Talk:iPhone/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

3G S proccessor

the iPhone 3G S has a new ARM Cortex-A8 CPU and the gpu was upgrade to powerVR SGX 5xx gpu .<ref>[1]</ref>

Other than being poorly formatted (sentences usually begin with capital letters) and placement (this belongs in the infobox, I cannot substantiate the link (which requires login). However, the promised speed boosts strongly suggest a faster processor. We'll know when the gadget blogs dissect the new units on the 19th, but until then, what do we do?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert rumors posted without proper attribution, report 3RR violations when editors insist on pushing it. If it becomes prolonged maybe do an RFC or arbitration but that's really a pain for an issue that should get cleared up in a week or so anyway when we have real specs from reliable sources. Unfortunately I doubt this will be the last time someone tries to add info prematurely about the new model. -- Atama ^chat 00:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

here is text about the gpu in the apple link [2] Quoting from the latest OpenGL ES doc on the OpenGL ES developer page

The PowerVR SGX is the graphics processor in Apple’s newest iPhones and is designed for OpenGL ES 2.0. The graphics driver for the PowerVR SGX also implements OpenGL ES 1.1 by efficiently implementing the fixed-function pipeline using shaders. More information about PowerVR technologies can be found in the PowerVR Technology Overview. Detailed information about the PowerVR SGX can be found in the POWERVR SGX OpenGL ES 2.0 Application Development Recommendations.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andri12 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the content of the edit is the issue. The issues are 1. the information belongs in the infobox and not the body of the article, and 2. the text is poorly written. We're not scolding people who doesn't write in English as his first language. What I would've done instead is write the information the best you can in this very talk page, allow someone with better knowledge of written English to write the information, and then add the content in the proper place.

groink 00:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I do have a bit of a problem with the content... Well, I suspect it's true and really is there, but as always we want verifiability and we can't have that with a source we can't even view. -- Atama ^chat 00:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion as to what to do with the content is to assume it's accurate and add the info in the proper place with proper formatting, but with a fact tag, because we still don't have a good source. Later, when we do have one, we'll put it in. Does that work? That way we're following policy but still improving the article with new info. -- Atama ^chat 00:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

here is a good source anandtech the site famous for graphics cards has don a nich article about the iphone 3gs hardware http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3579&p=2 page 2 is about the cpu and gpu is page 3 --Andri12 (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

iPhone 3GS

I think that a new section should be made for the 3GS, now that sufficient information is known about it. Xtermin8R645 5:33, June 10, 2009

There is very little difference between the 3G and 3G S. We're adding information regarding the few differences in appropriate locations when that information becomes available and verifiable (such as the new processor speed in the hardware section of the article). -- Atama ^chat 21:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - although it does make the infobox pretty crowded.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Iphone 3G S

[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshmarino (talk • contribs) 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that link is invalid. And just because a blogger says so does not make it so.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Newton

In the interest of being a good boy and not edit-warring I'd like to open the discussion to the Newton. We've had that article in the "See Also" section for some time now, and I feel that it's justified because it was Apple's first attempt at a handheld computer (predating other PDAs in fact) and the iPhone/iPod Touch are just the modern evolution of that initial device. The connection between the iPhone and the Newton should be obvious and I think it's reasonable to expect that someone trying to learn about the iPhone might be interested in the Newton as well. WP:ALSO suggests that integrating links from the See Also section into the body of the article is preferred, however considering the length of the article I'd think it's better to simply have the article linked below as it was before (rather than shoe-horning it into some place like the History section). An anonymous IP believes that the Newton has nothing at all to do with the iPhone. Thoughts? -- Atama ^chat 20:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In your edits summaries, you called the Newton the "predecessor" to the iPhone. This is not true; the iPod mini preceded the iPod nano, and the PowerBook preceded the Mac Book Pro. But that's a technicallity. It belongs in the see also section.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bah, it was late when I did that summary, so I wasn't very clear. It is a "predecessor" if not a direct one. It certainly preceded the iPhone as a handheld computer from Apple. But your point is taken. -- Atama ^chat 21:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

damages?

