Talk:Bose Corporation/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I brought this conversation to the Reliable sources Noticeboard because there is no equivalent for verifiable sources. I hope that we can get this issue resolved one way or another soon :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that—having more eyes on the problem is a good thing. To me, it looks as if you did not appreciate being the lone voice against two editors describing your favorite sources as unreliable, or their use as synthesis, so you called for reinforcements. My expectation is that your rallying cry will bring a greater number of opinions weighing against the use of the dubious sources and against the construction of a synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; I think that most of the sources above are reliable and support the broad assertion that "Bose is considered high-end." I sympathize with you that the statement is flawed in the sense that the only thing high end about Bose is their marketing but to deny that Bose is perceived as high end by many, many people is futile and disingenuous. ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see a reliable source state, plainly, that Bose is considered high end by many, or that Bose is a manufacturer of high-end audio products. You have not brought such a source to the argument—instead you brought an opinion based on personal observation. Certainly, it would be interesting to discuss why Bose's marketing has succeeded, but I cannot find a source ballsy enough to tackle this subject. Bose's legal department is heavy handed, making objective discussions of Bose very scarce in mainstream publications. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Bose is definitely considered high end. I used to sell electronics, and we had a saying "no highs, no lows, must be Bose". Still, customers thought it was a fancy, high quality brand. I don't think it's that controversial of a statement, so it doesn't require the highest quality peer reviewed source from academe. Not sure which of the above is the best, or if there is a better one, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly taken out much of the following two sentences:

Bose stores feature a 15 to 25 seat theater which has a short film that demonstrates a

Lifestyle Home Entertainment System

using a high-definition front LCD projector. At one point in the show a three-sided box is placed in front of the center speaker, and the Lifestyle system automatically adjusts and corrects the sound in the room via AdaptIQ technology.

My version is simply this: "Bose stores feature a 15 to 25 seat theater used to demonstrate products."

I see no reason why the reader needs to know what happens during one part of an in-store product demo, especially since there is no notability established for the bit—no outside observer/expert commenting on it. It appears to me to be trivia, and to be unreliable relative to changing demonstration needs (will there always be a hi-def LCD projector aimed at a front screen, or might there some day be a DLP projector, or a rear screen?) This trivia does not need to be in the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This part in particular, "At one point in the show a three-sided box is placed in front of the center speaker, and the Lifestyle system automatically adjusts and corrects the sound in the room via AdaptIQ technology" is really promotional. Without third-party reliable source, this reads like it comes from Bose's marketing dept.Mattnad (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We need to be precise here since the reviews are very limited. So for instance, we should be specific about what sources say what. Most of the sources that praise or critique Bose are "consumer publications" including consumer reports and stereophile. The proper distinctions are publications that focus on audio vs. those that are focused on other things like finance or computers.

The RSN board did not touch on attempts at WP:SYN or OR which is what seems to be the problem. With this section before I did tight editing based on what the sources ACTUALLY say. Nobody is saying bose doesn't do high end, but we need to be clear on what high end per the reliable sources you've brought to the table (and dead links cannot apply since they fail verifiability).Mattnad (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In this edit, Phoenix79 made some article changes with the edit summary, "Per consensus after 4 days on

• Bose is considered "high-end" or "premium" by the average person who buys "lifestyle" products
• Bose is not considered "high-end audio" by those involved with high-end audio systems

Note that there was no discussion of specific references—the whole point of the post. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I just removed the specific phrase "

synthesis of multiple sources making lesser statements, the collection of which fails to produce the goal you wish for. Synthesis is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Further addition of this exact phrase and link will be considered edit warring. Binksternet (talk

) 21:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please check the sources for once since you would clearly see that there are a few that say "high-end audio". But if you dont believe that why dont you do a simple google books search? Here is another one from popular mechanics talking about Bose's Lifestyle systems. This is just getting silly now, and please dont threaten other users, that's not very

WP:Civil. -- Phoenix (talk

) 21:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not going to do a search for you, but thank you for doing it yourself and finding suitable references. Those links certainly change the issue. Nice sleuthing work! Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that it was up to me to find any source that backed up any unverified statements, my issue was that I had gave such a source on 22:23, 27 July 2010 and you were still reverting it even when I quoted the source for you. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again I have taken out the mentions of Bose gear being found in the Sistine Chapel, unnamed Broadway theaters, and unnamed Olympic stadiums. These mentions are misleading, as there is no context given regarding what Bose equipment is found there, what the result has been, etc.

You can see how I expanded the bits about the Space Shuttle until there was enough material to merit its inclusion. The same might be done with the Sistine Chapel, explaining what gear it is and what task it is performing, but for the other unnamed venues there must be names and explanations. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This task should be fairly easy to accomplish for the Sistine Chapel, as Bose has a page about it which was used by Phoenix79 as a reference; but far better would be other, non-Bose sources commenting on it. Coming from Bose, it's promotional. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Really?? You asked for sources and I provide multiple ones and you dont even check them, nor do you seam to notice that they are provided. Ok so you dont like the case studies from bose... but what about the 7 other non-bose sources? And just so you know

The Broadway Theatre (already wiki-linked for you) is an actual location located at 1681 Broadway NY, NY!! -- Phoenix (talk

) 05:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Going by the sources you provide, we have:

• "The (Bose Auditioner) program has been used to design public address systems at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, the Sistine Chapel, and even Masjid al-Haram, the grand mosque at Mecca, a challenging environment, full of reverberating marble, with a history of failed audio solutions."
  • Nothing about Broadway, no mention of which company's loudspeakers were installed after using the Bose assessment tool.
• "Today, at age 68, Amar Bose has earned over two dozen patents, and he still works full time, directing a more than $550 million company, whose products can be found in Olympics stadiums, Broadway theatres, the Sistine Chapel, and the Space Shuttle (where his noise cancellation system protects the astronauts from permanent hearing damage)."
  • This source has already been used in the Space Shuttle bit, to flesh it out and make it more encyclopedic. It has, however, no such details about the Sistine Chapel, nor does it specify which of many "Broadway theatres" (plural) or stadiums use Bose. I know a lot about stadium and theatre sound, being a sound engineer, and I cannot recall even one standout Bose installation of loudspeakers.
• "Today, tourists visiting the Sistine Chapel in Rome and astronauts blasting into space aboard the shuttle use Bose speakers and other patented technologies his company discovered and developed."
  • No encyclopedic detail—just a puff piece. This guy gets it wrong about Bose speakers on the Space Shuttle, unless you stretch the term to include the little drivers inside noise-canceling headsets. If the more specific term loudspeakers had been used here, the Space Shuttle would not be included, so "speakers" is misleading. Out it goes.
• "His Acoustic Noise Cancelling headsets are used in the space shuttle."
  • Yes, this is true, but this cite is not specific about details, and is not necessary in the Commercial Systems section, nor is it necessary in the noise canceling headphones section because there are already two references there which offer useful detail. Out it goes.
• "Today, you can hear Bose wherever quality sound is important, from the Olympic Games to the Sistine Chapel, from NASA space shuttles to the Japan National Theatre."
  • Puff piece; promotional peacock phrase "wherever sound quality is important". No detail about which venues holding Olympic events, no details about the Sistine Chapel's sound system, no details about the system installed at the Japan National Theatre. Out it goes. Binksternet (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

These pass

While you're at it, look up which Bose equipment was used for which Olympics venue, as there have been many such venues, and by far the greater proportion of them do not have Bose installed. Saying that Bose is found at Olympics stadiums is terribly misleading. And find out what gear was installed at the Sistine Chapel, in what year, and how it has been received. Make this article enlightening for the reader, not promotional for the company. Without supporting details, the simple mentions of place names are unencyclopedic, especially unnamed venues. Binksternet (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is challenging the reliability or verifiability of your sources. Instead, I am challenging how they are being used. Binksternet (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you have found The Film Journal from 1990 to support the statement that Bose supplies sound gear for the Olympics. That article was an announcement of future intent, not a report of actual participation. That source can be used only to support a very limited statement such as "Bose announced their intent... etc." As it turns out, exactly one Bose loudspeaker could be found in Albertville at the 1992 Winter Olympics: an Acoustic Wave Cannon, which is a 12-foot-long subwoofer, using a 12-inch speaker driver. One loudspeaker is what supports the phrase "Bose products can be found in Olympics stadiums". Very misleading. Binksternet (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In keeping with my resolve to either delete or expand single building refs, I have taken out the Olympics (no building specified, only one loudspeaker (a subwoofer!) present in 1992's sources) but I have expanded slightly on the Sistine Chapel using one of the refs. The others which mention the building in passing are not needed—the best one stays, the one that says the Bose Auditioner was used. I took the Space Shuttle out of the Commercial section because noise canceling headsets are not in Bose's Commercial division. Of course, the Space Shuttle is still up in the noise-canceling section! Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting again the mention of Olympics and its horribly insufficient reference (no venue specified, no reference affirms the deed as done, just a prediction announced in advance), deleting again the mention of the Space Shuttle (not in Commercial division, information already present at the Noise-canceling headphones section). This dully repetitive edit war must stop. Binksternet (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I keep using two THX references to support two statements about Bose not being certified by THX; one reference is for the commercial products, the other is for home entertainment products.

