Talk:BlackBerry Priv

Info Box is missing Model Number: STV100-1 JamCad605 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

STV100-1 is only one of the variants for the US. There are a total of 6 variants, for instance the UK model is STV100-4. http://store.shopblackberry.com/store/bbrryus/en_GB/pd/productID.328096000/categoryID.70448700 --76.10.150.193 (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"PRIV by BlackBerry"
I specifically said that I can't find a consistent application of this term and it is unreferenced here. Reverting that again without providing a source is not constructive. If you have a source for it, please add it before undoing the change, otherwise it should be removed. BlackBerry uses lots of different ways to refer to this product: BlackBerry Priv, PRIV, Priv, *PRIV and "PRIV™ by BlackBerry®". I don't see a consistent scheme for "PRIV by BlackBerry" here. What we can say is that BlackBerry doesn't prepend the BlackBerry brand consistently and just calls it PRIV or Priv. For that we follow the manual of style and write it as Priv instead of PRIV.–Totie (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Acknowledging stylizations in lead is a common and accepted practice. ViperSnake151   Talk  22:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're the only person who seems to have shown an objection, so this is officially disputed and requires outside consensus. ViperSnake151   Talk  23:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about stylisations in general, I'm talking about this specific one. If BlackBerry consistently markets this product as "PRIV by BlackBerry" then it's acceptable to add this to the article, but I can't find neither a reliable source nor consistent usage on their website and in their press releases for this. Can you provide a source? This is purely a point of fact, not of opinion.–Totie (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind and respond to my last question?–Totie (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Venice
« Blackberry Venice » is an automatic redirect to this article but ought not be as it's shaping up to be the codename for a different device. 164.68.29.8 (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's Vienna, actually. ViperSnake151   Talk  06:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

POV
The Reception section is extremely biased. The BlackBerry Priv received great reviews from Forbes, WSJ, Mobile Nation and countless others. On 17 November, CNBC stated that "The Toronto-based firm's first Android-powered device, the Priv, has received mostly favorable reviews following its official launch earlier this month". Nonetheless, this Wiki article is mainly concentrated around the handful of negative reviews. (Jbfair728 (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC))
 * You're free to add more reviews.–Totie (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added both WSJ and Forbes to the section. I don't see how they are "great" through. They are between lukewarm and positive with ample of criticisms. As for Mobile Nations, aren't these dedicated Android and BlackBerry fansites? I think they may not add to a neutral point of view and are probably not reliable sources.–Totie (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Reception section not longer contains the "mixed reviews" wording and now has twice the number of reviews listed as when the neutrality tag was added. Is its neutrality still in dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.176.188 (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence. It's just a can of worms and not credible anyway. I'd like to see that someone goes over the paragraphs I wrote on WSJ and Forbes, since this is my interpretation of the reviews. The problem with such reception sections is that there is a risk of selection bias given the sheer number of reviews from reputable sources with diverging opinions. There will always be the accusation that we are not citing the correct sources. We also have to be wary of attempts (here and here) to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform.–Totie (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Forbes contributors are not reliable sources. Per the Forbes.com article and WP:Potentially unreliable sources, we shouldn't be using it as they are effectively a content farm. ViperSnake151   Talk  23:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What distinguishes it from WSJ? The review is likewise published on a blog by an independent author.–Totie (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously stating that one of the most well-known business publications in the United States is a "blog by an independent author"? Wall Street Journal does not use such a paid contributor model, and has writers on its staff that are subject to editorial oversight. ViperSnake151   Talk  00:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Forbes is also a well-known business publication. In both cases the reviews are published on blogs or columns, written by individuals with own opinions. Both authors are experienced technology writers and I do not see where there is the "editorial oversight" you mention. The whole point of the WSJ column is to express an opinion, which means that the scrutiny is placed on the authors, not just the publication.–Totie (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is exactly like the discussion above. You are reverting something without a reasonable explanation. Only here did you at least mention WP:PUS, but as you see, there can be some discussion about this. Why not discuss it first before you undo someone's work?–Totie (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Varying quality?
In the preamble there is currently a sentence that says "However, the performance, build quality, and the physical keyboard of the Priv received mixed reviews for their varying quality." This apparently claims not that there are varying opinions among the reviewers with regard to the build quality and performance of the phone, but that there are reports that individual units of the Blackberry Priv coming off the production line have varying levels of build quality and performance. I haven't been able to find anything supporting this on Google, though. Is there anyone who can corroborate this information? I am personally very curious about this. (I added a "citation needed" tag, by the way.) Thracia91 (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is probably wrong and the entire paragraph seems to be original research. Such general statements should not be added unless there is a reliable secondary source for this. It seems to be an interpretation of the review section.–Totie (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Varying quality refers to the varying reception. Some reviews thought it was good, some thought it was bad. And do you know what a lead is supposed to do? Summarize the body. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I know very well what a lead is supposed to do and it was not a good summary. “Mostly positive” is a statement of fact that is not sourced and at least contentious. Quality of the display is also not apparent from the review section, in fact, there are two directly opposing opinions about this in that section. The summary just did not do justice to the variety of contrasting opinions in that section. It is already difficult enough to write a balanced review section.–Totie (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Provide an explanation when reverting another editor's revisions
My edits which updated this article were reverted by ViperSnake151. Why? Who knows? He failed to provide an Edit Summary as Wikipedia requires. Since he has not done so, I have reverted his edits. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:Edit summary Always provide an edit summary: It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, ViperSnake151 wishes to have an edit war WP:EDITWAR He keeps deleting my edits without any logical reason for the old text vs. my updated text. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I reverted his reversion of my edits because there was no logical reason for him to do so and he has yet to provide any rationale whatsoever. He posted a note on my Talk page indicating that I did not own the article. I agree. He does not either. Repeat: WP:Edit summary Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The solution here may be WP:ASSIST or another form of WP:DR Peter K Burian (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion of this issue on my Talk Page, in the July 2016 item. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_K_Burian#July_2016 Peter K Burian (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ViperSnake151: Instead of constantly reverting, why do we not find a solution before we are both suspended for a WP:WAR
 * i.e. Instead of simply reverting my edit, look at the text after my edit. Then, revise any sentences that you do not agree with. Then, add the additional content that you believe is necessary. I will then revise some of the content if that seems necessary instead of reverting your edits. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that ViperSnake151 has not responded to any of my comments on this page. I have filed my response to his complaint at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Item 21 OWNership issues on BlackBerry-related articles    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#OWNership_issues_on_BlackBerry-related_articles. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)