Talk:Nova (eikaiwa)

New Posting Guidelines

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.

I saw the WP:AN/I, moving the "warning message" to the archive (fits the date range anyways) is a good idea and suggest leaving the posting guidelines that I have written above at the top. The first sentence of the 'warning message' is hard to describe as anything other than a 'preemptive ad hominem' attack (attacking the person and not the argument before they even post!) WP policies apply to everyone, not just current or former teachers or students of NOVA, but everyone. Thus, any message pertaining to posting on this or any WP page should address everyone with civility. If no one objects or has alternative wording, I will figure out how to move the warning message to the archive and do so. (in a day or so) Statisticalregression 10:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you had read to the end of the AN/I discussion you would have noticed that we are taking a break from this issue. I will comment on your proposal tomorrow. -- Sparkzilla talk!

I don't think there's a need for the warning message at all. As far as I know, no other pages have anything like this. The only message here is: Follow Wikipedia guidelines and cite sources. Why is this unique to Nova? If you look at the United States of America talk page, there's no warning telling people that just because they've lived in America, they aren't exempt from citing sources. Wikipedia guidelines apply to all of wikipedia. People can revert edits, hopefully discussing them on here before doing so. People can refer others to previous discussions on the talk page if many people make the same mistakes citing sources.Alex Small 13:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I have looked at a lot of truly controversial pages (Scientology, Islam, Christianity, Judaism) and if they don't use a 'warning' or 'posting guidelines' there's probably a real & valid reason not to. You're right Alex, let's say goodbye to any kind of 'warning'/'guideline'.Statisticalregression 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's actually a different situation. On an issue page, especially popular ones like scientology, Islam etc there will be many people prepared to discuss the issues on either side, but on a corporate page, such as Nova, there will be many people willing to attack the company (especially so in the case of disgruntled ex-teachers) but few people who are interested in maintaining NPOV on the page, other than those with a conflict of interest ie mamagement. -- Sparkzilla talk! 00:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The warning message was originally written because, at that time, there were many unsourced comments by teachers like this [1] and this [2] as well as non-notable and unsourced discussion of textbooks, class structures and internal company policy, all by teachers. Note that Statisticalregression's recent edits trying to find sources to describe the company as "dismal" etc come under this category ;)Sparkzilla talk! 00:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the sources words, not mine. Since nothing can be posted on the page that isn't sourced that's what I'm left to work with. I don't think you appreciate how difficult it is to find sources that don't casts a pall over NOVA... what the heck am I supposed to do with a source that describes NOVA with 'rote lessons of lowest-common-denominator English' ? and that's from a book published by John Hopkins University Press. ;) Statisticalregression 03:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That said, now that the article has been tidied up, I don't think the warning is as necessary as before. -- Sparkzilla talk! 00:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the warning message

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

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding 'not verified' or 'unsourced' tags." Anyone removing information is encouraged first to request sources before editing.

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)

I'm sorry, but that is quite wrong. Attribution WP:ATT is the most basic policy of Wikipedia. From the policy...

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments.

Sparkzilla talk! 15:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

you forgot to mention that WP:ATT immediately goes on to say....

"Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."

and that's just my point, anyone adding information to this page should provide attribution for any material, if you don't have the source, lost the source, etc... then tagg it as unsourced, fact, etc..and others will try to find sources or modify it so that meets WP guidelines or the additions could quite possibly be removed. Sparkzilla, I don't see any difference in our points of view or in the veracity of the WP guidelines, just in our preference in manner in which they are conveyed. Statisticalregression 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources are required for everything. It does not matter that other pages do not have sources (wikipedia standard is not set by poor-quality articles). In time every item on this page will (and should) be contested -- all unsourced items may be removed at any time, and will be removed in the end. There are two reasons why the unsourced items are currently on the page:

1. to give editors a chance to source the items and
2. to reduce the WP:UNDUE of the controversies section

However, any unsourced item can be removed at any time, without warning. In short, please provide reliable, secondary sources for any information on this page or it will be deleted. If you think this application of policy is wrong then please ask any admin, who will say the same thing. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I agree. There's alot of unsourced information (including recent additions that I have made) that could go at a moments notice. I could remove huge swaths of material from the page and totally justify doing it. It literally doesn't matter if I know the information to be true. Statisticalregression 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight in controversies section

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!

