Talk:The Asahi Shimbun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Circulation[edit]

In Japan, Yomiuri Shimbun is the largest newspaper. It is printed 10,000,000 copies in a morning.

Asahi shimbun is the 2nd. 8,200,000 copies in a morning.(and 3,950,000 copies Evening edition.)

Mainichi Shimbun is the 3rd. 4,000,000 copies in a morning.

see Asahi official copies count (Japanese)

Modeha 12:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wording[edit]

Capitalism has been the enemy of Asahi since 1930's.

Can this reworded--it's not very encyclopedic as it stands...something like, "The Asahi Shimbun's editorial policies have consistently targeted capitalism since the 1930s"?? --Dpr 06:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed, and furthermore some of the other accusations of political bias are pretty serious, with nothing cited to back them up. Further, these seem to come from an anonymous user(s?). It may actually be accurate, but I find it suspicious, and having glanced at the Asahi’s English website, there does not seem to be an overt anti-American or pro-communist bias in the articles or editorials. Sethoeph 01:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the political commentary about this newspaper. I believe they have no place in an encyclopedia such as this. tmy 09:37, 7 December 2005

I have removed similar anonymous unreferenced content today. --Hygelac 01:10, 17 May 2006

Name[edit]

Is there any reason why the s in shimbun isn't capitalised? Mark1 22:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! I was thinking the same thing!

Bathrobe 15:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, and Asahi never had an alliance with the People's Daily of China. I deleted that sentence.

Asahi has an alliance with the People's Daily of China even now. See Asahi’s website. http://www.asahi.com/international/jinmin/

Reasons for disputed-tag[edit]

1) The section lacks reliable sources 2) This article has been canvassed on User:Ikedanobuo's private blog, in the comment section. A comment there suggests the problem is that (western) people think Asahi Shimbun is a reliable source, and that this article should be changed to undermine Asahi as a reliable source. While I know Asahi Shimbun has been involved in several "scandals" (the number of them depending on who you ask), that section is not using a NPOV. Mackan 08:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) As the article of NY Timse, the newspaper's source is newspaper itself. So all sources are cited already.
2) You are doing personal attack with false reason. Those were written at least in last year. Stop parsonal attacking.
Everybody knows those scandals in Japan. And those are NOT NPOV. Those are FACTS. If you know those facts, why you want to hide them? To hide the truth is a kind of criminal act for (western) people. DDRG 12:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not hiding them, I'm saying they are not presented in a neutral manner. You haven't read up on WP:ATT. Do it. Mackan 12:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source are presented in a neutral manner. They are cited both sids. You read again yourself up on WP:ATT.
YOUR BEHAVIORS ARE OBVIOUSLY HIDING THE TRUTH FROM WESTERN PEOPLE. STOP IT! DDRG 13:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are behaving childishly. You seem to think that saying "Read WP:ATT!" is a weapon, it isn't. If you had actually read it, you would realise that the sources you have provided are not considered reliable sources per Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources. Your 2 first sources [1][2] are from a private homepage. Not a reliable source. Also, this is entirely unsourced: "On August 21, 2005, the newspaper reported that Shizuka Kamei and Yasuo Tanaka took a meal together in Nagano. But this report was made by mendacious memo with no research. The fact is that they met in Tokyo". The parts you have provided sources are dubious. Is Shuukanshinchou a reliable source? I doubt it. Also, please provide exact quotations from Ikuhiko Hata's book. If you do not use multiple sources, that statement should be changed to "It has been alleged by historian Ikuhiko Hata...". These are the sourcing problems alone, and I haven't even started on the POV-pushing... Mackan 14:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) You are labeling with misusing Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources. My cited sources [3][4] are excess for Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources. All source are cited in the newspapers articles. So it is fit in well to Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources.
2) "The fact is that they met in Tokyo". This part was cited in the newspaper itself. The paper recognize it and wrote it in the paper.
3) Shuukanshinchou is as a matter of course a reliable source, it's a second largeset weekly magazine. Your thought is with no grounds about it. It is a emptiness. DDRG 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove the tag[edit]

