Talk:IPad/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about IPad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edit Request

Wired magazine was released May 27, 2010 --Robotdude101 (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The article says "by June," which includes late May. Once all three have been released, we can use the past tense. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ibookstore.

The article should include something about Ibookstore prices. I was looking to by one for my daughter who is an avid reader but after much research found that Ibooks are substantially more expensive then Kindle books or even retail bookstore bestseller discount prices(they are equivalent oor higher then full list hardcover prices). I would like to have the following included in this article;

Currently, Ibookstore prices are equivalent or higher than retail hardcover book prices except for Project Gutenberg books. Ibooks, also, does not allow users to read books from Kindle books or other online bookstores secondary to non-compatibility with Ipad's ePub system^[1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybobiscool (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not include prices unless they are cited by wp:reliable sources. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

iPad a PC

I'd say it was and this has recently been removed from the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well its been reverted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are a lot of people who bear a grudge or something against the iPad, some of them claim its not a "personal computer", for various reasons. The most creative one yet I saw was that "its not a personal computer because you are not totally free to put any sh*t on it you want, just like you were not free to run anything you liked on a mainframe, because the "guys in white coats" would not let you". So because with PC's you could, and with the iPad not "its not a PC", the reasoning goes, because a PC can be used "without intervening computer operator", and Apple is seen as the "intervening computer operator". This was one reason I didn't like the article to link to tablet PC. I predict we will hear more about people that claim the iPad "isn't something". And, you know what? They are right! "its something else altogether", but you can operate it yourself! Mahjongg (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick test to tell if something is a Personal Computer: Is the person who owns it able to and is expected to select the programs that run on it by themselves without having some gatekeeper in the way? If the answer is no then it is a locked down programmable device (like a Wii) rather than a PC. Hcobb (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, then the iPad is a personal computer, because you can install any available program (specifically written for the platform) yourself. You don't need a "computer operator" for that. That the library of available programs only contains programs that are checked for absence of malware or software of dubious quality is another matter. Mahjongg (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into a debate here on if it's a PC or not. Instead I'm going to jump right into Wikipedia policy on this issue as it stands now. In order for the article to claim the device as being a PC we need a reliable, factual, reference for the such. If one is provided then the article could/should state that the device is a PC. Otherwise, especially with this ongoing debate, it is against Wikipedia policy to state that the device is a PC in the article. JeremyWJ (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I figured the best place, assuming accuracy, on this would be to reference Wikipedia itself on this page Personal Computer. Reading through that, and all other things not-withstanding, I conclude myself the iPad to be considered a PC. JeremyWJ (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a sane conclusion, but am sure it will be challenged. I have not seen any mainstream publishers claiming the iPad is not a "Personal computer". That at the least should be a minimum requirement to even mention that some people contend the fact that an iPad can be seen as a personal computer. I'm not even sure myself if the iPad is a "PC", there are valid reasons to think otherwise, there are many discussions online about it, like here . I just think that the argument that tries to deny the iPad the status of "personal" by taking the ancient "if you need people in white coats (computer operators) to run it for you its not a personal computer (but a mainframe)" argument and then re-interpret it so that Apple is acting like the "intermediate operator" is a far fetched, and concocted argument. At the moment the reasonable thing to do is to talk about it as having the status of "personal computer". yes its not the same thing as a PC, but the similarities outweigh the differences. Mahjongg (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The articles I've seen talk about the iPda as an extension of earlier PDAs from Apple. Hcobb (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, but its an IPad, not an iPda D'oh!... Mahjongg (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I have a good argument to make for this actually. The only thing people are saying makes the iPad not a PC is the fact that you need another person (service/Apple) to get your applications. Lets step back though for a second. The only reason you need a 3rd party is due to limitations in the operating system (or firmware). Lets take a normal PC that most of us are using. If we installed an operating system that doesn't allow us to freely install software does that make our computer/PC not a PC? I don't think so. In other words, the argument people are making really is dwelling down to the operating system (iPhone OS) not the actual iPad (hardware). I think this makes any point people have thus far given for the iPad not being a PC mute. Thoughts, Comments? JeremyWJ (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you install Linux on a Playstation, does it become a PC or just a node in a supercomputer? Hcobb (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

a thought; most Linux systems (like Ubuntu) install software from a repository of previously packed software, through an installer (Synaptic) that only installs software from these repositories. Yes you can bypass this system, but for a normal user using the repository system is the norm. What is the difference between Ubuntu's repository, and Apples software store (except that Ubuntu doesn't sell software). They both only contain software pre-checked by a "trusted party" to make sure they don't contain malware or "rubbish". Nobody is contending that using software this way prohibits an Ubuntu system from being called a "personal computer". Mahjongg (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct, and we also all know that Apple's system can be hacked (unlocked). Its just a matter of time. Again I think the fact that makes this entire argument silly is the fact that we are discussing limitations in the OS (iPhone OS) and not limitations in the iPad hardware itself as the mitigating factor in it being a PC or not. JeremyWJ (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is really confusing, first stating that the iPad is a tablet computer and then goes on to say that "it established a new class of devices between smartphones and laptops." Well what is it then? Steve Jobs thinks it's somewhere between a handheld phone-size device and a full laptop. The iPad is essentially a giant iPod Touch. Would you call the iPod Touch a tablet computer? The iPod Touch article describes it as a a portable media player, personal digital assistant, and Wi-Fi mobile platform.68.41.65.226 (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No confusion, because one thing doesn't prohibit the other. Its purely a question of semantics what to call the thing, and after a period of confusion the market will decide what to finally call it. I'm calling it an iPad. Mahjongg (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it a Handheld game console instead of a PC? Hcobb (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, but no, it isn't! As by that logic a Netbook would be a "portable game device" too, as said it "all of the above,,,". Mahjongg (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy would be to find a reliable, qualified source and quote that. A quick Google fight shows 19,700 hits for 'the iPad is not a PC' versus 18 hits for 'the iPad is a PC'.83.108.205.51 (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The google results are meaningless, as nobody would comment on something that is expected (obvious), only on something not expected (non obvious). Thats said, the discussion whether "the iPad is a PC" should also take into account WHY people think that the iPad isn't a PC, or IS a PC. Is it "not a PC" because "it's not for personal use", or because its not a "Personal computer" in the normal sense because of other reasons. For example because its not "standalone" and it needs another PC to initiate, to backup, and to install updates. Mahjongg (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Ipad is not a "PC" it is a "Tablet PC" Apple have never said it is a PC however they have said it is a tablet PC on numerous occasions Guyb123321 (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Section on Foxconn

As I bought up on Talk:Apple Inc this shouldn't be included in the article as it isn't statistically significant. The suicide rate in the UK is 11.5 per 100000 and the suicide rate in China as a whole is 14 per 100000, that 9 people out of 300000 or so who work at the plant have jumped off a building this year and killed themselves is very sad - but it isn't remotely statistically significant as the suicide rate at Foxconn is only 6 per 100000.

In fact I think we should be praising Foxconn for having a suicide rate that is half of what it is in the UK or China as a whole and we should certainly give them credit for taking the matter seriously (though that should be covered on Foxconn not iPad). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This information is all WP:OR, and cannot be included; also, in an encyclopedia we do not praise anybody, nor do we hold a brief for any particular manufacturer or product; that would breach WP:NOP. If somebody in a WP:RS heaps praise on the factory, that is a different matter - but then such priase would need to be clearly attributed to the source. Mish (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well that's great, but I'm not attempting to include it in the article, just to explain the issue at hand. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but we cannot use WP:OR to exclude WP:RS either. The comparison doesn't work anyway - would need to compare workplace suicides between factory and country generally, or other countries, not with the suicide rate in the general population. Mish (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. However I found a reliable source to back it up - http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16231588. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless the text can show that the suicides are specifically related to the iPad, the entire section belongs in the Foxconn article. It is plainly irrelevant here. It would be relevant in the Apple article only if it were worded differently to discuss Apple's response to the suicides.--Jiang (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, a release from Apple, if reported in the media, would be a secondary source, and carry no weight than media sources.Mish (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is about relevance. It is not relevant here. And I don't get your statement. We usually do not use primary sources as authority here.--Jiang (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Independent report on working conditions

The Independent is one of the 4 UK national broadhseets, and a first-order WP:RS. On 05-27-2010, it ran a front page that consisted of the headline "A gadget to die for?", and an image of the iPad next to a photo of a you man who had committed suicide, followed by a two page report on the factory where the iPad is produced. This piece featured in the context of the UK release of the iPad the following day, and included a photo of a smiling consumer holding an iPad leaving an Apple store. The article does make clear that other mobile communication device suppliers apart from Apple, such as Nokia, also use the factory; however, the focus on the article was in the context of the release of the iPad, the working practices involved, the attempts Apple have made to curb these, whether this is implemented in the light of the demand, etc. After I inserted text about this, it was removed as WP:UNDUE - which is absurd when the article featured a picture of an iPad as the front page, on the eve of its release in the UK, with text to that effect. The text is clear that Apple are not the only firm who use th factory. This encycopledia is not a promotional outlet for technology manufacturers, and failing to include this from a WP:RS is itself WP:UNDUE given the hype that informs the bulk of the page. If an edit war to censor out this material develops, then I will be tagging the article for neutrality. Mish (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I was hoping to discuss the matter on the talk page, but again while the Western media may be getting very excited about this story I'm not really clear on how it is significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have explained this, if you cannot understand why a headline feature on a consumer product in a major national newspaper is significant - that is not really my problem. Mish (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done some more investigation and there seems to be significant coverage of this issue, so I change my mind and think it should be included in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added coverage of the issue from more sources and moved it to the manufacturing section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Mish (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to WP:AGF here, but some of this editing does raise a concern in my mind about whether there is a WP:COI going on here. I apologise if I have this wrong, but it just seems to me that persistent weaseling to avoid describing this situation in the sorts of terms used in WP:RS is a problem for me. Mish (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC) I swapped the sequence in your recent edit, as this was not the sequence in the article:

The toll (a dozen this year) is lower than the suicide rate among the general population in China. But the deaths have raised questions about working conditions in electronics manufacturing in general and in particular at Foxconn

Why Foxconn in particular? Because they manufacture for brand-leaders in the telecomms and computing industry, and this helps raise the profile of the issue through the media. (not intending to insert that comment) Mish (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I just re-read this. Mish, you think we should mention this in the article to help raise the profile of the issue in the media? Isn't that bordering on WP:SOAP? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not what I said - this is the reason why there is this focus in the media at this time. It is directly connected with the relase of the iPad in the UK, hence the text in the media. I made it clear this is in discussion, not for the article. the reason for inclusion is because of significant coverage in the national media. Mish (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

@Mish, there is no conflict of interest. Its just that while $130/month may seem low by Western Standards its not bad money for a developing country, and its far more than you get working 16 hours/day as a subsistence farmer. Sure I'd like it if these workers earned more money and had better conditions, but the fact that these jobs are available is a good thing as it is helping lift countries like China out of poverty - additionally the conditions at the Foxconn factories are better than average which is also good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Does anyone have a reliable source that says these workers were actually assembling iPads? Or even that they were working on Apple products at all? I quickly read through the sources on this article and a few of the sources on the Foxconn article and didn't see anything that explicitly says they were working on Apple stuff. If they weren't, I'd recommend this gets moved to the Apple Inc article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, but as was made clear, before the original text was butchered to make it more sanitary, this was the full-spread cover page of the Independent, which featured a picture of the iPad next to somebody who had committed suicide, with the headline "A gadget to die for". the text is all about the release of the iPad in the UK, and the working conditions at the factory where it is produced, and other factories. Nit-picking about which production lines workers were employed on is not WP:RELEVANT - trying to establish such links (or lack of them) is speculation. What is important is to maintain encyclopedia policy and guidelines - which are about accuracy, reliablity and verifiability. Thus, we focus on what was said in the newspapers, and that focus was on the iPad. We might not like this, or we may think it unfair, but we do not determine content, we go by what is said in WP:RS, not what we think might be true. If you don't like it, it needs to be taken to WP:AN/I, rather than edit-warring to avoid WP:NPOV.Mish (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you had read the articles, particularly the main one in the Independent, which has now been safely buried in the editing process, you would see quite clearly in the first paragraph:

The American electronics giant Apple was investigating damaging allegations last night that Chinese workers making its new iPad device were subjected to such "inhumane" treatment that some of them took their own lives by jumping off factory roofs.

