Talk:Douglas Engelbart/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why that weird stuff had to go

Some anon IP user put in a weird, weird, paragraph that I have taken out. It was as follows:

Engelbart has repeatedly said that no one recalls who coined the term the "mouse" -- nor why. The "tail" remains speculation. He also stated at an SRI banquet following his National Technology Award that Bill English deserved equal credit, but that Stanford Research Institute chose/needed to register the patent in one name, and chose his. Thierry Bardini is a thorough researcher and fine writer, but never worked with Engelbart. To say Engelbart was "strongly influenced" by anything after the age of 15 is dubious; he has always been a thinker, but not a great reader or listener.

I have no idea where this person is coming from with these crazy ideas, especially the last one. If he or she had actually bothered to read almost everything published by Engelbart (I have), they would have realized that Engelbart was strongly influenced first by Bush, Whorf, and Licklider (all three of whom were cited and discussed in Engelbart's seminal 1962 paper, which has been posted on several Web sites). Furthermore, Engelbart's writings after 1970 began to borrow a lot of ideas from Peter Drucker (particularly the "knowledge worker" concept), and Engelbart explicitly acknowledged as much in his published writings at the time as well as in the 1986 interview with the two Stanford librarians (which is also on the Web somewhere).

If that person actually has personal knowledge of Engelbart (for example, as a former SRI or Tymshare employee), that would be great. But otherwise, Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires that articles stick to what's generally available about someone in the published literature. Even if Engelbart's own writings somehow misrepresent who has influenced him and how, this article should not imply such a wild claim unless and until it can be substantiated. --Coolcaesar 00:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Even if the author had personal info, wikipedia is not for first hand research.

70.248.186.8 01:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

It's Douglas Englebart, not Engelbart

Uh, dude, if you actually review the documents on file in Special Collections at Stanford University (I've been there three times), the guy clearly signs his name Douglas Engelbart. I think we can safely assume that he knows how to spell his own name. Also, the vast majority of articles ever published about him (and I personally have most of them on file) give his name as Douglas Engelbart. --Coolcaesar 02:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doug says (when reminding people to spell his name with Engel, not Engle: "My last name is German - from the Angels, not the Angles". --Grlloyd

Would be nice to mention the spelling problem in the article. Benefit: you find be article by searching for "Englebart", too. -- 'Dude2'(anon)

'Engelbart' not 'Englebart'. I should know, I'm his granddaughter. Riverdove (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good tone edits that could also help the Vannevar Bush article

I completely agree with Coolcaesar. BTW I think this is a very well written article now. Perhaps someone who is interested in Engelbart and his interests might also be interested in having a look at the related Vannevar Bush article and hammering it closer to NPOV. That article is not horrible, but it does have a couple wingy paragraphs in it such as the one that Coolcaesar has corrected here. --Threepd 15:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Corrected YUri Rubinsky Award date

Doug received the award from Yuri in 1995 at the 4th WWw Conference in Boston. I was there as a co-worker of Yuri.

---

( I Lack wikimedia skills to put a big (5) here If we are going to link Engelbart to co-evolution, can there be some relevent description at either end? Perhaps, (on thi page) a discussion of technosynthetic, not "typical" cooevolution. hence it appearing undifined and (seemingly) irrelevant , if one clicks through to the co-ev page?:thanks--Choz 08:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Obscurity?

I would quibble a bit with the choice of words describing how he “slipped into relative obscurity after 1976 due to various misfortunes and misunderstandings.” It would be more appropriate to say his concepts became unpopular in the changing social standards of the times. At this point, his ideas were a bit out there for most in a very Telsa-esque manner. I also doubt the authenticity of his seemingly behind the times opinions on personal computers. As a grandchild, I have it on fairly respectable authority that he had been predicting the use of personal computers in each person’s home since before a computer could fit in a city block. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kylemangan (talk • contribs) 09:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

My impression is that he was a better visionary than manager. His group suffered from "not invented here" syndrome and tended to bite off more than his sponsors could afford to chew - trying to build a big all-encompassing system to do lots of things at once when either building a smaller system that did fewer things or making use of components created by other companies might have been more achievable and marketable. The Tesla comparison works - sometimes when your ideas are too far ahead of their time it's just not practical to try to implement them yet. And the "misfortunes" part was definitely appropriate - in one brief period his house burned down, he had marital difficulties, and he had to essentially reinvent his career; that's a lot of change to cope with. But my source on all this is "original research" - mostly that my dad knew him at SRI. --Blogjack (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing memetics category

I am removing the memetics category from this article since you learn no more about the article's contents from the category and v.v. Since so many things may be memes we should try to keep the category closely defined in order to remain useful. Hope you're okay with that. The link to meme would be enough I suggest. Facius 11:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware as to why this article was added to the memetics category in the first place? You appear to be emptying the category just because you feel like it. —Viriditas | Talk 12:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Doug's Indian Background

I've read the bio. What part of India or China was he born in? What kind of visa, H1 or L1, did he use to get into the US and did he work for Tata Consulting, InfoSys or WinPro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.21.51 (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Engelbart was born in Portland, Oregon in 1925. Riverdove (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not neutral

I find the following passages hardly neutral (but not only those - a lot of the article sounds like it):

"Engelbart slipped into relative obscurity after 1976 due to various misfortunes and misunderstandings."

"At Tymshare, Engelbart soon found himself marginalized and relegated to obscurity"

"the MIT Media Lab invited Engelbart to dialogue at the Media Lab and 3 wonderful discussions gave Engelbart the glimmer of hope that he has been long seeking, that his concepts had taken root and a new generation is moving it forward."

Rodrigo de Salvo Braz (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That section does seem a harsh, even a bit on the dramatic side. I've been interested in his work for a long time, and if I remember correctly he has a bio on his institute's webpage that covers this. I'll drop a link here and maybe clean it up myself if RL lets up on me in the next few days. kitsune361 (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, a large section of this article struck me as hyperbole. "His lab at SRI was responsible for more breakthrough innovation than possibly any other lab before or since." -- this is the most egregious example. Almost as bad is "was told to be very careful about who he talked to about his "wild" ideas". Also, the paragraph beginning "This is a special keepsake" is basically an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor47 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Also "Doug" and "Hew" in Career and accomplishments/Epiphany? That doesn't sound professionally encyclopedic. I, like several others, find that the lack of neutrality (in both directions) and the article's general tone severely impair its quality. 74.162.149.144 (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The "misfortunes and misunderstandings" part has since been reworked. FWIW, the "misfortunes" in the relevant period included: (1) his wife moved out, (2) his house burned down, (3) he had some major health issues. (My source on this is OR - personal conversation with someone who knew and worked with him.) --Blogjack (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

alzheimer's

I have partially protected this page (no editing by anons) because an i.p. keeps adding the statement that Engelbart has been diagnosed it. If it's true, it needs an excellent source before it can stay. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, this is true. Doug is my grandfather, and we have been struggling with this for sometime now. My aunt, Christina, added the edit back, as you can see on the history. It is difficult to source, as the diagnosis is in his medical records. Thank you for watching out for his page. Riverdove (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Alzheimer statements are a rush to judgement. I and close associates have met and talked with Doug and his wife, Karen, in the last several days. While it may be true that Doug has some degree of cognitive impairment normally associated with aging (i.e. some degree of short term memory loss), there has not been any definitive diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease by a qualified physician. Nor does his behaviour reflect or favor the symptoms of Alzheimer's over those of normal age-related cognitive disfunction. There seems to be a push by his children to have him declared to have Alzheimer's. The facts do not support it; nor does our recent meeting with Doug of several hours. Doug is aware of what is going on and is upset by it and adamantly against it. Doug was evaluated on March 6, 2009 by a qualified neurologist and found to have mild cognitive impairment. Additionally, I should point out that even in severe cases Alzheimer's Disease can only diagnosed with 80 to 90% accuracy. A definitive diagnose can only be done through an autopsy. The implications of a public declaration of Alzheimer's are severe and desultory. Any claim of Alzheimer's needs to be first substantiated beyond any reasonable doubt. As a postscript, I have read this post to Doug and he agrees with and approves it. Bill Duvall (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Under wikipedia's rules for articles about living persons, absolute and complete sourcing is required. Comments from people who claim to be relatives aren't enough. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation

I have found source for the Engelbart - Karen O'Leary relationship here: [[1]], but the Edit Page tab is not visible so I can't insert a citation where appropriate (last paragraph). Please someone with editing rights insert this as citation. Thank you. East1700 (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

All that page shows is they have a business relationship and what they're working on. It does not say anything about them being married in 2008, which is what that part of the citation request is addressing (the other part being the the claim of 4 children and death of a previous wife). And truthfully, with no valid citation since December of 2008, that section can be removed. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the marriage mention. The reference provided argues against a marriage, in fact; it only says they're sort of business partners - if they were husband and wife I suspect the reference might have mentioned that, too. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Doug Engelbart married Karen O'Leary in January 2008. I do not know how to get this listed again on the Douglas Engelbart page. AnnDuvall (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)AnnDuvall

I added it myself. I'm in contact with Douglas. I sourced it to this page. There are a number of pages on the Internet that refer to Karen as his wife. I'm not able to confirm the date of January 26, 2008 in published sources, but Douglas tells me that's the date and I see zero reason to doubt it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, thanks. The family section has been a bit of an editing battlground over the years between family members, so I'm glad we were able to at least finally verify this part. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting; I don't really know anything about that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It was [2] last year, going back and forth on who were family members, who wasn't, lawsuits about the marriage, etc. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do think we can have a better cited and more encyclopedic article. There are places for family and friends to give breezy tributes, but this is an influential scientist, so deserves something up to DYK standards: no inline links and one citation per paragraph, no uncited opinion, etc. I can do some work on it while dealing with other related ones. My COI: I was a researcher in a similar field for 30 years. W Nowicki (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Off the bat I ran into one issue: The article said he got a B.Eng degree in 1952, while the cited source (his CV on the tribute web site) says MS degree in 1953. So I will go with that. The first "Epiphany" probably should go since it is unsourced and very non-encyclopedic. W Nowicki (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2011

mk:Македонски Zvonkol (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've provided you with a copy of the text at User:Zvonkol/Douglas Engelbart, from where you can copy it over to the mk.wikipedia - happy translating :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Smithsonian Channel

This might be of interest: The Demo That Changed the World by the Smithsonian Channel. Asteriks (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

External links

I'm dumping the external links here, it was getting kind of crufty:

• Engelbart course facilitated by Valerie Landau at CSU Monterey Bay
• U.C. Berkeley Lecture in IEOR 190C Feb. 2008
• Douglas C. Engelbart Papers, 1953-2005(call number M0638; 464 linear ft.) are housed in the Department of Special Collections and University Archives at Stanford University Libraries
• Engelbart's Unfinished Revolution; December 1998 at Stanford University  – December 9, 2008 – 40th anniversary commemorative event

---

• The History of Doug Engelbart and Interactive Computing
• As We May Work – the Pursuit of Collective IQ, from IBM Symposium site
• Wired article: The Click Heard Round The World
• Transcript of 2003 visit to San Jose State University
• Doug Engelbart: Father of the Mouse
• Doug Engelbart 1968 Demo Original 90-minute video from MouseSite
• OpenAugment Consortium, dedicated to the preservation of the Augment system
• "Computer Mouse and Interactive Computing". Timeline of Innovations. SRI International. Retrieved 2013-07-01.
• Doug Engelbart Video Archives, Archive.org
• The Demo That Changed the World by the Smithsonian Channel

Disavian (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease?

The mention of Alzheimer's disease has been removed twice by ScientistJim:

• At 20:08 on 5 July with the summary: "Removed the errorful reference to alzheimer's disease".
• At 00:27 on 7 July with the summary: "Removed reference to Alzheimer's disease, reference was self produced. He did not have the disease."

In both cases a reference to http://www.nndb.com/people/131/000026053/ was also deleted. I've no idea what or who NNDB is or if it is considered a reliable source or not. But the first page of the Washington Post reference that remains includes this statement: "His death of acute kidney failure occurred at his home in Atherton, Calif., after a long battle with Alzheimer’s disease, according to one of his daughters, Diana Engelbart Mangan." So, what does "self-produced" mean? Self-produced by whom? Why do we think that "he did not have the disease"? And what, if anything, should this article say about Alzheimer's disease? --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the NNDB reference should be deleted, as it's not considered a reliable resource and will be challenged in any sort of GA or FAC review. Just cite the Washington Post article instead. Disavian (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. There were a few intermediate changes since I posted my comments above, but I just made the change to remoe the NNDB citation and reword the entry a bit as a result (can't include the year when Alzheimer's was diagnosed unless we can find a reliable source to cite). The section now reads:

Death

Engelbart died at his home in Atherton, California on July 2, 2013, due to kidney failure, after a long battle with Alzheimer’s disease. He was 88 and is survived by his second wife, four children from his first marriage, and nine grandchildren.

---

--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Alzheimer's diagnosis is speculative and should be removed. According to the NIH and other reliable medical sources, this diagnosis can only be made posthumously by an autopsy. See http://www.nia.nih.gov/alzheimers/topics/diagnosis. 65.47.181.230 (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Bill Duvall

I think the mention of Alzheimer's should remain. We have a reliable published source in the Washington Post (AP) article. The NIH article mentioned above says "A definitive diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease can be made only through autopsy after death, ....". So we probably don't have a definitive diagnosis. But, the NIH article goes on to say "However, doctors have several methods and tools to help them determine fairly accurately whether a person who is having memory problems has “possible Alzheimer’s disease” (symptoms may be due to another cause), “probable Alzheimer’s disease” (no other cause for the symptoms can be found), or some other problem." Engelbart's daughter's statement as described in the Washington Post (AP) article doesn't sound speculative when it says "His death of acute kidney failure occurred at his home in Atherton, Calif., after a long battle with Alzheimer’s disease, according to one of his daughters, Diana Engelbart Mangan." That should be good enough unless or until we have a reliable source that questions the Alzheimer's comment. I don't think that we should be second guessing Engelbart's daughter, the AP, or the Washington Post here without something a lot more concrete. And we need to avoid the world of WP:OR. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The WP article was unfortunately not adequately fact-checked. His daughter, who does not live near her deceased father, has long made this claim and statement, and it has never been substantiated. It is disputed by Dr. Engelbart's wife, who had the responsibility for (and the most intimate knowledge of) Dr. Engelbart's health. It is reckless that the WP included this unsubstantiated claim in their article without corroboration by Mrs. Engelbart. I have been in contact with her, and she says that the Alzheimer's statement is false and vehemently disagrees with its inclusion in the Wiki article. Please see my comment above from 18 March 2009. Without factual support the Alzheimer's reference should be removed . 207.181.196.2 (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Bill Duvall

I also think the mention of Alzheimer's should remain. No disrespect, but it appears that the claim of Alzheimer's, having been published in many articles, has more weight than your stance, which relies on the the assumption that you somehow have intimate knowledge of this situation, more so even than Engelbart's daughter. We cannot verify that you have indeed talked to Mrs. Engelbart or even know her. Until factual support can be produced denying the fact that Engelbart suffered from Alzheimer's, I think it is best to side with information that is currently publicly available. The reference should remain until such a time that proof can be provided. Methodes (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have put in a few words making it clear who exactly said he had "a long battle" with Alzheimer's. The attribution information for this comment comes from the Washington Post article. Invertzoo (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing - we do have a reliable source for the claim. We can't go off of someone claiming to know someone else, it has to be something published by a reputable source... the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth works to explain that. For example, if the Doug Engelbart Institute posted about it somehow (perhaps on their facebook page as their website is apparently down), I'd say that would be a good start to clearing things up, but unlikely as that's apparently run by the daughter. We need something to cite that definitely comes from his wife. Basically... a news article. Even with that, we'd have to say, "X claimed he had it, and Y claimed he didn't." Disavian (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Douglas Engelbart/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ankit Maity (talk · contribs) 06:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Short sections and paragraphs are discouraged. In your case, it's the "Personal" and "Death" section. (GA criteria)
  • I worked a bit on that. diff Disavian (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• The lead should adequately summarize the content of the article. (GA criteria)
  • I worked to make it better summarize the article. If it's missing anything obvious, let me knowaye diff Disavian (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• There should not be anything in the lead not mentioned in the rest of the article. (GA criteria)
  • As far as I can tell, everything in the lead is contained in the article. Let me know if I'm missing something specific. Disavian (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Biographies require {{Persondata}}.
  • The persondata template is present and has data. Disavian (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The review is thus on hold. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. :) I'll see what I can do... Disavian (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Complete the task. Then, passed. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 09:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 12:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"Purple Numbers" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Purple Numbers. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 8#Purple Numbers until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 00:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)