Talk:Louis Carlet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Organized Labour Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 February 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus leaning towards keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 July 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination.

With creating the annual March in March in Tokyo in 2004, he has come to be known as a pioneer in the civil rights and migrant workers' rights movement in East Asia

This line is a total exageration and should be deleted if not the whole article. Pioneer? There are numerous other foreigners and Japanese who have been working in this field for decades longers than Carlet. And the March in March is considered a joke by many, including union members as it belittles the fact that many Japanese workers face the same labour problems that Carlet holds up as being discriminatory.Osakadan 23:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 POV 2 Mr Carlet's status 3 Merger Proposal 4 Louis Carlet as Cited in Sources 5 Extra sources 6 Migrant Worker vs Foreign Worker 7 Notes

[edit] POV

If there are others more distinguished, write articles about them. I hope there will be many--it does not help the labor movement to quarrel about which ones to put in.DGG 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not quarelling about who to include. Just that a few mentions in a newspaper or tv report does not qualify for a wikipedia biographical article.Osakadan 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There would be more references to Louis Carlet in the media except that, as I mentioned in the article, there is a media ban on printing his name in some outlets such as the Asahi newspaper. I think if there is a ban on your name, you are rather note-worthy. Further, in covering the March in March demonstration for 2005, Maininchi Newspaper reported Carlet as "a pioneer" in human rights in Japan. Wanzhen 01:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason for lack of sources is not important when editing a Wikipedia article, unless that reason can itself be properly sourced. To support your statements you need 1. Source to say his name is banned by newspapers (perhaps he made such a claim in an interview?) and 2. Actual link to Mainich aricle that says he is a "pioneer". Sparkzilla 02:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not be constructive and find that article then? And the link to the magazine was deleted since it is obvious advertsing and it is not a reliable source anyways. Don't you know that thing is just considered a rag? Why reference it? Wanzhen 09:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"The reason for lack of sources is not important". A press ban on the man is not important? This has sunk to new lows the likes of which would not be unfamiliar in Nazi Germany. Shame on you. Wanzhen 10:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are unaware of both Godwin's law and of Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources. You are the person that is saying he is a "pioneer" and that he has been banned. It is your responsibility to source those statements, not mine.

Your opinion about Metropolis is irrelevant. Metropolis is generally considered a reliable source for Japan-based information, having a long published history and editorial oversight. Your deletion (thank you Osakadan for the revert) is especially stupid considering that the citation is an interview with Carlet himself. Sparkzilla 10:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your anti-labour attitude is what is interesting Sparkzilla. The discussions on these Wikipedia pages reveal to anyone who is interested where you are coming from. Metropolis magazine is a well-known rag. Why would anyone except the publishers of Metropolis be interested in promoting it? Wanzhen 06:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The cited material from Metropolis is promoting Mr Catlet and the Union! If you continue to delete it you will be reported for vandalism. Sparkzilla 06:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You all know that this guy, Sparkzilla, was soon after banned from Wikipedia. He was selling his business and trying to raise its profile. Wanzhen (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sparkzilla was editing with a COI on more than one article.... He was the single entity that pushed to have this article deleted , User:Spellin was either a sock puppet or a meat puppet. What ever the motives were, it's deeply troubling that someone caused so much trouble on quite a few articles. It's tremendously encouraging, though, that WP admins acted definitively when it became serious. Statisticalregression (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Carlet's status

The National Union of General Workers article clearly states that the non-Japanese members, i.e. foreign workers, represented by the union are mainly English teachers. I understand that Louis Carlet works for the Tokyo South (Nambu) branch of the National Union of General Workers, so it would be more accurate to call Louis Carlet a foreign-worker union organizer than a migrant-worker union organizer. Refer to External Link to Nambu Foreign Workers Caucus.

I understand that Louis Carlet has worked for the Tokyo South branch of the National Union of General Workers for a little over three years, whereas some non-Japanese organizers have been deeply involved with the General Union (Osaka) for about 15 years — so his "One of the first non-Japanese people to serve as a full-time union organizer in Japan" claim seems to be both unfair and unwarranted. LittleBen 12:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the use of foreign worker as opposed to migrant workers. As to the "One of the first...." The article orginally stated that he was the first and a pioneer. "One of" seemed like a reasonable compromise when I changed it. While their have been foreigners involved in NUGW much longer, I am quite sure he is only the 2nd paid staff member. But we shouldn't forget that their may well be other foreigner union workers in other unions. Also, while it may be true, there is no citation available at all to support any claim.Osakadan 14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that "foreign worker" is better than "migrant worker". regarding sources, editors should note that as the biography of a living person anything that cannot be sourced should be removed.