The connection in the article is inescapable.Mish (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I did read that source. It says "allegations". As far as I can tell no-one has come up with any sources that definitively state that the people who attempted suicide were working on the iPad assembly lines. My concern is that the only reason the Independent focussed on the iPad in that article is because it was being launched the next day. If Microsoft were launching a Foxconn manufacturer product the next day, would the Independent have focussed on that product instead? If there aren't any sources that definitely state that these were workers on the iPad lines I don't think this belongs here, I think it belongs in the Apple article. Also worth adding to the Nokia article as well, given that they have products manufactured at Foxconn's plants as well. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is similar to what I said earlier. The report is what it is, in a reliable source, and states quite clearly that Apple are concerned about this. Take it up with the WP:RS if you don't like it. The report came in the stream of media publicity about the iPad because there was a media stream about the release of the iPad. That is what connects this to the iPad. The allegation is that this is connected to the manufacture of the iPad, and that there is documentary evidence about this. What is so hard to understand about this. We don't say that marketing hype is not related to the iPad - why do we have to apply a different standard to other reports about the iPad? Being an allegation is irrelevant - we document the allegation in a way that conforms to WP:NPOV, we do not censor national newspapers because we don't like what they say. This is OK in the UK, although I appreciate this is not the practice in some other countries. Mish (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've re-read the Independent piece and its pretty clear that they are only trying to make a story out of the Foxconn thing by connecting it to the iPad. The "documents seen by the Independent" sound like Apple's supplier responsibility report. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they did use the launch date and the spate of suicides in the previous months which coincided with the need to meet the demand for the product - the point is that they did do the piece, and they were not alone in this, because now three of the four main UK national broadsheets have reported or commented on this in the context of the launch of the iPad, and most feature the iPad in the headline or prominently in the first paragraph, most alleging that this is connected to the manufacture of the iPad:

The Telegraph
The Guardian/Observer
The Independent again , (additional to the first front page headline piece)

as well as Major regional newspapers:

London's Metro
The Belfast Telegraph

one tabloid:

Daily Mail

other UK sources, one capitalist and one communist :

The Morning Star
The Financial Times

as well as newspapers in the region concerned. When the headlines and opening paragraph include the iPad, and the allegations connecting it to the suicides at the factory, this cannot be ignored in this encyclopedia.Mish (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

foxcon section

i have removed this section from the man article. i think (WP:NPV) this information is notable enough to be on wikipedia. Perhaps it can go on its own article or on an article about foxconn if there is one. Perhaps the content should be linked from this or another apple article (and articles for other manufacturers who use foxconn). However, it does not relate specifically to this article or to the ipad. It does not belong here and as such i have removed it until a new home is found

Proposed text on UK reports about iPad & factory suicides

In the first five months of 2010 a series of nine suicides (plus two suicide attempts that resulted in severe injuries, and twenty suicides that were averted) had taken place at Foxconn's factory complex in Shenzhen, China.^[2]^[3]^[4] Conditions at Foxconn are said to be better than other factories in China, and the rate of suicides at the factory complex is less than the overall suicide rate in China.^[2]^[5] The Independent reported documentation revealing "widespread failures" in most of the 102 supppliers to Apple; Apple expressed "upset" about the situation, and that they intend to investigate the conditions at the plant.^[5] Concerns have been expressed about working conditions at Foxconn specifically, and in the electronics manufacturing industry as a whole - especially the long hours of overtime many workers were doing.^[2]^[5] Foxconn has started to improve conditions at the factory by providing mental health staff for their workers as well as fitting nets around the buildings so that further suicide attempts are less likely to succeed.^[2]^[6]

Nicoli nicolivich (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a gross violation of WP:NPOV, and I have no intention of continuing in this edit warring to exclude socially relevant information about the manufacture of the product - so I have to tag the article to reflect this. You cannot dismiss this by burying it in another article and removing text directly attributable to major national newspapers in this way. Mish (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now tagged this for NPOV check. Because of the way the text has been revised, the connection with the iPad in the original national UK sources has been removed. Now three of the major UK national broadsheets, amongst other WP:RS have carried artcles about the iPad and its manufacture at the factory where the suicides have occured, linking iPad production to allegations about the way the plant operates as the cause of the suicides. Thus, I see the recent removal of the material in an attempt to distance the product from its manufacture as a gross violation of neutrality in this article. Mish (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am coming here in response to the notice on the NPOV noticeboard. I read all of the discussion, most of the iterations of this story in the articles cited in this issue, and the proposed revision below.

User:MishMich is endorsing inclusion of a description of some suicides which various sources are connecting to manufacture of the iPad. I do not think that anyone is disputing that the sources are reliable or that they are presenting working conditions as a cause of the suicides. User:Eraserhead1 has found a source stating the the suicide rate at the factory is lower than the general population, but I find this to be complimentary to the other articles and irrelevant to the fact that reliable sources are making the iPad/suicide connection. User:Jiang has said that the issue is with the factory and not iPad; I would counter that some reliable sources are not presenting it that way. User:AlistairMcMillan has said that WP:SOAP is happening; I think the issue to too fresh and that an opposing response is coming from other reliable sources, and it will not seem like SOAP when those are placed. AM says that maybe this is an Apple issue; again, the sources are not presenting it that way. AM says the sources are just "alleging' and this is not proven fact. This is so, and it should be reported on WP as such. Various users are saying this story is sensational and it is, and when reliable sources identify it as such then those ought to be included.

The proposed summary below is NPOV and accurately conveys what reliable sources have reported. I support its posting on the iPad page and if anyone wants to link to the section on the iPad page from the Apple page or Foxconn page then they should do so.

I also find the subject matter to be sensational, but this is what is being said about the iPad right now. Does anyone dispute the reliability of the sources or the summarization below? If not that, then what is the problem? Blue Rasberry 02:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, aren't you guys making a bit of a leap from sources that talk about allegations of inhumane working conditions at the plant to explicitly saying "documented allegations of the inhumane working conditions involved in the manufacture of Apple's iPad"? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And, please by all means correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Sun Danyong was the only Foxconn suicide to have actually been identified as working on the Apple lines. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the sourcing is wrong, but I think its down to: http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. Are the alleged inhumane conditions just related to iPad manufacture, or related to everything manufactured at the plant? We seem to be saying the former. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Whereas really its the latter - as well as the rest of the industry - who are mainly at fault here, maybe this content should by in Foxconn or even be in High tech manufacturing with a short summary here (or probably better on Apple Inc.). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The only reason the UK papers are focussing on the iPad is because it came out in the UK this weekend. I don't think I've seen anyone dispute this here. Most of the other companies whose products are manufactured at Foxconn have all come out with statements. We all know this, so why are we pretending this is an iPad only problem? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM It doesn't matter why, what is true, what matters is whether this featured significantly in WP:RS or not. It did, and it focused on the iPad and Apple, and if you read the text it was also mentioned that this is not the only factory Apple use that has problems, and that the factory also produces for other brands. This has been referred to the appropriate forum for discussing neutrality, etc. I don't personally care what Apple's role was, or whether the reports in the media were fair or not; I have no views about Apple or the iPad one way or the other (I did have an iPod - great device - but it was nicked - and I have not used an Apple computer for over twenty years now - but liked it) what I do care about is that the policy and guidelines of this encyclopedia are followed - particularly when people try to curb what is allowed or not allowed in an article on the basis of arguments that bear no relation to those guidelines and policy. If this were a WP:BLP, there might be some room to manoever - but it isn't. Given all the positive details about promotion and so on, a brief balanced rendition of negative reports like this does no harm, and is not WP:UNDUE in the context of the rest of the article. This text needs to be left in, and removing it will not improve the article (or the encyclopedia).Mish (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this really doesn't feel right. Where is the consensus? You are the only person who is 100% insisting this has to be here. Everyone else has doubts, and has suggested it belongs in either the Apple of Foxconn articles. I'm sorry but your claim that you don't have a personal stake in this doesn't ring true. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, what I can do to assure you that I don't have a personal stake? I have already assured you that I do not work in any of the industries concerned (I have been doing a PhD in an unrelated area for several years now), that is not WP:AGF. I could give more detail about my background in IT/telecomms, which would show that I have never had any association with Apple or any of its competitors - but I am concerned this would be misread as boasting or something, so what I am saying is to reassure you that I have had no connection with IT/telecomms for ten years, and am now a social scientist. I do own a Nokia n900, but that would be more of a competitor to the iPhone than the iPad, and I got it because I got a very good deal. I own several computers that run different operating systems - none of them Apple's - 3 incarnations of Windows, as well as Debian and Ubuntu; I'd like to have an Apple, so I could see what the operating system is like. I did use the Apple database on one job, and I used their visual programming language on another, although I forget what they were called now. To me these are just machines with operating systems that let you do stuff. Beyond that, I don't know what to say to reassure you. I have not suggested that people here might have a personal stake in keeping this out of the article, because that would breach WP:AGF. Having worked on some pretty tricky articles in the past (try Violence against LGBT people), so I didn't expect the reaction here. There is advice somewhere to try and edit articles one has no interest in - and I did that with locomotives for a while - then I bought the Independent last week, and that inspired me to make my first edit on a technology article (here); it seemed pretty uncontroversial to me at the time. I do understand what you are saying about consensus, and that has made me wonder whether I have got this wrong - which is why I posted to the neutrality noticeboard, and the response seemed to agree that what I was doing was neutral. You must know that consensus does not trump policy and guidelines, nor accuracy and reliability - and that the quality of argument is as important, and that can outweigh consensus. If my argument is poor - fine. But as yet I am unconvinced that articles that have headlines, text, and photographs about the iPad, around the time of its launch, that deal with the allegations of inhumane treatment of workers leading to suicides at the plant where iPads are made over the five months before the launch - and at least one going so far as alleging that the suicides are connected to the manufacture of the iPad - have nothing to do with the iPad. I do not see that including this will be any barrier to the article achieving GA status. TBH, I much prefer editing within my own project fields - Sexology and LGBT studies - so I wish this could be resolved so I can get back to working on articles there, as I never expected to spend nearly a week hanging around here when I made my first edit. Mish (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

section break for Morning Star

Can we lose the sourcing from the Daily Mail and Morning Star? Neither of them are reliable sources... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Also the point "other media in the region" should be backed up with something from the Chinese, Taiwanese or Hong Kong media. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to that, but other people may do and wish to do so. Or if nothing can be found it could be removed.

The Daily Mail is a grey area. While the Mail alone is not a WP:RS, it is being cited in conformity with other sources that are, so it would be legitimate to include it - however, I'm happy to lose it as we seem to have plenty of bullet-proof sources without it. I would prefer the Morning Star stay, because we have the Financial Times there, and as the Morning Star is the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Great Britain, it is the main UK communist source to counterbalance the main UK capitalist source. The Morning Star is not a national broadsheet, but is certainly more than just a tabloid like the Sun, and like the Mail is in that middle-ground in terms of reliability. Given it is referenced in the context of material included in broadsheets, I am not sure why we would want to exclude the only British communist newspaper commenting on the iPad and its manufacturing conditions in factory in the only communist republic. So, a compromise, we lose the Mail, but keep the Morning Star.Mish (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the Morning Star is far left and isn't considered reliable. I've found the Taiwanese China Post raising concerns about the conditions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ditto with a China Daily piece. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Communist Party is not the Socialist Workers Party, it is a minority Party in the UK, but one of the oldest and most respectable left-wing parties in the UK; The CP currently governs China and Cuba, and until relatively recently governed Russia and much of Eastern Europe (where it is still draws considerable support). If you are going to exclude the Morning Star (UK newspaper) on political grounds, then you would have to exclude historical references to Pravda, as well as contemporary state controlled newspapers in China. Introducing a political restriction on media sources into the encyclopedia would be unprecedented, and a minefield. I cannot believe that you are suggesting excluding a national newspaper on the basis of its political affiliation. It is not listed in WP:RS/N as unreliable, but you are welcome to raise this there if you wish. I think this is pretty trivial, as it is included to verify textual accuracy that is also sourced to broadsheets representing other political and capitalist interests. Mish (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

From WP:RS: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties. - given that less than 3000 people voted for the Communist party in the last election they seem to have a pretty minority/extreme viewpoint to me. Besides by far the most respected left-wing party in the UK is the Green Party (if you're excluding the mainstream centre-left Liberal Democrats and Labour) who have councillors, and MP and MEP's. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will raise the question at WP:RS/N then - can we exclude a national newspaper because it is affiliated to the Communist Party in Britain. Mish (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

in the meantime, rather than perpetuating the stonewalling, I'd like to insert the modified text below.Mish (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Question about status of Morning Star lodged here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Status of Morning Star (UK newspaper). Mish (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Revised text of suicide controversy

