Talk:Metropolis (free magazine)

message: Now that you have spent so long confirming that Alexander is a reliable authority on Tokyo publishing then you will accept Alexander's opinion that both Japan Traveler, the writer, and the writer's claims are unreliable and unverifiable.
# Alexander calls it "magazine" in inverted commas - not notable, not reliable
# Alexander says that he has never heard of Japan Traveler before it made the claim - not notable or reliable.
# Alexander calles the publication "tacky" - confirming its unreliability
# Alexander calls it "little" - confirming its insignificance. If the Weekender thinks it's little it must be miniscule.
# Alexander casts doubt on the claim "While I'm not certain of Tokyo Classified's circulation figures (nor is, I'm certain, James C. Gibbs)" -- confirming the claims unreliability and unverifiability
# Alexander says that the writer is a "newcomer", "wet behind the ears" -- confirming the unreliability of the writer
# Alexander claims that the Japan Traveler writer has made errors in an article about Weekender - confirms unreliability of writer and publication
# Alexander notes that the writer is just looking for attention by taking potshots at his "journalistic betters" - unreliability of writer
And other issues...
# Op-eds cannot be used to claim facts, as has been done here.
# As it stands the wording twists an article positive to Metropolis/Tokyo Classified into a negative - misrepresentation of the source.
# Japan Traveler is an unreliable an non-notable source. Tiny, unverified, print run. Few pages. Stopped publishing six years ago.
# Written primarily by one person. There is a strong case to say the article is self-published.
# The article was written by a competitor. Claims by competitors are not reliable.
# There is no mention of this apparently serious fraud claim in any newspaper.
# Metropolis has its circualtion verified by ABC.
# There is no record of the original article on the Japan Traveler site, Google or the Internet Archive.
# The only person that can block a site on the Internet Archive is the site owner. If even the original site owner has made a positive decison to block the article from the web, then it should under no circumstances re-appear in Wikipedia.
# There is no third-party confirmation of any facts.
# Exceptional content needs confirmation from multiple reliable sources 
# Potentially libelous content needs confirmation multiple reliable sources
Read WP:V. All of it. As the editor placing material, the burden of proof is on you to show that exceptional and potentially libelous claims are confirmed by other sources. Note this from Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
This material has so many problems that it will never be acceptable. The only way the material could ever be included is for you to satisfy all of the above, and then find a consensus of editors to add. This is exactly the kind of dubious claim from non-notable vanity publications that Wikipedia is designed to exclude. 
Please also note that I will not debate this matter further here. If you really want to waste your time tying to get this material included then you are required to take this through the dispute resolution process, where I will simply cut-and-paste the above list for the benefit of any interested editors.  In the meantime the material, by policy, stays out. Sparkzilla 01:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you intend to remove that material without even replying to other contributors' comments on this talk page, you will be breaking a bunch of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, for example, Wikipedia:Consensus. That material is not libelous, and I doubt that anybody but you will suggest it is. Heatedissuepuppet 08:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weekender confirmation of Japan Traveler unreliability

message: :Image:Metropoliscover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Metropoliscover.jpg

message: Will someone remove the header and cut down the Glitterball section to match the rest of the page text. The party is a notable, part of our business, but does not deserve either its own section, or the extensive coverage given to it in the recent edit. A single sentence would be fine. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 11:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SlimVirgin's Glitterball edit

message: #Metropolis is a free full-color 64-80 page weekly city guide and classified ads magazine published by Crisscross K.K. for Tokyo's English-speaking community.
#The magazine is distributed to locations throughout Tokyo, Yokohama and Chiba and claims a circulation of 30,000.
#(The magazine) comprises four sections: feature articles and interviews with Japanese and foreign celebrities, an events guide; bar and restaurant listings and classified ads. The magazine also (releases a weekly podcast).
#The first issue was published on February 26, 1994.
#...and was originally distributed as an insert in The Daily Yomiuri and The Japan Times and by hand at various Tokyo locations popular with the English-speaking community, which had grown due to the worldwide attention given to Japan's bubble economy
#...mainly (to embassies, hotels,) record stores.
#In 2003, the magazine was renamed Metropolis and the format changed to include a weekly news round up and commentary on Japan-related political, social and community issues, such as Yasukuni Shrine, whaling, Women's rights in Japan, and Japan's involvement in World War II.
#The magazine releases a weekly podcast.
#(External Link) Metropolis podcast
#(Category) Japanese magazines
David Lyons 01:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placeholder for removed (unsourced & non-notable) material. Please re-add if it can be sourced 

message: * Metropolis website
* Crisscross Social Network
* Japan Today
* Crisscross Creative
132.239.1.230 21:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Given that Metropolis is no longer relevant or noteworthy, could this page be a candidate for speedy deletion?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hephatsheput (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidate for speedy deletion? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metropolis (free magazine). 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.markdevlin.com/Articles/businessam/businessam.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314003058/http://www.ea-tokyo.com/seminars/seminarsummaries/20040907.php to http://www.ea-tokyo.com/seminars/seminarsummaries/20040907.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)