Talk:Bose Corporation/Intellexual.net Archive 1

message: As I said, I'm putting it back in. Links are not just for providing readers with objective, factual data. On a subject on which there is controversy, links to opinionated pieces from either side are perfectly fine so long as they are clearly separated from the article itself (they are). As an example, I point to creation science-- many of the links there are pure opinion, with no basis in fact or indeed reality. As you can see, it's really irrelevant whether the linked article is right or not so long as it accurately expresses a significant group's collective opinion on the matter. I have relinked it stating that it is an "opinion piece." Any further objections? SVI 05:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the Acoustimass 15 referred to in the intellexual review is no longer in production. A link to a product no longer available from Bose is questionable. Perhaps someone knows of something more current?Waulfgang 19:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the page is outdated since it talks about a product that Bose is no longer producing, and second of all, the external link is an extreme troll, which angers certain Wikipedians who rely on Bose products for everyday music and movie listening.  I discourage troll links since it may somewhat violate Wikipedia NPOV standards. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 14:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  intellexual.net piece 

message: But I think that Bose has came a long way since the intellexual.net incident.  Bose has innovated, improved, and even went way beyond their basic beliefs to put their products up to par.  They are very serious about their reputation, and their latest "skull crusher", the Bose QuietComfort 3, is a result of the company's understanding of ergonomics, psychoacoustics, detail-orientation, and even customer relations, though they might need to work on their price points a bit, usually they had to price their products higher than usual to protect their patents and copyrights.  It may be possible that Bose might be able to think more outside of the box, look at how overzealous other competitors might do their speakers, refine, refurbish, improve, and polish-up their patented technologies, and quite possibly put what I call "the Bose-bashers" to shame in the future with countless innovations and improvements to their lineup.  Bose's QuietComfort 3 headphones, and quite possibly more Bose loudspeakers to come, might be able to match and/or exceed competitors from Bang and Olufsen, Klipsch, Sennheiser, Sony, and a few others in the future, thus today's Bose is committed to putting their products up to par. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 22:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but neither ergonomics, psychoacoustics, detail-orientation nor customer relations matter to what the Bose-bashers are claiming. Until Bose produces products that are up to par with their price point and advertising claims, or until they reduce their price point, the point that their sound quality is subpar will stand. --Zambaccian 02:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that the Bose-bashers need to grow up IMO.  I've really heard enough of this Bose-bashing, and I feel that Bose deserves at least some respect, even though IMO audiophiles historically bash Bose for stupid reasons.  I've seen it through ZDNet, CNet, and other websites that don't give a rat's-butt about neutrality.  No company can be complete without weaknesses, and that is what Bose is trying to correct.  Though they may not be audiophile-friendly, I feel that it's time to end all this Bose-bashing right now. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 04:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My consensus

message: All this talk, even on the discussion page, seems a little over the top to me. Don't you think other contributors and readers to this article and discussion would be better served and informed by directing them to an external link to one of the many internet forums where the merits of Bose and other systems are subjects of daily conversation? I think it's best to use this page as a place to discuss the information used and the information available to create an ever better article. 
I don't like the intellexual rant myself, and question it's value as an external link, but it is just a link to an external site, and it is labeled as an opinion piece. Perhaps the label could be modified to read something like "opinion piece on a discontinued speaker system".Waulfgang
: I think you are right, this place is no place for NPOV or POV reviews, it should provide information about the company only. Neither bad or good, just information. --g_25 14:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't particularly like the intellexual rant, but it is extremely valuable as a summary of the anti-Bose viewpoint. It's already clearly presented as outside of Wikipedia and an opinion piece, I honestly think any more would be OTL. If there's a rebuttal to it, why not add that as an external link as rebuttal to the opinion piece? afaik, that much is perfectly within NPOV. SVI 16:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FR Charts, Acoustimass, Intellexual, etc... 

