![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The link to internationalisation was removed as the internationalisation article is about a different concept. "Internationalization and localization are means of adapting products such as publications or software for non-native environments, "
"The programme" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalised. Brettr 09:03, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
I am going to remove any blogs on this page unless people object. There 6000 current participants and just about all of them have blogs. As I see it there is no justification for having a links to blogs even if they are particularly good ones. Brettr 09:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
My question is... Who cares?
-- I agree with this wholeheartedly. -- JL, 27 June 2007
"sic" does not simply mean "intentionally left as is." It almost always means that the thing is being left as is even though it is a mistake or unusual.
Wikipedia entry for "sic" - "This is a short-hand indicating that a quoted source contains an error. For example, "I’ve missspelled this" becomes "I’ve missspelled (sic) this", when quoted by a later author who sees the spelling error and wishes to indicate that the source material contained the error, it was not introduced by the quoting author."
Dictionary.com entry for "sic" - "Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally."
At the very least, the use of "sic" strongly implies there is an error in the original text, something I think is inappropriate for mere differences of spelling between the UK and the US. If you can find a style manual that says that you should use "sic" when quoting an American source in the UK, then I will accept that you are right, but failing that, "sic" should be removed. - Exitmoose 06:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
So ACETs are mentioned in the first para. I've not heard of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were a new position. Could we get some more info on that? Note how the seocnd paragraph doesn't even mention them when giving the percentage breakdown of the positions. Ckamaeleon 06:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been reading up on the JET Program(me) lately and I was a bit shocked when I saw the history section listed here on Wikipedia. From what I've read in "Importing Diversity: Inside Japan's JET Program" the program developed from a number of sources, not directly from the BET Programme. It does say that some of the people involved in the BET Programme were directly involved in the beginning, but it also lists a number of other sources and people as being directly involved. I suggest a total rewrite, with some depth to it.
I greatly object to the removal of the 2 main forum links that were on here (Big Daikon and I Think I'm Lost). These 2 sites are central to the JET community and their removal greatly restricts access to information that people looking at Wikipedia may want access to.
138.243.129.7 07:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing it to the talk page instead of just reverting the links. WP:External_links provides a number of guidelines about what should and should not be externally linked. Forums are one of the things that should not be linked. It appears that those two websites a are service to their respective communities, but forums pose problems in the encyclopedia. First, since people are invited to say whatever they want, the information violates WP:V and WP:RS. Second of all, it is often people involved with the sites that place the links (violation of WP:COI). Keep in mind, that Wikipedia is not a link directory (see WP:NOT). This means that even websites that are very good in their own right may not be appropriate to link. Projects like DMOZ are more appropriate for these types of links. In terms of restricting access, if people are really interested in a JET forum, they are welcome to perform a search. I notice that "jet programme forum" results in both of those websites appearing in the top 5 pages.
BigDaikon is perhaps the best source for information regarding Japan on the net. While there is—at times—a problem with the signal to noise ratio, generally posting questions on the site will net the correct answer. I think BigDaikon should be linked because of the breadth of opinion and information available.
Then following your links to the "rules", the other links to wikis should also be removed. 138.243.129.7 23:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the entire issues section as it (1) seems biased and uses weasel-words and, more importantly, (2) did not cite any references. Please discuss issues here before reverting--else, only revert sections with proper citations. mitcho/芳貴 01:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Lol I come across the JET page and my first-time little edits in 'Issues' has all been removed!! I think an issue that should be mentioned is that deletion of 'Issues' = censorship. Especially as
and, more importantly, (2) did not cite any references
is a euphamism for 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil'. As a former JET, it pains me to point out, that CLAIR, AJET or MEXT do not keep any anticedence on JET placements.A new JET must accept their placement in good faith. Their job interview is in their home country before coming to Japan. They don't get any chance to visit the schools, prefectural location, apartment or the teachers until after arrival. There isn't even a review after a few months to ascertain if everything is OK. All JETs must remain in situ until their contract ends unless they decide to leave. Do you wonder then, why there are issues?? The only way you hear about Issues is through web forums such as Big Daikon or from tales around 'the prefectural campfire'. When I was a JET, the program needed a serious review, three years later it appears nothing had changed, accept censorship now prevails and any dissent is ignored, discredited or removed, even from wikipedia!!