• Nova IPO issue - specifically is about the union not being mentioned in the prospectus = Union issue
• Drug testing - internal nova issue. Demonstration by 30 teachers out of 5000 is hardly notable except maybe to the union. Drug testing is routine, and certainly not notable, in many US companies.
• Anti-fraternisation - main source is union website. The single actual court case by Australian is just barely worthy of inclusion, but letters from the Osaka Bar Association are primary sources that are not mentioned by any other media and should be treated with caution. Is the OBA even notable?
• Renumeration - very minor internal issue. Main source is union website. Not notable.
• Shakai hoken - Government action is not specifically targeted at Nova. Nova makes no comment in the source. So why put it on this page?

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)

On further consideration I now think that, after a few edits to remove non-notable items and non-Nova-specific items that the remaining items are notable enough to stay in the article. Wherever possible it would be better to replace union-only sources with use the original newspaper or magazine sources. Sparkzilla 16:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think these sections should be somewhat restored. NOVA is notorious for much more industrial disputes than similar companies in the field. These controversies have a source. There is no reason for their disclusion from the article. Significant scandals of a company ripping off employees are important details to include in an article about that company.--ZayZayEM 05:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The only item removed was one about part-time employees not getting paid on time. the issue was minor, the only source was the union paper. I think it is important to condsider undue weight - what is important to the union is not necessarily that important to this article. Sparkzilla 10:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Lindsay Hawker

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)

While it is not necessarily a controversy with respect to Nova, we have to follow what sources say. She worked at Nova. Nova alerted the police. Media have interviewed fellow instructors at Nova.

I suggest renaming the section from "controversies" to something more NPOV. Sparkzilla 04:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

An employer notified the authorities when an employee disappeared. Media interviewed people who knew a murder victim. Is that really notable for here? They seem pretty standard events to me.--ZayZayEM 02:18, 8 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)

Note about potential Conflict of Interest

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.

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. Please also note that I am the publisher not the editor, and that my opinions may not be the same as those of my magazine's editorial team.

According to your logic, I would not be able to edit ANY Japan pages, because my magazine and website reports on a huge variety of Japan-related issues. Having an interest in a subject is not the same as having a conflict of interest. In any case, if you have a problem with my edits you are welcome to take them to the COI noticeboard.

PS:Given your drive-by posting history I won't debate this issue with you further here. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla if you can't see the potential for COI (and yes, on any Japanese issue), I'd be surprised. From my experience, I don't see you actually acting on the potential yet (Nick Baker has been close though). I can also see the potential actually being greater now that your COI has been "outed" (before how was any advertiser to know that Sparkzilla has any links to your publications).

I have no problem with Sparkzilla continuing to edit any pages he wants to if he maintains the standard he has shown to date. Ignore All Credentials.--ZayZayEM 03:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

hey there Malangthon, I'll try to find alternate sources for the sales/market share info. I know of a few news articles in the asahi that include some of it. To be honest, I just have too many sources and I have to sift throught them all one at a time, and it's a long process. As you can see I am doing a major revamp of the page, could you add a fact tag to anything you feel needs to be sourced more robustly?Statisticalregression 03:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Courses Section

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)

Rather than use the company website as a source, it would be far better to use a secondary source such as newspaper or magazine articles that talk about the courses. This would avoid any impression of self-promotion/advertising. However, there should be some information about the courses offered, and I agree with you that the information, if kept short, can be sourced later. I added an unreferenced tag to the section so you don;t need to fact-tag your new text.

