Sholes and Glidden typewriter 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 March 3, 2010. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Where was this typewriter made? This important information should be in the intro, surely? Thanks. -- TraceyR ( talk) 10:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Although it does make it easy to find using the current form of "typewriter" the correct form should be "Type Writer".
This is discussed in Adler's books, which are considered by many as the authority on the subject. I would suggest that if the title is left as is the following should be used as revised text for the first line:
AT PRESENT IT STANDS LIKE THIS:
The Sholes and Glidden typewriter (also known as the Remington No. 1) was the first commercially successful typewriter.
SHOULD BE:
The Sholes and Glidden Type Writer (1)(2) also colloquially and retrospectively (1)(2) known as a “typewriter” and now sometimes referred to as the Remington No. 1, (although no examples labeled Remington No. 1 were ever manufactured (1) (2) is now sometimes claimed to have been the first commercially successful typewriter, although not the first typewriter commercially manufactured, nor was it actually commercially successful in its original format. (1)(2)
The term “typewriter” as applied to the instrument was a later development; originally a lady typist was the “typewriter”, and she typed on her “type writer” which she herself was usually expected to supply. (2)
The Sholes and Glidden Type Writer was a commercial flop, and went through several unsuccessful model and name changes (The Improved Type Writer, the Perfected Type Writer) before becoming the successful Remington Model no. 2.
References:
1) Adler, Michael H. (1973). The Writing Machine, a history of the typewriter. London: Geo. Allen & Unwin Ltd.
2) Adler, Michael H. (1997). Antique Typewriters, from Creed to QWERTY. Atglen PA (USA): Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
Please comment.
MarcsMark ( talk) 16:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Marc
WHOA THERE, COWBOY! I don’t know who you are because you hide behind the anonymity of a pseudonym. I also don’t know what your problem is with Adler, but you have demonstrated by the vitriol of your response that you certainly have one. Either that, or else you are a frustrated youngster in a Link trainer trying hard to prove he is grown up and might one day become a pilot and know how to fly like a real man.
Indeed, when a bunch of friends and colleagues first alerted me to your factually incorrect, defective and deficient article it was merely in the form of a request to me that I set the record straight; till then, I knew nothing about it, so the last thing I expected was your puerile dummy-spit response (if you’re American, make this “pacifier-spit”), much less the remarkable personal attacks of extravagant absurdity such as that Adler’s claim that The Writing Machine was a seminal work is “utter nonsense”. This says nothing whatsoever about Adler or his books, but speaks volumes about you and where you are coming from. It’s a pity for you that you weren’t old enough to be let out on your own while Adler was active in the field, otherwise you would have been able to attend Sotheby’s and Christie’s and Phillips’ and Bonham’s sales and seen such entries as “According to Adler…” and “Adler says…” among the catalogue notes.
So you have a problem with Adler, then. Nothing particularly noteworthy in that, even though I have absolutely no idea what it’s about, and neither does he (unless it is motivated by a touch of good old-fashioned iconoclasm) except that as I understand it Wikipedia is not, repeat not, meant to be the forum for airing personal grudges or grievances or massaging circulation into fragile emerging egos.
As for the issue of your justifications for failing to include either of his two books in your bibliography, this once again says everything about you, and nothing at all about him or his books. The sources you quote (Bliven, Weller etc.) are more often than not thoroughly obsolete, unreliable and anecdotal; to refer to them as your primary source material (since you have clearly done no original research of your own) is comparable only to editing a Wikipedia text on The Nature of the Universe by referencing medieval illustrated manuscripts, and quoting The Flat Earth Society as your source.
Now, to specifics, and at the end of this discussion, you are urged to stop trying to kick dust into everyone’s eyes to prove what a man you are, and include Adler’s two books in the bibliography and references.
You identify two areas of contention:
"the title to the article is wrong":
YOU SAY: "Typewriter" was a new word at the time and spelling was not yet formalized (it was variously called "Type Writer", "Type-Writer" and "Typewriter"). The article's title was chosen in accordance with WP:TITLE, specifically it's both "[the name] most commonly used in reliable sources" and "[the name] that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article". The article's title is not "wrong".
