Talk:World Institute of Scientology Enterprises
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents[hide] |
[edit] Comment
This really needs some cleanup and clarification, but I don't understand much of the author's intent.
"It uses what it calls 'standard admin' (administration) and that is a fairly large volume of information. WISE applies this information into the business world in such a way as to make the Admin Tech useable in the business world." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeyeswin (talk • contribs) 00:23, 19 April 2006
[edit] Removed section
I have removed a section suggesting that the Mission: Renaissance art school is a Scientology front. As editors in this area well know, it is imperative with Scientology topics that our sourcing be absolutely rock-solid and that WP:NPOV be followed scrupulously. Sourcing an accusation like this to a blog just isn't thorough enough. I invite editors in this area to please better nail this one down. Phil Sandifer 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you research the WISE directories, you will see that Mission:Rennaisance is indeed a Scientology WISE organization. Since it is also appears to be a sucesfull business, perhaps calling it a "front" is not accurate. Did not find any additional confirmation that there is recruiting pressure through Mission:Renaisance, though there are researched articles on other WISE organizations putting pressure on employees to attend Scientology training programs. LA Times: Converting the Business World (Sterling Management Systems). Perhaps somebody with more free time than I can research this further. Gallup 23:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't doubt you in principle, but still - a more reliable source is going to have to be found for this. We can't go making accusations about people on the basis of blogs. Phil Sandifer 05:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Point of fact; being a "Scientology WISE organization" simply means that the owner(s) of the firm have embraced Hubbard's administrative ideas such as Management by statisitics and the Org board and have agreed by abide by a certain Code of Ethics which includes arbitration by a WISE mediator of any disputes with another WISE member. That is the basic company membership. Now if the firm also wants to train its employees in the Hubbard administrative technology using WISE materials then they become a higher-level member. It is this formal training that some object to but most WISE members to not provide the formal training. --Justanother 10:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- On the other hand, some do (Hey, isn't an e-meter a religious artifact?) AndroidCat 21:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Point of fact; being a "Scientology WISE organization" simply means that the owner(s) of the firm have embraced Hubbard's administrative ideas such as Management by statisitics and the Org board and have agreed by abide by a certain Code of Ethics which includes arbitration by a WISE mediator of any disputes with another WISE member. That is the basic company membership. Now if the firm also wants to train its employees in the Hubbard administrative technology using WISE materials then they become a higher-level member. It is this formal training that some object to but most WISE members to not provide the formal training. --Justanother 10:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't doubt you in principle, but still - a more reliable source is going to have to be found for this. We can't go making accusations about people on the basis of blogs. Phil Sandifer 05:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you research the WISE directories, you will see that Mission:Rennaisance is indeed a Scientology WISE organization. Since it is also appears to be a sucesfull business, perhaps calling it a "front" is not accurate. Did not find any additional confirmation that there is recruiting pressure through Mission:Renaisance, though there are researched articles on other WISE organizations putting pressure on employees to attend Scientology training programs. LA Times: Converting the Business World (Sterling Management Systems). Perhaps somebody with more free time than I can research this further. Gallup 23:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
That is right, some do. And I imagine only a small number of firms use an e-meter in cramming (cramming means finding out what a person does not understand about their job and fixing that misunderstanding). In a Scientology church, the meter is usually used in cramming to help spot the area of confusion and may or may not be a part of the remedy. Usually the remedy is some sort of study order that the person does on their own or with another (no meter) and then back to the meter to check for the floating needle on the action. While every WISE member would have an Org Board with someone in charge of Qual (correction) I doubt many use a meter. And certainly the meter would not be used if the person objects to it. Most likely the auditing skill desired is to audit only those staff that are Scientologists, a position known as Staff Staff Auditor (to distinquish from Staff Auditor that audits public in the HGC). --Justanother 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] deletion of critical material
A link to the site http://home.snafu.de/tilman/prolinks/I-20.html has been repeatedly deleted with no apparent reason beyond that it is critical of scientology. While it is not the sole source for this article, it does contain material that is directly relevent to the article's subject matter and regardless of whether or not individual scientologists agree with that material it should remain present in the links section. (RookZERO 18:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC))
- Heheh, Justanother claims (once again) that my site is a "hate site". I wonder why he hasn't filed a criminal complaint in Germany in all these years, since creating "hate sites" is a crime (§ 130 StGB [1]) that is punished with jail up to three years.
- Maybe it is because my site isn't a "hate site" at all :-) --Tilman 19:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] gormez et al
See Sterling Management Systems, talk page. Shutterbug 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External reference links???
I thought external reference links were supposed to be in the references section - linking to other non-biased WIKI pages. What I see here is an attempt to trick people into following content links to reference pages. This seems unfair to other WIKI pages that obviously cannot put external links into the content of the article (otherwise, there would be external links all over WIKI).
Naglma 19:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)