Also, please sign your comments with 4 tildes. ~~~~-- Sparkzilla talk! 00:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added some information in the courses section but would hope some others could check it for accuracy or provide citations for relevant sources. Perhaps "Ginganet" lesson could also be addressed in the courses section? 71.197.213.17 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be able to find some sources for class content here [3]. Also please indent your replies on the talk page using the ":" character. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I re-inserted the age range for the kids levels (otherwise there might be the assumption that chibiko,kinder, junior, and senior levels are based on the same criteria as adult level (that is to say English ability) which is not the case. I also re-inserted mention of the CD use in Chibiko as songs are used in the other kids classes but the use of a CD differs fundamentally from kinder, junior, senior.71.197.213.17 03:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just remember that this section may be removed at any time as unsourced promotion/advertising. Good luck finding sources. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Referenced sources (#23 and #19) makes mention of the 'point/ticket system' that NOVA uses but don't include alot of details. Would like to see additional sources that expand the topic. As it is, I think there's just enough to put in something along the lines of 'students buy points, receiving an increasing discount for larger purchases but must use the points before they expire.' or something else like that. Would certainly be pertinent if this was unique to Nova. Statisticalregression 22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Instructor Section

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)

Just change it to what you want and write the reason in the edit summary. It usually takes a few iterations to get the meaning right. I usually try to keep the WP description of the source text as concise as possible -- if readers want to find more detail they can go to the sources. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, I noticed you created a new section for "Shakai Hoken" in the controversies section but I question if this might be unnecessary. the previous changes I made (formerly as user 71.197.213.17) in the Instructor section were more to address contract changes. I don't believe there is any controversy that the work time and the lesson time were changed (they were changed), or that the result of the change saves Nova money (whether it does or does not might even be left out). While I agree the changes that the Japan Times reported on could give rise to controversial subjects on the matter, there's nothing controversial about details that were included in the article or my original edit. Furthermore conclusion drawn in the union quotes from the article would be difficult to substantiate or verify.

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)

on second thought I was just taking a look at the WP page on Wallmart to see how they handle details that are found on this page's "controversy" section. Most of what is in the 'controversies' section could be instead moved to a section of 'Employee and labor relations' thoughts?Statisticalregression 06:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a shakai hoken section in the controversies section some time back (check the history), but it was moved to the union page because at that time the sources did not specifically address Nova (the investigation was into all schools). With the source you added, there is more reason to add it back as a controversy. From your source it's clear that Nova reduced teacher work hours to avoid paying shakai hoken. The description of the controversy is not relevant to the "instructors" section, which appears to be mainly about training.

You could make a 'Employee and labor relations' section, but it would divide up the controversies section a bit too much I think. (Drugs and IPO would be separate). -- Sparkzilla talk! 07:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading the WP:GFCA to try and figure out how to handle the 'controversies' section because I think there has to be a better way to deal with it (seeing as how it's already quite large). Ideally the WP NOVA page would be rewritten to include pertinent information without a 'controversies' section. If something could be construed as reflecting poorly on Nova that doesn't mean it's a controversial issue. Just taking a look at more definitive example of a controversial subject on WP Scientology somehow they got by without a 'controversies' section so it's definitely possible. Maybe an 'Employment and labor relations' is unnecessary but I think the Drugs issue could be dealt with in a different manner. As it is, 'controversies' is starting to look more like a expanded trivia section rather than a section that contains pertinent information (which it does).Statisticalregression 07:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You wont be able to delete well-sourced material as trivia. The problem is that while the controversises are well-sourced, the rest of the page is poorly sourced, making it difficult to mix up the items. For example, if there was a better history of the company, the controversial items could be weaved through that. Also see [4] for reasons for keeping the sections separate. That said, I might try to make a condensed sample of a labor relations section in this talk page if I have time tomorrow. -- Sparkzilla talk! 09:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Restructuring of the main article sections

here's a quick list of possible sections for a rewrite:

• please add/delete/reorganize as you would like to see*

History
Services
Employment
Labor Relations
Competition
Criticisms

I think it would be reasonable to combine "Instructors", "anti-fraternisation", "shakai hoken" into a new section called "Employment and labor relations". All text should be condensed to the minimum possible.

