Talk:Monster (company)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Companies (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Mid-importance).

Corporate Tax Haven[edit]

There have been a few mentions in the article about Monster Cable's corporate filing being off-shore. This has been expanded on to note the discussion and link to Monster's current corporate filings.

Founded Date?[edit]

What year was this company founded? The infobox states 1979, but the actual article states 1978.

Monster Cable was founded in 1978 and the page should be updated to reflect this. TedAtM (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Construction Quality[edit]

While it may be true that when it comes to the copper, a cable is a cable, why aren't there any points/counterpoints with regards to the build quality of Monster Cables? I find that the Turbine Connectors, for example, do make a does the braiding on the higher-end cables (not even cats can chew through it), and the balanced construction and dedicated shielding layers. What I do NOT buy into is the 'direction' of the cables...since when are cables directional? It'd be great if this article was fleshed out properly with more details about this... -- 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Bias? (Formerly no headline)[edit]

Am I the only one who doesn't see a huge bias in this article? Where's the bit about how Monster Cables are extremely overpriced, and in some cases, especially with digital optical cables (a poor cable won't cause a 2 to be placed in a stream of 1s and 0s), are absolutely no better than a cheap cable you can find on eBay. Also don't forget about how they sue pretty much anyone who has "monster" in their domain name

I have changed the article to reflect the over pricing of their product.

I believe that monster cables have a profound effect on the quality of sound. on my sytem, with all monster cables(no cheap copper wires)sound quality is extraordinary. perhaps the person above me has cheaper wire running from the reciever to his speakers. add to that you can get these so called expensive cables for $20 on ebay, they are very much worth it and better than above stated.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

This is very likely the placebo effect at work, you're hearing the improved sound quality because you *want* to, and who wouldn't want to, after spending a small fortune on Monster Cable products? One should attempt a double-blind test involve other cables, before being so certain they're actually working so much better.

I suspect many customers of these products are not familiar with the aforementioned concepts. Shawnc 15:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Another thing. Monster cable is generally thicker...which is the only thing that matters in speaker wire. Ex: 12 gauge Monster sounds better than 18-gauge speaker wire. But 12-gauge Monster and 12-gauge cheap speaker cable sound the same. There is no difference in speaker wire of the same gauge. And the digital paragraph above is totally correct. Andrewwski 18:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Alex, digital is only 1s and 0s. Either you have it or you don't. Look at the post above, what will thin cable do, put a 2 there? No. The picture/sound will just stop totally if the cable is overloaded. I'll get you citations later.Andrewwski 04:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You can say digital is digital, but it is possible to lose a 1 or 0 somewhere along the way. Just think of regular cables as regular dvd's, and monster cables as blu ray or hd dvd, both are digital, but blu-ray is a thousand times better. It is possible to have better quality, even in digital. This aerticle is not neutral.
It is not possible to lose a 1 or 0 somewhere along the way. Blu-ray vs HD-DVD is a difference in encoding: "Blu-ray discs are more expensive, but hold more data -- there, that's all" [1]. Also about losing signal quality in a digital system: "in digital systems, degradation can not only be detected but corrected as well." [2] (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
A cable for a digital signal can have poor or insufficient quality for the application. In most cases (and certainly for HDMI and the other digital applications for Monster Cables products) insufficient quality causes complete failure to pass the signal or else momentary obvious dropouts. For cases (like TCP over Ethernet) where there is a retry mechanism, the effect of insufficient cable quality is reduced transmission rates (due to lost packets, causing retransmissions). For HDMI, longer runs and higher bandwidths (e.g., "deep color") require higher quality cables for longer cable runs in order to maintain the signal. Bottom line: for digital audio/video, if it's working and there are no dropouts, your cable is fine and the world's best cable won't provide any better quality. Learjeff (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The unsigned individual above must be a plant for Monster Cable. If they sue everyone left and right to "protect their name", then why wouldn't they hire people to hit the internet and spread the ridiculous garbage about their audio cables being "superior" in the face of solid evidence that proves otherwise. Spark plug manufacturers often make the same claim and they are also lying to you. It is all in the marketing. 06:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Bill

I'm amazed any company would have a plant who is so clearly a moron. I'd expect the dumbest corporate marketing slimeball to be better informed than that (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^


I understand that, however, have you ever heard of magnetic interference? Of course, either it's digital or it isn't, but stating that they will yield NO higher quality than that of the cheapest cables is far untrue. For example, if you go buy cables from some street person and hook them up, and they have only a PVC coating on them, and the room has a hundred electronic devices in it, there is a high possibilty of something going wrong. Besides any of this, since research hasn't proven your statement, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. See WP:CITE for more information. Thanks, Alex43223 22:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you have quite a bit electromagnetic interference that interferes with the signal, you will lose the signal completely. But, if you have a signal, then you have it. There's no inbetweens.
Digital waveforms are square waves. That means they are either on, or off. Either they are at their peak voltage or lowest voltage. There are no in-betweens. That is why a digital signal cannot be inbetween.
Analog waveforms, however, are usually a sine wave, but they also may be other types. A sine wave fluctuates constantly but is not either "on" or "off" but rather has in-betweens.
This is why a digital signal is not dependent on the cable type used. Andrewwski 01:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a pretty bland statement to make, although I'm not going to sit here and try to defend monster cable, cable construction can matter if you have the potential of dealing with crosstalk. This is also ignoring the fact that no consumer is going to need enough insulation to protect their equipment from industrial level noise. Azgard 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but digital signals - albeit comprised of ones and zeros - are NOT transmitted using square waves. There is a good article on modulation right here on Wikipedia. Mesdale (talk)
No sorry, that is incorrect. Modulation is a method for combining and separating multiple signals and multiple channels through a single medium. An example would be all the channels you get on Cable TV through a single coaxial cable. Between the TV and the video output, there is no need for modulation, and the signal sent through the HDMI cable is a TMDS which is discreet 1s and 0s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe i'm the only one who noticed this, but Monster does not only sell digital audio cables. Analog cables are not just on or off, therefore cable quality can make a difference. I think this article is biased to Monster Cable products being worth the money. It's a matter of opinion really, and the better your equipment, the more sensitive it will be from interference that can be introduced through poor cabling. As far as digital cable goes, yes, it's either "on" or "off", but loss and bandwidth can be issues. For example, some HDMI cables use super-thin copper wire and cannot support the new HDMI 1.3, which is required to transmit the new 1080p resolution. Also, some inexpensive HDMI cables don't support HDCP content protection protocol, which can make that new cable useless on many newer set top boxes and DVD players.

