Talk:Timeline of United States inventions and discoveries/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Discoveries are not Inventions

I'm removing the 'inventions' of Background radiation and the Bose-Einstein condensate. If they are to be considered inventions, then God has as much of a claim as any American does. This list could probably do with a even more earnest review with stricter guideline for inclusion. There are some advertisements squeezed in here. --Daydreamer302000 (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Native American Inventions

I am surprised to see that native American inventions have not been included on this page. They are United States citizens and belong to this land. African-Americans have a page.

By the way, the research on this page is excellent. I always enjoy visiting here. A good and quick reference to find everything I need. Thank you. --Zeppher (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please break this up

With greater than 400kb, 1000s of wikilinks, and over 600 references this page is too big.

Served by srv177 in 57.264 secs

No page should be taking more than about 20 seconds to render.

Please break it up into smaller subarticles. Dragons flight (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, break it up, perhaps by century. And identify in the introduction what the criteria are for inclusion -- the current list is arbitrary. 67.100.222.20 (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The recent spawning off of Timeline of United States discoveries has shrunk this article enough so that it is now the second longest article instead of the first. So while its length is slightly less of an issue, the problems from Talk:Timeline of United States inventions and discoveries/Comments still apply, i.e. the lack of referenced criteria for what gets included and what doesn't, and the violation of Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. 68.167.252.230 (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC).

Better yet, delete it. The histories of each of the inventions on this list can be discussed at their respective articles. The very existence of this "article" constitutes an affirmation of the ridiculous concept of "American exceptionalism." Encyclopedias ought to avoid such nonsense. Besides, the last time I checked, Americans were mere garden-variety Homo sapiens, not a superior sub-species. If this list must exist, then it ought to be titled something like: Timeline of inventions by persons who happened to dwell within the national borders of the United States of America. When titled accurately, the absurdity of the list becomes immediately apparent and Wikipedia gains 353 kilobytes of storage space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not American, but I'm not anti-American-invention-history either. This list is well-referenced and I think it deserves its place on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv (talk • contribs) 03:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's no different than articles about Chinese inventions, Indian inventions, British inventions etc... They do not talk about americans as a superior sub-species... Just that those who are "american" invented all these things. These inventions will fall into any article regarding human inventions. I'm not american, but this article just shows how amazing and influential America has actually been. The whole world is using everyday things that were invented by americans. It has more to do with the culture of america than the ethnicity.

Restored lost discussion, but archive needs to be restored too

I restored comments that appeared to play a role in a recent renaming and splitting of this article. This archive needs to be moved here as well. 72.244.200.10 (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

These comments were also lost in the move and must be restored. 72.244.200.10 (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

Zeppher's reversion of 68.167.252.230 changes

Zeppher mischaracterized 68.167.252.230 changes as vandalism. I restored those changes, without losing Zeppher's minor wikification of a few words in the introduction. I hope Zeppher focuses on the issues with the article's length and lack of criteria for inclusion or exclusion of items instead of resorting to further reversions. 72.244.206.205 (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

Name change

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no concensus Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to put a request to change the name of the article from List of United States inventions to List of US inventions, cause the current name just doesn't sound right to me. I think my idea (List of US inventions) would sound better. Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 13:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's still nonsense, because it reifies the United States. The US has never invented anything. People invent things. Some of those people just happen to have lived in the US. That factlet has as much to do with the nature of what they invented, or their ability to invent, or the likelihood of them inventing, as does the month they were born. As I said above, if this article were titled accurately, it would be laughed into oblivion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

True. Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 16:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Due to what 70.105.246.237 said (which is true), I propose we change the article's name to Timeline of inventions made by citizens of the United States. Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 21:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And some perhaps by people who later became US citizens And the ones before the US was a nation? So we would have [[Timelines of inventions made by United States citizens and some made by citizens of colonies which later became the United States and a few made by people who became naturalized citizens before or after their inventions, and maybe a couple made by non-citizens resident in the United States]]? Naw -- the presnt name is quite adequate. Collect (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not. I'm sorry, but I just think that calling the article Timeline of United States inventions is wrong. As it wasn't the country itself that invented these things; it was the people of the country. I still strongly suggest changing the name to a more appropriate one. As long as its not refering to the actual country. Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 17:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just been thinking more about what Collect had said earlier. Perhaps we should split the list up into diffrent sections. Having only inventions made by people when the US was a nation on this page. Then the name request would still work, and it would make the list smaller. Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 17:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I do agree about the deletion idea. 'cause this list just isn't right. Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 20:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Removing Ben Franklin etc. is rather a Monty Python wway to handle an article which, I am happy to say, has been trimmed a bit. Collect (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll simply repeat myself by suggesting that this list be deleted and that the list items be worked into their respective articles. I find no justification for this list beyond an affirmation of "American exceptionalism," which would be a rather unencyclopedic stance to take. If deletion is off the table and the best that can be hoped for is a name change, then I suggest we merge this list with "America, Fuck Yeah" and use that title, which approximates the vibe that this list gives off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the title is adequate as it expresses the same idea in a short title; otherwise, it could be changed to Timeline of inventions from the United States as there's no need for such a long title. -download ׀ sign! 02:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I love how my actual point is simply ignored. WP is clearly biased in favor of treating "American exceptionalism" as a valid concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Which rather seems that it is not voiced in any attempt to improve this specific article. As long as this article has a name which is substantially logical to most people, there is no reason to change it. Thanks 70. Collect (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no point trying to "improve" a biased list of factlets, nor does that bias constitute a reason for keeping it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The premise of the article is wonky, as 70.105.246.237 points out. But "Timeline of inventions made by citizens of the United States" is definitely worse. Now, on to my next project: Timeline of species identified by citizens of the United States... — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And such articles as English_inventions_and_discoveries and the like? This is not the only article to take righteous indignation at. Collect (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! Kill 'em all! Thanks Col. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I came here to perform a possible survey close but I don't think consensus has been yet reached. In any event, for all those talking about deletion, that is "off the table", but because this is the wrong process. If you think this should be deleted, the correct forum for that is articles for deletion. Without endorsing that I think it should be deleted, I suggest, if you do bring it there, that you reference WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as well as Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists, citing to its standard that stand alone lists not be "too broad in scope", and that you seek a merge (and redirect, which is tacit) rather than deletion outright. By the by, I don't think the bias argument above holds any weight. First, every country has the ability to make such a list. The fact that there are more U.S. English speaking Wikipedian's than any others often results in there being an article like this and none for many other countries. That is "bias" in a sense, but it is is a systemic bias rather than bias outright, and it is inevitable until most of the gaps are filled (I'm guessing by about the year 2,500). If the article was written in a very point of view manner, with jingoistic stumping, then the charge of the type of bias raised above would be appropriate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Issues remain that are more important than the name of the article

Exceptionalism, American or otherwise, can be removed from articles: I think I just did that for the introduction. I think issues like the length, the lack of referenced criteria for what gets included and what doesn't, and the violation of Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position are higher priority issues than the article's name. 68.167.252.230 (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Length has been substantially reduced. Jingoism? None I can find. References? All seem in oreder, in fact (I am one who is more than willing to remove any dubious material). And I tried to remove any puff. Collect (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Its very existence constitutes "puff." We've been through this, in the preemptively stymied discussion above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitions badly needed

Lists are fine and all, but while some subjects are trivial and what goes in clear enough to everyone, this is not one of them. Lacking a proper definition of the subject matter, the content is bound to be quite arbitrary, ripe for dispute, and more to the point, of dubious encyclopedic value. Specifically:

• What constitutes an "invention" needs to be defined as well as the scope of the list. Failing that, what we have here is alternatively a list of ideas, of prototypes, of practical implementations, of first mass production of an item, of patent claims, of popular brands not otherwise particularly groundbreaking, of minute variations of established "inventions", of discoveries, of "inventions" attributed wholly for a single step in a long process... anything goes, chaos ensues.
• What makes an invention attributable to the United States needs to be defined.

Additionally, much care should be taken to correctly address individual entries, particularly how they are labelled.

