Talk:Sterling Management Systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sterling Management Systems article.
Article policies
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Scientology Portal
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. See comments


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

Contents

[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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
You will have to put some references here before yelling "fact". Remember, Wikipedia Policy? Shutterbug 18:01, 25 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)
WP:DE also applies for you. Stop lying about myself and/or my occupation (you know that you are lying which makes it worse), stop your ridiculous attempts to provoke and contribute something to Wikipedia other than stirring up hate and dissent. Thank you. Shutterbug 18:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Shutterbug, those comments of yours violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.--Fahrenheit451 00:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Stop-wise.biz site

[13]] Shutterbug, could you please justify the removal of this site from the links with reference to Wikipedia policy? --Fahrenheit451 02:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I did so twice. What a pity you did not see it nor did you give justifications for your own reversion. But my reasoning can be found here and here. Shutterbug 02:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug, I looked over the WP:EL guideline. Please point out which point of that guideline applies to your removing the the stop-wise.biz link.--Fahrenheit451 03:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I should take a fee for that. Here is the section:

[edit] Links normally to be avoided

Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

  1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
  2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
  3. Any site that attempts to surreptitiously install malware on a visitor's computer.
  4. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
  5. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
  6. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
  7. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.
  8. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.
  9. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.
  10. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.
  11. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
  12. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
  13. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
  14. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

I bolded the ones I am referring to. Each one alone is a no-no for this personal hate site set up by a fanatic, "Mike Gormez" (yeah, right). Mike one day decided that his sole purpose in live should be to crush - preferably American - businesses which are using administrative technology of L. Ron Hubbard. The means employed for this are non-discriminatory, meaning all Scientologists are equally bad. His life's work has now been put into a website and to annihilate just more Scientologists it's being spread in link directories and - surprise - on Wikipedia. All this has absolutely nothing to do with putting a Wikipedia article together and is carrying a off-wiki dispute into wiki (another violation of Wikipedia policy). I am sure he is glad you help him, but keep it off Wikipedia, ok? Shutterbug 05:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug, O.K. I think #12 applies here. The other three, not quite. Not being familiar with Gormez, I see nothing constructive in evaluating his motives and there is no evidence anyone is being "annihilated" by his website. Kind of looks to me like another violation of WP:AGF in your remark, "I am sure he is glad you help him, but keep it off Wikipedia, ok?" You keep doing that.--Fahrenheit451 05:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. On your other comment, the problem is, as long as you are running up and down the WP-violation list on literally anything I have to say, I really have a hard time taking you serious. Shutterbug 05:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Shutterbug, I am not running up and down the WP policy violation list. I suggest you refrain from commenting about other editors and confine your comments to content, and content only.--Fahrenheit451 05:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor changes - Provide more information.

Got interested in this page as I noticed that User:Fubar Obfusco original questions (the earliest entry on this talk page) had never been fully answered. Nor does the current page correctly identify the scope of Sterling's operations.

Here's what I changed and my reasoning for those changes.

1. Deleted statements that Gregory Hughes and Kevin Wilson are Scientologists - This is irrelevant information, Sterling's links to Scientology are obvious and blatant (the company brags about its connection to WISE and use of LRH management tech on its own website - no secret here). Specifying the religion of these two guys does not add to the information already presented and gives to impression of prejudice. Not needed from an NPOV viewpoint.

2. Sterling's ownership is a matter of public record - edited a bit to clarify this.

3. Sterling's website indicates that they offer services to a much greater audience than dentists and medical professionals, they are also deeply involved with accountants and others as well. Looking at what these "audiences" have in common, they are all professionals and they are all in private practice as opposed to working for someone else. Hence I used the term "Private-practice professionals" rather than "Medical Professionals" to characterize them.

4. I don't get why the reference comparing Sterling's program to Erhardt Sensitivity Training (EST) was included at all so I deleted that paragraph. Sterling's program are Hubbard-based. There is abundant info available regarding exactly what that means and it does not mean EST. (That comparison would be, I think, offensive to both Scientologist and Erhardt's followers.) The reference is confusing, at best, and offers no substantive data regarding Sterling, what it does, or how it operates.

Hope you all approve. I am interested in getting more information up about Sterling and turning this into a real article rather than a "Start" I have a great picture of their offices (copied from their website) to post once I figure out how...

--Ibeme 19:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there must be more real information about Sterling. Makoshack 22:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

....which can be put in the article in stead of the current generalities. Makoshack 02:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watchdogs

"==Lawsuit against a Christian fellowship== In 1992, Sterling filed a lawsuit against the Watchman Fellowship and several other parties. A Los Angeles County judge dismissed the Watchman Fellowship from the suit, which was later lost entirely by Sterling.[1]"

I took out the above paragraph because is has no content. Also the reference does not give any information at all about what this case was and why it could be relevant for this article. Makoshack 22:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collateral Damage

This article fascinated me and I have been watching it for some time, reading the references, the websites, tracking down corporate documents, etc. and the only conclusion I can come to is that if NPOV is a rule that we believe in, truly, this article should not be here.

  1. First of all it is miss-categorized. Sterling Management Systems is not a "Scientology Organization", it is a private company no different, really, than any of the thousands other of private and public companies that are members of WISE.
  2. The only thing that seems to set Sterling apart from the crowd is that, back in the early '90s, Sterling was successful, having been named to the INC 500 list of fastest growing privately-held companies two years in a row.
  3. This honor singled it out for inclusion in a bunch of "Watch-your-pocket-book-the-Scientologist-are-out-to-get-you" articles that were the rage of the day.
  4. Note that it was "little' Sterling and 'Little' Singer Management that were selected - not BIG EarthLink, or CISCO Systems, or EPSON America, or John Hancock Insurance, or NISSAN USA, all of whom also used WISE technology back in the day who were singled out for derision in these anti-cult articles. Perhaps dropping the big names would have lent too much credibility to WISE and its technology?
  5. The current article, read at face value, conveys only one message to the reader: "Stay away from this company if you value you money, family, friends, sanity, etc." and that's collateral damage, its not neutral,
  6. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia as it is and worse;
  7. If it were changed and all the controversial BS removed, it is just not notable enough to be worthy of inclusion.

That having been said, here is an edit that attempts to clarify and rectify some of this. It replaces the "Dee and Glover Rowe" horror story (which is throughly covered, along with other similar tales, in the references) with and explanation of the the relationship between the Church of Scientology, WISE, and WISE members like Sterling. This is an issue that has been confusing to editors and I am sure its confusing to the general public as well.

