Talk:List of Bose headphones/Archive 1

message: The previous article contained many good points, but I restructured it to sound less like an advertisement for the product and tried to make it more impartial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.198.170 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Impartial

message: I try to keep up with Wikipedia's NPOV Policies while making the article reflect on all of Bose's Headphone offerings instead of one.  This article looks like it's incomplete, as I might have some pictures about the QuietComfort 2 Headphones from my own disk drive, but please feel free to adjust the neutrality of the article to whatever means possible.  Thanks. — Vesther 23:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Condensed it even more

message: If you guys can get the Impedance, Sensitivity, Frequency Range, etc. out of these overpriced headphone family (I already got the Tri-Port Headphones settled), then I would highly appreciate it.  Be sure to cite your sources.  Thanks. — Vesther 02:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Challenge 

message: I talked to someone at a Tweeter Audio/Video store and I asked him how he felt about the Bose Tri-Port Headphones.  He told me that he didn't like them because the mid and low bass levels tend to overlap the Treble levels, and that he can't hear the highs whatsoever.  He was pretty much an audiophile and he recommended the Shure Earbuds over the Bose Tri-Port Headphones for reasons unknown.
Just wanted to clarify the Audiophiles' criticism about the Bass problem. — Vesther 20:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bass Problem Clarification 

message: I've seen two instances of trolling in this talk page, so please really watch out what you are saying on these talk pages, since I really "bite" messages that are deemed to be trolls.  Trolling (messages that encourages flaming on a page) won't be tolerated, so please watch what you are saying. — Vesther 03:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No trolling in Talk Pages 

message: I cleaned up the product descriptions.  I also took this criticism out:
*  Material Usage.  Many headphone aficionados wished Bose to use more reliable materials so that the headphones itself would feel more like a "true high-end pair of headphones."
It is lacking in specifics.  What does "more reliable materials" mean?  What does a "true high-end pair of headphones" mean?
I also took out references to having no criticisms.  The section is supposed to describe criticisms.  If there aren't any, then there is no reason for the section to be there.
I also took this out:
Addressing treble concerns also had Bose wondering about the retainment of the headphones' Bass performance, which has been a condition of releasing a product with the Bose name for many years.
Because it doesn't make sense.  Does it mean that they were worried about improving the treble performance at the expense of the bass performance?  If so, what did they do about it?
Jm307 04:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: ((Link removed at the request of Vesther))
This link only talks about the Bose Acoustimass article and likely this link belongs ONLY on the Bose Corporation article IMO.  It has NOTHING to do with Headphones, besides any works cited SHOULD try to talk only about Bose's Headphones, the Intellexual.NET link does NOT talk about headphones.  People should read the external link VERY CAREFULLY before even putting a citation in the article.  Off-Topic citations are somewhat dangerous grounds.  I won't be too harsh on external links that criticises and/or favors Bose, but I just want to make sure that all external citations are uniform to the Bose Headphone Family.  Thanks. — Mark Kim 00:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Intellexual.NET Link 

message: I'm not attempting to flame or troll here, but you're actively stifling criticism and reverting every attempt at establishing a NPOV and more importantly at qualifying and explaining criticism back to the same meaningless thing. Please stop. I've re-edited to remove the references to other headphones, but I feel it is very important to reflect the reasoning behind the criticism, especially in light of potential confusion over why it's there in the first place. JBkar 09:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check your talk page. You are putting up false info and I don't believe it is intentional but it still dosen't belong and has to be removed. disagreaments on the main page can escallate out of control and I doubt that either of us want that. So please lets use the talk page like it should be used and come up with a good solution. I have said only one thing ever about this article. I believe that this should be as NPOV as possable and I agree that there is still some work to be done. So use the talk page and lets get others involved here before we improve the article. Sound like a deal? -- UKPhoenix79 10:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. I can link you to a frequency response graph of the headphone, if you'd like, so that you may see for yourself how it compares to others? Bose QC2 isn't trying to be a sonically balanced headphone, instead aiming at popular euphony (big bass midbass and rolled off treble). You said yourself that they're not aimed at pure sound quality. May I ask what exception you took to the section regarding active noise cancelling? Signal degradation as a result of active noise cancelling is a widely acknowledged and fully understood fact. Why do you insist on reverting to contested information instead of editing that which is there to remove your specific criticsms and discussing the changes you'd like to make on the talk page, as I do and have done on the article? I hope you don't take offense to the following statement, but this is a section designed to speak about criticisms, and so far there are none. It's just a feel-good, hopeful reaffirmation of the product rather than an honest illumination of what critics say about it and what problems people perceive. Further, please remember to assume good faith - I am not editing to troll, I am editing to try to improve the encyclopedia, and frankly I'd like to ask exactly what in the article looked like trolling to your eyes.JBkar 14:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UKPhoenix's QC2SE reverts