can they get damaged if the shower vapor is a common thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.176.12 (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is supposed to be a joke, or if it is a sincere but confused question, or just something way above my head, but I have no clue what you're talking about. There is no mention of "shower vapor" anywhere in the article, and as far as I know none of the iPhone models are capable of acting as a shower head attachment. -- Atama ^chat 15:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the "shower vapor" is an effect where the phone was somehow exposed to moisture, and somehow the moisture got into the phone, and therefore creates this fogged, mist effect underneath the glass. Anytime someone drops his cell phone in water, this is the kind of thing that usually occurs. I've seen cell phones survive for long periods of time, but I think that's just sheer luck. So my answer would be that shower vapor is not a common thing if you treat your iPhone properly; leaving it out in the rain, dropping it in the toilet, etc. is not proper treatment for anything electronic. Also, the iPhone is not water resistant. I think that even just using the phone while out in heavey rain might be a bad thing. This does, however, bring up a question: does the iPhone have one of those moisture sensitive decals that shows whether or not the phone made contact with water? I've seen this on other phones.

groink 22:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

iPhone OS beta releases

The reason I removed the mention of jailbreaking beta software is that it is illogical on two levels. First, beta software is supposed to be unstable. Someone bragging that he hacked beta software is not that elite in the hacking business. It just tells people that the beta software wasn't secured enough to prevent jailbreaking. And, the developer may secure the software even more by the final release. I've seen Microsoft do this sort of thing with their beta releases. Second, just because 3.0 beta was jailbroken, it does not mean that 3.0 final will be jailbreakable exactly the same way. We're 99.999999999 percent sure that 3.0 will be jailbroken within hours to days after release, but purely on an achievement basis the 3.0 final - or any final release is the epitome of the jailbreaking movement - and that is the version that is worth mentioning. The eagerness of the jailbreaking does not have to be demonstrated in this article. As I explained in my edit comments, the iPhone jailbreaking article took care of mentioning both the beta version hacking and the mood of the hackers who do it. That's my train of thought - the iPhone jailbreaking article was created to focus on the details of the movement, and the jailbreaking section within the iPhone article should be treated like an introduction section: keep it somewhat vague, but at the same time encourage the reader to jump to the jailbreaking article. groink 09:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's true.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Call For Criticisms

Why on EARTH does a device with as many imperfections as the IPhone not have a criticisms section? I would suggest that people get busy, because not pointing out obvious flaws in stuff like this leaves companies feeling all too free to continue them in future models (like battery life, as one example. That has been more criticized in EVERY model than Michael Jackson's face. You can't even talk about the IPhone to regular people without hearing all kinds of crap (and expressions of hesitation to buy) regarding battery life, internet speed, and often how choppy lots of games and high-end apps run).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dario D. (talk • contribs)

wp:npov k thx riffic (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your use of words does not encourage us taking you seriously. Did you read the FAQ above in this very topic? Creating a new section and dumping a bunch of information is not difficult. In fact, it's too easy! The challenge is embedding the reliably sourced information into the existing sections. Read WP:CRIT, and you'll find that what you did to the IPod Touch article was not the correct way to go about things.

groink 09:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the previous two Wikipedians. Please do read WP:NPOV and WP:CRIT before you continue this discussion. Brianreading (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If the criticisms focus on the battery, put them into the battery section. I'll do that now.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 11:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I still need to clean up that section, as well as look at sources for the processor.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't think that just because a few article-hawks have an opinion on keeping a PERFECT criticism section down that this will make it very far. I can smell this reaching ArbCom VERY soon, and your stone-wall against Crits is going to come crashing down.----[ Dario D. ] 20:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Threats aren't going to help you. Please be civil and please avoid trying to make a point with your edits. Criticism sections in general are against Wikipedia policy, you're beating a long-dead horse. -- Atama ^chat 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A long-dead horse?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Dario D. that edit regarding the battery problems, good find. All significant info for the iPhone, if properly sourced, is welcome and helps the article. -- Atama ^chat 21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer a source directly from JD Power & Associates...*grumble grumble*...but I'll go ahead and format the citations. However, I think that it is fair to let Apple state its case before we bring in third parties. Okay?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Threats". Hilarious. Read my post below for the rest of what I was going to say. (and I *DID* cite JD Power's very website.^[1] Not sure what you're grumbling about.)----[ Dario D. ] 22:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did and I missed it when I made that post, sorry. I am more than happy to include that information. I am leaving in the moconews source (which I've never heard of, but am assuming it's a legit company and not one person), but reluctantly.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a request posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Try to remember that third opinions are intended to resolve disputes between two editors. There are more than two at work here. However, I'll throw in my opinions:

Atama is incorrect. There is no policy prohibiting criticism sections. The policies that govern such sections are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Undue weight.
In the context of the iPhone, a criticism section would probably be more appropriate to call Reviews or Reception or something similar. Any criticism should be from notable, reliable sources. I stress reliable here, because any poorly-sourced criticism should be immediately reverted with prejudice. This prevents disgruntled POV-pushers from expanding the section with their personal views.
Blogs, forum comments, self-published editorials, and the like are totally not acceptable as sources.
Dario D had the right idea, but went about it the wrong way by referencing a poor source.
If the only notable criticism is about one aspect of the device (such as the battery), then the criticism should be incorporated into the appropriate section. In fact, a criticism section can be avoided entirely if incorporating valid criticism into other sections is done as much as possible.

Those are my opinions. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections are discouraged inasmuch that they generally tend to violate the policies you cited. But I agree strongly with your last point - this isn't about criticism, it's about the battery. The point is to regurgitate neither Apple's rosy publicity nor a blogger's unsubstantiated rant. Ideally, Consumer Reports or JD Power would have done their own lab tests...it appears that they have not.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You're saying criticism sections are against Wikipedia policy? Read the Wikipedia:CRIT page. Aside from ONLY stating the contrary, it says: "Evaluations in a "Criticism" section: A dedicated section can make dealing with criticism easier by keeping these aspects compartmentalized, as criticisms may be similar and can be combined in a fashion that will reduce repetition." Even Jimbo Wales is quoted saying they're legit and needed. - Btw, the current disassembling the Crit section and stuffing it into sections all over the article sounds like some form of of Wikipedia:Content_Forking, or something else even more deliberately ill-natured and in (very) bad POV tastes. I naturally agree with Amatulic, and regarding citations, took the time to dig up several better sources (CNet, and JD Power's actual website). Oh, and by the way, I need to point everyone's attention to that giant FAQ at the top of the page, that says Criticisms Sections are discouraged. That's coming down, right? When it was put there, it already contained that text. I think it comes from a template of some sort.----[ Dario D. ] 22:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, WP:CRIT is an essay, not policy or guideline. Secondly, I am not saying that criticism sections are forbidden, I am saying that they are discouraged. In many cases they are not appropriate, and this is one of them. The page says that criticisms may be "[i]ntegrated throughout an article." There is nothing wrong with putting battery criticism in the battery section; in fact, it helps to keep Apple's numbers in perspective. We want third party sources to be in close proximity to Apple's statements. (Keep your friends close...) The criticisms of the iPhone are not similar, as the essay suggests criticisms in a section should be; they relate to a specific feature, and every notable feature is mentioned somewhere. As for Wales, unless you can provide a link I assume he is referring to criticism in general, not in sections.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody (in this section at least) is saying that criticism sections violate Wikipedia policy. WP:CRIT isn't a policy, it's an essay. The problem is, criticism sections left to themselves tend to accumulate all sorts of cruft from biased editors, and that junk does end up violating the policies I mentioned in my opinion above. The key to having a good criticism section (if such a section must exist and not be incorporated into other sections) is to be sure that every statement references a verifiable, reliable source, and that the criticism isn't given undue weight. Also, the sources shouldn't be misrepresented.

Content forking is where you separate criticism into a whole separate article, not where you incorporating criticism into different sections.

There is also a problem with incorporating criticism into sections: you run into the danger of making the article sound like a point/counterpoint debate. The Prem Rawat articles have had a huge problem with this, where criticism is presented in one sentence and then refuted in the next sentence, over and over again. That isn't what we want here. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As per violating the guidelines, I've removed the FAQ item on this page (and the IPod Touch page) saying basically 'No Criticism Sections'. (most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life) And thus, I've put my IPod Touch crit section back up, because it is supported by the guidelines, cited to kingdom-come and back with powerful sources, and extremely relevant. I'm going to put the IPhone crits back up once I've worked on them more, and added important things.----[ Dario D. ] 22:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Amatulic, read the article. Is there a point/counterpoint tedium? No, there isn't, because this article was written by good editors who have put a lot of work into it over the years. You're making a straw-man argument, we're not talking about the Prem Rawat articles or any article other than iPhone. And to Dario D., why are you making these changes before the discussion is even finished, or barely started? -- Atama ^chat 22:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, Amatulic, your comment that "a criticism section can be avoided entirely if incorporating valid criticism into other sections is done as much as possible" has been done here already and done for a long time. The article is full of negative information about the iPhone, all properly sourced. If you disagree that it hasn't been done properly your opinion on how to improve it would be appreciated. Thank you for your input on this matter. -- Atama ^chat 22:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:CRIT IS NOT A GUIDELINE. It is an essay, and it is not binding. You are being unreasonable, and the opinions of one blogger, or even one author of backwater journalism site, is not notable. Try Macworld; they have a print publication and some respect among Apple aficionados. (Amatulić: Thanks, I'll watch out for point/counterpint, but I think they way we have it right now works.)--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