On the eve of the UK release of the iPad in May 2010, The Independent carried a front page headline "A gadget to die for?", with a picture of an iPad next to a photo of a worker who had committed suicide at the plant where it was produced, followed by two reports on this over the next two pages.^[5] Subsequently, major national newspapers in the UK reported on documented allegations of the inhumane working conditions involved in the manufacture of Apple's iPad; these included The Telegraph,^[4] The Observer,^[7] a third article by The Independent,^[8] and other national newspapers,^[9]^[10] as well as newspapers in the region concerned.^[11] ^[12] All three national newspapers and other sources reported how in the first five months of 2010 a series of nine or ten suicides (plus two suicide attempts that resulted in severe injuries, and twenty suicides that were averted) had taken place at Foxconn's factory complex in Shenzhen, China,^[2], linking these to the manufacture of the iPad.^[3] ^[4] ^[7]^[5]^[8]^[9] Conditions at Foxconn are supposed to be better than other factories in China, and the rate of suicides at the factory complex is less than the overall suicide rate in China.^[2]^[5] The Independent reported documentation revealing "widespread failures" in most of the 102 supppliers to Apple; Apple expressed "upset" about the situation, and that they intend to investigate the conditions at the plant.^[5] Concerns have been expressed about working conditions at Foxconn specifically (which also manufactures other branded consumer goods), and in the electronics manufacturing industry as a whole - especially the long hours of overtime many workers were doing.^[2] ^[5] Foxconn told the press that they have started to improve conditions at the factory by providing mental health staff for their workers as well as fitting nets around the buildings so that further suicide attempts are less likely to succeed.^[13]^[2]

References

[1]
ibooks FAQs and comment section
[2]
"Light and death: A series of deaths expose a big computer-maker to unaccustomed scrutiny". The Economist. May 27, 2010. Retrieved May 29, 2010. (subscription required)
[3]
"The factory with nets to catch would-be suicides". The Independent. May 27, 2010. Retrieved May 29, 2010. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Unknown parameter |Last= ignored (|last= suggested) (help)
[4]
"Protest at Chinese iPad maker Foxconn after 11th suicide attempt this year". The Telegraph. May 25, 2010. Retrieved May 29, 2010. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Unknown parameter |Last= ignored (|last= suggested) (help)
[5]
Hickman, Martin (May 27, 2010). "Concern over human cost overshadows iPad launch". The Independent. Retrieved May 29, 2010.
[6]
"Another Foxconn employee falls to death despite company, government appeals". Xinhua. May 27, 2010. Retrieved May 29, 2010.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
"Nokia, Sony raise concern over Foxconn". China Post. May 29, 2010. Retrieved May 30, 2010.
[12]
Huang Xiangyang (May 24, 2010). "Breaking the Foxconn cycle of tragedy". China Daily. Retrieved May 30, 2010.
[13]
"Another Foxconn employee falls to death despite company, government appeals". Xinhua. May 27, 2010. Retrieved May 29, 2010.

Foxconn suicides removed

As gross breach of WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. If there is a source which specifically attributes the suicides to the iPad production, a sentence or two with a {{main}} link is fine, but this article is about the product, going into a diatribe on chinese suicide rates is completely off-topic. The sources only stated that the factory builds iPads and the only confirmed suicide due to an apple product is the one who lost an iPhone prototype. --Terrillja _talk 20:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is all accurately sourced to UK national newspapers, and when these reports were about the manufacturing conditions of the iPad, it is hardly WP:SYNTH, and in relation to the rest of the article not WP:UNDUE. It has been posted for WP:POV-check already. I am restoring this text, and if you want to work the text in a way that keeps the focus on the allegations about the role the iPad plays in this, and hive the text about Foxconn, then fine - but if this is removed again I will be notifying that there is an edit-war going on here to eliminate WP-RS backed material and notify [[WP:AN/I] about this. Mish (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm reconsidering and I suggest that it is reduced to 3-4 sentences and is moved to the Apple Inc article where it is more suitable. The connection with the iPad still seems to be pretty dubious. The rest of the content can be included in the Foxconn article with a {{main}} link from the Apple Inc article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

PS I've asked User:Bluerasberry to re-comment here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that my interpretation is that reliable sources connect iPad manufacture and worker suicide. I am not seeing the WP:SYNTH problem which User:Terrillja sees. I am seeing an WP:UNDUE problem because the length of the Suicides at Foxconn section is longer than almost any other section in this article. I agree that the connection with the iPad is dubious but public consciousness as expressed through the publications of many reliable sources manifested as stated concern that iPad manufacturing employees were driven to suicide by work pressure; the record of this idea goes in the iPad article. See WP:TRUTH.

User:Eraserhead1 suggests summarizing here with a link to full content elsewhere. I am not sure where the full account goes. The length of the present description of the suicides in the Apple Inc. article would be UNDUE there also. While the Foxconn article already has lengthy reports of suicide, ultimately something will need to change there because there is so much criticism one might think they were in the business of incarcerating and pestering workers. I do not want to make that article a dumping ground just because it is not well maintained.

In addition to what user:MishMich has written here, there is a lot more sourced data here and I think most of this is not overlapping. This is an event that is going to have a follow up; it may merit its own article with Mish's content here as a lede, the content on the Foxconn page as a detailed description, the response and follow up from Apple and Fox as a future section, and then {{main}} or whatever kind of links from iPad, Apple Inc, Foxconn, and perhaps various workers rights articles to this article.

Who disagrees with my rationale about the length being UNDUE here? I propose preservation of this content by integration into a more suitable article, and if no such article already exists, then it should have its own article. What other options are there? Blue Rasberry 00:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but where are the actual sources that have stated that "iPad manufacturing employees were driven to suicide by work pressure"? I asked this earlier, but as far as I'm aware the only suicide that was actually linked to Apple products, was Sun Danyong who lost an iPhone prototype. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I was saying. The sources say that the company that manufactures iPads has had a number of suicides. Not that the people who worked on iPads or even those that worked on Apple products at all have committed suicides. To take a link between the manufacturer and a single product is clearly synthesis without a reliable source to support it that says something to the extent of "iPad workers have been committing suicide".--Terrillja _talk 03:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

AM, Terrillja, I made a claim of causation when there is not actually such a claim in the debated text. Regardless of whether any sources claim causation, I think the sources make a correlation, and I think that is enough for notability on Wikipedia. Forget about why the people committed suicide and tell me whether you see reliable sources making a connection between the production of iPad units and suicides. The below are representative examples.

...the company's sprawling electronics facility, where 300,000 employees work making the iPhone and iPad, plus products for Nokia, Sony, HP and Dell. It was part of a scramble to restore public faith in their embattled firm after a series of 11 suicide attempts, nine successful.^[1]

A spate of recent suicides at Foxconn has highlighted the concerns over working conditions inside the giant Longhua factory, where 300,000 workers assemble goods for clients including Apple, Sony, Nintendo, Dell and Nokia. The deaths comes as Apple prepares to launch the iPad in the UK at the end of this week.^[2]

[1]
"The factory with nets to catch would-be suicides". The Independent. May 27, 2010. Retrieved May 29, 2010. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Unknown parameter |Last= ignored (|last= suggested) (help)
[2]
"Protest at Chinese iPad maker Foxconn after 11th suicide attempt this year". The Telegraph. May 25, 2010. Retrieved May 29, 2010. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Unknown parameter |Last= ignored (|last= suggested) (help)

If you do not interpret the articles as making a connection between the suicides and the iPad production, can you say something about what made the issue notable to the newspapers? I agree that this is a low suicide rate compared to the general population, so why was this not WP:MILL to the publishers? What alternate way is there to interpret this information? Blue Rasberry 04:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, my two cents. I think the newspapers mentioned the iPad because of its novelty and popular buzz, more than any intended correlation. The iPad is a hot topic right now and mentioning it in an article can get more readers. Loves Macs (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why the newspapers made this connection, what matters is that they did, and this is what is being included - not why they made the connection, not whether they were right to do so. The extent of the text is only the way it is because of the work put in by a few editors to neutralise the coverage of the reportage, and make this more about Foxconn that the iPad. Foxconn is not in the headline or the first paragaraph of the key UK newspaper pieces - it is iPad. It is not a picture of the Apple logo, or a factory on the front page of last Thursday's Independent - it is an iPad. This is the text that follows on the next page, first paragraph:

THE AMERICAN electronics giant Apple was investigating damaging allegations last night that Chinese workers making its new iPad device were subjected to such "inhumane" treatment that some of them took their own lives by jumping off factory roofs.

That is the only fact we need to be concerned with, as what counts is that we are accurate, that what we write can be verified, and it comes from a reliable source. It ticks all the boxes. Mish (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can appereciate that the information about Foxconn could be seen as inappropriate here, but that my original edit focused on the media reports that were clearly connected on the iPad, but through revisions of editors to trying to neutralise this, sources focusing on Foxconn were added. I'd suggest going back to before the irrelevant information about Foxconn was inserted, and focus on the relevant coverage that was about the iPad: Mish (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Two issues with this: 1) What you are saying is we should ignore the sources that don't focus on the iPad and only focus on the ones that put the iPad front and centre? Don't we have some policy against picking and choosing sources that just support you're own stance and deliberately ignoring the ones that don't? 2) Some sources talk about the suicides and focus on the fact that Apple has products manufactured at Foxconn. Some sources focus on the fact that Microsoft has products manufactured at Foxconn. Some sources focus on the fact that Nokia has products manufactured at Foxconn. So on and so forth. So do we add sections about the Foxconn suicides to all the relevant articles, or just this one? Do we add a Foxconn suicides section to all the articles about products manufactured at Foxconn? Or given that this is primarily a Foxconn issue and secondarily an issue for the companies that outsource their manufacturing to Foxconn, does it not actually belong in the Foxconn and other companies articles (with the iPhone being the one possible exception given that the only suicide directly linked to a particular product line was linked to the iPhone)? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What about my new version at the bottom of the page? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

None of the workers has been identified as having anything to do with the iPad. We all know the only reason the Independent covered the story in this way is because the iPad was being released that weekend, and the iPad was being covered extensively that weekend. I'm sorry but until there is an actual connection between iPad manufacture and the suicides I don't think it belongs here. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is why I am keen to focus on the sources that focus on the iPad in relation to the Foxconn suicides & allegations of inhumane practices: this is a page about the iPad, and if a UK national broadsheet carries a front page with a picture of an iPad, that is signifcant and notable. When this happens in the context of other newspapers covering the story from the same 'angle' (the 'iPad'), this is also significant for this article. The Foxconn controversy per se is not, unless the iPad features significantly. We should not assume that our readers cannot follow the links and read this for themselves, and come to their own conclusions. The problem with material that does not feature "iPad" prominently in the text is that it is synthesis to include it. Mish (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This just gets more fucking surreal the longer it goes on. So we can link the iPad to the suicides, even though NO-ONE has actually said any of the suicides were by people manufacturing iPads. However you don't think we should mention Foxconn, even though these people committed suicide at the Foxconn planet, while employed by Foxconn and allegedly in direct response to their treatment by Foxconn??? Are you so blinded by your desperation to have this mentioned in the iPad article that you lost your basic common sense? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have quoted this before, but you seem to ignore it: "The American electronics giant Apple was investigating damaging allegations last night that Chinese workers making its new iPad device were subjected to such "inhumane" treatment that some of them took their own lives by jumping off factory roofs." Of course you can link to the Foxconn article and develop this further there - the text does mention that they work at Foxconn. I have no issues about including informations, but whenever somebody else tries to add that information from sources that do not discuss the iPad and the allegations about its production, somebody else deletes the text, arguing it is WP:UNDUE and/or WP:SYNTH. So, it seems better keeping it focused on the reporting on the allegations directed at the manufacture of the iPad in reliable sources, accurately.

Your post is uncivil, insulting and profane. There is no need for that. I guess ~~having worked in IT & Telecomms for many years, in three countries, and having been educated to PhD level, including an MSc in IT, as well as Business Administration,~~ my common sense differs from yours. It doesn't matter though, because the encyclopedia accommodates this, and common sense, like truth, (or what we know to be 'right') is not the arbiter of what is included in an article - it is accuracy, reliablity and verifiablity that are the cornerstones of neutral editing. Mish (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not you hold a piece of paper has no relevance to anything at all here. And by insinuating that you have a more educated idea of common sense, you are again violating WP:CIVIL. Which you have been warned about a number of times now. FWIW, two (2) admins have now told you that your edits were off-base. Maybe you should rethink your position and check your ego at the door.--Terrillja _talk 20:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That was not my point, it was in response to the profanity and abuse directed at me, a response that did not respond with like, and it was to Alastair. However, I have stricken it out if it offends you. BTW, Apple seem to think the media reports are about the iPad as well. Mish (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

One sentence in one source links the iPad to the suicides. But the article doesn't go into specifics. It doesn't mention any names. It doesn't mention any numbers; was it one person, two, five, ten? It doesn't in fact mention the idea that people assembling the iPad are involved with the suicides in any way again in the article at all. One sentence in the intro. Didn't someone suggest that the two were being linked for sensationalist reasons earlier?

