Talk:Nova (eikaiwa)/Archive 1

NPOV

why do i get the feeling some of this page was written by a disgruntled NOVA teacher? NPOV problems, anyone? will tweek it a little when I get around to it. Binkymagnus 22:13, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

that was quick.....did more than a tweek. added some content. info on the business from http://www.nova.ne.jp/english/corporation/05gaiyou/gaiyou.html. I remembered the kanji for ekimae ryuugaku, and even have a Mac than can type in kanji, but don't know how to make it show up on the page. so if anyone can do it, please do. I also added NOVA's website that they use for recruiting English-language instructors. it's not NPOV, but it has lots of useful information on the company. Binkymagnus 23:35, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Hey, nice job on expanding the article to include the lessons and level system, AlexSmall. Gorilla Jones 07:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

Some points on the controversy: Nova is a business, so the "for profit" and its repetition is not necessary. Stick to the facts here and use verifiable sources. Added some links to the news stories. Sparkzilla 17:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Added work time cut. I checked The Japan Times and Crisscross News Japan and saw no mention that Nova was "rebuffed". Even if it can be shown that Nova has financial difficulties, I doubt it can also be shown that the source of those difficuties are due to the payment of Shakai Hoken.Sparkzilla 02:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a common sense argument that given the numbers involved compared to Nova's official turnover, payment of Shakai Hoken would be a notable factor. Obviously other internal factors affect its current situation as well, but companies are unlikely to reveal where exactly revenue is lost for commercial reasons. The credit ratings of Nova from various japanese banks would be a better guide. Can anyone find something appropriate?--Shakujo 04:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Even though there has been this controversy about the drug testing, it's still in place, although now random. Markleci

You need to find the exact source and state it, keeping in mind rules regarding Wikipedia:original research.--Shakujo 04:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Random drug testing? Not according to informed sources, no. Where did this come from? Exact sources would be from the company and the unions and district court or labour commission records. Media would be acceptable but they do get the facts mixed as well. As of this date, the unions have published their position and analysis (and they are liable under laws for defamation and slander for getting it wrong, unlike the media) but NOVA Intercultural Institute has not been forthcoming. The unions in their sources state that there is no testing and the matter has been dropped without any public statement to that fact. To date I have found nothing from the NII and there is nothing to find about any litigation on this matter in the media. Japan Times, Mainichi Shimbun and Mainichi Daily, Yomiuri Shinbun and Yomiuri Daily and the Asahai Evening News and the Asahi Shinbun do not provide archives that far back on line. Any activity would have to be current.

NB: In 1996 I began an investigation for the National Union of General Workers in Tokyo and spoke directly to the CDC in Atlanta. They made it clear that adequate testing (no false positives) was very expensive. At the time we estimated that accurate drug testing of more than 2,000 people could have cost NII millions of dollars. This was relayed to the General Union in Osaka and they made note of it in their negotiations with NII. The press pursued the matter and at one point the president of NII stated that they were working with the police in Osaka. Osaka police then made a statement that this was not true. Eventually it ended up on the Diet floor in subcommitte and the Prime Minister was asked the question--was the government cooperating with NII in the investigation. He was embarrased by the question--a matter well beneath his pay grade--and answered that no, there was no such cooperation. This information was published and while I was part of it I can not simply post it in the article since I have not been able to find my scrapbook on the matter and the aforementioned archival limitations of the media confound the issue as well. I am trying to get the various groups in Japan to chip in and am able to fill in some blanks. Malangthon 21:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT!!! Read this if you have worked for Nova

Just because you worked at Nova and think you have some inside knowledge about the company does not entitle you to post here. This page is not the place for rumours that you may have heard, inside knowledge that no-one outside the company knows, or your opinions or the consensus of opinions of teachers about the company.

Wikipedia requires reliable sources, such as items from the company website and newspaper or magazine articles about the company. If you don't have a proper source please do not post on the page. All non-sourced items should be removed from the page. Sparkzilla 03:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

By having worked for NOVA that of course includes anyone at any level in any position. On, the other hand, it must be stated that having worked for NOVA does not abrogate the opportunities for your role here provided you are acting in compliance with Wikipedia Policy. That said, it is also appropriate for editors to advise us all of possible leads as things develop with regard to NOVA Inter. Inst., here, in this section--discussion. Wild rumours, while possibly amusing, are of no use to anyone, so do understand that we are referring to possible sources of information that can be traced and cited. Malangthon 21:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Financial Information

