Talk:History of IBM/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, starting from scratch might be the best thing to do... Thomas Ash 16:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  See below. Trevor Hanson 06:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent changes by 220.233.221.252 removing exclamation marks 

message: 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 <pre> but I thought this would probably be easiest for hackery. Trevor Hanson 06:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New outline for History of IBM article 

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

message: A request for informal mediation has been made, see: Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: help on the way

message: 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)
thread_title: new comment from Paul

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Founding date discrepency 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Employee relations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More (sorry) IBM and the Nazi and Holocaust era 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agree.  Place an inline editors comment in both places, if needed.  /Blaxthos 05:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline: 1880s–1924: The origin of IBM 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

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

message: :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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ibm 7090.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  Snow White? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  IBM & Scientology 

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposed improvements

message: 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)
replies: text: Now half of the article reads like a book advertisement. I prefer the "IBM press releases." Andries (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: If the book is endorsed by scholars then please mention these endorsements in the article. Andries (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: IBM Role in the Holocaust Revisited without Company PR 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Neutral Point of View issues? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: they are your words, they get signed with your user name. A simple concept. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Fresh start

message: 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)
thread_title:  just create [[IBM during World War II]] 

message: I just made two edits.  The latter was to add a section header and  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)
thread_title:  Press release needed a citation 

message: 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)
thread_title: From Edwin Black

message: 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)
replies: text: - I went ahead and removed the POV template from March 2010. Jeff Ogden (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do things stand? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article Needs an Update 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  - 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)
thread_title:  Please merge CTR article into IBM History 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1911 Merger - Three Companies or Four? 

message: 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.History of Science.com
Jeff Ogden (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why was information on Mandelbrot deleted? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Name change: It is the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company - NOT Corporation

message: 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)
replies: text: - 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)
thread_title:  Written like an advertisement? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: 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)
thread_title: Key events section: not neutral