Apple Critism Section and Tiger Crashing issue

the long Text of this can be viewed here:

There has been heat received for posting information that, while sourced and referenced, is not positive in nature. Started as information under the software section, but was removed (image and the text) claiming that AppleMatters.com and Apple.com "unsourced POV text too. Websites are not reliable sources and this one hardly supports the claim"[1] though other users have removed the image claiming the there is no text supporting it, though there was[2] or that it was a "Pointless slam by a windows uer"[3].

The statement was moved to a new section labeled Critism, but was quickly RV'd there as well, with clams involving sources being invalid (both The Register and AppleMatters) through those sources are accepted in multiple places throughout wikipedia. AppleMatters[4][5][6][7], and here[8][9][10] while the Register appears inCategory:News websites.

Sources that have to do with this topic:

Apple's claim "it doesn't crash"[11]
Apple's claim of OSX being "Crash Free"[12]
The Register article about false advertising & Fraud (among other things)[13]
The Register article about OSX Crashing[14]
AppleMatters article about OSX Crashing[15]
Apple's website referencing the KP[16]

I have viewed the critism section under other wiki articles that relate to the topic at hand, and for what is accepted elseware, some of the concerns for source validatoin that have come up here don't seam to be in place elsware.

--Zeeboid 18:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeboid Proposed wording

Open to suggestion, what I have here is based on the discussion so far. I would love to see a heading beneath this for people's suggest alterations, so we can compare them easily.

Mac OS X "Tiger" Crashing. This error message is the equivalent of a "Blue Screen of Death" on a Microsoft Windows machine.

Some of Apple Inc's Advertising claims have been the subject of lawsuits including false advertising and fraud[17]. Apple's past claims "it doesn't crash"[18] and current claims of being "free of system crashes"[19] are refuted by The Register[20] and AppleMatters[21]. This was featured by Apple as reason to switch number two[22]. in the company's Switch campaign, and appeared as a primary reason in several advertisements in the same series. The “Mac OS X crash screen” is called a Kernel Panic. The Kernel Panic is covered in Apple's Support Section.[23]

--Zeeboid 18:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altered--Zeeboid 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism (Mmoneypenny)

Apple favours its own stores

In 2004, a group of ex-Apple resellers took Apple to court, claiming that Apple unfairly favours its own stores over independent dealers[24]. Then to flesh out this section (if it's going to be kept) we need more detail about the case. What happened when they went to court? If the case was dismissed then maybe this is not so noteworthy.

You can find a description of the status of the case in Apple's 2006 SEC 10K report, [25] beginning at the bottom of page 41. Basically Apple settled with all the plaintiffs, including the bankruptcy trustee for one that went under. The principal of that company has appealed the bankruptcy court's approval of the settlement and has filed his own suit. None of these cases have been tried in court on their merits.--agr 00:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Crash-free"

Apple's past claims of "it doesn't crash"[26] was featured by Apple as a reason to switch in the company's Switch campaign, and appeared as a primary reason in several advertisements in the same series. Apple's current claims of being "Crash Free"[27] are refuted by AppleMatters[28]. The “Mac OS X crash screen” is called a Kernel Panic. The Kernel Panic is covered in Apple's Support Section.[29] We cannot use the Register article, this was published before either claim was made. We cannot use the ex-Apple resellers bit in this section because that's like saying "Apples are green. The grass is green. Apples are grass. (or something)"

?Greenpeace

Mmoneypenny 22:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response (agr)

I believe the above wording is poorly sourced and misleading.

The first sentence "Some of Apple Inc's Advertising claims have been the subject of lawsuits including false advertising and fraud" is backed up by an article that refers to a lawsuit that has nothing whatsoever to do with Mac's crashing. The lawsuit was filed by Apple resellers unhappy about Apple opening up their own stores. The complaint in the suit about false advertising deals with Apple's service policies. Anyone can file a lawsuit and likely every large company in the U.S. has been sued for false advertising at one time or another.
The source cited for "current claims of being 'Crash Free'" does not support that assertion. The actual text reads "The real secret behind the Mac’s crash-resistant performance lies deep within the operating system itself. Beneath the surface of Mac OS X lies an industrial-strength UNIX foundation hard at work to ensure that your computing experience remains free of system crashes and compromised performance." The term "crash-resistant" is not at all the same as "crash free."The "-resistant" language is widely used in advertising ("water-resistant, fire-resistant) to suggest good but not perfect. There is no evidence presented that this claim is false and plenty of reviews of OS X suggest that it is true. (e.g. "Mac OS X offers the best combination of elegance and stability of any operating system. " [30] "To put it simply: No desktop offered by Dell or Hewlett-Packard or Sony or Gateway can match the new iMac G5’s combination of power, elegance, simplicity, ease of use, built-in software, stability and security. " [31]
The term "refuted" is POV editorializing. Advertising claims are not mathematical theorems disproved by a single counter example. Wikipedia advertises that it is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Yet some individuals are banned from editing. others cannot because that can't access the site and, in any case, Internet access isn't free.
The first citation that supposedly refutes Apple is an article in The Register[32] from before the Ad campaign and before the version of software the ad campaign refers to was released. This has been pointed out on the talk page, so it's continued inclusion is very disturbing.
The second citation is from "Ask Apple Matters" reader forum. essentially a blog. The forum includes several reports of crashes, at least half of which were attributed to hardware problems. No one, including Apple, disputes that operating systems can crash if the hardware fails. It's like citing that article on coma as proof that some humans can't edit Wikipedia.
Finally there is the question of including the kernel panic screen. The mere fact of its existence proves nothing about the stability of OS X. No one, including Apple, currently disputes that OS X can crash. Nor is it "equivalent" to the Windows Blue screen of death which has a wide public awareness. Including it in the article appears to be a POV attempt to settle the score.

Proposed wording (agr)

While I still question whether the crashing matter is notable enough to include in the main Apple Inc. article, I would find the following wording otherwise acceptable.

In August, 2006, the AppleMatters web-site carried comments by Aaron Wright questioning the veracity of Apple ads that suggest Macs don't crash. [33] Apple currently advertises Macs as being "crash resistant." [34] A number of commentators have praised Mac OS X for its stability.[35] [36]

I would also accept a separate section in the Notable Litigation of Apple Inc. article that described the reseller suit, as proposed by moneypenney above. --agr 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an outsider to the previous controversy, this smaller section is way more encyclopedic than the ones proposed above, which are clear hatchet jobs and attempting to portray the company poorly through a very obvious anti-Apple POV. Even mentioning random accusations by minor individuals unless it has become a big, newsworthy event covered by multiple sources, is highly questionable. See the WP:NPOV police for "undue weight". And the image is clearly only placed to try to lash out at the company and for no overall encyclopedic purpose. DreamGuy 03:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an outsider to the current discussion too. I've read all your arguments and I must say that I don't think that a "Criticism" section is an appropriate section to have in an article about a company at all. (In an article about a specific product it might be.) That the operating system Apple Inc. produces displays a message when a kernel panic occurs can't in any way be considered as a bad move by Apple Inc. Nor have they exaggerated how seldom their OS does in fact crash in their advertising, as pointed out by agr. The only point in the above that is worth mentioning, perhaps, is the fact that some resellers got upset at one point and sued Apple Inc. But if a comment about that incident is included in the article it should be under the "Litigation" heading, not anywhere else. iNic 04:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeboid Responce