• http://www.thx.com/professional/sound-engineer/approved-equipment-lists/
• http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/thx-certified-products/

Neither URL by itself supports the statement that no Bose products are THX certified. In fact, there are further THX URLs which would have to be synthesized together to make the global statement, and

• THX-certified loudspeakers – http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/thx-certified-products/
• THX-certified subwoofers – http://www.thx.com/inside/subwoofer/

Phoenix79 keeps taking out the top two references, replacing them with the global statement, the one that is not supported by any one reference, or with just one of the two statements. I think both are necessary, as each one applies to a very different group of products. Binksternet (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the second mention, the one which declares a lack of THX certification for Bose Commercial products. Both THX URLs are needed to support the two statements about very different product divisions. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again I have restored the commercial URL. Absent any discussion, the removal of this neutral, cited fact constitutes edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The reference on these guys, the 2004 story in Popular Science, does not say that Bose equipment was installed in those locations. Instead, the story says that Bose Auditioner was used to implement the sound design, to assess the sound system artificially before installing it. Binksternet (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevant text (with reference) re replacement at Staples Centre restored. Pheonix79, if you think this should be removed please let us know your reasoning.

Here's a ref to the original Bose system using bose speakers that were specified by a Bose consultant talking official bose bullshit in 1999 <a href="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/STAPLES+CENTER%3A+HIGH-TECH+PRODUCTION+%3A+SOUNDING+OFF%3B+LOS+ANGELES+HAS...-a083624817">STAPLES CENTER: HIGH-TECH PRODUCTION : SOUNDING OFF; LOS ANGELES HAS NEVER SEEN OR HEARD SYSTEMS SO ADVANCED.</a> So yes, i think bose did a bit more than analyse the previous design. Greglocock (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Background

"for luxury cars" removed, since refs 5+6 list installations for both luxury and non-luxury cars

as you can see we have a problem with

Umh, No, that's a bit insulting. So anyone that likes a product that isn't Apple on wikipedia means that they have an agenda? Really? btw, there is no way that you are a new user but obviously a previous editor, it is quite easy to tell. All your comments have been talked about to sickness, please check the archives on those points. I fell into editing this page because it was really neglected and it seams that I was the only one willing to put any effort into expanding it. I have tried to emulate what thousands of apple fanboys have done for Apple knowledge on wikipedia hoping that others would help expand this part also. Your only good edit is that the Bose system at Staples has been replaced by another brand. I dont know if that would mean that saying that they were found at that location should be removed or if a note saying that they have been replaced should be used. That point I would concede makes sense. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I, too, have noticed that Phoenix79 edits with a push to promote Bose. No negative stuff is allowed without a stiff fight. The comparison to Apple is inapt—Apple has fanboys but Bose does not. Nobody but Bose people consider the products as highly as you do. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No keeping it

WP:NPOV. Are you saying that it is unusual or newsworthy for companies to stop people making counterfeit product or using copyright names? That is really a non issue and not not news worthy. But people on the net like to point it out as if Bose is unusual, Klipsch has sued so has McIntosh. Heck there are over 9 million hits on google for sues OR sued trademark and 19 million for sues OR sued fake. But in regards to this article the one that went to the supreme court, that one is indeed newsworthy and even has it's own article dedicated to this. As for your thought about fanboys, I think that is a silly assertion. Apple has a lot of younger people buying their products (or their parents buy them) so they play with them and use their free time to expand knowledge on wikipedia. Most Bose people I think are established with a family and/or work. So they are too busy because their family/work takes up what ever free time they have. I am lucky to say that I have grown up with Bose in my house my whole life. So I know what they can and cannot do. Personally I would love it if Bose would get off their butts and help me with this page, but sometimes I think that I am the only editor that is willing to do what is right and keep it as neutral as possible balancing out the haters. -- Phoenix (talk

) 03:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Do not remove well-cited information about lawsuits. That action is not neutral by any stretch. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix79 I do not mean to insult, it was just a question regarding a wiki policy (which I notice you chose not to answer). However your cheap knee-jerk reply accusing me of having multiple accounts is poor form and totally incorrect (I have only done minor work on ~5 pages before getting my current username). "Your only good edit", please don't insult the contributions of other volunteers. So you have to "concede" other editors contributions are valid for them to not get reverted, is that how things work for this article?? "All your comments talked to sickness" you mean the inellexual article? Sorry, I didn't see the archived discussion. Anyway, the talk page did not reach any conclusions. I am restoring the link. Yes it is biased, but so is all the Bose-sourced material, so it is needed for balance. It is a useful reference, of course you are welcome to counter it with references debunking the claims. But deleting it again is vandalising the article. Of course, I have noted it is a subjective review of a model no longer in production.

talk

) 07:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"Most Bose people I think are established with a family and/or work. So they are too busy because their family/work takes up what ever free time they have" Another explanation, as suggested by some of the refs, is they bought it as a fashion purchase after seeing an ad in a non-audio magazine and aren't especially concerned about audio quality. "keep it as neutral as possible balancing out the haters" Care to name which editors are you making personal attacks against here? Just because some people are trying to get some variety of references in an article dominated by Bose marketing material does not make them "haters"

talk

) 07:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheer up simon, at least he hasn't tried

Stockholm Syndrome. The thing to bear in mind is that buying a sound system is a luxury purchase. If you are foolish enough to pay your money for a Bose system instead of any other system, nobody gets hurt, it just means some salesman's kids go to uni, that's all. Hey if it is a good school they might learn about scepticism... or even science. That'd be neat. Greglocock (talk

) 13:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the encouragement Greg. I tried to find some detailed independent reviews of Bose equipment (to balance all the Bose marketing content), but (not surprisingly) didn't come up with much. So how about adding a line like "Bose makes efforts to avoid having the audio performance of their equipment independently reviewed or compared with the competition <*ref "about:blank">" (kidding!)

talk

) 02:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

simon To re-answer your question I said no. It was the second word I said replying to you originally. And if you have ever tried to talk to people on forums you would know what I mean by haters. The only real way to know is close your eyes and listen to them yourself. If you dont like it then fine; If you do then fine. The problem is I have found many people make up their mind before they hear a single note. Don't ask a blind man to tell you about Van Gough if he has never had the pleasure to see his art. He could tell you the history of the paintbrush or how he was influenced by this artist, etc. But he cannot tell you about the emotion that the painting brings to his life or how it talks to his soul. These are speakers for goodness sake, you listen to them, you then listen to others out there. You figure out what would work best in your home and then make your decision. I mean have you heard some of the MartinLogan Electrostatic speakers? They are jawdroppingly good... but they have prices that make Bose look shockingly cheap. So you have to figure out how much you are willing to spend and what you are willing to give up to get what you are looking for, and sometimes you have to spend more to get the sound that you like, but still have a room for kids to run around. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix79, once again I must ask you to refrain from deleting well-cited text. You have been edit warring to remove the recently added lawsuits from the article, beginning with the CEDIA lawsuit that Bose lost.

• [2] Phoenix79 reversion, 01:00, December 29, 2011, removal of CEDIA lawsuit
• [3] Phoenix79 reversion, 06:10, December 31, 2011, removal of CEDIA lawsuit
• [4] Phoenix79 reversion, 03:44, January 1, 2012, removal of CEDIA lawsuit
• [5] Phoenix79 reversion, 05:18, January 2, 2012, removal of CEDIA lawsuit

This is what edit warring looks like. Editors get blocked all the time for repeated reversions such as this, especially in cases like this one where three or more other editors are arguing against one person who continually reverts. Binksternet (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Umh, I was following

WP:BRD over a WIDE variety of changes thanks and trying to make them look like they were all the same is quite shameless. But thanks for at the very least for using the talk page. -- Phoenix (talk

) 06:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk archive 1 is dedicated to discussion of the website http://www.intellexual.net/bose.htm and whether it should be presented in the Bose article.

The website has a fatal problem: its author is unlisted. We have no idea what his qualifications are. If I had to guess, archived versions of the page list a guy named "Rich Wang" as the author. Is that a joke name or a real person? From perusing the archived website, Rich Wang appears to be a fan of Lexus cars, home theater systems and bikini-clad women. Not an expert audio engineer.