It should also be possible to put the IPO information in the corporate outline at the top (again in a condensed form)

The issue about the student charges is too long. It's too long as-is and should be summarized. People can go to the source if they want more detail. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree - it's already quite condensed and removing information in favor of viewers traveling to the source is way off the target in my book. The links to the sources are primarily there for verifiability.Statisticalregression 03:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with keeping sources, but the section should be condensed to make it easier to read, and to highlight the issue more succinctly. -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree - There are two seperate events, which naturally makes it longer. As it stands, it's already succinct and does a very good job of explaining two events that are fairly complex. It reads quite smoothly as well. Keeping sources would not mitigate any editing that would reduce the description further. Statisticalregression 08:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

For example, the last sentence seems to repeat what is said earlier in the paragraph. -- Sparkzilla talk! 08:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence isn't rewording anything and provides clarifying detail. Statisticalregression 09:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, perhaps "drugs" and "Lindsey Hawker" could both be moved into a "Related news"-type section because these issues are technically not Nova's responsibility. -- Drugs section included how it affected company so no change. -- Sparkzilla talk! 08:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional Topics/Items Discussion/Request for Sources

- 'Anti-fraternization policy' or 'anti-socialization policy' ?

There seems to be citations that describe it in one term or the other, If a majority of sources use the 'socialization' wording I would suggest changing it to reflect the prevailing use. I intend to research this in the near future - Statisticalregression 04:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

- 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

Glova

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 business relationship is neither mentioned on the Nova site, nor on the Glova site. The source you have is not widely available, so given the conflict, you should give better sources that other editors can easily check. In the meantime, I have rewritten the item to be less promotional in nature. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Who knows why they don't cross link to each other - They may want to try and keep their identities separate for business purposes but I'm not going to speculate. The source is pretty easy to access, just click on the ISBN number and then the google book link on the resulting page and you can actually look at the pages of the book online.Statisticalregression 02:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked the link [5] and think that condsdering there is no mention of the relationship on Nova/Glova sites, that the book reference is possibly a mistake. To make sure I would like to ask you to find another source. Thanks. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering it's a book that was a collaboration of three authors, I feel comfortable that it's a pretty accurate. Of course things may have changed (or not), and if I find anything that supports on way or the other I will add make appropriate changes.Statisticalregression 02:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked for more sources and found this [6]. More here [7] (please only use reliable sources (no blogs or discussion boards)) -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Good find! Now wouldn't it be funny if they were now no longer connected but the Nova website just hadn't been updated to reflect that!Statisticalregression 02:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability/Encyclopedic content

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)

Encyclopedic content is a bit of a broad definition - There's considerations regarding 'style' and 'tone', as well as redactions or reductions in relation to 'noteability' in material presented although I would argue that historical condensing of articles in an encyclopedia had more to do with physical volume considerations / limitations. My Encyclopedia Britannica has 5 full pages just on the topic of the "Sparrows" but the entire set is 37 volumes and weights as much as a VW Bug. Nova's course information could be notable for a variety of reasons (singularly different in it's industry) and may in well be reported on in literature which is not commonly read (at least by me, as I am not searching for an English school to attend) But it's quite possible there are more than a few examples in magazines written in Japanese. let's just say internet searching is not what it could be.....

I think the issue of 'notability' is more germane to whether a topic is in WP or not, and applies somewhat to a lesser degree for details about a topic that are not notable (such as a celebrity's eye color) but then again, things like an astrological sign of said celebrity might be of sufficient interest to warrant inclusion. Also strength of an items 'relevance', 'importance', or 'notability' might vary depending on the person.

Considering we don't yet have any sources that are verifiable or up to WP standards for the courses section, removal is fine by me until sources become available. Although I should mention, I will normally weigh in strongly for retention of material. Statisticalregression 03:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing for now. Here's some quotes that I think are relevant...

Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:

If you want to go the bad-ass evil & sneaky route, simply tag all of the unsourced items with {{fact}} (an edit which, granted, would take some time), let them be for a week and then summarily remove them. If it is as bad as you say (which I don't doubt, after a quick look at it), raze and rebuild from the ground up is a very sensible option.

I'm not sure why you would cut and paste this here, or what relevance you think it has (and you'll have to forgive me, I have no idea who Oskar Sigvardsson is). Would be helpful it you mentioned why you think it to be relevant.Statisticalregression 02:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Both quotes are to illustrate the point that, while strategies for removal differ, unsourced material does not belong on Wikipedia pages. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales wrote:

In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone. I very often see completely preposterous claims tagged with {{fact}}, usually because an editor is being excessively cautious. Be bold. :) --Jimbo [8]

Sparkzilla, I think your mind is 'cherry picking' what Jimbo says, there's no reason to take it to the extreme considering that the material removed in the 'Courses' section could hardly be called 'completely preposterous'. That said, I already stated that I am fine with the removal considering lack of sources, and there's no need to back anything up with what 'Jimbo' says in this instance. Statisticalregression 03:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Promotional?

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)

The standard of inclusion in WP (as an encyclopedia) is notability and attribution -- not whether something is interesting to you ;) If Nova had some incredible new kind of course structure that was really notable and was reliably sourced then maybe it could be added. As it stands the courses are simply not notable enough for inclusion and their inclusion could be construed as being promotional in nature. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Sparkzilla you should be a little more accurate in your edit descriptions - if you wanted to remove it due to WP:VERIFY or something like that it would have made more sense. The 'courses' section was informative. ZayZayEM, why not restore it to your satisfaction and then we can craft it to make sure it's not promotional? Statisticalregression 03:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary said: "Removed non-notable, non-encyclopedic, promotional material. Put relevant material in intro." Once again, something being "informative" is not the threshold of inclusivity. Informative to who exactly? I don't think it is informative at all (a school has different courses, what's notable about that? see WP:NOTE) and I have to wonder whether this item is being added to be informative to potential teachers/employees or students of Nova, which equates to promotion of some kind. I also suspect that any sources to support this section would be promotional in nature. Let's try to stick to properly sourced, notable items please. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

One problem Though WP:NOTE draws a distinction between articles and the contents. WP:NOTE says: "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines. So, in this case, 'informative' information doesn't violate WP:NOTE. Statisticalregression 04:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have read that page properly :) Nonetheless, I oppose inclusion on the grounds that an English school lesson plan is not notable, has no sources and is promotional in nature. Let's try to stick to properly sourced, notable items please. -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, contents aren't required to be notable, and as far as promotional goes... I'm sure we can clean it up so it doesn't sound so. Eventually I may track down some sources in which case I'd restore the section.Statisticalregression 05:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Employment section

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)

Regarding this edit [9]Firstly, if you are an ex-employee of Nova you should declare your COI - the paragraph you added seems very much like an attack on the Company.

The paragraph was constructed using multiple sources and I was not attacking anything. Some of the sources do appear to be a bit weak i.e the lonely planet ones Statisticalregression 17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Statisticalregression 17:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

See below. -- Sparkzilla talk! 23:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments from travel guides cannot be considered reliable sources when it comes to employment issues. This would be clearer if you attributed them according to WP policy. Try "According to Lonely Planet..." and you can tell straight away that it's not good enough.-- Sparkzilla

I tried searching for "according to lonely planet" expecting to see some discussion of it as a source but didn't. can you describe what I was suppose to find and I will try searching for it more precisely.Statisticalregression 17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Statisticalregression 17:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about a search, I was talking about how to attribute a claim on Wikipedia. If you write the claim according to WP standards then it would be written as "According to Lonely Planet the schools could be known as "factory schools". Attributed like that then it is clearly not a reasonable source.

