Talk:Ultrasone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ultrasone logo.jpg

Image:Ultrasone logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

A user has requested comment on this page, but there is an error in the RFC template. Please review the RFC template syntax and try again

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{templatename | section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time=~~~~~ }}
  • Use the name of the RFC tag name in place of "templatename".
  • Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. | works again.
  • Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

The standard for notability in the arena of manufacturers of commercial products is multiple independent reviews of those products in mainstream trade publications. This has been established via reviews in Stereophile, etc. Please stop adding an unwarranted notability tag. It is also suggested that you register an account and engage in discussion on the talk page rather than edit warring. The edit summary is not intended to be used for communication with other editors, the talk page is. GlassFET 20:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP Edits

Why is discussion required for IP edits? They don't seem that bad to me. Also, I'm only commenting here as I messed up my edit summary (sorry). I've reverted some of GlassFETs edits that I believe introduce a positive POV towards this companies unproven claims and pseudoscience. 194.81.217.109 (talk)

I'd also point out that the person calling for discussion hasn't discussed his changes here (apart from the notability one) 194.81.217.109 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I am an established editor who edits in this topic. You are reverting my valid cited changes to a uncited version of the article. You just can't say things like, "There is no scientific evidence...", you have to give citations. Everything I have written is supported by valid references. You may add valid cited information to the article, but you may not revert to an older version of the article. We move forward on Wikipedia by making improvements. If you think the article is unbalanced, then ADD balancing cited information to the article. Any further reverting will be considered vandalism and will be reported as such. GlassFET 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I am an experianced editor too, but I believe wikipedia is against "arguments from authority." I thought the last IP edit was good overall, and have reverted - adding the ref you ask for. I also think your changes decrease the quality of the article. I'd also like to point out you are the one reverting. 88.172.132.94 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

And I find by comparing the contributions of the multiple IPs editing this article, that you are all the same person. By pretending otherwise as you just did above, you have just engaged in sockpuppetry. I will be requesting that this article be semi-protected. Get an account. GlassFET 14:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Civility and Electrosensitive bias

Good grief you're not being very civil at all. The article as it is now is BIASED. Current scientific consensus is that there are NO harmful effects of non-ionized radiation. The claims of this company are fluff with no support from any peer reviewed source, so unless this article is an advert for them, either these claims shouldn't be in here or should state that there is no support for these claims, and also that the effect they are guarding against has not been shown to exist.

As a compromise, I'll remove the offending section. Do not reintroduce it until there is peer-reviewed evidence that: 1, EHS exists, and; 2, There is scientific proof that these headphones minimise the effect.

The page on EHS/ES is less biased than this blatant advert.

Thanks for your help. 88.172.132.94 (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Then add that information with sources. What I have done is sourced and must stay. It identifies who is making the claim and gives the source. Therefore it is both accurate and verifiable. Nothing I have written makes any claim that the company's claims are true, I simply report what secondary sources say about them and their products. GlassFET 20:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
One thing you don't seem to understand that is reporting what the company claims is completely encyclopedic. An article will always report on company details (location, founding, date, etc.), products (what they make), what makes the product unique, etc. What claims the company makes about the product are certainly pertinant in this case. The source is identified, the fact that these are claims by the company are identified, things are phrased in such a way as to not imply truth, and I linked to another Wikipedia article which goes into detail about the scientfic findings. The way you are editing makes it seem that you may work for a competitor of this company. If so, please read WP:COI. GlassFET 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you please give a full reference for the Gatski and Long references. I am a scientist with no links to industry, funded directly by government sources. 88.172.132.94 (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The full references are under references right where they belong. GlassFET 20:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to add another point of view to the article, as long as this point of view is also cited. Previously the article made unsubstantiated claims such as "there is no scientific proof", etc. You can't do that. You have to say that according to such and such a study, no causal relationship could be found and cite the study. That's the only reason I took that crap out of the article, it simply wasn't properly supported by sources. So source it. GlassFET 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to calm down, stop being so rude, and stop being paranoid 88.172.132.94 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite calm, and I am simply being direct. You are the one being rude by removing all my improvements to the article repeatedly. GlassFET 20:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I assumed that they were scientific papers - not just product reviews (when did those become references?) Didn't you remove a link to the World Health Organisation? I think I'll stop bothering you and your pathetic little empire. Wikipedia could be great, but GlassFET wants to bring it down to the level of press releases and adverts. 88.172.132.94 (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving the article