HereToHelp, no, it doesn't work in the slightest, because there are enormous criticisms surrounding the IPhone/IPod Touch, and these prominent ones belong in the Crit section. -- And Atama, that argument against Amatunic is the weakest, most paper-thin argument I've ever heard. Meaning to say, I'm not even going to refute it, because it doesn't make any significant claims about anything; it just kicks up a cloud of fluff telling Amatunic to... I dunno... reconsider on a bunch of barely functional points. - And I'm making the changes because I'm plenty convinced enough that your side of the argument has ALL of the explaining to do, seeing as 1) Wikipedia policy is on my side to such a huge degree (are there significant crits from significant sources? Yes. So put them in a significant Crits section. (mostly referring to the IPod Touch at the moment)) that I don't even have a burden of proof here (I don't know why I'm being so lenient, waiting AT ALL to put the crits up), and 2) your side of the argument hasn't even stated a valid case yet against having a Crit section; ie, you're not saying what it violates, you're not saying how policy blocks MY edits, and you're resorting to kicking up fluff that means close to nothing. (your most valid argument is this petty "we like it this way, with the crits stashed in other sections, so we should keep it like that")----[ Dario D. ] 23:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I must ask this question because I think I know what the answer will be... What's more important? Having the Criticism section, or having the criticism (without its own section) added the article? As I said earlier, regardless of Wikipedia rules, categorizing opinionated information is a lazy and poor method of writing. We feel that it is more important to have all information regarding the battery to be in one place - and that's how we expect our readers to look for information about a specific topic. We don't want readers to come to this article and immediately search for the criticism section - bypassing everything else. As others have written earlier, each section should have counterpoints to balance the section, if necessary. You do NOT save the criticisms for its own section. I would expect something like that to be done in a high school term paper.

groink 23:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Dario D., please read WP:NPOV. It states, "A more neutral approach may result by folding debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them into separate sections that ignore each other." That is what has been done here. No, a criticisms section is not forbidden, but Wikipedia policy states that it is not preferred. You don't have a leg to stand on by demanding to unilaterally change the structure of the article because you personally like criticism sections. -- Atama ^chat 23:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(replying to Groink, 2 posts above - and also Atama here) Please point out why your POV here should be considered more weighty than the common sense of having a Criticism section in an article so long, that someone would have to read the WHOLE THING to decipher what's WRONG with the IPhone (or IPod Touch). ("what's wrong" is an ENORMOUS reader question that is CENTRAL to any technology product, and it's article) Your logic in thinking it is somehow CLARIFYING to the reader to scatter all criticisms throughout the article implies that we are looking at a VERY short article. In order to be taken seriously, you would also have to explain how scattering ANY section throughout an entire article would give readers a better impression of the dismantled topic (the topic here being "what has been criticised with the IPhone/IPod Touch". That's probably the #1 most asked reader question on Wikipedia ("what's wrong with X") and there's nothing you can do explain away the fact that a product article needs SOME form of very visible defect/criticism list. Nobody can say a product doesn't deserve a CLEAR list of criticisms. Nobody. It's a PRODUCT.)----[ Dario D. ] 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See, you're 100-percent WRONG about Wikipedia readers. They do NOT come to Wikipedia hunting for information on all the problems with a device. They come here looking for information about a specific component, such as the battery. They'll then see the pros and cons about the battery. THAT'S how a properly written article works. But let's take your argument about the current information being erroneous seeing you're putting so much emphasis on it. FIX IT!!!!!!!!! Don't write a totally separate criticism section, and leave the existing erroneous information sitting there. I know that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but we should still strive to write articles like we were writing a college term paper. If you really study what you've said in this talk page, you keep conflicting yourself. You say the information is erroneous, yet you don't fix them. You create a criticism section, yet you have information in other parts of the article that, using your logic, would conflict with what you just added.

