Jump to content

Talk:List of German inventions and discoveries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National invention categories and criteria for inclusion

[edit]

Raised at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_29#Category:Inventions_by_country. Your contributions are welcomed. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Editwar with engish writer User:BikerBiker in June 2013

[edit]

How can User:Biker Biker revert an edit, in which Petri dish, Schlenk flask or Büchner flask are mentioned as German inventions ? That's true and for each reader sure, that these chemical instruments were invented in Germany. 88.70.24.37 (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Taximeter by Friedrich Wilhelm Gustav Bruhn, Abbe refractometer by Ernst Abbe and Daimler Victoria, the world's first meter-equipped (and gasoline-powered) taxicab, built by Gottlieb Daimler in 1897, were German inventions, that is sure. 88.70.24.37 (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And last but not least Copernican heliocentrism and Copernican revolution by Nicolaus Copernicus were German discoveries. Copernicus was a German astronom and each teacher and also normally each person in the world should know who Nicolaus Copernicus was 88.70.24.37 (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if noone answer here, i will revert the incorrect edit by User:Biker Biker in some days. 88.70.24.37 (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you cite these new additions? If not, then it's entirely proper to revert them.
As to Copernicus, then he was Prussian, which was part of Poland. Policy is still unclear as to how we categorise such historical inventions, but there is no strong evidence to describe this as "Germanic". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? AFAIK, he was Silesian. This is just one of the problems with these nationalistic invention categories - boundaries have shifted over time. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Silesian man is a German man. 88.70.24.37 (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC) The mothers name was Barbara Watzenrode. "Watzenrode" is a German surname. 88.70.24.37 (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a remarkable stretch of the imagination to consider Silesia in the 15th century to be "German"! Andy Dingley (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Silesia was at that time part of Lands of the Bohemian Crown, which were a part of the Holy Roman Empire BremaRoman (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that Silesia was Bohemian, and that it had an allegiance to (although also considerable independence within) the Holy Roman Empire. So can Germany (if such a region can be identified at this time) have a similar relation to the Holy Roman Empire. However claiming that "the Holy Roman Empire is Germany" is ludicrous. Claiming that this degree of membership to the Holy Roman Empire makes somewhere "German" would also make parts of France and Italy to be German too. This just doesn't stand up. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copernicus wasn't from Bohemia. There are no reliable sources which call him German [1]. There's oodles which call him Polish "Polish+Astronomer"&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=.Volunteer Marek 06:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copernicus himself wasn't Bohemian, but the family had roots there (see "Silesia" above). Neither Copernicus the individual nor his family have any credible grounds for claiming them as "German". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both sides of his family where from Silesia, but that doesn't imply either German or Polish by itself. Coincidentally or not they began leaving Silesia right around the time when the Polish Piasts finally lost control over it and it transferred to Bohemia (mid 14th century). This is basically a more precise way of saying "Silesia =/ Bohemia". I agree with the rest.Volunteer Marek 21:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BremaRoman, are you just another EuropeFan sockpuppet? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Büchner flask and Büchner funnel
    • Jensen, William B. (September 2006). "The Origins of the Hirsch and Büchner Vacuum Filtration Funnels" (PDF). Journal of Chemical Education. 83 (9): 1283. Bibcode:2006JChEd..83.1283J. doi:10.1021/ed083p1283.

88.70.24.37 (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

88.70.24.37 (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Holy Roman Empire = Germany. That's historical fact. Secondly, it's not "nationalistic" to call Copernicus "German". In this case, as with many, the designation has little, if not nothing to do with national origin nor citizenship. It has to do with ethnicity and ethnic origins. Ethnicity is a much broader classification than nationality. I would not be opposed to Copernicus being double listed in an article on Poles. He doesn't need to be "claimed" by one specific group, if he was a part of both, or it is ambiguous. Perhaps we should be more keen to use the adjective "Germanic" when discussing these historical characters...Presidentbalut (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

88.70.24.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a sockpuppet of User:Europefan. There are still a few discussions around where he abused multiple accounts to push is his POV, but he's been blocked now and he gets himself blocked every time he returns.

