Talk:Panasonic/Archives/2011

Co-sponsorship of a pro-government camp in Russia.

Response to third opinion request:

Hello, hello, hello. First: It is not really clear that Panasonic is truly a sponsor of this possibly-infamous camp. The reference, as translated by Google, seems a bit sketchy. Without better evidence of this currently viable company sponsoring a program that would be considered unpalatable for the vast majority of Panasonic consumers, the libel issue is certainly a consideration. More evidence is necessary to consider the statement valid. Second: even if valid, this seems to be more of a politically motivated inclusion to shame or pressure the company, not an attempt to encyclopedically present information that fits in with the other sponsorships in this article or in the sponsorship sections of other articles like this one. This second point would absolutely make inclusion in this section inappropriate in my opinion. Perhaps a compromise...once sponsorship has been fairly well demonstrated, then a separate section mentioning the controversy and both sides' arguments could be placed? That certainly is a bit much for a minor sponsorship, but if the claim has good evidence it is then at least allowable to include it...—Hiobazard (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your opinion. Have you had a chance to read the English version of the site of the organizers? It does seem to list Panasonic, doesn't it? It is my impression (see discussion below), that both TruthInfects and I now agree that there is sufficient indication that the information about sponsorship is credible. Also, in agreement with your suggestion to indicate the matter as controversial, I have proposed below to work out a compromise and to indicate the controversial statements (quoted, if desired) as being expressed by various media outlets. Although I am not aware of any Western media outlet praising the camp, I am sure that any references to such instances could be also incorporated into the paragraph, at this time or later. Could you please look at my suggestion and comment whether you find it sensible? Would you recommend that a separate "controversies" section be created? Thanks! --EugeneK (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Finally some sense! I agree with you that there is actually no evidence that Panasonic has sponsored this event. The English page that EugeneK refers to is not a page that was authored by Panasonic or a neutral third party, such as a newspaper. As there is little to no evidence of the sponsorship so far, it appears that consensus has been reached. EugeneK, If you find better evidence, follow Hiobazard's advice and create a seperate section mentioning the controversy. However, for now, it appears that consensus has been reached, and a decision has been made that your paragraph may be removed. I am removing it now.TruthInfects (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the third opinion and a possible consensus. You wrote below: "I am happy if you reword the article so that it says only the following: "Panasonic has co-sponsored Seliger, a youth forum organized by the Russian government"." This indicates your agreement that the sponsorship information is already credible. Why would we need more confirmation? I am not sure what rules you follow to claim, that official government statements cannot be referenced here. BTW, here is yet another media link indicating sponsorship of Panasonic:"http://lenta.ru/news/2011/05/30/sponsors/" (it's in Russian, but Google translates it easily). This is a news-source, as you have requested. Furthermore, there is no rule that the information about a company could be collected only from the company's web site. Just as there is no rule, that the facts, which might be viewed as unfavorable to a company, are to be deleted from the corresponding Wiki page. However, there is a rule about avoiding threats of lawsuits (libel, etc) in order to silence discourse. Now, are we in agreement about creating a "controversies" section, as suggested in the "third opinion"?--EugeneK (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached. I am sure I don't have to remind you of the consequences of the 3R rule.TruthInfects (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, you just made your 3rd revert, but it was not in the same 24 hours, so it may not count as a violation. Is that what you meant? And, no, it does not look like the consensus has been reached before you made the revert.--EugeneK (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A paragraph describing sponsorship of an infamous pro-government youth camp in Russia was recently deleted. The paragraph had several supporting sources listed (Russian mass media), which, in turn, referred to the information from the camp organizers. I found an English language statement of the organizers confirming Panasonic's sponsorship (http://www.forumseliger.ru/news/article/542). Unless you can show that the statement by the Russian government is a lie, please don't delete the paragraph. Unjustified attempts to suppress this information do not look good, and will be referred for arbitration.--EugeneK (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

'You call them "youth propaganda camps", implying they are like the NAZI Hitler Youth program, yet the article you have provided suggests nothing of the sort. If you want to keep this information, you need secondary sources, like a news article that verify your claims. If your claim is verifiable, I will leave it up. But right now, it violates a huge number of wikipedia policies, and I am entitled to delete it, even without arbitration. TruthInfects (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

First, your rant about using non-English language sources sounds ludicrous for the page, which is extensively sourced by references in Japanese. The source of the Russian language information is Rambler Media, which is a major and reputable Russian media company (http://www.profmedia.ru/eng/actives/list/1226/). There are no rules that prohibit referring to freely available foreign-language sources.