The apple law suit link and the line for it is in responce to a request for a source to show that there are claims about apple's advertising being false, requested by you. I give a link showing a suit for false advertising, and this is now not good enough. You are correct it does not list "Crashing" as part of the false advertisement, but the line next to the source does not claim so either. It is also in a sectoin titled "Critism" not "Crashing"
The source cited for "current claims of being 'Crash Free'" does support that assertion. On apple's website you can find both "free of system crashes" and "It doesn't crash." I have asked for this time and time again, but if you take issue with the second listing there of "it doesn't crash" could you please prove to us somehow that it is an "Archived" page despite it not saying Archive in the link or on the page it self? Also could you please show to us how Apple Computer could overlook a revamp of their advertising like that? is there any history to show they tend to leave advertising up despite it not being current? but even if you list that, the statement "free of system crashes" speeks for it self. Apple's advertising people are not stupid. If they did not intend to tell people that OSX "remains free of system crashes" they would have not said it.
Apple Matters and the Regester both refute appple's claim of "free of system crashes" or in the context of past advertising (if you can show to us that the page in question is an archive) "Doesn't crash." what word would you sugguest here?
Could you please tell me then how Mac Magazine issue number 65 Sept 2000[37] also shows the claim of "it doesn't crash" in relation to OSX? thats two years before the Regester's article.
The apple matters link is not a forum or a blog. it refrences what people have said in a forum, but it is a news article from apple matters. as far as your statement "No one, including Apple, disputes that operating systems can crash if the hardware fails." if this is the case, could you show us where apple states "It doesnt' crash... except if the hardware fails."?
one of the two voters earlier addressed this one here[38]

Look. I have bent to requests up until now. The requirements and requests to justify this thing to stay up there have changed at every fulfillment of that request.

Its amazing to me how anything negative on Microsoft's page (or General Motorsis held up, yet the moment something negative is added to Apple's article, its a "hatchet job" or "POV." The very non-existance of a critism section on this article compaired to a Critism section on every other corperation's wiki article is POV. ARG's proposed line there carries with it, an infalacy of apple caliming "Crash Resistant" while a sentance later they say "Free of system crashes" (as it seams listed all over the place when an application crashes in OSX), and also your line AGR contains a "yea but..." statement, POV Pushing. The Apple Article mentions in many places about OSX's stability, yet when a critism is listed, you feel it nessesary to list it yet again, and outsiders here feel that it is approperate. To correct someone's mind after a critism is listed is not the palce of an encyclopedic entry.

The approperateness of a "critism section," much like the valadity of the Apple Matters source, is not my saying, but what is currently being used or going on in Wikipedia.

I don't mind a critism section be listed in addation to information added to the litigation section, but hopefuly the listing of the Mac Magazine article will help to add to Mmoneypenny's sugguested listing. I have altered my listing accordingly based on this discussion.--Zeeboid 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness of criticism

I'm glad to see that we've got some input from some other parties as well. The more input we get, the better consensus I believe can be reached.

A concern has been brought up regarding whether "criticism" sections are useful in corporate articles at all. There is nothing in guidelines or policies that gives us a clear answer to this question, and I cannot find anything in the Manual of Style to guide us here, either. As a point of reference, I have checked 10 selected corporate articles for "Criticisms" or related sections. Of the ones I randomly picked, Microsoft, Ford Motor Company, ExxonMobil, Citigroup, Boeing, and Dell all have such sections, while Charles Schwab Corporation, Home Depot, and FedEx did not. While this cannot be construed as any kind of policy, I do believe that it indicates a general consensus that sections reporting criticisms of a company's practices or behaviors are, in general, accepted by the Wikipedia community. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Solutions

Okay, after a week or so of time we've gotten a few proposed solutions, as well as some discussion generated by those proposals. Here is a breakdown of the proposals, as I interperet them.

Zeeboid's (modified) proposal is essentially a rewording of the existing section. It elaborates on the claims by more specifically pointing out the source of the "Doesn't Crash" claim by mentioning the Switch campaign, as well as clarifying the sources.

Mmoneypenny's proposal essentially segregates the two issues by putting the reports of the lawsuit into a seperate subsection from the claims of being "Crash-Free", while largely retaining Zeeboid's wording.

Agr's proposal is a further modification by rewording the "Crash-free" claims section. The kernel panic screen is omitted.

Thank you for providing these proposed solutions. Each of them are valuable contributions to resolving this debate, and I think each one has certain strong points going for them. To that end, I am going to offer the following proposed compromise based upon all 3 of your proposals.

The compromise is as follows. The section split by Mmoneypenny should be made. Furthermore, the subsection touching on the lawsuit should be moved from the "Criticisms" section into the "Litigation" section. The link to the Register article is sufficient to establish notability of this lawsuit, however for the sake of continuity it should be included with the rest of the litigation information. Expansion, as noted by Mmoneypenny, would be highly requested.

The proposed wording by Agr should largely be followed for the "Criticisms" section. I believe that it is the most neutral, well-worded proposal thus far. It is important that we allow critical views of Apple to be presented in the article per WP:NPOV, but also in that vein we must be careful not to appear to be endorsing the criticism. Adding a statement that many professionals view Apple systems as being stable is appropriate as well. I do feel a little tweaking of the section is called for, and the inclusion of the kernel panic screen is appropriate for illustrative purposes - and for a sense of "fairness" between this and the Microsoft article, with which this will inevitably be compared.

Here is my proposed wording for the section to appear under "Criticisms".

Moderator proposed compromise

Mac OS X "Tiger" kernel panic screen. This error message is similar to the "Blue Screen of Death" on a Microsoft Windows machine.

In August, 2006, AppleMatters, a website devoted to Apple products, carried comments by blogger Aaron Wright questioning the veracity of Apple ads that suggest Macs don't crash. [39] Apple has previously advertised their products as being crash-free [40] and currently advertises Macs as being "crash resistant" [41], and a number of commentators have praised Mac OS X for its stability. [42] Apple has also acknowledged the kernel panic [43] and other crash-like issues in their technical support documentation. [44]

Okay, there you go. Please provide some feedback on my proposed compromise. What I am aiming to do is try and cull the key elements from all of your proposals, and meld them into one solution in hopes of finding a compromise that most, if not all of us, can find agreeable.

Note that I am not asking for a voting process on this compromise. If you do find it acceptable then indicate such, if not, then by all means point out what you feel is lacking and offer suggestions on how to improve upon it. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As this is written, I do not feel it deserves mention in the company's main article. On the OSX page, sure. But "a blogger said this, the company used to say this, now says this, etc." just doesn't satisfy the criteria for inclusion in (already too long) article about company that's been around for over thirty years, derives much of its income from other sources (hardware, ipods, itunes stores), and has only marketed this product (OSX) for 6 years. So what if the Mircosoft article has the BSOD on it? This isn't about two articles about two radically different companies being exactly the same, it's about what's really important to include in an encyclopedic article about Apple, not one about OS X, not one about how Apple relates to Microsoft, and not about Kernel Panics. -steventity 19:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, I think the lack of significant sources (CNN, Fox News, BBC, NYT, Trib, FT, Time, AP, UPI, Bloomberg, ABC, etc.) about the crashing problem and the company's use of "Crash free" or "free of crashes" shows that this issue is not one which deserves mention in the company's entry. There's a criticism section in the OS X article where this would fit very apppropriately. I support its inclusion there. -steventity 19:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am not arguing that these should be the only sources used by the wikipedia, or that this proposal does not belong in the wikipedia, only that it does not seem to be significant enough to merit a mention on the Apple Inc. page. As I said, I support it being added to the list of criticisms about OS X. Also, Zeeboid, if you're not a big fan of blogs being used as sources, then why support their continued use? Shouldn't you try to eliminate them and find better sources, even if everyone only does it on a few pages? Shouldn't we change the precident rather than accept it? Aren't we trying to make wikipeida better and more reliable? -steventity 20:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steventity, If you limit items to require "significant sources" like the ones you listed, then I fear you would have to re-wirte most articles in Wikipedia. Blogs are even are used as sources in many places (though I am not a big fan of this, i am simply following what I see).

