Talk:History of IBM/Archive 1

POV check
POV check tags added for passages pasted in from external source without consideration of Wikipedia's content policies. Gazpacho 18:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The tagged sections don't appear to be copyvios. Other than some minor tone issues ("surprisingly", "amazingly", and some hyperbole), the article seems fairly well sourced and balanced.  Do you have any specific concerns?  Right now, so much is tagged that its hard to see what exactly the concern is.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 13:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I agree. For example, the cited document has this text (http://futureobservatory.dyndns.org/9065.htm#Plug_Compatible); note stressed sections:


 * Plug Compatible…the second, more important, problem was that of the 'plug compatible' manufacturers. In the 1970's these became IBM's most direct form of competition; on the principle if you can't beat IBM then look just like it (and charge a lower price). These plug took sales directly from where it hurt IBM most. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but where it cut into sales and profits IBM could not afford to be sanguine about it. At first the competition was in the area of 'peripherals'. In particular companies such as Memorex and Telex challenged IBM's hold on storage products (disk, tape and memory). IBM's reaction, to shake off these gnats, was simply to let loose its most advanced technology and suck its competitors into a crushing race to produce ever more advanced equipment....


 * And here's what we have:


 * A more important problem was created in the 1970s by the 'PCMs'—plug-compatible manufacturers—working on the principle that if you can't beat IBM, then look like it but charge a lower price. Initially, they competed in the area of peripherals—disk, tape and memory. IBM's response, to shake off the likes of Memorex and Telex, was to release its most advanced technology.


 * This article seems to have been lifted pretty systematically, with some rewording. The simple fact that the topics seem to be structured and presented in the same way is striking. I'm quite willing to stipulate that whoever did this thought the text was sufficiently changed to meet Wikipedia goals. But I believe it really needs to be rewritten (or perhaps I should just say "written") – unless the person who wrote the referenced text was in fact the submitter, and was in a position to contribute the material.


 * This (IBM's history) is an important topic, and deserves the attention of an historian rather than a transcriber. Trevor Hanson 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Duh, I somehow missed the prominent first post on this page. So I guess my copyvio comment is kind of irrelevant. Sorry. Trevor Hanson 00:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Hi, this is Michael (mpauliks@yahoo.com): I think it is important to support the 0 and the # by taking a look on following url too: Julius E. Pitrap

http://it.sohu.com/03/96/article15209603.shtml

Rewrite
I've just suggested that this article needs a rewrite - it's ungrammatical, huge and confusing, the chronological order is messed up, there's barely anything on the history of IBM's PC and PowerPC ventures (2 of the more important aspects of the company) and the flow of the article has clearly been messed up by various cuts (eg. Watson, the 1st President, is referred to without being introduced). I'll get to work on some of these issues when I have time, but if someone else could help out with this mammoth task that'd be much appreciated. Thomas Ash 16:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. I am an ex-IBM'er and I found this articule to be particularly confusing and poorly written (for example the dealing with competition section).  The history seems technially accurate (at least it lines up with my own personal knowledge), and the analysis seems to also be correct (although I'm not sure how much of it is appropriate, as helpful as it may be).  The major problem is, to me, the poor grammar and organization.  I was going to copyedit the article (as I am in the process of doing for IBM, however after reading 70% of this article I'm of the opinion that it needs to be started over from scratch.  Any takers?  /Blaxthos 22:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is such a major undertaking. We're essentially asking for a volunteer who will author a short book on the subject, and then (as author) release all or part of the content through Wikipedia. Another approach might be for someone to write a very abbreviated history – essentially just a framework – which could then be used by the community to structure topic-by-topic rewriting. (Few will take on "The History of IBM"; but many would consider tackling "The 1956 Consent Decree" or "Early IBM Research".) As I noted in an earlier post, I see (at least on a cursory glance) a good deal of material in the current article that apparently was transliterated from http://futureobservatory.dyndns.org/9065.htm; much of that in turn seems to be based on a book by David Mercer: IBM: How the World's Most Successful Corporation Is Managed. (A sign of this is in the somewhat curious section headings: "Selling the family silver", "Lowest cost producer", "Buying in".) We clearly need multi-sourced, original text. Trevor Hanson 00:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, starting from scratch might be the best thing to do... Thomas Ash 16:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggests that we use the text before text based on the book by David Mercer was inserted, when history was a section of the main IBM article, as a start for this article instead of starting from complete scratch. Good idea or bad? - David Björklund (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very good idea. Go ahead - I'll try to add back in some of what's good in the current article when you've done so. Thomas Ash 09:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. My first reaction also was "great idea"; but reading over the old text is a bit deflating. The various events and facts cited seem to be an almost random sprinkling of detail. (Of course the topic is huge.) So what Kesla proposes is a good idea, but by all means take a blue pencil and edit the heck out of it. In particular, if the two of you can restructure the outline, so that it reflects the salient events in IBM's history, that could help guide others in filling in the gaps. Trevor Hanson 19:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. However, I feel that I do not have the knowledge of IBM's history to make such an outline. Maybe that is the next thing to discuss. - David Björklund (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See below. Trevor Hanson 06:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the text to the one that I suggested earlier, and added some text from the previous article. I also used the proposed timeline. There's quite a lot of cleanup to do, but at least it's a start. Please add more things from the previous article you found good, so that it don't get wasted! - David Björklund (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes by 220.233.221.252 removing exclamation marks
A systematic edit was just made replacing exclamation marks with periods. However, this resulted in many instances of incorrect punctuation (e.g. double periods, or mid-sentence periods), and it also retitled Feynman's book Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman! I have fixed the errors that stood out. I can understand 220.233.221.252 wanting to get rid of some of those exclamation marks; but the underlying problem would seem to be in the sentences where they were used, rather than in the punctuation. This article is, after all, flagged for rewrite. Trevor Hanson 19:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

New outline for History of IBM article
Discussion above suggests that the rewrite effort begin by a) reverting to an older version of the text, viz. the text here, and b) expanding the outline to include salient events and issues that should be addressed in subsequent revisions. Some of that material might be taken from the later updates to the article; other material should be written anew.

I suggest that we use this thread to start assembling a list of major topics that should be covered. A good reference source for significant events would be http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/documents/index.html, which is IBM's corporate take on what has happened.

As a starting point, I will paste in a list of topics for consideration. This is essentially a random list of issues that come to mind, grafted onto an edited version of the current structure. I'm sure I've omitted many key issues but we must start somewhere. I suggest we jointly edit this directly, adding and reorganizing topics, to see if we can come up with something that looks workable. I expect we'll add lots and lots of detail, which we'll need to cull out (or preferably insert as subheadings) to produce a reasonable top-level structure. A key question will be: Which topics should be segregated into sub-articles, so we can keep the main article to a reasonable length? (I should add as an aside that I believe many of these issues need to be addressed here separately from an historical perspective, distinct from their treatment in subject-matter articles. Thus I think the history article and its subarticles need to address aspects of the S/360 and S/370 that do NOT belong in their primary articles. At least, I think that's what I think. I don't see how we stitch perspectives on what the S/360 project did to IBM into an already-full article about the wires-and-pliers aspects of that system. I need to think more about this, however.)

The following is merely a suggestion; feel free to butcher it, or replace it with a different approach. Sorry for using  but I thought this would probably be easiest for hackery. Trevor Hanson 06:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Timeline * 1880s–1911: Herman Hollerith and The Tabulating Machine Company * 1911–1924: Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation (CTR) * 1924–1938?: Between the wars * 1938-1949: World War II and Holocaust period * 1950-1959: Postwar recovery and the rise of business computing * 1960-1969: The System/360 era * 1970-1979: The System/370 era * 1980-1989: Information revolution, rise of software and PC industries * 1990-1999: IBM's rebirth * after 2000: Recent trends

Major historical events and trends * Non-computer lines of business * IBM service organizations * IBM Research and academic relations * Air Force and airline projects in the 50s * Scientific computing in the 50s and 60s * Federal Systems Division * Antitrust: 1959 consent decree, 1969 litigation, 1982 dismissal * Unbundling of software and services in 1969 * Evolution of IBM's computer hardware * Evolution of IBM's operating systems * High-level languages * IBM and AIX/UNIX/Linux/SCO

Competition and market forces

* In the 1950s/1960s: - Evolution of the computer industry - IBM's competitors - IBM's response to competition, and eventual industry dominance

* In the 1970s/1980s - Dominance of the mainframe, and its transformation of organizations - Evolution of ADP/MIS departments into IT organizations: changing roles, goals, and methods - Emergence of departmental computing and minicomputers - Emergence of time-sharing and the "Information Center" - Emergence of software industry versus "bespoke software" - Leasing Companies - PCMs (Plug-Compatible Manufacturers) - IBM's response to competition

* After the PC revolution - Rise of the "knowledge worker" - Computing becomes utility/commodity - IBM PC versus Apple - IBM versus PCMs - IBM's responses to a changing marketplace

Critical projects/technologies in IBM history * The IBM S/360 project * OS/360 and the Mythical Man Month * CP/CMS and VM   * Key software technologies: COBOL, CICS, IMS, DB2 * The canceled IBM FS project * 3270 display terminal family * IBM PC   * IBM PowerPC and RISC technology * AIX

I continue to believe that, in addition to the straight timeline headings currently present in the article, a number of "major events and trends" headings should be included. One example is "Unbundling of software and services", which is referenced as a subheading in a link (now broken) in another Wikipedia article. Other topics such as those listed above also seem important, independent of their slots in a chronology, and could be useful for reference from other Wikipedia articles. I will resist adding such headings unless I feel like taking on the larger project of shepherding the article; but if others agree, perhaps at least creating some placeholders would help encourage contributions. Trevor Hanson 21:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Rotten Apple
Anybody know what year IBM was #4 in sales, but #1 money-loser? (That's business management...) Trekphiler 07:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust comments
The section History of IBM begins with a hard rap to IBM based on Edwin Black's book. Not to minimize the role of IBM and other large corporations in abetting Nazi buildup, but is this really the salient fact about IBM in the period 1938-1949? It seems that many other important things happened at IBM before, during, and immediately after the war.

Moreover, the following observation strikes me as hyperbole:


 * "...knowing that the [tabulating] machines could help the Nazis conquer Europe and destroy European Jewry."

Again, accepting IBM=bad and all that, I find the equation tabulating-machines = Nazi victory + Holocaust a bit strong. (I mean, they were tabulating machines. There was a LOT of equipment and materiel sold to the Bad Guys before and during the war. Selling tabulating machines doesn't strike me as particularly egregious, on the face, compared for example with armaments and their precursors.) At any rate, I would think one can condemn war profiteering without considering the sale of tabulating equipment a premeditated war crime. I haven't read Black's book, but this Wikipedia paragraph citing it strikes me as POV. Again, please, I am not an apologist for profiteering, but I do think we need to keep an historical perspective. This was a complex period, and reducing it to polarized blame mongering doesn't seem to add to our understanding of IBM's history, which is the topic at hand. Trevor Hanson 06:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to insert this dissenting comment from a NY Times Book Reviewer:
 * "A New York Times reviewer was not persuaded that Black had made the case that IBM had done any worse than any other third party legally selling material to Germany..
 * It was deleted because the censor said that it was cherry picked among a bunch of comments and inside the review itself. It seems to me that this is all WP:UNDUE anyway. All corporations, some of whom do not exist today of course, did business with Germany. It was not illegal. Simply to take the stand with clear Monday morning insight and say that furnishing the material helped the Nazis is perverse.
 * I, too, do not know what this section, applicable to nearly every existing large corporation is doing here. It is a silly observation and appears to be WP:SOAP boxing. "They shoulda known!" Right, they should have known more than their government knew or expected them to know! Nuts! Student7 (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

recent edits by anonymous user to 1933–1945: IBM and the Nazi and Holocaust era
These anonymous edits come from an IP address (68.33.193.207) that has also been used to edit the article on Edwin Black, whose book is cited in this article. The edits from this anonymous source appear to slant this article strongly in favor of Black's POV. The neutrality of these edits is therefore in doubt. Paul 02:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the section and added an NPOV tag to point readers to this discussion page. My edits were as follows: first, to move the paragraph about rifles back to the top where it was before the anonymous editor moved it to the end, and to clean up the language a bit. I have tried to slightly soften the "slant" that I detect in the text without removing any of the facts asserted there. I welcome further discussion of these changes but I urge prospective editors to discuss proposed changes here before making more changes to the section.

In particular I will watch this page for attempts by the above-mentioned anonymous editor, who may be Edwin Black himself, to revert changes. I hope that we can reach a negotiated, compromise version of the text after open debate by editors who are not afraid to publish their names. (Mine is on my user page.) Paul 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Without debating the merits of Black's position and the accuracy of his specifics, let me raise the issue of its relative importance. We are talking about a very significant period -- 1933-1949 (although this section was retitled 1933-1945 – why? and what about the period 1946-1949 that was removed from the timeline?). Naturally, Nazism dominates the period before, during, and just after the war; but I find it hard to accept that the most significant fact about IBM during this period, as measured by column-inches, is its participation in the sale of tabulating equipment to the Nazis. (I made this point under the previous discussion heading, though it prompted no comment.) IMO this section lacks topical balance. One grants that the History of IBM article needs to mention this important and contentious issue; but perhaps the entire discussion of Black's thesis needs to move to a separate article. Trevor Hanson 03:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope it is permissible to edit this Talk page and add remarks. Several people use this computer, some for a short time and not a few once and never again. None of us are skilled contributors--not me at least. The material on IBM was changed to add historical correctness. The era between the wars was incorrectly stated as 1924 to 1938 when it should be 1918 to 1939, called "the Time Between the Wars" or Zwieschen Krieg. WWI ended in 1918. WWI started in 1939. Beginning the section with IBM production of rifles was chronologically incorrect since that action did not start til 1942 or so, long after WWII was underway, not until after Pearl Harbor in December 1941, when the US joined the war. But the IBM-Nazi relationship began years before in 1933. Hence, that change was chonologically correct. The reversion was in error. I do not know Wikopedia protocol and do not know what questions to even ask, nor am I regular contributor. I was just trying to crrect errors and add fact. I was editing when the page changed before my eyes. The subhead "WWI and the Holocaust period" is erroneous since the Nazi era began on January 30, 1933 and continued until May5-6, 1945. The 12-Year Holocaust began in 1933 with 6 distinct phases: Identification, Excluson, Confiscation, Ghettoization, Deportation and Extermination, all of which were organized by IBM. The Shoah or physical destruction phase was 1941-1945. Playing with and blurring the dates and chronology is more than historically inaccurate and the attempts to revert the incorrect dates and chronology are not fair to unknowing users and readers. I wish I could upload pictures I have seen, but I do not know how to upload or position photos of punchcards, documents and so foreth that are available. May I suggest please www.ibmandtheholocaust.com and http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/comments.php as a starter. It is important not to fudge the facts and chronology. IBM has never denied the facts in the books, the many articles and various videos you can search on You Tube and elsewhere. Those who tried to subvert the truth often issued public retractions and paid money damages and otherwise admitted their error, despite hiring libel attorneys. See www.nizkor.org and Histoiry Network News at www.hnn.us. I realize it is hard for technical experts to grasp the historical timetables and facts, which is why those with experience in the history of technology in genocide, and the use of Nazi technology and science such as Robert Wolfe, just retired chief of Nazi documentation for the National Archives, Hollerith expert Willliam Seltzer of Fordham University, Robert Urekew of University of Louisville, or Marek Orski, senior historian of the Stutthof concentration camp be the gold standard. I hope this comment is helpful. Now I see as I ended this that someone has again inserted the wrong date for the end of WWII and the Nazi regime. It was 1945 not 1949. This is elemental history. Every time I try to add a comment to this talk page it is excised. Perhaps I am doing something wrong with the save button.


 * Your comments made it in this time. Why do you not sign your name to them?  The paragraphs just above this comment are by the same editor who has made many recent edits to this page and the page on Edwin Black.  (Compare IP addresses on page histories).  You will see that the ONLY edits made from your address are to these pages.  So your initial comment about "others" using your IP address isn't credible. Paul 03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand. I am using the computer now. Other people use it other times. What is an IP address? There are several computers here--all at the same address. I tried to write remarks and correct the date errors and my corrections were changed moments later. WWII ended in 1945 not 1949. I tried to comment on the Talk page and those comments were removed as I was saving them. I don't understand why you want to change the date WWII began and ended, and confuse the Nazi period, the Holocaust period, and WWII era. I don't think you want facts, you just want to argue against the Holocaust and change the facts. So, I think I will not try to fix your errors any more because you are very argumentative. Good bye. Betty

It is possible that your edits may be lost if two people try to edit the same page at the same time. Wikipedia does warn you when this happens, but one of these edits will be lost. Paul 03:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * for your information, an IP address is an numerical identifier that is sent by one computer to another, like a postmark. All edits made on Wikipedia are labelled by either an IP address (in your case) or a user name (in my case).  Your IP address shows a list of edits made by you or your computer.  The only edits that show up in the list for your computer are to the two pages in question.  It may very well be true that many people use the same computer, but if all the edits from that computer appear on just these two pages then that strongly implies that one person with an agenda has made those edits.


 * Regarding the dates: This is not an article about warfare, nor about the history of Germany. The dates comprise the timeline of IBM's history, and as such I believe they need to cover the entire period of 1888 to the present, without gaps. Thus I see a problem with the first three intervals (1888-1924, 1918-1939, 1933-1949), which overlap. The section headings (e.g. "Between the wars") were intended, I believe, to alluded to the major events during the periods, rather than to demarcate the starting and ending points of those events. From this perspective, it makes sense to me to refer to 1933-1949 as dealing with the events of WWII. This obviously does not mean that WWII spanned those dates.


 * Perhaps, since the selection of headings led to confusion, it would make more sense to remove the descriptions, and just use date intervals, viz. 1920s, 1930s, etc.


 * Regarding to the frequency of updates occurring, and which computers make updates, please realize that many thousands of people see these pages, and all of them can make changes to any text at any time. Nobody was attempting to "subvert the truth" nor to censor your updates; but please realize that the goal of THIS article is to provide a timeline of IBM's overall history. This is a very high-level review, meaning that many details must be omitted or simplified. No individual topic, even one as important as IBM's relationship to Nazi Germany, should dominate a given section here, to the exclusion of other major events and trends. (At least, that is my feeling.) Instead, such topics deserve their own Wikipedia articles. Do feel free to create them. Please read the Wikipedia Help pages, such as Contributing to Wikipedia for details. Trevor Hanson 07:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop Faking the timeline of IBM history related to the Nazi and Holocaust era
These computers are used by several people from time to time. That was written by Betty and is correct. Paul was cruel and bullying to her. But her information was correct and Paul's was just silly in error. He has a link to IBM on his Wiki-advertised home page, obviously has a slanted POV, an agenda to obscure the truth and minimize IBM's uncontroverted involvement in mass murder, and rewrite the history and timeline of WWII and Nazi Germany. I think Paul should refrain from making statements that are poorly sourced or imagined about persons living or dead. Moreover, this project might benefit if you refrained from his contributing WWII and Holocaust information since I doubt from his self-described credentials on your web that he has any expertise in this History. I am going to change the false statements on IBM and if he changes them back, he may risk being reported as a vandal. It seems that Wiki is very concerned about libel and poorly sourced, based on its prominent warnings, and based on the many examples of libel and falsity archived on the sites. This is I becginning to understand. I suggest you consult with IBM's legal department since you seems to be engaged in activities they will be interested in. Please stop vandalizing NPOV, properly sourced information, and please stop falsifying the timeline. As for Trevor's suggestion about a timeline, decade by decade does not work because certain phases of IBM's history--like any company--transcend decade markers. Also, there is much false information in this history that has nothing to do with the Nazis. Thomas Watson is identified as the founder of IBM. That is false. Charles Flint founded IBM laregly but not exclusively based on Hollerith technology. I will make the correction soon, so proper notice is being given. As an afterthought, Wiki is an anarchistic traffic jam without traffic lights that has almost no legal standing and no real legal precedent. The rules are being written by everyone moment to moment. But when people meddle in settled history and uncontroverted fact, the topics of contentious litigation, other dynamics come into play.

