Talk:Chuck Taylor (salesman)/Archives/2013

Biography
''A new, full biography of Chuck Taylor was published by Indiana University Press in March 2006 under the title "Chuck Taylor, All Star: The True Story of the Man Behind the Most Famous Athletic Shoe in History," with Foreword by Dean Smith. It is based entirely on primary sources, is written to a high scholarly standard, and corrects many errors in this and other articles about the man.''

Could someone who is more knowledgable about Taylor please do something (I don't know where to begin) with this section of the biography? I'd fix the article if I knew what was inaccurate about it but I don't have the time to research this guy like the anon. editor who added that apparently has. Dismas|(talk) 19:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect someone who loves the shoe saw a book review, noticed there was nothing in WikiPedia about Chuck the man, and decided to correct the deficiency. Well, better an article like this one than none at all, I suppose - it inspires us to upgrade it. But it's better if you AREN'T knowledgable about a subject when you edit at WikiPedia; original research is against policy, anyway, and that way, you aren't tempted to introduce unverifiable truths. ClairSamoht 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Tone
In adding the template to the page, ACupOfCoffee notes: "this article sounds like something I would expect to be on Converse's website, but the varied references suggests that it's just poorly written"

That assertion boggles my mind.

A lifelong pattern of lying and cheating is portrayed in his article, whether it's lying about his history as a sports hero, or profiteering in WWII. Chuck Taylor would cruise into a small town, romance the coach on his lavish expense account, and sell vulnerable kids a dream that he'd been a sports hero, and for the price of a $17.50 pair of shoes, they could be, too.

At WP:NPOV, it says We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.

I've tried to present the Converse version of the legend sympathetically, even as I've presented the evidence that it's as full of holes as a wiffle ball. I was prepared to face criticism from those who'd bought the dream, that the Taylor story wasn't smoke and mirrors, but ACupOfCoffee's complaint that this article reads like Converse advertising? Why would a company promote the idea that they were dishonest? ClairSamoht 02:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Title
Chuck Taylor (salesman) is almost certainly the wrong title, as he seems to have been a promoter, and not primarily concerned with individual orders as a salesman is. But more to the point, the title sounds like it is pushing a PoV ("insignificant as a player") at the expense of being vague about who the article is about: the fact is that his promotional work succeeded, and that that entailed indelibly associating himself with the game. Chuck Taylor (basketballer) arguably pushes the opposite point of view, but (contrary to many ignorant opinions) Dab'g suffixes don't have to be synonyms of the title, but merely set the context, and his context absolutely is basketball. I'm open to someone's flash of brilliance here, but i think the title that both avoids PoV and does a better job of orienting users of the Dab page and Google, and reassuring those who lk from other articles to the page that they are at the article for the topic they expected, is Chuck Taylor (basketball). --Jerzy•t 00:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I got here by googling his name with "basketball", not "shoes" or "marketing".

That said, I thought he WAS a basketball player -- someone who had gone on to a second career in business/endorsements, a la George Foreman or Tim Horton. Was he really just a corporate guru the whole time?

The article claims he was a "basketball player", but gives no evidence for it whatsoever. Did he even play in college? The article just says he visited colleges to "put on seminars". Heck, I could do that! 66.105.218.22 (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Baseball or Basketball?
Taylor supposedly played as a forward in industrial league baseball for 11 years[1] between 1918 and 1930, for the Akron Firestones, the Buffalo Germans and the New York Celtics.

There is no "forward" position in baseball.

Contradiction?
The first line under "Biography" indicates the Converse All-Star shoes were the first shoe "especially for basketball" - then the second line goes on to say that "Spalding had already been making a basketball-model shoe for nearly 2 decades." Am I reading that wrong, or is that just a direct contradiction? --UnRheal (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Dude. . . your dumb

Picture of Chuck Taylor
There is an image (from Converse) available at: http://einestages.spiegel.de/hund-images/2008/07/14/74/cb7af1b1f6d9d8782ca653cbf96f6476_image_document_large_featured_borderless.jpg

Maybe someone can consider if it can be uploaded to Wikipedia, though it probably is property of Converse, because of "fair use"? At last, Chuck Taylor is dead and probably none except Converse has pictures of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.152.211 (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a picture of Bob Cousy wearing a Holy Cross basketball jersey. He happens to be wearing Chuck Taylor shoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.152.211 (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)