while obviously, each and every little blog isn't noticible, shouldn't Jeffery be mentioned in the notable ones instead of/in addition to 'see also'? OP9/GaijinSmash is probably one of, if not the, most famous teacher blogs around, i'm sure most people who know of JET know of it, if not heard of JET because of it -- Phoeba Wright OBJECTION! 03:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say link to the blog, I said link to the person. -- Phoeba Wright OBJECTION! 04:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Brad, I think if you insist on linking yourself to the JET Program then you must make that link explicit on your wiki page. Nowhere there do you mention your connection, apart from a brief snippet in an externally linked podcast. Please make the explicit JET Program experience on your wiki page before relinking. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.168.146 ( talk) 16:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Brad Warner did NOT add himself to the JET wiki page. I did. I am NOT Brad Warner.My source is an interview with Warner himself on the Buddhist Geeks podcast. If you listen to the podcast in the reference citation, Warner himself mentions participating in the JET program. Warner IS notable as he has written two books on his experiences with Zen Buddhism and the Punk music scene (Hardcore Zen and Sit Down And Shut Up) and is about to publish a third within the year. SirRastus ( talk) 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Brad Warner added back to the list of notable JETs. Again, I am NOT Brad Warner. Further, my addition to the list of notable JETs is documented. . . unlike the others in the list. Having detail on another wiki page is not a requirement for inclusion nor a criteria for notability. SirRastus ( talk) 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The question is notability. A very well known JET/Japan blogger and multi-talent, Jeff Windham a.k.a. Azrael, was stripped off the notable list here (by others, not me). Not decrying Brad's achievements but I'm not sure if he falls into 'notable' or 'niche'. However I will not get into a slanging match but will leave it up to others to decide. I have in the meantime corrected your dead link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.239.74 ( talk) 09:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Where did the figure 5508 for participants come from? Firstly, there are no references. Secondly, does the source also contain more precise information on the number of JETs from different countries? I came to this article hoping to answer the specific question of how many JETs come from Britain; while it's not necessarily a good addition to the article itself, as a table would take up too much space, a link to such information would probably be helpful. Leushenko ( talk) 02:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm placing the removed text here. I think some of it should be reincorporated if possible.
Sorry, I'm a novice Wikipedia editor, but a bot removed my link to the Wikijet site. The link is no longer valid, so I replaced it with a new link http://jet.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page, but that was rejected. Hepnova
I came here looking for more information on participation numbers, but could not find it. I wonder if something like the following would be useful (I think so; it is so hard to find information on JET - it is scattered all over the place):
Year | United States | United Kingdom | Australia | New Zealand | Canada | Northern Ireland | others | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2005 | 2873 | 916 | 420 | 320 | 778 | 121 | 425 | 5853 |
2006 | 2879 | 717 | 387 | 284 | 685 | 114 | 442 | 5508 |
2007 | 2808 | 577 | 316 | 242 | 618 | 95 | 483 | 5119 |
2008 | 2681 | 440 | 287 | 208 | 529 | 78 | 459 | 4682 |
2009 | 2537 | 390 | 272 | 194 | 481 | 96 | 466 | 4436 |
source - The source is pretty confusing (Annual Change in Participant Numbers???). Anyway, the above is just a summary. I would like to know how many people apply and how many people get through to the interviews. (I am interested because I want to apply :))
What do you think? should it be part of the article. Does anyone know where we can get more details?-- Boy.pockets ( talk) 12:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding tag; dubious – discuss that was placed after some of the figures in this version; old version. I have removed the tag, after taking the following action:
Work still to be done: Fix up the wording in the paragraph as it is a bit clumsy.
--(
Boy.pockets (
talk)
00:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)).
Fixed up reference to table. Notice that table is now long. Do people think that it is too long? Perhaps it could be thinned out. But I don't mind the size.
--( Boy.pockets ( talk) 00:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)).