I know that. However, Monster most strongly markets their digital coaxial audio, digital optical audio, DVI, and HDMI. Cable quality will fall under two works or it doesn't. If it is analog cable, yes, cable quality is very important. However, there is much cheaper cable available that provides just as good of a signal as Monster. AS long as it's thick enough and shielded enough, it'll work well. Just get some heavily shielded RG59 and solder or compression ends. If you've ever taken a Monster cable apart, you'll find that it's mostly foam with a thin layer of shielding and a center conductor thinner than that of many cheaper cables.
And Monster's speaker wire helps none either. There's practically no difference between speaker wires of the same gauge.
Again, with HDMI, if a cable will transmit HDMI 1.3, then it transmits all of it. If not, it doesn't work.
HDMI is very problematic with HDCP. Often it has to do with equipment as well. As long as the cable isn't too thin, it should work fine. Andrewwski 01:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Digital signal transmission[edit]

Digital signals are transmitted as near square waves, true. Depending on the type of signal being transmitted, the protocol in use, and a few other factors, the actual voltage on the line will be a varying square wave between two voltages, sometimes 0 and 5 volts, sometimes 12 volts and -12 volts... it depends on the protocol. The protocol determines how the sender & receiver represent a 1 or a 0. If the implementation of the protocol includes error detection, or some form of error detection and correction (EDAC), such as parity check, manchestor encoding, or various other techniques, incorrect signals will be ignored or not received. There are several ways interference can cause signal degradation and/or loss of signal; cross coupling, outside EMI...

If there is no error detection or EDAC in the HDMI protocol, and no encoding, rather a simple square wave of 1's and 0's (unlikely), it's possible for various 1's and 0's to be misinterpretted (1 can look like a 0 or 0 can look like a 1), and the result would again depend on the protocol. It could cause artifacting and intermittent picture, rather than no picture at all.

But! In the case of HDMI, which uses the TMDS protocol, it will depend on the hardware, but the most likely result of a cable problem will be no picture, with an unlikely but possible result of an intermittent picture - either way you will know if the cable is working or not, quite quickly. No slight image degradation is likely.

If you really want to compare Monster's cables, audio or digital, to other cables, all that's needed is a wavefunction generator and a oscilloscope. It's possible to measure the performance (or lack thereof) of one cable versus another. But most people don't bother, because those who know how to use this equipment usually already know that the physical cable construction materials and manufacturing technique determine the signal quality - not advertising. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

monster cables vs coat hanger blind test[edit]

its not biased, most people would agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadamzz (talkcontribs) 14:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

source of the test is in the article, and this test has at least one bias... "A high quality recording of smooth, trio, easy listening jazz was played (Piano, drums, bass)" ... Potentially a second source in the mastering of whatever CD they were listening to (recent jazz, as most recent pop music overuses dynamic compression which would impact the test, see below) and a third in the absence of precision on the source used, as to test the weakest link - cables - you have to make sure all oher links are very high end (source or D/A conversion, amp, speakers). without any information on this, the object of the test is useless (just imagine doing a headphones quality test with an iPod, compared to, say, a CD through an apogee D/A converter... the detail to be heard / respected in the signal will just be absent in the first case).

On high quality cables (actually bigger and threaded cables is what makes them quality, not the brand or whatever else) The difference is noticeable on high dynamics music, certainly not on smooth jazz (which is likely to be over-compressed if it is a recent record). I did a similar test to some friends between thin out-of-the-box and fatter dedicated cables, there was no obvious difference either on over-compressed (dynamic compression, standard pop music) or smooth (lounge, classical, easy rock) music. However when playing more aggressive and demanding sounds, with more dynamics (it was most obvious on an autechre record)... the difference was clearly audible.

Additionally I remember a test 128kb MP3 vs wave on a Pavarotti record, which had a 60% identification rate, mostly due to poor electronics, phones and D/A converters on the user end and .... the over-compressed (dynamic compression during mastering) sound of the original record. a similar test on a track with more dynamics got a 90% identification rate.

Actually whatever this brings in, I'd still suggest to remove the link on the coathanger test as it does not present properly defined experimental conditions —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Blue Jeans responds[edit]

There's something of an amusing read over here. It appears to be a quite a cogent response to a threat of litigation from Monster Cables. It might be pertinent to include a reference to it in the article perhaps under something along the lines of litigious behaviour. --EvilMonkeySlayer (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I found the response letter a nice read ubdeed. However, should this article say: "The owner of Blue Jeans Cable [...] responded that 'Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it.'"? I don't see how him missing litigation is relevant to the article. Stating that he wrote he wasn't intimidated (doesn't need a quote) alone would be better. Also much more important is that Monster never actually responded, but that part is missing. That's my two pence worth. (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason the full quote is relevant is because the owner of Blue Jeans Cable is a former litigator. It's a humorous set of words that is actually rather important to the feeling of the quote because it suggests the owner is not taking Monster Cable's lawsuit seriously in any way shape or form, which given their history of frivolous litigation, is in fact very relevant. That's my feeling. I think it should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added the fact that Monster Cable is currently incorporated in Bermuda, with reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ted from Monster Cable here. Monster Cable Products, Inc. is California Incorporated with an LLC In Nevada as well. TedAtM (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

POV Tagged[edit]

This article is ripe with weasel words, glitzy pretentious phrases, and a general sense of "we're better because we're better". I've marked various examples with the necessary annotations, and removed some of the more flagrant displays of 'we let our advertiser edit our article'. For particular examples of idiot editing, see the edits by Edjthompson. My favorite was a bunch of pseudo scientific babble of technical terms meant to go over people's heads, then saying "Not so expensive now, is it?"Ftc08 (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I'm here on Monster's behalf and would like to help improve the article from the Talk page. My hope is by offering content and making requests we can bring the article up to Wikipedia's standards, with a little help making sure we stay neutral and aligned with Wikipedia's content policies.

To start, I was hoping an impartial editor would consider if the False Advertising section is UNDUE. I can only find a couple brief blurbs and press releases on these issues, which relate largely to Engadget, a publication the company has had disputes with, as explained in the Wikipedia article. If there is something salvageable, I leave it up to an impartial editor's judgement, but I can't find any source material to suggest this is an important part of the company's reputation/history.

Appreciate the help in advance. CorporateM (Talk) 16:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Most feel that "controversy" sections are problematic and should be avoided.
The first section is basically about folks saying "a less expensive brand works just as well". This is a common statement about many products, This could be good material for the article, but certainly should not be spun into into being called a "controversy". I will probably move / rename this section.
The next section is basically building a case that they go too far in trying to protect or expand trademark rights related to the word "Monster". Not sure what to say about the overall topic, but I see some pretty severe wp:ver and almost-wp:blp violations. The wording in essence states that for each of those cases 1. Monster went after them 2. That doing so was controversial. A minority of them have sourcing of any kind, and I've not found any that were sourced for both assertions. I plan to tag or remove some of them. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I did some edits. More are needed, but I would consider removal of all of the material in that section to be going too far. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It's much more practical you giving it a quick run-through than having me submit a lot of Request Edits - at least to get it to a decent starting point. The trademark and performance topics need to be re-written, but definitely belong. Though as you mention the trademarks section could be trimmed down to the more notable cases. The Candlestick stadium is unsourced and is currently explained in a less controversial way than it should be, but I will correct this later on.
I would still think the False Advertising section could be cut in half if not more. The Energizer Holdings lawsuit is only sourced to their website, which doesn't even support the material. And the only available source for the dispute with Engadget is Engadget itself, a primary source in this case. However, I leave it up to your judgement and won't belabor the point. The article is in such terrible shape, but getting better now thanks to your help. CorporateM (Talk) 17:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to emphasize, I did some editing, but more needs doing. I really think that the battery item needs to go, and was going to delete it, but took the cautious route (for now) and tagged it instead. Going just from memory, I believe that the Candlestick item was in one of the sources. Finally, I mis-spoke in my previous post, I was mistakenly thinking that you had suggested deleting all of the "controversies" material, so please ignore my "but I would consider removal of all of the material in that section to be going too far." as it was answering a question that was never asked. North8000 (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks North. I went ahead and closed my Request Edit. I didn't know if you were going stick around for future edits, but if you are, I'd be open to any suggestions on where we focus next. I've already collected a lot of good sources on Monster's early history for a draft I'm working on about the company's founder, so I was thinking of starting with their early history and working down. CorporateM (Talk) 03:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


