Talk:Rube Goldberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Max Maxfield[edit]

To whoever is "managing" this page, may I suggest an external link to the "Heath Robinson Rube Goldberg (HRRG) Mixed Technology Computer" project at The idea is to create a computer out of a mixture of implementation technologies, including relays, vacuum tubes, transistors, simple integrated circuits, pneumatic logic, magnetic logic, and so forth. I think both Heath Robinson and Rube Goldberg would really appreciate this project. <("<) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Memyselfmax (talkcontribs) 20:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

In current version (2006-04-28) this page has broken unicode characters. In old versions those are Ok. I do not know how to fix that.

If someone fixes that please remove this message. Thank you.

Have added a link to the project in the Wiki on Goldberg machines, where it's more appropriate than in this one, which is biographical. SBHarris 20:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He mostly did inventions on golf. DORK!!!!!!!!!!!!

From the article[edit]

surely this should read "usable but unuseful"???

My answer:

No, I actually meant what what I wrote. The Chindōgu typically have a useful purpose (see the article), but they are so embarrassing or the like that that makes them unusable. -- Cimon Avaro on a Pogo Stick

David Borst[edit]

I have removed the reference to "David Borst" from the article for two reasons:

  1. I can find nothing linking this name with Rube Goldberg either on the web or in any of the paper references I have on hand;
  2. The "David Borst" redirect has been deleted several times as a probable hoax (one editor went so far as to make him first Postmaster General of the U.S.)

A citation would be quite helpful. - Hephaestos|§ 16:11, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again, that is fine, it's not a matter of disbelief so much as a matter of "where is this research? how reliable is it? who did it?" A book name, please (or a website, although I've looked for a website and found nothing). - Hephaestos|§ 18:58, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You never want to trust Wikipedia the people can always change things — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:02, November 1, 2016 (UTC)


Modern researchers [who?] have examined other political cartoons [which?] of this time period, and have found certain similarities between the works of Rube Goldberg, and those of David Borst [who is David Borst? How is he known? Does he rate an article in an encyclopedia?]. It's not yet proven, but it is possible that Goldberg used Borst as a pseudonym to publish his most controversial [controversial in what way?] political cartoons.

Hephaestos|§ 01:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


It's a published study from the University of California, Berkeley that has examined other political cartoons published in the same time period. David Borst is not a person himself, he's a made up pseudonym for Rube Goldberg. They were controversial because sometimes political cartoons can get controversial and upset certian people. He didn't want his name on them, so he used a pseudonym.

I appreciate your taking the time to explain, and it sounds interesting, but unfortunately we still won't be able to use it right now. - Hephaestos|§ 02:19, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If you type "David Borst" and "Rube Goldberg" into Google Search, the only page that has both names in it is this page: Wikipedia Talk: Rube Goldberg. --User:Alvinrune 00:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism is very important[edit]

The person making edits from IP: needs to be banned. Mrfridays 16:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel is making newspapers and ficticious names into wikipedia links that don't exist. It merely serves to clutter the page and make it confusing for users. There are none such of these links. It's vandalism.

23:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikifying potential subjects of as of yet unwritten articles is not vandalism. In my opinion, they're all perfectly deserving of an article; this is how a wiki works. You could always create an account and log in, after which you'll be able to tweak your preferences so that red links appear whatever colour you wish.
However, it does say somewhere that Wikipedia is not just a collection of links.Nat2 15:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Please note however that allegations of vandalism should not be made lightly; see Wikipedia:Civility. Calling someone "stupid" in an edit summary is also uncalled for, and violates Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Try to lighten up, eh? -- Hadal 04:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I never called anyone stupid. I just called them retarded. If this Gamaliel person wants to make those subjects into articles, then I can see them being made links to them, but until that point in time, it is just more confusing for potential readers. -- 01:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It may be a bit of overkill, but it is useful. It is very likely, for instance, that over time all those newspapers will have articles of their own, plus some of the characters. Sure, you could justifiably de-link a few of them on the grounds that they'll never happen, but there are already many articles on newspapers, many articles on individual characters, etc. When you have a red link, one of the things you can do is go to it, then click on "What Links Here". For instance, if you go to New York Journal, you'll find there are already four other articles linking to it. You could start an article on the New York Journal itself simply by grabbing some of the information from those pages that refer to it. That, as the edit summary says, is the way Wikipedia grows. It is the opposite of vandalism for Gamaliel to put them in. They should stay.Ortolan88 04:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The "retard" remark came from an anonymous user whose edits [1] seem somewhat similar to yours [2]. - dcljr 05:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For what its worth I got this lovely message on my talk page: "You ruined the entire Rube Goldberg page on this website you ignorant lutefisk. What do you think you are doing? You made every single thing a link that there is no link directing to anywhere else. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? NOW I HAVE TO SPEND ALL MY TIME FIXING IT YOU STUPID SON OF A BITCH!" [3] What fun.