Some instances demonstrating deep problems with the list:

• The sextant. "A sextant is an instrument which measures the angle of an object above the horizon. The angle, and the time when it was measured, can be used to calculate a position line on a chart. It was invented 1731 by Thomas Godfrey, a glazier in Philadelphia. [6 ] In England, John Hadley had independently begun work on a similar version of the sextant.". The reference provided does not mention a "Thomas Godfrey", it claims the octant was invented by John Hadley, that a "device using two reflecting mirrors" was described before that by Sir Isaac Newton. A "Captain Campbell of the Royal Navy" is credited for the sextant. On the Wikipedia article on the octant, "Thomas Godfrey" is claimed (without reference) to have independently developed the octant, and that "Hadley generally gets the greater share of the credit". Thomas Godfrey died decades before there was such a thing as the United States. Incorrect reference, mislabelled entry (octant, not sextant), co-inventor at best only remotely related to the United States.
• Plutonium. "...was first synthesized in 1940 by a team led by Glenn T. Seaborg and Edwin McMillan at a University of California". Plutonium is an element, naturally occuring at that, if only in trace amount, hardly an "invention". While "first synthesis" might be significant, that simply does not belong to this list. In addition we have entries for "Transuranium element", Neptunium, Einsteinium, Fermium, Americium, Curium, Californium, Berkelium, Mendelevium, Lawrencium. Hmm... The synthesis process might qualify, but in that case the entries are mislabelled, and likely redundant. More likely, they belong to a list of groundbreaking steps in science or something, not here.

Seaborgium also. I'd rename these to "Synthesis of" -- Dandv (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Programming languages. "Programming languages" are as old as the automated mechanical looms two centuries ago, but apparently, lambda calculus was arbitrarily chosen as the invention of "programming languages" for seemingly no other reason than Church was American. If the entry is about lambda calculus, why is it labelled "programming languages" ? Then again, does a formal system in mathematics qualify as an "invention" ?
• Fortran, C, Lisp, BASIC, Perl, Tcl, JavaScript... Just how many programming languages sharing the same few paradigms are going to be listed here ?

I don't see anything wrong with this. Fortran and Perl, or LISP and JavaScript are quite different.

Most programming languages share the same few paradigms that predates those languages (LISP and other functional languages are based on lambda calculus for instance) and these paradigms are more science than "inventions". Equendil Talk 22:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Mousepad. A squarish pad made of whatever material makes a mouse work, isn't that a little too trivial ?

Agree -- Dandv (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Satellite navigation system. Ok fine. Oh wait, we also have "Global Positioning System" as another entry. Isn't GPS just an instance of Satellite navigation systems ?
• PageRank. A Google trademark for an algorithm that ranks pages on the web. What makes this particular algorithm of a search engine within the scope of this list and not any number of algorithms designed to perform a particular task ?
• Discovery of Psamathe. Speaks for itself.
• "Digital computer", "Minicomputer", "Wearable computer", "Hand-held calculator", "Personal computer", let's have an entry for "Yellow computer".
• Airplane. The invention of the airplane spans decades, many people contributed to it, from many countries, the Wright brothers didn't "invent airplanes", they accomplished "the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight", not quite the same thing.

I'll stop here, there are almost as many problems with this list as there are entries. Sorry if I come across as rude, but that list seems to have been built with quantity rather than quality in mind.

admittedly, I'm not being very constructive, but right now, I'm thinking the best way to improve this list is to restart from scratch. Equendil Talk 16:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Splitting revisited

While I agree that the total time to load the page can be more than 8 seconds for some users, I think we need to reconsider splitting in the light of a few arguments:

• The page doesn't block while it loads. The user can start reading while the page keeps loading in the background.
• The argument that the page needs to load in under 20 minutes makes sense from a customer retention perspective. However, that is hardly a crucial goal of Wikipedia. Users who wish to access the information straight at the bottom of the page will wait for it.
• Splitting an article creates an artificial barrier between its parts. If we split by century, as proposed, and a user wants to search for a specific invention that might have happened shortly before or shortly after a century boundary, they'll have to visit two pages.
• As a data presentation paradigm, scrolling is preferred to paging (which actually drives users away).