Whoever wrote the piece, it cannot be a reliable source because there is no author or editor or expert listed. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for looking into it. Also, the author claims to be summarising a newsgroup discussion so yeah it's not valid. It's frustrating that all the pro-Bose material is verifiable, but most of the anti-Bose is on forums so it can't be used. So in this case, wikipolicy makes it hard to have a balanced article.

talk

) 02:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As this has been a very stable page and I want to keep it that way, I was hoping that we might follow

It's noteworthy because reporters have noted it. The larger lawsuits such as CEDIA, Consumer Reports, and Harman often include mention of previous lawsuits, and discussion about how Bose is lawsuit-happy, prone to starting lawsuits, litigious. In other words, Bose is not only notable for its products but its aggressive lawsuits. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It was a law suit how would it not be noted then? So does that assertion mean that klipsch law suit against websites is really that noteworthy? How about RIM being sued for its BBM Trademark? sues OR sued trademark has 3,050,000 hits sues OR sued fake has 9,330,000 results. They cant all be noteworthy? Has no one here worked in a business before? It is not litigious to sue to protect what you make just read this Should I Sue for Trademark Infringement?. Heck Peter Jacksons well documented law suit against New Line isn't even mentioned in his wiki page. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. Are all Lawsuits by definition Notable then? -- Phoenix (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet, Bose has a reputation in the industry as being lawsuit happy, the well-referenced text you keep removing informs the reader of this. "As this has been a very stable page and I want to keep it that way", there is no argument for a page being "stable", in fact greater interest in the page will improve its quality, as opposed to a neglected page containing a heap of biased misinformation.

talk

) 08:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You might be surprised to find out, Phoenix79, that Bose has a bad reputation in the audio industry for being too aggressive with lawsuits. Only Behringer has a similar reputation, but they got it from copying other designs and defending those actions, not from protecting intellectual property. Bose stands out; Bose is notable. The information should go in the article because it is what Bose is known for; it is what sets Bose apart. Binksternet (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me ask this again. Since they are almost always published, are all Lawsuits Notable by definition ? -- Phoenix (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, notability is not required for article content. I suggest you reread the notability guidelines properly. wp:nnc says "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content". Once you have the verifiable observation that Bose is litigious then examples from reliable secondary sources are fine.Greglocock (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If Bose's cold fusion research, automotive suspension research (neither of which have been commercialized), and Olympic sponsorships warrant inclusion, then so do any of their legal peccadilloes.Mattnad (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

So your assertion is that it is common for companies to research Cold Fusion? Or that most audio companies have their own suspension research lab? It is my assertion that suing people for fake products and copyright issues are common and trivial legalese that is really not notable. Why isn't the Sony page littered with thousands of lawsuits since it started in 1946? Easy it is trivial and not notable. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You have mentioned several other company articles, most recently Sony. You are welcome to go to those articles and add well-cited information about well-known lawsuits. The lack of such information at those articles does not constitute an argument that this article should not have the information. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Pheonix, Cold Fusion isn't a valid comparison to suing, but anyway CF isn't notable because it is a one-off and nothing ever came of it. Automotive suspension will mean a lot more if it is every put in production. Like Binksternet says, deficiencies in other articles (re suing) is not a reason to exclude the topic from this article.

talk

) 22:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Since there are no independent references to verify Amar's claim that "The paper we produced had a significant impact", I propose that this section is removed.

Good point. If not significant, the text is only so much noise. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Text about 901 design principles is removed. It features in only a few products of Bose's range, so is better suited to content about products which feature it. Also note that the text it is based on ("balance of quality and performance"..." dominance of sound in the reverberant field") has

Good removal. A description of the technology is perfectly appropriate to the product article, Bose Model 901. Thanks for your careful editing. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this section? I propose it gets removed, since there is already a linked page specific to headphones which includes noise cancelling technology.

For example the table here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_Soundbar#Lifestyle_135 I am wondering if it is appropriate for wikipedia articles to be listing detailed manufacturer specs like this? I thought the articles should focus on historical significance and key differences between products.

The detailed specs are not all that useful to the reader, in my opinion. There are some other articles which do this, however, which is probably why this article grew its specs table. Grado Labs is one exammple; Sony MDR-V6 is another. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, when I come across specs tables, I'll assess each one on whether it provides notable info not contained elsewhere in the article. Cheers,

talk

) 07:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok I found an interview and included that in the article. Also I made some other edits restoring some content and removing others following multiple policies and writing guidelines

Regarding the removal of most of the the legal cases, this has been discussed before on these pages and there are other opinions that the legal info is relevant. Would be helpful if you actually made a case for why it should not be there aside from links to guideline articles.Mattnad (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The removals are against

WP:NPOV. In total, they removed large amounts of negative information that was very well cited and very relevant. It is not in our readers' interest to use this page to promote Bose, to push positive aspects and hide negative aspects. Binksternet (talk

) 16:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, typical Phoenix tactic of name-dropping policies without stating how they apply, not to mention vague edit summaries to justify massive changes. Anyway, here's reasoning behind my edits. Early Years seciton: tone made more NPOV (Amar's personal opinion re psychoacoustics would be appropriate for his biography not the company page. Cold Fusion removed as per earlier Talk section. Opinions about Bose section: Forrester text is inappropriate as intro, replaced by previous intro which gives overview to range of opinions, industry scuttlebutt (only reference is interview by Amar, would need independent source to validate inclusion) removed. — Preceding

talk • contribs

) 22:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? If you believe that, then here are a couple of the sources I was citing:

WP:BEGINNING

The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states the limits of that list.

• If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text.
• Similarly, if the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X" or "This list of Xs...". A clearer and more informative introduction to the list is better than verbatim repetition of the title. (See Format of the first sentence below).
• When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms. Similarly, if the title has a parenthetical disambiguator, the disambiguator should be omitted in the text.
• If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a
  specialised term
  , provide the context as early as possible.
• Redundancy must be kept to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information which is not already given by the title of the article. Remember that the title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead.

WP:YESPOV & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as "neutrality" means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of

reliable sources

and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view should not be interpreted as the exclusion of certain points of view. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality which is appropriate for an encyclopedia.

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
• Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of
  verifiability
  . Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
• Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.
• Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of
  parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving
  disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

I could go on, but if you want me to be more specific if you cannot understand why the edit were made I will post the section specifically for you if you really want. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bose_Corporation regarding my conclusion that Phoenix79 is editing with a conflict of interest. Any interested editors are welcome to comment there. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yea, good luck with that, you can only prove it is false "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." & "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on". - Winston Churchill -- Phoenix (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, funny quotes from a guy who puts a positive spin on everything in this article, and attempts to suppress the truth when it is inconvenient, using spurious appeals to wiki policies. What a strange old place wiki is. How about this one "A cabbage is a vegetable about the size of a man's head, and with as much commonsense" or "Lawyer- one skilled in circumvention of the law". Oh how hard the path of the only just man. Greglocock (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

From someone that has only negative views that would mean that we should have a very NPOV article if we were the only ones editing it :-P "A Lawyer will do anything to win a case, sometimes he will even tell the truth." - Patrick Murray "A lot of times people look at the negative side of what they feel they can't do. I always look on the positive side of what I can do." - Chuck Norris -- Phoenix (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well.... if you were following your own advice, why on earth would you put an old Forrester research survey first in the section of opinions about Bose? It covers only a small portion of what the section relates to.... As for the rest of these guidelines, I think in a nutshell you are saying the article was unfairly biased against Bose. There are other editors who understand your position, but don't agree with the degree to which you sought to remedy this.Mattnad (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not the policies themselves that need quoting, as we can all follow hyperlinks, what you would need to do is to demonstrate why each of your massive edits is justified by a particular policy, if you wish. Greglocock (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to do that with my edit summaries. But if you would like for me to go point by point on each section I will. I have just had a hard time trying to get people to use the talk page on these articles and would find it refreshing if I could have a honest discussion here without the... ungentlemanly behaviour I have encountered of late -- Phoenix (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"He believes, for example, that distortion is much over-rated as a factor in perceived quality in the complex sounds that comprise music, noting that a sine wave and a square wave (a hugely distorted sine wave) are audibly indistinguishable above 7 kHz."

