Talk:The Inquirer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Older talk

---

The Inquirer has been accused of manufacturing rumours or speculating aimlessly in order to inflate its number of visitors. However, most of these claims lack factual evidence, apart from references to older articles which in light of new information are no longer correct (an example would be an article talking about a planned product which has since been cancelled).

---

The part in bold was removed from the article, with the note "-POV". Why is it exactly not NPOV? The first sentence is actually not particularly NPOV, since without any sort of evidence it seems to be made with the sole intent to discredit the publication. If there is no evidence for them making up stories (apart from the false evidence, as I had mentioned) then why is this statement even added to the article?

For now, I've just added a {{Fact}} tag next to the statement. If someone can please find some good facts (not a Slashdot comment: goes against WP policy "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.") else that part should probably just be taken out. --213.46.128.161 20:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The first part is NPOV because it is a verifiable fact that The Inquirer has been accused of those things. The sentence is not asserting that the publication does these things, it is asserting that it has been accused of these things. The second part is POV because it is asserting that these accusations are false. It's the difference between "Person X says Y is true." vs "Y is true.". If you want to include such a sentence it should go something along the lines of "However the The Inquirer rebukes these claims by saying ...", not "The above claims are false." (I have a feeling you are from The Inquirer.) Qutezuce 22:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not from The Inquirer. I simply like the website and am sick of seeing people say they make up news without providing any evidence that they do. It's slander, and I generally don't like such behaviour, but seeing it on here was something I certainly didn't expect. BTW, saying I'm from The Inquirer doesn't really do your argument any good.

To the point, you know full well that a statement like "they have been accused of manufacturing stories" without any counter-argument is seen by people the same way as them actually doing it. Even more to the point, what is the need for it to be in an encyclopedia? Something more neutral would be a sentence like "they've been accused of manufacturing stories, but the evidence given for this belief is often disputed".

You say it is a verifiable fact that people have claimed those things. Well, where are the references? If they're some comments on message boards, I don't think they should be in here.

Someone reverted my edit with the mention that I'm a "sockpuppet" and added the Slashdot comment back. As I said in my above comment, such references go against WP policy and the person who added it back at one time (HackJandy) is actually the person who made the post to Slashdot! Talk about having an agenda! He made a comment "reversion from employee" there also; he didn't really know if it was an employee who made the edit or not, did he?

It looks to me like this person has some beef with The Inquirer or something, but I am certain that WP is not the place for such things (in fact, I could give you the policy page for it). Without a factual reference to the "The Inquirer makes up stories" claim, the whole section, with rebuke or not, just comes over as something that is written with the intent to discredit them.

I don't want to start some edit war or anything, so I've only removed the comment that was just added:

---

This same employee recently [dec 2005 is not recent; also statements like 'recently' shouldn't be in an encyclopedia] debated the factual evidence of a graphic card launch in a Slashdot thread; [not a reputable source] manufacturing news is often something the Inquirer is accused of. [double statement: this same thing appears earlier in the article]

---

--213.46.128.161 00:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is slashdot not a reputable source? Unless you have some evidence that slashdot falisfies comments, then a slashdot comment claiming x is a very good source that claim x has been made.

Secondly, I removed the POV from the article because it was saying "Y is true.", you are free to add in a statement saying "Other people claim Y is true." to balance out the statement. Qutezuce 01:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Game Gear

• as no source has been provided actually showing that they're lies. It may seem obvious, but we still need sources stating so

