Talk:Samsung Electronics/Archives/2013

Global Market Share

Since it's almost 2 years old, shouldn't it be updated? And referenced? SKS2K6 04:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC) (The only one I know is that Samsung is still third in mobile phones.) SKS2K6 04:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed for market share

The table of product market share needs to be supplied with a link that lists the same info. This can be done by using the following syntax: <ref>[http://www.link.com]</ref>
Shawnc 23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

Like Shawnc says above the whole market share table is uncited. The list of products violates the WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy. The highlights and innovations section is sourced completely with Samsung press releases... I'm sure a completely unbiased source. And the first link in "External links" in this English Wikipedia article is in Korean.

This article needs someone to come along and write a good article, likely from scratch. AlistairMcMillan 11:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

prove it. why do you think that market share table is uncited? this market share table proved by samsung press release. if you think this table is wrong, then you must prove it. Should you prove it by public trusted source or reliable researh center report? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgdn963 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC).Pgdn963

These numbers come from one press release? If it is from one press release can you show us which one? AlistairMcMillan 13:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

go to samsung website. Search share of each field. like this. [market share of telephone.] search each maket share. by the samsung website. this table proved.Pgdn963 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgdn963 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

That says "2004.12". Are there any more figures that aren't more than two years old? AlistairMcMillan 13:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

ok. i edited table title. Pgdn963

ok. you AlistairMcMillan edited more specific. then remove 'cleanup-rewrite' tag. OK? this table proved by samsung press release.Pgdn963

Totally agree that this needs a total rewrite. This statement "Another reason for its incredible success comes from the strong leadership of the CEO, Jong-Yong Yun, as well as the very motivated and hard working employees. Workers of Samsung Electronics are famous in Korea as a hard worker." Needs to be cited. Its obvious that Pgdn963 is [b]not[/b] an objective editor and is most likely an employee or otherwise affiliated with Samsung. This coupled with the fact that the few referecnes available appear to be press releases and/or the samsung website places the accuracy and tone of this site in question. I would recommend that more in depth news articles (not news releases) and academic sources be included to make this a better article. 68.147.151.166 02:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't think so. Firefox001 06:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I had added a {{fansite}} tag after Pgdn/Firefox removed the rewrite template. It seems to address some of the major issues with the article: excessive trivia, irrelevant praise and criticism (many cases of unattributed subjective claims in violation of WP:NPOV, peacock terms, among other things), lists and collections of links that are of little or no interest to a general audience ("Developed world's first", etc.) Pgdn/Firefox has been reverting it outright. I don't want to get into a revert war, so perhaps some outside intervention may be necessary. Dancter 01:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You must prove yourself. what article is wrong. specific. show us source. if you can't, then You are vandalist.Firefox001 06:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What do sources have to do with the points I'm making? I'm not pushing for the inclusion of any new information. Anyway, more than half the article is composed of lists for which the information is not placed in context, making them essentially trivia. I already linked to the trivia guideline in my previous post. Any relevant information in the "Developed world's first" timeline should be incorporated into expanded coverage of the "History" of the subject in the form of structured prose. The information in the subsequent sections should likewise be presented as prose, rather than lists. The link to the relevant guideline on embedded lists is incorporated into the {{cleanup-laundry}} template I had added to one of the article sections.

I admit I'm a bit unclear as to how various companies are categorized, but the Business Week list of "The 100 Top Brands 2006" doesn't explicitly state that Samsung is the top electronics brand, hence the tagging of that phrase. The lead in general does a poor job of making all its information verifiable. The information in the second and third paragraphs do not seem attributable whatsoever to any of the provided sources.

I tagged a few statements as original research (to which the relevant policy is linked to in the tags), as they are provide explanations that are not directly asserted in any of the sources I examined.

The article is peppered by peacock terms such as "ambitious", "incredible", and "very encouraging"; as well as other non-neutral, non-objective descriptions such as "miracle of the Korean economy". This should be more than enough to justify the tags I've added. Dancter 14:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

still do not disagree with you. however, accept some user's change. To avoid confusion. and I already told you, what article is wrong. and what sentence is wrong. You must prove yourself, specifically. show us source. At least, article is correct more than your stubbornness. Firefox001 00:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Per verifiability policy, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". This is about more than just separate facts being "correct" or "wrong" per your other comments (though some of your additions still had yet to meet verifiability guidelines, such as the reasons for Samsung's success), but about providing a well-constructed, balanced, and accessible overview of the subject. Demands for "what article is wrong. and what sentence is wrong." and to "show us source" is not a useful approach to this particular matter.