The tag reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed". I am disputing it, hence, the article is disputed. Please deal with the actual problems in the article instead of hiding the fact that some do not agree with the current state of the article. Considering your poor English, you should, if anything, be thankful that I didn't simply revert all your additions to the article. As I've said, I know the Asahi Shimbun has been involved in a fair deal of scandals, which is why I haven't removed the section. But it's not presented in a neutral way and you aren't providing proper sources. It's tiresome to argue with you when everything you need to know can be found here: WP:ATT.Mackan 13:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should read The New York Times article. The article's manner is same as this articel's manner. All citations have been indicatived by the newspaper itself. Don't post the tag by misusing Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources again. DDRG 04:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if the quotes are from the newspaper, you have to include the articles where they are mentioned in the newspaper as references! Don't be stupid, can't you see that anybody could say whatever they want and then suggest it "says in the newspaper". Also, as I said, the article is disputed because I'm disputing it. You are down to plain vandalism here. Mackan 07:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you stupid? You can't read the newspaper's date?? You can't read the The New York Times article?? Don't use double standard. Don't post the tag by misusing Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources again. DDRG 10:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "using double standard", I haven't touched the New York Times article. If they indeed lack sources, I doubt anybody would object to "fact" tags being added. Feel free to do so yourself, if you wish to.Mackan 10:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All citations have been indicatived by the newspaper itself with its date. That's all. If you can't understand it. You should think of it again. DDRG 11:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I can't understand your incomprehensible English, you should rephrase yourself. No, you have not included the dates when the articles were published. Mackan 11:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you mite of a child?? The dates were cited in the articles. What do you want to say??? Those are the same as The New York Times article's manner. Why do you want to cover the facts?? DDRG 11:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring disputed section tag as an admin[edit]

I saw the discussion on WP:AN/I. I can't read Japanese, so can't check the sources myself. However, it does seem clear that the section is at least disputed, so I'm restoring that tag. Please make a good faith effort, on both sides, to resolve the dispute, before removing the tag. Discuss the article, not the contributors - don't call each other childish, or similar. Notice that there are language difficulties, if it looks like the other person is insulting you personally, please assume it's just a language issue and that no insult is intended. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that last bit was as an admin. Let me see if I can kick off something productive just as an editor. To start, about the section about two politicians meeting for lunch. Is it so controversial or unusual that two politicians meet for lunch? And what is the source that they actually met in Tokyo while the paper reported they met in Nagano - the very same issue of the same paper? There was an article, in the same issue, writing that the paper was inaccurate? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question would be: what's the point? Newspapers aren't 100% accurate, and never have been (hence corrections and retractions). So what exactly is the reason for having this section? Three reporting errors in 17 years isn't that bad. MSJapan 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And on further review of the users, DDRG has been here less than 2 weeks, and has touched nothing but this article and the Admin board. Mackan's statements re: this user may be correct. MSJapan 18:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the section about two politicians meeting for lunch, the date of this article is very important, it was eve of the Lower House election, Sept 11 ,2005. The newspaper looks like to be something conniver in those cases. So those are very important. And I can only do slow contribution for Wiki. But what's wrong? You want to push out my contributions? And furthermore, if you can read the Japaese you should google those facts. Those are all big issues. DDRG 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My response is frankly "so what?". You fail to make any case whatsoever for why this info is important. Newspapers and magazinese have retrations, corrections, and mistakes all the time, no matter what country they're from. I could write a whole article on mistakes in the NYT that they fixed later, but it doesn't at all diminish the reputation of the paper. Let's think about this: One point is that the photographer did something, and didn't tell anyone. That would include the reporter, who based the report off the photo. That's not the fault of the paper. So two politicians went to lunch, and it was in Tokyo and not Nagano. I would say the salient point is that they had lunch, not where it was. Again, not a big deal, especially since Japan didn't politically destabilize or fall into the sea as a result. Your real point is the comfort women issue, and you're dealing with material 15 years in the past. Therfore, at this point in time, so what? Any retraction would have been years ago. You're trying to impugn the source because you think ther's something there to impugn, and there isn't. Not only that, your references are vague; you don't have page numbers, article titles, authors, or anything that would allow anyone to find out what it is you're claiming. MSJapan 14:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for calling a spade a spade, but it isn't easy arguing with somebody who apparently has no intention of listening to others. Mackan 18:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the tag to "totally-disputed-section" instead of "disputed" and put the "unreferenced" back in as well. I also moved the whole section down one step, which I hope you will agree to. The reason I changed it to totally disputed is that I don't think it's neutrally presented - as I said, the article was canvassed on a Japanese blog, and the intention of this user is only to discredit Asahi Shimbun as a reliable source, so that "Western people" shall realise it can't be referenced to in the Comfort women article. I put the "unreferenced" tag back in because it's not properly referenced. Do you agree with the changes I've made? Mackan 19:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Now I see. I wondered why the subject of comfort women had come up all of a sudden on H-JAPAN. There must have been some noise made recently about it, and now the writer wants to be able to discount a source. Problem is, the Asahi has been around for around 10 times as long as this user, and pointing out a few errors is not going to discredit the paper by any stretch of the imagination. 209.6.240.192 20:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not worry about the overall reputation of the Shimbun, and focus on this article. Is everyone agreed the comfort women issue is an important mistake? If so, we should say so, with good citations. Yes, the New York Times does publish minor retractions every week, but the Jayson Blair issue was still quite important. New_York_Times#Modern_controversies is a fine example of what this section should look like, a couple of paragraphs covering important errors would be quite suitable. Is the comfort women error similarly important? One good way to tell is if it has other newspapers - not just blogs - writing about it. Does it? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not worried about the reputation of the newspaper, not at all, I just wanted to clarify what this user's purpose is. About the comfort women issue, I'm not 100% sure that the quotes are correct. Even if they were, is it really the newspaper's fault? Mackan 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, DDRG keeps reverting any changes I make. Can we reach a consensus here that the tags should be "totally disputed" and "unreferenced"? Also, that the whole section should appear under "historical reproduction" and not above it? And that it should be called "controversies" and not "Alleged report and scandal"? Those are the changes DDRG keeps reverting. Mackan 07:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ikeda is pushing his own opinion here....[edit]

