" 

 == intellexual review == 

 This website has been debated time and time again. It has been removed after much debate spanning over 2 years. There have been many reasons stated for and against this web sites inclusion. But the reasons for its removal was best summed up with  comments 
 :the intellexual.net review is unsigned and is published on what appears to be an unknown individual's personal web site, its subject was a technologically unremarkable product which is long defunct and whose performance may bear little relation to that of its successors, and it discusses the product in a gleefully negative framework that is anything but neutral and unbiased and is thus of dubious value as an encyclopedic link [..] Besides, if that stale and biased review is the most credible link that we skeptics can come up with, I'd say that's pretty sad.   
 So please don't link this site its POV it lacks verifiability and is tested on a particular product not made by Bose since the late 90's.    

 :Yes, but you don't write the rules. There is no wiki rule that says that objective measurements have to be signed, or calibrated, so the comments about the frequency remain. If you can find objective measurements of a Bose system that are more to your liking, please post them. Personally I thought my summary of that page was uncontroversial.   

 ::you don't write the rules??? Ok please try to keep this civil... please! I have only been following them and it is very clear this this is a highly biased page and rather questionable. If you check you would see that it does not meet the standards of Verifiability: 
 ::*third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  
 ::*Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. 
 ::*Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources 
 ::**Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. 
 ::*If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. 
 ::This web page fails everything, it has NO reputation for fact checking, these claims have not been cited from other reliable 3rd party sources, This person is not an expert or has he been credited as being an expert in the audio field, and has no notable published works aside from this single page. 
 ::Nor does it pass reliability: 
 ::*Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand 
 ::*Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. 
 ::*In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 
 ::*In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. 
 ::*Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources 
 ::*''Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nat