I've cited several Wikipedia policies and guidelines already (such as the guideline on embedded lists), but here are a few more. Per WP:NOT#INFO: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader."

You stated that I have "no consensus and no right to delete other people's article". While I may have not have an explicit undisputed consensus; of those who have weighed in on the issue, you seem to be the only one defending your position (through multiple IPs and accounts); while several different editors have independently expressed the need for cleanup. Again, the burden is not on me. Per WP:OWN, "Believing that an article has an owner […] is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia. […] As each edit page clearly states: 'If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.'" I have as much right to edit this article as anyone. Dancter 15:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Another thing: Several of the external links were removed (not by me) according to WP:EL, which states, "a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." In addition, the home page link was changed per the clause on non-English language content, which states that "Links to English language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia." According to the guideline, links to non-English language sites may be appropriate "when an official site is unavailable in English", which is not the case here. Dancter 01:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Update

Can someone update the "world's first list with the more recent information provided, such as the 10 mp camera phone and stuff? I would do it myself, but I have lots of homework as of lately ;P Thanks Igob8a 23:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing vandalism

I removed sentence " A Rough Translation of "Samsung" is Korean for Sony Electronics." because Samsung is not korean for "sony electronics". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.97.223 (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Public?

Is it really a public company? finance.google.com for example lists the tickers as "private". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyril (talk • contribs) 10:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Check the tickers after the name on the article: (KRX: 005930, KRX: 005935, LSE: SMSN,LSE: SMSD). It's listed on various exchanges. --Aka042 (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Promotional tone

Would anyone mind if I re-wrote some of the article to make it sound less promotional?

I thought I should ask beforehand as I actually work for Samsung Electronics so I want to avoid any potential conflict of interest --5 albert square (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'm taking it that nobody is objecting to me doing this so will start work on this in the next few days --5 albert square (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have undertaken a revision of the Lead and History sections to remove the promotional tone, but there is still a fair amount of work to be done, as the article is not written in an encyclopedic tone. However, it is also difficult to find secondary sources on the internet. --Soulparadox 10:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Our corporate name

Samsung_Electronics#Corporate_Name_and_Logo «Anyone of East Asian descent would appreciate instantly our corporate name has auspicious meaning in it.» The whole paragraph doesn't seem acceptable to me. I believe it should be rewritten in a neutral way or deleted, but I'm not sure how to do it. If nobody cares I'd delete the whole "corporate name and logo" section. Davr (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, no the whole paragraph should not be removed because it provides some information about the company and the logo that some people would deem useful. I've re-worded the sentence that you objected to to make it sound less promotional, however the whole article is tagged as reading like a news release so that sentence would probably have been re-worded at some stage anyway. As nobody has shown any objections to me re-wording it even though I work for Samsung, I will do that as soon as I've got over my illness. --5 albert square (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Conclusive statement of Samsung's national origin

A vast majority of multinational companies list both their primary nationality and the LOCATION of the headquarters in the same sentence, and that trend has been maintained since almost the very inception of Wikipedia. Kindly take a look at the too numerous examples like Boeing, General Electric, Microsoft, Ford Motor, BAE Systems, Thales, Siemen, etc. etc. There is no reason to conceal the true national origin of Samsung while there are more than sufficient reasons to clarify it. Desagwan (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

For each of those I can give examples where another approach is followed, e.g. Sanofi, Cisco Systems, Deutsche Telekom, GlaxoSmithKline and BP. The nationality - in so far as a multinational can be stated to have such a thing - is already clear from the HQ location and putting South Korea(n) twice in the opening sentece is excessive. Please can you undo your edit until a consensus has been achieved here for the change which you are seeking. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Please provide an objective basis why putting the primary national origin and location of the headquarters together in the opening statement is to be qualified as 'excessive' by which widely acknowledged Wikipedian standard. It can in fact be very useful to distinguish primarily state-oriented companies like Samsung (most of its managerial staff as well as innovation staff identify themselves to be Koreans) from true multinational companies like Airbus (in this case a continental company, employing the core of its managerial and innovation staff in equal measure from various European countries, instead of just France), which if we describe its national origin purely by the location of its headquarters must be said to be 'French' instead of 'European'. Naturally, it's a description that most Wikipedian academics will not agree with. Desagwan (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, please revert your edit to the lead until you have gained a consensus here.