Hope you like! --Ibeme 17:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)--

Omitting the Dee and Glover Rowe account and others because they are "throughly covered in the references" makes absolutely no sense. As well, calling the allegations of connections to Scientology by multiple sources as "confusion" seems to be original research. AndroidCat 18:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I like the change though it needs some refinement. Androidcat, your "confusion" point has some weight, but using a 17 year old individual story for half the article using one reference seems not to be covered in WP:UNDUE. Makoshack 21:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I like your change too Androidcat, (The "Confusion" I was referring to was some appearent confusion among editors, as relected on this talk page, about the nature of the relationship between CofS, RTC, WISE, WISE Members and the Admin Tech. It has no place being carried into the actual article. I did make a grammatical correction which was likely the result of my original edit. Anyway, thanks to you and Makoshack for you contributions.

--Ibeme 22:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate Identity changes

Changed the opening paragraph - it now lists the types of business these guys sell to rather than burying that data down in the "Training..." section. Also clarified corporate ownership... --Ibeme 04:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! Didn't know that. Misou 04:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Misou, I noticed a comment you made re: this change sounding like original research. I have cited the relevant cooperate docs, corporate docs, what else do you feel is needed?

--Ibeme 20:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My latest edit adds citations for dba filing and "Sterling Management Systems" as a registered Service mark of the J. Chase Wilson Corp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibeme (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to last contribution by Curt Wilhelm VonSavage

First of all Curt, thanks for your help. These changes clean up a couple of things:

  1. In the Info-box WISE was listed as a "Parent" of Sterling Management. This is not true so I deleted it. Also the Info box listed their Primary service as "Seminar"; the primary service is Training so I changed that.
  2. Deleted the link to STOP-WISE.BIZ as per earlier discussion and agreement by others on this talk page.
  3. I removed the "Scientology Series" template, though others may disagree, because it deals with aspects for the religious beliefs, training, activities, etc. of Scientology. Sterling Management does none of these things and thus the links on tis template provide no info on the operations of the subject of the article. The company's connection with Scientology is well documented on this page and anyone who is interested can simply link to a Scientology page and see what those guys are all about.
  4. Deleted a couple of redundant references: The TIME Mag and LA Times Articles were included and a few others were included in the Notes section, and the Refference Section - no need to have them all over the place, wast?

Finally - the introduction of the "Scholarly Analysis" section is a great contribution.

  1. I think the comparison of Sterling Management to EST is misleading at best and serves no purpose which is why I deleted it a few edits back, but the value of the section is, I think, solid enough that I don't want to mess with it just now - some better references would be most appreciated!
  2. The Biet Hallshimi reference looks good. I'm not sure what the point is other than this stuff is secular and I don't really see how that contributes but...
  3. I gotta read the Urban article - it could be the key to a whole new understanding and that would be good.

Anyway, thanks for your interest and contribs! --Ibeme 19:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Whether or not you actually believe with the points being made in that section is another story, but it all of the citations come from good secondary sources, so it should be okay for Wikipedia. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC).
Dear Curt (Assuming that you are referring to the sources that you quote in the Scholarly Analysis Section) I agree completely re: good secondary sources being okay for Wikipedia and I agree that these are good secondary sources. My only question regarding them is "Do they forward an understanding of what this company is and what it does?" and I don't have an answer for that question at this time.
The EST comparison, for example, is a valid scholarly reference as far as I can see but it sheds no light on what Sterling is or what it does. EST is a self-help thing, Sterling is a business management thing. And its misleading: If you look at the services that Sterling offers (see their website,their promotional literature, etc.) you will find nothing even remotely like "Sensitivity Training", Erhardt or otherwise - its just not their thing. I am not saying it should go, although I deleted it earlier on for the same reason. I'd like to get some feedback from other on points like this.
Finally - do you have any other points that you would like to discuss?

--Ibeme 00:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I am glad that you are not saying the reference should go. For I believe that Wikipedia policies assert that information from a secondary source is more reliable than your own personal assertions about what you think this organization is about. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC).
  • I like your edit but there is prior discussion on this page regarding the entire "Scholarly..." section and these same articles and that discussion resulted in the section being deleted and remaining deleted for several months now. Personally I like the idea of a "Scholarly Analysis" section but I would like to here from some other editors (and read the Urban article) before agreeing that these particular references are pertinent.

--Ibeme 02:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Ah, so you agree though that the references satisfy WP:RS. Glad we are on the same track here. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fairfield County Business Journal

  • Does anyone doubt that the Fairfield County Business Journal is a source that satisfies WP:RS ? This article contains good information on Sterling Management Systems that should be included on Wikipedia:
  • In an article entitled: "The business of cults", Sterling Management Systems was cited under a section called "front organizations and revenue-generating businesses."[2]
  1. ^ http://www.watchman.org/sci/co$sue~1.htm The Watchman Expositor vol. 13 no.2 1996
  2. ^ Strempel, Dan. "The business of cults.", Fairfield County Business Journal, May 1, 2000, pp. Vol. 39 Issue 18, p1, 3p, 1 black & white photograph, 1 color photograph. 

Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 17:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

It seems impossible to locate reliable information about the Fairfield County Business Journal, and in view of your recent additions I might ask whether and how you make sure that you are not adding someone's opinion but actual reliable sources? Makoshack 18:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The source itself satisfies WP:RS, and in light of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, I would rather hear input from someone else on the talk page. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC).
Here is a link to the journal under discussion online [14]. The publisher is Westfair Communications, Inc. and their web site is here: [15] Westfair Communications is a corporation that publishes three business journals in the metropolitcan New York City area. I see nothing about them that is partisan or individual opinion. I would say that this journal meets the WP:RS criteria. --Fahrenheit451 00:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It is curious that a user would claim, "It seems impossible to locate reliable information about the Fairfield County Business Journal" when entering the journal name into a search engine brings up the information that I cited on the first page. I hope this user is not engaging in tendentious editing.--Fahrenheit451 01:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References and Citations

Our purpose here is to create a useful article on Sterling Management Systems. That means citing references that are on-point as well as being WP:RS. By "on-point" I mean that they provide useful information about Sterling Management Systems as opposed to information on Scientology or even WISE; we have full articles on these organizations that readers are liberally referred to. If they are interested in those subjects they can go read those articles.