As far as Copernicus goes, you should probably go to Talk:Holy Roman Empire and see if you can convince everyone there that the Holy Roman Empire = Germany, and then change the article accordingly. And then go to Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus and have the Nicolaus Copernicus#Nationality section rewritten to only say that he was German. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of the matter is that the concept of (state-) citizenship wasn't too much developed in those days. Copernicus was part of a German-speaking minority in the state of Prussia that considered itself to be "teutsch" but was subject to the Polish king, because his hometown of Thorn had given up loalty to the State of the Teutonic Order (unlike other parts of Prussia): The safest thing would be to call him a Prussian, but as I said, there wasn't even citizenship in our sense of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.203.60.22 (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolaus Copernicus

[edit]
  • I've said this a number of times before, but I'll repeat: these lists should contain inventions that are unambiguously attributed to one country. Lowering the criteria to include every disputed invention, every improvement to existing inventions, every inventor born in one country who did innovative work in another country (and vice versa!?), every territory that was annexed centuries after the inventor, etc, is absurd. Why not just put all inventions and discoveries on all of these countries' lists? Or have no lists at all? You can't take all the nuance involved in the disputes over whether the motorcycle was a German, French, or US invention and flatten it down to a simple list format.

    If we want to educate readers about inventions and discoveries with disputed origin or multiple origins, you can make a List of disputed inventions or List of inventions with multiple origins. One of the worst intellectual crimes that Wikipedia regularly commits is to dumb down ambiguity for the sake of generating encyclopedia content. Not everything in life can be shoehorned into a simple list. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think, if the mothers surname is "Watzenrode" then this iss enough evidence, that Copernicus should be listed in this list. 178.3.28.185 (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. See WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek 22:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sure Nicolaus Copernicus is from German descent. In Germany you can find in honour of Copernicus schools with Copernicus as name. TimmaFanta (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(personal attack removed)

Every university students' union in England has a Nelson Mandela building, but that doesn't make him British. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LSD

[edit]

LSD - invented by Albert Hofmann Hoschdi (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Hofmann, who was born Swiss and working in Switzerland at the time. Not German. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heroin

[edit]

Heroin - invented by Bayer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoschdi (talk • contribs) 12:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine

[edit]

MikelCat (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry

[edit]

MikelCat (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biology

[edit]

Media

[edit]

178.3.25.83 (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More missing German inventions and discoveries in list

[edit]

188.96.179.121 (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also missing first worldwide social system:

  • 1883: Krankenversicherung (Health insurance)
  • 1884: Unfallversicherung (Accident insurance)
  • 1889: Gesetzliche Rentenversicherung (Pension insurance)

--188.96.179.121 (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Germany has the world's oldest national social health insurance system in 1883. Britain was later in 1911. Also first wordlwide accident insurance in 1884. 188.96.179.121 (talk)