Second, the very fact of sponsorship is confirmed by an English-language announcement on the Russian government web site, which is mentioned above. Thus, there is definitely enough information to meet the notoriety criteria for Panasonic's sponsorship. Just in case you have honest doubts about the camp, here is another English-language news article, which mentions it: http://www.times.spb.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=34266. There is enough info there to realize that the camp is viewed as propagandist and, to say the least, controversial. In fact, in Russia, the main group that organizes the camp ("Nashi") is colloquially referred to as "Putler Jugend", so your guess at "Hitler Jugend" was not far off. I believe that description of their activities, including defaming, intimidating and, allegedly, physically attacking opponents of the Putin's regime, is beyond the scope of the Panasonic page. Also, there is nothing that violates NPOV policy, since the original text simply mentions the objective goals of the camp and some specific activities, which are offered to the participants. If you are interested in the names of the courses being offered, here is an example:«Что, если не предательство? Лица оппозиции в современной России» (What is this but treason? The faces of political opposition in modern Russia"). However, if you act in good faith, I agree to work with you on wording that may be more acceptable to you, but without compromising the factual content.

Third, I would like to remind you that while the rules about the ban on foreign language sources are made-up, determined and deliberate attempts to hide accurate, but potentially unflattering, information about a company, indeed, violates the rules. Personally, I don't think Panasonic's reputation would be better off if the persistent attempts to silence this information would leak to the media.--EugeneK (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to an archived British article about this camp and the youth organization: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4375035.ece. --EugeneK (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC) ... and one from the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/08/seliger.html--EugeneK (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned that the following entry violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Libel, Verifiability, No original research and Wikipedia:Fringe theories. I am planning to ask for a third opinion before I remove this paragraph again.

"Panasonic is a co-sponsor of a series of youth propaganda camps, which are organized by the government of the Russian Federation[28]. In addition to priority access to pro-government public figures and various career-development services, the young participants are expect to receive training in fitness and martial arts, to train in staging pro-government rallies, to attend lectures that vilify political dissenters and human rights activists[29], and to study pamphlets that allege Western conspiracy to start and to profit from a new world war[30]."

The sources provided for this article are:

• [28] http://www.forumseliger.ru/news/article/505
• [29] http://lenta.ru/articles/2011/05/06/seliger/
• [30] http://www.lenta.ru/news/2011/05/31/specprop/

This paragraph states that the Panasonic corporation supports and sponsors anti western propaganda camps in Russia. It uses three Russian language websites as references, but I have been unable to find any English language sources on Google that support this contention.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

An opinion is stated as fact. The OP has claimed that priority access to pro-government public figures and various career-development services are provided to this group that is supported by panasonic, but this is opinion, not fact.

The paragraph uses judgmental language that makes the Russian government look like they would be home in Nazi Germany.

The paragraph fails to accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Perhaps this camp is just a summer camp for kids.

Wikipedia:Libel

Without high quality sources, Wikipedia can be exposed to legal action if the claim that the Panasonic corporation supports and sponsors anti western propaganda camps in Russia is ultimately found to be untrue. I am unable to read the Russian sources as I do not speak English, but I doubt the articles are high quality and well respected publications.

Verifiability

The sources provided for this article are:

• [28] http://www.forumseliger.ru/news/article/505
• [29] http://lenta.ru/articles/2011/05/06/seliger/
• [30] http://www.lenta.ru/news/2011/05/31/specprop/

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. I am unable to verify these sources because I do not speak Russian. If a Wikipedia could provide a translation, this would be helpful.

No original research

The OP wrote that "In addition to priority access to pro-government public figures and various career-development services, the young participants are expect to receive training in fitness and martial arts, to train in staging pro-government rallies, to attend lectures that vilify political dissenters and human rights activists[29], and to study pamphlets that allege Western conspiracy to start and to profit from a new world war"

This reads like the OP's own research.

Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Finally, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Panasonic is a well regarded multinational corporation. If it were involved in Russian government conspiracy to vilify political dissenters and allege a western government conspiracy, this would be worldwide news on a scale that would approach the wikileaks scandal. Given that Panasonic's involvement has not been reported at all in the English media, as far as my Google search can show, it appears to be that this claim is false and unsupported by evidence.

TruthInfects (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the request for a third opinion, and would like to note the following:

1. The originally quoted Russian-language sources were freely available online, came from Russian government or the major media company, and are amenable to automatic translation. The additional sources provided on the discussion page are English-language, are freely available online, and include reputed major media outlets (e.g. The New Yorker and Times) and Russian government.

2. The information about the sponsorship of the camp is stated as a fact by an official web site of the Russian government. This is not a matter of POV, conspiracy theories, etc. If the information is incorrect, it is up to Panasonic to request the correction. Denying it as improbable without having proper references would be original research. BTW, some major corporations did claim that they were put on the list erroneously and did request to be removed from it. Panasonic did not.