With that in mind here is what I see looking at the references that are cited:

  1. The Beit-Hallahmi article is really about Scientology - he asks if Scientology is truly a religion given the secular nature of Sterling Management Systems and other activities. - Belongs in the Scientology Article unless used to make the point that Sterling is non-religious - which we already know from other citations, corporate history, etc.
  2. The Urban article may be more on-point but from the citation one cannot tell what it is that Urban has to say on the subject -and- the citation, as it stands, violates "Links to be avoided" in that it requires payment or registration to view the relevant content. Cannot be used
  3. The citations comparing Sterling Management Systems to EST are just offensive and do not characterize the company or its services. I have made this case elsewhere on these talk pages and won't repeat it here. Unless someone has some really good reason for including these they are toast.
  4. The Saint Petersburg Times article of 11/29/1987 is about Singer Consultants and WISE - not about Sterling per-se. Belongs in the WISE or, maybe, the Scientology Article - not Sterling
  5. The Saint Petersburg Times article of 12/22/1988 is about WISE; Sterling is only cited as an example of a WISE member. Belongs in the WISE Article - not Sterling
  6. The Boston Herald graphic is interesting in that it depicts, pretty accurately as far as I can see, the organizational structure of Scientology but re: Sterling, it simply says "Delivers training in LRH Management Technology". We already know that from multiple sources. I'm not sure where this belongs - any ideas?
  7. TIME Magazine, The Los Angeles Times, and your favorite Fairfield County Business Journal (How did you guys get back on that one?) do give useful information on Sterling - but it's the same information from all three sources! Do multiple reports make it truer? Here is the deal with that - it appears that back in the late '80s and early 90's some clients who had been referred to Scientology by Sterling Management Systems had: a) a bad experience; and b) some motivation to go to the press about that experience. Let's just say that in the article and maybe footnote the refs if you feel its needed.

With these points in mind, and in the spirit of "being bold", enjoy the edit. Hope you approve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibeme (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of the removed references:

I think that most of these can and should be worked back into the article. Dismissing a number of them as "duplicates" and just some problems with some clients kind of misses the point that these are notable RS references for Sterling Management. AndroidCat 16:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is up with this e-meter?

Curt - pretty picture of an e-meter (blue has always been my favorite color) but why put it here? It has nothing to do with the article as I see it. I'd like to understand your thinking. --Ibeme 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs to be monitored for Tendentious Editing

I just removed a great deal of POV fluff put in by editors affiliated with a certain organization. This article needs to be watched for that sort of thing in the future so it can be promptly reverted.--Fahrenheit451 02:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what is your POV here. Do really think that this is a better article with all of the POV pushing stuff you just put back in? Where are you coming from man? (Sorry for venting at you.) Here is the real question: What impression are you trying to create? Dee Rowe has her POV, obviously, have you researched her story? Do you know that her husband tells it differently? And the court records tell a third version? And that none of the controversy here has ever been resolved? My point is that to truly tell this story opens up a can of worms that has little or nothing to do with Sterling Management systems. DO THE RESEARCH! And "Sues Christian Fellowship", what is up with that headline? Its certainly not NPOV, its totally inflammatory. Do you know why they were sued? Do you know why they were dropped form the suit? Did you ever look or is your intent to create the most negative article possible? How about a little bit of taste and judgment here. I have read you discussion contribution on this page and it is obvious that you do not understand the subject you are writing on. Your statement that "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" clearly indicates that you haven't a clue about what WISE or Sterling Management are all about. You should find out before you go around screaming "Tendentious".

I would like to see a good, solid, well documented article here. I assume you would too. In theory we can discuss and agree and get a good job done. I am up for that, that's for sure. Let's talk before you go making massive tendentious changes. --76.168.95.24 14:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk about Tendentious!

Farenhiet451: You have been very busy pushing a bunch of hateful POV stuff back into this article. A bogus qoute for Briet-Hashimi? read the article, that's what he said! Wow. Please knock it off. If you have an issue lets discuss it. --Ibeme 15:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The phoney quote by Hashimi was taken from two sentences in his article juxtaposed together. Furthermore, you are commenting on me and not the content. You need to knock that off.--Fahrenheit451 22:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] --Ibeme 01:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Fahrenheit451, What are your intentions?

I see that you have gutted the page and submitted to Arbitration. (I didn't think our disagreements were so intense, but so be it.) My question to you is: What now? Are you willing to engage in discussion and attempt to work things out or do you plan to sit back and wait for arbitration to occur?

Personally I would hate to see the article left as it is now. It provides little or no information about Sterling Management Systems which is what the article is supposed to be about.

If you wish to discuss further here are some things that I think we need to address. I would appreciate you viewpoint on them.

  1. The Beit-Hallahmi quote. You correctly point out that the quote, as I stated it, had omited content (I indicated this in the quote by the use of ellipses.) This was an edit for clarity; Hallahimi includes a referrence to a "Clear program" in the full quote as also being totally secular. I am not sure what this "Clear program" is (perhaps Scientology's Clearing Course?) but, from a review all available literature on Sterling, its nothing that they offer. I omitted it from the quote simply because it doesn't apply and adds no important content - a reader can always follow the link and get the whole of Hallahimi's viewpoint. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS REASONING PLEASE EXPLAIN AND I WILL TRY TO FIX IT.
  2. I don't understand why you don't like the "Training the private practice professional" section. This is what Sterling does so it is certainly on topic (although a bit sparse) please tell me why you keep deleting this section.
  3. Re: "Sterling in the news" - Thanks for toning your edit down a bit here, it helps. But it ducks the real issue (see my earlier talk-page discussion on this). I just don't get why you feel it is important to this article to include stories of this sort at this level of content unless the purpose is to scare readers away from ever doing business with this company. IS THAT YOUR PURPOSE?

Hope to hear back soon. --Ibeme 01:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ibeme, the article is submitted to Mediation not Arbitration. Mediation doesn't mean any consequences or force for editors at all. You can endorse the mediation process and it will not happen but it might be helpfull if a neutral admin tries to mediate this case. My view is:
  • 1) no success story should be in the article from single customers. Success stories like "I tripled my income" are always POV or advertisement(both, in history and news section). The same POV occurs if we would cite single customers wich claim that they didn't triple their income. If you want to write something about efficiency of SMS you need to use reliable studies(peer reviewed) to make such a statement.
  • 2)Government Technology Magazine is quite unrelated to SMS. The article is about Applied Scholastics. The rest of this section is OR.
  • 3)no cherry picking please. The Time article must be considered, especially if you use other newspaper articles.
Have no time now to edit the article myself and don't want to revert you now but give you time to improve the article yourself but don't violate WP:NPOV please. However, I will insert an ad tag now, please don't remove unless the article is improved. -- Stan talk 11:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Ibeme, the article as you edited it, read like advertising pr. Wikipedia is not an advertising forum and all article must conform to the WP:NPOV policy. I have requested informal mediation to straighten out the content issues with this article. --Fahrenheit451 16:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Heya, Stan, you are right, it's actually a bit thick and had to be cut down (didn't see the new section Ibeme had put in yday). F451, you got to make this mediation thing a bit more popular (and stop being rude), otherwise nobody shows up to the party. Misou 03:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Stan, Misou, It looks like you have got this handled before I ever got a chance to edit. Stan, I appreciate your points above and thank you for bringing them up. Your thoughts solve a bunch of conceptual problems I have wresteled with in trying to edit this article. And Misuo, your edit is fine by me, thank you.