Nova's main bank seems to be Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation. Can anyone find out what their credit rating of NOVA and the NOVA group is?--Shakujo 07:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Some time back (mid 90s) the teachers' union at Tokyo Foreign Language College (Tokyo Gaikokujo Senmon Gakku) did get a credit rating for their employer. It was a lengthy process. You'd have to do it from there or make a request through a corporate entity for example. Malangthon 22:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

There is a lot of incorrect information in this article. Not just the amount of pay, which has to be set at a minimum of 250,000 JPY to meet the requirements for the issuing of a visa. Also the salary is dependant on where you live in Japan, due to cost of living. Your description of the hours are also wrong as if your information on the visa of those with a US passport. You should check your information before posting it. Also you should inculde the reasons why there is the Non-scoialisation policy, examples of those instructors who have been blackmailed by students who have lied to Nova about relationships after a personal fall out between the instructor and student. I am by no means a "Novatron" however it is clear that the individual who wrote this article, although trying to be subjective, is clearly showing his/her anti Nova feelings. japaneswhispers (11:14 14/2/6 JST)

This article has been edited by several people, so it can hardly be the feelings of only one individual that are represented. In fact, some people have worked very hard to keep this page as free as they can from bias.

While I certainly think accurate up-to-date information is a goal here, there are sufficient numbers of variations and changes that can make the information given at any time limited in scope. I worked in the unions in Japan for 16 years, was involved in many union actions against NOVA and sat through many labour tribunals as well as district court sessions in Tokyo involving employee disputes with the NOVA. There is always enough information variation to make it nearly impossible to describe everything. Malangthon 08:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

About the non-socialization policy: The article only mentions the court case against Nova and the result. This by itself is not biased. I don't think anyone really knows "why" Nova has that policy for sure except the management of the company. If there is some definitave source out there which proves the reason why, by all means include the information in the article with the source cited. --Alex Small 09:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My starting salary after training is set at Y220,000 not including regional bonuses and other bonuses. Markleci

You need to check your payslips. The starting salary for GEOS is also 220,000 but they add an additional allowance to fit in with Visa regulations. Having said that, this path of discussion is off-topic because it concerns Wikipedia:original research. If you want to discuss this further you should really find an outside source other than yourself.--Shakujo 04:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

This illustrates a problem with topics like this. If you find a statement at the company site then you would of course be justified in citing it. You would not be justified in saying that it was fact. Consider what Saruhashi said about cooperating with the Police in Osaka in 1996 in the drug investigation and then again in 1997. It was published in the media and was available in English. However, he lied. It was denied by the Prime Minister of Japan on the floor of the Diet. Where is that source? In the Diet Records, in Japanese. The first set of statements may be easily accessed--at the time. The second can be accessed for many years to come--but you have to go to the archives in Tokyo to do it.

If someone here has a pay slip that says one thing and the company web site says another, both are printed sources. Suggestion: Make a jpg of the pay slip and post it here with a diagramme explaining how it works. Then make the related references to the subject. If that is unacceptable, then the positive POV supporting the company's commercial interests can be levied which is, from the tone here, not what we are about. Contracts are also fair game. They are printed and they are registered and they constitute legal documents that must be accessed by interested parties given that they must comply with laws in Japan and must be, therefore, available for audit. Whatever happens, this article is meaningless unless it is balanced.Malangthon 22:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Contracts and payslips are primary sources and should not be used, especially here, where it would contravene WP:OR Please use secondary sources where possible Sparkzilla 22:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

You have a list here on WIkipedia of this? Payslips and contracts are specifically not allowed? They are printed and become part of the public record and are used in evidence of an agreement while not constituting the agreement but they are not allowed?

So, the Diet Records or court records, the definitive records in the drug case are inadmissible? If a media source interviews a participant and that interview in full or in part (i.e. quotes) is then printed and published--that is a primary source, categorically. This presents some problems for your perspective. Any journal article written by a researcher who actually did the research is, categorically, a primary source--it is the official report by the original researcher who did the original research and in the act of publishing it the findings can be attributed to that author. This is why it is called Boyle's Law and not Cavendish's Law. There are a lot of examples like this. Reviews of the literature and reports about interviews are secondary sources.

The issue here is that the source must be reliable and it must be accessible--not primary or secondary; NOT, I repeat, NOT simply research reported here--on this site--for the first time. That is what the Wikipedia policy prohibits. If actual documents, official documents, are not allowed, then right here, right now, this ends. If Wikipedia published what you just said as official policy then the only thing we can account for is that any rag, any blog, will become our sole sources because they report as secondary sources, not primary.