3. The information about the goals, the policies and the practices of the camp and the organizations that are involved in its creation is not an original research, but is taken from the referenced sources (see #1). Those sources also include a lot of additional factual materials (quotes from the organizers, photographs, expert opinions, etc.). Importantly, any controversies in this area would not justify the concealment of the fact that sponsorship does happen.

4. There is absolutely no claim that Panasonic is willingly involved in any conspiracy. The paragraph presented well-sourced information, which is open to a number of interpretations: Panasonic was not aware of the nature of the camp; Panasonic was pressured into contributing; the sponsorship decision was made by a low-level manager and does not represent the official corporate policy; etc. I don’t want to speculate on which of these could have happened.

5. The positive sides of the camp activities (fitness training, career development) are clearly stated. Any editor with properly sourced information is free to add to this list or to mention the existence of any additional views, controversies, etc.

6. The facts that user TruthInfects has a) so far ignored my offer to collaborate on re-wording the paragraph (the offer still stands!), b) has ignored the availability of additional veritable English-language sources on the Discussion page, c) has originally misrepresented the policy on foreign-language sources, and has done so selectively (e.g. insisted on removing the Russian-, but not the Japanese-language sources), d) has misrepresented the content of the paragraph (e.g. see #4) suggest the user is not acting in good faith.--EugeneK (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with automatic translation with an issue like this is that it is terms like propaganda that carry the Non NPOV implications, and these terms may be missing or absent in such an automatic translation.

that is why I also offer you several English-language sources on this subject.--EugeneK (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

But you haven't used them in you paragraph, so they are not relevant. You should have used them to begin with.TruthInfects (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The English language statement (http://www.forumseliger.ru/news/article/542) yo provided talks about the Educational Youth Forum “SELIGER 2011”. It says around 20 000 young people from 80 countries of the world and more than 80 Russian regions will participate in the work of the Forum. It does not however mention anything at all about propaganda.

That government statement documents the role of Panasonic as a sponsor. Descriptions of the camp activities are given in other references.--EugeneK (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You have provided a news article that says Panasonic is a co-sponsor of Seliger, and another article alleging that Seliger is a propaganda front run by the government. Since you are linking two different concepts from two different articles, you are engaging in original research.TruthInfects (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The other English article you have mentions nothing about propaganda either.

Here is a direct quotation from the Times article: "Even the anti-Western propaganda seems half-hearted compared with previous outpourings of hate against opposition leaders such as Mikhail Kasyanov, a former Prime Minister, and Garry Kasparov, the former chess champion." Note the word "propaganda" in it. A quote from another referenced article :"Seliger, a summer camp held for the Kremlin-backed movement Nashi... The ill-famed Nashi was created when the Kremlin became scared by Ukraine’s Orange Revolution in 2004, and the movement’s initial goal was to confront protesters in the street (and on social networks). This is what they are primarily taught at Seliger. "--EugeneK (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

you have provided a news article that says Panasonic is a co-sponsor of Seliger, and another article alleging that Seliger is a propaganda front run by the government. Since you are linking two different concepts from two different articles, you are engaging in original research.TruthInfects (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

One the basis of that link, you're paragraph is completely unsupported and libelous to panasonic. It is Libel because you are accusing them of supporting anti western propaganda, when there is no evidence of this.

This link supports the fact or sponsorship. The nature of the camp activities is described in other links.--EugeneK (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The nature of the forum activities is questionable as the articles you have provided do not state that these propaganda activities take place at the event apparently sponsored by panasonic.TruthInfects (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You claim that denying it as improbable without having proper references would be original research, but as the poster of this material, the obligation to satisfy original research criteria is up to you, not to me. And this is original research because you can not provide a single article that mentions panasonic sponsoring anti western propaganda.

This "claim" was specifically in relation to the official statement by the government that Panasonic is a sponsor of the camp. The evidence for the other parts of the paragraph are in the linked materials. I added some quotes above. Whether sponsorship of such a camp equates to sponsoring anti-western propaganda is a matter of personal opinion, and so I keep it out of the article and out of this discussion.--EugeneK (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You wrote "Panasonic is a co-sponsor of a series of youth propaganda camps". You have provided no article that shows this. Rather, you have provided a news article that says Panasonic is a co-sponsor of Seliger, and another article alleging that Seliger is a propaganda front run by the government. Since you are linking two different concepts from two different articles, you are engaging in original research. What you need to counter original research problems is a news article that states Panasonic has co-sponsored a series of youth propaganda camps, but you haven't addressed this.TruthInfects (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that I have not acted in good faith is disturbing, considering I have left your paragraph intact pending the outcome of the third opinion.TruthInfects (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, any additional mutual reverts would have triggered the 3 reverts rule. I can only reiterate (for the 3rd time) my offer to collaborate on re-wording the paragraph.--EugeneK (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I am happy if you reword the article so that it says only the following: "Panasonic has co-sponsored Seliger, a youth forum organised by the Russian government". That is neutral language and appears to be accurate.TruthInfects (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I am glad we are making progress! At least, you agree that Panasonic does sponsor the camps. Would you also agree with an additional sentence like “Multiple sources in Russian and international media have alleged that these camps have been used as vehicles of government propaganda to indoctrinate the youth with resentment towards political dissidents and the West”? This would be followed by references to several Russian- and English-language media sources (would 4 or 5 be enough?). If you feel that we need more proof for this statement, I could include short quotes from the referenced sources. Since it is an indisputable fact that those sources do allege the propaganda component, this statement cannot be considered a libel and is purely factual in nature. The statement itself is neutral, as it does not indicate our support of the allegations, just the fact that they exist. Is this OK with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EugeneK (talk • contribs) 19:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I regard your claims as original research, unverifiable and libelous to Panasonic. I do not support your additional sentence.TruthInfects (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Matsushita company building