message: This article is very fanboyish, and has way too much ad-speak.
:One of the problems is that a handful of people keep deconstructing the "Opinions about Bose" section. There's the 'pro' part of the article, which mentions the market studies. For the opposing view (which is pretty widespread) I tried condensing the arguments made in a NPOV manner. Yet every time I do, I come back a few weeks later and it's been taken away. It always ends up as a one-sentence statement that some people don't like it, followed by several sentences of the company's response. Hell, the only description of the opposition, that audio forums are filled with "neverending arguments", is weak - audio forums are 90% opposed, so it's hardly much of an argument. Considering there is a significant faction that opposes Bose products, there needs to at least be equal coverage afforded to the pro and anti side of things. Any criticism keeps getting whitewashed by proponents of the company, and I just don't have the energy to keep up. --Zambaccian 23:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I sympathise with your lack of energy, Zambaccian, but I don't understand your recent edit (→External links - if you're taking the intellexual link out because it's outdated, surely a 1975 review is too). The review is relevant because it applies to Bose's flagship product, which is still on the market (albeit several revisions later); the review goes into some detail about the design philosophy behind said product; the review was written by one of the most celebrated reviewers (perhaps the most celebrated) in the history of audio journalism; and it provides clear evidence that high-end journalism has not always ignored Bose products. Not sure what the intellexual link was and am too lazy at present to comb through the page history looking for it, but I'm not the one who removed it. My only meaningful edit of the Bose page to date was to make one factual correction (it was stated that neither Stereophile nor TAS had ever reviewed a Bose product—I fixed that statement and introduced the link to prove it). Rivertorch 05:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  With respect, Zambaccian, I'm not sure what your concern is.  I see two paragraphs in the "Opinions" section.  The first says that (according to independent, verified market data) the Bose brand is popular and well-respected.  The second says that many audiophiles disagree, and that the company refuses to publish specifications or respond in a way that might satisfy their concerns.  Are you concerned that the size and significance of the "opposing" faction is underrepresented by this?  If so, I for one would welcome some data that verifies that, beyond the anecdotal.  I think that would be a good NPOV addition. 71.232.230.39 11:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This article does basically read like an ad; as mentioned, there is a bit of a NPOV problem, a lot of commercial links, and few links to the external sites that discuss Bose products (other than Bose.com links). --Matthew K 00:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a starting point, I am going to remove all the different national bose sites and make them into a single link to global.bose.com from there anyone looking at the site can find the applicable country's site and there will be less clutter on the page. --Matthew K 00:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It would probably be helpful to include links to other external sites; the first ones I found to contrast with the ones already here include ,  .  Doubtless there are others; I just see a need to cut through the hype here. --Matthew K 01:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Matt, I appreciate your work on trying to improve this article.  However, your two links are forum posts and are therefore not verifiable in the Wikipedia sense.  Quoting from the verifiability standard: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight."  As a result, I don't think these links should go in the article. 71.232.230.39 10:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Content 

message: The intellexual.net link should be returned as a reference in the "Criticism" section. This article currently does not have any references or links to technical reviews of Bose hardware. The intellexual.net link provides one of the few reviews available where someone has actually tested the frequency response of a Bose product. —ptk✰fgs 14:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, if there's a link equivalent to that overly-biased Intellexual.NET link but in a more neutral note, then I would understand, but that link is a bit too extreme to be there.  If it talks about the frequencies of Bose Speakers, but in a more neutral manner, then I would be willing to let the link stay.  However, unless the link proves to be neutral, then it needs to be discussed first, as there has been instances when links have came in without being talked about first.  Links like the Intellexual.net one is at super risk due to excessive bias. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 19:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I believe that any criticism section is inherently biased due to what it is. This link makes no sense. This article is not about the speakers mentioned and Bose does not make those any more. And yes the page is overly biased against Bose. But by adding it, this would be the same as having a page about how horrid the Apple Lisa was on apples main page while comparing the Apple Lisa to newer computers. It just does not make sense. -- UKPhoenix79 20:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My flu-ridden, coughing two cents: (1) the review in question is blatantly biased and anything but objective; (2) so are lots of worthwhile reviews; (3) the methodology of the review is questionable, which brings into question—but doesn't necessarily negate—its value as a link here; (4) the age of the review is worrisome. However, the mere fact that a given product has been superseded by another doesn't mean that the new one's basic design principles and performance are different than the old one; the changes can be all cosmetic. I'd like to know whether the design and performance problems specified in the article remain the same in current product. (5) The bordering-on-shrill tone of the review leads me to reflexively say, "Bad link. Kill it", but that is a subjective response on my part. (6) The recurring use of the word "troll" is not helping matters in the slightest. Troll Street carries two-way traffic, after all. Rivertorch 22:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intellexual.net link 

