Talk:Turbo encabulator

Authenticity of Rockwell Automation retroencabulator film

User:Mikkalai removed the reference to the retroencabulator film, claiming that it was not by Rockwell Automation but rather by nonnotable April 1 pranksters. I've seen no evidence to support that assertion, but at least anecdotal evidence that it was actually produced by R.A. as part of training for tech writers (e.g., what not to do). I've added back a reworded reference, as in either case the film is still relevant to the turboencabulator. However, unless evidence of it being unrelated to R.A. is forthcoming, I will add back a less strongly worded claim of the relationship. --Brouhaha 19:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• I was talking about "nonnotable April 1 pranksters" because the linked video indicates the authors (or the posters): "exorsystem". If they are not authors, as you hint, then all the more, their post is copyright violation and all the more has no place in wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a collection of techie jokes. If this video is not mentioned by any urban folklore publication, it has no place here. `'mikka (t) 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What copyright are you claiming is violated? And how can you seriously claim that a video about a retroencabulator that was obviously inspired by the turboencabulator paper is not relevant to an article on the turboencabulator? That makes no sense whatsoever. --Brouhaha 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If it is created by an "exorsystem", then it is a work of nonnotable April 1 pranksters. If it is created by R.A., then the poster "exorsystem" violated the copyright of R.A. and wikipedia cannot promote copyvios by providing links. `'mikka (t) 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I consider this item closed by a recent confirming addition. `'mikka (t) 19:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

An interview with Mike Kraft, the actor in the retroencabulator piece, can be found here: http://www.plcdev.com/an_interview_with_mike_kraft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.211.46 (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with "Not Solid References"

I strongly disagree with the claim that the links from the page are "not solid references". The link to a copy of the classic turboencabulator paper may not be authoritative in and of itself, but given that many online sources provide the same information, and that this is a discussion of folklore (not a real product), I think that link is sufficiently solid. The link to the page from an actual GE instrumentation catalog page seems very solid.

Unless someone explains why these are not sufficiently solid, and what would constitute a sufficiently solid reference, I will remove the "unreferenced" tag. --Brouhaha 19:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• It is one thing a "classic" turboenc paper. (although I reasonably doubt that the mentioned publication exists. All references to this "Students Quarterly Journal" are about the turboenc thingy) If you so fond of this joke, please provide the correct bibliographic reference.

However it is totally aother thing to claim that the device was slipped into product catalog which you haven't seen yourself and did not provide a reference in a reputable publication which states the fact. `'mikka (t) 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the catalog, and provided a reference to it. That I have not managed to find any other printed documents that cite the catalog proves nothing; I can't find any printed citations for many of the catalogs that are on my bookshelf. For instance, I'm not aware of any publication that cites the 1987 Newark Electronics catalog, yet that catalog definitely exists. --Brouhaha 18:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have the catalog on your bookshelf, please provide the exact reference. Once again, the main issue is wikipedia:Verifiability. If the only reference to a catalog which has already been shredded everywhere but your bookshelf, then this is an invalid reference, by wikipedia rules: it is impossible to verify the claim. If you cannot find any independent confirmation, then the claim has no placfe in wikipedia until you find one. Plain and simple. Wikipedia:Verifiability. Read it, colleague. `'mikka (t) 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Before you claimed that if I *didn't* have a copy of the catalog, it wasn't a valid reference. Now you're claiming that if I *do* have it, it's not a valid reference. Get your story straight.

My story is very straight: that you have or saw the catalog, it is your word of mouth, and sorry colleague, I don't believe you. I know only too well that people may go to unbelievably great lengths to propagate a hoax. `'mikka (t) 20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The "exact reference" is "General Electric 1962/1963", published by the West Lynn, Massachusetts division of General Electric. It obviously did not have an ISBN number, since it predates the ISBN standard by a decade, and it is common practice even today for commercial catalogs to not have ISBN numbers. I don't have a copy on my bookshelf; there are a lot of sources that I have cited that I do not have on my bookshelf. Whether a book is on *my* bookshelf does not affect its verifiability, nor does whether it is on *your* bookshelf. --Brouhaha 20:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes it does. If you don't have it on your bookshelf, then where did you get the reference? You wrote "That I have not managed to find any other printed documents that cite the catalog". So where did you get it after all? `'mikka (t) 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

At the time that the catalog was in my hands, it belonged to another engineer. There are a lot of documents that exist in the world that I don't personally own, but that doesn't make their existence less credible. --Brouhaha 05:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Quit the edit war already!

