Talk:National Union of General Workers (Zenrokyo)/Archive 1

Unsourced statements

There are a lot of unsourced statements in this article. Not only that, but it seems to have been written almost as promotional material for this Union.220.111.60.113 04:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

criticisms

Let's just go through this one item at a time.

The union has been criticized by management interests for pursuing the fight for social insurance coverage for migrant workers in Japan - the shakai hoken issue. Publicly, this consists of a single comment by a woman incognito in an pro-corporate publication Metropolis which is a part of Virgin Group - owned by controversial price-fixing CEO Richard Branson.

• The union was criticised by a teacher
• The teacher was not affiliated with management
• The teacher chose to write under an assumed name due to the fear of reprisals from the union.
• Whether a single comment or not, it is still a verifiable, published, criticism.
• It should also be noted that Metropolis is the leading English-magazine in Japan, and commentaries such as this one criticising the Union have wide exposure to the foreign community in Japan.
• Metropolis is pro-corporate? Metropolis has often argued for better rights for employees and other minority interest groups in Japan. The magazine regularly features commentaries amd feature articles about important political and social issues in Japan, (womens' rights, black community in Japan and many more). In one specific case, due to direct action by the magazine, employees who had had their passports withheld by their employer were able to regain proper immigration status in Japan.
• Metropolis is not affiliated with Virgin Group nor with Richard Branson

Please note that unverifiable claims by the Union will be treated as such.

Please also note that Wikipedia is not a promotional tool for the Union.

Working in the Interests of Management

• Do you know what wikipedia is?
• Rats not welcome

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.92.22 (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from name-calling. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks for more. -- Chris53516 15:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Anonymous Metropolis Article Issue

• the anonymous writer of this article is not accountable, so it is not a worthy resource
• suggesting that there would be reprisals from the Union? Do you want to elaborate?

-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.92.22 (talk • contribs) .

It is obvious that the writer declined to reveal their identity because of people like you (i.e. militant union members) who claim that anyone who criticises the union is a "rat" or is "anti-corporate". The fact that you try to denigrate the article and its source shows its relevance to the discussion. Your choice of language indicates the very militancy you are trying to deny.

Do not continue with "Metropolis is owned by Richard Branson" - it is clearly untrue. If you would like to profile the "Shakai Hoken issue" then you should open a specific page for it (noting that such a page will be open to alternative viewpoints of the issue).

Please also sign your talk comments according to Wikipedia standards using four tildes

Sparkzilla 02:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• You are not acting in good faith. And from your Wikipedia contribution record it is clear you have a history of not acting in good faith, Sparkzilla. How is anyone benefitted by an anonymous and slanderous article such as the Metropolis article? So why put a link to it?
• Perhaps the author was afraid of being sued for slander by the Union - and justly so. That was why the article was anonymous - disgusting yellow journalism.
• To further say that there were "fear of reprisals" is another example of slander against the Union. You just cannot stop.
• Then there is this lie: The article does not say "Metropolis is owned by Richard Branson" but rather it says "Metropolis which is affiliated with Virgin Group – owned by controversial price-fixing CEO Richard Branson". Lying is just another example of acting in bad faith.
• The way the article stands provides readers with your very unusual addition of a "criticism section". How many editors put up with that? Not too many. And it is only there so you can link to your Magazine. End of story.

Netizen 64.180.92.22 06:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Metropolis article is a verifiable source of criticism of the union. You may not like it, but exists as part of the public record. Furthermore, you initally said that Metropolis was "part of the Virgin group". Metropolis has no affiliation with Virgin or with Richard Branson.

One of the great concepts in Wikipedia is that it allows any person, irrespective of affiliation, to add relevant items to a page. My interest is simply that an article critical to the Union appeared in Metropolis, and, as part of the public record about the union, it should be on the page. Your attempts to deflect the issue so far have simply not followed Wikipedia rules. Please note that your opinions are not facts, and must be removed from pages. Your attempts to smear Metropolis will also be removed as being irrelevant to that page. Name-calling is also not acceptable.

Many, many Wikipedia pages have "Criticism" sections. If you have valid, verifiable points, backed up by external sources then please feel free to add them to the article.

Sparkzilla 10:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Challenges to Claims backed up by 64.180.92.22

• The migrant worker union movement has gained recognition over the years as being on the leading edge of progressive change in Japan.

-- Which independent body, verifiably says so?

• As in most countries, migrant workers face the worst of circumstances since they may be easily deported back to their home countries.

-- Unverifiable and untrue. Certainly, the English teachers that the Union mainly represents in Japan are well paid and are not in the "worst of circumstances". Teachers, and any other foreign employee in Japan, cannot be deported for employment-related or civil offences - they can only be deported as a result of criminal activity.

