This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Casio F-91W article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
If the watch was introduced in 1991, how could the Mexican president have started wearing his in 1988?
This specific model was introduced in 1991. The Casio F Series has been in production long before that, 1984 to be exact. So it is possible that he was wearing an older model of the F Series. U1Quattro ( talk) 17:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The watch is dated to at least 1990 or earlier. Here is a magazine dated 1990 listing the F91W on page 53: https://issuu.com/retromash/docs/argos-no34-1990-autumnwinter/2?ff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.21.76 ( talk) 21:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
It isn't dated to 1988. I don't know what you're pondering about. U1 quattro TALK 03:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
MJL even the RFC doesn't say it's dated to 1988. U1 quattro TALK 05:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Is the paragraph starting with "Obviously, any other watch or device including a precise alarm can be easily modified..." written in the wrong style of writing? seems out of step with the rest of the article. RoyalBlueStuey ( talk) 11:57, 25 July 2017undue (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Casio F-91W. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I know there’s a debate going on about whether the watch was released in 1989 or 1991. I found the F91W in an Argos catalogue from 1990:
https://issuu.com/retromash/docs/argos-no34-1990-autumnwinter/2?ff
On page 53, number 25 (leftmost watch second from the bottom) is clearly an F91W, so this pretty much invalidates a 1991 release. Kerg1 ( talk) 21:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why no reliable sources indicate a 1990 or 1989 release as claimed by that IP user. Every source or every review of this watch indicates a 1991 release. U1 quattro TALK 02:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
What is the certainty that the watch was available for sale at Argos in 1990? Other than some empty claims, I don't see any reliable source point to this fact. Appearance in catalogue doesn't mean that it became available for sale in 1990. U1 quattro TALK 02:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
https://issuu.com/retromash/docs/argos-no33-1990-springsummer/2?ff
Page 206 (physical page 208 in the catalogue), so it was also available in the spring/summer catalogue in addition to the previously found fall/winter catalogue. Unless order fulfillment took a full year, they would’ve had to be sold in 1990. Kerg1 ( talk) 21:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Washington Post May 13 1990 page 25 has an ad for "Model F91" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.144.108 ( talk) 23:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
May 13 would mean half of 1990 had also passed. This makes me have reasons to believe that the watch was available for sale in early 1991. Catalogue posting in defence to this claim is not relevant unless you have a reliable source (other than false claims from "watch collectors") pointing out that this watch was released in 1990 or 1989. U1 quattro TALK 04:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Above comment is a stretch. May 13th is the 133rd day of the year in 1990 so that's 36% of the year done not half. Your second sentence mentions "believing" when this is about facts. Catalogs are extremely relevant as the release occurred before the internet had become such a primary source of information for the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.21.76 ( talk) 12:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I put into question the current source that is being cited written by Ewan Spence. If you search for Ewan Spence related to watches nearly nothing of relevance is available. Other than working for Forbes for a fluff article this source is not reliable. As with most blogs written in the last decade or so since they found the incorrect information on Wikipedia and took it as truth. As U1Quattro would say, these news articles are "empty claims" and are unreliable.
