Jump to content

Talk:Lists of Dutch inventions and discoveries/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Early chat

"In 1903 the Spyker 60 HP became the world's first ever four-wheel driven car and racer" - see: 'Spyker' here.

I regret to say, but the compact disc is not a Dutch invention by any means. The CD format is an American invention.Here is the proof.(http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/russell.html) --Yoganate79 (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Russel invented the concept of using light for recording and playback but not the CD. See the wiki page of Russel for details. --DeVerm (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul

I was shocked by the way this article was killed by adding citation needed tags etc. I started by adding citations but quickly realized that many items on this list are described in details in other articles. Instead of copying citations from those articles, I am putting in those detail articles as the citation.

If items are added that are -not- described elsewhere in wikipedia, full citations & references should be added as per guidelines.

This is not the place to argue over who invented what -> use the detailed articles for that, not this list. Most wikipedia users use this as a navigation tool and I am doing this edit after reading the guidelines on these lists. (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Big problems

The post above expresses shock? I'm sorry, the problem is that it's badly under-referenced. Wikilinks will not suffice. This article needs lots of work just to verify its hundreds of claims (some of which I think are dubious).

It's over-capped, especially in the titles; and please change & to "and".

It's overlinked to common terms, and in many cases linked to broad topics, where more specific links are required by the link guideline on en.WP.

Tony (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hit this a bit. Feedback encouraged! Comments:

  • Every item needs a cite. This article could lose all its content without room for objection.
  • Converted the discoveries to voyages. No need for so many sections.
  • The article remains way too long. It should be split along the obvious lines.
  • Had forgotten that the Dutch had made so many seminal contributions to CS. Good to know.
Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Dubious claims

Cleaned up mainly telescope/microscope dubious claims and allot of WP:REFBLOAT. The best sources note either the inventor can not be established (but with national connections) or that the inventor is unknown. Microscope may be Italian (Galileo) and 1590/Janssen is considered bogus, the actual inventor of telescope is unknown but Dutch, "may have originated" in Aerial telescope does not meet the statement "Dutch invention". Leeuwenhoek used a simple microscope but did not invent it but would be the discoverer of micro-organisms. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Anthonie van Leeuwenhoek's microscopes are well documented and some even survived. His microscopes were much more advanced than others, which allowed him to make his great discoveries of bacteria, spermatozoa, and cell construction. All this is factual and published by the Royal Society in London. The invention of the microscope as such is not 100% clear but likely by Dutchman Cornelis Drebbel, as described and referenced in the article on microscopes. I will review your edits. DeVerm (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I undid your revisions as the parts you removed were clearly referenced both here and in the articles they point to. Both the microscope and telescope originate from Holland and the gentlemen involved are widely known and credited with this. Please don't try to change history. Deleting content that is correctly referenced not only in this list but in the linked articles as well is remarkable; I suggest it is discussed on this talk page first. DeVerm (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Reverted it back. Neither the linked articles or the sources they reference use the wording you restored. Dutch/Telescope claim was not removed but the wording was boiled down to what reliable sources can support (somebody in the Netherlands around 1608 and most likely not Lippershey - universal conclusion of most reliable sources, start with Henry C. King, page 30). Compound Microscope entry was wrong as written, Zacharias Janssen is disputed and even discredited as the inventor in the linked articles and sources used. Leeuwenhoek was not removed, entry still there. He was redundantly described under Microscope (compound microscope) and was incorrectly included there, he did not use a compound microscope. If there is a case for Dutch/Drebbel then there needs to be wording and sources supporting that. A Microscope (compound microscope) wording would probably note the dispute "probable Dutch, maybe Drebbel". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay I see your point. I rewrote and condensed it. Still think that instead of deleting the microscope entry, you could have edited it to be in line with refs and main article. DeVerm (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

pov tag removed After the modifications described above and many more I did since then, I think it's time to remove the tag. This does not mean that the article is perfectly clean. For example, there is still a claim that the VOC is the first multi-national but I do see enough counterclaims that I'm not sure. We need somebody to dive into the refs to see if the claim must be removed or toned down with note of counter claim. It is my opinion that what is left now is not enough for the tag and that future editors will work this out in detail. DeVerm (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup proposal

