![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please take note that this page is not the place for rumors or inside knowledge about NOVA that cannot be substantiated with supporting sources. Wikipedia requires reliable sources, such as items from the company website, books, newspaper, or magazine articles about the company. If you don't have proper sources to cite then anything you add can and eventually will be removed. A current or former NOVA employee or student may feel they are an expert on all things Nova, but WP differentiates between truth and verifiability. If you are planning on posting please be sure to review the following links WP:VERIFY and WP:REF and WP:ATT. Always post in good faith and assume that other's post in good faith as well.
The domination of this article by two Wiki members is very, very unhealthy by any standard. Sparkzilla (who has evidently retired) frankly writes as someone with personal interests in seeing Nova portaryed in the most flattering "objective" light it is possible to cast on a company with little besides size to recommend it. I beleive this member knowingly abuses the NPOV policy to lessen the cold facts about Nova policies and managemen. On the other hand, Statisticalregression's obsession with controlling the article is unfathomable but, as this section on "New Posting Guidelines" suggests, s/he is just as strangely interested in defense of the company over the presentation of information. Statisticalregression's suggestion is rather brutally heavy-handed. There may be some reasonable explanation I have missed. I would be glad to hear it. TheCryingofLot49 01:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we should seriously consider rewriting this first section to condense it as well as adjust the tone. "Just because you worked at Nova and think you have some inside knowledge about the company does not entitle you to post..." is arbitrarily accusatory and raises the question of 'who has the right/is entitled to post' as well as 'who determines who has the right to post' the answer to which is everyone and no one, but there should be a clear way to address and educate those who have worked for Nova on how to post and how to find out what is and is not acceptable by WP standards. A Nova employee may be an expert on all things Nova, but WP differentiates between truth and verifiability. 71.197.213.17 02:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Additionally WP does not require proper sources for all contributions, but instead per WP:REF and WP:verify "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." + ",,attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". A casual look around WP will yield a vast majority of material that is devoid of citations or references or at least severely lacking in such. Not having a verifiable source does not preclude the ability to add to the content of this page. Furthermore, WP:VERIFY goes on to say
Also anyone who is contributing to this page should be acutely aware that there are individuals here who will remove content without requesting sources. Statisticalregression 09:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
There is definitely an issue of undue weight in the controversies section. Aside from the student charging issue, as it stands it looks like the union has taken over this page, with almost half of the page devoted to "controversies". Objectively, there are a very few incidents, none of which are particularly major issues to anyone outside (or even inside Nova), pushed by unions which appear to have very few members.
I wonder if editors would add detail of every staff dispute at a company such as Microsoft. Oh my, the Microsoft part-timers didn't get paid, let's put it on Wikipedia!
The Union's own publications counts as self-published material, and its claims should only be used if there are other sources that have proper editorial oversight to back them up. Claims by the union are, however, allowed on the union's own page.
I am not saying to remove these issues from this page, or from Wikipedia, but to reduce their size and/or to place them in a place where they have better weight. As it stands now I'm not sure if this is the Nova page, or the union page.
I propose instead that the union issues are dealt with by creating a few paragraphs such as "Nova has been involved in several union disputes regarding the Nova IPO, fraternisation with students, drug testing etc.." And to link these paragraphs to more detail information about the dispute on the union's page. Sparkzilla 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Is this really appropriate for this page?
None of the details really tie it back to being a controversy involving the Nova company. Yes, Hawker was an employee, but that might be enough for a "See also" but not a significant segment.-- ZayZayEM 02:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was saying about the other "controversies". I mean, a school doesn't mention a teensy union in its IPO prospectus? Shock! Or that it has a policy that its teachers shouldn't date students. Earth shattering stuff! Both of those are simply not notable to anyone but a handful of union activists (god bless them). But, in any case, if the sources are credible (newppaers, magazines, TV) then it's just easier to keep the items in for now, noting that there are issues with undue weight. Same with the Hawker murder - like it or not credible sources say Nova was involved in some way. Sparkzilla 06:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to bring up a small issue about sparkzilla editing this page. While I am sure he possesses the skill to do so, it's important to point out that as the editor of Metropolis (an english-language magazine published in Japan) there is a potential conflict of interest. His magazine accepts money for advertising from schools like Gaba, Nova, etc.
I am not saying that Sparkzilla has done anything uncouth, but I would encourage him to refrain from editing this Wikipedia entry.
as noted from Denise E. DeLorme, Associate Professor of Advertising at Nicholson School of Communication at the Univeristy of Central Florida, "Advertising’s influence on editorial content is an important and complex issue. While the situation spans a variety of popular culture and mass communication venues2, our focus here is on print media. Attempts at control can take many forms. In particular, advertisers dislike unfavorable or controversial stories, which is a problem that affects both newspapers and magazines. For example, airlines demand that their advertisements be withdrawn from publications that report airplane crashes; the Chrysler Corporation has asked magazines to inform it about material that involves sexual, political, or social issues that might be considered provocative or offensive; and Proctor and Gamble does not want its advertisements near anything about gun control, abortion, the occult, cults, or the disparagement of religion."
Being a magazine editor does not automatically make one an athority of impartiality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.213.17 ( talk • contribs) date.
Sparkzilla, my 'logic' would not preclude you from being able to write about any Japanese related topic, but it does give cause to scrutinize your activity on certain topics. Metropolis is distributed in Japan for *free*, and I would hazard a guess that essentially all of the operating expenses are covered solely by advertisements.
I clearly made a mistake by referring to Sparkzilla as the 'editor' of metropolis, when it appears in fact he/she is the publisher. Of course, being the publisher actually has the potential to exacerbate the COI. As quoted from the WP entry on "publisher" : The publisher usually controls the advertising and other marketing tasks, but may subcontract various aspects of the process described above So wouldn't being the publisher put Sparkzilla in even closer proximity to advertisers than being an editor? I have no problem with Sparkzilla contributing to the Nova WP page but feel uneasy if he removes information. I am all for adhering to WP standards but when I see sections removed with no attempt at discussion on how the material could be retained and then WP standards being used as a 'shield' to defend unilateral action, all kinds of red flags get raised so to speak.
It's not entirely necessary for Sparkszilla to have a discrete business relationship for a COI, as Nova being an advertiser for Metropolis which is a magazine that relies essentially on it's advertisers to continue operation, and that you are the publisher of that magazine puts Nova,Metropolis, and Sparkzilla in the same business biosphere.
I also have to disagree with claims of no COI here. Sparkszilla has shown a propensity on numerous occasions to throw vague WP policy references about to forstall arguments about his actions and clearly demonstrated ethical ambiguity. His assertions about relevant laws are also in error. I mean, come on, he is the guy who put the article on Metopolis here on WP and it is blatantly self-promotion.
He stated: "I have absolutely no business relationship with Nova, and even if I did my edits here have been made acording to WP content policies, with due regard to notability, verifiability and NPOV"
"..."even if I did . . ." I spent quite a bit of time dealing with NOVA and if he was in a business relationship you can bet he would be painting them a rosey shade of pink. Or his business relationship would come to an end. The statement clearly demonstrates either naivete or prevarication. Verifiability is another problem. Most anything that pops up on the NOVA website is suspect and the Ministry of Justice knows this as well--why else the raids?