The sine and square wave part of that sentence is just embarrassing. While true in detail (if you don't understand why ask on my talk page), it is a shockingly bad justification for the main claim (which many audiophiles, and I, actually agree with), and even more laughable given the non linear (generally low) frequency response of Bose products above 10 kHz. I strongly suggest that it could be removed with no detriment to the article. I think it is being used as a

Please take it away. It does nothing to assist the reader in understanding Bose audio product design or technology. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Not knowing, I researched it and found out that it was added in 19:42, 24 December 2005. The source it came from can be found here, personally I have no issues either way on this particular point. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I know we won't be able to establish consensus massive reverts with shotgun lists of policies are not acceptable. Greglocock (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that the article was stable for a very long time until it was summary changed the beginning of this year by another user. I find it funny how I was asking for editors to use the talk page constantly so we could have a discussion about these edits before they were included. It only lead to silence for the most part. Only edit summaries were posted in the talk page and always after edits were completed. Even if I pointed out mistakes and fixed them, they were reverted in favour of the

WP:NPOV and sometimes incorrect version. But I'd like to say that if people refuse to read the policies ESPECIALLY when I link directly to them what else can I do to make sure other editors acknowledge those policies? -- Phoenix (talk

) 09:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Stable? It has not been stable in my memory. It is subject to endless revert wars, going back six years at least. And the fact that an article has been stable is no argument that it should remain unchanged. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Quit playing innocent, Phoenix. You are gaming the system by making massive changes which you try to sneak by listing WP policy with no indication of where it is being violated. This indicates you wish to retain the article as you wrote it and have no intention to work with other editors to improve the article (you have admitted yourself to "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" by undoing agreed changes when you restore your previous edit).

Stability: totally agree with Binksternet it is irrelevant (not to mention completely wrong)

Edit summaries in the talk page is more than you are doing. There is a big difference between "fixing" something and using a scapegoat as an excuse for a massive revert

The issue isn't that other editors are refusing to read the policies. The thing is other editors can't read your mind and work out what you take offence to if you just list policies.

talk

) 23:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

At some point Bose' supply of audio to the WO was edited to become a statement that they paid to supply it (presumably in a cash and/or kind deal). Was there ever a ref for that? If not there should be. I don't know how to check the history for this. Greglocock (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Mattnad if he had anything to back that up, but it is just unnecessary

WP:NPOV -- Phoenix (talk

) 09:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This is standard for Olymic naming. They don't just let someone put their name on the games without paying for it. This academic paper goes into some detail about the major types of sponsorships (also refered to as "advertisers") in the past [6] They way it was previously written made it seem like it was a competitive honor or something (And it pretty far from NPOV to suggest that.) Simirly, Rolex is the official timekeeper at Wimbledon. Nice to know, but they paid for that too as part of their sponsorship/Mattnad (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

So your saying it is

WP:OR? You just guess that is what happened? If you would like to rephrase the wording ok lets work on that, but lets actually get this right. It fails policies and needs to be edited. -- Phoenix (talk

) 10:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying it's common knowledge. I assure you that coca-cola didn't get to name a stadium because they won a competition based on their Olympic caliber drinks. But that's sort of the way you wanted the Bose / Olympic connection to read.Mattnad (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Should the body of the article state that Bose Corporation is considered a "litigious" company by audio industry professionals? Should the lead section summarize this content by saying, "Bose has an aggressive stance in protecting its patents and trademarks; the company is known for initiating lawsuits"? Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support. Before I started editing Wikipedia, I knew that Bose was considered a litigious company by way of my long association with professional audio gear as a live sound engineer who reads trade publications and hears horror stories at conventions. Here at Wikipedia, the statement in the Bose article may be supported by the references listed below. I hold that this information is an important part of the Bose Corporation story, that the reputation is notable, and that a studious application of
  WP:NPOV guides us to include this negative assessment of the company. Binksternet (talk
  ) 19:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The types of lawsuits that Bose is initiating tells a lot about the way it views itself as a company and its corporate strategies. Clearly, based on the quotes that are in the article, Bose has generated a reputation as a "litigious" company. Jedgeco (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - just to make sure I get this in. Mattnad (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose How is this
  WP:YESPOV
  , not only is it confrontational it is just unnecessary. What I cant understand is why common business practices are listed with an exorbitant amount of detail on this article? It has only one goal, to try to put forth that Bose is actually a bad company doing something that nobody else does. This is all happening while other sections of the article are being trimmed down and reduced as "unnecessary". This shows a clear bias on the editors here, some also seam to have no problem vocalising their personal bias against Bose on the talk pages.

As to your other points I think that every day lawsuits like "In 2010, Bose sued 51 people in the U.S. and Canada who sold counterfeit Bose headphones on eBay" or the few trademark infringement lawsuits are just silly. EVERY large company has those (sues OR sued trademark has 3,050,000 hits sues OR sued fake has 9,330,000 results). It is every day business and is just so Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill that it shouldn't merit inclusion. I even included examples from other speaker companies that have had similar lawsuits[7][8] and pointed out that they are not included on the articles page. Now, the Lawsuit that went to the supreme court, now that one is really notable & I think quite interesting!

I shall give you an example Sony has been around according to wikipedia since 1946. Would it surprise you to know that Sony files so many lawsuits against both individuals and companies every year that it would make your head spin. Yet the main lead makes no mention about any legal action and out of the 10 or so listed on this quite long and detailed article, all brief blurbs I would like to point out, only one was a lawsuit initiated by the company. So "Why isn't the Sony page littered with thousands of lawsuits since it started in 1946"? Is it so pure that it only gets sued and doesn't sue other companies? Easy answer, it is trivial and just not notable. The article is focused on the company. It doesnt seam to have editors that are trying to edit to prove a point.

Oh and to your point about Bose being litigious would it surprise you to find out that Sony is considered "litigious" also? And believe me this really wasnt all that hard either.

I believe that this section has an

undue weight put on it. I only put a few minuets looking into Sony and found tonnes of information on their lawsuits (really there are a lot). So why is Bose singled out on this article for this common practice? The editors here have a bias. I would love an honest dialoge to occur here. Some even seam to be decent editors, though not necessarily here... The problem with this article is that many people who edit them don't actually own Bose, they only read about them on the web. So they only hear the echo chamber of people bashing Bose. Their mind is made up, which is ok normally, but in this case the edits show that bias. -- Phoenix (talk

) 09:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If Sony is considered litigious by reliable sources then add that information to the Sony article. Do not remove it from the Bose article. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Look the only reason that these every day business practices are in this article is because they support the narrative of what some editors here believe. It is something that every company has been a part of and is just not

wp:notable. If we were to try to include these every day actions in every company article out there they would dominate every business page. To include the sources I (quickly) found on the Sony and include it in the article, would mean that I should also include the information I found on LG & Motorola, since I posted sources talking about them while I was searching on Sony. Then I would look for more lawsuits and easily find information on other companies like Phillips, HTC, Samsung, Nokia, Beats, Microsoft, Panasonic, etc... All I know have had lawsuits on every day issues like trademark and counterfeiting. It would be unending and that is just unneeded and unwarranted. -- Phoenix (talk