I don't understand your reasoning, perhaps you can explain it better? A quick visit to Game Gear would demonstrate that Sega (and not Nintendo) are the creators of Game Gear. Their claim that the Playstation 3 GPU is weaker than the GeForce 7800 is ridiculous, The Inquirer got their source from a forum. TeamXbox.com was contacted by Nvidia and they were told that The Inquirer's report is a lie. TeamXbox had the decency to correct their error: [1], whereas The Inquirer never did. The Inquirer published countless articles claiming that the R520 is codenamed 'Fudo', but turns out The Inquire made that story up, the codename was simply R520. They also claimed that the R520 would run at 1400mhz, which was way off. This is just three examples off the top of my head, I can list many more. Dionyseus 19:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Being incorrect/unsubstantiated and being a lie are different things. A lie requires intent, which hasn't been directly established by the external references. As for the 7800 claim, the TeamXbox article would be a better source than the Inq article in question, as it actually establishes that the Inquirer was incorrect. Referencing the original articles doesn't give the reader the necessary context, and presumes some prior knowledge that may not be there. Dancter 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, the Wiki page about Radeon R520 contains errors and was not edited to delete speculative claims. The speculative claims in relation to the timeframe of the refresh product introduction never transpired into reality - therefor the date of June 5th to 9th is incorrect. One of the errors is also the fact that Computex Taipei 2006 was held from June 6th to 10th. I guess that is an error, since I was only in Taipei since June 4th.

However, if the editor of that page read the following news: R580+ becomes Radeon X1950XTX, it would have been informed that the R580+ is actually named X1950XT(X) and will be available in October timeframe. So, no Computex launch (with a missed date of the event).--Tvalich 20:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement removal

I have removed the sentence that assumed The Inquirer was lying when they said that Nintendo was the maker of Game_Gear. It is my belief that it was never intended to be read as Nintendo being the manufacturer of Game_Gear, but as them being the manufacturer of gaming equipment. That is the reason for my edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.233.83.24 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming that this is Theo commenting in reference to the recent comment I left on his talk page. It was unclear what the purpose of the removal was for, as no description was left in the edit summary. More was removed than just that statement, though. Your stated concern is valid, as I had mentioned above, but the paragraph could have been edited to address that concern, as opposed to being completely removed. Concerns about the integrity of The Inquirer are valid, as well, and should not be omitted. Dancter 22:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not the Theo person you are referring to. I am sorry but I forgot about the edit summary. It was meant as a correction to the writer that the sentance "GAME GEAR maker Nintendo has announced..."[2] might not actually mean that The Inquirer believes Nintendo are the makers of Game_Gear, but is in this case a victim of misinterpretation. When I read the article, I took it as Nintendo being the maker of (as I said above) gaming equipment in general and not the actual product Game Gear.

The part about The Inquirers integrity should indeed be there, but in my oppinion seperated from the main article. 81.233.83.24 23:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. You are Tvalich, though, right? Looking at the article's edit history, I can't discern any other editors touching the article since Dionyseus added the Game Gear statement initially. If you aren't, I can't imagine my comments being too relevant. Again, if that is the case, I apologize. Dancter 23:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not him either. Don't have an account here on wikipedia as I almost never feel the need to edit anything.

After looking at the history page I can't find my edit listed there, which I find really strange. So you don't really need to apologise as it's not your fault for the confusion. 81.233.83.24 00:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I looked through the edit history and it appears that it was Dancter who perhaps unintentionally removed the Game Gear sentence. [3] Dionyseus 20:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It was intentional. The editor had a point, and since no external source was given that directly claimed that the "Game Gear" thing was a lie, I took the liberty of removing it. Perhaps if you can find one, you are free to put it back in. But most of the sources you've provided for your statements seem to building an original thesis that is not directly attributable to any one source. I already have one journalist ranting about me reverting the deletion of the text, so forgive me if I'm not as patient about you finding the proper sources. Dancter 21:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You've called, m'lord?

This is Theo Valich, a contributing author to The INQUIRER. If I am on the Wikipedia (I consider this site to be a repository of knowledge for present and future generations), I always use my account - Tvalich. I do not use anonymous IP adresses. I do not wish to comment on the edits made to the site, since they're mostly discussing future events and aren't able to confirm their invalidity. Of course, if Wikipedia editors have the Types of time travel and are able to jump from this date to several dates in future - I would be glad to join the Wiki editor(s) in the trip. I do not expect any FF miles, however.