  • One idea might be to integrate more of the specialized external links in as sources. Of course their use would be limited as primary sources, but the would be more integrated into the material that they are related to.North8000 (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that a slight expansion and organization of the "products" section would be in order. Care should be taken to focus on what they are known for / already successful in, not what they seek to establish or claim a presence in. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I took out some of the controversies material for good reason. But I think that their aggressive effort to expand their legal dibs on the word "monster" and the pushback / resentment that it has generated has had significant coverage and certainly belongs. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok - I'll take on the Products/Reception section and the Trademark issues first. CorporateM (Talk) 20:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Some draft materials[edit]

I've prepared a few first drafts of material for consideration by impartial editors. I know this is a lot of material at-once and some of it covers complex and nuance topics. I'd be happy to go through them one-at-a-time, or whatever is easiest. Hopefully these will at least provide a starting point for future fine-tuning. CorporateM (Talk) 13:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Performance debate over whether cables make a difference[edit]

Notes: This is a very complex and nuance topic that does not lend itself to being easy to do with a COI. That being said, I do think this is "better" and "more neutral" than the current and it will continue to improve through other editors and eventually the GA process. Two things I want to point out:

  • There's a sentence or two about Monster's POV that I think could be trimmed slightly now that I'm giving it a fresh look
  • North previously removed the comment about a forum post claiming the cables are similar to a wire hangar. I've included it below using the most reliable source I could find (a blurb in Wired), so that an impartial editor can decide whether to include it based on the best information available. It is kind of gossipy (only covered in a few blurb by the tech-gossip pubs), but I feel it is best to provide the information I've found and leave those decisions to a regular volunteer.
I commend you for reinserting what I took out on the coat hanger stuff as it shows how cautious you are being regarding your COI. However, as someone with expertise in the field I consider the coathanger thing to be a meaningless stunt. Also as someone with expertise in that field I feel that that section is very confusing. The first and most important thing you could do to un-confuse it would be to separate it (or at least clarify it for each statement) between video/RF and audio cables. Not that my "thumbnail" this can be used, if you want a quick overview to help sort it out, at audio frequencies (speaker cables), total resistance is all the really matters. Presuming mostly-copper cable and at least medium quality connections, the two main factors that contribute to this are the length of the cable and the gauge / thickness of the cable. At video and RF frequencies, things get much more complicated and other nuances matter. The coathanger test (i.e. a length shorter than would be used in real life, and don't forget that length is immensely important) is what I would call a "cheating stunt". The real benefit of better (larger gauge) speaker wires is present when you compare them to common small gauge speaker wires (which are common). When you compare them to non-speaker wires (such as wires designed for carrying power) there becomes less of a difference or no difference. "Lamp cord", (typically 18 gauge, and gauge numbers go in the reverse to sizes) which is at the lower end of the "power wire" scale is a case of less of a difference. North8000 (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! It's always great to have a subject-matter expert available and there is no systematic way of finding one, so I am glad I stumbled across one! I've revised it below to exclude the forum post issue. I looked into the sources and identified each one specifically as audio or visual and moved things around so each paragraph was either audio or video. I also trimmed just a few words from Monster's POV. I put audio first, because the tone seems more speculative in that category, to avoid the appearance of creative positioning, but I don't see any reason to do it in any specific order. If I can find one, I'd like to find a recent source with a better scientific test of the audio cables, but my understanding is the only way to test it is by listening. Maybe that's what needs to be added. CorporateM (Talk) 15:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm reading this source. I'll add it in a minute. CorporateM (Talk) 15:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done That helps balance the debate a little bit on the audio section. CorporateM (Talk) 15:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Long complex story short, it looks good.North8000 (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Relationship with retailers[edit]

Note: This is to expand on the first paragraph of the current Pricing and Performance section. One side of the coin is that retailers are very happy with Monster's margins and they spend money on sales incentives instead of advertising. The other side of that issue is that this makes salespeople highly motivated to push the cables and raises accusations that they are not a good value.


Notes: This is also hard to do because there are 6,000 products spanning a wide-range of electronics. I focused substantially on the various audio, video, HDMI cables they are best known for and tried to keep it as concise as possible. I think a subject-matter expert at Monster might have some good feedback on this later on.

Early history[edit]

I have already researched and written a lot of Monster's early history for the article on Noel Lee, so that seemed like a sensible thing to add as well. I would also like to move all the controversies currently in the article into the History section as well, as they appear to mostly take place at specific dates in history, as oppose to the performance debate, which is a timeless and long-standing issue deserving of its own section.


