Talk:IPhone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Comments on deletion 2 Should be recreated 3 Request for undeletion 4 Article deleted? 5 Unicorns 6 iphone? 7 Apple is not a dead company 8 The administrators will look realy stupid when it dose come out 9 US Patent Application 10 Article undeleted 11 Future reference 12 What happened here?

[edit] Comments on deletion

This page was apparently deleted because it was only rumors. Well, Apple has just [ordered twelve million] of them. Chris Gore 02:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's on slashdot - it must be true! 70.48.45.199 03:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Slashdot is always right. BuBZ 05:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still only rumors, but this time they're more official. I don't think that this page is ready to be recreated yet though, I think we should wait for an official confirmation instead of some dodgy leak. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 05:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

indeed, i had spent so much time on the original article over the past year and then they delted it, i still have it all backed up and you can bet your hat i will whack it up the second it is released Nickcirc 10:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why can't a Wikipedia article desribe rumours? Can't it just say it's a rumour? --84.82.26.233 10:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

see i put forth the argument that there was information beyond a resolable doubt that the iPhone would be released they did not go for it :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IPhone Nickcirc 13:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on this is that Wikipedia should deal with all phenomens in the world. If iPhone is not a product, it is still an interesting social encounter, and should as such still get an article, discussing e.g. the fanatism or desire of Apple fans around the world. Several million hits on Google for something not existing, should still be considered in Wikipedia. Would you delete an entry for "God", because this concept is also only a rumour? Thyl Engelhardt

People differ on what constitutes "beyond a reasonable doubt". By Wikipedia terms, beyond a reasonable doubt means that a Reliable Source (slashdot doesn't even come close) reports that Apple themselves have announced the product. Third-parties speculating or predicting that Apple is likely to release the product are not acceptable. If we start reporting rumors, where would it stop? Somebody posts a guess in a blog somewhere and we create an article on it? No. Information here has to be Verified and reliable fact. There are plenty of places to post rumors, guesses, speculation. This isn't one. Fan-1967 14:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There isn't such a thing as a reliable fact. We should allow it here as soon as we can site external references. Mathiastck 01:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please verify the existence of God, cause i'm having a hard time here...it's one thing to not have articles on completely outlandish and obscure, made-up products, yes. But this isn't the case here. —lensovet–talk – 06:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Go read the article. Note that it doesn't verify the existence of God, but rather reports on the subject using references (though I will admit it needs more inline references for the various claims made in it). Wikipedia is not here to verify the existence of anything, but rather to report on a topic using verifiable and reliable sources. Bringing things back to this article, until some verifiable sources show up for the iPhone, this article will not be allowed to exist here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidently, you have not understood my remark. The iPhone is no product, and certainly, an article in Wikipedia should not focus on such a nonexistent product. But the romours of its approaching release, over and over again, and the discussions of what features it should have etc., do exist. This is what should be reflected in an article, since it clearly is a cultural phenomen existing. Thyl Engelhardt.

You want to create an article about rumors? How can any information about rumors be considered reliable? Everything about this is from forums and blogs, for the most part unsourced or speculative. So if I go post in a few forums that I've heard the IPhone is going to be pink with blue polka dots, can I then come back here and put in the article that there are rumors it will be pink with blue polka dots? That's what you end up with if you try to report rumors. Fan-1967 15:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