The picture had been titled "Headquarter of Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. in Kadoma, Osaka, Japan", which is not correct. The building hosts several corporate R&D labs and product development divisions.

Thus I've changed the title and also added a note about the Matsushita Electric House of History that we can see on the left.

JV (Panasonic member), 12:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge tags

Panasonic and National are well-known brands. Panasonic actually has more hits than Matsushita. Looking at the GE article for example, its subsidiaries have their own articles as well. As such I feel a merge is not necessary, except perhaps Panasonic Corporation of North America which may be merged into Panasonic. Shawnc 23:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The article claims that "The correct English as well as Japanese pronunciation for the company is Mahtsu-sheeta." The only time I've heard it pronounced is by Michael Ovitz in the documentary "The Last Mogul"; he said "mat-soosh'-da". The Linux CD-ROM HOWTO says "I'm told that the correct pronunciation it something like MAT-SOOSH-TA." 1. Neither source is especially authoritative, but what is the source for the current version in the article? Jaufrec 04:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

U's & Is following certain vowels in certain places aren't pronounced. It is indeed Ma-Tsu-Shta, no Ew emphasis on the U in Tsu, but rather a soft Uh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.122.193 (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have only beginner knowledge of Japanese pronunciation, but the "standard" rules I think would give something like "Ma-tsu-shi-ta." I'm sure there must be a native speaker around who can advise? Icd 06:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The article now appears to have the correct (Japanese) pronounciation, but I'm curious as to what it means to have a "correct English pronounciation" - does this mean that after a while of mispronouncing the correct Japanese pronounciation something becomes the correct English pronounciation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.0.57.171 (talk • contribs) 10:49, May 30, 2006 (UTC)

The anon. user presents an entertaining question, but it is not much help in an English encyclopedia! Those persons I know who have lived in Japan assure me the company name sounds like three syllables in English, as indicated by Jaufrec. Perhaps Japanese has colloquial pronunciations that don't follow the "standard rules", just like English does. --Blainster 05:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Shita is a funny word —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.54.162 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

& it's only one syllable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.122.193 (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Matsushita is pronounced with 3 syllables: Mah-tsu-shta. Please note that the t goes with the second syllable and that the i is almost completely silent.74.190.95.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC).

Logo

Does anyone have a picture of the logo? It looks like a hollow triangle with three smaller, filled triangles, one on each point.

Matsuhita Logo

Stovetopcookies 04:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Name change approval

The name change was approved at a shareholders' meeting of June 26, 2008.iht.com, Shareholders of Matsushita approve company name change to Panasonic--Florentino floro (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Panasonic Co. → Panasonic — The abbreviation "Co." usually stands for "company" (not "corporation"). Perhaps, it would be better to rename this article to "Panasonic" "Panasonic Corporation" or "Panasonic Corp." — Krtek2125 (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• "Co" NEVER stands for corporation. The article should be placed in the spot that it is most likely to be searched, which is Panasonic. At the very least it should be Panasonic Corporation, as he do not abbreviate "Corp" unless the company is popularly known that way. Absolutely do we not keep the article at a place that is not only an abbreviation, but a wrong abbreviation. --Smashville^talk 02:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong disagee' to the Panasonic being redirected to "Panasonic Co." That is just stupid. Why would you want to have co in there. panasonic is short and simple there are no other panasonics out there? 71.237.70.49 (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:[[Media:$Example.ogg$]]this is apsiluetly nothing about war

Trademark Registration

In connection with Panasonic's entry to the US market and the use of the 'National' brand it is stated that 'The trademark could not be used probably due to discriminatory application of trademark laws where brands like General Motors were registrable'.

Is it not more likely that Panasonic were not legally able to use National because of the existence of the US National Radio Company who were already using the brand in a similar market area? Hughdel (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)