Talk:ThinkPad/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Why is there a criticism section at all? It's so old and outdated, like the part about Lenovo in Canada having a buggy ordering system. As a former employee of Lenovo, this problem was fixed so long ago. Lenovo implemented SAP in November of 2007 and it was SAP issues that caused problems. This was fixed a few months in, and it has now been almost 2 years in production. It's insane to keep something like this here, it's negative to Lenovo when it's no longer accurate. Even the section about some T60's not shipping, we're talking things 2+ years ago, how is that a criticism?

I think including a criticism section in the article is a good thing, but we should be careful to adhere to

Maybe we don't need any criticism to begin with. Other laptops that are much less reliable don't have any sections like those. (Wikimachine 03:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

There's nothing wrong with criticism. In fact, it is important to include it to remain NPOV if it is verifiable. My solution would be to point out criticisms in those other articles, rather than to white wash this one. --Karnesky 03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What? Who can prove "Internet forum is not reliable"? Wikipedia is an Internet-based resource itself and has no right to discriminate the reliability of any other internet resources including forums, unless you have facts to disapprove them case-by-case! Actually, Wikipedia itself is criticized by somebody as a unreliable resource also. So, don't be hypocrisy or double-standard. Also, the support forum of Thinkpad I am citing IS more reliable than most internet resources. The registration of the support forum of Thinkpad is very strict, any free email address from gmail, yahoo, .. is not eligible. You have to have a real email associated with companies or universities to register and post messages. Please take off your colored glassess and do your homework first before deleting other body's efforts twice! --Leo 19:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read

WP:RS for what standards we try to hold ourselves too. Using unreliable sources will not improve our reliability. I am actually a member of the forums & am registered with a hotmail.com address. I like the forums. I like my ThinkPad, but recognize that some people think the line is in decline. None of that is relevant for an encyclopedia--you're generating original research based on forum posts & that doesn't belong here. --Karnesky

19:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Use facts to disapprove my citations please. The only standard wikipedia should hold is to verify each citation case-by-case, not blindly accepting or declining them just because of the types of sources. I have seen many junks from academic papers, I also saw lots of insightful knowledge from forums. Also see some other opinions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Forums_as_reliable_sources --Leo 19:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You raised another comment: "None of that is relevant for an encyclopedia" ?? How did you get such conclusion? Where is the guideline for what is relevant and irrelevant?? I 'd like to see. --Leo 19:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure when they changed registration policy. But I just tested it again using my hotmail email and got this: Sorry, but this e-mail address or address range (such as any anonymous/free e-mail like gmail, yahoo, hotmail) has been banned. You will need to use a real e-mail address if this is the case. This action is due to MALICIOUS users using such free and anonymous e-mail address. This is just another example of doing homework and verifying. --Leo 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please review the content of the Criticism section? I am concerned we remain NPOV. Liao/anonymous contributors are interpreting data much more negatively than I do (which is one reason I say that a lot of this feels like original research). I've tried to clean this up, but I want to make sure that I've shifted bias in the opposite direction. Thanks. --Karnesky 20:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was you who interpreted evidences in a biased way. Anybody with least common sense would say the 2006 Vendor Value Study [1] of IBM (ranked 17 out of 40) is an evidence of declining quality of IBM but you provided it as an evidence to support its sustained quality and services. You already changed the way you wanted. Why ask here again? Please don't delete my evidence as I am polite to keep yours. --Leo 01:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and let other editors weigh in. Don't forget that I'm the one who added the Vendor Value study link. I don't think it belongs there, as it rates a lot more than just laptops (and, indeed, it is for CIOs--so is probably weighted to the server room). On what basis do you think that it belongs? --Karnesky 02:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that is the only thing you added but does not belong here. Let's make it clear now: I have good faith on others but NOT you, just because you provided some evidences in biased way first and selectively disposes them after criticized by others. And you constantly tamper others' evidences using so-called personal caveat comments. Therefore, you simply lost your credit as a un-biased editor in wikipedia. And I will NOT tolerate your sneaky behaviors. If wikipedia means anything to me, it must be a fair place for good practices to fight biased behaviors. --Leo 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I said that I added the link to the CIO survey, not that it was the only thing I added. I also maintain it should be removed. Please prove that that survey concerns laptops. It doesn't mention laptops in the criteria (only servers, storage, and networking).

