Talk:National Union of General Workers (Zenrokyo)

Cleaned it up A Bit

This article was exceedingly long and peacocked all to hell. I think that cutting it down to a short descriptive article is more than enough. Most people in Japan are completely unaware of this union, or have alternative beliefs or feeling from self-promotion given in the original prolix article. eg. whilst Unions can be seen as commonly used as modes to implement social justice, in Japan the rights of unions are controversial to say the least. This controversy should be mentioned. Not the peacocking that was originally here.

Can anyone help balance the above article? Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadaman1 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I’m new to this, so I’m not sure what is going on here. One day I’m adding neutral, referenced information – then I find someone has deleted three-quarters of the entry and called it a “clean-up”! Is this how it works on Wikipedia? Someone fancies an article is too long so lops off 75%. Umm! I’m not sure I understand the rationale, either. Does it matter if most people are unaware of a topic? I thought that was one of the purposes of Wikipedia – to provide information to those who might be unaware of it. Does it matter if the topic is controversial in Japan or anywhere else? I thought an entry about an organization was designed to inform readers of that organization’s stated aims and recorded actions, and the entry should not be limited because some (or most) people disagree with those aims. I’m not sure I understand “peacocking”, either. Any entry about a campaigning organization is likely to include what it has achieved – in the case of a union, the work it has done, the branches it has helped set up, and the campaigns it has supported. I don’t see anything wrong with that if the wording is neutral (“purport” is not), and the actions are referenced. In the case of NUGW, it supports and is supported by the SDP of Japan, which has policies that address social injustice - as do the member unions of NUGW. People might disagree with the politics and policies, but I think it is entirely legitimate to present them within the context of an entry. If an editor wants to “balance” opinions, well, fine, but deleting points or references one doesn’t like seems to smack of censorship. Which brings me to one final point. (Sorry, this a bit long!) What I find troubling about this kind of wholesale edit is that it doesn’t allow other editors to respond to particular instances of bias (or “peacocking” if you will) as almost everything has been deleted. I think it would have been far more helpful if each paragraph or section had been edited, with instances of bias pointed out, so that reasonable changes could also have been considered by others. It seems to me (as someone new on the block) just destructive, and a bit disrespectful of other editors hard work, to cut great chunks out of an entry - and then, oddly, to ask for help to balance the remnants.

Takemori39 11:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Claims of Media Grandstanding

Someone should speak to the issue about whether the foreigner's caucus within NUGW serves more as a media-event stager than as a union with the level of substance to be featured in Wikipedia.

In particular, no one has offered information to show the NUGW role:

a) within Japan

and

b) among the foreigners living in Japan.

For example, if the numbers are like this:

maybe 300,000 total membership for NUGW, consisting mostly of railroad and transporation workers, and

300 foreigner expatriates, mostly in education and "edu-tainment" industries like Eikaiwa,

then NAMBU's foreigner activity really may not be very significant. Point is, no one has put solid numbers out. And so no one knows if the Japanese press isn't just following around two or three dozen people on a personal self-promotion tour. (Similar to accusations made against Dave Aldwinckle / Debito Arudou.)

It would be particularly bad, if out of, say 300 members, there were only 50 or 60 that regularly paid dues. And the executive management were members with a keen interest in the outcome of their OWN labor litigation with their estranged employers . . .

Other than promotions and media awareness campaigns, is there anything to show that this is a union representing a large number of foreign workers in Japan? If it is promoting shakai hoken, that it enrolls everyone who comes to it with a problem (seeing as how 1/3 of Japan has been left out of the system, and the government loses the records of people who were in it and paid in)?

As a comparison, a local Tokyo neighborhood kumiai might have more contributing members and accomplish more concrete activity away from the cameras, yet without a Wiki. If the Azabu-Juban San Chome community action team cleans up a park, and keeps it clean, are they accomplishing more concrete results than NAMBU-FWC?

Both pro- and anti- on these pages seem not to have sought to get the facts on this group. The facts. Is the foreigner caucus just five or six dozen dues payers, who are mostly "extras" in the cast so that the media activity looks like it has more weight than just the top organizer and a few club executives/litigants?

