This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oliver Typewriter Company 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: 1Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
Oliver Typewriter Company is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 4, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
An IP (technically two IPs, but presumably same user per geolocation and edit content) has twice ( [3] and [4]) changed the article lead. The IP appears not to have read critcally; the article does not claim that the Oliver was the "first visible typewriter" (see edit summary), but rather only that it was the "first effective "visible print" typewriter" -- an important distinction. First, this article is a featured article and needs to adhere to the related criteria including WP:V. Indeed, the claim that this was the first effective "visible print" is contained in at least Beeching, Wilfred A. (1974). Century of the Typewriter. St. Martin's Press. pp. 206–208 (currently referenced) and Taylor, Carol (November 1999). " Looking into our Past". Retrieved 2007-11-11 (removed during clean-up as a deadlink, but present when the article was promoted after a very thorough sourcing check by SandyGeorgia). Second, even if the Oliver were not in truth the first effective "visible print" typewriter, verifiability, not truth is the threshold. The Daugherty referenced by the IP, for example, suffered from "lousy alignment of the type" due to its long typebars, [5] which might be a reason it was not considered "effective." If the IP has a reliable source that sets forth that the Oliver was not the first effective visible typewriter, it needs to be provided. Эlcobbola talk 21:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Any typewriter can have misaligned typebars, Olivers more than most! On an Oliver the typebars (or rather type-hoops) are very exposed and can easily be bent or distorted. Beeching is a book I happen to own and though very good it has several mistakes in it. I have seen and handled both Olivers (I own several) and also Daughertys. I can tell you both are good and "effective" designs, and the Daugherty did indeed come first. The notion of verifiability over truth is highly disturbing to me and why I usually avoid wikipedia. I made the edits mentioned above because someone in a typewriter forum was using the wikipedia page as a source to substantiate false comments. I don't know who you are SandyGeorgia or what your background is, but you should leave typewriter talk to the experts. I cannot offer a source at the moment because typewriter resources are fairly limited and those that do exist are full of assumptions and distortions; Beeching for example. Changing the article to read that Oliver was "one of the first effective visible typewriters" would ensure the most accuracy. Which would be a noble goal for someone such as you to adhere to. -Mark Petersen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.154.237 ( talk) 19:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
It just occurred to me I may have a source but I am not home and it is on my kitchen table. I will look tonight or tomorrow evening and see if I can post a viable source that you might accept with better information. The book I need to look in is titled "The Typewriter Revolution" by Richard Polt and I am certain it contains something in the history chapter regarding the introduction of the visible typewriter. -Mark Petersen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.154.237 ( talk) 20:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I have a copy of Beeching right here. British Typewriter Museum Publishing, First published 1974, new edition 1990. ISBN 0 9516790 7. There is no such statement made anywhere on the Oliver pages 205-208. No assertions of the Oliver being the first visible machine are made anywhere in the test, presumably because this was erroneous and corrected in the newer edition. Wherever you accessed the 1974 version you might be able to also look at the 1990 version and see that this "fact" is not present. Also, Richard Polt's book "The Typewriter Revolution" which is ISBN 978-58157-311-4, includes this tidbit "But the best solution to visibility was the "frontstroke" design pioneered by the Daugherty (1891) and perfected by the Underwood (designed by Franz X. Wagner and introduced in 1896)." The parenthesis were from the text and not inserted by me. 1891 precedes the Oliver by 3 years. The Oliver was not the first effective visible typewriter. If you would like photocopies of pages 205-208 of the newer edition of Beeching let me know and give me an email address. Beeching makes no assertions the Oliver was first. Given this new evidence with sources can we please remove the erroneous sentence from the main article? Thank you. -Mark Petersen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.22.166 ( talk) 04:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
It is age 72, sorry I missed that. I don't know what your citation rules are or your cute little stupid words like "editwarring" but I really want this article to present the correct information so I am doing my best with the resources and skills that I do have. I would welcome an admin to discuss these sources and the correctness of this article. -Mark Petersen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.22.166 ( talk) 01:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The Oliver was not the first "effective visible typewriter". The source claimed to be from Beeching's book is incorrect. I have Beeching's book (the physical actual book!!) and can email you scans of the cited pages if you want to provide an email or get in touch with me (markp442@gmail.com). At the very least this sentence needs to be removed the article, and my reasoning for this besides it being incorrect is that the source is totally invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.18.155 ( talk) 01:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
John Daugherty first patented his design in August 1891: https://patents.google.com/patent/US457258A, while Oliver patented his in April of 1891: https://patents.google.com/patent/US450107 . Typewritermuseum.org gives a date of production of 1891 for the Daugherty: http://www.typewritermuseum.org/collection/index.php3?machine=daugh&cat=kf# . James Polt states "The Daugherty Visible of 1891 was the first frontstroke typewriter to go into production": https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/tw-history.html . Polt states the Oliver was produced starting in 1896, here: https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/oliver9.html . madeinchicagomuseum.com states that Oliver received the first patent for his design in April 1891 and "built up a small manufacturing operation outside of Dubuque in Epworth, Iowa", eventually opening a factory in Woodstock in 1896: https://www.madeinchicagomuseum.com/single-post/oliver-typewriter-co . It is unclear whether each author is using date of production to mean the date of first (non-prototype) production for sale, or when mass production began. It appears clear they are not considering the Iowa manufacturing when giving the date of 1896.