groink 23:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dario D., if you think that we need to say what is "WRONG" with the iPhone then you don't understand WP:NPOV at all. We don't judge the subject of an article. We shouldn't be trying to show that anything is good or bad. We provide information in an unbiased way and let them draw their own conclusions. If you choose to write in the article "this is why the iPhone is bad" then you're inserting opinion. It's fine, not even fine but important that we include information both negative and positive, but to openly declare that this is what's "wrong" with the iPhone is to push a point of view and that is not fine. -- Atama ^chat 00:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I'm doing. 1) These products are surrounded by a CLOUD of reputable sources criticizing them, 2) readers look for these criticisms (and not by reading the entire article, trying to fish them out), and 3) you haven't even gotten to refuting the bulk of my main points in above posts yet. Why don't you go ahead and do so? Your argument is buried to the dirt, and now you're just kicking up whatever random muck you can get your hands on.----[ Dario D. ] 00:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindenting again, hopefully it sticks this time) There is nothing wrong with including criticisms. In fact, the one you provided already regarding the battery was helpful. So point 1) is accepted, nobody is arguing against you there. As to point 2), it is wrong to guide the reader toward what you feel is bad about the iPhone, such is at least against the spirit ofWP:NPOV. As to point 3), I can't respond to something non-specific. If you feel I've ignored a point please let me know what point it is instead of just saying I've ignored something. Thank you. -- Atama ^chat 00:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As I stated in my original opinion, if the criticism can fit into sections other than a dedicated section, then that's what should be done. My only caution was to make sure to avoid a point/counterpoint style of writing, which I have seen elsewhere but isn't the case here.

I suggest to Dario D, if you believe a dedicated criticism section is needed, then write what you believe is a good criticism section that warrants being its own section, and post it on this talk page first, or on a sub-page of your userpage, for others to review and discuss. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems the bulk of this debate stems from "People mostly look for criticism sections", which has no backing or research. What you are basically proposing is that we put a gallery of pictures of Jessica Alba right at the top of her page because I could state the opinion that "that's what people are really looking for." Maybe that is what they are looking for. But that's not what we cater to, we're an encyclopedia attempting to write an article about a subject. We have all the information and criticisms of the iPhone in appropriate sections which fit our layout. Facts are not being left out or given undue weight.

If someone wants to find what is a pro or con about a product, they can read the article. We're not going to make a listing for them, especially when what you propose is a listing of just the cons while leaving those who "look mostly for the pros" to having to search the article, which Dario D seems to think is such a huge problem. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 01:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dario D.: If "[t]hese products are surrounded by a CLOUD of reputable sources criticizing them," how about you give us some specifics? Instead of WP:WEASEL, you can provide links to reliable sources, like you did with JD Power & Associates. And I would like to ask you your own question, please "explain how scattering ANY section throughout an entire article would give readers a better impression of the dismantled topic." The topic is not what is wrong with the iPhone, but rather, what is its battery like? Removing third party criticism of the battery life from Apple's numbers does not serve the reader.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Answering Amatulic: The crit section for the IPod Touch (which I'm most concerned with right now, though I will be wanting to put up the one for the IPhone later, and thus need an open door) is here (link - this goes to an edit, not the actual article). I believe it's nearly impossible to find flaw with its content, and the only measure of dispute is whether or not these points are important enough to be highlighted here. Owning an IPod Touch 2G (16gb) I can tell you how prominent and significant the issues that these criticisms point out are, and the reason I wrote the section in the first place was because when I came to the article for the first time, I was shocked that I couldn't find these points anywhere. (apparently they were buried in various sections, which makes for a terrible article about a product - products are a realm where pros and cons are of PRIME importance, and mixing such important criticisms into random sections on an article 10 miles long is so anti-N:POV, it's ridiculous. The impression I had when first seeing the article was almost that there WERE no cons)

Pros and Cons are prime points for reviews of products, not encyclopedic and informational articles on a product. We can't make every piece of information or opinion easy to find, but we can group sections in an appropriate way in order to not only be information, but neutral.

Criticisms are not buried. They exist. The same as "pros", they exist within the article and are not an emphasis, but you seem to ignore this point. Therefore claiming that this layout is "anti-N:POV" seems to show a lack of understanding of NPOV. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 01:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Answering IIIVIX (The359): Wow, what a weak statement. This is a Product article. You're saying you want readers to discover a product's criticisms by reading all 10 miles of the article. Good thing you didn't write the rest of the product articles on Wikipedia. And regarding people not coming to Wikipedia looking for criticisms, you can't prove that any more than I can, except that nobody believes you. Nuff said about that. By the way, my edits don't draw any undue attention to under-cited product flaws, any more than any other tried-and-true Crit section for any other product. Why should this article be any different? That's why I'm arguing this out: because it makes no sense.

Yes, it is a product article. Yes, people might have to search to find specific things. No, we don't break the article up to cater to opinions of the product, we break it up to cater to factual information about the product itself. People who would want criticisms OR praise would have to search for it, but it seems to me that you only want to exploit criticisms of these products.

