Talk:Oliver Typewriter Company

IP edits

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)

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 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)

• "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. Эlcobbola _talk 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 71.171.22.166 (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 71.171.22.166 (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This Article Still Presents False Information AND a Bad Source

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)

Elcobbola, could you please provide the evidence you have that this user is incorrect or at least let us know that you're working on finding a valid source? Especially since you won't even allow the article to have wording such as "one of the first", which is verifiable by the other sources. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Camera Librarian source died sometime before December 2018, after this article was written and after it went through the featured article process (March 3, 2008). As referenced above in the "IP edits" section, the FA process included extensive critique on the sourcing, and the Daily Camera Librarian source a) was alive at that time and b) included the cited content. I thus have provided verifiable sourcing; per WP:KDL: "A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past". That publication still exists. Indeed, I have emailed them and a physical copy could be obtained if one desires. "Sometimes, finding an appropriate [replacement] source is not possible, or would require more extensive research techniques, such as a visit to a library or the use of a subscription-based database." (WP:MDLI) The IP, altneratively, has provided no sourcing (to the contrary: "The notion of verifiability (sic) over truth is highly disturbing to me") and, as I've explained, their information does not contradict the article; they're simply not reading critically. I don't see you've cited a single policy for a) removing the link or b) why information supported by a now dead link should be removed. Эlcobbola _talk 22:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

To respond in somewhat reverse order, I did not remove any article content whatsoever; the IP edit that I restored was changing the wording from "first" to "among the first". I was not aware that it was policy to always keep dead links, and I have not removed it again since you linked that policy. Also, since the IP user had started a new talk section about this topic I did not realize that there had already been a discussion above. I understand their frustration, especially at the next-to-impossible task you've assigned them of providing a source that very specifically states it is not the "first effective visible print typewriter". I won't try to argue the point any further though, as I have no personal knowledge of this subject. Now, I could ask why you've templated an established user on my talk page with a completely false accusation that I removed content with no edit summary when anyone can easily see that's not true, but that would be a bit off-topic for this talk page. -- Fyrael (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You removed an entirely valid source [6], which is indeed "content" as referenced by the warning. I would expect "an established user" a) to know that; b) to know that accusation of a "lie"--a deliberate untruth as opposed to an unintended untruth--is a failure of WP:AGF and c) to bother to inform themselves before opining. What were you saying about templating the regulars? Эlcobbola _talk 23:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you seemed to need the warning more than I did, since you had actually failed to include an edit summary when you reverted, while I did not. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:54, 6 December 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)

Legacy

What is the legacy of the company? MSN12102001 (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

FA concerns

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:

• There are some sentences that require citations. I have marked these with "citation needed".
• The lede needs expansion to cover all areas of the company.
• The article should have a legacy section.
• Why is Will Davis' geocities source reliable? (ref 14) [7]
• Ref 1 does not use page numbers. Since the document doesn't use page numbers I think we should use the pdf reader's number.
• Ref 4, 12 and 15 are used multiple times in the article and are cited to multiple pages. Can these be separated out so readers know which specific page{s} each sentence uses to verify the information?
• I wish there was a Legacy section, including its impact on the town of Woodstock and its impact on the typewriter technology. Have their typewriters been used in popular culture?
• I added a reference to the top of the page in the refideas template.
• I struggled to find additional sources and there are few sources cited in the article right now. Can more sources can be found by searching Oliver Typewriter product names or notable people in the company?

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)

Z1720, I have a sentimental attachment to this article. If Elcobbola does not show up to respond to your concerns, please ping me before submitting a FAR, and I will see if I am able to address any of this. (Elcobbola, this came up as a result of the ongoing effort at WP:URFA/2020.) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Totally understand the attachment, Sandy. After all, we are trying to improve the article, not delist it. My biggest issue is the lack of sources I could find for the article, so if you discover new sources please list them in the ref ideas template above. FYI, I found this article while browsing the company FAs. I fulfil tickets on the request edit template and suggest that COI editors use company FAs as templates. Let me know if you need anything. Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, will wait to see if Elcobbola shows up, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @SandyGeorgia: an editor has not responded to the concerns nor has there been any edits to the article. Would you like to lead the project in bringing this back to FA status? I am willing to help with finding sources and assessing the article once changes have been made. Z1720 (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Z1720 give me a day or two to catch up? My husband had emergency eye surgery and I lost the whole week, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia This is the only article I've noticed where someone has wanted to fix it. Take as much time as you need, and we will slowly work together to bring it back to FA standards. Z1720 (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, I am quite behind after surgery, so if I forget, do not hesitate to pester me :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

PS, have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oliver Typewriter Company for the Will Davis Geocities (seems good). Are you able to access the two sources memtioned in ref ideas above, here on talk? If neither of us can access those, we may be sunk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I can access the first one through JSTOR. The second one is on archive.org, so I replaced the link in the refideas template. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

For the geocities, I'm not 100% convinced that we should use it, and I would prefer if its citations were replaced with better sources, if able. This is something we can explore further when we find more sources to add to the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Glad you have Jstor ... is it possible to email that to me? ON Geocities, it is only citing one statement: Production of all Oliver typewriters ended in May 1959.[14] I am going to try to reach Elcobbola ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

New sources

I have added to the news sources to Further reading to being working them in:

• It is not clear to me if the name is Uriostegui, Mario Bahena or Bahena Uriostegui, Mario, considering that most hispanics have two last names (father's last name followed by mother's last name), Bahena is not a typical middle name, and I find indications on Google that he may be Mario Bahena.

  I think this [8] is everything of use from that article, which is a book review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Am I understanding correctly that the Linotype publication is written by the Oliver Typewriter company? That is, limited use, primary source ?
• What indication do we have that the Polt book covers Olviver Typewriter Co? It looks like one would have to spend the $10 to figure out if there is anything useful. I can't find anything on the limited preview pages.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

For the Linotype publication, I have the following notice on my copy: "Compiled from Contemporary Publications and issued by The Linotype Company of Montreal in Canada, Manufacturers of the Oliver Typewriter". This leads me to believe that it was written by the company.

I added a source to the article, it might have more information about OTC's entry to Britain, but I'm struggling to understand the source's business jargon. I'm looking through other databases for more sources. Z1720 (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

the end of the company?

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)

Sales

Hello Do you purchase your product? 151.246.20.176 (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)