And it is the ONLY source that links them at all. EVERY other sources says suicides happened at the plant where the iPad is manufactured but doesn't suggest iPad workers have attempted suicide. So this section belongs in this article because of this one sentence in this one source. Am I right? Have I missed something? Are there other sources that explicitly link the two? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

At worst its context for Apple's profit sharing with Foxconn's iPad workers, its only a sentence. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And I'm sorry about the fucking swearing but I'm fucking sick of Wikipedia content being controlled by those who can shout longest and hardest. And that is exactly what is fucking happening here. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but I think it is misplaced. It is such a small bit of text - and from the sound of it, Jobs & Co. are upset about it, and I am sure they had no idea what was going on; and he certainly seems intent on getting to the bottom of it to make sure something is done about this, and is giving the workers who make the iPad a bonus. I have explained why this is relevant, several times. Mish (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if it is such a small bit of text, and so not a big deal, then you won't mind if it is removed then? And how about answering my previous question. Aside from that one sentence in the Independent (which article doesn't expand at all on the suggestion that iPad workers are committing suicide) is there anything else that suggests iPad workers are committing suicide? Or is this whole debate based solely on that one sentence in the Independent? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I said it is a small bit of text, not that it is not a big deal. It clearly is a big deal if a national newspaper features it on the front page, and devotes two more pages of analysis to it, and this is also taken up by other national newspapers. It is not just 'one sentence' - it is the whole of the front page, it is the headline of the article, the first paragraph of the article. That is the beginning of the article - the rest of the article deals with the specifics. The allegation is laid out clearly at the beginning, and then the article goes into this in depth. There is a distinction that is made, and this is covered in Jobs/Apple's responses - that the factory is responsible - and there is (as yet) no refutation of the allegation that has been made. Clearly the allegation is being taken seriously, because of the response to it. The response is an investigation is into the plant's working practices - not a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. Mish (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

UK launch and media coverage

On the eve of the UK release of the iPad in May 2010, The Independent carried a front page headline "A gadget to die for?", with a picture of an iPad next to a photo of a worker who had committed suicide at the plant where it was produced, followed by two reports on this over the next two pages:^[1]^[2] "The American electronics giant Apple was investigating damaging allegations last night that Chinese workers making its new iPad device were subjected to such 'inhumane' treatment that some of them took their own lives by jumping off factory roofs."^[1] Other major national broadhseets in the UK carried similar reports focusing on the iPad and Apple's relationship with Foxconn and other Chinese factories, and Foxconn's relationship with other branded products; these included The Telegraph,^[3] The Observer,^[4] a third article by The Independent,^[5] as well as other national newspapers.^[6]^[7]

References

[1]
Hickman, Martin (May 27, 2010). "Concern over human cost overshadows iPad launch". The Independent. Retrieved May 29, 2010.
[2]
Coonan, Clifford (May 27, 2010). "The factory with nets to catch would-be suicides". The Independent. Retrieved May 29, 2010.
[3]
Moore, Malcolm (May 25, 2010). "Protest at Chinese iPad maker Foxconn after 11th suicide attempt this year". The Telegraph. Retrieved May 29, 2010.
[4]
Cohen, Nick (May 30, 2010). "How much do you really want an iPad?". The Observer. Retrieved May 31, 2010.
[5]
Coonan, Clifford (May 28, 2010). "Two more suicide bids at iPad plant hours after media tour". The Independent. Retrieved May 31, 2010.
[6]
"Apple pressed over iPad staff suicides". Morning Star. May 29, 2010. Retrieved May 31, 2010.
[7]
Jones, Richard (May 29, 2010). "Something rotten at Apple's core? Shocking toll of suicides at iPad factory in China revealed". The Daily Mail. Retrieved May 31, 2010.

Although the picture and headline in Thursday's Independent is not available on the online edition, I can take a picture of the newspaper and load that up to Wikimedia, and link to that from here if you would like. This is not sensationalist reporting - these are 3 out of the top 4 major UK national newspapers, and represent Right, Centre and Left-wing media coverage. Mish (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion about media coverage of iPad & launch in UK

This could be balanced with positive coverage in the media, e.g.:

The Daily Mail BBC BBC Independent Guardian Times Tech Eye Guardian Telegraph

UK launch coverage part 2

So its not in quite such a big section I've created a new one. To create content which is balanced and doesn't have undue weight what about the following?

The Worldwide launch

Media reaction to the Worldwide launch was mixed. There were comments on the thousands of people queuing for the new device^[1]^[2]. They also praised the number of applications available, the book store^[3] and other media applications.^[4] In contrast the iPad was also criticised for being a closed system^[5] as well as criticisms of the higher price in the UK.^[3] The launch was marred by worldwide media coverage of a series of around a dozen suicides occurring this year at the manufacturer Foxconn's complex in Shenzhen, China.^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9] Apple and the other manufacturers who use the plant are investigating.^[10]^[11]

References

Comment

This works quite well, however, I do think that it needs to be clear that on the Eve of the UK launch there was significant mainstream press coverage of the iPad (as a product) in particular, and Apple (as one brand amongst several) as a company and their connection with the Foxconn controversy. I say this, because this featured on the front page of one major UK broadhseet, and was covered in two other broadsheets, as well as other national and regional newspapers last week. It is notable, and I know of no other product that has been singled out for attention this way before - granted this coincides with the hype surrounding the launch, however, that is the nature of that style of marketing - and it is important that the context is clear (which you have managed to a considerable extent. I would prefer that rather than a single reference to the Independent, at least the main article on that day, the articles/editorials in the Telegraph and Observer were included, as well as the follow-up piece in the Indepndent. The other sources I am less concerned about, as they were inserted primarily to demonstrate that this was not isolated coverage. We do have a responsibility to our readers here, not to Apple, to ensure that they are not misled on this through our ommission.

I also think, when more information becomes available, that we need to say more about the criticism of limiting the access to information available via the iPad, as indicated in the Tech Eye article.Mish (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

About your last comment, you do understand they are talking about the App Store and not the actual iPad right? Where the subject is already covered. App Store#Censorship AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I thought when they said "the handling of applications for iPad and iPhone" they were talking about the iPad. I misunderstood that when journalists talk about the iPad, they are actually talking about the plant where it is produced, the company that markets it, the applications that run on it, or the store where you can buy content. If there is in an article on iStore, and we have a link to that article, I guess that should be all that is needed. I am not really interested in Apple and their world, but am interested in this encyclopedia; I wouldn't know anything about Apple's techniques for marketing and locking in iPad users into content they sell and approve of. I only came here because I wanted to put something in from last Thursday's Independent - I'm only still here because people seem to want to prevent legitimate information going into this page - I'll stay until this page starts taking seriously the principles expected in this encyclopedia. Mish (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for insulting everyone who has already worked on this article. Where would all these yahoos be without your help. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't insult everybody who has worked on this article. This is not the first time you have misrepresented what I have said, and that is not civil. I am talking about this specific incident - not the rest of the article. I am concerned about the way some have sought to exclude legitimate information from national newspapers in this article. Stick to that, rather than attacking me. An article can be very good, but if it glosses over something significant, then that does not improve the article. Deal with it - make it better. I understand that it may be easier to impugn me (or my motives) than deal what I have said, and you are not alone in that, but it will not help the situation. Stick to the argument, rather than trying to distract the discussion and making this about me rather than reliable sources and what they have said.Mish (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And it isn't the first time that you have misrepresented what sources have said. Call it a draw.--Terrillja _talk 16:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Its in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, ER, I feel there needs to be more, and perhaps further detail in the Foxconn article will suffice, if there is a link there. I changed "marred", as that is not a neutral term, and I don't recall the reports saying their reporting marred the launch.

Fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

TR - what I have tried to insert is accurate and verifiable in the sources I cited, was not synthesis, and not original research - as is made clear in the quote I placed above. Mish (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Can the neutrality tag be removed now? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to use it to hold people to ransom, although I'd prefer it if it was given more weight, and more of the UK sources on this were included - but TBH, I have better things to do and don't want to spend more time on this. So, sure - but I'd appreciate you keeping an eye on it to make sure it doesn't get removed again. Mish (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough :), I will make sure it doesn't get removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, it's quite good - concise, to the point (although I still want more, obviously, because I am more interested in human rights than computing equipment). I think the title of the section needs something doing with it - 'non-US launch', sounds a bit like 'rest of the world', and comes across as Americano-centric. I don't know the extent of the launch - would 'European launch' cover it? Or 'World launch'? All I heard about was the launch here in the UK. Mish (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it was also released in Japan and Australia and the larger EU countries, I don't know the best wording to use to describe it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Canada as well, apparently. The Guardian referred to it as the "International launch" back in April. Mish (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite detailed discussion here, one user is persisting in edit warring to keep WP:RS material from the UK out of this article, WP:HARASS on user's home page, and WP:PERSONAL on this discussion. I am issuing a warning on their talk page, and will then revert the material here. Mish (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It had valid remarks from UK sources on the reception (could use a more worldly view, but that is neither here nor there) and then went into a diatribe on foxconn with no connection to the reception whatsoever. I removed it because the content simply didn't make sense there. No one jumped off a building because the UK got the iPad, which is what the section would lead readers to believe. And as for WP:PERSONAL, you called my edits daft and made a comment about how I should "grow up". Right.--Terrillja _talk 07:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Terrillja why did you removed this content? There's enough of a connection to justify a single sentence when the connection was made by the media worldwide, and thats definitely along the lines of what BlueRasberry suggested as the dispute resoluter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed it because as written there was no connection at all to the international launch. There were uk reviews, then "meanwhile," there were some stories about suicides. Nothing related to the launch other than putting the articles out on the same day as the launch with "iPad" in the title and nothing in the text of the article here to connect the two. It made it sound like foxconn workers decided to jump off buildings because the UK got the iPad. Completely illogical. And bluraseberry is an editor, not WP:MEDCAB or WP:ARBCOM. On the other hand, Alstair is an admin. So no one's weight holds more than another's. Unless they are violating policies.--Terrillja _talk 07:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Concern over human cost overshadows iPad launch" - "The American electronics giant Apple was investigating damaging allegations last night that Chinese workers making its new iPad device were subjected to such 'inhumane' treatment that some of them took their own lives by jumping off factory roofs." It is all there in the headline and first sentence.Mish (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite, there is no need for lots of content on this, but it does deserve coverage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it has nothing to do with the international launch of the product other than the articles being published on the same day as the launch, its current placement in the article makes absolutely no sense.--Terrillja _talk 20:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It makes that clear, if it doesn't go with the content on the worldwide launch it will need its own section - or it could go at the top of the reception section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Apple to give iPad workers a raise

I am not sure about the quality of these sources, but it appears that following the reports, and concerns raised by Apple (as well as Sony and Nokia), Foxconn has given their workers a raise. Apple has also announced that in addition to this, those who work on the production of the iPad will receive 0.7% of the profit from sales. I have inserted the text with one source, but there are several others here: . Whatever the 'truth' behind the allegations about the conditions of the iPad workers, it seems Apple have taken them seriously enough to act on this. Mish (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What is an "iPad worker"? These are Foxconn workers, not iPad workers. The media just avoids using the name Foxconn because it has much less name recognition than Apple or iPad. There is nothing to suggest that the workers were specifically assigned to work on the iPad, but that they worked at the same 400,000 person factory that produces the iPad. This is irrelevant: add it to the Foxconn article, and add some text to the Apple article stating that most of its products are made by Foxconn (the current article mentions the suicides without making the link). If the information were relevant here, then perhaps you should copy and past the identical text to iPhone, iPod, Wii Amazon Kindle, Playstation, and everything else Foxconn manufactures on behalf of other companies. What little sense would this make! --Jiang (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read the source, you will see that it is the workers who produce the iPad that get a share in the profits from the sale of iPads, not other Foxconn workers. Apparently, that'd be the same workers that get stools to sit on.Mish (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That definitely sounds like relevant content, I don't see why Apple would give a cut of iPad profits to employees making other products. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

iTampon section

Edit request from 86.150.215.45, 5 June 2010

Opening sentence POV problems

The opening sentence has problems."The iPad is a tablet computer designed and marketed by Apple for Internet browsing, media consumption, gaming, and light content creation.". It is unsourced, unclear, and potentially biased, particularly the last entry, 'light content creation'. The "content" being "created" is never defined, nor it's "light" nature.theBOBbobato (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Apple's iPad features page mentions all of these uses, but not in those exact words. Would you like to reword the opening sentence, using that page as a source, or trim it down to "The iPad is a tablet computer designed and marketed by Apple."? I think the second option is the most neutral but least descriptive choice. Loves Macs (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we remove the "light content creation"? Its less of an important feature than the others. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but should "and other uses" should be added? Or is that obvious? The App store plays a large role in iPad marketing even though apps are not exclusive to iPads. Loves Macs (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't watched it, but didn't Jobs devote a significant portion of the iPad announcement to the ported version of Pages and Keynote? Doesn't that justify "light content creation" or perhaps "content creation"? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but multiple sources aren't particularly pleased with them, so I don't know if it is justified. I think 'and other uses' is probably obvious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sources might not be happy with the iPad versions of Pages and Keynote, but does that change the fact that Apple "designed and marketed" the device for "light content creation"? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not even, since "content" does not exclusively mean text documents and spreadsheets. I think it would be best if the article did not try to list everything the iPad is "designed" to do. It is only designed to be a general computing device, and is not necessarily limited to gaming, browsing, consumption, or light content creation. Even though the passage only reads that the iPad is "designed and marketed" for all that, it's context implies that there's nothing else it could do.theBOBbobato (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Since there has been no response to the last entry, I have gone ahead and edited the opening sentence.theBOBbobato (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Vortic, 9 June 2010

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Overall, a good start, but I'm not convinced it meets good article criteria at this time.