I just edited the section to inject NPOV, proper sourcing, and excise agenda. I also removed the request to Merge as my contribution to the discussion but I don't know if that is permitted. So if I erred, please put back this Merge icon. No one knows the rules so I hope I did not break one since who the heck knows what goes on in this cacophonous attempt to achieve clarity. That said, Paul should refrain from changing this edit without proper sourcing, or I will request he be reported as a vandal.


 * Please don't make more edits without a discussion first. I will follow that rule, even if you don't.  At this time I have nothing to propose, but I will study the changes you have made.  I am sorry that you found my comments hurtful.  I promise to be more considerate in the future.  Paul 15:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So you want a posting here, waiting, and then a change--I thought I did that... how long is the suggested wait time--an hour, a day, a month... not that things should move at the speed of light... I reiterate, do not change the facts... BTW, I do not know who posted the original paragraph, but perhaps it should be reworded with the facts first and the attribution to Edwin Black after. Just a thought. One more thing... please do elevate this project to authenticate intellectual exchange. This is just a free for all that due to search engines has become prominent. I have seen it before. I predict one day soon, one of the billionaires or determined individuals being libelled will sue or threaten to sue and things will come crashing down. I guess that may have already happened in part judghing by the Seigenthaler episode and the manyn others chronicled in this frightening Orwellian descent into intellectual lawlessness.


 * SInce we obviously disagree about how to present the facts that you have contributed, I would ask you to wait for a reply from me before you make your recommended changes. I will wait for a reply from you before I make any changes to the page.  You can expect me to respond within a day.  I'd also like to point out that this page has been edited recently by only three people, as far as I can tell, so it's not a "free for all" like the rest of Wikipedia.   Paul

I hope you won't mind if I don't take direction or instruction you on editing as page that has been filled with obvious errors--unless you have been appointed owner of this page. When you can get the true founder of IBM right without being told, the right year WWII ended without being told, I might look to you for guidance. Right now, I am correcting your errors. If I want to know about your childhood Heath Kit, you rule. If I want to know about WWII, IBM's founding history, the Holocaust and related info, I go the uncontroverted, verifiable public record. Make no changes to my material unless I see verifiable fact, not fiction or assumption. Or you risk being reported as a vandal and perhaps others may do so as well. Some of us find Holocaust and WWII public fallacy and public fuzziness very offensive. And the next time someone like Betty is nice enough to correct you egregious factual mistakes, please don't think bullying her is the best path. It is not. Not everyone can be bullied. Be a little nicer and listen to uncontroverted historical fact. BTW, does anyone know how to upload pictures or documents? Also, how does one indent a paragraph with that green bullet Paul used.


 * you wrote: "please do elevate this project to authenticate intellectual exchange" and that is also what I would like to do. It is not clear that you agree.  I have already promised to leave "your" material alone and to propose changes rather than make them unilaterally.  I would like to discuss any further changes to this page before they are made by either of us.  Is that acceptable? Paul 17:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles Flint
Flint is identified as the founder of IBM by Thomas Watson, Jr. himself in his book Father Son & Co. I do agree with that proposed change. Paul

Paul, it is not a proposed change. It is a must change. Einstein declared the "right to know" commands the "right to inform."


 * I agree that this is a fact and that the change is not controversial. The change had not been made at the time I made my comment, so it was "proposed" and not manifest. Paul

Loaded with Historical Errors
The more I look at this accretion of fallacy, the more concerned I am that people with no facts are assembling it. International Business Machines was named after the company's 1924 idea for a new global newsletter--not for Canada. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.193.207 (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Please continue to find and list these inaccuracies here, but please wait for comments before you edit the page. Paul


 * Paul, you can take your time fixing errors of fallacy and rumor on IBM's early corporate history. But I do not take instruction or even suggestion from you on WWII or the Holocaust. I fix our errors when I see them not when you approve. You have no primacy on the Holocaust history, no supervision rights, and I hope you are not a spokesman for IBM or acting on their behalf. Please just give truth a chance Paul, it won't hurt. BTW I think the colon indents a comment.

I removed text that stated the MAPICS product was sold in the late 1980s. MAPICS was sold by IBM to Marcam in 1993. 66.156.73.36 01:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)PWM

Will everybody kindly calm down
This exchange is becoming far too acrimonious. I don't think anybody here wants to begin arbitration or mediation steps, but that is where we are going. See Resolving disputes. May I please make a few general comments?


 * This article is well-known to have serious problems. That is not news. It has been substantially revised in recent months, to try to remove some of the more egregious issues, but there is obviously much work still needed.


 * What it needs most, IMO, is for a serious author to do a comprehensive rewrite. The history of IBM is a huge topic, and it needs more than cursory editing and sniping. However, until somebody steps up to that project, we are going to have to make do through civil and well-meaning attempts to correct the problems. Please, let us refrain from ad hominem attacks, which, I assure you, will not survive in the Wikipedia community. I might add that, recent derogatory comments notwithstanding, there is a strong community of dedicated Wikipedia editors working constantly to improve and expand this resource. They use appropriate academic standards for research and presentation. Some parts may seem cacophonous; but there are many well-written and well-sourced articles. (This doesn't happen to be one of them...yet.)


 * I think that citing detailed sources has become an absolute requirement here, especially given the recent exchanges. We must not say "It is a well-known historic fact that X". We must back up claims here with specific citations to reputable publications. We must also use multiple sources – Edwin Black's work presents one view, but we need a broad basis of factual sources, and we need to cite them properly (including page numbers, etc.). See Citing Sources.


 * I also agree that discussing changes before making them would be a civil, collegial way to proceed with fixing up this troubled article. I don't think it helps to say "I fix our errors when I see them not when you approve." There is a normal process for the collaborative editing of Wikipedia articles; why not use it? What's to be gained by escalating this to a battle of editors? This does not help the article, and the community will eventually stop it.


 * I continue to be uncomfortable with the level of emphasis that the WWII conflict is receiving in this discussion and this article. In what must be a high-level review of 120 years of corporate history, we need editorial balance regarding the topics and positions covered. I repeat my suggestion that some of these important matters need their own articles, to be cited on this history page rather than to dominate it.

Finally, let us all please assume the good faith of other editors here. I see no attempts being made to rewrite history or seize ownership of this article. I see editors trying to make small improvements in the time they have available. Trevor Hanson 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Trevor, I agree that no one is trying to rewrite history, but it seems to me that someone has asserted ownership of one section of this article. It's hard to see how we could make progress on these terms.


 * I do believe that administrative advice, at least, is called for. Paul 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

help on the way
A request for informal mediation has been made, see: Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-25_History_of_IBM. It may be a few days before a mediator arrives. I will not comment until then. Paul 01:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Kindly see if my recent reorganization improves matters
I have attempted to reorganize this material, both to improve its presentation and to simplify discussion here. I hope this is seen as constructive. If anybody is violently opposed, feel free to revert the text to the previous version.

Here is what I did:


 * I removed these headings:
 * 1.2 1918–1939: Between the wars
 * 1.3 1933–1945: World War II, Nazi and Holocaust era


 * I replaced them with the heading:
 * 1.2 1925-1949: IBM's early growth


 * I added a new section in "2 Major events, trends, and technologies":
 * 2.1 IBM's role in WWII and the Holocaust


 * I moved the associated Edwin Black citation and related material into that new section. This text was moved without modification.

I felt that this topic was important enough to stand on its own, under its own heading, rather than being crowded into its proportional slice in a 125-year timeline.

In the process of editing, I also attempted to clarify Watson's role in the founding of IBM. (I believe that what the original author meant by calling him the "founder" was that modern IBM, i.e. post-1924, was ushered in by Watson. I have used IBM's Archive website for the early dates and details. Clearly we need better sources, but presumably IBM's archives should be accurate enough for this basic information.)

Again, this is an attempt to address the different positions recently stated. I have not removed any substantive content.

If you feel that a different approach would make more sense, please add your thoughts. Trevor Hanson 07:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Trevor, thank you for restoring the timeline and for the addition of the reference to Social Security. The new section for Edwin Black's work is also an improvement, in my view. Paul 14:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The following was being typed prior and during Trevor's good and useful re-org, literally at the same time. It was intended to follow his 7:02 post... I see some improvement has occured. I now add my comments in--again made at the sdame time Trevor was doing his thing.

Here is my thought and please excuse typos this early in the morning. >> First: this exchange is about one thing, the correct date of the end of WWII. That date is 1945 and the whole world knows it. Paul Geffen tried to fake the date to be 1949 for some reason I cannot fathom, perhaps simple stubbornness. A nice person Betty tried to innocently correct the date to 1945, and she was bullied and sent off, and her date correction was changed back several times by Paul, and even her discussion was deleted by someone. I got into the scene the next day and refused to bullied on universally accepted fact. I fixed the date back to 1945 and added content which can be deleted if you are afraid of too many facts. >> Second: Cabal, Mediation, Negotiators, Wiki-overseers, Wiki-bullies, Geeks on Call, and the Jimbo himself have no authority over anyone, surely not me, and have nothing to say about settled facts of history. Zip. Neither Jimbo or his supporters have the right to change the date of WWII's end from 1945 to 1949, or to fake or fog any WWII or Holocaust history. Nor do they wish to. Indeed, in some jurisdictions, it is a prosecutable crime and not a few people have been prosecuted (Iran exempted) and even jailed for deliberate falsification. This is especially the case in Europe where the wounds and scars are everywhere visible. Remember, Wikipedia displays in Europe and is subject to European laws. >> Third: Content and organization, groupings by decades or years or themes, this is the option of the Wiki contributors and editors and I am sure you will disagree forever on it and enjoy the disagreement. No one in my group really cares if you have the gumption to mention IBM's role in WWII and the Holocaust. Include it, exclude it. Your choice. I personally removed it from the Edwin Black bio because I thought it was out of balance compared to the single sentence that now stand. I do not know who wrote those original WWII, Nazi and Corporation contributions in the IBM essay. Once they were visible, my group and I did try to add clarity, meat, and detail from time to time. But feel free to exclude the whole topic. That said, if you do mention WWII, the Nazis or the Holocaust you MUST get the dates right. If you mention the American revolution you must make it 1776, the Chris Columbus sail thing is 1492, the twin tower attacks were 2001. There is no choice, no debate, no Jimbo, no Jumbo, no nothing. If someone makes an innocent dating mistake, Wiki society allows for a helpful fix and that is a blessing of the Internet. But Paul needs to back off once that fix is made and be grateful not resentful. There were of course other important fixes involving Watson, Flint, the IBM name launch etc. My group doesn't think much of the Wikipedia process as it stands anyway, it includes so much junk intellect that is not reliable, we just ignore it and many other knowing people do too. So we did not make those corrections, although we did call a few to your attention. I think someone is seeing to that. However, we do care about WWII, the Nazis and the Holocaust and if you choose to include that content, get the basics right. Trust me, there is enough to legitimate debate on the details, but at least the dates must be right. I and my group have no intention of permitting Wikipedia to change the end date of WWII to 1949, and if you continue, you will be laughed off the Internet. Please cc Jimbo himself, the correct date is 1945. The call for mediation or medication, not sure which, included a call to a journalist to get involved. Any journalist in the world would laugh at this attempt to reinvent the history of the WWII timeframe. >>Fourth: Trevor has a sensible idea. The real problem here is the organization of the article in addition to its shocking factual sloppiness. I have no vote, but if I had one, Trevor has my vote to do the re-org. IBM did a lot of great things and employed a lot of wonderful people in its century plus. The company also consciously assisted in war crimes and worked with war criminals. I would personally like to see NO IBM and the Holocaust reference, or a brief sectioned off reference as Trevor seems to suggest. I say No reference because I believe Wiki is incapable of getting the facts right, and I know lawyers will get involved if false light, libel by implication or other issues are raised. Many libel defense lawyers have been hired by those who tried to fuzz the information on IBM and the Holocaust, and there are many public retractions. See them somewhere on the internet. Just found one: http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/black.edwin/Baumel_Retraction.020211. Wikipedia is already very sensitive to libel on living persons, and requires poorly sourced, false, etc etc to be removed immediately without waiting or passing GO.

>> Fifth and Last: Wikipedia is a great Internet opportunity. It can revolutionize the proliferation of knowledge. The 1911 Britannica and many other encyclopedia were placed on line, but Wikipedia could blow them all away. The problem is it stinks, it thrives on people without expertise, posting junk and falsity, and ignores the experts and their expertise. The process becomes more important than the product. Reread that last sentence. If Wikiheads really want to make a contribution to society, they will allow the best and brightest to contribute their ideas and knowledge to a compendium that will battle the stars for glitter and gleam. But as long as we allow people to write fairy tales about important topics such as IBM and WWII, where they can't get the name of the founder right, the year and manner of the name launch right, and the end of WWII right, and then act wounded when they are corrected, then Wikipedia continues as a miasma.

>> Sixth and Really Last: Who am I and who are we. My group is about several dozen strong, and from time to time as many as 7 or 8 of us are gathered in one location using a network of wired and wireless computers. Hence they all have the same IP. We don't care about Wikipedia. We laugh at it between sips of coffee. But we do care about facts. We are deadly serious about precision, verifiable, publicly replicable, easily confirmable, bulletproof facts. Not just the Holocaust but also slavery, the birth of civilization, genocide, music, globalization, the environment, the advancement of science and culture, the interplay of the powerful and the powerless. We have a flawless record. We are fighters for factuality and have literally gone to the corners of the globe and the recesses of obscurity to extract and shine light on the some of the worst and best secrets of mankind. Other people care about their pet topics, be it Heathkits, stamps, trains, or magneto hydrodynamics, and they are passionate. We are passionate about a few things too. If you don't get it right, you don't get it. But once we get to it, it will be fair and accurate. That's a promise.

Trevor--good work. How does anyone upload pix?


 * For the record, I (not Paul) changed the heading from 1933-1945 back to what it had been previously: 1933-1949. (Or perhaps we both did, independently.) As I have stated earlier, this was not intended to mean that WWII spanned these dates. (I would have said "obviously" but apparently this was not obvious.) The heading had originally referred to a sixteen-year time period that was dominated by WWII, as well as other worldwide events.


 * You continue to refer to this particular 1933-1949 heading as a sign of factual error, or worse, some kind of "questioning the Holocaust" revisionism via "faking the dates". I really think you misinterpreted the intent of the heading as it stood, which again was simply a time span that included WWII. At any rate, I believe you agree that the new headings and structure improve the situation.


 * You heap scorn on Wikipedia. ("Wiki bullies"? Good heavens, you characterize Wikipedia volunteers as a bunch of storm troopers. Mediation is a good-faith process – a well established and successful technique for resolving conflicts. Look through the comments on this page, and see which ones strike you as aggressive or insulting.) Fartig...I see no point in trying to sway your opinion. I do believe that, if you looked more widely in the enormous corpus of Wikipedia material, you would find a large amount of very well-written, well-sourced, and well-edited articles. History of IBM is NOT currently a good example; it indeed has some of the problems you identified. You will note the many "please expand" and "needs correction" templates.


 * If you choose to contribute, by correcting factual errors and adding material – something that is very helpful and appreciated, by the way – I think you would find a better reception if you were to create one or more Wikipedia user names. Unsigned contributions are always viewed with some skepticism. You do not need to reveal your actual identities -- many Wikipeidans use anonymous 'handles' as names -- but this aids in discussion, and helps seeing the continuity of a particular user's edits.


 * It would also be very helpful if you would provide clear citations when making corrections. It is not enough to say "This is established historical fact." As I'm sure you know, facts can be tricky. There are plenty of historical events for which good sources are in conflict. In such cases, the goal of Wikipedia is to be sure all mainstream positions are reported fairly and in balance. I have seen many articles which have legitimately swung one way and another as well-intentioned editors have brought citations to bear in support of one or another version of events. Ultimately, this process yields a balanced and scholarly result, as poor sources are winnowed out and good sources are scrutinized. Any time you can add good documentary sources, this will help improve the quality of the material here. I agree that, in ten years, the corpus of material in Wikipedia could become the greatest body of accurate information ever assembled. We aren't there yet, but despite your skepticism things move steadily in the right direction. Responsible editors, paying attention to detail as you do, are making this happen. But again, this works through collegial and open discussion. Confrontation really does not help improve things.


 * Finally, about uploading images: On the Wikipedia main page, you will see a bunch of navigation links and a toolbox. One of the entries in the toolbox is "upload file", which will take you to this page: Special:Upload. Please note that there are definite copyright issues involved in placing files in Wikipedia. The instructions should make this clear. Another place for uploading material is WikiCommons, a repository for original source material such as historical documents. Again, be sure to review the copyright issues.


 * I hope this is helpful. Please take my comments and suggestions in the spirit intended. You seem to be perceiving bad faith in situations where frankly I don't think it exists. There are people who seek to disseminate false information; but I haven't found many who are regular Wikipedia contributors (and those who persist in spreading demonstrable falsehoods eventually get banned from contributing). I think all of this recent heartburn and misunderstanding could have been dealt with through a few days of civil discussion on this talk page. Trevor Hanson 21:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Answers in a day or two

new comment from Paul
As I said above, I'm happy with the article as it stands and see no reason to change it. It's clear that we have editors who can (better than I can) ensure that the page is both accurate and well-organized. It can stand to be expanded with more details but what's there today is a good start. Paul 15:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Founding date discrepency
In the article, it's stated that IBM was founded in 1888; however, the earliest date mentioned for one of the merger companies is 1896. So, which is it? Anakinjmt 18:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good catch. The text at one time had mentioned 1888 for...something. Anyway, I have revised the heading, and added details to include Hollerith's earlier work from his time at the Census Bureau; this played a big part in establishing the IBM milieu. Trevor Hanson 19:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Employee relations
Someone with more expertise than me should write something about IBM employee relations as its history unfolds. In the 60's when I worked there as an electronic engineer their benfits were legendary but later when things took a turn for the worse the situation was reversed. Their policy of no layoffs was eliminated and many were "retired" early. Recently a lot of outsourcing of jobs to India has taken place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.208.127 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Watson copied NCR practice, right down to the country club. Whoever does this will have to write about Patterson.  In his time he was thought eccentric for finding spectacular ways of firing top associates.  But he was among the first to value employees and create safe, for their time, plants, etc.  He wasn't eccentric; if you think about it, he trained disciples, then fired them to spread his message. 24.33.80.192 17:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

More (sorry) IBM and the Nazi and Holocaust era
Would someone more experienced than me please place the appropiate "disputed" flags on the Thomas J. Watson article which has the same problems as discussed above. Thanks, 24.33.80.192 17:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeline: 1880s–1924: The origin of IBM
Why not just point to the CTR article? Having a summary here makes work for both contributors (who have to work with both) and readers (do the two articles agree?) Or merge the CTR article into this article. 24.33.80.192 17:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The summary here seems useful to me – it presents enough facts to put the relationship of CTR and IBM in context. The CTR article has the details. Most of what's in the CTR article should not be in the IBM article, and vice versa. They should, of course, be consistent. It doesn't seem likely that, once reconciled, there would be many subsequent changes that would bring them out of sync. Anybody editing the relevant material would naturally want to check both articles anyway. I guess I don't see a problem as it is, again providing that somebody does the initial work of reconciling and sourcing what's there. Trevor Hanson 19:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. Place an inline editors comment in both places, if needed.  /Blaxthos 05:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Biased Reviews and Already Retracted Contents
Trolling around, I see some absolutely slanted bias against Edwin Black in this and other Wiki entries. Confining myself to this entry, looking at IBM’s role in the Holocaust, someone added one paragraph citing two book reviews which are not only absurd on their face, they are potentially libelous and one of them has already been publicly retracted by the publication and from media accounts it involved lawyers. In accordance with stated Wikipedia policy on immediately removing potentially libelous information about living persons, I have deleted the entire paragraph. Here is my thinking and I hope others concur: The first review cited is the NY Times which is famous for book reviews featuring false information and extreme bias. In this case, Mr. Black is identified as a “science fiction writer” by the pop-culture reviewer, Gabriel Schoenfeld. Obviously, Mr. Black is not a science fiction writer, has never written a science fiction work and a quick check of his biography and what appears to be a multitude of references in the media shows that he has spent recent decades as a hard-edged investigative reporter and, by the time the IBM book came out, his reputation was already established as an investigative reporter, especially based on his first best-selling Holocaust economics book, The Transfer Agreement. Mr. Black did write a book of Holocaust fiction involving spiritualism and Kabala and messianic themes, but so have many Holocaust scholars such as Simon Wiesenthal and Elie Wiesel. No one knows Black as a science fiction writer and repeating a falsehood in the New York Times is libelous since it is well established that repeating libel is a libel.

