Talk:Rolex/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Significant events in Rolex history

Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier in 1947 wearing a Rolex.

http://rolex.watchprosite.com/show-nblog.post/ti-412671/

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=32749

Aldo L (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not posted recently but I intend to change the assertion that Hillary wore a Rolex on Everest as it is simply not the case. Hillary wore a 'Smiths Delux' which is on permanent exhibition at His Sherpa, Tenzing Norgay rather famously wore both a Rolex Oyster(given to him for the failed assault on Everest by Raymond Lambert the previous year and a Smiths given to him for the expedition led by John Hunt of 1953 which, of course, succeeded. As a result of this Smiths went on to produce a watch called the 'Everest' while Rolex renamed the style of Oyster worn by Norgay the 'Explorer'. They have been implying that they were the watch sponsor of the exhibition ever since. They were not, Smiths were. Sadly, Smiths watches ceased to exist in the seventies and so are no longer in a position to defend themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EasyCheese (talk • contribs) 08:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do so only if you find a reliable source asserting this per our policy of WP:RS. I reverted the edit as uncited and unverified. See also WP:V for verifiability of claims. Dr.K. logos 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, as I said, the watch resides at the Clockmaker's Company Museum in London. Now, as it stands, you have accepted an unreferenced magazine article as evidence. so I assume that a bulletin board article about visiting said museum complete with a verifying photograph will do for a start: http://www.tz-uk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=60537&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a I assume you know the difference between a Rolex Oyster and a Smiths Delux and will be able to authenticate this.

Secondly, there is this paragraph from: "The best of time, Rolex wrist watches" by James M. Dowling and Jeffrey P. Hess, Schiffer Publishing Ltd, ISBN 0-7643-0011-3 reproduced here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~rkeulen/watch/explorer.html in which Downling states that:

"While it is true that many of the members of the successful Everest expedition were issued with Rolex watches (see the advertisement on page 243), the embarrassing fact for Rolex was that only one of the two climbers at the top was wearing a Rolex. This watch, worn by Tenzing Norgay, is now in the Rolex Museum in Geneva. Although Rolex was an official supplier to the Everest expedition, so was the English watch company Smith's and Edmund Hilary chose to wear a Smith's watch (see the advertisement below). In the end it was the Rolex publicity machine that triumphed."

I assume that, this is enough evidence, when compared with a magazine article with no citations. Obviously, you can, if you wish, buy the book or visit the museum for hard verification. As it stands, your entry on Everest is demonstrably factually incorrect due to commercially driven revisionism by Rolex SA. I will leave the revision, or not, to you.

It is a pity, that I am reminded why, shortly after starting to contribute, I stopped. Maybe I'll try again in a few years.

From The article: Everest: A Pinnacle of Achievement for Rolex...By John E. Brozek InfoQuest Publishing, Inc., 2004 International Watch Magazine, April 2004 at: [1] and [2]

It’s worth mentioning that some members of the 1953 expedition were pictured wearing two watches—one on each wrist. With that being said, it is possible that Hillary also wore a Rolex on the expedition, but simply wore the Smiths during the summit leg of the climb. Others believe he may have worn both to the summit or that he possibly wore a Rolex while he simply “carried” the Smiths in his pocket. Whatever the case, it has remained a mystery to this day, and it is not likely that we will ever know for certain.

So the situation is unclear. We may have to reflect this in the article. As to your remark regarding retiring, I would advise not to get discouraged. People can communicate. There is no problem most of the time. Take care. Dr.K. logos 23:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for making the changes made so far

Here is some more detail. From 1953 onwards, Hillary was retained by Rolex and given a Rolex watch and made public statements such as: 'I count my Rolex watch amongst my most treasured possessions'. Significantly, what he did not say was: I wore a Rolex on the summit. However, as is referenced in this internet site: http://www.qualitytyme.net/pages/rolex_articles/everest.html (again, from the Brozak article, see para seven) he says of the Smiths in aseries of adverts at the time:“I carried your watch to the summit. It worked perfectly.” Given that he was employed by Rolex as an Ambassador, he would have made it clear that he had been wearing a Rolex if he had. He didn't. The claim that Rolex equipped the 1953 Hunt expedition is again revisionism. They did equip the 1952 Lambert expedition in which Lambert and Norgay got to within 200M of the summit. Norgay made a point of showing off his two watches as they were evidence of the fact that he had been the lead Sherpa on both the '52 and 53 expeditions.

So, there is solid evidence that Hillary wore a Smiths. It is in a London museum, there is also evidence that Norgay wore both a Smiths and a Rolex. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that Hillary wore a Rolex until he was given one by Rolex after the event. Had he worn one on Everest he would have stated so while writing publicity material for Rolex; he did not. In leaving the revision as it stands you are surely going well beyond the facts available. You do not state that he may have worn a Seiko because there is no evidence he didn't. Why extend this only to Rolex? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EasyCheese (talk • contribs) 08:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your arguments about what Hillary was wearing at the summit. However we cannot use our own deductions to infer what happened. We have to use the conclusions presented in the magazine article. Using our own logic would be WP:OR (original research) and more specifically WP:SYNTH (synthesis of published material). The threshold of inclusion in Wikipedia is WP:VERIFIABILITY not truth as is explicitly stated in the policy. Dr.K. logos 14:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So, to fulfil these criteria, do I need to prove that he wore a Smiths Delux watch or do I need to prove that he didn't wear a Rolex? (and presumably a Seiko, Cyma, Omega and so on?)

I have found a reference to it in the UK broadsheet newspaper the Independent :

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/time-bandits-1114883.html

(paragraph 13)

"Edmund Hillary's sidekick, Tenzing Norgay, wore a Rolex Explorer on the summit of Everest (Hillary himself wore a boring old Smith's)."

Carrying on:

The penultimate page of the catalogue of the Clockmaker's museum contains both a photograph of Hillary's Smiths and text describing its use on Everest. Hillary's Smiths in the Exhibition has been photographed by a number of contributor to online watch forums, here:

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=81956

about half way down the thread

and here:

http://www.tz-uk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=60537&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

In addition, the watch history and publication of this information on the museum catalogue can be confirmed by contacting:

http://www.clockmakers.org/index_files/page0002.htm

Short of inviting you to go to the museum and check I really don't see what more I can say.

More to the point,returning to the paragraphs that we have referred to already, I am unclear as to why they push you towards the conclusion you reached.

"In fact, the Rolex worn by Tenzing to the summit wasn’t an Explorer at all, but rather a stainless steel Bubbleback on a simple leather strap given to him by his longtime friend and fellow climber Raymond Lambert and currently on display in Geneva at Rolex headquarters. Hillary, on the other hand (no pun intended), apparently wore a watch from the English company Smiths (A.409 15 jewels. 28mm.), which he endorsed in a series of brief advertisements, as follows: “I carried your watch to the summit. It worked perfectly.” It is important to note that Hillary also wrote endorsements for Rolex after the 1952 expedition, including the following: “Its accuracy is all one could desire and it has run continuously without winding ever since I put it on some nine months ago… I count your watch amongst my most treasured possessions.”