-- Dandv (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with a split. I think the best way to go about it would be to have this article stand as a disambiguation page and each subsection of this page (or perhaps each century) would recieve its own article. While it is nice to have the information on one page, this is quite the burden to slow computers. ThemFromSpace 04:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a timeline? You don't split it, you tweak it until it's a perfect representation of the order things.

The Photo

This article's picture is photo shopped and looks artificial. Can it be replaced or removed? What was it's original purpose? Superdan006 (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I read reference 162 Concerning the US Supreme Court decision about radio and it states:

An examination reveals that the Court did not rule on who invented radio: "Marconi's reputation as the man who first achieved successful radio transmission rests on his original patent . . . which is not here in question."

Therefore this reference is misquoted in the text, which says it proves Tesla's invention of radio...when in fact it does not. In fact the reference argues that Tesla is NOT the inventor of radio. Please read the text of the reference.

Altes2009 (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Radio

I read reference 162 Concerning the US Supreme Court decision about radio and it states:

An examination reveals that the Court did not rule on who invented radio: "Marconi's reputation as the man who first achieved successful radio transmission rests on his original patent . . . which is not here in question."

Therefore this reference is misquoted in the text. The text says it proves Tesla's invention of radio...when in fact it does not. In fact the reference argues that Tesla is NOT the inventor of radio. Please read the text of the reference. And Please read also the Court Findings.

Altes2009 (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

MicroProcessor

If Ted Hoff is the inventor of the 4004 microprocessor....how comes that the 4004 Microprocessor has the initials F.F. etched on it? Shouldn't it be T.H.?

See for yourself

http://www.intel4004.com/sign.htm

Intel recognizes the role of federico Faggin, why wikipedia does not?

http://www.intel.com/museum/archives/4004.htm

http://www.intel4004.com/

Altes2009 (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's questionable whether Hoff "invented" the microprocessor as it was an idea in the air at the time and built by several companies around the same time. Faggin surely was not the inventor of the microprocessor however but rather the very skillful designer who did the job he was asked to do. BobKawanaka (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hepatitis B Vaccine

The Hepatitis B vaccine in use today is a recombinant DNA Vaccine developed by Enzo Paoletti of the New York State health Department

references:

1)http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v127/ai_3815488/

2) Viral and bacterial vectors of immunogenes Vaccine, Volume 3, Issue 1, March 1985, Pages 45-48
David Cavanagh
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Altes2009 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Human Powered flight

The first example of human powered flight occurred in 1936

here is the reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bossi-Bonomi_Pedaliante —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altes2009 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the reference is good and one that many don't know about so it would be a great addition. Bossi was an American citizen at the time of the invention. BobKawanaka (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Mapping ocean Currents

1)Is this really an Invention? I would say it is a scientific discovery, more than an invention. Perhaps the List should be split between Inventions and Discoveries (it would grow even larger then :)

2) Similarly the fermionic condensate in my opinion belongs in a "scientific discovery" section (what do you use it for?)

Altes2009 (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You have a point, I don't see either how mapping ocean currents is an invention ... and if it were, it certainly wasn't first done in America. Let's remove it. BobKawanaka (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Justification for this article?

Can someone explain why this article even exists? As far as I can tell it's a self-congratulatory article to make Americans (Note: I am one) feel good about themselves. Aside from a recently created articles (1, 2) on inventions from the Italian peninsula (which are particularly absurd in that they lump together modern Italy with pre-unification Italy, with Rome and with pre-historic Italian tribes), I don't see the articles for all the other countries that people have been mentioning to justify this one. And while this one is not quite as bad as the previously mentioned Italy articles, as there is at least substantial cultural and political continuity over the period described, it's still pointless. The timeline articles for particular categories of technology are useful; they can show how a previous invention influenced a subsequent one, indicate what technology was available to people of a particular time, etc. Nationalistic timelines do virtually none of that, particularly as you approach the modern day; inventions from one country are usually dependent on prior inventions from a different country, technology invented in one place quickly spreads everywhere else. A whole country trying to claim credit for a specific citizen's inventions is unseemly.