--Ibeme 05:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. However,

  • 1)I refered to the statement from Dr. “Buzz” Newman in the Veterinary Forum Magazine.(almost tripled its annual production) in the news section. Chritics could probably find dozens of published opinions with opposite experiences about efficiency but both is POV, misleading and not really informative. I'll just remove it and if you agree this point will be fine with me.
  • 2)looks fine to me now.
  • 3)The TIME article is still missing. The TIME is just too important for this issue to ignore. It was inside the article before and I don't think it was right to remove it completely. Noticed also that AndroidCat dropped some refs above wich are removed from the current version. I think not every "negative" news article must be mentioned in the article but the most important should. I'm afraid you will not agree with me on this point.

But the article looks better now and I won't insert the ad tag again. -- Stan talk 15:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finally got it right, comments on my last edit

(Please excuse - I seem to be having trouble getting this talk page contributin to post. So here we go again)

The problem I have been trying to solve in editiong this page was how to get to NPOV when the majority of citations were majorly negative. My tactic was to attempt to balance this with positive testimonials from Sterling Clients. That tactic resutled in what was correctly flagged as an advertising page.

Stan En's comments on this talk page above solved the problem for may and, I thnk, set me in the correct direction (Thanks Stan). He points out that the problem with testimonials, good or bad, is that they are all POV and he is obviously right. So rather than try to balance POV with other POV, the correct solution is get rid of all POV. Simple.

My last edit is a shot at doing just that. (BTW: Testimonials published in a reliable source such as TIME Magazine are still testimonials and are still POV.)

So what we have as a result is something like the edit as it currently is. Not much more than a stub BUT is truly neutral and absent all POV. --Ibeme 21:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope you didn't get me wrong here. NPOV doesn't mean that neither positive nor negative informations should be included. It also doesn't mean that we have to find a positive counterstatement on each negative one. An article can be NPOV even the content looks all negative or the opposite.(the Hitler article is not shiny but NPOV,andGandhi with more positive informations is also NPOV). I stated that personal experiences about efficiency(pro or contra) are POV. I did because the company had thousands of customers and its efficiency can't be judged on single success or negative expieriences without beeing misleading. It can't be held accountable if someone messes up his business after attending a course and the guy who tripled its production on the other side may have done without SMS too. But if a reliable source states that is is indeed efficient it can be introduced. And if there is a significant controversy in the media it can and should be mentioned too. If SMS uses controversial Hard Sell practices(not by one misguided employee but in general) it should also be mentioned. Sorry, I didn't want to push you to delete all positve aspects in the article in order to delete also negative ones. One good content peace in exchange with a bad one is not how Wikipedia works. I still think that the controversy should be mentioned appropriatly and it doesn't matter how much positive stuff you insert or delete as long its based on reliable sources, NPOV and significant enough. I don't know how the article will look if everything is included appropriatly but if you think the controversy and "negative news articles" in past were wrong and have reliable sources for that look at the bright side. If that would be true this article could clarify that. Better than hiding something wich leaves always the bad taste of whitewashing.-- Stan talk 23:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Point well taken Stan. Here is my point: Some 17 years ago Sterling Management Systems was embroiled on a media contorversy about Scientology. Several (about six as I recall) individual horror stories about how Sterlng cleints were treated in and by Scientologists were used to illustrate the various writers points that Scientology is an 'evil cult of greed and power' or whatever Behar named his article.
The TIME article itself, as well as other cited referrences, are contested. Each individual testimonial reported in these articles is contested. And none of this flap is really about Sterling Management at all, but rather its about the larger issue of Scientology itself. While it might be interesting to write a Wikipedia article on this the nature of public realtions battles, which is what this controversy seems to be (my POV) the Sterling Management article is not the correct venue for it. This stuff belongs where the controversy belongs, on the Scientology pages. On this page we need to ensure that the reader understands the link between Sterling Management, via WISE, to L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. That is fair and sufficient.

--Ibeme 04:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording in intro a little confusing for non-Scientologists

I just noticed the intro contains this snippet: "...training and implementation support in the management technology researched and developed by..."

For people not familiar with Hubbard's different definitions of existing words, that could be confusing. Does anyone have a problem with me changing that to "techniques" instead? And on the same topic, I was under the impression that Hubbard developed his techniques himself. If he "researched" them, could we get a reference for that? I can't find any. --GoodDamon 00:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear good, your observations seem valid to me and you contirbutions would be most welcome. I worded the paragraph the way its worded because it seemes to me that most of Hubbard's management stuff was common sense and/or culled from other sources. What makes it unique and valuable, from my point of view is that he was a author so he organized the data, tested it and wrote it all down so you can go read it if you want. (I know of no comparable body of management knowledge anywhere) so I said "researched". But hey, I am no expert in this, maybe others can shed some light but I would say to you - be bold; make the change. And thanks for your intrest.

--Ibeme 06:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is this link doing here?

Sterling Management Systems and Sterling Institute of relationships have absolutely nothing to do with each other; one could argue that their goals, operations, purposes, tools, etc. are completely inimitable. So why are they cross-linked?

Being fairly new to Wikipedia I assumed that the cross link was some sort of navigation aid - but upon investigation that doesn't make sense either:

  1. If you search "Sterling Management Systems" or "Sterling Management" within Wikipedia the results go on for pages and none of these other articles are cross linked together.
  2. I looked at a bunch of other articles that came up on that search-page and none of them are cross-linked to anything

Conclusion - it's not a navigation aid, its just a piece of irrelevant info.