By the way who ever put this NOVA sourced statement in:
"Since 1997, Nova steadily expanded the number of its schools as it's business grew, going from 239 schools to 623 in 2004.[3] By 2002, Nova had captured 50% of total market share by revenue (61.5 billion yen) and in 2003 Nova had gained a 66% market share by number of students, some 410,000 students in total, but 2005 saw Nova loose ground in total sales revenue.[8]"
needs to verify the figures or take it out. Their website is riven with misinformation. The Japanese government does not provide reasonable estimates of what the market is because it can't. No one knows. Where do these guys get off making statements blantantly aimed at investors and creditors as fact? The inclusion of this sort of nonesense here is but a piece of the whole pro-NOVA input for this article. -- Malangthon 00:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that in the 'Courses' section there is no mention of kids curriculum (i.e. chibiki, kinder, etc) and I would suggest we consider adding it. Some of the details of the kids curriculum are difficult to verifiy as most of the information is available from advtisements, promotional, and internal company material. It seems to me that there is an official nova website (in Japanese) that provides more information about courses and services in a promotional format but I have lost the link. Kids trainig is mentioned on the nova corporate website but no specific details are available from that source. I intend to make a short edit of the Nova WP page to include some general information abou the kids classes and leave it tagged as *unsourced* but would first like to ask anyone here if they have sources about the kids classes.....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.213.17 ( talk • contribs)
Sparkzilla recently edited one of the changes I made in the instructor's section, I'll have to re-word the section that was deleted but the effect of the edit makes the information I added incongruent with the information that was referenced - The change in "work time" and change in "lesson time" that are cited by Japan Times are two seperate changes (that is to say, work time was not changed simply because lesson time was changed) prior to the change lesson time was 40 minutes for most lessons, with a few that lasted 45 minutes. Unfortunately the Article fails to mention specifically the details in the changes of the "work time system". 71.197.213.17 05:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
simply put.... changes made by nova = result + result (as reported in the article) at least that's my interpretation. Statisticalregression 06:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
here's a quick list of possible sections for a rewrite:
History
Services
Employment
Labor Relations
Competition
Criticisms
- 'Anti-fraternization policy' or 'anti-socialization policy' ?
- Two paragraphs in the "Marketing" section contain information that require references to be retained
- All three paragraphs of the "Courses" section require references to be retained
- The second paragraph of the "Instructors" section requires a reference to be retained
I restored this for two reasons. 1) the source I have "Japan - Change and Continuity" actually makes a very specific reference to Glova being a subsidary of Nova, and describes Glova as leading example of services in the Corporate Language training, translation, interpretation. 2) If Nova does not list Glova on it's website there's no reason to draw a conclusion that contradicts the source I got my information from, whether NOVA's omission was intentional, unintentionl, or if something has changed (like the Glova was bought out by another company) there's nothing I can find to indicate that Glova and NOVA are no longer connected.
The source I mentioned in '1)' is a book titled "Japan - Change and Continuity" authors, page, publisher, etc... are listed in the citation - is there something more I can provide?
The basic problem with much of the article is notability with respect to inclusion in an encyclopedia. For example, are Nova's courses notable? (answer:no) If they were notable they would have multiple reliable secondary sources (newspaper and magazuine articles). they could be notable if they used a new method of instruction, but as it is the unsourced items look like advertising for basic services.
As an example, is not notable in my own company's page to write about how much people are paid, or their training, their visa requirements, or the services offered to each customer.
Taking notability/encyclopedic content considerations into account I now think that the courses section should be removed have removed the sections and placed the notable/sourced items that were in the sections in the intro. --
Sparkzilla
talk! 02:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I found the information supplied in sections on courses to be quite NPOV and informative. I would like to see it restored. the only rationale I can see for non-inclusion is that it is unreferenced. It was removed on the basis of being promotional, which it isn't (eg. it doesn't say NOVA has better prices or better service than anyone else, indeed it alludes NPOV to some flaws in pricing), I would like to see it restored then.-- ZayZayEM 01:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sparkzilla, I'll address each of your deletions/edits one at a time. Currently looking into the Notability issue of the author Shane Inwood. Statisticalregression 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Might be better to discuss the sources in conjunction with the individual sentances. so here's the first sentance:
Large English conversation schools like Nova employ thousands of trained and untrained teachers [12] and are occasionally referred to as 'chain' or 'factory schools'. [13] [14] [15]
The bold section is what was removed. Three sources are listed in support of the bold section. You removed only the first one when you edited rather than addressing all three.
1.Chris, Rowthorn (2005). Japan. Lonely Planet, 746 [16] (only supports 'factory schools')
2.McEnglish for the masses, Japan Times [17] (supports combining notion of Nova + Factory)
3.Philip Seargeant (2005)"More English than England itself"International Journal of Applied Linguistics [18] (supports 'Chain')
I don't think removing the part of the sentence that was cited by all three sources was warranted on the contention of one link or because Lonely Planet isn't an authority on employment, in this instance it doesn't have to be. I do think that Lonely planet (a 700+ page book about Japan) is reliable enough to support inclusion of the term 'factory schools' as it is nothing more than local vernacular that would be within the scope of the author's expertise. Thus, I am restoring that part of the sentance. Statisticalregression 18:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
(<-) Frankly, I have better things to do today than discuss such a trivial edit (I hope you have too). There is no need to add any sources to describe Nova as a chain - it's already obvious from the rest of the text. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I reworded the intro to add "chain". -- Sparkzilla talk!
The Lonely Planet guide, being an actual published book realting to the topic and subject to the editorial process, fact checking, and potential for libel, absolutely qualifies as a reliable source. Got a problem with the term "factory"? Source it to them, problem solved.
Speaking of reliable sources, I'm having trouble understanding your original objection to the term "chain", especially considering the source of this headline. So, "Japan Today": not a reliable source? Got it. -- Calton | Talk 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
And -- Calton | Talk 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This pdf appears to have some significant critique, mentions of NOVA and its practices in light of English education in Japan. Might have a closer look later-- ZayZayEM 01:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Within Japan there are five major chains of commercial language school (Nova, Geos, ECC, Aeon, and Berlitz) with branches in cities and towns throughout the country, as well as innumerable smaller independent outfits. p9
came across this link / Supernova Racing that mentioned Nova Group started racing on the Japanese domestic circut in 1991, and went international in 1994 (and merged with a british racing team) looking at the logo both on the website and on the drivers helmet it would seem this at least sustantiates that Nova did have it's own racing team at one point. anyone have more information? Statisticalregression 03:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to revert all the names back to "Sahashi" but I think it was already discussed before, since the name of Nova's CEO is listed as "Sahashi" in basically all the news stories, we have to go with that. If anyone finds a source that lists his name as "Saruhashi" please post a link here Statisticalregression 14:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a written dialect problem as far as I can tell. Some of the sources have bad translators. It's somwhat like Megan = Meh-gan or Mii-gan. There should only be one correct way to say this person's name - their way. Perhaps Sahashi-san could get his own article (running the largest eikaiwa in Japan is notable enough).-- ZayZayEM 01:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
(Same person as above) I have it on good authority - a friend who recently left Nova after almost 15 years there - that Saruhashi legally changed his name to Sahashi. So the CEO formerly known as Saruhashi is now indeed Sahashi. Mystery solved.