Pay slips and contracts are in fact not the primary sources, they record the agreement and provide evidence in writing in the event of a dispute--the person saying "I agree to these conditions," and the person accepting that are the primary sources. Otherwise any person could be forced into a situation without their consent by someone else simply signing all sorts of 'primary' sources obligating a second party which would then make it fact and thus enforceable by law. Malangthon 23:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Calm down and read Wikipedia articles on reliable Sources WP:RS and WP:OR. The definitions of primary/secondary sources are there. Pay slips are primary sources, and are certainly not allowed on their own -- if they are included as part of research in a relable source then that is acceptable. PS: Good work on sourcing the article. Sparkzilla 03:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Have read it. Some of us need to reread it though. Here are the relevant sections

• Types of source material

• Main article: Wikipedia:Attribution

• Three classes of sources exist, each of which can be used within Wikipedia:

• Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources. Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.
• Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's analysis of a traffic accident, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

Obviously payslips and contracts are acceptable as primary sources. Malangthon 04:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The most important question is "Where do these documents appear?" If they appear on a teacher's site then they will count as being self-published and would not be an acceptable source. If, as you suggested above, they scan it and upload it to Wikipedia, such an upload would also contrave using Wikipedia as a source about itself (a form of orginal research). You cannot upload contracts/payslips to Wikipedia for use as sources.

If contracts or payslips appear on say a union or newspaper site then perhaps they could be used as a primary source, but only the most basic of descriptions would be used. ie. Teacher A was paid Y25,000. No conclusions or comparisons with other data could be drawn from the payslip or contract. However, in such cases it is likely that the union or newspaper would have aleady made comments on the contract, making their comments a valid secondary source.

These policies are specifically designed to stop editors drawing their own conculsions from their own inside source material, or encouraging others to do so. Sparkzilla 09:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this statement, "If they appear on a teacher's site then they will count as being self-published and would not be an acceptable source." Anything that Nova puts on its website is de facto, self published. This means that (a) anyone who disagrees with NOVA is penalised but if (b) NOVA publish NOVA is not. The double standard here is certainly not Wikipedia policy. Otherwise any and all infomrmaiton published by NOVA must be removed from this article. Malangthon 01:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Corporate sites can be used as sources for facts about the company, but they should be treated carefully so as not to give the appearance of advertising or promotion. In any case, if you look at the article you will see that (so far) very little of the information about the company is sourced from Nova's corporate website. Sparkzilla 04:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

NOVA Corporation as a primary source of this article

With regard to the statment by the SparkZilla entity at 04:13, on 8 March 2007 (UTC): "if you look at the article you will see that (so far) very little of the information about the company is sourced from Nova's corporate website"

• Corporate Outline - Three paragraphs, no source given. NOVA?
• Instructors- One government source only given in direct relation to Visa. Three paragraphs with in excess of 20 separate statements and no source for any of them. NOVA?
• Lessons - Five subsections (describing in generous and unsourced terms the structure of what is primarly a primer for promotion of the company), seven paragraphs, one citation specifically regarding an individual appearing in a textbook. Primary source - NOVA?
• Controvery - six subsections, 15 paragraphs (could be more if properly formatted), 20 citations.
• Trivia - One subsection and one paragraph with one citation

SUMMARY The sections about NOVA that describe information throwing criticism on NOVA (15 paragraphs, 1,322 words) is heavily resourced: more than 3 to a subsection and more than one per paragraph on average. The information that promoted NOVA's enterprise and profitability (13 paragraphs and 1,177 words or nearly 48% of the article) is basically unresourced. Where does that information come from if not from NOVA? Therein lies the problem, the article is to a great degree very much a commercial promotion and the editors of those sections have not stated their sources. Clearly the statment by the SparkZilla entity has in error. Malangthon 20:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Student section

I've gotten rid of the section having to do with why students study English, and undesirable students. This sort of thing is not at all exclusive to Nova, and should instead be added to Eikaiwa if anyone feels that it's relevant. Personally, I don't think the section on undesirable students is necessary at all. Sexual harassment isn't something limited only to students at an Eikaiwa, and neither are most of the others that were listed. --Alex Small 00:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not read that section so I do not know what it said. On principle though, if it was sourced and made direct connexions on the topic to NOVA I. I., then it should remain here. Otherwise, it gets lost in an ambiguous haze by simply limiting it to a very broad topic. Malangthon 22:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Lesson Cost

This depends on the size of the lesson package purchased not location.

Non socialization policy

Someone removed my comment that Nova students aren't told about the non-socialization rule. I've re-inserted it like this:

"Nova forbids instructors and students from any interaction with each other outside of the workplace (although only instructors are told about this rule)."

