Talk:Samsung/Archive 1

List of products
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. &mdash;Vespristiano 23:09, 2004 Apr 17 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.198.19.168 (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2004 *(UTC)


 * 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 — Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 29 October 2004 (UTC)

Urgh
Newsweek said they had HOW many thosands of products they launched in 2004? it was an insane amount. i even see a laser printer from them this year... (this week's XX store flier, even) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.29.133 (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2005 (UTC)

Rename

 * VOTE AT:Talk:Samsung Group This talk page is in the wrong place!!!
 * OPPOSE Samsung Group is composed of multiple companies in different industries, unlike Microsoft, which is not. 64.231.236.43 02:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Rename
see also Talk:Samsung


 * OPPOSE Samsung Group is composed of multiple companies in different industries, unlike Microsoft, which is not. 64.231.236.43 02:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but how different is Samsung from Samsung? Is there a major difference between Samsung, Samsung Electronics and Samsung Mobile? --chapter1 09:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone's had fun with the redirects. If you click the article tab at the top of this page Talk:Samsung, you get taken to Samsung Group, but if you click the tab for the talk page there, you get redirected back here. It's a fun little circle, yet entirely stupid at the same time. - Hayter 17:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the redirect circle on the Talk pages. Looks like the Samsung was moved to Samsung Group in Dec 2005, but the Talk page wasn't moved with it.--Bovineone 22:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

, Korea is also known as Samsung city''

I presume (though do not know) that this is merely an informal nickname, rather than an official designation. If I'm correct, this should be noted in the article. - Hayter 19:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is a nickname.

LCD Panels
I'm not knowledgeable enough to make the edit myself, but contrary to what this states I'm pretty sure that Samsung and LG are not the only providers of LCD panels for the TV industry, Chi Mei and AU in Taiwan both make panels for sourcing to other manufacturers e.g, Westinghouse, and I believe that Sony or Sharp in Japan make their own as well.

Clean it up
The entire intro to this page is messy, I see nearly a page of disorganized information and statistics when I view it in my browser. Can someone clean up the introduction and possibly sort this or clean it up; or at least mark this article as needing a cleanup.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepht (talk • contribs)

Saccharin smuggling(?) section
The following sentence is mysterious: "...saccharin, an artificial sweetener widely used in South Korea before sugar.". Saccharin has been around since the late 19th century, clearly not before sugar. Is this a bad machine translation? 01:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Even more mysteriously: "Samsung imported it as construction materials for a newly constructed factory." Would anyone really want to construct a factory from sacks of saccharin?  Can it be cheaper than, say, sand?  Isn't it water soluble? Ralphbk 09:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I understood that as Samsung deliberately mislabeling sacks of saccharin as building construction materials, say, sacks of concrete mix. However, the entire section is a bit mysterious. Why was importing saccharin wrong? —BorgHunter (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Too little info
Generally on the company itself. The information on Samsung should be huge, since it is a large and infuencial company. Can somebody help me on it? I'm not very familiar with the history of Samsung Oyo321 02:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If
you have a list, then, please do add it:

Samsung Electronics saw record profits and revenue in 2004, and in 2005, overtook Sony as one of the worlds most valuable consumer electronics brands, and is now ranked #20 in the world overall.

Samsung Electronics saw record profits and revenue in 2004, and in 2005, overtook Sony as one of the world's most valuable consumer electronics brands, and is now ranked #20 in the world overall.

hopiakuta ; &lt;nowiki&gt; { &#91;&#91; %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ; &lt;/nowiki&gt;]] 14:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I deleted the section on "legitimate inheritance." Its completely irrelevant to the main point of the article, and also giving a negative impact on Samsung's image. Oyo321 22:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Industries
shouldn't all industries be mentioned ? not only three... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.229.237 (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dates?
The date of incorporation is confused and possibly incorrect.

It's shown as being established in 1938, yet the timeline says it was established in 1953. Which is it, and if it was established in 1938 what happened in the intervening 15 years? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.149.28.129 (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

To provide an ample knowledge about Samsung, please provide a page of it's series of mp3 players

Competitors Reversion
I reverted the newly and anonymously added "Competitors" as it serves little purpose (considering the size and range of activities of the Samsung Group), takes up a load of space (the page is rather too much a list of lists as it is) and is open to abuse by spamvertisers (who wants to regularly check all the links?). Let's keep it simple and relevant, eh? -- Ralphbk 08:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Revenue
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/55/55277.html

revenue for 05 is incorrect.

Need to redirect this to "Samsung"
Just like Toyota, Honda and Sony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.146.34 (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge History of Samsung into this article

