Talk:OnePlus/Archive 1

Full Press Statement Copy/Paste (Sept 2015)
I plan to remove the copy-pasted company statement within a few days as it detracts significantly from the flow of the article and is against Wikipedia guidelines (Copying_text_from_other_sources, Quotations). If anyone is interested please re-write the area to include quotes from the press statement, rather than the entire statement in full. Thanks! aerotheque (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks for updating it, me_and -- aerotheque (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

OPPO Ownership
As of 28th April 2014, as far as we know from verifiable sources OnePlus is 100% owned by OPPO Electronics. This is legitimately verified from the english translation of the OnePlus license data supplied by the Market Supervision Bureau of Shenzhen Municipality website. This can be found here: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.szcredit.com.cn%2Fweb%2FGSPT%2FSPXK_Info.aspx%3FID%3D5153df7231ab43aa9cf41cc9cd35293a&edit-text=

The Fact that the OnePlus CEO has stated that OPPO were not involved on March 4th or the fact he has denied such ownership is irrelevant until it can be proven. The fact of the matter is that the source cited for OnePlus not being a subsidiary is the same as the source that is currently covering the ownership story. As such, any edits claiming that OnePlus is not a subsidiary are going against all verifiable evidence and should not be maintained.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WafflemanGoGo (talk • contribs) 16:14, 27 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Subgroup of IT giant Google and Motorola?
Is this true? Can anyone provide reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.194.226.174 (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it is a patently false claim that was added by Sushill19653 on the 26th. They are 100% owned by OPPO. I have removed the claim from the article. 70.27.133.193 (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not true. Oneplus is a spinoff created by OPPO Electronics. --73.15.1.12 (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Attempt #2: Suggested change
This was meant to replace entire paragraph above (Suspicious removal/ censorship of two edits), but C.Fred reverted, so I am including it as a new paragraph on this talk page.

Concerns About How to Settle Content Dispute
I have a few concerns about this method of trying to settle a content dispute. First, the pinging (or other contacting) of specific editors who are selected to be asked their opinions in order to obtain a consensus appears to be canvassing, which is viewed with disfavor because it is often done to select editors who are thought to agree with the editor doing the canvassing. The preferred way to obtain the opinions of multiple editors as a cross-section of the Wikipedia community is a Request for Comments. In briefly looking at this dispute, but not in much depth, this seems to be the sort of content dispute that should be settled by a Request for Comments. I will be glad to assist in formulating and publishing a neutrally worded RFC. Second, the use of the word "censor" with respect to whether to include particular content is unfortunate because it already implies the answer. If the question is whether information should be censored from Wikipedia, the answer already is no. The term "censorship" or "censor" is properly applied to Wikipedia in either of two contexts. The first is with regard to requests that material be omitted or suppressed because it may be offensive or may annoy moral sensibilities. See Wikipedia is not censored. The second is with respect to efforts by governments to restrict access to Wikipedia or to other sources of knowledge for political reasons or in violation of freedom of the press. In this case, the question is not whether information should be censored, but whether it should be included based on such principles as balance and neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that the question be answered by a Request for Comments. Do you want assistance in preparing and publishing it? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I read your reply and I honestly think it is spot on. I was not aware of request for comments procedure, so pinging seemed like the best available option, despite all the concerns which might be associated. As for wording, this dispute seemed like censorship to me, therefore I put it in. However, I do agree that this phrasing was inappropriate since it is biased and is likely to prime others. It would be awesome if you could help with a neutrally worded RFC. Thank you for the offer to help settle this dispute! What would be the next step?

Introductory discussion
Two edits to the controversies part of the page got removed with no valid explanation. I also received a warning with no valid explanation. Removal itself appears strange since:
 * Information was factual and relevant. Both paragraphs have multiple examples across several products, therefore they are not limited to a specific product but are relevant for the entire company page. Furthermore, information of similar kind is already on the page, here is one of several current examples - OnePlus 2 software updates.
 * References were solid. From XDA Developers official page to Ars Technica, these are well established and reliable sources. Besides, every claim is referenced.