I put the links there for the precisely the reason that Ortolan88 states. I feel that everything I linked to would make a good article and I plan on filling in some of those links myself in the very near future. In reference to the edit summary "There is no chance that there could be a page on Mike and Ike, Boob McNutt, Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts, or others," I obviously disagree. At the top of my immediate to do list are articles on a couple of Goldberg's individual strips, including the very ones mentioned in that edit summary. (You can see from my user page I've created many comic strip articles.) I'd also like to get into creating articles on now-defunct newspapers, though this is a long term thing as I'm still searching for appropriate reference works on the subject I can study.

I can understand removing red links to things that will probably never become articles, but having red links to articles that will probably exist in the future is how wikipedia is designed. If you think there is a flaw in the design of wikipedia which might confuse readers, then Village Pump is the place to start a campaign for a change, not here. Gamaliel 17:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I guess we're all still waiting for those articles on Mike and Ike, Boob McNutt, Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts, and others that were "ON TOP" of your "IMMEDIATE TO DO LIST" almost 7 months ago. I'd hate to be at the bottom of your to do list. - Anonymous, 19:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
You caught me. I'll have to leave Wikipedia in shame because I never finished my Boob McNutt article. Damn you for exposing my secret. Gamaliel 01:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the point is that you shouldn't have made it a link in the first place. It's quite obvious that you weren't going to make a Boob McNutt article because there really isn't an article to be written. - Anonymous, 13:26, 8 July 2005 (UTC)
Welcome to month nine of this ridiculous argument. Gamaliel 8 July 2005 17:33 (UTC)
Behold, the Boob McNutt article. Perhaps you can move on with your life now. Gamaliel 8 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)

What a great article!!!!! Congrats!!!! Good luck with the Mike and Ike, Foolish Questions, Lala Palooza, The Weekly Meeting of the Tuesday Women's Club, Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts, and the others that were AT THE TOP OF YOUR LIST and NEEDED to be made into articles. It was your IMMEDIATE TO DO LIST!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOOD LUCK!!! - Anonymous, 16 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)

Good luck- Nat2|§
Ooooops, looks like you forgot to log out this time Equilibrium. Gamaliel 04:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I didn't forget anything, I just don't know how exactly to put in my username. I do want to wish you good luck with your endeavors on your IMMEDIATE TO DO LIST!!! So again, I wish you good luck! - Equilibrium
You can sign your posts with four tildes. The tilde is the little squiggly thing which is probably on the upper left hand side of your keyboard. Remember to type it four times. Gamaliel 15:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
By four tidles you mean 03:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC), right? Nat2
Huh? Nat2
Thank you, now good luck. :) - Equilibrium 18:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, still waiting Gamaliel. Hope there wasn't anything too critical on that immediate to-do list that's been 2 years in the making... - Equilibrium 14:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Red links redoux (sheesh!)[edit]

The fact that there are red links in an article (please everyone carefully read WP:RED) does not mean that somebody is trying to make something a "collection of links". As Gamaliel says, if the link could potentially one day be a verifiable RS WP article (like Boob McNutt), it should stay, no matter how long it takes for somebody to eventually create the article which is being suggested, not promised. A red link is NOT a promise; it's not a diamond engagement ring. Further, it's not an orphaned baby in a basket, and you have no obligation to it, and neither does anybody else (that includes Gamaliel, even if at one time he said otherwise and then got busy with other tasks). A redlink won't starve if you ignore it. And if you don't like it, pay no attention to it! And if you don't like the color of it (if you think the things are Communist, or they scream at you), go to your reader and change THAT COLOR FOR YOU. But stop bugging everybody else about a perfectly reasonable policy. "Good" redlinks are what Wikipedia grows from. I see no evidence above that Gamaliel has added these to bug anybody (I'm answering this from an argument posted on my talk page). And finally, as for any relationship between Gamaliel and me (in case you're wondering), we don't have any. Except, apparently, that long ago somewhere we read WP:LINK. Actually, I even wrote some of it, long ago. It's been accepted by the community, and if you don't like it, go there to the TALK page, or to the PUMP, and argue. Not here. SBHarris 18:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He is one of the most famous cartoonists in history[edit]