Arkyan, Your re-write is (in my opinion) allmost there (thank you for your assistance with this by the way), however two qualms... I wonder why Apple would write "free of system crashes" on their switch page, and I feel that the removal of that line to a claim "Crash-resistant" is a bit off. I propose we include both lines with the "crash resistant" statement and the "Free of system crashes" statement. I also feel with their advertising, if this is the case, it important to mention their compairision to OSX crashing to that of a toaster or a kitchen sink. between this, and their history of claims of OSx "it doesn't crash" I don't believe it to be a streach at all to note what they currently say as well... "ensure that your computing experience remains free of system crashes." The implication is even in their adds still: See Add Restart.

Also, i question the need for the "yea but..." statement, when Apple's praise is listed elsewhere in the document. as I noted earlier, the user can read the whole article, its not our place to include "yea but..." statements on a controversial issue. the user will make up their own mind with the more then ample praise throughtout the article compaired with the limited critism.--Zeeboid 19:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeboid, I have a question specifically directed to you. So far the impression I get from the other users is that they would be OK with the inclusion of this criticism information on the Mac OS X article rather than here on the Apple page. I'd like to know your thoughts on that idea, if it would be an acceptable compromise, or at the very least something to consider as part of a compromise? Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arkyan, personally I am in favour of the compromise you have proposed. It seems in vain to try and remove the section completely, but it adopts a neutral stance of tone that has been badly wanting so far. I am keen to see that the claim ‘It doesn't crash’ does not make a re-appearance, because it seems common sense to me that this is no longer part of Apple's current advertising campaigns—it can only be found by deliberately seeking it out on a very obscure part of the Apple website; hardly something Apple is currently pushing at the moment.

One further concern that has not been addressed (though perhaps I'm wrong to think it significant) is the dirth of existing criticisms of Apple's advertising on this matter. Consequentially, it appears that the article itself is criticising Apple not reporting on existing criticism. Surely there's something wrong here? I hope that we continue to press forward to reach a consensus. --Walafrid 14:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I liked the inclusion of the ‘yea but…’ sentence; it adds balance. --Walafrid 14:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Walafrid.Mmoneypenny 21:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arkyn, to answer your question: I don't believe it is fair, to limit this information off of Apple Inc's article when it is included on Microsoft's article. this does not seam balanced. This is the exact same info, yet so many don't want it listed under Apple's article. Perhaps this information should be removed from Microsoft's article? If this is the case, is everyone here going to now work at getting that done?

The critism about Apple Inc here is relivent to the Apple Inc page, just like the critism about microsoft, and all the other busnesses that have critism on ther page... is relivent to those pages. And as far as the "yea but..." sentance, it does not add balance, it removes it. You have all that "yea but..." information throughout the article, yet feel it nessisary to ALSO include it in a critism section? From what I understand about a "Critism" section, is it contains "Critism..." Not critism with explinations of why that critism is, in the opinion of some, inaccurate.--Zeeboid 16:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel it it necessary, and for me it's a matter of tone. It allows bad points to be made without jeopardising the neutrality of the article. To be blunt, we're going round in circles. Again, I feel I should reiterate my point from above: should the criticism section criticise Apple or report on criticism? And one further question: why must the article for Apple Inc be identical in every respect to Microsoft's in order to be balanced? --Walafrid 16:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all have to concede the fact that the Microsoft vs Apple debate is one of the oldest and strongest rivalries that exist on the Internet today. With that it is indeed important to ensure that Wikipedia does not seem too overly critical of one over the other - but then, as you point out, "Criticism" sections here should not be our criticisms but simply touching on the subject of other sources' criticisms of the subject.

As far as the "Yeah but" sentence that seems to be causing some consternation, it is added to provide balance to the statement. Whenever a counterpoint exists to a point, it is our duty to include both sides of the statement to ensure a neutral point of view.

How about this for a compromise. Most of us seem to be okay with having the information regarding this criticism. I do have to concede that Zeeboid has a point about keeping the information here on the company page rather than the OS page - it is not a criticism that the OS is unstable, it is a criticism of Apple's claim regarding stability. Arguably it is a matter of wording, and I think we need to address that. To that end I'm going to create a section break and pull out a few point-by-points and try to get a feel for consensus on each one. Bear with me and then feel free to comment on the new section below once I've got it added. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

I believe we are making some progress here. Feel free to continue commenting on the above proposed compromise, but there is one thing I would like to bring up seperately down here.

Based on the proposals and feedback thus far, it seems we are all largely in agreement that the information regarding the lawsuit about false advertising along with the link to the Register article that sources it is better located in the Litigations section. Unless there are any objections to this, I am hoping we can call that half of the debate resolved, and proceed with moving it where it belongs and focusing on the remaining half of the discussion regarding the inclusion of the crash/kernel panic issue.

Is everyone ok with this assessment? Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THe move sounds good to me. And I support expansion of the litigation with the retailers on the litigation page. -steventity 22:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above.Mmoneypenny 08:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Walafrid 14:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... it's certainly not at all notable within the broader history of the company and was only placed there by someone with a pretty clear anti-Apple bias. NPOVing and moving to where it's more appropriate is the best solution. DreamGuy 21:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, are we talking about including it in the Notable litigation of Apple Inc. article? I don't think it is at all important enough to go in the main article. Also the suit was not primarily about false advertising.--agr 04:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The litigation article would seem to be the more natural target for this information, particularly once someone takes the time to flesh it out to provide more context about the lawsuit. It may warrant a very brief (one line or so) mention under the litigations section of the main article, however, there would be no need to expand the information given there. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is relivent in the litigation section, HOWEVER the litigation info in question, is where it is, is to show the relivence of the critism info, and the image. If it is moved to the litigation section, you need to refrence the litigation section when it comes to the critism section here. I fear that moving the info out of the critism section, then the critism section will cease to exist, and others will argue once again, that the data is not sourced, or what have you, and nix it. All you whom agree here, Lets see what you plan to move where and what the critism/litigation changes will be. The litigation in question here is a component of the factual and refrenced critism of apple's being "free of system crashes" or "it doesn't crash".

So, lets see it. If you move the legal stuff over, how will the Apple "it doesn't crash" critism stay? --Zeeboid 16:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to note, the litigation here that some want moved, is absent (short of a refrence to the statement in the first line) of the origional version that is currently up. I would like to see what you all are thinking, but I am thinking the litigation info listed on this page above, be moved, and the critism section remain more like it is currently on the Apple inc page.--Zeeboid 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "litigation stuff" in question is the link to the Register article that references the lawsuits claiming that Apple was favoring their own retail outlets at the expense of independent Apple dealers, the one located at [45]. This seems to have nothing to do with the "doesn't crash" complaint. Are we talking about different lawsuits here? Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the lawsuites in question here support the listing about apple and fraud or false advertising, which is what the whole "it doesn't crash" thing is about.--Zeeboid 13:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator compromise - detailed discussion

Okay, after a while to allow people to comment we've got some more information going on, and while we have progress we still have a little more ground to cover. Let's try to break things down point by point.

Feel free to comment on each individual issue. The reason I am breaking it up like this is so we can tackle each issue independently of the others. I am hoping to offer a new compromise after some more input on this from you all.

This isn't a binding vote or poll but I would appreciate if everyone interested could indicate which position they support. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is criticism more relevant to the company or the product?