) 19:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Your argument here is just an extension of your earlier one. The answer is also an extension: stop comparing these company's incomplete articles to Bose and go to the Sony, Motorola and LG pages to add instances of notable lawsuits. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the Sony analogy very convincing. Sony is a much, much larger company and would therefore would have more litigation. The Sony lawsuits linked to also involve highly technical issues, while the Bose lawsuits involve issues like trademarking terms like "lifestyle" and "wave." These lawsuits actually tell a lot about the way that Bose sees itself as a company and are therefore useful information. Ironically, though, suits like the counterfeit ebay headphones are not helpful to an understanding of the company, but almost certainly were added to the article as additional "proof" to appease editors. Jedgeco (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the eBay suit is not needed. It is much less significant than the QSC "Wave" and the CEDIA "Lifestyle" suits, far less significant than Bose losing the Consumer Reports Supreme Court appeal. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• - I support Phoenix's position here - All companies have an aggressive stance in protecting the patents and trademarks, especially those with shareholders and they all take legal action to protect their rights. Too much "Bose bashing" currently in the article regarding focus on the usual run of the mill legal issues. Youreallycan 14:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • In the above-listed book, International directory of company histories (2000), there is only one instance of the word "litigiousness", and that is in regard to Bose. Other descriptions of a lawsuit-happy company are not included with other audio products manufacturers such as Sony. Another company that was similar, per the book, was Kodak, known for its "aggressive approach to trade disputes" against Fuji, and for quickly initiating lawsuits to protect the Polaroid brand. In other words, Bose stands out in the book as an example of legal aggression in the audio products industry. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• I think what a company get known for matters. Yes companies protect trademarks, but it seems like a balancing act. Chick-fil-A has been caught up in some interesting trademark suits and has quite some detail on it. As does the Susan G. Koman foundation. As an aside, for a company that claims to offer better sound through research (and one would assume patents would follow) they seems to worry more about what people call things than discoveries to make things sound better (if their litigation is any indication).Mattnad (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it just depends how its presented - it might be that its just being unduly focused on and presented in a negative expressive, like it imo does not belong in the lede as its just usual good company practice, its a totally positive thing. Compare, this ... Bose has historically successfully defended its product and trademark rights using usual corporate litigation channels as and where necessary.... with the negative portrayal currently in the lede, (I support editing this as a priority, through the protection) ... Bose has an aggressive stance in protecting its patents and trademarks; the company is known for initiating lawsuits. - Youreallycan 19:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes companies protect trademarks Is that stated in the article? No, why? It doesn't fit the narrative... Oh you think that it is just obvious because every company does this... So why did this article up until a couple of days ago have more information on legal history than it did on its own company history [9]? Oh that's right because the company history was removed and redacted while the litigation history was expanded (before after)... Yea no bias there. There is no reason for edits like this. These are every day business practices, keep the Supreme Court case, but remove the rest as frivolous. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The sources clearly indicate Bose is unusually litigious for a company in this industry. Regarding Phoenix's claims re Sony, it is irrelevant whether Sony is also litigious or not, this does not indicate that this is typical practice for the entire industry
  talk
  ) 23:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - the trend is documented in reliable sources. I strongly prefer that articles do not whitewash corporate abuses. Contrary to what Mitt Romney might have told you, corporations are not living people, and reactions from familiarity with the BLP policy should be completely discarded when dealing with corporations. 70.59.28.93 (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• I strongly support keeping the text on this subject, which is well-sourced and in no way undue. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support comparisons with Sony article are not a valid line of argument Greglocock (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support (conditional) - I support the first question, because sources attest to Bose's protective policies. If other companies have achieved such a notable reputation then recognition of that also belongs on their pages. However, I agree that the sentence proposed for the lead reveals bias, especially since it makes a flat statement from what is an opinion expressed by sources. Instead of "Bose has an aggressive stance in protecting its patents and trademarks; the company is known for initiating lawsuits", I suggest rephrasing it to something that makes it clearer that we are presenting the opinions of sources: "Bose has a reputation for being unusually protective of its patents and trademarks." The bit about lawsuits is unnecessary since that's the way anyone protects intellectual property. Jojalozzo 13:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That is a reasonable proposal regarding the lead section sentence. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• support it is referenced Bouket (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support it is well referenced. Sony is irrelevant as per 1292simon and others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: The way the article is written may make the reader think that Bose is doing something wrong by starting lawsuits. A company that protects its own assets is doing neither anything wrong, nor illegal, nor unethical. In the body of the article only this source says that Bose is known in industry circles to be very litigious especially in terms of trademark issues, whereas this source is simply saying that Bose is zealous in protecting their assets. As a result, saying that Bose is simply litigious is misleading. There is nothing wrong with a company initiating lawsuits to protect their own patents, that's called "protecting the assets" and every good company does a good job in protecting their own. Saying that the company is merely litigious or saying that the company is unusually protective in the lede as a deduction of having stated below that they are litigious for whatever source, is making the assumption that the other companies are, as usual, not protecting their own assets, and that's not what the journalist of Digitaltrends is saying. Bottom line: be closer to the source and give the right interpretation of it. If possible, quote the source, so that the ambiguity can be further dissipated by an easier read of the source. Markerdryer (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You singled out the digitaltrends source but you chose not to comment on the International directory of company histories which says "Starting with the company's long legal battle with Consumer Reports, Bose gained a reputation for litigiousness"? There is no 'voice' in that book, it's not a statement of opinion; the book is a directory, with facts listed. The fact is that Bose has "a reputation for litigiousness". I don't think we need to attribute or quote anything. It's a statement of fact. Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I cannot see the source that you mentioned, but from the sound of its title (compendium like), it seems to me like a tertiary source and, as such, it can be used only to make broad summaries when there are sufficient secondary sources, on some of which I touched. I suggest that, before recurring to RfCs the article writers should focus more on improving the references which are missing author, year of publication and other things. The RfC will be more useful when the article reader can see the sources with more easiness. I, for instance, can't see the source that you mentioned after spending a whole 5 minutes on the article. Markerdryer (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
      • The book I mentioned is listed in my argument at the top of this discussion section. I have not yet put it into the article; I was waiting for the RfC to end. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Having thought about the pros and cons I came to the conclusion that sometimes a so called "negative" statement in an article should not be removed, if this statement is based on evidence.--Fox1942 (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In the "Opinions about Bose" section, I propose the paragraph regarding the alleged meeting of Bose's competitors be removed. As it relies heavily on direct quotes from Amar Bose, it should be considered a self-published source. I believe it is not consistent with

Amar's interview if properly contextualized could still have currency in this article, but I do agree that absent of any other corroboration it's a bit too close to the source. It would be like the article quoting a press release from Bose that says, "Our competitors feel vastly inferior to Bose, and repeatedly lied and attacked us because of that." Since we treat primary sources with care, this one also is over the line to me.Mattnad (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Especially given that, due to his English or a transcription mistake, the quote doesn't even make sense. Actually, the entire "opinions about Bose" section is basically a travesty, first and foremost the string cites purporting to show that Bose is "high end audio," as if that term had any real meaning. Jedgeco (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I would not cry if the bit is removed completely. Until someone decides to do that, I reduced the text devoted to Amar Bose's own words, summarizing them somewhat. Binksternet (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to undo your rewrite Bink, but the discussion so far doesn't warrant keeping the section, so I'll remove it.

talk

) 07:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The part of this article talk about Bose defending their brand. However most companies defend their brand, does Bose do so more than Apple, Xerox, Samsung, Sony, Microsoft, and other technology industry companies? Apple this year launched several lawsuits against Samsung, Facebook sues anyone with 'book' in the name, and Nissan sued a guy named Nissan. But only on Bose's page is there a large section devote to brand defense. This appears imbalanced to me. Dxk3355 (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

see 'RfC: Bose as a "litigious" company' above. It is well established in the opinion of a large majority of editors. Greglocock (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The comparison should be to other audio gear manufacturers, not software or computer hardware manufacturers. In the field of audio, Bose stands far out from the crowd in terms of brand defense. Many of our reliable sources have commented on this fact. It is a legitimate concern, one that should be mentioned in the lead section and discussed in more detail in article body. When in doubt, refer to the reliable sources—in this case they are all in agreement. None of them says that Bose is typical. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• BOSE Acoustimass - Better Profits Through Marketing. Nemissimo (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The link has been discussed repeatedly here, with the latest decision being to keep it out of the article. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the discussion if you use it as an argument. Nemissimo (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In the archives box above, click on all four of the archives and read them. Search for "profits" or "marketing" or "intellexual" if you care to. Binksternet (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This was very helpful. I would like to see the specific argument you are supporting, since none of the ones I see is especially convincing. Referring to the archive without any specifics is a poor way to support an argument. "You can find the reasons in the archive" is no legitimate argument to stop a discussion when the given archived arguments are so weak. If it were, it would seriously limit the future development in articles. --Nemissimo (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be a broad brush here. Three reviews of three products in a thirty-five year span is not enough evidence to claim a "polarized opinion" base. MSJapan (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to see all the sources saying "No Highs, No Lows, Must Be Bose", then I can dig them up. In my profession as a live sound engineer I see very polarized opinions about Bose, so I consider this article's portrayal to be accurate enough. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There is clearly no NPOV problem. Looking at the given sources, the statements represent the majority of published opinions on the subject. If there are any sources stating the opposite, we should integrate them. There is no indication that there are. Therefore I suggest to remove the misleading neutrality warning. --Nemissimo (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"We the industry knowledgeable readers know" is the gist of the above. However, let's consider the audience - I don't think that's a go-to audiophile article, and how does the uninformed reader know? For the record, I see the following citations: PC Magazine, 2007; a statement of no THX certification in 2010 (and I'm still not sure what that has to do with the "opinion" of the company - it's a technical item, and as a counter-example, Altec Lansing was THX certified and went bankrupt); the 1979 901 review; a 2007 review; 2005 market study (involving other companies), and a 2013 review. These are all on specific products (apart from the market study) and do not cover the breadth of their product offerings, nor do I feel that reviews with a gap between 1979 and 2005 are indicative of an overall opinion of as company that's been around since 1968 when the majority of the company's existence has been overlooked. Having just written all that, I'm now not even sure the section should be here - many other audio company articles talk about the products without using the reviews as a means to form an overall opinion about said company.. MSJapan (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The interwebs are alive with "Bose sucks"[10][11][12][13][14][15] rants. Discussion forums include many such negative evaluations. Some widely quoted blogs have addressed the question:[16][17][18][19] In a review for SmartMoney magazine, rocker Lou Reed famously said he would pay money NOT to listen to the Bose Acoustimass 5 system.[20][21] Audio transducer engineer John Busenitz for many years hosted this Bose FAQ about Bose loudspeakers on his website, the FAQ compiled in July 1996 by Bert Laney. Busenitz worked for Harman for many years then in June 2006 he signed on at Bose, so of course he took down this FAQ which talks about how Bose's very strong marketing budget is the main reason people think Bose is high quality. A number of official review sites show a poor opinion of Bose:[22][23] All of this negativity brings out more reasonable viewpoints such as Wayde Robson's "Bose: Why Audiophiles Should Stop the Hate" from Audioholics A/V magazine, in which he says Bose quality is only ordinary, not terrible or great. His balanced viewpoint is rare; more often the views are polarized. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