  1. ^ a b Kessler, Michelle (January 16, 2005). "Is Monster Cable Worth it?". USA Today. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  2. ^ "Speaker Cables: Science or Snake Oil" (PDF). Speaker Builder (Nelson Press). 
  3. ^ Greenhill, Laurence. "Speaker Cables: Can You Hear the Difference?" Stereo Review, August 1983, quoted at Speaker Wire: A History.
  4. ^ a b c Franco, Robert (December 28, 1998). "Selling Sizzle with Sizzle". Forbes. 
  5. ^ Rothman, Wilson (June 14, 2007). "The Truth About Monster Cable, Part 2 (Verdict: Cheap Cables Keep Up...Usually)". Gizmodo. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  6. ^ Beschizza, Rob (June 7, 2007). "Should you pay $120 for a 2 meter HDMI cable?". WIRED. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  7. ^ Captain, Sean (August 2, 2005). "The Cable Game". Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  8. ^ Rothman, Wilson (June 6, 2007). "The Truth About Monster Cable". Gizmodo. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  9. ^ Gaylord, Chris (July 23, 2009). "Why are HDMI cables so expensive?". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  10. ^ a b Beschizza, Rob (February 19, 2008). "Monster Cable Defends Overpriced Cables: The Short Form". WIRED. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  11. ^ a b c d e f Kessler, Michelle (January 16, 2005). "Monster move puts name on Marquee". USA Today. Retrieved February 26, 2013. 
  12. ^ a b Wortham, Jenna (11 January 2010). "A Smaller Player Mounts Must-See Events". The New York Times. p. 8. 
  13. ^ Popken, Ben (February 8, 2008). "Monster Cables, Mosnter Ripoff: 80% Markups". Retrieved September 16, 2013. 
  14. ^ "Packing the Deal". CBC. February 20, 2008. Retrieved July 25, 2013. 
  15. ^ a b Evangelista, Benny (November 8, 2004). "'Head Monster's' winning ways". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved February 26, 2013. 
  16. ^ a b Ulanoff, Lance (January 9, 2009). "Monster Pulls Out of Audio Cables, Goes Green". PC Magazine. 
  17. ^ a b Williams, Stephen (January 6, 2011). "Monster Meets Miles, Again". The New York times. Retrieved January 6, 2011. 
  18. ^ Arseniuk, Melissa (January 10, 2009). "CES Brings Shimmering Star Power to Invite-Only Crowd". The Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  19. ^ "CES 2005 - it's just so big". Enjoy the Music. 
  20. ^ a b Stevens, Cindy (November/December 2010). "Monster's Noel Lee - Down to the Cable". Vision.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  21. ^ Company Website, Monster Cable Products, retrieved May 9, 2013 
  22. ^ a b Taub, Eric. "Monster Cable Sells 'Cheap' Version". The New York Times. 
  23. ^ Graham, Jefferson (April 28, 2013). "Monster Cable Lowers Prices During Recession". USA Today. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  24. ^ Hachman, Mark (September 6, 2007). "Monster Assigns Speed Grades to HDMI Cables". PC Magazine. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  25. ^ Then, Ewdison (January 16, 2007). "Monster Cable Outlets to Go". Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  26. ^ "Monster Cable GameLink 360 Line-Up Review". 
  27. ^ Berardini, César. "Monster Cable GameLink 360 S-Video A/V Cable Review (Xbox 360)". Team Xbox. 
  28. ^ Monster Games, Monster, retrieved May 9, 2013 
  29. ^ Laposky, John (March 26, 2007). "Monster Cables Beat AppleTV To Market". Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  30. ^ Cliff Edwards (2012-01-13). "Beats Electronics Is Breaking Up with Monster". Business Week (Bloomberg News). Retrieved 16 February 2012. 
  31. ^ Joe Pollicino (13 January 2012). "Monster and Beats Electronics discontinue partnership, audiophiles rejoice". Engadget. AOL Tech. Retrieved 16 February 2012. 
  32. ^ Kepler, Adam (October 1, 2009). "Now Thumping, Lady Gaga Headphones". The New York Times. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  33. ^ Fekadu, Mesfin (June 25, 2010). "LeBron James to Release His Own Line of Headphones". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  34. ^ Davies, Chris (June 25, 2010). "Monster Signs LeBron James for Customer Headphone Line". Slash Gear. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  35. ^ Josh Quittner (23 July 2008). "Dr. Dre's Headphones: Chronically Good". Time Magazine (Time Inc.). Retrieved 16 February 2012. 
  36. ^ Denison, Caleb (January 6, 2012). "Monster Clarity HD Model One Review". Digital Trends. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  37. ^ Aguilar, Mario (October 4, 2012). "Monster Katana Ears-On: This Sounds Too Good to Be Bluetooth". Gizmodo. 
  38. ^ Speakers, Monster, retrieved May 9, 2013 
  39. ^ Greenwald, Will. "Monster Cable Tron ID Disc iPod Dock". PC Magazine. 
  40. ^ a b Safer, Will (April 30, 2009). "How Monster Cable got wired for growth". Fortune Magazine. Retrieved February 26, 2013. 
  41. ^ Wilkinson, Scott (October 12, 2012). "Monster Founder Noel Lee Gets Geeky About Cables". Home Theater Geeks (Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity). 

Requested article move[edit]

As noted by the San Francisco Chronicle here, the company shortened its name to just "Monster Inc." Currently Monster Inc. is a redirect to Monsters, Inc. the movie, so I think we may need an admin to move this page to the proper title. CorporateM (Talk) 19:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies), I think this title would be acceptable ("If the legal status is used to disambiguate, it should be included in the article title using the company's own preference for either the abbreviated or unabbreviated form" - implicitly allowing such uses). I'd like to have some more input before I make the move though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose Almost every company is Inc/Incorporated. We don't have Microsoft Inc. (except as a redirect) etc. Does Monster use Inc. as a major part of their branding now? I think not. Their URL is Their Logo+Name appears to be just "Monster". The copyright notice and "company info" on their website is "Monster Cable Product, Inc", so from the "old/current" name, we are dropping the inc for the current article name. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The company info page says it was founded as "Monster Cable Products, Inc.", but later just refers to it as "Monster" (no "Inc."). Since there is a Wiki-page on Monster, maybe something like Monster (company)? I agree with Gaijin that the Inc. may not be necessary. CorporateM (Talk) 15:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Not opposed to moving to Monster (company). Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Monster (company) sounds fine otherwise this article would just include their products. The products may have been an older name but to retain it as the article name would confuse our readers.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • That's unanimous approval for "Monster (company)", so move done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It looks like Malik Shabazz disagrees with the consensus from Gaijin42, Crisco 1492 and Canoe1967. He has boldly moved the article to "Monster Cable". CorporateM (Talk) 23:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I moved the article in response to a request by User:Cantaloupe2, who asserted it was noncontroversial. (See WP:G6.) Seeing as how it wasn't, I'll be happy to undo the move. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the page already existed as Monster Cable, then it moved as the full name, then to "Monster (Company)". When I tried move it back, the original page was clogging it. It isn't Malik's fault. I didn't expect any "controversy" as to many, that brand is known as "Monster Cable", which should be used per WP:UCN. If the consensus (which I must note, is not numbers count) says it should remain as "Monster (company)", then so be it. I don't really care Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Huh? A non-redirect page hasn't existed at Monster Cable since 2005 (!). Monster Cable Products, Inc was the original title, then several moves happened. As for consensus not being a numbers game: hard to call unanimity not consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Membership of tens of thousands, and a a "aye and nay" votes of a handful vs one" what ya call that one? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • A consensus, as defined at WP:CONSENSUS. This is not a legal body; there is no required percentage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that majority vote by significant margin of those who bothered to "vote" is consensus or am I understanding you incorrectly? I'm reading the below from the same page.

