Talk:Madman Muntz

Suggestion!

what about merging early life and later years section in one section with headline as biography. that would would much better. Sushant gupta (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. I was hoping to learn more about his personal life and keep the time periods linear, but I don't think I'll be able to do that. Good suggestion. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

umhhh... i think the article is well structured. keep it up. you have done a great job. Sushant gupta (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I removed it from the main text yesterday on a trial basis. The original input formatting is now seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it's plain, unobtrusive text, which gives greater prominence to the high-value links. Please provide feedback if you wish, below. Tony (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Claim to have invented the term "TV"

The article claims that Muntz invented the term "TV," but the only source is a newspaper article that makes this claim in passing, probably basing it on Muntz's own claim. Newspaper articles are strikingly unreliable as sources for word origins. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary says that "TV" dates back at least to 1947, which seems a little early for a Muntz invention. Is there a better source than this newspaper article for this claim? John M Baker (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessarily too early and Merriam Webster could also be wrong. Muntz started quite early in the TV marketing sphere. The source provided is a reliable third party and satisfies WP:RS. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added two additional Reliable Sources. One of them is the LA Times. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually think that these newspaper articles are particularly Reliable, frankly, and I'm sure that M-W would not have used a 1947 date unless they had an example from then. I can't tell from the article if Muntz was already selling televisions in 1947, but I suppose it's possible. I'll try to see if I can get better information on this. John M Baker (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The references satisfy WP:RS: that's really all that matters. The Los Angeles Times in particular is a highly-regarded publication. The threshold for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and if newspapers aren't good enough we may as well delete 3/4ths of this article and 3/4ths of everything on Wikipedia, since they're used frequently. If you can find information that says someone else was using it before Muntz then you may have something, otherwise I see no reason to delete a reliably-cited statement. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the Robert Pease article in Electronic Design magazine, Muntz began selling TVs in 1946. You can read an internet "reprint" of the article here [1]. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I'm somewhat skeptical of the claim that Muntz coined the term "TV" too. The first solid references I can find to the term "TV" come from 1948, but from the looks of this the term must have been in common use by that stage; note the lack of explanation for it. That makes 1947 (or possibly earlier) a good year for it's arrival. The first solid production date I can find for a Muntz TV is 1949. His daughter was named "Tee Vee" in 1953, nearly five years on. There's no mention of his coining the term in his NYTimes obit in 1987 either. I also know that dictionaries like MW usually do fairly extensive research using original sources where possible; many smaller newspapers aren't quite as rigorous in my experience. If I get time I'll try and contact some TV/radio museums and see if they can shed any more authoritative light on this. Quickos (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Muntz began selling TVs in 1946. He didn't name his daughter Tee Vee until 1953 because it would have been hard to name soneone who would not be born for 6 more years... As I said sbove, if someone can find a reliable source that says someone else coined it before him, please provide it. Until then, I have three reliable sources that say he did and we don't really delete reliably-cited information because someone disbelieves them. That's basically WP:OR. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Reliability" is supposed to be a higher standard than truth, not a lower standard, and sources are only reliable if they are trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Newspaper articles normally are a pretty good source for reportable facts (e.g., that Muntz ran Muntz TV, Inc.). But how can a reporter know who coined a word, especially if it was coined decades ago? The reporter can do so only by referring to some authoritative source (these give no indication of having done so) or, if one of the handful of reporters qualified to do so (e.g., William Safire at the New York Times or Jan Freeman at the Boston Globe), by undertaking the strenuous task of researching himself (clearly not done in this case). Citations to these newspaper articles only show that some credit Muntz with having coined "TV." And in fact, he did not. The story indicates that he was already selling and advertising TV sets when he first used "TV," and he didn't start selling them until 1947, according to the best dating I can find (though he began plans to do so a year earlier). But "TV" was in use by 1946. I've revised the article accordingly. John M Baker (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In '"Barton Fink."