Before checking the talk page - I changed all the "saru" to "sa" on the main page (be bold in your editing yada yada). I did not realize his family name does actually have the character for monkey in it. Now, I am wondering: His Japanese wiki article [22] states that he has also called himself Saruhashi but has recently been sticking with Sahashi. No mention of an official name change. I am not sure if references to himself should be criteria for how he is referred to. If someone wants to edit my changes back I won't fight it, but please make sure all references to him are SARUHASHI, and really his main article should be SARUHASHI as well, pending evidence of an official name change. Malnova ( talk) 21:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
More: An article I found and read [23] also says he just one day, five years ago, started insisting his name was to be pronounced SAHASHI, with no mention of a real name change. I will edit back my own rv, and intend to RD Sahashi back to Saruhashi in his main article Malnova ( talk) 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The hawker entry was recently removed - it was discussed before and seems like there was a bit of an agreement to include it based on sources/Nova's role in alerting the police, etc.... both the Blackman and Hawkers murders created alot of media attention.... I'm for inclusion - what does everyone else think? Statisticalregression 04:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This article needs to have more content than controversies.
It needs background history of the company and non-promotional content describing the services they provide.-- ZayZayEM 10:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at WP:LEAD and I think it's time to start structuring the article in accordance with that guidline. (IMO) As it is right now, the article isn't written in an encyclopedic manner, it's more like a run-on of one factual statement after another. So I'll be making some changes to the page while remaining sensitive to WP:VER and WP:RS. I would appreciate as much input as possible while making the changes. I have some new material to add - and the article might look a little crazy over the next few days while I work on it. Statisticalregression 09:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Guys, as much as I think it's relevant, we really can't include the youtube video. in essence it's the same thing as linking to an external blog. it just doesn't pass the high bar for inclusion in the article. There's plenty of other areas that need attention, such as a new lead needs to be written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Statisticalregression ( talk • contribs) 19:33, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
Now the text is being thoroughly sorted, all we need is some pictures.
I assume some NOVA employees and Japan residents come by this page. Presumeably some of you ahve digital cameras. Care to take some ambush snaps and upload them
Some ideas:
-- ZayZayEM 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I have pics of the inside of the multimedia center (but I took them without permissions from the center manager or whoever could refuse this permission;-P). There is a nova usagi with easter eggs in the lobby of the multimedia center ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.87.133 ( talk) 06:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, no way to submit my pics without an account, ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.87.133 ( talk) 06:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Although you might see these issues as being a "rumor mill", I disagree. I don't see any problem with giving FACT. NOVA did not pay a significant number of instructors. This is an important part of how the company works, and I think much more relevant to the page than some of the other stuff. NOVA is breaching contract by not paying people on time, and rightly so, many people want to make this information public. If you do not, you should counter-argue rather than completely remove the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.50.10.203 ( talk) 16:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is one for you: http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/foreign-teachers-dudded-in-japan/2007/09/18/1189881510131.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.243.179.128 ( talk) 14:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
anyone really have a problem with them? most of the page is pretty static as it is Statisticalregression 09:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd really like to read something about the methods that NOVA uses in class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.234.83.102 ( talk) 10:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
After a long time as a teacher, I still don't know what is the Nova method! It became "teach phrase book english" in the last instance and the French team for example is several instances late because the development team management suck up to the boss and do not want to work! Lately, less and less is written down, so it's the teachers fault! the teachers evaluation process is now just general marks for different categories without comments, so the teacher cannot defend hisself in case of abuse, the teacher has no proof and only his word! the nova teaching method is a smokescreen! the selling method is harassement from what some students told us, one got called repeatedly by a staff "mother" and finally bought more tickets. I feel like I'm working for conmen and I currently have no other choice, not being a native english speaker ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.88.200 ( talk) 08:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The development continues, the laziest ones will not do lessons, even with all the regular teachers on holiday leaves! This is the Nova spirit ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.87.133 ( talk) 12:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe it belongs in the history section up at the top because the current financial crisis is a part of the history of the company's health. HIS is part of the response to the METI restrictions, Sahashi issued a statement 2 days later that they would be looking for a capitol tie up, so in that regard, METI and the attempt to court HIS or any other company are related and would go in that section. Statisticalregression 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - This information should be placed in the intro as well. And if someone has time to expand it, please do. As far as I understand, the company will go under very soon and is not currently paying it's employees or any of its bills. We're on the verge of starting this article with Nova was... - Theanphibian ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As someone who was supposed to go to Japan this October through Nova, I can confirm that they pushed my date back to a nebulous November (no exact date given), and their exact words for doing this were "Nova isn't comfortable sending any new teachers to Japan right now". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iammako3 ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
HaHaHa, not comfortable is an understatement, the current rumours around the floors of the multimedia center are that they do not have the cash to pay anybody on monday (the 15th of October). The night shift people were told by TIs that they would not be paid. on Monday at 15:00, there is a call to leave work if the salaries are not paid. There is already a party organised (not by the company) to celebrate the bankruptcy on the 3rd of November! 45 days of voluntary work and we may have to do 30 more to get the unemployement! (2 months of salary problems) I'm sure the boss has his retirement planned out in the Bermudas or the Virgin islands, and that we deserve to get screwed, well thank you boss! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.88.200 ( talk) 08:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why but the information about delayed wages is being removed. As I and thousands of other nova instuctors can attest, this is true and accurate information. A link could be provided to the Japantoday story regarding nova union demanding wages..i wonder if monkeybridge reads and edits this site - or is it one of his mindless clones? (hey there anvers) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.159.87.128 ( talk) 14:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Some deluded foreign staff thinks it's still gonna be okay (yes, walk toward the light, the end of the tunnel is near ;-P), but their number are shrinking, like the number of teacher working at the multimedia center, everybody took their paid holidays ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.87.133 ( talk) 12:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You might want to mention that they are going bankrupt, also Saruhashi was fired today (10-26-2007), all the schools are closed until further notice. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNAeXZAmiwHY&refer=home http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/26/2071245.htm?section=world http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20071026-00000023-mai-soci (Japanese) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.8.77.4 ( talk) 03:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC
This TV news report says Nova will be saved (it also shows off how Saruhashi was using the money that could have payed employees or refunded students). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zoZ8kHT8CA They aren't dead yet, so it looks like we should replace the 'was' with something else, they will likely be back in business in one form or another by the end of November.
Nova applies for court protection from creditors; president missing, 4 execs resign
The company, offering mainly English conversation classes, said it has shut down operations at all of its nearly 900 schools.
Nova President Nozomu Sahashi, who owns a 16% equity stake in the company he co-founded in 1981, is nowhere to be found.
The company, with an estimated 400,000 students, said he was dismissed from the board as of Thursday for failing to provide an adequate explanation for his "opaque way of fund-raising and negotiating with potential business alliance partners."