This is wholly accurate, as the non-socialization policy applies to instructors AND students, and only instructors, not students, are told about it. And the fact they aren't told about it is a relevant piece of information about the non-socialization policy.220.111.60.113 04:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any consistent policy on telling students about the non-socialization rule. It probably varies by branch and the manager's style. Staff members generally aren't going to bring something up that would interfere with their ability to make a sale, though. One staff member (the sales ace) at my branch actually went so far as to tell a student that not only were students allowed to date teachers, but a number of us were single and looking for a Japanese girlfriend. (The sales cubicles were right around the corner from the teachers room - the staff member in question didn't speak English, so I guess she assumed none of us spoke Japanese.) Gorilla Jones 06:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I last worked for Nova about 3 years ago and although it might have changed since, I know that students at our branch weren't told about it by Nova. I know this was the case at other branches as well. As you said, they wouldn't say anything about it because it could affect their sales. However, I suppose it's a statement which could do with a citation to back it up. I might re-word it to reflect what you've just said, although it looks like it could end up in an edit war.220.111.60.113 07:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Unidentified POVs

There have been one or two very strong POV statement edits, from unidentified users with only IP addresses, aimed at Eikaiwa. Where these have been libelous and didn't cite their sources, I have either edited or reverted them to a more NPOV. The IP addresses originate from Japan. It seems to be a concerted attempt to push the particularly negative POV that Eikaiwa teachers are ALL drug-taking illegal-immigrant rapists. I hope I am wrong, the thought that people could be so xenophobic makes me depressed.--Shakujo 05:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have only written one thing on NOVA or eikaiwa so far, your sudden negative accusation towards Japanese people in general and deletion of my comment is not fair. I added a source.

BTW, the entry title should be NOVA, not Nova.

BTW NOVA and Nova are both used by the company to refer to themselves.NOVA (Nova). "NOVA: Corporate Concept and Vision". Retrieved 2007-01-31. --Shakujo 08:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not make any statement accusing "Japanese people", to do so would be rather strange in my case anyway. I said the IP address originated from Japan. I think I should have said that the thought that the people around me could be so xenophobic makes me depresssed. Anyway, the reason I reverted rather than edited it was because you didn't have a user name, only a IP address, and I have been editing negative POVs from japan IPs all week, as per the wikiguidelines, so I was a little tired. Anyway, I added the original Japanese citation as well to your source, so I hope there is no offence taken.--Shakujo 06:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't complain about editing xenophobic comments in general, but if you want to do it, please do it fairly. I always think that there are so many strange comments against Japanese, often baseless or with a sense of hatred or racial prejudice.

I always supply the reasoning behind my editing and sign any comments I make. I think it would be a good idea for you to register a User name and sign your comments, then this type of thing is unlikely to happen again.--Shakujo 07:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments!Sparkzilla 07:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember to check out the Edit summaries. When I edited your first entry I noted that there wasn't a citation. You should have entered the citation on your first edit.--Shakujo 07:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Article should be renamed to...

Nova (English school in Japan). The casual reader has no idea what "Eikaiwa" means. If there are no objections I will rename it in a day or two Sparkzilla 08:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No objections, but if you do that, you should make sure to preserve links with the topic of "Eikaiwa" and maybe edit the initial description so this link is obvious.--Shakujo 08:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed Sparkzilla 04:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Added infobox. Could someone pelase fill in the relevant details? Thanks. Sparkzilla 04:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

CEO name

Sahashi or Saruhashi? Sparkzilla 08:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
What Kanji does he/she use? There are lots of little jibes about the names of Eikaiwa CEOs, so we need to be careful. Don't want to translate the name as sarubashi or "monkey-bridge".--Shakujo 09:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Japanese Wikipedia, the name is 猿橋望 in kanji... I've seen the name spelled as Saruhashi, which, exactly as the kanji show, means "monkey bridge." Unfortunately, the Japanese wiki doesn't have an article about the man himself, and so we can only guess what the proper way to read his name is.--Alex Small 12:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the company webpage, "Nova Coporate Profile Website (Japanese)". {{cite web}}: Text "accessdate- 2007-02-07" ignored (help) confirms that his name is 猿橋 望, translated as Nozo Saruhashi. Maybe that is why it doesn't seem to be listed on the english site.--Shakujo 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the English version of the Japanese link you gave above ("here". {{cite web}}: Text "accessdate- 2007-02-08" ignored (help), the name is read "Nozomu Sahashi," so that's as official as we're gonna get, I suppose.--Alex Small 23:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about his first name is it Nozo or Nozomu? I would have said Nozo, but its unclear. His personal entry in Nozomu Saruhashi is quite rightly up for deletion. Nozomu sounds like a nickname, but it may be another reading of the Kanji, I'm not sure.--Shakujo 08:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Nozomu Sahashi