It is certain that the Oliver was patented before the Daugherty (by four months). It is ambiguous, though, which was produced and sold first. Paisarepa ( talk) 00:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Elcobbola, what exactly was in the Daily Camera source? The
original title was "Looking into our Past: A history of the Daily Camera from 1890 to the present" and the URL ends in /aboutus/history.html suggesting it was was about the history of
Daily Camera. Also, the first Wayback Machine archive of the page from December 6, 2008 (8 months after this article was featured) was
already dead.
The Daily Camera archives are available at
Boulder Public Library’s Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.
Carol Taylor, author of the Daily Camera source, is also librarian for this archive and is available for contact at boulderhistorylibrarian@gmail.com. userdude 04:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I've found a live, reliable source about visible print typewriters by Martin Campbell-Kelly. See under the section Visual Feedback: The Search for a “Visible” Typewriter. According to this source, the Oliver was not the first visible print typewriter (it was preceded by Columbia Bar-Lock and the Williams No. 1) but it was the most mechanically successful at the time ("A much more successful down-strike mechanism was designed by the Reverend Thomas Oliver, who applied for a patent in 1892"). userdude 05:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Olivertypewriters.com states the first Oliver No. 1 was
introduced on August 1st, 1893. Between the sources I have found and the sources others have brought to this discussion, there aren't any that state the Oliver was the first effective visible print typewriter. All either claim it was 'one of' the first, or claim that other typewriter(s) predate it.
With all respect to Elcobbola, the IP has been changing this article and complaining about the lack of a good source for more than four years and has provided at least one reliable source for his change. (The changes and discussion have come from different IPs but apparently the same individual.) The IP provided a reliable source (Polk) in in Feb of 2016 and SandyGeorga replied at that time "Elcobbola has the sources, I await his response". That was four years ago, but the source has not been provided and the IP's reliable source is still being unduly ignored. Even if the link was live and a good source, or the content could be retreived, the presence of other reliable sources that conflict with it demands we give due weight to the different claims per WP:UNDUE. I think inserting 'one of' would accomplish that effectively and unobtrusively.