This comment is just foolish. You know that migrant workers consist of more than English teachers. Many blue collar workers are forced to work illegally on trainee visas or simply no visa at all. 64.180.92.22 15:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Your assetrtion is demonstrably false, and unverifiable. According to its own website, the union it claims 75% membership of teachers. The shakai hoken issue targets Nova and other Eikaiwa. Sparkzilla 02:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Another ignorant statement. The National Union of General Workers has unions in nearly every prefeture in Japan! Only in the city centres of Tokyo, Osaka and Fukuoka are there significant numbers of English teachers. You fundamentally do not understand what this union is. Wanzhen 08:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• The private language school industry in Japan is unique in being the only industry in any country where foreign teachers are not granted their social insurance rights.

--Verification about "only industry" and "only country" required. Note also that all teachers have the option to take private health insurance.

It is common knowledge that the private language school industry in Japan is the only industry in Japan that has been investigated by the Social Insurance Agency of Japan. In no other country has the private language school industry itself been singled out and investiagted for wide-spread social insurance fraud. Netizen64.180.92.22 15:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not made of common knowledge, but of VERIFIABLE knowlege.Sparkzilla 02:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You are simply not being reasonable and just acting in bad faith. Wanzhen 08:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is because, private language schools, as all employers, must then pay half of costs for worker protection plans such as National Health Insurance.

-- Employers do have to pay half, but this is not why many companies do not pay it -- they choose to opt-out because the employees don't want to pay higher premiums for less coverage.

there is not choice for opting out. Enrollment is mandatory. This is simply a falsehood. Netizen64.180.92.22 15:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The question is about the application of the law. I suggest if you feel so strongly about the issue then you should make a page about itSparkzilla 02:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• With the private language teaching industry being dominated by corporate interests such as Nova Corporation, those working in the interests of management seek to discredit and slander the Union whenever possible.

--Which independent body, verifiably says that such slander occurs?

It is common knowledge that slander is a tactic of pawa hawa. Which independent body verifiably says the sky is blue? Netizen64.180.92.22 15:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not made of "common knowledge" or opinion, but of VERIFIABLE knowlege. In the case of the sky is blue, it would be verified by sceintific research, not your simple observation.Sparkzilla 02:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is patently unreasonable. You just wrote that one could only say on Wikipedia that the sky is blue if one refers to scientific research. Shake you head. Wanzhen 08:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule warning

This is a warning to let you know that you are contravening WP:3RR Please do not revert the page to your page again. Please add verifiable facts only.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.)

Sparkzilla 02:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Warnings like this go on user talk pages, not article talk pages; putting them on article talk page is considered disruptive and combative. I know this is old news and Sparkzilla probably knows this already, but incoming new editors might not. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Speculating on a user's identity will result in a block

According to Wikipedia rules WP:BP

Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely, depending on the severity of the incident, and whether the blocking admin feels the incident was isolated or is likely to be repeated. This applies whether the personal details are accurate or not. Nothing in this provision should be taken to apply to users with CheckUser access making information available within the terms of the CheckUser policy.

Your speculations have been removed. If you do this again I will alert an Admin. Sparkzilla 06:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

The section criticizing the Union for its aggressive militancy should be removed. According to Wikipedia guidelines (WP:RS and WP:OR), I don't see how ONE English instructor writing in a magazine can be considered a reliable source. I also don't see how it can NOT be considered original research either.

Unless convinced otherwise, I'll remove the offending section.220.111.60.113 07:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Metropolis is a reliable source with a long history of commentaries. You cannot remove the section. The Metropolis article is correctly cited as a claim, not a fact. You also don't understand the meaning of WP:OR. OR is where your own theories and conclusions are added to the page, which is not the case here. Sparkzilla 08:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a union member and believe it should stay. Criticism should be acknowledged and not hidden.Osakadan 23:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, rather than focussing on a negative item, what the article needs is more positive items about the union, which I am sure union members can source and provide. Sparkzilla 01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the problems I see with this relate to RS. Metropolis magazine may have a history of publishing articles from reliable sources, but in this case they strayed from the path so to speak -

• Attributability: We know virtually nothing about the originator of the article, save that she's an English teacher in Tokyo. We don't know what her face looks like, nor do we know her place of work.
• Expertise: Her expertise in this subject is questionable, seeing as she's not a financial expert but an English teacher (presumably an English conversation teacher, in which case she could be unqualified as a teacher, and may have a pass in a degree in woodwork).
• Bias: Nova forbid instructors from speaking to the media, as I'm sure do other eikaiwa. The fact that she's spoken to the media means that she's either broken her contract (and Metropolis magazine have gone along with that, possibly putting her job on the line), or else her company have allowed her to speak to the media, in which case the article is nothing more than company propaganda (aided and abetted by Metropolis magazine). And the fact we know little about her, and her face has been obscured, only re-inforces this possibility, and raises even more questions about attributability.
• Confidentiality: Again, because details of who the writer is have been withheld, she is therefore obviously considered by Metropolis to be a confidential source, and this gives her an even more uncertain authority.
• Corroboration: I don't know of any other reliable sources that corroborate with what the writer says. If anybody knows of any, add them to the article.