From WP:BLP: We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Does a total of three years service qualify one for a listing in Migrant_worker#See_also and Foreign_worker#Migrant_Worker_Organizers then? LittleBen 15:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all! Someone sneakedthat in. Someone tried to put see also Chavez etc on this page. lolOsakadan 22:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Louis Carlet is Deputy Secretary General in the Tokyo South (Nambu) branch of the National Union of General Workers, but not Deputy Secretary General of the whole national umbrella organization ja:全国一般労働組合全国協議会. This should be clarified. LittleBen 17:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Of the top of my head I can't remember but could find out easily enough. Only problem is it wouldn't be properly sourced and I think it would be difficult to find an acceptable reference as no newspaper article understands the difference either.Osakadan 22:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The National Union of General Workers article defines the Japanese equivalent as 全国一般労働組合, however this appears to be a mistake—the external link at the bottom of that page has the URL zenkoku-ippan.or.jp and displays NUGW, National Union of General Workers, at the bottom of the page, but the name on that link is [NUGW 全国一般評議会] and it is obvious from the site that it is 自治労 which in turn is part of 連合. Another link on the same 全国一般労働組合 page is to a split-off union 全国一般労働組合全国協議会 which also claims the same English name—NUGW, National Union of General Workers—and this page displays the same Shimbashi, Tokyo office address as the Tokyo Nambu Shibu branch office uses. So I think that the current Japanese link on the National Union of General Workers page is wrong. Incidentally, the 全国一般労働組合全国協議会 article says that this umbrella organization contains 43 autonomous unions. There is a huge difference between being deputy secretary general of a federation of 43 unions and being deputy secretary general of a single branch within the federation. LittleBen 04:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

NUGW-Tokyo South, which I know Carlet is deputy secretary General of could well have 43 unions. It is a question of how things are structured legally. And it is ver different between Osaka and Tokyo because of historical reasons. General Union is one union (based in Osaka and Nagoya) is only one union. Branches are set up in various places such as Nova and ECC. but legally, outside union by-laws, they have no legal standing. It is very different with NUGW-Tokyo South. While there are branches in some workplaces, others are legal union entities in their own right. That is why there could be 43 legimate unions.

The real question is if Carlet is also deputy general secretary of NUGW or just NUGW-Tokyo South. It could easily be answered with a phone call but that would not qualify as a legitimate source and I don't think an independent source exists.Osakadan 16:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the above could also be easily settled by obtaining a business card. But as things stand, I am surprised that this entry has not been deleted.

From what we know, NAMBU-foreign workers caucus, for which Louis Carlet is most closely associated, has perhaps 300 members maximum. As for dues payers, maybe 50 or 60. The executive committee is maybe 15%-20% of those figures---and that is assuming everyone who is an executive has paid up their dues.

So this is an extraordinarily small caucus, within a small union branch of the tiniest of Japan's three umbrella unions (Rengo, Zenryoren, Zenryokou). It sounds like it was the brainchild of a former unionist named Ben Watanabe. Once he retired, no one quite understood how it would fit within NUGW Tokyo NAMBU.

It holds a parade of maybe 300 people in Shibuya, and stages media events. Maybe it hangs out in front of Eikaiwa chains from time to time and passes out literature for "awareness".

These are all legitimate forms of expression. But the question is, whether it is so dramatic that the players rise to Wikipedia fame.

Registering expats for unemployment when Lado (English school) went bankrupt is praiseworthy. But is anyone else helping anyone in Japan?

Is the Chavez of Japan actually improving working conditions?Spellin 15:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Spellin

Read the AFD discussion [1].

