Jump to content

Talk:Timex Group USA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I recall several years ago Time magazine mentioned Timex was owned by a reclusive Norwegian.

A Google search shows that in 1991 it was allegedly owned by Fred Olsen of Norway (http://www.irishnationalcaucus.org/pages/Articles1995/Don't%20Call%20Off%20Ford%20Boycott.htm) and that in 1967 it was allegedly owned by Joakim Lehmkuhi of Norway (http://www.naha.stolaf.edu/pubs/nas/volume24/vol24_10.html).

Suggest someone update this with more recent information about this well respected company.

Neutrality

[edit]

Neutrality of article was comprised by claiming without citation that Timex was "well respected for...durable watches." The offending information has since been removed. 71.232.162.100 23:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard about a Swiss made Timex. I have watches made in China and Brazil. Also, they don't even have a website for UK and France, so there are probably lots of mistakes in this text.

Fair use rationale for Image:Timex logo.png

[edit]

Image:Timex logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More things for cleanup

[edit]
  • How can an "American" company owned by a "Norwegan" company be a B.V. (Besloten Vennootschap)?
  • Come to think of it: What's the real name of this company anyway?
Timex Corporation appears to be a privately owned subsiduary of Timex Group B.V. see this article. CustardJack (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence fragments. Contained in the article.
  • This article has no references to back up anything.

--Closeapple (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but this article is almost zero accurate! First of all, Timex Corp., the original Timex company, is the company this page should be about, after all, this page is titled "Timex Corporation". I have never heard of such a thing as Timex Group B.V. (which is not the original company, it's an almost unnotable hoilding company for Timex Corp.) Second, Timex Corporation is not the original Waterbury Clock Company! Timex was founded in 1941, not 1854, as Timex Inc., and soon after that it bought the nearly bankrupt Waterbury Clock Co., which was founded in 1857 not 1854 (Source: Reference For Business). This page, and elsewhere on Wikipedia, gives zero information about the Waterbury Clock Company, which is a notable company and should have its own page! Third, I have also heard nothing of a Timex Group USA Inc., probably that name is just referring to Timex Corp. Even that Reference For Business article referenced above is a better article about Timex than this Wikipedia article! [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 03:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a good motivator to fix it. You seem knowledgeable enough. Dr.K. (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Timex Corporation officially became Timex Group USA, Inc. in 2008 under direction of the CEO.
  • Timex Corporation was named July 1, 1969.
  • Waterbury Clock was founded in 1854 as a subsidiary of Benedict & Burnham. Became legally incorporated as an independent company in 1857.
  • Waterbury Clock Company is the predecessor of Timex Group USA, Inc. Controlling interest was purchased by two Norwegians, Thomas Olsen and Joakim Lehmkuhl circa 1940 to aid in the WW2 war effort due to its manufacturing capabilities and infrastructure. In 1944 the company's name was changed to United States Time Corporation. Timex watch brand was introduced circa 1950 by US Time. Company changed names again to Timex Corporation in 1969. Most recent name change is Timex Group USA, Inc. in 2008. The Olsen family maintains partial ownership of Timex Group B.V., the global parent of Timex Group USA, Inc.

Dtgriffith (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•one additional item that should be added/cleaned up re: the company's history: the point at which timex became timex, usa and a subsidiary of timex, bv. i.e. did timex get acquired at some point or did the private owners relocate to norway? when did any of this happen. as it is now, the article has a very clear time line but then just jumps to the fact that timex which was for all its history a completely american entity, is now timex, usa and is a subsidiary of timex, bv. Patric627 (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Comprehensive Page Content in Development

[edit]

I have been in the process of developing new content for Timex Group USA, Inc. for the past few months. This new content recounts the company's history from its founding in 1854 through today. The new content contains several cited sources dating back over a century through now. A few excerpts of this new content have just been added to the live page under History to help correct some confusion that recently appeared.

There are two levels of confusion I aim to clarify throughout this process: 1. the difference between Timex Group USA, Inc. and its parent Timex Group B.V.; 2. the continued involvement and level of ownership by the Olsen family. A new Timex Group B.V. page is also under development to further assist this clarification. Though there is some overlap these are two separate corporate entities due to a restructuring process in recent years.

Disclosure

[edit]

My name is David Griffith. I have worked very closely with Timex Group USA at their US headquarters since mid-2008 as a Creative Consultant and have recently been hired as the Communications Manager. However, I started researching and developing content for this Wikipedia page in September 2009 on my own accord prior to my hiring in an effort to correct many inaccurate claims about the company's history circulating on the web and Wikipedia.

