Talk:Samsung Electronics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map of Korea This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please help us improve this article.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Does this list of Samsung products exist on Wikipedia? If not, what's the point of this red link? Kokiri 22:51, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't exist, and so it has no purpose. A person can delete it if necessary. —Vespristiano 23:09, 2004 Apr 17 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Clarification

Clarification is needed for:

"The company was awarded an export prize by the government as part of the country's development programme (US$ 300 billion)"
It seems like the prize is US$ 300 billion, which is clearly wrong.

Also, "Samsung was awarded a further US$ 100 billion by the government." doesn't make any sense, that's a lot of money, given to Samsung ? Must be wrong.

Yes, I was going to say the same thing - both those figures are clearly nonsense. Was Samsung loaned that money? Even then the figures are hugely excessive, and just make the article look ridiculous. I'm deleting that sentence pending clarification. Palefire


== Wikipedia must also try and provide the corporate address, Phone and fax nos of the Chairman's office as it may help the consumers to get to know the CEO of the organization, so the CEO's do not get to hide behind unresponsive faceless call centres. ==

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)