Talk:Toastmasters International

.

Gutted article!!! (2)

@JzG: Can you give me more info about what your issue is with this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toastmasters_International&diff=886680418&oldid=886670911 ? Is it the first part or the second part (or both) that you have a problem with? They both have citations. I would like to re-add a section about Distinguished Toastmaster (DTM) as I originally stumbled upon this page from a link to -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toastmasters_International#Distinguished_Toastmaster however that section no longer exists (since you removed it a while back). It seems there are a few places linking to it, so can you give me more info as to what would be ok to add to define what it is? I think it doesn't get any more plain than "The Distinguished Toastmaster (DTM) award is the highest educational award given out by Toastmasters International." User9342 (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Toastmasters leadership claim discussion

@JzG: What is your problem with this one word edit of adding "leadership" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toastmasters_International&diff=886670480&oldid=882127460 ? At the bottom of the page, this article is already categorized under "Leadership training", so I don't understand what your problem with this statement is. That is what Toastmasters does. Do you need a citation or something? User9342 (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a meaningless marketing claim. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Are you trying to say that Toastmasters International doesn't provide leadership education and you want more evidence to prove this? Or are you saying that leadership education in general is a meaningless marketing claim and that no Wikipedia page should state that? User9342 (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I am saying that the claim that they provide "leadership training" is a self-serving promotional claim with no objective meaning and no source that does not track right back to their own PR. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Before I actually received leadership training, I actually thought similarly. After I received leadership training, I realized that this certainly is a clear area that one can receive training on. Toastmasters International does provide this training, including printed manuals and exercises on the topic. There are other articles as well, such as for the Boy Scouts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_(Scouting) that also claim Scouts learn leadership through the program (and I would agree as well). Do you think the claims on leadership programs should be removed from that article also? Is this a better citation for you "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Assertiveness" By Jeff Davidson published by Penguin in 1997 page 125 - "The leadership skills you can acquire in Toastmasters can increase your potential as an executive or manager" "you can obtain leadership training and experience" "you can become part of Toastmasters' Advanced Communication and Leadership Program, which consists of more challenging assignments that you complete" Would you say this is better evidence to support this statement? Thanks User9342 (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. Your personal belief based on your personal involvement with a company is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Numerous organisations claim to provide "leadership training". Very few are accounted to do so by reliable independent secondary sources. It is a marketing claim, and one with no objective definition. Guy (Help!) 04:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: I've cited a very clear reliable source (a book published in 1997) in my comment above. What is wrong with that source? Why is it indisputable that Toastmasters International provides public speaking training, but you believe it is disputable that they provide leadership training? That is the part I do not understand. It seems you believe leadership training is more of a PR claim rather than a clear field of study with an objective definition? Is that what your main issue is here? The study of leadership is a lot more well-defined than I think you believe. There are university programs with clear curriculums based on the study of leadership. The Toastmasters High Performance Leadership manual material overlaps with university-based leadership curriculums. User9342 (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. This firm is about public speaking. Leave it at that, regardless of your devotion to them. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: I asked someone else about what they thought of our discussion. One important point of confusion I just want to clarify is that I'm not trying to say Toastmasters promotes leadership skills simply because they promote public speaking skills (I can understand why you might have thought this is a promotional claim if that was the case). They have separate leadership programs/activities/education that are separate from the public speaking training. Examples: High Performance Leadership program, Leadership Development path, Dynamic Leadership path, and many more. Those programs focus on leadership. I'm not saying they promote leadership solely because they have public speaking programs. I'm saying it because they have a distinct leadership curriculum. Does that help clarify my viewpoint?