 * SUPPORT - It is not a long article and needs to be trimmed anyway as it's full of promotional language. JPBarrass (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT - We have a pretty good coverage of the history of the company on here. Having a separate article doesnt bring anything new. --Mblumber (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support --Kingj123 (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing of negative information
This edit, by an unregistered user in the UK on March 31, removed several pages of text that could be considered negative. We should give the benefit of the doubt to removal of information about a currently trading business (see WP:BLP). But it looks like a lot of this material has citations to reliable sources. Please restore information that is well sourced and accurate. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Corruption investigation
The 2009/08 corruption investigation piece is much shorter than it was, which is only right since the company was cleared, and executives have only been charged with tax evasion. I have reverted unexplained deletions, but I would ask others to also do that if you feel it is worth keeping - I don't want to be in an edit war. How much coverage of the corruption investigation should we cover in this article? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't glamorize Samsung
Anyone who wants to glamorize samsung as "super mulitional" corporations "leading" several fields is a joke. Reality check, Toyota, General Motors and others are much bigger than Samsung by revenue. Samsung is smaller than Toyota and General Motors. These companies are much super super larger than Samsung. Neutralize this section, because it looks childish and ignorant. Please. Samsung is not the greatest company in the world. Face reality. There are much bigger companies than Samsung like Walmart, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhilips that have revenues in the 300 billion dollars per year. Twice the revenuew of Samsung. They are not states as "super multinational" companies.71.237.70.49 (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I don't know what super-multinational means.  Interplanetary perhaps?  Wikipedia should be written in natural English, and any jargon should be explained.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My edit (15th largest ...) was reverted, with no explanation. Please join the discussion here, or use edit summaries. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Korean editors are making this article highly POV. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should assume good faith in newly registered editors. I invited the editor who reverted my edit to join our discussion here. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The latest edit is much better, don't make this article state "super." at all. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is much like the article for South Korea. Nothing but a biased, and one-sided view of the company. Saying that they lead in all of these fields simply sounds wrong, because there are many larger companies than Samsung. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.165.61 (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with the comments above, such as Samsung not being the world's largest company or the editors being pro-Samsung rather than being neutral. But I need to mention this: Samsung Electronics(not Samsung Group since it is a conglomerate, unlike the companies mentioned above) is one of the best in its field as you can see from 3rd party sources. It is not fair to compair Samsung Electronics with General Motors or Toyota Motors since the automobile industry do get higher revenues than the electronics industry. A car costs way more than a mobile phone. Profit is a crucial factor when deciding how well a company is doing its business. You should not be just looking at revenues.Kymagnus (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Company?
There is some misunderstanging which is widespread and a bit annoying, at least to me. There is no such a company as 'Samsung Group'. It just does not legally exist. Therefore, I doubt that the word 'company' can be used when describing Samsung Group. This misunderstanding also leads to expression like 'chairman of Samsung Group'. No one can be a chairman of Samsung Group since there is no such company on the face of the Earth. Ri hwa won (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of bias and opinion on this page and very little fact. Several of the references are linked to the text. Would someone be willing to fix this when they have the time? Also please modify the text to be more in line with an encyclopedia. This means facts and information and no opinion or coloured statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.96.26 (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

25% with PhD ??
Is there any source on this? I'm fairly certain this number is not accurate. Taking Samsung Electronics alone, they are more of a manufacturing company with many more blue collar than white collar workers. Patrickkoh (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Clean It All Up
this article really disgusts me as it contains the many references of Samsung The Worlds leading manufacturer, this whole article needs to be cleaned up as per Wikipedia style guidelines, as it dosent meet the Wikipedia criteria.

Thankyou Adrian90 (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Information for discussion/verification
Per previous notes left on the talk page, I have removed some information from the Background section for discussion/verification.
 * ''Samsung Group is recognized as the most prestigious firm in South Korea, attracting many of the country's most intelligent and talented pupils, with 25% of its employees having a PhD degree or equivalent

To include this sentence, it would need to be toned down (no "the most") and cited for two things: the level of prestige asserted and the statistic about PhDs.
 * ''South Korean Samsung employees are also highly loyal to the company, working for very long hours with no weekends or holidays until they retire.

Maybe it's my American upbringing that's clouding my judgement here. That sentence sounds like an indictment of the way Samsung treats its workers, with the bit about "highly loyal" added in to make it sound better. It needs a source at any rate, preferably with clarification of how this arrangement came to be as well as an opposing viewpoint (if any) on the matter. I'm sure not everyone just loves the company so much they gave up their benefits. ;)
 * ''Consequently, Samsung is able to artificially moderate prices and has been criticised for handicapping other rivals, leading to bankruptcy of mid to small sized businesses as they cannot compete with Samsung.

I don't doubt this at all, but we need to cite a specific case or an allegation from a credible source. I left the sentence that followed it, but added a fact tag and changed "complete dominance" with "allegations of monopolistic practices". I didn't get a chance to read further into the article. I tried to get some of the more egregious things out and hopefully lay out a guideline for anyone who feels like tidying the article up. Thompsontough (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Main competitors
Was this "Main Competitors" list created entirely out of the blue? All the other articles of major electronics companies do not have such a list. There appears to be no correlation and there is no sources of verification. Pds0101 (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

and the main competitors on the list are also the main buyers of Samsung RAM, so are they really competitors? Markthemac (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the largest conglomerate
Samsung Group is not the world's largest conglomerate by revenue, Samsung Group is the world's 12th largest conglomerate by revenue.

source ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue


 * 1) ExxonMobil Corp./Revenue=$390.3(billions)
 * 2) Wal-Mart Stores,Inc./$$374.5
 * 3) Royal Dutch Shell plc./$355.8
 * 4) British Petroleum./$292
 * 5) Toyota Motor Corp./$264.8
 * 6) Total S.A./$217.6
 * 7) Chevron Corp./$214.1
 * 8) Saudi Aramco./$199.8
 * 9) ING Group N.V./$197.9
 * 10) ConocoPhillips./$187.4
 * 11) General Motors Corp./$181.1
 * 12) Samsung Group./$174.2


 * The other companies ranked ahead of Samsung are not conglomerates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.179.24.7 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Automobiles?
Why is the automobile produced by Samsung not mentioned in this article? Badagnani (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was acquired by Renault. Now it's Renault Samsung Motors. --Cheol (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

How in the world do I edit the Notes and References Section?
I added this article http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/14/BUGH3F85PU1.DTL to external sites, but I wanted to place it in Notes and References, where the first note is a broken link anyway. But, all I can see is the word reflist surrounded by double brackets. How can I access and edit the reflist? Thanks. tharsaile (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

test stss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.187.134.65 (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

You should be able to add this by clicking on the  button at the top there. If that's not displaying then please try copying and pasting this Insert footnote text here over, obviously adding your link where it says "Insert footnote text here" and by taking out the spaces. Hope this helps.--5 albert square (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Samsung C&T Corporation
There has not been a proper page for Samsung C&T Corporation, just a redirection to Samsung Group. I have created its own page and it has been a while, but no one else have contributed to better the page. I hope more people will join and improve this article.

