Talk:Wi-Fi

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 June 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

---

Wi-fi vs. Cellular section moved from article

This section currently reads like OR and needs editing and discussion before it is placed back in the main article - discuss below

Some argue that Wi-Fi and related consumer technologies hold the key to replacing cellular telephone networks such as GSM. Some obstacles to this happening in the near future are missing roaming and authentication features (see 802.1x, SIM cards and RADIUS), the narrowness of the available spectrum and the limited range of Wi-Fi. It is more likely that WiMax will compete with other cellular phone protocols such as GSM, UMTS or CDMA. However, Wi-Fi is ideal for VoIP applications e.g. in a corporate LAN or SOHO environment. Early adopters were already available in the late '90s, though not until 2005 did the market explode. Companies such as Zyxel, UT Starcomm, Sony, Samsung, Hitachi and many more are offering VoIP Wi-Fi phones for reasonable prices.

In 2005, low-latency broadband ISPs started offering VoIP services to their customers. Since calling via VoIP is free or low-cost, VoIP enabled ISPs have the potential to open up the VoIP market. GSM phones with integrated Wi-Fi & VoIP capabilities are being introduced into the market and have the potential to replace land line telephone services.

Currently it seems unlikely that Wi-Fi will directly compete against cellular in areas that have only sparse Wi-Fi coverage. Wi-Fi-only phones have a very limited range, so setting up a covering network would be too expensive. Additionally, cellular technology allows the user to travel while connected, bouncing the connection from tower to tower (or "cells") as proximity changes, all the while maintaining one solid connection to the user. Many current Wi-Fi devices and drivers do not support roaming yet and connect to only one access point at a time. In this case, once you are out of range of one "hotspot", the connection will drop and will need to be re-connected to the next one each time.

For these reasons, Wi-Fi phones are still best suited for local use such as corporate or home networks. However, devices capable of multiple standards, called converged devices, (using SIP or UMA) may well compete in the market. Top-tier handset manufacturers have announced converged dual-radio handsets. Converged handsets present several compelling advantages to mobile carriers:

• Efficient spectrum allocation, as more data-intensive services come online and bandwidth demands increase
• Improved in-building coverage in markets such as the US, where dropped calls are still a major cause of customer dissatisfaction
• Opportunities for mobile operators to offer differentiated pricing and services.

Solaris (SPARC & x86) & Irix?

What is the support level for WiFi in Sun Solaris and SGI Irix? I think we should add something to that effect.

Powerwatch and Spooky actions (of wi-fi on health) at a distance

Firstly, sorry about the pun :) Secondly, powerwatch is a lobby organisation that sells unproven gizmos to people who believe they have an illness which scientific studies suggest doesn't exist. See the electrosensitivity page. They cherry-pick data that supports their hypothesis, engage in fallacious reasoning, and are generally involved in poor science and have a closed mind to new ideas. For these, and other reasons (also discussed on the ES page) they do not meet the standards for wikipedia links. The other edits spookee has added, repeatedly, change the slant of the article to an anti-scientific viewpoint, hence are removed, and involve trivialities that adds nothing to the "debate" (eg. the Canadian university story). If you want to put your edits back, please discuss them here first to reach a consensus. Thanks! 88.172.132.94 —Preceding comment was added at 18:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Powerwatch is not a lobby organisation, nor does it sell unproven gizmos, and you have no justification for your smears on fallacious reasoning, cherry picking of studies or poor science. As this is entirely your POV you cannot use it as justification for link removal. Topazg (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Topazg. User 88.172.132.94 cannot impose his POV and remove the link with his "fallacious reasoning, cherry picking of studies or poor science." See / PowerWatch's response to Ben Goldacre's comments re. Panorama, WiFi, etc. (Spookee (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Topazg works for powerwatch, and if you look at their site they sell unproven and ridiculous gizmo's, and the BBCs Panarama has been told off for taking their advice --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User 88.172.132.94 probably works for the telecommunications industry. Arguments should be based upon reason and not on the force of language or unfounded claims. 88.76.59.133 (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't work for the telecommunications industry, and topazg is Graham Phillips of Powerwatch, son of its "head" Alisdair Phillips who has tried to whip up hysteria over electromagnetic radiation for the past 20 odd years, and who conveniently happens to have an interest in the company which seels "emf shielding devices"... They'll often point you to research that has used flawed methologies (eg. Henry Lai), research done by George Carlo (sacked by the phone companies) and other researchers who want to try and find something controversial so they can get more research grants.

