Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:32, 15 November 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IPhone 5 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 31 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Apple Inc. High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Telecommunications Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IPhone 5 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 31 days

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

LTE issue

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2410409,00.asp

Is this article-worthy? 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Hello? 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's article-worthy. The question is – where will it go? –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere!--88.111.125.204 (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Build composition, quality and changes in materials used

We need to mention that Apple improved the build quality by further minimizing seams and replacing the shatter-prone glass with either a more shatter-resistant glass or polymer or ceramic (needs more clarification/detail), as well as the change to using aluminum for its case, which may scratch easily as a result since its anodized coating seems thin, but allows the phone to resist shattering a lot better. We should mention the drop test against the Samsung Galaxy SIII, since the iPhone didn't shatter at all compared to the major screen cracks in the SGS3. Apple emphasized the better build quality in this iPhone version in its press event/keynotes, so the differences/changes should probably be addressed in this article. Sources that can be used: Slate Mag, and LA Times, and for more info: Apple - M0rphzone (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you decided to move forward 20 minutes after posting. The Slate source is an op-ed piece which would be alright if it were listed under "Reception", a section reserved for that kind of material. The LA Times piece uses sources and methods that could be considered questionable (e.g., scientific, professional, etc.) – Android Authority and iFixYouri aren't exactly on the same level as Consumer Reports. I personally would forgo mention of that one. Apple, is of course, a primary source and could be challenged depending on how the content is written. Biggest thing is to be sure to avoid peacock terminology and paraphrasing, which is easy to do with primary sources that tend to advertise their product/service in press releases. Other than a few exceptions like these, I don't see a problem with discussing improvements to the phone's construction as long as facts and opinions are properly placed in the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

So does the current placement look alright? It'd be great if somebody cleaned up the format a bit more. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the section down below peripherals. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of anecdotes and synthesis

Outstanding issue - Will be considered stale after no reply in a month YuMaNuMa

I found this link and opinion from wiki editors based on this. It is basically a write up detailing the author's experience. Since Wiki isn't for sharing personal experience or anecdotes, I don't think such sources/contents should clutter up the article here. Does anyone have input, based on application of WP:RS and WP:OR ?? I also edited out duplicate references leading to commercial sites offering author's opinions. Please comment. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The source is similar to one that M0rphzone asked about above. It is generally acceptable to include a paraphrased statement or quote in the "Critical reception" section of an article, as long as the author in the source is considered to be highly-knowledgeable in the subject. Such opinions can be useful as long as they're from reputable sources in the industry, and not just any personal blog or post on the internet. Also, the appropriate weight should be used giving less attention and space to minority viewpoints. Though you were likely correct to remove such references/statements from the main body of the article, it's possible some of that material should be included under Reception. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Another issue with less than well established and respect source that primarily posts op-eds is that author or the company rep could push links in a hope of boosting traffic. While Wiki is now no follow, reading various SEO strategies online seems to indicate links from wiki significantly boosts traffic. Why the issue? For the ones that stand to benefit, building contents around to allow for including their link as citation leads to clutter with excess details or inaccuracies. Those bloggers can also just come here and insert it as a third person effectively getting around "published source" by simply publishing what they want to included on wikipediaCantaloupe2 (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to clear things up as I added quite a large amount of sources on "Scuffgate", most of those sources were Alexa tested first, I also looked at their fan/reader base before adding so my intention was not to spam unreputable or unreliable sources. Scuffgate is undoubtedly a significant "defect" that users face and the reports of such scuffing is almost endless. Although claims like "I will never buy an iPhone again due to scuffing" should obviously be omitted, test conducted should not even if they don't comply with lab standards, lets face it, no tests conducted by technology websites do, however these tests nonetheless represent typical user experience and sentiments from reviewers are generally based on typical usage over a short period of time, hence if the source is reputable enough or claim is prevalent, the criticism belongs in the Reception section. YuMaNuMa 04:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Specs in infobox or section

Outstanding issue - Will be considered stale after no reply in a month YuMaNuMa

The infobox was awfully long as another editor suggested. I moved it to a new section "specifications". Are phone pages supposed to be written with all of that in infobox or do you all find this an ok change?

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox was way too long. Per WP:IBX, the purpose of an infobox is to "summarize key facts in the article" and emphasizes that the "less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". It needed to be shortened. The Specifications section needs some work and will need to be moved towards the end of the article, but it's a good start. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure how it should be. Do you wanna do that part? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action, but I think people swung the axe too far. Almost all other cell phone articles have technical details in the infobox so that is why I think this is too big of a cut. My earlier edit comment was the list of countries was out of control, maybe fine in the text body, or compressed like it is now, but not a big sequential list like it use to be. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

My infobox recommendation is: restore infobox, keep newer version of "Availability by country", convert GSM and CDMA info to a similar "SHOW" style. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the cut, but the amount of technical specs there before went overboard (SoC, CPU, GPU, RAM, etc.). Instead of restoring the previous version and making a few cuts/changes, I would suggest deciding on a few specs that are the most significant and add them back. We should strive to keep it as short as possible. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I won't have time to work on this anytime soon, but I'm sure putting it in a table would help. Perhaps look for another phone article that has a Specs section to get some ideas. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok then here are the proposed changes so far:

• Convert GSM and CDMA info to a similar "SHOW" style
• Trim specs (specify which ones to keep and which to trim out)
  • Collapse connectivity section
  • Remove the functional capability of a certain specification such as HD video
  • Remove subjective information such as the battery usage time
• Or move specifications section towards the end of the article and rework (how?)
• Trim list of countries or relocate (how?)

Updated. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we keep it as it is, I don't believe there is any need for change, most of the infobox can be accessed within a few scrolls and adding a specification section is redundant. The purpose of infoboxes as you may know, is to provide quick access to information, anyone familiar with Misplaced Pages and its style will know where all the information is located and thus scroll or find that area, in this case the entire specification of the device is located in the infobox. In addition, its length is standard on all iOS device and even detailed Android articles. The only reason why a specification box may be needed is if there is more than one variant of the device. YuMaNuMa 05:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss the comments above regarding WP:IBX? The guideline clearly states that infoboxes are a summary of what appears in an article. So, in other words, specs shouldn't be listed there that aren't also mentioned in the body of the article. That's just not the case with the current infobox. Furthermore, only "key" facts should be included – not an exhaustive list of ALL facts. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is choosing which sections should be excluded and whether excluding such a small amount of information warrants an entire table being created. The only suggestions I can make in regards to removing information from the box are collapsing the connectivity section and removing the functional capability of a certain specification (ie HD video) and subjective information such as the battery usage time. YuMaNuMa 07:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The hard part is figuring out what to exclude or what the norm for length should be. That may need to be a discussion at the infobox template page for other articles and future ones as well. As for the information we end up removing from the infobox, it doesn't have to be in a section entitled "Specifications", nor does it necessarily have to be in a chart. We can insert the info as prose throughout the body of the article, likely under "Features". --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Battery capacity

Rectified - Kept as it is because it's speculative to assume that the battery capacity varies from batch to batch YuMaNuMa

NOT rectified. it's not part of the official specification, so Apple is not required to provide same mAh rating in each batch. It needs a clear in-text note that its not a official spec in the infobox. "there are others like it too" does not override WP:RS Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It was challenged in the teardown section with argument over what source to trust. I marked the currently sourced reference as dubious, because, the finding is based on the site's review of tear down based on one product sample. Since they're not the one in knowledge of product design or sourcing, it is only representative of that particular lot and does not necessarily factor for other production lots or Apple's change in supplier of battery. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

So then what makes a sources able to be "trusted". They have to be well-established? Well-funded? Part of a corporation? Part of a research institute? Have a million-dollar budget in order to be counted as "reliable" sources? These teardowns are the physical taking apart of an item and testing the parts with tools. How does a measure of "trust"/reliability apply to factual results? It's either one thing or another. You can't have "biased" results. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the sources in question here, but many teardown reports are not published or even from "respected mainstream publications" as recommended by WP:SOURCES. That's not to say some aren't legit, however. If we were just talking about taking things apart and shooting some pics to share on the web, that would be one thing. But many attempt to run tests and draw conclusions that haven't been fact-checked by an editor or expert in the field. That's where it gets dicey. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Apple would know if they're keeping the specs of certain components identical between production revisions, production batches etc, but if the mAh spec is not part of the official specs, its subject to change. So, what might be correct for that sample the researcher dissected is accurate for that sample, it might not mean anything for another production lot. 06:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs)