I SAY: The article’s title is wrong… I say again: the article’s title is wrong, and no amount of mealy-mouthing will change this fact. The Type Writer may indeed not be the words most people instinctively look for when they go on-line, but the correction must be made some time, somewhere, and cross-referenced, if the article is to have any pretence at veracity and authenticity. This in any case is irrelevant because instinctively or not instinctively, the correct name of the machine was and is and will forever be The Type Writer. You are quite remarkably advocating that wrong information be supplied by Wikipedia because people are not too familiar with the correct information and are perhaps too lazy to look for it. You may as well reason that not too many people know what a Breguet is, so why not call it a Waterbury, or a Timex.
"the first sentence is factually incorrect":
YOU SAY: The term "Typewriter" was in no way a "later development". The term was coined by Sholes before Densmore even entered the picture (Bliven, Weller, etc.) and was, of course, also used by Remington. See, for example, the term used in this 1872 article (roughly a year before being acquired by Remington) and the term used on the Remington version itself.
I SAY: What are are you talking about? What is a “Remington version itself”? The machine in your link clearly states on it the text: The Sholes & Glidden Type Writer Patented Manufactured by E. Remington and Sons Ilion N.Y. The Sholes & Glidden Type Writer. The terms “typewriter” and “type-writer” may well have been bandied about, and no one bothered much, but that is irrelevant because that is not what the machine was called. Elsewhere in a different article on this same subject I read the utterly hilarious statement which has Adler and the rest of us all rolling about in laughter, namely that at that time Remington was already famous as a manufacturer of sewing machines! This is so remarkably ignorant a statement that you couldn’t make such a thing up, if you set your mind to it… and yet that’s what it says. If it weren’t right there, in live time, in black and white (or colour), no one would have believed it. For your information, since you clearly don’t know it: Remington was famous as a manufacturer of arms and armaments, and Remington’s sewing machine was a commercial flop and is remembered by history only because early Type Writers (note: Type Writers) were originally mounted on modified Remington sewing machine tables. [1]
YOU SAY: This is an example of Adler's poor research and understanding.
I SAY: On the contrary, Adler’s research is vast, extensive and exemplary, and his understanding is incomparable. You can call a three-wheeled Trabant a Cadillac if you feel like it (and be my guest!), but it doesn’t alter the fact that it’s a three-wheeled Trabant and that’s what it will always be (unless someone puts a fourth wheel on it after which it would be a four-wheeled Trabant), and calling it a Cadillac doesn’t make a Cadillac of it. If you would stop squirming long enough to sit still and pay attention you might learn something, and if you learned something you might come to your senses sufficiently to realise that there can be no greater authority on what a given machine is called than the name which the manufacturer himself puts on it: in our specific case The Sholes and Glidden Type Writer.
YOU SAY: That typists were then also called "typewriters" is true, but irrelevant to this article.
I SAY: Anecdotal perhaps but not irrelevant at all, rather it is indicative of the intended original differentiation between the use of the expressions “typewriter” and “Type Writer”.
YOU SAY: The article never claims that machines labelled Remington No. 1 were manufactured. If fact (presumably you mean In fact), it explicitly says "referred to in sales literature as the Remington No. 1".
I SAY: Yet more squirming and mealy-mouthing: “referred to in (unspecified) sales literature as the Remington No. 1?” There was no such machine, and never has been, nor is there contemporary nor original sales literature relevant to that specific model which identified it as Remington No. 1. This attribution was retrospective and was not contemporary with the date of manufacture, and no Remington sales literature issued at the time of manufacture of that model refers to the machine as a Remington No. 1. And there is an exceedingly good reason why it was never called a Remington No. 1: proud Remington wanted no part of the scheme and would not put their name to it because quite frankly it didn’t work well enough, is the reason. Densmore who did his damnedest to get Remington to buy them out lock stock and barrel (pun intended), would have given his eye-teeth for the kudos of the name change to Remington, but failed to conclude a deal with Remington on that score.
YOU SAY: The "other names" (the Improved Type Writer and the Perfected Type Writer) were merely used as sales puffery and to distinguish originals returned for repair and retooling.
I SAY: “Sales puffery” you call it? This is crass ignorance: the Improved Type Writer and the Perfected Type Writer were specific titles applied in order to identify clearly defined up-graded specifications.
YOU SAY: Certain versions of the Sholes and Glidden were commercial flops?
I SAY: NO! Move a little closer so you can read my lips: ALL versions of the Sholes and Glidden were commercial flops. This is not an opinion but a statement of fact, and is one of the reasons why we all love the machine as much as we do to-day.
