Talk:Nokia E70/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1


Is it just me, or does this page (well, the article at the bottom) seem to be written like a brochure 'Thanks to WiFi, etc'. Not very encyclopedic. I'll edit it a bit, and add some paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmonaut.3030 (talkcontribs) 11 August 2006

Not even a brochure, it's a badly written opinion of from the University of Geneva (what are they doing there?). I'm shared between erasing it or using it as a basis for expanding the article. --Marc Lacoste 17:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the page, having both tested the E61 and the E70 thoroughly. -- Christian Dannemann 11:58 BST, September 7th, 2006

SIP functionality is currently severely restricted

It is true that the phone has a SIP implementation. In its current version, this does not work as most would expect, as does not provide mechanisms for NAT traversal. The phone does not support STUN, ICE etc. This means that the phone must be connected directly to the PABX -- it will not connect through a firewall or router. It is said that Nokia is working on implementing STUN and that this shold be done by end 2006. 21:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Bluetooth connectivity

The phone is able to handle up to six concurrent connections, of which only one can be a headset. But it will successfully connect to a PC, a GPS receiver and a headset at the same time.

A2DP is not supported, however. This was quite a surprise, at least to me!

kvols 14:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


I could not find this information over Nokia's site, and I believe it's important: what is the main processor for this smartphone? Pmbarros 17:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nokia don't publish this information for most handsets (the very newest ones have started to get it listed in the stats on Forum Nokia). I don't think it's especially important anyway - it's a phone, who cares what specialised embedded CPU it uses? Wibbble 18:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
According to this page, the heart of the E70 is an ARM9 processor (actually there is another proc dedicated to communications). This table adds more precision : main cpu is a 220 MHz ARM-926. — Xavier, 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Forum Nokia is a reliable source, but other websites can't be relied on. I don't know that I'd read that article the same way you have, though: it says that the E70 is a dual-chip design, and that the E61 uses that ARM9 CPU. The E70 and E61 don't have the same memory characteristics, so they may not have the same CPU characteristics. Wibbble 08:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Company Contract?

Which commercial network will this phone work with? All of them, or just AT&T and T-Mobile? -- 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the talk page is to discuss the article, not the subject of the article. If you have questions like this, try asking on a forum or discussion board. Wibbble 18:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


I don't intend this as a way of promoting maddox or his site, but a lot of people (including me) now have probably only heard of this phone because of his diatribe. When more people have read a site than the one promoted by McDonald's, I hold that it qualifies as pop culture, and should therefore be included. Thanks.--Loodog 19:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd never heard of 'maddox' before this link started appearing in the article. I don't think it adds anything to the article - there's already plenty of more serious reviews (too many, IMO - this is a problem that affects most mobile phone articles) and I don't think that 'maddox' is by himself notable enough to justify mentioning that he likes the phone. I don't think it adds to the article, and I don't think that it's encyclopaedic (which is, after all, the goal of the project). Wibbble 20:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Maddox was encyclopedic (and notable) enough to make an article out of him.--Loodog 21:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how that's relevant. A great many people have wikipedia articles - but noting what phone they like to use on phone articles isn't suitable. Add it to Maddox, if you like. Wibbble 18:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd also say that a larger number of editors have added this, than removed it.--Loodog 21:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a great argument. This is not a democracy, and a mob of hit & run editors doesn't trump everything else. If we put in a link to every semi-notable weblogger who said something about the iPhone or E70, we'd have hundreds of K of links. Make a cogent case for why THIS link exists, a better argument than the above. - CHAIRBOY () 22:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No, your argument's mom smells. And thanks for beating up my straw man too. Honestly, find me those "hundreds of K of links" of blogs as notable as this mentioning the E70.--Loodog 22:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to - this article already has more than enough review links as it is. The only justification I've seen for adding this one is 'it's cool', which is entirely POV and not a good enough reason. Watch the puerile name-calling, too, and remember that no personal attacks are acceptable on wikipedia. Wibbble 18:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made no personal attacks. I've argued that the clear majority wants this link on the page, maddox is notable, and I wouldn't have heard of this phone if not for him. You:

  • Misrepresented my position by saying I wanted all iPhone reviews here, thus beating up a straw man.
  • Claimed a better argument was needed without saying why, which is tantamount to a Proof by assertion.