https://web.archive.org/web/20181009044323/http://www.casiodigitalwatches.com/casiopage10.htm
"VintageDigitalWatches.com" a website specializing in vintage digital watches (which is more reliable than some schmuck working for a newspaper who has no interest in Casio history) has the data for nearly all Casio models including release date which states the earliest F91W model was released in 1989. There also was another F91W model released in 1990 - both these years occur before 1991. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.21.76 ( talk) 12:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
https://www.pacparts.com/library/model.cfm?mfg=Casio&model_id=F91W-1&action=list_part&back=0
"PacParts" is Casio's spare parts line on the US West Coast, which lists the F91W as being released in 1989
https://www.casio.com/support/buy-parts "PacParts" is clearly listed as their West Coast spare parts distributor on the Casio website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.73.93 ( talk) 13:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Just got a hold of the official part supplier of Casio in West USA, PacParts Inc, and this is their response "My information shows that the F91W-1 [593] watch was released in June of 1989." Here is a link to a screenshot for further information:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casio F91W-1 ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
You are claiming some big things and calling a reliable source a schmuck. You are obviously taking assumptions and applying them to the editor. So what if he has never wrote about watches before? Does that stops him from writing about them? U1 quattro TALK 18:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me? The F-91W was never 50 Metre water resistant as the casio digital watch site claims. It was the W-59. That is enough to signify that source as unreliable. Here are some of the sources I found, all indicate a 1991 release:
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-13194733
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/apr/28/casio-f-91w-watch-design-hipsters-al-qaida
https://www.iconeye.com/opinion/icon-of-the-month/item/9473-casio-f-91w (this one certainly isn't copied off Wikipedia as you are putting it)
https://gadgets.knoji.com/casio-f91w-a-watch-through-time/
https://thewatchforum.co.uk/index.php?/topic/93703-casio-f-91w/ (a watch forum site; coming from a watch collector)
https://www.fastcompany.com/1670932/hacking-a-classic-casio-watch-to-turn-it-into-wearable-art
Where is PacParts getting its information from? The Argos catalogue? U1 quattro TALK 19:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
PacParts Inc gets their information from the Casio USA division as they are the official supplier of parts. This source is much more credible than any of the above ones provided. They have the internal information that none of those news or forum agencies have access to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casio F91W-1 ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Casio's Japan division has commented and said the release date varies by country but ultimately it was initially released in 1989. This settles this debate. Quote from the email: "We would like to inform you that F91W-1 was released in 1989. However please note that the released date may differ depending on the countries."
In regards to the website you linked
https://www.iconeye.com/opinion/icon-of-the-month/item/9473-casio-f-91w
and your comment "this one certainly isn't copied off Wikipedia as you are putting it", it certainly wasn't copied off Wikipedia because nowhere in that article does it mention the F-91W being released in 1991.
Jacepulaski (
talk)
13:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Not only that, but further digging into your other references linked above reveals dubious research, specifically https://gadgets.knoji.com/casio-f91w-a-watch-through-time/
Within the article, there are a list of references. Only 2 of said references have any mention of the F-91W being released in 1991; the BBC article dating to 26 April 2011 -- which was the very first citation for the release year claim, and the actual wikipedia article. Jacepulaski ( talk) 14:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
To clear up has happened here I did some investigating through the history of this Wikipedia page. In 2006 the page was edited to say it was released in 1997. This was removed and remained this way for about 3 years. Then on March 2, 2009 the page was edited to say the released year was 1991. It is important to note that this edit included no citation nor did it have a [citation needed] tag until October 15 2010. It remained without a citation until April 27 2011 where the citation made was: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13194733. On July 22 2018 a new reference was added: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2015/03/29/casio-f-91w-review/#20feaaf15e70. The BBC article was written on April 26 2011 and the Forbes article on March 29 2015.
I would like to raise the possibility that the Wikipedia page in question was used as a reference for its release date even though there was no citation on the Wiki page. This would create a sort of feedback loop. There was a year and a half where the release date did not have a citation nor a "citation needed" tag. Jacepulaski ( talk) 14:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Further to this point the Guardian article listed above falls into the same time frame. The Watch Forum post falls within this time frame as well and can be countered by other forum posts indicating an earlier release as noted a few edits above. The Fast Company article again falls into this time frame.
Using the information from Casios own website it can be determined that PacParts Inc is the official distrubtor of F91W-1 parts. It would be logical to assume PacParts Inc has parts information not readily available to the public. PacParts Inc lists the release as 1989 closing this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casio F91W-1 ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
You are constantly edit warring without seeking a concesous and are very close to violate the three revert rule. Judging from your contributions, you created this account specifically to target this page. I saw the Guantanamo Bay documents and those documents point towards a 1996 release year for this watch. a statement by Casio (US division I believe) indicated a 1996 release. So pac parts could be wrong there. Also see Wikipedia:Reliable Sources before using pac parts, as a source. U1 quattro TALK 04:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see the additional documents. I haven't seen any sources, except the one you cited, that point towards a 1996 release date. The NBC News source you sent, is not an official statement of Casio, in that article Casio only said that 'it has no exclusive technology'. Above that, the 1996 release year doesn't have a source in the article. It could also be that they are pointing to another model of the F91W. I also don't see why the primary source (the parts distributor of Casio USA division) is in this case not acceptable as a primary source. J0kerNL ( talk) 09:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I prematurely made edits. I am new to Wikipedia and am learning the procedures. I do not like the word “target” being used as it implies an attack. This is the first time I have encountered misinformation on Wikipedia and it is a topic I am a relative expert in so I sought to correct that. Naturally if I were to see inaccurate information on another topic I would provide input – but let’s put personal things aside.
