Talk:JET Programme

Internationalisation link

The link to internationalisation was removed as the internationalisation article is about a different concept. "Internationalization and localization are means of adapting products such as publications or software for non-native environments, "

"The programme" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalised. Brettr 09:03, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

The Programme refers specifically to the JET Programme and is simply an abbreviation, so it is capitalized. Exploding Boy 19:56, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

If that is the case then go through and make it consistent. I made it consistent and now it isn't. But of course you are wrong anyway, for example Treaty of Versailles uses "the treaty" not "The Treaty" ; Bracero Program Fulbright Program Phoenix Program Brettr 02:06, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

This is true. As another example, "president" is only capitalized when it occurs in the full title (i.e. President of the United States), or as a title for an individual (President Washington). - Exitmoose 06:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

BLOGS

I am going to remove any blogs on this page unless people object. There 6000 current participants and just about all of them have blogs. As I see it there is no justification for having a links to blogs even if they are particularly good ones. Brettr 09:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I kind of like the idea of providing a link to narrative accoutns so people interested in the program can see what it's like on a day-to-day basis--and find people who can answer their questions. My objections to referencing them is that, as you said, there are TONS of JET blogs out there. Who are we to pick representative -- or even "good" one? The blog is an inherently subjective medium, and I find that somewhat problematic. Ckamaeleon 06:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My question is... Who cares?

Why sic should be removed

"sic" does not simply mean "intentionally left as is." It almost always means that the thing is being left as is even though it is a mistake or unusual.

Wikipedia entry for "sic" - "This is a short-hand indicating that a quoted source contains an error. For example, "I’ve missspelled this" becomes "I’ve missspelled (sic) this", when quoted by a later author who sees the spelling error and wishes to indicate that the source material contained the error, it was not introduced by the quoting author."

Dictionary.com entry for "sic" - "Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally."

At the very least, the use of "sic" strongly implies there is an error in the original text, something I think is inappropriate for mere differences of spelling between the UK and the US. If you can find a style manual that says that you should use "sic" when quoting an American source in the UK, then I will accept that you are right, but failing that, "sic" should be removed. - Exitmoose 06:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Strong agreement. The fact that the program(me) is also called "JET Program" (sans -me) is mentioned earlier in the article, first paragraph. No need to act like it's some kind of oddity later on. --BrianSmithson 12:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If you are going to quote wikipedia then:

Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus" or "so", used inside brackets [sic] to indicate that an unusual (or incorrect) spelling, phrase, or other preceding quoted material is intended to be read or printed exactly as shown, and is not a transcription error.

In folk etymology, "sic" is sometimes mistakenly assumed to be an abbreviation of "spelled incorrectly" or "spelling is correct".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic_%28Latin%29

Check Webster as well.

This is not an issue of American vs British spelling. Two proper nouns, the title of the programme and the title of the book are different, sic points out to anyone looking for the book to take care.

Finally, someone who uses unappropriately [sic] instead of the correct inapproriately is probably not in a position to lecture me on grammar.

How very spiteful of you. Yes, I made a grammar mistake because this is the internet and I usually don't skim for grammar and spelling mistakes in a one line blurb. But that's totally irrelevent to the point at hand, isn't it? You quote another Wikipedia article, and then choose not to include the following section or even place ellipses so that we know you deleted something:

"This may be used either to show that an uncommon or archaic usage is reported faithfully (for instance, quoting the U.S. Constitution, "The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker...") or to highlight an error, often for purposes of ridicule or irony (for instance, "Dan Quayle famously miscorrected a student's spelling to 'potatoe' [sic]")." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic_%28Latin%29

What part of using the word "Program" is uncommon, archaic, or errorneous? As mentioned above, the article itself mentions at the very beginning that "JET Program" is valid. The Japanese Embassy in Washington D.C. also seems to think it's okay.

Merriam-Webster doesn't explicitly mention "errors" in its definition, but in its example "sic" marks a mistake. "<said he seed [sic] it all>" Every other dictionary including the OED mentions that correct usage of "sic" either always or almost always requires a mistake or anomaly. "JET Program" is neither of these, so the use of "sic" here is inappropriate. - Exitmoose 05:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that it is mentioned in the first line of the article, anyone who has read it properly will know that the JET Programme also goes by "Program". The 'sic' isn't neccessary. It should be removed. Phileas 07:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Exitmouse you are convinced in your own mind that sic refers to an error and simply looking for supporting evidence. You think there is some sort of smuggness or air of superiority asscociated with sic and you can't bear the possible inference that American spelling might be thought to be wrong - however there is no such assertion. You also cannot speak for "every other dictionary", certainly not the ones on my desk. The wiki paragraph you quoted starts with "This may", giving only one possible use. There is an anomaly, two proper nouns are different. Brettr 09:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This is just getting silly. You're insisting on responding to me exclusively, when it has become clear that two other people also disagree with your position. I have provided multiple sources that say that "sic" is always or almost always intended to be used to mark an error. You have just now admitted that the reason that you used it is because you believe "JET Program" is an anomaly and confusing. This is mistaken, as both the article itself and the government of Japan recognize both spellings as equally valid. You have provided no style manual sources that say that "sic" should be used in situations like this or for differences between Brirish / American spelling. No one has agreed with you thus far, and I believe I've made my case. I'm going to revert this, and if you insist on fighting over this, we can take it to arbitration. - Exitmoose 22:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

ACETs

So ACETs are mentioned in the first para. I've not heard of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were a new position. Could we get some more info on that? Note how the seocnd paragraph doesn't even mention them when giving the percentage breakdown of the positions. Ckamaeleon 06:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

History is a bit... off

I've been reading up on the JET Program(me) lately and I was a bit shocked when I saw the history section listed here on Wikipedia. From what I've read in "Importing Diversity: Inside Japan's JET Program" the program developed from a number of sources, not directly from the BET Programme. It does say that some of the people involved in the BET Programme were directly involved in the beginning, but it also lists a number of other sources and people as being directly involved. I suggest a total rewrite, with some depth to it.

Links to forums

I greatly object to the removal of the 2 main forum links that were on here (Big Daikon and I Think I'm Lost). These 2 sites are central to the JET community and their removal greatly restricts access to information that people looking at Wikipedia may want access to.

138.243.129.7 07:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to the talk page instead of just reverting the links. WP:External_links provides a number of guidelines about what should and should not be externally linked. Forums are one of the things that should not be linked. It appears that those two websites a are service to their respective communities, but forums pose problems in the encyclopedia. First, since people are invited to say whatever they want, the information violates WP:V and WP:RS. Second of all, it is often people involved with the sites that place the links (violation of WP:COI). Keep in mind, that Wikipedia is not a link directory (see WP:NOT). This means that even websites that are very good in their own right may not be appropriate to link. Projects like DMOZ are more appropriate for these types of links. In terms of restricting access, if people are really interested in a JET forum, they are welcome to perform a search. I notice that "jet programme forum" results in both of those websites appearing in the top 5 pages.

Additionally, I Think I'm Lost has a tiny handful of active members and Big Daikon is a cesspit of juvenile retardation for people who spend their days ducking JET work and planning holidays to Thailand. That these communities consider themselves central to JET only illustrates the self-centered mindsets of certain sorts of JET's. The relevance of those sites is entirely a matter of personal opinion. The Crow 03:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

BigDaikon is perhaps the best source for information regarding Japan on the net. While there is—at times—a problem with the signal to noise ratio, generally posting questions on the site will net the correct answer. I think BigDaikon should be linked because of the breadth of opinion and information available.

Then following your links to the "rules", the other links to wikis should also be removed. 138.243.129.7 23:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)