Talk:IPhone 5

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

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 ^Contrib 04:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Specs in infobox or section

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 Wikipedia 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 ^Contrib 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 ^Contrib 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

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)

Shatter resistance test

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 Wikipedia, 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 ^Contrib 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

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 Wikipedia 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.[8] "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 ^Contrib 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 ^Contrib 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, most web sources are useless as it is almost impossible to determine the expertise and knowledge of authors. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 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 ^Contrib 13:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

sending it off for RfC.

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 ^Contrib 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 Wikipedia 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 [1]. 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 ^Contrib 14:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NEWSBLOG, which is part of Verifiability section of core contents policy of Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 ^Contrib 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 ^Contrib 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 ^Contrib 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 ^Contrib 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 ^Contrib 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)

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 ^Contrib

Bias in wording

"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 ^Contrib 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. [2]. "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 ^Contrib 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, Wikipedia is not a university paper; Wikipedia is not a specialty journal; Wikipedia is not a news source; Wikipedia is not a laboratory report; Wikipedia is not a research paper. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 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, Wikipedia 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 ^Contrib 23:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• No? Don't want to further participate in the discussion? Fine with me. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 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 Wikipedia 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 ^Contrib 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 ^Contrib 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 ^Contrib 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 ^Contrib 07:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

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 ^Contrib 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 ^Contrib 13:28, 7 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 ^Contrib 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 ^Contrib 12:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted content:[3] 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 ! [4] This is not your talk page. Obey Wikipedia 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 ^Contrib 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 ^Contrib 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^Talk 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Foxconn spokesman

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 ^Contrib 12:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's some advice

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 ^Contrib 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 ^Contrib 12:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Joking? Critical reception sections have not to fulfill Wikipedia 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 the references 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 Wikipedia. I removed the drop test as I agree that it's probably undue and based on limited findings. This isn't a scientific paper, 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 Wikipedia 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. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User believes information in the critical reception section must be verified by scientific analysis and reports, he/she also perceives the entire Reception section as undue, bias and sourced with unreliable references. All sources used in the section are confirmed reliable sources by WP:RSN for this field yet the editor attempts to advance his arguments. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)