I further the case by saying that, in all probability, more people have read maddox's review of this phone than any other review you have on this page. I could then take your attempted reductio (to the refutation of which you still haven't responded) of saying that if maddox should be included, then all blogs should, to say that if the reviews preexisting on the page are included, then why not include every semi-notable author's review.--Loodog 19:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have mistaken me for User:Chairboy. My argument is simply that there are more than enough existing reviews and external links, and no need to add more. The fact that a blogger uses this handset isn't significant enough to include it in the article itself, so it's not significant enough to include as a link either. Wibbble 00:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
My fault. But seriously, can we negate the notability of someone getting 100+ hits/minute and more traffic than Pepsi by throwing the label of "blogger" at him? I could dismiss a viewpoint held by Dane Cook as just some stand up comedian's idea. Blog and notable enough for WP are not mutually exclusive, as is evidenced by the article we gave him. Do we create WP articles for every blogger out there because of this egregious oversight?--Loodog 00:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you've missed - or ignored, but let's WP:AGF - my point. His notability wrt having an article on wikipedia isn't under discussion. There's lots of people who have biographical articles who are notable enough to have articles, but who wouldn't be worth mentioning in other articles in this way. It's an article about the phone - that some minor celeb (internet or otherwise) uses it and likes it is not, IMO, relevant to the article. It may be relevant to the article on the minor celeb, in which case feel free to go ahead and mention it there. Given that, and the existing large number of review links, I don't believe it's appropriate for the article.
I would also like to add this: you keep mentioning the number of editors (usually anonymous IP editors) who have added this - this adds no weight to your argument. Please see WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. Similarly, 'I wouldn't've heard of this phone without maddox' isn't a good reason to keep it - I might as well argue that the Maddox article be deleted, since I hadn't heard of it before it was mentioned here. Your personal experience and knowledge of mobile phones isn't relevant when deciding what should be kept in an article. Wibbble 11:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, beating up a viewpoint I don't have. My personal experience has nothing to do with my argument. My experience is a stand in for EVERY person who can say the same, which is more people than have read this article, this talk page, or any of the non-notable reviews that you've included on the page.
WP:DEMOCRACY doesn't dictate that whatever the majority opinion ISN'T should be kept either; it says to follow concensus, which, short of the few editors who keep reverting, is that this article should be included. Because some minority of people can give the false appearance of concensus is not a good reason to follow one action.
After a second round, you still haven't produced those "hundreds of K of links" for the E70 as notable as maddox, that would inevitably result if we included it.--Loodog 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll start off by pointing out, again, that I'm not User:Chairboy. Please stop hauling out that argument, I'm not going to bite. Please cite references for how many people have read this article, all of the reviews, and the maddox page. Please note that these should be from reliable sources. Don't make sweeping claims until you can back them up. Finally, repeated adding - mostly by anonymous IP users - does not a consensus make. Consensus is derived from discussion, not edit-warring. Referring back - time and again - to the number of people who have added this back in does nothing for your argument.
You've not countered my main point, which is that any minor celeb using/liking a phone isn't a reason to include that bit of trivia. Do you wish to do this? Wibbble 17:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I will acknowledge that just because Chris Rock likes a phone, it shouldn't be mentioned save him doing paid promotions for it. The difference here is that this is not a famous person commenting on a phone, this is a mention in a notable website and therefore qualifies as pop culture. If an episode of Seinfeld revolved around the characters coping with the features or some aspect of a Nokia E70, we'd give it a brief mention here. Now, for the references you want:
I don't think that a blog post - regardless of how 'famous' or notable the blogger - is on the same order as mass media entertainment like Seinfeld, so I don't think that justifies the inclusion. No matter how important you may believe he is, 'maddox' is not a major celebrity or media icon. To use your own (albeit faulty) logic, I'd never heard of him, and I represent all the people that had never heard of him. Therefore, he's a minor celeb at best. Wibbble 23:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