Casio America has made the statement, “The F91W-1 watch was originally released in 1989.”
While an email cannot be used as a source it further demonstrates the relation between PacParts Inc and Casio America and backs the data they have listed on their website. At the very least the release year should be removed until it can be verified with a source deemed reliable. I don't believe any of the presented evidence is more official or correct than the company who released the product in question stating who their distributor is right on their website for the public to see and that distributor stating the year as 1989. Casio F91W-1 ( talk) 17:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Does the company make the release year public? No it doesn't. Your suggestion isn't valid as I don't see citing a parts distributor over a news site. U1 quattro TALK 18:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
And excuse me? The email does not highlight the relationship between pacparts and Casio US. I don't see Casio US mentioning about pac parts in the email. U1 quattro TALK 18:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
J0kerNL the terrorists used the basic F-91W watch, no other specific model. It might be possible that the watch was released in the US in 1996. U1 quattro TALK 18:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Commenting on the fact that an e-mail indeed does not highlight the relationship between Pacparts and Casio US, indeed is not justifiable as it is not a reliable source. I agree with U1Quattro that the release date has not made publicly available by Casio. Although I disagree the fact that Pacparts and Casio don't have a relationship. As listed earlier, their relationship is listed undoubtedly on there website ( https://www.casio.com/support/buy-parts). J0kerNL ( talk) 20:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
An anonymous user has reverted page back to the release year being stated as 1989, which was then reverted back to the original of 1991 by another user. It's clear we aren't going to naturally reach consensus with your (u1quattro) current disregard to the very likely possibility that the release year being stated as 1991 is a consequence of citogenesis, as I previously pointed out in my time-line of this article's revision history. I have and will continue to ask other contributors to help in the process of consensus considering your affinity for "news" articles, some of which either directly reference the original BBC article (which AGAIN, is most likely a case of citogenesis) OR do not even mention a release year, see your links of: https://gadgets.knoji.com/casio-f91w-a-watch-through-time/ and https://www.iconeye.com/opinion/icon-of-the-month/item/9473-casio-f-91w 194.223.23.33 ( talk) 10:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Even though pacparts isn't an ideal source under WP:RS, shouldn't WP:IAR be considered here? ElongatedMusketeer ( talk) 14:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
And I will certainly not consider WP:IAR when this IP is close to break the 3RR. U1 quattro TALK 15:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
CASIO Europe confirmed the 1989 launch https://imgur.com/a/ivM5PrD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pero196 ( talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
When you do, I would see to that. Imgur is also not a reliable source to put in the article. I recently replaced an Imgur source. U1 quattro TALK 03:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am requesting comment on the acceptability of having the release year mentioned in this article changed from 1991 to 1989. I believe the 1991 release year stated in the article is incorrect, possibly due to citogenesis. There is an article here and a parts listing here pointing to the correct release date being June of 1989. I have posted to RSN regarding reliability of the former source (news3lv) and have been told it's a reliable secondary source. The latter source (PacParts listing) was mentioned to be a usable primary source regarding release year in the same RSN response.
For full disclosure, this topic has been mentioned in a watch enthusiast discord that I( Jacepulaski), Casio F91W-1 and J0kerNL all participate in. I am very new to editing Wikipedia and have never done so before, and as such have had recent help from participants in WP:Discord to learn about contributing to talk page discussions but who also instructed me of their WP:CANVASSing concerns. This has not been my intention, and I have asked all members of the watch enthusiasts discord to either not participate in this RFC, or to self-identify as being a member of it. Jacepulaski ( talk) 14:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
“The model F91W was originally released in 06/1989 and is currently selling on Casio.com,” Wallace[Casio America customer service agent]
told News 3 in an email.Since News 3 released an in-depth investigative report on the F-91W's release year, while the "1991" sources only mentioned the release year in passing, I think the News 3 article is of much greater
prominenceper WP:WEIGHT. — Newslinger talk 08:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Signpost and then https://news4sanantonio.com/news/offbeat/the-case-of-an-iconic-watch-how-wikipedia-and-writers-create-false-facts-from-thin-air brought me here. Zezen ( talk) 07:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
And why do you think this matters Zezen? U1 quattro TALK 18:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
This has been added because it is relevant and appropriate. Mr Moriai is one of the leading designer for Casio and G Shock. He is a very popular man in Japan so he is quite relevant (adding this would not be relevant hence why I only included that he was the designer). U1Quattro please refrain from edit warring and leave your ego behind in this quest for creating a reputable knowledge base for the public. "Not appropriate" is not an explanation and is ironically not appropriate. Please stat an RFC to build a consensus to remove the designer name. Casio F91W-1 ( talk) 14:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
That is not an appropriate section as it is under the header "Specifications" Casio F91W-1 ( talk) 15:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I think we should start List of consumer products favored by terrorists. In addition to this watch, there's Toyota pickups. What else? E Eng 14:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Re: Water Resistance... I proved that the F91W does indeed have gaskets around the buttons..