Lead does not adequately summarize the article. In scholarly writing, a paragraph pretty much has to be at least three sentences (topic, supporting, concluding). The fact that parts of the lead aren't complete suggests there is ample room for expansion ~~(the game goes for other quasi-paragraphs throughout the article.)~~

The only remaining quasi-paragraph is the one in the sales section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the lead appears to have been done now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Prose:
- I think the article needs a rewrite with accessibility in mind. We're not all Apple/software fans (well, I am, but not all readers are going to be) and they are going to need clarification on terms (not just wikilinks) to understand the article. "Apple re-entered the mobile-computing market in 2007 with the iPhone. Smaller than the iPad but featuring a camera and mobile phone, it pioneered the multitouch interface of iOS"→what is multitouch? What is iOS? "The Wi-Fi version of the iPad went on sale in the United States on April 3, 2010.[4][28] The Wi-Fi + 3G version was released on April 30." Wi-Fi might be common enough, but 3G? Why the + sign? We don't have to parrot Apple's marketing style. "The touchscreen is a 25 cm (9.7 in) liquid crystal display (1024 × 768 pixels, 132 ppi, XGA) with fingerprint–resistant and scratch-resistant glass."→What touchscreen? Whose touchscreen? Hasn't been mentioned at this point. I could go on, but I hope you see my point. "Dumb it down" a bit.

Partially done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Done plus changed to 'and', 3G is explained a bit in the lead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

- ~~"Three days later, at the 52nd Grammy Awards, Stephen Colbert used an iPad in announcing the nominees." is that really that important?~~

Done Its gone. 20:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

- ~~"The iPad has no ports for wired connectivity." False and misleading. If you want to say it doesn't have ethernet, say it.~~

Done, ~~though there are three hanging sentences in that paragraph which isn't allowed.~~ -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Merged into a single paragraph. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- "Dual speakers housed inside the iPad provide mono sound via two small sealed channels in the interior speaker assembly that direct the sound outwards toward the three audio ports carved into the bottom-right of the unit." Periods are cheap. Split up into two sentences.

Done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

- ~~"Source[10]"→What exactly is this sourcing? Everything in the tech specs not specifically sourced? It's confusing.~~

Done I've inlined the sourcing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- "Digital rights advocates, including the Free Software Foundation, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and computer engineer and activist Brewster Kahle, have criticized the iPad for its digital rights restrictions, which forbids users from installing software unless it has been approved by Apple." I'm not comfortable with this section, which starts off with criticism of Apple's system, and we have no idea what that system is. Reorganizing and elaborating on the iPad's DRM before comments is essential.

Done I've reordered the content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- The article needs a stiff copyedit. There are lots of places where the prose stumbles over itself; there are many clearer ways of saying similar things in less words. ~~"Like other iOS Devices, the iPad is able to be "jailbroken"→can be, "Jailbreaking~~, according to Apple,~~ voids Apple's warranty on the device.",~~ et al.

These two have been fixed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

- Do we really need a dedicated subsection to "Censorship" when there's only a paragraph of content? You can still wikilink to the relevant article.
- ~~Tense isssues: "CNET and Gizmodo have listed features"→they listed them, it's already happened.~~

Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

- This article smacks of recentism in its structure and reporting; we don't need blow-by-blow accounts, we want to be looking back as best as possible.
- I'm not satisfied with the Reception section. On one hand, I think the fundamentals are there, but there needs to be A) more comments from a wide variety of reputable sources (I count only 5 critics for the opening subsection), and B) a stronger distinguishing between "reaction" and actual "reception" (on launch). I think "Product Name" and "International Launch" should be folded into their parent headings and expanded, as well.
  - I know there's been a discussion about it on the talk page, but the paragraph on Foxconn suicides is still irrelevant; the only aspect that might be worth keeping is Apple's pledge to give proceeds to workers, and that should go in "Manufacture". It's irrelevant to the piece of hardware itself.

As discussed on the main talk page.

Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

- ~~Shouldn't "Manufacture" be in the "Hardware" section?~~

Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Images ~~look okay, but someone should be able to go and make a better infobox image than the very dark File:IPad-02.jpg.~~

~~Done~~ I've found a better infobox image on Flickr. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like new image because it is in the case, which misrepresents the hardware, and does not show the home screen, the most neutral, default setting. I was also put off that you didn't change the caption to reflect the new image. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 14:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Damn, sorry about missing the caption. I see your point. There are a bunch of other possible images on Flickr to pick, but I'm happy to see what the reviewer has to say on it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

References:
- What makes the following references reliable: Gizmodo, ~~nexus404.com~~, ifixit, ~~Laptopspedia~~, ~~Ustream~~, China Post, ~~Mac Observer~~

Partially done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

- ~~References need to be fully and properly formatted, with templates since that's the primary method used in this article. There are lots of errors and unfilled fields.~~

Done I've done the best I can, can you point out any specifically that I've missed? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- I'm concerned about the lack of citations in some points. Things like "Most third-party iPad applications also support these four orientations.", ~~"The Wi-Fi + 3G model has a black plastic accent on top to improve 3G radio sensitivity."~~, ~~"The built-in Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR interface supports the HSP, A2DP, and HID profiles, which allow wireless headphones and keyboards to be used with the iPad.~~ However, the iOS does not currently support the OBEX file transfer protocol.", etc. are not common knowledge.

Partially done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am putting the article on hold for now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the detailed review. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Some questions/comments on the above

@Reliable sources, Gizmodo is one of the top tech blogs along with Engadget and CNet and China Post is one of the English language Taiwanese newspapers mentioned in the Rough Guide so that would be reliable as well (though if we remove the Foxconn stuff the latter argument is redundant) - I accept your point on the others. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
@3G, what other terminology can you use to describe it that isn't more technical than that? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Explain what 3G is. Readers should be able to understand the gist of what's discussed in an article without having to link away to another article; from a usability standpoint, that's a bad practice, and they're unlikely to come back to finish reading. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It lets you download data onto your mobile phone at a reasonable speed EDIT: I see your point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

@Censorship Section, I've made it a level 4 heading, I'm not convinced how it will look without a heading at all - though you're welcome to have a play and see what you think. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

References still to tidy up

~~12, 13, 26, 41, 42, 45.~~ -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- Do you think you've addressed all the above? If so, I'll do another pass. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time to give the article a full read-through yet, but over the weekend I should find time. After that I guess the "reaction to the international launch" section is still weak but another read-through is probably a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 01:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've given the article another read-through, apart from the reaction to the international launch section I believe everything above has been addressed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to look over it either today or tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Of note the international launch section has been improved too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it's looking loads better, but there are still some tweaks and stuff that need to be made. First off, refs go after punctuation, like so,^[1] and not like this^[2]. All the latter examples in the article should be formatted correctly. The one-line "Forrester Research has argued ..." could probably be cut, as it doesn't seem that important and it's unlikely you can craft a real paragraph around it. I'm still not thrilled with the reception layout. I think the article could take a page from video game articles (say, for example, Halo 3: ODST, in that release and sales are covered in a separate section, and then critical reviews are mentioned (this format is also used by most film articles.) It's disjointed to go from critics to product names to critics to international launch and response to it; cutting out the subsections and reordering for flow would make it read a heck of a lot better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been though the whole article and I only found one reference not after punctuation (though admittedly it was in the lead). I'll look at the reception section over the next couple of days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe I've fixed these issues by re-ordering the content and moving the "release" stuff from history down to a new "release" section with the sales data. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it looks better (at the least GA quality, I think.) I'm passing the article; thanks for your work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Section on Leo Laporte

Foxconn suicide controversy

Edit request from 98.114.128.183, 16 June 2010

Porn on the iPad

I suggest to include the Porn Debate. This is not necessarily an App Store issue, since Steve Jobs expicitly stated that the iPad should remain porn-free. And the reactions are also iPad specific. The discussion between blogger Ryan Tate from Gawker and Steve Jobs led to an ad-busting in Berlin and continued in similar manner to public space in San Fransico during WWD10. Leonidas84 (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've no objections as long as its kept brief. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As a web browser it's as porn-free as a DVD player, but do we have any links showing a porn-flash connection whereby lots of porn movie sites use the flash format? Hcobb (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually there are many links for this connection. I suggest to do it like this:

An e-mail exchange^[4] between blogger Ryan Tate from Valleywag and Steve Jobs led to a public debate about porn on the iPad. Initially Tate had been upset by the iPad commercial, calling the device a “revolution.” For Tate revolutions were about freedom and Jobs responded that the iPad indeed offered freedom. Especially "freedom from porn" led to many upset replies, for example an ad-busting in Berlin by artist Johannes P. Osterhoff^[5]^[6] and continued in similar manner to public space in San Fransico during WWDC10.^[7] But porn remains locked from the App Store only. YouPorn is only one company that changed their video format from Flash to H.264 and HTML5 specifically for the iPad.^[8]^[9] Leonidas84 (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

[1]
A
[2]
B
[3]
"Leo Laporte Live". Ustream. Retrieved February 6, 2010.
[4]
"Steve Jobs Offers World 'Freedom From Porn'". Gawker. May 15, 2010. Retrieved June 20, 2010.
[5]
"No Porn on iPad? Artist Strikes Back". Cult of Mac (blog). May 28, 2010. Retrieved June 20, 2010.
[6]
"Apple iPad offers "freedom from porn" – but not in Berlin". TechCrunch. May 29, 2010. Retrieved June 20, 2010.
[7]
"Porn again: "Dudes" who like it alter San Francisco iPad ads". ZDNet. CNet. June 9, 2010. Retrieved June 20, 2010.
[8]
"NSFW Guide to Watching Porn on your iPad". GrunchGear. April 24, 2010. Retrieved June 28, 2010.
[9]
"YouPorn Goes HTML5, Gets on the iPad". NewTeeVee. May 18, 2010. Retrieved June 28, 2010.

Well be WP:BOLD and add it to the article then :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Or don't, as is is hugely WP:UNDUE undue weight and speculation based on unreliable sources.--Terrillja _talk 18:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm presuming it will be kept to a couple of sentences or so. And not all of the sources are unreliable. TechCrunch and CNet are both reliable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The proposed text above is not a few sentences, and the more "controversial" or "questionable" bits are sourced to blogs.--Terrillja _talk 19:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. I change my mind - it'll need further cleanup before addition and it will also need to be shrunk in size. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I made it shorter (60%) and cleaned it up:

Due to the exclusion of porn from the App Store, YouPorn and others changed their video format from Flash to H.264 and HTML5 specifically for the iPad.[5][6] In an e-mail exchange[1] with Ryan Tate from Valleywag Steve Jobs claimed the iPad to offer "freedom from porn" what led to many upset replies including ad-bustings in Berlin by artist Johannes P. Osterhoff[2][3] and in San Fransico during WWDC10.[4] Leonidas84 (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think [2] and [6] are reliable, but there are other sources, so that looks fine to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Okay, I am WP:BOLD then :) Leonidas84 (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"paper doesn't require batteries"?

Reviewer: Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Overall, a good start, but I'm not convinced it meets good article criteria at this time.