I am following a strict guideline of unbiased POV. My only concern is to ensure content is accurate, factual and informative. The new content is expected to be published within the next few weeks. It will be opened to NPOV check prior to publishing.Dtgriffith (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. You must be extra careful, of course, to ensure that what you contribute references independent /third-party) sources and avoids all original research. Citations from the company's own website might be a problem - not least in terms of NPOV. Appreciate the openess and willingness to put it through a NPOV check before publishing. Of course WP:COI applies. The section on non-controversial edits is particularly useful. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am still fairly new to the Wikipedia editing process and only came across the details on COI today - I am reading it carefully and will abide by the recommendations found at WP:SCOIC for any future edits regarding Timex Group. When the new content is ready it will be presented here on the Talk page as a draft for review regarding NPOV, COI and any other concerns.Dtgriffith (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful and thank you! Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New article draft for review

[edit]

Though later than I had initially planned, I would like to open up this new proposed draft of Timex Group USA, Inc. for review: User:Dtgriffith/Timex Group USA, Inc. Please note the following:

  • I have taken into account NPOV and COI, though since I have worked closely on this article for the past six months, it is very possible I may have missed some of these details. Please see my disclosure above.
  • I have incorporated much of the current live article's content, though there are a few new items not included as they appeared fairly recently while my draft was in development.
  • A few paragraphs were labelled as needing citations. I am in the process of finding reputable third-party sources.
  • The plan is to incorporate the new draft into the live article, not replace it.

Please share with me your recommendations and feel free to edit the Userpage draft when appropriate. Thank you. – Dtgriffith (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

The following has been copied from the draft talk page found at User talk:Dtgriffith/Timex Group USA, Inc.

Not to bad on keeping away from the POV stuff. Just make sure that you have citations on the 1969 to present, because that is where advertising language and unsourced assertions could really cause doubt of your sincerity in writing outside of your COI. Sources, Sources, Sources, and if you can't source it from somewhere other than Timex delete it. Otherwise very good, much better history then the current article. If I were advising any other author of the article I would suggest expanding discussion of the Corporate structure and income of the organization, etc. But you might want to be careful with how you deal with that only stating factual information, not interpreting or modifying.

Question: has their been any major controversies surrounding Timex which you can find on a Google News Search? If there are the controversy, whether it be about manufacturing or whatever, it needs to be included. That is the best way to show that you are not just writing the article for good PR. Wikipedia can offer valid and thorough information about companies but not picture perfect views of them or their history. Sadads (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sadads. To respond:
  • The company is privately owned therefore no financials are made public.
  • The corporate structure would apply more so to the parent, Timex Group B.V., another page I had planned to develop when this one is complete. Timex Group USA is fairly straight-forward, but I will take that under advisement for further development of the article. Again, the privately-owned aspect plays a role here too. It's to keep the competition in the dark.
  • About any controversies, I will take that into advisement.
  • I will revisit the 1969 to present stuff and do as you suggest before posting any of it.

After some clean-up based on the points above, what do you think of bringing some of the new content into the live page? Thanks. dtgriffith (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would endorse moving everything but the 1969 to present while you consider the last two bullets. Sadads (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have focused on the areas you recommended, developed some additional content, removed some unreferenced material, and located several more references.
I looked into past controversies, there really isn't much at all to talk about. There are a few spots here and there over the company's 155 year history, but only one item – the clock industry's use of radium 100 years ago – is really worth noting. I will spend some time on this at a later date when I can properly focus on it.
I was able to develop the company structure aspect a little more. Over time I will expand on some areas, such as the manufacturing and distribution, as it seems appropriate. Please let me know what you think about making this full article live. Thank you for your help! dtgriffith (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A very good article, the improvements do cut down substantially on the POV stuff, though the inclusion of the solar panels makes me question Timex's intentions when installing them, Publicity stunt maybe? I would endorse how it is right now as an article, and call it a really good C class article which, with a little broader coverage would qualify for B class. Go ahead and move it to mainspace. I would suggest, once the article is in mainspaice, asking someone like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies to give a look at if (I don't know how active they are though.)
Since you do work for Timex some points on how to deal with people, if they react negatively (though I doubt anyone will make a big deal about the edit)
  1. Don't get into an edit war
  2. If someone doesn't like you changes, point them to the issues you changed because of my thoughts showing them that someone has reviewed it.
  3. Have a neutral editor, like me, push the discussion for retaining the information. (I will also ask the advice of several editors I know as well.)
Sadads (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I really appreciate your help. I will move forward in making the article live and deal with anything that follows appropriately – no worries, I don't do edit wars! Funny how the solar panel installation made you think it's a publicity stunt, it's very much a real part of a global social responsibility initiative delivering solar power to the building daily. I will develop the topic further to clarify any questionable statements after this goes live. I will also copy this Review discussion over to the main space Talk page so there is a record. dtgriffith (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

