Talk:List of Croatian inventions and discoveries

Franjo Kayfež is not an inventor of apaurin

Franjo Kayfež is not an inventor of apaurin. Even Leo Henryk Sternbach in 1955 synthesized chlordiazepoxide (Librium), working for Hoffmann-La Roche. Earl Reeder and Leo Henryk Sternbach from the Hoffman La Roche factory patentpatent US3371085 A and before Leo Henryk Sternbach patented US2893992.Apaurin is the only factory name for diazepam or benzodiazepine. At the time of Yugoslavia - in the Federal Patent Office, the company F.Hoffmann-La Roche & Co., and Aktiengesellschaft from Basel, Switzerland, patented the Benzodiazepine derivative preparation process, where the right of priority was reserved on December 27, 1963, from the United States with application P 1844 / 1964 of December 23, 1964, and patent YU 26585 is valid from March 31, 1967 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitar Zvonimir (talk • contribs) 17:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Schwartz as an inventor of dirigible

Respected user TheLongTone obsessively deletes David Schwartz as an inventor of dirigible claiming that “his sorry attempt did not fly in the accepted sense”. However, he did not give a single reliable, independent source to prove his claim. His “accepted sense” can mean anything he wants, and it is absolutely not encyclopedic. Fourteen different, reliable, independent sources explicitly affirm that he, David Schwartz, is an inventor of the first dirigible, there is even an authentic photo in which is clearly seen his dirigible flying. David Schwartz was a Croat of Jewish ancestry, unquestionably user TheLongTone has hatred towards both Croats and Jews. Antisemitism is unacceptable in developed, anti-fascist countries and especially on Wikipedia. His changes will be undone until he provides at least fifteen different, reliable, independent sources which explicitly say his dirigible did not fly. Peace and thank you. --Sheldonium (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course it didn't fly. It lifted off the ground, but at no point did it make a controlled flight, in the sense of being a dirigible, more than just a balloon. You have shown zero sourcing to indicate that it did so. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. There are many sources for this thing not flying properly, ie just about every history of aviation I have. This is a long list. Moreover the thing was not a true rigid, which involves a number of separate gas cells within an outer envelope. And as a non-rigid it was unflyable, since it lacked a ballonet. I looked at the sources decribed as independent and reliable by user:Sheldonium]]; tosh and partial tosh at that is how I would describe them.TheLongTone (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Ans as for the guff about me being an anti-Semitic croat-hater, bollocks. What I hate is snecking nationalists of any description.TheLongTone (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Luppis as inventor of torpedo

I've been referencing claims in the list and removing some which are blatantly incorrect, but this one needs more input. Some points:

• Luppis did not invent torpedoes. Torpedo has been the name of floating or submerged, remotely- or self-triggered explosive device, for which there have been designs since roughly the 13th century (today we most often call them mines). See references to "torpedoes" in use during the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, and see also the origin of the phrase damn the torpedoes.
• Luppis' claim is perhaps to the invention of a self-propelled torpedo. Luppis' own article specifies that the actual plans for such a device came from an anonymous Austrian naval officer who died before realizing their plans. Luppis greatly improved on the design before showing it to the Austro-Hungarian emperor, however it was rejected since it was still necessary to control the device from land (through the use of long ropes).
• Luppis then worked with Robert Whitehead to improve the design, though the pair did not overcome the control issues and eventually gave up. Several years after their partnership ended, Whitehead returned to the problem and developed the Whitehead torpedo, a self-propelled and self-stabilized underwater explosive device only loosely based on Luppis' device. Whitehead himself credited Luppis with the design, but modern sources refer to Whitehead as the inventor of the first viable self-propelled torpedo.
• In addition to that, Luppis is referred to as Austro-Hungarian, not Croatian. I know ethnicity and nationality is a big kludge in the Balkans but we normally go by sources.

Should Luppis be included in this list? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thanks for improving this article. Luppis obviously is not the inventor of torpedo. Luppis, according to his article, invented a self-propelled torpedo, not torpedo itself.

• Spencer Tucker says The first modern automotive mine or torpedo was developed by Captain Giovanni Luppis.
• David P. Melor It is generally agreed that the torpedo developed from a device conceived by Capt Giovanni Luppis of the Austrian Navy.
• The Journal of Military History Giovanni Luppis, an Austrian navy officer, invented the self-propelled torpedo in the mid- 1860s.
• Daniel M. Masterson Austria-Hungary, where Giovanni Luppis and Robert Whitehead developed the first automotive torpedo.
• Kenneth Macksey This entry, however, deals only with locomotive torpedoes, the combined invention of Robert Whitehead and an Austrian naval officer, Giovanni Lupis.