Note that the author concedes clearly that Hillary wore a Smiths Delux. He then goes on to hypothesise. The book is about Rolex and he is clearly trying to do nothing more than speculate a case for Hillary also wearing a Rolex. Given that he implies: 'Hillary also wrote endorsements for Rolex after the 1952 expedition' that Hillary wrote his endorsement immediately after the expedition when in fact it was some years later.

"It’s worth mentioning that some members of the 1953 expedition were pictured wearing two watches—one on each wrist. With that being said, it is possible that Hillary also wore a Rolex on the expedition, but simply wore the Smiths during the summit leg of the climb. Others believe he may have worn both to the summit or that he possibly wore a Rolex while he simply “carried” the Smiths in his pocket. Whatever the case, it has remained a mystery to this day, and it is not likely that we will ever know for certain."

So, we have a watch currently in a museum with two independent verifications, with photographs, a published catalogue in which this exhibit is referred to, with a photograph and an e-mail address to confirm that the Smiths Delux worn by Hillary on Everest resides in the Museum. On the other hand we have a Rolex hagiography in which the author concedes that Hillary wore a Smiths in one paragraph, before a highly speculative 'just so story' as to how he may have worn a Rolex in the next.

I am sorry that I am being quite so implacable. I hope that this standard of evidence is now acceptable. Cheers, Matt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.42.113 (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologise. But I have a few citations of my own:

• New York University Stern School of Business: Sir Edmund Hillary wore a Rolex when he climbed Mt. Everest in 1953. The watch became the key instrument to measure time at sporting events.
• The Rolex exhibit including Hillary's 1953 expedition Rolex,
• The art of digital branding from Google books: Quote: Sir Edmund Hillary took his Rolex to the summit of Mount Everest Page 170 Title The Art of Digital Branding Author Ian Cocoran Edition illustrated Publisher Allworth Communications, Inc., 2007 ISBN 1581154887, ISBN 9781581154887 Length 255 pages.
• National Geographic Gear: Best Adventure Watches Rolex Oyster Perpetual Explorer II The Rolex Oyster Perpetual Explorer II ($3,800; www.rolex.com) is the durable, water-resistant, self-winding sequel to the mountaineering watch originally created for Sir John Hunt, the leader of the 1953 expedition that put Tenzing Norgay and Sir Edmund Hillary on top of Everest.
• Business Montres ENCORE UNE LÉGENDE HORLOGÈRE QUI VACILLE : tous les « bons » journalistes horlogers vont vous le jurer la main sur le cœur : la Rolex Explorer tire son nom du fait qu'elle a été portée au sommet de l'Everest par sir Edmund Hillary, en 1953. Google Translation: "STILL A LEGEND WHO WATCHES Vacille: all the "good" journalists will watch you swear hand on heart, the Rolex Explorer gets its name because it has been brought to the summit of Everest by Sir Edmund Hillary in 1953. Rolex lui avait rendu un hommage ultérieur en lui dédiant cette Explorer. Rolex had delivered a tribute to him later in dedicating this Explorer."

Not to make too fine a point out of this I think there is reasonable doubt that we can as a minimum agree to disagree. And remember, blogs and forums are not considered reliable sources. Cheers. Dr.K. logos 01:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a newspaper advert for a small jewellers store in the US carries the same weight as an exhibit featured in the catalogue of the guild museum of the oldest watch and clockmaking guild in the world. More to the point, If this jewellers had really had had access to Hillary's Rolex, then where is it now and why is there no reference to it's final resting place

However, I can see that, if all evidence is of equal value, we are indeed deadlocked. Is all evidence of equal value? As for the forum entries, I included them because both had photographs Bold textof the Smiths Delux in the museum. not for the accompanying text.

However, given that this is your decision, I think the very least you can do is reflect the fact that there is a wealth of evidence, including his own words, that Hillary did wear a Smiths Delux on the summit of Everest. This, at least would be a satisfactory compromise that accurately reflects your decision that we 'agreeing to disagree'. What you also say about his putative Rolex is entirely up to you.

At some point, I will visit the museum, buy a catalogue and photograph it for your consideration. I assume that would be satisfactory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EasyCheese (talk • contribs) 09:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, please. I never meant to put you to such labour. I don't dispute your well taken points about the Smiths. I just feel that the evidence is not conclusive that he did not have a Rolex with him at the top as well as a Smiths. Therefore I just left it as unclear in the article, just because I accepted your arguments and your evidence. Let me see if this can be rephrased. And please, do visit the museum, but on your own accord and not for evidence purposes :) Thanks again and take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 16:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, I do understand that, once an assertion of this sort has been made, it is hard to disconfirm. However, I just felt it was unfair that Smiths, the very last English watchmakers, should not have what was effectively their swansong recognised. The same problem exists with Omega, Rolex, Bulova and Waltham on the moon. I guess there is just too much at commercial stake not to try and claim such things.

Cheers,

Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.42.113 (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you as well for your well made arguments. They gave me an opportunity to expand my knowledge about an area of watch history I had very little idea about. I had never heard of Smiths Delux before. It was a very interesting and sad story, since the company no longer exists, and I commend you for pursuing it. I am not aware about the controversy involving Omega, Rolex, Bulova and Waltham. I'll look it up, thanks for the pointer. Take care for now and it was very nice meeting you. Cheers. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 03:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Stores world-wide: List Removal

Rolex does have hundreds of authorized dealers all over the world. I do not understand what the point is in picking random cities to illustrate the point. I think this list should be removed as it serves no purpose. Gentleman wiki (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Addition of non-notable websites to Rolex watch articles

I have been removing a number of blogs, auction image galleries and other non-notable commercial/auction/retail websites from articles dealing with high-end watches, including this one. These websites do not, and will not, meet WP:RS, and those that are being used to source "celebrity" sections will never meet the stringent WP:BLP. If there's a website that is a well-known, documented authority on Rolex watches, then please discuss it here, not do not add it to the main article or use it to source content. Flowanda | Talk 05:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Celebrity/current trivia

The section of "famous owners" is nothing more than a trivia section detailing unsourced or poorly sourced listings of celebrity owners. Just because there's a mention, photograph, sale or auction connecting a Rolex with a celebrity does not mean the information needs to be listed in this article, especially when the source is a commercial website or a blog. Adding this kind of trivia has been discussed here and elsewhere (see Talk:Omega SA, for instance), and I could find no similar articles with the kind of insignificant lists that are currently infesting Rolex-related articles. Flowanda | Talk 09:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the poorly/unsourced information included in the section "Significant events" should also be reviewed and either edited or removed. Flowanda | Talk 09:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable Owners - Rolex Submariner

There are several notable errors in the entry regarding James Bond's Rolex Submariner. Perhaps they could be corrected or rephrased.