The link to the Applematters website appears to be critical of the claim that Apple computers are more stable than they are. Does this constitute a gripe with the company and its advertising? Or is it more critical of the stability of Mac OS rather than the corporate claims of stability? Assuming we keep the information, where do you support placing it?

Personally, I think the criticism is about Apple and its claims as opposed to any perceived instability of the OS. It is because Apple did claim and does claim that OS X is "crash-resistant/crash-free/does not crash" that the criticism is directed at Apple. If we are going to place it anywhere, I would support placing it on the Apple page.Mmoneypenny 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: How about placing it under the Advertising section on the Apple page? It's the advertising that is being criticised, the section is bigger and would accomodate the extra couple of lines, it removes the tiny "Criticism" section which looks like it's been stuck on to the article with double-sided sticky tape and we could get rid of the initial: "Some of Apple Inc's past advertising claims have come under fire[66] for claiming that Mac OS X “doesn't crash”" which is blatantly misleading (sorry Zeeboid) because the advertising claims DO NOT relate to OS X crashing.Mmoneypenny 19:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the thinking. Move in favour of Mmoneypenny's proposal.--Walafrid 20:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is apple refering to then when the claim "crash-resistant/crash-free/does not crash" The proposed version I have up is not so misleading: "Some of Apple Inc's Advertising claims have been the subject of lawsuits including false advertising and fraud[17]. Apple's past claims "it doesn't crash"[18] and current claims of being "free of system crashes"[19] are refuted by..."?--Zeeboid 14:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't make any sense of what you're saying here. Are you willing to give any ground on the proposal that the no-crashing claim has not come under widespread criticism in these sources? Apologies for being so direct. --^Walafrid | _talk 14:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is not an insurmountable barrier to understanding: Linking the fact that Apple has been sued by Apple resellers for, basically, favouring their own stores and Apple's claims that OS X doesn't crash is misleading, even if the original suit by the resellers included "false advertising" because we can be pretty sure that the Apple resellers were not suing Apple because Apple claimed that OS X didn't crash. I'm running out of ways to try and explain this but it is MISLEADING to link the two, it weakens the whole section and makes me want to remove the entire thing altogether because we are not trying to mislead people. If we look at Zeeboid's proposed version "...Apple Inc's Advertising claims..." have NOT been subject to lawsuitS (plural) nor are the advertising claims subject to fraud! If we keep those two statements, which deal with entirely different matters, together I would "vote" to get rid of the whole section.Mmoneypenny 16:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmoneypenny, thank you. That was the point I was trying to make, but you put it much better. --^Walafrid | _talk 16:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apple has been sued, for false advertising and fraud, that is correct. What part of "False Advertising" is not linked to apple's "Advertising claims"?--Zeeboid 18:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again: What is apple refering to then when the claim "crash-resistant/crash-free/does not crash" if not to OSX?--Zeeboid 19:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference given (the Register article) does not refer to false advertising about being crash free. As Mmoneypenny stated. -steventity 19:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were several refrences given, you are missing a couple of them, and the proposed sentance above removes any misleading... but the question still stands unanswered...

Mmoneypenny's proposal of getting rid of the line: "Some of Apple Inc's past advertising claims have come under fire[66] for claiming that Mac OS X “doesn't crash”" has already been dealt with as the line has already been replaced[46]. Mmoneypenny then said "because the advertising claims DO NOT relate to OS X crashing" so I asked if that is the case, "What is apple refering to then when the claim "crash-resistant/crash-free/does not crash" if not to OSX?"

Help me out here, because from what I can understand, Applematters and the Register both refer to Apple's crashing dispite the claims spicifically saying for example:

Apple Matters: "It turns out that the whole “no-crashing” policy in Mac OS X Tiger is a bit of a lie after all. If you cast your mind back to the recent ‘Get a Mac’ ads, you’ll recall one advert, called ‘Restarting’, taking the biscuit out of Mr. Windows for constantly crashing at random intervals, whilst our friend, Mr. Mac, stood there arrogantly with little patience for his PC friend. Mr. Windows, it’s time for you to point and laugh, provided you don’t crash in the process of course."--Zeeboid 21:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it belong?

The consensus above seems to be mostly in favor of allowing this information to exist somewhere, but I would like to clarify. Regardless of the final destination, are you okay with this information being on Wikipedia at all?

I think the consensus is in favor of allowing it to exist somewhere because we are mostly agreeable people who want to reach a compromise about this issue, not because we think that the issue is particularly notable. I would also hope that most of us agree that this is not the most important thing about Apple, nor the most important criticism that could be made, this can be seen by the sheer lack of people in the streets/on the web protesting about the false advertising and/or that their Mac is constantly crashing.Mmoneypenny 19:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I agree. In the interests of accounting for all points of view I do see it having a place on the ’paedia. --Walafrid 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, no, I do not think this matter belongs in Wikipedia. Apple Inc. is one of the most famous companies on the planet. Every hiccup in its operations is major news. There is no reason to relax the reliable source and notability requirements stated in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Indeed, the absence of reporting on this matter in the mainstream media is strong evidence that it is not widely considered a problem. Even the AppleMatters web page on which this entire discussion is based uses tentative language. If AppleMatters thought they were on to an important story, they would have followed up with additional reporting and commentary. They didn't.

Sure it does. if "every hiccup" in its operations is major enough news, why is there no critism section? The sources I have listed, have proven themselves under "wikipedia's policies and guidelines" until, low and behold, now, so I don't have faith in that line of reasoning.--Zeeboid 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I particularly object to the inclusion of the OS X kernel panic image. There seem to be two justifications given for its inclusion. First, that it "proves" that OS X crashes. There is no need for such proof since Apple admits crashes happen and it is common knowledge that all operating system crash if there are serious enough hardware problems. The mere existence of the screen, in fact, proves nothing, since every operating system goes through a debugging stage where crashes happen and need to be reported and tracked (OS X logs them).

Yes, you did so also when this was voted on a month (or so) ago (as noted under POV in the Apple Talk page). I have strived to meet every qualm braught up, but I fear there is nothing that can be done to meet your requirements. thankfully we have policy and this process.--Zeeboid 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second argument for the inclusion of the kernel panic screen it that the Microsoft article has one so, for fairness, the Apple article should have one too. I find no basis for this in logic or Wikipedia policy. The inclusion of the crash screen in the Microsoft article is supported by stories in the New York Time and and CNN. Many more mainstream media sources could be provided. The BSOD article lists numerous references in popular culture. Nothing remotely comparable exists for the Apple kernel panic screen. To tag one company with another company's problem seems to me to be POV at its worst and the very opposite of fairness.

You argue that the KP be removed yet similar information exists under other articles dispite your 'requirements' listed. I am not a fan of hypocrisy.--Zeeboid 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for including criticism of Apple. There is plenty of it that is easily sourced. If there is a consensus on the desirability of including the compromise language proposed, I am willing to go along, but I don't think it should be included just because of one editor's strong opinions. --agr 10:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Yeah but" sentence

The "yeah but" sentence was tacked on to the end of the paragraph in an attempt to provide balance and counterpoint to the claim. Assuming the information about this criticism is kept, should the counterclaim sentence remain in the paragraph?