For many years, Bose has not published performance numbers or submitted their speakers and amplifiers to third parties like THX. Most, if not all, of the links provided by Binsternet are true, but not reliable sources (forums etc.). So there's a paucity of data out there that meets encyclopedic levels and all we're left with is Bose's claims (self published) or those magazings (like PC Magazine) who do not really focus on audio in an expert fashion. Bose sued Consumer reports and other publishers just don't need to be honest about them. So, if you want really good sounding computer speakers or a clock radio, Bose is probably the best out there. But that's not a high bar to beat.Mattnad (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Bringing up Bose is like bringing up Apple or Ayn Rand. But this article was written from the vantagepoint that bose sucks with a front of objectivity by saying mixed reviews and citing every bad review found of a spectrum of products. People who hate apple haven't used their products, people who hate ayn rand may have read her books and people who hate bose probably have never used them or want a fat woofer. cite people who have credibility - pc magazine - what the fuck do they know? this article needs to be cleaned up. Burnedfaceless (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I am a career audio engineer who has owned Bose products since the mid-1980s, and I've owned other brands. I have worked with a wide variety of loudspeakers in my career, including Bose speakers. I think this article is accurate in telling the reader that the speakers are okay, average quality, but the marketing is very hyped up. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Burned faceless, PC Magazine is a typical source for Bose reviews because reputable AV publications/reviewers don't do Bose reviews that often, partly because many of Bose's products don't fall into the kinds of gear they would review. For instnace, Bose computer speakers, ipod docs, and clock radios are not their focus. That written, Tim Gideon, the reviewer from PC magazine seems to have a lot of experience professionally reviewing audio gear [24]. It's not unreasonable to presume his review constitutes a reliable source.Mattnad (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This article gives the wrong impression of Bose products. While it is qualitative I owned Bose computer speakers and now own 303s or whatever. I pawned the speakers and the ones I have now suck. I studied music in academia...it replicates a lot of styles of music very accurately, and I'm finding that a good vinyl album sounds very much like a tube amp. some norton recordings of bach through here, incredible reproduction of a wide variety of styles. It needs to be cleaned up by people who don't hate Bose so much. Burnedfaceless (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, I do not think the article is offbase. I am a current Bose owner (one of their larger portable wave players) and it's very good for what it is. The issue is that Bose's products don't seem to match the marketing marketing promise which leads to some critiques. You are welcome to find and add positive reviews too if you feel it can make the article more balanced. Mattnad (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

While the reference http://kings.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=588599 doesn't say anything positive about the Bose system, it doesn't say it was unsatisfactory for the time of its entire use, just that it couldn't cope with current expectations of a sound system (pretty much my opinion of Bose, noise comes out the speakers, just not the noise you want for that many dollars). Greglocock (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The relevant quotes are " the sound system upgrade was due in large part to address the arena’s need to provide the best audio system and technology available on the market" and “Technology has grown tremendously since we opened STAPLES Center in 1999 and as part of our overall annual upgrades we decided it was time for us to improve our audio system. It is important to us to keep providing a better fan experience for our guests and offer cutting edge audio technology" http://kings.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=588599 Greglocock (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello.

My name is Ken Jacob, and I work at Bose Corporation as a research engineer at our headquarters in Framingham Massachusetts. I joined the company in 1984 after doing my graduate studies at MIT, where I was a student of Dr. Bose's. My work at Bose has been focused on professional sound systems for large venues, and loudspeaker systems for musicians, among other things.

I’m hoping to be of some value in addressing information in this article that may be either outdated or inaccurate.

For example, in the introductory paragraph, it says:

“Founded in 1964 by Amar G. Bose, the company operates 8 plants, 153 retail stores (as of 22 April 2013), and an automotive subsidiary in Stow, Massachusetts.”

The number of manufacturing plants and Bose stores cited is dated and seriously inaccurate. Similarly, the Automotive Systems Division is not a subsidiary but one of a number of product divisions.

Unfortunately, in searching the Web I cannot find a third-party source with updated numbers for plants or stores, or one that accurately lists our various product divisions.

I also wonder if the typical reader might gain more from knowing that Bose is global in scope and employs a relatively large number of people throughout the world rather than the number of manufacturing plants, stores, and something about only one of its areas of focus (automotive)?

Based on this thinking, how does this community feel about something like the following:

"Founded in 1964 by Dr. Amar G. Bose, the company sells its products throughout the world and employs more than 10,500 people.”

Sources: http://worldwide.bose.com/com/en_us/web/our_achievements/page.html and http://global.bose.com/

Then, I'm thinking that if better public information on the number of manufacturing plants and stores becomes available, perhaps that information could be added back in to some of the existing sections of the article.

Thanks for your consideration. I look forward to joining the conversation.

--KenAcoustic (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ken. My take on the matter is that outdated information may be taken out if there is no reliable source available to update it. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet. Thank you for weighing in. I think there might be Wikipedia etiquette/protocol that discourages company representatives from editing articles on their companies. Would you be willing to edit the introduction using my suggested draft text? KenAcoustic (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

When there is a conflict of interest, disclosing it as you have and proposing edits is fine. I'll add that while we try not to use primary resources (ie, a company website or report), they can be use with caution. For non-controversial or non-marketing information, we can refer to Bose's website. Number of employees and geographic scope seem fine to me. If you write what you have in mind here on the talk page, we can input it for you provided it conforms to Neutral Point of View guidelines.Mattnad (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mattnad. Thanks very much for your comments and advice. Based on the discussion above, would you be willing to make the following edit? Change “Founded in 1964 by Amar G. Bose, the company operates 8 plants, 153 retail stores (as of 22 April 2013), and an automotive subsidiary in Stow, Massachusetts.” to "Founded in 1964 by Dr. Amar G. Bose, the company sells its products throughout the world and employs more than 10,500 people.” (and include the website sources: http://worldwide.bose.com/com/en_us/web/our_achievements/page.html and http://global.bose.com/) KenAcoustic (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I invite you to make the changes yourself. As a declared Bose representative, you are free to make neutrally worded changes to this article, but you are not allowed to undo the work of uninvolved editors, for instance if someone disputes your edit, you cannot restore it yourself. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks Binksternet. I'll give it a shot. KenAcoustic (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone's proposing to move

[1] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/founder-mass-based-bose-audio-firm-dies-83

[2] http://www.fohonline.com/current-issue/25-the-biz/10834-bose-knows-a-bit-about-pro.html

[3] http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/history-bose-car-audio-83-seville-2015-escalade/

[5] http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/drivers/product/detail/2014/03/study-of-bose-ride-system-indicates-reduction-in.aspx

[6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/technology-topics/11138572/Bose-at-50-beyond-sound.html

[7] http://mashable.com/2014/10/05/bose-cold-fusion/

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing any comments or suggestions.

-- KenAcoustic (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Went ahead and made the suggested edit. Please let me know if there's any concerns. --KenAcoustic (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Folks,

I'd like to propose an edit that I think adds an important and relatively recent fact to the introductory section of the article.

I think it makes sense to state the fact that the majority of Bose stock was given in the form of a gift to MIT in 2011.

Here's what I propose as text at the end of the introductory section:

"In 2011, founder Amar Bose donated the majority of the company's shares to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught as a member of the Computer Science and Electrical Engineering faculty for more than 45 years."

source:

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2011/bose-gift

I look forward to any comments or questions from the community.

-- KenAcoustic (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is important enough to go in the lede, and frankly sounds a bit

wp:peacock. There should be no new information in the lede, it should be a summary of the vital contents of the main article, which is why statements in the lede shouldn't need refs. Greglocock (talk

) 22:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Greglocock makes the main points why not. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you. With your comments I did some further reading, looking at Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Lead section and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Introductory_text. This was really helpful.