This last point also raises a problem with regard to NPOV. The fact that there aren't any other "commonly accepted reference texts" or "prominent adherents" of the opinions expressed in the source indicates that this viewpoint is held by "an extremely small minority" and therefore, according to Wikipedia policy, "doesn't belong in Wikipedia".

I'm all for this kind of criticism, both positive and negative, but in this case, the source of the criticism and thus the criticisms themselves lack credibility, and that only cheapens this article.

I'd also argue that, as it stands, the entire article isn't NPOV, and the criticism section should be removed until a more reliable source can be found for the opinions expressed, and a "positive" opinion of the SH campaign (with a reliable source) can be added to the article, in order to give it balance. Like you said, perhaps Union members will know of a source for that.221.191.14.151 10:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your speculations on the author's identity have no impact on the item's inclusion in Wikipedia. As far as I can read the author is an English teacher in Tokyo with a valid complaint against the union, published in Japan's leading English magazine. You are not entitled to remove properly sourced information to create NPOV. However, you do have plenty of opportunity to add many positive items regarding the union and the SH issue. I suggest you work on that instead. Sparkzilla 11:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I suggest you work on discussing the problems with the reliability of the source, and let me work on whatever I see fit. The identity of the author does have an impact on the item's inclusion in Wikipedia with regard to attributability and confidentiality, as I explained, as does the author's expertise on the subject.

The fact that her identity has been obscured raises questions about the reliability of the source and the publisher. Plus there's a possibility that the author has a reason to be biased. Not only that but an English teacher isn't an authority on financial matters like this. And I'll also again say that I don't know of any other published article that corroborates these opinions.

It's for these reasons that I think the Criticism section should at least have a Template:Verify_credibility tag on it, and perhaps an admin should be asked to look into this and make a decision about it. I want to make sure that criticisms of the subject matter carry proper weight with them.221.191.14.151 12:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also draw attention to the following policy on WP:RS: "The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties, companies, organizations and religious groups should be treated with caution, since they may be used to advance particular political, corporate, institutional or religious viewpoints."

In the case of this source, it appears that it was originally published to advance the view that the Union's SH campaign was wrong. It also appears that that could be the reason it has been included in this article.Collately 05:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Editorials are obviously written to advance an opinion. My suggestion is that rather than have a "criticism" section that the article instead deals with the issues in turn. Then the Metropolis sourced item would be placed inside, say, a Shakai Hoken section, which would also be able to include, say, Novas sourced opinion on the issue. Really this is a matter of adding more positive material to the page, not removing a single negative item. Sparkzilla 06:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source for the following reasons:

The Metropolis article is not an editorial as claimed, in that it does not express the opinion of the editor, editorial board, or publisher. It expresses the opinion of the writer, Angela Smyth (credited as an English Teacher in Tokyo) - Ms Smyth can claim neither expertise nor notability. Furthermore, the tone of the article and the fact the the print edition of Metropolis' "Last Word" section includes the following:

"Would you like to have The Last Word? Send your thoughts and contacts details to thelastword@metropolis.co.jp"

places the "commentary" firmly in the framework of a readers' contribution, or, in other words, a "Letter to the Editor"

Letters to the Editor are unacceptable sources, and as such have no place on Wikipedia. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution/Examples#Unacceptable_sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jossi#Not_every_Statement_needs_a_citation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Acceptable_sources

The criticism section has been removed David Lyons 06:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Following me around again David? My, you are a sad little man. Sparkzilla 06:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As I explained above, I think there's justifiable reasons to check the reliability of the sourced article. By having it looked into by a Wikipedia admin/official, if they deem it to be reliable, then that strengthens the criticisms made. As it stands, I feel there are too many question marks hanging over the sourced article.

I think a Shakai Hoken section would be a good idea, perhaps outlining the issue itself, and the different viewpoints about it, with reliable sources of course.Collately 06:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have taken this to Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Guest_Editorials. Let's see what they think. Sparkzilla 07:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

With no response from the RS talk page, the onus is upon the editor adding material likely to be challenged to show that it is a RS. The criticism section removed until this can be done. David Lyons 22:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• The Metrpolis letter to the editor from Smyth is just the worst example of yellow journalism. Sparkzilla admits that Smyth was simply an anonymous individual, so how do we even know if Smyth isn't the editor of Metropolis just hiding behind a nom de plume. Wanzhen 09:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of statements in the Smyth article which give the impression that it wasn't written solely by an English teacher, independently, off their own back. Comments about the wider English teaching industry, English schools, and the specifics of health insurance, and the costs of it, are all above and beyond a regular English conversation teacher's knowledge, and can't be relied on as an accurate source for info on Wikipedia.Collately 09:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Member Numbers