Please merge any relevant content from Nozomu Sahashi per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nozomu Sahashi (2nd nomination). Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:16Z

Allegations of Fraud

-3 sources so far-

Japan Times Feb 17, 2007 Nova probed over refunds, deception. Big English school faces sales ban [1]

Asahi Shimbun Feb 17, 2007 Nova searched in contract row [2]

Mainichi February 16 NOVA raided after complaints over missing tuition fees [3]

Malangthon 19:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the full articles from here (and added links to the articles). Next time would you mind simply posting the links here, or better still posting the links in the article itself. Thank you.Sparkzilla 07:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You have removed a primary source. Those links do not last. In effect you have erased the record. You have deliberately destroyed evidence. Who are you working for? NOVA? If anything this spells out your naivete or utter lack of regard for the issues here. Malangthon 01:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, you are compelled by wiki policy to reach consensus over these matters. You have erased text on the discussion page. Knock it off. And for pity sake, get a name and identify your self properly. Malangthon 01:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What is this? ""His spark is worse than his bite" "Who am I? A little monster" "Why am I here? Seemed like a good idea at the time..." You have got issues lad. Get a job, get an identity. Get a life. Malangthon 01:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are naive regarding Wikipedia basics.

1. You are not allowed to post complete articles to Wikipedia because...
   1. it is a violation of copyright WP:C
   2. Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source WP:ATT. This was explained to you above.
2. There is no need for consensus when policy is being broken
3. They are not primary sources - they are secondary
4. I linked to the articles directly, which is Wikipedia policy, and ensures that other editors can verifiy the information WP:ATT
5. Newspaper articles do not disappear that fast
6. Although it is none of your business, I have never worked for Nova nor have I ever had any other kind of relationship with them, or even any relationship with any person who has worked for them. I do, however, believe that this particular page has problems caused by ex-teachers who add unverified information about the company, and people like you who do not understand how Wikipedia works.
7. Your petty and immature opinions on my user page are irrelevant to this discussion

Please do not repost copyrighted material.Sparkzilla 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted materials

• Are not Exclusively prohibited under copyright laws
• Sweeping statments like this are not only detrimental to WP but lead others down the wrong path altogether
• Not the issue since the sources have given permission to post and record as a matter of course with proper attribution.

Malangthon 23:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot accept that your posts will be edited by other users according to Wikipedia policy then you should consider not posting here. Sparkzilla 02:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can not accept that your lack of understanding of the pertinent laws and policies at WP will not be accepted without question and your imperious self-important egotistical agressive nature will not be respected please find another hobby and leave the WP alone Malangthon 23:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Have the above posts been broken up with insertions? If so, please make clear who's saying what. Also remembember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Comment on edits not editors. If there is a problem with sources likely to disappear (which doesn't stop them being cited), consider using www.webcitation.org. Wiki has its own polices which are stricter than demanded by copyright laws. Tyrenius 09:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Lessons section

1. It is unsourced 2. It reads like an ad 3. It is too long

Perhaps someone could try to condense it into a medium-sized paragraph (with sources). Rather than detail every element of the lessons, perhaps it would be simpler to highlight what is different or exceptional about Nova's offerings compared to other schools. Sparkzilla 07:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Expired external links

I have deleted three expired links. The media sources in Japan rarely keep these up for long and this is a persistent problem with using media sources in Japan. Furthermore, if anyone were to run these down for further research, dates, page numbers and titles of the articles as well as writer's by line, if any, were not included and would render that section of little or no use. Other than providing the media site with more hits to run up potential revenue from advertising, the continued use of these served no purpose. The citation format was neither informative nor complimentary to Wikipedia. It would be appreciated if citations provided the pertinent information if the article is to be taken seriously. Malangthon 08:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Links

I removed these links

• One teacher's experience.
• Another teacher's experience.
• A guide for those considering teaching English for Nova in Japan

These are basically personal accounts/guides to working at NOVA. They offer no real verifiability, and don't contribute much to article content. Links should meet criteria of NPOV, verifibility and notability. There are probably at least 100 similar websites out there. Nothing precludes these ones as being particularly special. A user could find these (and others)with a pretty easy "nova guide japan" google[4].--ZayZayEM 00:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

ZayZayEM Your deletion was a very definite POV move

These are the sites you left

• Official website (in Japanese)
• Official Company Profile website (in English)
• Nova's English-language recruitment website
• Nova Teacher's Union Movement website (in English)
• Konami Official site for Nova game

A game promoting a commecial endeavor, One registered Union (recognised by the Constitution of Japan as a Juridical Entity and bound by laws rather more stringent that those of private enterprise) And three more NOVA business sites. Four commercial sites in total. This is blatant POV. and if we are to accept Sparkzilla's imperious proclamation, they are self-published. Full stop.