User:Mikkalai, stop modifying or removing the information on the 1962/1963 GE Catalog without any valid reason. --Brouhaha 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• User:Brouhaha stop adding unconfirmed information mentioned in various blogs and personal webpages. Be serious, man, even in jokes. Wikipedia requires verification of any information from reputable sources. You are adding a "reference" without even ever seeing it. Either you are one of these hoaxers who love to slip a turboencabulator into a catalog or you are so naive as to believe photocopies that circulate in the 'net. Say, when did you last time send $5 expecting 4 people send you $5 each? (I am talking about chain letters). Have you ever heard about photoshopping?

Once again, reputable independent confirmation please. If you don't know which sources are reputable, please start from wikipedia:Verifiability and around. `'mikka (t) 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read it. I don't see any section that says that a book which User:Mikkalai is too lazy to track down is not a valid reference. --Brouhaha 20:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You did nbot provide a trackable reference. If you have the catalog, please type its full description and done with it, if you don't please stop trolling. `'mikka (t) 20:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The full description is, as I've indicated multiple times, "General Electric 1962/1963". What part of that description are you having so much trouble with?

Suppose I instead had cited the Tektronix 1984 instrument catalog, or the Digital Equipment Corporation Logic Handbook 1978, both of which I happen to have at hand. Would you be raising as much of a stink about either of those? Why, or why not? Do you have some reason to believe that GE is not a reputable company, or that GE didn't or doesn't publish catalogs? What is your definition of a "trackable reference"? Do you disbelieve in the existence of all documents that aren't in the nearest branch of your local public library? Or do you just think that you shouldn't have to go to any effort to track down the document, but rather are entitled to have someone Fedex it to you?

I have routinely cited published documents from my personal collection (both presently owned and formerly owned) and collections of otheers in various articles. Many of the documents are obscure, are not known to be cited in other publications, and are possibly hard to track down, such as documents relating to early computers (e.g., some of the IBM 7030 Data Processing System manuals, and some of the Intel iAPX 432 manuals). But I have never had anyone put up so much opposition to it, trying to claim that the documents are nonexistent, or that it is improper for me to cite them, or that such citations constitute "trolling". --Brouhaha 05:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why you are more credible than user:67.188.249.116 below. He could have also easily quoted a "CIA Internal Memo #267/14b". The problem with obscure documents is exactly their obscureness and hence nonverifiability, unless they are quoted in reliable non-obscure sources. When speaking about trolling I refer to you refusal to accept that your word is not trusted if there is no reasonable way to verify a mere existence of the document. I don't need it in my local branch. Just point me to any US library directory which lists a "GE Catalog". You also fail to see the difference in the level of credibility between quoting a techical detail from a technical document (which normally may be cross-referenced from other sources) and quoting a hoax, i.e., a quite rare thing which is difficult to cross-check from other sources. Still another factor is that there is little incentive in cheating about serious technical data and much danger in the case of cheating uncovered, whereas a hoax is a hoax is a hoax. And a hoax within a hoax is even much more fun, especially if one can convince wikipedia to propagate it. `'mikka (t) 00:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Private communication"

Private communications are commonly known as "gossip" and are not valid references for wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Private communication is considered acceptable as references in scholarly publications. For example, many of the references in "IBM's Early Computers" by Bashe et al., published by MIT Press are private communications. Private communication is thus obviously not gossip. I have confirmation from an authoritative source, but not permission to violate the privacy of the source.

Hypothetically, if your mother was the tech writer involved, would you want her name and email address in Wikipedia? --Brouhaha 19:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a scholarly publication. Wikipedia's authors themeselves have absolutely no credibility. `'mikka (t) 20:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Including your own lack of credibility, for removing the RA film from the page based on your own unsubstantiated claim that it was an April 1 hoax without even *trying* to verify it. If you're too lazy to even attempt verification, you shouldn't be deleting things. At this point I think it would be relatively clear to anyone studying the history of the article as to which wikipedians have made reasonable, verifiable contributions, and which have not.--Brouhaha 05:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted

How, who is going to verify this masterpiece of user:67.188.249.116:

"The author of "The Turbo-Encabulator in Industry" was a young lawyer named Bernard Salwen who was an intelligence officer in Washington DC during World War II. As part of his job, he had to review a lot of professional science and engineerng papers. He had a flair for language and was intrigued by the obscure techinical terms he encountered. The result was this paper, which was printed by a number of publications without proper attribution. It was excerpted in Time magazine some time in 1945, which resulted in some humorous letters to the editor."