It goes. --Ibeme 18:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For GoodDamon - Please refer me to the WP you are using for your VP that this is disambiguation. That's what I assumed to until I saw what I describe in 1 and 2 above. My point is that Wikipedia has more than 30 atricles about companies with "Sterling" in thier names - I don't think disambiguation includes providing links to all of these on the top of each page, does it? --Ibeme 06:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted based on the fact that if you search for "Sterling Managment", this article and the other are the top two results that show the words "Sterling Management" in them. However, on closer inspection I see now that the only reason the other article has those words is its complimentary link to this one. I'd say both should go, if either goes. --GoodDamon 19:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, both shuold go. I see that you have already taken care of the link on "Sterling Relationship...". Thank you.

--76.168.95.24 00:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

AndriodCat: Thank you for catching that Beit-Hallahmi citation, I should not have used it at all as the article is not about Sterling Management. Beit-Hallahmi's article is about Scientology; he questions whether Scientolgy is a religion and uses the secular nature of Sterling Management's executive program as a point in that argument. Nor is his article definitve in any way - it raises questions but does not provide answers (which appears to have been the intention) so it's just a bad reference for an article on Sterling. --Ibeme 14:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank me no thanks. If I put the new link in a proper cite template, sourced to World Institute of Scientology Enterprises, then what? AndroidCat 14:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All critical information gone

I just compared the current revision to the this one from a few days ago. Every critical item and reference is gone. I have a serious mind to start editing that old revision and replace the current version, after fixing the citations. --GoodDamon 15:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that happy with your proposed version. A lot of unsourced and just untrue statements are in that version. For example: "In truth there is no legal, formal, or informal connection between the Church of Scientology .." There is no contract, license and fee with WISE ? I don't think so.... and why is the "Lawsuit against a Christian fellowship" notable ? The article doesn't even mention why SMS suit them. I think its easier if we include a new controversy section in this version. I read the refs mentioned from AndroidCAT above and think most noteable would be following mentioned often in the news: 1) the controversial salespractice 2) that the company usually denies its ties with Scientology towards new customors 3) alleged recruitment of customors for CoS services(partly admitted by CoS but also denied ;) ). Most controversy is around this topic and it should be mentioned. -- Stan talk 16:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I just chose that one at random as an example of a revision that contained references and criticisms that have been deleted. I 100% agree with you. Basically, you could throw a (virtual) dart at any of the revisions from around ten days ago and get a more complete version. --GoodDamon 16:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Good points all. Here is the problem that I have with this: There is lots of controversey to be had here, several pages of claims and counter claims could, with some work, be sourced and put together. As I have stated before it could make a heck of an article. But what we would end up with here is an article about the controversey generated around Scientology and, perhaps, the collateral damage that a private business experienced as a result of that controversey. Is that what we want in this article, or does it belong in some other article? My POV is that the controversy truly is another article; not this one. Please consider this carefully and lets see if we can agree on where to take this article next.

--68.121.44.34 18:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. All information is gone, "critical" (one-sided, biased, unbalanced, "anti", who defines that anyway) and factual. Kinda funny. This is a company like hundreds or thousands but so much noise. Misou 18:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Okeydokey, here it is

Alright, this is now the "critical" information added in:

Former Scientologists and critics say an important aim for the company is to hook customers for Scientology.[1] [2]

I read the refs and there ain't no "former Scientologists and critics", just opinion and lots of generalization. No means to inform about what this company does, some 16 and 20 year old stories about somebody's opinion. The article even says that the guys of that time are not there anymore. WP:UNDUE weight at least.

Uptrends co-founder Pat Lusey was quoted as saying that about half the clients of WISE groups enter the church.

No source, generality. Palease... would not survive in any other article. And who or what is "Uptrends"?

Sterling Management System and Church officials insist that the company has no connection to the church but admit that some customers also wind up in Scientology courses.[3][2]

Nice WEASEL wording, should "start Scientology courses", but otherwise, well, ok.

Sterling Management System was also criticised for its highpressure sales practice.[1]

What's that supposed to mean? That they sell stuff? WOW! A sales/sales training company actually SELLING something? How weird! Insignificant, I'd say.

Ok, the panel is open. Misou 03:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And here are the refs:

  1. ^ http://www.watchman.org/sci/co$sue~1.htm The Watchman Expositor vol. 13 no.2 1996
  2. ^ Strempel, Dan. "The business of cults.", Fairfield County Business Journal, May 1, 2000, pp. Vol. 39 Issue 18, p1, 3p, 1 black & white photograph, 1 color photograph. 
I should be sleeping now but here it comes ): !
  • 1)I didn't source the statement "former Scientologists and critics" with one single source and you won't find it in any cited one. "Former Scientologists" is cited in one source and critics in the other!
  • 2) Uptrends is another WISE company. The statement is sourced correctly!
  • 3)used wording from source
  • 4)"Highpressure sales practice" is not my best wording of the day ;). But the fact that this company uses "Hard Sell" or "extreme high-pressure sales tactics" is not insignificant!(I'll reword it) -- Stan talk 03:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Putting the controversy back in

Well it looks like Stan, at least, has decided that the controversy is essential here.

I feel more like Misou in her (if I got the gender wrong I apologize) comment above in that I don't really get why this company deserves all this attention and effort but so be it.

Please, when adding content, think it through and try to stay on point. This is an article about Sterling Management, for example, not Uptrends; I don't think Pat Lucey is qualified to speak to the experience of Sterling or its clients. And "Some customers also wind up in Scientology courses", seems pointless; its just as true, if not more so, in the general population.

One of the reasons I took all of the controversy out of this article was that I couldn't figure out how to tell the whole story fairly and neutrally. I know some of you, like AndriodCat, have no interest in fair or neutral - your extreme hostility towards Scientology and WISE is well noted (I read some of your postings in alt.religion.scientology). But I am very interested to see what the rest of you can create here. Good Luck! --Ibeme 05:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ibeme, on this talk page, please apply WP:AGF. Also take a look at this informal mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-11-07_Sterling_Management_Systems--Fahrenheit451 05:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I assume good faith until proven otherwise.