I like the "yeah but" sentence, it evens out a one-sided argument (regardless of what is said in the rest of the article) and it is a form found throughout Wikipedia articles to allow people to see both sides of the argument and also appreciate that the world is very rarely black and white, but rather a shade of magenta. Keep.Mmoneypenny 20:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote “Stay” too. Most readers will take the gist of the criticisms, I think, and it keeps the paragraph appearing balanced. --Walafrid 20:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This information is included elseware in the article. To include it in a "critism" section is POV. A critism section should contain "Critism" not "Critism plus any data to refute critism." Unless you would like to rename the section "Critism plus refutations" I highly object to any "yea, butt..." statements that exist elseware.--Zeeboid 19:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep provides balance. -steventity 19:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do they "Provide balance?"--Zeeboid 21:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It provides balance by showing OSX has recieved praise for its stability, and is not, as could be inferred from the some of the paragraph, prone to crashes. -steventity 22:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It removes balance by including this informaiotn in a critism section, while the information in question is listed throughout the article. no where does the proposed paragraph give the impression "prone to crashes"--Zeeboid 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for moving forward

There seems to be agreement by all but one of the editors participating in this discussion that the moderator's wording is better than what is there now and that it belongs in the advertising section. I don't think unanimity is required, nor does it seem achievable here. I would propose that this change be made now and that moderation continue on the broader question of whether this material meets Wikipedia standards for inclusion, perhaps by seeking the opinion of other neutral editors.--agr 22:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. It's an improvement over the misleadingly sourced and written section that exists on the Apple page now. -steventity 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to happen. The above discussion is going round in (the same) circles. Mediation does not work when the most vocal party is not willing to give any ground. --^Walafrid | _talk 23:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank Arkyan for all his help so far, there is no doubt that he/she has been instrumental in improving the article and sharpening our thoughts. It does seem that we are starting to reach an impasse. I would like to see what Arkyan thinks but I cannot help but feel that agr's proposal is "fairest." Mmoneypenny 08:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. I appreciate that Wikipaedia does not favour the "fairest" article, in that we don't allow every person with a POV to come along and state it (which would be "fair" to everybody) but we should aim for an article with which the majority of people can relate and understand. If someone repeatedly finds themselves in a minority perhaps it is because they are mistaken, rather than that everybody else is conspiring against them.Mmoneypenny 09:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far Mmoneypenny's sugguestion for the critism section is on the right track. as listed, with a little fleshing out, that would work, and I feel is a far better fit then the moderator sugguestion (no offence). As far as this information meeting standards, AGR, we wouldn't be here if it didn't... it would have just "been removed"--Zeeboid 14:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addationally, its not aobut "conspiring" though I would expect anyone to be cautious of removing information that is something other the "posative" from a wiki article on a topic with self proclaimed "Cultish" followers[47][48][49][50]. Why do you think no critism section exists currently? Because this article is heavaly protected, and when it was voted to keep the section we are discussing long ago, I thought this issue was done with until new reasons (as I pointed out above) kept appearing to remove. adding "Yea But..." statements in a critism section is not acceptable, as by looking at the examples of Critism sectoins listed by Arkyan above, they do not contain "yea but..." statements. and neither should this one.

But yea, you want to move forward, I sugguest working with Mmonneypenny's proposal.--Zeeboid 14:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with updating the page according to the most current proposal we have while the discussion on the topic continues. I will go ahead and implement it after I am done with this comment.

I'd like to take just a little moment to have everyone consider what consensus is all about. Consensus is not the same thing as unanimity, but rather, when everyone "agrees to disagree" and abide by the outcome. By that same token consensus is not a majority rules system .

Based on the discussion thus far and the issues presented, the majority of the editors involved are willing to accept the criticism on the article. The majority feel that presenting evidence of a counterclaim to the criticism is appropriate. However in each case we have some dissent and disagreement.

As has been stated previously this is just an informal mediation, and that is why we've been trying hard to come to a mutual agreement. Nothing I say or do will be binding and that is why thus far I have refrained from "making judgements" or "conducting polls". I would very much like to be able to reach a conclusion on the matter without having to resort to formal intervention like arbitration. I believe we have been able to come to a number of compromises that address some concerns and are currently at a solution that is more agreeable to everyone. It does not completely satisfy everyone, however, and I doubt that there exists such a solution that will make everyone "happy".

I will therefore pose a question to you all. Bearing in mind that this is in no way a binding "poll", would you be willing to accept the opinion of the majority and agree to a compromise solution that seemed the most agreeable to the most editors, even if it did not 100% satisfy you? Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a "yes" from me!Mmoneypenny 15:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Apologies that my tone began to betray some exasperation above. Arkyan, thank you sincerely for your wise comment. --^Walafrid | _talk 15:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

which one are you refering to when you say "the most current proposal we have"?--Zeeboid 16:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the one I proposed. I just put it there as a stopgap measure - this current question regarding consensus is not in reference to that proposal nor is it to gauge support for it. Right now all I want to know is, when the majority of people do decide to endorse a proposal, are you willing to accept that as consensus even if it is not necessarily the one you like most? Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in it being up up until this is settled, but without the "Yea but..." statement. Apple's stability is well known and refrenced elseware in the article, and other Critism sections as have been pointed out, do not contain "Yea but..." statements either. (Evidence supporting this standard can be found in: Microsoft, Ford Motor Company, ExxonMobil, Citigroup, Boeing, Dell) What of this will be put in the litigation section? with this stopgap measure?--Zeeboid 18:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The litigation section was updated as well per the proposal. Take a peek and see what you think. But, as I said, right now I'm less concerned with an up/down "Do you like this proposal" and more concerned with reaching a conclusion. The changes I made to the Apple article were requested and agreed with by 4 users and that's good enough as a temporary measure. It has no bearing on the final version, however. So if you could please let me know where you stand on the notion of reaching a conclusion via the method of consensus of the majority, as I said - "when the majority of people do decide to endorse a proposal, are you willing to accept that as consensus even if it is not necessarily the one you like most?" Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. While the "yea, but..." in a critism section now only exists under Apple inc and none of the other examples provided, and I am uphauled that it is here... we can work with whats up. now what?--Zeeboid 18:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few things: First, yes, I am willing to abide by the view of the majority here and I join in extending thanks to Arkyan for his efforts here.

Second, I would like to add information on the current status of the reseller lawsuits to the text you added:

As of 2006 Apple had reached settlements with all of the plaintiffs, including the bankruptcy trustee for one reseller that failed. The former principal of that company has appealed the bankruptcy court's approval of the settlement. Apple 10K p.41

This is well sourced and should not be controversial.

Third, I may not have been clear enough about the proposal for moving forward I made. I am suggesting that the "Criticism" section in the current Apple Inc. article entirely be replaced with the full and unaltered text in the first paragraph under "Moderator proposed compromise" above and that this paragraph be put under the Advertising head in the Apple Inc. article. I hope this is what the others agreed to, but it would be best if they reaffirmed that.--agr 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means add the update for that case, the information certainly is relevant and should be uncontroversial. I did use the full text from the "moderator proposed version" with the exception of a very minor change of a few words, but left it under "Criticisms". I think, at least until we reach a conclusion here, to leave it under that title. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, In its own Critism Sectoin, of which other critisms can be added.--Zeeboid 20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final proposals and endorsements

It's been a long road and a lot of discussion up to this point, and I thank you all for your patience and participation. It's been a learning experience for us all. Since everyone seems okay with the idea of seeking a majority consensus and abiding by that, this is our next and final task. To that end, we are going to finalize by asking everyone intersted in suggesting a final compromise.

I'm not asking that everyone write up a version of the section(s). If you feel one of the previous suggested proposals is the best way to go, then simply make a statement as to which version is the best. If you would like to suggest alterations to a previous proposal, then do so. Or, if you would like to suggest an alternate, not yet introduced proposal, here's your final chance.