We've been over this, provide a source that isn't based on assumptions conceived prior to the actual release of the phone and we will start from there. At the moment, what you're saying is nothing more than speculation as we have sources that verify that claim. This applies for many other components that were not mentioned on the Apple website but was confirmed by experts working in field, working for reliable sources such as Anandtech, geek.com and so forth. I have reverted your assertion of it being an "unofficial specification" for now. If you want to refute that claim, you need to refute many others that exist on these pages; Apple Ax, iPad 2, iPad (3rd generation), iPhone 4S and plethora of others as they all rely on secondary sources that researched about the component. YuMaNuMa 09:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Shatter resistance test

Rectified - Paragraph in question was removed YuMaNuMa

I took out a substantial portion. This was based on one person's experimental result based on one product sample. It is akin to saying "I'd buy this car, because a guy I know wrecked it bad and he walked out with scratches". You wouldn't add something like that or anecdotes on safety section of a car model. Why would you write this in iPhone page? I don't think the finding is conclusive enough to be representative for the product as whole. He "threw it" rather than "dropped it" but that does not quantify the impact speed or the impact angle. The conditions are just not controlled well enough. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Did the content say the tests were representative of the product as a whole? No, they didn't. It can be put in the reception section, can it not? It doesn't matter whether it's controlled or not. It's a review of the product, and therefore part of the "reception" to the product. I will add it back in unless you have better reasons besides "we can't write about it because they're some random guys tests". - M0rphzone (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Which brings up the question. It's representative of one sample, which I find it inappropriate to include. On Misplaced Pages, we don't publish original research. I don't believe that an experiment on one sample by some guy would not pass WP:RS or WP:OR. Since we're in agreement its not a good measure of durability for product as a whole, it brings up the question what value, if any this brings to readers. Does your interpretation of relevant policies find that it should be included? Please explain Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the WP:RS policies affect the presentation of this content. Also, these are not based on a one product sample. The "reliable" reviews are based on one author's judgment of one sample product, so does that mean they are experimental results based on "one product sample"? No, they don't. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up of the article

Cantaloupe, you removed major parts of the reception section, claiming that "dubious anecdotal claims from review sites. duplicate citations leading to commercial sites driven by ads."

Are you serious? All commercial sites are driven by ads. That is not a reason for deleting it. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm restoring it to before the pruning because we should discuss how to go about cleaning up the article or which sources are "reliable". - M0rphzone (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't publish anecdotes, personal experience etc. As another editor already explained to you, these sources are not Consumer Watch caliber credibility. The findings are the opinions of the author. So its no different than you publishing a blog, then citing it as a "reference" on the ground that its "published". Please explain with relevant wiki policies. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Except the point is these are not anecdotes nor "personal experience" due to the fact that the videos can be seen with our eyes, and this is not some sort of historical account that can be twisted. As the policy states, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable 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." The people who work these teardown/review sites are experts in that field, and have been referenced multiple times for various products/topics by other "reliable" third-parties. We are not directly stating the opinions from the authors, but rather the factual results of the tests, and what the reviews say about the topic. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No disagreement there. The thing we agree to disagree is that the author whether the author and site in question is recognized as "expert". Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Cantaloupe2, I believe your edits are quite controversial and most are based on assumptions rather than evidence. Examples include labelling iFixit as an opinion piece and removing valid claims such as the Map being "negative received", yes - some can argue that it's each to their own but the majority of sources state otherwise hence it's appropriate for us to say that in the prose. Some of your edits also alter the entire meaning of replaced sentences, clarifications of existing sentence are more than welcomed but if content is removed, a reason would allow us to understand the rationale behind the change. Another example of an odd edit is replacing the existing sentence on the cost of the components of the iPhone with a sentence outlining what is not included in the cost, the sentence already clearly says component and labour. YuMaNuMa 04:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No info about Wi-Fi modes

I noticed the iPhone 5 supports 5 GHz Wi-Fi, in addition to the older 2.4 GHz. I'd like to see a brief section under Hardware to list the Wi-Fi protocols or modes supported. --Rfinchdavis (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not revert removal of synthesis

Outstanding issue - Will be considered stale after no reply in a month YuMaNuMa

Please do not make further reverts. I have actually reviewed both cited references and these claims are not found. I have no clue who inserted that in the first place, but if it's a conclusion that an editor came up with through reading multiple sources, WE DO NOT include them. This is per WP:SYNTHESIS. This is a Misplaced Pages policy.

• Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

• If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

• This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to revert edits at least do it properly, don't add some half-ass inline reference such as referring to the author as "Anthony", CNET as "Cnet" and ExtremeTech as "Extreme". I have absolutely no problem with someone ultising the WP:BRD cycle but at least do it properly. YuMaNuMa 12:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If I said "extreme" that was a mistake. It's a common practice to address author by their last name. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If I misread Anthony as the author's first name, I apologise. Sorry if I sounded harsh but it really bugged me as you seem to have mentioned the source incorrectly in two edits. In regards to your most recent edit summary - I understand that a conflict of interest may exist but to assume such conflict is unreasonable as most sources do possess a level of bias, newspapers for example may tend to exaggerate claims to increase newspaper circulation or reduce severity of issues regarding its major sponsors. As mentioned, it's simply beyond us to suggest that due to a concealed and unknown conflicted of interest, their sources are consider opinionated, biased, unreliable. Many many, undoubtedly reputable sources also refer to iFixit as experts in the field of teardowns (Their rating scale is thus reliable to a certain extent)1. YuMaNuMa 12:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Contrib Updated 12:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I corrected so that CNET reads in correct case and that both reference to ExtremeTech's editor is referred as Anthony rather than full name in first, for consistency sake. As far as recalls "suggested by several media outlets", that needs to be the word of the reference cited. As far as I can tell, the references cited for that particular sentence only shows that its only the opinion of Anthony to suggest recall. My edit is based on what I can locate in the reference. "prevalence"... also not able to locate. Also, unless we can establish that Anthony as an expert in field through secondary sources, we shouldn't be including his suggestion as expert advise. The fact he works at ExtremeTech and opined through the domain of ET doesn't grant him an expert status. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're taking WP:Synthesis too literally, it's common for editors to come to a conclusion of claiming that "many" or "several" sources suggests a certain fact by citing 2 or more references, in some cases up to 10 sources may be cited to satisfy more "hardline" editors although most will eventually be removed due to over-citing hence several sources should rightfully be included in the article, same goes for the recalling, if you don't reply to this point explicitly, I'm going to revert the coining and suggestions of recall sentence and add another reference for the recalling part of the sentence. I'm willing to remove "due to the severity or prevalence", however 30-40% is obviously a prevalent non-fixable issue and Extremetech highlights this fact by mentioning it. We also can't just assume that the author for that article is not an expert, Extremetech is also a reputable source with a high alexa ranking and a Misplaced Pages article that seems to have passed notability guidelines, writers and journalist working for the site are assumed experts or rely on information from experts, if your logic is adhere to throughout Misplaced Pages, most web sources are useless as it is almost impossible to determine the expertise and knowledge of authors. YuMaNuMa 13:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The burden is on the person adding the information that its verifiable. It is clearly detained in what constitutes expert. the burden isn't to prove someone isn't an expert. If the said author is an expert, then per WP:RS the expertise needs to be verifiable through secondary sources. What part of that is not clear? You need to quit making assumptions and read what is in the sources. It was clearly stated in the cited source, NBCNews that it was "alleged". Rosa Goligan,quote in quote "Apple senior vice president of marketing Phil Schiller allegedly had with a customer such cosmetic issues are "normal.". In fact, the fact that NBC cited 9to5mac which was quoted within that article, as "allegedly" is because it has not done its own fact checking. It's only the word of 9to5 that it has verified the validity. "it's common for editors to come to.." does not mean its acceptable. You don't get to reinterpret the rules as you see fit. "however 30-40% is obviously(..based on findings of YOUR research) a prevalent" again.. which is through your research opinion making it WP:OR. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you're the one who needs to stopping making assumptions about authors not being experts, and speaking of such what constitutes an expert, you haven't even made that clear. Again you altered the entire sentence when simply inserting allegedly will suffice. Allegedly or not does not make a huge difference in my opinion - that's probably not your opionion but whatever. The real issue here is your interpretation or understanding of WP:Synthesis. Everyone else does it because IT IS CORRECT, claiming that many sources reach that conclusion is not creating another further or secondary claim that is independent of what was stated in the source. I clearly said in the prose that the term was coined by the media which constitutes as 2 or news sources and thus cited "several" sources, further inspection of other sources suggesting the recall links or refers to Extremetech hence I removed "several media" and just included "Extremetech". YuMaNuMa 13:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

sending it off for RfC.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Many sources used as references and the way it is added here do not go with our policies on WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:RS and no original research. Is this expected for tech article like iPhone 5 or am I reasonable to expect it to be held to higher standards on requiring cited author to be verified as expert before accepting anecdotes and opinions from them? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Exceptions exist, like with most policies, reading the rule word for word and expecting it to be imposed reasonably in every context and situation is simply absurd. Most of what was done in relations to referencing and consolidating numerous sources is acceptable in most articles and was done numerous times in other iOS device articles that I have contributed to in the past which are now "Good articles" and successfully passed reviews. Not once was reference stated as an issue when compiling the number of references and making a general statement that summarises the source that were cited (eg. "The iPhone 5 was mainly positively received.", "led to Scuffgate being coined by the media", etc.) Issue also in question is whether writers for websites that specialise in technology(in this situation) should be regarded as experts. -- I'm done reverting until a comment from RfC has been provided. Link to the sample of alteration in question, "While reception to the iPhone 5 has been generally positive, the new Maps application has been negatively received and was reported to contain many serious errors" was also disputed with a similar rationale - correct me if I'm wrong. YuMaNuMa 13:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC) Altered at 1.07am AESDT 20/10