The only other caveat I've added was that of being able to fix stuck pixels. That was one choice for the vote in that forum poll. If it was notable enough to include as a choice in that poll, why are you ignoring it?

Please also read

WP:OWN--I'm not "tampering" with your edits--I'm trying to make the section more encyclopedic. I don't think your edits had a NPOV. I admitted that I may have shifted the bias, but we're both working to improve the article--not rant or rave on our personal feelings towards ThinkPads. --Karnesky

16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(Wikimachine 03:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC))

Hi, wikimachine, would you please just modify it as you wish. I have good faith on you based on your good comments here. :-) --Leo 13:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but for today, I guess my Wiki time's up, so I'll do it tomorrow. (Wikimachine 23:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC))

Reverts

I reverted Liao's changes to the criticism section. This is because:

1. The CIO report (which I had originally added) addresses servers/storage/networking, but not laptops.
2. The PC World surveys are relevant and
   WP:RS
   & present a couterpoint to criticism
3. The state department's refusal to use these over security concerns is, perhaps, the most stringent verifiable criticism of the line.
4. Lenovo has "flip flopped" about the level of consumer adoption of their changes to the series.
5. By presenting the individual number of dead/stuck pixels, we present a more accurate and less biased report of problems with the LCD screens reported on the user forums.

I haven't seen compelling reasoning which runs counter to any of these points. I would certainly welcome any argument, rather than to engage in a revert war. Thanks. --Karnesky 01:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Your interpretation of defect pixels (single out dead pixel) were totally unacceptable from the user's point of view. The US government thing has nothing to with the criticism of quality degradation,but a political fight/discrimination based on country origin or race. The way of "Despite.." writing was in consistent for a criticism section, much looking like a biased tamper. Those behaviors already disqualified you as a neutral writer for this article, not mentioning the biased evidences you raised first and discarded later. I have to closely watch this page to protect the integrity of wikipedia from your vandalism. --Leo 02:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, as a Chinese, I have every reason to accept your biased-to-positive edits in this article. But as a neutral wikipedian, I have to stick to the rules and be fair. I respect your efforts to "protect" this brand. But your behavior is to spoil it indeed, not true protection. --Leo 02:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone else please contribute to this discussion? I'm upset that Liao is not assuming good faith on my part. I have added points of criticism to this article myself, so don't see why he continues to think I am "biased vandal." I also don't see how nationality has anything to do with this. Please respond to my points, above & reiterated, below:

1. There's been no indication of why the CIO report is being used in an article about laptops when the report isn't about laptops.
2. If you object to the phrasing of the PC World surveys, please rephrase them--they are relevant to this article & it hasn't been argued otherwise.
3. The section is on criticism, not just declining quality. The U.S. State Department prohibition has certainly received much more press than dead/stuck pixels!
4. There's been no attempt to address Lenovo's "flip flop."
5. How is singling out the two different defects "unacceptable," especially when the original source does it?

--Karnesky 03:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The CIO report (which I had originally added) addresses servers/storage/networking, but not laptops. Unanswered & True
2. The PC World surveys are relevant and
   WP:RS
   & present a couterpoint to criticism Unanswered & True Comment: Since NPOV requires both viewpoints, a source that provides pros and cons about an argument should never be neglected.
3. The state department's refusal to use these over security concerns is, perhaps, the most stringent verifiable criticism of the line. Answered, I think this is
   original research
   , only scholarly articles that actually state that the US department's refusal to use Lenovo laptops is a sign of quality degradation should allow for the presence of the claim above.

The US government thing has nothing to with the criticism of quality degradation,but a political fight/discrimination based on country origin or race.

1. Lenovo has "flip flopped" about the level of consumer adoption of their changes to the series. Not sure what's going on here
2. By presenting the individual number of dead/stuck pixels, we present a more accurate and less biased report of problems with the LCD screens reported on the user forums. True and unanswered Comment: imagine that the criticism section did not provide # of dead/stuck pixels, but just claimed the decline of LCD quality in Lenovo laptops. It would sound like a typical POV criticism of a Chinese company.