message: This topic was originally called WARNING: Intellexual.NET Link
I had to revert three times from an anon editor who posted an Intellexual Link labeled "Better Profits Through Marketing".  This article has been severely trolled in the past and any links that carries a strong bias against Bose is not allowed in Wikipedia.  — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and ain't that the truth. The suppression of honest opinion in this article by you and your ilk is why it is such a shameful article. Please point me to the POLICY that says that "any links that carries a strong bias against Bose is not allowed in Wikipedia". And how does that POLICY not apply to "any links that carries a strong bias in favour of Bose ". Greglocock 07:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, bollocks. Find another third-party frequency response analysis of any Bose gear and we'll use that instead. But until then, we should at least include some technical analysis of the gear. It is a significant viewpoint that Bose produces equipment with measurable technical flaws. We cover that viewpoint in the body of the article, and should cover it in our selection of links. —ptk✰fgs 03:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Links have to be current," hahahaha. Why don't you take down the 1975 Stereophile review of the 901 then. AscendedAnathema 04:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This does NOT mean that the link will stay indefinitely because I allowed this link to be here.... Mark Kim, all due respect, but I don't think that any one person gets to "allow[]" anything to be in any particular article.  Adding the Intellexual link doesn't even remotely approach vandalism; it has no "anti-Bose" bias -- it gathers data and draws a conclusion.  In fact, that article is a classic in audio enthusiast circles, and is presented here in the most neutral way possible.  Also, its the only thing out there that (a) gives objective data on Bose frequency response, and (b) objectively assesses the build quality of Bose speakers by physically taking them apart.  As to it being likely that "Bose MIGHT sue," since the original article has been online for years, it's hardly a concern.  And since there's nothing in it that is remotely libelous, I wouldn't start worrying about the Wikipedia legal defense fund. Jedgeco 01:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, obviously it's not relevant to the Bose headphones article. It's about a speaker system. —ptk✰fgs 03:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What is your level of authority on Wikipedia to say it is a privilege and not a right? I do not see any sort of indication that you are an administrator here, and unless that absent userbox is in error, your air of authority is totally hollow. BTW, the link is mysteriously gone, I am putting it back in. AscendedAnathema 21:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No individual has authority over the inclusion or exclusion of content, regardless of administrator status. We resolve content disputes by discussion, not by unilateral decree. —ptk✰fgs 21:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What the hell is wrong with you anyway?  The link is ALREADY there, you were only blind and recklessly placing a duplicate.  Some links are placed as references and/or citations and for good reason—to make it a bit more encyclopedic and to alleviate the trolling of the article. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 23:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to stay cool and avoid personal attacks. Without stepping through 30 diffs to find out what had happened, it certainly appeared as though the link had been removed, and shouting at other editors is not an appropriate response. —ptk✰fgs 20:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the link appearing different as it supposed to be is to ensure that the link is used as a reference rather than a flat external link.  Number one.  Number two, the trolling has to be alleviated so the language had to describe the link carefully to avoid any possible trolling of the article.  Number three—AscendedAnathema duplicated the link, and I believe that one link to that god-forsaken Intellexual Link is enough.  There is NO NEED for two link areas for that page, as if there is already a link to a page as being as a reference, then that's a plenty.  End of story. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 01:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Bose hasn't actually made since the turn of the century! The system has changed since then and now has a powered bass and since the article focuses on the lack of mids and lows that a powered subwoffer would fix[.]  Model numbers have changed, but it's still the same basic system.  Also, more generally, a powered subwoffer will not compensate for a speaker system's inability to produce midrange frequencies, and if it does, it's creating more problems than it's fixing. Jedgeco 19:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanctioned Link 