YOU SAY: The article discusses the failures, redesigns and sales volumes of the "prototypes" and No. 1 and that the real surge came after introduction of the No. 2. You can't read only one sentence and expect to receive the complete story
I SAY: nor can you supply only one sentence and expect to convey the complete story. And, in case you’ve missed the point: there WAS NO No. 1. End of story!
YOU SAY: It’s intended to give a broad overview of the subject.
I SAY: And it succeeds merely in giving an incorrect broad overview of the subject. Wikipedia is intended to give a correct broad overview of a subject.
YOU SAY: the assertion that it was "the first commercially successful typewriter" is supported by dozens of sources. Regardless of whether it's true of not ("factually incorrect"), verifiability is the threshold. That one author, who is not considering what "success" and "commercial production" mean in relative terms
I SAY: – what a remarkable thing to say! “Success” and “commercial production” in relative terms? What is that supposed to mean? Relative to what? And of course it is NOT, repeat NOT, supported by dozens of sources at all… unless perhaps you mean Remington promotion sources or those on the payroll! Certainly not by independent authentic sources. Certainly not commercial sources. It was a disaster, and it remained a disaster to be ultimately overtaken by the Titanic in 1912 and the Hindenburg in 1937. Incidentally, I don’t believe you’ll get much mileage out of confessing “regardless of whether it’s true or not…” also see [2]
YOU SAY: what alternative device does Adler identify as having "large scale" production and sales of over 400 units before 1874?
I SAY: Well, well, well! How long have you got for an answer? Let me reply to this on Adler’s behalf: 400 units? That’s a lot, in your view, is it? You’re impressed by that? Dazzled? Well, let’s see now: off the top of my head, how about all the vast multitude of implements relating to warfare for a start, in their countless tens of thousands, and to transport (carts of all kinds, and everything related to road and rail transport), and to building, and to telegraphy, and to entertainment (music boxes, magic lanterns, serinettes, kaleidoscopes etc. etc.), and to farming of all kinds, and to mining, and to forging and turning, and to cooking, since you ask... and I could go on and on. And on and on and on. And of course let’s not forget the humble old sewing machine (although not Remington’s, unfortunately): Singer alone sold thousands of sewing machine units in the year 1873, for instance, which fits rather neatly into your “before 1874” time-span, and Singer was only one of many.
YOU SAY: is not representative of the view held by other reliable sources.
I SAY: I am using ALL strictly contemporary sources (not merely those who reminisced nostalgically years or decades later) but above all I am relying on the views and judgements of ALL the principal players in the drama themselves, every one of whom was in utter despair at their repetitive commercial - and apparently insurmountable technological – failures, and ALL of whom were desperate to bail out. They sold off bits and pieces of ownership in the enterprise to anyone who had a few bucks in his pocket and showed even a minimal interest, at whatever price. This fact provides all the remarkable and endearing elements to the story. The original trio of Sholes and Glidden and Soulé, plus Yost, plus all the Densmore brothers, plus the odd mechanic or two, plus all the hangers-on… all were desperate to bail out, and in the end the only one who saved them all from doom was James Densmore and Yost who realised that the thing was worthless as it stood, and they would all lose everything unless the venture could be sold off. I seriously urge you to read Adler’s books for the details.
YOU SAY: That Adler's books "are considered by many as the authority on the subject" is utter non-sense, by the way.
I SAY: Well, in fact… what can I say to this, other than that when it comes to talking “utter nonsense”, you yourself surely are in a class of your own! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcsMark ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring the very petty "Weasle words" comment Have a reliable source for that weasel word? Эlcobbola I would cite Amazon as a source where the importance of Michael Adler's work can be understood by anyone with no knowledge of the subject:
AMAZON’S WEBSITE [http://www.amazon.com/Antique-Typewriters-Michael-H-Adler/dp/0764301322]
Editorial Reviews
Product Description
Since 1973 Michael Adler's first book, The Writing Machine, has been affectionately called "the bible of the typewriter enthusiast." The renowned typewriter expert's new book, is sure to stimulate the same enthusiasm all over again, bringing you new and as yet unpublished insights into the origins of the invention itself in a detailed history of the machine. Over 250 photographs illustrate this definitive text, which includes comprehensive directories of typewriter inventions, makes, and models, and a concise guide to their values with advice on buying and collecting. How much? When? Where? How good? How rare? Who? Why? If you are looking for answers to any or all of these questions, Antique Typewriters is the ultimate reference book for you - from the novice typewriter collector to "seasoned old hand" enthusiasts and historians.