It seems to me that this is a textbook violation of Wikipedia is not a collection of lists. Can anyone justify this article as providing any information that couldn't be provided by simply categorizing the individual inventions articles by country of origin and year of invention? I'd go to AfD, but I suspect that if I did so without discussing it here first, people would express knee jerk opposition. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? I'd like to see some sort of justification for this. I'd rather resolve this, if possible, than fight an AfD battle. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that while AFD can be contentious, it should not be a battleground. The appropriate place for whether this article should exist is on AFD. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the prod on this article. The deletion of any article with over 500 citations is be too controversial for a prod. I agree that we have many unneeded lists on Wikipedia, but this one isn't one of them. The timeline itself has an encyclopedic function as it shows the history of American inventions, which is undoubtedly notable by our standards. A category cannot present this information sufficiently as it lacks the chronological ordering that a timeline shows. You're always welcome to put this up for AfD, although I doubt it will be deleted. ThemFromSpace 22:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Can you explain what is important about the fact (I'm taking the article at its word) that all of these otherwise unrelated inventions were invented in the United States? Heck, we haven't even limited this to United States inventions, as we've included the colonial period as well. This is effectively a content fork of each inventions' article, same as Italian inventions and scientific discoveries‎ (and presumably other nationalistic lists that have been deleted, but are referenced earlier in this talk page) that allows the U.S. to claim credit for an invention in a place where those interested in the invention are unlikely to look. If it's invented in the United States, say it on the article; if someone disagrees, keep whichever claim is well referenced; if both sides have credible references, note the ambiguity.

In addition, I'm not seeing how the encyclopedic function is being served by providing a chronological ordering. Is any information gained from knowing that bifocals predate the cotton gin, or that the detachable collar predates the electric doorbell (and that all four were invented in the U.S.)? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information, and I'm fairly sure that the chronological ordering is exactly that; completely indiscriminate. Categorize the invention's articles to include a year of invention and you'd have that information; you don't need this article to do it. The chronological ordering is important when we're dealing with a timeline of a specific branch of technology; you see how one invention influenced the other, what improvements a new invention introduced, etc. This article lacks that utility.

I really don't mean for this to sound like an attack, but I'm aware that contributors may view it as such (it is an impressively large article, and I wholeheartedly endorse merging any unique information and references into the constituent articles). I apologize, and ask you to please believe that I'm just trying to apply the guidelines evenly here. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ThemfromSpace. The timeline is very well referenced and it is encyclopedic. I will also make the point that if ShadowRangerRIT insists that this timeline to be deleted, then he should also demand of having all invention lists, for example China, Japan, India, Canada, Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, Sweden, UK deleted as well. Why single out and pick on just the United States? From what I have compared to other invention lists, this one is far superior as it has well referenced sources which are reputable. A lot of hard work went into creating this timeline and it is obvious. --Yoganate79 (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to these articles? I'll gladly nominate them for deletion as well. I found this article when someone used it to justify a couple of Italy related articles (both up for deletion right now). I haven't been able to find any of these other national articles people have been using as justification though. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm intentionally *not* picking on the U.S. here. I'm trying to avoid any appearance of bias by questioning any article with a similarly problematic nature. I find this article somewhat interesting, and hey, I take a little pride in the achievements of my country (the U.S.), same as anyone, but that doesn't mean it should stick around from sheer inertia. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This list does not appear to be in violation of WP:SALAT. It does not fit within the WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:INDISCRIMINATE examples. Hence I am unclear why I should agree with you.—RJH (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, per SALAT, I'd say this list is "too broad in scope". From NOTDIRECTORY, it falls into the category of "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", since as I've noted, the nationality of the inventor provides little to no reason for associating inventions. Inventions by Ben Franklin: Good. Inventions in the field of Transportation: Good. Any invention by any American: Bad. On INDISCRIMINATE, I will acknowledge that that guideline does not specifically cover this list. But the guideline's aim does: To note that neither veracity nor verifiability are sufficient to justify inclusion. All of these are similar violations I'll admit, but that doesn't make them irrelevant. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Canadian inventions
• English inventions and discoveries
• Scottish inventions and discoveries
• Irish inventions
• List of Chinese inventions
• List of Australian inventions
• Timeline of science and engineering in the Islamic world
• Swedish inventions
• French inventions and discoveries
• German inventions and discoveries
• List of Indian inventions and discoveries
• Inventions in medieval Islam
• Italian inventions and scientific discoveries
• List of Japanese inventions
• List of Korean inventions and innovations
• Dutch inventions and discoveries
• Russian inventions