The figure of thousands is speculative. The reference given is also not valid. It is a comment given Debito on a blog after having given a talk to NUGW members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Osakadan (talk • contribs) 09:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

It should be removed. Debito is not a reliable source when it comes to the unions membership numbers. Is there a better source? Sparkzilla 10:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As official figures are never released, it would be near on impossible to find a reference. I have heard that number in regards to Tokyo, including Japanese members, and basically believe it is reasonably accurate. But this is supposed to be encyclopedic and not hearsay. I figure there are 2 options. i) delete the number completely ii) rewrite it along the lines of, ...... Union member numbers are impossible to determine due to a non-disclosure policy. It has been speculated that numbers may total in the thousands (with a link to the debito reference). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Osakadan (talk • contribs) 11:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Your second solution is not acceptable because it would be original research WP:OR. If you cannot source the number, or find some reasonable claims from reliable sources (not Debito, and not blog posts) then it should be removed. Is there a newspaper article that states the claim of "thousands"?

Some original research of my own (for discussion purposes only): The largest employer of foreigners in Japan is Nova with 5000 teachers. It is also, due to the number of issues in the company, likely to be the most unionized. Nonetheless, I doubt that union membership is even as much as 10% of the workforce. Add in the other companies and I would think that the number is less than one thousand and probably only 500 or so at most. I am certain that the low number is reason for non-disclosure. Sparkzilla 11:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Given WP:OR policy, the only solution may be to delete the number, as the debito reference is also unnacceptable. Osakadan 12:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty funny seeing Sparkzilla having a conversation with his sock puppet. I can image it being done with one actually on his hand as well. Wanzhen 06:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your specualtions on user identity has been removed. Please note that speculating on user identities is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. From WP:BP

Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely, depending on the severity of the incident, and whether the blocking admin feels the incident was isolated or is likely to be repeated. This applies whether or not the personal details are accurate.

See also WP:COI Conflict of interest in point of view disputes

Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor.

Please note that the cited information from Metropolis that you keep deleting on this page an on Louis Carlet is POSITIVE to the union. If you continue to remove properly cited positive, neuatral or negative material, or to speculate on my identity, I will ask for an Admin to block you from Wikipedia. Sparkzilla 07:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Union Fees

as stated in the article, NUGW Is not one union. Union fees vary considerably between the 3 unions. Osakadan 15:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You also removed Anyone who contacts NUGW can be invited to join the parent union as an "individual affiliate" and directed to the nearest branch appropriate to their needs, or can be helped to form their own union branch if they have the minimum of three members required to do so. and information about the full-time staff.

You appear to have deleted the section based on your own knowledge of the union, which is original research. OTOH I have expanded a reliable source (that may be incorrect). A solution to this dilemma would be to find another source for the membership fees, or add the fact tag. In the meantime it is fair that the item should stay in, until another source replaces it. Sparkzilla 00:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Bullcrap, this article is not about National Union of General Workers - Tokyo South, that charges 24,000yen. The article is about National Union of General Workers, an affiliation of unions. There is no point putting up something that is incorrect and fees are irrelevant here. It is not an ad for the union. There are already links to the relevant unions' webpages where that kind of information can be obtOsakadan 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)ained.

No personal attacks

To involved editors: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

Some suggestions:

• Discuss the article, not the subject;
• Discuss the edit, not the editor;
• Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
• If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of anonymous articles in reliable publications

I requested comment on the use of anonymous artices from reliable sources on Wikipedia: Attribution/FAQ. [1]. The relevant section is :

An anonymous source is an unnamed person or a work created by an unnamed author. Anonymous sources are not acceptable in Wikipedia, because we can't attribute the viewpoint to its author. Anonymous sources whose material is published by reliable secondary sources, such as Deep Throat in The Washington Post, are acceptable, because Wikipedia's source in this case would be the newspaper, not the anonymous source.

The result of the discussion was that:

1. Anonymous items can be used when they are in reliable sources
2. The application of this particular rule should be discussed on this talk page (see below) or should go to dispute resolution
3. Op-eds cannot state facts, only opinions. ie. "It was claimed that..."

It seems quite clear according to the rules regarding anonymous sources that the Metropolis editorial should stay in as a source. However, rather than re-including it as-is, I propose that the actual issues, such as shakai hoken and other disputes are added to the article in a "Union actions" section that may be similar to the way the controversies section works in Nova (English school in Japan). In fact, the shakai hoken paragraph can be copied direct from the Nova page. In that way, the Metropolis article would only be included as a source in the shakai hoken section, and would not appear as a criticism of the union as a whole.