Please check the discussion here [10] regarding the opinions of teachers on union issues. The result of the RFC was that a teacher's commentary is not notable enough to be used as a source on working conditions.-- Sparkzilla

I read the RFC but most of the entries dealt with the writers status as 'anonymous' while only one opinion mentioned notability. In this case, the writer is not using a false name and thus should not summarily treated in the same manner as a writer with an 'unknown' name. Statisticalregression 17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

While the RFC started out as a discussion of anonymous sources, the end result was that a teacher (ananymous or not) was not notable enough to comment on their company. If the person was an expert on employment in Japan, or on the English school business then that would be a different matter. -- Sparkzilla talk! 23:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I am not against adding items about working conditions. There already is plenty of properly sourced items in the controversies section. However, I don't think that poorly sourced items, specificlly written to attack the comapny should be added. -- Sparkzilla talk! 16:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to combine the sources in a cognitive manner, and if the sources are too weak to meet WP standards I have no problem with removing them. Statisticalregression 17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be wary when combining items like this it could be seen as novel synthesis [11]

---

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')

A travel guide is not a reliable source for employment issues. Please also note :factory school" is in quotes. -- Sparkzilla talk! 23:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

2.McEnglish for the masses, Japan Times[17] (supports combining notion of Nova + Factory)

The quote here is: "It's worse than a factory." from the Union representative. That is not the same as "factory school".

3.Philip Seargeant (2005)"More English than England itself"International Journal of Applied Linguistics[18] (supports 'Chain')

The link you give does not say "chain" anywhere on it. -- Sparkzilla talk! 23:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the Fulle text + .pdf--ZayZayEM 01:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

See above link regarding novel sunthesis. It is quite clear from the above that this is an attempt to push POV in the article. Once again I ask you if you are an ex-teacher. Thanks. -- Sparkzilla talk! 23:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Basic economic descriptives that characterize the business model a company utilizes is certainly not a POV. Wallmart, the largest company on the planet is a 'chain' and is described as such multiple times inside and outside of WP. I'm not pushing anything. What's wrong with an accurate description of a company's business model? from Chain store "A business chain is a network of physical business locations, which all provide similar services or products, and share a brand.....They inevitably also share some degree of central management, supply chains, training programs, personnel, etc." Nova is clearly a chain and that is backed up by several strong, reliable and verifiable sources, as suck I am restoring that part of the sentance and the rest of the non-disputed parts which you deleted for unknown reasons. Statisticalregression 00:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources you mention specifically call Nova a "chain". And certainly there is no need to add three sources for such a trivial citation. It is already clear from the text that 600 branches make it a chain. What you actually appear to want to say is that Nova is a "factory school", but the sources are not good enough for this type of POV pushing. Am I also to take it that your lack of response about whether you were previously employed by Nova indicates that you were employed by the company? -- Sparkzilla talk! 00:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

two of my sources refer to Nova as a chain [19] and [20] if you are disputing 'factory school' and not chain then take that out Statisticalregression 00:59, 9 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!

A personal request... Please don't try to determine whether a person editing this page is or was employed by Nova. I can understand why you brought this up in the IMPORTANT-READ THIS IF YOU WERE A NOVA TEACHER section, as I understand why edits I and others made to the courses sections were removed for being merely personal experiences (unsourced). My issue is that if you back someone into a corner who is a teacher at the moment and get them to admit it, there is a chance, however remote, that they will be disciplined by the company either for giving away trade secrets or saying something negative. Besides, I don't think it's necessary or relevant, since you have already been so kind to point out the issues in previous comments on this discussion page.Alex Small 13:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In the end, I strongly believe that WP content policies are much more important than any potential COI issues a writer has. If the sources are good then the text referencing them should stay on the page. However, teachers or ex-teachers, should be especially careful of pushing a particular POV (usually that Nova is bad) using poorly sourced or unsourced items. -- Sparkzilla talk! 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Lonely Planet is a reliable source. It goes through an editing process. As it is the only source for the factory schools reference it needs to be explicitly identified. The .pdf of the Journal article does refer to chains

  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

  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)