Airbus is a fairly unique company in terms of history and a wholly unreasonable example of usual practice, the lead of that article also explains its unique nature and history very clearly. However for virtually all multinationals the location of the HQ (and/or registered office, if different) will describe the commonly understood 'nationality' of the company very clearly. "Company A is a multinational company heaquartered in country B" makes it very clear to readers that Company A has a 'nationality' connected with country B. "Company A is a country B multinational company heaquartered in country B" is in my view duplicative and places an undue emphasis on nationality. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying national origin by explicitly mentioning it has enough precedence of not being considered 'excessive' in the history of Wikipedia editing. Once more, I ask you to please substantiate your claim of duplicity and excessiveness with an objective basis by way of reference to acknowledged Wikipedian editing standard instead of just saying 'in my view'. Desagwan (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have given multiple examples of articles which follow the approach in the stable version of this article. There is no specific WP policy on the point and there is no 'objective' truth that we can seek either. You have one view, I have another. Until you have gained consensus here, please self revert your change to the lead, which has been made through edit-warring. Thank you. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Was the act of not mentioning Samsung's national origin done so in compliance with a consensus? If so please refer me to the instance when such a consensus had been made to authorize such potential (unintended though it might be) concealment of crucial information with a link to the discussion. Also, the proposition that "Company A is a multinational company heaquartered in country B" makes it very clear to readers that Company A has a 'nationality' not just 'connected' with country B but actually have a profound sense of belongingness to it may not prove to be entirely true under all expected circumstances. There remains meaningful possibility of doubt for uninformed readers (which is why they would come to Wikipedia in search of information) to potentially regard Samsung as a truly multinational company with just a loose connection to Korea via its headquarters instead of a primarily (perhaps overwhelmingly) South Korea-oriented company with some multinational aspects in its managerial and innovation infrastructure. Desagwan (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead was part of the stable version of the article. Your change to that stable version having been reverted, and a discussion now having begun here, the lead should reflect the stable version and not the version produced by edit warring. Changes to stable text require consensus when challenged, that is a pretty basic part of the way in which WP works.

Why should I engage in a lengthy and good faith discussion with you when your attitude is clearly that you wish to impose your changes to the text anyhow through edit warring?

The nationality of a multinational is any case just one aspect of it, albeit a noteworthy one. Already we have the HQ location - which in my view more than adequately conveys nationality - in the very first sentence of the article. Looking at Samsung's own web site I don't in fact see much if any mention of South Korea: [1]. How does Samsung describe itself to the world? "A digital leader...a responsible global citizen...a multi-faceted family of companies... an ethical business...Samsung is all of these and more. At Samsung Group and Samsung Electronics, our products, our people and our approach to business are held to only the highest standards so that we can more effectively contribute to a better world."

I see no mention of Samsung being South Korean in its advertising, on its products, in its branding etc. Its 'profound sense of belongingness' to South Korea is pretty well hidden to those outside of the country.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Samsung actively advertises '우리의 대표 브랜드 삼성'[2] in very, very big letters in the native language of Korea in its main website, indicating its palpable intent to associate itself with Korea as first and foremost Korea's flagship company. It is a mistake to conclude that Samsung considers its belongingness to Korea a negligible element of its corporate identity.

'Our flagship brand, Samsung'

Whose flagship brand must Samsung claim itself to be? The flagship brand of the international community?