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Would you care to illustrate where WP:CONSENSUS says it has to be out of all of Wikipedia? This is all about a discussion, and thus it weighs only what factors into a discussion (i.e. we can't try and say "Jimbo didn't vote so it's not consensus). When a decision is unanimous, by definition there are no majority or minority views, and there are no two different arguments which must be weighed against each other. You could have weighed in earlier, when the move request was still open, but you didn't. Now the consensus is already there and if you care enough about the title (as you obviously do, as you are replying here despite saying you don't care) you can start a new move request and see if consensus is in your favour. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't really care. Some of the editors were quick to bully Malik as proclaiming he went against "consensus"? Was there? At what point did it form? What's the cut off time and who declares "consensus has been reached unanimously? It's all too easy for interest group to utilize add up username counts if "aye, just cuz" type comment counted. I believe this is what are looking for. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Pricing and performance[edit]

As can be seen higher up on the Talk page, I've been working on a draft of the Pricing and performance section with some help from User:North8000, who appears to be a subject-matter expert. At this point, I would like to request an impartial editor consider my draft (pasted below) for inclusion in article-space, where it can be improved further, incrementally. I would also welcome any edits before the merge to article-space. While I feel it is more neutral than the current and certainly more complete, I am not convinced it is completely neutral. It is a complex and nuanced topic and may never be perfectly neutral.

I acknowledge that it is a little uncomfortable (for both parties) for a company rep to write their own controversies, but I also see no other practical way to bring the article up to GA than to proceed this way. I appreciate your time, thoughtfulness and good-faith in advance. CorporateM (Talk) 16:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


Some audiophiles believe that more expensive audio cables like those from Monster do not have an audible effect on audio quality when compared to generic cables. According to a reporter at SoundStage Network, "many audiophiles think cables make no difference... then there are those who think they make a tremendous, monumental, huge difference. There's validity in both views."[1] In 1980 Speaker Builder said that Monster's cables out-performed generic 24- or 18-gauge cables, but the author could only tell the difference, "at the extremes of performance" such as bass, high pitches and cables run over long distances.[2] In 1983, tests by Stereo Review Magazine concluded that Monster audio cables were "indistinguishable" from generic speaker cable. The same publication in 1990 said that it depends on the application and the user's willingness to pay a premium.[3]

Gizmodo tested Monster-branded HDMI cables and compared them to generic cables using a Digital Serial Analyzer. They found that the cables performed relatively equally over a short distance of six feet, but inexpensive cables experienced distortion when ran over longer distances.[4] WIRED also said Monster's HDMI cables made a difference over ten-meter distances, but that, "with Monster, you pay a staggering premium for durability and good looks."[5] In tests by PC World, Monster's M500CV video cables had the least distortion out of all the cables tested at 1 ohm, compared to 63-86 ohms of resistance by other cable brands.[6]

Monster CEO Noel Lee claims the average consumer may not be able to tell the difference on-screen but that Monster's video cables have higher bandwidth, are future-proofed, are more durable and that they perform better over long distances.[7] Many reviewers stress in-turn that Monster cables aren't needed for lower-resolution televisions[8] or over short distances.[9]


  1. ^ Kessler, Michelle (January 16, 2005). "Is Monster Cable Worth it?". USA Today. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  2. ^ "Speaker Cables: Science or Snake Oil" (PDF). Speaker Builder (Nelson Press). 
  3. ^ Greenhill, Laurence. "Speaker Cables: Can You Hear the Difference?" Stereo Review, August 1983, quoted at Speaker Wire: A History.
  4. ^ Rothman, Wilson (June 14, 2007). "The Truth About Monster Cable, Part 2 (Verdict: Cheap Cables Keep Up...Usually)". Gizmodo. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  5. ^ Beschizza, Rob (June 7, 2007). "Should you pay $120 for a 2 meter HDMI cable?". WIRED. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  6. ^ Captain, Sean (August 2, 2005). "The Cable Game". Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  7. ^ Rothman, Wilson (June 6, 2007). "The Truth About Monster Cable". Gizmodo. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  8. ^ Gaylord, Chris (July 23, 2009). "Why are HDMI cables so expensive?". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 
  9. ^ Beschizza, Rob (February 19, 2008). "Monster Cable Defends Overpriced Cables: The Short Form". WIRED. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 