NOTE: I have restored the above list, it was deleted for being posted by a blocked editor, however the content seems accurate enough to be there (talk page claims are given greater leeway), and could be useful as an aid to adding content to the article. I don't think the insurance "inventions" part is correct though. Anyway, I take responsibility for the reinstated content (See WP:BANREVERT) so it should not be deleted again. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very obviously you have taken a sudden shine to this bannned editor on the basis of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" after Dennis Bratland has warned you over your behaviour at Talk:Women's Media Center [2] [3]. That is not a convincing reason to start re-posting the inaccurate bias of a banned troll.
If you re-post these frequently inaccurate claims, then expect to be held to WP:COMPETENCE over them as well. This is not only a troll's work you're re-posting, it's the work of a biased, inaccurate and frequently simply lying troll. You are still expected to meet local standard for content accuracy, even though your actions here are so obviously a personal grudge against one editor, not a desire to expand encyclopedic coverage of Germany. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just like your friend Dennis Bratland, you seem to not understand the assume good faith rule, nor do you seem to understand other basic Wikipedia norms and rules. Do I have to explain to you what "I take responsibility for the reinstated content" means? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I repeatedly read about "inaccurate claims" of the above content. Could you be a bit more specific? What exactly is inaccurate? Deletion is the wrong way to handle this imho. We can verify and/or falsify them one by one, but just getting rid of it is not the way to go for an encyclopedia. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are often problems in any of the three areas: invention, inventor or nationality. The "invention" is often claimed to be the first German invention of something closely related to the title, but not actually the title given. Just in the examples above, Kolb had nothing to do with plasticine. He invented plastilin, which is a different recipe used for a similar purpose. LASIK is a narrow technique, distinctive enough from other laser eye surgery techniques to gain a patent. Yet radial keratotomy by mechanical means has a long history in the Soviet Union and the application of lasers to such surgery is American. LASIK is German, but it's wrong to stretch this to "corrective eye surgery by laser" as being so. The osteotome (medical chainsaw) is Scottish and a few decades earlier than Heine's. This is a real problem for chemical and engineering inventions where he likes to cherry pick between either the discovery of the compound or its practical application (plastics is a common area), depending on which was more German, and ignoring whether the article scope is describing the compound or its application. These claims are rarely "simply wrong", but they're used in a biased and misleading manner. Nationality is also juggled in the regular manner, where a German-born engineer becomes a US citizen and decades later invents something for a US company, but this is regarded as "German". Yet he'll also claim Poles or Hungarians working in Germany were then making "German" inventions. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Health insurance, accident insurance, and pension insurance were not invented in Germany. I don't know if the claim that Germany had the first national schemes connected to such insurances is correct - but even if it was, this sounds like an innovation, not an invention. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a list article, so some vagueness about who or what should be on it is perhaps acceptable - and maybe the same invention that is on this list could be in a list of American inventions, list of Polish inventions, etc. The other route is to be very strict and make it invented in Germany by German citizens (and have nothing before the foundation of the modern German state). I see that Dennis Bratland has made his position clear: "lists should contain inventions that are unambiguously attributed to one country". However, are there guidelines to back that opinion up, or other similar lists where this problem has been discussed? I think we should start from the point that everything on the list should have its own article (if an invention is notable enough to be in the list, it should be notable enough to have an article). And with an article, readers can decide for themselves how "German" the invention really was! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as handling the Europefan/GLGerman disruptive editor, I think we should keep removing all content they add. This is a long term problem, dating back seven years, and I expect it will go on many more years. This guy doesn't give up. He does lie, and he relies on German language sources which de.wikipeida has repeatedly rejected as neo-fascist/nationalist/loony. That's one of the reasons he attributes every invention to Germany, or various parts of the world which at an point in history were German territory. Which is why if an editor wants to take responsibility and keep them, they really need to check. We've already seen several of the items on this list that are false. If you haven't personally reviewed the sources, I would not promote anything Europefan/GLGerman gave you.

I support the idea of having a list with looser criteria. I think it would make this task much easier and I don't think Wikipedia editors are qualified to judge which invention belongs to which country. Most inventions are ambiguous and these lists make it seem certain. List of American inventions redirects to Timeline of United States inventions. A timeline allows you to include inventions that the country contributed to, or even things invented entirely elsewhere but which had important influence on that country. It's much more maintainable and doesn't overstate the case. But it's a big job that I don't have time for. There needs to be a Requested Move to move all the List of X inventions/discoveries to Timeline of X inventions/discoveries. But until that happens, this list should only contain inventions which high-quality sources have shown strong consensus for. All the questionable ones should be left out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you no longer think "lists should contain inventions that are unambiguously attributed to one country"? Or do you? What do you mean by looser criteria? Only having things on the list that have their own articles is an easy way to at least ensure everything has some sources. But lists are to some extent OR, since it is editors, not sources, that compile them, and editors decide what the criteria for inclusion into the list should be (which is why I was wondering if any criteria for such articles had been decided community-wide). If you are proposing mass deleting article content that's been there for a while for no other reason than the person who put it there, then I oppose such deletions. If there is something wrong with the content rather than just the editor, then shouldn't it be easy enough to explain on the talk page (before you do any actual deleting) which entries you think are dubious and why? And if a banned or blocked editor is adding new content to the article, they shouldn't be doing it, obviously! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest: Who gives a flying f*** which "country" was the home of this or that "invention"? We're living in a globalised world now and "countries" don't mean all that much. We're one mankind, one planet, one civilization to innovate. We need to cooperate. It may sound pathetic, but it's reality in 2014. Cheers and have a good time on Earth, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that too, a bit. Modern inventions are often collaborative affairs, often corporate inventions, often built upon past inventions, and invented by people who may work or live in many countries during their careers. it is hard to pin them down in a list as crude as "from country X", or "nationality Y". But earlier inventions were often the products of individuals who had clear national identities and whose inventions arose out of historical, social, or economic circumstances that existed in the nations of their origin. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agreeing with both of you. I think having a title "List of German inventions" or "List of French inventions" is just flying the nationalist flag. It ignores German-speaking Czechs who emigrate to France and collaborate with Italians to invent something. It also does a poor job of teaching readers about the history of technology. People like GLGerman get bogged down in debating that Copernicus was German, when in fact our nationalist categories don't apply to people like him. The problem is the list title says "X is a German invention". If X is also a French invention the reader would only know that if they chose to dig deeper. This allows readers to be mislead. We can fix it not by deleting any content, but by changing the list definition. Make it a timeline of German inventions, and you're free to include anything relevant to invention and Germany/Germans. Finding X on the list doesn't imply X is German, only that X is related to Germany.