Answering HereToHelp: I've always been talking mostly about the IPod Touch Crits section (for the IPhone, I'm going to post the similar Crit section later, but I need an open door - so yes, that too is also part of this).----[ Dario D. ] 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As for who comes to Wikipedia for what or what you think people believe, it carries no weight here. This is a discussion of Wikipedia's style, not a discussion of what the reader wants. And per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existance of criticism sections on other articles does not make it inherently right for this article. The inclusion of criticism in an article is not a problem, but dedicating an entire section to it in order to pander to your flawed beliefs of what "people use Wikipedia for" is a problem. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 01:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that all I'm doing is what all the other article editors on Wikipedia are doing with THEIR Crit sections: posting weighty, relevant crits, when described thus by the cited sources.----[ Dario D. ] 02:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, a criticism section makes a disruptive point, especially if you are venting about how you feel upset about your iPod Touch (boo hoo - it's wp:original research). And if I may: "Wow, what a weak statement. This is a Product article. You're saying you want readers to discover a product's criticisms by reading all 10 miles of the article. Good thing you didn't write the rest of the product articles on Wikipedia. And regarding people not coming to Wikipedia looking for criticisms, you can't prove that any more than I can, except that nobody believes you. Nuff said about that. By the way, my edits don't draw any undue attention to under-cited product flaws, any more than any other tried-and-true Crit section for any other product. Why should this article be any different? That's why I'm arguing this out: because it makes no sense." I think I found all of the logical fallacies in there, but I'm not sure.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, for all that linking, I certainly don't see how the power of the argument is reduced any. That could be because you didn't actually argue/disprove anything: you just hoped the linking would do it for you. Well, since you didn't actually counter anything, I'm still waiting for answers to those points. What's a counter-argument without a... you know... counter-argument?----[ Dario D. ] 02:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you "don't see how the power of the argument is reduced any" by all the fallacies you used, you must be blind (figuratively). My counterargument, in case I was not clear, was that in one post you used eleven logical fallacies. Your argument is so poor in its construction that there is barely anything to refute. You have established nothing. But we'll try, below, to illustrate that just because criticism sections are permitted does not mean they are encouraged or necessary. That is what it comes back to, and you have no real argumentative tools to fall back one. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:51, June 10, 2009 (UTC)

Dario D., let's take your argument to its logical conclusion. "Most people" don't really want a list of criticisms about a product either. They want to know if it's good or bad. So, let's just cut out all of this other useless information and just say whether or not the iPhone is a good product. We can make the article a single paragraph so our readers can know whether or not it's worth owning. Because really, who'd want to actually read an encyclopedia? They just want a buying guide, and Wikipedia is the best there is! -- Atama ^chat 03:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to get to this above later (but Atama, your statement of "Most people" don't really want a list of criticisms about a product either," is the saddest, most desperate statement in this discussion to date... I congratulate you). On a speculative note, I really think Apple would be making a SERIOUS mistake to let the ITouch update release with the fee, because, since I think it's so highly likely that a Crit section will end up on the page (both pages, actually), they will have to live down the black marketing that everyone spits upon with grave, long-lasting consequences, and risk an epidemic of word-of-mouth complaints regarding all things IPod (and consequently IPhone). Anyway, like I said, I'll be back soon. --[ Dario D. ] 04:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Good god that's a screwed up sense of reasoning. Why can you not grasp that nobody is with you on just about everything you're attempting to add? Give up your agenda, and get with the true spirit of Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Brian Reading (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm failing to see what makes Atama's statement desperate or sad. It's an unprovable opinion that is no different than your opinion that most people view Wikipedia articles for criticism sections. This is also not a discussion forum for opinions on Apple or Apple products. Your entire post seems to achieve two things: Insulting an editor in an uncalled for manner, and bringing up a topic not even relavant to this discussion of our article on the iPhone. So not only should you be sticking to the topic at hand, but I suggest you read WP:CIVIL before you post next. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 07:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