Not long until the lead becomes "Nova was..."-- ZayZayEM 01:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
ZayZayEm beat me to it, but here's another source for the news [30] (in Japanese). I don't know where or how to best integrate this into the article, but with this information I have a feeling that the introduction will be needing an overhaul... 12.42.238.243 01:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this information also begs the ressurection of
Nozomu Sahashi as an independent article to look at Sahashi-san's particularly actions and (mis)management of NOVA. However it is likely to be the target for vandalism by quite a large number of miffed NETs with a surprisingly large amount of time on their hand very soon.--
ZayZayEM 02:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The "was" is a little premature, they have not declared bankruptcy yet, in fact officially they are just temporaraly closed, you shoud wait until they actually declair bankruptcy. They are looking for a sponser if they find one, they could open agian. Unless the Government pays down some of the debts in a bail out, I think it is unlikely someone would be stupid enough to sponser them with their 45 billion+ in debt, tarnished name, lack of real physical assests, angry students, and angrier staff and teachers; but companies have made mistakes before. Aeon, Marui, and Rakuten are out of the running but I have heard rumors about Yahoo Japan, SMBC, and H.I.S. possibly being interested. Here is a story you may want to look at: http://mdn.mainichi.jp/national/news/20071027p2a00m0na007000c.html
Well Nova lives, barely. They are being "bought out" by a company that runs EC Eikawa (not to be confused with ECC), it is more like they picked the good parts out of the trash and leaving the rest for the goverment to sell off to help pay some of Nova debts. It is safe to say they are no longer a 'big three' company, they are going to start with opening up 30 of the old schools and plan to expand to 200, small apples compared to the 900 schools it once was. They are going to leave it up to the government to pay teachers and staff wages and Ex-Nova students will get a 75% discount. They have not said wether or not they are going to keep the name Nova. Newspaper stories in English should be comming soon.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
138.243.179.128 (
talk) 14:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the sorry story of Nova's demise should be moved out to its own page, and included here only in brief under Summary style guidelines.
What you think?
A comparative event could be Enron and Enron scandal.-- ZayZayEM 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
To help avoid hearsay and innuendo, here's a decent source of recent news stories regarding Nova: http://del.icio.us/parsleyboots/nova . Kingturtle 17:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. Just for the record, my wife and I interviewed over the summer with Nova, and we were slated to fly out and start November 13th. We got word October 5th from Nova that this was not going to happen for us.
The original news sources at both Asashi and Mainichi appear to have been removed.
This really plays sus on the reports that Sahashi was arrested on embezzlement charges. Perhaps he was arrested on something, or only questioned.
Phantoms that the articles did previously exist can be found at NAMBU for the Mainichi article ad verbatim [31] and Japan Economy News [32] and Let's Japan [33] for the original Asashi links.
However as the story has now been retracted by the official news sources I do not think it is appropriate to rely on second hand/third hand information from blogs and/or mirrors.-- ZayZayEM ( talk) 09:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Japan Times may provide an appropriate
WP:RS on the matter.--
ZayZayEM (
talk) 09:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
At 5:10 pm GMT on 19 August 2008 I made an edit the main purpose of which was the removal of date links. This was reverted at 9:46 pm by DAJF with the following edit summary.
Dates are linked so that they appear as per users' date format preferences
DAJF,
Are you aware that you reverted more than the delinking of dates? My edit summary was as follows.
delink & standardise the format of dates; translate a couple of terms into English & remove repeated links
Before my edit the article was using a mishmash of international, US and ISO date formats. The most glaring example of which was right up in the first paragraph. Sentence three used international format and sentence four, US, separated by only a full stop and the word On.
My edit also changed
[[eikaiwa]] (private [[English (language)|English]] [[language education|teaching companies]])
to
[[eikaiwa|private English teaching companies]]
preserving the link to Eikaiwa but removing the link to English (language) (English in this sense being a plain English word, see WP:OVERLINK, besides you can get to the article via Eikaiwa anyway) and removing the link to Language education (this was a bit of a surprise link since "teaching companies" ≠ "language education"). Further down I'd replaced another eikaiwa with language school (if we'd wanted to keep the Language education link, this would've been a good place).
I had also translated shakai hoken to social insurance. I must admit that I overlooked changing the section title.
Surely we should be writing in English. Spicing the prose up with a few Japanese words only makes it harder to read for those of us who don't know the language—most English speakers. This kind of this is completely unnecessary and should be avoided wherever possible.
There had been three links to Japan and three to Osaka right at the top of the article: one each in the lead paragraph and two each in the info box. I'd removed the second of each of these from the infobox.
One edit not mentioed in my summary was the change from curly inverted commas, “system trouble”, to straight ones (as otherwise used throughout) and from single inverted commas, 'Nova Usagi', to double (per WP:PUNC).
Another which I didn't mention was the insertion of on into the plain text citations. This was done for consistency with those which use {{ cite web}}.
So, DAJF, your reversion did more than simply reinstate the date linking ... look carefully though: the last date was unlinked to begin with. Thus, one might suggest that a better approach could have been to go through and link the dates back up again. Better still in my view, however, would have been to have left the dates unlinked.
If you have a look at WP:MOSNUM, you'll notice that the guideline no longer mandates date linking. Indeed it may soon depreciate it.
So we link so that the dates appear according to users' preference and those readers who come here who are not logged in—most visitors to the site—what do they see? They see a mess. Autoformatting only works for those of us who are logged in and have a preference set. I urge you take a look at this article without the autoformatting crutch either by to logging out or by adjusting your prefs to no preference. I highly recommend the latter and once you're done looking at this article, why not leave your prefs off so that you'll be able to spot these inconsistencies that most of us editors have happily been hiding from ourselves? This is the mess that the general public sees. Autoformatting has hidden it from the very people who would otherwise fix it—us editors ... or are we writing only for ourselves?
Not only this but the autoformatting has been implimented in a very unconstructive fashion: via linking. To get the autoformatting working articles must link to lists of trivia with generally little to no connexion to the topic at hand. This overlinking dilutes those links of real worth whilst reducing the readability of Wikipedia articles.
For more on the evils of autoformatting please have a read of this essay by Waltham, who has a way with words that I don't believe I can match. And please do consider reinstating my edit to this article ... or if you still believe in date linking, perhaps the debate on WT:MOSNUM might be of interest ... or even if you don't ...
Cheers. JIMp talk· cont 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a fair call that it would have been benificial to have separated the edits, of course, you don't generally edit a page with the expectation of being reverted. I would like to point out that the edit summary did mention most of the changes (the two unnoted were rather minor). I'm not sure that I agree that translating words into English dilutes the importance of the text. We are still writing English, right? If we must have the words in romanised Japanese, though, how about putting the English first and the Japanese in brackets? JIMp talk· cont 03:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose there are cases where there exists no truely equivalent English term, e.g. seppuku, it would be too cumbersome to write out a description each time ... of course, the article Seppuku is about seppuku whereas this article is not about shakai hoken nor eikaiwa (it's about an eikaiwa). Many of the English-language sources cited here I see are Japanese newspapers. These, you'd expect, would be directed to readers somewhat familiar with at least some Japanese vocabulary. I don't think WP has that liberty. JIMp talk· cont 04:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I am reverted again with reference to the injunction posted on WP:MOSNUM which reads as follows.