PS: Please don't try the "Metropolis-is-not-a-reliable-source" angle. Sparkzilla 07:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I still feel that an English teacher doesn't have the expertise to make claims about "the wider community of foreign workers", or even "the majority of English teachers". If a reference is going to be made to the Smyth article, I think it should be headed with something like, "In an article in Metropolis magazine, AN ENGLISH TEACHER argued that.....". I think the text of the Criticism section gave the claims more credibility than they had in the original article.Collately 06:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

as an article written by a teacher/union members and just an opinion. Not allowed by the rules.Osakadan 09

09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you write that again? I don't get your meaning. We have already established that a teacher is a reasonable source when discussing actions that will directly affect her paypacket. Presumably the magazine also published the piece because the issue is an important one to teachers and the wider community of foreigners in Japan.

I think Collately's suggestion makes sense and I am happy to add "an English teacher" to the section. Sparkzilla 09:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Wikipedia doesnt allow for personal opinions. That is what the Metropolis article is, just opinion. It is the same as someone getting on here and wrting I don't like xxxxx because of xxxxxx.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Osakadan (talk • contribs) 09:56, 23 March 2007.

Wikipedia allows for claims from reliable sources. The issue is not the opinion, but the reliability of the source publication. As I have already taken this to WP:ATT and had the item deemed acceptable do not delete it again unless you have a direct opinion from other authorities that says the item is not acceptable. Also, please remember to sign your comments. Thanks.Sparkzilla 01:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

your claims might be taken more seriously if you new what you were talking about. Shakai hoken is not translated as public health insurance.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Osakadan (talk • contribs) 11:31, 23 March 2007.

The claims are not mine -- I found a source that has an opinion about the union and have asked whether it should be added or not. It was deemed acceptable by three other editors on WP:ATT. Both myself and one editor here suggested changes that put the criticism into context. If you do not like this then you need to take this to dispute resolution, but frankly I think you will not succeed. In any case if you remove the source again without due process I will report you to an Admin.

Also, if you have a problem with a particular part of the article text please just edit it on the article rather than making a petty gripe about it here. No need for rudeness.

You forgot to sign your comments again. Please follow Wikipedia policy when leaving comments. Sparkzilla 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, what the admin said was YOU need to take it to dispute resolution:

I see no reason why not. But you will have to discuss the details at talk page and find common ground with other involved editors. If you cannot find such common ground, you should pursue dispute resolution whose first step would be to ask for third opinions via an request for comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed. David Lyons 12:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please tell us the specific nature of your objection to the sentence so we are able to enter and resolve this issue through the dispute resolution process. Sparkzilla 01:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Use of anonymous sources in reliable publications

This is a dispute about the inclusion of an anonymous article published by a reliable magazine, which is critical of the Union.06:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Scope of the dispute

Sparkzilla requested the use of anonymous artices from reliable sources on Wikipedia: Attribution/FAQ. [2]. The relevant section is :

An anonymous source is an unnamed person or a work created by an unnamed author. Anonymous sources are not acceptable in Wikipedia, because we can't attribute the viewpoint to its author. Anonymous sources whose material is published by reliable secondary sources, such as Deep Throat in The Washington Post, are acceptable, because Wikipedia's source in this case would be the newspaper, not the anonymous source.

The result of the discussion was that:

1. Three editors agreed that anonymous items can be used when they are in reliable sources
2. They also said that the application of this particular rule should be discussed on this talk page (see below) or should go to dispute resolution
3. Op-eds cannot state facts, only opinions. ie. "It was claimed that..."

To avoid issues of undue weight Sparkzilla suggested that the original, longer, criticism section be shortened to the point where it is a now a single sentence on a sub-section of the page. Collately suggested that the item should be prefaced with "...an english teacher", which was accepted by Sparkzilla. Osakadan did not accept that an English teacher was a reliable source. Sparkzilla pointed out that the magazine was the reliable source. David Lyons removed the information with no reason.

The section as proposed is...

Shakai Hoken (Social Insurance)

Due to union pressure, in March 2005, the Japanese Government's Social Insurance Agency began to investigate English language schools in Japan for non-payment of Shakai Hoken. Non-enrollment of full-time employees is illegal in Japan, where the Health Insurance Law and Employees' Pension Law stipulate that companies must enroll all workers who have been in Japan for over two months in both the health insurance and pension systems, regardless of nationality. The burden of payment is split between employer and employee, with each paying half the monthly premium amount. An editorial witten by an English teacher in Metropolis claimed that the union's actions would force the majority of teachers, and the wider community of foreigners working in Japan, to pay higher premiums with less coverage than alternative, private, schemes.

