This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
An IP (technically two IPs, but presumably same user per geolocation and edit content) has twice ( and ) 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,  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. Эlcobbolatalk 21:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not editing regularly, but watchlisting now ... agree with Elcobbola. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 27 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 22.214.171.124 (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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
"verifiability over truth is highly disturbing to me" - This is a policy (WP:V) and a fundamental tenant of Wikipedia. If you are not comfortable with it, you do not need to edit here.
"I cannot offer a source at the moment" - This is also a policy (WP:V). If you do not have a source for your position, your position does not get to be included.
In general, the entirety of your response is original research (WP:OR). If you are unwilling or do not care to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you do not need to edit here. This article is also a featured article (WP:FA) and therefore subject to stricter requirements than most. Эlcobbolatalk 20:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, IP198; thank you for discussing your edits on talk. As explained by Elcobbola, per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, unless you have a reliable source for your information, the information you want to add amounts to original research. Please do not continue to add it unless you provide and discuss a source and consensus is reached here on talk. Also, please have a look at WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR, which explain why you should not continue to make this edit without discussion and consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Elcobbola has the sources, so I await his response. What you should understand in the meantime is that you should not continue to change the article without reaching consensus on talk. That is referred to on Wikipedia as editwarring, and it could result in an admin blocking you from editing. You have again inserted some information, without discussion, and in an improper citation format, and missing a page number, so there are multiple problems there. I won't revert you, because you are now editwarring and I won't be part of that, but if this continues, I will ask an admin to look in here. Also, please take care not to introduce grammatical issues into this article, because it is a featured article. Thanks for understanding, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)