Talk:Tying of the iPhone to AT&T

Initial comments

Page created on 5/3/11. Advice or contributions greatly appreciated! Dsayles08 (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay then. Is there a reason this article needs to exist independent of iPhone? Don't get me wrong, this is quality content you've generated. It is (at first look) neutral, verifiable, and not copyrighted. Would you be amenable to merging it into the Intellectual Property and Restrictions section of iPhone? (Frankly, those sections are quite a mess so don't worry about messing anything up.) I'd be happy to work with you and answer any questions. Cheers, HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This article was created as an assignment for a college course affiliated with the WikiProject on United States Public Policy (course page). We considered adding all of the information to the tying page, and we did add a few paragraphs on the issue to that particular page. However, after discussing the direction of our project with our professor, we were strongly advised to create a new page for the topic. The iPhone page is also tagged for being too lengthy/difficult to navigate, which further prompted our decision to create a new page. Dsayles08 (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Your hard work is very much appreciated and I'm sure it will find its way into improving the encyclopedia. If indeed this content can all be integrated into iPhone (we'll handle that), this article may be deleted. Please don't take offense, since I'm sure this information will live on in a more visible and useful home. Thank you for contributing! HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for DYK

Just to let you know that I've nominated your article for DYK.

Template_talk:Did_You_Know#Tying of the iPhone to AT&T Jaobar

iPhone page tagged as too lengthy

For those of you considering merging this article with the iPhone article, I would bring to your attention again, the point made in the previous thread about the iPhone article being tagged as being too long. I don't understand why the first inclination is to merge. The tying arrangement between Apple and AT&T was a major tech and telecommunication policy issue ... one that affected many. I'm sure that having an independent article that addresses this issue, one that helps create a foundation for analyses of future tying arrangement that may occur, is worthwhile. Again, I don't understand why the first inclination is to merge. Perhaps a link to this article in the iPhone article would be more appropriate. Jaobar (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The thinking is that poor quality content is poor because it is unnecessary. The first section of the article, for instance, mostly summarizes and therefore duplicates information found in iPhone. The final section makes many CRYSTAL-violating and POVish judgements about the future of SIM locks. Furthermore, it's frustrating to see tedious cleanup chores, like filling out a citation template from a bare URL, and it would be easier to delete such content. Finally, daughter articles require more attention both in anti-vandalism and writing while not getting as wide a readership; see History of the iPhone. Naturally, some of these reasons are more valid than others.

As for merging, I honestly do not think that tying one device to on network in one country deserves its own article. (I accept that it is notable because it has received a lot of press; but under the final bullet of GNG notabile subjects do not automatically get articles.) I would be more amenable to taking everything in iPhone#Restrictions and iPhone#Intellectual property, which both need work, and creating a daughter article out of that. A possible intermediate step would be merging this page into iPhone, and seeing if, after a few good edits, we still thought a split was necessary. I look forward to collaborating, HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The references support a claim to notability, but I agree with HereToHelp that this doesn't mean it should get its own article, and I would certainly support a merge to iPhone (and I assume there will be plenty of places for a relevant link in AT&T). Lengthy--well, that first section, "Concepts", that's just not the way to go in Wikipedia articles, and it prompts "essay" thoughts. Besides, there's a ton of POV terms which suggest all kinds of non-neutral things in the rest of the article--I note "finally negotiated" (not neutral in its assumption of length of time--some things simply take more time than others), "unprecedented power" (I think the President of the USA has a lot more power, and he had it earlier), and "cajoled" (I hope I don't have to explain), besides weasel words in phrases such as "Many questioned the legality" and opinion stated as fact in "Apple may have no choice". Drmies (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Drmies, and thank you for reminding me that this page still exists (check the timestamps). Let's merge what's useful into iPhone and AT&T as you suggest and be done with it. A possible first step is to remove everything that isn't useable so we can see what we have to work with. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. Does your iPhone ring when the article is touched? I went a bit further than you did, in the expectation that the individual articles (such as tying) will have this relevant info. Either way, that's not for the future section in the iPhone article anyway, I think. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I trimmed a bit more. I hope my edit summaries are clear enough. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I just watch my watchlist :) The implications section and the POV sentences you cut needed to go, but I still think it's possible that what I left under "concepts" might be useful. Then again, I was just doing a first pass. We can also move some content into Jailbreaking for iOS. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)