[edit] Merger Proposal

[edit] Louis Carlet as Cited in Sources

To clarify, when he is quoted regarding labor relations "independently", is he cited as the General Secretary? I doubt very much that he is quoted simply as "Louis Carlet". If so, he has little notability outside the context of the union which supports the page being merged. Take the example of Arudou Debito by contrast. Debito is an individual who has enough notability as an individual to comments on many Japan issues issues. He is not affiliated with a group and merits his own page. However, every time we see a comment from Carlet it is bracketed by his position in the union. In terms of media and WP sources he does not exist outside the union, so the most appropriate page for him is on the Union page.-- Sparkzilla talk! 01:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll check the sources I have, but I definately disagree that any mention of his position instantly nullifies his notability - if Dibito is cited with 'university associate professor' after his him as this JT article [2] does, then he doesn't exists outside the university? Half the sources referenced on that article are from his own personal page anyways. A mention of his affiliation with a Union would be congruent to establishing his ability to speak on a topic that dealt with labor issues. If the article isn't asking him to state the Union's position on a topic then it exemplifies his notoriety outside the union. Statisticalregression 02:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

furthermore, in this article [3] he answers questions about Japanese labor law - his affiliation is not mentioned at the top but only at the bottom in italicized text - outside of the actual text of the article. Additionally, National Public Radio interview introduces him as "American Louis Carlet moved to Japan and worked as a translator for a major Japanese newspaper, now he works full time as a union organizer." doesn't mention his position as secretary general. Statisticalregression 04:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically, your examples confirm that without the union this person has no notability. In your first example he is cited as being a spokesperson for the union -- it doesn't matter if it is inside the body text or not. In the second example he is still cited as a "union organiser". If he was replaced as union secretary tomorrow, he would not have the required notability to discuss any labor issues, which would default to the next secretary. In other words, the position is more important than the person.

Regarding Debito, your argument is a straw man. Debito's notability is not related to the fact that he is a professor, but that he challenged discrimination laws independently of his job. OTOH Carlet is challenging laws as part of his job.

I would also like you to consider why I don't have a separate WP page. Several of the sources on my product's pages are interviews with me personally and discuss my background in detail. However, the articles are in the context of my relationship to the organisation. If I had been notably involved in some issue that went beyond my organisation, or was notably a member of multiple organisations there may be a case to create a page about me, but there isn't. This is exactly the same for Carlet - he has done nothing notable outside the single organisation for which he is employed and does not merit a separate page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:20, 2 July

Update: I have now moved the pertinent details about Mr Carlet to the main NUGW page. This page is now an exact duplicate of the information on the NUGW page and should be deleted. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't comment on why you don't warrant a page on WP, I am not familiar with the sources you alluded to. What activities would be considered within the framework of his job and which would be considered extraneous hasn't been decided yet. Why you chose to unilaterally move the information to the NUGW page after waiting only 4 hours after nominating this page as to be merged is rather frightening. Right now the count stands at 1 to merge and 2 not to merge, I am sure others will comment. Don't you think we should wait a few days for others who have contributed to this page to give their opinion?Statisticalregression 06:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(<-)The comparison with my own situation is illustrative, and you should at least have the courtesy of addressing it properly. Actually I nominated this page over 14 hours ago. One of the purposes of this merge dicussion is to highlight the issues regarding the overlap of pages. Clarifying those issues by showing that the content of the pages is duplicated is acceptable WP policy. -- Sparkzilla talk! 07:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll put your name into the 'machine' and see what sources I can come up with, if you are in enough sources there may well be enough notability to warrant a WP on you, but right now, I have no idea. I understand that one of the purposes of a merge is to consolidate overlap on two pages, but 'creating an overlap' that didn't previously exist doesn't exactly work. The material on the Carlet page has been independent and separate, and at least should stay that way until a consensus is reached. Lets give your merge proposal some time. (sorry about quoting the wrong time, I must have looked at the wrong sig). Statisticalregression 07:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Anything abbout me can be said inside the articles that currently exist, which is my point here. I have further clarified the NUGW article to show that no individual page is needed here. May I humbly suggest that you add the recent sources to that page. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 07:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extra sources

Just because someone wrote a newspaper article (as a paid employee of the union) or appeared on a platform next to another activist (as a paid employee of the union) does not those actions worthy of a WP entry. If you want to include this material please go through the dispute resolution process. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 07:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found anything to suggest that he was paid by the union to write the articles, and the presentation he gave with Debito was sponsored by the University teachers Union, not NUGW - they are separate entities. Again, WP:NOTE states "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." also please see WP:NOT particularly the first section that is about "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" and speaks on the matter that "Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, and since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments" Statisticalregression 07:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

