Talk:Whisper Systems

Arab Spring

This information about the possible use by unverifiable participants in "Arab Spring" of Whisper Systems products is POV and only very slightly related to the subject of the article. I wonder if the Windows XP / 7 pages have a similar note? I'm sure that numerous participants in "Arab Spring" used Microsoft product... And the Wiki entries for the various makes of smart phones? Seriously, other than pushing POV content about “Arab Spring”, inclusion here has close to zero value. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm reverting the contents back because your claims of WP:POV are inappropriate. First, you removed content completely unrelated to Arab Spring, dealing specifically with the acquisition by Twitter. Second, Several reliable sources ([1] [2] [3]), some of which were entirely removed, discussed Whisper Systems' products, how they were designed specifically for use in Egypt, and how they were actually used in Egypt during Arab Spring. It speaks to the notability of the company-- why should it be left out? It's not POV-pushing because, according to WP:POV it's

1. not stating an opinion as a fact (Also, the degree to which Microsoft products were used. What matters is that multiple reliable sources support that it was used),
2. not seriously contested by reliable sources
3. not presenting uncontested assertions as opinions (although this edit of yours here does violate WP:NPOV),
4. not judgmental language, and
5. doesn't give inappropriate weight to opposing views (because there are no opposing views).

Please avoid reverting the contents unless you are able to find evidence that these points of view are contested by reliable sources. Otherwise, there is no reason to blank the material. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Editorializing about "Arab Spring" on this page adds clear POV content not directly related in any substantial way to who or what Whisper Systems is. Wikipedia is not your SOAPBOX, and you should not assume people come hear to learn about your political interests. This article is about Whisper Systems, not "Arab Spring". =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Of the several revisions the article has undergone I would prefer this one. I see no WP:NPOV-related issues with it, and the information is adequately referenced.—Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"Adequately referenced" does not address POV, which insinuating political discussion about "Arab Spring" into this article clearly is. Obviously I'm not going to prevail on this point, but I will say it's very sad to see Wikipedia used as a soapbox to put forward a political view. Very sad indeed. =//= Johnny Squeaky 23:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, your presumption of WP:POV is unsupported, and no one is saying that WP:NPOV means it is adequately referenced. The above editor was making separate points. It's starting to sound like you don't really care to listen, and I'm not sure there's any reason to be all gloom and doom about Wikipedia. I just wrote what reliable sources covered. If there were opposing viewpoints, they should be included, but there are none. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No version of the article actually discussed the Arab Spring. The article discussed the usage of the technology by he participants of Arab Spring, but it isn't a POV at all. Or let's put it another way: cite any politically engaged phrase You find, and we'll discuss it. I see an issue with WP:UNDUE with that Arab Spring stuff, but given the size of the article, the only way to solve it is to give a due weight to the technology itself. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)