I deleted it, naturally. `'mikka (t) 05:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Retro-Encabulator

I agree Retro-Encabulator should be merged to Turboencabulator. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-27 19:57Z

These are pretty much referencing to the same thing. They should be on the same page, with two different articles. Agreed. Buzzert 04:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Turbo Encabulator

There was also a Dodge Viper video circulating around 1995-1996 talking about the turbo encabulator. If anyone can scrounge a copy of this up i'd appreciate it!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

...He is a reliable source.

At the bottom of the "Other Turboencabulator Information" section is a reference that reads "From an email received from another retired engineer, who went to the Instrument Dept. in 1966 for specialized training and met the author of the turboencabulator datasheet hoax. He is a reliable source. I know him.~~~~". This is obviously the Wrong Way to do things, but I don't know how one would properly cite something like this. Help! Note: I didn't make those modifications. Frotz (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and I am the one who wrote it. Let's wait a couple days. If more people agree with Frotz, and I suspcect they will, I will remove it. Pommerenke (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is quite the definition of "not verifiable" -- nobody else can verify that (a) the engineer said this and (b) that he's reliable. I'm removing the refs. 66.95.123.6 (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates?

At the bottom of the 'History' section, I read this statement: "Circa 1955 Rockwell Automation 'manufactured the renamed Retro-Encabulator in another video spoof. See external link in the bottom of this article." That date does not seem correct. The linked video says "© 1997 Rockwell International Corporation." The editor who wrote most of the article was putting everything in chronological order. Does the date of 1955 seem like a typo then? BecauseWhy? (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

BecauseWhy?, you are correct, it was my typo. So I changed the date from 1955 to 1997. Keep up the good work. pommerenke. (BTW, I am surprised people come to this page. I guess humor is still alive and well :-) ) —Preceding comment was added at 18:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Amulite?

A page for goodbeads-world.com [1] claims to sell amulite beads. Real or not? --Auric (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

One person's criticism of the design

Please note, there are some subtle errors in the presentation.

The technical drawing on the speaker’s right has minor errors.

The Franklin heliostat kelter tabs have their polarity reversed; all of the back-linked thermocouplings are shown in millimeters, not Troy grains; none of the outer magnetic arcing rings are touching the servo surfaces; and the six-phase windings should be encased in argon cooling tubes, not Xenon cooling tubes.

With these changes, the operation of the device should be very easy to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff92677 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• You have clearly overlooked the function of the Spurving vanes, which are heliometrically aligned to the Wein servo. This causes the grammeter external flux to iodically coincide with the motion of the dingle arm, which supresses the side fumbling which would otherwise be exhibited as a standing wave in the lobular sinusoidal casing. 63.225.116.49 (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Validity of the word 'directance'

The article says that 'directance' isn't a word (""modial" and "directance" are not even words"), but I found it in a math book. Ian01 (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed. It was an unreferenced opinon anyway. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Quote from Time vs. original article

I found the quote in the article had many misspelling (as I had just read the original paper), and corrected them. Only after I found out these misspellings are actually in the Time article. Now any engineer comparing these two versions will quickly gain the impression the copying by the Time editors was by non-technical people. The wording in the original article makes sense to an engineer in some funny way, an effect which is partially destroyed by Time's misspelling. "Side fumbling" is funny, while "side fumbline" is just nonsense. A baseplate of aluminite is funny, while amulite is nonsense. These considerations clearly indicate that the original text should be quoted. So I adjusted the article accordingly.WikiPidi (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the Time article is still cited as the source of that section. You need to change the citation to the original source. - BilCat (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

GA for DYK

Some day we should get this to WP:GA to qualify it for WP:DYK, possibly (but not necessarily) to appear on AFD. OK? If someone wants to work with me on that, ping me or message my on my talk. EEng 16:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Bud Haggart

Found out a little bit more about Bud Haggart, who must have passed on by now, but is fast becoming-- and, to my mind, will hopefully remain-- iconic for this training film parody. Suffice it to say that yes, his sense of humor was exactly what you would guess and hope after watching that. He apparently had been doing news radio in Detroit (WWJ) until he made his introduction announcer crack up on the air, and got himself fired. It's that background, though, that explains his somewhat unique delivery. If you watch that clip, you'll note that his delivery doesn't look quite right for a teleprompter-- that's because it's not. Bud was apparently known for being able to wear "the ear"-- a prompting earpiece that you probably mostly associate with live translators. Newscasters used this to "pace out" the news ahead of time, even though they would still deliver it live. Bud would read all his copy to tape ahead of time, stopping and restarting if he needed to work on any unusual words, names, or phrases. When delivering the news, he would play the tape and talk along "behind" it by a word or two, just like a translator, except that he was just repeating it verbatim. This technique-- largely lost, now-- is one of the reasons that some news broadcasts from the 1950s have a uniquely steady, calm, and even delivery that is very difficult to duplicate when reading from paper or a teleprompter. You'll definitely notice it, if you listen to enough old news broadcasts. Anyway, mastering this technique is apparently how Bud was able to deliver technical jargon with unparalleled accuracy and reliability, probably rarely needing a second take, and it's the reason that clip is both basically flawless, and in what today seems like such a unique voice.