The new figures added in revision http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=JET_Programme&oldid=369695217 were not accompanied by a reference. I think these sort of figures need references -- Boy.pockets ( talk) 01:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The link to internationalisation was removed as the internationalisation article is about a different concept. "Internationalization and localization are means of adapting products such as publications or software for non-native environments, "
"The programme" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalised. Brettr 09:03, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
I am going to remove any blogs on this page unless people object. There 6000 current participants and just about all of them have blogs. As I see it there is no justification for having a links to blogs even if they are particularly good ones. Brettr 09:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
My question is... Who cares?
-- I agree with this wholeheartedly. -- JL, 27 June 2007
"sic" does not simply mean "intentionally left as is." It almost always means that the thing is being left as is even though it is a mistake or unusual.
Wikipedia entry for "sic" - "This is a short-hand indicating that a quoted source contains an error. For example, "I’ve missspelled this" becomes "I’ve missspelled (sic) this", when quoted by a later author who sees the spelling error and wishes to indicate that the source material contained the error, it was not introduced by the quoting author."
Dictionary.com entry for "sic" - "Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally."
At the very least, the use of "sic" strongly implies there is an error in the original text, something I think is inappropriate for mere differences of spelling between the UK and the US. If you can find a style manual that says that you should use "sic" when quoting an American source in the UK, then I will accept that you are right, but failing that, "sic" should be removed. - Exitmoose 06:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
So ACETs are mentioned in the first para. I've not heard of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were a new position. Could we get some more info on that? Note how the seocnd paragraph doesn't even mention them when giving the percentage breakdown of the positions. Ckamaeleon 06:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been reading up on the JET Program(me) lately and I was a bit shocked when I saw the history section listed here on Wikipedia. From what I've read in "Importing Diversity: Inside Japan's JET Program" the program developed from a number of sources, not directly from the BET Programme. It does say that some of the people involved in the BET Programme were directly involved in the beginning, but it also lists a number of other sources and people as being directly involved. I suggest a total rewrite, with some depth to it.
I greatly object to the removal of the 2 main forum links that were on here (Big Daikon and I Think I'm Lost). These 2 sites are central to the JET community and their removal greatly restricts access to information that people looking at Wikipedia may want access to.
138.243.129.7 07:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing it to the talk page instead of just reverting the links. WP:External_links provides a number of guidelines about what should and should not be externally linked. Forums are one of the things that should not be linked. It appears that those two websites a are service to their respective communities, but forums pose problems in the encyclopedia. First, since people are invited to say whatever they want, the information violates WP:V and WP:RS. Second of all, it is often people involved with the sites that place the links (violation of WP:COI). Keep in mind, that Wikipedia is not a link directory (see WP:NOT). This means that even websites that are very good in their own right may not be appropriate to link. Projects like DMOZ are more appropriate for these types of links. In terms of restricting access, if people are really interested in a JET forum, they are welcome to perform a search. I notice that "jet programme forum" results in both of those websites appearing in the top 5 pages.
BigDaikon is perhaps the best source for information regarding Japan on the net. While there is—at times—a problem with the signal to noise ratio, generally posting questions on the site will net the correct answer. I think BigDaikon should be linked because of the breadth of opinion and information available.
Then following your links to the "rules", the other links to wikis should also be removed. 138.243.129.7 23:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the entire issues section as it (1) seems biased and uses weasel-words and, more importantly, (2) did not cite any references. Please discuss issues here before reverting--else, only revert sections with proper citations. mitcho/芳貴 01:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Lol I come across the JET page and my first-time little edits in 'Issues' has all been removed!! I think an issue that should be mentioned is that deletion of 'Issues' = censorship. Especially as
and, more importantly, (2) did not cite any references
is a euphamism for 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil'. As a former JET, it pains me to point out, that CLAIR, AJET or MEXT do not keep any anticedence on JET placements.A new JET must accept their placement in good faith. Their job interview is in their home country before coming to Japan. They don't get any chance to visit the schools, prefectural location, apartment or the teachers until after arrival. There isn't even a review after a few months to ascertain if everything is OK. All JETs must remain in situ until their contract ends unless they decide to leave. Do you wonder then, why there are issues?? The only way you hear about Issues is through web forums such as Big Daikon or from tales around 'the prefectural campfire'. When I was a JET, the program needed a serious review, three years later it appears nothing had changed, accept censorship now prevails and any dissent is ignored, discredited or removed, even from wikipedia!!