(trying to maintain neutrality here) The issue is that I (Dario D.) think this article (and IPod Touch, in an almost identical situation) have criticisms that warrant a Crit section (actually I'm only focusing on the IPod Touch article at the moment, because I haven't finished the IPhone Crit section yet (I posted this IPod Touch crits section (this is an edit, not the actual page)), but a few other editors think the Crits section (for both pages) should be dissolved into snippets scattered across the article, because having a Crit section would draw undue weight, and imply that we want readers to see flaws. I argued that any article about products more than warrants a Crits section if there are the sources to back it (and if they themselves say the issues are weighty), but they argued (not sure if they still do - they never mopped up on many of their refuted points) that Wikipedia policy is against having Crit sections, and posted a self-edited FAQ at the top of both the IPod Touch and IPhone discussion pages (see top of this page) that says: "Why isn't there a criticism/controversy section in this article? While reliable sourced criticisms and controversies can be included in this article, criticism sections themselves are generally discouraged." This was later proven to be a false statement, but the war rages on. See the discussion on this page for more details (Call For Criticisms section, and Third Opinion section below it). --[ Dario D. ] 02:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering why the main contributor of this page is fully protecting this page from editing? This is a major conflict of interest. Instead, he or she should get a neutral administrator to protect the page. miranda 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"not sure if they still do - they never mopped up on many of their refuted points" - Buh? Refuted? Calling them "weak" doesn't make them refuted.

"This was later proven to be a false statement, but the war rages on." No it was not. Criticism sections are discouraged because of several Wikipedia policies. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 02:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(just squeezing a quick comment in here) IIIVIX, do a word-search for "Evaluations in" on this page.----[ Dario D. ] 02:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what about it? You seem to not understand the difference between "Discouraged" and "Not allowed". Criticism sections are allowed, but discouraged. Just as editing an article about yourself (Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest) is discouraged, but is allowed under certain circumstances. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 02:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Criticisms may be similar" (emphasis added). A Criticisms section can be viable in some cases. It is not viable here, because it is easier to group criticisms categorically, by what they criticize. Just because it an be done does not mean it should be.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Miranda - huh? I have never fully protected this page, in fact I just de-semied it yesterday. Yes, I left move on sysop, but that doesn't count. Anyone can edit.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My fault. miranda 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Since we haven't heard from Dario in a while, I'm closing the RfC (which was his idea anyway). HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 14:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What, I'm not allowed to go to bed, and then be busy for an afternoon? Re-open it! Nobody has even joined the discussion yet! (update: I re-opened it)--[ Dario D. ] 16:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're more persistent than I thought. But I have nothing to hide; if you want an RfC, go ahead.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So far I've seen 7 different editors who disagree with a proposed criticism section as the article stands now and only one person who wants it. At what point can it be considered that a consensus is reached? Just curious. -- Atama ^chat 16:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Seven? I count Amatulić, Groink, The359, you (Atama), and I (HereToHelp). Who am I missing?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed Brianreading and Riffic. Riffic referred Dario D. to WP:NPOV in opposition to a criticism section, and Brianreading stated that he agreed with Riffic and Groink in opposition to a criticism section. I'm all for a discussion, and I have no problem with it continuing if Dario D. is not satisfied. -- Atama ^chat 16:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Good, so am I. I'm sorry I closed the RfC early, I honestly thought he had given up, but in the face of (rather abundant) evidence, I have gladly reinstated it. I was getting bored.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, if you look at my writings above, my position is rather neutral. I'm not entirely opposed to having a criticism section, but I am not in favor of it either, and lean toward not having one if the criticism is easily incorporated into other sections (which has its own pitfalls as I pointed out earlier). A stand-alone criticism section that references notable, verifiable, and reliable sources, could work too, although I feel it wouldn't be optimal for this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Most of the criticism presented centers on the battery, so put it in there. Separating it is un-NPOV because readers might read one side without the other, and think either that Apple's numbers reflect the average user experience, or that the battery is abysmal. Also, a cricism section on just the battery implies that it is the only thing wrong with the iPhone.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

HereToHelp defends his edits

Dario D. reverted, saying that he would discuss the inclusion of moconews on the talk page. I gave him 45 minutes and he has not replied. That doesn't mean he won't, but I think it's fair to say he isn't doing it immediately. I reverted. My version is superior in a number of ways. (1) Criticism is placed after Apple's purported numbers. They have the right to make their claims before they get torn down. In formal debate, the affirmative always goes first. It's the same idea here. (Amatulić: This is not tit-for-tat sentences but two opposing paragraphs, and then we move on.) (2) It specifically criticizes the battery for "draining too quickly," instead of the vague "source of much criticism". (3) J. D. Power and Associates is linked. Their webpage, as cited, indicates that 2 stars/balls/whatever is the lowest rating; there is no one star rating. Therefore, "2 out of 5" is misleading. (4) My version omits useless blogs (iphonefreak.com, I am lookibng at you!) analyzing JD's results; they do not have a citation template and do not belong before the primary source. (5) My version does not cite Moconews. The merits of this publication I leave to debate, but I want to get this post up now.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the Moconews reference. It can be debated whether or not the site as a whole could be considered a reliable news source, it certainly claims to be a news site and they have many articles that are presented as standard journalism articles. But the reference that Dario D. was attempting to insert, and which I had removed, was an opinion piece that consisted of a person saying they don't like the battery life of the iPhone. The person anecdotally stated that he felt it didn't last as long as other phones. This kind of information is not at all helpful to the article. -- Atama ^chat 18:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was going to say when I got edit conflicted. (Don't worry about it, it happens.) Anyway, here's what I was going to say:

As for moconews: It does appear to be a legitimate publication. The question, though, is whether that specific post is legitimate, or whether, as one person's opinion, it counts as a blog, or at least an editorial. This may be something we can ask the reliable sources noticeboard, but I think that a real source can sometimes be a blog.