I'm of the opinion that the 2nd para of the overview should be removed, as it initially read like an advert. I've replaced with a pre-User:GlassFET version (banned sock), that at least put the contrary view forward. However, I think that although informative the para should be removed. Any opinions? 86.146.119.116 (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maintaining idiotic (but sourced) claims

I've read the talk page up above. I've also read the last two revisions of the article -- the one with the sourced pseudo-science claims, and the version with basically no text.

At the moment, just as I'm passing by this article, I'm going to come down in favor of keeping the clearly sourced (but frankly absurd) claims. Either that, or request speedy deletion, because there is nothing notable about the remaining paragraph.

I'm also going to come down on the side of saying that some counter-claims would be good, such as citing basically ANY of the myriad studies that would indicate that these claims are right up there with the "magnetic shielding" plastic monitor screens as far as health protection goes.

From the article, I think this company has one potentially notable point. That is the multi-speaker headphones claimed in the first paragraph. I think that section of the article could do with some expansion, including possibly some inline citations from various review sources. I think that point might make an article on the company worth keeping, even if the citations indicate that the multiple speakers provide absolutely no benefit at all. (Scientific experiment disproven, as it were.)

I would encourage the main contributors to (and removers of :-) this article to try to come to some sort of concensus. It is perfectly encyclopaedic to describe a company, and describe the claims of that company, even if they are hogwash. It is also perfectly encyclopaedic to then add some citations that indicate that the claims are hogwash. This in fact would be a service to the average reader that may look the company up; they aren't likely to find couter-arguments to the company claims on the company web site! Loren.wilton (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] False Information

An IP keeps adding this statement: "there is no scientific evidence that shows electromagnetic fields effect health in any way".

This statement is both false and unverifiable. The only reference given states that the majority of studies show no evidence. This implies that there may be some minority of studies which do give such an indication. In any case, it's not necessary to overstate the point by repeating it twice. That's bias. 89.246.23.254 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is true and easily verifiable. Look at the ES page. --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The repetition was an editing mistake. Thank you for pointing it out. --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
A negative statement such as claims that there is no scientific evidence is never verifiable. How can one possibly prove a negative? Only the statement that some specific party has made the negative claim is verifiable. 208.44.166.245 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You just have to verify it, not prove it - to use your language. There are countless studies that have in their conclusions that there "is no evidence" for such an effect. --88.172.132.94 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

The proper title for the section is "References". This is not a scientific journal, it is an encyclopedia. Product reviews in independent mainstream sources are valid references. They are used in articles about other manufacturers, both in this field and in other fields.

Will the rabidly (yes, rabidly) pro-science only editor please moderate his behavior? 83.233.110.193 (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you're anti-science? Please check wp:undue and wp:fringe. Also, wikipedia is not a place for adverts --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't look like an advert to me. When a company is notable enough for its products to attract the attention of mainstream periodicals which review the type of product involved, it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It is completely proper to report a) what the product is, b) what the company says about its product that is noteworthy for its inventiveness or even for the fact that what it says may be unscientific, c) what others say about the product or the claims. Please note that an article cannot have (c) unless it also contains (b). You cannot report rebuttals of claims which have not also been reported. This means that rather than gutting the article because you disagree with the claim, you have to provide third-party opinions (*not your own*) about the claims. That's how the article develops into something useful to people, okay? 208.44.166.245 (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New account user forgets to log in

Admins investigating this issue should note that IP 147.171.255.159 has repeatedly removed valid warnings from his talk page: [1], [2] (a final warning). The editor has also been editing the article under both a user name and at least one ip address as evidenced in this post: [3]. 83.233.110.193 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've only just got an account and I occasionally forget to log in. The warnings have been removed as they are improper. There has been no vandalism. --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Neither have my edits been vandalism. Please stop calling them such. 85.181.188.189 (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe I ever called you a vandal or described your edit to this article as vandalism, unless you're editing as multiple IPs? --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] references

Currently these four should be added into the text with <ref> tags.

