Talk:Sholes and Glidden typewriter

Where was it made?
Where was this typewriter made? This important information should be in the intro, surely? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why. The article already says everything in the history section: Sholes was in Milwaukee when he had the idea, for a while they moved to Chicago to manufacture it, returned, took it to Remington in New York, who made it. In between, prototypes were sent back and forth to Washington and various other places; it was in some sense "made" at all of them. There's no short one-word answer that "should" be in the intro, I think. Shreevatsa (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Shreevatsa. It was produced in several cities as it progressed from the prototype to the Remington version.  The development of the device and its contribution to the industry and society are the genuinely important aspects, and all already receive summary in the lead.  The point of manufacture is rather unimportant,  frankly.  The Remington factory is pictured and its location given in the "Start of an  industry" section, by the way.  Эlcobbola  talk 12:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To be explicit: There are other English-speaking countries in the world where it could have been made. Why the tacit assumption that the reader will know that it was made in the USA? --TraceyR (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead already says "American inventor", and this is more than enough. Obviously, not all the information in the article can be shoved into the lead, and we must choose what is crucial. There is no "tacit assumption" that the reader will know everything in the article (even after reading it), but I think it is safe to say that scrolling a screenful is not beyond the ability of most readers. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would rather it said "where" it was made, as all "American" or "English-speaking countries" are not the same. Relatively few important events have happened in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which is not the typical "USA". I believe individuality should be acknowledged. Talking image (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is acknowledged, isn't it? Are we talking of readers who won't even read the first section after the lead? Saying "Mooresburg, Milwaukee, Chicago, Washington, New York, etc." in the lead is too much. Shreevatsa (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely. That is why it is important to have the specifics in the lead. Many people think that "American" is all the same. We need to differentiate and teach. "American" has many subcategories that are not all the same. Talking image (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two interrelated issues here: 1) the device was not developed exclusively in Milwaukee. It's now been pointed out several times above.  Multiple cities were involved and listing only Milwaukee would be a misrepresentation. 2) Listing all the cities would be too much detail.  A lead must serve as an "introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects".  Aspects is not the same as details and location is a detail.  As has also been pointed out above, where it was made is not even an important detail.  That it just so happened that certain development occurred in Milwaukee - by people who weren't even from Wisconsin - is mere circumstance and of no relevance to the device itself.  This article is not here to glorify a tangentially related city ("Relatively few important events have  happened in Milwaukee" and "I believe individuality should be  acknowledged").  Milwaukee's page is here.  Эlcobbola  talk 13:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely the title to the article is wrong and the first sentence is factually incorrect
Although it does make it easy to find using the current form of "typewriter" the correct form should be "Type Writer".

This is discussed in Adler's books, which are considered by many as the authority on the subject. I would suggest that if the title is left as is the following should be used as revised text for the first line:

AT PRESENT IT STANDS LIKE THIS:

The Sholes and Glidden typewriter (also known as the Remington No. 1) was the first commercially successful typewriter.

SHOULD BE:

The Sholes and Glidden Type Writer (1)(2) also colloquially and retrospectively (1)(2) known as a “typewriter”  and now sometimes referred to as the Remington No. 1, (although no examples labeled Remington No. 1 were ever manufactured (1) (2) is now sometimes claimed to have been the first commercially successful typewriter, although not the first typewriter commercially manufactured, nor was it actually commercially successful in its original format. (1)(2) The term “typewriter” as applied to the instrument was a later development; originally a lady typist was the “typewriter”, and she typed on her “type writer” which she herself was usually expected to supply. (2)

The Sholes and Glidden Type Writer was a commercial flop, and went through several unsuccessful model and name changes (The Improved Type Writer, the Perfected Type Writer) before becoming the successful Remington Model no. 2. References:

1)	Adler, Michael H. (1973). The Writing Machine, a history of the typewriter. London: Geo. Allen & Unwin Ltd. 2)	Adler, Michael H. (1997). Antique Typewriters, from Creed to QWERTY. Atglen PA (USA): Schiffer Publishing Ltd.

Please comment.

MarcsMark (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Marc


 * You identify two areas of contention:
 * "the title to the article is wrong": "Typewriter" was a new word at the time and spelling was not yet formalized (it was variously called "Type Writer", "Type-Writer" and "Typewriter").  The article's title was chosen in accordance with WP:TITLE, specifically it's both "[the name] most commonly used in reliable sources" and "[the name] that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article".  The article's title is not "wrong".
 * "the first sentence is factually incorrect":
 * The term "Typewriter" was in no way a "later development". The term was coined by Sholes before Densmore even entered the picture (Bliven, Weller, etc.) and was, of course, also used by Remington.  See, for example, the term used in this 1872 article (roughly a year before being acquired by Remington) and the term used on the Remington version itself.  This is an example of Adler's poor research and understanding.  That typists were then also called "typewriters" is true, but irrelevant to this article.
 * The article never claims that machines labeled Remington No. 1 were manufactured. If fact, it explicitly says "referred to in sales literature as the Remington No. 1".  The "other names" (the Improved Type Writer and the Perfected Type Writer) were merely used as sales puffery and to distinguish originals returned for repair and retooling.
 * Certain versions of the Sholes and Glidden were commercial flops. The article discusses the failures, redesigns and sales volumes of the "prototypes" and No. 1 and that the real surge came after introduction of the No. 2.  You can't read only one sentence and expect to receive the complete story.  See WP:LEAD.  It's intended to give a broad overview of the subject.
 * Also read WP:V; the assertion that it was "the first commercially successful typewriter" is supported by dozens of sources. Regardless of whether it's true of not ("factually incorrect"), verifiability is the threshold.  That one author, who is not considering what "success" and "commercial production" mean in relative terms (what alternative device does Adler identify as having "large scale" production and sales of over 400 units before 1874?) is not representative of the view held by other reliable sources.  That Adler's books "are considered by many as the authority on the subject" is utter non-sense, by the way.  Have a reliable source for that weasel word?  Эlcobbola  talk 18:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

WHOA THERE, COWBOY! I don’t know who you are because you hide behind the anonymity of a pseudonym. I also don’t know what your problem is with Adler, but you have demonstrated by the vitriol of your response that you certainly have one. Either that, or else you are a frustrated youngster in a Link trainer trying hard to prove he is grown up and might one day become a pilot and know how to fly like a real man. Indeed, when a bunch of friends and colleagues first alerted me to your factually incorrect, defective and deficient article it was merely in the form of a request to me that I set the record straight; till then, I knew nothing about it, so the last thing I expected was your puerile dummy-spit response (if you’re American, make this “pacifier-spit”), much less the remarkable personal attacks of extravagant absurdity such as that Adler’s claim that The Writing Machine was a seminal work is “utter nonsense”. This says nothing whatsoever about Adler or his books, but speaks volumes about you and where you are coming from. It’s a pity for you that you weren’t old enough to be let out on your own while Adler was active in the field, otherwise you would have been able to attend Sotheby’s and Christie’s and Phillips’ and Bonham’s sales and seen such entries as “According to Adler…” and “Adler says…” among the catalogue notes. So you have a problem with Adler, then. Nothing particularly noteworthy in that, even though I have absolutely no idea what it’s about, and neither does he (unless it is motivated by a touch of good old-fashioned iconoclasm) except that as I understand it Wikipedia is not, repeat not, meant to be the forum for airing personal grudges or grievances or massaging circulation into fragile emerging egos. As for the issue of your justifications for failing to include either of his two books in your bibliography, this once again says everything about you, and nothing at all about him or his books. The sources you quote (Bliven, Weller etc.) are more often than not thoroughly obsolete, unreliable and anecdotal; to refer to them as your primary source material (since you have clearly done no original research of your own) is comparable only to editing a Wikipedia text on The Nature of the Universe by referencing medieval illustrated manuscripts, and quoting The Flat Earth Society as your source. Now, to specifics, and at the end of this discussion, you are urged to stop trying to kick dust into everyone’s eyes to prove what a man you are, and include Adler’s two books in the bibliography and references. You identify two areas of contention: "the title to the article is wrong": YOU SAY: "Typewriter" was a new word at the time and spelling was not yet formalized (it was variously called "Type Writer", "Type-Writer" and "Typewriter"). The article's title was chosen in accordance with WP:TITLE, specifically it's both "[the name] most commonly used in reliable sources" and "[the name] that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article". The article's title is not "wrong".

I SAY: The article’s title is wrong… I say again: the article’s title is wrong, and no amount of mealy-mouthing will change this fact. The Type Writer may indeed not be the words most people instinctively look for when they go on-line, but the correction must be made some time, somewhere, and cross-referenced, if the article is to have any pretence at veracity and authenticity. This in any case is irrelevant because instinctively or not instinctively, the correct name of the machine was and is and will forever be The Type Writer. You are quite remarkably advocating that wrong information be supplied by Wikipedia because people are not too familiar with the correct information and are perhaps too lazy to look for it. You may as well reason that not too many people know what a Breguet is, so why not call it a Waterbury, or a Timex.

"the first sentence is factually incorrect": YOU SAY: The term "Typewriter" was in no way a "later development". The term was coined by Sholes before Densmore even entered the picture (Bliven, Weller, etc.) and was, of course, also used by Remington. See, for example, the term used in this 1872 article (roughly a year before being acquired by Remington) and the term used on the Remington version itself.

I SAY: What are are you talking about? What is a “Remington version itself”? The machine in your link clearly states on it the text: The Sholes & Glidden Type Writer Patented Manufactured by E. Remington and Sons Ilion N.Y.  The Sholes & Glidden Type Writer. The terms “typewriter” and “type-writer” may well have been bandied about, and no one bothered much, but that is irrelevant because that is not what the machine was called. Elsewhere in a different article on this same subject I read the utterly hilarious statement which has Adler and the rest of us all rolling about in laughter, namely that at that time Remington was already famous as a manufacturer of sewing machines! This is so remarkably ignorant a statement that you couldn’t make such a thing up, if you set your mind to it… and yet that’s what it says. If it weren’t right there, in live time, in black and white (or colour), no one would have believed it. For your information, since you clearly don’t know it: Remington was famous as a manufacturer of arms and armaments, and Remington’s sewing machine was a commercial flop and is remembered by history only because early Type Writers (note: Type Writers) were originally mounted on modified Remington sewing machine tables. 

YOU SAY:    This is an example of Adler's poor research and understanding.

I SAY: On the contrary, Adler’s research is vast, extensive and exemplary, and his understanding is incomparable. You can call a three-wheeled Trabant a Cadillac if you feel like it (and be my guest!), but it doesn’t alter the fact that it’s a three-wheeled Trabant and that’s what it will always be (unless someone puts a fourth wheel on it after which it would be a four-wheeled Trabant), and calling it a Cadillac doesn’t make a Cadillac of it. If you would stop squirming long enough to sit still and pay attention you might learn something, and if you learned something you might come to your senses sufficiently to realise that there can be no greater authority on what a given machine is called than the name which the manufacturer himself puts on it: in our specific case The Sholes and Glidden Type Writer.

YOU SAY: That typists were then also called "typewriters" is true, but irrelevant to this article. I SAY: Anecdotal perhaps but not irrelevant at all, rather it is indicative of the intended original differentiation between the use of the expressions “typewriter” and “Type Writer”.

YOU SAY: The article never claims that machines labelled Remington No. 1 were manufactured. If fact (presumably you mean In fact), it explicitly says "referred to in sales literature as the Remington No. 1". I SAY: Yet more squirming and mealy-mouthing: “referred to in (unspecified) sales literature as the Remington No. 1?”  There was no such machine, and never has been, nor is there contemporary nor original sales literature relevant to that specific model which identified it as Remington No. 1.   This attribution was retrospective and was not contemporary with the date of manufacture, and no Remington sales literature issued at the time of manufacture of that model  refers to the machine as a Remington No. 1.   And there is an exceedingly good reason why it was never called a Remington No. 1: proud Remington wanted no part of the scheme and would not put their name to it because quite frankly it didn’t work well enough, is the reason. Densmore who did his damnedest to get Remington to buy them out lock stock and barrel (pun intended), would have given his eye-teeth for the kudos of the name change to Remington, but failed to conclude a deal with Remington on that score.

YOU SAY: The "other names" (the Improved Type Writer and the Perfected Type Writer) were merely used as sales puffery and to distinguish originals returned for repair and retooling.

I SAY: “Sales puffery” you call it? This is crass ignorance: the Improved Type Writer and the Perfected Type Writer were specific titles applied in order to identify clearly defined up-graded specifications.

YOU SAY: Certain versions of the Sholes and Glidden were commercial flops?

I SAY: NO! Move a little closer so you can read my lips: ALL versions of the Sholes and Glidden were commercial flops. This is not an opinion but a statement of fact, and is one of the reasons why we all love the machine as much as we do to-day.

YOU SAY: The article discusses the failures, redesigns and sales volumes of the "prototypes" and No. 1 and that the real surge came after introduction of the No. 2. You can't read only one sentence and expect to receive the complete story

I SAY: nor can you supply only one sentence and expect to convey the complete story. And, in case you’ve missed the point: there WAS NO No. 1.   End of story!

YOU SAY: It’s intended to give a broad overview of the subject.

I SAY: And it succeeds merely in giving an incorrect broad overview of the subject. Wikipedia is intended to give a correct broad overview of a subject.

YOU SAY: the assertion that it was "the first commercially successful typewriter" is supported by dozens of sources. Regardless of whether it's true of not ("factually incorrect"), verifiability is the threshold. That one author, who is not considering what "success" and "commercial production" mean in relative terms

I SAY: – what a remarkable thing to say! “Success” and “commercial production” in relative terms? What is that supposed to mean? Relative to what? And of course it is NOT, repeat NOT, supported by dozens of sources at all… unless perhaps you mean Remington promotion sources or those on the payroll! Certainly not by independent authentic sources. Certainly not commercial sources. It was a disaster, and it remained a disaster to be ultimately overtaken by the Titanic in 1912 and the Hindenburg in 1937. Incidentally, I don’t believe you’ll get much mileage out of confessing “regardless of whether it’s true or not…” also see

YOU SAY:  what alternative device does Adler identify as having "large scale" production and sales of over 400 units before 1874?

I SAY: Well, well, well! How long have you got for an answer? Let me reply to this on Adler’s behalf: 400 units? That’s a lot, in your view, is it? You’re impressed by that? Dazzled? Well, let’s see now: off the top of my head, how about all the vast multitude of implements relating to warfare for a start, in their countless tens of thousands, and to transport (carts of all kinds, and everything related to road and rail transport), and to building, and to telegraphy, and to entertainment (music boxes, magic lanterns, serinettes, kaleidoscopes etc. etc.), and to farming of all kinds, and to mining, and to forging and turning, and to cooking, since you ask... and I could go on and on. And on and on and on. And of course let’s not forget the humble old sewing machine (although not Remington’s, unfortunately): Singer alone sold thousands of sewing machine units in the year 1873, for instance, which fits rather neatly into your “before 1874” time-span, and Singer was only one of many.

YOU SAY: is not representative of the view held by other reliable sources.

I SAY: I am using ALL strictly contemporary sources (not merely those who reminisced nostalgically years or decades later) but above all I am relying on the views and judgements of ALL the principal players in the drama themselves, every one of whom was in utter despair at their repetitive commercial - and apparently insurmountable technological – failures, and ALL of whom were desperate to bail out. They sold off bits and pieces of ownership in the enterprise to anyone who had a few bucks in his pocket and showed even a minimal interest, at whatever price. This fact provides all the remarkable and endearing elements to the story. The original trio of Sholes and Glidden and Soulé, plus Yost, plus all the Densmore brothers, plus the odd mechanic or two, plus all the hangers-on… all were desperate to bail out, and in the end the only one who saved them all from doom was James Densmore and Yost who realised that the thing was worthless as it stood, and they would all lose everything unless the venture could be sold off. I seriously urge you to read Adler’s books for the details.

YOU SAY: That Adler's books "are considered by many as the authority on the subject" is utter non-sense, by the way.

I SAY: Well, in fact… what can I say to this, other than that when it comes to talking “utter nonsense”, you yourself surely are in a class of your own! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcsMark (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the very petty "Weasle words" comment ''Have a reliable source for that weasel word? Эlcobbola '' I would cite Amazon as a source where the importance of Michael Adler's work can be understood by anyone with no knowledge of the subject:

AMAZON’S WEBSITE [ http://www.amazon.com/Antique-Typewriters-Michael-H-Adler/dp/0764301322 ] Editorial Reviews

Product Description

Since 1973 Michael Adler's first book, The Writing Machine, has been affectionately called "the bible of the typewriter enthusiast." The renowned typewriter expert's new book, is sure to stimulate the same enthusiasm all over again, bringing you new and as yet unpublished insights into the origins of the invention itself in a detailed history of the machine. Over 250 photographs illustrate this definitive text, which includes comprehensive directories of typewriter inventions, makes, and models, and a concise guide to their values with advice on buying and collecting. How much? When? Where? How good? How rare? Who? Why? If you are looking for answers to any or all of these questions, Antique Typewriters is the ultimate reference book for you - from the novice typewriter collector to "seasoned old hand" enthusiasts and historians.

Also

[ http://www.amazon.com/Antique-Typewriters-Michael-H-Adler/product-reviews/0764301322/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 ] --MarcsMark (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding Marc comment added by MarcsMark (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

also the Smithsonian encyclopedia seem to think that Adler is important:

Selected Bibliography of Typewriters and Related Office Machines

Information or research assistance regarding typewriters and office machines is frequently requested from the Smithsonian Institution. The following information has been prepared to assist those interested in this topic.

Adler, Michael H. The Writing Machine: A History of the Typewriter. London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1973. 

And the US Patent office quote him in Patents (see the image at

You might also be interested in Note 1 in this book kindly provided by Google books

I think I have proved, in as far as is possible on-line, the credit worthiness of my source so enough already... lets get back to the point: the article is wrong and I move that the text I originally submitted be adopted.

--MarcsMark (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Mark. It is good to keep the discussion on the point, as you say. Some things I should point out to start with:
 * Firstly, since you are possibly new to Wikipedia, let me assure you that you should not take "weasel word" as an insult. Think of it as a Wikipedia in-joke, or jargon: someone wrote a policy page called "Avoid weasel words", and the term has become jargon for any statement like "considered by many", "experts say that", etc. This phrase can be jarring to newcomers, which is unfortunate.
 * Secondly, the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that even if you "know" something to be true, you need to find a "reliable source" — in the sense that Wikipedia defines — that says so. (E.g. Amazon reviews and passing mentions do not count as reliable sources.) Having to find sources for everything may seem irritating, but you can understand this is the only way Wikipedia can work. In any case, it is Wikipedia policy.
 * By this criterion, the only reliable source (found so far) that says something good about Adler's work is the Note 1 from the book linked above, which says: "The Writing Machine by Michael Adler (1973) is the best-documented and most thoroughly researched history of the different machines that he considers…". This is a good start. The note also goes on to say: "Adler's book does not seem to be very well-known. [..] I have never seen this book referred to in writing about the office or business machines in the United States, and stumbled across it by chance in the stacks of Harvard's Widener Library". This explains why the claim that Adler's books "are considered by many as the authority on the subject" needs more evidence to be accepted.
 * Finally, the title: Wikipedia's policies on article titles suggest using names that are "most likely to be recognized", "easy to find", and "only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously". Thus we have an article called "A Midsummer Night's Dream" even though the "correct" (if you mean the one originally used) title would be "A Midſommer nights dreame" with the long S, no apostrophe, and different spelling and case. Similarly, we use "typewriter" which is the most common form used in books today (though, if an alternative form like "Type Writer" was consistently used, we can mention that.)
 * Apologies for this long comment, but I felt it was necessary as an initial step to clear up misunderstanding and avoiding starting off on the wrong foot. Hopefully, future replies will be short and to the point. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was glad to see a discussion like this regarding and article which "has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." Someone should have a go at a few of the articles which are not held in such high regard.Komowkwa (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your comments. I am indeed new to this process and I appreciate the learning you have offered me (I do think that Weasle words is a REALLY BAD term by the way). I think the length of this discussion stems directly from what I took to be an unjustified attack. In fact it was an unjustified attack and I still challenge elcobbola to justify his statement "This is an example of Adler's poor research and understanding" in the safe knowledge that he cannot cite anything (following Wikipedia rules) that would support this inflammatory statement. He also states "is not representative of the view held by other reliable sources" but he did not even attempt to back up his opinion and so it should be ignored.


 * So essentially apart from defending my source from someone who may well have a vested interest in burying the books quoted (they are contentious because of the pricing they contain that other so called experts have minimized in an attempt to manipulate the market, but that's another story) the changes I suggested have not met any significant and verifiable resistance. I move that because my changes are fact, and offer published references as proof of such (sources which do meet the Wikipedia criteria as being published and even referenced in other third party works and, as I have shown, being more than acceptable in the field) that unless there is significant and verifiable opposition the following changes should be made to the first line of the article:


 * The Sholes and Glidden typewriter (also known as the Remington No. 1) was the first commercially successful typewriter.


 * SHOULD BE:


 * The Sholes and Glidden Type Writer (1)(2) also colloquially and retrospectively (1)(2) known as a “typewriter”  and now sometimes referred to as the Remington No. 1, (although no examples labeled Remington No. 1 were ever manufactured (1) (2) is now sometimes claimed to have been the first commercially successful typewriter, although not the first typewriter commercially manufactured, nor was it actually commercially successful in its original format. (1)(2)


 * The term “typewriter” as applied to the instrument was a later development; originally a lady typist was the “typewriter”, and she typed on her “type writer” which she herself was usually expected to supply. (2)


 * The Sholes and Glidden Type Writer was a commercial flop, and went through several unsuccessful model and name changes (The Improved Type Writer, the Perfected Type Writer) before becoming the successful Remington Model no. 2.


 * References:


 * 1)	Adler, Michael H. (1973). The Writing Machine, a history of the typewriter. London: Geo. Allen & Unwin Ltd.


 * 2)	Adler, Michael H. (1997). Antique Typewriters, from Creed to QWERTY. Atglen PA (USA): Schiffer Publishing Ltd.


 * I concede that the title should reflect the common usage and I believe that the text corrects the error in the title in short order and edifies the reader by stating the reality.


 * I am of course not suggesting that the whole article be changed: only the first line. All the best, MarcsMark (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather than go straight to a rewrite of the first sentence, let's see if we can agree on what the sources say first. You comment that El Cobbola couldn't cite anything in his support, but he does give some citations in his response to you above, mentioning Bliven and Weller (both references given in the article), plus a link to an article, in support of the early use of the word "typewriter".  I don't have the references, but if they disagree with Adler we'd need to talk about the relative merits of the sources.  I also don't know if El Cobbola has Adler.  Could you give us a quote from Adler that supports your assertion that "typewriter" should be "type writer" for the title of this article?  Also, can I suggest that we keep the posts short by addressing one thing at a time?  Long posts on multiple topics tend to discourage others from reading and responding; it's best to focus on a couple of points and work through them.  There's no hurry; there's no time limit for when this article has to be improved. Mike Christie (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely: it is not simply convenient but in this instance vital that we deal with one topic at a time. Much sloppy prose right at the start of typewriter history is actually the cause of our problems.  Adler dealt with this anomaly in some detail and concluded that the best and indeed only indisputable solution to the issue was to let the machine itself do the talking, and in this instance, the machine itself says on it, loud and clear: The Sholes & Glidden Type Writer.  Adler claims that there can be no more irrefutable an authority on the correct name of a machine than that which the manufacturer himself placed upon it at the time of manufacture. This avoids all possible subsequent hacking and yakking back and forth by people referencing and quoting conflicting period and later texts, in a great many of which strict orthographic precision was rarely a priority. MarcsMark (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Having answered all the comments and notes and waited for the debate to continue for a week without any further contributions it seems time to action the corrections proposed. MarcsMark (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I love this discussion. However, I do not understand why either the title of the article or the introduction should use type writer when Adler uses the word typewriter in the titles of his books.


 * 1)	Adler, Michael H. (1973). The Writing Machine, a history of the typewriter. London: Geo. Allen & Unwin Ltd.


 * 2)	Adler, Michael H. (1997). Antique Typewriters, from Creed to QWERTY. Atglen PA (USA): Schiffer Publishing Ltd.


 * Not that I know many people who use them anymore, but do those using these machines call them typewriters? Am I missing something? Komowkwa (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think MarcsMark's point is that the article is about the machine itself, not the general class of machines. There's no question that the machines are called "typewriters", but Adler apparently asserts that this particular machine should be called a "type writer".  This image, adduced by ElCobbola above as evidence of the usage "typewriter", actually looks to me more like "type writer"; the extra space between the "e" and the "w" is small but I think it's there.  However, I think Shreevatsa's point trumps this discussion: we don't use obscure terms in article titles if there is a well-known equivalent.  This is the policy Shreevatsa cites.  Hence I think the article title is fine as it is. Mike Christie (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree about the name and many sites says this was the first commerical success like http://www.antiquetypewriters.com/history/content.htm

http://www.mrmartinweb.com/type.htm http://articles.latimes.com/1988-09-12/business/fi-1396_1_electronic-typewriters http://americanhistory.si.edu/exhibitions/small_exhibition.cfm?key=1267&exkey=143&pagekey=220 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.92.41 (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Sholes article
Currently, the biggest part of the section Christopher Latham Sholes (from "For this project" to "which would eventually fetch him $1.5 million.") is, with 621 words or 2940 characters, longer than many articles. WP:TOPIC encourages editors to delete such redundancy. But I found the narrative there nicely written and more inviting than the text on this article. I'm wondering if we can find a way to merge that text here and get the best of both worlds. &mdash; Sebastian 19:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The Sholes article is utter garbage.  This is a featured article and must comply with summary style, which it does.  There is no detail in the Sholes article not already here necessary to understand the Sholes and Glidden typewriter article.  Эlcobbola  talk 20:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are you so harsh? I wish you had a little more respect for your fellow editors. I think the word "utter garbage" is inappropriate for a text that is based on reliable sources, undisputed, and easy to read. Even if we disagree on the style, It is certainly worth a look to decide if it contains any information that is worth covering here. Also, the categorical "No" seems to throw out the baby with the bathwater. From your reasoning, it seems you agree with my basic premise and my reason for bringing this up in the first place: That the text in the Sholes article is too long for that article. A merge proposal does not say how much text will be added to the merge target; if we find the merge source has nothing that isn't already covered in the target (and if we agree that it's better covered in the target), then naturally nothing will change in the target; only the merge source will be shortened. I hope you can agree with that. &mdash; Sebastian 20:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Two related questions: (1) What makes you say that this article "must comply with summary style"? (2) Even if were a summary article, who says that that such an article can only contain details that are necessary to understand the article? Look at the model article presented in WP:SS, World War II: It contains such pictures as that of a Chinese machine gun nest or of British Crusader tanks moving to forward positions during the North Africa Campaign. While these certainly add to the reading experience, I don't think anyone could claim that they are necessary to understand the article. Likewise, the picture of the historical marker may improve the reading experience for this article. &mdash; Sebastian 21:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for any merge. Sholes is most famous for inventing the typewriter, so of course in any biographical article on him, the section on the typewriter will be the longest (if not the only one). And obviously, a biographical article should contain information on how he came about his invention; this so-called redundancy is inevitable. If it's too long, it can broken up further into sections. I see no reason to remove anything. (If the biographical article includes more historical detail than is necessary for an article about the invention itself, there is nothing unnatural about that.) Shreevatsa (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you guys have been doing a great job on this article, so your opinion should weigh more than that of a casual visitor such as me. My concern wasn't so much with this article, as rather with the Sholes article; I only started the discussion here rather than there because the topic is more about the typewriter than about the inventor.


 * Of course, between two such articles, some overlap is to be expected. But there can be no doubt that we're dealing with true redundancy: I specifically discounted the 3 paragraphs (228 words or 1123 characters) that described how he came about his invention.


 * I tried to find some comparable pairs of invention and inventor by browsing through Timeline of United States inventions (before 1890), but they are hard to come by: In most cases, there is no article on that specific model of the invention (E.g., Reaper describes any reaper, not just the first mechanical reaper Cyrus Hall McCormick invented, tested, and demonstrated. Similarly Threshing machine, Sewing machine, ...). In the other cases, either the inventor has done a lot more in their life (Benjamin Franklin, Aaron Burr, David Rittenhouse ...), or the article about the inventor is a mere stub (such as Tabitha Babbitt and Jacob Yoder), or there is no article on the inventor (Levi Spear Parmly and Hiram Moore). Maybe the closest could be Samuel Colt / Colt revolving rifle. There is not as much overlap, but it's probably not a fair comparison since the article about the invention is smaller than this article. Also, it's not a featured article. So I browsed a bit through WP:FA; I couldn't find anything comparable in the "Engineering and technology" section. Maybe Edward Drinker Cope is somewhat comparable: It seems that only the "Bone Wars" section has its own article; that section is not quite as short as I would prefer, but it is shorter than most other sections. Another comparable featured article may be Lisa del Giocondo, with the section "Mona Lisa" about as long as the other sections. I have seen no article where text that already exists in another article is spread over more than one section. In conclusion, I don't see a case for having the section longer than others. If we cut out the indicated redundant 621 words or 2940 characters, as I proposed, the remainder would be about as long as the other sections. &mdash; Sebastian 02:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been a week. Since there's no consensus to merge, is there any objection to removing the merge tags? These tags are, in general, distracting to readers, and it's best not to leave them on pages longer than necessary. If there's discussion to be done about the other article, it can happen there, even after the tag is removed here. Shreevatsa (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No objection here. I don't think anyone would disagree that the Sholes article needs improvement; I'd be happy to help or discuss at the appropriate place (i.e. there).  Эlcobbola  talk 15:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I think I made a number of good points, and I have been waiting patiently for a reply for a week now. It seems to me that my points are not refuted. These points are not automatically moot just because you don't reply for a certain time. Please, at least give me the courtesy of addressing them. &mdash; Sebastian 16:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you haven't really made any points germane to this article; you may well have good points for the Sholes article. What information from the Sholes article needs to be merged into this article?  I say it "must comply with summary style" because it must comply with summary style.  It's a featured article - that is criterion four.  The rest is WP:OTHERSTUFF.  What other articles do or do not do is utterly irrelevant.  You said yourself, "My concern wasn't so much with this article, as rather with the Sholes article" - why are we here then?  No one has said issues, if any, can't be addressed at the Sholes article. The merge templates, whatever your points, are pointless and distracting - indeed per Shreevatsa.  Эlcobbola  talk 16:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first question has already been answered 21:32, 3 August 2010. To answer your second question: We are here because this is the destination article. Please read Help:Merging. &mdash; Sebastian 17:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your points have already been addressed by Elcobbola: "There is no detail in the Sholes article not already here necessary to understand the Sholes and Glidden typewriter article." If there are specific sentences or paragraphs you think it would be good to add here, feel free to add or discuss them specifically. No wholesale merge seems necessary (or possible). Your point seems to have been that the issues were with the other article, so it's best to discuss there, and remove the tag here. Shreevatsa (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't - see above. &mdash; Sebastian 17:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am against a merger. The article is near perfect and cluttering it up with other Christopher Latham Sholes stuff is a waste of time.


 * Also, the dicussion here is outstanding. Where else are you likely to find a heated debate over Type Writer or Typewriter being the correct name for 'one of those machines that people use to type?'  Where else can you find an argument over whether Milwaukee is in America? Can we find another discussion where someone suggests that Amazon.com is a reliable source?


 * Come on guys! Leave this topic for itself. Remove the merge tag.  There is no discussion of note in the Sholes article and anyone interested in improving it, can do it there. --Komowkwa (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Komowkwa has a point; there are some strange posts here. However, that’s not a reason to wholesale dismiss every post. Some posts just are asking for team work with other good editors in a mutually respectful, enjoyable and fruitful way, and the above was one of them. But that doesn’t look so promising here now, so I will just remove the merge tags. So, if you’re only interested in this article staying the way it was, read no further.

For those of us who are interested in making Wikipedia prosper, there is much to learn from this. I was too wordy, which distracted from my intention. On the other hand, there are some serious misconceptions here about policies and guidelines, above all about criterion four. For the sake of brevity, I’m leaving out the details; let me know if you want to read about that.

Closer to my heart is another phenomenon: The replies here contained elements of what I witnessed as a mediator in coverage of civil wars and ethnic conflicts: Ignoring, mocking, and distorting other editors’ statements, cynicism, rushing to conclusions. I understand when someone whose friend has just been raped reacts that way, but why here, on such a peaceful topic? The closest I can come to an explanation is mobbing. How does it happen that otherwise reasonable editors fall into this behavior? What can we do about it? I would appreciate your input here. In any case, please be more cautious next time when someone posts here; too many good people have been scared away from Wikipedia because of this sort of behavior. &mdash; Sebastian 18:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Edison's contribution
(add Edison's contribution)Revision as of 16:17, 16 July 2012 This story does not pass the source criticism enough. Current(1949) p.399 foot-note.21 So we can put it only as an episode or may put it with counter opinion in parallel.--Raycy (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)