With no updates for a month, maddox's site receives 347161 hits in 6 days, with 68 hits in the last minute (which would work out to just under 100,000 a day if a constant rate), and 200 million total over the life of the site [1] see bottom. There are a number of reviews for his site or his book that accept and (I assume) use these statistics, but there exist no independent confirmations, nor could you find any. InfoWorld deems it a notable website (the words used are sites that have "earned distinction") as mentioned in the company of myspace [2]. A google search for the phrase "best page in the universe" gives 212,000 results, and scanning the first three pages of results are all references to maddox. "+maddox +best +universe" (returning only results with all three terms) gives 414,000 results.--Loodog 18:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The discussion of google hits is irrelevant. You're not trying to establish notability for his website, you're trying to prove that his review carries more visitors than this wikipedia article and all of the reviews listed on it. So far you've established nothing - the number of hits to his site in general tells us nothing about this review, and in order to prove your point you need to also show the viewing figures for this wikipedia article and the other review sites.
Not, of course, that any of that adds any value to your argument - I'd just like you to back up the sweeping generalisations you made earlier. Wibbble 23:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, misrepresenting my point. I said that in all probability, more people have read maddox's review than any of the other reviews you've posted, or even this article. If you wish to have a case, please address some of my points
  1. Maddox's page is notable as per above [3] and therefore qualifies as pop culture
  2. A large fraction of people who have heard of this phone only have because of Maddox.
  3. More people who have edited this page and left comments on this talk page are in favor of the link being included. Therefore your actions are upholding a false concensus, which is the goal of wikipedia.
You argue only reason to include is to be cool, which, again, I've never said anything with any semblance to that, though I made the above points, which you choose not to address.--Loodog 23:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. Has no relevance to if it should be included. We're not trying to establish notability for his website.
  2. Has no relevance to if it should be included. We're not trying to establish notability for his website. Beyond that, it's an unsubstantiated claim, and meaningless. I suspect that most people I've talked to about this phone have never heard of 'maddox' - and I talk to users and potential users of this phone every single working day. Can I prove this? No more than you can prove your own unsubstantiated claim.
  3. I've already explained that edit-warring is not consensus, although I could copy/paste what I said before if you'd like?
My point is simply that this is not relevant to the article. Maddox is a minor celebrity at best, and his preference on phones is not relevant to this article. You've yet to address that. Wibbble 13:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Refuting by claiming irrelevance without explaining why. Thanks for another proof by assertion.
  1. It is pop culture. Do you deny that if an episode of Seinfeld, or a viral video centered around it, that we'd include it?
  2. Your personal experience has no bearing or have you forgotten what you just said?
  3. Your argument that edit-warring is not concensus was good for last week before other users had commented here. Now you have to contend with being in the minority on this talk page, and need to manufacture a reason your minority opinion should be upheld.--Loodog 02:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The second part of the sentence explains why it's not relevant.
  1. The issue of 'pop culture'/trivia references in articles is contentious. While that's just an essay, the example in the leader is useful: in this case, the reference on a pop-culture site is perhaps important to articles on the site or the author, less so to the phone.
  2. You rather missed my point there, which was exactly that our personal experiences have no bearing on this. Please read the last two sentences of that point where it's made explicitly clear. You're just arguing to argue now, which is not productive and does not help to establish consensus.
  3. Your only argument that seems to stand is 'lots of people want it' - but that's not an acceptable reason to include anything in wikipedia. this is why you keep getting the 'not a democracy' thing thrown back at you. Wibbble 14:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. It doesn't matter if we're in the minority, a swarm of Maddox fans doesn't change the fact that it doesn't belong here. - CHAIRBOY () 02:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Ignoring points 1 and 2, and respond to 3. Points 1 and 2 still hold, while I counter your counter with a quote from what I've said before:
"WP:DEMOCRACY doesn't dictate that whatever the majority opinion ISN'T should be kept either; it says to follow concensus, which, short of the few editors who keep reverting, is that this article should be included."--Loodog 03:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should be linked in the external links section. I would have never even heard about this phone if it wasn't for Maddox. -- BWF89 00:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It seems that the clear majority want the link in, and dozens of people have added it. But the same couple of people keep removing it. I'd like to see the link added, but with some sort of wording/warning which makes it clear that it is offensive. NoExec 11:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I think maddox is the greatest thing that ever happened to Nokia E70—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The information in question definitely needs to be added to the main article. (Bear with me now, but...) in the movie Office Space one of the supporting characters has an unusual attachment to a specific red stapler. You can clearly read "Swingline" on the side of it, but at the time of production that company had never made a red stapler (black staplers are their hallmark), it was painted red by the props department so it would stand out on film and the audience would notice it. Once that movie saw great commercial success (after it's DVD release) Swingline was inundated with requests for a model that didn't exist, so they began producing some. And all this information appears on the Swingline company's wikipedia page. [[4]] Just because you're either not a fan of Maddox, or outright loathe him, this information is encyclopedia-and-wikipedia-worthy. Mujarimojo 06:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.--Loodog 13:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this one way or the either, but if you want to include in the article something that Maddox said abotu the phone, it would just be a simple matter of creating an "In Popular Culture" section. S. Morrow 13:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I did this, was reverted without explanation, and then warned.--Loodog 13:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This would be 'discouraged', per WP:TRIVIA. Wibbble 14:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's a valid comparison: Nokia didn't create this product in response to the 'review', haven't acknowledged it in any way, and it hasn't influenced any product development (that anyone is aware of). If Nokia come out with an E71 and cite maddox as the reason, then I would definitely support including it in the relevant phone article. Until then, it's just another review and another external link in an article that already has plenty, and nowhere near influential enough to be included in its own section. Wibbble 14:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I believe you're misinterpretting Mujarimojo's point with a very ascetic reading. He doesn't mean it has to influence product lines; such a response to pop culture is a mere example of influence.--Loodog 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's an example of influence that isn't present in this case, which is why I don't think it's a valid comparison. Wibbble 19:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Apparently your interpretation is sufficiently concrete that you need another example: in Seinfeld, an episode revolves around a game of Risk. This is mentioned in the popular culture section in the article, even though it did not affect Parker Brothers product line.--Loodog 19:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Seinfled is somewhat more influential than maddox, and just citing that another article has a popular culture section doesn't cut it - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you want to introduce examples that support your case, make sure that they are fair comparisons (ie, don't involve companies modifying their product line or one of the most successful American comedy programs of all time - you're not championing a cause of that scale) and that you explain how it supports your position. Wibbble 22:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
How about when maddox parodied loose change, and, damndest thing, it got mentioned in the article? He comments on Trippin', it gets mentioned. Orbitz rips maddox off, Orbitz article has it. Websense blocks his site, it's on the Websense article. Or are you going to say none of these are "fair comparisons" either?--Loodog 23:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
No, those are far more reasonable comparisons - I'm not sure why you didn't just use them in the first place, though? Perhaps because they lack the impact of the Seinfeld reference. To be honest, I don't think that the maddox references in either the Orbitz or Websense articles are appropriate, although they are in the other two articles in the context of a wider parody or criticism sections. However, as I pointed out before, just saying 'these other articles do it' isn't good enough. Examples to reinforce your point are fine, but you need to show how those specific examples reinforce your point - the problem is that the only argument I can see you've made for inclusion (other than this 'everyone else is doing it') is that it's been added lots of times. You've not made an argument on the merits of the content itself - much like most of your comments here in general, you're just arguing about arguing, which results in these huge sprawling discussions that lead nowhere. Wibbble 23:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, those examples hadn't occured to me, but thanks for assuming good faith anyway. It's called precedent and followed very strictly on wikipedia. I honestly don't believe you don't know how those examples reinforce my point since you just spent the rest of your response responding to how they do. The discussion has lead to a logical conclusion which you continue to refuse to acknowledge.--Loodog 23:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