Comments are appreciated as to whether the sentence is acceptable or not. Thank you 06:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:SMcCandlish

The passage seems fine to me. It states the bare facts which are both verifiable with and attributable to (whichever competing policypage you prefer) the reliable source, the major publication. The anonymous party is not being relied upon to establish any facts in Wikipedia; the fact being reliably sourced is that such a person said such a thing. Whether that fact is relevant or of encyclopedic value is a different question of course. In some cases it could be, in other cases such a usage could be absurd. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: But the comma after "private" should go.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Further comment (on-topic!): Regarding "an English teacher doesn't have the expertise to make claims about "the wider community of foreign workers", Wikipedia isn't saying that he/she does; the point as I understand it is to identify the source (to the extent possible) of the controversy about the union. If the generator of the controversy had been an op-ed by a 7-year-old, the attribution style would still be correct. If it is used to push a POV in the article, then of course it wouldn't be, however worded. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Further comment based on research by David Lyons below: I don't see that it makes much difference whether it is a "real" editorial or not. If the fact being sourced is the source of controversy (i.e., the op-ed caused controversy), it is still a reliably sourced encyclopedic fact, if there's cited evidence elsewhere of it being such a cause. It is hard to say for sure seeing the proposed text out-of-context from the rest of the article. If the op-ed is being used to push a POV or establish a fact stated in the op-ed, then it's not reliable, as I've already said. If it is being alleged in the article that the op-ed caused controversy but that can't be reliably established, then it it WP:OR. That is, I agree with David Lyons that letters-to-the-editor are not reliable sources of anything (in most contexts; I can imagine some weird exceptions, but they do not come close to appying here). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Also concur strongly that "speculating" in the article about the reasons for anonymity is blatant WP:OR. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Specualtions on identity are only on this talk page, not in the article.

The source article is not a letter to the editor -- the magazine has an entirely separate "letter to the editor" section. In fact, it can't be a letter to the editor because the editorial refers to an article that was originally published in The Japan Times, a completely separate publication. Sparkzilla 09:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You needn't work to convince me; I'm only speaking in "ifs" here, since I can't really tell what's going on w/o seeing the passage in the context of the entire article and understanding more about the background. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, could you explain your logic here? I could write a letter to the editor of one publication referring to an article in another publication, but my submission would still be a "letter to the editor"??? Why don't you source the Japan Times article if it is useful? David Lyons 09:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with David Lyons. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

SMcCandlish. If I understand you correctly, are you saying that if the article in question can be shown to have caused controversy, verifiable in another reliable source, then we can use it. If not, then it is WP:OR? David Lyons 09:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

More like just noise, i.e. an irrelevancy. If the op-ed caused no (sourceable) controversy or isn't relevant for some other encyclopedic reason, and we know that as some random op-ed it has no value as a reliable source itself, then I don't see the point of ever mentioning it, even if its existence and the anonymity of its authorship can be reliably sourced. It's a "huh? so what?". It would be like "and Mrs. Gladys Penfield of North Longbottom has a siamese cat, according to the North Longbottom Times" in the Siamese cat article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Japan Times article is sourced in this article.

These are letters to the editor [3] and this is the editorial [4]. Entirely different. BTW, David Lyons is misrepresenting what it says at the bottom of each article. I have checked both the online site, which actually says "Got something to say about this article? Send a letter to the editor at letters@metropolis.co.jp or discuss it in our forum." and many copies of the print magazine, none of which have the invitation to readers to submit editorials.

Surely if the editorial is a follow-up to the Japan Times article then it should be mentioned? Sparkzilla 10:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that logic. If the author of the followup is not notable or authoritative his/herself, and/or the followup op-ed did not cause a sourceable controversy or something else of encyclopedic interest, then it is unencyclopedic noise. It can't be a source for anything, and the fact that the publication is (apparently) reliable doesn't mean anything; Time magazine is notable and reliable, but not every single thing about it or every published or mentioned by it is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To spell it out better, the fact that some random person refuted the original article is not of encyclopedic value, without that person being notable, the response being notable, or something significant about the response. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm done here. I'm unwatchlisting this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Not misrepresenting - I have a copy of a print copies in front of me which says "Would you like to have The Last Word? Send your thoughts and contacts details to thelastword@metropolis.co.jp" David Lyons 10:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

By request, I have clarified further at my talk page; if that link doesn't work, look in archives. Unless you're really, really interested in this, don't bother as it just re-explains the above in what I hope are clearer terms, since I did it in one go instead of as a series of replies and piecemeal clarifications. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:Osakadan

Is Metropolis a reliable source?

That has yet to debated. Last time I saw it, it was little beyond some of the free glossy rags handed out in bars.

The other problem is with the article itself. It is quite obvious the whole piece was not written by the teacher concerned. There is definite input from Metropolis staff.

While I am happy read such warranted/unwarranted crticisms in other places, it has no place was is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Will we just get someone on the other side of the argument to add their pithy little comments here? NO signing on purpose but sure spaky will add it for me.