Lead does not adequately summarize the article. In scholarly writing, a paragraph pretty much has to be at least three sentences (topic, supporting, concluding). The fact that parts of the lead aren't complete suggests there is ample room for expansion ~~(the game goes for other quasi-paragraphs throughout the article.)~~

The only remaining quasi-paragraph is the one in the sales section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the lead appears to have been done now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Prose:
- I think the article needs a rewrite with accessibility in mind. We're not all Apple/software fans (well, I am, but not all readers are going to be) and they are going to need clarification on terms (not just wikilinks) to understand the article. "Apple re-entered the mobile-computing market in 2007 with the iPhone. Smaller than the iPad but featuring a camera and mobile phone, it pioneered the multitouch interface of iOS"→what is multitouch? What is iOS? "The Wi-Fi version of the iPad went on sale in the United States on April 3, 2010.[4][28] The Wi-Fi + 3G version was released on April 30." Wi-Fi might be common enough, but 3G? Why the + sign? We don't have to parrot Apple's marketing style. "The touchscreen is a 25 cm (9.7 in) liquid crystal display (1024 × 768 pixels, 132 ppi, XGA) with fingerprint–resistant and scratch-resistant glass."→What touchscreen? Whose touchscreen? Hasn't been mentioned at this point. I could go on, but I hope you see my point. "Dumb it down" a bit.

Partially done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Done plus changed to 'and', 3G is explained a bit in the lead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

- ~~"Three days later, at the 52nd Grammy Awards, Stephen Colbert used an iPad in announcing the nominees." is that really that important?~~

Done Its gone. 20:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

- ~~"The iPad has no ports for wired connectivity." False and misleading. If you want to say it doesn't have ethernet, say it.~~

Done, ~~though there are three hanging sentences in that paragraph which isn't allowed.~~ -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Merged into a single paragraph. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- "Dual speakers housed inside the iPad provide mono sound via two small sealed channels in the interior speaker assembly that direct the sound outwards toward the three audio ports carved into the bottom-right of the unit." Periods are cheap. Split up into two sentences.

Done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

- ~~"Source[10]"→What exactly is this sourcing? Everything in the tech specs not specifically sourced? It's confusing.~~

Done I've inlined the sourcing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- "Digital rights advocates, including the Free Software Foundation, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and computer engineer and activist Brewster Kahle, have criticized the iPad for its digital rights restrictions, which forbids users from installing software unless it has been approved by Apple." I'm not comfortable with this section, which starts off with criticism of Apple's system, and we have no idea what that system is. Reorganizing and elaborating on the iPad's DRM before comments is essential.

Done I've reordered the content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- The article needs a stiff copyedit. There are lots of places where the prose stumbles over itself; there are many clearer ways of saying similar things in less words. ~~"Like other iOS Devices, the iPad is able to be "jailbroken"→can be, "Jailbreaking~~, according to Apple,~~ voids Apple's warranty on the device.",~~ et al.

These two have been fixed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

- Do we really need a dedicated subsection to "Censorship" when there's only a paragraph of content? You can still wikilink to the relevant article.
- ~~Tense isssues: "CNET and Gizmodo have listed features"→they listed them, it's already happened.~~

Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

- This article smacks of recentism in its structure and reporting; we don't need blow-by-blow accounts, we want to be looking back as best as possible.
- I'm not satisfied with the Reception section. On one hand, I think the fundamentals are there, but there needs to be A) more comments from a wide variety of reputable sources (I count only 5 critics for the opening subsection), and B) a stronger distinguishing between "reaction" and actual "reception" (on launch). I think "Product Name" and "International Launch" should be folded into their parent headings and expanded, as well.
  - I know there's been a discussion about it on the talk page, but the paragraph on Foxconn suicides is still irrelevant; the only aspect that might be worth keeping is Apple's pledge to give proceeds to workers, and that should go in "Manufacture". It's irrelevant to the piece of hardware itself.

As discussed on the main talk page.

Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

- ~~Shouldn't "Manufacture" be in the "Hardware" section?~~

Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Images ~~look okay, but someone should be able to go and make a better infobox image than the very dark File:IPad-02.jpg.~~

~~Done~~ I've found a better infobox image on Flickr. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like new image because it is in the case, which misrepresents the hardware, and does not show the home screen, the most neutral, default setting. I was also put off that you didn't change the caption to reflect the new image. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 14:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Damn, sorry about missing the caption. I see your point. There are a bunch of other possible images on Flickr to pick, but I'm happy to see what the reviewer has to say on it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

References:
- What makes the following references reliable: Gizmodo, ~~nexus404.com~~, ifixit, ~~Laptopspedia~~, ~~Ustream~~, China Post, ~~Mac Observer~~

Partially done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

- ~~References need to be fully and properly formatted, with templates since that's the primary method used in this article. There are lots of errors and unfilled fields.~~

Done I've done the best I can, can you point out any specifically that I've missed? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- I'm concerned about the lack of citations in some points. Things like "Most third-party iPad applications also support these four orientations.", ~~"The Wi-Fi + 3G model has a black plastic accent on top to improve 3G radio sensitivity."~~, ~~"The built-in Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR interface supports the HSP, A2DP, and HID profiles, which allow wireless headphones and keyboards to be used with the iPad.~~ However, the iOS does not currently support the OBEX file transfer protocol.", etc. are not common knowledge.

Partially done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

I am putting the article on hold for now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the detailed review. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Some questions/comments on the above

@Reliable sources, Gizmodo is one of the top tech blogs along with Engadget and CNet and China Post is one of the English language Taiwanese newspapers mentioned in the Rough Guide so that would be reliable as well (though if we remove the Foxconn stuff the latter argument is redundant) - I accept your point on the others. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
@3G, what other terminology can you use to describe it that isn't more technical than that? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Explain what 3G is. Readers should be able to understand the gist of what's discussed in an article without having to link away to another article; from a usability standpoint, that's a bad practice, and they're unlikely to come back to finish reading. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It lets you download data onto your mobile phone at a reasonable speed EDIT: I see your point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

@Censorship Section, I've made it a level 4 heading, I'm not convinced how it will look without a heading at all - though you're welcome to have a play and see what you think. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

References still to tidy up

~~12, 13, 26, 41, 42, 45.~~ -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- Do you think you've addressed all the above? If so, I'll do another pass. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time to give the article a full read-through yet, but over the weekend I should find time. After that I guess the "reaction to the international launch" section is still weak but another read-through is probably a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 01:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've given the article another read-through, apart from the reaction to the international launch section I believe everything above has been addressed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to look over it either today or tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Of note the international launch section has been improved too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it's looking loads better, but there are still some tweaks and stuff that need to be made. First off, refs go after punctuation, like so,^[1] and not like this^[2]. All the latter examples in the article should be formatted correctly. The one-line "Forrester Research has argued ..." could probably be cut, as it doesn't seem that important and it's unlikely you can craft a real paragraph around it. I'm still not thrilled with the reception layout. I think the article could take a page from video game articles (say, for example, Halo 3: ODST, in that release and sales are covered in a separate section, and then critical reviews are mentioned (this format is also used by most film articles.) It's disjointed to go from critics to product names to critics to international launch and response to it; cutting out the subsections and reordering for flow would make it read a heck of a lot better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been though the whole article and I only found one reference not after punctuation (though admittedly it was in the lead). I'll look at the reception section over the next couple of days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe I've fixed these issues by re-ordering the content and moving the "release" stuff from history down to a new "release" section with the sales data. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it looks better (at the least GA quality, I think.) I'm passing the article; thanks for your work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

New image for the infobox

iPad is a tablet computer yet the iPod Touch is not

...sensitive to fingertip contact with up to eleven fingers...

iPad vs glorified PDA

From my talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I point to towards public comments made by the director of Samsung Australia’s IT division http://apcmag.com/samsung-the-ipad-is-a-glorified-mid.htm, and Tom's Hardware review http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ipad-iphone-a4-arm-cortex,10089.html
The iPad has been stated by many as being nothing more than a larger, more expensive iPhone. And for Steve Jobs to say that the "iPad is something completely new", well... I had a PDA back in '95 with touch screen and modular layout, and have set up many more with simple touch and use skins for the last 10 years or so.
I do not consider describing the iPad as a glorified PDA as a personal opinion, more of a general consensus between those that are sick of over-exaggeration from the so-called innovaters in the field (Apple, Microsoft, Google, for just a few examples). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendroche (talk • contribs) 21:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Samsung are clearly going to be bias, and its clear APCMag are just repeating what they are saying. And TomsHardware don't say the iPad is a glorified PDA. If you can bring two reliable sources to the table explicitly calling the iPad a PDA or something similar, then I think it can be included in the article - otherwise its too controversial to be included IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, its obvious a competitor with a competitive design is biased against his competitors design, and most "PC"-mags are heavily "windows centric", their bias often just drips from the pages. Actually almost the only magazine that has the cloud (and lack of bias) that once Byte magazine had (before it also went the way of the dodo ( after going the "PC-mags" way ) nowadays is c't-magazine, unfortunately its in German (and Dutch), so not that accessible for most readers here, fortunately I can read both languages. By the way, I very much respects "Toms hardware". Mahjongg (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The line between PC and PDA is very easy to draw. PCs have a Von Neumann architecture in a shared file space so that one program can write a file that is itself another program by itself. I.e. the PC is a development platform for itself. PDAs are not development platforms for themselves and can only share data externally instead of between arbitrary programs internally. Hcobb (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not really clear from the article. To take the example there you can use the iPad as a word processor or game console without re-wiring the hardware in the device. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and saying that the (CPU of the) iPad doesn't use a von neumann architecture is actually untrue and an absurd claim. The term "von neuman architecture" is only used for CPU's, not for complete systems in the way that Hcobb does. What he is saying is that you cannot use an iPad to develop iPad software. It might be true at the moment that this isn't done at the moment, but actually there is no theoretical reason why this cannot be done. Mahjongg (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting definition of a PC. However, PCs don't need to use a Von Neumann architecture, so I'm not sure that using this as the basis for the distinction really works, and the ARM CPU uses a modified Harvard architecture, so it can move instructions around per the Von Neumann approach. - Bilby (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Content Inaccuracy/Confusion

iPad and LCARS (PADD)

Jailbreaking

It is the undersdtanding of the Library of Congress has ruled inthe United States that it is no longer illegal to jailbreak iPod/Pad/Phone. For the full information on the statement, the link is here 173.88.137.100 (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anywhere in the article that says it's illegal to jailbreak the device, only that it voids the warranty.--Terrillja _talk 14:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it really voids the warranty outside Apple fantasy land. Especially in Europe. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure it does. If a moisture sensor is all that's needed to determine warranty coverage, a jailbroken device is definitely enough to deny warranty coverage.--Terrillja _talk 03:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

At least in Europe warranties are a legal right, so as long as you don't do anything unlawful or clearly careless with the device (such as dropping it in the toilet) then your warranty should be valid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Does the library of congress really have the authority make that decision? ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 17:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In the US the authority is that there is a specific DMCA exemption for jailbreaking. And the EU apparently has a law also allowing jailbreaking. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, I believe that it wasn't a 'ruling' so much as a 'proper interpretation'. In the USA, there exists something known as the first-sale doctrine. It comes from a series of 100% consistent Supreme Court rulings stretching back over a century. The basic gist of it is... If you buy an iPhone/iPad/iEtc, you own that physical device; it belongs to you, not Apple, and hence, they have no right or privilege to dictate how you dispose of said device; their copyrights/patents merely protect them against you making unauthorized replication of part or whole of it. So under IP law, there's nothing wrong with Jailbreaking. The part where there was a question was the DMCA (which isn't truly IP law) where Apple had argued that Jailbreaking was a means of circumventing copyright protection... Which is a somewhat sketchy given the light of Sony v. Universal, and further in this case clashes with the older (and far better-established) rights a user is given through the first-sale doctrine. Hence, it is the case that Jailbreaking has always been fully legal, and this was just a matter of the Library of Congress clearing up the matter.

Of course, while that does answer the LEGAL half of the question, Apple and AT&T still have a limited form of recourse through their control over the warranty and service plans, respectively. As both of those things are services rather than goods, they don't fall under IP law, and likewise aren't subject to the first-sale doctrine; they may dictate terms for the warranty and service plan. Of course, there can be state laws in the USA that will modify things, and possibly prohibit specifically Apple from specifying terms on its warranty. 207.241.137.116 (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Omitted features section

Sales numbers - return rates

Nominating iPad for FA

Infobox image

Security breach

Large logo constitutes Promo

The iPad "logo" in the infobox is almost identical in appearance to the infobox title. Having it larger than the title ~~constitutes WP:Promo.~~TM I'm adding this note - together with a comment in the wikicode - for the record because I changed it with a note in the edit summary and within a week it was back even larger.