Also
[http://www.amazon.com/Antique-Typewriters-Michael-H-Adler/product-reviews/0764301322/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1] -- MarcsMark ( talk) 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)—Preceding Marc comment added by MarcsMark ( talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
also the Smithsonian encyclopedia seem to think that Adler is important:
Selected Bibliography of Typewriters and Related Office Machines
Information or research assistance regarding typewriters and office machines is frequently requested from the Smithsonian Institution. The following information has been prepared to assist those interested in this topic.
Adler, Michael H. The Writing Machine: A History of the Typewriter. London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1973.
And the US Patent office quote him in Patents (see the image at [4]
You might also be interested in Note 1 in this book kindly provided by Google books [5]
I think I have proved, in as far as is possible on-line, the credit worthiness of my source so enough already... lets get back to the point: the article is wrong and I move that the text I originally submitted be adopted.
-- MarcsMark ( talk) 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.mrmartinweb.com/type.htm http://articles.latimes.com/1988-09-12/business/fi-1396_1_electronic-typewriters http://americanhistory.si.edu/exhibitions/small_exhibition.cfm?key=1267&exkey=143&pagekey=220 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.92.41 ( talk) 01:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Currently, the biggest part of the section Christopher Latham Sholes#Inventing the typewriter (from "For this project" to "which would eventually fetch him $1.5 million.") is, with 621 words or 2940 characters, longer than many articles. WP:TOPIC encourages editors to delete such redundancy. But I found the narrative there nicely written and more inviting than the text on this article. I'm wondering if we can find a way to merge that text here and get the best of both worlds. — Sebastian 19:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I see no reason for any merge. Sholes is most famous for inventing the typewriter, so of course in any biographical article on him, the section on the typewriter will be the longest (if not the only one). And obviously, a biographical article should contain information on how he came about his invention; this so-called redundancy is inevitable. If it's too long, it can broken up further into sections. I see no reason to remove anything. (If the biographical article includes more historical detail than is necessary for an article about the invention itself, there is nothing unnatural about that.) Shreevatsa ( talk) 22:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It has been a week. Since there's no consensus to merge, is there any objection to removing the merge tags? These tags are, in general, distracting to readers, and it's best not to leave them on pages longer than necessary. If there's discussion to be done about the other article, it can happen there, even after the tag is removed here. Shreevatsa ( talk) 22:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Wait a minute. I think I made a number of good points, and I have been waiting patiently for a reply for a week now. It seems to me that my points are not refuted. These points are not automatically moot just because you don't reply for a certain time. Please, at least give me the courtesy of addressing them. — Sebastian 16:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Komowkwa has a point; there are some strange posts here. However, that’s not a reason to wholesale dismiss every post. Some posts just are asking for team work with other good editors in a mutually respectful, enjoyable and fruitful way, and the above was one of them. But that doesn’t look so promising here now, so I will just remove the merge tags. So, if you’re only interested in this article staying the way it was, read no further.
For those of us who are interested in making Wikipedia prosper, there is much to learn from this. I was too wordy, which distracted from my intention. On the other hand, there are some serious misconceptions here about policies and guidelines, above all about criterion four. For the sake of brevity, I’m leaving out the details; let me know if you want to read about that.
Closer to my heart is another phenomenon: The replies here contained elements of what I witnessed as a mediator in coverage of civil wars and ethnic conflicts: Ignoring, mocking, and distorting other editors’ statements, cynicism, rushing to conclusions. I understand when someone whose friend has just been raped reacts that way, but why here, on such a peaceful topic? The closest I can come to an explanation is mobbing. How does it happen that otherwise reasonable editors fall into this behavior? What can we do about it? I would appreciate your input here. In any case, please be more cautious next time when someone posts here; too many good people have been scared away from Wikipedia because of this sort of behavior. — Sebastian 18:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
(add Edison's contribution)Revision as of 16:17, 16 July 2012 This story does not pass the source criticism enough. Current(1949) p.399 foot-note.21 So we can put it only as an episode or may put it with counter opinion in parallel.-- Raycy ( talk) 21:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Sholes and Glidden typewriter 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 March 3, 2010. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Where was this typewriter made? This important information should be in the intro, surely? Thanks. -- TraceyR ( talk) 10:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Although it does make it easy to find using the current form of "typewriter" the correct form should be "Type Writer".