"The Rolex Submariner has appeared in eleven James Bond movies as well as in the original books and was also worn by Bond creator, spy and author Ian Flemming."

James Bond does wear a Submariner in some of the films but in the books it is referred to only as a Rolex. Its type is never identified. The Submariner was not even produced until after the first novel was published. Ian Fleming wore an Explorer I, not a Submariner.

http://www.jamesbondwatches.com/refs/WatchTime2009Feb.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 03:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the whole section has to go. I'm not a trivia fan. But to the extent that it remains you are welcome to make the changes yourself. Thank you for the suggestion. Take care. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 03:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree. It strikes me an encyclopedia isn't the place to discuss the image associated with a commercial product and the article should be limited to the history and nature of the company. The 'facts', as it were. More ethereal elements of the brand's appeal are perhaps better left to forums and fansites.

I've never contributed to Wiki before and didn't feel comfortable arbitrarily altering someone's article. I just got drawn in by reading the rather bizarre exchange above concerning Rolex as a synonym for spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.28.52 (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with your comments above about what should be included in the article. Concerning the editing of the article, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which can be edited by anyone, so please feel free to edit the article. As far as the discussion about Rolex as a synonym for spam, I can only say that I took part in it and sometimes I just couldn't believe what I was reading during the exchanges. Your characterisation of it as "bizarre" comes close to describing the type of some of the arguments. Nice meeting you and thanks for your well-taken points. Take care. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 16:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I may tinker with some of the details (and punctuation...) when I get a moment, although I don't really know what's considered good form. Should one announce edits first?

Yes, it was an eye-opening exchange. Rather the sort of thing which has people questioning the reliability of Wiki as a reference source, if such people are contributing. I'm sure it's not good form to question the intelligence or mental health of an editor, but some of his comments did make one wonder....

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.28.52 (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to announce your edits, at least most of the time. Just go ahead and add your information. If you plan something really major as deleting a whole section then it may be advisable to provide some notice. Otherwise as long as you can supply information supported by citations you should be ok. As for the latter part of your comments you are right insofar as it is not a good idea to comment on contributors but rather on their contributions. It is part of an effort to keep the discussion free from personality issues and focus on content issues. Take care for now. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 20:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Although I think the entire section should probably go (strikes me as being just fluff) I restricted myself to removing three demonstrably untrue claims - that Fleming was a spy, that Fleming wore a Submariner, and that the literary character James Bond wore a Submariner - and left the sentence intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 02:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with trivia in Rolex#Notable owners section

Most of the items listed in the "Notable owners" section are unsourced trivial mentions about celebrities and should be removed unless a significant connection can be made and agreeable decent, non-commercial, non-fansite/forum/blog/auction source meeting WP:RS are found. I moved a few items to the top of the list that appear to be more than "sightings", but, in my opinion, everything after the Daniel Craig item should be removed. Other articles (Omega SA, Panerai) have removed similar trivia lists and instead have incorporated discussions of notable owners and pop culture uses into the relevant sections, which makes for a much more interesting article than a bunch of sections listing product types and hype. Flowanda | Talk 03:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 05:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree. Simply reeling off lists of random facts (of highly dubious nature) has no place in an encyclopaedia. It turns the aticle into a fanblog. BearAllen (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I (reluctantly) agree with Flowanda that "everything after the Daniel Craig item should be removed", although I hold my hands up that I am a fan of interesting trivia, but feel that it should be remembered that Plácido Domingo and Franco Zeffirelli are both regarded by Rolex as 'Rolex Ambassadors'. Perhaps they should be included in the remaining list... Captainclegg (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

When you say that two people "are both regarded by Rolex as 'Rolex Ambassadors'", do you mean that Rolex pays them to advertise its watches, or something else? If you do mean the former, it's not immediately obvious to me why an encyclopedia should list who's paid to advertise what. -- Hoary (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the relationship between Rolex (and many other watch brands) and their 'ambassadors' is the same as that between Nike and Tiger Woods or Roger Federer - they are paid to wear their kit and appear in marketing material. Unless it's included in an element of the article about their marketing strategy, or their place in the market, I don't see how it's relevant. 91.106.50.24 (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the entry "Air Force Captain Chris Pappas wears an oyster perpetual datejust." from 'Notable Owners'. It links to an article about Eastenders. It appears to be vandalism. BearAllen (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. This is exactly the reason why in such lists we must not allow entries to be added without inline citations. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 20:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there are only two sources quoted in the entire section, and they're pretty questionable. I'd be happy to get rid of the whole thing, but I think the previously suggested idea of dumping everything below Daniel Craig would be a good compromise if other people agree? BearAllen (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I put in a plea that the Steve McQueen watch auction be included? http://www.thetimetv.com/news-steve-mcqueen-vintage-rolex-sells-for-234,000-antiquorum-auction-856-32 It goes to show that a good watch + connection to a bona fide star = a LOT of money. Captainclegg (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's only about two thirds the price that a used glove can go for. We can interpret this kind of thing in any of various ways; as for me, I waver between (a) "Some people are very rich indeed and are nuts" and (b) "Some people are very rich indeed and have calculated that others who are even richer are nuts." Well, lots of rich people fetishize dead stars and their appurtenances; I don't know what this shows about watches. -- Hoary (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that it shows that Rolexs's and certainly Rolex's connected with an A-list star, are highly collectable and sort after! And if I had the money, I would certainly do the same, nuts or not , as I may be! Captainclegg (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're going to have trouble showing the distinction between the appeal of Rolex and the appeal of Steve McQueen. Rolex are noted both for their high second hand values and for the strong vintage market. You may be able to wrap the McQueen bit into a section about that, but otherwise it seems like another random fact. BearAllen (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow "original synthesis", but perhaps on some other website somebody who is demonstrably both (i) trained in statistical methods and (ii) disinterested could analyze the prices of

1. used Rolex watches that weren't owned by slebs
2. used Rolex watches that were owned by slebs
3. used non-Rolex watches that weren't owned by slebs
4. used non-Rolex watches that were owned by slebs

and infer something from the results. Till that happens, there's little that can be said in Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding trivia will not improve this article, I don't think. Rolex has an interesting history, and a long and fine record of technological innovation. Expanding/improving these areas should be the priority. They are, essentially, the things which should be detailed by an encyclopaedia.