Groups like Powerwatch, Mast Sanity and other "pressure" groups go on any local forum in an area where a mast has just been built to refer them to "alarming new research" which proves that phon masts and mobile phone radiation is a lethal killer, causing all sorts of problems, and that the only ways to stop it are: a)to move out of their house (which they know most people won't be able/inclined to do) to get away from the "radiation" or b)to buy some of the emf-shielding lead paint which Mr Phillips happens to sell. They rely on the age-old increasingly notable phenomena of the nocebo effect- by convincing some people that the mast will do them harm, then it can make people start to feel that way. They often claim that because people get better when they move away from a phone/tetra mast that it's because they are escaping the "harmful radiation"; when in actual fact it is more likely to be down to more pychological reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.251 (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WPA security and Amateur Radio deletions

I reverted two edits, one that dropped the Amateur Radio section without explaination and the other that said WPA2 is considered "government level secure." I'm not sure what the last term means; as far as I know WPA2 is not approved for classified information, for example. And the edit drops mention of WPA which is also far more secure that WEP.--agr (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Arnold R I removed them and added the comment. The amateur radio section has nothing to do with WiFi, how an amateur radio operator can use one of the bands in one of the countries is not wifi... This belongs under amateur radio. Also while I am at it, where does this RF connector stuff come from, it is wrong information for most products (the conectors are permanently affixed)and it has nothing to do with WiFi either... and is actually a severe regulatory problem/illegal as it seems to imply to users that they can change the antennae which in most countries is illegal and in all countries violates the regulatory certification. An amateur radio professional may get away with it... but it is not something for the average wifi user to do.

AES encryption is one of the most secure encryption methods known and is used by several nations for encryptions, amoung cryptologists is considered superior to basic DES which was previously used by NATO/US military but today is not in use. There is a US FIPS level that a company can submit to NIST for goverment level certification. Roger D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.191.206 (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Amateur Radio section discusses potential conflicts between that service and WiFi. That seems appropriate for this article. As for the claim that WPA2 is considered "government level secure," while it is true at AES is highly regarded cipher and a US Government standard, there is more to WPA2 security, or that of any communication protocol, than the cipher that it uses. I am not aware of any government approval of WPA2 as a whole. If you know of such approval, please cite a source. As for connectors, if you think the information is incorrect, fix it or add a { {fact} } tag. We don't delete factual information on the theory that someone may use it inappropriately. See WP:NOT#CENSORED--agr (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, A WPA2-shared key is just a simple AES encryption (this is one of the WPA2 selections and the focus of the comment) and nothing more. Do not to be confused with an EAP method like TLS along with a RADIUS server which is orthogonal ( and not the focus of the comment). My revision which someone else mucked with before you changed it was only to communicate the brute force superiority of WPA2 over WPA1 or WEP. In essence, to communicate to the common user to set up WPA2 shared key when they can so that they can feel secure relative to the problems that plagued WEP.

Relative to the Amateur radio section, this potential conflict only applies to a portion of the 2.4 GHZ band this might be better placed in a section focused on interference issues for 802.11b/g and placed over on the 802.11 page. This would not apply to the 5 GHz bands. Relative to rules I question your interpretation as being valid. Relative to interference enforcement this ISM band is already a junk band. In a populated environment this is right in the center of residential microwave oven emmissions along with dozens of other known interferers that are also using the band (video cameras, baby monitors, bluetooth etc...) all at very low pwoer levels so by the very nature of the existing band this prevents/limits its practical use in the manner described in this amateur radio section, but it might have a place in an unpopulated rural location. Clearly, these long range up to 100 watt transmissions are not in any way wifi (so why put it here)as the base protocals have packet acknowledge time limits that limit the range. Does anyone actually do this or is this just an argument without a purpose? Hundreds of millions of wifi products have been sold (worldwide) and operate in this band they are being installed in most laptops and they will search/probe for access points. The amateur use of the band has nothing to do with wifi.

Relative to the connectors, yes you can buy products with these connectors (especially true before 2003) but you have to search for them and it is getting harder and harder to find product as more product is built to save a few cents. The connecor itself has nothing to do with wifi or any wifi certifications.

WiFi has a specific meaning in the commercial marketplace today for the common user. The comon users should be able to come to this page and get meaningful information that is relavent to wifi...

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a help desk, so it is ok for the Wi-Fi article to contain information that most users don't need. That said, it seems we have three overlapping articles, Wi-Fi, 802.11 and Wi-Fi technical information. That maybe calls for some reorganization. It might make sense to move the Amateur Radio section to Wi-Fi technical information and replace it with a more general section on shared use of the 2.4 GHz band, mentioning amateur radio among others.