Your interpretation of defect pixels (single out dead pixel) were totally unacceptable from the user's point of view. I don't think that this answers anything. How is it unacceptable?

1. By the way, as a Chinese, I have every reason to accept your biased-to-positive edits in this article. But as a neutral wikipedian, I have to stick to the rules and be fair. I respect your efforts to "protect" this brand. But...

I have a comment for Liao on the framework in which s/he operates this debate. By beginning this discussion without good faith, and making a point from Chinese point of view, you are using non-neutral stance to counter Karnesky's arguments. I don't think anybody mentioned that Lenovo is bad because it's a Chinese company or anything. The criticism section already contains the sentence "even before Lenovo" got hold of the ThinkPad brand.

By the way, Merry Christmas! (Wikimachine 20:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for the feedback. With respect to the U.S. State Department, I don't think it an indication of quality degradation and don't think the way that it is currently phrased makes it sound like it is. Quality degradation is not the only "concern" that can draw criticism. That there was such a ban and that it was prompted by security concerns is well documented. Some may have opinions that those concerns are protectionist paranoia & not agree with the decision (I, myself, think it may be somewhat idiotic when so much other stuff is also manufactured in China and allowed in the State Department). However, the facts as presented are verifiable. To emphasize this, I'll tack on "security" in addition to service/support/hardware. --Karnesky 23:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fan noise

I'm willing to accept the combination of the wiki and the forums as a source for fan noise complaints (as ONLY the forum has been used for the source of other criticism). What is unacceptable is to pretend that the wiki claims the ThinkPads are "known to produce" noise which "the manufacturer failed to acknowledge" (especially as the wiki links to IBM/Lenovo pages regarding fan issues). It is also appropriate to acknowledge work-arounds which are mentioned in both the wiki and in the forums. --Karnesky 17:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that criticism which only cited the forums has been purged. I'm fine with this & think we should also remove criticism which only cites the wiki. --Karnesky 02:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Karnesky's version is good. Wikimachine, please understand: there are no books or scientific journal articles about ThinkPads. And of all online sources out there, these are among the most reliable for ThinkPad-related information: [2] [3] [4] Piotras 18:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Read

WP:OR. That clearly is formulating your own thesis from a multiple primary & undependable sources. (Wikimachine

23:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

My opinion is that Criticism is criticism. If there are negative things about Thinkpads, they should be pointed out loud and clear. It is undeniable that some Thinkpads have fan noise problems, that's what that entry is for. I am also fully aware of those workarounds, however, they can't appear in the Criticism section for obvious reasons. My point is: there is a criticism, just say the criticism. How difficult is that? Thinkweird 00:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about Thinkpads per se, not Thinkpads that have been 'worked around'. If we mix the product itself and the workarounds (not to mention in the section of Criticism), then any product can be worked around to avoid criticism, thus losing the whole point of criticism. Thinkweird 00:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are known work-arounds, we should present them to maintain

WP:NPOV. --Karnesky

01:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there aren't any & that's exactly the point. For example, should we try to "work around" the fact that Martians exist but we just haven't found them yet because they are so advanced? There aren't any proofs. There are infinite things that don't have any proofs upon which they can be validated but without which some things might not sound NPOV or something like that. That you don't include all opinions is not a reason why they're not NPOV. (Wikimachine 21:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

If the point of criticism is not in the article, obviously the work arounds don't need to be. IBM/Lenovo have acknowledged fan issues [5][6] (3.03 release notes, as documented on the wiki). --Karnesky 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I read all of them. The first link doesn't really say that the fan noise is a problem, but it's more of a precautionary note for users who might suspect malfunction. From the second link you can click on the txt download that explains the problems that the patch fixes:

"- (Fix) Reduced Fan noise in some models."