message: Trying something new... I don't know if it will work or not but I have been thinking of this for a while now. I have reorganized the headphones, they were listed chronologically but now the headphones are organized into sub categories to help people search for what they are looking for. They were organized by "Current Bose Headphones", "Previous Nose Reducing Headphones" and "Previous Aviation Headsets." 
This does create some issues since now the Current headphones need to have more info inserted in them. Previously it was assumed that you'd see the improvements that were included with the original version so it wasn't restated in the new ones. So this article needs some more TLC to aid the readers. But that's assuming you like the change... If it doesn't work we may just have to revert it back to its original form. -- UKPhoenix79 10:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Headphone Organization 

message: I feel that there has been too much harsh criticism on not only these headphones, but other "things" as well whether or not it's Bose.  I think the real reason why audiophiles "slam" certain products and create pages to troll products is mainly because of their disregard of two things: proper audiology and psychoacoustics.  Bose is known for their taut understanding of psychoacoustics, something that they've been trying to perfect for many years.  Those who think that Bose attracts people just because of their marketing has excessive disregard of how much Bose understand psychoacoustics.  In fact, Bose has been working very closely with psychoacoustics since their company was founded 4 decades ago.  Just my 2 cents. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My consensus 

message: I am a regular wikipedia user and despite having an EB account find myself using wikipedia increasingly as a source of generally impartial factual information. That opinion took a nosedive today when I came across this 'article' in Wikipedia while looking for information on ear protection. 
If I want to find out about Bose headphones (or any other product) I will go to their web site - I don't expect to find a companies product range specification in an encyclopedia. One can easily imagine the impact if every company starts using wikipedia as a site to promote their products under the guise of giving facts to the reader. 
The FACT is I don't care whether this so called article is written from a NPOV or not, whether it's balanced or nor or even whether it is factually correct or not - I DO care that my favourite encyclopedia is being abused under the specious argument that if it's a fact it somehow deserves a place here. I can think of a hundreds of types of completely factual information that I don't want to see cluttering up wikipedia and marketing information is pretty close to the top of the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.35.209  (talk • contribs) 10:41, 12:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry that you feel that way since a few of us have spent a lot of time trying to improve this article and make it the best article it can possably be. It is not uncommon for products to be listed inside of wikipedia. Stuff like the iPod shuffle or HP Printers get entire pages dedicated to them. This is Wikipedia so I would say that any relevent fact about what is discussed should be listed but the article should be as NPOV as possible so please let us know how we can improve this article and make it the best it can be :) -- UKPhoenix79 10:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shocked!

message: You asked, in the AfD discussion, so here's my answer, essentially as taken from there. But I think we're too far apart. Anyone who could think it was appropriate to use a photograph like :Bose_QC2_person.jpg‎ rather than a picture just showing the headphones has a wildly different concept of what's encyclopedic than I do. 
The things I think should be in the article would be hard to research and would involve quite a lot of hard work, and it's not my field of interest.
A good article would answer questions like this: When did Bose first introduced noise-cancelling aviation headphones? Noise-cancelling consumer headphones? Were either of these the first on the market? If not, whose were and what factors account for Bose's success in outstripping them? The basic idea of active noise cancellation dates back to the 1930s, so why is it difficult to do? Obviously there much more to it than "send[ing] out the noise it receives phase-shifted 180 degrees." What were Bose's key technical innovations, as documented in patents and, probably, in the trade press, and, Bose being an academic, quite possibly in scientific journal articles? What's the difference between the technology in the aviation headphones and the consumer version? What can be said about Bose's business and marketing strategies? Does Bose sell exclusively by mail and in its own retail stores? Why? To what people is Bose trying to sell these headphones? How many have been sold? How do sales of Bose noise-cancelling headphones compare with those of other headphones in the same price range?  
And, of course, the pictures should be pictures of the headphone (the steak); not the sizzle, i.e. pictures of people registering hair-raising ecstasy or smug satisfaction... people who incidentally happen to have something unidentifiable on their ears.  It would be nice to have a picture of one opened up and showing the electronic components inside. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What I'd like to see in this article

message: Now that the AfD is over, I'm giving fair warning that if the paragraphs in violation of copyright (meaning they were cut-and-pasted from the Bose website) are not rewritten, I will edit them out. Akradecki 15:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Violation edit headsup

message: Just now I had to refine one part of the article to make it less advert-esque (The Research Background was plagued), but even though I made it less like an advertisement, there's still bugs, and I do appreciate if any of you have the power to work around the bugs (I had to place a Citation Needed tag on the TriPort section for bug-fixing purposes).  Thanks. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 19:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still a lot of bugs 

message: "Bose Headphone Family" needs neither capitalization nor "Family", I suggest moving this page to Bose headphones per the WP:MOS. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, done. ed g2s • talk 07:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also the former sounds like the official marketing name, not the most commonly used name as is required. ed g2s • talk 07:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving [[Bose Headphone Family]] to [[Bose headphones]] 

message: I notice that for some reason, placing upgrade information looks like a bit of an advert and is somewhat not needed for encyclopedic purposes.  I'm not going to nuke it, but I need your feedback on this before it can be foregone. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 19:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, except when the information deals with a deficiency previously mentioned. But then perhaps then first mention could be changed, with  something like (later upgraded). DGG 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forego the Aviation Headset's upgrade information?