They offer no verifiability--as evidenced by the bru-ha-ha over the drug scandal we know they are blatant liars. They are certainly personal descriptions of the business--you think the owner would let them go up on the net if he did not personally approve them? They offer nothing notable since the NOVA sites can be found easily, they are selling what millions of other such entities are selling worldwide and 10s of thousands are selling in Japan so they should go. Not verifiable, not notable.

Oh yes, and NOVA is selling something. The two people who relate their experiences are not. In every respect these deletions are supporting and enriching a commercial endeavour. NOT WP Policy.

So

• A. Put the personal sites back or
• B. Take the self-published, self-serving, commercial, and extremely POV NOVA sites off.

48 Hours should be enough time to reconsider this precipitous deletion. Do you need less or more?

There is some really sloppy thinking going on here. Please think these things out before you make a move. Better yet, follow WP Policy and get consensus before you move anything. Malangthon 02:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The only sloppy thinker around here is you. Please read Wikipedia Policy regarding external linksWP:EL.

Guidelines for Links

• WHAT SHOULD BE LINKED: Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
• LINKS TO AVOID: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority

Also, please moderate you tone. Giving ultimatums to other editors is not nice. Thank you. Sparkzilla 02:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Except by a recognized authority. OK, here you go, I am.

• A. Former executive director of one of the largest applied linguistics organisations in Asia and have a graduate degree in the field.
• B. Former executive director of more than one registered union in Japan.
• C. Numerous publications in juried publications in language education and labour rights.
• D. I am even the guy who got the General Union in Tokyo to change its policy on organising unions at the eikaiwa. Spent nearly 16 years in labour commissions, district courts and organised unions. Got my picture in the media numerous times, was frequently interviewed by the media including NHK and Fuji TV. Recognised. Malangthon 23:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

On the Internet nobody cares if you are a dog. Your "qualifications" are irrelevant to this discussion, and appear to be a way to force your opinion on the topic. What people care about here is that you use proper sources, and follow Wikipedia policy and spirit, which you clearly are not doing. Sparkzilla 01:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The assertion was that "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Recognized authority was then listed and qualifications stated in response to the demand. The response of the Sparkzilla entity was then to say that "recognized authority" was immaterial in clear contradiction of the previous statement. The vascilation in reasoning is clear, the lack of good faith is documented.

Clearly, the opinion expressed above by User Sparkzilla at 01:12, on 18 March 2007 (UTC) is part of the problem here: Qualifications are irrelevant. Identity is irrelevant. Knowledge and experience are in essence abrogated and become meaningless. What utter nonsense--Editors for the WP are essentially without a clue.

Making demands couched in WP policy statments and then stating those policy guidelines are immaterial also indicates an ad hoc approach to the issue and lack of good faith. In essence the writer is saying that the WP as a whole can be generated by machines or the inmates of an insane asylum and it would not matter. In this case, the persons or persons referring to themselves as Sparkzilla could very well be an employee/employees of NOVA agressively promoting a commercial enterprise in clear violation of WP policy and that is a problem. Let us be clear, on the internet, identity is paramount. In WP it is essential. Qualifications are totally relevant. Otherwise, the policy for recognised authority would not exist nor would we be concerned for the veracity of sources. Malangthon 19:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The recognised authority in any discussion about sources is not the person posting the item to Wikipedia, but the authority of the blog or source itself. Your qualifications (even if we believe them) as the person posting the material on Wikipedia are completely irrelevant. In fact, this is the major problem with this page -- that people who think they are some authority about Nova, because they worked there or have some relationship with the company, think that they are entitled to post items based on their experiences here. That's called original research. It also means that person websites by Nova teachers are not acceptable as sources. While those teachers may have some experience, they have no authority.

Qualifications and experience of the person posting information to Wikipedia are irrelevant, and using them as a way to force POV is most definitely frowned upon. See Essjay controversy. It doesn't matter if you are a professor or a garbage collector. Either you have a proper source for the material, or you don't. Either you follow Wikipedia rules, or you don't.

