Talk:Maxim Integrated/Archives/2013

Delisting

Why was MXIM delisted? 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Failure to file the required financial reports. Financials for several years are being revised due to options backdating issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.253.20 (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: MXIM's 2008-09-30 press release "Maxim Completes Restatement of Financial Statements" is located at http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/pr/Restatement_093008.pdf 72.1.148.76 (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisting

MXIM is re-listed on NASDAQ as of October 8, 2008. http://www.nasdaq.com/reference/200810/market_close_100808.stm 72.1.148.76 (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Locations

Do we really need to record every location where Maxim has a physical presence in this article? This seems unnecessary.216.239.124.44 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Stock Option Backdating

Why is this section being removed? It is relevant, well-sourced information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.185.135 (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not relevant to an encyclopedic article about a high-technology company. It is a recent news event--now over, as the company has been relisted--with no real significance within the company's 25 year history. It really is nothing more than a footnote in the company's history, and deserves to be treated as such. It does not deserve a special heading, nor the prominence of its current placement within this article.98.207.117.198 (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with you. It was a major event in the company's history representing over 2 years of investigation. I would argue that it does deserve its own section. That said, other things in Maxim's history deserve their own sections as well, but I lack the knowledge to write them. It is certainly not a mere footnote in the company's history- the stock option issue affected thousands of employees and investors, resulted in legal action against the company and its officers, and shareholder actions that are still ongoing.69.181.185.135 (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if there are independent sources then the event should be discussed in a neutral manner. Please leave it in. W Nowicki (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not an advertisement

professionals who believed that the market needed a well-managed, innovative supplier of high-quality analog and mixed-signal ICs...

Sorry for introducing the grammatical error before. But this sounds like WP:PEACOCK applies. Nobody is going to say "founded by random people who wanted a company run with normal incompetence to make mediocre products like everybody else" so it provides no information at all. It is just promotion.

Today, the company has over 6500 ICs in 29 product categories.

Its product portfolio includes over 6500 ICs in 29 major product categories...

Repeating this twice sounds like WP:UNDUE and WP:DATED. Why repeat it twice in such a short article? By the time a reader reads the article they might have 28 or 30 categories, so a date and reference would be needed.

I will try again to eliminate the redundancy and advertising without introducing errors.

Actually, their product page http://www.maxim-ic.com/products/ now lists 31 categories. Not about to count them all up, but cannot find where the 6500 number comes from. Since a company this large and diversified releases hundreds of different parts per year, I vote it would be better to just give a general indication of that, e.g. "thousands of products in a wide variety of categories". W Nowicki (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)