As for security, WPA2-shared key is not just a simple AES encryption. There is a hierarchy of keys and AES is used in a novel mode called CCMP. There are non-trivial message integrity and authentication issues that have to be dealt with. It's a quite complex design and while it has been carefully reviewed by the IEEE 802.11i committee, it has not received government certification as far as I know. WPA2 certainly is the best Wi-Fi security choice, but it's not clear that there is a huge benefit to average users over WPA. Both are lightyears better than WEP. Both have the same major weakness in PSK mode: dependence on the user picking a strong passphrase. The only practical weakness in WPA that I am aware of which WPA2 prevents is a jamming attack.--agr (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You have confused WPA TKIP with WPA2 AES relative to key hierachy and integrity checks. You have confused EAP (Extensible Authentication Protocals) functions with a RADIUS server relative to indentity with how a pre-shared key works (there is no identity question and there is no RADIUS server). There are many modes of operation that are capable to be configured within WPA/WPA2/ and several EAP extensions, you seem to be confused into thinking there is only one setting or that only the most complex configuration must be implemented. Now I understand why these pages are all confused! I have been a voting member of 802.11 for several years, I doubt you can say the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.191.206 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware that WPA2 does not use TKIP and that key management in WPA2 is simpler in PSK than in EAP modes. None the less, WAP2 PSK generates a new temporal key (TK) per session for AES encryption. See http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-97/SP800-97.pdf page 4-12. The TK is generated during the 4-way handshake. (page 5-18 ff) Also WPA2 still requires an integrity check mechanism. This is provided by CCMP, a novel AES mode. See p. 4-10 ff. I am not criticizing the WPA2 design--I think it is quite good--but it is far from simple and has not been certified by the US government to date. It is certified by IEEE and the article should say that.--agr (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Amateur radio simply doesn't belong on this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.37.102 (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To repeat: Amateur radio and the RF connecotrs simply doesn't belong on this page. It is not WiFi anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.37.102 (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now you're talking on the talk page, you're moving in the right direction. Please understand that we get both vandalism and some uninformed editing, so there are rules to follow...at least read WP:Tutorial before getting in an edit war. On the current topic, I found it quite helpful to know that amateur radio uses the same frequency and is governed by some of the same U.S. laws as WiFi...I don't see any reason to pull this paragraph, and others seem to agree with me.

P.S. It's a little annoying trying to talk with a number...please consider getting a username. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

 I agree with user 81.19.37.102 this is not informative relative to WiFi it isn"t WiFi and it should not be on this page. Amateur Radio belongs on an Amateur radio page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.191.206 (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 

I think it's useful, as it shows frequency is not exclusive to Wi-Fi. I have first hand experience of a baby monitor operating on 2.4 GHz that causes Wi-Fi connectivity to drop out. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above users this isn't wifi and it is also is not a section about sharing the frequency/band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.72.57.15 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Examine Consensus amongst scientists

New Section header inserted to distinguish this request from the previous section papageno (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement "Consensus amongst scientists is that there is no evidence of harm, and the continuing calls for more research into the effects on human health remain limited." should be first removed since it does not cite any references nor can any links be found. I can also claim that "there is no consensus among scientists on the adverse health effects of Wi-Fi" and what's more is that I can give you the links and references. Anyway. my statements and references will eventually be removed by some industry lobbyists who I believe have been hired to watch over the article (on shifts) 24 hours a day, 7 days weeks... (Spookee (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

I feel it is worth noting that the user Spookee is currently blocked for vandalism and sockpuppet edits of this article and another. See User_talk:Sevenneed for details --88.172.132.94 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be so, and, although I agree with the consensus statement, I believe the user's comments have some merit: a reference is lacking. There should be a reference pointing to comprehensive review or something similar to bolster the text. I suspect such a statement may not exist. The quotation further along in the section from Dr Michael Clark of the HPA is a popular press comment, not a formal review, and hence IMHO not strong enough as the sought after reference (although still quite valid for inclusion in the section!). An alternative might be to switch the two sentences, with a slight modification to the consensus: “There is a consensus amongst health protection authorities that there is no evidence of adverse health effects from Wi-Fi. For example, the UK's Health Protection Agency considers...Wi-Fi equipment.<ref>Ref 1</ref> However, in September 2007, Germany's...” (I've removed the “calls for research remain limited” clause from this suggestion; again, no reference, and I suspect one may not be found. And, the HPA has just begun a review exercise!) This construction allows for the future addition of references to statements or reviews from other health protection authorities.
I would also add a reference at point Ref 1, using a cite web template, to the UK HPA's document WiFi Summary.
Finally, I would suggest we add a {{main}} at the start of the Question of health risks section to direct users and editors to the Wireless electronic devices and health article, which is designed to cover / take edits on this topic area. papageno (talk)

I second you. Please go ahead and make the necessary edits. (Spookee (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