I support what both Horst-schlaemma and Tiptoethrutheminefield are saying, but to do it we must first change the title of this list, and many others, to Timeline. If you keep the title "List of German inventions", then you have to write an introduction full of disclaimers which basically says the list isn't really what the title says it is. Confusing! And many readers won't read it or understand it. And there will be future debates over the true meaning of the title, so there will be more debates just like this again and again. With American inventions they've found a wonderful solution by sticking with a timeline, which is much less controversial.

But until the list titles and list definitions change to timelines, then we are forced continue only including "inventions that are unambiguously attributed to one country," as I said before. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've put these categories up for deletion before as they're impossibly nationalistic. However Europefan clearly likes having them around and so if we can't get rid of them, we ought to at least keep them accurate. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are a whole other animal. I'd like to change them too but there's too much entrenched support. The kind of effort it would take to win that battle is far out of proportion to the benefits. Changing the lists to timelines would be hard, but not too hard. We have the Timeline of United States inventions precedent to build upon. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be bothered if this article's title included "timeline", I think that's a good proposal that'd avoid many tedious disclaimers and discussions. Prost, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see both the categories and the lists deleted, but I don't feel like opening this can of worms either. I like the idea of renaming the lists, but I'm unsure how changing "list" to "timeline" helps: to me a timeline sounds less exhaustive than a list, and of course chronologically ordered, but I don't see how it clarifies what is meant by "German inventions and discoveries". I think we still need to state a clear definition, and preferably one that's notably and verifiably connected to the title. Without that, we'd have to stick to including only items that are described as German inventions or discoveries by RS, and even that is problematic if different sources use different definitions. The safest would probably be something like "Timeline of inventions and discoveries characterized as German", but that sounds ridiculous. Then again, it is. — HHHIPPO 22:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I can see "Timeline of microbiology" as making sense, because innovations there are related and often dependent. "Timeline of German innovations" though has no more coherence as a set than "Timeline of inventions by men called George". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the content deleted by this edit [4] - I restored all of them for convenience but then went through the restored claims one by one and deleted any that did not have supporting articles, or where the supporting article seemed to not explicitly support the claim. I've been fairly loose about what counts as "German" since we don't seem to have a hard definition about what should be on the list and what should not. Some could definately be combined into one claim though, like all the types of dinosaur. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC) discoveries.[reply]
Like osteotome (Scottish) and continental drift (American, 1908 - Hegener's novel contribution was only Pangaea)? You just can't trust Euopefan for either GF or accuracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, the Wikipedia article on continental drift is quite explicit about Hegener being the one who first postulated the theory. It is the same with chain osteotome. I changed "Osteotome" to "Chain Osteotome" to be in agreement with the content on the Osteotome article. So if there is an error it needs to be addressed firstly in the articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even though WP isn't RS, you could try reading what there is on WP a bit closer? "Wegener later credited a number of past authors ", specifically Frank Bursley Taylor who generally gets the credit for drift. Aitken and Jeffray both used chainsaw osteotomes in surgery in Edinburgh around 1800, to some extent independently (one was an obstetrician, the other an orthopod) although very probably buying them from the same instrument maker. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this sort of discussion is best done on the articles. If there is something wrong with them, they need to be corrected first. The continental drift article as it currently exists states "Wegener was the first to use the phrase "continental drift" ... and formally publish the hypothesis that the continents had somehow "drifted" apart", and it has a subsection titled "Rejection of Wegener's theory", whose first words are "The theory of continental drift was not accepted for many years." That seems to support his name being on this list along side continental drift. If you know about this field, please also look at edit summary for the clarify tag I have added to the "Wegener said that of all those theories, Taylor's, although not fully developed, had the most similarities to his own." content. How can a source be used for "Wegener said" if that source is not by Wegener and was published before Wegener published his theory? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is done on some other article is irrelevant to this list. It would be nice if they agreed, but this list -- like any article -- needs sources that actually support the assertions made here. WP:CIRC makes that perfectly clear.