This is discussed in Adler's books, which are considered by many as the authority on the subject. I would suggest that if the title is left as is the following should be used as revised text for the first line:
AT PRESENT IT STANDS LIKE THIS:
The Sholes and Glidden typewriter (also known as the Remington No. 1) was the first commercially successful typewriter.
SHOULD BE:
The Sholes and Glidden Type Writer (1)(2) also colloquially and retrospectively (1)(2) known as a “typewriter” and now sometimes referred to as the Remington No. 1, (although no examples labeled Remington No. 1 were ever manufactured (1) (2) is now sometimes claimed to have been the first commercially successful typewriter, although not the first typewriter commercially manufactured, nor was it actually commercially successful in its original format. (1)(2)
The term “typewriter” as applied to the instrument was a later development; originally a lady typist was the “typewriter”, and she typed on her “type writer” which she herself was usually expected to supply. (2)
The Sholes and Glidden Type Writer was a commercial flop, and went through several unsuccessful model and name changes (The Improved Type Writer, the Perfected Type Writer) before becoming the successful Remington Model no. 2.
References:
1) Adler, Michael H. (1973). The Writing Machine, a history of the typewriter. London: Geo. Allen & Unwin Ltd.
2) Adler, Michael H. (1997). Antique Typewriters, from Creed to QWERTY. Atglen PA (USA): Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
Please comment.
MarcsMark ( talk) 16:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Marc
WHOA THERE, COWBOY! I don’t know who you are because you hide behind the anonymity of a pseudonym. I also don’t know what your problem is with Adler, but you have demonstrated by the vitriol of your response that you certainly have one. Either that, or else you are a frustrated youngster in a Link trainer trying hard to prove he is grown up and might one day become a pilot and know how to fly like a real man.
Indeed, when a bunch of friends and colleagues first alerted me to your factually incorrect, defective and deficient article it was merely in the form of a request to me that I set the record straight; till then, I knew nothing about it, so the last thing I expected was your puerile dummy-spit response (if you’re American, make this “pacifier-spit”), much less the remarkable personal attacks of extravagant absurdity such as that Adler’s claim that The Writing Machine was a seminal work is “utter nonsense”. This says nothing whatsoever about Adler or his books, but speaks volumes about you and where you are coming from. It’s a pity for you that you weren’t old enough to be let out on your own while Adler was active in the field, otherwise you would have been able to attend Sotheby’s and Christie’s and Phillips’ and Bonham’s sales and seen such entries as “According to Adler…” and “Adler says…” among the catalogue notes.
So you have a problem with Adler, then. Nothing particularly noteworthy in that, even though I have absolutely no idea what it’s about, and neither does he (unless it is motivated by a touch of good old-fashioned iconoclasm) except that as I understand it Wikipedia is not, repeat not, meant to be the forum for airing personal grudges or grievances or massaging circulation into fragile emerging egos.
As for the issue of your justifications for failing to include either of his two books in your bibliography, this once again says everything about you, and nothing at all about him or his books. The sources you quote (Bliven, Weller etc.) are more often than not thoroughly obsolete, unreliable and anecdotal; to refer to them as your primary source material (since you have clearly done no original research of your own) is comparable only to editing a Wikipedia text on The Nature of the Universe by referencing medieval illustrated manuscripts, and quoting The Flat Earth Society as your source.
Now, to specifics, and at the end of this discussion, you are urged to stop trying to kick dust into everyone’s eyes to prove what a man you are, and include Adler’s two books in the bibliography and references.
You identify two areas of contention:
"the title to the article is wrong":
YOU SAY: "Typewriter" was a new word at the time and spelling was not yet formalized (it was variously called "Type Writer", "Type-Writer" and "Typewriter"). The article's title was chosen in accordance with WP:TITLE, specifically it's both "[the name] most commonly used in reliable sources" and "[the name] that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article". The article's title is not "wrong".