Once again I ask you to stop casting aspersions on my affiliations - they are completely irelevant here. You are the person trying to add items to this page and should follow Wikipedia rules when you do so, and while doing so you should be civil. Sparkzilla 00:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

NOVA websites are official. They hold culpability for error and make no attempt to hide any bias. Personal websites are extremely difficult to verify as reliable honest sources of information. Please Be Bold in edits. But please also consider wikipedia policy on citing sources that are reliable and verifiable and the absence of original (unreliable and unverifiable) research.--ZayZayEM 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please pay attention to Sparkzilla's advice. Find sites about dissent from NOVA that are "written by a recognized authority" and they may be included here.

and moderate your tone--ZayZayEM 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• ONE: Oh good grief! NO they are not. They are not culpable for any error. You quote A. The law as legislated and B. The case laws that support it.
• TWO: It is clear that there are at least two people here who are schilling for NOVA in clear contradiction of WP guidelines.
• THREE: Have read the guidlines. YOU make YOUR case--we are in clear disagreement on the interpretation and if you had taken the time to learn the dynamics of simple communication you would understand this. Merely pointing to a source hardly means that others will agree with your obtuse mis-understanding.
• FOUR: Posting the text of a copyrighted media source here for research and education is not in contradiction of copyright laws. The source was attributed--now you point to the specific guidelines that WP is bound to and provide case law to substantiate your point. You are not qualified on this topic as is clear from your lack of understanding. Case law lad. You are out of your league. Malangthon 11:04, 18 March 2007 (EPT) Malangthon 23:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There can be no disagreement on the interpretation of Wuikipedia's copyright policy. You are not allowed to post copyrighted material here PERIOD. [5] The material has been removed again and an admin has been alerted. Also pleaase keep your spurious accusations to yourself. Sparkzilla 01:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for the pertinent legislation and their supporting case law. Has SparkZilla entity no concern for substantiating wild assertions? Malangthon 20:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's review this document [6]:

Using copyrighted work from others

All works are copyrighted unless they either fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. If you use part of a copyrighted work under "fair use", or if you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license, you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates). It is our goal to be able to freely redistribute as much of Wikipedia's material as possible, so original images and sound files licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain are greatly preferred to copyrighted media files used under fair use. See Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for a form letter asking a copyright holder to grant us a license to use their work under terms of the GFDL.

Mainichi releases their work (dislaims copyright) for personal and non-commercial use. That statement is at the bottom of each article that appears on the website. It is a blanket statement that has been in effect for quite sometime now. Assertions that the articles posted here are in violation of copyright laws--as they apply in Japan--are false. Malangthon 19:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You are still not allowed to post the article to the talk page. Wikipedia is not to be used as a source. Also, 1) please try to keep this discussion in a single section and 2) quit the personal attacks. Sparkzilla 00:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal and non-commercial use permission is not allowed on wikipedia. It has to be Public Domain or GFDL. This means it can be used by anyone for any purpose (and amended) provided there is attribution. Tyrenius 00:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And where that is stated? I know what public domain is. Meanwhile, copyrighted material that is released for use is well within the WP Policy. WP is categorically not restricted to Public Domain only. I have read the policy and it clearly states that permission to use is covered by WP policy. Mainichi has given permission to use and they have been doing it almost since they developed a website. Malangthon 11:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Try here[7]. The material is neither in the public domain, nor is it licensed by GFDL. Therefore, it cannot go on the page. Sparkzilla 14:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla entity has made allegations of violation of international treaties and wants want me to cease personal attacks? This is the forum wherein we discuss the merits of various aspects of this article and its sources and that unknown person or person who will not identify him or herself has become the self-appointed grand overseer? That entity can not win the false allegations over copyright violations and is beginning to understand that. So now the tactics have changed and the entity is doing the old cover and run and is now are telling us what we can not post on this discussion? I have dealt with the press in Japan for more than 2 decades and I have the proper credentials here. The Mainichi article was posted here in accordance with WP Policy. Full Stop. Malangthon 11:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You've been told by two editors and an admin that the content is not acceptable, and that your credentials don't mean zip. If you want more opinions please feel free to ask any other admins. Sparkzilla 14:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Important Notice

By now, most if not all the Unions in Japan dealing with foreign and domestic education issues and employees are aware of the serious problems of credibility over this article and are advising potential teachers and currently employed teachers to regard it as a non-informed as well as a seriously biased source. The primary audience and only real focus of this article has been informed. Since my credentials are in fact important on Planet Earth, I have been able to communicate in detail the uses for which WP have been exploited in this article. Malangthon 03:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment (Links)

