Talk:Business Objects (company)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale.
France Portal
Business Objects (company) is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Advertisment vs Encyclopedia article

Somebody at IP 129.97.114.173 changed this article to an advertisement for BO. It is great that you want to impove this very small article about your company but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we take the idea of neutral point of view very seriously because this is an encyclopedia. If you would like to expand this article in an encyclopedic fashion that's great but advertisments don't last long as wikipedia articles. JesseHogan 17:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Not an Add anymore

Now, it is 07 June 2007. I've read the article, and don't think that we should consider it as an add.

[edit] Redirect

Redirected BusinessObjects to this page.

--Sheldonc 02:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV and history

I tried to remove some of the POV in this article, but I still think that the text in this way could be on the companys website as an advertisement. Sure it is a great product but it is not ultimative. Furthermore I am not sure how lists are handled in the English Wikipedia, but at least the history section should be converted to a continuous text. -- CecilK 01:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crticism

There are no citations anywhere in the criticism section and a lot of these are simply an individuals opinion. I think we should remove the conjecture and add some citations if this section is to remain. Macutty 18:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also added a number of citation tags. The info reads like a competitor spreading FUD rather than anything else.

After reviewing rules on verifiability and OR I'm suppressing the criticism section using the <! tag until sources can be found to back up these statements Macutty 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up this section and rewrote it. I think this section should NOT be removed, if anything competitors web pages require similiar sections. -G 21:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Macutty. That was a mass of trivia and original research. Blogs and forums are not acceptable references. If you'd like to add criticism in the future, please source it properly and post it here on the talk page first so we can discuss it and assist you in citing it. Thanks! Kuru talk 13:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CEO Compensation

Removing the comment on CEO's compensation: he is not even listed in the top 3. See link for details: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/07/10/8380869/index.htm Macutty 19:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)