The converse is also true. Scanning moconews, I found an article about iPhone user demographics. I traced the source back to the Nielsen Company, a very respectable source. However, the page's URL begins with blog.nielsen.com. And yet it is not ascribed to a single person but rather to the company. The blog format allows other users to comment - I don't trust them - but Nielsen's content, I argue, is acceptable to use.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't state not to use blogs, just to differentiate between an opinion and news when using a reference. WP:V states that blogs are "largely not acceptable". It also states that a blog can be an acceptable source when it is part of a professional news organization. It should also be considered that WP:EL discourages linking to blogs except under "very limited" exceptions. I'm not objecting because it's just a blog, I'm objecting because the entry is literally a person who had an iPhone for a week and didn't like it; he is giving his own personal opinion and is up-front about that. He stated that he didn't like the battery life and said it didn't last as long as other phones, yet gave no objective analysis and no specifics at all. I see no value in saying that someone doesn't subjectively like the battery, even when correctly attributing it as an opinion. It seems like an attempt to insert a negative POV about that aspect of the iPhone. -- Atama ^chat 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have to agree that the Moconews reference, although a reputable news source, is not a proper article to be using. Of course the iPhone freak source is not reputable at all. It should also be pointed out that Dario D.'s wording is "much criticism", and therefore requires much referencing to back that up. As far as I'm concerned, he has not done that. Horrible researcher. Brianreading (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to wait until the other dispute is resolved before bothering with this. I can site 5,000 reliable sources complaining about the IPhone battery in a heartbeat.--[ Dario D. ] 20:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No one's debating the battery problems, and the article still states the battery problems. The concern here is over what sources are used. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 20:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can cite that many sources, Dario, why don't you? Give me a URL and I'll prepare the citation template and add it to the appropriate, existing section of the article - assuming it really is a reliable source.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

Yes, I'm interested in seeing you cite 5-10 of the best ones you know. That should do for your claim about "much criticism". Shouldn't be so difficult with 5,000 on your list, and citing the best sources that you know of would help to satisfy all the other Wikipedians who are having issues with your edits. Brian Reading (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I ask that people please look closely at the sources that are presented here. I have to object to the statements here that Moconews is a reputable news source. If I start a weblog, cover it with adverts and pay a couple of people to regurgitate press releases with a smattering of personal opinions, have I created a reputable news source? Please let us have higher standards than that. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Moconews is run by Contextnet Media:

"ContentNext Media is a media and information company owned by the Guardian News and Media Limited. Based in Santa Monica, California and New York City, the company covers the business of digital media, operating paidContent.org, mocoNews.net, contentSutra.com and paidContent:UK.

Founded by journalist Rafat Ali in 2002, the company's news sites chronicle the economic evolution of digital content that is shaping the future of the media, information and entertainment industries. Our belief is that in the near future, all media will be digital media, and we are helping define sustainable business models and innovation within this sector."

"Guardian News and Media Limited" is the same company that publishes The Guardian and The Observer. Does that make Moconews a reliable source and a respectable news organization? I don't know but it's enough on the surface for me not to dismiss the entire web site as a blog. -- Atama ^chat 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the Sun automatically a respectable news organisation just because it is published by the same company as the Times? Or do we judge them on their own merits?

I've scanned through everything that MocoNews has published for the last two months, and I mean no offence to the people employed by ContentNext Media, but I can't see any actual journalism. Just regurgitated press releases, echoes of news on other sites and the occasional opinion piece. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure your question was meant to be rhetorical, but no, obviously the Sun isn't reliable because it's a tabloid. WP:RSN would probably be a good place to resolve the question, since there's clearly a dispute over whether it's reliable or not. I'm on the fence but leaning toward "not". -- Atama ^chat 23:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So, I'm guessing as it stands, the information is possibly not sourced or possibly not well-sourced, and therefore won't be added for the time being. Brian Reading (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)