Specifically, for RfC I'd like to get input on when those "exceptions" maybe. I find unknown quality commercial review sites like this as well as personal websites should be added. Though it is no-follow, sites are nonetheless motivated by traffic Misplaced Pages generates and permitting such links to infiltrate article encourages those who stand to gain profit from sites to find excuse to add sites in the interest of getting links to stick rather than improve the quality of contents. These websites, in my opinion are of hearsay "he feels that..." level material. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I also think that my edit conveys the contents with minimal infusion of personal bias by avoiding editorial influence as an editor. Please comment . From another article, someone commented to me that its a good idea to make it clear that blog style comment to be attributed to the author as they're not expressed as the official opinion of the company. I mean... if it should even be included at all. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No arguments there but if the author is writing for a website regardless of whether it's an individual or group effort, the site should be verbally cited in the prose along with the name of the author. YuMaNuMa 14:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NEWSBLOG, which is part of Verifiability section of core contents policy of Misplaced Pages. So, my attribution to the author seems to be correct. To comment on your statement "We also can't just assume that the author for that article is not an expert",as per WP:SPSthe burden is on the person including to prove it. I'm unable to find third party sources vouching for said author(Mr. Anthony from ExtremeTech). Self proclaimed expertise does not count. "Extremetech is also a reputable source with a high alexa ranking" We don't work that way. If one of your commenters find that I'm misinterpreting the WIKIPEDIA POLICIES, please explain so I can better future edits. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally, a high alexa ranking website is more reputable than an unknown and low alexa ranking website, their reader base along with other factors including their history as a source on Misplaced Pages are factors that need to be considered. I can personally say that I have quite a bit of experience editing technology articles and know which sites are considered reputable and which are not, this doesn't make me an expert in the field nor does it mean the sources I cite are automatically verifiable, however I do know which sources have a history of reliability through experience. Some of these newsblogs have already been questioned before on WP:RSN and the result is the same - they're reliable with 100% of the responders agreeing with the sentiment. Example of what I'm trying to convey - WP:RSN (Find: Extremetech Your hardline approach to verifiability makes it impossible for editors to add information and improve articles, I'm not suggesting WP:IAR but going into the depths of questioning whether every individual author for a weblog that has already been acknowledged as reliable is excessive. Furthermore as I said before, I have no problem with directly acknowledging the author along with the website if reliability is that much of an issue, in fact, I would encourage it however, moderation should obviously be applied. Mentioning Anthony twice in one line may be a bit repetitive. YuMaNuMa 23:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Applying the concepts of RS requires common sense, good judgment, and a knowledge of the sources customarily accepted in the subject at question. In computer technology, while I am not an expert, I have observed that the experts are of the consistent opinion that they are notably less formal than in many other subjects,

But returning to the issue of "many" and "several", I normally remove such words whenever I encounter them, while leaving in the examples. I usually view it more as a case of sloppy writing rather than Synthesis; it's not a major sin, or something to fight over. I think it much better to simply cite a few of the most authoritative sources and let it go at that. The reader will assume that if several major industry sources all report something, it is a general view, but they should be left to draw that conclusion. As YuMa says, a few strong examples are sufficient--and much better than vague words. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying the use of many or several sources is not considered synthesis, in this case is it appropriate to summarise the main sentiments in the lead? For example, the iPhone 5 was mainly/primarily positively received by technology commentators and reviewers, then outlining the issues that some have raised. Or should the source be directly quoted in the sentence regarding what it said. YuMaNuMa 00:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that he's saying its ok for you to read A, and B.. then form a conclusion C based on your research. That is what WP:SYNTHESIS specifically says not to do. But if you were to report A said this and B said that, you should leave it for the audience to conclude. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I worded what I previously said incorrectlu or unclearlu. I meant, is it okay to summarise several sources into one sentence if those sources both expressly hold similar or identical views by using phrases such as, "Several media sources", "reviews concluded/praised", "the device generally received positive/negative reviews" and so forth. In such cases, you're not exactly making a further conclusion, you're only combining similar or identical sentiments into a general statement. This is frequently done in the lead or first line of the reception section in most articles with the aforementioned section. Identifying individual reviewers in the lead seems WP:UNDUE and the process of choosing which to include over other similarly reputable and reliable sources seems, if I may, arbitrary. YuMaNuMa 02:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop editing content that is clearly in question, DGG already said that such claims are not consider WP:Synthesis. YuMaNuMa 05:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC response

Please cite the contentious sentences and refs so they can be discussed individually, ideally in their own sections. That would be more productive here. You both would agree that sites like phonesreview.co.uk are generally not RS and that a high-level article such as iPhone 5 shouldn't have to rely on low-level blogs. If the claim is so widespread that "most" believe it, there will be plenty of citations to choose from (and, therefore, a more reputable source). Prefer sites known for their journalistic integrity that won't be questioned. If you have an issue with specific wording as WP:SYN, inline tag it and bring it to the talk page immediately for discussion. Re: the edit linked above (assuming this is all about Scuffgate), I personally think the ExtremeTech quotes give undue weight unless it can be said why ExtremeTech's theories matter more than anyone else's (or are particularly notable). I'll add that I don't think the ExtremeTech citations help the article—it wouldn't be worse off if the sentences attributed from it were pulled altogether. I'm not watching this article so ping me if you want more. czar · · 06:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to lighten and reduce the number of attribution to Extremetech but from what I can see, their theories are noted because they are the only ones notable enough to be included in the article. Based on their published history and reputation as a technology sources, I did not see including several theories from them as a potential problem especially when their story was republished and cited several times by other sources on the web. If more theories exist then of course they deserve mention in the article given reliable sources are available but at this point in time none other than Extremetech's theories are available or supported by reliable sources hence they are the only ones included. Extremetech and information from it adds value to the article and provides reason for why a significant issue exist from the perspective of an assumed expert, I see absolutely no reason why it should be removed when attribution regardless of its excessiveness has been made and a reliable source has been cited. The excessiveness of direct attribution to Extremetech would probably be seen as a case of poor writing rather than a breach of policy, failure to meet notability or what you're suggesting. Thank you for your comment on the issue, it will definitely be taken into account when I get a chance to rewrite the paragraph as I find further sources. YuMaNuMa 08:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Will do over the next few days. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm another RfC responder who has no history with this page. It sounds like you all might want to take this to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for more specific input from editors. Andrew (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm yet another RfC responder, I'm not familiar with this page or its history, but this case as a RfC has neither spawned many opinions nor reached any consensus, some policies on Misplaced Pages are guidelines to prevent major errors, SYNTH and OR can be circumvented if the community reach consensus on what is written, there are some well known example from articles which were written from scrap (I don't know its name right now), but were amazingly written, but they are all OR, however the wikipedia users reached a consensus on it to either keep or remove some parts. However I agree with what Andrew posted above, this may be taken to RSN. Eduemoni 16:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Disputes that have been settled

*iFixit is considered a reliable source for component details and product reviews in relations to their expertise in teardowns and assembly. - iFixit needs to be restore as the source for battery info. YuMaNuMa

Bias in wording

Rectified - The word allegedly was removed and 9to5Mac was cited YuMaNuMa

"Apple allegedly stated it's normal."