He wrote the articles and attended the presentation while he had the authoritiy of being the secretary of the union. I have restructured the NUGW page so that you can add those sources there. -- Sparkzilla talk! 07:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If Carlet decides to engage in some kind of activity that's not directly related to whatever day-to-day duties he might have, I don't see how having a position at the NGUW would somehow mitigate *everything* he does. Are you meaning to say that the links you have objected to on the basis of notoriety and self-promoting would be okay on the NUGW site?

He was involved in those activities as the secretary of the union. Also, I checked your sources and the first two are simply not reliable or notable. That a union organiser appeared with other activists is not notable. If you had a source that actually discussed the events that would be better. I have inclued the Japan Times sources in the NUGW article. However, we do not simply make a WP article because someone had an article published in a newspaper as part of their promotional activities of their job. Also please do not revert these changes as you will be in violation of th three revert rule WP:3RR. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 07:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing I can find to suggest he was participating in those activities in an official capacity, even if there was I am unsure that would invalidate them. Again, you keep referring to whether something is notable but as I have already mentioned, WP:NOTE states "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines". We are only discussing the links I added in this section and not whether Carlet's notability deserves an WP article (two separate subjects). I am still within WP policy to revert 3 times and in this case I have as each time you have deleted my additions you have come up with different objections without providing any links for me to check and to my understanding none of them would apply. Statisticalregression 08:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(<-) You are clutching at straws to try to keep this article by adding low-quality sources. We do not create a separate article for a person just because they wrote a newspaper article or appeared with another activist as part of the activities of the union. I have placed that information where it belongs -- in the NUGW article. Do not revert again - use the dispute resolution process. -- Sparkzilla talk! 08:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

by my count you have reverted 4 times per WP:3RR "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors." I am not interested in reporting you to the [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.] but you are leaving me with little choice. You have place the information from the Louis Carlet article unilaterly, at this time you are the only one who thinks so (but there may be others so again I suggest we wait for more comments). I am not in dispute of anything, it would you are.Statisticalregression 08:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You are the person adding the material therefore the burden is on you to show that it is worth adding. I have invited you on multiple ocassions to add the material where it belongs on the NUGW page. Your reverts of the material without adding anything else are disruptive and not in good faith. I have not reported you before because I thought I could show you clearly that there is no need to duplicate the content between the pages. I think you shoudl take a break from this until tomorrow. If you still think these sources are relevant then you should take it to the dispute resolution process. -- Sparkzilla talk! 08:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the new material is a copyrighted NHK broadcast of an appearance of the subject on TV. My count is eleven seconds and one quote.

It strongly appears that the No Merge position has an interest in keeping the separate entry, that is apart from whether the subject is noteworthy enough to be featured.

In my view, ten seconds on a broadcast for a person whose job has been partly or mostly to make media contacts (it seems), is not a strong record. I would give support for a foreign magazine and internet portal founder before a union activist who is not even 1/10th as known.Spellin 10:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The basic question is: What are Mr Carlet's notable actions? ie those that merit inclusion in WP.

• Being Deputy Secretary General = notable
• Starting the March on March = notable
• Appearing on Japanese TV to discuss union activities = not notable
• Writing two non-controversial articles for the Japan Times = not notable

Sources for this page should support notable actions by Mr Carlet. If those actions are actually union actions and not Mr Carlet's actions they should be added to the NUGW article. -- Sparkzilla talk! 10:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If Deputy Secretary General is notable, why aren't the other union officials listed on the NUGW wiki? Is it because this is someone who is a foreigner in Japan? Is that notable? Maybe.

Starting "March in March"? In some ways, the event, for its good intentions, is not much of an event. Over the many weekends in a year, you can count a score of similar marches past Tokyo Station or in other areas of the town. March in March attracts 300 in a metropolis of 30 million.

What about the guy who organizes all those foreigner parties in Shinjuku? He is much more well known, and probably gets 300 on a good Friday.