Bringing one article in line with current guidelines is hardly a programme of mass delinking of dates. Anyway, it's only a matter of time till the injuction is lifted and we can get back to the work of removing these utterly useless links. JIMp talk· cont 13:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Have NOVA rebranded, or ceased recruiting? http://www.teachinjapan.com appears to be an empty "under construction" webspace at the moment.-- ZayZayEM ( talk) 13:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Nova (eikaiwa). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 41 external links on Nova (eikaiwa). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 47 external links on Nova (eikaiwa). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please take note that this page is not the place for rumors or inside knowledge about NOVA that cannot be substantiated with supporting sources. Wikipedia requires reliable sources, such as items from the company website, books, newspaper, or magazine articles about the company. If you don't have proper sources to cite then anything you add can and eventually will be removed. A current or former NOVA employee or student may feel they are an expert on all things Nova, but WP differentiates between truth and verifiability. If you are planning on posting please be sure to review the following links WP:VERIFY and WP:REF and WP:ATT. Always post in good faith and assume that other's post in good faith as well.
The domination of this article by two Wiki members is very, very unhealthy by any standard. Sparkzilla (who has evidently retired) frankly writes as someone with personal interests in seeing Nova portaryed in the most flattering "objective" light it is possible to cast on a company with little besides size to recommend it. I beleive this member knowingly abuses the NPOV policy to lessen the cold facts about Nova policies and managemen. On the other hand, Statisticalregression's obsession with controlling the article is unfathomable but, as this section on "New Posting Guidelines" suggests, s/he is just as strangely interested in defense of the company over the presentation of information. Statisticalregression's suggestion is rather brutally heavy-handed. There may be some reasonable explanation I have missed. I would be glad to hear it. TheCryingofLot49 01:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we should seriously consider rewriting this first section to condense it as well as adjust the tone. "Just because you worked at Nova and think you have some inside knowledge about the company does not entitle you to post..." is arbitrarily accusatory and raises the question of 'who has the right/is entitled to post' as well as 'who determines who has the right to post' the answer to which is everyone and no one, but there should be a clear way to address and educate those who have worked for Nova on how to post and how to find out what is and is not acceptable by WP standards. A Nova employee may be an expert on all things Nova, but WP differentiates between truth and verifiability. 71.197.213.17 02:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Additionally WP does not require proper sources for all contributions, but instead per WP:REF and WP:verify "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." + ",,attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". A casual look around WP will yield a vast majority of material that is devoid of citations or references or at least severely lacking in such. Not having a verifiable source does not preclude the ability to add to the content of this page. Furthermore, WP:VERIFY goes on to say
Also anyone who is contributing to this page should be acutely aware that there are individuals here who will remove content without requesting sources. Statisticalregression 09:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
There is definitely an issue of undue weight in the controversies section. Aside from the student charging issue, as it stands it looks like the union has taken over this page, with almost half of the page devoted to "controversies". Objectively, there are a very few incidents, none of which are particularly major issues to anyone outside (or even inside Nova), pushed by unions which appear to have very few members.
I wonder if editors would add detail of every staff dispute at a company such as Microsoft. Oh my, the Microsoft part-timers didn't get paid, let's put it on Wikipedia!
The Union's own publications counts as self-published material, and its claims should only be used if there are other sources that have proper editorial oversight to back them up. Claims by the union are, however, allowed on the union's own page.
I am not saying to remove these issues from this page, or from Wikipedia, but to reduce their size and/or to place them in a place where they have better weight. As it stands now I'm not sure if this is the Nova page, or the union page.
I propose instead that the union issues are dealt with by creating a few paragraphs such as "Nova has been involved in several union disputes regarding the Nova IPO, fraternisation with students, drug testing etc.." And to link these paragraphs to more detail information about the dispute on the union's page. Sparkzilla 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Is this really appropriate for this page?
None of the details really tie it back to being a controversy involving the Nova company. Yes, Hawker was an employee, but that might be enough for a "See also" but not a significant segment.-- ZayZayEM 02:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was saying about the other "controversies". I mean, a school doesn't mention a teensy union in its IPO prospectus? Shock! Or that it has a policy that its teachers shouldn't date students. Earth shattering stuff! Both of those are simply not notable to anyone but a handful of union activists (god bless them). But, in any case, if the sources are credible (newppaers, magazines, TV) then it's just easier to keep the items in for now, noting that there are issues with undue weight. Same with the Hawker murder - like it or not credible sources say Nova was involved in some way. Sparkzilla 06:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to bring up a small issue about sparkzilla editing this page. While I am sure he possesses the skill to do so, it's important to point out that as the editor of Metropolis (an english-language magazine published in Japan) there is a potential conflict of interest. His magazine accepts money for advertising from schools like Gaba, Nova, etc.
I am not saying that Sparkzilla has done anything uncouth, but I would encourage him to refrain from editing this Wikipedia entry.
as noted from Denise E. DeLorme, Associate Professor of Advertising at Nicholson School of Communication at the Univeristy of Central Florida, "Advertising’s influence on editorial content is an important and complex issue. While the situation spans a variety of popular culture and mass communication venues2, our focus here is on print media. Attempts at control can take many forms. In particular, advertisers dislike unfavorable or controversial stories, which is a problem that affects both newspapers and magazines. For example, airlines demand that their advertisements be withdrawn from publications that report airplane crashes; the Chrysler Corporation has asked magazines to inform it about material that involves sexual, political, or social issues that might be considered provocative or offensive; and Proctor and Gamble does not want its advertisements near anything about gun control, abortion, the occult, cults, or the disparagement of religion."
Being a magazine editor does not automatically make one an athority of impartiality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.213.17 ( talk • contribs) date.
Sparkzilla, my 'logic' would not preclude you from being able to write about any Japanese related topic, but it does give cause to scrutinize your activity on certain topics. Metropolis is distributed in Japan for *free*, and I would hazard a guess that essentially all of the operating expenses are covered solely by advertisements.
I clearly made a mistake by referring to Sparkzilla as the 'editor' of metropolis, when it appears in fact he/she is the publisher. Of course, being the publisher actually has the potential to exacerbate the COI. As quoted from the WP entry on "publisher" : The publisher usually controls the advertising and other marketing tasks, but may subcontract various aspects of the process described above So wouldn't being the publisher put Sparkzilla in even closer proximity to advertisers than being an editor? I have no problem with Sparkzilla contributing to the Nova WP page but feel uneasy if he removes information. I am all for adhering to WP standards but when I see sections removed with no attempt at discussion on how the material could be retained and then WP standards being used as a 'shield' to defend unilateral action, all kinds of red flags get raised so to speak.
It's not entirely necessary for Sparkszilla to have a discrete business relationship for a COI, as Nova being an advertiser for Metropolis which is a magazine that relies essentially on it's advertisers to continue operation, and that you are the publisher of that magazine puts Nova,Metropolis, and Sparkzilla in the same business biosphere.
I also have to disagree with claims of no COI here. Sparkszilla has shown a propensity on numerous occasions to throw vague WP policy references about to forstall arguments about his actions and clearly demonstrated ethical ambiguity. His assertions about relevant laws are also in error. I mean, come on, he is the guy who put the article on Metopolis here on WP and it is blatantly self-promotion.
He stated: "I have absolutely no business relationship with Nova, and even if I did my edits here have been made acording to WP content policies, with due regard to notability, verifiability and NPOV"
"..."even if I did . . ." I spent quite a bit of time dealing with NOVA and if he was in a business relationship you can bet he would be painting them a rosey shade of pink. Or his business relationship would come to an end. The statement clearly demonstrates either naivete or prevarication. Verifiability is another problem. Most anything that pops up on the NOVA website is suspect and the Ministry of Justice knows this as well--why else the raids?