However, this doesn't say anything about the fan noise in a problematic sense. To derive a theory that the fan noise was too loud or made weird noises from the user reviews/forum chats & the "reduced fan noise in some models" (which might have been done out of spite/no apparent reason but for what they saw as a minimal product enhancement/upgrade) is considered

WP:OR. I don't want to argue too deeply into this; however, I want to bet that you guys are open before I consider making any concessions on this matter. (Wikimachine

21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

A simple search of google will reveal that Thinkpads do have an issue of fan noises. Period. That's why the fan noise section Thinkpadwiki and TPcontrol is for.Thinkweird 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

But to use google under your own personal interpretation is

WP:OR. (Wikimachine

02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

The section for criticism is reserved for criticism only, NOT for workarounds. The reader should be presented a simple FACT that the fan noise issue exists. Thinkweird 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, criticism, but what can those criticisms be? Facts. And facts must be verifiable under Wikipedia's procedurals. (Wikimachine 02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

How can you justify putting the workarounds in a criticism section? Not to mention whether the results of the workarounds are verifiable. Thinkweird 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Really, "workarounds" is what you mean by "fact". So, I'm not sure what you're saying at all. (Wikimachine 02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

Workarounds and fixes are mentioned on EVERY page that mentions fan complaints. Leaving them out creates bias that isn't in the source material. --Karnesky 00:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

But, the same could apply for almost anything crazy. NPOV standards should not be used to justify illegitimate edits that violates

WP:NOR, right? WP:NOR is more important than NPOV. Justifying one thing with another is even worse. (Wikimachine

02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

I don't know why you think NOR is more important than NPOV--they're both official content policies. In any case, I think we're more-or-less on the same page... --Karnesky 02:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the fan complaints are less well sourced and less notable than any other criticism. If you want to work against

WP:RS by pushing your opinion, I think it is better just to omit the complaint for now (until you can find sources which are on par with the other points of criticism. --Karnesky

00:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Look who is pushing the opinion here? Keep in mind it is a section for criticism. If you can falsify the following points, I agree to take the point out, if not, leave it there: 1) The FACT is: some thinkpads emits excessive noises; 2) the viewers have the right to know this FACT; 3) No opinion is given in that line. It is just a simple statement of FACT. Thinkweird 00:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also try to falsify the following points: 1) Workarounds does not belong to Criticism section, that causes inconsistency. 2) Stating a simple FACT cannot cause bias because it is unadulterated FACT. You are welcome to add workarounds elsewhere. Thinkweird 00:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read

WP:3RR

ALL laptops have complaints about fan noise. For example, see google results for HP Pavilion fan noise, yet note that there is no mention in HP Pavilion.

Further: not all facts are notable or verifiable enough to include in an encyclopedia.

Also, that there are workarounds and fixes created by both the manufacturer and users is also a simple statement of fact. Omitting them when the original sources don't creates a biased presentation of facts.

The objections raised have had nothing to do with whether your comments were true, but with whether they are reliably sourced, notable, and neutral.

Finally: of course workarounds and fixes are topical to the problems which they solve! --Karnesky 00:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to make any changes on HP Pavilion page.

Thinkpads fan-noise-issue is notable and verifiable. Search google please, and compare the result for HP Pavilion.

Viewers clicking on the link to thinkpadwiki will be aware of the 'fixes'.

Repeat one more time: adulterated or 'fixed' product are not the product per se.

The burden of proof is now on you to establish how effective those workarounds are, in a 'reliably sourced, notable, and neutral' way.

Thanks for let me know 3RR. Now I am aware of it. Thinkweird 01:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

None of that matters. If it violates

WP:NOR, then that's the end of it, no matter how important you think the "fact" is in making the article NPOV. (Wikimachine

02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

Wait a moment. If there is a violator of

WP:NOR

again please.

Excluding "HP" from the google query yields 360K hits for pavilion fan noise, compared with only 344K for thinkpad fan noise. None of the sources make it particularly noteworthy & I don't think either article benefits from a discussion.

What keyword you used here? I begin to seriously doubt your objectivity here or your ability to do a simple Google search. Please do a search and verify your search results.

thinkpad fan noise pavilion fan noise --Karnesky 03:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

pavilion fan noise -thinkpadThinkweird 05:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of this? It yields 319K results and thinkpad fan noise -pavilion yields 302K, so the Pavilion still has more hits.

