everyone, but it is also not the "cult" this article tries to paint it to be. I am not involved in any way with Sterling or his operation, but have had first-hand experiences which allow me to call "foul" on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.145.249 (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly NPOV

I don't think the statement, "The weekend has benefited many hundreds of participants, who can tell their individual stories of the positive changes resulting in their lives from doing the weekend." should stand as written without citing sources. Msnyder701 (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Msnyder701[reply]

The article in general seems to have POV issues. The selection of quotations from the cited references seems to emphasize the negative, while avoiding positive material from some of those same references. Also, complaints to the FBI are mentioned, based on a 1996 article, but there is no mention of whether the subsequent investigation found evidence of wrongdoing. I have added links to most of the cited articles, so that people can read and assess the references for themselves. I am adding a POV-check tag to encourage consideration of these issues. Palmpilot900 (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing criticism into the section labeled "Coursework" did not seem consistent with neutral point of view, so I moved it to a separate section. Palmpilot900 (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sterling Institute of Relationship/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*14 citations, could use images, perhaps logo... Smee 11:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Last edited at 11:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)