Thanks for the link. I am trying to find time to read it, although calameo may be the worst online reading interface I have ever experienced.
Meanwhile I want to address the "regurgitated from the Blade" comment. The Gillette Blade is cited frequently, I agree. That is because it is a primary source. It contains articles where the author had direct and personal knowledge of the events described. Secondary and tertiary sources are less reliable, generally speaking. They are written by folks who talked to a primary source, or read a primary source, and then interpreted what they learned. Everyone has played "telephone", right? Errors creep in, and biases.
To be fair, a really good secondary source can consult multiple primary sources, reconciling any conflicts, and thus produce an even stronger record than any one primary source. Essentially that is what we are trying to do with the historical bits of the wiki. But for this to be credible, the secondary source has to footnote primary sources. This allows later readers to read the primary sources, understand what the conflicts were, and form their own opinions about the resolution.
So where does Gillette Company 75 Years stand? It is a secondary source. As far as I see it cites no sources at all, of any kind. So we cannot trace any of its claims back to anyone who was on the spot and in a position to observe. This is unfortunate, and means we cannot reconcile conflicts with a known primary source - such as the articles in the Gillette Blade.
Anyway, this is why I am so hung up on sources like the Blade, and in particular on Nickerson and his 50 sets shipped 1904-01-01. He was the man, and he was on the spot. As far as I know he is the only primary source we have, as much as I would like to have more sources to draw on. But if I have a primary source, and someone tells me a story that conflicts with that primary source, my inclination is to trust the primary source. That even applies to a Gillette company history, since it was written 75 years later and probably by the marketing department at that.
Meanwhile I want to address the "regurgitated from the Blade" comment. The Gillette Blade is cited frequently, I agree. That is because it is a primary source. It contains articles where the author had direct and personal knowledge of the events described. Secondary and tertiary sources are less reliable, generally speaking. They are written by folks who talked to a primary source, or read a primary source, and then interpreted what they learned. Everyone has played "telephone", right? Errors creep in, and biases.
To be fair, a really good secondary source can consult multiple primary sources, reconciling any conflicts, and thus produce an even stronger record than any one primary source. Essentially that is what we are trying to do with the historical bits of the wiki. But for this to be credible, the secondary source has to footnote primary sources. This allows later readers to read the primary sources, understand what the conflicts were, and form their own opinions about the resolution.
So where does Gillette Company 75 Years stand? It is a secondary source. As far as I see it cites no sources at all, of any kind. So we cannot trace any of its claims back to anyone who was on the spot and in a position to observe. This is unfortunate, and means we cannot reconcile conflicts with a known primary source - such as the articles in the Gillette Blade.
Anyway, this is why I am so hung up on sources like the Blade, and in particular on Nickerson and his 50 sets shipped 1904-01-01. He was the man, and he was on the spot. As far as I know he is the only primary source we have, as much as I would like to have more sources to draw on. But if I have a primary source, and someone tells me a story that conflicts with that primary source, my inclination is to trust the primary source. That even applies to a Gillette company history, since it was written 75 years later and probably by the marketing department at that.