I am thinking of changing Samsung Engineering & Construction from the company introduction,

one of the world's largest shipbuilders and Samsung Engineering & Construction, a major global construction company.

Samsung C&T Corporation since Samsung Engineering & Construction does not exsit as a separate company but a business division of Samsung C&T Corporation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kymagnus (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well good work! I hope to contibute to the new page soon.Pds0101 (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits
OK everyone

This article has come in for a lot of reverts of edits recently, so much so it's actually verging on a childish edit war. So it doesn't descend into a childish edit war I've decided to take "ownership" of the article and re-write it best I can. That is why I am about to place a construction template on the article.

One thing that has come to light is that people are arguing whether or not the income has increased or decreased. Do we actually have references to say which way the income has gone?

Also it is apparently biased to say that Samsung is the worlds largest conglomerate company? From memory I actually think that Samsung is the worlds largest conglomerate company, however for arguments sakes can we maybe put something like "Samsung is one of the worlds largest conglomerate companies". That way the article is still accurate and the edit (hopefully) won't keep getting reverted.

Apparently the article is also biased towards Samsung? So in that case could we maybe take out the paragraph that says "According to Interbrand and BusinessWeek, Samsung’s brand value ranked 43rd (USD 5.2 billion) in 2000, 42nd (USD 6.4 billion) in 2001, 34th (USD 8.3 billion) in 2002, 25th (USD 10.8 billion) in 2003, 21st (USD 12.5 billion) in 2004, and 20th (14.9 billion) in 2005 among top global companies" but keep in the paragraph that says "Currently, Samsung has sixteen products that have dominated the world’s market share, including: DRAM, color cathode-ray tube TVs (CPT, CDT), SRAM, TFT-LCD glass substrates, TFT-LCD, STN-LCD, tuner, CDMA handset, color television (CTV), monitor, flash memory, LCD Driver IC (LDI), PDP module, PCB for handheld (mobile phone plates), Flame Retardant ABS, and Dimethyl Formamide".

Does this sound like a fair compromise to everyone? Better that than an edit war, the article getting locked and people getting blocked! :) --5 albert square (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually Samsung is the world's largest conglomerate. What are we basing our edits on here? Our personal emotions or facts? It is not about what you feel is biased. It is just correctly sourced information that proves claims such as this. Check List of companies by revenue. Previously, editors such as myself have done enormous work on this page and others should use facts and correct sources. Sources are there for a reason. And this page is not biased towards Samsung, but simply all about Samsung. Why? Because this is the Samsung article. We don't need to talk about other issues. The competition column can probably be removed from the market share section as it serves no purpose to this page. And what on earth is the point of "Samsung’s brand value ranked 43rd (USD 5.2 billion) in 2000, 42nd (USD 6.4 billion) in 2001, 34th (USD 8.3 billion) in 2002, 25th (USD 10.8 billion) in 2003, 21st (USD 12.5 billion) in 2004, and 20th (14.9 billion) in 2005 among top global companies"?? More importantly, what is it's Brand value now? From experience, I know that the Samsung page has had a history of attacks by emotionally driven editors, such as the edit warring occuring now. Usually it is the jealousy factor that kicks in. I don't regard these as edits but rather distruptions or vandalizm. This page does not need a construction tag. I will remove it. If other Editors object I would be happy to discuss.Pds0101 (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! That sounds fair enough.  I thought Samsung was the largest conglomerate company!  I think what may be causing some confusion is the fact it appears number 11 on that list.  People aren't actually thinking to check against the company type (ie oil and gas, conglomerate etc etc.  If people think to check List of companies by revenue they will see that it is the largest conglomerate!  Anybody disputing that please provide sources here.


 * I have no idea what the brand value is now. Does anyone know how we can find this out?  --5 albert square (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I am very glad you have insightfully considered my view. That was the exact problem we had before, when editors just would not properly read the list and confused it's type. I think we need to find a source which clearly and single states Samsung as the world's largest conglomerate. I don't think that should be hard at all, in fact, I have actually heard that on CNN just the other day! Anyway, I have reworded the first few sentences of the introduction to try and tone done the postiveness. Although it is very important to keep edits neutral, I believe claims such as "world's largest" can be used when correctly sourced and necessary. And on another note, I also think a stock exchange index should be included like other conglomerate or major company articles. I will try to work on that.Pds0101 (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I have now found proof of it being the largest conglomerate company. I have added it to the article, if Wikipedia have a problem with the link then there are plenty websites backing Samsung as the worlds largest conglomerate, so we could add one of these in place.  However I can't see that Wiki will have any issues with the link.  I think it's link 3 or 4 in the article --5 albert square (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, I'm having a bit of a dispute over the market share section. From what I see, it's specifically comparing Samsung to competitors that are worse off than them. Should be removed as it's misleading and very incomplete.  GraYoshi2x► talk 19:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! OK, of the nearly 20 products that are compared there, with about half of them Samsung either have more or less the same market share than their competitors or are worse off than them.  How that's specifically comparing Samsung to competitors worse off than them I don't know. From what I can see, the section is not misleading, it is very fairly represented and is as complete as it can be --5 albert square (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Although none of the sources appear to be wrong, its not really a norm to add a "competition" column as such. I think what the problem here is it appears as though Samsung is beating out all of its competitors and is causing tonal problems to some readers. But if you read carefully enough, Samsung beats out only around half of its major competitors. Its a very comprehensive list and the editors who created it went to extensive lenghts of research. I don't really think there is anything wrong with it though. Its better than a paragraph that could have turned out to be something like "Samsung is the worlds largest maker of etc beating etc and is also the worlds second largest maker of etc etc....." Or perhaps we can include just one column of competitors, the major competitor for each type or product instead of a large number of them? Pds0101 (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, the source we have on the main page seems to indicate that Samsung suffered a decrease in 2008. The source is .  Can we now please stop changing the page to read 'increase'?  If anybody disputes this and thinks that their profits etc increased then please provide a source to say so.