I'll give it a couple days for everyone to voice their opinion. Once everyone has had a chance to submit new/altered proposals or simply endorse an existing one, THEN we will take a final tally of which version is ultimately the best fit and hopefully have reached a consensus as to which to adopt. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my vote then:

a) Move the lawsuit to "litigation" if it's notable enough (when you read the pdf file [51] you realise that a lot of people sue Apple for a lot of things) as it was only being used to shore up an unrelated argument.

b) Move the reworded section to the Advertising section on the main Apple page. I must apologise here because many moons ago I suggested having a "Criticism" section and now I seem to be backtracking. I still think a "Criticism" section could be supported but only with valid criticism which is notable and, unfortunately, Apple's claims about the stability of its OS just are not being challenged widely enough to make them a foundation for a Criticism section (IMO).

c) This compromise may not appeal to many because it keeps the criticism but loses the section. But, hey, that's what compromises are!

Again, I must confess to owning oodles of Apple merchandise and so may be biased! (I try not to be.) All the best.Mmoneypenny 20:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a difficult time follow the above conversation, especially as it looks like someone either wasn't signing their posts or some other person interjected replies inside of their comments. I look at a lot of articles so can't really go through and read all the back and forth. As such I am not even sure what the current suggestions are. But since people are talking about a majority vote (which I disagree with in general, as Wikipedia is not a Democracy and we should follow Wikipedia policies set by the full consensus of the community and not just whatever local majority can vote on an issue separate from that) I'm going to state my piece for the "vote" and people can interpret what I say versus current proposals:

We do not give undue weight to minority views, per NPOV policy. In this case it could be both the undue weight of some people complaining about crashes as well as the undue weight of an editor here who very obviously was trying to get information into an article as a means of POV-pushing. Compromising on this instance in a way that still violates NPOV policy only encourages people to do more and stronger POV pushing in the future so that the "compromise" view ends up being closer to the full POV pushing an editor wanted in the first place.
Mention that the OS crashes despite some ambiguous claims in advertising to the contrary certainly is not notable enough to be on the main Apple page. If there is ongoing litigation it might rate a short mention on the litigation page.
Any discussion of crashes should also carry discussion of any reports that exist comparing the OS stability to OSes from other vendors so as not to give undue weight to some small number of crashes being equivalent to larger and more common crashes elsewhere (presuming that's what those studies say, which is likely).
The image of the screen just doesn't seem to be all that notable, certainly not on the main Apple page. On the litigation page it might work if there is a lack of photos there and it's included just to have some image and not to indicate that it is more important than other sections without images.
And I recommend the people suggesting compromise take a long, hard look at the WP:NPOV policy to see how these controversies should be handled. Until notability is established, and especially considering the clear bias of the individual suggesting it, there would be no reason to mention it anywhere. But as an example of one of many lawsuits always ongoing and similar to other companies always having lawsuits, sure. But we need the proper context or else it gives a false view of the situation to our readers. DreamGuy 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in stating that Wikipedia is not a Democracy and that in the end policy trumps "local consensus" - but at the same time there is the problem that even well-written policies are subject to some level of interpretation. Even the NPOV policy, and the section detailing undue weight, is subject to this problem. What it boils down to is the fact that there exists no straightforward litmus test as to whether a viewpoint is small, minor, or extremely small. Applying the "multiple reliable sources" rule as per WP:N is not a bad way of going about it but this is not spelled out in the NPOV policy anywhere. My goal in this "compromise solution" is to try and reach a solution that all the involved editors feel is the most correct according to policy and guideline. If any one person is adamant that the solution reached does not sufficiently adhere to these policies then I am not standing in the way of escalating the issue further by seeking formal mediation or ultimately an official ruling on the matter from the arbitration committee (assuming they would agree to hear the case) but I am of the opinion that simple content disputes like this are best served by working toward a mutually satisfactory conclusion and not a simple "I win, you lose". Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arkyan, I very much appreciate your efforts here and your desire to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion, without an "I win, you lose" ending. But I think we also have a responsibility to the greater community. What is being discussed here is not a factoid about a Civil War battle or some fine point of Serbo-Croatian grammar. It is an allegation of wrong-doing by a major corporation. I believe that the inclusion of such an allegation in Wikipedia demands thorough review under Wikipedia core policies. I think the participants here should address this question first. I am willing to abide by what the majority here decides, but we should not rule out a conclusion that the crash material simply should not be included. I don't think your or our time will have been wasted if that is the outcome. If there is agreement that the material passes muster under Wikipedia standards, then we can proceed to questions of wording, placement and the like.

I think the edits made today have balanced the the presentation enough that we can take a little time to consider the question of includabiliy. I would encourage everyone here to review WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR before responding. --agr 01:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This demands no more then the same "thorough review under wikipedia core policies" then did the articles for Microsoft, Ford Motor Company, ExxonMobil, Citigroup, Boeing, and Dell, correct? What are your questions of "includability?" have these questions been raised for Exxon or Dell?

The lawsuit informaiton is notable enough for the litigation section, it is fine here.
Leave the critism section up. There is alot of critism out there for apple, just like Exxon or Microsoft or any of the copanies listed above.
If we do not give weight to minority views, as suggested by an editor above, then as defined by [52] then any group smaller then the larger group (49% compaired to 51%) view should not be listed here. DreamGuy would have a bear of a time tring to explain to us how minority views here are POV. also, I thought Wikipedia was a dictionary. Just because not everyone knows that CO2 is not the number one greenhouse gas, doesn't mean the information shouldn't be listed.
The opinion that "Any discussion of crashes should also carry discussion of any reports that exist comparing the OS stability" is complete bogus. This is POV Pushing at its worst. it amazes me how on some topics, its okay to list critisms (microsoft, Exxon) without this info, yet on other articles (Apple Inc, Global Warming) any critism listed must be cluttered with "Yea But..." statements, to disuade people from actually thinking about the topic. If you believe this way, any of you, then I emplore you to insert the "Yea but..." statements of support in the articles like Exxon, Microsoft, Dell, and any of the "skeptical" global warming articles. you can't have it both ways. Or perhaps we should remove any Global Warming article that is of a Skeptical view, or remove the critism under Microsoft, because i'm sure it can be argued that critism for Microsoftis a minority view, what with their products being used by 96% of the martet and all. Or perhaps we should remove informatoin about the LS1 Engine, because a minority of the population have a view of this engine. Heck, why not just hold a poll, and ask if topics are known by the public, and any topic or view that the majority is unaware of is just deleted? Why not delete Appple, as they are used by a minority?

My vote. Critism for a company that 96% of the population of users does not use is just as acceptable as critism for a company that 4% of the population of users does not use. Even this limited percentage of users can help explain the limited information when it comes to critism or crash reports, though as we all know, they do exist. Legal critism for a company that 96% of the population of users does not use is just as acceptable as critism for a company that 4% of the population of users does not use.--Zeeboid 13:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we are here to discuss the Apple article: does the material here meet these criteria? We, as editors of the Apple Inc. page, have to review the policies with respect to the way they apply to this page, irrespective of the decisions or considerations editors of other articles have (or have not) made. What do others think? --^Walafrid | _talk 13:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The material here does meet these criteria. You however can argue either way on any topic or rule. WP:IAR for example.--Zeeboid 13:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is relivent to our current discussion:PC-World Editor Quits Over Apple Story.--Zeeboid 14:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was more that the issue of other articles is a distraction. I'm afraid I simply don't have the time to address each of the points you made, but in general, I think you still need to address the question of sources. How can we deal with the fact that there is not widespread source material? Indeed, you have shown us sources that exist, but it seems to me that the wording of the section should be cautious in order to reflect this.