This sentence has a problem. By adding "allegedly" into the sentence, you're flipping the bias towards the other side. It's just as bad, Cantaloupe. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this point, "allegedly" is frowned upon on articles that document news, some editors even go out of their way to remove words such as allegedly and supposedly. This isn't a news website therefore why should news editorial terms be used? YuMaNuMa 06:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

READ THE CITED REFERENCES!!! "allegedly" exactly as stated by NBCNews that is cited. There's a reason they cited as that rather than blindly quoting off what they saw on 9to5Macs as a definite fact. In case you don't understand, it means that NBC is not 100% confident about the claim it read on some website called 9to5mac.com, hence allegedly. As a wiki editor, its not your job to infuse WP:UNDUE to change what source reports with uncertainty to a certain claim because YOU FEEL it certain. That is bias. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Check the cited reference before you spurt off. This is exactly as quoted in cited reference. . "Apple senior vice president of marketing Phil Schiller allegedly had with a customer such cosmetic issues are "normal.". NBC did not do its own fact checking to verify it. Which part of this do you not understand? To quote as stated in reference is impartiality, not bias. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Allegedly is used by news sources to prevent themselves from being liable for providing potentially incorrect information to readers, which Apple may then see it as defamation. Basically it's done to protect their asses arses. You seem to enjoy going out of your way to argue that when citing the primary sources (9to5mac), which is reliable was an option. Just because you're not familiar with the source does not make it less credible or unreliable as you have suggested in the past. As stated before, we are not a news sources hence editorial terms should not be used, a source is either factual or nonfactual, there's no grey spot if there is, it is best to remove it. Also you seem to have a tendency to alter entire sentences or clause when adding a simple word or making minute changes as such will suffice. Is there a reason for rephrasing an entire perfectly grammatical clause/sentence that is fine with/out the word allegedly? By the way, your comments are borderlining uncivil at the moment, I have tolerated your arguments when they seemed absolutely absurd and argued them on a point basis. YuMaNuMa 11:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It means that NBC is uncertain. NBC is reporting based on heresy. It is 9to5mac.com that claims to have done fact checking, not NBC itself. NBC is UNCERTAIN about 9to5mac.com's claim. Since the cited reference is NBC rather than 9to5mac.com it shall be as referenced. If you object to it, then the source should be changed to 9to5.com. Your use of vulgar language is borderline uncivil.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Please highlight and show me example of my use of vulgar language. Normally a reasonable person wouldn't make such a request over an issue as minute as using the word allegedly but whatever, I'll cite 9to5mac while leaving NBC as it is.

I honestly don't believe it, again a visual image of the email was provided yet you questioned the credibility of 9to5Mac. This further reinforces what I said before in regards to news sources, a reasonable person when confronted with visual evidence would willingly accept its factuality, however news sources are determined to cover their asses arses when using other sources by whatever means necessary including using words such as allegedly. Let's make things clear here, Misplaced Pages is not a university paper; Misplaced Pages is not a specialty journal; Misplaced Pages is not a news source; Misplaced Pages is not a laboratory report; Misplaced Pages is not a research paper. YuMaNuMa 12:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"however news sources are determined to cover their asses when using other sources by whatever means necessary including using words such as allegedly."

1) unnecessary for you to use that sort of language. You could have phrased it in such a way that is appropriate for audience of all ages.

2) It's your speculation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry if that offended you but ass did not come across to me as profanity especially on a website directed at mature audiences given the amount of startling and uncensored content. However, Misplaced Pages does not censor information and my use of profanity wasn't directed at you hence I don't see how it's uncivil, however I will avoid using that word now that I know you're offended by it. Now back to the pertinent issue, speculation or not visual evidence was provided yet you chose to argue that NBC doubts 9to5's credibility, that ultimately adds another option onto your plate, you had the choice of simply citing 9to5mac, ignore such an insignificant issue, do some research and realise that 9to5mac has photographic evidence, which for a reliable site such as 9to5mac means it's considered "substantial" evidence hence it deserves to be included without news editorial terms. What I said before is common practice in Australia and I assume the United States as well as both nations have similar legal systems, I was interviewed by a journalist several times and the use of allegedly in newspapers and news websites is for the reason explained above. Also your explanation of NBC using the word allegedly because they didn't check the credibility of their source is also a speculation... YuMaNuMa 23:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• No? Don't want to further participate in the discussion? Fine with me. YuMaNuMa 04:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to have some patience. The RfC is still in progress. As shown by your behavior of reverting within six minutes of requesting response, you're impatient with unrealistic expectations of prompt response. We don't live on Misplaced Pages and to expect that your discussion gets top priority is unrealistic. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I want to resolve this issue as fast as possible and only posted the above comment after you did some more source removals on several other articles. My replies to your reply on the other forum are directed at you and worded in a way that expects a response yet you have not replied. This led me to one conclusion - you have nothing left to say, DGG already provided a response on that forum and here, how many more do you expect or want? How about you do something on your part to resolve this instead of dragging your misled edits longer and reducing the quality of this article as a result. I expected a prompt response because you generally provide one, especially when I started a new section under my original question, which received a reply from you within minutes. YuMaNuMa 23:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You're clearly ignoring civility rules when you're taking "asses" and replacing it with alternate spelling "arses". This is immature childish behavior. While I may have responded immediately if our activties coincided, that isn't a guarantee. I don't live all day to edit wikipedia. Appadvise.com, Phonedog.com are not reliable sources. As far as what I find to be improper synthesis which is making a statement that is of greater certainty than the source supports, I think that'synthesis. I posed that question to DGG and awaiting response. Adding low quality sources that is mostly filled with heresy lowers quality of the article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to convey something and won't go into craploads of runabouts to do so, so if you're offended I suggest you reevaluate your perception of what a profanity is and what offends you. I already apolgised and don't know what more I can do to make it less offensive without changing the meaning. I try my best to respond within a timely manner and hope that you would do the same, however a lack of responses after 36 hours is quite excessive. I'll review all appadvise and phonedog sources to see if they further source other websites or if replacements exist so please don't remove content just yet. From what I read, DGG already stated that including a general statement of what sources said such as Many sources, several sources or the device received generally positive reviews is not synthesis. Vandalism is a serious accusation, I suggest you search up what constitutes a vandal YuMaNuMa 23:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

What were you trying to accomplish by spelling it "arse" instead? Rather than say "cover themselves". You were just playing cat's game with something like that in an OBVIOUS way. Go see DGG's talk page. there's a new question I asked him/herCantaloupe2 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I had no intention of doing that, assume good faith next time, arse is not considered a profanity or offensive word, in addition, cover their "arses" is an idiom whereas cover themselves is an ambiguous phrase which can be interpreted as cover themselves with what? Can you explain to me how the word arse or the other version of it offended you and is considered uncivil to you? YuMaNuMa 23:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

One, "ass" is recognize is offensive language. Two, "arse" is just a British variant of it. Three, you were using it in a way I perceived as an offensive way to deflect problem at hand by not addressing the matter and calling it as "its just what reporters do". Any other question that went unaddressed? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Several; How is what I said uncivil to you - "deflecting" an argument using an offensive word doesn't seem like it directly affects you unless it hurts your eyes or medical problems exist? Did you read the part where I said that it's an idiom and also the paragraph about NBC not checking the credibility and veracity of the claims that 9to5mac.com made by using the word allegedly being speculative? How many responses do you expect from RfC? Why did you go into so much lengths to include the word allegedly when photographic/visual evidence has been provided by a reliable source? Will I get an apology for you devaluing my comments ("spurting off") since I provided you one for using an idiom that I perceive to be inoffensive? How on earth is combining similar sentiments by using phrases such as "many sources", "several sources" or "the iPhone received mainly positive criticisms" synthesis when no further conclusion has been reached other than stating that many sources exist - which were cited directly after the sentence or in the paragraph in which the sentence is located? Also one final thing, why do you abandon your previous arguments by moving on without addressing raised points and/or changing the issue at hand? (Moved on to claiming 1440mah is incorrect despite insisting that a source you provided, which also states it holds a charge of 1440mah is more reliable or whatever after I provided visual evidence that proves that ifixit's claim is more substantial and better established than yours, moved on to arguing about the offensiveness of a phrase I used when other far more pertinent points could have been discussed such as the your insistent use of "allegedly" when again visual evidence was provided by a reliable source.)YuMaNuMa 07:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

Outstanding issue Will be considered stale after no reply in a month, user is still unresponsive despite attempts to contact him by three editors YuMaNuMa

Please cite relevant wikipedia policy which states the arbitrary expiration date you proposed. Nobody appointed you as a moderator to this article/discussion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see the reply in the other section. YuMaNuMa 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you (Tagremover) recently removed sourced content from the iPhone 5 article without an explanation in this edit. Can you explain why you removed content that was verified and supported by a reliable source? Thanks, by the way please don't see this message as threatening in any way, I'm just trying to understand why it was removed and whether such content should be included in similar articles in the future. YuMaNuMa 12:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the information for now. Please initiate a discussion on the iPhone talk page if you believe there is an issue with the source. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Will do, don't know why I initiated the discussion on the user's talk page in this situation - probably thought he/she wasn't watching the page. YuMaNuMa 13:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

YuMaNuMa, no worries! My commment above was taken out of context. It was originally meant to be a suggestion to Tagremover, but seems out of place after being moved to the iPhone 5 talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

SPAMMED, vague info from an unreliable blog

1. The editor is probably the second spammer for photographytalk i've found
2. He just writes one sentence as a reason to make his main action: SPAM for photographytalk
3. This info means nothing: ANY camera has noise!!! Also i MAINLY will remove this source, this sentence is NONSENSE.
4. The source is a blog-style page with infos from manufacturer, unclear other copied reviews and own opinions without giving any reasons or technical research, especially for this sentence: UNRELIABLE !