I SAY: The article’s title is wrong… I say again: the article’s title is wrong, and no amount of mealy-mouthing will change this fact. The Type Writer may indeed not be the words most people instinctively look for when they go on-line, but the correction must be made some time, somewhere, and cross-referenced, if the article is to have any pretence at veracity and authenticity. This in any case is irrelevant because instinctively or not instinctively, the correct name of the machine was and is and will forever be The Type Writer. You are quite remarkably advocating that wrong information be supplied by Wikipedia because people are not too familiar with the correct information and are perhaps too lazy to look for it. You may as well reason that not too many people know what a Breguet is, so why not call it a Waterbury, or a Timex.
"the first sentence is factually incorrect":
YOU SAY: The term "Typewriter" was in no way a "later development". The term was coined by Sholes before Densmore even entered the picture (Bliven, Weller, etc.) and was, of course, also used by Remington. See, for example, the term used in this 1872 article (roughly a year before being acquired by Remington) and the term used on the Remington version itself.
I SAY: What are are you talking about? What is a “Remington version itself”? The machine in your link clearly states on it the text: The Sholes & Glidden Type Writer Patented Manufactured by E. Remington and Sons Ilion N.Y. The Sholes & Glidden Type Writer. The terms “typewriter” and “type-writer” may well have been bandied about, and no one bothered much, but that is irrelevant because that is not what the machine was called. Elsewhere in a different article on this same subject I read the utterly hilarious statement which has Adler and the rest of us all rolling about in laughter, namely that at that time Remington was already famous as a manufacturer of sewing machines! This is so remarkably ignorant a statement that you couldn’t make such a thing up, if you set your mind to it… and yet that’s what it says. If it weren’t right there, in live time, in black and white (or colour), no one would have believed it. For your information, since you clearly don’t know it: Remington was famous as a manufacturer of arms and armaments, and Remington’s sewing machine was a commercial flop and is remembered by history only because early Type Writers (note: Type Writers) were originally mounted on modified Remington sewing machine tables. [1]
YOU SAY: This is an example of Adler's poor research and understanding.
I SAY: On the contrary, Adler’s research is vast, extensive and exemplary, and his understanding is incomparable. You can call a three-wheeled Trabant a Cadillac if you feel like it (and be my guest!), but it doesn’t alter the fact that it’s a three-wheeled Trabant and that’s what it will always be (unless someone puts a fourth wheel on it after which it would be a four-wheeled Trabant), and calling it a Cadillac doesn’t make a Cadillac of it. If you would stop squirming long enough to sit still and pay attention you might learn something, and if you learned something you might come to your senses sufficiently to realise that there can be no greater authority on what a given machine is called than the name which the manufacturer himself puts on it: in our specific case The Sholes and Glidden Type Writer.
YOU SAY: That typists were then also called "typewriters" is true, but irrelevant to this article.
I SAY: Anecdotal perhaps but not irrelevant at all, rather it is indicative of the intended original differentiation between the use of the expressions “typewriter” and “Type Writer”.
YOU SAY: The article never claims that machines labelled Remington No. 1 were manufactured. If fact (presumably you mean In fact), it explicitly says "referred to in sales literature as the Remington No. 1".
I SAY: Yet more squirming and mealy-mouthing: “referred to in (unspecified) sales literature as the Remington No. 1?” There was no such machine, and never has been, nor is there contemporary nor original sales literature relevant to that specific model which identified it as Remington No. 1. This attribution was retrospective and was not contemporary with the date of manufacture, and no Remington sales literature issued at the time of manufacture of that model refers to the machine as a Remington No. 1. And there is an exceedingly good reason why it was never called a Remington No. 1: proud Remington wanted no part of the scheme and would not put their name to it because quite frankly it didn’t work well enough, is the reason. Densmore who did his damnedest to get Remington to buy them out lock stock and barrel (pun intended), would have given his eye-teeth for the kudos of the name change to Remington, but failed to conclude a deal with Remington on that score.
YOU SAY: The "other names" (the Improved Type Writer and the Perfected Type Writer) were merely used as sales puffery and to distinguish originals returned for repair and retooling.
I SAY: “Sales puffery” you call it? This is crass ignorance: the Improved Type Writer and the Perfected Type Writer were specific titles applied in order to identify clearly defined up-graded specifications.
YOU SAY: Certain versions of the Sholes and Glidden were commercial flops?
I SAY: NO! Move a little closer so you can read my lips: ALL versions of the Sholes and Glidden were commercial flops. This is not an opinion but a statement of fact, and is one of the reasons why we all love the machine as much as we do to-day.