I assume that if you are willing to throw the Timeline of United States inventions to the wolves, then you are also willing to subject these other lists above to your same criteria. Yes? And Shadow.... you got good ideas.... I commented about the Italian inventions and share the exact same opinion as you do about that horrible article. But this article, is a completely separate issue which is far better referenced and intellectually written in its scope. --Yoganate79 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Dammit. Google and wikipedia search have failed me. Clearly my search-fu is weak. Will take a look at those shortly. I'm trying to find some decent way of mass nominating articles of a particular flavor for deletion in such a way that all articles stay or go. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A note: Being well referenced and being written in encyclopedic style are necessary, but not sufficient conditions for the creation of an article. Being interesting is entirely optional (see the articles on innumerable species of microscopic fungus for legitimate articles that are deadly boring). For example, I could, were I inclined to violate WP:POINT (and I'm not), write an article on the use of the word "f*ck" by U.S. politicians. I could look up references for each use, tie them together by providing the date of each use, provide a handy prose description of the frequency with which it was used in any given period, and classify each usage by whether it was exclamatory, derogatory, or another form of attack speech. This hypothetical article would be well referenced, written in an encyclopedic style, and at least a little bit interesting. But it wouldn't be a legitimate article, because wikipedia is not a collection of lists nor is it an indiscriminate collector of information. Yes, I recognize that each individual use of the word doesn't have its own article, and isn't notable on its own, but that actually justifies my list more than this one: If my list went away, no one would know which politicians are cursing a blue streak; if this one goes away, people will still be able to find information on the inventions in question. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Snowball agree with the above. (if such a thing exists) Very well referenced article, it can be cleaned up, as any article can, but threatening deletion is not the solution to making this article better, and does not lead to consensus. ShadowRangerRIT, could we come back to this issue after we have had more than one edit to the article? Does that sound fair? Ikip 23:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read any of what I've written. I'm not arguing that the article needs cleanup, nor am I trying to improve it in any way. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia by shutting down nationalistic boosterism in content fork pages like this one. I'm trying to figure out why the article exists, as opposed to simply time and place categorizing the inventions in their own article article space. However, since people here clearly have decided that being well referenced and well written is sufficient criteria for inclusion of a completely arbitrary list, I recognize that an AfD would go nowhere. This article is a joke (if a well written and referenced joke), but I know when my view is in the minority. I won't contest this further. I suppose one more ego stroking article won't kill Wikipedia. :-) —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 15:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This topic isn't for people looking for nationalistic boosterism. The history of invention is a fascinating way to look at the history of any nation. It tells us a lot about those times.

The notion that it might also appeal to Americans isn't a reason to remove an article.

Add List of African-American inventors and scientists to Yoganate79's list of similar articles. I wish that one was in a timeline format.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Support fully the comments from Randy2063 (i.e. such articles are useful and should not be deleted). Labongo (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that such "lists of inventions" are fundamentally flawed. An assumption is invariably made that "inventions" originate from a single act of creativity, can be attributed to one person or a clearly identifiably group of persons working together, which by and large, is not how technology comes to be. In addition, the very concept of "invention" is also invariably left undefined and these lists end up being collections of eclectic claims that someone "invented" something either because they thought of it first or designed an early prototype or made improvement that made it practical, or brought it to mass market, or filed a patent etc, without consistency. For those reasons, I believe lists of inventions (all of them) have little encyclopedic value. The national aspect only makes it worse.