" He is one of the most famous cartoonists in history". Is this NPOV? Alan Liefting 6 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)

probably... --User:Alvinrune 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Depends on your definition of fame. I don't know of any other cartoonists whose name has entered the common vernacular in reference to creations similar to their cartoons. Perhaps this isn't fame so much as familiarity though. --Anon80
Well I haven't heard of him, I expect what is meant is he is famous in the USA. Markb 12:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Heath Robinson is often used in the uk to describe convoluted affairs. For an example of his work see —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Funny that no mention of one of his most famous "students"..Dr.Seuss. You cant tell me those Dr. Suessian gadgets are not Goldbergian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Jake Robinson of Oxford is gay"?[edit]

While I suppose it's possible that there is an award for cartoonists called the "Jake is gay," this was odd enough that I figured I'd draw attention to it as a possible prank.

I'm not at all a regular editor, so I'm not sure of the appropriate steps to take--but I just wanted to raise the subject.


Text removed[edit]

In The City of Lost Children, similar machines abound, including a famous set piece in which a little girl's teardrop triggers a chain of events that ultimately causes a shipwreck. The films Amélie and A Very Long Engagement expand this theme further, moving from the physiological to the metaphysical. As noted by Philadelphia City Paper's Sam Wood, fate itself operates as a Rube Goldberg device, "an endless chain of tricky coincidences whose final result is utterly beyond prediction."

I have removed the following text from the article, because it doesn't reference a Rube Goldberg device, instead it talks about a domino effect which was not inspired in the machines, but rather in old folklore tales, like the Drop of Honey tale which is featured on The Book of One Thousand and One Nights. I don't remember any other Rube Goldberg machine in Lost Children, so if there's another, that one could be inserted instead. DrJones 16:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Who Butchered This Page?[edit]

The last time I checked this page about a week ago, it was about twice as long as it is now. I can understand deleting the occasional bit of erroneous info, but this was wholesale butchery. Admittedly, many of the paragraphs were not about Rube Goldberg himself, but of Rube Goldberg gadgets made by other people--instead of deletions, they should have been put on their own page under the heading 'Rube Goldberg Gadgets'. Or, they should have been left alone. Seems to be that it's better to err on the side of having too much information than having too little. I'm a newbie at Wikipedia; can anybody offer information on how to restore the full version of this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

You can find old versions of the article in the page history under the history tab. You can click on one and edit it, which will restore that version. If you do this please explain what you are doing in the edit summary and take care not to undo positive changes that have been made to the article. Gamaliel 02:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Gamaliel. I guess 'butchered' was a bit too strong, but it seems like there was a lot of interesting info that's now missing. I don't know if I want to restore the stuff myself until my Wikipedia skills are stronger, but hopefully somebody can do it while keeping the positive stuff that's been added since then.

link address[edit]

the web link to the 'official' we page i just got here from a google search and it has the first item as

the site is down so I can't verify it at the moment .... anyone to check it after the weekend ?

As far as I know, underscores (_) aren't permitted in the DNS, so the chances of working are really really low.

hahahahahah i madee it erased!!!

Pitagora Souchi or Suicchi or both?[edit]

In the text are references to a japanese translation of the Goldberg machines and a japanese tv show showing such machines with different names. I don't speak japanese or know the show (except for this:, but does anyone know if Suicchi and Souchi shouldn't be spelt the same?

Those two things are separate. The Japanese tv-program is called Pythagorean Switch (ピタゴラスイッチ Pitagora Suicchi) and it shows many different Pythagorean Apparatuses (ピタゴラ装置 Pitagora Souchi) as subsegments. See Pitagora Suicchi for additional information.
By the way: Am I the only one who has troubles viewing those Japanese names (ピタゴラスイッチ and ピタゴラ装置) in the main article? I see only a row of question marks.
Talamus 06:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
See Help:Japanese. Besides, I'm now working on regularizing the spelling of the program to PythagoraSwitch. --Fukumoto 10:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If not a separate article, at least separate sections?[edit]

The section listing appearances of Goldberg-style machines is getting longer than most articles. One way to break this down might be to separate TV from movie references ... Lawikitejana 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

{{cleanup-spam}} Removed[edit]

I did not find that any of the links in this section were spammy in nature. If anybody has any specific complaints on the links given, let's discuss them here. --Roninbk t c # 00:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the robe goldenberg machine section[edit]

I am suggesting a cleanup of that section due to the repetition of several entries (whipped..., jackass, refrences to the breakfast making machine in Pee-wee's big adventure, etc.) Typer525 Talk 01:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for New Pages[edit]

I suggest that there should be two new pages: Rube Goldberg Machine and List of Rube Goldberg Machines in Popular Culture --Jickyincognito 09:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Verify Link[edit]

Having read the conditions of adding links - I thought that it would not be a problem adding a link to a video which we created in the style of the Rube Goldberg machine. This link had been deleted and a message left saying that it should be mentioned in the discussion section to gain verification.

We had a link to this video under this article for about a year (from 2005 when we created the video), our university web hosting was stopped when we graduated and so I have only just re-hosted the video and was putting a link back onto this article. The video is hosted on: and does not contain any advertising. Please can someone verify...

Who Keeps Removing Links?[edit]

The link to my kinetic-art page, which is VERY relevant to Rube Goldberg, keeps getting omitted by somebody even though it's been part of the Rube Goldberg article for over a year. Is this caused by some internal Wiki person, or some outside individual?

Adding links to your own website is strongly discouraged, especially if the site is commercial in nature. If you are selling products or promoting yourself on the website it is probably not an appropriate link. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Rube Goldberg machine article[edit]

There really should be an article on the machines themselves. Discussions of the various competitions, many pictures of interesting ones, etc. I certainly think it could meet the standard for Wikipedia.  OzLawyer / talk  14:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A seperate article for the Machines would be great! No question the topic merits seperate treatment and has lots of potential. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


Are there any still frames of an original Rube Goldberg machine?

Anyone who wants to see Goldberg machines designed by Goldberg and in action should seek out a 1930 Fox feature film that he wrote called "Soup to Nuts" . I came across it on a DVD Three Stooges collection as this was the film debut of Ted Healy and his Stooges (Moe, Shemp and Larry) four years before they started their long run of short subjects for Columbia (with Curly). The film stars Charles Winninger as the inventor and has Rube Goldberg in a cameo. The title card announces it as "Rube Goldberg's 'Soup to Nuts'" and it can be seen on the Wikipedia page for this film!. Matthew BG :Australia 04:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Gametap link[edit]

The article seems biased, namely when the company "gametap" is brought in to accompany the machines in video games sections. The link to gametap should be removed.

At the very least, it should link to our existing Gametap article, rather than a web site, and I've changed that. I have no view on whether that should stay. Notinasnaid 12:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Removed the information about Rube Goldberg machines and left a summary. There is a page about this topic already, so additional material should be placed there unless it is needed in the summary. The article had become too unbalanced. Major Bloodnok 18:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


I don't think this article needs protection; protection is usually reserved for very heavily vandalized articles or those with extraordinarily controversial topics. I think this page should be unprotected. This is an example of over-protection. --DavidShankBone 02:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was it protected in the first place? maarten 15:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Dunno, found it in an old list, it's unprotected now. - cohesion 01:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What's with the first line?[edit]

Why does this article start by calling Rube Goldberg "a flaming homosexual"?? This is potentially offensive and should be removed.

It's not "potentially offensive", it's patently offensive. Maikel 12:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


This article desperately needs an image of an original Rube Goldberg machine cartoon. What's the copyright situation? Maikel 13:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Politics and surname change[edit]

It says his politics caused controversy, but I'm having trouble finding specifics on what they were. His father was active in the Republican Party (United States)[4] and Rube was reportedly conservative as well.[5] Although he won the Pulitzer Prize for something concerning fear of nuclear war and it seems he varied from his Dad some. Anyone know an answer on this? Does it matter?--T. Anthony (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

~~ I was wondering the same thing. What's with the death threats and his kids changing their name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no evidence of this cited, I suggest removal. (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There are already sources cited showing that his children used the surname George rather than Goldberg. I'll check his bio to see if it says why their surname was changed. Meters (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
He received obscene notes from anti-Semites even though for most of his life he minimized his Jewish roots (after being removed form a Synagogue in San Francisco for laughing). Interestingly, his work during the Second World War drew heated objections from some Jews for drawing too much attention to anti-Semitism. Meters (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Later in his career, Goldberg was employed by the New York Journal American and remained there until his retirement in 1964. During his insomnia, he occupied himself by making bronze sculptures. His work appeared in several one-man shows, the last one during his lifetime being in 1970 at the National Museum of American History (then called the Museum of History and Technology) in Washington, D.C..

It doesn't say anything about insomnia anywhere else in the article. If it is a fact, then this is an odd place to bring it up. shouldn't it be mentioned elsewhere in the article? Farfromhere (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anon Point: The first paragraph: Rube goldberg contests for high school students should be changed - there are contests for adults middle school and all ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


he is gayInsert non-formatted text here —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

so hey whats up like this website is not correct on any level so dont use it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead Like Me[edit]

I'm removing the paragraph about the television show Dead Like Me since it dominates the section, and the connection to this article seems rather tenuous. The "Rube" character may be noteworthy as an homage to Rube Goldberg, but I would like to see a good citation for that since the name "Rube" alone is not sufficient considering it is a rare, but not entirely unique name (see for example). Soulcutter (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


The 'See also' section of this page include a link to MacGyver followed by a short text saying that character built Rube Goldberg machines. Isn't MacGyver rather known for (impossibly) building machines/solutions with what he could readily find around him? To me MacGyver represent the exact opposite of a Rube Goldberg machine. 2010.11.14 13:00 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Strange error on page[edit]

Under the "Life" section, this entry says that Rube Goldberg "was the second of seventeen thousand children". Clearly this isn't true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Storm P[edit]

Regarding the needed citation for the similarity to the inventions by Storm P, this might be useful? - it links to the homepage of the Storm P museum in Frederiksberg, Denmark.

Verszou (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Article content[edit]

If Rube Goldberg was a famed cartoonist (he was), shouldn't there be more information about his cartoons? Which cartoon(s) featured Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts? When were these cartoons produced?Jtyroler (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If you know (or can research) details, add them! Wikipedia is entirely produced by volunteers, like us. It only contains what we've added, so far. —Quiddity (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal Life: Jewish[edit]

Why is there such an emphasis on the fact that he was Jewish? The first sentence under Personal Life currently reads:

Reuben Garrett Lucius Goldberg was Jewish[3][4][5] and was born July 4, 1883, in San Francisco, California, to Jewish parents Max and Hannah (Cohen) Goldberg.[6]

That's 3 citations (in the middle of the sentence!) just to show that he was Jewish, and a fourth to apparently show that his parents were named Goldberg and Cohen and were Jewish. I don't imagine many readers need that many citations to believe that the offspring of a Goldberg and a Cohen was Jewish. Given that Rube Goldberg's biography (Marzio, 1973) states that his father was "far from a model Jew, seldom going to the temple on Saturdays and rarely impressing anyone with his religious performance." and that "Rube was a very casual Jew." the emphasis on his Jewishness seems excessive. There are other similar comments in the biography.

Unless someone has some really good argument for keeping the line as is, I'm going to revert it to what it was in early December:

Reuben Garrett Lucius Goldberg was born July 4, 1883, in San Francisco, California, to Jewish parents Max and Hannah (Cohen) Goldberg.[3]

It's either that or I add the balancing quotes from his biography to the article. Meters (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

done Meters (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Career-- leaving SanFran in 1907 and not syndicated until 1915[edit]

The career sections currently says "… he remained [at the San Francisco Bulletin] until he moved to New York City in 1907. He drew cartoons for five newspapers [3 NY papers listed]. His work entered syndication in 1915, beginning his nationwide popularity."

That makes it seem like he was in SF, moved to NY in 1907, and hopped around several NY papers until 1915 at which point his work was syndicated. But his cartoons appeared in the San Francisco call during some of the period he was (supposedly) a non-syndicated cartoonist in NY. Something isn't right. I find him in The Call regularly as early as Jun/1/1910 (nearly every day, and generally on the same page as the day before). And he's still in The Call in April/1912 (19 months later). These are the large-form output, consisting of a six panel cartoon with a small unrelated single panel, such a Foolish Questions, to the right.

I also find his "Foolish Questions" in The Rock Island (Illinois) Argus as early as Aug/20/1909. On Oct/13/1910 (more than a year later), The Argus has a little note aking "Do you notice how many of the metropolitan papers are beginning to play up the Goldberg Foolish Question cartoons, that have been a regular feature of The Argus for the past couple years?" That's strong evidence that by late 1910 Goldberg's cartoons were syndicated. The Argus appears to only carry the small Foolish Question panel, rather than the full daily Goldberg output.

The Oct/3/1909 Salt Lake Tribune indicates that "Foolish Questions" has been published in book form. So rather than being syndicated, perhaps the newspapers were just copying them from the book?

A similar note appears in the following days' Washington Herald. This indicates that the cartoons appeared "from time to time in the New York Evening Mail."

The Washington Times may have been running the Foolish Questions panel as early as Nov/16/1909 (it doesn't have Goldberg's signature, so it could be a knockoff). By Sep/23/1911 The Times is running the Goldberg single panel. And by May/21/1912 The Times is running the full Goldberg feature.

In early 1914 we being to see a (non cartoon) drawing of Goldberg himself in ads for Tuxedo Tobacco, appearing in many papers. By the second half of 1915 these ads also include a five panel Goldberg Cartoon.

Apparently he also had some involvement with vaudeville in this period. DiffuseGoose (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I own his biography. I'll see what it has to say. Meters (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)`
Good catch, DiffuseGoose. There was indeed an earlier stage of syndication that would explain the early appearance of his cartoons in other newspapers. He found work with the New York Evening News in 1907 (after moving from San Francisco), and the Evening Mail was syndicated to the first newspaper syndicate, the McClure Newspaper Syndicate. The Evening Mail Syndicate was formed in 1916 (not 1915 in my ref) to distribute Goldberg's work directly. I will write this up with refs.
I also found the info on his vaudeville years (1910-1915). The book "Foolish Questions" was a collection of his work from the Evening Mail. Meters (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I suspect the mention of the 5 different newspapers was a clumsily worded count including his San Francisco newspapers, or possibly some faulty OR. He worked for the Evening Mail from 1907 until at least 1922. I'll taka a crack at rewriting that too. Meters (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Cool Meters, thanks for following up on that. I'm just looking at old newspapers and when I see something in the papers that I think should be in wikipedia, I check out the page. Often I end up adding cites to the newspapers. In this case, the text and reality appeared to disagree a little, or at the very least the text suggested a different reality.DiffuseGoose (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
First pass at syndication issue done. Meters (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Date of inclusion of "Rube Goldberg" in Merriam-Webster[edit]

The article states "In 1931 the Merriam-Webster dictionary adopted the phrase 'Rube Goldberg'..." I believe this date is incorrect. The cited source merely says that the first known use of the term was in 1931, not that it was first included in the dictionary then. There was no 1931 edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It came out in 1934 and it was called Webster's New International or Webster's Second International. Goldberg's biography states that the term was included in the Random House Dictionary in 1966. I'm sure it would have mentioned any earlier dictionary had one included "Rube Goldberg" earlier. Unless someone can provide more information on this I'll write it up with the Random House date. The OED has listed an earlier occurrence of the term than 1931, and an even earlier use of Goldberg's name in a different context so I'll include those too. Meters (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Meters: It doesn't look like anyone's going to dispute this - Do you still have the sources to fix this? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I do. Thanks for the reminder. I'll do this today. Meters (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Done, but still need to dig up references for his introduction of the expression "baloney!" Meters (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

1906 Earthquake[edit]

Was Goldberg in the 1906 earthquake? If Goldberg left San Francisco in 1907, he probably was. Surely this must have had some influence on his life, career, and decision to move east, deserving a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rube Goldberg. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 01:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

More info needed in article on Pathe Goldberg films from 1916[edit]

The photos of the Pathe Goldberg cartoon films in the film and tv section have no accompanying expiation for them in body of the text. The first paragraph of the section implies that the first Goldberg film was in 1930, yet the the film posters point to some sort of films having been made in 1916. Were they animated shorts? Live action? How many where’s made? Where they also produced in years before and/or after 1916? At least a brief paragraph on the Pathe Goldberg films should be included at the start of the section. Notcharliechaplin (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about Goldberg's animated films, citing a book and contemporary newspaper articles. I'm sure more details would be valuable too. AlineXu (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Nice job covering this AlineXu. Notcharliechapln, Pathe was the dominant film company at the time. They produced (actually invented the idea of) of newsreel shorts shown before main features starting in 1910, and started producing films in the US in 1914. It's likely the Goldberg shorts were an early example of the shorts still sometimes shown before features today. The article never actually said that the first Goldberg film was 1930, it simply said the that Golberg wrote feature film then. Meters (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)