The organization has been about both public speaking and leadership since it was incorporated. I still don't understand your point of view as to why you are so against stating they promote leadership skills when the article is already in the category "leadership training". The book I previously cited is a reliable independent source (it is not based on Toastmasters PR material) and Toastmasters clearly publishes leadership education materials (as they have since their incorporation). Leadership was mentioned in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article for a very long time all the way back to 2005 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toastmasters_International&oldid=25440316 . It is indisputably true (and is one of the main focuses of the organization) and if you are still not convinced, unless you have a good reason as to why they actually do not promote leadership skills, I think we should ask a neutral third party to provide their opinion. User9342 (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The organization may claim to be about leadership, but it's actually about public speaking. And this article has a looooooong history of eing abused as a PR platform for primary-sourced PR claims with no independent scrutiny. For comparison, my son has just completed a course of study at a place that is genuinely known for leadership training. The two are chalk and cheese. The bullshit "leadership" that you get from small commercial organisations like this is not actual leadership training, it's just basic self-confidence. And yes, that's my WP:OR, so I don't include it, but you get the point: your personal belief is no more valid than mine, and there is no robust body of sourcing that makes this claim (in fact most reliable independent sources entirely ignore Toastmasters). Guy (Help!) 04:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Personally being a member of TM, I can see the problems of sourcing anything related to the organization on here. I applaud you, JzG, for gutting all of the PR sentences and keeping this article as NPOV as possible. I see a lot of government programs using TM as a means of leadership along with public speaking but that's also my original research to share. Just wanted to comment to acknowledge that the discussion helps. – The Grid (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. And the key, as always, is reliable independent secondary sources. A shorter article with better sourcing, is a better article and actually makes the subject looks better IMO. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree the old article had a lot of things that should have been removed. I don't want to add in significant amounts of new material, however I do think there are minor important areas that are omitted from this version of the article. From your previous message @JzG:, one minor correction, this is not a commercial organization. It is a non-profit organization. But I think I understand your point of view that you don't believe Toastmasters offers genuine leadership training. I have one document here Developing Leaders written on behalf of Commandant of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and I have another document here High Performance Leadership published by Toastmasters International. There is clear overlap between the leadership document from RMA Sandhurst and the one from Toastmasters. Examples below (any page numbers I reference are the ones from the bottom of the page of the document, not the PDF page number):

- There is clear overlap in how they both describe a leader must provide a vision for the team. It is on page 40 of the RMA Sandhurst document and on page 10 of the Toastmasters document.

- There is clear overlap in how they both describe how leaders have values. It is on page 13 of the RMA Sandhurst document and on page 10 of the Toastmasters document.

- There is clear overlap in how they both describe leaders must provide support for their team. It is on page 40 of the RMA Sandhurst document and on page 12 of the Toastmasters document.

- There is clear overlap in how they both describe how leaders develop their team members and support them. It is on page 40 of the RMA Sandhurst document and on page 47 of the Toastmasters document.

I could continue on finding more overlap, but I only have so much time in the day. As you can see, there is clear overlap between the leadership education material written by what you describe as "a place that is genuinely known for leadership training" and the leadership education material published by Toastmasters International. Aside from that, I will reiterate, earlier in this comment thread I have previously cited a reliable independent source (a book published in 1997) that is not based on Toastmasters PR material that states at Toastmasters "you can obtain leadership training and experience." You never stated you had a problem with that source. Additionally, here is another reliable source, Wall Street Journal - "More Than Ever, Speakers Need Preparation, Humor" (May 28, 1999) "Several hundred new Toastmasters clubs, which promote leadership and communications skills, have been set up in the past year in Asia" <-- If the Wall Street Journal is willing to make the statement that Toastmasters clubs promote leadership and communication skills, I see absolutely no reason why this article can't state they promote leadership skills. @JzG:, would you say all of this is now sufficient evidence to make the simple statement that Toastmasters promotes leadership skills? User9342 (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you understand what makes a source independent? Do you understand what a novel synthesis is? Guy (Help!) 09:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: My statement comparing the documents was more of an appeal to your statement when you mentioned RMA Sandhurst provides actual leadership. I was hoping you would see that Toastmasters actually does provide leadership training with reasonable educational materials just like RMA Sandhurst, not just "self-confidence" as you previously mentioned. That is not my citation or official Wikipedia reasoning for putting the statement in the article. I stated the official sources I was citing before. You still never stated you had a problem with the reliable independent source I previously cited. Are you going to actually specifically refute the source I cited or not? What specifically is inappropriate or incorrect about it? It seems you just believe there is an issue with the quality of the leadership education at Toastmasters, but I have not seen any evidence to back that up. Do you have any sources that state the leadership claims from my citations are incorrect? You may be able to convince me, but I need some actual detail on this. User9342 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless anyone has any further discussion they'd like to add, I will be re-adding the leadership statement to the article from my original edit. Not only is it Toastmaster's official About Us statement for the non-profit organization, these are 4 independent reliable source citations to back up this statement:

- "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Assertiveness" By Jeff Davidson (1997) page 125 - "The leadership skills you can acquire in Toastmasters can increase your potential as an executive or manager" "you can obtain leadership training and experience"

- Wall Street Journal - "More Than Ever, Speakers Need Preparation, Humor" (May 28, 1999) https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB927820484925480696 "Several hundred new Toastmasters clubs, which promote leadership and communications skills, have been set up in the past year in Asia"

- "Leadership Soup: A Healthy Yet Tasty Recipe for Living And Leading on Purpose" By Kamran Akbarzadeh (2011) page 44 - "One great organization through which you can enhance your communication and leadership skills is Toastmasters International"

- "Turn Your Accent into an Asset" by Olayinka Joseph (2006) page 61 - "You too can benefit from Toastmasters' programs and the people who belong to Toastmasters. They are the best communication and leadership skills development organization you can find anywhere in the world."

If anyone is looking for additional justification aside from those 4 citations, please read my older comments above. User9342 (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Meeting Format section

I propose that we edit the meeting format section to follow the three part structure of meetings. We would have prepared speeches, table topics, and evaluations. Leaving evaluations out fails to highlight this critical component of the meeting and the nature of an educational organization.

Additionally, after these three, we could highlight common variants like debates, facilitated discussion, etc. Philoserf (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I suggest instead that you remove it. This article reads as an advertisement. Guy (help!) 21:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Alternative similar speaker organisations

Is Toastmasters the only organisation for speakers, or are there others? FreeFlow99 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@FreeFlow99 There are other organizations, profit and non-profit, but Toastmasters is the oldest notable one I am aware of. I’ll comment further on your Talk page, then if that leads to an edit for this article we can bring it back. D1doherty (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Toastmaster meetings will be held online via videoconferencing

That's why we need a link to show how to use videoconferencing software like Zoom, such as this helpful presentation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tutorial. Current events are time bound. The information can be found elsewhere. I do not agree with the addition of this external link. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Philoserf, all events are time-bound. All information can be found elsewhere. Can you make any good arguments for deleting the link?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer, thank you. That was a better edition. I’d have preferred a reference to an article in the Encyclopedia about teleconferencing software over a link to Zoom specific content. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

And no external link please —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Philoserf No external links? None? What's the reasoning behind that? Of course Wikipedia isn't a tutorial, but it is perfectly fine to add external links to them, particularly when most in-person Toastmasters meetings around the world are not being held, and are being replaced by videoconferencing events. The argument that "information can be found elsewhere" could be applied to any information. There will be plenty of readers here who are interested in TM meetings via Zoom and this link is exactly what they'll need.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer, this link for reasons already stated. I retire from the conversation now. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You didn't make much of a case Philoserf. Check out the policy on linking. It reads There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link. Is the site content accessible to the reader? Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional?. Answer to all three questions: Yes Yes Yes. Keep the link.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Philoserf—this link isn't appropriate. If it were an official video posted by Toastmasters International, that might be worth considering, though even that would fail the WP:Ten year test. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason that you think the link is inappropriate? It is highly appropriate. The video is a tutorial done by a Toastmaster. It is about how to use a videoconferencing tool to hold Toastmaster meetings. There are no in-person meetings being held any more. Users are wisely gravitating to the videoconferencing model but the technology is so new that many users worldwide don't know how to use it. This video shows them how. If Toastmasters International has a better Zoom video tutorial, show us.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a little-known Youtube how-to of temporary relevance made by someone who isn't a representative the article's subject.