As for this particular list here, it has been made to look impressive with little regard for any other consideration. I have already outlined deep issues somewhere else on this talk page (Timeline_of_United_States_inventions#Definitions badly needed), including: dubious claims, lack of accuracy, "inventions" that are merely wide spread and popular items, trademarks or standards of American origin, a whole bunch of chemical elements, redundant entries... the article also looks well referenced until you actually check the references, then ... not so much. Add to that that the main editor of the article is seemingly not interested in addressing concerns on the talk page or edit comments (for that matter, I note that entries I removed a while ago with justification were quietly added back), and we end up with the extraordinary claim that the United States invented airplanes. Why do we even bother with all those lists at Timeline of Aviation.

I too was tempted to go to AfD (and bring with me the rest of the "lists of inventions", but it would only result in knee-jerk "keep" !votes because the subject(s) sounds superficially encyclopedic, and this particular page looks big and "well referenced". On top of that, I discovered the List of Chinese inventions has been made a featured list so the case is hopeless (even though the level of speculation applied to Chinese inventions before our era wouldn't fly here, and the United States is hardly a whole civilization spanning millennia).

The article could at least be sanitized, but of course, that involves fighting the owner... Equendil Talk 22:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord... another typical Frenchman on a U.S. page with anti-American rhetoric.... My question to Equendil is this. Have you taken a good look at the French inventions page and have you noticed the lack of references made to those claims? What a pathetic excuse for a page if I ever saw one. Have you seen Scotland's inventions page? THEY as in the Scots claim to have "invented" the United States Navy of all things.... What is next? Did the Scots invent the air we breathe too? Since when is the New York Times, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and NASA not reputable references to add? And what does China's "civilization" have to do with American inventions? Granted, there is one thing that Equendil along with ShadowRanger and I share. All three of us desire for all inventions pages on Wikipedia to be deleted. But singling out the United States inventions alone be deleted while Chinese and European pages are to stay is hardly a strategy since the readers and editors of the page would undoubtedly put up a fight. Why just the U.S.? Are you making the same arguments on the English inventions page? Australian inventions? etc? But like I told ShadowRanger, if he and anybody elese can find consensus and can get a group together that can make all invention pages disappear from Wikipedia, then I can be truly counted on to cast my yes vote. --Yoganate79 (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A "typical Frenchman" with "anti-American rhetoric" ? Huh !? May I ask what you are implying with this "typical Frenchman" remark and just exactly which part of what I wrote constitutes "anti-American rhetoric" ?

As for the rest of your reply, I did not exactly praise other lists of inventions, I mentioned the Chinese list because it's a featured list, and civilization to point out the scope of that particular list is broader hence less problematic (it would be a lot more acceptable to attribute the invention of "airplanes" to "western civilization" for instance, if such a list existed).

On references, what you are calling the "New York Times" here seems to be largely about.com a website that was acquired by the New York Times Company, but I do not object so much to the references as to how they are used. The News Center of the University of Colorado may report the "first observation of a "fermionic condensate", it does not call it an "invention" or imply it is, for good reasons. As I've mentioned previously, the reference for the Sextant entry does not even mention the name of the "inventor" claimed here. Reference for the tractor entry may support the invention of the "first internal combustion-powered tractor", not "tractor". And then there are plenty of not so great references, for instance, the reference for the "detachable collar" is a blog that attributes it to a Mrs Montague in less that certain terms ("it's said ...").

Finally, I've made it plenty clear it's not just this particular list that bothers me, it just so happens this list drew my attention a while ago (because it was listed somewhere as one of the biggest pages on WP if you really must know), I made edits to it and added it to my watch list as I usually do with articles I edit. Quit implying ulterior motives. Equendil Talk 20:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ShadowRanger, you should acknowledge that your problem with this article is fundamentally WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You don't like that inventions are categorized by nationality. We can debate on that (I somehow agree with the fact that it is not a fundamental distinction, and I would prefer some inter-national kind of listing) but there is nothing inherently wrong in listing inventions by their nationality. It is not subjective, nor indiscriminate, not a random intersection and it is not a POV categorization in itself. Editors above have shown that the article has lots of issues that should be solved (and I agree), but this can be done by editing, not deletion, per deletion policy, and I appreciate very much you not hastily going for AfD in this case. --Cyclopia^talk 14:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)