Regarding the part of the article which is located in the Past and is verifiable - such as R520 affair, sadly - I do not see any editors making ground work for their editing. Such ground work would include, but not relate only to - asking the manufacturer of the claimed product what were the code names of the product. I also do not see editors inquiring about whereabouts about first produced and signed R520 "Fudo" board - currently residing in my colleagues apartment in Vienna.

In the current edit of description of the INQUIRER tech newssite, there are five factual errors, out of which three are immidiately noticable to majority of computer enthusiasts/students of EE colleges/IT professionals.

Since one of the future matters debuted in the description, the July 14th date - is approaching, the matter will be resolved very quickly. On July 14th, 2006 at 6AM CET I expect an apology from the editor(s) which claimed the dates were invalid. I also expect that Wiki editor backs the claims about wrong time of launches with official Intel documents claiming the launch date is (only) July 27th, 2006. Also, I expect the editor to be in possesion of Intel documents or any valid information will all disputed dates that are conflicting with previously published information.

The lack of any documents from editors side leaves the editors in question without any legal ground except hear-say. I am not talking about linking to a different news-sites, I am talking about official information. If an Wiki editor and a Wiki official wish to see the documents, they are available from:

a) PR representatives. The papers will be shown to you if PR reps regard your claims as valid.

b) Contacting the author of the articles that wrote about dates and changes the company made.

c) Contacting a fellow journalist who also works in the IT industry, not related to the disputed matter.

I would also suggest the editors of Wiki to clean and better explain articles which are of general public knowledge - such as one I've linked to in this article.

For every article most of writeres write for The INQ, it takes anywhere from three hours to two-three days, and sometimes even months before something could be posted. Most of colleagues, including myself - refrain from posting an information without the info being confirmed at least by one or two independent sources. In regards to the stories also posted on the INQUIRER wikipage, I do not see any evidence from Wiki editors that a detailed investigation has been made in effort to aquire evidence for those claims. Detailed investigation is a part of editing work, and sometimes requires more effort than writing the article itself.

When it comes to my credentials, I am professional journalist with almost a six years of journalism and editing experience in ICT arena, and a year of internship in daily newspaper business. Therefor, backed by the lack of evidence that claim the opposite - I have no other reason but to consider most of the comments made on this matter - written in the manner an editor (or editors) is/are trying to describe The INQUIRER web-site. Speculative and without valid arguments. --Tvalich 19:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Theo. It is considered vandalism to blank a paragraph without giving a rationale in the edit summary. As for errors, I can list many more factual errors by The Inquirer, such as their January 25, 2005 claim that the R520 would be released in early May of 2005 (actual release date was October 5), [4] their May 9, 2005 claim that the R520 would be released in September (actual release date was October 5), [5] and their June 27, 2005 claim that the R520 would still be released in September (actual release date was October 5). [6]. Want me to post more factual errors? Dionyseus 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome. Not sure it is kind, but it is appriciated, still. For an editor of "encyclopedia" to take the matter of a computer industry, world reknown for its factual and punctial behaviour - and blame it on the messenger - its just interesting.

Regarding the release date of the R520, codename Fudo - I have a reverse-question to ask. Who empowered you to decide when will a graphics, or any other - component of the computer be released? Since both the R520 and RV530 endured same problems, dates got shifted. I know what was the reason of the delay, when it was solved, and the actual person that fixed the problem. I guess ATI probably has a red-letter day and the name of the colleague who did the deed.

Do you know what the R520/RV530 problem was? After all, we have disclosed all of this info on The INQUIRER. Just like many of our colleagues who work in the industry and were involved in the R520 matters - wrote too.

And ATI enthusiasts dit it on Wiki, but probably no one from the editors in question here - read the R520 article at all.

I just wonder how deep is your research when you're unable to progress the timeline of development of the actual product, and if you do have the knowledge of the matter - you're showing rather shallow way to demonstrate it.