--Ibeme 06:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have said that I have no interest in fair or neutral editing based on things outside Wikipedia, which seems to be an accusation of bad faith editing. Do you still stand by that? (Choose wisely.) AndroidCat 06:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
What is up with "Choose wisely"? - please 'splaing yourself. --Ibeme 18:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Ibeme, you stated "I know some of you, like AndriodCat, have no interest in fair or neutral - your extreme hostility towards Scientology and WISE is well noted (I read some of your postings in alt.religion.scientology)." That is clearly violating WP:AGF. That is contrary to your statement, "I assume good faith until proven otherwise."--Fahrenheit451 18:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Fahrenheit451 - I did make that statement. I was surprised to find out AndroidCat's views, frankly. Upon reflection, however, an editor's personal POV does not mean that he/she cannot or will not take a neutral stance and make valuable contributions to an article, as AdroidCat has done in the past. Hence my subsequent post stating "I assume good faith until proven otherwise." My experience with all who have edited this article has been interesting and positive. I have learned and expanded my viewpoint on things as a result of meeting and working with you all and I do mean that sincerely. --Ibeme 23:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I have made a request of you on the mediation page in my comment section: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-11-07_Sterling_Management_Systems --Fahrenheit451 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] internal links (see also)

Fahrenheit, why did you delete the "see also section"? Internal links to related articles on WP are not linkspam but useful in any way.-- Stan talk 16:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is about Sterling, not about Hubbard, Scientology or WISE. I see no point in those links being there. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Sterlings Management claims that its management techniques and all services are based on Hubbards writing.
  • Since Sterling is an active WISE member and its product is licensed by WISE. It makes sense to me to have an internal link to WISE
  • Hubbard College of Administration International; ok, thats a bit off topic -- Stan talk 23:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

O.K. That is fine. Now I understand your reasoning for including those two links.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] restored old sourced content

My favorite version would be still this one and I wouldn't mind to start all over with the old version. However, I tried not to revert back but restore and add important sections. I think that mediation and discussion clearly showed that the majority of editors support in general an article with all informations about the company including criticle content. -- Stan talk 17:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making it a bit better...

I have made a few changes to the article to clean it up a bit and implement some of the recommendations made by User:Leonmon during short-lived mediation.

  1. Deleted the "Company" section incorporating basic data into the Company Info Box.
  2. Services Section - Incorporated changes suggested by User:Leonmon
  3. Scholarly Analysis Section - Deleted the Hugh Urban reference - not citable per Wiki Rules.
  4. 'Controversy' Section - re-named to "Sterling..., WISE, and the Church of Scientology" as this really is the issue being discussed here. Also deleted the statement attributed to Pat Lucey (no citation and he is not a reliable source for Sterling or WISE; maybe for his own company...)
  5. references - tidied up the verbiage a bit.

To Stan_en: I appreciate your work here - sorry I haven't been around to help. --Ibeme 19:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Government Technology Magazine

GovTech (eRepublic) does have a few connections its own and might not be an entirely neutral source. AndroidCat 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

GovTech is less reliable than any official advertisement from this company. If SMS officially places adds somewhere,at least they can be held accountable for it. I'll revert it! -- Stan talk 19:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Whoa - what's wrong with Govtech as a reliable source? I cited them in earlier edits of this article and never saw a complaint. Who said SMS ever advertized there? --Ibeme 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can write a press release and have it posted there, and there's no fact-checking, which is required for a reliable source. If you used a link there before, it should have been caught at the time. In this case, you can see that the press release isn't even associated with an author, so we have no idea who even wrote it. --GoodDamon 20:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Upon checking that link I see that it does appear to be a press release. Only used it as it was suggested by User:Leonmon in Mediation... --Ibeme (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making it a bit better-2

So, forget about the GovTech reference (I used it as it was suggested by Leonmom during Mediation) Let's discuss these changes - reason for them are presented unnder "Making it a bit better..." above. --Ibeme (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I like what I'm seeing with some of your changes. However, I did restore some of the text you remove (and I think a reference). Let us know what you think. --GoodDamon 07:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I searched the refs provided for Pat Lusey and did not find him even mentioned in the text of the cited articles. (The LA Times citation I removed in this deletion is referenced elswhere in the article so the referrence is not lost.) --Ibeme (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The citation is the for St. Petersburg Times article. AndroidCat (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you AndriodCat - I found the referrence. --Ibeme (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Stan_En and others... Its taken time but I finally found a citation that definitively answers and resovles any dispute about whether or not Sterling recriuts for Scintology (we all knew they did but...)

The latest edit simply states that as a fact, no acusations, no "he said / she said" so it is completely neutral, which is important.

I make two statement in the paragraph on WISE that I noted as [citation needed]. I have the citations for these but not in a useable form - I will continue to dig for them in a usable form and update as soon as I find them. --Ibeme (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ibeme, you added some uncited POV material which I deleted. Please abide by Wikipedia editing policies. Cite what you state and keep it NPOV. Thanks.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, both the BBB and Sunbiz cites are simply repetition of what the companies say about themselves, not statements by the BBS or the state of Florida. This seems like filler to replace the removal of significant RS cites from the article, again. AndroidCat (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Neutrality

On the contrary AndroidCat, the BBB cite is the first and, so far only definitive statement that we have on the question of whether Sterling disseminates Scientology. It confirms what we all already knew, and does so simply and directly without innuendo, or allegation. It is totally neutral.

Farenheit451: You were correct in your removal of my uncited statements re: WISE. What I said was and is true. I got it from a CD that I ordered from WISE which contains all of their contracts, etc.; a form that I don't think is citable in Wikipedia. In mediation Stan_En expressed concern about the level of control WISE could exert on Sterling. These documents answer that question. It's fascinating stuff, I think you would find it interesting. I'm still looking for it Wiki-citable format and, when I do find it I will let you all know about it.

Back to NPOV: Expository statements of fact, either pro or con, are neutral. Allegations, speculation, and innuendo even if true are not neutral as they carry a pro or con bias with them. We should try to avoid this sort of thing if possible - this is an encyclopedia after all, not the National Enquirer. --Ibeme (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

More stuff... I took a shot at cleaning up some of my referrences and then... Farenheit451: I don't know what you mean by "Affiliated with WISE...", WISE is a membership thing - you're either a mamber or you are not, so I just deleted your sentence and changed the sub-header. --Ibeme (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Those statements aren't definitive at all. I doubt the LA franchise of the BBB did more than copy and paste the text submitted by Sterling Management for the Nature of Business section. I have no particular interest in Sterling, but once again the number of significant references removed has passed my comfort threshold. I've added another POV tag to the article. AndroidCat (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Your doubts are noted and I agree that the tag is appropriate. Are you interested in working to resolve this on the Talk page? --Ibeme (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Please, no cherry picking! I restored third party sources now because the content was not covered in the new source(BBB). No matter how hard you try but reliable sources with unique and notable content must stay in the article. There is nothing to discuss. Rather expand the article if you think it is too onesided.-- Stan talk 17:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
"The Company’s contract states that its services are based on the secular application of the technology of L. Ron Hubbard in non religious fields. L Ron Hubbard founded the Church of Scientology" I removed this part because it is already mentioned in the intro but I don't care if someone wishes to insert it again. -- Stan talk 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
ugh, Whenever I said BBS, I actually meant BBB ;). -- Stan talk 22:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hugh Urban

This reference contains only an assertion that the author speculated on Sterling Management but not what he had to say about the subject. Further, from the title of the article, which has nothing to do with Sterling Management, management conlulting, Hubbard's Admin tech or even WISE it appears the article is completely irrelevant to the this article. This, in and of itself, should disqualify the referrence but there is more:

Links normally to be avoided

Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking —one should avoid:

  1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
  2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
  3. Any site that attempts to surreptitiously install malware on a visitor's computer.
  4. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
  5. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
  6. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
  7. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.
  8. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.
  9. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.
  10. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.
  11. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
  12. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
  13. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
  14. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

So, besides being pure nonsense the Urban reference violates point #7 above, you can't use it.