Also, spend some time to read the search results. How relevant are the results related to the 'fan noise' we are talking here? Thinkweird 05:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I did. Most are forums and are not

WP:RS. This is why I don't think fan noise belongs in EITHER article. --Karnesky

19:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should we include fan noise & not dead pixels? Or heat? Or various other issues that all laptop lines receive some sort of complaint about? They're just as trivial.

Trivial? Ok, verify it is trivial.

Go and ask the thinkpadwiki guys to take out the whole page, ask sourceforge to delete TPfantrol program, nullify the Google search results and numerous users' complaints. What a simple dismissive 'trivial' issue!

Wikimachine and I seem to think that the burden is on YOU to provide a more reliable source for fan noise issues. --Karnesky 02:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So I am outnumbered here?

WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY --Karnesky

03:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No amount of evidence will suffice for someone who wants to violate

WP:NOR

by UNSAY a fact or SUPPRESS the truth. I have provided ample evidence (thinkpad wiki and google search) now prove to me that it is 'trivial' or 'untrue'.

By the way, if you do think there is a issue of fan noise with HP Pavilion, go and add it. I will not suppress it. Thinkweird 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't hide the truth. Thinkweird 03:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If it is such an important issue, surely you'll be able to satisfy

WP:RS without difficulty! --Karnesky

03:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to repeat what I said above "Go and ask the thinkpadwiki guys to take out the whole page, ask sourceforge to delete TPfantrol program, nullify the Google search results and numerous users' complaints. What a simple dismissive 'trivial' issue!"

You are contradicting yourself: you have admitted there are many workarounds in your post above, now you are saying it is 'trivial', not 'notable', needs verification and should be 'more reliable'. Weird, isn't it? Thinkweird 05:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, if there is a fan noise problem with HP Pavilion, you are more than welcome to add a criticism to it. Thinkweird 05:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A proposal of conciliation: The fan noise is most noticeable on T43 series (that's what Tpfancontrol is intended for) and are not so obvious with other models. Shall we modify the line into:

Some particular Thinkpads, mostly notable T43 series, are known to emit excessive noises. There are many workarounds available to address this problem (insert the link to thinkpadwiki and Tpfan control).

what do you think? --Thinkweird 05:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, there are at least two distinct problems: (a) the excessive noise problem and (b) the fan always on problem. Both should be addressed here. The problem with the T43 series is mostly (b), that's why TpFanControl was written -- to allow reprogramming the temperature thresholds. As for (a), they are not necessarily caused by the fan: [7]. Piotras 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, whether there are two problems or one, they're all your opinions. There's no reliable literature to back up those claims & therefore we are not responsible to include them in our NPOV calculations. And you cannot use NPOV to override WP:NOR. (Wikimachine 20:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

I'm sorry but by randomly referring to various general policies you don't sound convincing at all. Besides, I don't really know what you are criticising, because I haven't proposed my version yet. There is no original research here because the problems are well-described in reliable sources. And it is in fact you who is blatanly violating NPOV by suppressing legitimate criticism. Are you, or have you been, in any way affiliated with Lenovo or IBM? Piotras 20:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought you were talking about the fan noise.

WP:NOR, which this violates. Yes, I'm a ThinkPad user. R40 2897B4U. (Wikimachine

21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

Apparently, you didn't understand me. To rephrase the question: do you work for IBM or Lenovo? Is editing Wikipedia is a part of your job description? Such affiliations should be disclosed, I hope you realize it. Piotras 07:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, nor should that matter. Stay with the Wikipedia matters now. If you've read my user page... (Wikimachine 22:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

Here's a version that only summarizes what has already been reported, and does not draw any conclusions:

• Some users of particular ThinkPad models, mostly the T43 series, complained that the fan never goes off, even when the computer is idle [8] [9]. To remedy that, a user contributed an
  open-source Windows application that allows setting the temperature thresholds that trigger the fan, which are normally hard-coded in the BIOS [10]
  .

Hi Piotras, the criticism here is "noise" not always-on problems. If it is quiet, it can run as much it wants. So I would suggest that we focus on the noise part. Thinkweird 22:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• There have been isolated reports of high-pitch noises coming out of the computer [11].

