Oh, I get it. The desire for sourcing is strong. It is really frustrating to read an old Fratello or Hodinkee article from a few years back about a watch or brand and learn something new, all the while knowing that at least one fact in the article you know not to be true. For example: Longines used to own Wittnauer. It must be true because Wikipedia says so. Now go and try to find actual evidence of it. It doesn't exist. There is no news article attesting to a sale. There is no purchase agreement in an archive somewhere. It is kind of odd that Bulova buys the name, but not from Longines. The watch business is opaque, and so is its history.
It is the gaps that make the research interesting. Watch forums are not historical journals, we don't expect citations (as if those would exist for watch companies).
It is rare that the dominant culture honors another and gives it credit for a useful invention. The notation that was borrowed from Spain and North Africa is so honored.
This account is verified. WatchCrunch has confirmed that this account is the authentic presence for this person or brand.