Zay, which pdf are you looking at? can you post the link? Statisticalregression 01:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading journals make up most of my life these days. Most of them have awkward navigations if you follow the link to Blackwell's "More English than England itself": the simulation of authenticity in foreign language practice in Japan by Philip Seargeant in International Journal of Applied Linguistics [21], you'll only see the abstract. this is a summary of a much larger article. Go to right side of the page, under This Article you'll see Full Text PDF (179 KB) (not sure if the hotlink will work). I may only be able to access because I'm at uni at the moment. If you can't access it and you want a copy email me @hotmail.com and I'll send you a copy.--ZayZayEM 03:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've see that before, has a few things about Nova but I think that guy used alot of McVeigh's book as a sourcehere which alot of interesting stuff about conversation schools. I've looked at the pages of the Nova site the pdf talks about, it's pretty interesting (but not in an awe-inspiring way). I've though about adding stuff from seargent or mcveigh but was thinking of re-doing the lead first, and trying to build a body that makes sense.Statisticalregression 03:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

SuperNova Racing Team

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)

Sahashi vs Saruhashi

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 hereStatisticalregression 14:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

On looking into this I've found sources that list his name as both Sahashi and Saruhashi. I presume that you've already found sources for the former- for the latter I turned up several articles as well, including this one. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good find, now what do we do? we have sources that have "sahashi" and "saruhashi" ..... I wonder why it's reported differently...maybe is a dialect thing? Statisticalregression 17:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It might be. I think we should leave it Sahashi for now, I got around 500 hits under that name as compared to Saruhashi. We might also include "Nozomu Sahashi, sometimes credited as Nozomu Saruhashi (link)...", if you feel like including that both are available from reliable sources. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 20:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like a good idea to mention as you described. I'll see if I can contact a few people that would know if it's dialect issue or what. I've been considering massaging the Lead a bit and might work it in then. Statisticalregression 21:56, 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)

he probably could have an article of his own - in the last 10 years it's been pretty popular in Japan to make celebrities out of CEO's who have (at the time) successful companies (live door, etc) I am sure he's had a more than a few articles written about him but I am pretty sure it's all in Japanese! The written name shouldn't really be giving us a problem though, if it's just straight written out with the phonetics... so I am guessing it's a phonetic difference between osaka & tokyo? Anyways, we'll get it sorted out.Statisticalregression 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I was a NOVA instructor for six years, and I still live in Japan. It is true that the local English language media referred to him as "Sahashi" when the court decision to punish the company was reported. That is not really surprising, as they all tend to use the same news sources, so the original mistake was generally circulated. The man's name is in fact Saruhashi, made up of the Chinese characters for monkey (saru) and bridge (hashi). He was sometimes jokingly referred to as "monkey bridge" by the Japanese staff I worked with at head office, and otherwise always as "Saruhashi honbucho"(his title) by the Japanese, or "Mr. Saruhashi" by the "foreign" staff. I hope this clears up the confusion.

(5 minutes later) So far as verification of the above goes, I was going to suggest that you contact one of their overseas offices, eg in London. Then I had the bright idea of checking their website, and guess what, he is listed as Sahashi. Curiouser and curiouser! Perhaps he decided to change his name's pronunciation, thinking it a little embarrassing? But then why not go the whole hog and change the Chinese characters too? While Saruhashi is an an unusual name, my Japanese wife says she has come across it before, but she has never heard of a "Sahashi". It's nothing to do with Tokyo/Osaka, dialects, etc, either.

I'd still suggest getting in touch with one of their offices. Good luck! (previously unsigned comment 14:12, 25 July 2007 61.192.34.40)

Lindsy Hawker

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)

note: I restored the material that was previously removed - I'm not militant about this or anything, so if anyone would like to comment in the future about if/how we should include the info please do soStatisticalregression 01:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Content

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'm starting to think the controversies *heading* should be removed. For example, a group of union members protesting after the IPO - it happened and was reported in the news - that's not a controversy. Whether the protest had an impact or was meaningless.... controversial - but that's not addressed in text we have in the article (probably doesn't need to be anyways). Statisticalregression 23:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

New Lead

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)

suggested New Lead

The Nova Group is the largest of the Big Four eikaiwa (or private English teaching companies) in Japan. The company has been extremely successful, at one point accounting for nearly half of it's market with sales surpassing the combined total of it's competitors with over 410,000 students enrolled. Nova's Mascot, a pink rabbit, was especially well received and became a major marketing tool.