Worth noting that per WP:NCCORP this article should at least drop the "Inc." from the end of its name. I'd personally go further and move to simply Timex Group per WP:COMMONNAME, but I suspect others might disagree on that. Gr1st (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue with using only "Timex Group" is that there are other similarly named entities around the world, all part of the larger organization, "Timex Group B.V." which needs its own page. I would not object to changing it to "Timex Group USA" since this article is about the original American company and that is its legal name. dtgriffith (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is much to say about Timex Group B.V. - isn't it just a holding company for the American unit? Gr1st (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a holding company as well as a conglomerate for the several business entities that together make up Timex Group: Timex Group Canada, Fralsen, Mersey Manufacturers, Sequel, Vincent Berard and TMX Philippines just to name a few. Looking at other companies in the industry, such as Seiko Group and Swatch Group, creating a separate page for Timex Group seems reasonable to cover this aspect. I just want to make sure this is handled correctly based on Wikipedia guidelines and precedents, whatever the outcome is. I will do some more research on this and follow up. This is clearly a valid concern. Thanks. dtgriffith (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently learned that Timex Group B.V. should be treated as a separate entity from Timex Group USA. It is in fact more than just a holding company, Timex Group B.V. employs a staff that is growing due to on-going restructuring, and is correctly identified as the parent to Timex Group USA and businesses in various countries. Therefore, I will start a separate page for the global "Timex Group" as planned Covering Timex Group B.V. As for the name of this article, I agree with making the move to "Timex Group USA" and dropping the "Inc." As there has been no additional discussion on this matter I will go ahead and make the move per WP:NCCORP, I highly doubt anyone would object to abiding by this policy. Thank you, Gr1st, for raising this topic. dtgriffith (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help on further business development of article

[edit]

In my effort to maintain COI and NPOV compliance, I would like to ask for help from other editors experienced in contributing on articles about businesses to develop this article much further. Currently, it is heavily focused on history, which is has its significance, but little is said about the company today. I offer a wealth of knowledge on Timex Group and able to fill in the blanks on many details. Please respond here or my talk page if you would be interested in collaborating. Thanks! dtgriffith [talk] 17:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post on WikiProject Companies. Would you like to kick things off by drafting one or two paragraphs and donating them to the encyclopedia by pasting them into this talk page below here? List your sources, (but don't wikiformat them - footnotes in talk pages get confusing). Then I will try to pop back in a few days, and I or other editors can try to get a consensus on how to work your proposals into the article. Obviously the closer your contributions meet WP:NPOV and are generally encyclopedic, the easier it will be.
The articles seems to be desperately short of good photos. Appropriate methods for granting license of photos you or your company might own (note: not photos that have been licensed to you by pro photographers) are explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online
I hope I am not speaking out of turn, as I see you are already an experienced Wikipedia editor. Have you already posted useful improvements at your user sub-pages or elsewhere?
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for responding. I have nothing new written up at the moment to start with. I have developed a lot of the article in recent months focusing on the history, after reading and rereading the COI, NPOV and other related materials. Before anything new was published it was opened for review to other editors.
At this point I know there is a lot that needs to be developed on the business aspect which is where I fall a little short. I have not worked on other articles for businesses and I know there are some requirements that should be met. If you are familiar with doing such a thing, I am happy to work with you starting with some basic bullet points that meet the Wikipedia Companies requirements and go from there.
As for photos, I agree, they are nothing special. They were in place before I ever touched the article. I can work on obtaining new photos, though I will face the issue of getting them cleared for use on WIkipedia, so it may not happen quickly. First step is to figure out what should be shown. On the Companies project page, it was suggested a while back to show a photo of the headquarters which I can provide as being the photographer.
Let me know what you think and we can take it from there. Thanks! dtgriffith [talk] 22:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have written several short company articles. There are no special rules, other than the ones you know already. (I expect that, like me, you are unlikely to be tempted by recentism, which, in my opinion, is often a problem in company articles.) Fire away with bullet points and sources. Bear in mind that my own prose style is dry and bland, but hopefully passable. I have never written a good article or a featured article, which are much bigger challenges than just collecting a few facts. I hope we can work together and with other editors.
Great idea for a photograph!
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. I'm part of the Guild of Copy Editors plus in my professional capacity developing prose to be interesting and understandable is something I do – this could work out well. Recently I have helped a couple longer articles through GAN (Quicksilver (novel)) and FAC (St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao), and maybe we can get this article to either of those levels if we really work at it. I will begin on listing details in the next couple of days when I'm capable, I have a medical thing to deal with early tomorrow morning that will have me out of commission for a few days. I'm looking forward to this. Thanks! dtgriffith [talk] 17:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Timex Group USA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Timex Group USA. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Timex Group USA. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1944 insolvent

[edit]

The lede currently states:

  • In 1944, the company was thought to have become insolvent, but it was reformed into Timex Corporation, being the only current successor.

But this significant event is not described in the article. Please add relevant content, or subtract from the lede if untrue.-73.61.15.26 (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name?

[edit]

"Thomas Olsen purchased the Waterbury Clock Company in 1941 and renamed it Timex, a portmanteau of Time (referring to Time magazine) and Kleenex.[1]" It's difficult for me to believe a watch company would be named for a periodical magazine, and a facial tissue. And I don't like when the reference link requires a subscription payment to read it. Doesn't it seem more likely the name is just a clever way of describing what their product measures. Flight Risk (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what the source says (the source is published by Time Magazine.) Elizium23 (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, elsewhere on Wikipedia I found this: " A few years later Thomas Olsen would rechristen the company Timex. He hatched the iconic name from an unusual confluence of sources. Recalls Fred: “My father always loved to noodle with words. He liked to read Time magazine, and he used a lot of Kleenex, so he put the two names together and got Timex." Flight Risk (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timex_Group_USA&oldid=1210724012"