# Talk:Monster Cable

In the Recent history section, there is a sentence beginning with "Following the collapse of the Beats deal with Apple." There have been no mentions of Beats or Apple before that point. The relevant information starts two sections lower. Maybe it wasn't changed following an edit? I think some re-ordering would make the article work better for a first-time linear reader like me.
Hyperdimension (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated the article for a GA review. It usually takes a few months before we get a reviewer. Before we get one, I'll give the article a few more lookovers for copyedits and obtain some images we can use. If anyone has some feedback on anything it needs to pass a GA review, we can keep improving the article as well. Thanks to Crisco and North for all their help on this one! CorporateM (Talk) 23:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I do GA reviews, but I wouldn't do this one because I've been involved here.  Although there is a criteria framework, each reviewer's standards are different. I think I'm "middle of the road" compared to other reviewers in most areas, except that I'm tougher than most regarding empathy for the reader....that whatever is written conveys information to someone in their shoes.   I just did a slow read with my own criteria in mind, (noting that a real review would require more depth than just one slow read) and my comments as a reviewer would be:  Nice work!....this article is about as ready as I've seen for GA....a few notes: 

Would it be possible to add another image or 2?  (from my talk page I know you're working on this)
There are a few sentences whose only content seems to be internal jargon or overly vague terms to where they really don't say much useful for the reader......I'd recommend adding a few words of explanation to each:
"Monster Power for power products in 1998,"   What do they mean by "power products"?
"Monster Mobile division in 2001"  What does this division make/sell?
"A Monster Photo product line was created in 2003"   What does this division make/sell?
"followed by Monster Signature Series Power."  What does this division make/sell?
Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I uploaded a couple images I shot at Best Buy. A lot of the photos of HDMI cables and power strips didn't come out well, because the bright lights were creating a glare on the packaging, but I imagine we would prefer products out of the packaging anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 19:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to get these cleaned up using Photoshop later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Did the earphones. The cable won't work... too much noise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
How's this Crisco? We would have to leave the image small, so readers don't notice all the jagged edges from my Photoshopping. CorporateM (Talk) 13:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Erm... Okay, I'll try harder. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, if I knew this was going to be a competition over Photoshop skills, I would have brought my A-game. That looks good. I just trimmed a bit of blackspace off the bottom lip. Do you wanna throw em in? Technically images are usually seen as non-controversial edits, but I sometimes get the feedback that I use too many images in a promotional way, so I try to defer to others. CorporateM (Talk) 16:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I notice that you seem to have also cut into the cable itself without using any feathering, leaving the edge a bit too sharp. Will try and edit a bit more, then add an image or two. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that the problems with the material and the editor's actions are numerous and obvious.   I think that the IP's recent summary when continuing to war it back in when I said "take it to talk" is emblematic:  which was "... Fact does not require talk it requires acceptance...". This probably needs reporting of the editor more than talk here, but I am opening this thread up here.   North8000 (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like in the latest edit-war @Voceditenore kept some of the material, though it is only cited to a primary source. If such a source were usable, we could add hundreds of trademark disputes on that basis.
Probably a quick note at the edit-warring board would secure a short-term block until they cool off.   CorporateM (Talk) 13:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I think the whole thing should go. That was just a stop-gap measure to avoid getting into a revert war with the hopping IP, but at the same time remove the POV rant to leave the rather trivial "fact".  This is a run-of-the-mill dispute, which as far as I can see has zero secondary coverage. Any and all should feel free to remove it completely. So far, 3 different IPs have been used to insert (and reinsert)  the information 220.255.57.124 (Singapore), 171.99.143.79 (Bangkok), and 115.87.215.232 (Bangkok). They're all clearly editing on behalf of the disputant company, Onix DNA, whose offices are in both those cities. By using 3 different IPs, they've avoided each one individually crossing the 3RR line. Voceditenore (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm neutral on keeping/deleting it as you modified.  Certainly it should not be as the IP put it in. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The primary source does not even back the content which is in the article. It merely says that there is a trademark application, which was cancelled. Monster's behavior may or may not be what the IP alleged it to be, and if covered in media to become a scandal, or have an effect on stock price, or something, we can cover it, but as is trademark disputes happen all the time, and are not of lasting encyclopedic value. As the primary does not actually back the text included, I am boldly deleting. I do find it intresting that they so vigorously defend their own trandemark then iddn't think of rolling on another's but unless such hypocrisy is noted in reliable sources, we can't mention it on wiki. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A few edits I would like to suggest to bring the article up to the GA standard:

A much shorter lead

The clarifications user:North8000 mentioned

Done. North8000 (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Change the "Controversies" header to something more in-line with WP:Criticism (wasn't this something like "Pricing and performance" before?)
CorporateM (Talk) 04:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I renamed the section, but I didn't know it was in the middle of an upgrade.  Monster's "controversial" claims are well known, and the company has become a lightning rod of opposing views on the internet.  When it comes to Monster, it would be a disservice to society to water-down the term "controversies" into something vague.  High-end audio manufacturers abuse pseudoscience marketing claims to make their products to appear to be far more magical than technically can be proven, thus the controversy.  I think that most people don't have a problem with their products, because they are usually very good quality, but instead it's their marketing claims that rub everyone in a bad way.  If you can't use the word controversy, then please try to use terms that doesn't mislead people into thinking there isn't any.  Thanks in advance!  • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:Criticism says "The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event". We could call it a "debate". I was hoping to leave it somewhat open-ended for whoever fulfills the Request Edit per WP:COIMICRO, rather than be so prescriptive as to propose a specific title for the section. CorporateM (Talk) 13:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree on "controversies".  A couple of the many reasons that it is officially discouraged is that it becomes a pov magnet/coatrack, and also facilitates tilting the article. North8000 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Just "Pricing and performance" does make it sound like a "Reception" section and does not communicate how controversial it is. Probably need a different title entirely...  CorporateM (Talk) 13:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't need to be explicit about controversy. A neutral title is preferable, methinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


### North's comments on requested edits
I looked at the first one (shorter lead) and at first glance the one that is in the article looks good more typical for length, paragraphs, depth of summary.  Maybe others or a more thorough analysis would provide a different answer than my first impression.   
The second one is sort of malformed.  (despite being flattered that you selected my comments and suggesting that they be implemented)  Suggested edits should include a specific proposed change  which I don't see there.  This is doubly relevant here because not only would someone need to create the wording, they would need to research/learn what those divisions do in order to create that wording.  If I knew what they did, I'd be happy to write the changes myself.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks North. If you feel the current Lead is short enough for GA standards, that's A-ok by me, if nobody else takes issue with it. I often get asked to boil down the Lead as much as possible during GA reviews. The precise suggested edits for the "clarifications" request are in bold in the collapsed section and are each supported by the current source. CorporateM (Talk) 13:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Oops!  My blunder on the second item.  Thanks for your graciousness instead of the much-deserved "North, are you blind?"   :-) North8000 (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Done.North8000 (talk)
I looked at the existing and proposed lead more closely and am now more convinced that the current lead is better. In my opinion I think that the length (and thus amount and depth of material included in the summary) is not only OK but about average.    With the new one, I think that you are so cautious about risk-of-COI that you went in the opposite direction.  This is not a controversial company, but half of your new lead is about criticism, scrutiny and controversy. North8000 (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, that leaves only the title of the "Controversy" section and do you think information that is historical in nature, but relates to specific products should be moved to Products or left in the History section as it is now? Stuff like the introduction of early products, new divisions, etc. I am not partial either way, but my habit of dumping everything into History sometimes comes up in GA reviews.  CorporateM (Talk) 16:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
So a company makes a product which some claim is a waste of money (premium gasoline, Rolls Royce, Ferrari's, designer clothes and accessories, where where you pay extra for a brand name etc.)  Even if "controversy" sections were not discouraged by Wikipedia, such would not constitute a "controversy".   I renamed it to "Pricing and performance questions".    North8000 (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't confuse premium with "magical" specification claims that can't be measured and/or detected by your ears.  • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm very versed in that technical aspects in that area.  And I also read all of the listed sources 100% during earlier work on this.   And your description is not an accurate summary of the situation or even the claims.  There is lots of info on this a few months back in talk.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Bottom line, on speaker cables, whether or not there is a audible difference is a determined by what you are comparing it to and the length of the cable run. And persons on the the farther ends of the viewpoint scale (in both directions) choose those two parameters to bolster their point.  (and to the non-knowledgable, pretend to "prove" their point.) North8000 (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Regarding location of discussed products info,, to me that is a toss up / dilemma.  History of a company like this inevitably requires discussing products.   But then a current product section is needed, and so putting some in "history" inevitably split them up.   Ii guess my opinion is that the current approach is the best way.   Get into historical products in "history" and cover current products in "Products".    But again, I think that that is just a matter of opinion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)