Personally, I think either one or the other should go, in this case, as having both serves no purpose and looks messy. If significant contributers here feel the same, or are even ambivalent, I'd like to know. Trev M ~ 21:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is utterly ridiculous. The text used to promote the product is distinctive and is arguably nearly as important as a picture of the device itself. As the device is marketed with both the text and the device, both are instrumental to understanding the device. What you have done is taken something that looks reasonable and represents the product fairly and make it look like the code is screwed up. So with that, I will now revert you in order to keep the article in a state where the text is readable and in line with published documents. And WP:PROMO doesn't apply, not evey by the greatest stretch of the imagination. It's a product name, not some sort of advertising slogan. --Terrillja _talk 22:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I apologise for citing the wrong WP guidline. Clearly, as you state, the logo is not "spam" and the notion is ridiculous. What I wished to convey is that the size of the logo implies advertising, recommendation of a product, drawing unnecessary attention to its branding. I utterly refute your argument that the logo is "arguably nearly as important as a picture of the device itself" – maybe if you work for Apple sales it is! I agree that the name iPad, even the spelling and capitalisation may be important in conveying the precise product being discussed, however, this should be conveyed neutrally, that is, with the appropriate weight with respect to other headings on the page. It is utterly unnecessary, in order to understand this device from a neutral and encyclopedic point of view, to have a large logo for the device displayed between its image and the identical infobox name.

The WP:Wikipedia article itself gets around the repetition issue by not using any "logo" field, and using its own typeface specific logo and an svg in the title position of the infobox. I would settle for that, in the original size, before you replaced it with an even larger image than I reduced, that is 75px, in combination with the image as now rendered, reaching the top of the infobox.

Best, Trev M ~ 18:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate that the above point has been taken up, but when I go to the page I am still instantly hit by the unusual size of the text, which therefore comes across as pushy. I'm not anti-Apple, or the device – I'm sitting here using a Mac – and I've just given the Apple a touch more space on the Mac page because it was "crashing", aesthetically, into the text beneath it. But here, less is more. I'll leave it to someone else, it was 75px when I stuck my neck in. Best, Trev M ~ 22:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Debate continuing at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 79#Logo_size_concern at the moment. Trev M ~ 14:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring size…

We shouldn't be using images to replace plain text riffic (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that the image (of text) is a distinctive part of the branding of the device.--Terrillja _talk 11:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't see it because I am blind. Not very accessible are we riffic (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It uses the alt="iPad" parameter, which should come out as "iPad" for screenreaders. --Terrillja _talk 12:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

But we're writing an encyclopedia, not a catalog. I've never seen another infobox name field with anything other than plain text. Ever heard of semantic markup? (See also iPod.) Reverting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It was in the logo= field, but that was opposed as saying iPad twice close to each other, using the name= field was a compromise. And for other uses, see the previous version of Wikipedia, which did the same thing. IPod Touch uses the logo field FWIW. --Terrillja _talk 19:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As Sarek stated, other articles do not use images in the name field. It is irregular, discontinuous. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WIkipedia does, and the IPod Touch article uses the logo field. The use of the logo field was objected to, the use of the name field was seen as a compromise.--Terrillja _talk 19:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't at this moment, but even if it did, that would be one or two articles out of thousands that have infoboxes. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Because you edit warred to make it that way. Might as well 'fess up to why it doesn't.--Terrillja _talk 20:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem with using the logo field -- just with making the Name field do something it was never supposed to do. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then are there any objections to using the logo field? –xeno^talk 20:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's fine, the only reason why it changed from that is per the above bit. I was happy to have it the way it was, but I was trying to accommodate another user's concerns.--Terrillja _talk 20:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

no major objections to using the logo field of the infobox as that is how the infobox is appropriately designed to be used. Please stop abusing the infoboxes by putting garbage content in the semantic name field. riffic (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I just took this over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes‎ for a more-general discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think using the image is fine, I really honestly don't think its worth arguing about - even if someone is WP:OWNing the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OS Release

Insanity

Links to reviews

Links to ads?

Reception

The reception section seems EXTREMELY one sided.... like seriously.... "Andy Ihnatko of the Chicago Sun-Times calls the iPad "one of the best computers ever"." ..... one of the best computers...EVER?!.. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anti-apple or anti-ipad type of guy. The ipad is great for a lot of things, but it doesn't appeal to the entire laptop market, or satisfy the needs of many computer users. This article makes it seem like iPads are better than a pc laptop or macbook in every way. I mean, there should at least be a disadvantage section or something that compares it to a regular laptop. FAQ for criticisms: "Because no one has found reliable sources to source further criticism." no reliable source for criticism??? there's a lot of common criticism about it, a lot of people expected it to have an operating system like a macbook, instead of that of the iphone, and were very disappointed by that, i remember reading a lot about that at the time, but i'm too lazy right now too look for that stuff..... A lot, and i mean A LOT, of people do seriously consider the iPad a joke, and that it is useless, and this article says barely anything negative about it. just go to google, and search "the ipad is" and look at the suggestions. I'm not saying we should insult the iPad, but this article should not be so apple biased, praising it as "one of the best computers ever" and barely mention any real criticism (Above by 72.133.55.59)

Thing is, what "a LOT of people were expecting" doesn't matter here or there. Firstly, if "a LOT of people were expecting" anything except what they got, then they were wrong. Apple never announced or claimed that the iPad would be anything other than what it is. The views of "a LOT of people" who had somehow convinced themselves that a non-existent product would be released are of limited value, and of no value at all within the content of an encyclopaedic article. "It doesn't appeal to the entire laptop market" - yes, and? The iPad does not appeal to the entire can opener market either. That's because it's not a can opener! Again, encyclopaedias are supposed to be above that kind of logical fallacy. If there is REAL criticism of a product, from an authoritative and reliable source - and that means places like CNet, The New York Times, and so on, not individuals' blogs and forum posts - then those quotes are fair game and can be mentioned in the article. (As indeed some already have, a few paragraphs below the one you mention.) But for the moment there has been little "real" criticism of sufficient value and notability to mention. That's not pro-Apple bias, that's just a true reflection of how it is. Bonusballs (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree with you, I think that this guy has a point about pointless praises being quoted in the reviews section:

"Ed Baig of USA Today bluntly states that the iPad "is a winner".[110] Andy Ihnatko of the Chicago Sun-Times calls the iPad "one of the best computers ever""

.....saying that the iPad is "a winner" and "one of the best computers ever" is pointless crap that doesn't belong. It's completely worthless to quote sources calling the iPad super awesome if you don't quote WHY they think so. People would like to know WHY THE IPAD IS LIKED, not just 'oh it's totally awesome i love it, it's so super cool and great' 155.92.100.69 (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't find this content in the article, so I guess it has already been removed. (PS I agree with Bonusballs) -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I decided to remove it right after posting my comment 155.92.100.69 (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

IPAD Weight

Apple dumps AT&T

Frequencies

Ignoring spelling convention = misinformation

Article Outdated

Madtv

I assume it can connect to WEP networks. What about WPA/WPA2 etc.?

iPad 2 redirect header

This looks rather ugly, and if there was more coverage there would be a "main article" link so it seems unneeded. Thoughts? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If we just call the section iPad 2 that would eliminate many problems. Marcus Qwertyus 08:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly a lot better than the current situation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the next iPad will in fact be called iPad 2? While certainly possible, it seems unlikely given recent names of Apple products. Furthermore, the content in this section contains information about future revisions, not necessarily the next revision, so using something like "Future iPads" seems more appropriate. For that reason, I think the current "for a notional iPad 2" wording should be adjusted. --Mepolypse (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

== iPad support and development ==

Followed by

iPad 2

iPad 2 is blah blah blah

Software updates

more blah

As for the name iPad 2: It is the common name and who cares if we get the name wrong. We got it wrong with the first iPad. Marcus Qwertyus 13:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of blah blah blah to me. ;-) Seriously, I don't understand what your proposal is. What do software updates have to do with this? As for who might care, our readers might, if they get the impression that the name is known. For that reason I think it's more appropriate to refer to them as "future iPads" (the first existing paragraph) and "the next iPad" (the second existing paragraph) respectively. We could add info noting that the press uses speculative names like iPad 2 in a parenthesis or similar, but we should make it clear that the true name for the next iPad is not yet known. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The next iPad sounds like a better name, if we can keep the "iPad 2 redirects here" from being in the article as that is far more annoying. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

we have to follow the references. They uniformly use the name, ipad 2. When there is an official name, we can change and add the necessary redirects. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think The next iPad or Future iPads would be best. (When I created the section I called it "iPad 2" – with quotes.) --Pnm (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.99.152.73, 15 January 2011

iPad 2 related content

iPad 2 release date speculation

Next iPad GPU rumor

Update re Apps

Attempted toilet humor inappropriate

This is my polite, non-attack, welcoming and assumes-good-faith comment re "In the first days after the iPad's announcement, some media and many online commenters criticized the name "iPad", noting its similarity to "pad", the common name for a sanitary napkin. Shortly after the launch announcement, the hashtag "iTampon" became the number-two trending topic on the social networking site Twitter."

Pu-leeze! Any anti-Apple adolescent (or adult stuck in that stage) can create supposed criticizm like that. I KNOW that you have objective sources for the info but it's not real in the sense of any true outrage, it's not relevant, and it ought not make the cut as to use of space in the article. That's not "censorship" it's deciding what info is relevant to the reader.

"Pad" has more than 20 definitions: apartment, helicopter landing place, a foot, bound paper, floating leaf of a water plant, any horizontal concrete surface, athletic-impact protection devices, medical gause pads, brake pads, it can even mean a horse with an easy gate or to fake (as to pad the accounts) or to walk. "Any fool", so that includes me, knows that the iPad name evokes a certain general size of thin, flat surface the user can hold and read from and write on (i.e. a pad of paper). If you want a section for "Ipad in popular culture" (so that I know to skip it) then put this there. Please.

Half of the article seems to be remnants of an old, outdated "buzz" article about the launch and reception and predictions. It's as though an article about aircraft spend half of its space on pre-1910 info. Perhaps fine for its time but not a good base now. A 2011 article needs a rewrite with a different approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.19 (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please remove "noting its similarity to 'pad',". This is entirely unnecessary and, in fact, reads like something written by a 12 year old child with a boner. 99.184.95.183 (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We could remove that whole sentence on the iTampon thing. At this point possibly its undue weight? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably better to split reception of the iPad and remove the non-essentials from this article. Marcus Qwertyus 08:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Genx97, 7 February 2011