I have the same problem with all of the information I have dug up on WISE and how it operates. Its facinating and answers alot of questions but you would never let me use it as it is becuase I have not yet found it on any public sources. (By the way that clause for Sterling's contract that is quoted on the BBB site comes from a "Sample Enrollment Agreement" that WISE recommends that all consultants use with all of their clients. In other words WISE recommends full disclosure, up front of the consultant's relatinship with Scientology...)

Other referrences that you consider vital

Sterling Management is a recuiting channel for Scientology. Thier contract says so. The BBB citation is the only reference we have that is specific to Sterling but... The St. Petersburg Times and one other ref that I don't remember at the moment contain info on the effectiveness of that recruiting the WISE recruiting channel and that may be relevant to a discussion of Sterling as a WISE member.

The St. Pete Times tells us that Pat Lusey says 50% and that Singer Consultants says 20% and there is another ref out their quoting some WISE exeutive as claiming 75%. I have no problem with you using all of these - I suggest that you do. But please do it in a Neutral manner i.e. just make the statement without editorializing on it - we do not need "Critics and ex-scienologists claim" as an introduction to statements made by Scientologsists like Pat Lusey, David Singer and an Executive a WISE!

The Criticism Section

Dee Rowe? Wow, is that all you got? You can do better than that!

If I may take a personal moment, Stan_En, I know that I got off to a bad start with you and that you believe I have COI on this article as a result of my earlier (and perhaps current) actions but I have come to respect your knowledge, intellegence, ability and viewpoint. I do not wish to fight with you in this article or anywhere else. I would like to "Bury the hatchet" with you and get to work creating a good article. With the announcement today of Google's KNOL Wikipedia is doomed to irrelavnce anyway - so what we do here is of little or no consequence BUT I think it would be very cool if we could go out knowing that we did a good job of this thing and created at least one article on a controversial subject that we can be proud of.
To that end I propose a division of tasks here. You seem interested in controversy. I am interested in neutrality. I do not believe that these two conflict. There is (or was) controversey on Scientology that touched Sterling and if you want to write about it I have no problem with that. I do not want to write about it, my interest lies in figuring out the truth about WISE and WISE consultants; what they do, how they operate, etc. which I believe is not controversial (I may be wrong...) So I will do my thing and trust and expect you to keep me honest. You do your thing and I gurantee you that I will keep you honest.
Can we agree on this?

Back to subject - The references that you value, TIME Magazine, LA Times, St. Pete Times, etc. all violate point 14 of references that should be avoided IF the subject is Sterling Management because Sterling is only mentioned tangentially in articles about a broad range of other subjects. BUT the story of the controversy itself could be relevant to Sterling and, in that context, the references are relevant too. If you want to write that story and bring in all those references in that context please do.

About my edit this morning Its a bit more than minor but not really major (huh?)

  1. Urban out - for all of the obvious reasons
  2. "Critics and ex-Scientologists" out - misleading when the guy quoted is a Scientologist. (this deletion took out a couple of your refs - sorry - put 'em back in the "Contorversy section when you get it written.
  3. NPOV banner back in - there certainly is a dispute!

I didn't touch Dee Rowe - let your conscience be your guide. --76.91.212.53 (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

For starters, the WP:EL style guideline doesn't apply to references. If you must block paste text (rather than just providing a wikilink), you might want to find the right one. AndroidCat (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
For starters, What is it about this reference that you find important or valuable? --Ibeme (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Which one? You're invoking WP:EL as a reason to exclude a number of good references. However, WP:EL only applies to External links and not to references. AndroidCat (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Look agein: The only citation that I envoked WP:EL was the Urban reference. What is it about this reference that makes it important to you? --Ibeme (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
no, it was your reason to exclude a whole bunch of refs. TIME Magazine, LA Times, St. Pete Times, etc. all violate point 14 of references -- Stan talk 18:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
"Critics and ex-Scientologists" out - misleading when the guy quoted is a Scientologist. it can be solved easily if you dispute this sentence "only" because you think it is misleading and falsely indicates that Lucey is a critic. I'll move the sentence to make it more clear that Lucey is not a supporter of this claims. -- Stan talk 18:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Stan_En: I did not mean to invoke WP:EL against all other references at this time. My point was only that these refs are not relevant to what Sterling does or it does it. But there was a controversy about Sterling and these refereces are certianly relevant to that. They are the controversy and I did not mean to exclude them from the "Controversy Section". --Ibeme (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. I won't remove the POV tag again but I have some problems following your logic now. You don't dispute the references nor the content ?! What do you actually dispute ? The only deleted content from you is following: “…The Company’s contract states that its services are based on the secular application of the technology of L. Ron Hubbard in non religious fields. L Ron Hubbard founded the Church of Scientology. But it is mentioned in the article already multiple times(intro,services). Do you really think its necessary to repeat it in the SMS and CoS section again or do you just want to write the "truth" and get rid of all the "wrong" statements. I'm afraid that will not be possible as long the connection to CoS is controversial and questioned. We won't be able to decide what actually is true(WP:OR) and therefore report all viewpoints(critics,jounalists,scholars and SMS). Let the reader think for themself instead of trying to present an ultimate truth.
  2. What is your problem with Hugh Urban? The article states that he questions if sevices from SMS are religious or secular like Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi does. It is not worth a headline but notable enough to be mentioned.-- Stan talk 20:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Problems

Stan_En: I'll keep this really simple.

Urban - The mans article is not available except on a pay-per-view website. And the reference isn't needed any as it is claimed to be simply a re-hash of Briet-Halshimi.

