Talk:Sterling Management

Violations of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule will be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Edwardian 19:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Some questions of fact that might help resolve the dispute:

• Is Sterling a member of WISE (World Institute of Scientology Enterprises)? If so, then it is not a "front organization" in the usual sense of being a secretive front; it is, rather, officially affiliated with Scientology.
• Who are the owners and management of Sterling? Is it owned in whole or in part by the Church of Scientology or Religious Technology Center? If not, are its owners or management members of CoS? Is it affiliated with Scientology any more strongly than, say, Earthlink, whose founder Sky Dayton is a Scientologist?
• Who are the "critics" who assert that Sterling is a Scientology front? Anyone we've heard of (or have an article on)? The loud and public nature of the last several years' legal disputes have brought a number of Scientology critics into the public eye, and we have articles on a number of them.
• Sterling is claimed to use Hubbard management tech. To my knowledge, this means that it must license same from RTC -- otherwise, it would likely be sued by RTC or CoS for copyright infringement. What is the nature of the deal under which Sterling may use Hubbard material without pursuit by RTC or CoS?

I think if some of these questions of fact were answered, the dispute here would dry up -- rather than using vague allegations like "Critics say they're a front" we can instead present specific facts. --FOo 03:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to the RFC.

• The answer to your first question leads me to different conclusion than might be yours. It appears that SMS is a member of WISE, but it is not readily apparent from either’s official website that that is true. Being “officially affiliated with Scientology” and making that affiliation readily apparent to others are two different things. Failing to do the later might suggest to some that the relationship is secretive.
• I don’t know off the top of my head who are the owners and management of Sterling, whether or not it is owned in whole or in part by the Church of Scientology or Religious Technology Center, whether the owners or management members of CoS, or whether or not it is affiliated with Scientology any more strongly than other companies. This would be all be relevant information to help expand the article.
• I don’t know what critics “we” have heard of, but the very first page of my Google test found eight links for us to begin examining if it is necessary to give the article representative examples of SMS’s critics: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. If there are legal disputes applicable to SMS regarding these critics, then that might be relevant information to this article.
• I don’t know that the nature of the deal under which Sterling may use Hubbard material without pursuit by RTC or CoS, but that would also be relevant information to the article.

If "Critics say they're a front" is a vague allegation, then perhaps we should expand on the point to make it less vague. In my opinion, it is only this controversy that makes an article on SMS notable – without that it is just another non-notable marketing/practice management company that would be on VfD. Edwardian 05:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of the notable Scientology critics "we" (Wikipedia) have articles on include Karin Spaink, Zenon Panoussis, Arnold Lerma, Andreas Heldal-Lund, and of course Keith Henson. If any of these people (who have already been adjudged notable, usually for their involvement in public controversy or lawsuits of relevance to public policy) have made informed statements regarding Sterling, that would be more worthwhile than the anonymous "Critics" currently mentioned.

It would also, naturally, be relevant to cite any public statements that Sterling, RTC, or other involved parties have made in the matter. For instance, if Sterling were cited by WISE as an example of a successful WISE enterprise, then that would be worth noting -- at least to bolster the claim that Sterling was such. (If, that is, they are a WISE firm -- I personally don't have any idea; I suspect so, since most Scientologist-run businesses seem to be affiliated with WISE ... but not all are, q.v. Earthlink, which I don't think was ever with WISE. But then, Earthlink never made a point of pushing Hubbard Tech as far as I know.)

In any case, it's Wikipedia policy to cite sources, and doing so is also a very productive way to resolve disputes. If you know of specific credible sources for the claims this article makes, then it would be valuable to add them to the article as references.

Finally, it isn't that the allegations are vague so much as that they are unsourced. Citing the generic "critics" seems to me to be a case of what some Wikipedians call "weasel words". An article is always improved by attributing views to their sources, rather than to generalities such as "critics". --FOo 06:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifying your problems with the sentence's wording. I have made what I think is an appropriate, referenced change in the wording. Edwardian 07:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Though rather dated, this 1990 report from the Los Angeles Times (from a five-part series on Scientology) talks at some length about Sterling's relationship to Scientology. The Time magazine cover story from 1991 by Richard Behar also talks about Sterling Management, stating that "Sterling's true aim is to hook customers for Scientology."[9] So those are high-profile sources: I don't know what's been written more recently, though, or whether Sterling would claim to have changed policies since the early nineties. BTfromLA 01:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Sterling is licensed by WISE to use the WISE material. Sterling pays 5% off all fees charged for the use of the "admin tech" towards WISE, excluding any royalty over Hubbard material they use in their own Sterling complications. then a sliding scale is used depending on the percentage of quoting and volume numbers. Source for this nformation is the contract I have in front of me between WISE and Sterling, dated 3 November 1984.-- Mike g 01:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"part of" vs. "member"

I replaced "part" with "member", although it is my own opinion that SMS is a part of WISE. (See also [10]) However, "member" is the more formal term, while "part of" is more like an opinion. A reader that cares about companies who use scientology (pro or con), doesn't make a difference whether SMS is "part of" WISE or whether it is a member of it. --Tilman 09:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

kaputnik site removal

I (and some other guys around here) removed stop-wise.biz after looking at it. Obviously some dude called Mike Gormez officially hanging out in Dutchland with a big read hater's head against Scientologist's companies. If that was a Jewish - pardon Israelian - enterprise, well, the ADL would have busted him in split seconds. Whatever his reasons, a site called "STOP-WISE" is unlikely to be RS on a WISE-company at first glance and after a deeper look, I would say: WHY THE HELL HAS THIS TAKEN SO LONG UNTIL SOMEONE DELETED THIS CRAP????? Misou 03:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with the CAPS. Thanks. Smee 03:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Too loud? Ok, I tune down and you answer the question above? Or let me phrase this differently: How come a site like this does not violate WP:EL and WP:RS, i.e. no personal websites? Misou 03:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how it would violate WP:EL, since it doesn't fit any of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria given there, nor does it violate WP:RS, since it's not actually being used as a source at this point, and even if it were it cites various credible sources. Whether it is one person who runs the site or not is totally irrelevant if the evidence given there is on topic and well supported, and it most certainly is. I see no reason why it should have been removed. Can you explain precisely how the link supposedly violates any of the sections you named? HiEv 09:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am not an expert on this particular Web site, though it looks highly informative and detailed. Perhaps others who feel that it should remain can explain more. Smee 03:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