Best wishes, and find other sources with not so vague info, Tagremover (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I am trying my best to keep an open mind and understand the problem you have with the source. Can you be more specific by citing examples? I just re-read the review. It sounds like a typical review you'd come across at other reliable sources such as CNET. Remember, the information is in the Critical reception section of the article. There's nothing wrong with including a professional's opinion, as long as it isn't being given undue weight over opposing views. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best if the user took his claims to WP:RSN, from what I've seen, the user has been attempting to remove Photographytalk sources from numerous pages for several months now with some level of opposition. By taking the claim to RSN, he/she would be able to removed the source in question from more pages by simply citing the thread. I'm also quite curious as to why the reference is unreliable, although reliability isn't entirely based on reader/fan bases, the website seems to be quite popular and probably for a certain reason. YuMaNuMa 13:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:IPhone 5/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Obtund (talk · contribs) 09:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Disregard what I said before, continue to review it if you wish. YuMaNuMa 12:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted content: Supported to wait for any good article nomination until the issues are solved. The reviews section is the WORST i've ever seen! Unscientific, with nonsense citations, defended by a few users - including YuMaNuMa - with many users sees it as biased, see talk! Tagremover (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Do not delete my content ! This is not your talk page. Obey Misplaced Pages rules. Tagremover (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Do not revert my comment. Last warning. Tagremover (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Or what? If you insist on keeping the comments here, can you do me a favor by copying my reply to this page without altering it? YuMaNuMa 14:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Just behave and stop your aggression. Tagremover (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Aggression? You're the one who needs to stop SHOUTING, please... YuMaNuMa 20:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Postponed

I will hold off till issues are dealt with. Message me on my talk page, if I do not respond within 5 day renominate it. Obtund 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Foxconn spokesman

Outstanding issue - My edits have yet to be approved by Cantaloupe YuMaNuMa

Currently the source cited for that claim is reliable despite the language differences, I can understand the basics of the language and can verify that what's included in the article is a close translation of what was stated in the source. Please note that the statement has been attributed to the spokesman thus readers should be aware of its potentially bias nature. It's extremely difficult to find a neutral third party source on the impact of operations at factory as a result of the strikes as companies generally keep business data and operation records to themselves hence reports from a spokesman are the closest thing we are going to get to a full neutral report, news reports about companies also generally rely on information from company spokesmen and their press releases, this proves that their use is widely accepted even in editorised writings. In addition to that, you're not going to find any sources other than ones directly attributed to the spokesman on the number of absents. YuMaNuMa 12:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's another improper editorializaton:

the source

"Gou said that the delay was because the latest iPhone was hard to make, but wouldn't explain which part in particular was causing the problem. It's been previously suggested that a lot of iPhone 5s get turned back by quality control inspectors, perhaps because they get visibly scratched during assembly."

The claim made, which I changed:

"In November 2012, Foxconn chairman, Terry Gou reported that assembly difficulties have limited production after the strike due to phones being turned back because of visible scratches on the units."

Gou was not quoted saying that. There's nothing to support the claim "visible scratches" was the ultimate casuality. --Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean another, where is the first one? Instead of claiming sources inadequately support the claim, perhaps you should read it first; "The new quality demands included "indentations standards of 0.02mm and demands related to scratches on frames and back covers" China Labor Watch said." - This is regarding you changing the Guardian source for the corresponding claim to The Register source, it was unnecessary, so is your claim that it was inadequately supported. I have clarified the sentence that you are now complaining about and made it clearer to readers that The Register suggests that the scratches inflicted is the cause, I hardly believe that a source mentioning it constitutes nothing. YuMaNuMa 03:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Editorialized statement issue over what was in The Register this edit

source states " It's been previously suggested that a lot of iPhone 5s get turned back by quality control inspectors, perhaps because they get visibly scratched during assembly."

"perhaps because" is what the source says to denote that their editorial staff is basically guessing. Synthesizing to "due to" creates a false impression that it was suggested with definitive certainty that rejection was caused by scrathes, something not established by what is in reference, so this is a potential inappropriate editorialization on part of a wiki editor Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a big issue in my opinion but if you insist then I have absolutely no problem with it, however can I suggest we put the suggestion by The Register or conjunction used, in quotation marks so to appears less editorialised. YuMaNuMa 00:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You cared enough to revert it hence the above explanations. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the changes because I thought it was unnecessary and also thought that "suggest" negated the strong effect but in my opinion it's not significant enough to warrant a debate, however you're insisting on the changes, so let it be then. Why can't you just accept that and move on instead of further challenging whether I care or not? YuMaNuMa 10:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's some advice

Outstanding issue - Will be considered stale after no reply in a month, user is still unresponsive despite attempts to contact him by three editors YuMaNuMa

Check similar articles that have achieved good article status before blatantly accusing this article of not being neutral and being bias without citing some examples. Also note and understand the meaning of critical reception and don't remove entire chucks of information with discussing it on the talk page. What on earth gave you the impression that such a large removal would be accepted and ignored by the editors of this article? YuMaNuMa 12:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you cited some example, I'm going to explain why it deserves to be included in the article. It deserves its inclusion because this section is on the critical reception of the device, meaning information on how it was received by consumers and critics are included. Issues that were covered by the media are also included in the section. By the way you removed information from the commercial reception section and LTE usability section under the same rationale when information from those section weren't subjective at all, can you explain that and the reasons why you removed it? Also please check the iPad 2, iPad (3rd generation), iPhone 4S articles, which are all good articles for examples of information usually included in the critical reception section. Again, like what I've done before, I'm going to give you a limited period of time to reply to my messages before I remove all the tags that I find invalid from the article. You have acknowledged the existence of this thread at 11.12pm AESDT when you moved a thread from your talk page to this page. YuMaNuMa 12:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Joking? Critical reception sections have not to fulfill Misplaced Pages rules??? Criticised receptions !

Those "receptions" are mostly a joke. Citations are the worst i´ve ever seen. Only some reasons: Unscientific, isolated, not representative amateur statements.
"Not life-changing": This fan-boys are unable to think clearly.
Drop tests: A good joke!
Lots of unproven statements. Remember: Not anything written is true!
Questionable, blog-style references. Tagremover (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

How about providing me with all your reasons instead of some so I can refute them all? Again, note that this is the critical reception section not a scientific analysis of faults, it's basically how reviewer or critics view the device, most of those claims are also attributed to a presumed expert working for a reliable source such as Engadget, ZDnet, Extremetech, etc, which are all considered reliable sources by Misplaced Pages. I removed the drop test as I agree that it's probably undue and based on limited findings. This isn't a scientific paper (WP:NOTJOURNAL), this an encyclopedia, information does not have to be verified by scientific analysis which usually involve months or even years of testing. Your view of how things should be run on Misplaced Pages seriously limits the amount of information we can include. Yeah, not everything written is true but when it's written by a reliable source it's assumed true unless stated otherwise in the future, your view of what's assume true and what's not again limits the information we can include across all fields. In addition to that, not only has the section fulfilled the requirements stated in the policy, much of the section is directly attributed to a source in the actual sentence. It's not bias because statements that are subjective are attributed to a source, it's not undue because several sources are generally cited for each paragraph, it's not unreliable because many if not all of the sources have been approved by WP:RSN and finally it's assumed factually accurate because reliable sources reported the information, it's extremely farfetched and unreasonable to assume otherwise and doing so would constitute speculation. Since you disclosed your conflict of interest by stating "this fanboys are unable to think clearly" when referring to a quote from a published source, regarding the iPhone 5 screen, why should we take any of your other claims seriously and not perceive them as attempts to skew the information in the section to your perspective. YuMaNuMa 12:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Tagremover, you still need to address the comments above in the "Removal of sourced information" section. Otherwise, we'll assume you no longer oppose adding the information back. YuMaNuMa also dropped a notice on your talk page regarding a dispute resolution filing on this issue. Your comments there would be appreciated. Regarding the claims so far that these are unscientific, non-representative statements, we need specific examples unless you are challenging the entire section. Also, you should create a section on this talk page dedicated to describing your reasoning for using the undue template. At this point, let's try to resolve our differences here as opposed to reverting each other's edits in the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I too brought up my objection to the single sampled based drop-test earlier. See "Shatter resistance test" section. This is like "I dropped a bottle and it broke" and next person can drop another bottle and not have it break. Neither is conclusive of just how durable the bottle is. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That method of testing isn't exactly scientific. However, YuMaNuMa addressed this above. The statement/source about that specific drop test has been removed. Are there any others? --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologise if I ignored an issue that you raised but please show me where you raised that specific point as one your concern in the discussion we had above. After reading complaints about that section from two editors, I was first made aware of the issue and immediately removed the section as I agreed with how the claims are quite undue and supported by very limited finding. YuMaNuMa 21:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:IPhone_5#Shatter_resistance_test Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Unresponsive editor