An argument based on the content itself, are you kidding me? You want more than "the review is noteworthy and merits mention as pop culture"? What exactly would be an argument "based on content itself" if I haven't already given it to you? A point by point discussion of every paragraph in his review?--Loodog 00:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
What I meant was that your argument to date has been 1) lots of people want it and 2) maddox has other references in wikipedia articles. What you haven't said is why this link is worth including. My position is that this article has more than enough review links as it is, and there would need to be an extraordinary reason to include more. You've not answered this, except to reiterate your same two points - which do not provide a suitable reason to include anything in the article. Wibbble 12:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wibble, you said that they didn't create a new model as per something Maddox said, and they don't acknowledge his involvement with their phone. That's just public relations, though, they don't want to be associated with some of the things he says and does. Well too bad, wikipedia isn't a PR firm, it's an internet encyclopedia. That was only a tiny point but it needed to be rebutted. Moving on, I think your threshold for "influence" is too high. Maddox is extremely influential in his own right, and that goes beyond the numerical value of how many hits he gets on his website. Radio Djays and stand-up comics steal his material. His modified Che Guevara image is an iconic internet meme. And when he says the iPhone sucks and the Nokia e70 is awesome, people want to find out more about the phone because of his INFLUENCE over them. Mujarimojo 23:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd really want to see some sort of reference showing that the majority - or even a sizable minority - of people who have heard of the E70 did so through this guy. I just don't think it's there. I'd also be extremely reluctant to introduce a trivia section to the article, which is what this line of reasoning leads to. Wibbble 12:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Wibble, these are the only statistics I've found. Six weeks after maddox's article was posted, that article alone (not his whole site) ranks: 14,417 globally, 2827 in Australia, 3354 in the United States, and 3451 in Canada. When the article was written, it ranked somewhere between 3000 and 4000 globally depending on how you read their Is that a sizable enough minority?--Loodog 13:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that those don't mean anything in and of themselves, as you'd need to show his viewership as related to the - impossible to find - number of people who have heard of or used the E70. There's also the issue of the heavy US bias in those figures, and the US is a particularly weak market for Nokia. So you have a situation where most people who use E70s are the least likely to be in maddox's reach. In other words, the group of people who are most likely to have heard of this product through his website are a quite localised and limited group. The people who are promoting it here seem to be part of that group, and so to them it carries excessive influence. That aside, 'trivia' sections aren't desirable, and as I said that's the route that this reasoning leads down. Wibbble 14:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your last point, every other pop culture section in wikipedia could be argued for removal on the same grounds. Regarding your other points, I've never heard nor found any evidence that the United States is a particularly weak market for Nokia phones, and this claim would need the same kind of backing you've been asking for. I concede that knowing just how many users have heard about this phone through maddox is probably as unknowable as claiming these statistics have a US bias. That leaves only the notability of the page in popular culture, which I've argued is sufficient.--Loodog 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Trivia sections generally aren't desirable, and should be integrated into the article if they're noteworthy enough to mention. See WP:TRIVIA. The end result of this is that there would be a reduction in 'trivia' in articles in general, which I think is a good thing. It's not the job of wikipedia to record everything, after all. "Canalys estimates put Nokia in second place for US smart phone shipments in Q3, with 23% share. In contrast, Nokia’s share of the smart phone market in EMEA rose to 87% in the same period, the highest it has been for over two and a half years." [5] Couple of years old, but I've seen similar results more recently, that was just the first one Google provided me with. As for the US bias, your own link is what shows that: " users come from these countries: United States 47.3%" [6]. Are you now advocating that we create a trivia section? I don't see any way to actually integrate this into the article otherwise, and