Frankly, I am beginning to feel that there needs to be a new wiki category of the "Pioneer Foreigner in Japan Syndrome". It is indeed hard to learn the language, but the number of special-knower-of-Japan gatekeepers/activists is rising to the point where they are a dime a dozen. The wiki still reads like the promotional activity of someone who is essentially a private person (non public person) working for a union.Spellin 11:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, if you are intending to dispute the material I restored, I would suggest removing the AFD until the matter has been finalized, and then if you still feel the need to nom Afd to do so.Statisticalregression 15:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This nonsensical back and forth is even better reason simply to delete both entries on Carlet. The only "new" material is that the subject has appeared on stage with Arudou Debito. How wonderful, but are they known as a duo? Debito and Carlet? No.

These sorts of grasping at straws only indicates that it's a silly season as far as this entry into the Wiki goes. There are countless dozens of long-term foreigners in Japan who hold important roles and help out others. If they should all be entitled to a Wiki entry, their "fifteen megabytes of fame", then the people voting pro should be out their nominating a couple new ones every week.

They don't, because it's an inappropriate use of Wikipedia for promotion. If they went out and put even the list of NAMBU officials who are foreigners and have:

- worked as union organizers even two years,

- been quoted in a paper or seen with Arudou Debito, (or both)

there might be seven or eight people. What a way to call attention to persons who are not on the level where they merit a Wiki entry. Spellin 13:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Spellin, you seem to have strong and incredibly personal feelings why the article should be deleted. Please remember that it's important that everyone maintains a civil tone.Statisticalregression 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil about being told that you are grasping at straws - it's the truth. The burden is on you to show other editors that these sources are accpetable - frankly they are very poor. A classified ad listing and an event listing regarding a joint appearance are not reliable sources in any way. The inclusion of articles written by Carlet as part of his job is promotional fluff for the Union. That a Union organuiser wrote an article is not notable. The content of the articles is not notable either so please stop trying to add them. -- Sparkzilla talk! 16:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have very real concerns that Spellin is either a meat-puppet or sockpuppet, but that's something I will handle in the future. Sparkzilla, we've already gone 'round the bend' on the material I added, we are diametrically opposed whether it should be included or not. I would suggest a MedCab in this situation, how does that sound?Statisticalregression 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

MedCab is too strong. You should ask a neutral party (an admin or experienced editor) for some advice first -- I am prety certain the sources will be rejected. -- Sparkzilla talk! 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppet? Nonsense. On the other hand, it's clear how the support shows up for this subject, that supporters of the entry are basically campaigning for a spot for him in Wikipedia. Again, this is against the purpose of Wikipedia. When there is such passionate support for a low-level union official who is probably not known by more than several hundred people, (and whose latest Wiki supports are things like having been on stage a couple of times with someone else who cleared a hurdle to merit a wiki), you should not be trying to guess commenters here or do any opposition research. Which is clear from your comments is going on.

You need to come up with better defenses to keeping the article than small scale astroturfing.Spellin 23:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be repeating Sparkzilla's bile almost word for word. Quick look at your activity shows everything. I've already stated my perspective on the AFD, challenging me here is pointless as it's the community that decides this issue.Statisticalregression 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla had well-made points, and I also added points that I feel are well-made. At some point, Mr. Carlet may indeed become notable. But at the moment, the support given by the pro side is very weak. It is hard to believe that uninterested parties are out surfing the internet, and join in with "let's keep this one because it's interesting to read about other people than Britney Spears." That's a strawman. No one is saying that the pro people can't put up their own special website for Mr. Carlet. (Indeed, you would have expected to see some more of his personal presence on the NAMBU site. After all, he's also mentioned in that Wiki.)

Stop using the Wikipedia for promotional material. That is not what it was intended for.Spellin 10:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Migrant Worker vs Foreign Worker

Mr. Carlet is a union organizer of a union which belongs to Solidarity with Migrant Workers Japan - not Solidarity with Foreign Workers Japan. This organization is not advocating for the rights of "foreign workers" - under the United Nations there is no such legal identity. But there is such a thing as the UN Convention on the Protection of Migrant Workers and Their Families. Therefore, the advocacy work is for migrant workers. Wanzhen 09:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

Nova collapse NHK news http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3juxOHq5bCo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanzhen (talk • contribs) 04:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)