His blog, and some material on his opinions in this thread. In short, he thinks no one who is not Japanese is qualified to work on anything related to Japan, and that Asahi is overly liberal (and he's not, clearly). There's a blatant COI here, as well as POINT. I won't drag the discussion over to the other article, but feel free to disseminate the links if they are useful. MSJapan 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, Ikeda Nobuo isn't canvassing this article himself, the suggestion that this article should be changed wasn't from him but from an anonymous commenter on his blog. Mackan 20:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do not think that this user is a sockpuppet of User:Ikedanobuo, but either the person who wrote the comment on his blog or somebody else who read it. Mackan 20:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

The history section kind of thins out at the end. I was wondering if there's anything we could beef that section up with. Just H 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal section removed...[edit]

I read and re-read the section several times, and every time I was left saying "So what?". There's no assertion of notability for these "scandals" at all, and no sourcing. You would think someone so intent on isolated incidents 15 years ago would have sources, but there are none, and no statement of what the point is. All newspapers make mistakes, and news people fabricate things from time to time - the former is not necessarily notable, and the latter isn't the paper's fault. Therefore, since the section has no sources, I'm removing it. If DDRG reverts it again, I'll move to user conduct RFC, and that should be that. MSJapan 18:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say again to you. The sources are all cited. We can't use English translations of this newspaper, so we can't cite Englsh citations. And if you can read Japanse, you can read the newspaper in Japanese, why you didn't do it? The paragraphse are not only mistakes but looks like having something conspiracy or animosity, so many people pay attention to them. Don't cover the facts again. DDRG 10:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked an admin who can read Japanese to weigh in, but didn't get much. I can't read the Japanese, but I can read our policies. Wikipedia:Attribution comes down to not using primary sources unless reliable secondary sources have shown that the event is important. Otherwise we're left with "the newspaper made a mistake", and, frankly, I'm sure they make a mistake every week, we can't report on all of them. Shinchosha is a secondary source, so if they devoted an article to the error, the comfort women bit seems important. The lunch doesn't seem to have any secondary sources, so doesn't seem important. The coral assemblage seems to be being reported on by personal web pages, rather than respectable newspapers, so should probably also go. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But I think the manner of The New York Times is the same as this article. They cited almost only the news paper itself. But, as you say, this newspaper is Japanese, so I will cite more secondary source for wikipedia community. Those facts are not only mistakes but looks like having something conspiracy or animosity, so many people pay attention to them. So those are written in many books and magazines about Asahi Shimbun. Please give me some times. DDRG 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No rush. If and when you find Wikipedia:Reliable sources writing about problems with the Asahi Shimbun, we can put these items back. They're in the revision history, so not lost. Good luck. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Thank you for your arbitrament. I accordance with it. I will bring secondary sources and back those again. Thanks. DDRG 17:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read what? A personal webpage that we can't use anyway? Other than that, you've given me a date and a magazine title, with no page number, no article title, and no author - how am I supposed to find the source? And why is it so important that for all these "allegations" that "the newspaper hasn't responded it"? Does that sound like something an encyclopedia would say? No. This is frankly getting ridiculous. Wikipedia is not the place to air your personal issues, and certainly not with outdated nonsensical supporting evidence that does nothing of the kind. MSJapan 15:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand you don't know those facts about Asahi Shimbun, if you can read Japanese. Google it, or if you can read the newspaper itself, read it directly. DDRG 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't. You've sourced nothing about the original reports in the paper in the first place, and I can't even get the secondary magazine articles because I don't have enough information to get them from the library copy service. MSJapan 04:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, is this the headline list you got your information from? There are just as many negative comments about the Shincho as it makes about Asahi. [5] and [6], and [7] and [8]. By your same criteria, Shukan Shincho isn't any more reliable than Asahi. MSJapan 04:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

