Talk:Sterling Institute of Relationship

Comment on progress
Terrific progress on this page. Yowsa! Rorybowman 23:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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).

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

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)
 * ✅ - Removed as unsourced WP:POV violations of WP:OR. Cheers, Cirt 16:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

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)

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

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)

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)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)