The WHO, for one, also thinks there is no link, after consulting leading scientists in the area. Their opinion reflects the mainstream science opinion (ie, the weighted body of evidence). I don't believe that is editorialising. --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A stronger and more direct argument could be made by adding the WHO's voice to the list of organizations that form the consensus of health protection authorities. There will always be counter evidence from a few scientists who disagree with the positions taken by the HPA or WHO, which would weaken the consensus (suggested synonym “unanimity” according to Merriam-Webster, I think much more the lay understanding of the word than Wiktionary's “general agreement” The dictionary definition of consensus at Wiktionary) of scientists statement; other editors would be correct in pointing this out and adding the dissenting voices. I am aware of not a single health protection authoritie, however, that disagrees with the lack of adverse health effects position, making the proposed statement unambiguously unanimous. papageno (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is the balance of the sum of evidence, not individual scientists opinions, so since all the HPAs are saying there's no danger, and there is no conclusive evidence of non-thermal effects (non-thermal effects seen thus far can be attributed to a heating mechanism), then I still see no problem with saying the scientific consensus --88.172.132.94 (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure there is consensus at all? See for example, / List of Studies and / Microwave News (Spookee (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

There is (almost) always a scientific consensus in any scientific field, ie there is always one view that is the accepted orthodoxy based on the balance of the collected evidence. Look at how quantum mechanics and relativity theory became the consensus, replacing the previous consensus. Non thermal effects of Wi-Fi is not a scientific controversy, as shown by the WHO, scientific groups, publications, HPAs, etc. Scientific consensus is not about the views of scientists, but the more abstract notion of the scientific view. Scientists are free to agree or not. Hopefully they don't, otherwise science wouldn't advance --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I can also claim 'Non thermal effects of Wi-Fi is not a scientific controversy, as shown by /scientific groups, / publications, /organizations, etc." Then when I look back at my argument, I suddenly realize how sloppy my reasoning is. Sorry for this bad argument. I will try to look for arguments more integrated, structured and convincing. Btw, have you heard of the quote "All science is either physics or stamp collecting… " by Ernest Rutherford ? (Spookee (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

What are you talking about? Have you heard the quote "philately will get you nowhere" --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't know?? I am not surprised. (Spookee (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

Clarification: I don't understand your broken English --88.172.132.94 (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User 88.172.132.94 probably works for the telecommunications industry. Arguments should be based upon reason and not on the force of language or unfounded claims. 88.76.59.133 (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User RDOlivaw was suspected of sockpuppetry and has been blocked indefinitely.

User Unprovoked was suspected of sockpuppetry and has been blocked indefinitely.

These two accounts were suspected to originate from the same user and have been used in wilful reverting of valid edits on section Question of health risks 84.63.100.220 (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WiFi Logo

Can someone who knows how to do it please restore the WiFi logo and add a "fair use" or whatever justification they feel appropriate. This whole deletion of images is going far too far. --RDOlivaw (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

external link question

I think that the following link is relevant and helpful to understand the risk involved and why most businesses prefer wired connections for most of their PCs. I am proposing that the following link be added. Thoughts?

• Pros and Cons of 802.11 G in a Business Network Discusses the issues with wireless computer connectivity as verses wired at a business setting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Networkingguy (talk • contribs) 17:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there's no objection, go for it. You've obviously put some effort into it. Be aware that someone could come along at any time and say "I've got a better link to cover the same stuff"...if so, we'll deal with that when it happens. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No sorry WP:EL says it can't go in. Integrate it into the article. -- KelleyCook (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Kelley is absolutely right that there's a rule that you can't post the link since it's your stuff. On the other hand, it's theoretically possible that I could post the link, since I have no connection to Networkingguy, but only if his articles meet the criteria for an acceptable external link, quoting the probably relevant bit from WP:EL: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." We argued the point once over at Robot, there were several times when people made an external link that they had some connection to, or a wikilink that eventually got back to them. Most people on Wikipedia say "never do it, ever"; but in fact you'll find a lot of technical articles with just such links, on the grounds that if someone removed the link, then some "neutral" party would just re-insert it, because there was consensus that the information was useful.

Okay that's the general discussion. On this point, I have a slight preference that you do what Kelley says, Networkingguy, and try to integrate as much of your material as possible directly into the article. That has the downside that some of your perfectly good information won't survive the cut because we can't accept the same level of detail; but Wikipedia has gotten so large that it's hard to keep track of everything, and it just makes things difficult when we have to keep checking on links to make sure the material in the links is appropriate...so much better to pull it in here where we've got many eyes and hands to do the work. Does that sound good? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new link

Last week George Mason University had a seminar on the history of Wi-Fi. Per guidance in the link section, I am proposing it here as a possible link for the Wi-Fi page. The link goes to the conference program that in turn has links to the written papers and .ppt's. Not all the written papers are in yet, so more the page corresponding to this link will be richer within a few weeks. However, it is pretty rich already.

The link is [1]

GMU has promised recorded audio links shortly.