 * And if nobody has any objections, I'll change the competitors table later to make it clearer. I'll probably edit it so that it just contains the main competitors for each product --5 albert square (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, there were no objections so I have now done this to the competitors table --5 albert square (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work, the table looks better now, more reasonable and toned down. I tried to find Samsung group on the stock exchange but I don't there is one for the entire Samsung group, but only in divisions like Samsung electronics etc. Pds0101 (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Pds0101, thank you for the compliments. I'm just wondering, does anyone else have any further ideas as to how we can improve the article?  I know Gray has made some edits recently, I wasn't in 100% agreement with all of them at first, but now I've looked further into them I can actually understand where the editor is coming from.  Some of the edits were because some claims were unsourced (I think one of them was to do with market share?)  Maybe someone has references for this that we can add to the article to re-insert the part that's been deleted?  --5 albert square (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Market Share
There seems to be a current edit warring on the market share table. Lets remember that this is not a fight between who sells what better, Samsung vs Sony or whatever. This table needs to be concise and clear cut. There should be no repeating of information, this strictly means only listing a product once. Logically in a table, there is no need to list something several times unless we are trying to show other corresponding pieces of information. The edits which I have put in place just does that. And please be aware of your terminology. An LED tv is not the same thing as an LCD tv. I have removed the average tv sales price, because it is not consistent with the rest of the table. Pds0101 (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * LED-backlit LCD television. There is no such thing as "LED TV" whatsoever; this is merely a marketing term.  GraYoshi2x► talk 20:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Corruption allegations
I believe a reference to these accusations should be included: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/technology/26samsung.html AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit
Under the B2B (business to business), B2G (business to government) heading, whilst talking about the renewable energy contract with Ontario, I find the use of the term "inking" to describe signing the contract as rather casual and almost approaching slang. Would it be appropriate to change "inking" to "signing"?Sarahburge (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ --5 albert square (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Removals etc
This diff


 * Move "name and logo" section to bottom - before it incorrectly cut the history section in half
 * The sponsorship section was totally overblown - so removed. Possibly some of this might be notable - but a list of every sponsorship deal does not help
 * Samsung products table for iPhone etc removed - in the context of a billion dollar conglomerate this is/was fluff. Sorry.
 * Foundations - move Ho-Am Prize to "see also", the rest such as "*Samsung Equal Opportunity Scholarship Foundation" would not be notable unless in the context of a far far more detailed article. Same for scholarships.

Note In general this article should be about the company, and its products. All other things are secondary. There is much room for improvement in that respect.

Couple of minor points
 * Section "Group divisions" should link to the actual divisions eg Samsung Heavy Industries etc
 * Section "Products and organizational structure" needs some sort of cleanup, - and expansion in terms of products (without lists please).
 * Personally I think the history of company logos is a relevant topic if not overdone - a simple gallery should do. Clearly this will always be a subjective view.


 * also removed this image: [[Image:Samsung wind.PNG|thumb|320px|right|A coupling of giants: Samsung's 2.5-megawatt [[wind turbine]] drive train meets the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory's 2.5-megawatt dynamometer. It was the greatest amount of power ever measured at NREL's dynamometer lab, and the largest full-scale dynamometer test of a wind turbine drive train ever done in the United States. ]]
 * Reason is that it tends towards "record book" corporate promotion rather than actually illustrating the type of business the company does. The other factor was that it didn't actually illustrate any text point.

I haven't reverted the text changes that were being reverted over eg excluding the removals I made - there is some room for improvement.

I think it's important to accept the WP:UNDUE (undue weight) was given to sponsorship and other corporate affairs that are not the primary business of the company, and that they should not have been present in the length they were.

If a disagreement still exists please consider WP:Third opinion .Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Last comment Some of the removed material may be suitable for articles Samsung sponsorship or Samsung foundations etc. I say "may" because I simply do not know whether such articles should exist or would be considered notable.. Such possibilities do exist.Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael Breen lawsuit ?
On December 29, 2009, Samsung sued Mike Breen and the Korea Times, for $1 million, claiming criminal defamation over a satirical column published on Christmas Day 2009.[34][35] Korea Times issued a correction on December 26, 2009 and January 29, 2010 stating "that Korean and overseas readers might be sufficiently misled" and that "the claims made in the column were entirely false and without foundation."[36] Samsung dropped the charges following the correction and Michael Breen's apology.

I think this topic irrelevant topic at Samsung Group. Is this really significant ? Even Mike Breen was not criticize samsung. here is the Breen's controvercial article. The original publication was 'Korea Times'. This article now removed from 'Korea Times'.

According to Korea Times,


 * Correction
 * The Korea Times would like to issue a further correction with regard to the column headlined “What People Got for Christmas” by Michael Breen (Page 6, December 25, 2009) and the related clarification (Page 1, December 26, 2009). The column indicated in its introduction that it was a factual roundup of stories in the news, and the columnist did not explain clearly at any point that it was intended to be humorous or satirical. As such, we accept that Korean and overseas readers might be sufficiently misled to believe that the claims in the columns were based on fact. However, The Korea Times has confirmed that the claims made in the column were entirely false and without foundation. The Korea Times published these claims without proper fact-checking and its initial clarification failed to sufficiently explain that the column misled readers. The Korea Times would like to sincerely apologize to both its Korean and overseas readers and those mentioned in the column.

Summary : -660gd4qo (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) this topic irrelevant topic at Samsung Group. this is not significant content, too.
 * 2) Content should move to Michael Breen page. Breen's controversial column “What People Got for Christmas” was not blame samsung, Breen blame whole Korea.