http://persion.info/projects/casio-f91w-water-test/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpersion ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Berrely ( talk · contribs) added a Peacock banner to this page today. If the goal is to improve the article then I suggest the criticism needs to be more specific. -- Cornellier ( talk) 14:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
The watch is popular for its simplicity, reliability and unpretentious clean design.in the lead. Also statements like
the watch is worn all over the worldand the reception section are contributing factors. U1 quattro TALK 17:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
After seeing videos of the fake and the real F-91W side by side here and here, I can say with certainty that the watch on the main image of the article is a fake. Another give away is the poor printing on the crystal, especially the white border on the crystal and the sharp looking matte case. The F-91W does NOT come with such a case out of the box as seen here, here and here. U1 quattro TALK 06:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Seems thanks to the "terror" link they are also popular with computer hackers. Also some folks are modifying the backlights and other adaptations. A popular modification is to reverse the LCD polarizer or simply replace the LCD entirely with one from a similar watch to make a "blackout" or glowing digits variant. Someone even added a custom alarm modification that uses the onboard piezo speaker with an (IIRC) 10F222 storing fixed patterns in its internal memory.
Pretty sure there not popular with modders because of "a link to terrorism". They are most likely popular because they are dirt cheap and iconic. Also there is a difference between "computer hackers" and modders. Not sure why this needed a mention in the first place, people modify all sorts of things — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:8380:3340:863:B4C8:A883:BF7 ( talk) 13:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Casio F-91W article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
If the watch was introduced in 1991, how could the Mexican president have started wearing his in 1988?
This specific model was introduced in 1991. The Casio F Series has been in production long before that, 1984 to be exact. So it is possible that he was wearing an older model of the F Series. U1Quattro ( talk) 17:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The watch is dated to at least 1990 or earlier. Here is a magazine dated 1990 listing the F91W on page 53: https://issuu.com/retromash/docs/argos-no34-1990-autumnwinter/2?ff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.21.76 ( talk) 21:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
It isn't dated to 1988. I don't know what you're pondering about. U1 quattro TALK 03:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
MJL even the RFC doesn't say it's dated to 1988. U1 quattro TALK 05:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Is the paragraph starting with "Obviously, any other watch or device including a precise alarm can be easily modified..." written in the wrong style of writing? seems out of step with the rest of the article. RoyalBlueStuey ( talk) 11:57, 25 July 2017undue (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Casio F-91W. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I know there’s a debate going on about whether the watch was released in 1989 or 1991. I found the F91W in an Argos catalogue from 1990:
https://issuu.com/retromash/docs/argos-no34-1990-autumnwinter/2?ff
On page 53, number 25 (leftmost watch second from the bottom) is clearly an F91W, so this pretty much invalidates a 1991 release. Kerg1 ( talk) 21:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why no reliable sources indicate a 1990 or 1989 release as claimed by that IP user. Every source or every review of this watch indicates a 1991 release. U1 quattro TALK 02:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
What is the certainty that the watch was available for sale at Argos in 1990? Other than some empty claims, I don't see any reliable source point to this fact. Appearance in catalogue doesn't mean that it became available for sale in 1990. U1 quattro TALK 02:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
https://issuu.com/retromash/docs/argos-no33-1990-springsummer/2?ff
Page 206 (physical page 208 in the catalogue), so it was also available in the spring/summer catalogue in addition to the previously found fall/winter catalogue. Unless order fulfillment took a full year, they would’ve had to be sold in 1990. Kerg1 ( talk) 21:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Washington Post May 13 1990 page 25 has an ad for "Model F91" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.144.108 ( talk) 23:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
May 13 would mean half of 1990 had also passed. This makes me have reasons to believe that the watch was available for sale in early 1991. Catalogue posting in defence to this claim is not relevant unless you have a reliable source (other than false claims from "watch collectors") pointing out that this watch was released in 1990 or 1989. U1 quattro TALK 04:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Above comment is a stretch. May 13th is the 133rd day of the year in 1990 so that's 36% of the year done not half. Your second sentence mentions "believing" when this is about facts. Catalogs are extremely relevant as the release occurred before the internet had become such a primary source of information for the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.21.76 ( talk) 12:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I put into question the current source that is being cited written by Ewan Spence. If you search for Ewan Spence related to watches nearly nothing of relevance is available. Other than working for Forbes for a fluff article this source is not reliable. As with most blogs written in the last decade or so since they found the incorrect information on Wikipedia and took it as truth. As U1Quattro would say, these news articles are "empty claims" and are unreliable.