Nova's position as the leading operator of a chain of conversation schools and largest single employer of foreigners in Japan, it's policies and practices often influence other eikaiwa companies, as does it's involvement in labor disputes over Shakai Hoken and legal issues, the results of which tend to reverberate throughout the entire eikaiwa industry. Since 2006, Nova's business practices have been increasingly scrutinized, eventually leading to government intervention. Effects of bad publicity have negatively impacted sales at Nova and other eikaiwa chains as the company struggles to return to profitability.

Note - I haven't included the citations yet, but will add them in the moment I get a chance, but wanted to post it here for others to look over in the meantimeStatisticalregression 05:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• mascot reception info seems out of place anywhere in the lead. You will definitely need a citation that Nova influences other eikaiwa, and results "tend to reverberate throughout the entire eikaiwa industry". A personal POV in terms of style is that I hate explaining terms that can be wikilinked, particularly in the lead - there is an eikaiwa article. It reads a bit less neutral than the current lead, its too puffy.--ZayZayEM 16:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

thought the mascot deserved a place, it's as well known as the company (maybe more LOL) it can be dropped, no prob.....yeah, I can source basically everything - Toza's boss told yomiuri the minute METI hit Nova, his sales dropped and they closed, Gaba also said Nova's problems are affecting thier sales, I think ABC or NCB closed with same comments....I'll clean it up when I add the sources.... "Puffy" is confusing....too wordy? too much prose?Statisticalregression 18:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Puff piece. Hope that links.--ZayZayEM 14:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks, thought you were talking about my 'puffy' eyes. I'm probably going to drop in a current event section if there's major changes on Mon post Q1 financials release...I'm pretty sure there will be a bit of a shake-up. I'll work on the lead a bit more... I might drop it one at the end of the dayStatisticalregression 19:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

youtube videos

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).

• image montage with humourous tone is completely irrelevent and unencyclopedic.--ZayZayEM 02:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

er.. misspoke...meant 'relevant' in terms of it's subject having the same overall subjext as the article, but yes...definately not relevant in terms of inclusion, I'll remove it again - so to the person that's been dropping it in there, pls don't continue to do it, it's just causing more work.Statisticalregression 04:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Image request

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:

• a ekimae school front
• NOVA Usagi
• Teacher and students (ensure you have manager and student permission to use such a photo)
• School interior (get manager's permission, label which branch it is, unless asked not to)
• Osaka HQ Bldg

--ZayZayEM 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not familiar with the use of images taken from online news stories, there's a few articles that I know of that include images but I'll look into the fair use regulations to see if it's possible.

here's two articles that have pics:

[22]

[23]

Statisticalregression 04:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Rumor Mill? Nonsense!

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)

right now, there's a few website that have picked up on the 'delayed' wages:

This blog: [24]

and this blog: [25]

and this news/blog: [26]

and ELT news, which is probably the only source that has a bit of weight [27]

Obviously were not looking at high quality sources to say the least. I'm sure the local media will pick up on it but then again maybe not, it seems it's been hard for the newspapers to get a comment from Nova as the Pres has been conspicuously as mentioned here. I'm thinking we can add in some information about the delayed wages and the Pre's abscense based on the ELTnews. No, not a rock solid of a source as I'd like to see....but... opinions?Statisticalregression 09:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

alignments

anyone really have a problem with them? most of the page is pretty static as it isStatisticalregression 09:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Educational Approach

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)

There's not alot that's documented, what I have is pretty limited. anyone have a good source for it?Statisticalregression 21:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there's any published work about their lesson methods that's available to the public. Unless you were able to use their sales literature (or training manuals... heh.)--Alex Small 05:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)