Besides, I have a question for you, and Wiki editors who are involved in the matter. I am in position of NDAs (note: more than one) and document briefs about CrossFire and R480 marchitecture. If you're not familiar with R480, I am writing about Radeon X850XT here. Could you tell me when was the date of release for CrossFire X850? And the "launch", judging by your definition of it? How many documents and date changes were there? And... when and where was the launch event(s) held? Hope that's not too much work, right?

However, like I have wrote in my original statement, I have not seen a single document or verifiable claim made by Wiki editors about claims that can hold ground on this matter. And sadly, until you do - I cannot take your comments seriously.

P.S. As you probably do not have it in your research, the October 5th, 2006 - was not the launch date. Because, there were... several launches. October 5th, 2005 - was the NDA expiry date. NDA for technology previews and reviews. Availability came later (so, the actual launch-launch), separate for X1800XL/X1300/X1300Pro, X1800XT/X1600 and X1800XT CrossFire - also, a trick question. ATI used what platform to launch X1800XT CrossFire? And when? Can a launch of X1800XT CrossFire can be considered as the R520 launch or not?

Now, the R520 Fudo launch event (event before the launch that comes before the launch-launch) came prior to that date. Following this?

Do you known the actual date of the european R520/RV530/RV515 launch?

It took me 20 hours to get to there (started my travel at 6AM, got in the hotel at 1:45AM next day due to ill-fated delay caused by soggy Croatia Airlines). Hint: In theory, I live four and half hours of flight from the launch-event place. But you know, it was weekend and holiday in Germany... now, I am really trying to help you out with your research. But it all ended well, as far as Joe and myself were concerned. Have to say Sabine made me start reading Vogue. Now, what does this 4AM CET jibberish has to do with the launch event? Probably has something to do with people reading this page other than yourself... Ah... right.

P.P.S. I took the liberty of deleting false information on the R520 page. It contained very outdated information about R570 and incosistent set of rumours about R580+ graphics chip. I saved the page for future reference before I edited. Something to show to my future students.

Hope you don't think those linked pics were photoshoped as well, right?

--Tvalich 02:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Inquirer is "world renown for factual and punctial behavior." Oh really? Here's an example a quick search revealed, and apparently that thread contains many other blatant factual errors manufactured by The Inquirer. [7] Dionyseus 02:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, no source to the alleged quote (unless you didn't knew, the quote-marks aren't named quote-marks for no reason).

However, there is no answer to your claims. No research. And only quoting the THG. Sad. Anyway, this place, your public apology... well, tomorrow around this time. Have phun. Gotta finish the Conroe review in order to hit the net in time. Tonight US time. --83.131.33.116 02:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh I quoted Tvalich's claim that The Inquire is "world renown for factual and punctial behavior." Dionyseus 02:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I fail to see how that quote is incorrect. INQ is an repository of news just like Wikipedia. Sometimes, those news do not come to life, and they get canned at the beginning, just like MSI-GigaByte merger going down the ropes. But you probably know all about it, so I guess there is no point in explaining the timeline of that matter and INQ's influence over the case.

