Talk:Music Tribe

Notability

I must admit that I was uncertain this company is notable enough when I created the article, the other option being to make this a section under Behringer. The relation is obvious, and while I can't source it, I think it was in fact called "Behringer Holding" for a while. The reason I decided to create this article that I believe media coverage since 2009 does make it notable enough for its own article. It is definitely a different entity. Feedback is very welcome.--Muhandes (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add that indeed, there is confusion in the media as well. In February 2010 there was coverage of a decision by Behringer to have Korg UK as their UK distributor, see here and here. In August, however, it is Music Group which announced Electrovision will replace Korg, see here and here. Korg however, responded to Behringer's move, not even mentioning Music Group, see here. I guess what I'm saying is, I believe the group is going to be notable as a holding company, and that the current doubts are not just a question of wikipedia, but media misunderstanding as well. --Muhandes (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And check this to get totally confused. --Muhandes (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

POV

I refer editors to refer to the contributions by the user Pirategads. This revision updated the logo to the most recent MusicTribe logo. This revision changed the homepage to point to their community page, and notably changed industries to "Pro AV and Consumer Industry", as well as inserted sections about MusicTribe being "an incredibly fun-loving tribe" with "Its sole purpose is to empower customers", as well as a history section about founder Uli Behringer as well as painting him in a glowing light. Company history section was removed entirely, and does not cite appropriate sources. This revision removes even more factual company history in place of "Behringer believes in carefully listening to its customers". These edits violate the POV principle of Avoid stating opinions as facts.

Honestly, these edits are a joke - the page reads like a really poor advert that a cheap PR firm wrote. Vorsipellis (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I rolled it back a ways and then reworked it to be more like it was. It was a huge violation of WP:NOT as it had become pure advertising corporatespeak. Somebody is clearly working for them. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Thanks a ton! Wasn't sure what the right thing to do in this case was. Vorsipellis (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)