By the way who ever put this NOVA sourced statement in:
"Since 1997, Nova steadily expanded the number of its schools as it's business grew, going from 239 schools to 623 in 2004.[3] By 2002, Nova had captured 50% of total market share by revenue (61.5 billion yen) and in 2003 Nova had gained a 66% market share by number of students, some 410,000 students in total, but 2005 saw Nova loose ground in total sales revenue.[8]"
needs to verify the figures or take it out. Their website is riven with misinformation. The Japanese government does not provide reasonable estimates of what the market is because it can't. No one knows. Where do these guys get off making statements blantantly aimed at investors and creditors as fact? The inclusion of this sort of nonesense here is but a piece of the whole pro-NOVA input for this article. -- Malangthon 00:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that in the 'Courses' section there is no mention of kids curriculum (i.e. chibiki, kinder, etc) and I would suggest we consider adding it. Some of the details of the kids curriculum are difficult to verifiy as most of the information is available from advtisements, promotional, and internal company material. It seems to me that there is an official nova website (in Japanese) that provides more information about courses and services in a promotional format but I have lost the link. Kids trainig is mentioned on the nova corporate website but no specific details are available from that source. I intend to make a short edit of the Nova WP page to include some general information abou the kids classes and leave it tagged as *unsourced* but would first like to ask anyone here if they have sources about the kids classes.....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.213.17 ( talk • contribs)
Sparkzilla recently edited one of the changes I made in the instructor's section, I'll have to re-word the section that was deleted but the effect of the edit makes the information I added incongruent with the information that was referenced - The change in "work time" and change in "lesson time" that are cited by Japan Times are two seperate changes (that is to say, work time was not changed simply because lesson time was changed) prior to the change lesson time was 40 minutes for most lessons, with a few that lasted 45 minutes. Unfortunately the Article fails to mention specifically the details in the changes of the "work time system". 71.197.213.17 05:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
simply put.... changes made by nova = result + result (as reported in the article) at least that's my interpretation. Statisticalregression 06:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
here's a quick list of possible sections for a rewrite:
History
Services
Employment
Labor Relations
Competition
Criticisms
- 'Anti-fraternization policy' or 'anti-socialization policy' ?
- Two paragraphs in the "Marketing" section contain information that require references to be retained
- All three paragraphs of the "Courses" section require references to be retained
- The second paragraph of the "Instructors" section requires a reference to be retained
I restored this for two reasons. 1) the source I have "Japan - Change and Continuity" actually makes a very specific reference to Glova being a subsidary of Nova, and describes Glova as leading example of services in the Corporate Language training, translation, interpretation. 2) If Nova does not list Glova on it's website there's no reason to draw a conclusion that contradicts the source I got my information from, whether NOVA's omission was intentional, unintentionl, or if something has changed (like the Glova was bought out by another company) there's nothing I can find to indicate that Glova and NOVA are no longer connected.
The source I mentioned in '1)' is a book titled "Japan - Change and Continuity" authors, page, publisher, etc... are listed in the citation - is there something more I can provide?
The basic problem with much of the article is notability with respect to inclusion in an encyclopedia. For example, are Nova's courses notable? (answer:no) If they were notable they would have multiple reliable secondary sources (newspaper and magazuine articles). they could be notable if they used a new method of instruction, but as it is the unsourced items look like advertising for basic services.
As an example, is not notable in my own company's page to write about how much people are paid, or their training, their visa requirements, or the services offered to each customer.
Taking notability/encyclopedic content considerations into account I now think that the courses section should be removed have removed the sections and placed the notable/sourced items that were in the sections in the intro. --
Sparkzilla
talk! 02:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I found the information supplied in sections on courses to be quite NPOV and informative. I would like to see it restored. the only rationale I can see for non-inclusion is that it is unreferenced. It was removed on the basis of being promotional, which it isn't (eg. it doesn't say NOVA has better prices or better service than anyone else, indeed it alludes NPOV to some flaws in pricing), I would like to see it restored then.-- ZayZayEM 01:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sparkzilla, I'll address each of your deletions/edits one at a time. Currently looking into the Notability issue of the author Shane Inwood. Statisticalregression 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Might be better to discuss the sources in conjunction with the individual sentances. so here's the first sentance:
Large English conversation schools like Nova employ thousands of trained and untrained teachers [12] and are occasionally referred to as 'chain' or 'factory schools'. [13] [14] [15]
The bold section is what was removed. Three sources are listed in support of the bold section. You removed only the first one when you edited rather than addressing all three.
1.Chris, Rowthorn (2005). Japan. Lonely Planet, 746 [16] (only supports 'factory schools')
2.McEnglish for the masses, Japan Times [17] (supports combining notion of Nova + Factory)
3.Philip Seargeant (2005)"More English than England itself"International Journal of Applied Linguistics [18] (supports 'Chain')
I don't think removing the part of the sentence that was cited by all three sources was warranted on the contention of one link or because Lonely Planet isn't an authority on employment, in this instance it doesn't have to be. I do think that Lonely planet (a 700+ page book about Japan) is reliable enough to support inclusion of the term 'factory schools' as it is nothing more than local vernacular that would be within the scope of the author's expertise. Thus, I am restoring that part of the sentance. Statisticalregression 18:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
(<-) Frankly, I have better things to do today than discuss such a trivial edit (I hope you have too). There is no need to add any sources to describe Nova as a chain - it's already obvious from the rest of the text. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I reworded the intro to add "chain". -- Sparkzilla talk!
The Lonely Planet guide, being an actual published book realting to the topic and subject to the editorial process, fact checking, and potential for libel, absolutely qualifies as a reliable source. Got a problem with the term "factory"? Source it to them, problem solved.
Speaking of reliable sources, I'm having trouble understanding your original objection to the term "chain", especially considering the source of this headline. So, "Japan Today": not a reliable source? Got it. -- Calton | Talk 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
And -- Calton | Talk 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This pdf appears to have some significant critique, mentions of NOVA and its practices in light of English education in Japan. Might have a closer look later-- ZayZayEM 01:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Within Japan there are five major chains of commercial language school (Nova, Geos, ECC, Aeon, and Berlitz) with branches in cities and towns throughout the country, as well as innumerable smaller independent outfits. p9
came across this link / Supernova Racing that mentioned Nova Group started racing on the Japanese domestic circut in 1991, and went international in 1994 (and merged with a british racing team) looking at the logo both on the website and on the drivers helmet it would seem this at least sustantiates that Nova did have it's own racing team at one point. anyone have more information? Statisticalregression 03:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to revert all the names back to "Sahashi" but I think it was already discussed before, since the name of Nova's CEO is listed as "Sahashi" in basically all the news stories, we have to go with that. If anyone finds a source that lists his name as "Saruhashi" please post a link here Statisticalregression 14:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a written dialect problem as far as I can tell. Some of the sources have bad translators. It's somwhat like Megan = Meh-gan or Mii-gan. There should only be one correct way to say this person's name - their way. Perhaps Sahashi-san could get his own article (running the largest eikaiwa in Japan is notable enough).-- ZayZayEM 01:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
(Same person as above) I have it on good authority - a friend who recently left Nova after almost 15 years there - that Saruhashi legally changed his name to Sahashi. So the CEO formerly known as Saruhashi is now indeed Sahashi. Mystery solved.