https://web.archive.org/web/20181009044323/http://www.casiodigitalwatches.com/casiopage10.htm
"VintageDigitalWatches.com" a website specializing in vintage digital watches (which is more reliable than some schmuck working for a newspaper who has no interest in Casio history) has the data for nearly all Casio models including release date which states the earliest F91W model was released in 1989. There also was another F91W model released in 1990 - both these years occur before 1991. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.21.76 ( talk) 12:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
https://www.pacparts.com/library/model.cfm?mfg=Casio&model_id=F91W-1&action=list_part&back=0
"PacParts" is Casio's spare parts line on the US West Coast, which lists the F91W as being released in 1989
https://www.casio.com/support/buy-parts "PacParts" is clearly listed as their West Coast spare parts distributor on the Casio website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.73.93 ( talk) 13:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Just got a hold of the official part supplier of Casio in West USA, PacParts Inc, and this is their response "My information shows that the F91W-1 [593] watch was released in June of 1989." Here is a link to a screenshot for further information:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casio F91W-1 ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
You are claiming some big things and calling a reliable source a schmuck. You are obviously taking assumptions and applying them to the editor. So what if he has never wrote about watches before? Does that stops him from writing about them? U1 quattro TALK 18:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me? The F-91W was never 50 Metre water resistant as the casio digital watch site claims. It was the W-59. That is enough to signify that source as unreliable. Here are some of the sources I found, all indicate a 1991 release:
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-13194733
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/apr/28/casio-f-91w-watch-design-hipsters-al-qaida
https://www.iconeye.com/opinion/icon-of-the-month/item/9473-casio-f-91w (this one certainly isn't copied off Wikipedia as you are putting it)
https://gadgets.knoji.com/casio-f91w-a-watch-through-time/
https://thewatchforum.co.uk/index.php?/topic/93703-casio-f-91w/ (a watch forum site; coming from a watch collector)
https://www.fastcompany.com/1670932/hacking-a-classic-casio-watch-to-turn-it-into-wearable-art
Where is PacParts getting its information from? The Argos catalogue? U1 quattro TALK 19:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
PacParts Inc gets their information from the Casio USA division as they are the official supplier of parts. This source is much more credible than any of the above ones provided. They have the internal information that none of those news or forum agencies have access to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casio F91W-1 ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Casio's Japan division has commented and said the release date varies by country but ultimately it was initially released in 1989. This settles this debate. Quote from the email: "We would like to inform you that F91W-1 was released in 1989. However please note that the released date may differ depending on the countries."
In regards to the website you linked
https://www.iconeye.com/opinion/icon-of-the-month/item/9473-casio-f-91w
and your comment "this one certainly isn't copied off Wikipedia as you are putting it", it certainly wasn't copied off Wikipedia because nowhere in that article does it mention the F-91W being released in 1991.
Jacepulaski (
talk)
13:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Not only that, but further digging into your other references linked above reveals dubious research, specifically https://gadgets.knoji.com/casio-f91w-a-watch-through-time/
Within the article, there are a list of references. Only 2 of said references have any mention of the F-91W being released in 1991; the BBC article dating to 26 April 2011 -- which was the very first citation for the release year claim, and the actual wikipedia article. Jacepulaski ( talk) 14:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
To clear up has happened here I did some investigating through the history of this Wikipedia page. In 2006 the page was edited to say it was released in 1997. This was removed and remained this way for about 3 years. Then on March 2, 2009 the page was edited to say the released year was 1991. It is important to note that this edit included no citation nor did it have a [citation needed] tag until October 15 2010. It remained without a citation until April 27 2011 where the citation made was: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13194733. On July 22 2018 a new reference was added: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2015/03/29/casio-f-91w-review/#20feaaf15e70. The BBC article was written on April 26 2011 and the Forbes article on March 29 2015.