Why were the edits removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Novosibirsk (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign comments in the future. The information should go on the product pages, such as OnePlus One. You should be WP:NEUTRAL when writing for the project. Multiple referencing problems are present too. Reference 6 is a forum post, and reference 10 is a Reddit post, please see WP:SPS. Reference 8 says This is just for referencing and not my own video. I kinda mirrored it., this would be a WP:LINKVIO. This is not suspicious removal or censorship. If you need anymore help I am here for you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for a genuinely great reply!
 * Yes, will sign my comments in the future. I thought they were signed automatically, like in forums, or anywhere else with registered users, but I clearly was wrong.
 * I can agree that a forum post is not a valid source, but an official Reddit AMA with official answers has to count as a legit source, doesn't it? Outside Reddit AMA, you spotted some flaws in my references, thank you for pointing them out. I will repair them, if the paragraph were to be reintroduced.
 * In this particular case, let's talk warranty rejections, that removed paragraph. When warranty is denied on a wide spread and well-known product flaw, this is not Wikipedia-worthy. When the same warranty issue is denied, where other manufacturers would have accepted same warranty claim, this might be Wikipedia worthy. When this issue attracts plenty of attention, it certainly becomes a controversy, although product-specific. When a manufacturer repeats this pattern with several (3 or more) products, this no longer is product-specific. It then becomes no longer limited to a product and becomes a manufacturer-specific issue. Therefore, this paragraph should be allowed here. It is genuine and relevant. Furthermore, there are far more "product-specific" controversy examples among the currently listed OnePlus controversies. And on top of that, if we look at other company controversies, large single-product controversies are allowed, from Note 7 battery issue on Samsung’s page to Seroquel drug on AstraZeneca’s.

You have some great points. However, "Warranty rejections" should be reintroduced. Controversy examples of the same nature are already on the page (e.g. OnePlus 2 specific controversies), large single-product controversies are allowed on other manufacturers’ pages (Note 7, Seroquel, etc.) and in our case it also is a reoccurring theme among several of the OnePlus' products. I think that the case for reintroducing the two removed paragraphs is strong.

// D.Novosibirsk


 * To sign comments you either write ~ or click the pen symbol in the edit bar, and to ping a user you write and include the username after the |.

I don't see how the Reddit source is an official AMA, but perhaps you accidentally put in the wrong link. Could you please double check?

Regarding the warranty rejections I think they should stay on the product specific pages for the time being, or at least only be mentioned briefly on the manufacturer page with detail on the product page. Even if we do decide to add back the two removed paragraphs could you please put them on the talkpage first, so I can ensure that they comply with Wikipedia policies and standards. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

What's against the policy?
Thank you for a quick reply! What could possibly be against Wikipedia policy or even against common sense? Furthermore, content of very similar nature is already on the current OnePlus Wikipedia page. Content of very similar nature is also on other companies' pages. How are the removed paragraphs any different from these examples below? D.Novosibirsk (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Samsung Note 7 controversy on Samsung's Wiki page
 * Seroquel controversy on AstraZeneca's page
 * OnePlus 2 SW issues
 * USB cable bundled with early OnePlus 2 units
 * The main issue was with the references. Another problem was with the writing OnePlus One issue with yellow display band at the bottom of the screen which affected some units was not covered under warranty., this could have been written as Some OnePlus One devices had a yellow display band at the bottom of the screen, but OnePlus did not cover these devices under its warranty. Another problem was the mentioning of the other products. Regarding the USB cable the information was already included. The issue with the OnePlus is mentioned on the respective page, and is definitely a product specific problem that doesn't warrant such big placement on the manufacturers article.

I would be willing to look over your suggested edit before we add it to the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggested change
I would like to introduce the following three paragraphs:

D.Novosibirsk (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Input from other Wikipedians
I (D.Novosibirsk) added some information to the controversy section of the page which Emir of Wikipedia reverted and we two seemingly cannot agree if the information should stay or disappear. Would you vote to expand the page or is the suggested change (the three quote boxed in the paragraph above) unreasonable?

Reasoning behind the addition:
 * These are the actual most discussed OnePlus controversies. They are conspicuously absent from Wikipedia, while far less relevant and much less remembered “Ladies first” or “temporary Ban in India” are featured.