Before checking the talk page - I changed all the "saru" to "sa" on the main page (be bold in your editing yada yada). I did not realize his family name does actually have the character for monkey in it. Now, I am wondering: His Japanese wiki article [22] states that he has also called himself Saruhashi but has recently been sticking with Sahashi. No mention of an official name change. I am not sure if references to himself should be criteria for how he is referred to. If someone wants to edit my changes back I won't fight it, but please make sure all references to him are SARUHASHI, and really his main article should be SARUHASHI as well, pending evidence of an official name change. Malnova ( talk) 21:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
More: An article I found and read [23] also says he just one day, five years ago, started insisting his name was to be pronounced SAHASHI, with no mention of a real name change. I will edit back my own rv, and intend to RD Sahashi back to Saruhashi in his main article Malnova ( talk) 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The hawker entry was recently removed - it was discussed before and seems like there was a bit of an agreement to include it based on sources/Nova's role in alerting the police, etc.... both the Blackman and Hawkers murders created alot of media attention.... I'm for inclusion - what does everyone else think? Statisticalregression 04:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This article needs to have more content than controversies.
It needs background history of the company and non-promotional content describing the services they provide.-- ZayZayEM 10:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at WP:LEAD and I think it's time to start structuring the article in accordance with that guidline. (IMO) As it is right now, the article isn't written in an encyclopedic manner, it's more like a run-on of one factual statement after another. So I'll be making some changes to the page while remaining sensitive to WP:VER and WP:RS. I would appreciate as much input as possible while making the changes. I have some new material to add - and the article might look a little crazy over the next few days while I work on it. Statisticalregression 09:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Guys, as much as I think it's relevant, we really can't include the youtube video. in essence it's the same thing as linking to an external blog. it just doesn't pass the high bar for inclusion in the article. There's plenty of other areas that need attention, such as a new lead needs to be written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Statisticalregression ( talk • contribs) 19:33, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
Now the text is being thoroughly sorted, all we need is some pictures.
I assume some NOVA employees and Japan residents come by this page. Presumeably some of you ahve digital cameras. Care to take some ambush snaps and upload them
Some ideas:
-- ZayZayEM 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I have pics of the inside of the multimedia center (but I took them without permissions from the center manager or whoever could refuse this permission;-P). There is a nova usagi with easter eggs in the lobby of the multimedia center ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.87.133 ( talk) 06:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, no way to submit my pics without an account, ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.87.133 ( talk) 06:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Although you might see these issues as being a "rumor mill", I disagree. I don't see any problem with giving FACT. NOVA did not pay a significant number of instructors. This is an important part of how the company works, and I think much more relevant to the page than some of the other stuff. NOVA is breaching contract by not paying people on time, and rightly so, many people want to make this information public. If you do not, you should counter-argue rather than completely remove the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.50.10.203 ( talk) 16:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is one for you: http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/foreign-teachers-dudded-in-japan/2007/09/18/1189881510131.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.243.179.128 ( talk) 14:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
anyone really have a problem with them? most of the page is pretty static as it is Statisticalregression 09:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd really like to read something about the methods that NOVA uses in class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.234.83.102 ( talk) 10:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
After a long time as a teacher, I still don't know what is the Nova method! It became "teach phrase book english" in the last instance and the French team for example is several instances late because the development team management suck up to the boss and do not want to work! Lately, less and less is written down, so it's the teachers fault! the teachers evaluation process is now just general marks for different categories without comments, so the teacher cannot defend hisself in case of abuse, the teacher has no proof and only his word! the nova teaching method is a smokescreen! the selling method is harassement from what some students told us, one got called repeatedly by a staff "mother" and finally bought more tickets. I feel like I'm working for conmen and I currently have no other choice, not being a native english speaker ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.88.200 ( talk) 08:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The development continues, the laziest ones will not do lessons, even with all the regular teachers on holiday leaves! This is the Nova spirit ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.87.133 ( talk) 12:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe it belongs in the history section up at the top because the current financial crisis is a part of the history of the company's health. HIS is part of the response to the METI restrictions, Sahashi issued a statement 2 days later that they would be looking for a capitol tie up, so in that regard, METI and the attempt to court HIS or any other company are related and would go in that section. Statisticalregression 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - This information should be placed in the intro as well. And if someone has time to expand it, please do. As far as I understand, the company will go under very soon and is not currently paying it's employees or any of its bills. We're on the verge of starting this article with Nova was... - Theanphibian ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As someone who was supposed to go to Japan this October through Nova, I can confirm that they pushed my date back to a nebulous November (no exact date given), and their exact words for doing this were "Nova isn't comfortable sending any new teachers to Japan right now". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iammako3 ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
HaHaHa, not comfortable is an understatement, the current rumours around the floors of the multimedia center are that they do not have the cash to pay anybody on monday (the 15th of October). The night shift people were told by TIs that they would not be paid. on Monday at 15:00, there is a call to leave work if the salaries are not paid. There is already a party organised (not by the company) to celebrate the bankruptcy on the 3rd of November! 45 days of voluntary work and we may have to do 30 more to get the unemployement! (2 months of salary problems) I'm sure the boss has his retirement planned out in the Bermudas or the Virgin islands, and that we deserve to get screwed, well thank you boss! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.88.200 ( talk) 08:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why but the information about delayed wages is being removed. As I and thousands of other nova instuctors can attest, this is true and accurate information. A link could be provided to the Japantoday story regarding nova union demanding wages..i wonder if monkeybridge reads and edits this site - or is it one of his mindless clones? (hey there anvers) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.159.87.128 ( talk) 14:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Some deluded foreign staff thinks it's still gonna be okay (yes, walk toward the light, the end of the tunnel is near ;-P), but their number are shrinking, like the number of teacher working at the multimedia center, everybody took their paid holidays ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.87.133 ( talk) 12:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You might want to mention that they are going bankrupt, also Saruhashi was fired today (10-26-2007), all the schools are closed until further notice. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNAeXZAmiwHY&refer=home http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/26/2071245.htm?section=world http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20071026-00000023-mai-soci (Japanese) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.8.77.4 ( talk) 03:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC
This TV news report says Nova will be saved (it also shows off how Saruhashi was using the money that could have payed employees or refunded students). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zoZ8kHT8CA They aren't dead yet, so it looks like we should replace the 'was' with something else, they will likely be back in business in one form or another by the end of November.
Nova applies for court protection from creditors; president missing, 4 execs resign
The company, offering mainly English conversation classes, said it has shut down operations at all of its nearly 900 schools.
Nova President Nozomu Sahashi, who owns a 16% equity stake in the company he co-founded in 1981, is nowhere to be found.
The company, with an estimated 400,000 students, said he was dismissed from the board as of Thursday for failing to provide an adequate explanation for his "opaque way of fund-raising and negotiating with potential business alliance partners."