I would like to raise the possibility that the Wikipedia page in question was used as a reference for its release date even though there was no citation on the Wiki page. This would create a sort of feedback loop. There was a year and a half where the release date did not have a citation nor a "citation needed" tag. Jacepulaski ( talk) 14:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Further to this point the Guardian article listed above falls into the same time frame. The Watch Forum post falls within this time frame as well and can be countered by other forum posts indicating an earlier release as noted a few edits above. The Fast Company article again falls into this time frame.
Using the information from Casios own website it can be determined that PacParts Inc is the official distrubtor of F91W-1 parts. It would be logical to assume PacParts Inc has parts information not readily available to the public. PacParts Inc lists the release as 1989 closing this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casio F91W-1 ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
You are constantly edit warring without seeking a concesous and are very close to violate the three revert rule. Judging from your contributions, you created this account specifically to target this page. I saw the Guantanamo Bay documents and those documents point towards a 1996 release year for this watch. a statement by Casio (US division I believe) indicated a 1996 release. So pac parts could be wrong there. Also see Wikipedia:Reliable Sources before using pac parts, as a source. U1 quattro TALK 04:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see the additional documents. I haven't seen any sources, except the one you cited, that point towards a 1996 release date. The NBC News source you sent, is not an official statement of Casio, in that article Casio only said that 'it has no exclusive technology'. Above that, the 1996 release year doesn't have a source in the article. It could also be that they are pointing to another model of the F91W. I also don't see why the primary source (the parts distributor of Casio USA division) is in this case not acceptable as a primary source. J0kerNL ( talk) 09:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I prematurely made edits. I am new to Wikipedia and am learning the procedures. I do not like the word “target” being used as it implies an attack. This is the first time I have encountered misinformation on Wikipedia and it is a topic I am a relative expert in so I sought to correct that. Naturally if I were to see inaccurate information on another topic I would provide input – but let’s put personal things aside.
Casio America has made the statement, “The F91W-1 watch was originally released in 1989.”
While an email cannot be used as a source it further demonstrates the relation between PacParts Inc and Casio America and backs the data they have listed on their website. At the very least the release year should be removed until it can be verified with a source deemed reliable. I don't believe any of the presented evidence is more official or correct than the company who released the product in question stating who their distributor is right on their website for the public to see and that distributor stating the year as 1989. Casio F91W-1 ( talk) 17:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Does the company make the release year public? No it doesn't. Your suggestion isn't valid as I don't see citing a parts distributor over a news site. U1 quattro TALK 18:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
And excuse me? The email does not highlight the relationship between pacparts and Casio US. I don't see Casio US mentioning about pac parts in the email. U1 quattro TALK 18:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
J0kerNL the terrorists used the basic F-91W watch, no other specific model. It might be possible that the watch was released in the US in 1996. U1 quattro TALK 18:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Commenting on the fact that an e-mail indeed does not highlight the relationship between Pacparts and Casio US, indeed is not justifiable as it is not a reliable source. I agree with U1Quattro that the release date has not made publicly available by Casio. Although I disagree the fact that Pacparts and Casio don't have a relationship. As listed earlier, their relationship is listed undoubtedly on there website ( https://www.casio.com/support/buy-parts). J0kerNL ( talk) 20:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
An anonymous user has reverted page back to the release year being stated as 1989, which was then reverted back to the original of 1991 by another user. It's clear we aren't going to naturally reach consensus with your (u1quattro) current disregard to the very likely possibility that the release year being stated as 1991 is a consequence of citogenesis, as I previously pointed out in my time-line of this article's revision history. I have and will continue to ask other contributors to help in the process of consensus considering your affinity for "news" articles, some of which either directly reference the original BBC article (which AGAIN, is most likely a case of citogenesis) OR do not even mention a release year, see your links of: https://gadgets.knoji.com/casio-f91w-a-watch-through-time/ and https://www.iconeye.com/opinion/icon-of-the-month/item/9473-casio-f-91w 194.223.23.33 ( talk) 10:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Even though pacparts isn't an ideal source under WP:RS, shouldn't WP:IAR be considered here? ElongatedMusketeer ( talk) 14:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
And I will certainly not consider WP:IAR when this IP is close to break the 3RR. U1 quattro TALK 15:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
CASIO Europe confirmed the 1989 launch https://imgur.com/a/ivM5PrD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pero196 ( talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
When you do, I would see to that. Imgur is also not a reliable source to put in the article. I recently replaced an Imgur source. U1 quattro TALK 03:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am requesting comment on the acceptability of having the release year mentioned in this article changed from 1991 to 1989. I believe the 1991 release year stated in the article is incorrect, possibly due to citogenesis. There is an article here and a parts listing here pointing to the correct release date being June of 1989. I have posted to RSN regarding reliability of the former source (news3lv) and have been told it's a reliable secondary source. The latter source (PacParts listing) was mentioned to be a usable primary source regarding release year in the same RSN response.