So as things presently stand, the gift to MIT is a single sentence at the end of the history section, and unlike all other text in that section, is not part of a subsection, which feels a little odd.

Given that it is the only time in 50 years that majority stock ownership changed hands, would it be better if we had a new history subsection? Maybe called something like:

Majority of Bose stock given to MIT

Amar Bose was the company chairman and the primary stockholder until he donated the majority of the firm's shares to Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2011. He died in July 2013 at the age of 83.

(I.e. text and references remain the same, just a new subsection.)

Please let me know what you think of this proposal.

-- KenAcoustic (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr%C3%B3nica_Steren - no mention of bose Greglocock (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Folks,

In the Bose Corporation#Legal action section, last paragraph, I'd like to suggest we add a sentence that references the fact that Bose and Beats settled the Bose suit against Beats out of court.

The text in the article currently reads:

"In July 2014, Bose sued Beats Electronics—a subsidiary of Apple Inc., for patent infringement, alleging that its "Studio" line incorporated noise cancellation technology that violated five patents held by the company. Bose has also sought an injunction which would ban the infringing products from being imported or sold in the United States."

I suggest adding a sentence so that the text becomes:

"In July 2014, Bose sued Beats Electronics—a subsidiary of Apple Inc., for patent infringement, alleging that its "Studio" line incorporated noise cancellation technology that violated five patents held by the company. Bose also sought an injunction which would ban the infringing products from being imported or sold in the United States. In October of 2014 the case was settled out of court, though no terms were disclosed. ref"

I look forward to any comments or questions from the community.

KenAcoustic (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Again Folks.

It's been a bit more than a week without any comments on the change proposed above. Would someone be willing to make this change about the settlement between Bose and Beats?

KenAcoustic (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, from prior experience, this is not a heavily trafficked article. In response to your request, does it really make a difference in the grand scheme of things? There's no substantial information - I hate to say it, but from an informational standpoint, it's very fluffy. There are a lot of words, but no information is being conveyed. I hadn't even heard of the case until you posted this, so it does not appear to be a big deal. We also have that he terms of the settlement weren't disclosed. So, as I see it, a piece of paper was filed, and then thrown away due to a settlement that can't be specified. Now, if it's a big deal "cuz Apple", Beats wasn't part of Apple at the time of the original suit, so there's a factual error there - Bose was not, and should not be implied to have been, suing Apple. What Bose sought didn't matter in the end, because it never went to trial to be proven, and allegations are just that. It's also needless detail as to how many patents were allegedly infringed; one is plenty. So what's left of encyclopedic substance? MSJapan (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I added more than was suggested, since there are more aspects to this case. One source observed that Bose quitting a court case was a "rare" event. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Folks,

It's KenAcoustic from Bose again.

I’d like to bring up for discussion the first sentence in the legal section that states: “Bose has been described by audio industry professionals as a litigious company.”

(See the Talk archive for previous discussion on this topic.)

The one source currently cited that describes Bose as “litigious” is the Digital Trends story from 2003. That source quotes an unnamed “executive of a direct competitor” to make the point. The second source is the Stereophile article about the Bose/Harman lawsuit, where there is no direct mention of Bose as litigious.

Also, these two sources are now respectively 12 and 15 years old.

As a result of the provided information, doesn't this introductory statement in the legal section seem more like a subjective interpretation of very limited published material vs. established fact? If so, I’d like to ask that it be removed.

Thanks

KenAcoustic (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No, wiki is not a present day snapshot, and I dare say the Beat courtcase provides more fodder. If you want to remove all history from this article, including the positives, then that does not improve the project, and whitewashing it doesn't either. Greglocock (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Greglocock and other editors:

I’m most definitely not suggesting that we remove all history from the article. I actually have been helping to add history to the page (info added to the top summary, gift of stock to MIT, and legal detail around Beats lawsuit.)

My question was specifically around only the first sentence of the legal section, which I've argued is an editorialized statement that isn’t supported by the sources listed.

Would you or any of the other editors care to comment on our argument suggesting only that this one sentence be removed?

KenAcoustic (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking whether we should hide the fact that Bose is considered a litigious company, even after a prominent lawsuit was all over the news last year? I think not. Among those reporting on the Beats lawsuit was one who said it was very unusual for Bose to drop a lawsuit, so there's someone who has learned to expect a more aggressive legal play from Bose.

And then there's the kerfuffle at the NFL, with Bose swatting down a few football players for wearing Beats headphones in TV interviews, in violation of the exclusive contract Bose has with the NFL. Quarterback Colin Kaepernick was fined $10,000 for wearing Beats at a press conference, but he doesn't care about that kind of money, and wears his Beats anyway.[25][26] Most viewers thought the fines were a harsh reaction by the NFL and Bose. If I get the impulse then I will bring the NFL case into this article, describing the negative effect this action had on the Bose brand.

In 2013, Chuck Schneider of CEPro wrote that Bose has been a "litigious entity" dating back to just after its foundation.[27] So the image of Bose as an especially litigious company is still with us. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Editors:

With respect, consider that in the WSJ and Digital Trends pieces cited, Bose is described as “litigious” through quotes from defendants and/or competitors of Bose. That leaves only the author in the CE-Pro opinion piece concluding Bose is “litigious”. I would like to note that he supports his conclusion by citing a total four cases over a 50-year period.

I’m arguing that none of this really makes Bose a "litigious company" any more so than most others that, at times, are willing to defend their patents, copyrights, and trademarks. It seems like a clear case of

WP:UNDUE

to me.

Would the editors consider changing the first sentence of the article to something less editorialized? There’s a difference between “litigious” and “Bose has shown a willingness to pursue legal action to protect what it sees are infringements of its patents, copyrights and trademarks.” The former makes a value judgment while the latter is more neutral and factual.

(As to the NFL, the material doesn’t relate to the subject of whether it is fair to describe Bose as a litigious company because there was no legal action by Bose. It is the NFL that acted, and as an NFL spokesman said publicly at the time: “The NFL has longstanding policies that prohibit branded exposure on-field or during interviews unless authorized by the league. These policies date back to the early 1990s and continue today.” The Verge USA Today)

KenAcoustic (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We are not here to count lawsuits and determine how many over what period of time might be the dividing line between litigious and not-so-litigious. Rather, we take what is said by our reliable sources. The media has consistently represented Bose as litigious:

So with these sources saying that Bose has a reputation as an aggressive and litigious company, and no sources at all saying that Bose is not lawsuit-happy, I don't see any reason for removing the assessment we have. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not a flattering portrait, but several reliable sources support the characterization. Ken, you of course may want to have Bose sue these publications for libel, and if Bose prevails in court, we can revise the article per your preferences.Mattnad (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

To summarize, it seems to me that Bose is being characterized in an unjustifiably negative light when virtually all companies of our size that create unique products have strong and active IP teams. Again, I take no issue with the facts presented but with their characterization.

Moreover, as a new editor, I'll admit to being surprised by the threat by another editor to add information he feels puts Bose in a negative light. Is that typical for editors? I'm also surprised that my attempt to objectively discuss this topic has elicited what I interpret as a very sarcastic remark from another editor who suggests that we sue the sources cited as a way of getting the article changed. I would have thought that kind of remark was frowned upon when the goal is accuracy through civilized discourse.

I feel I've made a very reasonable suggestion to make the lead sentence of the legal section less editorialized and more factually accurate, and presented good reasoning for the change. Aside from the suggestion of another editor to prove a negative -- finding sources that say that Bose is not ″lawsuit-happy″ -- it's hard to imagine exactly what additional evidence I could provide that would convince the editors that have weighed in so far that we've got an overly editorialized, unjustifiably broad conclusion.

KenAcoustic (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Most large companies engage in legal maneuvers over trademarks and intellectual property. But somehow Bose got the reputation that it's very litigious as presented by reliable sources. Is it unfair? Maybe. But you haven't made a case aside from your opinion on the matter. Here's my opinion - Bose got the ball rolling by suing consumer reports over an unfavorable review. That's very unusual. The problem with reputations is that a single action can tar a reputation for a long time, particularly if it get repeated and characterized that way over and over again.Mattnad (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Your "reasonable suggestion" was not supported by any sort of published statement that Bose is not litigious, or even one that says Bose used to be considered litigious but is no longer. That's the basic problem here. We go by published sources, and the ones that have commented on the issue agree that Bose is litigious. Binksternet (talk) 08:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@MSJapan: since you reverted my copy-editing claiming there was "no reason to change," please elaborate what reason you'd consider valid? Or, asked differently: what reason we have to stick with HTTP by any means? --bender235 (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Because we do not control the services external servers run, that's why. MSJapan (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. Google Books (and Google services in general) offer both HTTP and HTTPS. Of course we do not control those servers, but why is that an issue? --bender235 (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Editors,

There was an edit a few hours ago by an anonymous editor that I don't think was well written. It was then "undone" by Rwxrwxrwx, which is good in my opinion.