Those are two different buildings that are both Asahi Shimbun buildings. They can't both be the Tokyo Head Office. Which one is the correct one? MSJapan 12:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of detective work I found this picture, [9]. I can cleary see the building of the current picture but I think the one of the previous one is in there as well. I prefer the current one, though. Here's another good link with information on the history of the newspaper as well, which should be incorporated in the article. [10] Mackan 19:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies-section[edit]

After leaving it in a sad state for over two weeks without any attempts from DDRG to improve it, I removed the entire section. Of course, DDRG reverted. Is there a consensus to remove this section from the page? All in favor, say "aye".Mackan 20:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. With no reliable sources forthcoming, all we have is an (outdated) POV issue where one person is trying to denigrate an entire paper for nothing save their own biases. MSJapan 04:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what do these sources say?[edit]

I was asked to have a look at the article. So, looking at DDRG's version, I see three refs, Shinchosha(1), Weekly Sincho{2), and Shokun(3). Are these primary sources? Secondary sources? What do they say? ··coelacan 08:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shinchosha is one of major publishers in Japan. Weekly Sincho is second largest weekly magazine in Japan which is published by Shinchosha. Shokun is a monthly magazin published by Sankei Shimbun. Those are all secondary sources.DDRG 17:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Justo restate from above to bring everything into one place, from what I was able to find (which wasn't much), these seem to be tabloid-type weeklies (from the English-language link I found; I couldn't locate anything in Japanese save places that sell it online). Another part of the problem is that DDRG hasn't provided enough information in the citations to allow anyone to track these down - he gives an issue and a page, and that's it. MSJapan 16:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weekly Sincho and Shokun are book type magazine, not tabloid type. Those are usually purchased by libraries in Japan. If you want to read them, you can get them from National Diet Library of Japan, or Library of Congress[11]. About citations, MSJapan demands to allow anyone to track these down. But those are in Japanese and those are published matters for sell, and about other article like New York Times it is not able to to allow anyone to track it down of its past articles. So I think MSJapan demands approximately impossibilities. DDRG 17:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I asked for was proper citation, meaning author, article title, and page - I shouldn't have to look for one word in a 400 page book or a 60 page magazine because I don't know what part I'm looking for. MSJapan 18:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I am not able to cite as your manner suddenly. But I will make efforts to cite like that. DDRG 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks like these sources are being used to say "Seiji Yoshida and this unnamed woman said untrue things". Putting aside whether they are reliable sources or not, please answer this: do the sources say

  • "Seiji Yoshida and this unnamed woman said untrue things"

or do they say

  • "Seiji Yoshida and this unnamed woman said untrue things, and Asahi Shimbun wrongly reported these things"