I'm not sure if it has relevance enough to justify a section to itself, per WP:HTRIV. Wibbble 16:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:HTRIV is an essay, not a policy, and WP:TRIVIA says "What makes a section "trivia", regardless of its name, is that it contains a disorganized and unselective list" which is far from what this entry would be. It's only a list of unrelated information as much as any of the other reviews are; it's more relevant than trivia. As for US bias in the statistics, of course there is, the entire internet is US-biased [7] and wikipedia sure as hell is. Are we going to artificially control notability based on what country people come from? Do 1 million American users make a site less notable than 1 million users from the UK? The quantity of people matters, regardless of origin.--Loodog 18:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Loodog, knock it off. Maddox is funny, we understand that. You really like Maddox and want this link in ("maybe he'll notice how I stood up for him!"), we understand that too. But it's just not the right link for the article, and we are not a Maddox-referral site that's set up to generate traffic for him. If you really want this link on Wikipedia, put it in the Maddox article where it belongs. Every popular blogger or celebrity w/ an iPhone or N70 or whatnot does not merit a link in the article for that product. You're being tendentious, and if you think you're getting short shrift here, feel free to seek out a wider audience. You're just churning away here and making froth without any traction, so if you won't drop it, then a different venue is needed. Popular methods employed in the past, to offer some suggestions: Announce that the user you're speaking to is conspiring against you and launch a vicious RfC or ArbCom hearing against him. Make sure you selectively quote him or her to put them in the worst possible light. Accuracy just gets in the way of good drama, so use it like you would cumin, sparingly and only as needed. Another popular method is to post a message to WP:AN/I complaining about a "rouge admin" who is trying to suppress The Truth (the capitalization is important) and that it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that if the Maddox link isn't left in, the entire project will fail because it will lose all credibility. The most spectacular folks go out in a blaze of glory, defacing as many user pages as they can of people they disagreed with while making legal threats. I don't recommend this one. Whichever direction you choose, I'll be glad to assist in any way needed. - CHAIRBOY () 20:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Chairboy, quit arguing just it's own sake. And whoa, buddy! Easy on the personal attacks. I have no interest in generating traffic for maddox, but thanks for being a dick and assuming it. Thanks for also going off on a long run of things I'm not doing that's not remotely relevant to this argument. I also appreciate your belief this would send me down the rotten path after 19 months of stable and well-intended contributions. This is all very relevant.
  • You repeat your "if every blogger" argument, which has been shot down by failure to show bloggers this notable who've commented on the E70. So quit it.
Stop running off on the theoretical shootings I'm going to do and actually argue about content. Then I might actually understand your point. If you're not going to talk about the issues at hand, don't bother responding. Otherwise, Wibble and I seemed to have been making points to one another before your disruption. Please don't do it again.--Loodog 20:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks? Provide an example please. I'm starting to think that your theory is not so much to discuss this w/ Wibble as it is to try and grind him down until he gives up, then just start re-adding the link. If that wasn't the case, then you wouldn't keep going over the same points over and over again. You're taking advantage of his patience and, it appears to me, trying to win by attrition. Finally, I offered to help you take this to whatever venue is best, while you're certainly not obligated to take me up on this, please don't characterize the offer as anything other than sincere. I helped someone file an RfC against me once, for instance, and have offered counsel to folks who wanted a second opinion on what they felt were unfair actions on my part. I extend this offer to you as well, but I hope you'll just reconsider adding this non-encylopedic link. One other alternative, if you find news coverage of his article by a site or source that meets WP:RS, you might be able to link to it. That'd be a pretty useful way to get the maddox "shout out" into the article without the silly bpitu link. - CHAIRBOY () 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Maddox mention doesn't properly belong in this article. If we had to put a mention in every article where the subject matter was mentioned in a popular blog, we'd have a lot of pointless trivia. As has been said above, Nokia hasn't responded and this is nothing more than commentary, unlike the Orbitz incident, where Orbitz responded to Maddox's complaints. I also, incidentally, think that most of the "Popular culture" sections of articles should be pared down or dispensed of entirely. —Cleared as filed. 23:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