Being new to Wikipedia editing, do any of you know if there any way to attempt to pull the anonymous editor into a discussion here or is that impossible?

KenAcoustic (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• It seems to have been just routine spam, from someone who posted links to his website on loads of pages. If you really want to talk to him, just post a message on his talk page. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're talking about this edit made by an editor using an IP address from the Czech Republic. The editor was quickly warned by Rwxrwxrwx against placing inappropriate links. For contributors such as this one, persons who have made only one edit, that edit being a good-faith effort, but for whatever reason not considered worth keeping, the usual thing to do is issue the editor a welcoming message, as I've done here. If you wish, you can go to User talk:37.48.32.220 and give the person a message of your own. There's no telling at this point whether the editor will see any of these messages. The IP address may be static or dynamic; if it's dynamic then the chances are greatly reduced of the person ever seeing such a message. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, now, let me revise my assertion that this was a good faith effort. The link removed by Rwxrwxrwx was to www.search4stores.com, so I looked for other instances of that URL on Wikipedia. I found two that were recently added by IPs from the Czech Republic,[28][29] so yes, Rwxrwxrwx, it looks like we have a spammer. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed a few others from the same 37.48.* range as well. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Editors,

There are a few inaccuracies I'd like to suggest we fix, and a recent development I think we should add to the article:

In the Truck driver seat isolation system section I'd like to change the subtitle from "Truck driver seat isolation system" to "Seat suspension system for truck drivers" to reflect how it is referred to in the media and on the Bose website. This change is also is consistent with how the Bose automotive suspension system is referred to in the article and in the media.

In the L1 Portable Systems section the "Professional Systems Division" is incorrectly referred to at the "Commercial Systems Division", which does not exist at Bose. The Pro division is correctly referenced immediately above and I would simply like to make the correction in the L1 section.

In the Electroforce section I would like to add the following sentence. "In May of 2015, Bose announced that TA Instruments had acquired the assets of the Bose Electroforce Group [30]

I think these are all very straightforward. Please let me know if there any objections or suggested changes.

Thanks.

KenAcoustic (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

First two are fine. Third fails notability. If the only source for that is Bose's press release, then it probably doesn't belong here. We may just want to drop that sentence / topic.Mattnad (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in Mattnad. I'll go ahead on the first two and wait to see if there's any more discussion about the third. (I found a second place where "Commercial System Division" should have been "Professional System Division" and changed that, and deleted "Live Music Technology Group", which was folded into the Pro Division more than 5 years ago.) KenAcoustic (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

None of this is controversial, not even the PR release about TA Instruments. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to take Bose's word for it when they say they sold one of their divisions. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090130053118/http://www.edmunds.com:80/ferrari/612scaglietti/2008/review.html to http://www.edmunds.com/ferrari/612scaglietti/2008/review.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.headsets.in/bose-headset.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060930170249/http://www.mobar.org/fecee336-a405-41e8-9647-fe5deb9cba1d.aspx to http://www.mobar.org/fecee336-a405-41e8-9647-fe5deb9cba1d.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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. —

Dear Editors,

In the Professional audio systems section it says "the division accounts for about 60% of Bose's annual revenue". The information comes from this reference Plunkett. As an officer of the company I can say that the figure is wildly inaccurate and highly misleading. I'll note that the reference appears to be significantly out of date (2009) and names the late Dr. Amar Bose as CEO.

I suggest we simply remove this part of the sentence as I know of no internet source that reports what percentage of revenue is earned by the Professional Systems Division.

I'll wait a few days and if there are no objections, I'll make the change.

Thanks.

KenAcoustic (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Better to follow

WP:COI

and get someone else to make changes like that.

You aren't arguing that the information is inaccurate, only outdated. That's easily fixed by including the date. --

talk

) 16:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Ronz. I am in fact saying the information is wildly inaccurate. I know this because I'm an officer of Bose. However, there are no public sources I can find that would provide a better number than the 60% the article currently shows. That's why I suggest taking it out. Would you be willing to take that clause out (i.e. take out "the division accounts for about 60% of Bose's annual revenue"?

-- KenAcoustic (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The question is whether or not the source is reliable. See

talk

) 17:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Searching Wikipedia a bit, Plunkett almanacs appear to be widely used. I'm not finding any past discusions about their reliability. --

talk

) 17:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

If you are aware of available information that puts the specific information from the almanac in question, that would be another way to put its reliability in question. --

talk

) 18:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'll drop this. I'm not saying Plunkett almanacs are unreliable sources in general. I'm saying the specific almanac has a figure that's used in the Bose Corporation article that's incredibly far off the mark and is wildly misleading. I guess we will have to live with an inaccurate public source given I can't find another reliable source where Bose discloses the relative size of its product divisions. KenAcoustic (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. It's frustrating to have to settle with what could be inaccurate information. --

talk

) 17:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bose Corporation. 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/20121202021055/http://www.massachusetts.edu:80/uncommonleadership/greenblatt_conversation.html to http://www.massachusetts.edu/uncommonleadership/greenblatt_conversation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 08:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to even look for references with a historical perspective on the matter. In https://www.stereophile.com/content/amar-g-bose-phd-19291502013 , they barely note it beyond it being negative and resulting in the ligation. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed a the claim: "When tested by independent reviewers, Bose systems often produce inferior results compared to similarly priced products from other manufacturers". Such a claim should require significant evidence to back it up. In this case, one source was a broken link, and the other was to a website, http://liquidtheater.com/editorial_56.html, which in no way complies with

I can see an archived version of http://headphones.reviewed.com/load_feature?feature=RecentlyViewed&product_id=14049 which describes the Bose QuietComfort 15 as having a lot higher distortion levels than a less expensive Sennheiser model. The Sennheiser had "hands-down" better frequency response, that is, a "less erratic frequency response, staying within our ideal limits for a greater range of frequencies." But the review does not support multiple conclusions of this nature, over multiple models, as it is only a review of one model. I just wanted to point out that a review which is no longer available at the original publisher is still a valid review. Binksternet (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The claim is "often produce inferior results". One review that's no longer available definitely does not back up this very serious claim. If there are many such negative reviews from reliable sources, they may be worth mentioning. AuburnMagnolia (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly well-known among professional sound engineers that Bose loudspeakers do not perform as well as comparably priced loudspeakers from other manufacturers, and are thus overpriced for their performance level. So let's not get too deep into removing sky-is-blue statements that are well understood by anybody with topic knowledge. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If that is true, then there should be some reliable sources to back up that claim. Sky-is-blue certainly does not apply here. You may want to refer to

WP:V. AuburnMagnolia (talk

) 03:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Kind of a cop-out then isn't it? I mean... you can find any number of individual comparisons/benchmarks of Bose systems, but you're right in that there might not be a good citation for a meta-review of these instrumented tests. So... how the hell *do* you cite a preponderance of evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.148.147 (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Citing the actual evidence might be a good start, rather than simply claiming there is a "preponderance" of evidence, without any evidence of a preponderance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.242.68.253 (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we must be fair. Unsubstantiated claims should not exist here as it diminishes the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole.

Additionally, It is a well known fact and it often comes out in reviews that a lot of people have strong prejudice against Bose. That results in manufactured claims of lack of credibility. debasisg 14:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi,

I would like to request a couple additions to the Key people section in the Infobox on this page. I'm hoping someone can add these two people for accuracy: Jim Scammon, President and COO and Bob Maresca, Chairman/Former CEO & President. Here are sources to substantiate:

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Conferences-Events/2018/WCOS/Speakers/Bob-Maresca.aspx

https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/bose-quietly-replaces-its-ceo/

https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/bose-ceo-bob-maresca-to-step-down-on-dec-31/

https://www.bose.com/en_us/about_bose/sustainability.html

Also, there is a discrepancy in the number of employees in the Infobox and the actual article write-up - first paragraph, last sentence. In the Infobox, it lists 8,000 and in the last sentence of the first paragraph, it lists 9,000. The accurate, current number of employees is approximately 7,000. This information is published in the company's sustainability report - see link: https://assets.bose.com/content/dam/Bose_DAM/Web/consumer_electronics/global/content_pages/corporate/about_us/sustainability/Sustainability_2021_refresh/Bose_2021_Sustainability_Report.pdf

Thanks in advance for the addition and correction to these facts.

JBerthBose (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Poor formatting. Quetstar (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done PK650 (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)