--Tvalich 09:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Dionyseus is changing the context of what Tvalich really said: 'For an editor of "encyclopedia" to take the matter of a computer industry, world reknown for its factual and punctial behaviour - and blame it on the messenger - its just interesting.' In other words, Tvalich finds it 'just interesting' that 'an editor of "encyclopedia"' (i.e. Dionyseus) blames the 'factual and punctial behaviour' of the 'computer industry' (i.e. not The INQUIRER but the industry it reports) on 'the messenger' (i.e. The INQUIRER). I know, 'good' faith and all that.--Rfsmit 18:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a little note regarding the R520 affair--it was known that R520 suffered many delays and problems before it launched. The chip even taped out multiple times. Companies change/alter/delay launch dates quite frequently and for many reasons, so accusing the Inquirer of lying for reporting an earlier launch date is in itself a lie. That information may very well have been true at the time--ATI simply delayed it after the initial report. It would also explain why the specs changed--with every new tape-out of R520, ATI could have been forced to ratchet down the specs either to get the chip stable or to keep costs down. That's the nature of roadmappery and other reporting on future events--information can be true at the time, but the company you're reporting on can change their plans at any time, invalidating that information. Happens all the time. jgp (T|C) 03:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In other words their reporting is often speculation, not factual, and they have a tendency of not citing their sources. Dionyseus 03:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And by "not citing their sources", you must mean that they are like any other newspaper. Show me any newspaper that does investigative reporting who reveals the identities of the tipsters, informats, and stoolies that give them information. There are none. jgp (T|C) 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you have never read a serious newspaper, only tabloids. Dionyseus 04:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it is regarded as good journalism to name sources, reporters have been in contempt of court rather than name sources of leaks [8] Riscy 04:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Herald Sun is a tabloid. Dionyseus 04:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the New York Times, then? [9]. jgp (T|C) 04:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Judith Miller was a controversial figure who got what she deserved. A proper journalist should cite their sources, otherwise whatever statement they make should be taken with a grain of salt. Dionyseus 05:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You can look at journalistic ethics standards from around the world here [10] and here are two examples [11] and [12] I'm not saying that an anoymous source is as good as a named source but this is definately taken into consideration by the reader when it is reported. I don't expect that much information would ever be leaked if all leaks had to have their sources named. It happens in politics on a daily basis just as it happens in tech news. Did Bob_Woodward and Carl_Bernstein dob in Deep_Throat_(Watergate)? Riscy 06:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, but as you say any statement backed by an anonymous source should be taken with a grain of salt. The difference between a tabloid like The Inquirer and a broadsheet like the New York Times is that The Inquirer contains much more speculation, anonymous sources, and factual errors. Dionyseus 06:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as this quote stands at Wikipedia, with Dionyseus name behind it, the grain of salt isn't enough to belive that Dionyseus is acting on anything else exepct hidden agenda:

"All the ads were photoshopped, and it is very likely that her MySpace profile and her blog were created by The Inquirer themselves.". I see zero research for someone to be able to make this statement, and all of the following claims made by that person are simply - out of order and are not to be believed. Also, not much left before this Wiki editor will have to make a public apology or simply face the consequences (caught in a obviously malicious act of vandalization of well-known Wiki pages - which breaks the policies of Wikipedia. Read them before I posted). Time is ticking, for me as well - to fill in my articles with the medias I am publicating in - and those are two paper magazines, a TV show and The INQUIRER. Filming Conroe in six hours time - All the best, and regards to the both INQ and Wiki readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tvalich (talk • contribs) .

Please assume good faith. A few days ago I dropped my claim that the photos were photoshopped, I based my erroneous claim on the fact that the photos do not currently appear at Dell's, HP's, and Visa's website. Dionyseus 07:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not see any good faith nor following the Good Faith policy in your actions. Today is the 14th, where is your apology for blatant and false accusations you've been writing about? All of the sudden, R520 Fudo and Intel Contreaue are being dropped, like nothing happened. Sadly, it did happened. And thought on any authority of Wiki editors is now gone. Especially when edits were made against Wiki policies.

I will discuss the matter of Reverse HyperThreading separately, but neither myself nor the INQ have been the only medias that were mislead by the sources. Of course, if you are able researcher, you could have easily found out who also posted the information, not linked from INQ, but also posted their geniuine articles about the matter. But I am afraid that research including an hour or two on the subject are above levels of Wiki editors in question.

Saddly, you are not doing anything to correct your behaviour, and your actions only took a damage to reputation of Wikipedia. I have read some of the other ICT-related articles and all that I can say on the matter is - instead of running your personal agenda and attacking the INQ (I presume all started with your blatant lie about Everywhere Girl and then build onwards), you could make those articles more credible, running with updated facts and conclusions.