Nice work and nice referencing. I guess it depends on whether you want to cover this just as a sidebar on Monster, or want to help explain it. If it's the latter, this is pretty confusing. Multiple times it jumps between HDMI (video) cables and speaker wires which are two COMPLETELY different situations, in every respect. Also, when talking speaker wires the conversation lumps 2 variables together (the brand and the gauge). Not that you should put this in, but to help sort it out, the reality is that Monster speaker wires are better than the typical cheaper wire because they are heavier gauge than the typical cheaper wire. But it is possible to have cheap wire which is a heavier gauge in which case they are probably the same. And the third variable with immense impact is length. At unusually short distances (for speaker wires) all of the realistic choices are the same. Gauge becomes very important as you start getting into medium and longer distances. My suggestion: Put it in as you wrote it, (perfection is the enemy of progress, and IMHO there are no COI issues in the draft) and then tweak it after that. I'd be happy to help tweak it if you ping me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to lump audio cables into paragraph #2 and HDMI in #3 & 4. Regarding whether it is about Monster or about the issue in general, I suspect somewhere in-between, but the exact balance may be impossible to determine. Of course one issue where one has a COI is that imperfections can be interpreted as intentional manipulation and the Bright Line does not protect an editor from such speculations, but, well... what else are we suppose to do. I'm eager to get something decent in article-space and improve the other areas. CorporateM (Talk) 13:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I missed that you had it divided (speaker vs. HDMI) that way. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't mind doing the move, but I have some comments
"many audiophiles think cables make no difference... then there are those who think they make a tremendous, monumental, huge difference. There's validity in both views." - Does he expand on this
Added a tag, watch for weasel words (I think there are a couple more).
Any laboratory testing (rather than tests by publications, which are not necessarily standardised), or comments about (perceived) audio quality (i.e. the people who say Monster sounds better because we want it to? I think I've read some comments related to that).
"More expensive" could be made clearer (more expensive can be $1 compared to $2, or $1 compared to $125, and a major focus of criticism against Monster has been the price).
Generally well-written, but I'm worried about what appears to be a slight pro-Monster bias here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Crisco 1492 I checked the source and added "audiophiles" to address the "who" tag. I did some trimming of pro-Monster content to try to adjust the balance. I noticed for example I devoted two sentences to a pro-Monster source, while only one to another with a con POV. The SoundStage reporter does not expand on it in that source, though it's possible we may find other sources from him for future improvement. I plan to add more about pricing, in the Relationship with Retailers section for example, that I am working on above and will be sure to add a direct price comparison when I see one.
I'm not sure if I understand this correctly, but as I understand it, the only way to measure audio cable performance is with a "listening test" while video cables can be measured more scientifically. Is that correct North? That's why the audio and video paragraphs have such different tones. CorporateM (Talk) 14:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This looks ready for main space now. For the listening tests, I'm worried that (for example) control of ambient sound might not be as rigorous as it would in a laboratory setting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
(added later) Not quite. You could argue that the only thing that matters is listening, or you could argue that the differences are so small that only equipment can detect them. The big difference is that for the main attributes in speaker wiring (low voltages, low frequencies, higher amperage, larger amounts of power) there is really only one thing that matters.....minimizing total resistance. And (amongst realistic possibilities) there are only two ways to do that. Shorter cables (which is typically not controllable) and heavier gauge cables (which IS controllable), and the "brute force" technique of simply adding pounds of copper by going to heavier gauge cables is the way to do it.
For HDMI cables, the situation is about 100 times as complex. Zillions of things matter, but the technical techniques both in the cable design and methods of transmitting the signal are dominant in the equation. And adding pounds of copper is not needed or used. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Have merged it in, though I also included most of the information which was already there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Based on your prior comment, I was thinking we should trim the Forbes and USA Today sources.
In 1998, a reporter for Forbes said it "depends on how well you hear."[13] USA Today ran a test in 2005 comparing 20 feet of Monster-branded audio cables and connectors with generic products and reported that Monster Cables had "a slight edge."[5]
The USA Today post is a short blurb and does not sound like a lab-quality test. The Forbes post sounds more opinion than lab-test, but has a lot of content for the Relationship with retailers section.
There is also some redundancy from the original and the revised
  • Some audiophiles believe that more expensive audio cables like those from Monster do not have an audible effect on audio quality when compared to generic cables.
  • Various reviews have reported that listeners and viewers are unable to tell a difference between substantially higher-priced Monster cables and inexpensive cables.[6][7][8]
  • Another reviewer concluded that "16-gauge lamp cord and Monster [speaker] cable are indistinguishable from each other with music."[9]
  • In 1983, tests by Stereo Review Magazine concluded that Monster audio cables were "indistinguishable" from generic speaker cable.
  • CorporateM (Talk) 15:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Trimmed the last two. Do you want the first two excised? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking somewhere in-between might be appropriate. I noticed #5 looks like it's an op-ed and 6&7 are referring to the opinions of the reporters themselves, not audiophiles. But they are also not "reviews" per se. I'd suggest something like "Some audiophiles[1] and reporters [5,6] are unable to tell the difference in audio quality between substantially higher-priced Monster cables and inexpensive, generic products.[6][7][8] CorporateM (Talk) 16:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some tweaks to remove redundancy and make the clarifications I mentioned. I did not delete "substantially higher-priced" or those two sources Forbes (negative) and USA Today (positive) that didn't appear to be based on a lab-quality tests. Those edits may still need to be made depending on how you two feel about them, but I didn't think it was obvious enough for me to make the change and I don't want to micro-manage. The section is now much more neutral thanks to your help! CorporateM (Talk) 21:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The edits I looked at seem fine, so no worries from me. Always glad to help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this section may have swung just a tad too far the opposite way now. I removed the quotes about it being a "reasonable investment" from the 1980 speaker builder and there being "some good reasons" to use more expensive cables per the 1990 source, as well as the Noel Lee survey of customers, so now there is almost no mention of the point-of-view that the audio cables are actually a worthwhile investment, which naturally is a point-of-view held by many. And while a substantial amount of weight is proper and justified, it is quite long. Certainly better than where it was though. CorporateM (Talk) 00:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Are there any RS audiophile websites with rave reviews? That could balance it out, particularly as some of the condemnatory sentences here are quite harsh. Also, if the company would be willing to donate a free image of actual cables (or a Wikipedian can do so) that might help make this article a bit more appealing to read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Huh, so considering it already had a pro slant using the same sources, I wasn't thinking more sources would be needed to balance it out, (some of those sources are reasonably positive) but I did some poking around. I started at this source I noticed while working on the Noel Lee page. While it's written in a way that assumes the cables make a difference, it wasn't useful because it doesn't acknowledge the debate at all. A quick Google search, showed that reviews of individual products were positive. This source says Monster RCA cables were "one of the best RCA audio cables" they reviewed and this source is also positive. But since there are 6,000 products, I'm not sure how to handle praise of individual ones. I also found this video, but haven't watched the whole video yet.
I'll keep an eye out. As North said we don't need it to be perfect right now. CorporateM (Talk) 01:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey Crisco 1492, this looks like a jackpot. The Anstendig Institute did a one-year-long test with two separate rooms and compared entry-level to higher-end Monster cables. It also covers the entire debate extensively and has much more neutral and academic ways of describing some of the current content. It points out the limitations of "hearing tests" and has a much more neutral way of describing that some people can and some people cannot hear the difference. It also points out that people like me that listen to music on my iPhone probably won't appreciate it.
The source said: "It is our firm conviction that there were differences in the playback between the two rooms and that those differences lie in the most important aspect of sound, especially music: the expressive nuances." Regarding over long distances: "In other words, better cables simply have better conductivity and transport the signal farther with a lot less loss in signal strength as well as less other interference that also degrades the signal. That is clear proof that there certainly are important differences in cables."
Hope this helps! CorporateM (Talk) 02:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Interesting, that looks quite useful (and reasonably reliable). Do you want to do a write-up and have me move it in, or do you want me to add what I think are key points, or do you want to add it in yourself? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
It's very good in many ways (and weak in a few). I think that it would be good to use. North8000 (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Second draft[edit]

I took a shot at a second draft (below). I reduced the use of quotations and made quite a few edits both positive and negative. The negative NYT and PC World tests were not really proper implemented except as a cite for the word "reporters." I've put those in as a counter-point to the positive USA Today test. I mis-used the 1980 Speaker Builder source, because it looks like the "extremes of performance" comment was not specific to Monster and some of those sources were mostly positive, but I made them sound balanced in over-compensating for Crisco's observation that it had a very slight bias.

I think this may swing the pendulum the other way (yet again) just very slightly, but (again) is more neutral than the current. It's getting really, really close. May just need a few small tweaks to get the balance perfect. CorporateM (Talk) 12:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There's an audio/speaker cable reference in the HDMI section. (HDMI's aren't audio/speaker cables) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The Reflist is all messed up on Talk. It's not displaying the right references. I've moved a copy of the draft here, where the references should display properly. CorporateM (Talk) 13:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, now that I see the reference I can see that there is an error in your text. They are saying that the impedance is within one ohm of the ideal, not that it is 1 ohm. For those hoping for simplicity, I hate to say it but they are talking about a totally different meaning of impedance in the HDMI section.....characteristic impedance of the cable which is relevant for RF (video, but not audio) For characteristic impedance, the ideal is for the cable and its connectors to match everything else (e.g. 75 ohms) whereas for speaker wires / audio the goal for the cable is to get it as low as is possible. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Corrected below. Thanks! I also trimmed the second half of that sentence, which will adjust the balance slightly. CorporateM (Talk) 13:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • After North is done, I'll move this in. Looks fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't planning much beyond making comments from the peanut gallery.  :-) North8000 (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Har har. In that case, whenever Corporate is ready. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. Please do. If you two are content with this version "for now" we can move on to the Relationship with retailers" section below. CorporateM (Talk) 14:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Relationship with retailers[edit]

I took a shot at a "Relationship with retailers" section in three paragraphs:

  1. Covers the topic in general (profit margins and sales incentives)
  2. 2 covers things from the consumer's point-of-view (aggressive sales, higher prices, etc.)
  3. The final paragraph covers things more from the retailer's point-of-view (perks)

I haven't gotten any feedback on it yet (see above) and would be very appreciate of anyone willing to spend some time giving it a look-over and adding it, or a modified version, depending on what they think is fair. CorporateM (Talk) 22:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't taken the time to figure out how to look at the references, but I think that it certainly has no pro-Monster COI problems. If anything the opposite. Selling high markup / overpriced items is near-universal practice for consumer/retail businesses in the USA (French fries and soft drinks with the hamburger, service plans with everything from a power drill to an automobile, accessories when you buy a bicycle, HDMI cables with the High Def TV. The wording makes noting a common business practice sound like an expose. But I digress....I'd just put it in as is and would be happy to do so if you wish. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I put it in. I added rather than replaced, the existing paragraph sounded/sounds like a nice intro. But feel free to change or revert. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks North. I trimmed some repetition between my version and the prior. I was thinking, based on your comment, trimming this sentence might make it less editorialized: "According to PC Magazine, Monster is "often accused of selling over-priced cables that you can buy elsewhere for a fraction of the price."[23]" It is properly sourced, but it's a bit of commentary, as oppose to encyclopedic facts. CorporateM (Talk) 21:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I dunno on that one sentence. It is more about comparison of the price level of an accessory to the price levels of that accessory sold by others rather then falling under what I just described (gravitation towards types of add-ons with higher markup) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Aww fair enough. This section is "good enough" for now, so I'll mosy on to the next topic. Lots of ground to cover. CorporateM (Talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


I took a first shot at a Products section at User:CorporateM/Monster. I would like to humbly request an impartial editor take a look and at the content and consider adding it, or a modified version, to the article if they feel doing so would serve the reader. The current Dr. Dre partnership content I'd suggest be moved to History for future expansion. CorporateM (Talk) 22:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but the relative detail given to certain items seems to make it a bit of a Monster statement of their new initiatives and areas that they would like to increase their presence in rather than what a secondary source would describe their business as. I just looked at half of the references (so maybe I missed a secondary source overview) but is there a way to find and uses a secondary sources that discusses what their business is and give that greater influence in the wording/weighting? I could be wrong on this but that was impression after two reads. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
There's a minor grammar problem (use to) North8000 (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
In the marketing premise for audio cables, while it acknowledges that that the premise is Monster's, the implicit defining of all non-Monster cables as "cheap" at first glance appears to be in the voice of Wikipedia. Just a gut feel, I could be wrong. Possibly quote marks could be used if you have a quote to this effect? Or leave it out. Or make it a bit more careful paraphrasing. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I just trimmed the "sold on the premise" item. The source was strong (NYT), but it was only briefly mentioned and not in a way that suggests its notability or provides good wording. I suspect we may be able to circle back on it if I find a better source later on, especially because the traditional audio cables needs more weight. I trimmed a couple primary sources that looked like they were not serving a purpose and I trimmed what may have been undue focus on a specific power-strip product. I think a focus mostly on headphones and audio/video cables seems appropriate based on the sources I've seen, but let me see if I can find a single source that profiles the business. CorporateM (Talk) 12:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi North. I went through the sources that summarize all of Monster's offerings. Vision Magazine mentions cables, headphones and power products. USA Today mentions "power sources and other equipment for home theaters...wireless products...pushing into furniture designed to hide high-end electronics." This PC Magazine article is mostly on its transition to power products, but notes that its business has been focused on audio/video cables for 30 years.
After my latest round of edits it's about 50% on cables and 50% on everything else (power, headphones and accessories). I made some edits to expand on the audio cables. Let me know what you think. CorporateM (Talk) 17:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Now it looks good. I'd be happy to put it in. North8000 (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


I've taken a shot at the Trademarks section at User:CorporateM/Monster. The current section in article-space relies heavily on primary sources, though there are actually strong secondary sources available in The Wall Street Journal and The San Francisco Chronicle. I wasn't able to find much in terms of stories that cover the outcomes of individual disputes, probably because most are settled with non-disclosed terms.

Being that there are 30 lawsuits in all, a challenging aspect is determining which examples to include and with how much detail.

Would appreciate anyone willing to take a look and provide any feedback/edits/etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 21:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is an improvement and has no COI issues. I think that the change is net POV neutral. On one side of the equation, it corrects a bit of a problem the other way, basically sythesis/OR by the editor to select and characterize some as "more controversial" and use primary sources, and unnecessary use of bulleting which tends to make it more "hammering". On the other side of the equation, I think that the new version more fully communicates the core of the issue, which is assertions that they were trying to get dibs on a word rather than just protect a trademark. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

North8000 has reviewed the proposed Trademarks section at User:CorporateM/Monster and found that it was an improvement and did not contain COI issues. I would like to request an editor go ahead and move it to article-space, assuming they believe it is appropriate to do so.

Next-up, the History section and a new Lead and we should be ready for a GAN. CorporateM (Talk) 14:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I did it. I asked anyone to revert me if they do not agree. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Perfect. I'll work on History next, then the Lead and that should be a wrap. Is it ok for me to move the Candlestick partnership to History? Seems obvious to me, but just checking. CorporateM (Talk) 14:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


I'm research the History section and I think I'll keep some notes here as I notice stuff that may be helpful for other sections:

Therefore, the company makes cables for TVs, DVD and VHS players, computers, printers, video games, digital cameras and car entertainment systems. It also makes speaker wall mounts, power strips, alkaline batteries, cell phone chargers, leather phone cases, camera bags, headsets and screen- cleaning solutions.
And there are Monster cords, cases, wireless transmitters and car adapters designed for Apple Computer's hot-selling iPod digital audio players. Lee's musical background led him to start a small record label, Monster Music, with artists like Shana Morrison, daughter of singer-songwriter Van Morrison.
Monster's latest venture is high-tech furniture made by M-Design, a spin- off headed by Lee's son, Kevin Lee, 36, known as "Little Monster." The furniture, such as tables that hide big subwoofers, is designed to make home theater equipment blend in with its surroundings.
There's also an $8,000 Action Couch with a built-in wireless amplifier that causes seat cushions to rumble in sync with explosions and other noises during a movie.
Next year, Monster plans to introduce a line of wireless products, following yet another trend in home entertainment....
Leaving no stone unturned, Lee sells Monster Mints, the "Mints With Attitude," to entice a customer's last-second impulse purchase at the cash register.
  • Monster occupies 450,000 square feet of space in three buildings in San Bruno. Its products are sold in 15,000 stores and it owns 225 US patents.(SF Chronicle)
  • "Monster already makes lines of power sources and other equipment for home theaters. Lee is working on a product that will allow gadget lovers to control all of their electronics from a single panel. He's developing wireless products that will someday replace speaker and audio/visual (A/V) cable. He's even pushing into furniture designed to hide high-end electronics." USA Today
  • "To that end, Monster has embarked upon an aggressive push into the new "lifestyle" orientation of today's home entertainment products. The initiative consists of several new product lines that include amplifiers, speakers and A/V furniture, which are supplemented in the field by a program called Monster Reference Home Theater Music Experience—"MR. HiTME " for short. " (Dealerscope, 2004)
  • Though I would normally include the origins of the company name, this is quite promo: "He called his new product, "Monster Cable," because of its monstrous size and powerful audio performance."[1]

