Talk:Mellanox Technologies

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is a complete new rewrite, from scratch, so section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion does not apply, Furthermore, this new version was first created as a draft in my user space, reviewed by experienced editors over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation, and approved as satisfying notability concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Song (talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

See this - reviewed and approved by User:Huon. Jeff Song (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As well as this - new version approved by User:VQuakr Jeff Song (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"Drive by tagging"

I don't mean to be rude, but this ruffles my feathers. It is ridiculous to remove the advert tag and say I am "drive by tagging" when you know perfectly well that I am actively working on this article. Any problems that I don't feel I can solve myself will be mentioned here. In the mean time, the article still reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia article, so I've restored the tag. causa sui (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude either, but after I spent several hours yesterday rewriting it from scratch (after you refused to provide me with any of the previous content you deleted), using high quality 3rd party sources like Reuters, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg, and having my version reviewed and approved by a couple of experienced editors (exactly as you suggested!) - when I come here and I see someone just plunk an "Advertisement" tag on it, without any explanation , strikes me as the epitome of rudeness. Please explain what specific issue you have with this version. Jeff Song (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, the article reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia article. causa sui (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree. Please name specific issues, or make concrete suggestions for improvement, not some vague hand-waving. Jeff Song (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking for when you ask for 'specific issues'. Do you mean direct quotes or specific lines or wording? My problem with the content is related to framing and structure, and not as much with individual sentences. It seems that the article is similar to what you might find on a corporate "About Us" page, listing what makes the company cool and accomplished (or a good stock to buy).

Compare to Microsoft. I don't expect that this article will reach that standard of course, because of the abundance of sources for Microsoft Corp and the high profile of the company leads to many more "eyes" on the article. But what strikes me about the Microsoft article is that it presents a narrative shaped to dispassionately inform reader about the history of the company and its public significance. Now, Microsoft, like Mellanox, has many impressive achievements in its field and these facts speak for themselves and reporting them is an important encyclopedic goal. But Microsoft (the article) weaves these facts into the encyclopedic narrative, whereas Mellanox appears more like a bulleted list of feathers in the cap. I hope that helps. causa sui (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft is on of the precious few "Featured articles" on corporations - is that really the suitable benchmark for the removal of a "Advertisement" tag? I think a more appropriate comparison would be to one of Mellanox's competitors, such as Qlogic or Broadcom - both of which have a structure very similar to this one. This company has only a 12 years history, in a rather specific niche of high-performance computing, so it does not have nearly as much visible impact on our daily lives as Microsoft, so I'm not sure a prose-like narrative is possible. It also has had the good fortune to avoid nasty legal battle like Broadcom or personal scandals associated with its executives like other companies public which would make for interesting reading, of a gossipy nature - but I don't think that a reason to "punish" it, is it? 23:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I did admit that Microsoft is too high a standard, much for the same reasons as you describe. I don't expect that this article could reach that level of quality, but I think the comparison is useful to illustrate what I find troubling with this article as it stands. Also, I wouldn't suggest you view the tag as a "punishment" of the article, and especially not as a company. The purpose of these tags is twofold, in my view: (1) to suggest to readers that there are problems that they should be aware of and, if they choose, involved in fixing and (2) to draw the attention of article cleanup patrol. The comparison to Broadcom is good, and I think there are similar problems with that article. These articles are often written at least in part by people who are affiliated with the subjects themselves; increasingly, businesses are aware that Wikipedia affects their public image and may hire people to edit their articles. Maybe it would be useful to seek peer review from Wikipedia:WikiProject Business to see if there is any precedent on how this is handled. causa sui (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no affiliation with Mellanox. As a side note, I don;t see a problem with people editing on behalf of Mellanox, so ling as the result is neutral. But, in my case, that's a non-issue. The thing is, if there are "similar issues" with the Broadcom and Qlogic articles, or the dozens of other similar articles I could name, and only the "featured articles" like Microsoft don't have these issues - may I suggest the real issue is that your standards are not the ones commonly used for company articles ? Jeff Song (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

First off, I didn't intend to insinuate that you have a conflict of interest - only that many editors of corporate pages do. Second, you are welcome to suggest that, but you wouldn't be the first. That was my intention when I suggested we seek peer review from WikiProject Business. causa sui (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for such a review here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business#Review_of_Mellanox_Technologies, I hope that's the right place. Jeff Song (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC

The article Mellanox Technologies was deleted by me, at AFD, as a copyvio. Jeff Song (talk · contribs), according to his own account, rewrote the article from scratch using secondary sources. The article in its current format is mostly work contributed by him.

I've tagged the article with {{advert}} because I feel that the purpose of the article is, broadly, to promote the significance of the company and its achievements in its market, and to outline its value (as a publicly traded company).

Jeff Song has responded that the articles on the major competitors to Mellanox Technologies, such as Broadcom, aren't much better -- and I agree. This expands the scope of this RFC somewhat.