Emir of Wikipedia reasons to censor/retract:
 * Should instead be on individual product page ((My reply: these controversies have to do with company’s decisions and policies, not product specific stuff like manufacturing defects. Information of this nature is also allowed and featured on other company’s pages, e.g. Note 7 on Samsung’s page or Seroquel drug on AstraZeneca’s. Furthermore, the described controversies are not limited to a single product but affect several))
 * Referencing issues ((My reply: fixed))
 * Text should be neutral ((My reply: It is neutral - it is factual, well sourced and not opinionated))

Other comments: D.Novosibirsk (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If these edits were to be introduced, they will replace two current paragraphs - OnePlus 2 software updates and OnePlus Type-C Cable as well as expand Warranty rejections.


 * While I personally understand some of the issues (having experienced some of the stuff myself), I don't think references to Reddit or XDA belong here. Both are essentially forums, and as such don't qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia (that doesn't mean these sites aren't useful, I have accounts there myself, but they are just not suitable for Wikipedia.)
 * I suggest you find suitable references, from journalistic outlets. See, for example, the current section about the USB Type-C cable. It mentions discussions on Reddit and the OnePlus forums, but references journalistic articles that covered the issue. No reference to the angry, emotional outbursts all too typical for forums.
 * Finally, it is irrelevant if other articles don't follow all the guidelines right now. Wikipedia is huge, and people who watch for this can't be everywhere. In a few weeks, these other articles may have changed. So, saying "but x has similar references" is a red herring. jfeise (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back! I included XDA because the linked articles are original sources, which "more reliable sources" will refer to. Also, the linked XDA's articles are remarkably thorough, well beyond an average article from a "reliable source". Reddit thread contains 960 fps video, i.e. actual proof. Still, point taken, I will replace those 5/15 links (I take it that YouTube link also needs to be replaced). If the links are replaced, can the change be made or should it for some reason be withheld? D.Novosibirsk (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you think if I make the edit after improving the sources (i.e. replacing those 5/15 Youtube/Reddit/XDA sources with other sources)? D.Novosibirsk (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How about you suggest the other sources here before making the actual edits first? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course. But if the content would stay the same, but the sources would be replaced with tech news sites instead (a la Ars Technica, Android Authority, etc....), would you be ok with the edit? D.Novosibirsk (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I still think some changes would probably have to be made, but lets work on dealing with the sources first. I do however disagree with, and think the XDA source is reliable as it is not from the forums but their news section. The editors not just some random forum posters. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Three paragraphs to add
I would like to introduce the following three paragraphs:

Request for input from other Wikipedians
If you agree with the inclusion, please let me know. If you have concerns, what are those?

Reasoning behind the addition:
 * These are the actual most discussed OnePlus controversies. They are conspicuously absent from Wikipedia, while far less relevant and much less remembered “Ladies first” or “temporary Ban in India” are featured.

Emir of Wikipedia reasons to censor/retract:
 * Should instead be on individual product page ((My reply: these controversies have to do with company’s decisions and policies, not product specific stuff like manufacturing defects. Information of this nature is also allowed and featured on other company’s pages, e.g. Note 7 on Samsung’s page or Seroquel drug on AstraZeneca’s. Furthermore, the described controversies are not limited to a single product but affect several. your comment that other Wiki pages should not be used as a standard of correctness was spot on. Still, the case for including it on OnePlus wiki page rather than individual product pages is still seemingly strong))
 * Referencing issues ((: Reddit, XDA and YouTube have been updated. Now used together with other, "more reliable" sources.))
 * These issues are still present in sources currently numbered as 8 and 11. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Text should be neutral ((My reply: It is neutral - it is factual, well sourced and not opinionated))

Other comments:
 * If these edits were to be introduced, they will replace two current paragraphs - OnePlus 2 software updates and OnePlus Type-C Cable as well as expand Warranty rejections.

D.Novosibirsk (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Replies from other Wikipedians
Include here. Everyone's reasoning and comments are welcome.