Which leads me to your point about the “yes but,” statement. It's almost like we're arguing over the colour of a red jumper here. For my part, it is a usual convention in balanced pieces to provide this kind of balance within statements. Perhaps read some articles on the BBC News website for examples. As Arkyan pointed out above, it the duty of a writer of an impartial piece to make reference to counter-points where they exist, in order to maintain the overall neutrality of the article and the section in question. It may not be my place, but it may help us all if you were willing to compromise on some of these points. I'll be happy to attempt to clarify on any point I've made if you'd like.

In general, I'm getting quite concerned that the tenacity of one editor will alone mean that their proposals win out. I'll admit that I own a few Apple products, and I happen to like using them, so I am biased in that respect. But, come to that, who is not biased? It simply does not follow that any reservations about criticism of Apple will be wrong because there are things that Apple can be criticised for. --^Walafrid | _talk 14:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concern. The only source for the claim that there is a controversy over Apple's ads touting OS X stability is one page from a help column on a self-published e-zine, AppleMatters.com. Even if that single comment had appeared in the New York Times, it would not be enough to show that a notable controversy exists. Wikipedia requires multiple, reliable sources for such claims. The story Zeeboid points to about a PC World editor quitting over a opinion piece being killed is indeed relavent. PC World can print opinion if it wants. Wikipedia does not. If a controversy isn't significant in the outside world, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

Also there is a whole category of articles about Apple on Wikipedia. Only the most significant material shold be in the main article. We have separate articles on Notable Litigation of Apple Inc. and Apple Inc. advertising. Indeed, there is a whole article on the Get a Mac campaign, which the AppleMatters article refered to. I think the editors of the Apple Inc. page can make a judgement as to where material should go. I don't think the reseller suit is notable enough to belong in the main Apple Inc. article, for example.

I'd be interested in comments from any other editors beside Zeeboid who agree that the crashing material belongs in the main article. Finally, I'd ask that we stpo the practice of interposing responses inside other editor's comments. As another editor complained above, doing so makes our discussion hard for others to follow. We should each be able to state our views without interruption.--agr 17:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping up

A concern has been expressed on multiple occasions that everyone has more or less made thier points and we are in danger of getting caught in a rather circular debate. That may be true.

Since the beginning of this case the disputed content has undergone a couple of fundamental changes, the most important of which being the splitting of the retail litigation out of the section regarding crashing.

I'm going to make a few recommendations for wrapping things up. It's fairly evident that if we can't come to a conclusion here, it's not going to happen without formal intervention. I really hope we can avoid that, so I will present to you my final recommendations and see what you think.

Regarding the litigation - Since being split off this section has undergone expansion and is more informative. I believe that most people are okay with keeping this information, as it is sourced and neutral. The concern as to whether it is "notable" enough for inclusion on the main page is one that I cannot qualitatively answer, as our notability guidelines are applicable to articles, not content within articles. It is reliably sourced and that is not questioned. I have noticed that the "Litigation" section on the main Apple article is more than half the size of the standalone article, and to me this seems to defy logic. My recommendation, therefore, is to move the new litigation information into the Notable litigation of Apple Inc. article, as well as paring down the section further to move the bulk of the section to the main article. The existence of the standalone article tells me that the litigation section here should, at most, be a short summary and not an exhaustive description.

Regarding the criticism - This seems to be the most contentious information. Again, notability as described in our policies cannot be applied to information within articles, and we cannot discount it merely on notability priniciples. The information is sourced but only weakly and there is also some concern as to whether it satisfies our policies for reliable sourcing. Finally there is concern as to whether this is even applicable to the company or more suitable to the OS. In that light, my recommendation is to preserve the information but move it to the OS article as information concerning the Kernel Panic screen. The "yeah but" information should be retained to keep a neutral tone to the information.

I understand some editors will not be happy with this recommendation but I feel it is the most fair, neutral and equally satisfactory compromise that I can come up with. It allows for the inclusion of this material which should at least satisfy the editors in favor of keeping it, while moving it to areas that are more palatable to the editors who are less keen on it.

Zeeboid, in particular, has found himself rather alone on his side of this debate. I can appreciate the vigor with which he is defending the inclusion of the information, but I would suggest to him that the strength of the opposition is large, and newer editors to this debate seem to have sided with. If this were a "majority rules" system the likely outcome would have been the simple deletion of this material, and I believe that in revising and moving the information elsewhere we are allowing for a compromise to satisfy all sides of the debate to some measure.

I urge all of you to consider this recommendation. As I have stated before, as an informal mediator my recommendations and opinions are not binding and if they are unacceptable to any of you then we will have to work to resolve that concern. However, at this point I feel that there is nothing further to add to the debate from the editors thus far involved. Possible routes of resolution beyond this recommendation would be seeking input from a broader audience, or again, more formal intervention.

Please let me know what you think about this recommendation. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not cool. if there was no criticism section in the other articles you listed earlier, I would not have a problem with it here. But the Excuses thus far for removing a criticism section from Apple Inc, have not been justified. find a policy that states that this information can not exist, not just "I don't think this should be on the page." However, even finding a policy to remove it, and one can find policies that say it should stay. I am using the standard already in place for the other articles listed above, including Apple's competition (Microsoft), and I fear that once this criticism section is removed, no one will ever let a criticism section exist on Apple's article no matter the reason given.

