Talk:Toshiba/Archives/2014
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Toshiba. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Cease-and-desist laptop manuals
An IP editor has reverted two other editors on the issue of whether the article should mention a 2012 cease-and-desist that Toshiba issued against someone who was hosting copies of their laptop service manuals. This seems relatively minor in the history of a 70-year-old company, and actively misleading to present it as the only item in a "Criticism" section, for a company which broken Western trade embargoes in the 1980s, and paid out $571 million over a price-fixing lawsuit. I've merged it with the other negative aspects of the company's history in the "History" section, but "man receives cease-and-desist, journalist disapproves" seems relatively minor in the scheme of things. What do other editors think? --McGeddon (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Do you mean that Wired writes minor articles?
- Why do you want to hide the issue that Toshiba does not want the service manuals to be publicly accesible?
- Do you work for Toshiba? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.208.97 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, I don't work for Toshiba. Assume good faith. Wired is a reliable source, and I don't want to "hide" the story, I'm just thinking that it might be WP:UNDUE weight to include it, per the above arguments, particularly when the story doesn't seem to go any further than "a website with copyrighted content was C&D'd, and one journalist thought that this was maybe done maliciously for a particular reason". It seems very small beer next to widely-recognised price fixing and embargo-breaking. --McGeddon (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- The issue of a Take down on copyrighted material is Toshiba's right to do so; also this is a total non-issue to the vasty majority of people and it looks out of touch; I would personally remove it again but I cannot so that is all I have to say.--Pretty les♀♥, Dark Mistress, talk, 16:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- More significantly, it seems to be a non-issue to the mainstream and technical press, if the only coverage it got was one journalist covering the takedown story and speculating that it might have had a particular motive. I moved the basic fact of it to the planned obsolescence article, but I don't see that it was a significant part of Toshiba's history as a corporation. --McGeddon (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- After two months of silence with the best argument for keeping it being "nothing Wired says should be considered minor", I've gone ahead and cut it again. --McGeddon (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- More significantly, it seems to be a non-issue to the mainstream and technical press, if the only coverage it got was one journalist covering the takedown story and speculating that it might have had a particular motive. I moved the basic fact of it to the planned obsolescence article, but I don't see that it was a significant part of Toshiba's history as a corporation. --McGeddon (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- The issue of a Take down on copyrighted material is Toshiba's right to do so; also this is a total non-issue to the vasty majority of people and it looks out of touch; I would personally remove it again but I cannot so that is all I have to say.--Pretty les♀♥, Dark Mistress, talk, 16:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, I don't work for Toshiba. Assume good faith. Wired is a reliable source, and I don't want to "hide" the story, I'm just thinking that it might be WP:UNDUE weight to include it, per the above arguments, particularly when the story doesn't seem to go any further than "a website with copyrighted content was C&D'd, and one journalist thought that this was maybe done maliciously for a particular reason". It seems very small beer next to widely-recognised price fixing and embargo-breaking. --McGeddon (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)