The second review is Lars Heide in the Annals of the History of Computing who claimed, among many other things, that no such alphabetical machines existed in Germany during the Holocaust. First of all, Black has gone on TV and in movies and shown large posters of the actual transfer documentation on the alphabetical machines and given the exact day in September, 1939 that these alphabetical machines were transferred to Nazi Germany on the instructions of Thomas Watson in New York. Black published and quoted from all these documents in Chapter 7 of his book, IBM and the Holocaust, on Pages 180 to 184 beginning at footnote 43 and I have found after a little digging the actual serial numbers of these first dozen or so machines and here they are taken from his published book and articles.


 * Alphabetical Summary Punch…serial #517-10674-D9
 * Alphabetical Summary Punch…serial #517-10072
 * Alphabetical Duplicating Printing Punch…serial #034-11722-M8
 * Alphabetical Duplicating Punch…serial #034-11252
 * Alphabetical Duplicating Punch…serial #034-11253
 * Alphabet-Interpreter……………..serial #552-10494-C9
 * Alphabet-Interpreter……………..serial #552-10495-C9
 * Alphabetical Printing Tabulating Machine…serial#405-13126-D9
 * Alphabetical Printing Tabulating Machine…serial#405-13127-D9
 * Alphabetical Printing Tabulating Machine…serial#405-13128-D9
 * Alphabetical Printing Tabulating Machine…serial#405-11332
 * Alphabetical Printing Tabulating Machine…serial#405-11000
 * Alphabetical Printing Tabulating Machine…serial#405-10206
 * Collator……………..………………………serial#077-10577-D9

This review by Heide was apparently so false and misleading on the actual content of the book, including what appears to be ignoring a complete one-third of the book’s content about Dehomag, that the Annals of the History of Computing issued a rare public retraction and apology for the Heide review. I have found that retraction in its signed PDF form along with several other retractions in various places on the internet and in the media, but you might find them best in one location as shown below. Here are several of them. I myself had trouble accessing all the web pages from time to time and hope that they are still visible.


 * http://www.edwinblack.com/retractions/LarsHeideRetraction.pdf
 * http://www.edwinblack.com/retractions/BaumelRetraction.pdf
 * http://www.edwinblack.com/retractions/AnalysphereRetraction.pdf
 * http://www.edwinblack.com/retractions/MiriamKahnRetraction.pdf
 * http://www.edwinblack.com/retractions/SegalRetraction.pdf
 * http://www.edwinblack.com/retractions/CSSRRetractiononWAW.pdf
 * http://www.edwinblack.com/retractions/JournalofAmericanHistoryRetraction.pdf

Apparently, there are numerous public apologies, retractions and monies paid visa vis false statements about IBM and the Holocaust and some of Edwin Black’s other works. These retractions are stunning in as much as they are issued by some of the world’s leading historians, reviewers and publications. I can’t help but wonder why a someone posted the Heide article and note that this is a profoundly obscure article with a restricted circulation limited to a tiny group of computer experts. I hope no one with an agenda might have chosen to support IBM over the true history of its activities during the Hitler era…. Why choose this obscure review from among a handful of other negative review in place of the hundreds of publicly available laudatory reviews by historians, reviewers and researchers. I will name a few.

Newsweek: Backed by exhaustive research, Black's case is simple and stunning: that IBM facilitated the identification and roundup of millions of Jews during the 12 years of the Third Reich.

Washington Post: Black clearly demonstrates that Nazi Germany employed IBM Hollerith punch-card machines to perform critical tasks in carrying out the Holocaust and the German war effort. He goes on to document that IBM managed to profit from Hitler's state throughout its existence. ...Black establishes beyond dispute that IBM Hollerith machines significantly advanced Nazi efforts to exterminate Jewry.

Harvard International Review: Black's meticulous documentation constructs an undeniable fact: the IBM corporation knew where each of its leased (not sold) machines was in Europe...with the knowledge, fuller than most, of the purposes for which his machines were deployed. . . . Now, let me be clear, I do not believe that IBM’s history should be judged or recorded by literary criticism but by provable facts. Thus far, after 7 years, not a single fact or quoted document of “IBM and the Holocaust” has ever been sustained as false or exaggerated. On the contrary, the retractions show that, after exhaustive efforts to find fault with the documentation, none has been found. I do not want this entry muddled up with book reviews…pro or con…but just explaining why my eyebrows were raised when the only reviews cited were from a handful of negative reviews even though 99.9% of the reviews have been laudatory.

Let’s stick to the facts about IBM itself and leave the literary criticism for someone else.

Lark ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.71.29 (talk) )


 * Just to be sure I'm clear here (and setting aside the substance of the discussion and the various citations) – we're to dismiss The New York Times book reviews as encyclopedic sources, because of their record of bias and unreliability? Trevor Hanson 21:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding the urgent prose that follows below, I was reacting to this statement: "The first review cited is the NY Times which is famous for book reviews featuring false information and extreme bias." Perhaps that didn't strike anybody else as it did me. I was not suggesting that we accept any source blindly. Yet this blanket dismissal seemed curious.
 * I must also react to this statement: "But the best question is this: why is an entry about what IBM knowingly did with its machinery to help the Nazis kill millions been diverted to book reviews about the author? I think it sounds like bias, and I agree completely with Lark." If I read this correctly, it is accusing me of bias for participating in the present discussion, and for scratching my head about the suitability of Black's book as a reliable source. If so, I resent this. Don't tell me what questions I'm permitted to ask.
 * Moreover, where else would we discuss the quality of a cited (and historically disputed) source, other than on this page? This is NOT a page about "what IBM knowingly did with its machinery to help the Nazis." It is a page discussing the History of IBM article and its sources; and Black's book is a source. Having read the retractions, some of which I agree are eye-opening, I remain personally unclear about the extent to which Black's work faces legitimate skepticism by scholars. (At any rate, I have always been suspicious of grand organized conspiracies, usually finding more plausible explanations in individual and aggregate stupidity, incompetence, bigotry, and venality.) At the end of the day, I guess I should realize that this entire thread trembles on the edge of breaching Godwin's Law. Trevor Hanson 20:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems more than a little obvious that the reason to exclude that information is because it is false. Repeating an obvious idiocy or falsity just because it is in the NYT book review does not make it any truer, unless you subscribe to the Goebbels adage that the more you repeat a lie, the more it becomes true. The record of falsity and bias and falsity in NYT reviews merely explains why so profoundly a false statement would be the norm. One review of Susan McDougall's book about Ken Star declared that at least she was found guilty of defrauding conductor Zubin Mehta. The book said the obvious, that she was found not guilty. Had the NY said Edwin Black a dentist or cattle rancher would that also be quotable. Edwin Black is not a science writer and never has been. Not is Gabriel Schoenfeld a Holocaust scholar--an interview on TV and I think articles in some media journals cited the explanation that the Times was denied an advance copy of the book which was a first for such books, and they then assigned it the review to a gadfly.

Remember, that section of the NYT is a non-journalistic enterprise. Nothing is ever checked out or verified, and the authors are not journalists and frequently partisan writers. The better question is this: who added that review in? Why was that review selected over 100 other positive reviews? Why was the obscure Annals of the History of Computer added in, especially since it was publicly retracted? And why when several eminent historians albeit errant on their review sign public statements which have been linked above that they have been unable to find any errors or exaggerations in the documentation, that is not a good enough to bolster the mountain of endorsements, good reviews and never contradicted detailed facts? Why not add in the Washington Post, Harvard International Review, Newsweek, Jerusalem Post or any of the other reviews that constitute the majority. But the best question is this: why is an entry about what IBM knowingly did with its machinery to help the Nazis kill millions been diverted to book reviews about the author? I think it sounds like bias, and I agree completely with Lark. If you read those amazing retractions carefully, you will see the scope of the retractions. Apparently leading publications such as Nature and Jerusalem Report and others did not willingly or easily issue that retractions and a careful vetting of the true facts took place. What's more, I have seen or read about other retractions, possibly including a correction on this NYT article. Let me echo Larks' view: keep the IBM history to IBM history, and this is a perfect time to follow the Wiki policy to immediately remove potentially libelous data on a topic where retractions and libel have cleared been common.


 * Further to Trevor's question: "we're to dismiss The New York Times book reviews as encyclopedic sources, because of their record of bias and unreliability? Please see Wiki policy linked from "Verifiability" at the top of the IBM History discussion page which in part states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view...As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." I do not completely endorse this policy as I believe it is vastly too limited since it also claims in its first sentence that third-party verifiability is the objective as opposed to "truth." Hmm, so why not go to 10 leading Creationism science publications to certify that the Earth and universe was literally formed in 7 days each of 24 hours in length, or use 10 top university eugenic sources to certify that prostitution is an inheritable genetic trait, or we can cite the Bush Administration on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Sorry for the digression but there should be a standard higher than mere repetition of a falsity and indeed Wikipedia causes that very thing, IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.194.77 (talk)


 * Cleaning out the sock drawer, are we? /Blaxthos 15:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently those who claim to be "Wikipedians" or those who frequent it are rife with what you allude to. I wonder what it is about Wikipedia that creates this atmosphere. Then again, for some it's always more convenient to substitute a distraction or an accusation in place of facts themselves. Anyway we can stick to the facts about the History here or is that just an inconvenient truth? And yes, I subscribe to the growing recommendation that Wikipedia improve itself by using known experts who privately vet a topic before allowing it to be published. Does that makes us all socks? BTW, I love Wikipedia's endless list of formal denigrations and combative terms. Quite a loving environment.


 * Good news for sock puppet accusations... It turns out that several thousand staffers at the House of Representatives share the same IP, as do all the students at one dorm at Harvard, as does everyone at NOAA. They can all be accused of being sock puppets if they agree on an obvious point. Better news... people from all across the world who may agree with each other on one issue, every though hailing from thousands of miles away from each other, can also be accused of sock puppetry. Now anyone who wants to deny who facilitated the Holocaust can avoid the discussion by accusing just about anyone of being an small article of clothing. Much easier than establishing the facts.

Trying to follow this discussion
Trying to follow this discussion is like trying to chase bats through a forest on a dark night.

Being about 90% of the way through Edwin Black's book, I do realize this is a complex and difficult subject to deal with.

It would help a bit if the unsigned contributions in the discussion were dated and signed. At this point, looking at the last few contributions, I can't tell if the discussion ended in July or is still going on.

Wanderer57 01:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been quiet for a few months. Adding to the confusion: many of the unsigned contributions were made by different people using the same IP address. As you can see, there was a good deal of strident commentary. The core tension seemed to stem from the fact that a group of editors pretty much took Black's position as established fact. Theirs may be the valid position, for all I know, but they were bumping up against other editors who regarded parts of Black's thesis with skepticism, in light of other historical sources.
 * Black essentially says "much of what has been said in the past on this topic is wrong," making it hard for a non-expert reader to decide what represents a balanced position. Was IBM a completely, scandalously terrible company, with direct top-down responsibility for Nazi atrocity? (Perhaps.) Or was it more a question of omissions, inaction, bureaucratic inertia, and choosing to look the other way, as IBM's German subsidiaries followed the rest of their country's new priorities? (Perhaps.) There was certainly plenty of blame to pass around for the bad things that happened in that period. But striking a fair historical balance is difficult, when faced with a scholar who says "you must discard everything else you've read on this topic." And it's harder to sort these things out when some parties are dogmatic, and are unwilling even to entertain discussion of the different points of view found in the literature.
 * I hope this is a useful summary of how we got here. Trevor Hanson 08:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this insight.
 * I must say Mr. Black's book did not give me a message to "discard everything else you have read on this topic." Rather the impression that connections between IBM and the Holocaust have previously been very little researched, or at least very little reported.
 * To quote from the introduction to the bibliography, "The Holocaust literature is virtually devoid of references to Hollerith technology with several notable exceptions."  (Hollerith technology was the IBM technology for information processing using punched paper cards and machinery.)
 * Five exceptions are then listed: a German language study from 1984, and four English language publications from the 1990s. (details are on page 495.)
 * It is difficult to be certain about something like this. However I found that the amount and nature of the documented information presented was very compelling.
 * Wanderer57 01:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I misstated Black's position in my simple-minded summary, which was more geared to describing the role of certain contributors who were quoting Black here. During some phases of this discussion, much vitriol was spent on the political correctness of questioning or even discussing Black's views. I personally found it easy to see that the Nazi war machine would exploit available technology, and easy to see that large corporations like IBM would be willing sources to a large industrial consumer like Germany in the 1930s. I found it harder to accept that IBM was an active, conscious partner in deliberate genocide. I don't find it impossible to believe, but hard to believe. I do know that, in IBM's huge organization, there were many patriotic, anti-totalitarian employees and executives, people would would not have stood for such practices. So the whole story is troubling, particularly as characterized by some of Black's proponents, who seem to describe IBM as a branch of the Wehrmacht. There is no question that Black has plenty of uncomfortable facts, and that, even in their most lenient interpretation, they must give pause to any of the people involved, especially anybody actively involved in supporting IBM's German partners and subsidiaries. It is still not clear, to me anyway, how much this bears on decisions being made at IBM headquarters in 1941-1945. In other words, does IBM get a gold star for supporting the U.S. war effort, or was it a sham? I have tended to distrust conspiracy theories, at least until the last few years. I hope this personal opinion is helpful. Trevor Hanson 07:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Trevor, I suggest you read the book. The enormity of the undisputed, uncontradicted fact is compelling. It has been I guess six or seven years since this news hit worldwide and yet IBM has never denied that it deliberately helped orchestrate Nazi genocide, and did so from its New York offices, something I suspect any company would be eager to do. Instead, they have stayed mum hoping the passage of time will encourage doubt by those who have not read the book or the many articles. The book is heavily documented with thousands of footnotes. That said, the present entry seems to do the trick. Enough said. Eli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.150.94.62 (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is simply opinion and synthesis, and certainly does not adhere to a neutral point of view -- "enormity of the undisputed, uncontradicted fact is complelling", "hoping the passage of time will encourage doubt", etc.. Not what we're going for in an encyclopedia.  /Blaxthos 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Stating in the talk page that: "they have stayed mum hoping the passage of time will encourage doubt by those who have not read the book or the many articles." does not violate the NPOV policy. Editors are allowed to state opinions in talk. Wanderer57 17:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are not a forum; as such it is my assumption that the commentor in question was suggesting using such statements either in the article (WP:NPOV) or as a justification for a similiar change (WP:OR). If the purpose of the comment was just to espouse his feeling on the matter then it has no place here at all.  /Blaxthos 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed
In the article “History of IBM”, the section “IBM's role in WWII and the Holocaust” ends with this:

”IBM has never contradicted any of the evidence or facts in the books or the many documentaries, but claimed it has no real information on the period. IBM and the Holocaust has been featured in hundreds of news articles, magazine stories, TV shows and documentaries, virtually none with rebuttal from IBM. The company has stated that Black's "case is long and heavily documented ... yet he does not demonstrate that IBM bears some unique or decisive responsibility for the evil that was done."[citation needed]

The “citation needed” note, recently added, sent me to look for a citation. It turned out a bit complicated. Here is what I found.

I found this review of Edwin Black's book. http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/ibm.html

The closing words of this review are the same as above, but they are given as the reviewer's words, not as a quote from an IBM source.

(The review is also on the New York Times website at: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E6DD113BF934A35750C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

The reviewer was Richard Bernstein. Review published: March 7, 2001. This I think is about 12 weeks after the book was published. (Wrong - book was published in February.)

According to this source, which is an interview with Black, http://www.news.com/2009-1082-269157.html

‘IBM is circulating a review by The New York Times that argues you (Edwin Black) failed to "demonstrate that IBM bears some unique or decisive responsibility for the evil that was done." ‘

If this source is true, the “failed to demonstrate...” sentence is not an IBM statement per se, but a quote selected from one of the many reviews of the book.

- - -

A source is given in Wikipedia article Edwin Black for the “failed to demonstrate...” statement:

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/828.wss

This item seems to have a gap in the text. Part of the quote is missing.

This page in turn links to another IBM page with the note: "Click here to see the original statement."

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/1388.wss

Will someone else please check this? Thanks. Wanderer57 20:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Man, excellent job Wanderer57! I've followed your trail to the same document.  I added the   tag originally, and so I've taken the liberty of restoring the original quote, citing it with the source you found, and inserted the appropriate  [sic] .  /Blaxthos 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First Party Content Creation
I am the corporate archivist for IBM, and would like to add my expertise to making this article (and others about IBM that have an historical component) more useful. I am cognizant, however, of how strongly Wikipedians discourage this kind of participation (COI, NPOV, V, etc.). While I fully understand that position is necessary and prudent, it is flawed to the extent that it can preclude those who are most familiar with a topic from participating. So I'd like to ask the editors if there's room for first parties, those who are subject matter experts within their organizations, to contribute content on this page (or elsewhere) about what they know best without creating a firestorm? If there is, I'm happy to discuss how you think I can best assist in improving this article. Is it enough just to follow established policy guidelines? Or are there other behaviors/procedures that you would recommend that I follow?PCL (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In a perfect world, yes. In this case though, our conflict-of-interest guidance largely exists for your own protection... your boss might not like that you're writing publicly about a past controversy or criticism of IBM, for example, which may well be something you need to do to make this article accurate and in compliance with the spirit of our neutrality policies, which call for mentioning both the good and the bad, if of encyclopedic relevance to a topic. That said, we do welcome contributions like you've described... it just kind of makes us a bit nervous, not that you'll screw up the article, but that you could get yourself in trouble, for lack of a more tactful way of putting it. Not everyone's boss can be trusted to really understand what Wikipedia is, and what an employee editing it might mean. However, if you understand all of this and proceed... I don't think your position will be a serious hindrance to your work here. It's tricky, but with full disclosure, and as long as you don't just seem to be trying to whitewash IBM's corporate history (which I'm not accusing you of being here to do) I think you should be okay. Dealing with these situations is not our strong suit yet, and I'm not speaking in any official capacity, but I do think you should be able to improve these articles if you want to. --W.marsh 17:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would advise you, Mr. Lasewicz, on the one hand to be bold, but on the other hand, detail each edit you make on the talk page of the article to be as transparent as possible about what you are doing, especially given your position with the conflict of interest guideline. I think that we can trust that you will try to follow Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, but if you open each change you make to explicit review, and ask for review when unsure, I believe that it is likely that you will have few problems. :) Nihiltres { t .l } 17:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It might help to remove the potential impression that you are concealing the "CoI" if you'd put some information about the possible conflict on your user page (rephrasing the question you ask would be sufficient), and put a "hello" on your talk page. Even with a CoI I see no reason you can't contribute to the talk pages about IBM matters (I'll warn you that there are some editors for whom no possible disclaimer could ever have been sufficient, and who will insist that you should never edit any article that contains any of the letters "I", "B", or "M" -- please attempt to be patient with them.) Welcome to Wikipedia. htom (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Folks, this input is all very much appreciated. I look forward to working with y'all on this. PCL (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

- material deleted


 * Please advise what "investigation" you are referring to.  Wanderer57 (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

- material deleted


 * Thank you for adding clarification. However, I'm going to be picky and suggest that further clarification is needed to change this discussion from innuendo into factual statements that can be discussed and looked into.


 * We have that accusations are believed to have been published somewhere. NOT who published them or where.


 * We have that people obstructed an investigation by an author and his team, something to do with a book published in 2001. WHAT investigation, WHAT author and WHAT book?   Wanderer57 (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have thought about it further after reading further but before seeing the last post or two. I changed my mind completely. I have withdrawn all my remarks and comments (and edited them out from yesterday), and also withdraw any objection to Lasewicz posting here. He should be afforded every encouragement. I think it would be especially beneficial for a senior IBM personality to go on the record about IBM's role in the Holocaust. In fact, I think his remarks could be so valuable, they be left unedited and uncorrected to stand on their own. So I support waiving the rule and allowing Lasewicz full access unfettered. That would be best IMHO. Freddie

Note - I have restored most of the Talk page which Freddie deleted for some reason, possibly by mistake. I have not restored his comments which he deleted. My above questions no longer make sense, as they refer to material that has since been deleted. This is very confusing. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

selling of Hdd division to Hitachi is missing
Does somebody have a source and the year when IBM sold its storgage division to Hitachi? Andries (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ibm 7090.jpg
Image:Ibm 7090.jpg 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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Snow White?
The article says:

"On February 14 1924, CTR changed its name to International Business Machines Corporation, or IBM. "


 * I don't think the acronym came into use till much later. Is there some way to be sure when?