 * I feel that those paragraphs comply with Wikipedia rules and should be allowed to stay. It's about the company's issues and should stay on the main OnePlus article and besides they are written from a neutral point of view and have references. Just my personal opinion. Darius robin (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * - you mentioned that there still is an issue with sources #8 (Little Zed on Youtube) and #11 (Nitemare3219 on Reddit). Both sources are used together with other sources, they are not alone in referencing a claim. Therefore, they could simply be removed, if YouTube and Reddit are under no circumstances allowed. D.Novosibirsk (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * YouTube and Reddit would not be allowed in many circumstances so it would be best for you to simply remove them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you could allow an exception here as the main sources already show that the jelly scrolling issue exists, the Reddit and YouTube sources are just supporting the others. Darius robin (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Even still I don't know of any Wikipedia guideline that would let use that Reddit source in any context without it being explicitly mentioned by multiple reliable sources as specifically related to OnePlus the company rejecting warranty. The YouTube video says it is a mirror so it would probably be a WP:LINKVIO. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Reddit is not used in warranty paragraph. Reddit is used to provide evidence (actual video) that displays of some units are upside down. Do you still insist on removing it? If so and I remove the two sources, can the paragraphs be published or shall we ask Robert McClenon to help settle this dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Novosibirsk (talk • contribs)
 * Their is a video on OnePlus 5. I don't know why you think the displays of some units are upside down and not all. OnePlus has clarified that it is due to the users' eye persistence of vision.
 * To answer your question on upside down displays, read the linked XDA source or watch the link which Reddit refers to. Reddit links to slo-mo 960 fps video where jello effect and upside down display is super obvious. Also, what is "users' eye persistence of vision"? Even the expression itself makes no sense. Also, OnePlus claimed and still maintains that benchmark cheating on OnePlus 5 is "showing max potential". That indicates that OnePlus official explanation is not always to be trusted. OnePlus explanation makes even less sense given that "jelly effect" can be caught on regular 30 fps video so that anyone with any "vision persistence" can see the effect. D.Novosibirsk (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The XDA sources do not say that it is only affecting some devices, but rather that only some user of devices are reporting. I have not seen a single source which say that any OnePlus 5 does not have a "upside down" display. We should not abandon explanations by OnePlus.
 * Quote from XDA: "A widely circulating theory on the official OnePlus forums, Reddit’s /r/OnePlus, and our very own forums is now confirmed: OnePlus mounted the display panel upside-down on the OnePlus 5". The explanation that you do not want to abandon, aside from that it makes no sense, have even been abandoned by their original source - the tweet you quoted is no longer online on OnePlus page. D.Novosibirsk (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That source does not say anything about some display panels being down, and it implies all by not saying that it was merely few. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And video linked by Reddit proves that the display panel is upside down. D.Novosibirsk (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Read Identifying reliable sources first. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is now taking unnecessarily much time. Let's pick an option to move forward. Would you (a) be ok if paragraphs are uploaded as they are or (b) be ok if the paragraphs are uploaded once the two sources are removed or (c) shall we ask an independent external party to settle this?D.Novosibirsk (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is WP:NORUSH. If you are being hasty we could ask an independent external party to help settle this (c), but keep in mind that might not result in something resembling (a) or (b). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I never expected or wanted such a simple issue to become such a big deal and I want to have it settled. I am in no rush, but we need to move forward and it feels like I am being stonewalled. Your reasons to retract have been rebutted time and again, but it's always something new. The latest introductions were "don't abandom OnePlus explanation" and "XDA claims only that some users are reporting". Again, both were rebutted. I looked at your edits and I have massive respect for people like you, but on this particular dispute, it feels that you are advocating for the company and I don't know why. What are the remaining reasons to retract those paragraphs? Please mention them one-by-one so that each one can be addressed, if possible. To best of my knowledge, all previously mentioned reasons have been rebutted, but let's see if I missed something. D.Novosibirsk (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest if you feel like you are being stone walled you read through Wikipedia policies first. My reasons have not been rebutted. I am not advocating for the company but I just want the article to be best it can be. I think you suggestion of going through every one by one would probably be best. Which addition do you wish to start with first? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Once again, I previously looked at your Wikipedia edits other than OnePlus 5, and I have serious respect for people like you. However, when it comes to your insistence on retracting three paragraphs on OP5, I think you're wrong. Let's look at your quoted explanations that (according to me) have been rebutted:
 * 1) "You should be WP:NEUTRAL when writing for the project". Rebuttal: The suggested edits have a neutral point of view. Darius Robin seems to agree on neutral point of view.
 * 2) "Reference 6 is a forum post, and reference 10 is a Reddit post". Rebuttal: forums and self-published information is only used as a secondary source, together with a main source and added only if it there is additional value.
 * 3) "I think they should stay on the product specific pages for the time being". Rebuttal: these controversies have to do with company’s decisions and policies, not product specific stuff like manufacturing defects. Furthermore, there are multiple examples across several products, therefore they are not limited to a specific product.
 * 4) "Even still I don't know of any Wikipedia guideline that would let use that Reddit source in any context without it being explicitly mentioned by multiple reliable sources as specifically related to OnePlus the company rejecting warranty". Rebuttal: not sure what you mean, Reddit is not and never has been used in any warranty rejection claims.
 * 5) "XDA claims only that some users are reporting". Rebuttal: quote from XDA directly contradicts this, i.e. "A widely circulating theory on the official OnePlus forums, Reddit’s /r/OnePlus, and our very own forums is now confirmed: OnePlus mounted the display panel upside-down on the OnePlus 5"
 * 6) "That source does not say anything about some display panels being down, and it implies all by not saying that it was merely few". Rebuttal: direct quote from XDA again - "Not every OnePlus 5 owner will encounter this issue or notice it happening."
 * 7) "don't abandom OnePlus explanation". Rebuttal: That OnePlus explanation on Twitter makes no sense and has even been abandoned by OnePlus themselves.
 * D.Novosibirsk (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Back to the initial 3 paragraphs, what exactly (if anything) is not good enough or inappropriate? D.Novosibirsk (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Shall we go through each of these 7 "rebuttals" one by one or what? I have sent you a link to The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest you go through that before coming back here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, it's probably easier if you quickly draft a numbered list of reasons why the suggested change is is not good enough or inappropriate. For the record, I did read up on Wiki policies, although not Wikipedia Adventure. D.Novosibirsk (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well as per WP:SELFPUBLISH we should not be including forum or Reddit posts in almost every instance, even as a "secondary source". If they are mentioned in the source given that is not a problem, but we can't just include random posts. We should not brand something as a "warranty rejection" when it is just the way that the device works, but I am not sure what thinks of that being WP:NEUTRAL. I still think they should go in the product page, but would accept them being mentioned in the section of their product. Making a section of product specific flaws on a company page would currently be a no go, unless it attracted unprecedented coverage. Nowhere in the XDA claim does it say that  the display of some OnePlus 5's is mounted upside down, but in fact it says that the issue is not a result of different users having different screens. I think that it would probably be best if we did go through this on a device by device basis at their respective articles, and then we could reintroduce the content into the manufacturer article with attribution if we deem it appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I saw my edit adding a Benchmark Cheating section was just reverted. I didn't realize that this was a currently ongoing discussion when I made the edit (just saw that it was missing from the page, and was a bit shocked that a major controversy that spans multiple devices was missing). The discussion seems to be heading on the right track here (as the currently suggested paragraphs look quite good, albeit maybe a bit short), but I want to comment on the reliable sources bit. Specifically, I want to note that there is a substantial difference between the XDA Developers Forums and XDA Developers News (just like there is between Ars' forums and news, Anandtech's forums and news, The Verge's forums and news, etc.). The forums are not a reliable source (unless of course being used as a link to an official statement made by an individual, in which case it should be paired with a secondary source), but the news articles are. That being said, at this point, what do you feel needs to be done going forward before the concerns are fixed and the benchmark cheating section is ready to be re-added? 70.29.103.155 (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Follow-Up
A message was posted to my talk page mentioned neutral mediation. There are two possible ways to resolve this dispute, mediation, and an RFC. Mediation can be requested at the dispute resolution noticeboard. There is also formal mediation, which is a heavy-weight process, but I don't think that is necessary. Mediation is voluntary. Does anyone want to request volunteer mediation, or can anyone summarize what the disputed content is, so that a neutral RFC can be composed? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)