Education Outdated

28 January iPad release to 25 countries

New section - Entertainment

Multiple generation articles

Geolocation in comparison table

Omitted Features

While I'm generally not one to do anything to make Apple look better, I have to object to the existence of an "omitted features" section. I always find sections like this inherently non neutral. In order for something to be "missing" or "omitted" it is implied that said thing is supposed to be there, or was there at one point. Who decides if something was supposed to be there? If CNET said "The iPad is pretty great but you can't use it as a skillet", you wouldn't list put "Can't be used as a skillet" under "omitted features". I think this section should be removed. Some of the content could be moved to other sections if necessary, but I think that for NPOV's sake, this has to be removed. Let me know what you all think. Captain Stack (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Apple promotes the iPad as the best way to experience the web, email, photos and video. Flash is widely used for videos and games on websites and the failure to include flash limits the devices ability to display video and play games. The failure to include USB or SD card port limits ability to display or import photos for email. Using your example, the reason this section exists is because Apple claimed that they were going to make the best skillet in the world. Yet, on release the iSkillet is discovered to be able to only cook eggs if they are not from a chicken, all the spices on my rack can't be used without buying multiple attatchments, and I am unable to add peppers and onions to my eggs as that would be cooking more than one thing at a time.Jojuko (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd submit that there are relatively few major sources of flash video which do not also offer their content in the more up-to-date formats supported by the iPad and other browswers. Apple offer a camera connection kit which allows you to import your photos from USB and SD card. Marketing phrases like "The best.." are just that, marketing. The actuality is always going to be a subjective opinion, but trying to shoot that down and prove it wrong is neither encyclopaedic or terribly interesting. I agree that the tone of an "omitted features" section is clearly grinding an axe and I too question it has NPOV or indeed any relevance to the article. Bonusballs (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you recommend doing with regards to the content? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the content I think we should delete and not feel bad about but you have to use your best judgement. However, something like the lack of Flash can go in the web browsing section. Something like the lack of an SD card slot however, I really question its relevance. There's a lot of tech stuff that goes on gadgets. We all wanted an SD card slot, we think it'd be better with one, but the fact is, the iPad doesn't have to have one and just because we wanted it doesn't mean it has to be here. Regarding what Jojuko said, I think Flash is a decent thing to call "missing" because Apple did say that it can browse the entire web, but I think most of the other stuff can be removed and/or moved to the Reception section. Captain Stack (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree - some of the points are valid and of some note - the absence of Flash is arguably notable because of the brouhaha that resulted and its place in a story of the battle of emerging web standards etc (blah blah blah), since the iPad was perhaps a unique lightning rod in that conversation. Most of the section itself is reasonably evenly balanced and the points could live with validity elsehwere in the article, but grouping them together under "Omitted Features" just seems like axe-grinding to me. Bonusballs (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to cover each of the points and explain their importance. Flash is widely used for online games and video. Bonusballs might think that few websites use flash, but he could not be more wrong. At release the iPad was unable to display video from YouTube, Hulu, Dailymotion, Metacafe, Megavideo, Vimeo, TED, and CBS to name a few. I'm hard pressed to think of a third party video site that did not use flash. They are now able to display video from YouTube, Hulu plus(the pay service, not Hulu), TED and CBS; that still leaves a great many sites inaccessible. USB is ubiquitous on netbooks and laptops, including everyone made by Apple going back to the first iMac. To claim that failure to include USB support is anything but a design flaw is disingenuous. SD cards are used by the majority of cameras in use and on the market. As the iPad is promoted as a device ideal for viewing and sending photos this is again a serious problem. SD card readers are again a common feature on both netbooks and laptops. These three things must be included in this article. There is very good reason that almost every review out there mentions these three flaws. They continue to bring these points up even to this day. Removing these would violate NPOV, not the other way around. Wikipedia is not designed to blindly promote particular products. However, I do not see a problem with integrating them in the article as a whole and agree it would be best to get rid of the omitted features section. Criticisms should be integrated into the body of the article rather than given their own section. As for screen aspect ratio and a built in camera, I see these as disappointments of not meeting the hype and expectations of critics for the device to really realize its potential. Video conferencing was never a promoted feature and aspect has little impact for viewing most videos. Because of that I would have little problem with those being mentioned only briefly or not at all. Again, flash not being supported needs to be continued as it was a huge problem on release and continues to limit the devices functionality to this day. As for USB and SD card slots, that is mentioned repeatedly on Apple's site as a limitation that is remedied by buying the iPad camera connection kit. When these flaws are mentioned in the article I think it is only appropriate to mention this remedy right after. As for multitasking, I believe this deserves mention as a flaw that existed upon release but was later fixed. Jojuko (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add suggestions as where to move this content. First under the reviews section it should mention common praise and criticism for the device. The display, speed, interface, battery life, apps, and price are mentioned as positives in the majority of reviews. Lack of flash (and the widespread use of this format especially at release), USB and SD ports (although solved with the camera connection kit), multitasking (fixed with later upgrade), and camera (should probably be included due to widespread mention). I do not think the lack of flash should be moved to the web browsing section. It would apply, but there is no web browsing section in this article. It is our duty on wikipedia to distill information from third party sources. Cherry picking only the things that we would like to hear, ignoring what is present in the majority of reviews, is just not acceptable.Jojuko (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think some of you guys need to be WP:BOLD on this. I'm not 100% sure what you want to do, but it sounds fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Or you could just go ahead and remove the criticisms that I listed even if they are mentioned in every single review cited. Then leave only file sharing, printing, and being a closed system as flaws, even if they are only mentioned in a single source each and have nothing to do with how the Ipad was promoted. Nice whitewash fanboys.Jojuko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

Edit request from MarkErickson, 4 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change iPad 2 dimensions to Apple specifications http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/ :

Height: 9.50 inches (241.2 mm) Width: 7.31 inches (185.7 mm) Depth: 0.34 inch (8.8 mm) Weight: 1.33 pounds (601 g)

Specifically in Technical Specifications change iPad 2 Dimensions from 9.5×7.31×.346 in (240×186×8.8 mm) to 9.50x7.31x0.34 (241.2x185.7x8.8 mm)

In the iPad side bar change

2nd generation 9.5 in (240 mm) (h) 7.31 in (186 mm) (w) .34 in (8.6 mm) (d)

to

2nd generation 9.5 in (241.2 mm) (h) 7.31 in (185.7 mm) (w) .34 in (8.8 mm) (d)

Note do to rounding the Apple depth dimension appears to be incorrect. In order to be consistent the actual depth dimension must be approximately .3449 in (8.76 mm) by interpolation.

Mark (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That happens due to the convert templates rounding, I suppose we could make it more accurate, but does it matter? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it matters. Although it might seem small, for people like myself who make iPad cases, being off by mm's makes a big difference. The height is wrong by 1.2mm, and there is an important difference with the already thin 8.8 vs even thinner 8.6 numbers. Also don't like wikipedia not having the correct numbers, numbers that match Apple's specifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkErickson (talk • contribs) 05:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference of 0.2mm, which in anyones book is a wash. If your making an iPad case you aren't going to get the size here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Just looking to get the correct values in. Those 0.2mm do show up in the specs, so it matters to some and those playing the "who is thinnest" marketing games. The rounding on the (h) is 1.2mm. After seeing various reports and different sizes (and without the device yet shipping), I did look here for something vetted by a larger community. Thus my added info. I'll get independent measurements and some tolerances soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.2.126 (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliance on a PC?

Operating System

Edit request from Corylulu, 15 March 2011

Fragile?

What the hell is 1066mbs ram?

"Crippled" Bluetooth in infobox

Rather than edit warring, let's discuss this here. I say that the infobox is a summary of technical information and that any qualification is likely to be POVish. Any sourced, specific details can be added to the article; there's a paragraph under Audio and Output. Sources must be reliable and the information must not be vague; what does "lockdown/proprietary" mean, anyway? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Lockdown could go for pretty much any phone Verizon Wireless sells, so no, we don't need to be getting into the ins and out of what is available or not in the infobox or any table. There is no neutral way to present the information in a concise manner, and not be honest, it's generally WP:UNDUE. This is the first i have ever heard of a complaint over the bluetooth. Seems pretty common for any manufacturer or company to modify it to their liking.--Terrillja _talk 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Apple the the os producer, don't confuse with Verizon distributer. So unless you have other Apple os there, it's crippleware. Yosri (talk)

Vendors are known to request different things on their phones. Verizon is well known for disabling sync capabilities on all of their phones. My point is that it is hardly an isolated practice. And I don't see how it is crippled either.--Terrillja _talk 23:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you define crippleware and see where Apple os different. If I don't like Verizon, I can buy similar thing from others. Apple claim bluetooth, but disable some function qualify as crippleware. The fact you did not hear about it make me think they enggage in deceptive advertisement. Yosri (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I repeat my above points. One, the infobox is too summarized for this, but it could be appropriate in the article itself. Two, please find a reliable source that describes specifically how the iPad Bluetooth is crippled. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 05:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain who say that the infobox is too summarized for this? And you are welcome to write about lockdown in the article itself, if you want to remove it from infobox. I already put a reliable source on lockdown in Ipad, but it seem to goes missing now (I didn.t mention that it is cripple, only lockdown in the article). Yosri (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The infobox is a summary; that's what it is. Because I removed it from the infobox, I have to write about it in the article? What difference does it make to you? As for you reliable source, it admits that it was wrong about Apple lockdown. It also does not describe how the Bluetooth is crippled. What, specifically, can you not do because of the lockdown? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 15:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for not notice the write up. I only check the infobox. You might to check this for more info http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/business/yourmoney/14digi.html?_r=1&em&ex=1168923600&en=53015d2825fc3704&ei=5087%0A Yosri (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Cut iPad 2

Digital Rights Restrictions?

Images

Hi all. I want to have a discussion regarding image use, and what constitutes a good image. In the infobox, we prefer to have a clean, straight-on shot, but it is most important to show the holistic product, including the user interface. Therefore, Evan-Amos's image is currently unacceptable but can potentially be superior to the current image. There are many images that technically infringe copyright, but are tagged as free and available on Commons. Perhaps of the least concern is the image previously used to illustrate reading a book, with a copyrighted contemporary work. Although I have let Evan-Amos's replacement stand, after the infobox it is often helpful to show the product being used, rather than in a vacuum. Please be courteous when adding/replacing images. Also, most copyright violations do not require right-this-moment attention, and can be dealt with by discussion. Therefore, I have protected the page for an hour, which with hopefully give Evan-Amos time to make a version suitable for the infobox. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Trout accepted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice new image. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Would it not be possible to show the iPad displaying a Wikipedia page? Some iPad browsers can be configured to not show the top toolbar, if the browser's copyright is an issue. --NellieBly (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That isn't really very interesting or worthwhile - you may as well show the device off. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

File:IPad 2 White Front.jpg

Also available in orange?!

The iPad 2 image, IPad_2_White_Front.jpg, is awful! The white balance is way off, leaving the device looking a peculiar shade of orange. Even the caption says, '..available in black and white (shown).' Shown?! Also, the full size image looks like it's been upscaled from a low-res photo taken using a mobile phone camera. No offence meant to the ~~perpetrator~~ photographer! :) nagualdesign (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll post an image of mine as soon as I unbox it on Thursday, assuming no one has uploaded a better one. Jackster (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bpedigo, 4 April 2011

iPad 2?

Should we include some unconfirmed information on the iPad 2? According to Gizmodo, the iPad 2 should be thinner and lighter, include two rear and front-facing cameras and a higher-res display. They are to start production in early 2011.

Please note that these are only rumors. If we do decide to include them in this article, we should mention this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctyonahl (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's viable to present the coverage of rumors; Apple is like this. Anyway, as long as we have sources, we're OK. ǝɥʇM0N0^farewell 01:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. WP:CRYSTAL: nothing goes up without an official announcement. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

HTH, I see no problem in adding mention of the rumors, *as* rumors—coverage of the rumors is fine. @theM0N0 22:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think rumours should be included... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I do, as they are perfectly notable. mono 02:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Mono is completely right. In fact, it is conceivable that an article could consist entirely of rumor as long as it met the general notability guideline. Marcus Qwertyus 02:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

But I don't see that these rumours are notable enough for Wikipedia - otherwise we'd have articles for every product that had ever been rumoured. Wikipedia is not the place to support Apple's marketing machine. I find it a bit mad that iPad 2 was redirected - are we going to create iPad 3, iPad 4 etc redirects, due to being possible future products?

What we currently have in the article seems reasonable - though I'd argue it should be integrated into the main text, rather than needing a special section. Mdwh (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, now I see that someone already has created iPad 3 as a redirect - although I see that this was done more to prevent people from creating the article, so yes, I see that as being a valid argument for preferring redirects to delete, in that if we deleted, someone would inevitably recreate it. Mdwh (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's official. The iPad 2 was announced today with delivery March 11, 2011. Please update.173.58.53.212 (talk)

Deletion request

Of note there is a deletion request for iPad 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPad 2. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Date

In the Technical specifications the date for release of Ipad 2 says 2010. It's 2011 now. I would fix it but the page is locked. 24.87.16.83 (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Done Marcus Qwertyus 06:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Tech specs

Specs list the iPad2 with a 1GHz Apple A5 (unsourced). Analysis shows it is dynamically clocked to 900MHz however: http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/12/ipad-2-specs-discerned-900mhz-arm-cortex-a9-and-powervr-sgx543m/ Suggest correcting or is there a source for 1GHz as per 1st gen iPad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.25.236.226 (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The line in the article "Without modification, and with the exception of websites, it will only run programs approved by Apple and distributed via its online store." is not quite correct. There are many companies that have in-house (or consultants) that have written apps for use that can be loaded onto the device and not go through the store. While commercial apps must be approved, those created by any developer can be run on any iOS machine they send the code to (if they include that machine's info in the provisioning file), or they can be installed by Enterprise developers from one of the many tools available for the purpose. Only buying from the App Store is only true of commercial apps sold (for free or for a price) through the store. The enterprise program is documented by Apple at ^[3] Tsmyther (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Smitty

Independent report on working conditions

Quick question

foxcon section

Proposed text on UK reports about iPad & factory suicides

section break for Morning Star

Revised text of suicide controversy

Foxconn suicides removed

UK launch and media coverage

Further discussion about media coverage of iPad & launch in UK

The Worldwide launch

References

Comment

Apple to give iPad workers a raise

GA Review

Some questions/comments on the above

References still to tidy up

Leo Leporte section

GA Review

Some questions/comments on the above

References still to tidy up

Ignoring size…

Deletion request

Wrong Date

Tech specs

Related Articles