If so, then I wonder if the group has risen to the levels where even Metropolis should have been writing on it. (I grade Metropolis the same as a advertiser-influenced local weekly newspaper back home. Not without journalistic merit, but where business might dictate what gets covered and what gets said.)

It is unfortunate, that if there had to be independent sourcing for the criticismx, that the group is so small, the criticisms could ONLY be sourced to an individual within the group. Then, there would be no "objective" outside source, because it would be like trying to find ones in a couple's divorce battles.

Please try to get more solid facts about this group's role in the Japanese and Japanese expats community, or else include a line of criticisms in the wiki, stating at least some objections to the roles it claims for itself. (Similar to the Arudou criticisms, which do not detract from what he has accomplished, but put some things in a more proper and factual light.) Spellin 15:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Spellin

well, from my understanding - the NUGW is a conglomerate of many different groups of workers - there might be 70 japanese people from a chain of dry-cleaning stores and 25 more from 7-11 stores in an area, etc.. I think part of what a union does is that "grandstanding" you talked about, they have an interest in making their plight/cause a coverable event - all unions do this regardless of the numbers big or small.

For a newspaper (for example) to criticize a Union, there would have to be illegal going on inside the union - merely criticizing a union on it's goals or objectives is just simply subjective - some might agree, others might not, depends on your mood. Besides, criticize one branch of a union and the rest come to their defense, and then other unions step in and add their voice.... it would be insanely difficult if not impossible to separate criticism of the NAMBU branch from criticism of unions in general (something any responsible editor at a reputable would be foolish to do unless they had dirt on the Union in the same vein as the Jimmy Hoffa stuff).Statisticalregression 11:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not true that only criminal activity would result in newspaper criticism. It would be entirely possible for a notable commentator to criticise the Union. Unions can also be criticised by the government, and by the companies that the try to negotiate with. For example, Metropolis ran an editorial that was critical of the Union's handling of the shakai hoken issue, but it was not deemed a suitable source because the author (an English teacher) was not notable enough. The keys to WP inclusion are the notability of the incident, the reliabilty of the source, and the notability of the commentator. That said, it may be difficult to find criticisms because the English newspapers in Japan broadly support the Union's actions. -- Sparkzilla talk! 11:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I haven't seen anything that was critical of a union (Nambu or otherwise) if there was something in the Yomiuri I'd post it. Again, even criticising a small union would draw the ire of all the other unions. Statisticalregression 11:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess my point is, the entry about NUGW may be for a union of 300,000 members, mostly Japanese. But what is highlighted are activities of what might not be more than 300 expat foreigners (and of regular dues payers, maybe 50-60). If there were to be "objective source" criticisms about such a small pool, the cite would be one of the small handful of members of the club. And most likely, anonymous. So in that regard, you won't have any NAMBU-FWC criticism at all that qualifies. Spellin 15:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Spellin

well a source that would specify the numbers (let's say for sake of argument lets say there's only 20) wouldn't be a criticism, it would just be factual information. Criticism based solely on numbers would have to substantiate why a small number is cause for criticism. This topic would be more appropriate to address on one of the many internet message boards, I'm sure you'll find people to argue both sides 'ad nauseam'. I'll keep an eye out for reliable and verifiable sources on the topic, but I won't be debating on this issue any longer.Statisticalregression 23:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't go to criticism of collective bargaining or unions at all. I happen to believe that these organizations and their organizing rights are a very important part of any civil society. I am more concerned about whether people wrap themselves in Unionism merely to advance their own better working conditions, or become newsmedia celebs or so-called "quote sluts" for major newspapers. Spellin 15:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Spellin

More on the Metropolis article

To follow up to the recent discussion about the reliability of the "Angela Smyth" article in Metropolis magazine, here is the website of a photographer [1] from which the photo used in the Metropolis article [2] was taken. The photos were taken in 2002, 3 years before the Metropolis article was published.Collately 12:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Great detective work, Sherlock. I said early on that the writer wrote under a pseudonym, so it's no big surprise that she also did not want her real photo to be used. You may not have noticed but this issue is closed -- the result of the RFC above was that the writer was not notable enough to be used as a reliable source. -- Sparkzilla talk! 14:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well one of my original points was that the photo was fake, but you didn't address that. It also brings into question whether Metropolis is a reliable source, David Bailey.Collately 14:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If a publication wants to protect the identity of a person, they commonly put "name withheld to protect identity" but conjuring up a persona and bolstering it with a photograph that was nicked from a private portfolio is simply blatant distortion. The article as printed never mentioned anything about using a fake name and picture to protect the identity and is misleading to the readers. Statisticalregression 20:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, and that brings into question the reliability (and credibility) of Metropolis magazine.