CorporateM (Talk) 15:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


I've started on a draft History section at User:CorporateM/Monster. I will give it a few more read-throughs and do some more research tomorrow. It has a bit of an undue focus on recent events, but I believe this is both because of the abundance of recent sources and because it has been in the news more over the last decade. I'll keep working on it and have it ready soon. CorporateM (Talk) 21:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Crisco moved the draft History section into article-space, which contains the Trademarks and Candlestick controversies per WP:Criticisms. However, now there is some repetitive content in the dedicated Controversy sections and the History section. He asked that I get a second opinion about which should be kept. CorporateM (Talk) 15:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Trademark related duplication[edit]

CorporateM asked me to take a look. There is much duplication of material between the "trademark disputes" (notably, it's "disputes" not "controversies" which would be a different story) subsection and the "trademarks: section. Should certainly be combined, but the question arises: into what section? The material is almost all about the disputes, whether it be Monster disputing (on the grounds of trademarks) the use of the name by others, or the accusations and pushback against such activities. There is very little material on trademarks aside from the disputes. So I think that "trademark disputes is the more appropriate section. I'll merge. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:North8000!! Important clarification, it's not just two sections on the same topic that need to be merged, but the text in both sections are identical. It was just re-worded and re-ordered a bit so it made more sense in the History section. At this moment, the trademark disputes are now on there three times! Repeated with identical text. CorporateM (Talk) 03:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I think I fixed it. I'm assuming that the "3rd" was the temporary duplication that I added. I did it thart way so that there would be a stage/version where someone could see both the to-be-deleted section and the se3ction with its material merged in. I did them sentence-by-sentence so as to be sure that I didn't lose any material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Cool, the other one is the Candlestick Park sponsorship, which is covered both at the beginning of Recent History and in a dedicated section. After that there's a few areas I need to propose content for and it should be GAN-ready! CorporateM (Talk) 12:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I did it. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


I threw together a quick draft of the Lead that is representative of the current article. Would greatly appreciate any input. CorporateM (Talk) 13:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


Monster Inc. manufactures and markets 6,000 different products, but is best known for audio and video cables. It also produces speakers, headphones, power strips, mobile accessories and audio devices for automobiles. The company was founded by an audiophile and engineer, Noel Lee, in 1979 by experimenting with different ways to build audio cables. It grew by doing demonstrations to convince the industry that audio cables made a difference in audio quality and by establishing relationships with retailers that were attracted to the cable's profit margins.

Over the years it created new divisions like Monster Music, Monster Game, Monster Mobile, Monster Photo and Monster Power. In the 2000s, Monster had legal trademark disputes regarding other companies or products that have "Monster" in their name, such as and the movie Monsters Inc.. Monster said it needed to defend its premium brand, while critics said it was pursuing litigation against companies that do not have confusingly similar products. It began manufacturing headphones in a partnership with Dr. Dre in 2008, which ended in 2012, and it created other celebrity branded or Monster-branded headphone products.

Several tests done by audiophile publications, news reporters and academics have conflicting viewpoints on whether more expensive audio or video cables like those from Monster make a difference in audio or video quality when compared to generic cables. Instead of advertising, Monster offers incentives to retailers and their salespeople to sell the cables. Retailers bundle high profit-margin cables with larger purchases that have smaller margins in order to improve profitability.

Suggestions / feedback[edit]

My suggestions:

  • Underrepresented: Needs a bit more on products, on the trademark controversies, and on relationships with retailers
  • Overrepresented: Dr. De headphones deal. Also from a prose standpoint, this is an abrupt topic change in the middle of a paragraph.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Let me know if that's better CorporateM (Talk) 15:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks good in the areas that I brought up. I did one tweak. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks North! (he/she put in the new lead). I also made some tweaks to the Products section based on the Notes section above to eliminate the redundancy in talking about headphones and add some better information. They were fairly small changes in a less controversial area, that would be difficult to explain/ask for, so I made them boldly (or at least bold in the context of COI). CorporateM (Talk) 21:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Good Article[edit]

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)
Monster's DNA-branded headphones
Monster audio cables
  • 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)

Recent back-and-forth on EU-related claims[edit]

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 (Singapore), (Bangkok), and (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)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Monster (company)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sportsguy17 (talk · contribs) 03:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I will be reviewing the article. It's late where I am (22:10), so I'll pick up on it tomorrow. Sportsguy17 (talkcontribssign) 03:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
Pass! Sportsguy17 (talkcontribssign) 00:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks good so far, but lead needs some work. The first paragraph immediately jumps in to what it manufactures. CorporateM, mind adding context and a general overview before jumping into its manufacturing. Otherwise, this article is looking good. Sportsguy17 (talkcontribssign) 00:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sportsguy. Thanks for taking on another one of my GA nominations! Giving the article a fresh pair of eyes, I noticed a few things that often come up in my GA reviews:
  • The Lead is probably too long and could be cut to just 2 paragraphs
  • The early history sounds a bit promotional, but may be neutral if it is representative of the sources
  • I have a habit of lumping everything into History and a lot of GA reviewers end up having me move a lot of the product history to Products, like "It also introduced its second audio cable, Interlink"
  • North 8000 pointed out that some of the new divisions that were created need an explanation of what they are
  • The Controversies section seems out-of-step with WP:Criticism
CorporateM (Talk) 15:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have placed the GAN on hold so CorporateM or anyone else has the opportunity to make the necessary changes. First of all, give more introduction to the lead, condense the lead, check the neutrality, make sure everything is appropriately divided into sections, such as "Products", "Company History", or whatever the topic may be. Also, remove any controversies that contradict WP:CRITICISM. Otherwise, the article is looking good. Sportsguy17 (talkcontribssign) 02:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

What the heck? Someone wants to jump a "START" article to "GA" status without first going through "C" or "B"? • SbmeirowTalk • 07:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming that you're referring to a rating by one of the projects that is interested in the article? That is neither a requirement nor it is it a norm to require it. North8000 (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I concur. It doesn't really matter, since some ratings are very outdated. These days, people care more about whether an article is GA material as compared to C-class material. Sportsguy17 (talkcontribssign) 02:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sportsguy17. It seems some of the issues I raised were unimportant and the others have been addressed, but it's always a good thing to get a second opinion on a few things. Let me know how you would to proceed with the GA review. CorporateM (Talk) 16:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Request Edit[edit]

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

  • A much shorter lead
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! • SbmeirowTalk • 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[edit]

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. • SbmeirowTalk • 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)