Talk:Edward Manville

Strange section about Manville's death

Why are the names and occupations of Manville's fathers-in-law of any importance to the article? Were they notable in their own right? Did they influence his work or notoriety in any notable way? If so, where is the information and where are the sources?

Also, while a biographical note on the first Mrs. Manville's motoring activities might be appropriate in the article, but why is it placed in the section about Mr. Manville's death? Would a "Personal life" section with this info not be more appropriate?

Смерть Интернет тролли! Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A difference of opinion? Not exactly.

The section on Mr. Manville's death is titled "Early death" at the insistence of one editor, who believes that dying at seventy is early and not average (at best).

However, the difference between "Early death" and "Death" as the title of the section is not merely a difference of opinion. "Early death" conveys the editor's opinion that death at 70 is early. "Death", on the other hand, conveys neither that opinion nor my opinion that 70 is a ripe old age. Actually, the title "Death" conveys no opinion at all; it only states the fact that the man has died. As such, "Death" satisfies the requirement of WP:NPOV, while "Early death", which conveys an opinion, does not, and thus should not be continued. Q.E.D.

Смерть Интернет тролли! Sincerely, SamBlob (tlak) 01:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that WP:3RR does not apply to the reversion of vandalism. The continued restoration of the section title "Early death", which is an editorial comment that violates WP:NPOV, WP:EDITORIAL, and WP:IMPARTIAL, may be construed as serial vandalism. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer at the Third Opinion project. The request for a Third Opinion in regard to this matter has been removed because it failed to comply with the requirement of that project that "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." All forms of content dispute resolution at Wikipedia have a requirement of thorough talk page discussion. Place a request on the other editor's talk page for him/her to respond here. If s/he does not respond in a week or so, then try the edit again and if s/he reverts again, then consider making a report at administrator's noticeboard, noting that you cannot go to dispute resolution because of his/her failure to discuss. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Nearly all of the text of this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Manville&diff=472186139&oldid=472121301

is copied word for word from this source:

Davenport-Hines, R. P. T. (2004-04-22) [1984]. "Birmingham's industrial titan 1902–14". Dudley Docker: The Life and Times of a Trade Warrior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 51. ISBN 0 521 89400 X. LCCN 84-9444. Retrieved 2013-06-23. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl= (help)

Most of the text in question remains as at 10:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Manville&diff=561606658&oldid=561489709

The only modification has been the substitution of "and worked in with (sic) each other during the war" in place of the source's "were political adherents during the war".

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

---

I have come to this page because I received an email from user:Eddaido requesting I take a look. I have had several previous discussions with Eddaido and back in March 2011 one on close paraphrasing (see here). It seems to me that there is more than one dispute going on here. So I am reverting to the last version by Ground Zero (23 June 2013‎). I am then going to remove the paragraph over which there is copyright concern.

I expect both of you to seek consensus here on the talk page and agree changes before you make them to the article. If either of you revert the other because the change was not agreed, I will protect the page and may take further administrative actions. -- PBS (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

---

From R. P. T. Davenport-Hines (2004) p. 51

The text copied verbatim from R. P. T. Davenport-Hines (2004) p. 51

Manville was a British pioneer of electro-technology, and partner in the Westminster electrical engineering consultancy which had advised on the electrification of the London, Brighton and South Coast railway. for which MCWF and ABG provided the equipment. He and Docker were later co-directors of the Metropolitan Railway, and were political adherents during the war period when Docker was president of the FBI and Manville led the Association of British Chambers of Commerce.

Wikipedia text which may be a copyright violation moved here

===Dudley Docker=== His Westminster electrical engineering consultancy advised on the electrification of the London Brighton and South Coast Railway for which Dudley Docker's Metropolitan Amalgamated Carriage and Wagon Company provided the equipment. He and Docker were later co-directors of the Metropolitan Railway and were political adherents during the war period when Docker was president of the Federation of British Industry and Manville led the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. Notes

I agree with SamBlob the Wikipedia version is too close to the original. Not just in the words used but also the structure. But as the section is in chronological ordering, I think that is not novel and come user WP:LIMITED. However the second sentence is in my opion definitely too close to the original. SamBlob it is not clear to me if you object to the wording or the content of these two sentences. If it is the wording please suggest alternative wording here on the talk page. If it is the content then please explain what it is that you think is objectionable. -- PBS (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

My objection is to the wording, which is too close to the source. When I have more time to do so (I am late for an appointment right now) I will try to paraphrase it less closely. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Here it is:

Manville worked with Dudley Docker on the electrification of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, where Manville was a partner in an electrical engineering consultancy advising the railway and Docker's Metropolitan Amalgamated Carriage and Wagon Company supplied equipment to the railway. They both served on the board of directors of the Metropolitan Railway and they worked together during the First World War, with Manville leading the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and Docker presiding over the Federation of British Industry.

This says what the passage says without being a direct copy. The only information missing from this is the fact that the consultancy was based in Westminster, which can be included somehow if absolutely necessary. This also includes information omitted in the earlier version, that Manville was a partner in the consultancy and not the sole proprietor.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

OK I have added your version into the article. Eddaido it is up to you now to modify that text if you think it needs it as per the usual editing cycle. -- PBS (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested changes:

1. Regarding this sentence: "Manville, a pioneer British of electro-technology, was a partner in a Westminster electrical engineering consultancy which advised on the electrification of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway and Docker's Metropolitan Amalgamated Carriage and Wagon Company supplied the equipment." It is grammatically awkward and very long. I propose splitting it as follows: "Manville, a pioneer British of electro-technology, was a partner in a Westminster electrical engineering consultancy which advised on the electrification of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway. In this capacity, he worked with Dudley Docker, whose Metropolitan Amalgamated Carriage and Wagon Company supplied equipment to the project." This not only restores good grammar, it also restores the link to the Dudley Docker article.
2. Considering the formal tone in which articles should be written, the figurative phrase "stuck together" suggests an accident involving glue. Would "worked together" not describe the situation in a more factual and objective way?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think those changes sound reasonable what do you think Eddaido? -- PBS (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Other concerns

PBS is correct in stating there are other disputes in this article. The copying of source material, and the potential for legal trouble that it caused, was merely the most immediate concern.

Other concerns include:

• the use of subjective and biased language in the article, including section headings that refer to "wide interests" and "early death",
• the idea of the subject of the article as a "pioneer" in a field where, according to the cited source, his main technical contribution was to annoy the creator of the process so much that he devised an effective way to keep the subject out of his laboratory, and
• the use of citation templates in the citations, which are mostly objected to as "change for the sake of change" despite providing more information about the source, including, in at least one instance, links to articles on the authors.

Discussion of these concerns, especially as to how they relate to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, would be welcome.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

While that is a broad stroke comment. It is difficult to discuss in details. I suggest that you begin with a specific concern. As you mention pioneer lets start with the section "Television pioneer". When I reverted to a earlier version here the diffs show that your major change to that section was adding more comprehensive footnotes with quotes. The use of changing the formatting of citations comes WP:CITEVAR. If Eddaido does not want them then thanks to the wording of WP:CITEVAR, then this article does not have to have them. Personally I think that the use of citation templates in the references section coupled to short citations would be the better solution, however, SamBlob's additional information can still be added as to footnotes without short citation or templates:

1. "He had the door to his laboratory made just wide enough for he himself to enter—he was very slim in those days—but not the overweight figure of his Chairman. 'The first time he appeared there was a most heart-rending and embarrassing scene—he was an obstinate and determined man—he got through! But he lost several buttons from his waistcoat and dropped his cigar and tramped on it in the process.' Manville's visits now became a remembrance of the past" (Burns, Russell W. (2000). "Chapter 6 Company Formation and long-distance television". John Logie Baird, Television Pioneer. IEE history of technology series 28. Stevenage, Herts, UK: The Institution of Electrical Engineers. p. 137. ISBN 978-0-85296-797-3).
2. "Vowlers, the stockbroking firm, were delighted with Baird's achievements and successes and arranged to underwrite a new company, Baird International Television. This was launched on 25th June 1928 and the subscription list closed on 26th June" (Burns, R. W. (1986). "Chapter 3 Company formation and progress, 1926-1928". British Television: The Formative Years. IEE History of Technology Series 7. London, UK: Peter Peregrinus. pp. 83–84. ISBN 0-86341-079-0).

Eddaido, the current citations are inadequate. They need to be consistent in layout and include additional information such as page numbers for all books (see what information is required at WP:CITEHOW).

1. Do you mind if the short citation style is used?
2. Do you have any objections to citation templates being used?
3. Do you have any objections to the two footnotes that SamBlob wants to add to the section "Television pioneer"?

-- PBS (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry PBS, events have conspired to keep me away from these two pages. You will be unaware of a history of some years of Samblob's following and vexatious editing of my small contributions to Wikipedia but it may be easily viewed using the correct tools and directions.

Over those years it has been my experience that discussions with Samblob always fail to resolve Samblob's "concerns" and so though simply disregarding Samblob is held by that same party to be equally incendiary behaviour I do ignore Samblob because it is less waste of effort.

The proposed footnotes are unwelcome because:

• 1. It throws the biography out of balance, this particular matter is already covered enough to give a guide to the subject's nature and how some viewed him.
• 2. What is the purpose of relating the extract from British Television the formative years? I can see nothing of interest there that related to Manville and the article.

So neither bit of extra information is any more than that. There is plenty more information readily available and the two items proposed would 1. throw the biog. out of balance and 2. is simply not relevant to this biography.

Its true I have a personal dislike of the result of some newish types of references being used in some parts of Wikipedia. If you see some for this article as inadequate that will be because at the time of writing I used print copies of books. If some references are now available through Google Books that's fine but I do notice, should an article be printed out, that those references with online links Wikipedia's software carefully omits from the print-out.

To answer your questions:

1. Not at all.

2. None even though its not to my personal taste

3. Yes, as explained above (quite aside from my opinion of the proposer) they are not wanted at all.

Finally, why is Samblob's signature from time to time subject to a (Russian) troll label? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have applied the formatting as agreed to above. The short citation form not only frees the citation from bulk, it allows linking from the citation to the source in the source list and it allows different citations to be used for different pages in the same source without duplication of all the bulk. Unfortunately, I am not sure how to apply it to the Times obituaries. Also, because Google Books does not have a preview for A Daimler Century, I could not supply the page number for that citation. I trust that Eddaido, who introduced the original citation, can provide the page number from the print copy he was using.

The long quotes to which Eddaido objects are there to reinforce facts stated in the article. The first one attests to Manville making no worthwhile contribution to either the concept or the practical application of television (i.e. not being a television pioneer), and the second to correct the date at which the second company was formed, which the article currently states as May 1929 while the source, as quoted above, states to be June 1928; I shall correct this forthwith.

The quotes were quite bulky, and I have no objection either to shortening them or to leaving them out altogehter, if the material they support is honestly represented in the article.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have altered the short citations to use the standard {{harv}} templates, and taken care of the times newspaper short citations. I have removed the excess parameters (blanks and things like double links to the same book, and access dates for books). I think keeping the long citations on one line is useful for those editing using small screen devices.

The change to the date from "May 1929" to "June 1928" I presume is supported by the current post inline cation, and so I presume we can put that one to bed (or Eddaido does your source say "May 1929" in which case we need to note that the sources differ).

SamBlob I suggest you propose here what if anything you think should be added or taken away to the text to remove the need for the other quote in a citation. -- PBS (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I have got ahead of myself a bit in this area, in replacing "Baird altered the doorway to his laboratory and managed to exclude the portly Sir Edward" with "Baird altered the doorway to his laboratory to be too narrow for Manville to pass through comfortably". I shall revert this shortly, as it was pointed out that this change was not discussed, but before I revert it I will begin the discussion:

I am told that the wording I changed is not colloquial because the sources use similar terms. My reply to that charge is that the sources are not subject to WP:NPOV and WP:TONE and that we are encouraged to present facts to the readers and have them draw their own conclusions. Toward this end, I have simplified the language used and stated specifically what was done. More personally, I cannot understand how someone can claim that the term "the portly Sir Edward" is not colloquial, but to each his own.

I am further told that the change is not properly cited, as the citation given later on is for the quotes and not for the entire passage. Fair enough, although the same statement gives me two sources that I can (and, if the changes are passed, will) use to cite the statement, one of which is the same source applied to the quote that I thought was also applied to the original wording (would that mean that the original wording was also uncited?), therefore there is no question of either phrasing being unsupported. The original phrasing implies what was done, and my change, which I shall undo after I post this, states what was done.

I should hope the use of the adverb "comfortably" is not an issue. Manville was able to pass through, but I am fairly certain that any transit through a passageway that causes the buttons of one's clothes to be torn off and dislodges one's cigar from one's hand could not be described as "comfortable".

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I hereby propose the following change in place of the one I reverted:

""Baird altered the doorway to his laboratory to be too narrow for Manville to pass through without effort."

Citation:

Source: Greenlee, Bob (2010). "Chapter 6". John Logie Baird: The Man Who Invented Television. Bloomington, IN USA: AuthorHouse. p. 170. ISBN 978-1-4490-7457-9. LCCN 2010900435. One day Baird reconfigured the door to his lab making it so narrow that Chairman Manville had difficulty getting his massive frame through it.

Unfortunately, my attempt to use the existing system here results in the reference not showing up in the reflist. This will probably need some debugging.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

With no objections having been raised, I have made this change.

In doing so, I noticed that some of the page numbers did not correspond to the pages with the relevant information, so I corrected them.

I also noticed that the source giving Lord Ampthill's appointment as chairman of BIT did not mention Government or BBC involvement or interference. Consequently, I added a "citation needed" tag to the speculation given in the article that Ampthill's appointment was due to these influences.

I was tempted to change the vague sentence "His attention was not welcome" with the explicit sentence "His frequent questions and suggestions irritated Baird" and to join this sentence with the one I had changed, but considering what happened the last time I tried to make a normal change without bringing it to discussion, I did not do so, but instead added a "clarification needed" tag.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Section headings

There still remain the matters of the section headings. I propose the following changes:

1. from "Buenos Aires" to "Early career and projects", as this better reflects the content of the entire section instead of just the last line,
2. from "Television pioneer" to "Involvement with early television development" or "Involvement with Baird's development of television", to reflect better Manville's stated role with Baird's developments,
3. from "Wide interests and involvements" to "Other interests and involvements", to be less subjective (personally, I agree that 27 directorships do represent "wide interests and involvements", but we are charged by WP:WORDS and WP:NPOV to present facts and let the readers form their own opinions), and
4. from "Early death" to "Death"; my rationale for this is given above, in Talk:Edward Manville#A difference of opinion? Not exactly.

I also propose that the section currently titled "Television pioneer" be moved either just before or into the section currently titled "Wide interests and involvements", as both occur in the timeline after the end of Manville's term in Parliament and, based on its text and sources, the "pioneer" section is about little more than a notable example of one of the many directorships held by Manville.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Over to you Eddaido. -- PBS (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks PBS.

And so, as the sun sets in the west, another article is screwed up by the ignorant Samblob. Eddaido (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on the proposed alterations (not just in this section but also in (#Copyright violation and the date issue in #Other concerns). These changes do not have to be all or nothing and an explanation as to why you object or agree to each change will help clarify the differences between you. For example SamBlob has explained that as the man had reached the biblical age three score years and 10 (Psalm 90:10), it was not an "Early death" so changing it to "Death" is not an unreasonable suggestion. If you think it should remain as it is then please explain why. -- PBS (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

As I've tried to indicate elsewhere I've written off this article. To be honest I watched the beginning of Samblob's work here, resented it then decided to hold out on the early death point for three reasons: I'm well past it myself; today it is regarded as early; in 1933 it was regarded as early for someone of his (albeit newly assumed) class. Please understand I have put up a fight in this case because the attack is by that particular editor otherwise I'm just like butter. Thanks for your involvement, sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I did a Google search on [UK age of death 1930s statistics] and the second article returned was "Social Trends 41 - Health (ISSN 2040–1620)" by Office for National Statistics. I have not read the document in detail but on page 6 there is a graph of life expectancy and it say "In 1930 life expectancy at birth was 58.7 years for males and 63.0 years for females, increasing 33 per cent among males to 78.1 years and 30 per cent among females to 82.1 years in 2009". With my quick search I did not find any direct figures for the life expectancy of the social classes (one would have to calculate it from the the ratio of the difference between the classes) but that ration was near its historic low in the period 1930-32. It lower than it had been in the 1920s and at any time since (the difference in life expectancy between social class is much higher higher now) -- (see "Mortality improvements and evolution of life expectancies" page 7). So while today 70 may not seem a great age, by the standards of the day in England Manville did not dies young even for his class. -- PBS (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This is most interesting, strongly counter-intuitive. Thanks for pointing it out. The following passage (among others) also influenced my opinion: "view him at the far end of the boardroom table "like a florid sunset seen through a cloud of cigar smoke"". I leave the decision as to the heading to be used to yourself and other editors. Eddaido (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My initial objection to "Early death" was that it expressed an opinion I did not agree with and which did not appear to be supported by the references. My objection widened afterward however, in that I realized that the section heading should not express any opinion at all, with the possible exception of a section whose subject is an opinion, which this is not. This would make "Death" an even more suitable title, because not only does it not reflect Eddaido's opinion, it doesn't reflect mine, either. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (N.B.: This is in reply to PBS, and not to Eddaido as the current spacing would indicate. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC) )

OK we seem to have agreement on the section title Death. Eddaido, please voice any reservations that you have on the other bullet points in this section, and if you have any objections to the further changes proposed in "#Copyright violation" please voice them as silence equals consent. -- PBS (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just come across this little story in a column in this magazine, page 50 of the issue of 18 February 2012 (the waiting room furniture was old too).

. . . "the story of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr." (1841-1935) "aetat 90, chatting to a fellow judge of the same vintage: let us call him Smith. A girl law clerk sashayed past them.

'Ah Smith' said Holmes: 'to be 70 again.' "

See? —early. Nevertheless I shall remain silent, thank you. Eddaido (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, we have this, which I will let speak for itself: Samantha Smith#Death. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Eddaido can you supply the page number for the "Douglas-Scott-Montagu" citation? -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have stalled...

...may I now take action on the points I have raised? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless there are any further comments here before 14:24, 14 July, I suggest that you start making the changes you have proposed on this page in the order in which they were discussed. Make them one section at a time, leaving a reasonable period between each edit so that if there are any perceived problems with an edit, that edit can be reverted (without a mass revert of all your changes) and further discussion can take place. -- PBS (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have started with "Early death" and will continue day by day. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

As it stands now...

Upon taking another look at the article, I see that rather more needs to be done. Starting from the beginning:

1. A proper lead section that summarizes the article as per WP:LEAD should be added.

• The very long first sentence of the second paragraph should be moved from the lead section to an "Early life" section or equivalent.

Done and done. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

2. The thumbnail of the plaque with the tramcar should be moved into the "Early career and projects" section, where it is relevant, and should be given a caption that establishes its relevance.

Done. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

3. The "televisor" picture, made around 1926, is unrelated to Manville's association with Baird, which began in 1927. It is therefore irrelevant to the article on Manville and should be removed.

• Furthermore, the image is a copyrighted image published under a "fair use rationale", and item 4 in the list, which establishes the reason why the image is being used in the article, does not apply to this article. This is as important a point as the earlier copyright violation problem and has only just come to my attention.

Done. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

4. The heading "Dudley Docker" could be changed to "Association with Dudley Docker" to make it more descriptive.

Done. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

5. The first paragraph in the section "Motor industry" states that Manville and Daimler managing director Percy Martin "took Daimler to it (sic) greatest success...." The only source stated for the article is one of the Times obituaries for Manville in 1933. Considering that Daimler remained in operation as an organization until it was bought by Jaguar in 1960, how would we know that Daimler did not reach greater heights after Manville's death?

Added a "citation needed" for that part, with reason indicated. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

6. The second paragraph in the section "Motor industry", speculates that the electrical engineering backgrounds of Manville and Daimler managing director Percy Martin "may have led to Daimler's over-emphasis on technically rewarding rather than readily saleable products". This is not supported by pages 226-227 of Dudley Docker: The Life and Times of a Trade Warrior by R. P. T. Davenport-Hines, which is the only source cited for the paragraph, and which confirms Daimler's staid image and their purchase of Lanchester to try to alleviate said image.

• However, on page 52 of the same book, we have the following: "Martin's subordination of costs and marketing to the technical finish of the model, and the background of Manville and Flett as electrical consulting engineers, tell their own story... Daimler's need was for business administrators and not inventors or engineering wizards. In the period before 1914, Martin and Manville involved the BSA/Daimler group in 'several rather grandiose schemes such as a petrol-electric motor 'bus, the Renard motor train etc, all of which were successful technically but proved to have little or no commercial value.'"

Done. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

7. The first paragraph of the section "Motorsport" should be changed from "In his early days on their board, Manville and, in a different car, his first wife, Maud, drove works-prepared cars in competition" to "In his early days on Daimler's board, Manville drove works-prepared cars in competition. His first wife, Maud, would also compete, driving another car."

Done. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

8. Are the quotes about Manville's "booming voice" and the florid statement about sunset and cigar smoke really necessary? The passage gives the appearance that Baird actually wanted to see Manville, while the source(s) claim that he really didn't.

This will wait until after I re-read the available source material. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding item no. 6, I propose splitting and rewording the sentence in the article from:

"The two electrical engineers working so closely together may have led to Daimler's over-emphasis on technically rewarding rather than readily saleable products, and the way Daimlers kept their sedate image, seeming to cater to royalty and 'dowagers' "

to:

"With backgrounds as electrical engineers, Martin and Manville often chose projects based on technical viability instead of commercial value.(Davenport-Hines 2002, p. 52) Under their leadership, Daimler had a sedate image, seeming to cater to "dowagers or the dead".(Davenport-Hines 2002, p. 226)"

Done. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(Please note that the stated source does not mention royalty.)

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)