(1) Is the Mellanox Technologies, in its current form, acceptably neutral and encyclopedic?

(2) If not, what can be done to improve it?

(3) If not, are we obligated to the same judgment for articles such as Broadcom? What are the standards for articles on corporations and how can we enforce them?

Any comments on these questions or advice on the best course of action for improving our coverage of notable businesses is welcome. causa sui (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

To me the article seems sufficiently neutral. Apparently the reliable secondary sources tend to report what might be termed "positive" news without much criticism, but I don't see how the article fails to faithfully represent those sources (and I did look at all of them when I tidied up the references a few days ago). Of course the article could be improved - for example, we don't need an entire "acquisitions" subsection for a single acquisition - but even now it's not unsuitably flattering. Huon (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

On point (3), no we are not obliged, either collectively or individually, to render the same (or any) judgement on other articles. We are volunteers, and our obligation is to attempt to ensure our editing improves the encyclopedia. We can do that one article at a time, or systematically. Certainly we might feel a personal desire to be even handed, but the scope of the project, and the limitations we place on our donations of time, means that even so we can't necessarily fulfil that desire. In the long run though, broadly consistent editing should lead to an even handed approach. Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC).

It seems relatively neutral to me too. Unfortunately, it's very hard to describe a business accurately and neutrally without somebody raising concerns about promotion; especially if more attention is paid to the business' products. Simply saying "Business X makes product Y which does Z" ought to be neutral. If we changed all the nouns so it was an article about a hospital (or a school or an ancient kingdom), and we replaced technical products with wards & operating theatres, nobody would raise any concerns about the neutrality of our description. This isn't intended as a personal criticism; it's just human nature. bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• The subject is notable per numerous news stories written about it. There's a need for copy editing and more neutrality but I don't see a problem. Jojalozzo 02:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  To reiterate, my concerns are about neutrality, not notability, which has been established following the AFD. causa sui (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  I reiterate. No basis for AFD. Edit it for neutrality. Jojalozzo 00:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

  To make clear, you agree that there are neutrality problems with the article? Sorry if I seem pedantic. causa sui (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

  I said: "There's a need for copy editing and more neutrality..." Just edit it!! Jojalozzo 18:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I now I am a little late to the party here but to say this article reads like an ad is a little extreme. There is a little puffery in the idea that hiring Palestinians will raise political stability but nothing too severe that it interferes with the article itself. As mentioned before it may sound like an ad if you speak accurately about sales or product capabilities and it begins to sound like you find this company to be the coolest thing sense peanut butter.--MOLEY (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Coming through the Feedback Request Service - as Jojalozzo (talk · contribs) says, just edit it if you think it needs to be more neutral! Opening up a RfC without attempting to copyedit or do some research (outside Wikipedia) on the subject of the article is somewhat inefficient. At the same time, do not be so bold as to remove reliable sources just because you think they're too positive for the company. II | (t - c) 22:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• The products section looks like it needs some modifications. The products seem to be getting described in too much detailed specifications. The product descriptions could/should be more generic IMO. Plus, the products seems to be getting extolled in an undiencyclopedic way. To my way of thinking, it isn't the job of encyclopedias to seem to be endorsing products in this way. The products should simply be noted in a generic way. And if the company has been lauded &/ critiqued, that should be noted to some extent. However, the article would not need deletion. It may only need some modifications to reduce the unnecessary focus on products--and their detailed features--and their virtues--.MW ^ℳ 13:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• RfC comment. The answers to the proposed quiz:

1. Yes
2. n/a
3. n/a

So I think everything is OK, leave it to develop in a natural way. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• RfC comment The article looks fine to me. It may be true that existence of the article promotes 'the significance of the company' as it allows people to look up information about a subject that they know little about, but this is invariably true for many lesser known subjects. LK (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the article looks like it is on the right track. There is little if any POV being taken, and at a high level this article serves to provide some basic info about the company and highlight the sensitivity of the hiring actions of the company. If other views exist, they can be added with appropriate reference. Commo soldier (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ifin you don't like Wikipedia being used to advertise companies by paid agents of those companies, you should probably forget Wikipedia exists. Hipocrite (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Delisting from TASE

Mellanox is no longer listed and traded in the TASE. It was delisted during Q3 2013. http://www.mellanox.com/page/press_release_item?id=1032

Its stocks are solely traded on the NASDAQ now.

The article and the relevant lists need to be amended to reflect that.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mellanox Technologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101112045944/http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/77108/20101029/oracle-mellanox-hp-dell-ibm-switch-chip-infiniband-siwtches-solaris-sun-acquired.htm to http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/77108/20101029/oracle-mellanox-hp-dell-ibm-switch-chip-infiniband-siwtches-solaris-sun-acquired.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thestreet.com/story/10003192/web-chip-fabless-mellanox-poised-to-raise-50m-at-company-value-of-250m.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)