Luppis was nationally an Austro-Hungarian, and all sources I came accross refer to him in that way. Other similar articles, such as List of Indian inventions and discoveries and List of Greek inventions and discoveries are even more POV than this article. They contain inventions of "Greeks" and "Indians" who lived before the emergence of Greek and Indian nations. We can keep Luppis in the article, and specify that he was a captain of Austria-Hungary who invented together with Whitehead the first self-propelled torpedo. The all article needs to be rewritten, and explanations for all things listed as inventions. For instance, parachute was not invented by a Croat, he just modelled one based on previous models. Articles of the kind of "List of inventions and discoveries", "Persecution of", "Terrorism in", "Massacres of" are not encyclopedic, and really do not give any real benefit to Wikipedia. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I was considering adding a "notes" column or section to clarify questionable claims such as this one, maybe this is as good an excuse as any to start. I only got about halfway through the list before I had to go do something else. At this point I'm really not intending to carry on with other cultural lists, I'm not really all that interested to be completely honest and don't really have the time, but if editors like what happens here and want to try to apply the methodology to other pages that seems like a fine result to me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

A notes column would be great as it would clarify the listed inventions. I think I am going to make some improvements to other similar articles, so all "List of inventions and discoveries" articles have the same format and standarts. It might take some time because having many Balkan articles on my watchlist makes me spend considerable time reverting pointless vandalism and trying to help people find some consensus. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

References

MP3 player

It seems someone has personal issuses with Croats and is ignorantly deleting sourced content. Can someone explain why MP3 is not considered Croatian invention when the first workable MP3 was made by Croat? --Sheldonium (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with personal issues with Croats, but everything with the fact that it's total, utter nonsense (and explained many times in detail), no matter what Croatian sources (who have no clue what they're writing about) say about it. First of all, an MP3 player refers to a device (a piece of hardware) that plays music. This has nothing to do with a device at all. Secondly, it was not even a software MP3 player. It was a software decoding engine, just one part of a software program. Thirdly, it was not an invention. Just an implementation of an existing standard (MP3) invented (if you want to call it that way) by someone else. As every programmer knows, you don't invent implementations of existing standards, you write them. This applies generally: you write software, not invent it. And lastly, it was not even the first MP3 software implementation. In summary, saying that the person invented an MP3 player is a strong candidate for the "Greatest Nonsense of All Time" award on Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

References

It seems edit warring has broken out about this again. The about.com reference being added doesn't even support the addition - it clearly says that the first MP3 player was created at Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, which makes sense because they did the majority of the work to develop the standard. - MrOllie (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: It's not edit warring. It's a self-admitted sock puppet of the same old vandal. It's not a coincidence that everyone who has been adding this meganonsense to Wikipedia (including the OP, Sheldonium) has been indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry. Generally, nobody but the same group of sock puppets has been adding this supernonsense to this list and to MP3 player (and the leader of them all, Filipz123, has been the most harmful user in Wikipedia's history, one of the most prolific sock masters of all time). Just like they have been constantly readding other nationalistic Croatian nonsense to many other articles. These socks don't care about the truth, facts at all (after all, Filipz123 is a well-known pathological liar), they even know that what they keep adding is total nonsense. They've seen the explanations thousands of times. They're just interested in adding the nonsensical Croatian propaganda at all costs. The only thing that can be done about it is just reporting it, reporting it, reporting it, blocking the long-term abuser, protecting the articles. This is my request to anyone reading this: if you see this nonsense being added again, please revert it, and if you have a reasonable suspicion that it could be the sock puppet again, please report him at SPI.

Besides, as I said, hardware MP3 players (the sock even keeps adding a link to the article on hardware MP3 players, to really underline the travesty) are not software MP3 decoders, so saying that Uzelac, who just (co)wrote one of the early software MP3 decoders (not even the first one) invented a hardware MP3 player is something so monumentally ridiculous that I don't know why I'm even wasting my time writing this.—J. M. (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

J. M., Thanks for taking the time to explain, sometimes this kind of thing isn't obvious to new editors who run across it. MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal (discussion)

I support the proposal to merge List of Croatian inventors into this list put forward by @Jarble. Inventors are and can be listed alongside their inventions, therefore the list of inventors is WP:REDUNDANT. -Vipz (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, on the grounds that the current structure works well for readers, and there is not a 1:1 relationship between inventions and inventors, making a combined page difficult to construct in a coherent way. The list of inventors structure is also fairly well established: see Category:Lists of inventors. Klbrain (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Closing, with no merge; uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)