--Tvalich 09:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, these people are all like this. When things go wrong they hide behind the AGF thing. 201.31.11.62 17:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverse Hyperthreading

I reinserted the sentence that says The Inquirer claimed that the "reverse hyperthreading" technology is currently implemented in socket AM2 processors, and that it can simply be switched on after an upcoming driver update. The claim can be found here. Dionyseus 06:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me. But I fail to see why it is necessary to describe the matter in such detail. The information can be pretty easily found through the links, and we shouldn't make these arguments our own by repeating the explanation ourselves, using the references as evidence. The sources do the arguing. We just describe the discourse. And that is done succinctly. Dancter 07:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with your current version. Dionyseus 08:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the RHT story. Wondered when will that hit me in the head. Well, it seems that I'll just have to take all of the headache caused by this article and forward it to my sources, who bought the story that a certain representative was telling them, obviously in a defensive mood.

Sadly, I fail to see that you have criticized other web-sites, who also posted news about the tech as well. The geniune articles, using same sources whom I believed. You see, there is a certain number of event happening in the industry. That event has a name - COMPUTEX. I am not sure whetever you know what is going on the trade fairs, but the summary is - you get information. A lot of it. I usually get materials for around 70-100 articles. And I am checking information for those articles - as soon as I get a confirm information, I post the info. Just like Journalists do. Just like any responsible member of Croatian Journalists Association, IFJ and Reporters Without Borders would do. If the info proves incorrect, journalist will take the issue with sources and get to the bottom of the info. And of course, post a retraction. Just like my editor did.

However, it seems to me that I am defending my everyday line of work, while at the same time several Wiki editors took offensive stance, forgot what writes in Wikipedia policies they quote and and published what now, and then obviously were - misinformation. Now, will the honorable readers of this page have to wait for November 17th for the information about performance of the G71 GPU inside the PS3 proves correct? Apology for incorrect and uninformed comments about R520? Apology for being wrong today, with Intel Core 2 Duo or Cointreau, as we dubb the codename of the product? Where did those 1000 characters of false accusations dissapear? I'll leave it to the readers to conclude, but this was just one sorry episode in history of Wikipedia. Everywhere Girl, The INQUIRER. I wonder how many hundreds, if not thousands of articles are incorrect due to lack of research on the part of Wikipedia editors. And sadly, I do not see info on this page being corrected. --Tvalich 09:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Update

An Wiki Editor in question sent a private message contaning regular wpa3 quote.

The person who was sent this message to - would welcome Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, since there is a possibility for an hidden agenda or a conflict of interest.

The edits of this article were made without any in-depth research and contained ill-fated information, and were a part of trying to prove the connection between the The_Inquirer and Everywhere Girl.

The majority of claims are now deleted, after being proved that The_Inquirer was correct. However, there are still comments written in malicious manner, and defy previously mentioned policies of editing.--Tvalich 10:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to recommend that Dionyseue be suspended from editting this article as he is attempting to inject (as NPOV) pejorative comments against the Inquirer. He is making allegations, but providing no substantiation.

Having followed the Inquirer since its inception and The Register prior to taht. I will agree that the Inquirer is colourful and opinionated, however, as a trusted tech news source, it is one of the best. It does not deliberately (to the best of my knowledge as an outside reader) deliberately manufacture information (except in the way of satire). Despite what Dionyseus may say, I believe teh Inquirer is reputable ... and yes, it is true to Mike MacGee's "Biting the hand that feeds IT". It may be colourful, but it is also non-partisan. -- Richard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.234.232 (talk • contribs) .

How exactly is The Inquirer a trusted tech news source? Perhaps it is seen as a trusted news source by some Inquirer fans. I admit that I often check The Inquirer for interesting stories, but I would never use their articles as facts. By the way The Inquirer has just posted an article admitting they were wrong about their claim that the Conroe would be released on the 14th, well actually they don't admit they are wrong they simply admit that it will be released on the 27th. [13] As for Tvalich, who is an editor of The Inquirer, no I am not an editor from a competing tech news website, and no I am not an Intel or AMD employee. I'm just a wikipedian who is trying to make this article NPOV. Dionyseus 13:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion that lack of research and publication of false information.