A complex theory like continental drift is exactly the sort of thing that develops over time, with contributions by many thinkers building toward a scientific consensus. It's exactly the kind of thing which has no business being labeled a "German discovery". Or a Scottish discovery. If there were strong agreement among historians that this was a German discovery, the would say so, and you wouldn't have to hunt to find these sources. Leaving continental drift off this list causes no harm and misleads no one. When you have Wikipedia editors trying to stitch together clues from multiple sources and comparing dates of publication to establish precedences, all that kind of stuff, that's original research. The NOR policy means we should be looking for sources that clearly say, "continental drift is a German discovery". If the sources don't say that, then leave it off. This is why Europefan's "contributions" are disruptive: at best he wastes our time, when he's not making articles worse. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the ethnicity of the inventor is known, and there is an article about that invention, surely that's enough? I said earlier that I think such lists are to some extent OR anyway, since it is subjective about what is on it, and not everything will be on it that can be. List articles and assigning ethnicity to things is just a Wikipedia obsession. Maybe we should just not take them so seriously. You are almost as unlikely to find sources that say "X was a German invention", as you are to find sources that say "X is notable". What technical or scientific source would bother stating "continental drift is a German discovery"? But, if you delete anything that has a supporting Wikipedia article which mentions the German ethnicity of the inventor, anyone could simply restore it to the list. The answer is to address the content on the actual article. To do otherwise is actually inviting edit warring. Or maybe take this to a RfC to better define or redefine what should or should not be on such lists. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there needs to be an RfC that broadly reconsiders this whole concept. It is quite correct that we are unlikely to find a respected authority who would say "X was a German invention". Life is hardly ever so simple, and no serious scholar would make such a categorical pronouncement. So why are so many Wikipedia editors so willing to say the very thing our best sources would never say? WP:NOR says they should not attempt any such thing. It's not just this list; it's a problem spread across many lists and categories. Wikipedia editors are willing to say things in lists that you don't see written in prose.

I don't have a solution today. At some future date, when I have the time to see it through, I would like to start an RfC and try to straighten this out, but for now I don't see a way to resolve these questions on this list. I give up. Maybe seek an uninvolved editor who can suggest what to do. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A RfC on this issue would be a very useful thing to initiate, perhaps try to make it so that its purpose is to decide on the content of a guidance page for all list articles dealing with ethnicity. Consulting with uninvolved editors before hand, so that there is enough established interest that will ensure the RfC is taken note of and contributed to, would also be good (since a lot of RfCs are ignored or end up just being an argument amongst the same editors who were having the same argument on an article talk page!). My only strong position is that, ideally, everything on a list should have a corresponding article, and the article should have at least some content that supports it being on that list. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the ethnicity of the inventor is known, and there is an article about that invention, surely that's enough? Not necessarily: the existence of an article about something indicates the notability of that thing, but it doesn't always indicate that this thing is an invention, that it can be attributed to a single inventor, and that the thing inherits the ethnicity of that person. Assigning ethnicity to things is just not a useful or even well-defined concept, that's why reliable sources don't do it. As a result we're hosting a bunch of lists where each entry uses it's own made-up inclusion criteria, and which mainly serve as an edit-warring playground for nationalists of various flavors but not for providing readers with any reliable, notable or even clear facts. Not taking them seriously is an option, and I'm actually doing that for now since, like Dennis, I don't have the time and energy to engage in straightening this out. But we should be aware that by ignoring them, we're accepting the damage they to to the overall reputation of Wikipedia. — HHHIPPO 10:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hamburger

[edit]

the wikipedia article linked for the hamburger states explicitly that there is no conclusive evidence that the hamburger was invented in germany or by a german so i am deleting this horseshit. -unsigned because fuck you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.134.147 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2016

