Talk:List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks

{{Article history

|action1=FLC

|action1date=07:12, 11 April 2009

|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks/archive1

|action1result=promoted

|action1oldid=282884897

|currentstatus=FL

}}

{{Old AfD multi| date = 24 September 2010 (UTC) | result = keep | page = List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks }}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FL|1=

{{WikiProject California |importance=Low |sfba=yes |sfba-importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Companies |importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Computing |importance=Low |network=yes |network-importance=Mid |hardware=yes |hardware-importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Lists |class=FL |importance=Low}}

}}

Request edit

I have a COI/financial connection/affiliation with Juniper Networks. I'd like to request a couple minor edits to this page:

  • Can we add a couple acquisitions that are missing from the table? I've put them in the table's format below.

class="wikitable sortable"
Acquisition date

! Company

! class="unsortable"| Business

! Country

! Value (USD)

!class="unsortable"|References

December 2012

| Contrail Systems, Santa Clara, CA.
Founded: 2012

| Software-defined network controllers

| {{USA}}

|align="center"| US$176 million

|align="center"|{{cite news|title=Juniper buys SDN startup for $176M|first=Jim|last=Duffy|newspaper=Network World|date=December 12, 2012|url=http://www.networkworld.com/article/2162133/data-center/juniper-buys-sdn-startup-for--176m.html|accessdate=December 22, 2014}}

February 21, 2011

|Brilliant Telecommunications, Campbell, CA
Founded: 2004

| Synchronization technology

|{{USA}}

|align="center"| US$4.5 million

|align="center"|{{cite news|title=Juniper Outbids Rival in M&A Swoop|url=http://www.lightreading.com/mobile/backhaul/juniper-outbids-rival-in-manda-swoop/d/d-id/684349|publisher=Light Reading|accessdate=December 24, 2014|first=Michelle|last=Donegan|date=February 21, 2011}}

  • I'd like to suggest using the date an acquisition was completed, as oppose to when it was announced, which would result in the following date changes:

:* Redline Networks: April 26, 2005 -> May 2, 2005[http://newsroom.juniper.net/manual-releases/2005/Juniper-Networks-Completes-Acquisition-of-Kagoor-N]

:* Kagoor Networks: March 29, 2005 -> May 2, 2005[http://newsroom.juniper.net/manual-releases/2005/Juniper-Networks-Completes-Acquisition-of-Kagoor-N]

:* Peribit Networks: April 26, 2005 -> July 6, 2005[http://newsroom.juniper.net/manual-releases/2005/Juniper-Networks-Completes-Acquisition-of-Peribit-]

:* Blackwave Networks: October 28, 2010 -> November 8, 2010[http://juniper.mwnewsroom.com/manual-releases/2010/Juniper-Networks-Acquires-Advanced-Video-Delivery-] (this one is a correction based on the source already used)

  • I could not find any publicly available sources about the Nexsi acquisition mentioned in paragraph 2; it's not included in their press release archives or annual report and there are no media reports or other sources on it. I asked Juniper (Original Research) and they verified the company acquired intellectual property from Nexsi through a bankruptcy proceeding, but it was not announced publicly and there is no available published information on it. So we have the age-old question of whether to maintain original research that happens to be correct.

CorporateM (Talk) 16:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

{{edit COI|P|[Added two acquisitions due to sources given. I've not changed the dates as all four sources you have given are from the company itself and so I'll search for more reliable third-party sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability. However there are no exceptional claims being made and if I fail at finding any others I will return and make the changes you desire, they seem reasonable. For the third point, it seems fair to leave it in unless consensus demands otherwise. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)]}}

::Thanks user:SamWilson989! I'm not sure if it was on purpose, but you created a second Request Edit template with the parameters filled out, rather than filling out the parameters in the original one, which would leave the Request Edit as open/un-answered in the queue. I went ahead and removed the original. CorporateM (Talk) 23:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

:::The second Request Edit template is automatic as I responded with a partial answer template, rather than a full answer template. It's usually done that way so that others can complete the rest of a partial edit. Don't worry though, it doesn't really matter in this case. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

:::I've changed the dates to the acquisitions dates for you, and used the Juniper Network sources. They've been used already and are accurate. SamWilson989 (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

::::Cool, thanks. Yes, usually when we have a comprehensive acquisition list like this, primary sources are acceptable, since there are no NPOV or weight issues and most companies reliably report on acquisition dates and volumes. It's always a bit of a curveball however when we have information that happens to be true, but for which no sources exist. Thanks for chiming in! Sometimes it takes months to get a reply on a request edit without bugging someone, so it was surprising to see such a prompt response. CorporateM (Talk) 00:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::No worries, I just saw the request pop up as I was looking on the list and it seemed simple enough. Feel free to message me on my talk page again if you have any requests for this page that you cannot edit yourself. SamWilson989 (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Lead

{{edit COI|A}}

Suggest replacing the second paragraph of the Lead, which relies heavily on primary sources, with the summary located at Juniper_Networks#Acquisitions_and_investments, which relies on secondary sources and would be more in-line with WP:Summary style. CorporateM (Talk) 20:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

:Sorry no one responded to the request. It looks a good replacement to me so I've done the edit. 09:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

::Thanks {{ping|Dmcq}}! I trimmed the original research, primary sources, excess detail, etc. in the Lead that I intended for the well-sourced summary to replace. If that doesn't look ok, please let me know and I'll revert myself pronto! CorporateM (Talk) 15:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

:::Seems fine, the main article gives that sort of detail. Dmcq (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)