while obviously, each and every little blog isn't noticible, shouldn't Jeffery be mentioned in the notable ones instead of/in addition to 'see also'? OP9/GaijinSmash is probably one of, if not the, most famous teacher blogs around, i'm sure most people who know of JET know of it, if not heard of JET because of it -- Phoeba Wright OBJECTION! 03:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say link to the blog, I said link to the person. -- Phoeba Wright OBJECTION! 04:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Brad, I think if you insist on linking yourself to the JET Program then you must make that link explicit on your wiki page. Nowhere there do you mention your connection, apart from a brief snippet in an externally linked podcast. Please make the explicit JET Program experience on your wiki page before relinking. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.168.146 ( talk) 16:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Brad Warner did NOT add himself to the JET wiki page. I did. I am NOT Brad Warner.My source is an interview with Warner himself on the Buddhist Geeks podcast. If you listen to the podcast in the reference citation, Warner himself mentions participating in the JET program. Warner IS notable as he has written two books on his experiences with Zen Buddhism and the Punk music scene (Hardcore Zen and Sit Down And Shut Up) and is about to publish a third within the year. SirRastus ( talk) 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Brad Warner added back to the list of notable JETs. Again, I am NOT Brad Warner. Further, my addition to the list of notable JETs is documented. . . unlike the others in the list. Having detail on another wiki page is not a requirement for inclusion nor a criteria for notability. SirRastus ( talk) 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The question is notability. A very well known JET/Japan blogger and multi-talent, Jeff Windham a.k.a. Azrael, was stripped off the notable list here (by others, not me). Not decrying Brad's achievements but I'm not sure if he falls into 'notable' or 'niche'. However I will not get into a slanging match but will leave it up to others to decide. I have in the meantime corrected your dead link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.239.74 ( talk) 09:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Where did the figure 5508 for participants come from? Firstly, there are no references. Secondly, does the source also contain more precise information on the number of JETs from different countries? I came to this article hoping to answer the specific question of how many JETs come from Britain; while it's not necessarily a good addition to the article itself, as a table would take up too much space, a link to such information would probably be helpful. Leushenko ( talk) 02:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm placing the removed text here. I think some of it should be reincorporated if possible.
Sorry, I'm a novice Wikipedia editor, but a bot removed my link to the Wikijet site. The link is no longer valid, so I replaced it with a new link http://jet.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page, but that was rejected. Hepnova
I came here looking for more information on participation numbers, but could not find it. I wonder if something like the following would be useful (I think so; it is so hard to find information on JET - it is scattered all over the place):
Year | United States | United Kingdom | Australia | New Zealand | Canada | Northern Ireland | others | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2005 | 2873 | 916 | 420 | 320 | 778 | 121 | 425 | 5853 |
2006 | 2879 | 717 | 387 | 284 | 685 | 114 | 442 | 5508 |
2007 | 2808 | 577 | 316 | 242 | 618 | 95 | 483 | 5119 |
2008 | 2681 | 440 | 287 | 208 | 529 | 78 | 459 | 4682 |
2009 | 2537 | 390 | 272 | 194 | 481 | 96 | 466 | 4436 |
source - The source is pretty confusing (Annual Change in Participant Numbers???). Anyway, the above is just a summary. I would like to know how many people apply and how many people get through to the interviews. (I am interested because I want to apply :))
What do you think? should it be part of the article. Does anyone know where we can get more details?-- Boy.pockets ( talk) 12:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding tag; dubious – discuss that was placed after some of the figures in this version; old version. I have removed the tag, after taking the following action:
Work still to be done: Fix up the wording in the paragraph as it is a bit clumsy.
--(
Boy.pockets (
talk)
00:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)).
Fixed up reference to table. Notice that table is now long. Do people think that it is too long? Perhaps it could be thinned out. But I don't mind the size.
--( Boy.pockets ( talk) 00:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)).
The new figures added in revision http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=JET_Programme&oldid=369695217 were not accompanied by a reference. I think these sort of figures need references -- Boy.pockets ( talk) 01:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)