Despite the repeated attempts of GoneIn60, myself and to some extent McGeddon, Tagremover has failed to respond to comments on this talk page, the iPhone 4S talk page and dispute resolution noticeboard. He has acknowledged most of these attempts by removing messages left by others from his talk page, hence I don't think we should further entertain and address his assertions if he decides to not cooperate with users to resolve the issue. Feel free to oppose and attempt to contact him but that is just how I feel, this is a global community and I don't think we should stop the development of this article for the sake of one user. YuMaNuMa 03:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

How much time was he given before you declared him as non-responsive? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Almost three days now, also take into consideration that other editors have tried to contact him by posting directly on his talk page, these messages were later removed by him, suggesting he is aware that we're expecting a reply from him. YuMaNuMa 23:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

While an editing dispute is being discussed, it is usually proper etiquette to keep the most recent stable version of the article in place until the dispute is resolved. In this case, that would mean restoring the content that was removed without consensus. Then the burden of a timely response is on the editor who wishes to gain consensus, or in this case, Tagremover. That way there is no harm to the article while waiting for a response that may never come. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing here from YuMaNuMa

YuMaNuMa many times deleted my content on this talk page and on Talk:IPhone 5/GA1, GoneIn60 once. Just to inform others about the aggression and tone of these users. Possibly they deleted others comments they didn't like here too. Have other users noticed that? Tagremover (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Relax. I just reformatted the section to make the statements more clear. If you're referring to the title of a subsection you created, that's hardly something to get worked up over. Again, we would appreciate a response in the discussions above that your actions have initiated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I deleted it twice with reasons provided, that hardly constitutes many times but whatever. How about you reply to the comments on the pertinent issue instead of repeatedly going on about how I removed a few comments from GA review page, you already posted your ridiculous warning on my talk page, restored the comments, what do you think you could possibly achieve by posting another comment here? YuMaNuMa 21:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I felt that YuMaNuMa was unwilling to not have it his way in prior disagreement. He only compromised after an RfC. I too have objected to the drop test experiment as you can see in earlier discussion. Sure, it maybe sourced, but he was unwilling to pull it. The inflammatory remark "(1 edit by Tagremover (talk): You have to be fucking kidding me right? Discuss on the talk page before you make such a huge edit involving large removals . (TW))" targeted directly at a specific editor as he made in this edit is unacceptable. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I compromised because the user provided a proper reason for the removal or alteration of the content whereas you didn't provide a reason that I thought was sufficient enough, so of course I wasn't willing to let you change the content with opposition. As I repeatedly said before, I am more than willing to compromise if you can provide me with valid reasons why it should be removed with the use of policies and common sense to support your claim. I wasn't involved in the discussion you cited earlier and you didn't put that claim forth when we were discussing the content hence it wasn't a responsibility of mine to remove it. Also I apologise to Tagremover if he was offended by my edit summary but the removal of such a large section that is sourced is simply ridiculous and as shown by my tone, I was clearly frustrated, I understand that this isn't an excuse for my action and once again I unreservedly apologise. YuMaNuMa 00:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It isn't about doing things to your approval as if this article is your territory. Regardless of how much you disagree with that editor, there's no acceptable reason to swear and marginalize another editor the way you did in that edit. If you can't keep your cool, take a break. It is a personal attack. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, but I am human and humans get emotional, as you can see I have calmed down and started discussing it rationally. The attack above does not involve you, I have already apologised to Tagremover and accepted full responsibility for my actions. If he wishes to pursue it further, he can report me at WP:ANI. Speaking of personal attacks, can you apologise to me for devaluing my comments by saying I'm "spurting off", I found that offensive and have yet to receive an apology from you despite informing you about my perception of that comment earlier. YuMaNuMa 08:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

User generated poll

Notice

Outstanding issue - Will be considered stale after no reply in a monthYuMaNuMa

. I was not aware that there is a specific arbitrary time frame. Please cite the policy which states outstanding issues become stale after a period of one month. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm just trying to end old discussion with no reply as fast as possible and I think one month is more than enough time to consider a discussion stale unless users bring it up again. Please note I chose the period of one month because threads with no reply in that period will be archived. I would like to make it clear that even if an issue is stale, users can bring it up again either in the original thread or in a new thread, though the original one will most likely be archived by then, the system allows me and possibly other editors to focus their attention to current issues and nominate the article for GA once all current issues are resolved. As you can see, I attempted to class each discussion to allow other editors to reply to the ones that are still relevant and remind old participants that they should reply unless for whatever reason they don't believe it's worth the time anymore. It was sort of a WP:BOLD move to class them I guess but with the number of outstanding and unresolved issues here, something needed to be done. YuMaNuMa 23:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

MacRumor poll

The value of having this in the article is questionable. The cited sources merely say that this poll happened. This does not make it important. Now, for those unfamiliar with the poll method, users registered on a message board called MacRumors see a thread, and clicks a button to put in their vote. To vote, the user must be registered, so the people with problem could have registered, then put in a vote while people without problem could have been less likely to bother registering. It's not a controlled survey. It's hard to justify that there's a valid correlation between general iPhone owner and those who hold accounts on MacRumors website. So, the poll only means that the result is only valid for those who have an account and bothered to go in the message thread and voted. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that a poll was created and received a large sample of responders, which increases the reliability of the poll. The sentence now makes it very clear that the poll was a user generated post, we can further make the type of website MacRumour is clearer in the prose if that is necessary but I honestly don't see it as a valid reason for why it should be excluded. Can we please bring this to WP:RSN so we can resolve the dispute quicker? YuMaNuMa 00:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Side note - Due to study commitments, I won't be able to reply in the same prompt manner as before. I'll still reply to your message within 2 days or so. YuMaNuMa 00:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

We should strive to include polls that are scientific in nature which use random samples. The open access poll by MacRumour is not a good example of one that does. For the reasons stated above, I agree that it should be excluded. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I just think the prevalence of the issue should be included somewhere in the prose, would it be okay if we made it clearer what type of website MacRumour is and the number of respondents the poll received? Without the context, the issue may be seen as rather insignificant despite the large press coverage around it for the past month or so. With an estimate on the number of phones affects, we can provide readers with the context of the issue. If you guys still decide that the poll isn't of high standard enough, do you have any suggestions on how we can achieve what I said earlier? YuMaNuMa 23:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm entirely in agreement with GoneIn60. The media simply states that some website has that poll going on. There's no challenge that the poll did happen. It does not assert that its prevalent. What's being challenged is the value of having it in the article.

• Means of sampling is highly flawed as GoneIn60 addressed
• Ownership of iPhone 5 is not a requisite to create an account on MacRumors
• It relies on people voluntarily registering an account on website, then locating that thread to vote.
• A plausible guess is that a thread about a problem naturally attracts people who search for the problem online rather than people who just stumble in.