 * Hi


 * I have reverted your edits. With the case of Michael Breen, the report was about Samsung and Samsung initiated the lawsuit against Michael Breen and the newspaper.  So this section is relevant to Samsung.  It doesn't matter if it's also mentioned on Michael Breen's page as it concerns both of them, that's absolutely fine.  It's only a small section on Samsung's page, it isn't given any undue weight so it is fine.


 * With regards to the price fixing section that should also stay as Samsung were at the very least accused of it. However, as it also has a main page, maybe the section can be trimmed down a little with a pointer to the main article?  Either way some sort of reference to it should stay on the Samsung page.


 * Please don't undo my revert until consensus has been reached here. I'll alert other editors to the discussion on this talk page in case they don't see it.  You can't remove the controversies section, like it or not Samsung have had their fair share of controversies.  Removing it may look like you're biased towards Samsung. --5 albert square (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

POV and Baseless.
 * 1) Samsung 'Group' is not Samsung Elec. two companies are diffent things.
 * 2) DRAM_Price_fixing_fines at Samsung Group. The information in the "Controversy" section is about Samsung Group, which already has an apparently indentical at Samsung_Electronics I removed duplicated content.
 * 3) price fixing problems - This is Tendentious editing. There are thousands upon thousands of price fixing problems everywhere. You can't go on a mission to put mention of price fixing problems into only the samsung articles. (In addtion, taiwan comapnies did same thing) The policy undue weight explains why. of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. 660gd4qo (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If by Samsung Elec you are meaning Samsung Electronics they are part of the Samsung Group! I should know because that's who I work for.


 * As for the price fixing fines, I suggested that that section was maybe trimmed, but it should not be altogether removed as it does have some relevance to Samsung. Maybe it could be trimmed and have a pointer to the main article?


 * We will wait to see what everybody else says but you must give them longer than an hour and a half to respond before removing information! Sometimes discussions like these can go on for days or even weeks.  If you carry on removing content I will request that the article is locked (in which case nobody would be able to edit the article) until a consensus is reached.--5 albert square (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Samsung Group is not just Samsung Electronics.

Here is the samsung group.
 * Electronics Industries
 * Financial Services
 * Chemical Industries
 * Machinery & Heavy Industries
 * Engineering & Construction
 * Retail & Entertainment
 * Apparel & Advertisement
 * Education & Medical Services
 * Trading & Resource development
 * Food supplier & security services

The duplicated content, 'Price fixing issue of memory' is already existed in samsung electronic article. Also, It is a irrevant content at this page. 660gd4qo (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to agree with 5 albert square regarding the Michael Breen lawsuit. Just because one is a subsidiary of another does not exempt the parent company from anything the subsidiary does. If you feel that the material has been duplicated, perhaps it needs to be trimmed down on one of the articles. However, it does not mean that you just completely remove it altogether since it is relevant information.
 * Regarding the price fixing, there is no evil agenda to only put price fixing information on Samsung articles. If I'm not mistaken, you have been introducing the same information for Taiwanese companies (I should know, I've been cleaning up your edits). A neutral point of view does not mean that every article has the same information; it means that information must be presented as fairly as possible from reliable sources (see Neutral point of view). -Multivariable (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * AUO is part of BenQ. I add same thing at BenQ page.660gd4qo (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's ok to duplicate :) --5 albert square (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Then, BenQ page is Fine. However, I still think Why we need exactly same duplicated content at two different pages. This is the main point at this dispute.660gd4qo (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and I've put my suggestion above, that Michael Breen stays in it's entirety and the price fixing section is trimmed with a direction to the main article. Kind of like what The Queen Victoria does in the fire section for Queen Vic Fire Week.  However the trimming would need to be discussed here to discuss what is kept and what is not kept. --5 albert square (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, you need focus on points.
 * 1) Why we need Michael Breen "fictional" column controvercy. Is it really significant?
 * Evidence : Michael Breen "fictional" column
 * The Korea Times has confirmed that the claims made in the column were entirely false and without foundation.


 * 1) Why we need exactly same dupliacted content at two different pages.
 * Please explain reasonable reasons briefly.

-660gd4qo (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I would say that Samsung issuing court proceedings against someone is significant enough for inclusion. Without it it looks like you are being biased towards Samsung and the article would not be a fair reflection of the company.
 * Well, I am not the biased toward samsung. I only point out two. 1. Unnecessary content 2. Duplicated content. By the way, Your reason is not valid still. Again, My question is, "Why we need exactly same dupliacted content at two different pages." 660gd4qo (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've already explained to you numerous times today it affects both Samsung and Mr Breen so yes it can go on both pages. If you removed it from the Samsung page 660gd4qo, then that would reflect that you are being biased towards Samsung.  It's not given any undue weight on the Samsung article so it's not in breach of Wikipedia, it is properly referenced and can therefore stay.--5 albert square (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael breen's controversial column is NOT for samsung. “What People Got for Christmas” was not blame samsung, Breen blame whole Korea. The content should belong to Michael Breen page. Even Korea times state that "column were entirely false and without foundation". This is breen's problem. Not samsung's problem. Understand?
 * Please explain by logical reason. Please STOP acting like a "You are biased. Your POV matter!!!" thing. I hope that is not the only thing you can do. Stop pushing your POV, like "You are biased. Your POV matter!!!" thing. --660gd4qo (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tried to point out and explain to you that it should go on both pages because it does affect Samsung and Breen. The article was also about Samsung and it was Samsung that initiated court proceedings against the newspaper, the editor and Breen over it!  To quote from the LA Times:


