Talk:Sterling Management Systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sterling Management Systems article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)