If you were to make a thread on a Salt Lake City forum asking people if they work on Sunday. Say it produces 10,000 votes saying 75% don't. "well that's a lot and not working on Sunday is prevalent across population based on our sample data. " This sampling method has a flaw, because it does not reach intended audience without systematic bias. A more meaningful survey has less systematic bias such as carriers calling up a random phone number in its database of customers with iPhone and asking if they have a out-of-box scratching problem. Since you're wanting to include it to advance your position of prevalence, this could be WP:UNDUECantaloupe2 (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a flawed poll, but I don't think anyone's arguing that the article should present it as being "prevalent across population based on our sample data". If the best context we have for how widespread the issue is that "on an informal user poll of a Mac site, 30% of the site's iPhone 5 owners reported this problem", and if reliable sources are trusting this figure enough to consider it worth reporting, I don't see a problem with presenting it in context. The current "some users have complained" is far too opaque - are many customers having the problem, or is it just a handful of fussy bloggers? --McGeddon (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The population here is the people who use iPhones. The poll itself can be entirely meaningless in accurately determining how wide/narrow spread this problem is. If people search for this problem, then register there, it has an effect of concentrating the positive response thus skewing the result. None of the reliable sources cited them with any authority. It was something like "if it was to be...." and the like. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I also cited a newspaper using their poll as reference for the prevalence of the issue, to provide you with some context, Herald Sun is currently Australia's highest circulating newspaper. Not only that, numerous other reliable sources are also referring to their poll, in addition to ones currently cited. As of 11/11, the poll has over 2200 respondent, in most cases that's more than enough to verify a specific situation in a non-scientific manner. Here's what I'm suggesting, "According to a user generated poll on MacRumors, an Apple related technology news website, of 2200 respondents, about 45% of which reported scuffing on their devices either shortly after the using the phone or directly out of the box.", with context provided, it allows readers to assess the extent themselves with the provided information, which as stated before is cited by numerous other reliable sources. YuMaNuMa 23:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If we don't have any reliable sources telling us whether this problem was experienced by five users or fifty thousand users (and if no reliable source has bothered looking into the numbers beyond citing, at arm's length, one unscientific user poll), then maybe it's not actually worth mentioning the scuffing issue at all here. --McGeddon (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as excluding the entire issue altogether as there is little dispute that the issue has received quite a large amount of coverage from both mainstream and technology sources, this should mean that the issue passes notability criteria. The amount of coverage does suggest the issue is prevalent, however I doubt any organisation would put time and effort in resolving or even investigating such relatively minute issue. Many of the issues mentioned in the section are considered relatively minute, however most received a considerable coverage hence there no policy based reason why it should be excluded. Note that this issue is prevalent enough to have received a response from a head Apple executive. YuMaNuMa 11:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at it this way. We have more than one reliable secondary source that mentions an unreliable primary source, the MacRumor online poll. It's unreliable for the reasons stated above, but also because the secondary sources do not attempt to do a statistical expert analysis of the data. Instead, they are merely reporting the existence of the poll and spending more time investigating why the issue is occurring. There is no concrete conclusion about the poll's findings or a real-world estimate on the percentage of iPhones impacted. The absence of expert analysis means we should avoid citing numerical data from the poll or even the poll itself. The fact that this is an online poll in an uncontrolled environment only reinforces that position. Any editor that wants to mention the poll, must realize that beyond this discussion, it will likely continue to receive scrutiny and remain a controversial topic. If you need more reason not to include it, look at what other editors have said about the use of statistical data and in an RSN discussion. In the RSN discussion, one editor brings up a good point about the criteria that should be met when citing a poll:

"...when the poll is carried out by a reputable polling agency, and results published in a reliable source, then it is fine to cite it".

Clearly, the MacRumor message forum fails the first test of being a reputable polling agency. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Point taken; to achieve what I said earlier, perhaps we can note the number of news sources that covered the issue instead of including the poll. Otherwise, I guess we can exclude the prevalence and let readers decide, though a copyedit in my opinion is necessary if the information was to be removed. YuMaNuMa 12:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, I agree that it has received a lot of coverage that deserves some kind of mention in the article. I would just avoid using specific numbers/percentages from the poll, mainly because those numbers aren't fixed and can change at any time, but also because they haven't been sufficiently analyzed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it nice

Isn't nice when we can all work things out and manage to agree on something? :) YuMaNuMa 21:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

One guess expressed as having made by many

Rectified - Sentence was reworded in way that is less suggestive YuMaNuMa

"with some media sources such as ExtremeTech suggesting that the damage on these unboxed device". ExtremeTech's columnist in his personal opinion suggested that. How was the claim "some media sources" suggesting that there's an agreement in the causality among multiple media sources? I reworded to say exactly what the source can support.

Also, some journalists decided to jump on the bandwagon to call whatever issues with adding the -gate suffix. The creative word game by a journalist or two doesn't define a word. The way it was phrased was certainly not proper. I took it out, but if someone wants to include it, it shouldn't sound so definitive. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, how about I cite some reputable sources and state that these are some of the publications that referred to the issue as "scuffgate"? By the way, why didn't you bring up these issues 2 weeks or so before the GA nomination and a reviewer commit himself to reviewing the article? YuMaNuMa 01:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I found that edit comment I left was adequate. I'm not obliged to bring up issues to fit around your convenience. We do our editing at our own pace. We don't need to seek each other's permission to make edits and this is rather trivial edit too. You don't own the article, nor do I. The current phrasing is more precise and I can live with it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment after Cantaloupe edited the article without responding to my question

Can you please cooperate with me to resolve the issues in the article, despite my busy schedule I'm trying to resolve the problems by discussing them with you yet you repeatedly decide to ignore my messages. This has happened time and time again and led me to believe you decided to stop editing the article hence I nominated the article as I believe it was stable enough at that point, however after a reviewer committed himself to assessing the article, you popped up again and raised identical concerns to the ones we discussed weeks ago. I urge you to help me settle this issue for the sake of the readers of this article. I'm sick of this ongoing dispute and assume you are too. YuMaNuMa 06:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

We've been through this before. Not getting responses as quick as you wish is hardly worthy an accusation of "ignoring". Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There is an obvious difference between ignoring and replying late and I have taken that into consideration when posting my previous message. There are still several comments in the sections above that have remained unaddressed, along with one in WP:RSN, which has now been archived. The comments I considered to be ignored are ones that did not receive a reply after either you edited the article or started new sections on other issues. It's also impolite to edit other articles while I'm waiting for a reply from you so we can resolve the issue, you have edited almost nonstop apart from your 4 day hiatus in late October, so you cannot really say you will reply when you have time. I also told you on my talk page to forward issues to other boards as I intend to nominate the article for a Good article review, however that was not done and issues remained unaddressed, you also failed to reply to my comments and stopped editing this page while continuing to edit other for the next two weeks, this led me to the reasonable conclusion of you abandoning your cause. Afterwards, I nominated the article for GA and shortly after a reviewer decided to assess this article, you started to alter content that was discussed in the talk page without addressing my comments, ultimately this reduces the stability of the article and usually leads to articles being failed as article stability is one of the criteria. You can see how this is a problem right? Also, if it's a trivial issue why are you so insistent in removing the content, the only reason why I'm so adamant in disputing this is because I don't want sourced content being removed without valid reasons, actual trivial issues such as your paraphrasing of sentences were generally ignored by me as long as content was retain and it made sense. Let's not get our egos on top of us and settle the dispute in a reasonable and timely manner. YuMaNuMa 07:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sebastian Anthony ExtremeTech

anodization

In the sourced article labeled "Scuffgate" he commented on his article with

"Yeah, I would guess that it's a very thin layer -- or it isn't being sealed properly." and he correlates it to his anecdotal experience with other Apple devices. He is not a metal finishing expert, so his opinion here shouldn't be included. His opinion regarding metal anodizing has no greater value than that of anyone else in my opinion, because it is completely outside of his or ExtremeTech's field of specialty. Have a look at his profile. It does not establish expertise in surface treatment. so, this is WP:SPS. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's break this down bit by bit. You're citing SPS incorrectly as the source is not a self-published as it's considered reliable and the author is part of a larger editorised network of journalist and writers. It does have weight as the comments are coming from a reliable source, which attempts to provide reasons for why the phenomenon exist, note this is why we included the word "speculate" and not anything more definitive, if needed we can further identify what type of website Extremetech is to clarify the details. Consensus may be needed for this issue as content is from a reliable source. YuMaNuMa 10:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

He makes it clear that metal issue is his guess. Journalist's guess is not an expert opinion, so yes, it is self-published material. It is his PERSONAL speculation.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Your going beyond what the policy says hence your still citing it incorrectly. It's his speculation hence the reason why we included "Anthony speculates that...", we also attributed the speculation to him and from reading his article it's not like he pulled it out his rear-bit as the writer provided evidence to support his claims hence it's not unreasonable to include it. Even if a metal expert confirms it, it will still be speculation as the scuffing occurs for various reasons, I noted that many reasons do exist in my first editing but it was removed as it wasn't stated in the source even though common sense verifies it. By the way learn to use Wiki-language and stop SHOUTING, for the 2nd time now. YuMaNuMa 10:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not the point. Whether you cite as "he claims" or not, because his field of expertise is not in metal finishing, it is no different from citing a personal webpage and writing "this person on a website says", so this is why it is WP:SPS. Let's wait for GoneIn60 or someone else to chime in. A notice of 3RR was left on your talk page as you had already made three direct reversions. Also, I highlight the key points. It's just like emphasizing the key points when one speaks. I'm not typing in all bold/all capital.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I said a consensus or input from other editors is needed as I understand what you're trying to say but believe it's not a reason to exclude it. Using capital letter on Misplaced Pages is generally seen as shouting and I perceive it that way hence the messages. WP:SHOUT YuMaNuMa 11:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that we're quoting a journalist's blog comment here, rather than an article he published (and which would have been fact-checked), this does seem like inappropriate use of non-expert WP:SPS. --McGeddon (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If it was clearly labeled as a blog entry on the site or contained some kind of the disclaimer saying these views do not necessarily reflect the views of ExtremeTech, then I would completely agree. However, I'm not so sure from its appearance that ExtremeTech doesn't support the view or that it didn't go through an editor before being posted on the site. Most sites will have "blog" somewhere in the URL, which is not the case here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake if it's not regarded as a blog. The point is that the quote is taken from a remark made in the comments below the article, rather than in the article itself. I'd say that this made it a self-published statement, lacking the "meaningful editorial oversight" that Misplaced Pages requires of its sources. --McGeddon (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The statement is by the author in the body of the article. Look just below the first YouTube video. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies again, then, someone just requested my comment on this thread which began by discussing the "Yeah, I would guess that it's a very thin layer" quote, so I mistook that for the relevant part. --McGeddon (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess I blew right past that part and just looked at the source as a whole, so I see where you're coming from. Looks like Cantaloupe2 placed more focus on that comment below, which does appear to add uncertainty to the source's reliability. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on expert analysis (pardon the pun), but here's what WP:CRYSTAL states:

Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.