YOU SAY: The article discusses the failures, redesigns and sales volumes of the "prototypes" and No. 1 and that the real surge came after introduction of the No. 2. You can't read only one sentence and expect to receive the complete story
I SAY: nor can you supply only one sentence and expect to convey the complete story. And, in case you’ve missed the point: there WAS NO No. 1. End of story!
YOU SAY: It’s intended to give a broad overview of the subject.
I SAY: And it succeeds merely in giving an incorrect broad overview of the subject. Wikipedia is intended to give a correct broad overview of a subject.
YOU SAY: the assertion that it was "the first commercially successful typewriter" is supported by dozens of sources. Regardless of whether it's true of not ("factually incorrect"), verifiability is the threshold. That one author, who is not considering what "success" and "commercial production" mean in relative terms
I SAY: – what a remarkable thing to say! “Success” and “commercial production” in relative terms? What is that supposed to mean? Relative to what? And of course it is NOT, repeat NOT, supported by dozens of sources at all… unless perhaps you mean Remington promotion sources or those on the payroll! Certainly not by independent authentic sources. Certainly not commercial sources. It was a disaster, and it remained a disaster to be ultimately overtaken by the Titanic in 1912 and the Hindenburg in 1937. Incidentally, I don’t believe you’ll get much mileage out of confessing “regardless of whether it’s true or not…” also see [2]
YOU SAY: what alternative device does Adler identify as having "large scale" production and sales of over 400 units before 1874?
I SAY: Well, well, well! How long have you got for an answer? Let me reply to this on Adler’s behalf: 400 units? That’s a lot, in your view, is it? You’re impressed by that? Dazzled? Well, let’s see now: off the top of my head, how about all the vast multitude of implements relating to warfare for a start, in their countless tens of thousands, and to transport (carts of all kinds, and everything related to road and rail transport), and to building, and to telegraphy, and to entertainment (music boxes, magic lanterns, serinettes, kaleidoscopes etc. etc.), and to farming of all kinds, and to mining, and to forging and turning, and to cooking, since you ask... and I could go on and on. And on and on and on. And of course let’s not forget the humble old sewing machine (although not Remington’s, unfortunately): Singer alone sold thousands of sewing machine units in the year 1873, for instance, which fits rather neatly into your “before 1874” time-span, and Singer was only one of many.
YOU SAY: is not representative of the view held by other reliable sources.
I SAY: I am using ALL strictly contemporary sources (not merely those who reminisced nostalgically years or decades later) but above all I am relying on the views and judgements of ALL the principal players in the drama themselves, every one of whom was in utter despair at their repetitive commercial - and apparently insurmountable technological – failures, and ALL of whom were desperate to bail out. They sold off bits and pieces of ownership in the enterprise to anyone who had a few bucks in his pocket and showed even a minimal interest, at whatever price. This fact provides all the remarkable and endearing elements to the story. The original trio of Sholes and Glidden and Soulé, plus Yost, plus all the Densmore brothers, plus the odd mechanic or two, plus all the hangers-on… all were desperate to bail out, and in the end the only one who saved them all from doom was James Densmore and Yost who realised that the thing was worthless as it stood, and they would all lose everything unless the venture could be sold off. I seriously urge you to read Adler’s books for the details.
YOU SAY: That Adler's books "are considered by many as the authority on the subject" is utter non-sense, by the way.
I SAY: Well, in fact… what can I say to this, other than that when it comes to talking “utter nonsense”, you yourself surely are in a class of your own! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcsMark ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring the very petty "Weasle words" comment Have a reliable source for that weasel word? Эlcobbola I would cite Amazon as a source where the importance of Michael Adler's work can be understood by anyone with no knowledge of the subject:
AMAZON’S WEBSITE [http://www.amazon.com/Antique-Typewriters-Michael-H-Adler/dp/0764301322]
Editorial Reviews
Product Description
Since 1973 Michael Adler's first book, The Writing Machine, has been affectionately called "the bible of the typewriter enthusiast." The renowned typewriter expert's new book, is sure to stimulate the same enthusiasm all over again, bringing you new and as yet unpublished insights into the origins of the invention itself in a detailed history of the machine. Over 250 photographs illustrate this definitive text, which includes comprehensive directories of typewriter inventions, makes, and models, and a concise guide to their values with advice on buying and collecting. How much? When? Where? How good? How rare? Who? Why? If you are looking for answers to any or all of these questions, Antique Typewriters is the ultimate reference book for you - from the novice typewriter collector to "seasoned old hand" enthusiasts and historians.