Not long until the lead becomes "Nova was..."-- ZayZayEM 01:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
ZayZayEm beat me to it, but here's another source for the news [30] (in Japanese). I don't know where or how to best integrate this into the article, but with this information I have a feeling that the introduction will be needing an overhaul... 12.42.238.243 01:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this information also begs the ressurection of
Nozomu Sahashi as an independent article to look at Sahashi-san's particularly actions and (mis)management of NOVA. However it is likely to be the target for vandalism by quite a large number of miffed NETs with a surprisingly large amount of time on their hand very soon.--
ZayZayEM 02:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The "was" is a little premature, they have not declared bankruptcy yet, in fact officially they are just temporaraly closed, you shoud wait until they actually declair bankruptcy. They are looking for a sponser if they find one, they could open agian. Unless the Government pays down some of the debts in a bail out, I think it is unlikely someone would be stupid enough to sponser them with their 45 billion+ in debt, tarnished name, lack of real physical assests, angry students, and angrier staff and teachers; but companies have made mistakes before. Aeon, Marui, and Rakuten are out of the running but I have heard rumors about Yahoo Japan, SMBC, and H.I.S. possibly being interested. Here is a story you may want to look at: http://mdn.mainichi.jp/national/news/20071027p2a00m0na007000c.html
Well Nova lives, barely. They are being "bought out" by a company that runs EC Eikawa (not to be confused with ECC), it is more like they picked the good parts out of the trash and leaving the rest for the goverment to sell off to help pay some of Nova debts. It is safe to say they are no longer a 'big three' company, they are going to start with opening up 30 of the old schools and plan to expand to 200, small apples compared to the 900 schools it once was. They are going to leave it up to the government to pay teachers and staff wages and Ex-Nova students will get a 75% discount. They have not said wether or not they are going to keep the name Nova. Newspaper stories in English should be comming soon.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
138.243.179.128 (
talk) 14:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the sorry story of Nova's demise should be moved out to its own page, and included here only in brief under Summary style guidelines.
What you think?
A comparative event could be Enron and Enron scandal.-- ZayZayEM 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
To help avoid hearsay and innuendo, here's a decent source of recent news stories regarding Nova: http://del.icio.us/parsleyboots/nova . Kingturtle 17:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. Just for the record, my wife and I interviewed over the summer with Nova, and we were slated to fly out and start November 13th. We got word October 5th from Nova that this was not going to happen for us.
The original news sources at both Asashi and Mainichi appear to have been removed.
This really plays sus on the reports that Sahashi was arrested on embezzlement charges. Perhaps he was arrested on something, or only questioned.
Phantoms that the articles did previously exist can be found at NAMBU for the Mainichi article ad verbatim [31] and Japan Economy News [32] and Let's Japan [33] for the original Asashi links.
However as the story has now been retracted by the official news sources I do not think it is appropriate to rely on second hand/third hand information from blogs and/or mirrors.-- ZayZayEM ( talk) 09:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Japan Times may provide an appropriate
WP:RS on the matter.--
ZayZayEM (
talk) 09:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
At 5:10 pm GMT on 19 August 2008 I made an edit the main purpose of which was the removal of date links. This was reverted at 9:46 pm by DAJF with the following edit summary.
Dates are linked so that they appear as per users' date format preferences
DAJF,
Are you aware that you reverted more than the delinking of dates? My edit summary was as follows.
delink & standardise the format of dates; translate a couple of terms into English & remove repeated links
Before my edit the article was using a mishmash of international, US and ISO date formats. The most glaring example of which was right up in the first paragraph. Sentence three used international format and sentence four, US, separated by only a full stop and the word On.
My edit also changed
[[eikaiwa]] (private [[English (language)|English]] [[language education|teaching companies]])
to
[[eikaiwa|private English teaching companies]]
preserving the link to Eikaiwa but removing the link to English (language) (English in this sense being a plain English word, see WP:OVERLINK, besides you can get to the article via Eikaiwa anyway) and removing the link to Language education (this was a bit of a surprise link since "teaching companies" ≠ "language education"). Further down I'd replaced another eikaiwa with language school (if we'd wanted to keep the Language education link, this would've been a good place).
I had also translated shakai hoken to social insurance. I must admit that I overlooked changing the section title.
Surely we should be writing in English. Spicing the prose up with a few Japanese words only makes it harder to read for those of us who don't know the language—most English speakers. This kind of this is completely unnecessary and should be avoided wherever possible.
There had been three links to Japan and three to Osaka right at the top of the article: one each in the lead paragraph and two each in the info box. I'd removed the second of each of these from the infobox.
One edit not mentioed in my summary was the change from curly inverted commas, “system trouble”, to straight ones (as otherwise used throughout) and from single inverted commas, 'Nova Usagi', to double (per WP:PUNC).
Another which I didn't mention was the insertion of on into the plain text citations. This was done for consistency with those which use {{ cite web}}.
So, DAJF, your reversion did more than simply reinstate the date linking ... look carefully though: the last date was unlinked to begin with. Thus, one might suggest that a better approach could have been to go through and link the dates back up again. Better still in my view, however, would have been to have left the dates unlinked.
If you have a look at WP:MOSNUM, you'll notice that the guideline no longer mandates date linking. Indeed it may soon depreciate it.
So we link so that the dates appear according to users' preference and those readers who come here who are not logged in—most visitors to the site—what do they see? They see a mess. Autoformatting only works for those of us who are logged in and have a preference set. I urge you take a look at this article without the autoformatting crutch either by to logging out or by adjusting your prefs to no preference. I highly recommend the latter and once you're done looking at this article, why not leave your prefs off so that you'll be able to spot these inconsistencies that most of us editors have happily been hiding from ourselves? This is the mess that the general public sees. Autoformatting has hidden it from the very people who would otherwise fix it—us editors ... or are we writing only for ourselves?
Not only this but the autoformatting has been implimented in a very unconstructive fashion: via linking. To get the autoformatting working articles must link to lists of trivia with generally little to no connexion to the topic at hand. This overlinking dilutes those links of real worth whilst reducing the readability of Wikipedia articles.
For more on the evils of autoformatting please have a read of this essay by Waltham, who has a way with words that I don't believe I can match. And please do consider reinstating my edit to this article ... or if you still believe in date linking, perhaps the debate on WT:MOSNUM might be of interest ... or even if you don't ...
Cheers. JIMp talk· cont 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a fair call that it would have been benificial to have separated the edits, of course, you don't generally edit a page with the expectation of being reverted. I would like to point out that the edit summary did mention most of the changes (the two unnoted were rather minor). I'm not sure that I agree that translating words into English dilutes the importance of the text. We are still writing English, right? If we must have the words in romanised Japanese, though, how about putting the English first and the Japanese in brackets? JIMp talk· cont 03:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose there are cases where there exists no truely equivalent English term, e.g. seppuku, it would be too cumbersome to write out a description each time ... of course, the article Seppuku is about seppuku whereas this article is not about shakai hoken nor eikaiwa (it's about an eikaiwa). Many of the English-language sources cited here I see are Japanese newspapers. These, you'd expect, would be directed to readers somewhat familiar with at least some Japanese vocabulary. I don't think WP has that liberty. JIMp talk· cont 04:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I am reverted again with reference to the injunction posted on WP:MOSNUM which reads as follows.
Bringing one article in line with current guidelines is hardly a programme of mass delinking of dates. Anyway, it's only a matter of time till the injuction is lifted and we can get back to the work of removing these utterly useless links. JIMp talk· cont 13:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Have NOVA rebranded, or ceased recruiting? http://www.teachinjapan.com appears to be an empty "under construction" webspace at the moment.-- ZayZayEM ( talk) 13:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Nova (eikaiwa). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 41 external links on Nova (eikaiwa). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 47 external links on Nova (eikaiwa). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)