If you're interested in putting together a Zoom "how to" guide, that sounds like a worthwhile project that might fit well on Wikibooks. But Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The not a how-to-guide rule is about content within the article; this is an external link. That the tutorial is "little-known" is irrelevant. And the person who made the video is a longstanding member of the Toastmaster community, a respected DTM with much experience in public speaking. What is relevant is that the video is useful, especially now, and will continue to be in the future, since in the indefinite future with this pandemic, most Toastmaster meetings will be gravitating to videoconferencing. The Wikipedia policy on external links reads Some acceptable links include ... meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article....". What can be linked is Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... other reasons. The 'other reasons' is as Mx Granger said, that it is a how-to guide. The video is neutral, accurate, and highly relevant since few, if any Toastmaster meetings will be held in-person for the foreseeable future, and few Toastmasters know how to navigate the software. Keep the link.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Smedley Chapter One Edits

Someone keeps adding Smedley Chapter One back into the article and putting it in bold. It should be considered an ad/spam.

The statement that Toastmasters International "grew out of a single club, Smedley Chapter One Club" IS FALSE. The first club was NOT named that in 1924. It later adopted that name around 1977 - 1979. Originally, it was just the Toastmasters Club and was given "No. 1" after additional clubs were formed. It's inaccurate to state Toastmasters International grew out of "Smedley Chapter One Club" as that was NOT the name of the club back then.

Even when clubs started going by specific names, that first club was referred to as "Smedley No. One" (NOT "Chapter") Sources that use the EXACT name "Smedley No. One":

• The Toastmaster May 1951 Volume 17 No 5
• The 1953 Directory of Clubs
• The Toastmasters Special Directory Issue January 1960 Volume 26 No 1A
• The Toastmaster October 1974 Volume 40 No 10
• The Toastmaster September 1976 Volume 42 No 9

Based on the documents I can find, that club only started being known as "Smedley Chapter One" sometime between 1977 and 1979. The Toastmaster January 1980 refers to the club as "Smedley Chapter One" (and it is still known by that name).

Regardless, there's no reason to put the name "Smedley Chapter One" in the article as that WAS NOT what the club was known by in 1924. Toastmasters International did not grow out of anything named "Smedley Chapter One". -- ProfessionalCost (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

First international club

Hi @User:Larry Hockett, I notice you reverted a correction without comment. What was your concern? The newsletter cited as the source for info about the first international club is incorrect. How can we fix the TI article?

The TI website says TI was incorporated in 1932 and the first international club was chartered in 1935 (First Canadian #38 in Victoria).

ref: https://www.toastmasters.org/About/History

As I understand it, there was a club started in Vancouver in 1932, but it did not charter.

Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources, so I don’t think we can just quote the TI site.

A volunteer historian wrote a book about the history of “The club that made Toastmasters truly international.” He is connected with other TI historians. There are articles cited in his book. I’ve asked him to provide his sources.

Does this address your concern about this edit? D1doherty (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

How to edit references?

Help please! The link in reference 2 is broken. I have added and edited references in the past, but am now not seeing how to do this.

I've looked in Help and on the web. I've tried on iMac (MAC OS) and iPhone & iPad (iOS) in Chrome and Safari.

1. When I hover over the citation I see no EDIT button associated with the ref, just an option 'cog'

2. Using iOS, an older version of the ref list is displayed when I click on [edit] in the in the reference section.

New link for ref 2 is https://www.toastmasters.org/About/ D1doherty (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)