What I think's happened here is that Nova management wanted to put out an article against the General Union campaign to try to force eikaiwa to enrol teachers in Shakai Hoken. The article's been made to look like the opinion of an ordinary English teacher so that people might take it seriously. Basically, they've tried to dupe the readers. But if you read the article closely, there's lots of statements that a regular English teacher would probably know little or nothing about. And now we know that the name and photo are fake as well.

No doubt Sparkzilla Bailey, picture editor extraordinnaire, will have something to say about this.Collately 13:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. The article was written by an ordinary English teacher who did not agree with the Union's actions. The person wrote under a pseudonym for fear of reprisals from the union and our picture editor chose a suitably anonymous random pic off of Google to match the article. Anyone looking at the picture would know that the person is hiding their identity.

You insult the intelligence of English teachers with your condescending remarks -- they are quite capable of knowing how their paypacket will be affected, and many of them have written for us, and write well. Frankly, your talk of conspiracy is mindbogglingly immature and I will no longer respond to your nonsense here. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your picture editor didn't check for copyright? Why even include a picture? and the editor decided not to included a footnote advising that names and details had been changed because...? Statisticalregression 17:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Stupid (and possible unethical) editorial decisions at CrissCross are irrelevent. I watch enough Media Watch to realise that if such behaviour excluded use in Wikipedia, no Australian newspaper could ever be considered a reliable source. The article is not being used, so additional criticisms of the article are irrelevent really.--ZayZayEM 03:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit of a non-issue now, agreed. But no one should ever feel bad about questioning a publication. Looking into how journalistic ethics address how criticisms should be handled it's easy to find that criticisms should be not only welcomed but encouraged, not deflected or ignored. Statisticalregression 03:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well your freaking out about me expressing a controversial opinion is mind-bogglingly immature too. I didn't say that what I said was 100% truth. I said "I think that...", something which I'm perfectly entitled to do.

I also said that "there's lots of statements that a regular English teacher would probably know little or nothing about" (notice I qualify that with probably - not definitely). That's not insulting English teachers' intelligence, that's totally correct - I can imagine few Nova teachers that would do research about the financial details of SH, the impact on "the wider community of foreign workers in Japan", "many English schools", etc etc.

Sorry if this is more immature nonsense, but labelling someone's opinion as "immature nonsense" is in itself "immature nonsense".Collately 15:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiscanner, Neutrality, Whitewashing

Here's a gret article on somee of the problems when Wikipedia becomes more like Second Life for corporations rather than an encyclopedia, especially when Wal-Mart is involved in manipulating NPOV to deceive peopel about wages... http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/wikipedia-white-washing-there-s-truth-in-facts-and-frames Wanzhen 16:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

from the above article from cog sci professor George Lakoff's think tank... "But this appears to be the fault, so to speak, of Wikipedia's guidelines, rather than the editors (leaving aside Wal-Mart's self-editing violation). Facts by themselves aren't neutral because they don't have an intrinsic meaning that is universally understood. As the philosopher Thomas Nagel put it succinctly, you can't have a view from nowhere. Facts require "frames" because they only make sense in context....Adding more facts will not solve these problems. Wikipedia must re-think its reliance on the logic of its guidelines that link facts to neutrality to truth. In other words, Wikipedia's verifiability policy--previous publication by a reliable source--is no longer enough." So maybe on Wikipedia when one types in the name of teh subject they are looking for one would then be taken to something like a disambiguation page where one would be given several variants on the article depending upon the point of view. Wanzhen 17:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)