Talk:Mitsubishi Electric

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This article should be merged with Mitsubishi Electric Corporation. -- uberpenguin 04:21, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

I agree. It has been a while so I will do it today. Cafe Nervosa 17:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


Good cars, good compressor, a good company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mitsubishi Electric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Audio equipment[edit]

Mitsubishi also manufactured modular hi-fi audio equipment, or at least did so during the 70s and 80s, see this 1984 Mitsubishi Hi-Fi Catalogue: [1] -- (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


The following was added today in this dif.

Seems WP:UNDUE and I think the first source fails WP:RS. Thoughts?

    • Mitsubishi settled a class-action lawsuit in 2016 brought by consumers who purchased the LaserVue line of HDTVs for models L65-A90, L75-A91, L75-A94, or L75-A96 purchased between between Jan. 1, 2008 and July 13, 2015. According to the class action lawsuit, the “Optical Engine” component in Mitsubishi LaserVue televisions contains a defect that causes video and color anomalies. Verde alleges that Mitsubishi is liable for breach of express and implied warranties as well as violations of California consumer protection laws and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Although Mitsubishi denied any wrongdoings of allegations, they agreed to settle the class-action lawsuit in order to avoid the further cost of litigation. [1]
    • Mitsubishi settled a consumer class action in 2011 alleging that defects in the company's televisions caused them to break down far earlier than expected. Under the agreement, Mitsubishi agreed to pay to fix certain WD series DLP televisions, reimburse the televisions' owners for repairs or parts, or allow the owner to buy a new Mitsubishi television. The televisions' resistors, diodes and DLP lamp assemblies failed prematurely, and the sets' cooling fans, filters and heat sinks were also defective, according to the complaint. As a result, the televisions lasted only 25 to 33 percent as long as they should have.[2]


  1. ^ "Mitsubishi LaserVue TV Class Action Lawsuit". Hustler Money Blog. 2016-01-15. Retrieved 2016-05-03. 
  2. ^ "Mitsubishi Unit Settles Class Action Over Faulty TVs - Law360". Retrieved 2016-05-03. 

- Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)



These were two different class action settlements. Which settlement are you claiming to be WP:UNDUE and WP:RS? The first settlement or the second settlement? Would you be specific please?

I'll assume you were only talking about the first settlement and didn't bother to read further. With regard to the first settlement it's a fact. There was a settlement. It's impossible to rebut this fact. Just link to the court records directly instead if you want if you've got something against the blog that was referenced:

Link to the following document as well. The general process is the court approves the settlement and then the plaintiff's lawyer publishes and distributes the details:

Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. "hustler money" is not a reliable source and is a blatant advertisement for the class. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


Go back and read the definition of due and undue weight. This assertion of yours fails on every point.

1. It's not a viewpoint and there is no minority view. It's a fact. There is no other way to describe this fact. There was a settlement.

2. Depth of detail: It's hardly detailed at all. Shorten if you'd like though.

3. Prominence of placement: It's not prominent.

4. Juxtaposition of statements: It comes directly after the discussion of the HDTVs and is at the end of the section.

5. There is no theory to prove. There is no research to verify. There was a settlement. This issue has been decided, and the issue has been included and discussed impartially.

Facts are stubborn things.

- Badtv2016 (talk)

This is what we call a wikilawyering argument. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)