Mike Marcus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjmarcus (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Question of health risks

New material has recently been added (all of which had no edit summary btw}, and it is unreferenced. I'm challenging this material because of this and also because it is not written in encyclopedic tone. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Seems to me that the section on 'Question of Health Risk' is incomplete. It does not present a balanced viewpoint. It reassures the reader (it appears conspicuously biased) that there is really nothing wrong with using Wi-Fi, even by children for a prolonged period. However, there has been much ongoing debate among scientists as to whether Wi-Fi really harms our health. Extensive and in-depth research has just only begun and it's still too early to say that it is completely harmless to human health.

Germany did not advise its citizens to avoid Wi-Fi for no reason.

Pressure for investigation into Wi-Fi health risks

/ Germany Warns Citizens to Avoid Using Wi-Fi

/ School wi-fi radiation levels ‘three times that of phone masts’

Cloud of worry gathers over wireless health risks

Also, two official reports by Sir William Stewart - former chairman of the official UK Health Protection Agency and UK government chief scientist - have warned against the dangers of Wi-Fi.

I discovered that this section has been edited many times with some users trying to present the other side of the argument but their contributions were subsequently deleted. Seems to me some sort of information suppression is going on here.

It's the job of all wiki editors to present an article in a state that is as neutral and as complete as possible. 88.77.208.116 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is scientifically impossible to prove anything is “completely harmless to human health”, i.e., that the risk of harm is zero, as you suggest should be done with Wifi, user 88.77.208.116, though I believe in your sincerity when wishing for such an outcome.papageno (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Germany has done the right thing to caution its citizens to avoid using Wi-Fi and switch to alternative wired connections until more research is being done on the physiological effects of Wi-Fi. Sir William Stewart has also advocated a precautionary approach. Of course, it is impossible to prove it is completely harmless to human health (or for that matter, any other technology). I do not think that's the goal of such research either. The question is to what extent? What we do want to know is: if prolonged usage can indeed lead to serious adverse health effects like cancer, brain tumours, etc. 88.76.52.104 (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User 88.76.52.104, forgive me moving your comments here; I thought they were better aligned in this way. :-) I like your thinking, and would extended it further: not only should we understand fully the risks of the technology, we should balance them against the benefits. We all know of the risks of motorized transport to drivers, passengers, pedestrians — a toll of 55 deaths alone, not to mention countless serious injuries, just in the confines of my home town of Toronto — , yet society allows the use of the such transport because of the many benefits of the mobility it conveys.

I would also gently caution you on the use of the word “caution” to describe the German position. The Bundesregierung's paper of July 2007 uses no such word (nor the word “warned” as used by The Independent in its headline). See Wi-Fi#cite_note-4, and see body text of the article for almost verbatim English translation.

Finally, why do you think that original research needs to be performed on WiFi? That is, how is it different from mobile telephony, which uses similar (admittedly not identical) radio frequencies, with similar digital transmission schemes, and yet with much lower energies, presumably the source of any potential health effect, reaching a user in a typical situation? papageno (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. We should avoid adding substantial material to this section here, and add it instead, as necessary and appropriate, to the main article on the topic Wireless electronic devices and health. papageno (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone editing this section, kindly ensure that you add citations for any edits you make to avoid this section becoming a battleground or piece of original research. I've tagged the uncited info, and will be removing it in the next few days if suitable reliable references are not added. This is an encylopedia, so lets stick to the facts. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Complete Replacement of Question of health risks

I have reverted this edit. User 203.162.2.13, while one should usually be bold in one's edits, this is a particularly sensitive topic area. I would suggest discussing significant changes — for example, the complete replacement of the section, first on this discussion page, so the many passionate editors on this topic can comment. This inevitably leads to better edits (for example, in your recent edit, you have accidentally removed a reference to a direct source, replacing it with only a news article, which is once removed), with fewer edit wars! I think it might also be better for all of us, myself included, to focus on improving the main article on the topic of WiFi and health risks, Wireless electronic devices and health. This will: help to keep the WiFi article to a manageable size; allow contributors interested in the health aspects to channel their energies there; and annoy less the contributors watching this article who are interested only in other aspects of subject. papageno (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read through the new version and think it is not written in encyclopedic tone. For example, you mentioned using the original German link. That's good but this is an English page so I have included both the German orignal and the English news article to benefit the English readers as well. Second, your version is loop-sided. You wanted to drive in the fact that "All the expert reviews done here and abroad indicate that there is unlikely to be a health risk from wireless networks by Dr Michael Clark of HPA." But research in Wi-Fi has only just begun and this statement is certainly fallacious. Also, Sir William Stewart has pressed for research into the health effects of Wi-Fi and this has led to the new study by HPA. Sir William Stewart is the Chairman of HPA, not some Dr Michael Clark! This wasn't mentioned at all in your version. Can you explain?