Also the article says, "People in this business would talk jokingly of "IBM and the seven dwarfs,"


 * I believe it was much more usual to call them Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Can someone confirm this?

Wanderer57 (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

IBM & Scientology
I recently spoke somebody who is a Scientology member for about 20 years. He told me IBM en Coca-Cola are based on the Scientology Management System from Ron Hubbard. Does anybody know more about this part of IBM's history? Did they already use this system during WO-II? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.133.48.71 (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

IBM/Holocaust
This is one of the most poorly written sections I have seen on Wikipedia. The quotes included are garbage, and have no real relevence. What is the "second front" and why is it mentioned? This section deserves only a paragraph of summation of the book, since that is the main source of material, then maybe have a link to the main article of the book. I understand that assisting in the Holocaust is a serious news item, but all the book points out is that IBM provided punch card machines to the Nazis. It's funny that Mr. Black is making IBM seem evil for selling to Germany for its whole regime. Just because we know Hitler was evil now, doesn't mean that during the early years of the Nazi regime, the people of the time knew the future. Hitler won Time's "Man of the Year" award during the early years, strangely enough. While I personally think this book is a bunch of yellow journalism, I do feel it should be mentioned, but only given the weight it deserves. It also seems funny that we didn't hear anything about IBM and the Holocaust until a novel in the 21st century, 50+ years later.

My suggestions: remove the quotes, remove the examples, and sum up Mr. Black's argument, then refer to the page on his novel. WP:UNDUE seems appropriate here. Angryapathy (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Angryapathy:
 * By "novel", are you referring to the book by Edwin Black titled "IBM and the Holocaust"? If so, it seems to me that you are ignoring the reality that the statements in the book are extensively supported by references to sources.
 * You state "all the book points out is that IBM provided punch card machines to the Nazis." As I recall, the book also makes the point that due to the nature of the technology, people providing technical support needed both technical knowledge of the machines AND knowledge of the purposes for which the machines were being configured.
 * Wanderer57 (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I do understand that Mr. Black's book is heavily sourced, but again, it is one book. (Sorry I used book and novel as synonyms, a novel is fiction, my bad) I do feel that it has a place on this page, but I feel that the summary of the book should be much more concise.  It seems as though we are trying to again prove that what the book says is true, which we do not have to.  A few examples would be effective.  My feelings on the book aside, I think what is here now doesn't even articulate Mr. Black's arguments properly.  Again, the summary should be concise, then if a reader of the article wishes to know more, then they can go to the page on the book, which has a more detailed summary.  The section on The IBM history page is pretty much copied from the IBM and the Holocaust page, which may explain why it seems ineffective and wordy. Angryapathy (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

QUOTING FROM THE RECENT VERSION OF THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE:

A New York Times reviewer was not persuaded that Black had made the case that IBM had done any worse than any other third party legally selling material to Germany. The article contends that IBM's only culpability is providing punch card machines for the Nazi regime, which the Nazi's then used to track various peoples for extermination.

I have two comments on this. 1) the word "only" is IMO incredibly inappropriate. Somewhat like saying "John Wilkes Booth led an exemplary life; his only lapse was the assassination of President Lincoln." 2) There must have been hundreds of reviews written of Black's book. Choosing to feature in this article the same review that IBM choose to quote on their website is far from neutral.

Unless good reasons are given to keep it, I intend to remove the paragraph beginning "A New York Times reviewer". Wanderer57 (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * While the section is more neutral than before, the naive reader is left with the idea that the Nazis only used the machinery to track people they wished to exterminate. Of course, this is nonsence. Like all governments everywhere, they used the machinery to track everything and everybody - census, personnel assignments, etc. Tracking people they didn't like was one function of hundreds. While some people today may identify a tabulating machine as an instrument of murder, it was highly unlikely that anyone did so then. Until 1939, Americans, as did most Europeans, held the Germans in high regard. Monday morning quarterbacking can always find fault, I suppose. Student7 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to change the section summarizing the book review of the book in question, feel free, but I believe it belongs here as much as the summariziation of Black's book. The claims made in the book are very serious, and the New York Times book review rebuts some of the claims. Is the New York Times an unreliable source? If you don't like the paragraph, don't delete it, fix it. This section tends to violate NPOV, and the review seems to offer a counter-point to the claims. Maybe I did summarize the article too tersely, but it should be known that Mr. Black's opinions and research are not completely accepted, and why.

Going back to my original point, can we trim down and modify this section to make it more effective? Angryapathy (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Angryapathy: I don't know how to fix the problem except by deleting the paragraph.  The problem is not the wording of the paragraph per se.  The problem is the choice to refer to the one book review, OUT OF MANY, that IBM chose to quote on their website.  I think we have an honest disagreement on this point.  I'm going to seek other opinion.


 * As for your original point, that the section should be improved, I agree. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3O The section reads as somewhat of a plot summary or excerpt of a book review than a neutral encyclopedic summary of the topic. The use of non-neutral, editorial words to avoid or weasel words like "numerous", "wide range", "admit", "extensively", "actively worked", "worked aggressively", "consistently refused", etc. also undermine the neutrality of the passage. While this content absolutely merits inclusion in article and the article as a whole would stand to benefit from merging the content under "Major events..." with the "Timeline" to avoid the emergence of a standalone criticism section, I worry that the section provides undue weight to a particular perspective that is decidedly not neutral. I would encourage editors to incorporate more journalistic and scholarly work on the topic. Please also review WP:CONTROVERSY, WP:ENEMY, and WP:NPOV tutorial. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Having skimmed some more scholarly and critical reviews of the book, I would encourage the following to be incorporated with the understanding that this article is not the place for assessing the quality of the book but neutrally and verifiably summarizing the topic itself. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heide, L. Annals of Histories of Computing, IEEE
 * Allen, M. Technology & Culture


 * I think one other issue we have here is one that seems to be running rampant on Wikipedia, namely original research, WP:OR. The section that summarizes IBM and the Holocaust does not have a source except for the book itself, which is the policies of WP suggest against, from WP:PRIMARY.  "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."  What we have on the History of IBM page is an original analysis of the book, which is the primary source.  We should try and find a secondary source that refers to the book.  Otherwise, what is transcribed onto WP is original research, hence the NPOV problems some of us have noticed. I shall try to take a look tomorrow to see how we can incorporate this information properly into the article by finding some other articles about the issue. Angryapathy (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:PRIMARY, the book would qualify as a secondary source since it was written some 50 years after the events and based upon primary sources like archival materials and interviews. This article should faithfully represent the arguments made by the book, but not give it undue weight or otherwise portray the situation in anything but a neutral and verifiable manner. Nor should the synthesis advance a POV as it appears is the case now. Certainly bring in tertiary sources like reviews and critiques of the book but also bring in other secondary sources like journalistic accounts and other research. Was IBM involved in some capacity with Nazi Germany? The reliable and authoritative sources appear to say so. The goal, then is to neutrally describe the extent of this involvement without getting into thorny issues of intent or responsibility or liability. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, when you sell technological material to a country, of course you "interact" with them, because they wouldn't know how to use it (or why to buy it in the first place). "Interaction" with customers has been fairly common since the start of the Industrial Revolution. So the "interaction" is not uncommon.


 * This is like selling crowbars to a regime and discovering later that they used crowbars to beat people to death. Actually, there are probably few things that are sold anyplace that can't be used for nefarious purposes. Imputing that subsequent murderous actions of the purchaser should reflect on the seller is stupid. We do this for guns and booze in the US, but that is about it. If a felon in the US, even today, misues anything, the seller is generally not blamed, unless he can be caught out by some obscure "deep pockets" trickery by a lawyer! Student7 (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks madcover, you're right about the book being a secondary source. I think the problem still goes back to original research in selectively summarizing the book.  We definately need a better source than the book itself.
 * One thing we, as editors of WP, need to remember is to ignore our personal feelings either way on this issue. I personally find Black's arguments tenuous at best, but my opinion doesn't matter.  The information belongs here on WP, and should be presented in a fair and neutral way as possible.
 * I think we have consensus to rework the section into something that satisfies WP:NPOV. Now for the hard part, actually rewriting the section, and getting consensus on the rewrite. Angryapathy (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree if there were WP:RELY authors out there saying similiar things and saying that IBM should have used "due diligence" when selling to the German government. The Nazi government is an enemy pejorative that we used subsequent to hostilities to distinguish between illegal activities of one regime as opposed to the democratic republic which followed and preceded. But up until hostilities commenced, the National Socialist Party was recognized universally as the legimate governmnet of Germany. There was no trading interdict against them until 1939 or later. Student7 (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Student7: IMO you have a tendency to push this discussion into the area of editor's opinions about what IBM and associated companies did prior to and during WWII. As I understand it, the topic here is meant to be the quality of the article, its deficiencies, neutrality, etc. As far as possible, any personal views you hold about the Nazi government, enemy pejoratives, the legitimacy of the National Socialist Party, IBM's activities, etc, should not be stated here.  Neither should my views on these topics.  Thank you.  Wanderer57 (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I do not agree


 * One clear issue is whether the book is WP:RELY and must therefore be quoted here. I think that is an off-the-wall opinion written to cater to the mass market and not a scholarly work at all. The fact that other companies: General Motors, General Electric, RCA, etc. etc. are not in for similar abuse suggests that the author has some axe to grind and is WP:BIASed and WP:NPOV. I don't think, based on this slender, alleged evidence, that the subsection should be here at all.


 * Another clear piece of information is that the hue and cry so common to the mass media has not be taken up here. Even the media considers it a dead issue. Does anyone take it seriously besides one editor here?


 * And why not discuss standards for admission to the article? What is wrong with that? Student7 (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Student7. Unfortunately I do not see how your reply addresses the concern I expressed.


 * My comments referred to these statements of yours: The Nazi government is an enemy pejorative that we used subsequent to hostilities to distinguish between illegal activities of one regime as opposed to the democratic republic which followed and preceded. But up until hostilities commenced, the National Socialist Party was recognized universally as the legimate governmnet of Germany. There was no trading interdict against them until 1939 or later. Whether these are your own opinions, unsupported assertions, or original research, IMO they are unnecessary in this discussion and they tend to distract from the issues we are supposed to deal with here.  Wanderer57 (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * They are, however, facts. I am sorry you find them "distracting." Facts that don't square with one's own pov have a way of doing that!


 * "Original research?" Let me suggest this - next time you are in a library of some size, try looking up material from the pages of Time (excerpts are easy to get even from a small library), Life, NY Times from about 1936 to 1939. Notice what sort of press Germany (run by the Nazis by then) get. You will probably be surprised. I remember a Time excerpt that seemed to worry about the Polish regime! In retrospect, a reader doesn't know whether to laugh or cry!


 * Make sure the material is from a generally recognized source. The Communist Daily Worker undoubtedly hated the Fascists right up until the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. They were shocked for awhile, then started supporting the Fascists, following the party line.


 * A Life excerpt seemed to reflect poorly on the fact that German expats having to cruise out beyond the 3-mile limit to vote on the Austrian Anschluss (union). They were all in favor of the union BTW. Apparently the US wouldn't allow some sort of vote within the US.


 * After defeating the Nazis soundly in WWII, it may have been natural to look for people who abetted them. Candidates have included Franklin Roosevelt, Pope Pius XII, and now IBM. St. Paul admitted to abetting the stoning of Stephen. He didn't actually throw stones, but "held the cloaks of those who did," and was very much supported killing Stephen. One needs this sort of fact when pointing the finger, looking for yet one more scapegoat. Companies tend to be amoral not immoral. If it is legal, they do it as long as the current political climate does not badly reflect on them.


 * Nowdays, companies cheerfully trade with Venezuela, various African regimes, etc. since there is no stigma involved, while carefully refraining from anything that appears to damage the climate. On Monday morning after the next war or terrorist incident, the climate may not seem as important as the dealing with some foreign instigators, but those facts are concealed from us today. As they were up until 1939. People were mainly pro-German (and by association, pro-Nazi) right up until 1939. Check it out yourself! Why take my word for it? Student7 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Student, I think you need to read the rules of guidelines of WP. We are not here to debate history.  Here is the issue at hand: "Is Edwin Black's book notable enough to be on Wikipedia?" Our opinions of the Nazi regime, the history of fascism or communism is not relevent. Let me be clear: Is the book, not the content, notable? If the book is notable enough, then we add the content, regardless of how we feel about the content. I think you should refocus your debate away from history and more onto Edwin Black and his book.  Otherwise, your comments, while valid in other spheres, will not be heard here on Wikipedia. Angryapathy (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The book is WP:POV and irrelevant in the context of history IMO. The premise of the book has to be "true" which can be determined by support from other scholars, none of whom have seemed to pick up on this. They haven't because it is anti-historical and preposterous. Student7 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that the book has a POV doesn't exclude its entry into articles. To be an effective editor is to ignore your feelings towards the subject. I personally disagree with the points raised in the book, but the consensus is to include it on this page.  What is important when adding the info is to translate the POV of Edwin Black to make the reader understand his opinions and research.  (BTW, WP:POV isn't a guideline) Yes, his research may not be 100% perfect, so that is why we would include a rebuttal information if available.  I would say the lack of "support from other scholars" is not the big factor; the important factor is if his book is completely discredited by other scholars, which it has not.  I am going to attempt a rewrite of the section, and we'll see how you feel afterward and see if you feel it reflects the POV properly. Angryapathy (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All right, I have made a significant edit to the section to try and attain NPOV. I'm sure there is a little more work to be done, but I believe it is leaps and bounds better than the original section. For instance, I used WP:SUBSTANTIATE when referring to the claims of Edwin Black. While Mr. Black may have documents and facts, his interptretation of those facts needs to be referenced. The previous section presented his claims and opinions as absolute facts. I do not feel my edit is the end of the matter, but I do feel it is a good step in the right direction. Angryapathy (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO the current wording omits the point that Black's book is supported by many references to sources. It is not unsupported accusation and allegation, which I think this wording would lead many readers to think.


 * Also, a minor point, the last sentence of your paragraph two is barely related to the rest of that paragraph.


 * More importantly, I don't think that an appropriate task of a Wikipedia editor is to translate the POV of Edwin Black to make the reader understand his opinions and research.


 * Wanderer57 (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I put some edits in based on your comments. I think we will have to agree to disagree on the validity of Mr. Black's arguments, but I think it's coming across that while his book is researched, his views and conclusions are not held by everyone. Angryapathy (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I confess to forgetting that IBM would have a German subsidiary for which the corporation would feel responsible, not only to the employees but to the stockholders. This would definitely put a CEO of an international firm in a delicate position. And corporations are by their nature amoral, despite all acting to the contrary.


 * Note that the "award" to the book was not from historians, but from "authors." Kind of like a Pulitzer Prize for fiction. Not exactly the type of award that should make us feel forced to feature this book. Mere publication of a book does not mean that it must be included. That is a fiction that seems to be prevalent in the above discussion. It just is not true.


 * By its nature, IBM equipment is used for all personnel type tracking. It is not inherently dangerous like a cluster mine, or cigarettes or something. Nearly all material can be used in nefarious schemes. The article does not seem to mention that the equipment was used mostly for all personnel and material tracking within Germany. It seems to suggest that it was only used for the Holocaust which is doubtful. More importantly, the secret Wannsee Conference proposing a "final solution" was not held until 1942, after the war had started for the US, and after a blockade would have taken affect. Nor were the results of this conference known generally until after the war, however well it was known inside Nazi high circles. Therefore, the complicity of anyone in IBM (US) would have been minimal. I don't know about IBM (Germany) but they would have taken orders like everyone else, I suppose. Student7 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Student7 and others -- the insinuation here seems to be that IBM was "tied" to the Nazi regime, and the implication is that IBM is somehow morally culpable for the actions of the Nazis. A singular source, no matter how damning, is being given entirely too much undue weight, and the presentation of the material is far from neutral.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Much of what has been written in this section seems to be attempts to debate Black's book and to refute what he wrote. This is totally NOT what we are supposed to be doing here.  Whether editor X or editor Y agrees or disagrees with Black is not relevant.  Wanderer57 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. I'll pass, as red herring disagrees with my stomach... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize, Blaxthos, if my comment seemed to be directed particularly at what you wrote. It was not so directed.


 * My wording was "Much of what has been written in this section...." and it referred to earlier posts.


 * At the same time, your statement that you "agree with Student7" does somewhat link you to his (or her) statements. IMO, Student7 has provided prime examples of posts based on personal opinion.


 * As I don't seem to be able to convince any of the current discussants in this page of much, if anything, I'm going to bow out. Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wanderer, sorry if I misunderstood your point. MY point isn't that "Black is right/wrong"; my points are: (1) a singular source shouldn't be given undue weight, (2) others (including book reviewers) have questioned some of Black's conclusions, and (3) the wording of the section (and Black's express intent) seems to be to indict IBM for "wrongdoing" during WWII (decidedly against WP:NPOV).  None of those seem acceptable to me... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

IBM's role in the Holocaust is already mentioned in the section "1925–1949: IBM's early growth". A whole section devoted to this topic is completely inappropriate. I am in favor of bringing information about the Holocaust to people, but this isn't the way. It would be best treated in a section in the Holocaust article about companies outside Germany that were complicit, but for some reason, such a section in that article doesn't seem to exist. It should be created and companies complicit with the Holocaust should be there. Or perhaps there should be a separate article devoted to the topic.

In today's culture it's sometimes hard to understand the significant antisemitism that was present in many civilized countries during the time leading up to WWII. But putting a separate section about IBM's role, when it is already mentioned in another section, is not the proper way to address the issue. It should be in an article about or related to the Holocaust. The section "IBM's role in WWII and the Holocaust" should be deleted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe it should be worded (quick and dirty) "Black wrote a book decrying IBM's help to the Nazis in persecuting the Jews. He won an writing award for his book. Historians did not agree." Student7 (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Things have really gone off track here. The article is about IBM, not Black or his book, nor about any of the other references and authors used in this article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Much improved. Just wondering if Germany only used punched card equipment for the sole use of tracking Jews. To me this seems unlikely and suggests qualifying the sentence with "used by Germany, among other things, to track...."


 * But the new changes make a lot more sense, are in context, are accurate and npov. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thanks. I don't know how to comment re "other things". I guess the question would be, what are the other things that weren't related to the Holocaust? Since the Holocaust was so large, it may well have been that the punch card machines were used only for the Holocaust. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
In practical usage, "holocaust" refers to the systematic murder of the Jews (and others). It is highly unlikely that IBM computers were only used by the Reich to track Jews. It is almost certain that the Reich used the machines for all sorts of purposes -- from Human Resources to finances -- and it's facetious to imply that there wass a special arrangement between IBM and the Reich with regard to the murder of Jews. One book doesn't constitute due weight, nor does anything more than once sentence to the effect of "IBM sold computers to Nazi Germany, which were used (in part) to track Jews for extermination." Re-word as appropriate, but implying anything more (especially with one non-peer reviewed source) is academically dishonest (and certainly not neutral, verifiable, or reliably sourced). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like you need a source to support your point that the machines were used for something other than holocaust-related applications. Who knows, the source for your point might be the same book. You might try checking it out at the library.


 * On the talk page, editor opinions are of course OK, but as editors, our opinion in an article isn't worth squat and is called a violation of WP:NOR. Furthermore, to criticize an item in the article because there is only one source for the info, yet try to get something into the article that has no source, seems very, very inconsistent.


 * However, I am curious about how you determined that the time involved in inputting data for millions of people with the 1930's version of the punch card machines and making the requisite runs to regularly track those people, wouldn't take up the majority of the time of the machines, operators and analysts. How did you reach that conclusion? Could you share your calculations and info that you used to determine that? Thanks.


 * P.S. I started to make such a calculation myself, but I came to realize that I didn't know enough about the speed of the 1930's machines and operators, nor how many data cards were needed for each person, nor how many machines the Germans had, nor etc. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As an afterthought, I realize that there may have been punch card machines that were dedicated to Holocaust-related applications, and there may have been other punch card machines that were dedicated to other applications in Germany. But in any case, a source is needed to support any such claims. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NOR only applies to stuff that goes in the articles, not talk page discussions. I knew someone would try to raise an OR issue when I was typing the statement.  It's for discussion purposes here, not to be included in the article itself... use some common sense -- there is no indication that tracking Jews in the Holocaust was the only use of IBM computers by Nazi Germany; the Nazis were nothing else if not organized, and it's unfathomable to consider or argue that they wouldn't have utilized the machines in other areas of operation (other areas being what the computers were initially designed to do (ie not exterminating jews)).
 * I made no mention about "time involved inputting data" -- not sure what this is about... was it directed towards a comment above the arbitrary break?
 * You ignored my point about due weight. My point is that one sentence, sourced to the book and neutrally presented, is acceptable given the broad context of the article; a whole section or paragraph, especially with a singular source, gives the idea that IBM is somehow partially responsible for the Holocaust, violates WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V.
 * Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe there is just some misunderstandings here, perhaps by both of us.


 * 1) Re your item 3 - The section in the article that you are referring to was deleted by me on April 1, 2009, so that should satisfy the undue weight issue.


 * 2) Re your item 2 - I had the misunderstanding that the point was that the same machines that were used for Holocaust-related apps were shared for other apps. I think I cleared up my misunderstanding in this regard and mentioned that with my previous message re dedicated machines. This seems to be just a misunderstanding that we can now ignore.


 * 3) Re part of your item 1 - I thought that you wanted to put something in the article about how the machines were used by Germany for other apps besides Holocaust-related apps without giving a source. As it turns out, I googled and found a source to support that contention. (In other words, I think I am helping you.) Here's the excerpt.
 * Historians have known for decades of Nazi use of Hollerith tabulators - the mainframe computer of its era.


 * But Black's book last year opened up debate on the little understood role of how central IBM technology may have been in allowing Nazis to systematically identify and help select victims of the Holocaust.


 * 4) re part of your item 1 that WP:NOR applies to articles, not talk pages - That's what I said in my message above! Here's the quote from my message, "On the talk page, editor opinions are of course OK, but as editors, our opinion in an article isn't worth squat and is called a violation of WP:NOR."


 * Anyhow, are we in agreement now? If not, let me know. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

IBM and Japanese American internment
I prepared the following for addition to the article immediately following the sentence about the Holocaust. However, give the apparent sensitivities of these topics, it's here for comment instead. My intent was to demonstrate the not so surprising observation that the citizens of BOTH Germany and the United States used the technology available to them in support of their respective governments. Note that in this (American) case, it wasn't just IBM machines - it was IBM operating the machines. tooold (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

In 1942 the United States forcibly relocated Japanese American's and others to concentration or internment camps. IBM was the subcontractor for the War Relocation Authority's punched card project. ''...His grand design for 1943 was a "locator file" in which would appear a Hollerith alphabetic punch card for each evacuee. These cards were to include standard demographic information about age, gender, education, occupation, family size, medical history, criminal record, and RC location. However, additional data categories about links to Japan were also maintained, such as years of residence in Japan and the extent of education received there....The punch card project was so extensive and immediate that the WRA [War Relocation Authority] subcontracted the function to IBM.''

tooold (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Although the size of the above suggested edit is clearly inappropriate, it does raise an important question regarding what to include in this article. IBM made a product, the card punch machine, that was very useful for many applications, which included the good, the bad, the ugly, and mostly the uncontroversial. Unless there is a source that states (not just gives innuendo) that IBM was significantly motivated by anything other than profit, directly or indirectly, there doesn't seem to be a good reason for specifying any particular application of those machines, except in general terms. Otherwise, there may be a violation of WP:NPOV.


 * I recognize that this also raises the question as to whether the use of the IBM machines in the Japanese Internment and the Holocaust should be included in the article. In that regard, did any source state (not just give innuendo) that IBM was significantly motivated by anything other than profit, from the sale and help that it gave to Germany prior to WWII and the sale and help it gave to its country the US re the Japanese Internment specifically, rather than the war effort in general? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Bob. I have to object to the approach you take here:   Unless there is a source that states (not just gives innuendo) that IBM was significantly motivated by anything other than profit, directly or indirectly, there doesn't seem to be a good reason for specifying any particular application of those machines, except in general terms. 
 * You seem to me to be setting up a test for inclusion/exclusion of material from the article that is a) based on personal opinion and b) has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. I, or another editor, could easily come up with a different test.  I won't do that because that is not what we are supposed to be here to do.  Wanderer57 (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Products can be used for all sorts of nefarious purposes -- that doesn't give justification to implying that the manufacturer is culpable for those actions. Should an article about Glock include all the deaths attributed to murders using Glock pistols?  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point seems reasonable to me. One might suggest that there is a difference in the IBM case because IBM personnel helped the Germans with the machines, but as far as I can see, that help was no different than the help that IBM would give to any of its customers that bought those machines. Maybe someone else will comment on it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wanderer57, Thanks for your response, but my remarks are only meant to be a discussion of whether the Holocaust and Japanese internment items should be in the article, which is of course the type of discussion that this talk page is meant for. This talk page is the place for all of us to express our opinions about what should be in the article.


 * I have the impression that you would like the Holocaust and Japanese internment items to be included in the article. It would be helpful if you mentioned your reasons for wanting to include them. Also, please try to address my previous remarks specifically, rather than making some general pronouncements where you seem to be saying that I shouldn't express my opinion. BTW  I'm not irrevocably committed to any position on this issue and I'm willing to listen to reasonable arguments.
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not ignoring this discussion; I'm dealing with some urgent business. I'll reply here as soon as possible.  Wanderer57 (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless IBM's involvement in this particular area of history is significant in its history (from, say, a market penetration perspective with regards to the American government), I fail to see how such a large edit is necessary. A simple one- or two-sentence blurb about this event would suffice. // Manatrance (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed improvements
I've moved the proposals to History of IBM/Sandbox, though it still needs to have talk page comments removed and moved to Talk:History of IBM/Sandbox. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The talk page comments have been moved to Talk:History of IBM/Sandbox. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Expansion issues
Coupla things: I'll try to get to most of these later today. I had done it once, but self-reverted because it appears i had clobbered Paul's efforts (sorry paul!). :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Looks like we broke references in the introduction, where the [1] just appears in the text (this is done when we copy from the web page instead of the edit box, which doesn't capture references). Need to dig in history and re-introduce proper references for these numbers.
 * 2) Introduction section header needs to go (so the intro appears before the TOC)
 * 3) The narrative section should come before the timeline.
 * 4) We should use a dual-column reflist instead of single (reflist template)
 * 5) We should try to fix (or remove) redlinks from sources


 * NP. I thought I saw your reformats briefly, just minutes after posting the changes, and I was thinking wow - you're quick! But then I couldn't find it again and figured I was seeing things. :-) I think these suggestions are excellent. Never did figure out how to multiple reference one source for several citations - sorry! Also, not sure how to address the red links. But if you can point me to instructions on rectifying them, I'll see what I can do. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh I don't want this to be like King Blax making edicts... I'll be helping too. :) Red links are links to articles that don't exist.  They're usually due to article deletions or typos.  I'll dig into them this weekend.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please figure out how the references got translated into [1], [2] etc in the introduction. I think that someone copied and pasted from the article rather than from the source code in the edit window.  Could someone who followed the article (or perhaps made the mistaken edit), please fix this? There is nothing wrong with a red link, so long as it is not the result of a minor typo from the correct link name. Racepacket (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Very much agree. I was hoping that Paul would have a chance to dig into it, and it kinda fell off my radar.  I'll try to do some digging in the history and re-link them.  Thanks for the reminder!  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been traveling a lot the last few weeks. Where do we stand with this now? Also, do you think the key events might be better positioned before the topic/trends section? Topics/Trends is the most random/inconsistent of content sections IMHO, and so I think users might have more context to access/understand its content if the key events are positioned in front. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome back, Paul! Still needs doing.  I dug into the history some but i couldn't find from where you copied the text with the busted references.  Do you think you still have records so we can re-reference the intro?  Regarding the rest -- Wikipedia generally discourages bullet-list style timelines, and so I think it would be preferred if we could lead with prose, and then have the timeline towards the end.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I got them from the intro to the IBM Wikipedia entry, which I think I lifted just about en masse. Not sure how to efficiently cut and paste them though. Here are the references:
 * Executive compensation at IBM.
 * "Nanotechnology & Nanoscience". http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research.nsf/pages/r.nanotech.html.
 * CNET Networks, "IBM challenges partner Cisco".
 * "IBM maintains patent lead, moves to increase patent quality". 2006-01-10. http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2006/01/2006_01_10.html.
 * "Worldwide IBM Research Locations". IBM. http://www.research.ibm.com/worldwide/. Retrieved 2006-06-21.
 * "Awards & Achievements". IBM. http://www.research.ibm.com/resources/awards.shtml. Retrieved 2009-08-13.   Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

IBM Role in the Holocaust Revisited without Company PR
I have noticed that the existing entry on IBM’s involvement in the Holocaust have changed over the months until it virtually resembles verbatim IBM press releases and the disinformation of its surrogates. After studying the book, and it thousands of footnotes and abundant materials and documentation on the Internet, I have created a new entry. To do so, I cut and paste from existing highly vetted Wikipedia entries on IBM and the Holocaust, author Edwin Black and many other related topics. Because so much of the text I created was cut and pasted and then adapted from existing Wiki entries, the hyperlinked footnote numbers have been attached but the footnote entries need to be transferred, but I do not know how to do that. I need help. But in asking for help, I quote another discussion on Wikipedia in another topic area: Editors will note a recurring effort by IBM and or its employees and supporters to either delete, influence or otherwise water down this article for obvious reasons. There are a million copies in print in 60 countries. The book, a NY Times best seller, has been the basis of numerous international lawsuits, a collection of documentaries, and years of articles, reviews and History Day school reports. I read the entire book, and I count more than a thousand primary footnotes. IBM has never denied the documentation. Anyone is invited to see www.edwinblack.com or www.ibmandtheholocaust.com. Wikipedia should not be misused to censor information about the Holocaust. THOMAS1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.39.142.232 (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now half of the article reads like a book advertisement. I prefer the "IBM press releases." Andries (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I made further changes by saving and placing the general WWII Allied info in a separate section. I do not know how to create paragraphs, so help is needed there. In reading the prior entry on IBM and the Holocaust, I was amazed to actually read as vetted Wiki text a company press statement from I guess 2001 or 2002 that was placed in verbatim and even used the phrase "over the weekend." I hope editors will prevent Wikipedia from becoming an IBM press release outlet where independent balanced fact would serve better. I think constant vigilance is called for to remain factual on the Holocaust, the Depression era, patents and other sections I have seen. THOMAS1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.212.245.152 (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The reorganization and new content on IBM and the Holocaust done by Thomas1 seems to restore NPOV and factuality and eliminates the text taken directly from the IBM press releases. Changes should be made only carefully. Paxton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.212.240.110 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that someone reverted to new Thomas1 entry just minutes after it was entered with the notation that the press release was preferrable. Please protect the Thomas1 text unless appropriately improved. Paxton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.212.240.110 (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas1 and Paxton. The almost verbatim IBM Press release replaced by Thomas1 with already vetted Wikipedia postings from other areas is appropriate, factual and balanced with NPOV. I also disagree with Andries that the press release is preferable. Andries should not delete a studied entry without discussion. Andries should please check the facts and Wiki policies. I have myself reinstated the Thomas text, but added paragraphing since he or she was unable to. Andried should not dlete my entry as he or she did for the Thomas1 entry. Tal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.194.37.241 (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I continue to hold the opinion that the old version with the "IBM press releases" was more balanced. The article now reads like a book advertisement and follows the book uncritically. I prefer that more sources are used, that the book is summarized and that statements unless undisputed facts are explicitly attributed (e.g. "According to ....) Andries (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the previous discussion on this talk page then you will see that I am not the first and only one who has voiced these concerns of relying too much on one book. Andries (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

At first blush, Andries point of the entry seeming like "a book ad" was of concern to me. But on further reflection, I see that this book is already listed in the IBM timeline as an event unto itself. In 2001. Therefore, this book must be treated with some depth. Its contents are summarized as Andries suggests. In view of IBM's attacks on the book, the company's silence, and the unusual amount of retractions and openly admitted false statements on the book, all that becomes part of the factual fabric that belongs squarely in the entry. Indeed, again because of IBM attacks and confirmed false statements, and several lawsuits by Holocaust survivors and gypsies, plus the IBM employee Zamczyk who called for the company to be prosecuted--all triggered by the book event, that too belongs in the entry. In a way, IBM itself--and its allies--helped make much of the additional story so that the book as well as the information have now become part of the history of IBM. Therefore I agree with Thomas1, Paxton and Tal that the entry is well-organized, balanced, factual, almost entirely is based on other Wikipedia entries scattered across several topics, and reflects as much NPOV as such a book event of this caliber would trigger. Thomas1 did a good job of also retaining the Allied efforts by IBM. I think any sensible editor would agree that we should run a dated IBM press release or closely approximate them. My final nod is to leave the Thomas1 text as it is. BW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.143.3 (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If IBM and the Holocaust is a notable controversy/criticism (which I doubt) then there must be more sources for it then just one book. If there are more sources then use them in the article. If not, then one or two sentences mentioning the book are enough for this article if it should be mentioned at all. Andries (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what Andries is asking. The entry describes both a book and a topic which together became a milemarker in 2001 for IBM. The book was indeed unique because it published an exclusive investigation based on several dozen researchers--new information from diverse sources featuring thousands of footnotes. I have read it and so have millions of others. Not sure if Andries has read it. From the public record we can see the book and the content against IBM was independently vetted by more than a two dozen of the biggest publishers in the world in many countries, as well as many of the largest newspapers and magazine in those countries such as The Times of London and Newsweek and so on. From the industry we see this is the first book in history to be published simultaneously in a dozen in forty countries. It appears hundreds of independent scholars have publicly endorsed both the book and the information--and that is important to show the duality--both content and book--and these endorsements have gone on for years before publication and since publication. Those who tried to undercut it have publicly signed retractions and confessions--that is unique I think. The book and the content is taught in college courses all over the country and the author lectures to computer schools and business ethics classes as well as history centers--hundreds per year since 2001. Numerous independent filmmakers, video makers, news producers and so forth have also validated the content. The entry itself describes the book content in any a few sentences, and the rest is devoted to the 2 independent lawsuits in US and Geneva, plus the demands on IBM from groups and the activities of its employees. Not sure whether Andries objects to the Holocaust reference, the book reference or both? Once again, from I see the entry mainly quotes fairly other Wiki entries. Debating this endlessly seems counterproductive. Nothing will prevent anyone from deleting the NPOV vetted content and replacing it with the IBM press release--but I think that would be a degradation of Wiki--something I hope Andries does not want to occur. I support the several voices who want this entry to remain undiluted unless factually countered. West March22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.151.2.155 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the book is endorsed by scholars then please mention these endorsements in the article. Andries (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am unaware of any scholarly support for the books (or the facts it alleges). Indeed, if memory serves correctly there were a number of corrections of errors and/or complete retractions after its publication.  I don't think that any Wikipedia article or section (especially one about one of the world's largest corporations and the murder of millions of people) should rely on a singular book -- especially one that isn't supported by scholarly sources and doesn't have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  There is a clear bias currently presented, mainly by giving undue weight to a questionable source.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to see scholarly support for the book, here are a few dozen scholars, try this http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/comments.php, and Jewish leaders as well. If you want to see retractions of criticism and confession of lies about the book, go here http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/hollerithdenial.php. If you want to see a long list of campuses that have invited the author to give a scholarly presentation http://www.edwinblack.com/index.php?page=10190... just to see the last 12 months. If you want to see a few dozen independent editors and publishers who have validated the book for publication worldwide go here http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/27Editions.php. If you want to see the original tour with top sponsoring organizations and scholarly groups go here http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/events.php. If you want to see some independent filmmakers with close ups of documents go here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkoM8RB-kJ0. If you want to see these documents presented in IBM's founding city of Endicott NY, here is a partial view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFxqSHjAYSE. If Blaxthos has found an error that is not retracted or corrected perhaps he can offer it--repeat not retracted or corrected. My question is has Blaxthos read the book or is he hypothesizing about the contents? I have read the book. You can do what you like and I will not get drawn into a protracted give and take, but the Holocaust is real, IBM's involvement is real, the facts in the book are real and the reality that IBM declines to deny any of the facts despite lawsuits, thousands of articles, many videos, hundreds of academic presentations and so forth is also real. These realities have stood the test of time. So Blaxthos is welcome to exercise his delete key, but it should be based on facts and anyone can spend the 5 minutes I did to find these sources on the net. Judging by Blaxthos prior remarks on the topic, and hoping good faith will prevail, I suggest we stick with the copy Thomas has inserted and others have concurred with. But if biased views prevail, no one can stop a delete key. P West. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.229.23.150 (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One, a singular book, the author's personal website, a youtube video, and a website dedicated to that singular point of view do not reliable sources make; nor does a list of speaking engagements. What we seek are peer-reviewed academic journals that publish papers and reviews supporting the claims made.  Two, I offer your own words as evidence that you're not being (and may not be able to be) objective about the subject -- at the first challenge of academic rigor, you implicitly accuse me of being a Holocaust denier.  Just because I request some academic support before we damn IBM to eternity does not remotely justify that sort of bad faith accusation.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I found one... you asked for one, and really I see many--Harvard International Review article by Prof Urekew Black's meticulous documentation constructs an undeniable fact: after the outbreak of WWII, the IBM corporation knew where each of its leased (not sold) machines was in Europe, and what revenues it could expect from them. Each machine was insured and serviced monthly. Even though Watson, under public pressure, returned his medal to Hitler, he continued to "micromanage" the German and European operations. Further, he fought to keep control of his German subsidiary, knowing full well the profits that would accrue to IBM as a result. He did this with the knowledge, fuller than most, of the purposes for which his machines were deployed." William Seltzer of Fordham said something similar... and well there are so many. Proquest would have a bunch. My question is why Blaxthos writes these words "I am unaware of any scholarly support for the books (or the facts it alleges)" when more than 50 are visible from leading academicians and historians. I suppose we could say we need 51 or we need them writing in journals, or newspapers, or magazines, or live interview or all of that and all of that is clearly visible. Right now I would be grateful to hear Blaxthos explain his statement so I could square it with Proquest, authors site, independent IBM employee from Poland. I think no level of fact will be enough for Blaxthos. Perhaps the bias is not with Thomas.KINTA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.229.23.140 (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I tend to agree that no matter what is written, you dismiss it. The internet and the literature seem to be replete with scores of unqualified scholarly praise from the most acknowledged sources--from Simon Wiesenthal to a long list of others---and you pretend these don't exist. They are in plain English. The actual, independent websites can be viewed and I, too, have a subscription to Proquest and can see original images. I would ask for Blaxthos to stop abraiding the numerous individuals who have quoted, cited and linked the necessary level of information. It is clear to me where the bias lies and I hope I will not be the next target of attack because I can read these validating words as they are visible to anyone in the world. Confred —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.147.138 (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing with Confred, West, Thomas and Paxton and several others. The logic here is falling prey to extreme bias against the facts and an earth is flat approach. Assuming good faith, but noting the discussion as it unfolded, we see that first Andries did not want sample reviews included then he asked they should be included if we could find one that was academic, and of course Harvard International Review and Midstream--found that-- are both peer-reviewed. Then Blaxthos claimed, "I am unaware of any scholarly support for the books (or the facts it alleges). Indeed, if memory serves correctly there were a number of corrections of errors and/or complete retractions after its publication." Read those words again. I did. There are several elements to Blaxthos' two sentences. Element One: "I am unaware of any scholarly support for the books (or the facts it alleges)." Then 50 or so were immediately visible. Blaxthos then stated he wanted those historians not just to support the book, and the factual content indicting IBM, in unambiguous public pronouncements but in print, and then not just in print but in scholarly journals, and so we see a constant escalating bar where Blaxthos has set himself up to dismiss or rule upon scores of scholars and the way and modality they express they themselves. The point is, first Blaxthos asserted there was no scholarly support and then we see abundant scholarly support in many forms. Even when you read the academic retractions, those academics issue a statement of unqualified support for the book and the IBM-related content of the book as essential reading. More important, in my view, Element Two is very important. Blaxthos claimed, "Indeed, if memory serves correctly there were a number of corrections of errors." I ask Blaxthos to cite one such correction or to amend his statement to said that charge was utterly non-factual. In replying, please refer to the sentence: "Indeed, if memory serves correctly there were a number of corrections of errors." Element Three: "complete retractions after its publication." Can Blaxthos support that statement of "a complete retraction." The book is still selling everywhere nearly a decade later if you check Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc etc. Th content is taught in many colleges. Where is this "complete retraction." Now I understand why the entry Thomas created treated the issue of retractions by academics. There is a constant stream of completely utterly false statements about the book's content and the book. In fact, I found one debunked review by an academic that stated Black's methods were flawed because he "used the Internet" to communicate with researchers and historians overseas. What can we say about such a comment? Back to retractions and Blaxthos, and maintaining politeness and good faith, I request one shred of factual substantiation to Element Two and Three so we can see it, evaluate it. Unless this is possible, I think we would all benefit from yet another retraction right here merely for the purposes of clarity. For this request for facts and verifiability, I am asking not to be attacked as others have been for pointing to or requesting verifiable facts. If I am attacked, I will exit. KINTA. Excuse any typos.

I join others who would welcome Blaxthos providing a basis we can neutrally evaulate for his statement: "Indeed, if memory serves correctly there were a number of corrections of errors and/or complete retractions after its publication." I have just searched the Google in the US and the UK, and done a Muse and Lexis Nexus search. There is NO mention anywhere of a retraction or correction of any statement in the book by any publisher on earth--and I count 28-29 publishers worldwide, hard to tell. No demand for a retraction or correction. No suggestion of one. No trace of one. Just other reviewers who have retracted their false statements and done so in signed notices on letterhead. This brings up the question of the Blaxthos remark. Unless we can see some sctintilla of a source, it further brings up the question of good faith since absent such a basis, good faith is not in effect from my view and that of most clear thinking people. So now I ask not only for the evidence behind this statement, right or wrong... but the good faith basis right or wrong that supported the statement in the first place. In doing so, I assume all good faith but follow up on Blaxthos' invoking the good faith bad faith principle. I await a response to the good faith basis for the sentences Blathox wrote. If these cannot be found, perhaps Blaxthos would consider a retraction not only here. In view of his statement that IBM should not be tarnished with unsupported statements, does the same ethic apply to Mr. Black. Others can chime in as to whether Mr. Black is owed an apology, correction or retraction for statements made that I am thinking will be shown to be in the utter absence of a good faith basis. Please do not attack me for quoting Blaxthos or doing the verifying follow-up Wikipedia requires on all topics and living people who can be defamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.229.23.130 (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me chime in please. I also did a search although I had no access to the Lexus Nexus. However my search was reasonably extensive. I found zero suggestions or hints of a retraction or correction by Mr. Black or his publishers. I have looked at the visible record on Blaxthos on this topic. It speaks for itself. I therefore would also like to see the good faith basis Blaxthos used to assert there were corrections or retractions from the author or publishers. I also wonder if anyone knows what the impact such a statement--if not verified or if no good faith predicate can be shown-- has on the reputation of Mr. Black, this following on the principle first brought up by Blaxthos. I can only imagine that any statement by Blaxthos that Mr. Black's work was retracted or corrected when it was not, and there is no basis for suggesting it was I think, might carry its own dimension. My comment here is set forth in good faith and I also do not wish to be maligned or attacked. RonnyD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.1.130 (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone or something has deleted the entire Discussion about IBM's Role the Holocaust. The last thing visible on the Discussion page is an amiable exchange last year between the IBM Archivist Paul Lasewicz and the editor Blaxthos. This delete action wiped out numerous meaningful contributions, questions and posts of individuals which shed light on this question--probably a dozen or more. There is no indication of who deleted it or how it was deleted.In the interests of the record and clarity, I have restored from the Wiki history and captured it case someone again makes it vanish. If I am missing something, please advise me. Sorry if I erred here. Perhaps the section was deleted by an admin on the issue of remarks made against Mr. Black about his work being corrected or retracted that appear to have no factual underpinnings or good faith basis. Best I can see, such statements are false. If someone decided that the section must go, kindly correct me and explain. That said, I would add my name to the posters who have asked Blaxthos to share any good faith suggestion that the book was corrected or retracted, so we may evaluate it. At the same time, allow me to ask a question: Would be correct or incorrect to state that Blaxthos had a direct or perhaps indirect involvement from about 1992 to 1997 with work that the author Edwin Black was engaged in. Knowing that might help us understand the nature of the many assertions and edits Blaxthos has made with regard to work of Edwin Black and the topic of IBM. I note like others that my questions here assumed good faith, but merely asked for clarifications. Kan-zy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.106.209 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View issues?
Forgive me if I've flagged this article unnecessarily but the article, while well written, does read very much like a promotion of IBM. An example of this is the section on the Great Depression. I am prepared to believe the company is wonderful but it just reads like a sales brochure. Perhaps like some other articles a "criticism" section could be added. Perhaps more measured critique of the company and its actions over history might be useful. --mgaved (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. The listed key events do not seem to be key events from a view of reputable third party reliable sources. Andries (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

IBM Role in the Holocaust Revisited without Company PR 2
I have noticed that the existing entry on IBM’s involvement in the Holocaust have changed over the months until it virtually resembles verbatim IBM press releases and the disinformation of its surrogates. After studying the book, and it thousands of footnotes and abundant materials and documentation on the Internet, I have created a new entry. To do so, I cut and paste from existing highly vetted Wikipedia entries on IBM and the Holocaust, author Edwin Black and many other related topics. Because so much of the text I created was cut and pasted and then adapted from existing Wiki entries, the hyperlinked footnote numbers have been attached but the footnote entries need to be transferred, but I do not know how to do that. I need help. But in asking for help, I quote another discussion on Wikipedia in another topic area: Editors will note a recurring effort by IBM and or its employees and supporters to either delete, influence or otherwise water down this article for obvious reasons. There are a million copies in print in 60 countries. The book, a NY Times best seller, has been the basis of numerous international lawsuits, a collection of documentaries, and years of articles, reviews and History Day school reports. I read the entire book, and I count more than a thousand primary footnotes. IBM has never denied the documentation. Anyone is invited to see www.edwinblack.com or www.ibmandtheholocaust.com. Wikipedia should not be misused to censor information about the Holocaust. THOMAS1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.39.142.232 (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now half of the article reads like a book advertisement. I prefer the "IBM press releases." Andries (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I made further changes by saving and placing the general WWII Allied info in a separate section. I do not know how to create paragraphs, so help is needed there. In reading the prior entry on IBM and the Holocaust, I was amazed to actually read as vetted Wiki text a company press statement from I guess 2001 or 2002 that was placed in verbatim and even used the phrase "over the weekend." I hope editors will prevent Wikipedia from becoming an IBM press release outlet where independent balanced fact would serve better. I think constant vigilance is called for to remain factual on the Holocaust, the Depression era, patents and other sections I have seen. THOMAS1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.212.245.152 (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The reorganization and new content on IBM and the Holocaust done by Thomas1 seems to restore NPOV and factuality and eliminates the text taken directly from the IBM press releases. Changes should be made only carefully. Paxton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.212.240.110 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that someone reverted to new Thomas1 entry just minutes after it was entered with the notation that the press release was preferrable. Please protect the Thomas1 text unless appropriately improved. Paxton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.212.240.110 (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas1 and Paxton. The almost verbatim IBM Press release replaced by Thomas1 with already vetted Wikipedia postings from other areas is appropriate, factual and balanced with NPOV. I also disagree with Andries that the press release is preferable. Andries should not delete a studied entry without discussion. Andries should please check the facts and Wiki policies. I have myself reinstated the Thomas text, but added paragraphing since he or she was unable to. Andried should not dlete my entry as he or she did for the Thomas1 entry. Tal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.194.37.241 (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I continue to hold the opinion that the old version with the "IBM press releases" was more balanced. The article now reads like a book advertisement and follows the book uncritically. I prefer that more sources are used, that the book is summarized and that statements unless undisputed facts are explicitly attributed (e.g. "According to ....) Andries (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the previous discussion on this talk page then you will see that I am not the first and only one who has voiced these concerns of relying too much on one book. Andries (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

At first blush, Andries point of the entry seeming like "a book ad" was of concern to me. But on further reflection, I see that this book is already listed in the IBM timeline as an event unto itself. In 2001. Therefore, this book must be treated with some depth. Its contents are summarized as Andries suggests. In view of IBM's attacks on the book, the company's silence, and the unusual amount of retractions and openly admitted false statements on the book, all that becomes part of the factual fabric that belongs squarely in the entry. Indeed, again because of IBM attacks and confirmed false statements, and several lawsuits by Holocaust survivors and gypsies, plus the IBM employee Zamczyk who called for the company to be prosecuted--all triggered by the book event, that too belongs in the entry. In a way, IBM itself--and its allies--helped make much of the additional story so that the book as well as the information have now become part of the history of IBM. Therefore I agree with Thomas1, Paxton and Tal that the entry is well-organized, balanced, factual, almost entirely is based on other Wikipedia entries scattered across several topics, and reflects as much NPOV as such a book event of this caliber would trigger. Thomas1 did a good job of also retaining the Allied efforts by IBM. I think any sensible editor would agree that we should run a dated IBM press release or closely approximate them. My final nod is to leave the Thomas1 text as it is. BW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.143.3 (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If IBM and the Holocaust is a notable controversy/criticism (which I doubt) then there must be more sources for it then just one book. If there are more sources then use them in the article. If not, then one or two sentences mentioning the book are enough for this article if it should be mentioned at all. Andries (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what Andries is asking. The entry describes both a book and a topic which together became a milemarker in 2001 for IBM. The book was indeed unique because it published an exclusive investigation based on several dozen researchers--new information from diverse sources featuring thousands of footnotes. I have read it and so have millions of others. Not sure if Andries has read it. From the public record we can see the book and the content against IBM was independently vetted by more than a two dozen of the biggest publishers in the world in many countries, as well as many of the largest newspapers and magazine in those countries such as The Times of London and Newsweek and so on. From the industry we see this is the first book in history to be published simultaneously in a dozen in forty countries. It appears hundreds of independent scholars have publicly endorsed both the book and the information--and that is important to show the duality--both content and book--and these endorsements have gone on for years before publication and since publication. Those who tried to undercut it have publicly signed retractions and confessions--that is unique I think. The book and the content is taught in college courses all over the country and the author lectures to computer schools and business ethics classes as well as history centers--hundreds per year since 2001. Numerous independent filmmakers, video makers, news producers and so forth have also validated the content. The entry itself describes the book content in any a few sentences, and the rest is devoted to the 2 independent lawsuits in US and Geneva, plus the demands on IBM from groups and the activities of its employees. Not sure whether Andries objects to the Holocaust reference, the book reference or both? Once again, from I see the entry mainly quotes fairly other Wiki entries. Debating this endlessly seems counterproductive. Nothing will prevent anyone from deleting the NPOV vetted content and replacing it with the IBM press release--but I think that would be a degradation of Wiki--something I hope Andries does not want to occur. I support the several voices who want this entry to remain undiluted unless factually countered. West March22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.151.2.155 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the book is endorsed by scholars then please mention these endorsements in the article. Andries (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am unaware of any scholarly support for the books (or the facts it alleges). Indeed, if memory serves correctly there were a number of corrections of errors and/or complete retractions after its publication.  I don't think that any Wikipedia article or section (especially one about one of the world's largest corporations and the murder of millions of people) should rely on a singular book -- especially one that isn't supported by scholarly sources and doesn't have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  There is a clear bias currently presented, mainly by giving undue weight to a questionable source.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to see scholarly support for the book, here are a few dozen scholars, try this http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/comments.php, and Jewish leaders as well. If you want to see retractions of criticism and confession of lies about the book, go here http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/hollerithdenial.php. If you want to see a long list of campuses that have invited the author to give a scholarly presentation http://www.edwinblack.com/index.php?page=10190... just to see the last 12 months. If you want to see a few dozen independent editors and publishers who have validated the book for publication worldwide go here http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/27Editions.php. If you want to see the original tour with top sponsoring organizations and scholarly groups go here http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/events.php. If you want to see some independent filmmakers with close ups of documents go here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkoM8RB-kJ0. If you want to see these documents presented in IBM's founding city of Endicott NY, here is a partial view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFxqSHjAYSE. If Blaxthos has found an error that is not retracted or corrected perhaps he can offer it--repeat not retracted or corrected. My question is has Blaxthos read the book or is he hypothesizing about the contents? I have read the book. You can do what you like and I will not get drawn into a protracted give and take, but the Holocaust is real, IBM's involvement is real, the facts in the book are real and the reality that IBM declines to deny any of the facts despite lawsuits, thousands of articles, many videos, hundreds of academic presentations and so forth is also real. These realities have stood the test of time. So Blaxthos is welcome to exercise his delete key, but it should be based on facts and anyone can spend the 5 minutes I did to find these sources on the net. Judging by Blaxthos prior remarks on the topic, and hoping good faith will prevail, I suggest we stick with the copy Thomas has inserted and others have concurred with. But if biased views prevail, no one can stop a delete key. P West. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.229.23.150 (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One, a singular book, the author's personal website, a youtube video, and a website dedicated to that singular point of view do not reliable sources make; nor does a list of speaking engagements. What we seek are peer-reviewed academic journals that publish papers and reviews supporting the claims made.  Two, I offer your own words as evidence that you're not being (and may not be able to be) objective about the subject -- at the first challenge of academic rigor, you implicitly accuse me of being a Holocaust denier.  Just because I request some academic support before we damn IBM to eternity does not remotely justify that sort of bad faith accusation.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I found one... you asked for one, and really I see many--Harvard International Review article by Prof Urekew Black's meticulous documentation constructs an undeniable fact: after the outbreak of WWII, the IBM corporation knew where each of its leased (not sold) machines was in Europe, and what revenues it could expect from them. Each machine was insured and serviced monthly. Even though Watson, under public pressure, returned his medal to Hitler, he continued to "micromanage" the German and European operations. Further, he fought to keep control of his German subsidiary, knowing full well the profits that would accrue to IBM as a result. He did this with the knowledge, fuller than most, of the purposes for which his machines were deployed." William Seltzer of Fordham said something similar... and well there are so many. Proquest would have a bunch. My question is why Blaxthos writes these words "I am unaware of any scholarly support for the books (or the facts it alleges)" when more than 50 are visible from leading academicians and historians. I suppose we could say we need 51 or we need them writing in journals, or newspapers, or magazines, or live interview or all of that and all of that is clearly visible. Right now I would be grateful to hear Blaxthos explain his statement so I could square it with Proquest, authors site, independent IBM employee from Poland. I think no level of fact will be enough for Blaxthos. Perhaps the bias is not with Thomas.KINTA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.229.23.140 (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I tend to agree that no matter what is written, you dismiss it. The internet and the literature seem to be replete with scores of unqualified scholarly praise from the most acknowledged sources--from Simon Wiesenthal to a long list of others---and you pretend these don't exist. They are in plain English. The actual, independent websites can be viewed and I, too, have a subscription to Proquest and can see original images. I would ask for Blaxthos to stop abraiding the numerous individuals who have quoted, cited and linked the necessary level of information. It is clear to me where the bias lies and I hope I will not be the next target of attack because I can read these validating words as they are visible to anyone in the world. Confred —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.147.138 (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing with Confred, West, Thomas and Paxton and several others. The logic here is falling prey to extreme bias against the facts and an earth is flat approach. Assuming good faith, but noting the discussion as it unfolded, we see that first Andries did not want sample reviews included then he asked they should be included if we could find one that was academic, and of course Harvard International Review and Midstream--found that-- are both peer-reviewed. Then Blaxthos claimed, "I am unaware of any scholarly support for the books (or the facts it alleges). Indeed, if memory serves correctly there were a number of corrections of errors and/or complete retractions after its publication." Read those words again. I did. There are several elements to Blaxthos' two sentences. Element One: "I am unaware of any scholarly support for the books (or the facts it alleges)." Then 50 or so were immediately visible. Blaxthos then stated he wanted those historians not just to support the book, and the factual content indicting IBM, in unambiguous public pronouncements but in print, and then not just in print but in scholarly journals, and so we see a constant escalating bar where Blaxthos has set himself up to dismiss or rule upon scores of scholars and the way and modality they express they themselves. The point is, first Blaxthos asserted there was no scholarly support and then we see abundant scholarly support in many forms. Even when you read the academic retractions, those academics issue a statement of unqualified support for the book and the IBM-related content of the book as essential reading. More important, in my view, Element Two is very important. Blaxthos claimed, "Indeed, if memory serves correctly there were a number of corrections of errors." I ask Blaxthos to cite one such correction or to amend his statement to said that charge was utterly non-factual. In replying, please refer to the sentence: "Indeed, if memory serves correctly there were a number of corrections of errors." Element Three: "complete retractions after its publication." Can Blaxthos support that statement of "a complete retraction." The book is still selling everywhere nearly a decade later if you check Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc etc. Th content is taught in many colleges. Where is this "complete retraction." Now I understand why the entry Thomas created treated the issue of retractions by academics. There is a constant stream of completely utterly false statements about the book's content and the book. In fact, I found one debunked review by an academic that stated Black's methods were flawed because he "used the Internet" to communicate with researchers and historians overseas. What can we say about such a comment? Back to retractions and Blaxthos, and maintaining politeness and good faith, I request one shred of factual substantiation to Element Two and Three so we can see it, evaluate it. Unless this is possible, I think we would all benefit from yet another retraction right here merely for the purposes of clarity. For this request for facts and verifiability, I am asking not to be attacked as others have been for pointing to or requesting verifiable facts. If I am attacked, I will exit. KINTA. Excuse any typos.

I join others who would welcome Blaxthos providing a basis we can neutrally evaulate for his statement: "Indeed, if memory serves correctly there were a number of corrections of errors and/or complete retractions after its publication." I have just searched the Google in the US and the UK, and done a Muse and Lexis Nexus search. There is NO mention anywhere of a retraction or correction of any statement in the book by any publisher on earth--and I count 28-29 publishers worldwide, hard to tell. No demand for a retraction or correction. No suggestion of one. No trace of one. Just other reviewers who have retracted their false statements and done so in signed notices on letterhead. This brings up the question of the Blaxthos remark. Unless we can see some sctintilla of a source, it further brings up the question of good faith since absent such a basis, good faith is not in effect from my view and that of most clear thinking people. So now I ask not only for the evidence behind this statement, right or wrong... but the good faith basis right or wrong that supported the statement in the first place. In doing so, I assume all good faith but follow up on Blaxthos' invoking the good faith bad faith principle. I await a response to the good faith basis for the sentences Blathox wrote. If these cannot be found, perhaps Blaxthos would consider a retraction not only here. In view of his statement that IBM should not be tarnished with unsupported statements, does the same ethic apply to Mr. Black. Others can chime in as to whether Mr. Black is owed an apology, correction or retraction for statements made that I am thinking will be shown to be in the utter absence of a good faith basis. Please do not attack me for quoting Blaxthos or doing the verifying follow-up Wikipedia requires on all topics and living people who can be defamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.229.23.130 (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me chime in please. I also did a search although I had no access to the Lexus Nexus. However my search was reasonably extensive. I found zero suggestions or hints of a retraction or correction by Mr. Black or his publishers. I have looked at the visible record on Blaxthos on this topic. It speaks for itself. I therefore would also like to see the good faith basis Blaxthos used to assert there were corrections or retractions from the author or publishers. I also wonder if anyone knows what the impact such a statement--if not verified or if no good faith predicate can be shown-- has on the reputation of Mr. Black, this following on the principle first brought up by Blaxthos. I can only imagine that any statement by Blaxthos that Mr. Black's work was retracted or corrected when it was not, and there is no basis for suggesting it was I think, might carry its own dimension. My comment here is set forth in good faith and I also do not wish to be maligned or attacked. RonnyD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.1.130 (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone or something has deleted the entire Discussion about IBM's Role the Holocaust. The last thing visible on the Discussion page is an amiable exchange last year between the IBM Archivist Paul Lasewicz and the editor Blaxthos. This delete action wiped out numerous meaningful contributions, questions and posts of individuals which shed light on this question--probably a dozen or more. There is no indication of who deleted it or how it was deleted.In the interests of the record and clarity, I have restored from the Wiki history and captured it case someone again makes it vanish. If I am missing something, please advise me. Sorry if I erred here. Perhaps the section was deleted by an admin on the issue of remarks made against Mr. Black about his work being corrected or retracted that appear to have no factual underpinnings or good faith basis. Best I can see, such statements are false. If someone decided that the section must go, kindly correct me and explain. That said, I would add my name to the posters who have asked Blaxthos to share any good faith suggestion that the book was corrected or retracted, so we may evaluate it. At the same time, allow me to ask a question: Would be correct or incorrect to state that Blaxthos had a direct or perhaps indirect involvement from about 1992 to 1997 with work that the author Edwin Black was engaged in. Knowing that might help us understand the nature of the many assertions and edits Blaxthos has made with regard to work of Edwin Black and the topic of IBM. I note like others that my questions here assumed good faith, but merely asked for clarifications. Kan-zy PS This is my second attempt and now I see it has appeared twice. Excuse any inadvertant error and help is requested so long as the posts somehow remain visible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.106.209 (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I also just added two references and citations where they were requested. Hope I did this corrctly. Kan-zy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.106.209 (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

TGhe additions made by various posters to the entry seems more balanced and factula. I read the book and the citations in the book--numebring thousands, make it an unquestionable document that IBM of course cannot deny. These are their own records and memos being quoted. Following up on Kanz-zy's comment and those of others. Blaxthos would help the evolution of this entry if he could please reply to good faith questions about the basis for the statements about Mr. Black which apppear to be completely false, and any possible involvement from 1992-1997 with the author. LarryHam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.187.219.130 (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the contribution history of each IP, as well as the idiosyncratic diction and grammar, I am 99% sure that they are all under the direct or indirect control of a single editor. I find it nearly impossible to believe that more than a half-dozen random anonymous editors with no other contribution history happen to watch this singular article, and all have the exact same speech patterns and opinions.  I will open a sockpuppet investigation shortly.
 * I'll answer no questions about myself, as they're irrelevant to this article.
 * The only question I've asked, and the only one worth discussion, is that of sourcing. If you have any other reliable academic sources that support your position, please add them below.  This doesn't mean websites, lists of speaking engagements, book jackets, or other sources that don't qualify under our governing policy.  This means properly cited references with specific statements of facts.  Please use the citation templates below, which will make it much easier for us to validate the sourcing.
 * Despite the antisemitic accusations above, my only concern here is to improve this article. Requesting additional reliable sources, especially given the scope of the subject, is prudent and required -- We don't base Wikipedia content (especially such extreme accusations) based on a single author's book.  If your position is as grounded in reality as you assert, providing additional truly reliable sources shouldn't be difficult.  Replies not met with additional sourcing will only be met with further requests for additional sourcing.  If none is forthcoming, I will request assistance from the POV noticeboard.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You may find the sockpuppet investigation here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos--please use good faith as required. I have heard no one refer to you directly or indirectly as anti-Semitic. Have not a clue where this is coming from? Can you help us by quoting and referring to it as it is not visible to me. If not, can you confirm that you cannot? Attacks against others who are speaking in good faith are unneeded. Being polite is a ground rule. You ask for sourcing and it seen that sourcing has been given with detailed specificity such as the IBM letter in 1940 which is cited to the National Archives for anyone to see, in the book, and has been seen in documentaries. Many other documents have been seen in documentaries. IBM has never denied any of the information. Thousands of articles have been written. But the idea is this is an entry about one aspect with a long history of a company and we cannot and should not delve into enormous detail, lest we take away from the true topic--IBM History. But no level of citation seems to be enough for you, the content has been cited in many other books and articles. It is not a single book, as you state, although a single book started the revelation. Scores of historians have validated that work and its content, but there seems to be no level of documentation high enough for you. There are many unique books that have caused their own historical shock waves. I need not name them all. You are welcome to do as you have done before and re-insert the IBM press release. Nothing can stop you since obviously you have a huge personal involvemnt with IBM software as seen from your page. I suggest perhaps it is you who have inserted much unsourced information that seems to be based on nothing visible anywhere unless you have some source we do not. This is why people have asked not to be attacked, it seems. Citations and information are requested, editors provide it, and it is never enough. LarryHam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.187.219.130 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please give us some actual citations below, directly referencing some of these sources? Your repeated claims of "many documentaries" or "thousands of articles" need to be substantiated by direct citation -- title, publication, publisher, author, date, and the facts they verify... Filling out proper citation templates, instead of generic statements, will help support your position.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos, many users, registered or not, have been treated in the same fashion. You don't answer questions or provide sourcing, and attack those who do. This is a discussion. You instruct me to provide chapter and verse on a Google search with so many entries--maybe a million hits. Few of us can devote the time you do to rebutting the obvious over and over again. Please delete the IBM entry as you wish and delete the facts. Please go insert the IBM press release in its place and be sure to retain the word "over the weekend." Please take out all the other factual and balancing material. Please investigate my diction and grammar and that of others. I am sure your diction is better. Please block all our IPs so regular people cannot make a contribution on a subject they think is important without getting into a running battle over the obvious. Please run Wikipedia the way you wish. There is a term WikiBully? Where did this term come from. Argue with yourself. Good bye Blaxthos. I am gone and you can have free rein over this entry and the rest of Wikipedia. Bye bye now. LarryHam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.187.219.130 (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strawman much? The only thing I've asked for is that you provide more concrete sources -- a single book by a single author won't do, nor will a google search for people citing that one singular source (nor will any of the other inappropriate ways you've tried to repackage this one source).  Every time I ask for something beyond your generalizations, you employ rhetorical diversions (asserting I'm a Holocaust denier, alleging censorship and repression, etc.) and ignore policy.  What I request is what Wikipedia demands -- multiple, independent, peer-reviewed reliable sources that verify the information you are trying to include, devoid of original research, and presented neutrally with proper weight.  Also, I get the distinct impression I'm only speaking to one person -- will you confirm that this is the case?  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Blaxthos--don't ask LarryHam--ask me if I am the same person. Please aks me: I am not. But Like LarryHam and all the other people you have accused, rebuffed and belittled, I was trying to make an addition according to the rules. Like LarryHam, I agree that I cannot spend hours day and night watching one entry and battling people like you who cannot be moved by fact. But you have that time. So please accuse me, block my IP, user pofile, and my Wiki access, I give up. Investigate me. Call me mean names like sockpuppet and strawman--or in my case strawwoman. Open an inquisition. Change the IBM Holocaust stuff back to the one you want it to be. No matter what anyone says you will validate your position. People will learn from other sources. In the words of LarryHam, you measure yourself by bullying others but I do not. So bye and so long. Have a good Easter. Kan-zy not LarryHam. Repeat: Kan-zy. Bye bye now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.106.209 (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Fresh start
Administrative review of the history of this article and its talk page has resulted in a user being blocked for massive sockpuppetry. It's fairly obvious that the article has been unduly influenced towards a particular point of view, especially with regards to the "IBM and the Holocaust" accusations. Black's singular book isn't enough to substantiate the facts alleged here or in the IBM and the Holocaust article (which should be renamed to reflect that it's an article about a book with that title, not about the subject itself). Would anyone like to help organize a team to give the articles a good editorial review? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to participate in said review, although for obvious reasons (potential COI, see my talk page) it would preferable if I were not be the primary lead here. But if whoever takes on the lead feels that there's a role I can play to make these articles more objective and useful to the reader, s/he need only ask. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, Paul -- I personally have seen no concerning behavior from you, but I think we may best be suited to use you as a resource for clarifying and organizing thoughts, and let the actual wordsmithery be handled by others. After I started this thread the SSP admin helpfully restored the article to the pre-sockpuppetry version, so my concern is slightly less now than it was before.  ;-)  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection, I think that my participation in any dialogue around IBM's role in the Holocaust is likely to become a distraction. So I'm going to recuse myself from this particular discussion. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * IBM and the Holocaust moved to IBM and the Holocaust (book) for exactly the reason given above. I've also requested a CSD for the original page instead of a redirect. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos and Paul: I have referred this entire exchange to the Edwin Black website and suggested the author's personal review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.120.168 (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mr. Black has a clear conflict of interest with regards to this subject; with no disrespect intended towards Mr. Black intended, I don't think that his involvement will be helpful, as it's perfectly clear that he supports a specific agenda through the promotion of a singular source (his own book). What we need are more objective Wikipedians contributing, not involving the figure central to supporting fringe accusations and a subjective POV.  Until there are other independent reliable sources that support Mr. Black's conclusions and accusations, it is a violation of several core Wikipedia policies (WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV) to make such broad statements in an encyclopedic article based on one man's research (no matter how well constructed it may be).  To be perfectly clear:  my issue is not with the book or the research itself (which is wholly irrelevant to my point), the issue is assigning proper weight based upon independent academic secondary sources; if we only have one nonfiction book by a journalist we can't dedicate paragraphs to speculation, accusation, and damnation of any subject.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that Mr. Black and his work IBM and the Holocaust are being treated fairly here, nor do I think his work has anything to do with a fringe. This is unfair treatment directed at a specific person and I think someone needs to say it.I also think Blaxthos should consider doing what Paul did--recuse himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.200.13 (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Because I demand that we comply with core policies like diverse reliable sourcing and proper weight? Negative -- you've already been blocked for sockpuppetry, and Mr. Black has been blocked for making legal threats.  Despite what you may believe, Wikipedia is not a wild west devoid of rules -- single-agenda-driven editors who show no interest in and contempt for our policies and guidelines (by way of repeatedly violating them) are not welcome.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that WP:COI is more demanding than the common usage of the phrase "conflict of interest" - it applies only when "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia". Edwin Black might very well be more interested in providing verifiable, reliably sourced information than in any particular outside agenda.  WP:AGF and WP:BITE should have applied.  It is true that 29 hours and 7 edits after registering,  User:Edwin Black Washington DC (if he really is Edwin Black) was indefinitely blocked, as was an IP address in Washington DC posting in response.  The block decision could deserve further elaboration - I was under the impression that a cease and desist letter had to tell someone to cease and desist or face legal action, whereas Black simply told them to cease and desist without saying that.  What is certain is that Wikipedia has lost yet another potentially invaluable contributor. Wnt (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You may have a point with regards to WP:BITE, however it should be noted that this came on the tail end of a very large number of sockpuppets being blocked for rather obviously trying to unduly influence the article (which probably reduced the amout of good faith he encountered (coupled with his immediate demands of C&D, threats to involve the media, and attempted outing of Wikipedia editors). There was a pretty hefty discussion of Mr. Black's actions at ANI, and he was blocked after persisting to issue legalistic threats ("cease & desist" warnings have only one intent -- a chilling effect with a hidden (if not stated) implication that legal action will follow) after being directed to OTRS and warned to stop by several administrators.  I'll refrain from responding to the COI points, as it seems that this issue is moving towards resolution -- hopefully it's a moot issue at this point anyway, and I don't want to risk upsetting the applecart.  :)  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe Edwin Black's syndicated article regarding Wikipedia and these recent exchanges will be of interest. Five versions are shown. I am posting this message to the 4 pages which I believe have an interest in the articles.
 * http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=12106&pageid=37&pagename=Page+One
 * http://www.hnn.us/articles/125437.html
 * http://www.speroforum.com/a/30719/Wikipedia-The-Prime-Culprit-in-the-Dumbingdown-of-Culture
 * http://www.dailyestimate.com/article. sp?idarticle=30719
 * http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?idCategory=35&idsub=159&id=30719&t=Wikipedia%3A+The+Prime+Culprit+in+the+Dumbing-down+of+Culture
 * http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2010/04/12/472903.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxstudio (talk • contribs)

I would ask no one to add text in my name or colour my words as was just done and please remove them or sign them yourself. Saxstudio (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * they are your words, they get signed with your user name. A simple concept. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia - The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge
Thanks in no small part to a recent series of problematic edits here a 6,000 word article has appeared criticising Wikipedia's reliability. A topic worthy of significant, sustained coverage (not to mention a dedicated non-fiction book) has in the last month been reduced to three heavily biased sentences, the first of which is constructed to discredit the latter two:

"A book published by the year of 2001, as well as a dismissed lawsuit against the company, speculate on the uses of Hollerith equipment by the Nazi government and IBM's role. IBM's German subsidiary during the 1930s – Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen GmbH (Dehomag) – supplied Hollerith equipment. As with hundreds of foreign-owned companies that did business in Germany at that time, Dehomag came under the control of Nazi authorities prior to and during World War II."

If IBM was indeed involved in the automation of persecution then this is most certainly pertinent to an article dealing with its history and it should be covered in a neutral manner. It most certainly should not be actively concealed so as to give rise to what appears to be a legitimate complaint about the accuracy of Wikipedia. -- samj in out 01:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this could be worded more specific and the word "speculates" seems too weak. (I have not read Black's book though.) Andries (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * People who are involved in this dispute should be asking themselves whether Black's book is a either fine well-documented scholarly book that does not exaggerate, does not have major omissions, does not blow things out of proportion. If that is the case it will likely have positive scholarly reviews and Black's views will be shared by mainstream historians. The opposite may tbe true too: it is a flimsy hyped grossly exaggerated book. Andries (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sam, I think that those of us who have been involved of (or aware of) the complete history of this article and the Black situation seriously object to Mr. Black's portrayal of the facts with regards to the historical and recent events on Wikipedia (as contained in his article, which prompted Sam to start this thread). I think that your assertion that something is being "actively concealed" and that there are some complaints as to "the accuracy of Wikipedia" goes a long way towards abandoning good faith for established and respected admins & editors in favor of affording it to a journalist who has been indefinitely blocked for violating our core policies.  There are plenty of demonstrably false statements in his article, and I don't think you can both argue that we present things neutrally and argue that we should accept Mr. Black's book as the single authority on this topic -- at its core, neutral presentation requires multiple reliable sources.  I've asked for some independent (preferably academic) sources to help bolster his claims and help us assess proper weight, however no one has been able to produce any.  In the case where there are no independent reliable sources to support his assertions, it's fair to conclude that the theory may be fringe and shouldn't be afforded undue weight.  Keep in mind, when the New York Times reviewed the book, the conclusion even stated: "'...one wonders if Mr. Black has properly calculated the degree of the company's culpability... Mr. Black, in his fervor to find I.B.M. culpable, weighs only punch cards in this particular balance... he does not demonstrate that I.B.M. bears some unique or decisive responsibility for the evil that was done.'"To me, even the Times recognizes that Mr. Black has a "fervor" to right some Great Wrong that isn't supported by other historians and sources (or, if they are, none have ever been presented), and his actions here on Wikipedia and in his article have shown that his number one goal is to promote his beliefs (not improve Wikipedia articles within our policies and guidelines); his article only seems to give credibility to my conclusion.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's an attempt at a neutral WW II paragraph.


 * World War II was a total war, the countries involved committing all their resources to war efforts. Early computers found war-time applications in such areas as the aerodynamics of glide bombs (Konrad Zuse, Germany), cryptography (Colossus, England), and naval mathematical computations (IBM ASCC, United States).   Punched card technology was applied to war efforts, notable in the United States was its use in the computations needed to develop the atomic bomb.   In both the United States and Germany concentration or internment camps were established; citizens of each country utilizing the available punched card technology in their operation. In the United States IBM, at the request of the government, was the subcontractor for the concentration camp's punch card project.


 * - (2nd ref above doesn't indent). tooold (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Something like this would be a good deal better than what we have currently, though earlier versions (this one from end 2009) were less convoluted/more direct:
 * "One of the medals Watson received was from the Nazi government in 1937, honoring him in his role as the President of the International Chamber of Commerce. During the rise of Nazi Germany and the onset of World War II, Watson and IBM’s German subsidiary had relationships and contracts with the German military/industrial technocracy. IBM's punch card machines were used by Germany to keep track of people who were to be subjected to the Holocaust.[13] Only after Jews were identified—a massive and complex task that Hitler wanted done immediately—could they be targeted for efficient asset confiscation, ghettoization, deportation, enslaved labor, and, ultimately, annihilation. It was a cross-tabulation and organizational challenge so monumental, it called for a computer. Of course, in the 1930s no computer existed. But IBM's Hollerith punch card technology did exist. IBM and its German subsidiary custom-designed complex solutions, one by one, anticipating the Reich's needs. They did not merely sell the machines and walk away. Instead, IBM leased these machines for high fees and became the sole source of the billions of punch cards Hitler needed."
 * While there are obvious WP:V and WP:NPOV issues with parts of this text, the awards, contracts, and apparently extensive application of IBM technology to the task are certainly pertinent. Let's try to capture the facts as best we can and leave the fiction and speculation to others - after after all, guns computers don't kill people, people do. -- samj in out 10:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * SamJohnston, I think your proposed text is quite okay. Andries (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * SamJohnston, I think your proposed text is quite okay. Andries (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I for one do not think this discussion is doing anything to enhance Wikipedia’s image. I use is Wikipedia all the time, I know it has faults. But I find this exchange about IBM and the Holocaust very different from my experience.

IBM and the Holocaust is a major book by a major author who has written several important books on a variety of topics. To say the book lacks academic support is not the reality, it has broad academic support. I am at the University of Pennsylvania and Mr. Black lectured here last night on IBM and the Holocaust and this is not the first time, he has been here before. He has been invited as a distinguished lecture at many campuses throughout Pennsylvania, including three major Catholic Universities which are U Scranton, Kings and Misericordia, but certainly many others. The book is taught as mandatory reading at many schools. That cannot be done without faculty support. That is how the system works.

I am sure you can find lots of historians who disagree with Black’s book, as with all topics, but we should not ignore the dozens who have publicly hailed and endorsed the book. Why ignore Simon Wiesenthal and the official historian of Auschwitz, or William Seltzer the expert on Hollerith machines and demography? Check them yourself. We were shown the letters.

I see people dwelling on one review from the New York Times—not the greatest source in my opinion. There are plenty of bad reviews to go around on this book. There are plenty of glowing reviews, very many, including Newsweek, Der Spiegel, and Harvard International. Why cherry pick the reviews? Reviews are just opinions. Now in this excerpt cited, the Times reviewer quibbled about whether IBM was the worst offender. I saw nothing in the Times citation to discredit the facts in the book, namely that IBM was knowingly involved in creating custom programs for identifying Jews, maintaining all the concentration camps, and running the trains.

The idea that Black invented this revelation is not just the case. Everywhere one knows that the first thing you see in the US Holocaust Museum is the IBM Machine. Millions see that machine. It was there for years before Black wrote his book and he explains that he was in the Museum with his parents, who are Holocaust survivors, when he saw the machine for the first time and decided to get the fuller story. Thus the book. The Holocaust Museum online photo archives feature several IBM punch cards from concentration camps and a short article called Locating the Victims specifying the IBM role. You can search their site. I found this randomly, not knowing what it is: http://comppile.org/comppanels/comppanel_17.htm and it has better view of the official Holocaust Museum photo which Mr. Black himself says predated his book by years before it entered the public exhibit. Perhaps better, I just found this one http://www.ushmm.org/education/foreducators/resource/pdf/artif6photo.pdf

Now last night, Mr. Black brought up the Wikipedia controversy over denying IBM’s involvement. Even the company does not deny it. Last night as part of his long talk, Mr. Black brought out actual correspondence about these machines from the late 1941 period from Nazi Germany to President Thomas Watson addressed to his Madison Ave office. Not just one letter, but pages and pages and Mr. Black asked various members of the audience to read them out loud. This stuff is stunning. IBM knew. The voluminous documentation circulated in the room last night from the Justice Department, Nazi files, company correspondence, camp records are impossible to deny. I have already started reading the book and the information is staggering in detail. And quite depressing.

Mr. Black also invited everyone to a three-hour legal education at Gratz College tomorrow and it might be televised. Those of you who are in law know what Continuing Legal Education is and it is hard to think Mr. Black could be teaching attorneys at length about IBM and the Holocaust without a firm factual basis. Lawyers are very critical and questioning thinkers.

Mr. Black invited everyone in the audience to look at this debate in Wikipedia and make a comment of their own choosing. Others may. I have. I have no intention of being drawn into a protracted debated. My studies are too intense. But I have added my thought and I hope I helped clarify some issues with this one comment, and it was probably too long. Sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.231.35 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No one is trying to discredit the work in the book -- I personally believe that his facts are probably quite right, but his assertions and fervor to convict IBM in the court of public opinion is quite strong. It's not the facts that are in dispute, but the conclusions asserted aren't supported by other independent reliable sources.  This all seems to stem from a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works -- in order to give lots of weight to a particular assertion of fact or a conclusion based on those facts, those facts and conclusions must be verifiable in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources.  Wikipedia does not allow primary sources (the letters and documents Black cites), but rather published papers that draw the same conclusions or support the conclusions drawn.  Guest lecturing appointments and seminars given by Black certainly don't qualify as independent sources.  All I've ever asked for are additional sources that support the assertions contained in the book -- preferably peer-reviewed academic sources.  So far, no one has provided any sourcing that springs from another researcher -- everything so far traces back to Black's single book -- which is why it is currently not afforded much weight in the article.  If someone can point us to some other published sources that corroborate or validate Black's findings, we have a much stronger case to give it more weight.  As it stands now, however, Black's book is the only root source, and there have been concerns raised as to the validity of his conclusions; without additional sources that also draw the same conclusion, it is improper to give a single author's conclusions a disproportionate weight in the article.  Hope this helps clear up my position.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I said I would not, but I admit I came back, but this comment must be it for me. Ten minutes looking showed before Black's book, there was some preliminary prior work in the late 1990 time period by Sybil Milton who became the curator of the Holocaust Museum, William Seltzer a Hollerith and genocide expert, Gotz Aly and Karl Heinz Roth somewhat in German, I found them all in peer-reviewed journals with the same thrust as Black's book but without the mountains of evidence typing it all together that Black provided in 2001. Black cites these references and they can be found online or in abstract. They all seemed to share Black's outlook, but I am not going to list them, or provide summaries as I think none of it will suffice. So I recommend all of us will just be better off if you delete any references to Mr. Black's book and the Holocaust topic for whatever reason. That would be better than trying to rewrite history, and pretend this massive punch card system did not exist, and that IBM was not working with he Nazis. Sorry again for being too long and drawn out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.231.35 (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * When you throw up obvious strawmen like asserting someone is "pretending this massive punch card system did not exist" you detract from your credibility -- no one has done anything but ask for more diverse sourcing on the subject. So now, you claim that there are copious supporting sources, but instead of listing them so we can improve the article you instead express a preference that we actually do whitewash events by deleting all references to Mr. Black's book.  Your logic is broken and your arguments are inconsistent -- if you have sourcing, please provide it.  If you don't, please stop accusing others of trying to "rewrite history".  Thanks.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a scholarly review http://www.jstor.org/pss/25147861 Andries (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent find, though judging by the first page I wouldn't call it anything near an endorsement of the book ("[why has] the subject been left to someone like Black, a science fiction writer with limited abilities as a historian"). Since JSTOR only gives the citation and first page, I'll see what I can do to obtain that issue of T&C.  Thanks Andries!  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Author Black has been blocked for legal threats (so-called)and has published an article saying in clear words that he has has an on-going investigation of Blaxthos. Blaxthos has complained about these threats. There seems to be a piling on toward one POV, seeking negative reviews of Black's book, and rejecting anything positive. Is it just me, or does anyone think that because of the possible or probable legal matter looming between Black and Blaxthos (if not already underway), a possible COI has attached to Blaxthos in this matter. If so, it might be a good time for others to chime in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.106.206 (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * COI or not, Blaxthos obviously has a very strong POV and a lot of their behaviour (carrying on about reliability of sources etc.) appears to be well characterised as WP:Civil POV pushing (which is both intensely annoying and very difficult to deal with). Remember, this is not about the book, the "facts" are undisputed (even by IBM) and using appropriate language ("according to scholars, book X, etc.") the requirement for reliable sources (where there may well be none given how much information was "lost") can be avoided in order to document what is undoubtedly an important part of the history of this company. -- samj in out 12:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black was just here at Gratz College for three hours facing about 100 attorneys for three hours. His documentation is impeccable. We saw the letters to Watson 1941. Black took every question. He was great. If he needs a lawyer, I am sure a few dozen here will stand with him. Forget reviews. We saw the real thing. Powerful. Please thing about that. Rich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.221.96 (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If this comment can be seen, I can confirm to all that the author Edwin Black appeared yesterday at the largest Continuing Legal Education course ever conducted in the distinguished Gratz College series, approximately 100 attorneys from the area. His documentation and presentation on IBM's involvement in the Holocaust was, to say the least, riveting and certainly depressing. Author Black expressed no conclusions, but rather invited us to form our own conclusions. He did not need to express a conclusion. It was obvious to all from the extensive hands-on review of the many blow-ups of concentration camp documents, contracts, and key internal company correspondence that his research and findings are unshakable. I am not the first to state this. He invited any present in the room to enter comments at this location on Wikipedia because he is blocked by Wikipedia from explaining or defending.

First, a personal comment. It is Black's right, and perhaps his obligation, to issue a cease and desist notice to anyone he believes is libeling him or his work. That is fundamental and serves to correct and limit offending publication. That right should not be abridged for any reason. Second, I can think of no system of law anywhere in the world that denies a man the right to answer accusations and defend himself. The system which prohibits author Black from responding on Wikipedia cannot be deemed fair and cannot be rationalized. Again, that right should never be abridged. Therefore, he must work through others, including myself, which is the case. Third, Mr. Black has asked me to post here his message that he is and has been for some time prepared to send any reader or editor of Wikipedia a complimentary copy of his book and specific documentation similar to that shown yesterday if they will merely contact him at his website. He says he has already provided copies and documents to several at this forum. And he has provided these items to Mr. Steifel at your administration in Ireland and anyone can obtain it from him if they prefer that. I hope as you continue to debate this matter, this forum will be driven by the established facts of this sad Holocaust chapter, facts which author Black has amply documented. As another above on this forum as pointed out, the company itself has not denied the fact in the nine years since the issue was first revealed by this book. Thank you. (If my remarks cannot be seen on this forum for lack of registration, I have retained a copy and will attempt to add them in another way.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.242.246 (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr. Black has the right to defend himself legally and to respond on Wikipedia but not at the same time. This is fair and rational, because the Wikimedia foundation does not want other contributors intimidated by legal threats when writing contents which could otherwise create biased or one-sided contents. Contributors are not legal experts and they do not have to become ones. Andries (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One cannot reasonably expect from volunteers to hire a lawyer when the only thing they want to do is write good free articles for the general public. Andries (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If contributors were allowed to make legal threats and contribute at the same time then it would be very easy to intimidate other contributors with empty legal threats. This would likely create biased, inaccurate, or one-sided articles. Andries (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You can say that Mr. Black's book is part of academia and the mainstream, but I (and I think others too) prefer to have verifiable proof for this, like positive scholarly reviews. Andries (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Critical assessment of sources should be done here otherwise contributors cannot make a good article and yes, sometimes people will make mistakes. If contributors are too positive about Mr. Black's book then may "libel" IBM. If they are too negative then they may "libel" Mr. Black's book. But to make legal threats on this talk page because of this is exaggerated and in my opinion a person who stifles this necessary discussion by making legal threats is rightfully blocked from responding on Wikipedia. Andries (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope citing an article about this actual page editing is permitted. The article in question is shown at History Network News which is HNN.us, The Cutting Edge News which is thecuttingedgenews.com and other websites. I would so much appreciate it if my comments were not deleted as I thought I was entitled to make a useful contribution. I have no interest in arguing that, so if I am not permitted, I shalln't. Saxstudio (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a note confirming the above that anyone who wants a copy of the book IBM and the Holocaust and some sample original documents to assist in your review, just contact me at inquiry@edwinblack.com. This includes editors and just readers. I have learned in recent days that are some astute intellects on Wikipedia and I am happy to answer any questions from them. I have enjoyed communicated with them. Edwin Black —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.128.247 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The section on IBM's role in the Holocaust as of this moment is not exactly inaccurate, as it is quite misleading. I do not expect it to be precise or even useful on this page. But those who want to know, or who can check it in the book, IBM's role was not just about the IBM subsidiary in Germany called Dehomag. Dehomag only operated in Greater Germany, in the main. Equally important were the IBM subsidiaries throughout Europe. In Nazi-occupied Poland, this company was Watson Business Machines, established in 1939 just after the Blitzkrieg to organize the rape of Poland and service Polish Railways which sent Jews to Auschwitz. IBM's train facility for Auschwitz was at 22 Pawia Street in Krakow and run by Leon Krzemieniecki. I have sent a picture of Leon to Stifle and Andries and Sam--or anyone can get it from me. If you wish to read more about it, you can check the book chapter on Poland at this U of Penn site that actually reprints the Village Voice investigation (awarded by ASJA as best of year) noting some formatting issues, http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/black.html. Or Google IBm and the Holocaust 22 Pawia Street http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS352&=&q=ibm+and+the+holocaust+Pawia+Street&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= for a whole list, many of which I do not know or vouch for. The same thing happened in Holland, Romania, France, Italy and so on. In each country, IBM operated or invented a different subsidiary to service the Nazis including its roundup and mass murder of Jews. Hence, the story is not about one German subsidiary, but a global network of subsidiaries and licensees operating from Europe, to Asia, to Africa, to Latin America and beyond, all coordinated through IBM New York and then IBM Switzerland. I understand it is easy to excuse it away as just a trapped subsidiary in Germany. But my book and this dark chapter is about following the geographic cadence of Nazi conquest to service the Third Reich in all its needs. There is an interesting interview at CNET http://news.cnet.com/2009-1082-269157.html that discusses some of this.

I also understand that IBM wants to confuse people with this press release statement that is inserted into the present text: "As with hundreds of foreign-owned companies that did business in Germany at that time, Dehomag came under the control of Nazi authorities prior to and during World War II." The expectation I am sure in IBM's statement is that Wikipedians do not know when WWI started and have not put the puzzle pieces together. Here is a fragment of a timeline. 1933 Hitler comes to power; 1935 Nuremberg laws; 1937 Hitler gives Watson medal for service to the Reich; 1938 Kristallnacht; 1939 Sept1 before dawn WWII breaks out and Hitler invades (that is when IBM started with many of its new subsidiaries country by country--remembering US not yet in war; 1940 more IBM conquest and more IBM subsidiary action; 1941 Dec11 Germany declares war (after Pearl Harbor) and now we are fully in the European Theater. In 1942, IBM's German subsidiary was finally placed into enemy receivership by Berlin, with all managers retained and all profits held in escrow. These are ther facts.

It is important to understand that I do not expect this article to be improved. I think most people think that IBM or its advocates will change it anyway as it has done in recent weeks. So I am not insisting on any changes as long as nothing false is written about my book. I understand incompleteness and calculated misdirection in this article. But for those of you who care and increasing those of you who know what others know and what IBM cannot deny and has not denied, the company helped organized the Holocaust through many countries in many ways and it took a full book to chronicle it. No employee will deny the facts. No former employee will deny the facts. No retired employee will deny the facts--especially then retired ones because they know. Ask anywhere in the world. See for yourself. As usual I am available to all Wikipedians and indeed anyone with a question at inqury@edwinblack.com. Thank you again. BTW Stifle, Sam, Andries--check your emails for the photo. Edwin Black

SUMMARY/TDLR: IBM invented a technology, Nazi's adopted it. IBM was fully aware of the Nazi's intended use to facilitate genocide and continued to profit from it anyway. To this day, they deploy their PR department to scrub this information from Wikipedia's IBM articles (knowing this site is the first search result on google) and undermine the legitimacy of such claims.

Antisemitism and complete apathy towards The Holocaust is still alive and well, especially here at Wikipedia, where libertarianism is the most common ideology of the editors here. Libertarian circles online are littered with antisemitism, suggesting everything from Zionist conspiracy theories to Holocaust denial.

In fact, you'll find libertarian circles are in almost full agreement with everything listed in the article here on antisemitic canard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_canard

Others simply don't want to accept or hear that Americas most "revered" corporations in the capitalist experiment had involvement here.

--108.50.170.32 (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

just create IBM during World War II
WP has a pretty conventional solution for disputed POVs: create an article devoted to the topic, and then each side gets their own section (===Critics of IBM's operations during World War II=== and ===Responses to critics===).

You wouldn't have a sentence like As with hundreds of foreign-owned companies that did business in Germany at that time, Dehomag came under the control of Nazi authorities prior to and during World War II., which I think leans towards taking a POV.

Instead, the "critics" section would say, "Dehomag came under the control of Nazi authorities prior to and during World War II"; and the "responses" section would say, "The same thing happeend to hundreds of foreign-owned companies that did business in Germany at that time."

Until you do that, this dispute is going nowhere. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 16:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Andrew--upon a fuller reading of your change--not a bad idea at all. I personally do not care if the word (book) is added to the article title regarding my work, so long as that term is not used to deny it is actually about IBM during the Holocaust. If I can help you Andrew in compiling information, books, dox, etc, send me a ping at inquiry@edwinblack.comn. I just located your private email and sent you a similar invitation, if that email I used was in fact yours. Thank you. Edwin Black

A message along Andrew's line has been left at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IBM_during_World_War_II.

Press release needed a citation
I just made two edits. The latter was to add a section header and main to the page IBM during World War II, which I saw being discussed at IBM and the Holocaust. I am not entirely sure whether this the optimal way to present the link to IBM during World War II.

However, I feel pretty certain that we should have been putting quotation marks around the material that came out of the IBM press release. Those words are as follows, It has been known for decades that the Nazis used Hollerith equipment and that IBM's German subsidiary during the 1930s -- Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen GmbH (Dehomag) -- supplied Hollerith equipment. As with hundreds of foreign-owned companies that did business in Germany at that time, Dehomag came under the control of Nazi authorities prior to and during World War II. It is also widely known that Thomas J. Watson, Sr., received and subsequently repudiated and returned a medal presented to him by the German government for his role in global economic relations. These well-known facts appear to be the primary underpinning for these recent allegations.

160.39.220.88 (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

From Edwin Black
This is Edwin Black. If I can answer any question about this topic, or if you would like to consult a book or see period documentation, contact me at inquiry@edwinblack.com. I am happy to talk to anyone on the phone. You are free to phone me arranging for your number not to display. Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Where do things stand?
There hasn't been any new discussion here since 28 April. Have the issues that caused the POV template to be added to the article back in March been resolved sufficiently to allow the POV template to be removed? If not, what more needs to be done? Who is going to do it? Jeff Ogden (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I went ahead and removed the POV template from March 2010. Jeff Ogden (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I have a problem with the statement just after the quote from IBM "Despite Watson's efforts on behalf of world peace, the interests of international commerce failed to prevent the breakout of war." There are no references or justification given for the piece of hagiography nor for the statement that international commerce somehow tried to prevent the breakout of war.78.147.193.229 (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Article Needs an Update
I feel this article could benefit from some updates post 2005. The history section, while generally accurate, is rambling and less relevant to events that have truly shaped IBM's history. Too much attention in my view is placed on mundane issues that are not really relevant. As well, some significant acquisitions that are shaping IBM's more recent posture (such as Cognos) are not included. IBM has entered the age of cloud computing, business analytics and instrumentation. It is investing billions on these developments and there is little or no mention of them making the article appear extremely outdated. As a further example, the organization section has no bearing on IBM's current organization and is more reflective of the company 25 years ago. The section implies this is IBM's current organization which is factually incorrect. I realize this is a difficult article because of the fast-changing pace of the business in which IBM competes. Nonetheless, this article is not up to Wikipedia's standards in my opinion. I tried to take a stab at improving the article a couple of years ago and would try again however my edits were reverted within minutes for lack of references which I didn't have a chance to cite because of the almost instantaneous reversions. So I will respectfully make the following general observations here in the hopes that someone in the Wikipedia 'inner circle' will improve this article. IBM's recent history under Palmisano has been to continue Gerstner's legacy of a services led company shedding commodity businesses and investing in software. IBM has made a big bet in analytics purchasing companies such as Cognos, SPSS and most recently Netezza, among others. These investments are supporting IBM's Smarter Planet initiative which is an effort to provide embedded instrumentation into products and transform industries through sustainability and massive gains in efficiency. IBM is making enormous bets on these efforts spending $6B per annum on R&D. The company is also embarking on an effort to tightly integrate hardware and software under the leadership of Steve Mills. For the first time in its history, IBM has placed its server and storage division under a software chief, reflecting the changing nature of the business. At the highest level the history of IBM is one of an early history selling business accounting machines and developing extremely strong relationships with corporate accountants. These relationships led to its dominance in computing and its monopoly which was scrutinized and challenged by the DoJ. At one point in its history IBM accounted for 1/2 of the computer industry's revenue and 2/3rds of its profits. IBM handed its monopoly to Intel and Microsoft and was caught flat footed until Lou Gerstner and Jerome York transformed IBM into a services powerhouse with a single face to the customer. Palmisano is now putting his stamp on the company by focusing on instrumentation, tighter vertical integration, analytics, cloud computing and emerging markets. The company is complementing its substantial R&D budget with tens of billions of dollars worth of acquisitions. These facts are well-documented in many trusted sources and I think reflect much of IBM's business history. Twostardav (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Please merge CTR article into IBM History
Why should a simple name change split IBM's history into two articles? The resulting redundancies make work for both those maintaining the articles and those using the articles. I'd think it unlikely that other corporate name changes are handled in the same way as CTR - IBM. Alternately, start the IBM history article at the date of the renaming, pointing to the CTR article for earlier history. One way or the other, just so that we write it once, read it once. 69.106.229.70 (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a merge template that states "It has been suggested that Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) Proposed since May 2011." There is a similar template over on the Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation article. There has been little or no real discussions of the reasons for the proposed merger, the pros and cons, or statements of support for and against on either talk page.  Since this has been unresolved for just about a year, I propose that we abandon the proposed merge and remove the merge templates from both articles.  I'll wait a few days and if there is no objection, I'll go ahead and remove the templates. Once this is done, we can move forward to edit both articles to make them less redundant. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ - With no responses to the above or a similar request over on Talk:Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation, I've gone ahead and deleted the merge templates from both articles. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

1911 Merger - Three Companies or Four?
The way the topic is currently written has four companies listed, and cites the Pugh book, Building IBM, pp. 24-27 as a source. But a review of those pages shows that Pugh states there were only three companies in the merger, leaving out the Bundy Manufacturing Co. (which he cites was previously merged into the International Time Recording Co.). Is there another source that can credibly assert that Bundy was not part of ITR prior to the creation of C-T-R in 1911, and that this was a four-company merger? Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the 1911 stock prospectus credible enough? It states that four companies were consolidated (NOT MERGED); the three described by IBM and the Bundy Manufacturing Company (founded in 1889). 2601:9:7E02:7DE9:1D4:FB4D:95F8:4A67 (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If the stock prospectus is not credible enough, please try the 1916 Poor's Manual of Industrials v7 p.2450, which lists the four companies controlled by CTR. 1916 -- that's 5 years after the consolidation. 2601:9:7E02:7DE9:D9D2:31BA:207B:192A (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Why was information on Mandelbrot deleted?
Why was this information deleted without explanation by Hypd09 at 12:53 on 15 June?

1975: Fractals - 	IBM researcher Benoit Mandelbrot conceives fractal geometry—the concept that seemingly irregular shapes can have identical structure at all scales. This new geometry makes it possible to describe mathematically the kinds of irregularities existing in nature. Fractals later make a great impact on engineering, economics, metallurgy, art and health sciences, and are also applied in the field of computer graphics and animation. 

Jeff Ogden (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ The deleted text was restored at 17:56 on 18 June 2011 by 69.106.237.145. Jeff Ogden (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Name change: It is the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company - NOT Corporation
Does anyone know how to get the name of CTR fixed in this and the linked entry. It should be the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company - NOT Corporation. This can easily be verified by a visit to IBM's Archive http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV2015.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.8.21 (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Written like an advertisement?
The following template was added to the article in January 2012:

Can someone provide more specific information about what portions of the article read like an advertisement and need to be changed? Without more specific information, I am inclined to remove the template. I'll do that, if after a few days there is no objection and more specific information has not been provided. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ - With no response to the above, I've gone ahead and deleted the Advert template. We can still work to improve the article, if someone will provide more specific information about what needs to be done. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Key events section: not neutral
The list of key event should only list events that are important for IBM or because of the impact of the outside world, according to 3rd party reputable sources. Now the section lists achievements that had neither impact on IBM nor on the outside world. They sound like press releases. Andries (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I know it's 6 years later, but yes, the article appears to have been partially written by a PR department. There's emphasis that could only come from a COI. tedder (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)