Talk:Mainichi Shimbun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Japan / Bibliography / Business and economy  (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 06:40, July 21, 2016 (JST, Heisei 28) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Bibliography task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Business and economy task force.
 
WikiProject Journalism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Comment[edit]

Exactly what is "Mainichi" mentioned twice in the article - I suppose it's the publishing company; I feel it should be introduced as a separate entity or else just called "Mainichi Shinbun". --Schnolle 05:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

English usage[edit]

There is a man, Kennosuke Sato, who apparently worked for Mainichi Shimbun; the article claims he spoke English, and I've found an old article which quotes from his articles (in English), without mentioning whether the quotes were translated or not. Was the Shimbun publishing English language articles back in the 1930s and 1940s? --Gwern (contribs) 16:02 7 November 2007 (GMT)

"Mainichi began printing an English edition in 1922".--Julián Ortega - drop me a message 18:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Miyatoua Edits[edit]

I removed a bunch of edits from this poster which were 1) non-NPOV and 2) in poor English. Osakadave (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Osakadave Edit[edit]

I undo Infomation. 1) Hide FACT 2) So my Engrish is poor ,Please edit it.

What is non-NPOV ?

MATA-KEYWORD HISROTY is non-NPOV ?

All lists of the article are quoted here. Did you delete the quoted article?

Miyatoua —Preceding comment was added at 22:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is "Neutral Point of View".

Your posts are not neutral to this subjOsakadave (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)ect.

What the heck do you mean by "Peculiar meta-keywords in website"? That makes no sense. Osakadave (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That "Peculiar meta-keywords in website" would be original research, right? Still, at least one media outlet (Sankei's Yukan Fuji tabloid) has "reported" on it. --Julián Ortega - drop me a message 18:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for such lists. You can provide a link to a website containing that list instead as a reference. --Julián Ortega - drop me a message 18:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Julianortega Edit[edit]

Though I also think that those who dispose are him. It is a thoughtless act to write disposal person's name by presumption here. Enough only in the official position.

Miyatoua —Preceding comment was added at 23:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid using automated translation tools. If you prefer, you can write your objections in basic Japanese. Thanks.--Julián Ortega - drop me a message 18:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Splitting WaiWai section into a new page[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


We'd better split WaiWai incident into a new page, entitled "Mainichi Daily News WaiWai scandal" for example.

The problems existed in running a column for MDN Web site, not in editing the newspaper in Japanese or the extinct newspaper Mainichi Daily News. However, it's not clear whether "Mainichi" means the newspaper or the media company in the current article, which is now handling the both; and what is worse, even "Mainichi Daily News" is redirected to this article page. How confusing!

We cannot but make a long section if we try to explain accurately this incident. To keep the proportion and clearly show it was a scandal on MDN Web site, we'd better split this incident into a new article created only for it. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia has a separate entry for it already: 毎日デイリーニューズWaiWai問題. Might be a good reference. Hill of Beans (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Disagree. Insufficient material for a standalone article and fits in well with this one. I have removed the tag. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copy of comments from committee members on MDN site[edit]

I undid revision as of 10:00, 11 August 2008, because that included two partial copies (of the English edition) of a comment from a member of the Open Newspaper Committee, which appeared on this page of MDN site. Carrying such a content may (1) infringe copyrights of Mainichi Newspapers and / or of the member, (2) interfere with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, I think.

(1) If someone carries on Wikipedia partial copies of the English edition, it may infringe not only the copyright holder’s right for reproduction but also that for keeping identity. The comments from the four members also appeared in Japanese on the July 20 morning edition of Mainichi Shimbun. All the comments must have been originally made in Japanese. Accuracy of each of them depends on how appropriately the Mainichi Shimbun editor digested the words of the member; accuracy of the English edition depends on how appropriately the MDN editor translated them.
(2) It may interfere with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view if someone selects a comment from only one member and carries that on Wikipedia without referring to a variety of comments. The member involved in the revision seems to have focused on the dark side of the Internet society, while another member seems to have criticized Mainichi for not reacting smartly after the problems coming to the surface.
--Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If you are referring to this diff, then your copyright concerns are misplaced. Seriously, two sentences from a page's worth? --Gwern (contribs) 23:19 13 August 2008 (GMT)

WaiWai NPOV[edit]

The text in this section reads as though it were written by someone who was part of the campaign against WaiWai or some editor at Mainichi trying to save face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.244.215 (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, have edited for NPOV. RomaC (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
User:218.110.19.62 I'm assuming English is not your first language so can you please discuss here on the talk page before adding material. This is to keep the article grammatically correct. Also, loading up with excessive details can interfere with an explanation of the subject. What we could perhaps add now are secondary sources, other media's reporting on the controversy instead of more and more from the Mainichi. Cheers. RomaC (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Peculiar meta-keywords in website[edit]

Someone want to edit/delete this sectiom - it makes no sense and if you try to interpret it it isn't NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auto98uk (talkcontribs) 21:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)