San Francisco Chronicle, International Herald Tribune, BusinessWeek, Forbes, Houston Chronicle. None of these links are to "forums and blogs", in fact, they actually point to exactly where they're supposed to, and they are all articles talking spefically about the 'iPhone.' These "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" and the fact that a Google search for iPhone returns 5,830,000 hits, seem to be proof that this product, no matter how likely or unlikely it's release may be, is indeed notable. tmopkisn ^tlka 22:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we create an article about rumors, if they are reported by reliable sources? Certainly there are articles about the Yeti and Loch Ness Monster. Nihonjoe pointed out that the article on God "reports on the subject using references.... Wikipedia is not here to verify the existence of anything, but rather to report on a topic using verifiable and reliable sources". There are dozens of reliable sources out there (for example, this AP article reporting on it, and their reporting is based on journalistic sources ("an unnamed player in the island's cell phone component sector as its source"); also reports on patents are not based on speculation, but verifiable documents. I think the iPhone article is ripe for undeletion. In any case, I've started an article in my userspace until we can get it on to mainspace: User:Schi/iPhone — please feel free to contribute there. Schi 22:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, if "an unnamed player" in Taiwan confirms it, that's practically gospel, isn't it? Every one of the news sources cited is actually the same report: that a Taiwan newspaper quotes an unidentified source. Fan-1967 23:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you saying it's not a legitimate journalistic practice to use an unnamed source? Because if that's the case, we sure have a huge amount of sources we need to throw out of Wikipedia. Schi 23:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite any articles that have nothing but a single, unnamed source? Fan-1967 23:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No, do you want me to waste my time looking for one? Let's try to stay on topic here. The point is that it's not Wikipedia's business to do fact-checking for newspapers; if they meet the requirements of WP:RS, that's good enough. If the AP runs it, I think it's reasonable to believe it. In any case, the other point is that it's totally acceptable to cite reliable sources reporting on analysis/"speculation". This Wired article, for example, cites an analyst. Sure, the analyst isn't holding the iPhone and telling us about what he sees, but that's no reason to discount it. It's a legitimate authority reported by a legitimate, reliable source. That's like saying you shouldn't cite any articles about what political analysts are saying about the outlook for the 2008 presidential election. Schi 23:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference of course, is that we have rock-solid verification that there will be a 2008 election. You want to get around the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy by saying, in effect, let's do an article about other people crystal-balling. Fan-1967 23:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind WP:AGF (and WP:CIVIL). I don't characterize it as crystal-balling, which the policy refers to as "unverifiable speculation". I don't believe the iPhone analysis is unverifiable, and I believe you could just as reasonably call it "analysis" as you could call it "speculation". Also note that the policy says: "Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." I acknowledge that this is up for interpretation. In any case, and as I have asked Nihonjoe on his talk page, I would at least like to see what was previously on this page so I can incorporate it on my userspace article until we get more sources. Schi 23:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. The problem is that it's one thing to have analysis based on the facts. What I see here is speculation (and an occasional unnamed source) so I don't see the facts to hang the analysis onto. As for what was previously on the page, my recollection is that it was totally unsourced, and not much more than a stub. I doubt you'll find anything of value there. Fan-1967 23:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys is it really so hard to wait untill it appers on apples site?, There is NO statement from Steve Jobs either in interview or on Apple PR site, therefore there is no Wikipedia Article, Nickcirc 10:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

All i want to say is that people tend to forget that this is an encyclopedia, not a technology blog where you can speculate on rumours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.45.100 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Should be recreated

I don't think this article should ever have been deleted. Even if it is onlly a rumored product, it is certainly notable. Much speculation has been generated on various blogs, and according to MarketWatch the iPhone is one of the main reasons why Apple's stock price has gone up. Theshibboleth 01:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please contribute to the progress on User:Schi/iPhone. The article will likely be undeleted once an acceptable article has been created there. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for undeletion

I request that a sysop temporarily undelete this article so that we can review whether deletion policy was correctly followed as per "Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article, either to use its content elsewhere, or alternatively, because they cannot tell if it was wrongly deleted without seeing what exactly was deleted. (temporary undeletion)" from Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy. Theshibboleth 01:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The article contents were placed here per Schi's request above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it will be nice to be able to work on the article some although that still doesn't allow me to verify that the article was deleted properly. Theshibboleth 06:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to ask any other admin to look at the deletion history. It had been deleted about 6 times previously, and the same information kept being reposted. As such, it was a candidate for speedy deletion as a repost of identical or nearly identical deleted material. Therefore it was speedy deleted. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm still requesting that the page be temporarily resurrected so I can look at what was there. Policy more or less says that I have the right to see the text. Theshibboleth 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already made the same request; Nihonjoe put the old article here: User talk:Schi/iPhone, as he said above. schi ^talk 15:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article deleted?