This section is being created following reading Wikipedia:Requests for comment. As we have not exceeded Three reverts or have been reduced to edit warring, I felt this was the best option.--ZayZayEM 02:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement: There appears to be a dispute as to what external links are acceptable to be included into this article. Argument has been mad that additional sites must be included to provide NPOV contrast to the company line provided by NOVA and NOVA-affiliated websites. Please provide comment and civil discussion below:

Seems to me that ZayZayEM is correct per a straightforward application of WP:EL -- except for the Konami link, which seems utterly inappropriate. The teacher blogs should not be included unless there has been a WP:RS that has reported on the blogs' discussion of the school, in which case the main article could cite to that RS, and then the blog could be included as an external link. -- TedFrank 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the excitement over the three non-Nova-originating links, which are hardly all that critical of Nova. Some suggestions for external links:

:*Yahoo group "Nova Teachers United" :*LetsJapan.org Eikaiwa forum

--TedFrank 03:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with either of those sites being added. They are not reliable sources in any way. Neither are the original blogs that were removed. WP:ATT is very clear that blogs and discussion boards are not reliable sources...

A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Sparkzilla 08:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The relevant standard is WP:EL, not WP:ATT, but the result is the same. I retract the last suggestion. -- TedFrank 12:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is not finding contrasting opinions for the sake of it. NPOV is assessing significant reliable sources per WP:ATT and representing them in due proportion to their prominence. If there is only one viewpoint that meets these stipulations, then that is the only viewpoint shown. If there are two viewpoints of equal importance (defined in terms of the importance of the source per wiki guidelines), then they should both be represented. If there is a major viewpoint and a significant minority one, then the major one should be given most coverage and the significant minority one a small amount of coverage. If there is a major viewpoint and an small minority one, then the latter doesn't get mentioned at all. We are essentially looking for secondary sources to gain information about a third party. A third party's own web site should not be used to substantiate controversial points about itself, but may be used for other points. Tyrenius 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mova Porno

I have just found a refernce to the pornographic MOVA video that I mentioned on the website, japanprobe.com. Perhaps this would count as a verifiable source, I don't know. Maybe "MOVA" could be mentioned in a "Nova Urban Legends" section, that particular one being true. Simon Peter Hughes.

Blogs are not reliable sources. If you can find an article about the movie on a reliable source such as a newspaper or magazine, then please add it. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a collection of rumors and urban myths. PS: Please sign your comments. Cheers!Sparkzilla 08:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Simon Peter Hughes. writes, I've just re-titled this Mova Porno, because I do not want to suggest that Nova made, marketed or had anything to do with the videos, apart from having their name misappropriated. Apparently, the videos are available for sale on amazon.co.jp, does that count as a reliable source? I think it proves they are real. How about a pornographic magazine, is that a reliable source?. Yes, this shouldn't be a catlogue of urban myths but urban myths are addressed and debunked in many of the articles on Wikipedia, such as those about Captain Pugwash and Coca-Cola. Let's face it, most people that look at this page either work for or are thinking of working for Nova and and addressing the myths that circulate amongst Nova teachers could serve a useful purpose. If the Coca-Cola Company can stand it why can't Nova corporation?. March 25 2007

Controversies

The items in this section needs to be

1. edited down for length
2. sources that other editors cannot check should be removed Sparkzilla 09:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I use My 1935 Encyclopedia series to create numerous stubs. Sources just have to be existent and reliable. Editors do not need access to them. --ZayZayEM 09:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In your case you have the 1935 encyclopedia in your hands. I think that the person who originally posted the sources does not have access to the original articles, and is only repeating from the Nova Union article that such a sources such as The Japan times actually reported on the events. In that case, how can we really be sure what the original source said, especially considering the bias of the Nova Union article? My solution is to use the Nova Union articles as the only sources. I appreciate your comments/advice. Sparkzilla 10:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Editors need to be able to verify sources. If a web site uses a newspaper item, which you have not seen yourself (or on the newspaper web site), you can only verify that the web site is saying that the newspaper printed something. See WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it. Tyrenius 02:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested renaming of controversies section

The controversies section is basically a list of union actions agains Nova. The "controversies" appear to be mainly internal issues, and not affect the outside world. I propose the section is be renamed to "Union disputes". Sparkzilla 03:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Diagree. Student disputes. And non-union-specific controversies are involved. --ZayZayEM 04:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)