It is absolutely incredible that a person (yes, this is a comment of a person - not an attack - but rather a claim backed up by history of edits) is refusing to accept the facts and hopes that previous edits will go away. Sadly, they won't. Nor with the R520 Fudo allegation go away, ill-read clock-speed information (and lack of the knowledge what does forward slash sign means in IT industry) nor will the fact that INQUIRER was right about the midnight launch on the 14th will go away. Intel launched the chip when INQUIRER posted about. INQ also witnessed all of the changes that Intel put in the timeline of Intel Conroe launch, and posted them in public. Also, the news have been published that the Merom launch has also been brought forward by two weeks. Since it is possible to buy Conroe X6800 today, I am wondering where the ill-fated claims and allegations will end.

Having said that, I am putting the case to arbitration, since there is obvious hidden agenda. I do not think that an editor(s) in question are employees of Intel, AMD nor editing other sites, cause I know editors of other sites and this would be a pretty uncollegial behaviour. I do not accept explanation that the person in question is NPOV and the matter is official now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvalich (talk • contribs) 10:39, 18 July 2006

Some New Changes

I think the article is generally much more NPOV now than before. I chose to remove some sentences, such as "It often runs stories that are less than complimentary to tech companies" and "This often leads to accusations of bias from both sides of a debate, particularly Intel versus AMD.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› " as those are generalities that can be applied to pretty much any technology website. Most of the "oftens" were changed to "sometimes" or removed entirely (it's hard to definitively state something as occurring "often").

The Writing Style section was broken up, with a new Criticism section included. Those two paragraphs in criticism have nothing to do with the writing style. I also added the Other section because the fact that some writers visit a messageboard doesn't seem to fit in particularly well in other places.

There should certainly be more done on the page (there's still some extraneous information -- is it really necessary to know that they have published cease-and-desist letters?), but I think it fits in better with standards now. Kdawg 18:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, article looks more NPOV now. Dionyseus 18:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, I do not see any changes in the PlayStation 3 Affair (PlayStation 3 is, and will remain a future product for at least next four months), nor the explanation of Wikipedia Editors behaviour on blatant accusations in R520 Fudo affair (I guess someone finally searched for the origin of codename - such a difficult thing to do), Conroe launch affair (with the product being launched on 14th and certain product availability before the July 27th, alleged launch date by one person and some non-updated media). After receiving a threat that I will be charged with Wikipedia Arbitration Comitee and hopefully forbid to post in future, the matter of edits about media for which I freelance for - is a matter of Wikipedia Arbitration Comitee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvalich (talk • contribs) 10:44, 18 July 2006

I dunno I posted a minor change this morning pointing out that the INQ uses the phrase "Inspector Knacker of the Yard" and it was wiped for no reason that I could see by Dionyseus. I wonder, given his current previous contributions why he is posting on this and being so proprietary about the INQ and other people making changes. By his statement above "I do not see the INQ as a trusted news source" he has admitted that he is partisan, clearly has a problem with the Inq and should remove himself from editing this page. All I can assume is that he has not liked his coverage of his antics in the said magazine and has an axe to grind. Magus007 09:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I didn't wipe the phrase out, I reverted one word from that phrase. You posted on an anonymous IP and did not give an edit summary, and your edits were clearly POV and unsubstantiated. [14]. Dionyseus 10:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

They were POV, but contained possibly good information that could've easily been adjusted to a neutral tone. The information was unsourced, but I feel they should've stayed up a little while with some {{fact}} tags, to at least give editors a chance to verify it. I've added the information back for now, making some small changes. Dancter 15:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Dionynuous has this situation covered. He'll asked you to Assume good faith, and you've got to agree with his argument because he will link to the Wikipedia policy page on assuming good faith. After that he'll serve up a course of "no personal attacks", and then if neccesary the threat of arbitrartion committee. You may as well give up now because he can cite non-applicable Wikipedia policy to counter any argument you might put forth. Suoerh2 09:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The recently added line concerning a "cult following" should be changed or eliminated.--Phranq 15:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)