Whilst any article about Rolex (and the same could be said of Rolls Royce, for instance, and perhaps a few other brands) which ignored their associations - luxury, status symbol, etc - would be missing an important aspect, such ethereal things as 'image' need to be dealt with in a more delicate and sophisticated manner than merely inconsistently listing arbitrarily chosen anecdotes about random celebrities who may or may not have once worn a Rolex, and may or may not have been paid to do so.

Even at its best, this method is assuming the reader shares the writer's opinion of the celebrity, and that the information speaks for itself - person X wears/wore a Rolex, person X is ultra chic, ergo Rolex and Rolex wearers associate with that chic. The reader may have little or no opinion of the sleb, quite a different view of them, or may not have heard of them at all. The 'fact' becomes as irrelevant as whether you or I wear one. BearAllen (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just now removed the following unsourced trivia:

• Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara wore a stainless steel Rolex GMT Master.
• Cuban President Fidel Castro wears two, a stainless steel Rolex GMT Master and an 18ct gold Rolex Day-Date, on the same wrist.
• Thor Heyerdal, the Norwegian anthropologist, wore a Rolex Submariner during his 1970 Ra II sea expedition.
• Actor Tom Selleck wore a stainless steel Rolex GMT Master (as 'Thomas Magnum') in the eponymous TV show Magnum P.I..
• Actor Daniel Craig, in spite of the Omega product placement in the current Bond movies, continues to wear a vintage Rolex Daytona and a customised Rolex Submariner in real life.
• Musician Eric Clapton has a Rolex Submariner named in his honour: the Rolex Red Submariner.
• Tour de France cyclist Lance Armstrong wears a stainless steel Rolex GMT Master II, as does four-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion and three-time Daytona 500 winning racing driver Jeff Gordon.
• Musician Phil Collins wears a platinum Rolex Yacht-Master.
• Opera singer Plácido Domingo wears an 18ct gold Rolex GMT Master.
• Film director Franco Zeffirelli wears an 18ct gold Rolex Day-Date.
• French President Nicolas Sarkozy wears a Rolex Daytona with a black dial, as does actress Sharon Stone.
• Actor Dustin Hoffman wears a gold and stainless steel Rolex GMT Master II.
• Actor Steve McQueen's Rolex Submariner (ref 5513) was auctioned in 2007 for £146,600 (US$243,000).

I've left the trivia that looks as if its sourced. -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the following:

• Actor Paul Newman wore a customised version of the Rolex Daytona (known as the Paul Newman Daytona) up until his death in 2008, the wristwatch having been given to him by his wife, Joanne Woodward, when he took up motor racing in 1972.

If you click on the link, you'll read that it is said that this is true. There's a footnote for the assertion that this is said. However, the footnote makes no sense. So we have a meaningless footnote for an assertion that it is said that Paul Newman got such and such a watch from the missus at such and such a time -- no wonder Wikipedia is widely regarded as a joke. -- Hoary (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's now down to two trivia items. One of them states that model such and such is called "Pussy Galore". No indication who calls it so -- dealers? denizens of message forums? It's linked to some collector's page that baldly states the same thing. No evidence, no reasoning, no argument. But perhaps others among you are impressed by such "sourcing". Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote for getting rid of the lot. It now resembles a Bond section.

Also, I've just noticed the 'source' for the pricing section links to a second hand watch dealer. This seems inappropriate (and actually quite ridiculous) when used to establish the price of new watches. BearAllen (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And when does consensus come in on Wikipedia? The discussion that I had been reading (above) seemed to be agreeing that "everything after the Daniel Craig item should be removed", but here we have an editor (Hoary) who has taken it on themselves to just edit the lot regardless. Seems not in the spirit of Wiki. Incidentally, there are many photos of both Che and Castro wearing their aforementioned watches and they are undoubtedly 'notable' persons. Berettagun (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, they're notable people. If a number of people really believe that Che and Fidel's choice of wristwatch is significant, then this trivia can go back into the article, if evidence for it is cited. I'd be surprised if photos of either leader showed his wristwatch in such detail as to distinguish it from an an Omega or an Oris or a Fortis or a Zenith or a Cyma or a whatever, but if such photos exist then let's have the links to them. -- Hoary (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Che's Rolex GMT watch detail (rather first-hand source, excuse the pun!): http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKroderiguez.htm and photo detail: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Cv-0TBEhWVE/SSlr9d8pBoI/AAAAAAAAGTE/1ylbSj8QkLI/s400/CheLrg.jpg And the consensus issue...? Berettagun (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not detail. It's a sharp rendition of the side of some watch or other. It's certainly unlike the watch I'm wearing now. Maybe it's a Rolex. Who knows? On consensus: well, it's a matter of consensus on interpretation of the policies. Here's a relevant policy. Look, here, by contrast to this hodgepodge on Rolex, is an article that has been occupying me this week. As it happens, the article has only been edited by me so far, so in its current, prevandalized state you see my understanding of Wikipedia. (Of course I hope that others will join in and improve it.) Everything in it is sourced. It also dispenses with trivia: the man's choice of camera is far more important to his achievements than Che's choice of wristwatch was for his; but since I'm quite sure he could have taken much the same photos whichever brand of 35mm camera he used, I didn't bother to look for this information. -- Hoary (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The photo shows a watch and the accompanying article, from the man who stole it from Che's body after cutting his hands off, clearly says that it is a Rolex. But you seem to have become Judge & Jury on this article, so over to you. Debates and consensus I enjoy, but I cannot be bothered to get into a pointless argument about the merits of information versus the different expectations of readers. Berettagun (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may interject, from this photo, it is not conclusive at all that the watch is a Rolex. And even if it were this is still a primary source. We need a reliable secondary source to verify this is a Rolex. A simple photo, inconclusive one at that, just won't cut it. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 20:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, looking at the photo, I overlooked the article, which clearly says that CG had a Rolex, stolen by the CIA spook. So I've reintroduced this particular tidbit, with source. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary. No problem at all. If we have a WP:RS to cover Che's Rolex we don't have any arguments. Take care. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 00:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I had originally said... QED. Berettagun (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps more important than whether or not we can prove certain people wore a Rolex, is whether or not it's important? I'd like to hear some kind of argument for why it improves people's knowledge of Rolex to be told that Thomas Magnum P.I. and Placido Domingo wore their watches. Without elaboration, what does it tell anyone beyond the fact that people need to know the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 13:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it goes to show the perceived status of the watch and I submit if you argue that any watch is just to tell the time (or any car is just to get from a to b, or clothes are just to cover your nakedness) then almost the entire encyclopaedia can be reduced to a single line per entry: "Rolex: a Swiss watch used to tell the time". Please don't dismiss peoples interest in items of glamour and their iconic status symbol. Although you may have absolutely no interest in an addendum, this does not mean that everyone else has the same degree of lack of interest. It is up to the reader to dismiss (or otherwise) information. A good encyclopaedia should supply too much info, not too little based on a single editors whim. Captainclegg (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I said 'without elaboration' it only proves someone wants to know the time.

There are several issues it raises; Is the status of the brand enhanced because these 'notable people' wear/wore Rolexes, or did they choose a Rolex because it already had the status?

How/why did they acquire them? If one is to infer that something is to be read into the significance of a famous person choosing a Rolex, this is surely void if it transpires that person is paid to wear one, as in the case of Rolex 'Ambassadors'. Likewise, it paints a different picture if the watch were a gift, or the Rolex they own is merely one of several dozen watches they happen to have. Incomplete or erratic lists are more misleading than no information at all.

Also, why is this list of 'notable owners' a mixture of real people and fictional characters? And the real people are a mixture of people who happen to own a Rolex and people who have been paid to wear a Rolex?

I am not dismissing the role that 'image' has. In fact, I've written above that any entry on Rolex which ignored it would be incomplete. It's the haphazard and sloppy way it's dealt with I object to. Merely listing random people who may or may not have worn a Rolex is a very poor way of describing Rolex's status as an iconic brand. BearAllen (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but just to be specific, Sergeant Terán was actually Che's executioner. Rodriguez did what the CIA do all the time with "black ops": point the finger at that weeks perceived 'baddie' and get someone else to pull the trigger and then take the credit. Captainclegg (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. The way it was worded before it sounded as if Rodriguez was a mugger. It should probably be clear in the article he took it from his body.

Although, saying that, this section now looks very odd. The only real person in it is Che. Blood-thirsty revolutionaries hardly seem to be the epitome of the Rolex image. This section should either be fully reflective or non-existant. When I get a few moments I'll write a new passage which, hopefully, will incorporate some of the celebrity associations along with some properly sourced quotes about their marketing, and their change in reputation from professional tools to status symbols.

Hopefully it will render this section obsolete, but I'll look for consensus before removing it. BearAllen (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. Thank you Bear. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 18:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Excessive detail as indication of significance

The prominence given to Mercedes Gleitze in the Rolex#Significant events section seems excessive, given its limited sourcing and lack of verification elsewhere other than similar edits added to other Wikipedia articles. As with other examples, the amount and kind of detail seem to infer the Rolex brand itself played a vital role or was uniquely important in these events when there seems to be little evidence that it was. Owning and wearing multiple specific kinds of Rolexes may mean something, but without proper context provided by appropriate sources meeting WP:RS, there's no way to tell the difference between a trophy taken from a dead man and schwag sighted on the red carpet. Flowanda | Talk 06:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

changes feedback

I would like to understand the criteria for the editing of articles in wikipedia and the reasons for the removal of my changes. I feel my changes were supported fully by the sources provided and would like to take this opportunity to request more information as to your objections to my editing.

My changes:

Rolex SA is a Swiss leading world manufacturer of high quality, luxury wristwatches.

Constant renewal and development for more than a century have allowed it to enjoy great success and innovation. Rolex is one of the biggest companies operating in the luxury watch sector. Its headquarters are in Geneva and it has affiliates in 27 countries worldwide with a network of 4000 dealers in 100 countries.[2] Rolex is the main Swiss producer of certified chronometers; in 2005 more than half the watches certified COSC (Contrôle Officiel Suisse des Chronomètres) were Rolex-made.[3] Rolex watches are popularly regarded as status symbols[4][5][6][7] and BusinessWeek magazine ranks Rolex #71 on its 2007 annual list of the 100 most valuable global brands.[8] Rolex is also the largest single luxury watch brand by far, producing about 2,000 watches per day, with estimated revenues of around US$3 billion (£1.75) (3.02 CHF billion) (2003 figures).[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esperto Orologi (talk • contribs) 09:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your text is written like an advertisement, not like an encyclopedia article. Spam is so prevalent on Wikipedia, that such additions are reverted reflexively. See the Manual of Style for hints about how to phrase such an addition. Or, if none of this makes sense, read The Five Pillars of Wikipedia to understand the overall context of what this project is about and how additions are measured. —EncMstr (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of external links to useful table of serial numbers and production dates...

Watch collectors are frequently looking for serial number, date, and caliber information when researching their watches. This is USEFUL INFORMATION. It is accurate, on-topic, and the type of information that wouldn't realistically be included in the body of the article. As such, an external link to it is perfectly valid and is in accordance with WP:EL. To characterize it as "spam from a repair shop site" is biased and inaccurate, and reflects an inappropriate value judgement on the part of the editor. Yes, the table of serial numbers is part of a site that offers repair services, but it links directly to a section of the site that is purely historical, and is provided by the site owner (me) for research purposes. I field calls asking me these questions on a daily basis... the information is frequently requested by watch collectors. You'll note that the site does not repair Rolex watches, so to suggest that the link is being added for commercial purposes is completely without factual basis.

It's important that wikipedia be allowed to be a source where multiple contributions are both allowed and encouraged, and that it not become the playground of someone who decides to assert THEIR restrictive view of what's right and wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Time-further-out (talk • contribs) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be useful information but it is not encyclopedic material. Please see our guideline: WP:NOTMANUAL. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I would respectfully suggest that it is entirely "encyclopedic material." What is not "encyclopedic" about providing historical information and lists of serial numbers which allow collectors and owners to date and research their watches? Time-further-out (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the problem. Dating and researching your watch is of no concern to Wikipedia. You can use Google for that. Watch serial numbers have no intrinsic encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a watch information-exchange hub. Historical information must come from scholars and their published works. Not from watch repair websites. Please see our policies of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT. Sorry. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. K. Could you please define "intrisic encyclopedic value"? Are you the arbiter of same? "Dating and researching" are not the concerns of wikipedia?? And here I thought that research was one of the primary reasons why people refer to an encyclopedia.

Your comments show a predisposed bias... "historical information comes from scholars and their published works, not from watch repair web sites." What you fail to recognize is that primary sources for this information no longer exists in many cases. It often consists of company ledgers and log-books which have faded into non-existence or are no longer publicly available. As was previously pointed out, the linked historical information is an entirely separate section of a commercial site. The site in question does not even repair Rolex watches, so to suggest that it is being linked for commercial purposes has no basis in fact. Besides... I thought this was supposed to be a discussion leading to a concensus solution, not just the edict of one or a few. I believe the links are valid, encyclopedic, on-topic, accurate, and in full compliance with WP guidelines. I would respectfully suggest that admins have simply decided that they are "spammish" and no amount of logic is going to overcome that biased position. For some, it seems that control is more important than the accurate dissemination of information. Time-further-out (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. However we have now at least three editors who disagree with you. This is an indication that you are in the minority. Until more editors agree with you I suggest that you do not edit-war any longer. Please also see WP:3RR, and WP:PRIMARY. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. K: Wikipedia guidelines indicate that whether content is included is not a matter of "votes". You have failed to address any of the valid points that I've raised about the inclusion of content, citing instead a classic "appeal to authority" argument... one of the well-defined logical flaws. Could you please define what constitutes "intrinsic encyclopedic value" and give an example of how the linked material could be made to comply with YOUR INTERPRETATION of WP guidelines? Time-further-out (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Look. I am only a volunteer here and these are my opinions. This however is not one of my favourite subjects and so I would like to spend my limited time online doing something else and not arguing about spam links. You seem to not want to listen to my advice. So I am disengaging from this debate since I wish to add nothing more. My only remaining advice to you is please do not edit war to add this spam link here because it will quickly escalate to an editing restriction going around by the local trade name of "block". Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. K: With all due respect, they aren't spam links. Please do not assume the conclusion that we are debating as the basis for your argument. I am not engaged in an edit war. I am trying to add useful information to this article, and it has been repeatedly removed by the same editor. So who's engaging in the edit war? I'll repeat my question, one which you seem unwilling to answer: Could you please define "intrinsic encyclopedic value"? You must have a clear understanding of what it means if you said my links didn't have any of it. According to WP guidelines, "concensus is built through discussion and negotiation." So far, several people have asserted their self-assigned right to delete my links, but no one has engaged in discussion OR negotiation in order to reach concensus. Offering "warnings" as you did in your last sentence, is an example of exactly the kind of "ownership behavior" discussed under Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles. Time-further-out (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Minor point of fact: the link has been removed by three different users in the past 24-48 hours within this article, not just one as you claimed (see article edit history). Meanwhile, you have added the link four times in less than a 24 hour period - which, per WP:3RR, does meet Wikipedia's definition of edit warring. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Barek: Thank you for that correction. I must have been confused since the same tag-team went from article to article, removing every EL I had posted including several that had been in place for well over a year. When the link was first removed, the reason cited was that I didn't explain it on the talk page. So I re-added it and explained it on the talk page. It was deleted immediately and when re-added was deleted immediately again... by the same editor. That doesn't seem like an attempt at cooperation or compromise, nor does it seem like there was an assumption that I had added the links in good faith WP:5P. It would be great if we could get back to an actual discussion of whether the EL's contributed relevant information to the article. I contend they did for all the reasons previously cited. Time-further-out (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Information about which Rolex watch contains what (until tampered with) -- i.e. what the watch really is, underneath the cosmetics -- seems potentially valuable to me, as long as each calibre gets some explanation. Certainly it's better than the dreary lists, much loved by some editors of Wikipedia, of celebs who have shilled for the product.

The list is compact: it's a 10×3 table. Where does the information come from? If it is sourced authoritatively, it can go straight into this article.

Meanwhile, the stuff about serial numbers looks like collectors' trivia to me. If people (collectors or other) want it, they can Google for it. -- Hoary (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The list of serial numbers is not "collector's trivia". If you are a watchmaker, or a watch collector, then you know that the serial number is the key to establishing the basic knowledge of your watch... model, caliber, year of manufacture. The serial number table gives basic information about Rolex watches that is not included in the article. As a watchmaker, it is one of the most common questions I'm asked by collectors, and providing the information, or a link to the information, seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for an encyclopedic source like WP to do. Time-further-out (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A search in Google for ‘rolex "serial numbers"’ brings 110,000 hits. The information would appear to be easy to find.

(Or the misinformation: I'm not qualified to judge the accuracy of any of this.)

Is it a mere coincidence that you want to add links to your page on the subject?

I'm willing to believe that your page is more authoritative than the other pages are. However, your page doesn't specify the sources for the information that it provides.

What I do see on your page are Google ads, and links to the services that you provide to the paying customer. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Assuming this is accurate information, (unsupported as it is by reliable sources), all I hear is that this information is valued by collectors and hobbyists. However a collector or hobbyist is interested in practical, not necessarily encyclopedic, information. Is information about watch case serial numbers and calibers encyclopedic? And if it is and there are many sources providing the same information using the same tables should we not choose the external link which has the fewest commercial links attached to it? All these questions must be answered before we insert any ELs into any article. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a Rolex Forum diff with pictures and a table. No advertisements that I can see. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) To me, the main benefit of the page is in the historical information, with the serial number data being secondary. The site does seem to meet WP:ELMAYBE #4. Also, while advertising exists, it does not seem to be "objectionable amounts" (ELNO#5); and the links to services are not obtrusive. The main issue would be that due to the COI, the link should be added to the article by a third party. Based on arguments presented in the discussion at WP:ELN, I would support adding the link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What is so unique about this historical information? Is the information from reliable sources? Can the same information be obtained from these sources? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Being a reliable source is a requirement for refs, not for external links. WP:ELMAYBE #4 specifically states "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." A company engaged in watch repair would seem to be a knowledgeable source on the subject. Of course, if you can find comparable information from another source, then the one with fewer ads or which cites sources would receive precedent, no need for both - but until one is presented, this site does provide relevant historical material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't buy the point that people engaged in watch repair are knowledgeable on the subject of watch history. People who are trained watch repairmen are not the same as watch historians. That would be the same as saying that car mechanics are experts on automotive history. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have reason to believe that the site is intentionally misleading? That would disqualify it under ELNO #2. But that does not appear to be the case to me. Is there something in the historical data that causes you to doubt their knowledge? Or is this simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Not at all. I was simply challenging the idea that being watch experts automatically qualifies them as history experts. Other than that there is no reason for me to believe that they misrepresent historical data. But another editor made the point that there is nothing in the history section of the website that a good watch history book cannot provide. Having said that if you like this site so much please go ahead and add it. But I'm always worried about the proverbial slippery slope. There are other articles that have a horrible set of external links. Just look at the Houdini article. Same discussions, same resistance from some quarters. Have a look and see its state. Its external links section looks like a carny haunted house exhibit from the 20s. The kitsch quotient of that section is stratospheric. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Before adding the link, I'll wait a few days for additional comments; as well as more closely review the content to verify that the history is more extensive than the material already within the article (if it's fully redundant, then that would be another reason not to use the link as an EL). I'll also do some searches over the weekend to find an EL which may be of better quality.

A watch history book can likely go into more details. I would support using a watch history book to expand the details within this article; I just don't have access to one to be able to do that myself.

As for the serial number data - as stated, other sources that are potentially better cited or more authoritative are easily available for that info - so if it comes down to only the serial number info, I would say to use one of the other sites or even find a source that meets WP:RS and incorporate the data into the article if it's truly of encyclopedic value (marginal to me, but maybe someone can make a stronger case). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with many of your points with a few caveats. I think we are experiencing mission creep. Although the title of the section mentions "...external links to useful table of serial numbers and production dates", now we are talking about history and not the tables. If we really wanted a great history-related link I am not convinced this is the best we can find. However, if after a search it turns out that the history section of this website seriously outperforms the history content of this article as well as being one of the best in the web, then, great, go ahead and add it. If not, I'd say let's think about it some more. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I also wish to add that my reading of section MAYBE#4 is that when a website, because it is created by knowledgeable people on the subject, contains a kernel of wisdom, an information jewel if you like, which cannot easily be found on other sources, then it would be acceptable to use it in EL. I submit that according to the spirit and the letter of MAYBE#4, neither the history section nor the commonplace caliber tables of that website contain such kernel of wisdom or jewel of information. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reading of MAYBE#4 is curious in that it doesn't contain any reference to any of the attributes which you describe... so your interpretation seems to imply a lot of constraints that aren't actually in the guideline. It doesn't say aything about "kernels of wisdom" or "information jewels," also doesn't say anything about "cannot easily be found on other sources." What it says is: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Sure seems like it might be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Time-further-out (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The reading of MAYBE#4 is my personal opinion and the interpretations are also my personal opinion. It is up to the other editors to agree or disagree with my points and express their own views on the subject. You seem to be taking my metaphors and analogies quite literally. They are meant to shed light on the way I view things. You obviously think that literally my words have to appear in MAYBE#4 for me to be able to utter them. I disagree. They are just analogies which come out of my own experience as an editor here and I feel free to use them. If my fellow editors disagree with my evaluation they are also free to say so. As far as IDONTLIKEIT, obviously I do not. Because I honestly think that the history section of your website adds nothing to the article. I also suspect you are not a professional watch historian and the material that appears on your website is adequately covered in this article already. Your serial number tables can also be found in many other websites. So there is nothing special about your website to even fulfill the requirements of MAYBE#4. And don't forget it is a huge MAYBE. In other words even if your website fulfilled the requirements, which it does not IMO, even then it is up to the other editors to MAYBE include it. And there is no consensus on it yet. And by the way, talking about the other editors, where have you all gone? Am I supposed to do all the talking by myself? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course you are free to use them. You are obviously free to make up any interpretation of the guidelines that you want. But when your interpretation goes well beyond what they guideline actually says, then I feel free to challenge that interpretation and point out what the guideline really says which is that the EL can be included if it is from a knowledgeable source and contains information about the subject of the article... which it clearly does. Several editors who were initially against inclusion have stated that they would now conditionally support the inclusion. If 'consensus' means that we have to beat the dead horse until EVERYONE agrees that a particular edit should be included, then I would respectfully suggest that the process is more about exercising control than it is about actually improving the encyclopedia. Time-further-out (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep attributing motives to me that really don't exist. However you are right about the exercise of control, but not for the reasons you think. We have to exercise control over what type of external links come into the article otherwise the article will become bloated with useless links. I have explained to you before and I will explain it again: The link you are trying to edit into the article in my opinion is useless. I think that I made a good enough case that even the editors who agreed with you before may well change their minds again. Plus there are other editors here, like Hoary and Barek who are hedging their bets. Let's wait a bit longer to hear from them also. There is no hurry. As of this moment no one has expressed any support for your position on this talk page. Until such time as other editors here support inclusion of your link with valid arguments the link will not go into the article. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like you feel a profound sense of ownership of this article, Dr. K. Time-further-out (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems that way to you. To other people it may seem like a profound sense of quality control. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

While I do support in theory the addition of a history link, it's only reasonable if the content of that link is not already better cited within the existing article. But, after reviewing the content in this case more closely, the only notable material not already in the article which is in the history outlined on the link is a mention that the Wilsdorf purchased the patent for the moisture-proof winding stem and crown from its inventors, George Peret and Paul Perregaux. While an important development, a single sentence doesn't justify the external link. A better solution is to find a reliable source to cite so that one mention into the article.

Other history sections from that site may be appropriate for other articles, where the history material within the article isn't as well cited already; but it does not seem appropriate for this article.

On the serial number and date information, I'm still not convinced of the encyclopedic value of that content. As that's the only remaining material added by the link, I don't see that as a valid reason for adding the link to this article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Barek for your great analysis with which I agree 100%. It was a great pleasure talking to you. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is, in fact, the serial number and date information which is the most informative, and provides the useful additional information which is not already contained in the article. Dr. K has yet to define "intrinsic encyclopedic value", but as a subject area expert I can say that this information is both useful and significant to the study of Rolex watches. Time-further-out (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple editors have already told you and I told you that we don't find these tables to have such compelling encyclopedic value so as to include them. I do not have to define anything. You seem to suffer from a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Johnuniq told you to stop arguing because you have a COI. Please stop. If we wanted to include serial numbers there are millions of Google sources we can use. We do not have to use your website. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. K... We have already established on the discussion on the EL page that I do NOT have a conflict of interest. You keep referring to what "we" want to include, as if you speak for Wikipedia. You don't. You dismissed my contribution because it was spam (which was disproved), then because it was a conflict of interest (which was disproved), then because it wasn't authoratative (which was neither proved nor disproved), and I have no doubt you have an endless string of WP:ICanThinkOfLotsMoreReasons for contributions you don't like. I would respectfully suggest that your editorial style is more about keeping WP the way YOU like it than it is about improving the encyclopedia. But thanks for your input... you've really helped encourage me to be a regular WP contributor! Time-further-out (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

T-f-o you are trying my patience when you always refer to me in your replies and you completely ignore the input of all the other editors around you. Have you not seen what Barek said? Do you honestly think that Barek approves of you putting the link in? If not, why then are you not complaining to Barek but you always target me? I spoke in plural because I, Ckatz, Barek and even Hoary are not convinced that you can input your link into the article. Johnuniq told you to stop and he mentioned you have a COI as well. Why are you not replying to him as well? Why are you targetting me only? I am not alone so I can speak on behalf of the whole group of editors. But you seem to be fascinated with me and you ignore everyone else. You do not have to insult me by saying that I think I speak on behalf of Wikipedia. Like I said to you before and I will repeat again: No one here agrees with your opinion to add the link to the article. If you address your next reply to me again I will refuse to reply to you because you still suffer from a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Finally I wish you the best in your newly-found interest in Wikipedia but if I judge from your contributions so far it is not very encouraging, so far. Best of luck. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. K. Let me break it to you gently: I don't really care if I'm trying your patience. I'm not here to coddle your ego. I'm replying to you because you are the only editor who has been so antagonistic in your responses and criticisms... perhaps you haven't noticed, but you're not very friendly! You keep telling me that "you will refuse to reply" yet you always seem to reply. Feel free to stop at anytime... I won't mind! Time-further-out (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the fact that certain information may or may not be easy to find part of the criteria for whether it should be included in EL? Why did I link to MY page? Because it is the most complete and authoratative page that I know of. Yes, there are google ads throughout my web site; I'm saving up for a large frappuccino at starbucks which I ought to be able to purchase before the end of the summer! If by "links to the services that you provide to the paying customer" you mean the context of the rest of my web site, then you are correct. But as has already been pointed out (several times) we do not repair Rolex watches, so I'm not selling anything with this link, and I am in NO NEED of additional customers given the fact that we already have a one year backlog of repair work.

Look... while I certainly appreciate all the feedback, this is getting really silly. If I overcome the objections of one group of editors I have no doubt there will be another group of editors waiting in the wings with ever more reasons why the page should be kept just the way THEY want it. No problem... go ahead and keep it just the way it is... don't change a thing. I'm good with that. Time-further-out (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break to add link to a Related discussion

Note: this URL has also been receiving discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#pocketwatchrepair.com. Additional parties who have not posted on this talk page have added comments at that discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeated addition of an external link

Perhaps Time-further-out is correct and the links are good. However, that issue is now behind us because the strenuous claims in support of the links are not compatible with WP:COI. It may be that the several editors who have removed the links are mistaken, but the correct procedure now is to drop the matter and continue making positive contributions because there is no right to add links to articles on Wikipedia. Further escalation now is certain to be unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow Johnuniq. Thanks man. I had the impression I was spinning my wheels on quicksand. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For myself, I do feel that the removal was in fact the correct course of action. As outlined at the "External links" talk page, these "articles" incorporate promotional text encouraging readers to contact the company if they need repair to their watches. Even articles such as the Rolex one, which T-f-o has argued should be linked as his company does not repair them, include text directing readers to an associated company that does do repairs. As for the Rolex page, T-f-o has argued that the information is accurate, but the page itself features a disclaimer stating that the company does not guarantee the accuracy of the information. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz... such a disclaimer is common when the information is not being published by the company which owns the trademarks. I have already pointed out several times that I am not promoting anything... the last thing I'm looking for is more customers! Have a nice day. Time-further-out (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, are you aware that "promotional text encouraging readers to contact the company" is not actually prohibited by the actual guideline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry WhatamIdoing but according to the discussion above I and Barek agree that this link adds nothing to the article therefore your question to Ckatz is academic. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is always important enough to correct. Discussions like these, in which apparently well-informed editors misrepresent the actual advice, are how myths get started: Inexperienced editors assume that people like Ckatz know what they are talking about. Correcting such misapprehensions is not an academic or impractical issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You do not have to come on so strong WhatamIdoing. I did not mean to belittle your contribution. I meant that your comment should have no bearing on the adoption of the link because although you are right policy-wise about commercial linking, the fact remains that the link is useless as per detailed analysis and discussion just above. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice that it's REALLY IMPORTANT to Dr. K. to convince anyone who's willing to listen that this EL shouldn't be included. We get it, Dr. K... You don't like the link and you REALLY REALLY REALLY don't want it included in the article. Gotcha.Time-further-out (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Time-further-out (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil and not antagonize other editors. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A tenacious defence of one particular link, that extends to thousands of words, sounds to me like promotional editing. At some point there will be a case for admin action, if the editor connected to the link won't leave us in peace. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston... what rule or guideline are you suggesting I'm violating? Please be specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Time-further-out (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The consensus on this talk page is pretty clear. Please, drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Marketing

This article needs to say more about marketing, as Rolex is surely one of the best examples of a company built in massive relentless marketing (in recent decades anyway, the watches themselves may have been the original foundation of its success). What is the marketing budget? How does that compare with the cost of manufacturing the watches? Luwilt (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Find out, add it to the article. :) BearAllen (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing claims -- James Bond and the "Pussy Galore" nickname

I removed this claim until it can be sourced per WP:RS instead of to a product description on an anonymous website/blog/sales site. A search on this subject turns up numerous discussions and descriptions on fan and commercial websites, but no legitimate, independent verification that can used to source the information. Flowanda | Talk 07:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Notable Owners - cont

"*Steve McQueen wore a Rolex Explorer II 2 Reference 1655, is also now so-called Rolex in the horology collectors world. But Steve McQueen also owned a Rolex Submariner Reference 5512 he was often photographed wearing in private moments sold for $234,000 at auction on June 11, 2009, a world-record price for the reference."

This doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. Is the reference so-called, or is it a so-called Rolex? And what's the horology collectors[sic] world? Please clarify this sentence so it makes sense to someone unfamiliar with the subject.

Also, this reminds me of the previous debate about this section being just fluff, an opinion I agree with. It doesn't really make sense from an encyclopaedic point of view. BearAllen (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No mention of the Grand Slam of Eventing ?

--Jerome Potts (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rolex. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.antiquorum.com/eng/press/2007/05_12_07/pow_rolex_eng.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Source for revenue?

What are you using as the source for revenue, especially the revenue for 2016? I wasn't able to find any immediate sources. WatchFan 07 14:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

revenue

should we change or do anything about the "revenue" thing due to/using https://www.statista.com/statistics/789382/leading-luxury-watch-brands-sales/ (4.7b in 2020) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:6594:3843:DA62:C33E (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Notable inventions and patents

The "notable inventions and patents" section is not neutral in the way it is currently written. The content of this section should describe the things that Rolex invented/patented rather than highlighting the things that Rolex did not invent. For instance, the section notes the offering of a self-winding wristwatch in 1931 but then goes on to say that Rolex was not the first to do so and refers to the self-winding watch by Harwood. Instead, the section should mention the 360 degrees self-winding rotor which Rolex released in 1931. This invention is notable because it became the standard winding mechanism for automatic watches. For contrasting this to the preceding invention, the article could mention that Harwood offered a self-winding mechanism with a weight that moved in a 270 degrees arc hitting buffer springs on both sides.

The same principle applies to most of the listed points. Instead of listing the actual inventions/patents and where necessary contrasting them to previous inventions, the article lists broader classes of inventions and then goes on to say that actually Rolex was not the first. Asnelt (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is a reference for the 360 degrees self-winding rotor patent: . Asnelt (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

For the 1926 list point, the emphasis should be on the screw-down crown. In 1926, Rolex invented the Oyster case, the first reliable waterproof wristwatch case that was based on a screw-down crown. To this end, Rolex acquired the Perragaux-Perret screw-down patent and combined it with a threaded case back and bezel. Asnelt (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

As nobody was replying to the discussion here, I made changes to the section according to the comments above. But my changes were reverted claiming biased opinions. I was trying reduce bias in the writing, not increase it. This should be discussed here. Asnelt (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References