It is not an edit warring that I intend to precipitate as I am doing edits while making the best attempt to ensure that it poses no threat of disorgnization or misinformation in the article. I'm trying to contribute the most accurate information about Samsung that I can find and deliver to best inform readers facts about Samsung with the least chance of them misunderstanding any of them (misunderstanding what it means by 'multinational', for example). The article continues to be an equally stable version with the addition I have made. Desagwan (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The repetition seems a bit awkward but hardly worth fighting over. How about this: "Samsung Electronics ... is a South Korean multinational electronics and information technology company headquartered in Samsung Town, Seoul." Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a good solution, actually. Let's apply it. Desagwan (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not ideal but a reasonable compromise.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Under the controversies

Details pertaining to the lawsuits that Samsung had with apple can be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brkwok (talk • contribs) 17:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Foxconn

Why are there no references to foxconn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.203.173.62 (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

what, specifically, are you referring to? Samsung and Foxconn do not compete, certainly not directly anyway. Samsung uses Foxconn to assemble stuff for them. Additionally: other companies that use Foxconn also use Samsung components, so Foxconn assembles Samsung components for OTHER companies as well. if anything, Foxconn's infrastructure helps to support companies like Samsung avoid investment and diversification into industries that require experience and specialized knowledge, which would slow Samsung's growth if they had to heavily invest in assembly facilities.184.189.220.114 (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

Two editors have violated WP:3RR on this article. You need to discuss it here rather than continuing your edit war. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Look at the content being added. It isn't about 3RR, it is about defamatory and badly sourced information being added by a user who has a clear vendatta against the company - see his/her edits here and at Samsung. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Biker that this is inadequately sourced, as well as being rather trivial. However it now also looks very much like tag teaming/sockpuppetry is going on at this article in an effort to add attack content, which is concerning. I therefore support Biker's reverts as performing a service to the article and the project. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

changed it to settlements

Since the whole section revolves in and around court, and nothing out of court. Feel free to change it back when they pollute another country's water supply or something. Stateofyolandia (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Bogus Claims

Someone's been trying to insert clearly fictitious claims based on two sources. To that someone: please stop randomly inserting those claims until you actually addresses the question of why on earth does you claim differ from the sources you cited?

http://bwnt.businessweek.com/brand/2006/index.asp -> Rank Name Country Value

3 IBM U.S. 56,201

6 Nokia Finland 30,131

5 Intel U.S. 32,319

13 Hewlett-Packard U.S. 20,458

20 Samsung S. Korea 16,169

Quite Clearly Samsung is nowhere near first. Unless you can prove Nokia isn't a 'consumer electronics' company. I see in your latest attempt you tried to get around this by citing a Samsung company page citing this businessweek page. Please don't; Samsung can say whatever it want but it's not true unless its backed up.

Next: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2006/snapshots/1171.html

Industry: Electronics, Electrical Equipment

Rank Company 500 rank Revenues ($ millions)

1 Siemens 22 100,099

2 Hitachi 38 83,596

3 Samsung Electronics 46 78,717

Admittedly Samsung is nearer the top this time. But no, it still isn't the largest company, even if it is by revenue. If you want to keep on claiming that, please explain how being placed third on the list proves that Samsung is number one?

--Rmdsc 14:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Hitachi not a consumer electonics company? Why? They make a bunch of electronic products, many of which end up in homes. I can't be bothered going through the rest of your edits, but like everything else you said you either do not cite a reference or totally distort one out of recognition. Show me a NON SAMSUNG source that says Hitachi isn't a consumer electronics company. And why should revenues be the measure of company size while the market capitalisation data I posted simply deleted? Because Samsung is ranked lower by market capitalisation? You work for Samsung or something?

--Rmdsc 14:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

63.239.21.87, please don't revert without bothering to answer the questions here. --130.216.191.182 00:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you guys would answer me here, rather than leaving me insults. Or if you just stop trying to insert false claims it would be acceptable too. --Rmdsc 11:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Youngjoon Shin, honestly, I am getting very tired of the way you are acting. I have made my case, all you have done is edit my comments away on the discussion page. And yet you have the nerves to ask me to name a bigger company than Samsung? I did, even if you are too blinded to acknowledge that, hey, a higher rank actually does mean bigger size. --Rmdsc 09:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Samsung Electronics displaced Apple Inc. as the world's largest technology company in 2011" Apple has never been bigger than SamsungElectronics. Source: Balance sheets of both companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.165.239.206 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

$2.5 billion

Apple must pay Samsung for their petty monopoloid demands.... they always just want to be the only company making phones.... shame on u Apple.

Sorry for posting it here but Apple sucks! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.140.156 (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)