If it is isolated, I would suggest we drop this line. Thinkweird 22:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me know what you think. Piotras 21:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Restrict not Prohibit

According to the link to BBC site, the accurate word should be 'restrict' not 'prohibit' with regard to being a Chinese company. Thinkweird 23:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Department of State Concerns

I don't think they belong in the Criticism section. Maybe

Piotras, I can tell you are a liberal. Great. Thinkweird 00:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it does belong in the criticism section. Didn't I ask Piotras if Thinkweird was your sock puppet?(Wikimachine 01:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

I'm not sure if you guys are getting this.... using

WP:SOCK#Straw_man_sock_puppet is a very severe violation & will definitely result in indefinite block. (Wikimachine

02:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, I am who I am. Thinkweird 06:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, you know all the rules, but you label people too easy and too fast Thinkweird 07:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, you are a master suppressor! Thinkweird 07:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you really believe we are the same person (which is ridiculous), why don't you report it? I've already asked you to do so on your talk page but you didn't even respond. It appears to me that by doing this you are intentionally trying to disrupt the discussion because you lack arguments. "Pasting random policy links is not enough to make people shut up, so now let's move on to false accusations" -- is it so? Piotras 07:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My talk page? No. You've never replied back to me. Ah. Actually you have. Never mind. My mistake. It probably got mixed up with all the other talks. I'm sorry. (Wikimachine 22:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

I made the change and moved it to trivia.

As wikimachine noted, this sounded like a straw-man argument. I've reverted that change. The state department criticism over the country of origin is the most well-documented point in the list! --Karnesky 16:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

'Sounds like a straw-man argument'...Ok. It only sounds like, please verify it. Thinkweird 17:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Your only comment in this thread was "Piotras, I can tell you are a liberal. Great. " How was this meant to show you support Piotras's argument? --Karnesky 17:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. What is EXACTLY being criticized here? Lenovo? State Department? China? Thinkweird 17:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As has been indicated, the ThinkPad is being criticized because the company which makes and sells them is based in China. --Karnesky 17:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So it actually the country which is criticized here. Please pause a second and think: what are we criticizing here? A product should not be criticized solely based on the country it is manufactured. Thinkweird 17:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying in that line "I criticize Thinkpad because it is made in China"? Come on, you can do better than that Thinkweird 17:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Merely commenting it out reflects bad faith. The section isn't about criticism that you agree with--it is about criticism which has been reported by reputable sources, is verifiable, and is phrased with a NPOV. Yes, the U.S. state department criticized a PARTICULAR PRODUCT (the ThinkPad) due to the country of origin. Please revert your edit. --Karnesky 18:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Following this logic of criticism, you can say that "I criticize you because your skin is black. I criticize you because you speak Spanish". This criticism is generated from a deep-rooted bias and is in cohorts with RACISM. Not to say that the criticism is NOT substantiated. Thinkweird 18:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"you said "Yes, the U.S. state department criticized a PARTICULAR PRODUCT (the ThinkPad) due to the country of origin". It is downright racism and bare bone prejudice. You can NOT criticize a product simply because of the country of origin. Thinkweird 18:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Karnesky wasn't criticizing ThinkPad b/c of its origin, though. It was the U.S. State Department. (Wikimachine 05:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

First: the concern the US State Department raised was nationalistic, not based on race. Refer also to

WP:NOT#CENSOR. That you (and I) disagree with the State Department is not sufficient reason to exclude the material, as long as it is sourced & neutral. --Karnesky

18:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is: a product is criticized solely and simply because its country of origin. This is far from neutral rather it is downright racism and prejudice. Please, keep that bottom line in mind. Thinkweird 20:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, nationalism is different than racism. This isn't to say that nationalism is necessarily "good," but may diffuse some passions.

Put a concern based on nationalism for a product is NOT a criticism for the product itself. It fits in the triva section perfectly. Nobody agrees your point so far and can't you see you are too strong-willed in this issue? --Leo 01:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, wikimachine seems to agree with me. It is true that Thinkweird doesn't, but WM suspects he's a sockpuppet. There is hardly consensus for your point of view. --Karnesky 02:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is also a side point. Neutrality means that WP must not take a side in a debate (for ANY reason). Neutrality does not mean ignoring reputable sources because they are distasteful--it means using the sources & reporting on them in a detached way.