? Which is it? ··coelacan 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say Seiji Yoshida and this unnamed woman said untrue things, and the newspaper wrongly reported a woman's evidence that she was conducted away as "Jyosi teishin tai" (女子挺身隊) which was a name of women's industrial mobilization. This report was made by Uemura Takashi (植村隆)[12]. DDRG 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, I've found Shokun and Shincho at the library, though it's going to take me a while to find the relevant part unless it jumps out at me, as I've got no page numbers, and I might have the wrong batch of Shincho, as they go by volume number and not date. MSJapan 20:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consulted them in net again. And supposably the page of "Shokun", Dec.1996, is page.54~69, and "Shincho"'s volume is May, 2 and 9 1996 (double number). DDRG 22:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a cursory look at the sources I could find (though I looked through the Shincho, I couldn't find where the article was), and while Hata may make the allegations stated in general (though it seems he doesn't), he doesn't mention Asahi Shimbun by name, which means making the connection is OR. MSJapan 03:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering, on the off chance that i simply overlooked a possible reference, if DDRG knows where to find said material online, why can't he post the link? I could save a lot of time by keyword searching the document instead of reading 15 pages worth of one article, and 170+ pages of a whole magazine trying to find what is probably one sentence. MSJapan 04:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your trouble>MSJapan. I can't do them right away, because I don't have them near myself. But I will search them.DDRG 11:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The saciton in the "Shincho"'s volume is May, 2 and 9 1996 (double number) is that Yoshida said that 「本に真実を書いても何の利益もない。事実を隠し自分の主張を混ぜて書くなんていうのは、新聞だってやるじゃないか」in interview.And the saciton in the "Shokun", Dec.1996, is 「当時、女子挺身隊という制度自体が無いばかりか彼女は親により公娼として売られたことを語っており、全くの捏造である」. DDRG 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, as I said, I've read the articles, and you have one sentence each from articles that are pages and pages long, from eleven year-old magazines, and perhaps from the same critic. The point may be valid, but I don't see how this is such a big issue that it merits inclusion in this article in its own section. How does this incident from 11 years ago have so much to do with an overall history of the paper that it deserves its own section? I think the real issue is that we have a policy against disruption on Wikipedia to prove a point (WP:POINT), and I don't see a strong enough case to merit this having the prominence you want to give it. Can we perhaps compromise, and put it in chronologically, but without the value judgments and such that you have included? MSJapan 16:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected from editing until dispute is resolved here[edit]

Once you've come to a consensus on what to include (or not) in the page, please let me know on my talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have the sources tomorrow, but will likely not have a chance to look at them until Sunday. It might be earlier, but I'll post about them when I get to them. MSJapan 03:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have this page unprotected? The problematic user(User:DDRG), who caused all this, hasn't been active since May 4. Mackan 06:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Publications[edit]

I was wondering if there should be a section about Asahi Shinbun Publishing (朝日新出版), and publications, such as Aera, Asahi Camera, and other magazines, books, and comics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.128.249 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David McMurray[edit]

How come "David McMurray" redirects to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frindro (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"one of the eight biggest daily newspapers in the world"[edit]

The current version of this article says that Asahi Shimbun was found to be "one of the eight biggest daily newspapers in the world" by Le Monde in 1994. "Big" easily gives the impression of most readers, something to do with biggest circulation et cetera – is that really the case here? It seems unlikely considering a few other newspapers on the same list. I tried to check the source, but it was behind a paywall. Our article on El Espectador says "In 1994, after conducting a survey, Le Monde considered El Espectador one of the best eight daily newspapers in the world", which is not the same thing as the biggest. /Julle (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One might also question if what Le Monde considered to be the best/biggest/most influential/most respected/whatever they actually said newspapers in 1994 actually is relevant for the introduction at all. /Julle (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add redirect[edit]

The Asahi Shinbun

Thanks. 106.189.85.247 (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, cheers. 106.189.85.247 (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous statements in controversies section[edit]

The statements

'In August 2014, the newspaper retracted several articles about comfort women published in the 1980s and 1990s. The paper was roundly criticized by members of all of Japan's major political parties for damaging Japan's reputation abroad.[6]'

'In September 2014, the paper retracted an article about the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster that alleged cowardice on the part of the "Fukushima 50". The executive editor involved in the reporting was relieved. This invited another round of criticism.[7]'

are ambiguous, as it is not clear whether the paper was criticized for publishing the articles or for retracting them. Identity0 (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image of newspaper is reversed[edit]

The image of the newspaper that accompanies this article is reversed for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.214.225 (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Centre-Left?[edit]

When reading the Asahi Newspaper, it seems a lot more left-wing than just centre-left. Akahata (the Japan Communist Party's newspaper) is probably the most far-left newspaper in Japan, but Asahi is probably the next left-wing paper. Asahi's political stance is often the exact opposite of Sankei's and Sankei is often described as conservative or right-wing. So why not liberal or left-wing as a descriptor rather than 'centre-left'?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Asahi Shimbun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Asahi Shimbun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 March 2020[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved, without opposition, and pursuant to the correct statement of title policy in the nomination. BD2412 T 04:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asahi Shimbun → The Asahi Shimbun – Per http://www.asahi.com/ajw/, the masthead of the English edition includes "The". My understanding is that we generally follow the masthead title for newspapers. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Please do not perform a cut and paste move in any circumstance but especially not after requesting a move of the same. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for the record, I didn't do that cut-paste move. Someone else did (and I already chided them about that privately). —BarrelProof (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Asahi_Shimbun&oldid=1212598932"