On another note, users RDOlivaw and Unprovoked were suspected of sockpuppetry and have been blocked indefinitely. User 88.172.132.94 is now being suspected of the same prank. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/88.172.132.94 for evidence. All these users were unanimous in their viewpoints and have ganged up to make repeated reverts to valid edits on this section by users who tried to present the other side of the argument. 88.76.53.199 (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, user 88.76.53.199 (talk). I think you misunderstand my intention. The old version that you replaced wholesale is not “my” version. I don’t purport it to represent my point of view (POV). It represents the POV of the collective edits of all previous editors. Just so we are clear, I don’t purport that the new version you have added wholesale does not represent my POV either (sorry for the double negative). In other words, it is not the content of your new edits. Rather, it is the manner in which you have made your edits. Yes, it doesn’t say anywhere in WP that one can’t replace a whole section at once, or that one shouldn’t be bold in one’s edits. However, controversial subjects do seem to get treated better by first posting significant proposed changes on the Discussion page, allowing editors to comment, and then acting on the outcome of the discussion. In my experience, even on non-controversial subjects, this leads to more complete edits. In addition, while everything on WP eventually gets overhauled, significant edits on controversial subjects that have first been discussed seem to be less ephemeral, that is they last longer. Lastly, I think using the Discussion page approach is polite and courteous, and channels editors’ passions for a subject more productively. If your honest intention was to correct an in your view unbalanced article because some previous editors have been accused of sockpuppetry, as you have rightly pointed out, I do not accuse you of malfeasance, but I think you may have accidentally ignored the possibility that there may be other editors with other diverse viewpoints who might have had something to contribute. If you are an experienced WP user, forgive this sermon; you are no doubt already aware of its content. If you are new to WP, please take the advice in the friendly spirit with which it is intended. papageno (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Separately, I’d like to comment on the content points made. Again, I point out that the old content is not “my” content. Since I kindly have been invited to comment, I will take the liberty of making a few points, focusing on the content and not the editor. First, thanks for adding back in the German reference. However, some of the information is incorrect or incomplete. The posting was an answer made by the German Federal Cabinet, based on information provided by the German Ministry of the Environment, to questions posed by the German Green Party. Their written communication was dated July not September 2007. In the body text, a crucial point has been ignored: the German government specifically stated that it was not taking any direct precautionary measures as regards WiFi. It then goes on to say that it “...suggested as a general recommendation that people keep their radiation exposure to high-frequency EMF as low as possible, for example by preferring conventional wired connections when the use of wireless solutions can be foregone.” (direct translation from the German) I’d like to add this to the body text. I note the reference article from The Independent does not mention the first part of answer, thus giving an incomplete and hence misleading view of the German government’s position. It also uses the word “warn” in its headline; this is pure fiction, a creation of the Independent’s writers, as the German document does not use the word at all. I think this should also be noted in the reference. Frankly, the reference to the Independent’s article is superfluous, and should be removed, as we have the original source document and can include the direct translation. If editors do not feel comfortable with my translation, one can be requested at Wikipedia_talk:German-speaking_Wikipedians'_notice_board. I am a member, but can recuse myself from the request.

Secondly, there is mention of Sir William Stewart making the case for more study of WiFi. Why shouldn’t that be included?

There is also a suggestion that Michael Clark’s comments are “fallacious”. There is a case to be made that research from mobile telephony is applicable to the Wifi situation. Expert reviews on Wifi drawing on that body of research have come to the conclusions he states. Thus, his statement is correct. It should be added back in to the article. I am not rabid, however: it is also correct that studies specifically focusing on Wifi and health are sparse to say the least, as stated in the article, and that the HPA is conducting a new study. The new text is correct in pointing out that there are differences in the frequency band, the modulation and the trasmission schemes used by TV, radio, mobile telephony, etc. Dr. Clark’s comments from the old revision do not point out the differences. Current research does build on the research into prior technologies, so his comments should be included, the relevant old research should be presented, and the differences and gaps in the research should be noted. Some attempt has been made in the new revision to address this, with the exception of Dr. Clark’s comments; they should be added back in.

The content is to a great extent based on the BBC Panorama episode of May 2007. That episode has been criticized in the print media (Guardian, Scientists reject Panorama's claims on Wi-Fi radiation risks), on the BBC’s Newswatch programme, and in a ruling made by BBC Complaints. I believe all these points should be added to the article as well.

There is information about a study conducted in 1998 by Henry Lai. There are plenty more other studies showing no biological, let alone health, effects. In addition, the many provocation studies conducted all have failed to show a link between exposure and the anecdotal health effects mentioned at the start of the text. The author of one of the references cited in support of the ancedotal health problems Wi-fi phobia: it makes me sick even gently mocks those effects.