message: I am going to have to nominate this article for a possible POV check since too many people have disagreed with the links that deserve to be in the article.  The NPOV state of this article remains unknown as of this time. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 13:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, we have to represent all significant viewpoints, not just the ones you agree with. As I pointed out above, the only recent news stories to discuss the technical specifications of Bose gear cite the Intellexual.net article as a source. For this article to use it as a source to support the claim it's attached to -- which is only noting the existence of widespread criticism, not asserting that criticism as fact -- is entirely appropriate. —ptk✰fgs 13:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, due to the fact that there's been a lot of disputes in the past, I had no choice but to nominate the article for a POV check, and this is a rare instance where I had to nominate the article for a POV check because I had to rely on the past on this one. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there are serious POV problems with this article, but they ain't because of the Intellexual article. Jedgeco 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1.5 million google hits for neodymium magnet(s).  "rare earth" and "flat power response" reek of marketing mumbo jumbo.  and xmax , more or less, determines the ultimate acoustic power.  moreover, a decent xmax without tons of distortion and a reasonable mechanical limit.  and how do you get flat power response to 20 hz without an array of subs?66.217.161.118 21:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See below: the best other source we can find is citing the intellexual.net article as a source. On the other end, anonymity appears to be helpful in avoiding the long arm of the Bose censor-lawyers. —ptk✰fgs 20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lack of reliable sources doesn't mean you default to the best of the non-reliable ones.  Lack of sources defaults to exclusion.  The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  –Gunslinger47 02:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: At the least, the "some audio analysts" wording should be corrected as to be more accurate to the reference. –Gunslinger47 02:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I just wanted to say (and please know that I mean no disrespect in any way what soever) that is is really a silly comment to say "anonymity appears to be helpful in avoiding the long arm of the Bose censor-lawyers" because in just under 5 min I managed to find out the name, address, phone number and email account of the administrator of that website   . The shear fact that this website has existed for soooo many years proves that that argument is BS. If Bose wanted they could have sued that site YEARS ago, forced him to remove the article, or many other things a Sue happy company does. This company never has because if it did it could have put an injunction on the site and managed to tie up the case in court for so long that the owner could not afford the legal fees and would have to acquiesce to there demands! I'm sorry but I don't mean to be insulting but it does take a bit of thinking when one says that a company sues anyone who criticizes them and you cite a really old website that does just that!!!! But beyond that this site just doesn't hold enough credibility to be used as an external link. -- UKPhoenix79 04:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominated for Neutrality Check

message: :::I think the reason people like me hate Bose is because they are a decietful company spreading myths about sound reproduction, and destroying the ears of the world to boot.  Bose Speakers, to make this 100% clear, are not high end, nor are they professional.  They are, however, expensive.  For the price of the Bose Packlite Amp, which is 250 w RMS max (no impedance specified), you can get a crown XLS 402D, with over 1,100 w @ 4 ohms mono bridge.  Ask any serious engineer what he'd rather have, the Bose top of the line, or the Crown bottom of the line.
:::if you compare the Bose AM15 series I (about $1k) (edit by UKPhoenix79) http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/1/224927.jpg to the event studio precision 8s ($1300)... http://www.event1.com/index/images/sp8_spec_active.jpg You'll see what I mean.
:::I found this interesting, it may help clear up some questions. http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html ReignMan (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to point out that the graph is supposed to represent a 7 year old AM15 system that ran for 1k, and is no longer manufactured. The website is unverified and the ONLY place you find such information anyplace on the web is in either this personal website or sites taking information from this personal website. p.s. I edited your text since according to the site is is supposed to be representative of an AM15 series I not a Lifestyle system. Hope you don't mind. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't mind.  It's just that, that's the only spec of any bose system I could find.  Bose doesn't publish those charts (Event has them right on their website, next to the speaker information)  The person who made that chart said it was a Lifestlye system, but I wasn't sure. ReignMan (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea because Bose doesn't seam to care about defending itself on the net, people just say whatever they want and there is no way to verify what they claim is indeed true. But that chart is indeed supposed to be a $1k system from 2000. It was taken from the intellexual website and then mislabeled, no way to know if it was done on purpose. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the intellexual link is an excellent read, however the thought police claim it breaks wiki policy (I must actually find out how that CONSENSUS was achieved). However if you HATE Bose then you probably should consider not editing the article. If you just find their marketing annoying and creepy then go right ahead. They aren't destroying anybody's ears, all they are doing is lightening their customer's wallets. Since the customer is a willing participant in the process then it's just a case of caveat emptor. Having said that wiki is no place for spam or marketing and this article veers dangerously towards swallowing Bose' PR and regurgitating it. Greg Locock (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ads are defiantly wrong (and should be avoided) but so is putting up information that is unverified and unreliable. There is just no way to say for sure that this site did what it said about this one product, after all it is a personal website. Please can you find an independent and reliable source that is not based on this websites claimed tests? I really have looked and have given up because I have not found any that pass the above policies. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: intellexual