Does anyone know what specific reasons these reviews were cited? David D. (Talk) 18:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

These were added by GlassFET (banned user) after a notability tag was placed on the article because it contained no info, apart from that which could be found in a list of headphone manufactures. He then added all the electro-sensitivity guff (sorry for late reply!). He wanted to show notability. I think there were a lot more once too --88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


So now I'm told "new editors should not change the citation style, see WP:CITE) " So can someone explain why You have the inline references with nothing but Long (2004), quite unhelpful, and then have the full reference in a completely different section? What is the logic behind such a citation style? It seem pretty confusing to me. David D. (Talk) 18:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an acceptable reference style and in fact preferred to list all the references in the references section, and then to refer to them in the footnotes. Maintaining named refs is fraught with difficulty. They frequently get broken. The style used here is discusses at WP:CITE and/or its subpages, where it is also stated that one should not go in and arbitrarily change the existing reference style of an article to one's own preferred style. 89.113.77.64 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
For an article this size there is no advantage and it is very confusing having the references cited twice at the bottom. Why do larger articles in wikipedia have no problem with this? Worse the inline refs are under a section title called notes, but they are not notes. David D. (Talk) 18:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
See WP:LAYOUT for the standard naming conventions. There is nothing wrong with the way it is done, so it should not be changed due to your personal preferences. 122.145.4.242 (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I just read WP:CITE and WP:LAYOUT but I cannot see where it discusses what I have seen here. Which specific sections are your referring to? David D. (Talk) 18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The specific name of the citation style used is "Short footnote citations with full references". 89.113.77.64 (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw that section. That is when you want to cite different pages in on particular references. A good example of the problem is on Rosalind Franklin where a few references are cited tens of times each but with a different page number each time. In that case it makes sense to have the specific page citations separate (in a citation section) from the full reference (in a reference section). But that is not what you are doing here. Here you have the full cite in two different locations, in one you call it a note (but it is not) and in the other it is a reference. This very unusual (at least I've never seen it) and confusing. David D. (Talk) 18:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I see someone has switched from a note to a citation nomenclature. That is a bit better, but my point above still stands that the usage is not as intended in WP:CITE and WP:LAYOUT. Feel free to get a second opinion. David D. (Talk) 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I see this style all the time on many articles. Changing it is simply annoying to the editors working on the article and is discouraged just like changing between American and English spellings or AD and CE is discouraged. Any unnecessary change annoys other editors who have their reasons for doing things the way they do. In all these cases, the earlier editors establish the precedent for the article. Again, I'm sorry you don't like it. (well, it would be again except for that edit conflict :-) 208.44.166.245 (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the style when used correctly. I certainly don't care enough to edit war on this article. But humour me, why do you consider it less confusing or easier? It is not intuitive that the Long (2004) etc. references in the citation section have full references in the next section. It just looks like someone forgot to add the details. One would usually expect to see something similar to "Long (2004), pg xx". David D. (Talk) 19:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, are all the IP's the same person? Or is it three different Users? If one, it might help to get a user account since it is easier to understand the context of a discussion more easily. David D. (Talk) 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why both citation and reference?

Well? Why do you consider it less confusing or easier to have a citation section AND a reference section? Here it is used in a non standard way and not as described in WP:LAYOUT, there, it is described for a usage when an author cites many different pages of one particular source. David D. (Talk) 21:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As is becoming usual, I have to agree with David D above. I'm not too great with these things so could you fix it please for us David? per WP:LAYOUT. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)