There is no requirement in WP to use this method, but IMHO using cite templates (eg {{Cite_web}}, {{Cite_journal}}) makes references more complete.

Finally, I note the new content is not entirely one-sided, and that some attempt has been made to present what I consider a balanced viewpoint. This is to be lauded, and is an approach that all editors should try to follow.

Thanks for the chance to comment, and I invite any user to add his or her thoughts! :-) papageno (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You have replaced the section by the title "=== Unproven health risks ===" which is a clear-cut case of enforcing your POV. Research into health risks of Wi-Fi has only just begun. If you are able to cite any scientific studies to justify your change in the section title, please do so. If you are unable to do so, I would take it as merely your POV. Also, you mentioned

"The old version that you replaced wholesale is not “my” version. I don’t purport it to represent my point of view (POV). It represents the POV of the collective edits of all previous editors."

However, a check on the edit history reveals that this section has mainly been the 'collective' effort of users RDOlivaw and Unprovoked who were suspected of sockpuppetry and disruptive editing and have been blocked indefinitely. Another main contributor of the section (user 88.172.132.94) is now being suspected of the same prank. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/88.172.132.94 for evidence. So your version can hardly be called "the collective edits of all previous editors". I would rather call it "the collective edits of a few sockpuppets". If you want to perpetuate your POV in this section, you need to convince others with good reasons. 88.76.51.168 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not change the section header to “Unproven health risks”; I am not related to any users with only numeric IPs who have made edits recently or in the past; I am not related to any of the cited sockpuppets; I only edit under my account, and have been editing only on my account since 2004-06-05. Please stop accusing me of vandalism in the edit summaries when you make changes to or revert edits made by users with numeric addresses or accounts other than papageno: it’s not me. I regret that I have not been able to express myself clearly enough on the matter of the origin of the previous version to the point where you could understand me. Let’s move past that. :-) I would love to engage you on a discussion on the content. I have included many comments on that front in my edits of 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC) just above. I welcome your views as well as those of any other user on them. papageno (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Advantages and disadvantages

As in all aspects of life and technology arguing advantages and disadvantages is a question of views and aspects. The monition to include references on advantages is formally correct but substantially unconstructive. Where on Earth is the general cookbook on metrics for advantages. The baseline must be to balance cost and benefit. This might not please those individuals who think on risk first. Anyone who might want to include risk in discussion on advantages and disadvantages may clarify first, what aspect he/she wants to deal with. There is no addressing of advantages without addressing the aspect and view on the subject first. wireless friend (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Including references for all content that is likely to be challenged is Wikipedia policy. Balancing cost and benefit, however, is perfectly in line with another Wikipedia policy, neutral point of view. In all articles, the goal is to present as many notable viewpoints as possible, as long as each one can be attributed to reliable sources. I'm honestly not sure what the purpose of your comment is, though. If you have suggestions on how to improve this article, please be more specific. -kotra (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving Health Effects to Wireless electronic devices and health article

I would like to propose integrating all the content of the section "health risks" into the Wireless electronic devices and health article, leaving only a reference to that page in this WiFi article. I note there is no health section in the Wireless LAN article, and one should be added; there may be other cases where health effects need to be mentioned. Instead of having three sections on the topic, we could have only one, with a link to that single article where needed. The benefits would be: fewer edits taxing the WP system; less monitoring time and editing effort required by interested editors; and readers being able to see consistent content cited in a single article, instead of disparately edited content spread amongst many articles. This is not an attempt to suppress any content; rather, only a suggestion about where it might be located most efficiently. papageno (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody says you are trying to suppress any "content", unless you are guilty of it yourself. I do not think there is such a need anyway. This section on "health risks" is concise and it specifically refers only to health risks related to Wi-Fi. Also, it deserves a separate section of its own since a £300,000 study by the UK government has been devoted to it, showing its degree of importance. Wireless electronic devices and health is a much longer article dealing with wireless devices in general. Therefore, for encyclopedic breadth and depth, I do not think it is appropriate to combine the two. 88.76.51.168 (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can create a new article on WLANs and Health? This would allow the content contained in this WiFi article and that in the Wireless electronic devices and health to be combined in one location, maintaining one consistent store of information on the topic. It would also head off the creation of another individual section on the topic in the Wireless LAN article. papageno (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop Edit War in Health Risks section