The policy statement may be open to some interpretation, but I feel that as long as the speculation is by a recognized entity (in this case, ExtremeTech) and doesn't appear to represent a minority viewpoint (it might, that's debatable), then it's in line with the guideline and can be included. However, should other editors find a source that contradicts the statement, then it should be inserted to show the contrast or, alternatively, the previous ExtremeTech comment should be removed. If more than one source is found to contradict the statement, then that places ExtremeTech in the minority view, and the claim in the article will need to be given less weight if it is to remain. But let's not speculate about all the possible scenarios just yet! --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. What I wanted to say is that while he maybe considered recognized when it comes to computer technology, I'm finding no indication that he's got any credibility beyond, for example, someone who states("i know a buddy who works at body shop and...."). Metal surface coating is not Anthony's or ExtremeTech's field of expertise. In my opinion, this is like paint and coating specialists commenting on the iPhone's technical features. If they were to write about the coating, they may say something about the phone itself, but a coating/finishing magazine wouldn't be a reliable source for other aspects of iphone.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. ExtremeTech focuses on computer technology and would not be considered a recognized entity in metallurgy or manufacturing engineering. However, the editing process at magazines and newspapers often involve experts in such fields before publishing, though it's not specifically mentioned in that online article. I'd be interested to hear what other editors think. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(Another editor) The sentence about Sebastian's theory adds undue weight. If his theory was notable others would have referred to it or at least said something like it. I think any mention of scuffgate should be brief (due weight given the length of this article). It should mention online complaints about scuffs (use the All Things D and CNET sources), Apple's response (at least one of the articles mentioned Apple Stores exchanging them, but I don't know about an official response), and how it was resolved (if at all). It should be really brief and reflect consensus between news sources. czar · · 17:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"...reflect consensus between news sources" - This is a convincing argument. If ExtremeTech is the only one out there making these claims, then we are giving it undue weight by including it in the article. Excellent point that may cause others to reconsider. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm certain that this article has been reproduced by another source but unfortunately I can't find it at the moment. I understand that the reliability of a source is limited to an extent, however that extent is not clearly determined in the source as the reliability may rise and fall depending on their source/s and where they obtained their information. It's unlikely a technology commentator is able to write two paragraphs on the process without the help of experts hence that is where their reliability limit is unclear. Also note that in the sentence in question that the word "speculate" is used, this was done because editors have noted that the opinion Extremetech reached is not definite, as Extremetech is a reliable technology source, they do have a certain level of right to comment on related issues as, however I agree less weight should be given; perhaps further increase the level of uncertainty surrounding the speculation but based on policy I still don't believe it should be removed as attribution and all level of citations have been given as well as the reason I provided before. Just to clarify my whole position on this section - I'm not trying to imply ownership of the article whatsoever, I personally added much of the content as I believe it's relevant to the article and section hence I'm currently just simply supporting my previous rationale for including it. None of this was included because I have some sort of position that I want to advance or sites that I want promote - all this was added for the purpose of informing as I believe it is relevant and significant enough to be included. YuMaNuMa 05:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

With the full protection in place for now, maybe we can get some additional comments from other editors in the meantime. If it is decided by consensus to remove the comment, and later additional sources are found, we can always revisit the issue here on the talk page before inserting the claim back into the article. I think the full protection that has been placed on the article is a clear indication that we should be seeking consensus more often, especially when dealing with content in the critical reception section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

According to the source, Apple has not yet provided response to official comment request. I'm not sure if it has provided a statement since then. Lacking official statement from Apple reading that it is considered defective and Apple store will replace them, the occurrence of replacement can just be individual store's discretion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification surrounding ExtremeTech editor's comments

Anthony stated in body:

"It is possible that the anodized coating is so soft that it’s being scuffed"
"It seems most likely that the scuffs are being caused at the production line in China."

Note the use of weak wording and lack of reasoning or specific references supporting why. We must remember that not every comment made by even experts are within their field of expertise.

Anthony addressed readers in article comment logged in with administrative privilege with "admin" which is a clear and convincing evidence that it was made by him and not someone registered under the same name.

In that comment, he stated: "Yeah, I would guess that it's a very thin layer -- or it isn't being sealed properly. The thing is, Apple has a lot of experience with anodization -- many/all of its smaller iPods are anodized (the fancy-coloured ones). It knows how to make a tough anodized product..." The degree of uncertain is strong here. So my argument here is that, at this point, I'm convinced that his speculation on this issue is no better than some dude on the internet. If he is a published author of a peer-reviewed journal on something like ASME on the matter relevant to aluminum surface coating, that puts him on expert category, but he is not as far as I know. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I responded to the thread above. If his speculation/theory was important enough to be included in the iPhone 5 encyclopedia article, it would be cited elsewhere. All references to his scuffing theory add undue weight unless there is evidence that his theory is notable. I'd recommend their removal. Keep this simple. czar · · 17:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Editorializing to strengthen statement beyond what's supported by source

Wikipedian's edotirialized statement: "The issue is not localized to a specific region either, with similar reports also recorded in Hong Kong and Europe."

Scuffgate doesn’t seem to be a localized issue: There have been lots of reports from the west coast of the US, of course, but users in Europe and Hong Kong are also reporting scuffed phones. The damage isn’t being caused by overzealous Apple fans, desperate to get their sterilized tentacles on the new iPhone, either: The scuffed iPhones are seemingly already damaged when they arrive, before anyone has had a chance to finger them aggressively. source Source does not mention where the reports are. It is justifiably uncertain and states "doesn't seems to be" yet wiki editor reworded it to read "is not". This is inappropriately editorializing by an editor to advance their position to dramatize the issue. to state "it is". The source does not even discuss where the reports are recorded. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Nor does it need to mention who or what their sources were, to be cited as source on Misplaced Pages. That wasn't your main reason for tagging the sentence and I wouldn't have reverted the dubious tag if the "seems to", "is not" reason was provided instead. From memory I didn't initially word it in that manner however, your pedantic attitude is making it very hard for everyone to improve this article, it's uncalled for and in the situations you experienced with other editors, they probably agree too. Editors try their best to adhere to policies and standards set by the community and you're yet again assuming otherwise, you directly chose to assume that editors "editorialised" the article to advance their position instead of good faith. I have had just enough of your assumptions of bad faith and will not hesitate to report you to WP:ANI for doing so, your attitude here and on Misplaced Pages in general causes tensions and conflict and there is no shortcoming of them that involve you. YuMaNuMa 10:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you will find any opposition to adjusting the statement so that it's in line with the source. I agree that "is not" is more definitive than the source's "doesn't seem to be" and should be changed accordingly. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

 DoneCantaloupe2 (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"Succeeded by: Incumbent"??

The use of the word "Incumbent" is surely wrong here. Incumbent means the one currently in office/usage, so this would mean the iPhone 5 would succeed the iPhone 5, which is entirely wrong. (A link for perusal: http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/incumbent). A suggestion for a better correct word to use would be "Successor". Jimthing (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The Edit War

Dear All, there seems to be over the last few days or so, an edit war taking place on this article. The article has been placed under temporary full protection as per content disputes WP:FULL. From observing the editing history of the article it would seem the dispute has been between two individuals who have constantly undermined each others contributions for one reason or another. Please do not let this happen again. I for one enjoy contributing to this article, and to see this privilege taken away by the rivalry of two other people is upsetting. Please, once the Full Protection has been lifted on the 20th, do not carry this on. It is selfish and unnecessary. I hope we can carry on this article in peace. Cheers. --Tacita620 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Now many editors will be prevented from editing it for a week (get ready for some {{edit protected}} templates!). If the edit war shows signs of being done and not reoccurring, I might file an unprotect request. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 17:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This is discouraging, but what I have noticed is in past article ipad and previous if yumanuma is not correct he will get into an edit war. On the iPad 3 article he did it with a bunch of editors over how 4g lte should be cited which was unnecessary and almost got the page locked. I believe that Yumanuma need to be warned or maybe even block from his disruptive editing. Obtund 17:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Apple Inc. articles
• High-importance Apple Inc. articles
• WikiProject Apple Inc. articles
• B-Class Telecommunications articles
• Mid-importance Telecommunications articles
• B-Class Computing articles
• Mid-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment