Talk:Autopen

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Writing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Writing, a WikiProject interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of content related to the fields of rhetoric, composition, technical communication, literacy, and language studies.WritingWikipedia:WikiProject WritingTemplate:WikiProject WritingWriting
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To John, Tom, Jane, Dick, Tim, Mark, Ron, Mary, Sue, George ...

To James, cheers, John Travolta

Can a signature machine be programmed to create personized signatures? I mean John Travolta can write lots of common names and store the writings in a computer. He can then hire one assistant to read and reply the fan letters each with a personalized signature.

Maybe Mr. Travolta can sign his name a dozen times and let the machine do all the variations. Maybe the machine can sign randomnized signatures (variations in pen direction, speed and force). -- Toytoy 09:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forge?

I'm bothered by the word "forge" in this article. With respect to signatures, generally it means commiting fraud or counterfeiting. However, if it's being done with the consent—and perhaps under the supervision—of the signer, surely no such meaning is appropriate. Or could forge be intended to mean to form or bring into being especially by an expenditure of effort? In that case, perhaps another word should be substituted. —EncMstr 03:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It seems like the person who originally wrote this article had been burnt buying an autograph as genuine and finding it had been autopenned. This sort of point of view has no place in wikipedia. I've done some more research into the topic and NPOV'ed the article some more. Theducks 22:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it not have a place in this article? I think it brings up a valid point about what is genuine and what is not. ~2026-38901-9 (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Full-page models?

Are there autopen models that can write a full page of text? It seems like the market only covers signatures and short notes. Ideally, the pen would double as the input for storing (as an editable computer file) the piece to be written, then it could be reproduced from that.

How does it work?

This article is a good start, but needs much more information/explanation of how the device(s) work. 01:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, what is the legal side of auto-signatures - are they treated as the real thing, or? NVO (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson or Truman?

The current text of the article says that Thomas Jefferson used an early autopen extensively, beginning in 1804 (i.e. during his presidency), but then goes on to say that Truman was the the first US president to use an autopen routinely in correspondence. These clearly cannot both be true. 72.156.8.56 (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The confusion seems to be in referring to the "polygraph" as an "autopen," rather than as a signature duplicating device which predates the Autopen. I will attempt to re-word and make an explicit link to the Wikipedia article on Jefferson's polygraph machine. Miklasky (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obama and Autopen

Do we know if Obama's use of an autopen for the patriot act extension is actually noteworthy? I know it's getting some media coverage, but I'm not clear on whether or not using it to sign something like this is unusual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.223.0 (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answered my own question, added in detail - never mind! Random name (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Longpen really an Autopen?

The Longpen appears to be an example of a Telautograph. The function of the Autopen is to duplicate the same signature or writing repeatedly. The function of the Longpen appears to be to transmit a person's handwriting (just like the historic Telautograph). The distinction seems to in how the device is controlled (whether by machine or by a person). Perhaps this article be organized slightly differently with a section on "related devices"? Miklasky (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the photo be updated?

The caption on the photo appears to be correct: it is a check-signing machine. This would appear to be much similar to a duplicating polygraph than an Autopen. Is it possible to get a copyright-appropriate image of an actual Autopen? Miklasky (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one from our "museum". Hope it's helpful. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Autopen_Model_50_from_the_International_Autopen_Company.jpg#file Bolding01 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall article structure

I noticed looking in on the Autograph article that there is already a section on Autopenned autographs (and thus, famous users of Autopens). Perhaps this article should focus just on the actual mechanisms of machines that replicate signatures with extensive links to related information that is already (better) documented on Wikipedia? If no one else has suggestions, I may try to "be bold" in a week or so and assert a new structure after doing more research on Autopens. Miklasky (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who was first?

The article currently states:

Some say Harry Truman was the first United States President to use the Autopen as a way of responding to mail and signing checks.[13] Others credit Gerald Ford as the first President to openly acknowledge his use of the Autopen,[14] but Lyndon Johnson allowed photographs of his autopen to be taken while he was in office, and in 1968 the National Enquirer ran them along with the front page headline "The Robot That Sits In For The President." [15]

However, I have some sources state that Eisenhower was the first to admit having used an autopen, but prior to becoming president, and that the first known President was Kennedy. While it is sill true that Johnson seems to be the first to go public with images.

"The first president to use an autopen (a machine that engages a matrix made from an original signature to sign multiple copies of letters and photographs) was Dwight D. Eisenhower while president of New York’s Columbia University from 1949-1951. The first sitting president to use an autopen was President Kennedy, who already as Senator had installed a machine in his office in 1958." - See more at: http://www.lionheartautographs.com/24/#sthash.hCrTqYaz.dpuf

"There’s an entire book dedicated to the auto pen. In 1965, Charles Hamilton published “The Robot That Helped to Make a President,” about how President John F. Kennedy used the machine."

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/autopen-barack-obama-10-facts-85720.html

Dwight Eisenhower was the first president to out himself as an autopen aficionado. Everyone knew Kennedy had one. LBJ made the cover of the National Enquirer in 1968 for his autopen. The headline called it, scandalously, “The Robot That Sits In for the President.”

http://www.northernvirginiamag.com/entertainment/entertainment-features/2013/07/29/sincerely-yours-this-machine-does-not-exist/

It would almost certainly have been FDR. Some sort of automatic signature machine was used in combination with IBM/Commercial Controls Corporation Flex-O-Writers to send the White House condolence letters to families of US soldiers lost in combat during WW II. It should be easy enough to find and check a couple of these letters in some archive; I'm not positive they were typically signed by the president, but I believe they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.46.86 (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ileanadu (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Autopen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable sentence in lead section – neutrality and sourcing issues

I'd like to flag this sentence in the lead: "Political autopen signatures should not be considered valid as there’s no proof said politician actually signed the document with witnesses." There are multiple concerns here:

1. Lack of source – This statement makes a broad claim without citing any legal, academic, or journalistic source. It was re-added recently after being removed, but still lacks support.

2. Ambiguous scope – What does "political" mean here? Does it refer to any politician, elected official, candidate, or party member? From any country? The sentence implies a global standard without specifying jurisdiction.

3. Legal generalization – It appears to make a legal or procedural claim (“should not be considered valid”) without noting which legal system it’s referring to, if any.

4. Non-neutral language – Phrases like “should not be considered valid” and “no proof said politician actually signed” are prescriptive and speculative. Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy discourages this kind of editorializing.

Given these issues, I’ve added a ^{[citation needed]} tag for now, but I think we should either remove or rewrite the sentence unless a reliable source can be found that clearly supports it.

For reference, the sentence was re-added in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autopen&diff=prev&oldid=1287181237. 76.182.144.125 (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Sentence

The following sentence misrepresents the findings of the DoJ: "In 2005, the Department of Justice responded to an inquiry regarding the use of autopen; finding that it does fall outside of the rule of law. "

Reading through the 2005 report quickly reveals the DoJ finds the use of the autopen consistent with the language of the Constitution: "For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather, the President may sign a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 by directing a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to such a bill, for example by autopen."

The new sentence might better fit in a different section altogether.

Etymology of "matrix"

A stylus driven by an electric motor followed the x- and y-axis of a profile or shape engraved in the plate, which is why it is called a matrix

This explanation seems plausible, but the device which creates the pattern on a seal had already been called a "matrix" for centuries. ("Matrix" is Latin for "womb".) Do we have sources one way or the other? Marnanel (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]