Can I implore all those users who are seemingly engaged in an Edit war of reverts and counter-reverts in the Health Risks section at the moment to stand down and discuss their content issues in this Discussion page? This will increase our chances of finding common ground. I will admit to having done one blind complete revert myself, but have been seeking to move past this to focus on improving the content of the section. Is anyone else interested in joining me in this approach? papageno (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the only solution is to get rid of the section entirely. I am willing to compromise with a See Also to "Wireless electronic devices and health" *If* there is a problem, it would not be related to the Wi-Fi per-se, but to the broadcasting in the 2.4Ghz spectrum. Hence it shouldn't be in this article. And you can't have an edit wars with Anonymous IP addresses that consistently change. -- KelleyCook (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

papageno is now being suspected of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Qui1che for evidence. All the anonymous IPs which have reverted the original version to the version "Unproven Health Risks" are suspected to have been the same person. I do have a username but do not take the hassle to log on most of the time. I only log on when I need to file a report. My ISP changes my IP address each time I log on. But a check on my IP addresses will instantly reveal they all refer to the same host. I have never attempted to deny the different IPs point to the same user and I have never used the different IPs to corroborate each other's edits in an attempt to deceive the rest. This is in contrast to the case of papageno who has explicitly denied any association with the different IPs which have unanimously advocated the same "Unproven Health Risks" version. Also, I note that you have deleted the entire version "Question on Health Risks" without consent of other editors. Are you an administrator? If not, I will take this as wilful vandalism. CleanUpX (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So your best defense is a bad example of offense, eh User:Spookee? All I really care about is that you both take your duplicated NPOV stuff out of *this* article. Especially, as there is a specific article just for that. Its gone again. -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are right, my previous username was User:Spookee but I have since changed that when I switched to a new ISP. I have never used these two usernames concurrently to corroborate each other. In any case, I have ceased to use User:Spookee for any edits since I changed to this current one. I am not sure if this is a case of sockpuppetry. All that I wanted was that a neutral point of view be portrayed in the section on "Wi-Fi Health Risks". IT is an established fact now that most of the users who advocated "unproven health risks" were sockpuppets who have ganged up to perpetuate their POV. For example, RDOlivaw and Unprovoked are now banned indefinitely. I have also personally reported 88.172.132.94 and now papageno with good reasons. I am OK with removing this section, if that isn't done in an attempt to suppress info. Finally, I wish to remind you that WiKi is free encyclopedia where anyone can edit. You do not tell other editors to "Get Out of this Article" as you have done in the talk history page, no matter how senior or established you are. No one should be intimidated and it's WP's policy that all WP editors be bold. CleanUpX (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Checking Spookee and CleanUpX's story is easy. Looking at Spookees contributions you can see that he edited WiFi on the 24 April to back his own POV as multiple anons/CleanUpX, and then logged in on the 28th to accuse two users of being sock, who are both already blocked (not very clever!) This is a clear case, by admission, of abusive sockpuppetry, and along with his history, uncivil behavior, editing style, attacks against editors in good standing, and general (lack of) decorum, should result in a full block. "-°91.65.62.200 (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)°-"

Dear RDOlivaw aka Unprovoked aka 91.65.62.200 aka whatever, a check on my Spookee account reveals that I have indeed used the account on 24 April but it was to report evidence of your sockpuppetry on your talk page RDOlivaw by referring to a previous incident when I was still using my old Spookee account. Reproduced here:

Users RDOlivaw & Unprovoked were suspected of sockpuppetry and should be blocked indefinitely. I believe these two accounts originated from the same user. While RDOlivaw made attempts to revert my edits to section Question of health risks, Unprovoked was quick to report me for violations of the WP:3RR policy. See my talk page. It seems as though two different users have ganged up against me. Now I know they are one and the same crook.Spookee (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

However, this piece of evidence was later deleted by you (RDOlivaw). I then again logged on using my Spookee account on 28 April to report that you have wilfully deleted the piece of evidence. However, it was again deleted by you later. I certainly do not see this as an incidence of sock puppetry. I merely wanted to "nail the sockpuppet" by providing additional evidence which refers to a previous incident when I was still using my old acount. IF you think you have valid reasons, please report me. I would like to point out that this is in stark contrast to RDOlivaw aka Unprovoked aka (who knows) who has never admitted sock puppetry and has come up with an elaborate system of lies to evade the ban by administrators. See RDOlivaw talk for evidence. I am certain that all the administrators involved in your sock puppetry case know that you cannot be trusted. Please stop wasting their time (and my time as well). As I said, if you have good reasons, please report me. Perhaps the admin should consider a community ban on CNRS and inform your employer to stop your nonsense. CleanUpX (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: The above was again deleted by an open proxy just hours after I posted it. Refer to history of talk page for evidence. I will formally file a complaint to the admin that RDOlivaw has attempted to used open proxies to evade his ban and to create havoc in the Wi-Fi page. CleanUpX (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's my ref

This ref wouldn't fit nicely into the article. I'm placing it here in order to summarize and justify an "undo". PC's refer to personal computers with operating systems other than Windows.

PC makers ready to throw out the Windows

E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)