This article should be trimming back to a simple bullet-pointed list with basic intro definition (re: List of English inventions and discoveries and MOS:LIST). All entries with WP:YESPOV problems re: seriously contested assertions stated as facts, should be removed. Excessive WP:REFBLOAT should be removed. Redundant description such as sections on Age of discovery/Dutch Golden Age should be removed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - Much of this article has been written by Dutch speaking editors and this leads to a form of Dutch-English dialect that can be hard to understand by native English-language editors. Sections that have this problem should be edited into proper English, which probably requires coordination among editors on this talk page. DeVerm (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is not the English article and it does not need to be like it. This article also seems to fully conform to MOS:LIST. There should not be any contested entries unless they are contested in references as well, in which case the entry should include that historical contest. I find your tags of WP:YESPOV and WP:REFBLOAT extremely conflicting as there can be no valid cites for entries invalid due to WP:YESPOV. It seems you would like to see the cites removed to then proceed removing entries for lack of reference? I mean, these references were put in as the result of WP:YESPOV claims just like you are making them now. You simply can't complain about too many cites when you contest the entry as POV at the same time. I therefor propose you delete these tags from the article header until clear and confirmed these are indeed a widespread problem in the article. I have put some effort into this article in an earlier stage and the current layout is the result of a proposal for cleanup after my edits and a lot of time and effort by others went into implementing that cleanup. You need a solid consensus to undo that at this stage. That said, I agree with some of your points; I propose you list specific points and we discuss those. Your example about the Dutch Golden Age is a good example of your misinterpretation of it as it is in no way redundant with the Age of Discovery. They are two different things. That doesn't mean every mention of it should be left in the article of-course. DeVerm (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment: Wikipedia does not support content forks so making a claim on a list that is not supported by the article the list links is to be avoided in Wikipedia. The policy WP:YESPOV is clearly against stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If a claim can made clearly by reference then it should be made in the article first, then added to this list. Lists are alternative navigation, not redundant content. Re: WP:REFBLOAT - it gives the list the appearance of somebody trying to prove something: lists are un-equivocal, their basic purpose is to link articles, not prove anything. Re: consensus - there is no need for consensus to edit to guidelines, that consensus has already been established at those guidelines - and there is definitely no need for consensus to edit to policy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree the article needs cleanup and with your statement about content forking. I do not agree that entries have too many cites -and- are contested assertions: this is technically not possible, unless the cites are fake. If cites are not present in the articles linked to the entries, then those cites should be copied to the article if valid, or deleted if invalid. One should not delete valid cites just because they are not listed in the article, which would violate NPOV. I think we share the same pov on this article but disagree on the wording. DeVerm (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Ultimately, this list needs no citations at all since its a list of articles, inclusion criteria or membership criteria is established by clear text with reliable sources at the parent article. This list has a strict criteria established in its title "Dutch inventions and discoveries", that gives us a cutoff. If items on this list do not meet that strict criteria then they should be deleted off this list. Unfortunately the refbloat seems to be pointing to exactly what you say is "technically not possible" - contested assertions. Entries such as "corporation (first multinational, joint-stock, public limited company)", despite the citation overkill, is directly contradicted or not supported by the (several) articles it links. I suspect there is allot of cherry picking going on. The cites may not be fake, they may just be unreliable or misused by the editors citing them. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I was of the same opinion about not requiring citations but as you can see at the top of this talk page, this was deemed wrong. On your example, I am no expert on corporations but I do know that the Dutch East India Company was the first multinational, joint-stock and public limited company; see the cites in that article. I do not know if the Dutch invented the wider principle of "corporation" though. When you look into the history you can find that (probably me) put it there in much simpler form after which it got edited many times into what it is now. If you find inaccuracies, you can simply edit it. DeVerm (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the entry "corporation (first multinational, joint-stock, public limited company)" is it falls outside this lists format (Single linked article/Dutch?/Yes or no). It makes a weaselly claim linking four articles after the bullet, none of which are supported as "Dutch inventions". If you don't know and I don't know and the articles linked don't support this entry as worded then we seem to have agreement here. I changed the listing to Dutch East India Company, left the first paragraph (all the claims seem to be made there - please correct if any are missing), and removed the six paragraphs detailing the history, we already have several Wikipedia articles covering it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I must say I like the cleanup of that entry :) The problem I have is with the title because the VOC is not an invention: it was the first multi-national and joint-stock, and thus public limited company. You seem to imply that we must make three entries instead of just one, with two pointing back to the first that describes it for all three? DeVerm (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
VOC is sort of an invention/and or a claim is specifically being made that they invented something. I would suggest that if VOC is problematic it should be removed from the list. An alternative approach (which I noted above) is to convert this list into a "Timeline", then there is much more free rein to put forward such a narrative. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have re-read the MoS and in particular WP:STANDALONE article 5, from which it is clear that inline referenced must be present. I still agree that there are too many but your intention to see them all removed has no support in the MoS. DeVerm (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not recommending removing citations, I am just pointing out that the bloat is pointing problematic entries, entries where dubious or disputed attributions are being stated as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice with a flurry of poor/selective references supporting it. The WP:STANDALONE guideline notes a couple of places there is no need for citations for items with existing articles. WP:LSC recommends citations in "cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed", but such items really should not be on this list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have finished a clean-up run as part of condensing the article. I also made a start with removing refs but need a break. I left the tag in the lede hoping that other editors dive into the refs :) DeVerm (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

As seen here and here, I have twice reverted Bjelun (talk · contribs)'s huge removal of sourced content and addition of unsourced content in place of it. Bjelun's explanation was that "the sources are clearly propaganda and that was niz the encyclopedic content." In what way, Bjelun? We don't just take your word for it. I see that you have also contributed to the List of Croatian inventions and discoveries article, where NeilN and Ivanvector have noted that there is persistent sockpuppetry and block evasion. I'm not stating you are related to that, but I do think you are familiar with how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No, after comparing this and this, it does appear that you are related to that aforementioned matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

A list of trivial edits to get autoconfirmed then back at List of Croatian inventions and discoveries. Blocked. --NeilN talk to me 17:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
NeilN, I see. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
You guys are already on this I see, just noting here that I think this sock is not the same user as is the usual culprit on Croatian topics. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Ivanvector, Flyer22 Reborn, NeilN, this may not be the "usual culprit" (I know nothing about this particular situation) but I can't help noticing that someone called Hrvatisa (linked as an URL rather than a tag to avoid their being alerted by a notification, or feeling unfairly victimised if they're legit) reintroduced the edits to List of Croatian inventions and discoveries which I've just undone. What particularly caught my eye was the necktie/Croatian mercenaries thing. They have been making other odd Croatian/Bosnian based edits - one useful new category, but the rest all questionable, especially trying to claim and categorise the Yugoslav-born "I am American" Zoran as a Serbian. Mabalu (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Filipz123. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
OH! It's the Vinca guy! I HAVE had run ins with them before on Miniskirt, but didn't realise this was (probably/almost definitely) them. Thanks. Will be following that investigation page. Mabalu (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Dutch inventions and discoveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Dutch 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Dutch 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 17:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Dutch 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 19:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of Dutch 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) 09:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of Dutch 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) 03:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_Dutch_inventions_and_discoveries/Archive_1&oldid=1174708851"