Perhaps you are right that the U.S. State Department has a nationalistic (or even a racist) bias, but we are only controlling the NPOV of the article--not of the State Department. --Karnesky 20:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you still can't understand, let me make up a sentence here: "Me, thinkweird, do not trust and will restrict Karnesky's work on wikipedia, because he has a dark skin and speaks Spanish". Now put this on the British Blasphemous Castigation (B.B.C) website and make it 'neutral'. Thinkweird 20:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral version: "User Thinkweird raised credibility concerns for user Karnesky because of his Hispanic origin."

good rephrasing but how come you call this neutral? Thinkweird 06:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this is in the criticism section makes the observational statement on the attack against Karnesky neutral. (Wikimachine 21:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

What you said above have serious logic problem: It is not neutral simply because it in criticism section. Prejudice is prejudice, no matter where it is. Thinkweird 06:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So what if it's prejudice? According to you, I can't say that there is prejudice within the Department of State b/c saying that there is a prejudice is prejudice in and of itself? "What you said above has a serious logic problem". (Wikimachine 18:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

This is the most ridiculous thing to be listed in the criticism for a product. A product is being criticized solely because it is produced in China. For some brain-washed people, there is a sin for any Chinese product no matter what. --Leo 23:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well... it's not that Department of State banned ThinkPads b/c Chinese products are terrible. It's more of communism vs. capitalism thingy... Also, US perceives China as a new emerging power & thus a threat. (Wikimachine 01:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

It is NOT a criticism for a product. It is just a political fight. I don't understand why somebody can not comprehensive this simple thing and constantly claims it IS a criticism. Well, justice is never being given. You have to fight for it. I will fight for the justice for this. A tiny Sino-American war has began! ...--Leo 01:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The section seems to be a better fit than trivita. There is clearly criticism her. The initial Lenovo-State Department deal drew criticism and Lenovo, itself, drew criticism because of the Chinese government’s large investments and influence in the company. All of this was to do with the ThinkPad line specifically, as opposed to other Lenovo products or services. --Karnesky 02:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(1 )It is a political policy by a country A based on nationalism to a product by a country B. Let's say Chinese government issues a restriction of hiring USA people for classified work. Is it a CRITICISM to USA people???? (2) By the way, where on earth did the term CRITICISM appear in the BBC link you provide? Have you read the article at all before jumping into a conclusion that the concern was a CRITICISM? (3)At least two other editors(Piotras, Wikimachine ) agreed to put it into trivia section just in this discussion. Your assumption that a US government 's concern is non-trivial is purely an American-centric view, even not liberal American's view. Most of people in this world won't pay an attention to such concern when considering Thinkpad at all. It IS a trivial issue because it takes effect only when USA government(There are 200 countries in this world, if some people need to be reminded) wants to use it for classified work(not daily routine public work)! You are really lack of common sense and are against NPOV even after several people disagree you. --Leo 12:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Re. point 2, the word "criticism" need not appear for something to actually be criticism (look at the sources on the other points of criticism. Further: many other articles DID say that the US SD was criticized for the initial purchase or that they had instituted the policy because of criticism over Lenovo's stakeholders.

Re. point 3, I don't think Wikimachine agreed to put it in trivia. He explicitly states

"I think it does belong in the criticism section."