maddox is unreliable and his views are not allowed in his article While it may be true that Maddox is a notable person, he is NOT a reliable source on information about the E70 phone. See WP:RS. His info is self published and he is NOT writing an area of his expertise. The wiki guideline on reliability is to not include information which is unreliable. The inclusion of Maddox's views about the E70 phone in the article about the E70 phone is an attempt to insert unreliable information. This information should ONLY be included in the article about Maddox himself. It isn't reliable information about the E70 phone and has no place in a wiki article about the E70 phone.

"Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, ```they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book```."

"As mentioned above there are a few specific situations in which a self-published source can be considered reliable. These include:

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. "

Cellular phones is NOT a field of Maddox's expertise and he is NOT a well known professional journalist.

"Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as a primary source of information about the author or the material itself..."

This is not an article about maddox. This is an article about the E70 phone. So his views can not be relied on here.

Even including the words "It is Maddox's view..." can only be used to correct a problem with NPOV. It doesn't correct the problem with his lack of reliability on the TOPIC OF THE ARTICLE. Since Maddox is unreliable that weights against the inclusion of his opinions here. However I agree that he *is* reliable in regards to his views. Maddox's views can be included in wikipedia in the article on Maddox. They are irrelevant here. TheDarknessVisible 20:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Darkness, he's not being cited as a cell phone expert, nor would anyone argue that. His website is being cited as a notable mention of the phone in popular culture. The fact that his review is flagrantly biased and unexpert is not germane.--Loodog 20:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It does, however, reinforce that it's not suitable in the 'reviews' section, which is where it was originally (and repeatedly) added. Can we now agree that that would not be appropriate, and leave the discussion solely at if a trivial/'Popular culture' section with this information is appropriate? Wibbble 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't belong in the section with the intent of being an objective review, which I assume is the cause for the reviews that are included. I could argue a) that it could be included as a sort of parody review or b) that it should be included as popular culture but that it wouldn't be as obscure as a "trivia" section since it's somewhat more relevant than "Minor Celebrity A says he likes the phone".--Loodog 22:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit: the New York Times has written about maddox.--Loodog 22:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, that's just a source for showing 'Maddox's notability in general. For a reliable source for a 'pop culture' section, as mentioned by Chairboy, you'd need a source mentioning his E70 review specifically.Wibbble 01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that's being a bit strict, and asking too much. The Seinfeld Risk mention doesn't have it. Even the famed Officespace Swingline example fails to include media sources. Maddox's review still is pop culture.--Loodog 01:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a good justification - those articles probably should have appropriate referencing, although I imagine that it would be easy to find in both cases. Maybe I'll do it at the weekend! However, I imagine it would be impossible to find reliable sources for this. Wibbble 13:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me be clear on WP:OTHERSTUFF; what that essay (not a guideline) says is that precedent is not a guarantee of current action. It also does not automatically provide a generalized argument against precedent. The essay provides a list of reasons for which wikiprecedent might be not applicable depending on the context. You've already argued those reasons, so citing this essay brings nothing new:
  1. Other articles are improper also.
  2. The comparison is improper.
To #1, I provide the same proof by assertion: No, the other articles are proper and encyclopedic. To #2, it is very obvious that other examples involving popular culture are at least a bit relevant, and other examples of maddox inclusions in wikipedia articles are obvious examples of the exact same situation. As for getting a RS to talk about maddox's article specifically about the E70, it's possible, but I really don't think I'm going to find, just as there was never a RS for Numa numa, bananaphone, or AYBABTU--Loodog 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that the other articles were 'improper', merely that if they lack proper referencing, then references should be added. WP:V is neither an essay nor even a guideline - it is a core policy. There's no shortage of articles that fail WP:V, but that doesn't mean that it's good, or even acceptable, to ignore it. Your argument seems to rest solely on other articles being worse than this one. This is not a compelling argument. Wibbble 18:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Except WP:V is satisfied here, my friend. All the content I've proposed to add is verifiable. What you're talking about is not verifiability of the content, but of the notability of the content, which does not need to be shown by RS to be included, though it would be nice. There are numerous wikipedia-faithful examples of articles that included RS, but do not establish the notability of the content through RS since notability can be argued in a variety of ways.--Loodog 23:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have any more comments, I would like to wrap this up to something we can agree on.--Loodog 20:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've been particularly busy the last couple of days - this is the first time I've had a chance to look at wikipedia. I'll get back to this discussion over the weekend. Wibbble 23:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Summing up