For full disclosure, this topic has been mentioned in a watch enthusiast discord that I( Jacepulaski), Casio F91W-1 and J0kerNL all participate in. I am very new to editing Wikipedia and have never done so before, and as such have had recent help from participants in WP:Discord to learn about contributing to talk page discussions but who also instructed me of their WP:CANVASSing concerns. This has not been my intention, and I have asked all members of the watch enthusiasts discord to either not participate in this RFC, or to self-identify as being a member of it. Jacepulaski ( talk) 14:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
“The model F91W was originally released in 06/1989 and is currently selling on Casio.com,” Wallace[Casio America customer service agent]
told News 3 in an email.Since News 3 released an in-depth investigative report on the F-91W's release year, while the "1991" sources only mentioned the release year in passing, I think the News 3 article is of much greater
prominenceper WP:WEIGHT. — Newslinger talk 08:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Signpost and then https://news4sanantonio.com/news/offbeat/the-case-of-an-iconic-watch-how-wikipedia-and-writers-create-false-facts-from-thin-air brought me here. Zezen ( talk) 07:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
And why do you think this matters Zezen? U1 quattro TALK 18:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
This has been added because it is relevant and appropriate. Mr Moriai is one of the leading designer for Casio and G Shock. He is a very popular man in Japan so he is quite relevant (adding this would not be relevant hence why I only included that he was the designer). U1Quattro please refrain from edit warring and leave your ego behind in this quest for creating a reputable knowledge base for the public. "Not appropriate" is not an explanation and is ironically not appropriate. Please stat an RFC to build a consensus to remove the designer name. Casio F91W-1 ( talk) 14:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
That is not an appropriate section as it is under the header "Specifications" Casio F91W-1 ( talk) 15:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I think we should start List of consumer products favored by terrorists. In addition to this watch, there's Toyota pickups. What else? E Eng 14:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Re: Water Resistance... I proved that the F91W does indeed have gaskets around the buttons..
http://persion.info/projects/casio-f91w-water-test/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpersion ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Berrely ( talk · contribs) added a Peacock banner to this page today. If the goal is to improve the article then I suggest the criticism needs to be more specific. -- Cornellier ( talk) 14:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
The watch is popular for its simplicity, reliability and unpretentious clean design.in the lead. Also statements like
the watch is worn all over the worldand the reception section are contributing factors. U1 quattro TALK 17:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
After seeing videos of the fake and the real F-91W side by side here and here, I can say with certainty that the watch on the main image of the article is a fake. Another give away is the poor printing on the crystal, especially the white border on the crystal and the sharp looking matte case. The F-91W does NOT come with such a case out of the box as seen here, here and here. U1 quattro TALK 06:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Seems thanks to the "terror" link they are also popular with computer hackers. Also some folks are modifying the backlights and other adaptations. A popular modification is to reverse the LCD polarizer or simply replace the LCD entirely with one from a similar watch to make a "blackout" or glowing digits variant. Someone even added a custom alarm modification that uses the onboard piezo speaker with an (IIRC) 10F222 storing fixed patterns in its internal memory.
Pretty sure there not popular with modders because of "a link to terrorism". They are most likely popular because they are dirt cheap and iconic. Also there is a difference between "computer hackers" and modders. Not sure why this needed a mention in the first place, people modify all sorts of things — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:8380:3340:863:B4C8:A883:BF7 ( talk) 13:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)