Also
[http://www.amazon.com/Antique-Typewriters-Michael-H-Adler/product-reviews/0764301322/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1] -- MarcsMark ( talk) 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)—Preceding Marc comment added by MarcsMark ( talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
also the Smithsonian encyclopedia seem to think that Adler is important:
Selected Bibliography of Typewriters and Related Office Machines
Information or research assistance regarding typewriters and office machines is frequently requested from the Smithsonian Institution. The following information has been prepared to assist those interested in this topic.
Adler, Michael H. The Writing Machine: A History of the Typewriter. London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1973.
And the US Patent office quote him in Patents (see the image at [4]
You might also be interested in Note 1 in this book kindly provided by Google books [5]
I think I have proved, in as far as is possible on-line, the credit worthiness of my source so enough already... lets get back to the point: the article is wrong and I move that the text I originally submitted be adopted.
-- MarcsMark ( talk) 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.mrmartinweb.com/type.htm http://articles.latimes.com/1988-09-12/business/fi-1396_1_electronic-typewriters http://americanhistory.si.edu/exhibitions/small_exhibition.cfm?key=1267&exkey=143&pagekey=220 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.92.41 ( talk) 01:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Currently, the biggest part of the section Christopher Latham Sholes#Inventing the typewriter (from "For this project" to "which would eventually fetch him $1.5 million.") is, with 621 words or 2940 characters, longer than many articles. WP:TOPIC encourages editors to delete such redundancy. But I found the narrative there nicely written and more inviting than the text on this article. I'm wondering if we can find a way to merge that text here and get the best of both worlds. — Sebastian 19:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I see no reason for any merge. Sholes is most famous for inventing the typewriter, so of course in any biographical article on him, the section on the typewriter will be the longest (if not the only one). And obviously, a biographical article should contain information on how he came about his invention; this so-called redundancy is inevitable. If it's too long, it can broken up further into sections. I see no reason to remove anything. (If the biographical article includes more historical detail than is necessary for an article about the invention itself, there is nothing unnatural about that.) Shreevatsa ( talk) 22:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It has been a week. Since there's no consensus to merge, is there any objection to removing the merge tags? These tags are, in general, distracting to readers, and it's best not to leave them on pages longer than necessary. If there's discussion to be done about the other article, it can happen there, even after the tag is removed here. Shreevatsa ( talk) 22:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Wait a minute. I think I made a number of good points, and I have been waiting patiently for a reply for a week now. It seems to me that my points are not refuted. These points are not automatically moot just because you don't reply for a certain time. Please, at least give me the courtesy of addressing them. — Sebastian 16:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Komowkwa has a point; there are some strange posts here. However, that’s not a reason to wholesale dismiss every post. Some posts just are asking for team work with other good editors in a mutually respectful, enjoyable and fruitful way, and the above was one of them. But that doesn’t look so promising here now, so I will just remove the merge tags. So, if you’re only interested in this article staying the way it was, read no further.
For those of us who are interested in making Wikipedia prosper, there is much to learn from this. I was too wordy, which distracted from my intention. On the other hand, there are some serious misconceptions here about policies and guidelines, above all about criterion four. For the sake of brevity, I’m leaving out the details; let me know if you want to read about that.
Closer to my heart is another phenomenon: The replies here contained elements of what I witnessed as a mediator in coverage of civil wars and ethnic conflicts: Ignoring, mocking, and distorting other editors’ statements, cynicism, rushing to conclusions. I understand when someone whose friend has just been raped reacts that way, but why here, on such a peaceful topic? The closest I can come to an explanation is mobbing. How does it happen that otherwise reasonable editors fall into this behavior? What can we do about it? I would appreciate your input here. In any case, please be more cautious next time when someone posts here; too many good people have been scared away from Wikipedia because of this sort of behavior. — Sebastian 18:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
(add Edison's contribution)Revision as of 16:17, 16 July 2012 This story does not pass the source criticism enough. Current(1949) p.399 foot-note.21 So we can put it only as an episode or may put it with counter opinion in parallel.-- Raycy ( talk) 21:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)