If I'm wrong on his opinion, I'll acquiesce to consensus. Otherwise, I think you're (again) singling me out for no reason. --Karnesky 14:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, since Wikimachine just cleared that he agrees to put the US SD concern into trivia section. The consensus so far should putting it into triva section as it is I think. Problem solved. Cheers :-) --Leo 01:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that the criticism section has been cut, I'm OK with leaving it in trivia. If a criticism section is reintroduced, this question should probably be revisited (as WM proposed that the section be cut AND (rather than "or") that the US SD point remain in trivia). --Karnesky 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Who authorized you to cut the major part of the criticism section? I thought any major cut should go through some discussion. I revert it back and will watch it unless you have shown enough support for the cut. --Leo 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Standard of sourced or not

Per Karnesky's "dead/stuck pixel criticism which isn't properly sourced; US SD criticism IS sourced and IS "criticism"

I just want to say Karnesky's standard for sourced or not is too biased. While a US government's concern is sourced(regardless if it is idiotic or reliable), he will feel obligated to add it, non-trivially. And if there are end-users' complains for dead/stuck pixel, he treats it not well-sourced since no newspaper/TV/Radio reported it. Isn't there anything fundamentally wrong with his standard by trusting propaganda rather than end-users' life stories? Why do you care editing Wikipedia if individual users' experience is not a kind of source equal to TV/newspaer/Radio? Anyway, it is just my opinion to Karnesky's standard used here. I welcome any comments regarding this if you are interested also :-) --Leo 13:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of this, let me check it out later. (Wikimachine 14:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

It isn't my standard & I don't appreciate being singled out. You had actually convinced me that the forums (though FAR from ideal) were borderline "good enough," but I wasn't the one who removed the pixel criticism in January with the comment

"deleted the so called "poll" for pixel problems on Thinkpad, a 59 votes poll should never be included in any citation as it have a huge error margin.)"

59 votes poll is good enough for sample of end-user experience unless you can find a larger one. It is often more reliable than most reviews shown in paid magazine, newspapers, TV. How many votes do they have? --Leo 01:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiMachine criticized the forums being used as a source in this talk page, invoking

WP:RS several times. This has convinced me that my initial opinion -- that forums weren't reliable sources -- was correct. So, why are you singling me out--others have expressed similar concerns! --Karnesky

14:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire criticism section is not properly sourced. It should be deleted. The US Department thingy looks nice on the trivia section. (Wikimachine 04:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

I apologize if I confused your original target for "isn't properly sourced". But I do want to point out that end-user opinions are most relevant ones regarding to product quality, not a paid magazine/newspapers. We can have a rest and enjoy wikipedia from now on since it seems the arguments have reached agreement now. The article is in good shape indeed. --Leo 01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'd agree with WM's remark (the downgraded return policy seemed to meet

WP:V), but I removed the "criticism" section due to your apparent agreement with him. --Karnesky

00:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been around for a while and I see that this article is on a good way to become an advertisement. I understand User:Wikimachine has an agenda, as he stated on Dec 5, 2006: Maybe we don't need any criticism to begin with (now that's the spirit!) but then you (Karnesky) replied: There's nothing wrong with criticism. In fact, it is important to include it to remain NPOV if it is verifiable. My solution would be to point out criticisms in those other articles, rather than to white wash this one.. I fully agree with what Karnesky wrote then and I am going to restore this section, because this is Wikipedia, not Wikiadia. Piotras 13:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be criticism, but the criticism needs to be well-sourced & forums/wikis just don't cut it. Per comments from Wikimachine and Leo, above, I've excised those points of criticism which were under-sourced. We should probably put this in paragraph form & make use of citation templates to fast-and-loose additions. --Karnesky 21:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your cutting. Where is my apparent agreement with him about what? We were discussing the US statement stuff within the criticism section, nothing to do with the other part. There must be some misunderstanding. So, I moved this section into the right place and I reverted the criticism section back. We spent a lot of time in justifying one single item in the section, but you just deleted all without hesitation. :-( --Leo 01:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

On the 15th, Wikimachine proposed cutting it because it isn't properly sourced. On the 16th, you said "it seems the arguments have reached agreement now." Since this came after Wikimachine's comment & in a section on reliable sources, I thought you were agreeing with him. --Karnesky 03:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Another place to put it

If you don't agree this should be in Trivia (maybe you're right, it made significant news after all), another option I see is to rename the Design history section to Brand history (even now it's not only about the design) and put the information about the acquisition there as another paragraph, where this "criticism" could be mentioned. Piotras 14:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ransom

Please give Lenovo a call (866-96-THINK) and verify the price before suppress this information. When I called, the price for that laptop was over $3000. Thinkweird 15:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)