User:Misou, the use of the word "PFUI" together with the name of another editor in an edit summary [11] is not helpful, even if this editor doesn't understand the meaning of this german word. --Tilman 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I do not know what it means. But with that I am beginning to think that certain editors with certain tacks and styles of usage of language like this are simply here as WP:TROLLs... Smee 20:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

No symphathy for that. It's just a little bit of actual RESEARCH needed. Tilman - who understands the word for sure - should have told you. Look it up here. COFS 20:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That translation is not correct. It is a strong expression of disgust. --Tilman 04:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I believe translation programs more than I trust you. You might want to also check here and [12] here]. COFS 05:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

An English dictionary is more appropriate here than a translation program. At dictionary.reference.com the term "pfui" points to "phooey" (same pronunciation, different spelling) which defines it as "an exclamation indicating rejection, contempt, or disgust" and "Used to express disgust, disbelief, or contempt." That matches what Tilman said pretty closely. Please folks, let's try to stop all of the hostility and shouting here and get focus back on the article. HiEv 09:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems with article

1. This "business of cults" article has no business being in the intro, and it simply says "an article", failing to note that it's an editorial in an obscure and unimportant small-press Fairfax county business paper. And yet someone's POV-pushing agenda thought it clearly belonged in the intro. 2. The "scholarly analysis" is extremely vague ("Hugh Urban also analyzed Sterling Management Systems within this context") and simply amounts to what some editor thought worth mentioning. 3. That they bought a domain name is not only irrelevant, it's obviously original research and synthesis (linking directly to a WHOIS instead of some source that actually comments on this matter)... and the pointless and fawning advertisement for the amateurish hate-rant-page "Why are they dead, Scientology?" is utterly unacceptable. wikipediatrix 17:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It does trim a lot of cruft out. Solid refs like TIME and the LA Times articles should be used for specific points rather than just vague general refs. (as well, Boston Herald series, reprinted with permission) I reverted because a "revert and significant edit" should be marked as such to let other editors know it wasn't just a damage revert. Marked now. AndroidCat 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipediatrix's August 2nd edit has partially gutted the article (compare that with how it previously looked.) For example, why was the Company infobox removed? Why was the <references /> tag was moved from the References section to a new "Notes" section? What was wrong with the "The business of cults" article and "The New Age Movement" book references? (One does not need to include demeaning descriptions of the location the article was printed for it to be a relevant, good, or useful resource.) And why was the STOP-WISE.BIZ site, which has useful information on SMS, removed again? I agree that while the "whyaretheydead.com" info is interesting, it was not particularly notable, and some of the "Scholarly Analysis" section was unnecessary, but how did the removal of all of that other information benefit the article? It was already fairly short already, so it wasn't in need of further shortening. I'd like to hear your reasoning for those other deletions.

Also, I should point out that assuming someone did something because of a "POV-pushing agenda" is against Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith. Perhaps there was another reason, so please don't be so quick to judge. -- HiEv 04:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

libel, spam, vandalism

This page was vandalized by User:Smsmama (whose very name violates WP:USERNAME since it probably stands for Sterling Management Services) - a highly libelous accusation about a living person, Dr. Glover Rowe, was made, and a spam URL for the user's pro-Sterling blog was inserted into a quote from Glover's wife Dee. See here.

Interestingly, if you go to the blog in question, anyone who's done much photoshop work can immediately spot the harsh cut-and-paste line directly under the letters "er Rowe" in Stephen Glover Rowe. These same letters are also set at a noticeably higher position than the rest of the text. Given the nature of CoS smear pages (Misou's recent dangling of one in Tilman's face is one unfortunate example), I wouldn't be surprised if this is a bad cut and paste job to make Rowe's name appear on someone else's reprimand. wikipediatrix 00:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard's policy letters are scientology scripture

Hubbard's policy letters were written for the church of scientology and are considered scientology "scriptures". Stating otherwise is clearly POV pushing. Sterling management employs cofs members and is a member of WISE, which is a scientology licensed and controlled corporation.--Fahrenheit451 19:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are funny. Talking about POV pushing while being engaged in it full blast. Hubbard administrative technology is not religious material even though Scientology organizations use it as well. And I am not interested in your WP:OR or just arbitrary claims on who this company employs. Knock it off, thank you. Shutterbug 21:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug, there is no OR here but you are violating WP:CIVIL again. "Hubbard administrative technology" is considered by the cofs to be "religious scripture". Scientology organizations were the First to use it. Sterling employs cofs members - Fact. Sterling is a World Institute of Scientology Enterprises "licensed" company - Fact. --Fahrenheit451 23:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Blabla, and so on. Give references if you think you have "facts". Shutterbug 00:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug, being an employee of the cofs, have any of your seniors ordered or encouraged you to edit the Sterling Management Systems article?--Fahrenheit451 23:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

F451, stop lying by insinuation. I am not an employee of the cofs nor got orders or encouragement to edit. You know that very well but you are lying and deceiving and complaining and provoking without being restrained. I wonder how deep up the a** of Jimbo you are by now. Shutterbug 00:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)