Talk:Mainichi Shimbun

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Copy of comments from committee members on MDN site

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)