HI, I'm new to this, so I apologize if I'm not adding this info correctly. I'm adding that in the Coen brothers film "Barton Fink," John Goodman's character, a homicidal maniac, is referred to as "Karl 'Madman' Mundt." An obvious play on Madman Muntz 76.90.122.8 (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia, however its guidelines discourage the addition of trivial or incidental information. The references to Muntz's seminal influences on copy-cat salesmen Cal Worthington and the Crazy Eddy character are germane, as is mention of a biography specifically on Muntz. Citations of incidental reference to Muntz in otherwise unrelated books, films, etc., are discouraged.Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Birth year discrepancy

In the article, his birth year is reported as being 1914, however he is in the category "1917 Births". I just wanted to point this out; I do not know where the error lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.139.9 (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks! Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Great article

Great article, guys; it told me things that I didn't know I would find interesting, which is I suppose the aim of all encylopedia articles. Congratulations to all concerned. Lexo (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Trivial" references

The information being blanked from the legacy section was put there during the FA review as the legacy section was otherwise too small. I recommend people who want to delete it based on their interpretation of what is "trivial" (and whether it should be removed in any case) should read the FA review. Deleting whole paragraphs hurts the article, particularly as regards its FA status. Muntz' mentions in these novels is a part of his legacy as a cultural icon, and there is no reason to delete a few words that explain how Carroll became a cultural icon himself, by using the Madman Muntz method. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This simply isn't so. This is "trivia", incidental information that if it belongs anywhere at Wikipedia it would be under articles under their own headings, as a bio of Carroll. Saying Muntz's "legacy" section is too small and needs to be padded with incidental information is on face absurd, as well as contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines on such things. It is an encyclopedia, not a repository of ephemera, miscellaney, and trivialities. A *movie" based on Muntz's life, that is a different thing, and that is why it belongs whereas incidentally referring to Muntz in a book promoting a book not enlightening readers with something germane about Muntz's life and legacy does not.Wikiuser100 (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're mistaken. The information is pertinent and does not violate any policy. The subjective claim of "it's trivia" does not provide enough reasoning for deleting an entire paragraph of information. I have reverted the blanking. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How is the following remotely relevant to the subject of the article?

As a result of his Crazy Eddie commercials, Carroll became a significant 80s icon, even appearing in the film Splash. 208.127.59.108 (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

so remove it. ok, then, I will...Ken (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of weasel words at the intro

I've been through this a few times before in some other articles, recently on Straight razor and a few weeks back on Alex Jones (radio). I know it can be irritating trying to replace words like "many", "some" etc. but, unfortunately, given the WP:WEASEL policy, we have to at least try. Last time, on Straight razor, I used "many" but I got the tag and I had to drop it. So in this case the solution is either we explicitly state which sources call him the guy who coined the term "TV" or rephrase to something like "He has been referred to as.....by mainstream media" or something similar, which, unfortunate as it may sound, is the Alex Jones solution. Dr.K. (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Specifying the actual periodicals seems like a good idea to me and everything looks good. Cheers. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nobody of Consequence. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not an example of weasel words. Rather, it is one of the clear exceptions: when the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion. That said, I do not object to specifying the sources. John M Baker (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I think it's safer this way overall. Dr.K. (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Muntzing

Excellent Article!

I have no written reference for this, but during a break in a Deposition in a Cable-TV Patent case, I met a fellow from the dawn of the TV era and we got to talking about "Mad Man" Muntz.

The secret to "Muntzing" he claimed was component matching, sometimes called tolerance matching.

Tubes of the day (and even transistors today) vary in their performance characteristics due to production variations. Televisions of that era (and indeed circuits today) often had to employ extra circuitry to compensate for the various production variances in the tubes used. If the circuit was properly designed, any tube could be replaced by a new part off the shelf, and work properly.

The genius of "Muntzing" was to use components (tubes) that were matched, such that the production tolerance variation of one component was compensated by the variation in another component.

It was not a new idea - manufacturers had been doing this for a long time in other areas. For example, with ball bearings, it is difficult to grind the various pieces to particular tolerances. So parts are made, then gauged, and oversized balls are matched to undersized rings, etc. to produce a properly toleranced part.

Muntz took the same idea and applied it to radio components. Only a person without a formal educational background could think of such a simple and direct idea.

The only drawback, my friend told me, was that when a Muntz TV needed repair, the repair technician would have to bring a bag full of spare tubes, and try each one, one at a time, until the replacement tube matched the production variations of the original tube. "You just plugged in tubes, one at a time, until it worked" he said.

The guy who told me this story was an interesting fellow and had great stories about the dawn of the cable TV industry - how Jerrold (now GI) built the first line amplifiers in old coffee cans and developed the temperature-compensated line amp. He had one of those original "coffee can" line amps mounted on a plaque in his office, removed, he said, from a working cable system after nearly 30 years of continuous use.

There are a lot of great old stories like that, not documented anywhere. I only wished I had recorded them.

Then there was this guy I met who helped develop the first 5MB Hard Drive for SeaGate. But that's another story.

You gotta love the Madman!

Joe Patent (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)