As I have stated, the reason to remove this information has shifted wildly from the start (even before the moderation), and as I assumed, would keep shifting. The strength of Apple Supporters on the Apple Wiki site I never doubted. This is why there has been no criticism section. I will not budge on this. The Apple Inc article, much like Microsoft, or Exxon, or Dell, or Nestlé, is justified in having a criticism section. There has been multiple sources (as referenced by AppleMatters and as AGR once again forgets the register) that have contradicted Apple’s claim, even in the process pointing out Apple’s advertising. With the recent PC-World editor that quit over PC-World scrapping[53][54][55][56][57][58] a article titled “Ten Things We Hate About Apple” I would hope people would understand my viewpoint. From my point of view, I see the defenders attack or remove or limit in any way any negative information (though completely factual as we all know) about Apple Inc. I am not on a mission to smear them, I just want these Wiki articles like Exxon, Apple Inc, Microsoft, or Dell to be consistant. I would ask you to assist me then in sourcing this information better, if you don’t agree in the sources I have found upon your requests. And its not just me[59]--Zeeboid 18:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the issue is whether or not to have a criticisms section in the article. The link you provide does indeed show there is support for the existence of said section but that is not the same as support for the criticism section as it exists. Unfortunately the sources you have been able to provide are not satisfactory to those involved in this dispute. I strongly urge you to reconsider your "will not budge" stance as it is in contravention to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. I would not ask you to recant your stance nor change your mind in terms of what you feel is appropriate, but when one editor bogs down the process of editing. Consensus is not unanimity, but it is reaching the point where everyone agrees to disagree and abide by the outcome. That's all part and parcel to a community project like Wikipedia, and the reason why I don't want to see it escalated any further - there should be no higher authority than the authority of the community and thus no need to seek judgement. There does come a time in arguments where, ultimately, one side may be forced to concede that perhaps their view is not the prevailing view. Again, if you feel that strongly about the issue then other avenues of resolution are available to you, it's just that honestly I don't see much chance for a different result. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arkyan, thank you very much for your patience and ongoing participation in this meditation attempt. I appreciate it. For my part, I find your recommendations very acceptable, and would be happy with the compromise solution. I notice, however, that Zeeboid has already responded in the negative. Please, for the sake of compromise and a good article, I implore you to reconsider your position and consider at least some of the arguments other editors and myself have made so far in this discussion. I only wish I had the time to prepare a more detailed response, but alas no; though it does seem to me that all your concerns are actually addressed above. Again, I am happy to proceed with mediator compromise. --^Walafrid | _talk 20:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes yes, I too I appriciate your assistance and your patience and all that, but As I said, if people don't feel the sources listed are good ones (Apple matters, which has been used multiple times ([60][61][62][63][64], and here[65][66]) as well as The Register being in Wikipedia Category: News websites, then those people should help find others that fit their own perception of notable. and improve on it and expand the critism section. I am happy to go forward with the compromise of the way the Apple Inc page is currently in relation to the discussion above, however the proposed removal of the critism section as it exists will not fly. Improve the section. I will not support its removal or the removal of the critism in "question". If the sources I provided (AppleMatters & Register) were satisfactory for multiple other articles on Wikipedia then I fail to see why they are all of a sudden considered not satisfactory here. If I did not have a arguement to stand on, It would not have gone this far.--Zeeboid 20:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't shout at me by using bold text. I stand by what I said before. I've commented on Arkyan's talk page about my position. Yours, ^Walafrid | _talk 20:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Arkyan has done an excellent job with this, and agree pretty much whole heartedly with his assesment and "wrapping up recommendation." I continue to support the move to the OSX page for this criticism of OSX. Thanks, and it's clear the consensus is with this proposal. -steventity 21:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to again add my thanks to Arkyan. I am comfortable with his latest proposal. I also want to let Zeeboid know that I have tried to find other sources and other editors involved in this discussion have said they tried too. On the many subjects where Apple is or was actively being criticized, such as its use of DRM, unwillingness to license technology, environmental concerns, overzealous enforcement of trademarks, stock option back dating, high iPhone price, etc. there are oodles of sources. Some of these areas are covered in the current Apple Inc. article. More could be added. But widespread complaints over their ads regarding crashing simply aren't out there. While I would love to have Zeeboid support for the moderator's proposal in spite of his disagreement, I understand that his strong feelings in this matter may not let him do so. Even so, I think we should go forwared with the moderator's plan. --agr 21:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Arkyan as a well-thought out compromise.Mmoneypenny 07:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed this discussion as an outsider and here are my thoughts (for what they are worth). While I do agree with the majority here and fully support the moderator's final proposal, I have some sympathy for the kind of argument Zeeboid uses. I have myself, for example, tried to make the definition of 'OS' (operating system) consistent across different articles at Wikipedia but without success. I failed because every article is pretty much a universe of its own, defended by its own set of editors with its own worked out consensus. There ought to be some way to introduce consistency-type arguments within Wikipedia across different articles in an effective way. Maybe there are ways to do this only that I'm not aware of them. iNic 02:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, even though I'm not against Zeeboids 'top-down' type of argument, I hold the opposite stance in this case. As I've said before, I don't think any article about a company should include a general Criticism section. Well founded general critique of a company completely independent of some context in space and time rarely happens, if ever. The persons in charge of a company change over time, as do the products and policies defining the company. In my opinion, to have a general critique section for a company is like having a general critique section for a country or its inhabitants. We all know the prejudice-based caricatures describing different countries and their inhabitants. I hope we all agree that that kind of "general information" have no place in an encyclopedia. The same holds for companies. iNic 02:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly concur with iNic's analysis. I would like to add that Zeeboid does not seem to understand what constitutes proper citation to verifiable, reliable published sources (an intellectual skill which is usually taught in freshman college courses in philosophy, English, and history). For an example of a rigorously researched article, see my work at Lawyer and Roger J. Traynor. In my opinion this seems to be a major cause of the current impasse.--Coolcaesar 07:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies on what is acceptable and what is not differ however, from "freshman college cources" requirements. As a person with a major in English and Technical Communications, I can understand where you are giong. Things in Wikipedia, however, would work aot diffrently if their requirements/rules didn't go either way on everything. Judging by the standards that are in place... not wether or not we like the information presented, shows us what is right.--Zeeboid 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is an impasse here. There seems to be broad agreement on how to move forward, possibly with one dissenter.--agr 12:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is an impase here either. However your opinion, in order to take action, should be backed up by policy. According to Wikipedia policy and history of cited material, as well as the large listing of pages with critism sections... the sources in question and the critism section itself are valid.--Zeeboid 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've gone through all the issues with sources several times. I think it is time to proceed with the moderator's proposal.--agr 23:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we have. As I said, I can go with the first proposal, including a critism section and the litigation section that was changed by Arkyan and as it exists currently on the Apple article... Not the most recient one. Is this what you are refering to AGR? Leaving the apple article as it is currently? If so, I can go with this, otherwise, No. this is not a democracy, this is a moderation. If you and I can not come to an agreement, then we can not move forward.--Zeeboid 14:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am, of course, referring to the most recent proposal by the moderator. And, while it would be nice to have your concurrence, we can implement it without your approval. Whatever "Wikipedia is not a democracy" means, it certainly does not mean each editor gets a veto.--agr 15:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may have been addressed already, but with regard to the criticism section: I agree that having well referenced, relevant, and reasonable criticism is good for the article, I think it is even better if this criticism is peppered throughout the article in each section where it is appropriate rather than confined to its own criticism section. I don't think the lack of existence of a criticism section implies at all that there is no criticism for the company and is directly contradicted by much of the body of the article. A good example of this is with the recent Greenpeace controversy. This information was put into the relevant section of the article and doesn't really need to be re-hashed in a separate criticism section. Ideally, this would be the case for the other articles that have criticism sections as well. Just my 2¢. Paul^C/_T+ 04:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing case

Let me take a brief moment to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion, whether at length or just briefly. Every bit of input has been helpful, I believe, in getting points across and helping to at least reach some kind of understanding on these issues.

During the course of this discussion we have come up with a number of proposed solutions, refined them, and discussed the options. I believe that this has enabled us to generate a solution that is able to satisfy the concerns raised on both sides of the issue and will thus reiterate the recommendation I made previously and suggest that it be adopted as the final version for the sake of discussion.

Unfortunately it appears that we are unable to reach any sort of unanimity on this problem. Ultimately that was the goal I had in mind when setting out, to come up with a solution that everyone could agree to. However, at this point I cannot see any change in the outcome with further discussion or compromises - particularly with statements to the effect that compromises on certain points, of any nature, will be unacceptable to some parties of this dispute. It is unfortunate that we have reached such an impasse and I feel that it ultimately means the attempt at moderation has been less than successful.

At the same time we seem to have generated a fairly broad consensus in favor of the proposed solution, and I see no problems in implementing it at this time. I understand that there will be some disagreement with this assessment, and as an informal, unofficial moderator I will leave it up to the discretion of the editors as to whether or not to implement the compromise. As I have stated consensus is highly in favor of this solution with only one voice of dissent, and in the spirit of collaborative editing and cooperation I once again strongly urge all parties to abide by this consensus.

If this solution is however unacceptable and any parties are unable to consent to it, I fear that this mediation attempt can do nothing more to resolve that situation. Please refer to the dispute resolution process for further information on how to resolve the issue if you find the solution presented in this mediation to be unacceptable.

Again, thank you all for your time and participation. As all opinions have been presented and there are no further evidence or arguments that have been brought up, I am hereby considering this informal mediation case closed. Bear in mind that case closed does not mean discussion closed - in fact I would hope that it does not and productive discussion on this issue and the improvement of the article in general continues among the involved editors.

Happy editing, and good luck to you all. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Arkyan. Since the mediation is close, I think it is appropriate to move continued discussion back to the talk page.--agr 16:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]