 * "Breen's column ran as local media reported that President Lee would soon pardon Samsung Chairman Lee Kun-hee on a 2008 conviction for tax evasion. Chairman Lee, 68, had already received a federal pardon in the 1990s on a conviction for bribing two former presidents while he was with the firm." The article, as well as being about the president, is also about Samsung so it does affect them. Therefore it does belong on their page.--5 albert square (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Exact quote from Breen's column. (only samsung part)
 * "Samsung, the world’s largest conglomerate and the rock upon which the Korean economy rests, sent traditional year-end cards offering best wishes for 2010 to the country’s politicians, prosecutors and journalists, along with 50 million won in gift certificates. Employees received two framed photographs of Lee Jae-yong, the new Chief Operating Officer at Samsung Electronics Co., with instructions to place one in their children’s bedroom and the other in their living rooms beside but slightly below the one of his father, Lee Kun-hee."
 * Well, Your POV is far from truth.
 * 1. Breens' column is not based on fact. The Korea Times has confirmed that the claims made in the column were entirely false and without foundation. Newspaper admits that it was "entirely false"
 * 2. Breen apology his hoax column to Samsung. But, you said, he apology to only KT editors? hmmm. Original Research. Please show any relaible source.
 * 3. Yor edit "alleged corruption and bribery issues" is very stinky POV. Your POV Pushing is too heavy. I heavily doubt if you really work for samsung.660gd4qo (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No I didn't say that Breen only apologised to the newspaper. What I said was "Samsung dropped the charges following the correction and Michael Breen's apology against the Korea Times and it's editor but not against Breen."  So I said that Samsung dropped the lawsuit against the Korea Times and it's editor but they didn't drop the lawsuit against Breen.  And yes I do work for Samsung.--5 albert square (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Source please? 660gd4qo (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * comment Lee_Kun-hee eg http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/business/worldbusiness/06iht-samsung.1.8210181.html?_r=1 is much more notable, and, I guess it is what the Breen article was satirising. It's reasonable that the 'slush fund' scandal be covered in this article or mentioned.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. However, That scandal was too old story. Like Newpaper comment, The Breen's column is NOT fact. So this cant' be a controvercy or notable content at wikipedia.
 * slush fund scandal is already mentioned at chairman Lee Kun-hee page. The 'Company' itself is NOT the main body of scandal. The Chairman and Company are NOT the same thing. The History of General Electronic is NOT the History of Thomas Edison. In other words, The company is NOT the primary agency responsible for the scandal.660gd4qo (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

removing content
diff ===Michael Breen lawsuit=== Michael Breen wrote controversial column in Korea Times newspaper. In this fictional column, Michael Breen depict Samsung offered gift to politicians, Hyundai Motor Chairman gave explosive bomb to their union, Breen depict Korean singer Rain as "Pee", as well as he blamed other famous koreans. South Korea media criticized his column insult Korea itself. On December 29, 2009, Samsung sued Mike Breen and the Korea Times, for $1 million, claiming criminal defamation over a satirical column published on Christmas Day 2009. Korea Times issued a correction on December 26, 2009 and January 29, 2010 stating "that Korean and overseas readers might be sufficiently misled" and that "the claims made in the column were entirely false and without foundation." Samsung dropped the charges following the correction and Michael Breen's apology.

This appears non-notable in the context of the article - it is not a controversy. Possibly it may appear more interesting to someone who is actually korean and has been insulted, but it is nothing like serious enough for the main article. Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. Thanks for clean duplicated topic. 660gd4qo (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But at the same time it is a lawsuit which is quite notable. In any case I have now reported this to ANI so it is up to them.--5 albert square (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think wp:third opinion would be more suitable. Please note the comment about the slush fund scandal above, which probably should be in the article - that real scandal gets mentioned in worldwide publications.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * other probably more notable lawsuits include samsungs involvement with LCD and CRT  price fixing cartels.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Breen lawsuit might be covered briefly, but, is of lesser importance, and subsidiary to the issues of corruption and the chaebols which it satirises.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest this controvercial page should move to chaebol or lee kun-hee page. I strongly oppose every irrevant/negative POV things include into this page. reasons are two. 1. Duplicated content 2. Irrelevant/Unnecessary content 660gd4qo (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

3O discussion
As we have failed to reach agreement above, I have now asked for a third opinion on the matter. --5 albert square (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As another view from another pair-of-eyeballs (I also saw this listed at 3O), my first response after reading the proposed text above is that it is not relevant to this article and does not belong in it. It also needs a lot of work to meet MOS standards at en.wp.  I will look at the matter more closely if asked to, but right now my advice is: don't include it in the Samsung article.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  16:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Responding to the note on my talk page... I agree that this isn't relevant. It's about some person making defamatory statements about various companies, so how does this specifically relate to Samsung? On top of that the section is written in broken English that makes it hard to understand what it's trying to address. -Grayshi talk/contribs 19:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, maybe the article about it in the LA Times explains it a little better.


 * It says that Breen's article was stating that Samsung's chairman was going to be pardoned on a 2008 conviction for tax evasion. The reason Samsung took offence is that this happened in the 1990s, not in 2008 and Samsung say it was not made clear by the paper that this was a satrical piece so they would have been worried that people would think that this was a new conviction when it wasn't.  Initially they sued the paper, the editor and Breen but then dropped the charges against the paper and the editor though they have pursued with suing Breen.


 * It seems to have also poked fun at past legal issues surrounding Samsung.


 * This article states that Samsung have since dropped the civil charges against Breen but they are still pursuing him criminally saying that he "intentionally libeled the company". I cannot find that this matter has yet been resolved so it could still be going through the court system.  This article says that satrical humour in Korea is rare.  Breen is still being sued for defamation and according to that article the Koreans have a much stricter defamation law than other countries.