[edit]

remove the bullshit entry about hamburgers as the invention of the hamburger is highly disputed and detailed on the very paged linked. 88.73.134.147 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done However, I think a reasonable compromise might be to include a description of both sides of the dispute. Mz7 (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing in List:

[edit]

Music

[edit]

Sport

[edit]

Media

[edit]

Chemistry

[edit]

Transport

[edit]
  • ejection seat and first ejection seat jump by Helmut Schenk, 1942

Ureawvgwe (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xerberino (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

[edit]

Spaceflight

[edit]

Bernoiutz (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biology

[edit]

BarbareelasKleid (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine

[edit]

92.76.102.4 (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of German inventions and discoveries. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of German inventions and discoveries. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inset Quotation by Twain Must Go

[edit]

The Twain inset quotation must go.

Why? A block quotation like this, as of preface to the main content list, belongs to the category of helping texts called paratexts. These texts orient the reader towards a particular mode of reading or interpretation. For example, Flaubert was sure to add to the title of Madame Bovary a word: Roman (Novel). This didn't stop the Court from insisting to name name, to which he eventually responded convincingly: "I". But countless millions have gone on to read the novel as a well-written story, a classic.

But Twain's comments in this article turn inventions into bombs, bombing germanic and Germans' contributions in all fields for all times. The quotation infuriated me in its present role of denigrating an entire peoples' inventors and discoveries.

This article is objective once the quotation is removed. As it stands, it turns the list into opinion, even anti-German propaganda.

I think we are beyond that, but must work to remain free of this kind of ideological poison, which is unfounded and counter-productive.

As a policy, unless a block quotation placed at the beginning or section beginning in an article helps the reader to understand the article by summarizing its content, point-of-view and meaning, in a neutral manner, they must be avoided. Their placement in a highlighted headline shaded box gives them an unfair power of the text because they own the eye, first and foremost.

I would replace it without delay, but it is locked. In this case, the vandalism is locked in and the Truth locked out.

Wikipedia has been designed to offer an alternative to this system of publication, which is the tycoon's and Fascist's best friend. Torcrane (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

[edit]

Include in the section on ethics and religion "Kantianism" by Immanuel Kant. 62.8.157.130 (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the text you'd like included in the article. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy: Nebular_hypothesis / I. Kant

[edit]

Hi, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis credits a.o. Kant for contributing to developing this, as does the German Wiki: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant-Laplace-Theorie. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2005: YouTube by Jawed Karim

[edit]

The mention makes no sense. Karim's family needed to move away from Germany due to xenophobia, so I am not sure that could be seen as a contribution from Germany. Pier4r (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it makes no sense as Youtube was invented more than 10 years after Karim had left Germany. I have removed it.Dialectric (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He held German citizenship at the time of "invention", and by the loose criteria from this list ("... or abroad by a person from Germany..."), it can be included. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without a reference specifically describing Youtube as a German invention, claiming it as one is WP:OR. The only ref currently used makes no mention of Germany or german citizenship and clearly states that the three founders 'started YouTube in Palo Alto'.Dialectric (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added a ref which covers all points. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nazis

[edit]

Hitler 78.86.5.199 (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elements

[edit]

List of elements discovered by German scientists: BabyPerona (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1669: Discovery of silicon by Johann Joachim Becher
1739: Discovery of calcium by Johann Heinrich Pott
1756: Discovery of aluminium by Andreas Sigismund Marggraf
1758: Discovery of sodium by Andreas Sigismund Marggraf
1758: Discovery of potassium by Andreas Sigismund Marggraf
1771: Discovery of fluorine by Carl Wilhelm Scheele (Swedish-German)
1774: Discovery of manganese by Carl Wilhelm Scheele
1825: Carl Jacob Löwig discovered bromine independently of Antoine Jérôme Balard.
1844: Discovery of ruthenium by Karl Ernst Claus
1902: Discovery of actinium by Friedrich Oskar Giesel
1828: Friedrich Wöhler isolation of beryllium
I'm not entirely sure what is actually meant by discovery. Does observing count or is it only the isolation that is the final and crucial step? Basing this off: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_chemical_element_discoveries 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyPerona (talk • contribs) 15:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_German_inventions_and_discoveries&oldid=1208240533"