[The previous unsigned comment was added by Osakadan (talk · contribs), 07:10, 25 March 2007 ]

That wasn't the question we were asked; if the separate determination is that Metropolis is an unreliable source, then the question we were asked is moot in this particular case. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Metropolis is the largest circulation English-language magazine in Japan, with 30,000 weekly distribution to 67,500 readers -- the majority of English-speaking foreigners in in Tokyo, Yokohama and Chiba. In addition to the print magazine the article was published on Metropolis website and on its sister publication, Japan Today, the largest Internet news and information portal about Japan in English in the world, with around one million unique users/month. The magazine has run hundreds of features and editorials over its 13 year history. It should be noted that the magazine has published pieces promoting the union as well as this piece. I don't think you are going to get anywhere with this, but if you really still think Metropolis is not reliable then please feel free to ask for comments.

You have already been warned about not signing your comments. Please do so or I will alert an admin. Sparkzilla 07:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User warnings go on user talk pages. And I don't think here's any admin-actionable policy about sigs. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:Zleitzen

Acceptable: The source is well attributed in the passage, and comes from a location that passes WP:V. The anonymous English teacher might be talking nonsense as far as I know, but that's not for me to decide.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 07:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:David Lyons

Unacceptable

The Metropolis article linked to (appearing under a regular series entitled "The Last Word") is neither an editorial as has been claimed (in that it does not express the opinion of the editor, editorial board, or publisher), nor is it a "guest editorial" as has also been claimed. It is described only as written by a "Angela Smyth" who "teaches English in Tokyo". Any responsible publication will make it very clear at the outset that a following article is an op-ed or guest editorial - this does not. We only have Sparkzilla's opinion that this is indeed a (guest) editorial. In fact, the tone of the article (beginning: "It was with great dismay that I read in The Japan Times that..." and the fact the print edition of Metropolis' "Last Word" section includes the following:

"Would you like to have The Last Word? Send your thoughts and contacts details to thelastword@metropolis.co.jp"

places, this "commentary" firmly in the framework of a readers' contribution, or, in other words, a "Letter to the Editor". My understanding is that "Letters to the editor" are not reliable sources.

Secondly - nowhere in the article linked to is their any reference to the writer being anonymous nor a pseudonym. Indeed, we only have Sparkzilla's opinion that this is so - which begs the question "How does (S)he know?" Since Sparkzilla cannot establish that the article is written anonymously, nor under a pseudonym, we should treat the writer as subject to policy regarding expertise and notability. Angela Smyth has none.

Thirdly, Sparkzilla has claimed that the writer has written under a pseudonym because he/she is scared of realitation from the union - since we can also find no source for this claim, it is again merely Sparkzilla's supposition, which again begs the question "How does (S)he know?" and brings into question the whole point of this "anonymous source" RfC.

Lastly, whilst it is outside the remit of this RfC, given the fact that Sparkzilla started the Wikipedia article "Metropolis magazine" and that (S)he is seemingly privy to privileged information unavailable in to others, would suggest that (S)he is closely connected to the magazine. If this is the case, I would advise him/her to declare their interest here.

Thank you. David Lyons 08:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been following the consensus here that the article was written anonymously. I think it is a fair specualtion that the person refufused to reveal their identity due to fear of reprisal. If you check the history of the magazine section you will see that it is clearly a guest editorial, and there have been many such editorials. Please note clearly that the magazine has an entirely separate "letters to the editor" section, which is formatted in an entiorely different way.

In any case, you keep missing the basic point - it doesn't matter who wrote the article, simply that it exists in a reliable publication Sparkzilla 08:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If the article itself does not explicitly say that it was written anonymously, then how can a consensus be so reached? "Fair speculation" about reprisals is just that - SPECULATION - and has no place in Wikipedia. David Lyons 09:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It still does not matter who wrote the article. As the editor said above, it could be written by a seven-year old and still be allowable. Sparkzilla 09:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Under highly specific circumstances for highly specific reasons, which may or may not be the case here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Q. for David Lyons: I'm not sure I follow; from my perspective, if the article as published does not identify the writer, then he/she is anonymous by definition; did you mean something else? Just want to make sure I'm interpreting you correctly. Wholeheartedly agree that this article cannot permissibly speculate as to the reasons or nature of the anonymity without a reliable source for that information. For all we know, the writer did not request anonymity at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to SMcCandlish. No, the article in question gives a name and occupation of the contributor. There is no indication that the article was written anonymously - quite where the original supposition that the author was anonymous or a pseudonym sprung from, I cannot say - which is why I question the whole point of a RfC entitled "Use of anonymous sources in reliable publications". David Lyons 09:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I stand by all the general and what-if stuff I've said, but feel completely blindsided. I was asked to comment on anonymous sources but this doesn't seem to be the topic at all. Perhaps Sparkzilla means pseudonymous, but there's no cited evidence that the name was fake. Bzzzzt. Spark. Pop. DOES NOT COMPUTE!. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm as confused as you are. David Lyons 10:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So what is the situation if the name is not fake? Sparkzilla 10:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Addressed above: If the writer was notable, or the response itself was notable (e.g. for generating sourceable controversy, forming the basis for a movie about it, whatever), good to go. Otherwise it's just a random "who cares?" factoid, like the fact that it rained today in Albuquerque for a little while. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonymity isn't an issue here, as the author is named. I think I suggested further up this page that the writer might be writing under a pseudonym, possibly because her company haven't given her permission to speak to the media. I also said it was a problem of attributability that little information was given about the writer, and a semi-obscured picture of her was printed. That's possibly why Sparkzilla has asked for comments about anonymous sources.Collately 10:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Final comment: I understand that, but WP:NOT a collection of random useless trivia. If there's nothing encyclopedic about it, it's like noting that Britney Spears has ten fingers, just because an interviewer in a reliable source mentioned "As we began the interview, Spears wrapped all ten fingers around her glass of water". The fact can be reliably sourced, but it is of no interest. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong logo

