Talk:National Union of General Workers (Zenrokyo)

message: This article was exceedingly long and peacocked all to hell. I think that cutting it down to a short descriptive article is more than enough. Most people in Japan are completely unaware of this union, or have alternative beliefs or feeling from self-promotion given in the original prolix article. eg. whilst Unions can be seen as commonly used as modes to implement social justice, in Japan the rights of unions are controversial to say the least. This controversy should be mentioned. Not the peacocking that was originally here. 
Can anyone help balance the above article? 
Thanks,   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadaman1 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m new to this, so I’m not sure what is going on here. One day I’m adding neutral, referenced information – then I find someone has deleted three-quarters of the entry and called it a “clean-up”! Is this how it works on Wikipedia? Someone fancies an article is too long so lops off 75%. Umm!  I’m not sure I understand the rationale, either. Does it matter if most people are unaware of a topic? I thought that was one of the purposes of Wikipedia – to provide information to those who might be unaware of it. Does it matter if the topic is controversial in Japan or anywhere else? I thought an entry about an organization was designed to inform readers of that organization’s stated aims and recorded actions, and the entry should not be limited because some (or most) people disagree with those aims. I’m not sure I understand “peacocking”, either. Any entry about a campaigning organization is likely to include what it has achieved – in the case of a union, the work it has done, the branches it has helped set up, and the campaigns it has supported. I don’t see anything wrong with that if the wording is neutral (“purport” is not), and the actions are referenced. In the case of NUGW, it supports and is supported by the SDP of Japan, which has policies that address social injustice - as do the member unions of NUGW. People might disagree with the politics and policies, but I think it is entirely legitimate to present them within the context of an entry. If an editor wants to “balance” opinions, well, fine, but deleting points or references one doesn’t like seems to smack of censorship. Which brings me to one final point. (Sorry, this a bit long!) What I find troubling about this kind of wholesale edit is that it doesn’t allow other editors to respond to particular instances of bias (or “peacocking” if you will) as almost everything has been deleted. I think it would have been far more helpful if each paragraph or section had been edited, with instances of bias pointed out, so that reasonable changes could also have been considered by others. It seems to me (as someone new on the block) just destructive, and a bit disrespectful of other editors hard work, to cut great chunks out of an entry - and then, oddly, to ask for help to balance the remnants. 
Takemori39 11:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned it up A Bit 

message: Here's a gret article on somee of the problems when Wikipedia becomes more like Second Life for corporations rather than an encyclopedia, especially when Wal-Mart is involved in manipulating NPOV to deceive peopel about wages... http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/wikipedia-white-washing-there-s-truth-in-facts-and-frames  Wanzhen 16:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: from the above article from cog sci professor George Lakoff's think tank... "But this appears to be the fault, so to speak, of Wikipedia's guidelines, rather than the editors (leaving aside Wal-Mart's self-editing violation). Facts by themselves aren't neutral because they don't have an intrinsic meaning that is universally understood. As the philosopher Thomas Nagel put it succinctly, you can't have a view from nowhere. Facts require "frames" because they only make sense in context....Adding more facts will not solve these problems. Wikipedia must re-think its reliance on the logic of its guidelines that link facts to neutrality to truth. In other words, Wikipedia's verifiability policy--previous publication by a reliable source--is no longer enough." So maybe on Wikipedia when one types in the name of teh subject they are looking for one would then be taken to something like a disambiguation page where one would be given several variants on the article depending upon the point of view. Wanzhen 17:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiscanner, Neutrality, Whitewashing