 * I agree that it shouldn't have a big section on the Samsung page, however so's not to show bias towards Samsung it should have maybe a small paragraph about it. The section it had before did not show any undue weight, I would've been happy to have kept that in the article. --5 albert square (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "intentionally libeled the company". rok drop (Republic of Korea Drop) is blog. "you don’t like what I write because they in no way endorse this blog." (about : ROK Drop) The source is not based on WP:RS. And, slush fund scandal (incident happend in 1990s. already old story.) is already included in Chairman Lee Kun-hee page. It was chairman's scandal.
 * I don't think this content should belong to Here. The content should belong to Michael Breen page.
 * Controvercy is Breen's problem, Not samsung's problem. Controvercy was made by Breen (not samsung).(The Korea Times has confirmed that "the claims made in the column were entirely false and without foundation") Breen's column was not fact. (nonexist incident)
 * 1. Breen apology himself to Samsung and Newspaper. Newspaper apology "fake" column to readers.
 * 2. Breen's column making defamatory statements about various korean companies and many korean persons. South Korea media criticized his column as insulting Korea itself (한국 ´조롱´ 마이클 브린, "사과한 것 맞아?" (Michael Breen mocking Korea, Is he really apology to us?)2010-05-14. EBN News.
 * 3. the fake situation (in breen's column) should not include in wikipedia. because wikipedia readers confuse it.
 * The content should move to Michael Breen page.
 * Summary : this isn't relevant content at here. -660gd4qo (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, well the LA Times which can be counted as a reliable source also says that Samsung are claiming that Breen intentionally libelled the company.


 * Nobody has said that the controversy was made by Samsung, the article was written by Breen not by Samsung. However if you read the link to the LA Times it says that the article included stuff about Samsung's chairman, that is why Samsung are now taking Breen to court.  Why on earth would Samsung take someone to court over a matter that isn't about them? --5 albert square (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Samsung Group
Requesting comment on whether or not the lawsuit Samsung Group have issued against Michael Breen should be included on the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samsung_Group&diff=next&oldid=401759869 5 albert square (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is reliably sourced in otherwise general discussions of Samsung (cf: Business pages of Newspapers on Samsung's corporate viability), it should be included. If it is not reliably sourced in general discussions of Samsung, then it shouldn't be.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fifelfoo. After looking through the archives from December 2010, I would agree that the information be included if it is reliably sourced. The lawsuit was issued by Samsung toward both Michael Breen and the Korea Times, so it is not exactly negligible, especially if Samsung thought it was important enough to issue a lawsuit for in the first place. -Multivariable (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not include Even if it is reliably sourced it is more of a news item than an encyclopedia item.  If and when the suit results in major fallout for the organisation then maybe the effects should be included. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Echo'ing Martin Hogbin. Since this lawsuit was killed following the apology, I'm not sure it's adds to the article Midlakewinter (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the thing though, I don't think it has been killed. I did google it and I can't find anything to suggest that they dropped the charges against him.  They dropped the charges against the paper but as far as I know they're still suing Breen.--5 albert square (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if the lawsuit continues it is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia unless it has a significant long-term effect on the company. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not include. It seems more like a trivial spat than anything that remotely affected the company. WP:NOT. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Samsung Techwin: artillery & automated sentry guns
The question is whether to include Samsung Techwins activities as part of this article: either as controversy or by mentioning among the fields they are active in:


 * Tracer9999 correctly said here Smint83 talk: "You keep adding an item to the criticism section without sourcing any material criticism.. your edit history says you added a ref sourcing the criticism.. the ref just mentioned the program and said nothing about criticism. Please source a valid criticism from a reliable source before adding it back again or it will have to be considered vandalism. also the actual specific criticism needs to be listed in the wikipedia page not just that they make a machine gun. Also as you mentioned a blog would not be considered a valid source. source a mainstream news article. A person not liking the fact samsung makes a machine gun would not be a criticism..its an opinion. if the machine gun has been shown to turn around and shoot the people that operate it.. that would be a valid criticism." - Smint83 (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it should be included as critics. Among other articles I mentioned in Tracer9999 talk, "The Sunday Times" article titled "Scientists fear a revolt by killer robots" also mentions "Samsung, the South Korean electronics company, has developed autonomous sentry robots to serve as armed border guards. They have “shoot-to-kill” capability.". If this is not sufficient, I would vote for an inclusion in the "Products, customers and organizational structure" part - Smint83 (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the problem. The actual valid sources your provide tend to more announce the product the criticise it, other then the usual "Robots will rise up and rule the world" banter. The criticism if any would be against a government who misused these devices not the manufacturer for creating it as all weapons of war are dangerous. The Sunday times article you mention is more about the use of robots in warfare in general then criticising the specific company's product quality. Your product info should be added to an article though, minus the opinion to Samsung Techwin where it really belongs. Products are not really listed on the page of samsung group, its more geared to the companies history, aquisition history and numerous anti trust litgation and lawsuits as contoversy. or if they made a product that was defective and resulted in some sort of lawsuit/class action. Samsung has many many companies and divisions it owns and would make a huge article if we listed everything including individual products. lastly a few of your refs were blogs and they just don't count. hope this helps. -Tracer9999 (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Article is a Samsung Promotion Piece
Shouldn't this article be rewritten by someone who is not employed by Samsung and who comfortably speaks English? Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the article is a promotional piece, I think it gives a fair reflection of the company. That said, if you feel that way, why not request for it to be copyedited?--5 albert square (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring by Desagwan
For each of the examples given by Desagwan in their edit summary, examples can be quoted 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 Desagwan now undo their edit until a consensus has been achieved here for the change which they are seeking. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The national or multinational origin of a company is NOT yet made clear by indicating the location of the headquarters alone - I have provided Airbus as another example why this can potentially become the case (see the Samsung Electronics Talk page). You have yet to provide enough objective basis of why putting national origin and headquarters location in the opening statement is to be considered excessive by Wikipedian editing standard. Desagwan (talk) 14:53, 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) 15:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

For all editors of the Samsung Wikipedia page: Take care by using the currencies: You used US$ instead of Korean WON! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.234.224.223 (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