I added the union infobox yesterday, but unintentionally used the wrong logo with it. Does anyone have a copy of the logo they could use? Or could they point me to the proper one, and I'll load it up. More details in the infobox would help as well. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 00:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think there is one. There may also be a problem with stating Osaka as the main office. I have a strong feeling that NUGW is HQ'd in Tokyo. And it is important to remember that it is an umbrella union of many smaller unions and not just 3 foreigners unions. Will try and check about that and the logo.Osakadan 05:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Shakai Hoken

We can't just put 5 or 10 employees. It needs to be the correct number. There is also another factor that is based on the style of the company. Call the GU in Osaka and I think you can get an answer reasonably easily.

I think the correct number is five (full-time) employees, where "full-time" includes people working at least 2/3 of what is defined as "full-time hours". Also my understanding is that "shakai hoken" is a blanket term like "social welfare", and that health and unemployment insurance, and pension, are bundled (this is why I added the Japanese link which -- I believe -- makes this clear). Surely "sickness (sic) insurance" is just another way of saying health insurance. LittleBen 11:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you are writing from hearsay or things that you have incorrectly remembered. Yes, it is 5 employees but you wrote 10. There is also another condition that makes the 5 number irrelevant. Need to research as I can't remember off the top off my head. It has something to do with the style of company involved. 2/3 is also incorrect. It is "about" 3/4, with the about being interpreted on a case by case basis by beauracracy. 100% there is no link between unemployment and shakai hoken insurances. Osakadan 11:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Sickness enmployment is a bit clumsy. Can't think of the correct english at the moment, it might even be sicknes allowance.

It is Sickness and Injury Allowance, http://www.sia.go.jp/e/ehi.html#ben

Further comment on Metropolis article

I looked back in the history of this article and read the sentence(s) that refer to the Metropolis article/editorial about this subject. The sentences were written neutrally and placed appropriately in the article. I read the RfC above and see that there wasn't a consensus either way about whether to include the Metropolis reference in the article or not. In my opinion, inclusion of the reference to the Metropolis article is appropriate and I'll explain my reasons why.

Metropolis is considered to be a notable media source as it has its own entry on Wikipedia and no information is presented in the Metropolis article that disputes its status as a journalistic source. That means that it's okay to cite that publication as a source in Wikipedia articles. Also, the article in question has a byline, which gives it more credibility since that reporter is taking accountability for what's written in the article. If someone has a problem with the source, they can state so in the text of the article or in the footnote which is what I do with articles that I edit if there's an issue with the source that I'm using.

I'm going to add that small passage back to the article. If someone wants to add the issue that may or may not exist with the credibility of the article, they're free to do so in the text or within the footnote, which I think is a more appropriate place. Cla68 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I placed a statement in the footnote that Metropolis states that information for the article came from an anonymous source. Cla68 01:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I stand by the comments made in the above RfC. As the editor adding or reverting material likely to be challenged - which I do - the burden of evidence is upon you to provide a reliable source. The next step after an RfC is an RfA perhaps? David Lyons 13:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I guess so. But the RfAr (RfA is "Request for Adminship") is a lengthy, time-consuming, tedious, and frustrating process. I don't feel strongly enough about it to engage in it over this issue. So, if you want to delete the Metropolis reference, I won't fight it, although I don't agree with it. I believe we'll always have this trouble on Japan-related subjects that Metropolis has reported on because it appears that some of us don't believe that that publication's reporting is credible and some (like me) believe that it is. Cla68 23:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I took this to RFC. The issue here wasn't the credibility of the magazine, but the notability of the writer. It's a pity that the link to the article is not included because it raises valid points about the union's activities, but I accept the RFC's conclusions. Sparkzilla 00:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If I were reading this article, I too, would want to know if there were any concerns over this union's activities. By the way, the next step after RfC isn't RfAr, but mediation (RfM?). Cla68 00:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)