I strongly support changing the article to reflect what is verifiable -- that the Oliver was 'one of' the first effective visible print typewriters. Paisarepa ( talk) 19:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
What is the legacy of the company? MSN12102001 ( talk) 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi editors, I looked at this article yesterday and I'm concerned that it doesn't meet the featured article criteria anymore. My concerns are posted below:
I replaced ref 9's dead link with its JSTOR url and added the authority control template at the bottom. Is anyone interested in continuing to improve the article? If not, I will nominate this for featured article review. Thanks for reading this. Z1720 ( talk) 22:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I have added to the news sources to Further reading to being working them in:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The Woodstock, Illinois article asserts that the company became or became a part of the Woodstock Typewriter company which produced typewriters at least through WWII. This seems at odds with what is in this Oliver typewriter article. Kdammers ( talk) 06:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Do you purchase your product? 151.246.20.176 ( talk) 10:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oliver Typewriter Company 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: 1Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
Oliver Typewriter Company is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 4, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
An IP (technically two IPs, but presumably same user per geolocation and edit content) has twice ( [3] and [4]) changed the article lead. The IP appears not to have read critcally; the article does not claim that the Oliver was the "first visible typewriter" (see edit summary), but rather only that it was the "first effective "visible print" typewriter" -- an important distinction. First, this article is a featured article and needs to adhere to the related criteria including WP:V. Indeed, the claim that this was the first effective "visible print" is contained in at least Beeching, Wilfred A. (1974). Century of the Typewriter. St. Martin's Press. pp. 206–208 (currently referenced) and Taylor, Carol (November 1999). " Looking into our Past". Retrieved 2007-11-11 (removed during clean-up as a deadlink, but present when the article was promoted after a very thorough sourcing check by SandyGeorgia). Second, even if the Oliver were not in truth the first effective "visible print" typewriter, verifiability, not truth is the threshold. The Daugherty referenced by the IP, for example, suffered from "lousy alignment of the type" due to its long typebars, [5] which might be a reason it was not considered "effective." If the IP has a reliable source that sets forth that the Oliver was not the first effective visible typewriter, it needs to be provided. Эlcobbola talk 21:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Any typewriter can have misaligned typebars, Olivers more than most! On an Oliver the typebars (or rather type-hoops) are very exposed and can easily be bent or distorted. Beeching is a book I happen to own and though very good it has several mistakes in it. I have seen and handled both Olivers (I own several) and also Daughertys. I can tell you both are good and "effective" designs, and the Daugherty did indeed come first. The notion of verifiability over truth is highly disturbing to me and why I usually avoid wikipedia. I made the edits mentioned above because someone in a typewriter forum was using the wikipedia page as a source to substantiate false comments. I don't know who you are SandyGeorgia or what your background is, but you should leave typewriter talk to the experts. I cannot offer a source at the moment because typewriter resources are fairly limited and those that do exist are full of assumptions and distortions; Beeching for example. Changing the article to read that Oliver was "one of the first effective visible typewriters" would ensure the most accuracy. Which would be a noble goal for someone such as you to adhere to. -Mark Petersen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.154.237 ( talk) 19:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
It just occurred to me I may have a source but I am not home and it is on my kitchen table. I will look tonight or tomorrow evening and see if I can post a viable source that you might accept with better information. The book I need to look in is titled "The Typewriter Revolution" by Richard Polt and I am certain it contains something in the history chapter regarding the introduction of the visible typewriter. -Mark Petersen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.154.237 ( talk) 20:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I have a copy of Beeching right here. British Typewriter Museum Publishing, First published 1974, new edition 1990. ISBN 0 9516790 7. There is no such statement made anywhere on the Oliver pages 205-208. No assertions of the Oliver being the first visible machine are made anywhere in the test, presumably because this was erroneous and corrected in the newer edition. Wherever you accessed the 1974 version you might be able to also look at the 1990 version and see that this "fact" is not present. Also, Richard Polt's book "The Typewriter Revolution" which is ISBN 978-58157-311-4, includes this tidbit "But the best solution to visibility was the "frontstroke" design pioneered by the Daugherty (1891) and perfected by the Underwood (designed by Franz X. Wagner and introduced in 1896)." The parenthesis were from the text and not inserted by me. 1891 precedes the Oliver by 3 years. The Oliver was not the first effective visible typewriter. If you would like photocopies of pages 205-208 of the newer edition of Beeching let me know and give me an email address. Beeching makes no assertions the Oliver was first. Given this new evidence with sources can we please remove the erroneous sentence from the main article? Thank you. -Mark Petersen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.22.166 ( talk) 04:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
It is age 72, sorry I missed that. I don't know what your citation rules are or your cute little stupid words like "editwarring" but I really want this article to present the correct information so I am doing my best with the resources and skills that I do have. I would welcome an admin to discuss these sources and the correctness of this article. -Mark Petersen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.22.166 ( talk) 01:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The Oliver was not the first "effective visible typewriter". The source claimed to be from Beeching's book is incorrect. I have Beeching's book (the physical actual book!!) and can email you scans of the cited pages if you want to provide an email or get in touch with me (markp442@gmail.com). At the very least this sentence needs to be removed the article, and my reasoning for this besides it being incorrect is that the source is totally invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.18.155 ( talk) 01:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
John Daugherty first patented his design in August 1891: https://patents.google.com/patent/US457258A, while Oliver patented his in April of 1891: https://patents.google.com/patent/US450107 . Typewritermuseum.org gives a date of production of 1891 for the Daugherty: http://www.typewritermuseum.org/collection/index.php3?machine=daugh&cat=kf# . James Polt states "The Daugherty Visible of 1891 was the first frontstroke typewriter to go into production": https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/tw-history.html . Polt states the Oliver was produced starting in 1896, here: https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/oliver9.html . madeinchicagomuseum.com states that Oliver received the first patent for his design in April 1891 and "built up a small manufacturing operation outside of Dubuque in Epworth, Iowa", eventually opening a factory in Woodstock in 1896: https://www.madeinchicagomuseum.com/single-post/oliver-typewriter-co . It is unclear whether each author is using date of production to mean the date of first (non-prototype) production for sale, or when mass production began. It appears clear they are not considering the Iowa manufacturing when giving the date of 1896.
It is certain that the Oliver was patented before the Daugherty (by four months). It is ambiguous, though, which was produced and sold first. Paisarepa ( talk) 00:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Elcobbola, what exactly was in the Daily Camera source? The
original title was "Looking into our Past: A history of the Daily Camera from 1890 to the present" and the URL ends in /aboutus/history.html suggesting it was was about the history of
Daily Camera. Also, the first Wayback Machine archive of the page from December 6, 2008 (8 months after this article was featured) was
already dead.
The Daily Camera archives are available at
Boulder Public Library’s Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.
Carol Taylor, author of the Daily Camera source, is also librarian for this archive and is available for contact at boulderhistorylibrarian@gmail.com. userdude 04:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I've found a live, reliable source about visible print typewriters by Martin Campbell-Kelly. See under the section Visual Feedback: The Search for a “Visible” Typewriter. According to this source, the Oliver was not the first visible print typewriter (it was preceded by Columbia Bar-Lock and the Williams No. 1) but it was the most mechanically successful at the time ("A much more successful down-strike mechanism was designed by the Reverend Thomas Oliver, who applied for a patent in 1892"). userdude 05:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Olivertypewriters.com states the first Oliver No. 1 was
introduced on August 1st, 1893. Between the sources I have found and the sources others have brought to this discussion, there aren't any that state the Oliver was the first effective visible print typewriter. All either claim it was 'one of' the first, or claim that other typewriter(s) predate it.
With all respect to Elcobbola, the IP has been changing this article and complaining about the lack of a good source for more than four years and has provided at least one reliable source for his change. (The changes and discussion have come from different IPs but apparently the same individual.) The IP provided a reliable source (Polk) in in Feb of 2016 and SandyGeorga replied at that time "Elcobbola has the sources, I await his response". That was four years ago, but the source has not been provided and the IP's reliable source is still being unduly ignored. Even if the link was live and a good source, or the content could be retreived, the presence of other reliable sources that conflict with it demands we give due weight to the different claims per WP:UNDUE. I think inserting 'one of' would accomplish that effectively and unobtrusively.
I strongly support changing the article to reflect what is verifiable -- that the Oliver was 'one of' the first effective visible print typewriters. Paisarepa ( talk) 19:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
What is the legacy of the company? MSN12102001 ( talk) 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi editors, I looked at this article yesterday and I'm concerned that it doesn't meet the featured article criteria anymore. My concerns are posted below:
I replaced ref 9's dead link with its JSTOR url and added the authority control template at the bottom. Is anyone interested in continuing to improve the article? If not, I will nominate this for featured article review. Thanks for reading this. Z1720 ( talk) 22:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I have added to the news sources to Further reading to being working them in:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The Woodstock, Illinois article asserts that the company became or became a part of the Woodstock Typewriter company which produced typewriters at least through WWII. This seems at odds with what is in this Oliver typewriter article. Kdammers ( talk) 06:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Do you purchase your product? 151.246.20.176 ( talk) 10:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)