Talk:Bose Corporation

/List of Bose product sightings

Edits

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 WP:NPOV, WP:MOSBEGIN, WP:BEGINNING, WP:YESPOV, WP:Notability, WP:ROUTINE, WP:UNDUE, etc. to name a few. -- Phoenix (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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 unsigned comment added by 1292simon (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:MOSBEGIN, 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)

Distortion

"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 WP:PEACOCK piece of technobabble, whereas it is actually cringe-making-ly banal. The first part of that sentence stands alone perfectly well. Greglocock (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

big reverts, random policy links

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. 1292simon (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

winter olympics - help needed

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 [1] 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)

RfC: Bose as a "litigious" company

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)

 • Derdak, Thomas; Pederson, Jay P. (2000). International directory of company histories. Vol. 36. St. James Press. p. 101. ISBN 1558624414. Starting with the company's long legal battle with Consumer Reports, Bose gained a reputation for litigiousness. In the mid- to late-1990s the company was involved in a number of lawsuits...

 • Willis, Barry (September 10, 2000). "Harman Will Appeal Judgment on Bose Patent Infringement". Stereophile. Source Interlink Media. Audio manufacturers who know what's good for them avoid stepping on the toes of Bose, Inc. The Framingham, Massachusetts–based corporation is renowned for its ruthless marketing and zealous protection of its patents.

 • Willis, Barry (December 30, 2002). "Bose vs Harman Upheld". Stereophile. Source Interlink Media. Bose has a long-established reputation for dominating its market niche and for staunchly defending its trademarks and other intellectual property.

 • Bell, Ian (November 10, 2003) Bose sues CEDIA over trademark. Digital Trends. "Bose is known in industry circles to be very litigious especially in terms of trademark issues... With the six figure price tag of a legal defense, many small companies have no choice but to avoid conflict with the loudspeaker giant and their in-house legal team."

 • Forbes. 174: 62. 2004. Steven Williams, a lawyer for Consumers Union, says of his opponent [Bose], 'It's a very strange, very litigious company.' {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

 • "Bose Corporation". Company Histories & Profiles. Funding Universe. Retrieved March 16, 2012. Bose gained a reputation for litigiousness

• 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:NPOV "Bose has an aggressive stance in protecting its patents and trademarks; the company is known for initiating lawsuits."? It is clear 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.

 • 2011, Sony sues over PS3 encryption hack

 • 2011, Sony sues Geohot

 • 2010, Sony sues itself over Linux Removal

 • 2010, Sony Sues LG Over Patent Theft

 • 2010, Sony sues cable channel over Michael Jackson works

 • 2010, Sony Files Patent Lawsuit to Ban LG Mobile Telephones From U.S.

 • 2009, Sony sues EMI over Werre promotion

 • 2009, SONY sues Datel for Lite Blue Tool

 • 2009, Sony Considering Suing Over Controversial Early Death Ad

 • 2008, Mitsubishi, Samsung, Sony Sue Vizio for MPEG-2 Patents

 • 2008, Sony sues bar for copyright infringement

 • 2007, Sony Sues Rootkit Maker

 • 2007, Sony BMG sues anti-piracy company

 • 2006, Sony sues over fake Memory Sticks

 • 2004, Sony sues Kodak over patents

 • 2001, Sony Sues Dixie Chicks

 • 1999, Sony Sues Over PlayStation Clone

 • 1999, Sony sues Connectix over the Virtual Game Station

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[2][3] 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.

 • "he spent several years at Sony Pictures Entertainment, working in a highly sensitive, often litigious financial department."

 • "Litigious Sony Sets Sights on Lik-Sang"

 • (Sony) "Paramount Ready To Get More Litigious"

 • "Sony’s litigious strategy in relation to the PlayStation 3 hacks is just beginning to gain steam."

 • PS3 Hackers Respond to Sony's Litigious Accusations

 • "LG and Sony have established a notoriously litigious relationship over several technologies"

 • "The litigious actions of Sony were enough to inspire the loosely-affiliated hacker group to launch an alleged security breach"

 • "2011 has been no less litigious for Sony."

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 [4]? 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 1292simon (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)

Amar interview as source

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 WP:selfpub, actually I believe it may contract ALL of the points in one fell swoop! Regarding the litigation against Consumer Reports in the "Legal Action" section, while I believe Bose's reasons for suing are noteworthy, I think the fact that many other audio companies have also received bad reviews and have not reacted by suing should be mentioned for balance.1292simon (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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. 1292simon (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)