A few anecdotes support this. This first one is from an announcer he worked with at a station in Detroit:

"I haven’t yet seen the name on this web site of the most successful freelance member of AFTRA. He worked on the Detroit News stations until the evening his antics broke me up on the air as I was introducing the evening news. Bud Haggart was fired. It was the best thing that ever happened to him. He went on to become the biggest commercial announcer in the Detroit market. In addition to being talented, Bud wore the “EAR”. Those were the days before the development of the teleprompter. Bud would record the copy and while doing the spot would listen to the playback through an earpiece."

— unknown former WWJ and Detroit Channel 4 announcer

The second is from the director of the video in question:

"This is the first time Turbo Encabulator was recorded with picture. I shot this in the late 70's at Regan Studios in Detroit on 16mm film. The narrator and writer is Bud Haggert. He was the top voice-over talent on technical films. He wrote the script because he rarely understood the technical copy he was asked to read and felt he shouldn't be alone. We had just finished a production for GMC Trucks and Bud asked since this was the perfect setting could we film his Turbo Encabulator script. He was using an audio prompter referred to as "the ear". He was actually the pioneer of the ear. He was to deliver a live speech without a prompter. After struggling in his hotel room trying to commit to memory he went to plan B. He recorded it to a large Wollensak reel to reel recorder and placed it in the bottom of the podium. With a wired earplug he used it for the speech and the "ear" was invented. Today every on-camera spokesperson uses a variation of Bud's innovation. Dave Rondot (me) was the director and John Choate was the DP on this production. The first laugh at the end is mine. My hat's off to Bud a true talent."

— Director Dave Rondot

Might be fun to find enough stuff to give the guy a page. From what it sounds like, he bulldozed the entire technical training film narration profession into a standard style that everybody recognizes, just by example. Seems like he did hundreds of those things.

--Breakpoint (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Notability

I tried to find sources to show notability of this, but I found only a few passing mentions. It is borderline; an example used in some critiques of jargon, but the case for this having a stand-alone article is mediocre. Also, currently it is being affected by some triviacrafting that fails WP:IPC (lists of random media that used this term). WP:NOTTVTROPES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I can see that it is somewhat difficult, but I would clearly vote to keep it standalone. True, the article's current state is not great, but there are several sources that talk about the Turbo Encabulator primarily, not just in passing mention. I would like to add these to the list:

• recent CNET discussing its history
• recent New Scientist column (which, funny enough, has a legitimate DOI associated with it: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(22)01122-8 )
• Old newspaper using it as April's Fool
• Old newspaper mention not merely repeating the joke, but discussing it
• A recent variation on the joke

This is in addition to the sources already in the article. Yes, this is still not a great amount, but it is definitely something. I am currently working on enough other stuff so I can't improve this article atm, but will add it to my growing to-do list.

Apart from the sufficient sourcing, I'd argue that this article is of encyclopedic value due to the time the joke has survived: It isn't just a one-time hit with a lot of press coverage, which is then quickly forgotten (like e.g. the now-deleted Adolf Hitler Uunona page about the African politician); instead it is now almost 80 years since the inception of the joke, and it is still being discussed. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with LordPeterII that the topic is notable. Also, the long list of "pop culture references" removed by the editor who added the {{notability}} tag seem to demonstrate the enduring significance of the "device", even if the individual references are not encyclopaedic. It has popped regularly over a long period. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. It's clearly notable. I've removed the tags. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

SANS Abusing Wikipedia Page as Part of an Advertising Campaign

The SANS content on this page was added after they produced an advertisement for their paid courses on YouTube. This is an abuse of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:C100:C380:9874:3C9D:4CF7:9A4 (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? EEng 22:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The edit that I removed just now about the "SANS ICS HyperEncabulator". 2601:18E:C100:C380:9874:3C9D:4CF7:9A4 (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. EEng 00:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

There are no rules on Wikipedia about a company making an advertising campaign on YouTube and then making edits on Wiki that funnel clicks to the advertisement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:C100:C380:F89E:985:7049:6605 (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't mean that any edit that mentions them originates from the company. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)