Talk:Interac (Japan)/Archive 2

Single Person Controversy
As a larger company, I wonder if basing an entire section off of one person is an accurate way to portray a company. If there are more, similar stories that could be added then I would say it is fine but there are not any. The descriptions of links are a little off. The Japan Times Article Assistant language teachers in trying times (Ref 9)starts out with Samantha Bouton but breaks away after six paragraphs. The article is 38 paragraphs long and the last of four parts as stated at the top of the article. It does not "specifically" deal with her problems.

I could not find any business articles that used a single person to base an entire controversy section on. I suggest the removal of the controversy section until there are more accounts from which to base such a section on. Preferably, I suggest more along the lines of normal controversy in which there are many people involved rather than a group of two or three for consistency's sake. Laevatienn (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with your suggestion. Please give it an edit.Taurus669 (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to WP:BEBOLD and remove the section. We have been discussing it here for almost 2 years. It adds nothing but biased opinion to the page, and that is not what Wikipedia is; please see WP:NOTADVOCATE. I will also caution the editor who would simply revert it to please WP:DRNC and understand that it is my intent to invoke WP:BRD here, and I would expect the editor who reverts the section to first explain their logic and openly discuss their reasoning here, citing the relevant Wikipedia rules as I have here. Please make sure that you read WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE completely before considering a revert.Taurus669 (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
KeroroGunso and Laevatienn have set down significant claims about the problems with this page, specifically about how it appears to be propaganda of a type rather than a description following NPOV about Interac. My opinion is that the pro-union editors would be better served to take their content to Unfair_Labor_Practice_(Japan) and then link back to both their pages and the companies under dispute. Since every single major attempt to revise the Interac page results in a roll-back to the previous edit, I will make a motion for Dispute Resolution. I take this step because the above-noted problems have gone unspoken to for over 1 year, meaning that there is no dialogue possible with the previous editors, and a more formal level of involvement is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taurus669 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The DR request failed because of a syntactical error not being corrected quickly enough with the names of all editors. In light, I will move for WP:ASSIST before moving on to DR.Taurus669 (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Added to WikiProject_Companies to get better help as a company.Taurus669 (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
As per WP:NEWSORG I am going to start checking items that are referenced to statements made in articles in The Japan Times and other news outlets, online magazines, websites, etc. Please remember: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Also, please consider carefully: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[5] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.[6][7]"

Now I expect that pro-union editors on this wiki will consider statements made by Mr. Carlet, Ms. Okunuki, and others with union membership to be statements of fact. They may counter to say that they are "expert sources," however they will not pass muster under WP:SELFPUBLISH. Louis Carlet as a "full-time paid trade union organizer" is a definite no-go, and Ms. Okunuki as a "Paralegal" (which is not officially recognized in Japan as a job title) is not considered as an expert without proof of peer-reviewed work on the subject she is writing about. Please remember that in WP:NPOV we are looking for neutral and objective evidence; this is an encyclopedia, not a place to conduct a war-of-words between a union and a company.

Even such, the opinion of union officials in media cannot be considered to be unbiased, as the various unions themselves may be Juridical Persons (corporations) under Japanese law, and those unions who are incorporated (and their spokespersons) are subject to WP:NOPR. This means that all stakeholders (including union members) are "very strongly discouraged" from editing.

Also, as an aside, it is probably wise for the pro-union people to avoid editing this page altogether because of WP:COI. Please see:

"If you are involved in a court case, or you are close to one of the litigants, you should not write about the case, or about a party or law firm associated with the case. Even a minor breach of neutrality in an article that is before the court could cause real-world harm."

If pro-union editors are truly placing the needs of workers at Interac in front of their own pockets, then it may be best to withdraw from editing the Interac page and move the union-related content to other more directly union-related pages.

Before I start to tag every link and we begin to debate every single piece referenced to this wiki, I'll be willing to compromise with a withdrawal of union-related content from this page. In return for that, I won't follow the other union-related wiki pages and edit them for WP:NPOV and WP:COI etc. Taurus669 (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Unbalanced
I cam here at the request of Taurus669. I've briefly looked at the article, and it seems unbalanced. There is lot of undue critical commentary. Some or all of this may be justified - but at the moment the bulk of the article seems to consist of vague slurs amounting to very little. I've tagged the article. It needs looking at - I don't have time at the moment, but if the article hasn't been cleaned up in a month's time, please feel free to ping me again.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Contract Section
I edited this section today and removed the weighted language and speculation. This language was supported by a Dec. 14, 2004 article in The Japan Times written by Mr. Louis Carlet and a scan of a document in Japanese held on a free hosting service. Mr. Carlet's opinion piece runs afoul of WP:RSOPINION and WP:UNDUE because of his WP:COI (at the time) association with the Nanbu union and his current position with the Tozen union. In a way, it can be said that that anything Mr. Carlet publishes is also WP:OR and thereby unfit for use.

The page at http://alt.150m.com/ seems equally questionable. It seems like an attempt to bring WP:USERGENERATED into the discussion by taking a scan of a MEXT document (which is WP:NONENG) and adding a commentary to the top which parrots that found on the page and on other union-related Wikis and pages.

Because the scan is presented as a JPG and not a PDF or searchable document, it is almost impossible to use machine translation on it to find out if what the document scan says actually matches the conclusion of the commentary at the top. The average non-Japanese-reading English Wiki user would get no information from the scan.

Actually, these are 2 separate documents, one is the advisory from Mr. Kawano and Mr. Sakai. My read of this document is that it says "whatever the contract type, it must be legal under the Worker Dispatch Laws." The attachment from Mr. Kawano explains how the system can operate under the Worker Dispatch Law, and it emphasizes making roles and work orders clear, as well as a 3-year limit on dispatch contracts.

I find this page hard to accept as anything other than WP:OR being paraded around as a verifiable source. Please remember that:


 * Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.

Please find a verifiable source for these claims before making them on the page.Taurus669 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversy
As I mentioned above in the Single Subject section, I deleted the Controversy section, because, basically, it was WP:SOAP. It contained WP:SYNTHESIS and this negatively affected the article due to WP:UNDUE and because it is WP:BLP please keep in mind that:


 * The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

I have now removed the BLP material about Ms. Boulton, and the above burden rests on anyone who would restore the section. My intent is not to start a WP:EDITWAR but to bring the page up to standard so that it can be accepted into one or more Wiki Projects, and eventually be given a good quality score.Taurus669 (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Union Presence
I edited the Union Presence section today for conciseness and WP:NPOV. The point here is not to object to the the content, but to ask "Is it relevant to the description of the business?" and I have cut down to the level that still keeps the section but eliminates WP:UNDUE. This edit does not deny the union presence, but as I have said before it does nothing for the person visiting the site who wants to learn about the company. The various unions have their own pages and my recommendation would be for them to take the content pertaining to them to their pages. I have enough trust in an educated reader to WP:DECISION by following links and searching out information about the company. Again, I will draw a reverter's attention to WP:3RR before crying WP:PMW at my suggestion. We have been here discussing this for over a year, so please join in if you think this edit is wrong before just flatly reverting.Taurus669 (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Original Research
I added a tag for original research, please clean up the sections below as per WP:NOR and bring them closer to NPOV.Taurus669 (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Section now removed.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Dead Links
I marked dead links. Please review the links, or rewrite the body text to reflect WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFIABILITY. Taurus669 (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Section now removed.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Operation Slingshot
This section appears to be completely 100% original research. I have marked it as such, and referred it to the Original Research noticeboard. Please rewrite for WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFIABILITY. Taurus669 (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Section now removed.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)