|Today's articles for improvement|
|WikiProject Japan / Business and economy||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Companies||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Well, Uni-ball is now a brand of Sanford, so who owns them? Metamatic 16:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The photos of the cars should be moved to the appropriate pages.
- Discussion of the brand should be expanded.
Christopher Mahan 17:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Mitsubishi critical sites
I think the sites critical to mitsubishi should be moved to Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, since this is really about that. Comments? Christopher Mahan 03:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Christopher Mahan noted that NEC/Mitsubishi is a subsidarary of NEC. But NEC is still using the name "Mitsubishi" on monitors, and in the name. So somebody looking for information on Mitsubishi's computer display unit might come to this article. THe problem is, I'm not sure where to put the link. Reub2000 05:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think perhaps there should be a page or section for companies that have the mitsubishi name. This is probably in there somewhere. I would also look at the mitsubishi category. Christopher Mahan 17:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think talking about Mitsubishi's drafting of laborers from captured countries is appropriate for this page. However, I hesitate to include the number of drafted Korean laborers killed by atomic blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It seems a bit disconnected from the general info on the topic, and would be more at home on a page concerning general labor practices of Japanese companies during World War II, as I doubt that Mitsubishi was the only company to draft laborers.
I don't see what drug culture has to do with Mitsubishi companies. The picture of the tablet can be disturbing for some, too.
I would like to know the story with Mitsubishi Pencil and Mitsubishi. The Mitsubishi site says that Mitsubishi Pencil is of completely independent origin to Mitsubishi itself. So then why does it use the 3-diamond logo, which it registered in 1903? It used the logo in 1940's for example (I saw it in a 1940's baseball card) and I have seen it on uni-ball pens circa 2000, but it has since disappeared from those. But the japanese website still has the logo.
I know that the Japanese version of Wikipedia gives some detail about the logo (mitsubishi pencil vs mitsubishi, under the heading of mitsubishi pencil. But the auto translation is not satisfactory.
I have always loved everything mitsubishi, including the GT3000 car, the twin engined aircraft they used to make, the air conditioners and also including the pens. Was quite sad when the pens dropped the 3 diamond logo and now to find that they are unrelated to the cars etc. Maybe they should link up again. What is the story??
Neutral point of view
I just flagged this article as violating Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view guidelines. Despite the fact that Mitsubishi is a current, major conglomerate, the majority of the article focuses on the group's involvement in World War II (which is not especially unique amongst Japanese companies) and even includes a lengthy citation from the not-exactly-objective website MitsubishiSucks.com.
Completely agreed. Many companies contributed to the Japanese effort in WWII, including Mitsubishi. It should be mentioned, however references to sites such as Mitsubishisucks are overboard. The article needs to be an overall look at the company, not just what happened in a 5 year period.--Darlac425 04:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
A solution ?
I guess that the solution for this dispute could be the making of a complete new article named "Mitubishi History" or something like that...
--Vitor Madeira 14:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, some of the statements seem biased.
Someone toned down the article in the past few days. Ironically, I think they went a bit too far in the direction of cheerleading for Mitsubishi, so I just made some edits to make the article more neutral. I've just removed the disputed neutrality tag.
--Stephen Hui 18:43, 01 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone put uncited and erroneous statements that Mitsubishi was responsible for the Bataan death march. After looking at that main article I read no description of any of this. --Dan1340 04:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
A Conglomerate ?
if you look at the Mitsubishi global website and read the about page, it is clear that Mitsbishi is NOT a conglomerate. It even states that it is "impossible to define"! It certainly does not fit with what I understand as a conglomerate. http://www.mitsubishi.com/e/group/about.html Myredroom 12:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I found this page that says the association no longer exists, but nevertheless is a relevant source.
- "The company formerly sourced all products from Mitsubishi Electric but in recent times due to global change now sources products from a number of manufacturers world-wide." Corey Salzano (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Does the logo REALLY need to be so huge? It's not like there's much detail or anything comlicated that is more obvious with it being larger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but the 5th-largest elevator company of the world can be confused with an automobile brand. The consequence: The 5th-largest elevator company of the world is absent from many European countries. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
List of names