Point of View

Why this article is not neutral. (take notes)

  1. Facts are neutral. Opinions, either pro or con, are not.
  2. Most of the reference we have to work with in this article are opinion pieces that were part of an 18 year old black PR campaign against Scientology.
  3. The references themselves are not nuetral.
  4. The references do, however, contain some facts.
  5. We can and should use those facts paritcularly in the absence of factual data from non-biased sources.
  6. Keeping the use of those facts neutral takes a bit of style and grace and a lot of judegement.

Your writing of the section on Sterling and Scientology doesn't even come close. you want to take another shot at it? --76.91.212.53 (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but just saying that most of those articles are "opinion pieces that were part of an 18 year old black PR campaign" and are biased really isn't good enough. You'll have to find RS to support that view. At least one of those articles, The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, won important awards in journalism. Nor does the article have to fit some undefined neutral position if the references don't support that. The article fits the references, not the other way around. AndroidCat (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The mans article is not available except on a pay-per-view website wrong, it is published in a journal and should be available in libraries. Sources don't need to be published in the internet.(WP:RS) However, I'm curious myself and will try to get a copy in the library next time. If you are interested I will send it to you.(but probably not befor January).
1-6)please be more specific. It is not helpful if you write general essays about POV. We have already a binding policy for that.(WP:NPOV)
  • opinion pieces that were part of an 18 year old black PR campaign That is your only argument ? Sorry but without reliable sources it is not more than a private opinion and I am surprised about your choice of wording.("Black PR"). Your main objection in general seems to be "more facts, less opinion". But who are you or I to determine what is fact. You think journalists and scholars aren't able to find the facts but we are? How? WP:OR. BTW, All sources used now for the article are not even particular from critics. I think the criticism is really "soft" here compared to the ongoing controversy. Please don't insert the POV tag again unless you have specific and valid arguments. -- Stan talk 05:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


Stan_En: Regarding Urban - I would be interested as I have tried without success to find it.

As far as TIME magazine and other references are concerned I did not say that they should not be used; only that they are not nuetral and some judgement should be used (WP:EL). For example: The St. Pete Times article that quotes Pat Lucey also contains a statement from officials at Singer Consutlants that 20% are introduced to Scientology. So what's the fact here, 20%? or 50%? neither the fact is: "Estimates vary". (Also as these estimates deal with WISE in general and are not specific to Sterling thus, if we use them in the Sterling article they need to be identified as such.)

By the way, doing the math based on these estimates we find:

  • Sterling has introduced some 80,000 people (50% of those that they have trained) to Scientolgy and,
  • Conversely, 80,000 people trained by Sterling were not introduced to Scientology, and
  • Of those who were introduced about a dozen, or .015% of them were unhappy about it.

That's a hell of lot of happy Scientolgists and an equal number who never got "caught up in" Scientology at all. --Ibeme (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

you have one good point. The Pat Lucey figure isn't probably very accurate but we didn't say that. The article also mentions that his estimates are for WISE in general and not only Sterling. However, "Estimates vary" is probably better. Doing the math is not possible. The number of participants is by itself controversial. We don't have good numbers to calculate with. * Of those who were introduced about a dozen, or .015% of them were unhappy about it. looks like quite naive OR. How do you know that the rest is happy? Most people who are unhappy may not get a newsstory. We have no clue how many people are happy with it. -- Stan talk 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Where can I find singer's 20% statement ? -- Stan talk 17:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Stan_En - the Singer quote is in the same St. Peterburg Times article as the Lucey quote, it's in the first half of the article (which is about Singer, by the way but Sterling is also mentioned.)
This is the kind of thing I meant about using facts. Every article you have cited contains some obvious truths for example: 'Sterling introduces people to Scientology' true; we now have proof of that in the companies own contract. Even the things that I have protested in the past have some truth to them, example: It's afact that Six (or whatever the number is) people who were introduced to Scientology by Sterling reported having a very nasty experience with and in Scientology. Its a fact that, regardless of Sterling's level of culpability for the horrors they suffered they would not have suffered them at all had Sterling not introduced them to Scientology. Its also a fact that their individual stories are repeated, almost verbaitm in multiple media sources spread over a period of 4 years. And its also a fact that those stories have been picked up and re-run in other media over the years. We could (and have) argue indefinitly about the truth of the stories and their applicablility to an article on Sterling but we can never argue about the fact that these stoies exist; that needs to dealt with and dealt with in this article.
I hope this is clear and gives you insight into what I have been talking about here. I do not wish to try to dissmiss these references. I tried that with no joy, for any of us becuase the fact is that the stories exist. They are part of the Sterling story. My hope is that we can come to an agreement on how to deal with them.
Regarding the math - I don't mean to suggest that we could use this in the article I mentioned it only to put things in some sort of perspective. It is interesting to a look at the shear size of what we are talking about here. If you believe Hubbard's theories about suppressive persons numbers of this scale would drive 'em nuts! --Ibeme (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the math - I wanted to state that it is useless at all(for the article and discussion). We don't have any verifiable numbers to calculate with. But I'm still open to change the statement from Pat Lucey but don't know how to do it yet. According to the sources we have now, the most fair representation might be something like this(despite the wording): "Estimates about clients from SMS and WISE companies in general who enter the church vary. Uptrend Co-founder Pat Lucey was quoted as saying that 50 ... while Singer offials acknowledged that about 20 ..." . Since all this figures are controversial and from WISE members it would be best to also have some reliable third party estimates but I didn't find any ):. -- Stan talk 18:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


A shot at the wording... I am not totally happy with this but it does seem a bit better to me. Here is what changed and why:

  1. "WISE" put back in the section title as most of the section is about WISE and its activities rather than just Sterling.
  2. The acusatory statement "Critics and ex-Scientologists..." removed and repaced with simple declarative statements of the activities of WISE, and WISE member, including Sterling.
  3. Quote form the BBB report removed and replaced with a simple statement of what Sterling does as supported by the BBB referrence.

So there it is, clean, simple, factual. (Some references were deleted in by this change. I think I got them all back in in the "Criticism" section but you will want ot look at this closely.)

--Ibeme (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rowe block-quote out

This quote is highly inflammatory and, although it stems from "reliable sources" it give a very NPOV slant to the article. (see Wikisource:IN THE MATTER OF: STEPHEN GLOVER ROWE, D.M.D. License No.: 4121) and pick a better poster-child next time.

--Ibeme (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your selfpublished source in Wikisource is not reliable and off-topioc! Don't try to discredit STEPHEN GLOVER ROWE, it won't affect the reliability anyway and is only your own OR. Unless the Time (magazine) or Cherokee County Herald correct themself it will stay notable. -- Stan talk 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)