In order to move on with this, I think it might be useful for any involved parties to sum up their positions at this time. I'll start with myself. In order to keep this usable, please don't respond to points in the normal reply style - just state your position in a section below. Hopefully this will help us draw out any common areas and what areas still need to be worked on.


I don't think that the 'review' link is appropriate as a review. There's more than enough review links there already, and I'm not even convinced that a section of external links for reviews is a good idea at all (on this or any other similar article).

I don't think that one humorous 'review' from one non-mainstream source is notable enough to justify inclusion in the article as a 'trivia' or 'popular culture' section. I think that if it were one example (of popular culture references) among several, or if there had been some reaction to the review (from the mainstream media (ie, things that could be quoted as reliable sources) or the manufacturer), or if the source was much higher profile, then it would probably be justified. As it stands, I don't think this merits inclusion in the article. Wibbble 23:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


As a notable piece of pop culture, the link should included. The notability of the website has been established above through traffic listings, rankings, google hits, and mention in the New York Times. There is ample wikiprecedent for including maddox, which is not limited when a company had made an official response. In a google search for "iPhone Nokia E70" [8] the first 6 results are maddox's article or other people commenting on maddox's article. Whether there happen to be several instances of Nokia E70 in pop culture or one doesn't nothing to affect the appropriateness of this inclusion.--Loodog 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Looking at the pros and the cons analytically, the pro-inclusion arguments overwhelm the cons. For me, the bottom line is that Maddox is a bonafide pop culture "icon". It should be pointed out that there is ample evidence of this, to the point of being almost self-evident. Maddox's stature makes the Nokia e70 part of pop culture by proxy. Mujarimojo 15:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


So far we seem to have at least agreed that it's not appropriate as a review external link, which is something. The dispute is now on solely if this is appropriate for a 'popular culture' section. I think that at this point it might be worth bringing in some impartial outside help - I'm considering opening a Request for Comment on this issue. Anyone have anything to add/objections before I do this? Wibbble 18:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

go ahead Mujarimojo 18:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sound like the best thing to do.--Loodog 22:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wording of Maddox Mention

Assuming the Maddox comment gets to stay, how about we discuss how the wording should be then maybe we can find something we'll all like?

I'll start off by suggesting something like this:

the E70 has been compared to the iPhone in a humorous and offensive rant by internet satirist Maddox. <insert reference here>

Now can we please all get along and start focusing your energy on the LG Shine (KE970) article which starts off like this

The actor Pierce Brosnan said that all of his family members want a Shine because of its “fantastic” style

this should be removed and fast, not humorous maddox comments, wikipedia is allowed to be fun right? Opspin

Remove "humorous" and "offensive", which are both subjective. Before my addition was reverted, I had added "Internet celebrity Maddox wrote an article in July 2007 praising the Nokia E70, in particular as a superior, less hyped alternative to Apple's popular iPhone."--Loodog 16:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw in a reliable source once that Maddox's webpage introduced more people to this phone than the actual companies actual marketing division but I eated it. 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there supposed to be a cat picture that goes along with this sentence?--Loodog 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Does it support flash? Which browser version? Mathiastck (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No mention of this having been discontinued?

I may have unreliable sources, but is it not true that this phone has been discontinued by Nokia? If this is the case, I feel this should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article, as people may end up reading the article, deciding they want one, and finding out they can't buy one anywhere. I do not know specifics so I will not add it myself, but I am fairly sure that the phone has been discontinued. Also it would be good to know if anybody knows if it'll ever be recontinued or rereleased as I do want one myself. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)