These numbers refers to US Dollars. Reverting the change... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akbg (talk • contribs) 17:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fanboy, Arrogance much?
What kind of prose is this? There is so much arrogance in this article that you can't even read this clearly and smoothly without awkward interruptions of non-notable details. The style and tone of this article really needs to be smoothed out, and all unneeded details pruned and included elsewhere. Moderate bias noted as well. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

$-₩
I don't see any logical reason as to why ₩ is being totally left out of the info-box. I'm not arguing against USD being there but the Won should also be listed, and the figures need to be updated too. Thank you.--Nutthida (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Poorly written, with several confusing facts
This article is either very poorly written, or poorly translated - eg "Samsung Electronics overtook Sony as one of the world's most popular consumer electronics brands in 2004 and 2005, and is now ranked #19 in the world overall" #19 for what - electronics? The reference link takes you to the Interbrand home page.
 * It's fair to say that this article is something of a work in progress and that much of it was originally by editors for whom English is not their first language. That particular sentence should just be deleted.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for the Public Eye Award 2012
What are the reasons for not including that nomination? It is a fact that this happened, and I feel that it should be included in the article. We should also include the position of the company on that nomination. --Tufta (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In my view it is undue to include it here. The claims are just that - claims - and the "award", which the company did not even win, seems very trivial. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. But where to draw the line? Are the claims made by environmental groups that are published in Wikipedia, for instance in the ExxonMobil and Shell articles, also just that - claims?--Tufta (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It really depends on what sort of media coverage the claims have got and what they concern. For me this mere nomination for a pretty obscure "award" is not notable in the history of Samsung. Serious allegations by an organisation such as Greenpeace, which have received wide coverage in the media, may well be appropriate for inclusion though. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Samsung Group is not a company
Samsung Group is an informal term and is not a legal identity or company. The "subsidiary" companies seem own each other through a variety of oblique constructs and vehicles. See for instance this article: http://www.economist.com/node/21530976

I'd like input on this, but I think the Wikipedia article should be changed accordingly and expand on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.243.104.250 (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Kodak divisions and patents buyout
Just thought I'd park this here to notify people, so in case the deal goes legit (as seems to be decided pretty soon) it can be put into the article. The whole hubbub is about the fact that today, Kodak has announced selling off its film divisions: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2200811/kodak-to-sell-off-film-division, and Samsung is one out of the four companies making a joint bid: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444233104577593681054808606.html Gee, I wonder if any of the seven currently available Super8 Kodak stocks will soon bear the Samsung logo... --79.193.39.165 (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Whitewashed?
Samsung is one of the top 100 arms producing companies according to http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/production/Top100. However the word "weapon" is only mentioned once, the term "arms" not at all. 141.51.236.251 (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Samsung Products
It's a little bit strange to me, the "Products" title is only in the little box on the right, and not more prominent listed in the general article. Of course it would be something similar like in the box, but there would be more space for general information -> like the stuff from the comment above: about arms/weapons etc. The main information would probably just forwardlink to the Samsung subsidiaries; but i think it would improve the article: on usabiltiy etc. --Alien4 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Revenue - GDP Comparison
The introduction to this article compares Samsung's revenue with the GDP of countries and concludes that Samsung "would have been" the 35th largest country in the world. This comparison is meaningless and misleading. GDP measures a country's value-added, not its total turnover. The correct comparison (if any must be made) would be between GDP and profit, not revenue.

I will change it if nobody has any objections. Havell (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Untouchable?
This Independent article makes various allegations regarding Samsung's influence in South Korea, particular its use of slush funds and bribery and how prosecutors don't dare take it on. None of that seems to be covered here: shouldn't we have a section on its societal importance in South Korea and allegations of improper conduct? Malick78 (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Old price fixing (removed)
Shouldn't Samsung's involvement in DRAM_price_fixing be mentioned here?

It seems to have been removed previously (along with other info):  comp.arch (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Taiwan viral marketing scandal
The idea is to have a summary version of what should be covered more extensively on the Samsung Electronics page. I have supplied two reliable sources in English, but the summaries I provided of those have been altered in a manner that deprives the reader of important information, so there is a need to discuss that. Further, the quote, "it had not interfered with any online product evaluation report and had stopped online marketing campaigns involving posting or responding to messages in online forums" is not a quote from Samsung but a quote from the source indirectly reciting what Samsung said on its Facebook page without quoting Samsung. So it is misleading in its present form, as it appears to be a quote from Samsung. The other source, meanwhile, does directly quote (in quotation marks) a portion of the statement made by Smasung on its Facebook page.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The quote matter is being corrected. Your citations remain.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent headquarter location?
The infobox tells us: "Headquarters | San Jose, California, U.S." The first sentence tells us "... headquartered in Samsung Town, Seoul" If this is consistent at all, it could use some clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.87.176 (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * wikipedia used to say Samsung Town was the HQ but https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samsung&diff=599180321&oldid=599109643 removed it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samsung&diff=583136921&oldid=582989855 is the commit that initially added San Jose as HQ although I can find no evidence that that is the HQ. I'm going to revert those edits.

Samsung Tesco--not mentioned as a joint venture
Sometime in the 1990's Samsung started up a hypermarket business, called Homeplus. At the time of the financial crisis, Tesco was invited to take a stake for cash and expertise to expand the business, with IT systems and businss processes copied from the Tesco Lotus business in Thailand. But this business is not mentioned in this article. In recent years Tesco has largely bought out Samsung's stake, with only a token ownership remaining to justify the continued inclusion of Samsung in the formal business name. Homeplus is one of Tesco's most successful businesses outside of the UK, having indirectly absorbed the stores owned by Carrefour. --94.10.224.240 (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * source? 5 albert square (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Samsung headquarters.jpg

"5am5ung" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=5am5ung&redirect=no 5am5ung] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)