Of course it is totally stupid to have deleted this article

• we must talk about rumors
• BUT indicate it is rumors

I hope administrators will recreate this article ASAP, wikipedia is NOT their property...Jfayel 20:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unicorns

There is a HUGE page on unicorns, and I think it's pretty much agreed on unicorns don't exist. In fact, I'd say with certainty that there are more people who believe (or claim to believe) in the iPhone than there are people who believe in the unicorn (at least now). SO WHAT'S WRONG WITH HAVING A PAGE ABOUT A RUMOR, AS LONG AS YOU MAKE CLEAR IT IS A RUMOR AND THEREBY GIVE COMPLETELY TRUE INFORMATION? No doubt when the article on Unicorns was first written, there were plenty of rumors still circulating in world (not counting children, of course, but still counting indigenous tribes etc) about unicorns.Kr5t 23:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Unicorns aren't a rumor. They are an extremely well documented mythological animal that has been discussed and written about for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. The iPhone, however, is pure speculation about a product that may or may not ever be released. Apple is saying nothing about it at all other than issuing the occasional vague statement that may or may not refer to a future release of an iPhone. All of their statements can be interpreted multiple ways. I recommend, rather than bringing up apple-orange comparisons, that if you want to see an article on the iPhone that you assist those working on it over here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There is one more difference. Everyone knows unicorns aren't real. When it comes to iPhone, seems people can't tell the difference between speculation and fact. Fan-1967 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I contest the characterization of "speculation" (there are plenty of reliable source press reports that refer to analysts' predictions, "experts say", etc., i.e. research that is predictive in nature), but I doubt I'll change y'all's minds. Why are articles like Potential Republican candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election not "pure speculation" about campaigns that may or may not ever materialize? (Because it's actually just research that's predictive in nature?) In any case, do the nay-sayers have any comments on the current status of the User:Schi/iPhone article? schi ^talk 07:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the 2008 election article is likewise speculation. The amount of actual verifiable information there is minimal. (Remember that in late 1990, most of the US had never heard of Bill Clinton.) Doesn't excuse another speculative article. Can we produce an article that gives people authoritative, verifiable information about what the iPhone 'will be (not what experts predict it's likely to be)? No. All you can say is that these are well-educated guesses from people who know the industry. Not the same as facts.Fan-1967 07:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

the truth is, the iPhone is widely speculated by many analysts, and it's in the news every other day. it's WP's job to report on notable rumor and speculation, so long as WP is a third party looking down on the information. Scepia 07:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know that one article's existence doesn't excuse another article's, I'm just trying to draw an analogy, or get someone to show me a distinction to prove me wrong. The key distinction is that they are facts; the article contains facts about what credible authorities have reported. Same thing with unicorns, potential presidential candidates, or the predicted effects of global warming: it is a fact that reliable sources report about them; the things they report about them are not necessarily "facts", in that they may not be materially true. Factual accuracy isn't the issue (we trust reliable sources to be credible), and obviously, neither is materiality (unicorns), it's notability. The fact that Apple hasn't confirmed the iPhone rumors is irrelevant to the question of whether the subject merits an article. Official endorsement by a corporation is not the bar for what merits inclusion in Wikipedia; notability is much more relevant here, and it has been exhaustively proven that the iPhone is notable in terms of media coverage. WP:NOT says: "Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." The reliable source coverage of the iPhone embodies such credible research. schi ^talk 07:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, okay, bad example. The potential republican one is way better, and I like Schi's argument. Also, I would like to add that, according to common sense, the reason we don't want articles on mundane subjects that nobody's gonna look up is that it's wasting space that must be paid for while being useless. Think about it, isn't that why we don't want people starting articles on themselves? And then, think about how many people are interested and would like to know about the iPhone. That's what wikipedia is for, for people to look up stuff. If it's something nobody's gonna look up, to hell with it, but if it's well-known and often asked about, then people expect to be able to look it up.Kr5t 19:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And it would be great for people to be able to look it up here, if we had anything definitive to tell them. All we can tell them is that there are a lot of rumors, and speculation, and educated guesses, about a likely product of this name. I'd rather not have the article until we can do better than that. Fan-1967 19:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] iphone?

I want to find out what an iphone is/is going to be or what it is rumored to be/what its rumored features are. I was disappointed to find no article about it here... Does anyone know where I can go to read about it? MartinDuffy 17:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Do a google search. You can find 18,000 different rumors. As for which ones will turn out to be true, no way to know. Fan-1967 17:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Cool. Please give me one then, I use an encyclopedia to expedite a search instead of having to sift through dozens of unreliable web pages, not to talk to egotists like you. 137.238.0.5 10:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem. There's no good way to determine which rumors or sites are reliable. Fan-1967 15:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apple is not a dead company

If it were dead it wouldnt come out with new products. Shouldnt the iphone be part of Apples tech lor. [1] [2]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.59.104.8 (talk • contribs).

[edit] The administrators will look realy stupid when it dose come out

The administrators will look realy stupid when it dose come out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.59.104.8 (talk • contribs).

Not at all. Wikipedia has no desire to be the first to report something. Only the most accurate. At this point, with nothing but speculation available, we can't yet produce an accurate and verifiable article. When we can, we will. (And by the way, when adding to a discussion, new comments at the bottom. I've moved yours.) Fan-1967 05:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Patent Application

A US Patent application for iPhone by Apple has been posted on the internet recently, we should examine this carefully to see if its genuine, and if it is, we should undelete this article. --Extra joss 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Iphone.jpg

Many patents are filed for products that don't come out, or which are significantly modified by the time they do come out. Be patient. This article will end up being recreated when we can provide firm, verifiable information about the product. That time has not yet come. Producing a photoshopped picture of what someone guesses the iPhone will look like does not come under the heading of verifiable information. Fan-1967 15:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I said, verify the source first, and if it's a true story then undelete the article. That includes verifying the picture. --Extra joss 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

... and the source of the picture is...??? Fan-1967 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, just some blog. It's not necessary for the verification. If you find a similar picture from a verifiable source, like the Apple website, then it's a valid picture. --Extra joss 17:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

When Apple actually releases the product, might be interesting to see how close this artist's guess is. Fan-1967 17:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing Steve Jobs will design it differently. --Extra joss 18:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article undeleted

As I believe the article now meets WP:V and WP:N, the article has now been undeleted. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! schi ^talk 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a smack in the face for the people who want this article deleted LOL --Extra joss 19:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the current article is significantly improved over the previous article, which is the reasoning I gave for undeleting it. I'm sorry if you believe it to be a "smack in the face," but if an article meets the requirements for inclusion, it should be allowed to exist. I beleive the current version of the article (as of my writing this) meets all the standards for verifiability and notability, and the sources referenced are reliable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Right On!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.108.244.159 (talk • contribs).

A smack in the face is not something to be believed, but something to be enjoyed ROFL --Extra joss 21:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future reference

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 4#iPhone
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 5#iPhone

···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happened here?

So this article was undeleted, then made into a redirect. What? —lensovet–talk – 03:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the first version of the article, which was not up to snuff, was repeatedly deleted and recreated, and so was protected by Nihonjoe against recreation. I, with help from a couple others, worked up a new version on user space. I brought it up at deletion review on December 5 (not realizing that someone else had just brought it up on December 4). Nihonjoe unprotected it and moved the user space version to main space. Then, Zoe responded on deletion review that as of yet "rumored" is not a valid verification and speedy deleted the article (although it's unclear what criteria for speedy deletion it meets). I guess the deletion review is still ongoing? However, it's not getting a lot of discussion, and it's kind of impossible to evaluate the merits of the argument since there is no available copy of the contested material for editors to review. schi ^talk 04:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and then, I guess because the article is now unprotected, someone else created a redirect. schi ^talk 04:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Topic like this for a contemporary world of buzzing mp3 players, it cant be let empty! So I redirected to the company who "may" produce. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salih Demiragh (talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC).