Talk:List of inventors/Archive 1

Archive 1

Slightly confused part 1 and 2

These are some of the names from the list that I’m confused about. Have they really invented anything?

Tsaddik Dervish 07:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Removed my own (very) long list of examples. --Tsaddik Dervish 19:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Quite a few names really do not belong here. Please feel free to correct them, adding explanation. Problem of this list is that the names are added in chaotic manner over long time. Pavel Vozenilek 01:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Claude Shannon

Does Claude Shannon belong here? no, He was a scientist whose research led to various inventions, but he didn't invent anything himself, as far as I know. The invention this page attributes to him is "information theory". If we count that, why not also "theory of evolution", and all other new bodies of scientific knowledge? What about Crick & Watson, who discovered the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule? What about Halley, who "invented" Halley's comet? That would eliminate any distinction between invention and scientific discovery, and it would also mean that most of those who should be on this list are not. 134.84.86.74 21:51, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, it depends on your definition of invention. I think (but haven't checked his papers) he came up with several very important mathmatical equations. Once could claim that these were discoveries, rather than inventions. DNA is certainly a discovery, Evolution is probably more of a discovery as well, but these are both less concrete than a set of equations. I'd say equations are less concrete than a physical object, or even the blueprint for a physical object, but some equations could certainly be inventions; natural laws and limits, I'm not so sure. -- Akb4 23:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wankel

Is Felix Wankel suitable to be in here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahlis (talk • contribs) 18:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Definately. -- Akb4 23:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The strange case of Mr. Graham Bell

"In June 2002, Meucci was officially credited by the United States House of Representatives with the invention of the telephone, instead of Alexander Graham Bell." Sorry guys, but Graham Bell has no place there, I'm amazed that he appears instead of Meucci. (unsigned)

I'm far from clear that an independant inventor is not an inventor; just because two people independantly devise something doesn't make one of them less of an innovator. Someone will probably claim that the order of discovery, issuance of patents, or effect on dissemination of an invention matters, but I fail to see how, for example, Konrad Zuse's invention of some key computer technologies which virtually no-one heard of at the time in any way invalidates the independant invention of those same technologies by the ENIAC group. Both are inventors; if someone wants to start the list of Successful inventors, first to patent inventors, etc., go ahead...

That said, there's the whole Elisha Grey controversy, but since Bell also invented the metal detector (and probably other things), he belongs on the list anyway. -- Akb4 23:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Asselbergs

I have removed the entry for Edward A. Asselbergs, as per discussion on WP:RD. Briefly, it appears that several patents for industrial processes for producing instant mashed potato flakes predate Mr. Asselbergs's patent for a particular improved process. The flakes themselves may date back to prehistory. — Pekinensis 00:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

More details are available at Instant mashed potato. — Pekinensis 02:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

So why isn't the particular improved method an invention? I mean, it may not be an invention that many people think is important, but neither are Rubber Bandits... Maybe we need a taxonomy of inventors; millions of patents have been issued, but people like Isaac Newton, Edison, Tesla, and so on are clearly more significant than Clarence Birdseye, Samuel Colt, etc. Which is not to diminish anyone's accomplishments, but there are a couple of axis' here: number of inventions and importance of inventions are two that come to mind immediately, but they involve those nasty subjective values like "importance". -- Akb4 23:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Paul Pedrick

User:DonSiano removed my addition of Arthur Pedrick, citing it as vandalism. The addition is not vandalism, despite the unusual name of his prime invention. He is a real person, as a review of the article on him and a search on any respectable search engine will show.

Basically, all his inventions were crazy, but he's important and well known enough to warrant inclusion on this list. GDallimore 19:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity Patents

So is there any rom anywhere on wikipedia for an overview of celebrity inventors or inventions? To me, this is informative, but i'm not sure about everybody else. Comments? Bib 23:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What this page is for

This page is for listing inventors of significant inventions. It is not for listing scientific or mathematical discoveries for scientists, regardless of how famous or significant the discoveries may be. Nor can it be for any old patent that the author wants to have immortalized by listing it in wikipedia. The US patent office grants about 500 patents per day--they cannot all be listed on this page, which should therefore be restricted to notable inventions that were commercialized and have been noted in references such as other encyclopedias, histories of technology and such. Strange, or funny half-baked ideas of cranks don't belong here either. This is an encyclopedia, not a book of humor.DonSiano 12:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The title of the article is "List of inventors", not "list of inventions" or "list of notable inventions". I agree that one requirement for inclusion could be good inventions where notability of the inventor is otherwise patchy, but primarily this is a list about notable inventors. Hence my restoring Pedrick to the list - he is well-known to every patent attorney in the (my) country and has had several notable mentions in various publications on the Internet and the printed press, some of which are listed in his article. He is notable BECAUSE he created "wacky" inventions that explored the boundaries of patent law - his chromatic cat-flap patent, for example, also included information about using nuclear weapons to ensure world peace which meant it had national security issues.

Remeber, just because you don't know or understand why a particular inventor is notable, doesn't mean he is not notable. WP:NOTE#Notability_is_not_subjective. GDallimore (Talk) 09:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla

I think some people have gone a little overboard with Teslas inventions. Given that the inventor of something is the person who actually invented it, and these are only meant to be significant inventions, I'd leave Tesla with the Tesla coil, the induction motor, and wireless communication (since he did have a notable role in its development). He developed, but did not invent, alternating currents, logic gates or modern robotics. Also I'm not sure what planet the person was on who put that he invented VTOL aircraft. We might as well put HG Wells on the list for inventing the time machine.84.66.17.34 (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Misleading items

J8079s recently removed various items, and in this edit, Dicklyon has reverted, pointing out that an explanation for the removal is needed. I have not examined these particular cases, but the background is explained at WP:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The problem is that an editor has made over 63,000 article edits, and many of those edits have been found to involve a misrepresentation of cited sources. The effect has been to promote Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements. A list of pages and edits that need checking is at WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Al-Razi

I'm challenging the claim that Rhazes (which actually links to Al-Razi) "invented" alcohol. I know there is wine jugs found that predate this time period, and that the Egyptians invented beer far before this time. I've commented it out until we can solve this discussion. Imasleepviking 19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to al-Razi and put it back, listing "distillation and extraction methods; sulfuric acid and alcohol". I agree we need to clarify what his discovery was, relative to alcohol especially. Was he the first to purify it as a substance independent of wine, perhaps? Dicklyon 20:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a book that says he was first use alcohol as an antiseptic. Maybe that's the invention? Dicklyon 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing I can find on the internet says he had anything to do with alcohol. That certainly doesn't mean he didn't do anything with it but I'm skeptical of the claim in general. I think we're better off just keeping it as he invented a means to create sulfuric acid. Imasleepviking 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's another interesting bit about the invention of alcohol. I recommend a book search, rather than looking "on the internet" for reliable sources. It seems he is sometimes credited with the invention of distillation techniques, which are used both for alcohol and for aqua fortis (strong sulfuric acid). Dicklyon 21:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A really good bookForbes, Robert James (1970). A short history of the art of distillation: from the beginnings up to the death of Cellier Blumenthal. BRILL. ISBN 9789004006171. Retrieved 27 July 2010. and no al-Razi did not "invent" alcohol J8079s (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

Why isn't Leonardo da Vinci there? He was an inventor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.193.71 (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The mechanical things that were not "reduced to practice" don't count. The military devices that were actually used need documentation.69.72.27.30 (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

While many of his inventions were too difficult to manufacture during his lifetime, some were put into use. He should be included. AlexBartlett4 (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Clean up needed?

I started to create a sortable table, so one could sort by year, country etc., but this list is so full of strange listings that I am not sure i do bother.

I.e.

• Al-Muqaddasi, inventor of restaurant? - An islam commercial?
• Ibn Tufail, philosophical novel? , beaten by various ie Augustin by some hundred years.
• Hezarfen Ahmet Celebi, a myth about a man flying with eagle wings.
• Dennis Charter, PaySafe - is this really an invention? Isn't it merely a use of inventions to make a product, ie encryption algorithms? Sketchy.
• Muhammad al-Fazari, brass??? not mentioned in article. Sets astrolabe in question as well.
• Hezarfen Ahmet Celebi, yet another flying man myth.
• Muhammad Husayn, not mentioned in Qibla, etc. bs??
• Jābir ibn Hayyān, is not credited with inventing, but using loads of what he is "credited" with inventing. Further the article has a long list of citation needed.
• Al-Khazini, hydrostatic balance?? not credited anywhere. Main article about person has note "This article has been shortened from a longer article which misused sources."
• Hasan al-Rammah, gunpowder?? torpedo?? - Nothing in either article.

Etc etc etc.

Lebaramebara (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are a bunch of unreferenced problematic claims in the list. If you find unreferenced entries that are unsupported by the inventor's wikipedia article, I suggest you remove the entry. As you may have seen in the discussion above on this talk page, there are a number of entries added by a user with a history of misusing citations, usually in a way that promotes a boosterist view of scientific achievement in the Medieval Islamic period, and this article hasn't yet been fully checked for such entries. Dialectric (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Years later but most of those still untouched. I removed several, and left some that seem OK. Dicklyon (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Bill Gates

Invented windows... how? he created it but didnt invent/find it.

He didn't create even Windows! He certainly didn't invent anything. Just about the only software he's ever even substantially written was a reimplementation of someone else's programming language, BASIC. He generally created the business deals needed to acquire or destroy other people's software, or managed teams of designers. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It [1] was surely written like a commercial. Indeed, entrepreneurs are not by definition inventors, and the List of Internet entrepreneurs is elsewhere. Poepkop (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible further candidates

How about Amos Joel? According to his obituary in the FT (8 Nov 2008) he invented the switching system that allows a mobile phone to move from one cell to another (i.e., he allowed it to be mobile wireless rather than wireless but having to stay in one place), along with a host of other useful things.

Also, how about Ron Hickman, inventor of the Workmate and vocal defender of the patent system? 86.16.3.237 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The list has two requirements, they are inventors with Wikipedia articles. Both pass so added. Good suggestion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup

Any editor reading this, please feel free to join in and check a letter in this list for accuracy. Below list every letter that has been checked, in alphabetic order. Every entry must be an inventor who has an article on English Wikipedia, and have notable, referenced inventions in their name. See warning box that shows up during editing. DeVerm (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• A I just reviewed the letter "A" and deleted 10 of 36 entries. DeVerm (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  
• B I lost count on the number of changes but just finished the letter B. DeVerm (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• C I finished the "C". DeVerm (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• D Finished the "D" today. DeVerm (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• I I also reviewed the "I" and deleted 3 of 8 entries. DeVerm (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Q done. DeVerm (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• U done. DeVerm (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• V removed 8 out of 20 entries (!) DeVerm (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted the list back to 04:43, 13 May 2016‎ as edited by ClueBot NG because the rational for removal of entries was incorrect. This is not a list of priority inventions, it is a List of inventors. To be a member each person only needs a designation of "inventor" with reference in their Wikipedia article. If a priority claim is incorrect the claim should be reworded (to "improved", "further developed", "worked with"), or, the claim should be removed, but the person should not be removed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I undid your revert because you are mistakingly assuming I delete valid entries. I only delete entries where the person listed did not invent the item claimed. Example: a Swedish lady did not invent gunpowder. You can not revert that because there is no basis for such a claim. The same rationale was used for every deletion. If you find one that I deleted wrongly then please revert that if you are sure, but don't revert the whole lot which is disruptive because you did not check validity while I did exactly that for every entry. DeVerm (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Partially reverted back, Sorry but you are not following the lists definition/selection criteria. This is a "List of inventors" and "Maria Christina Bruhn (1732–1802) was a Swedish inventor" and therefor meets the list definition/selection criteria. Every single person on this list who has a Wikipedia article and is designated an "inventor" is a valid entry. This is not a list of inventions so entries do not need to have an invention after their name. If you wish to cleanup the article: remove or correct the incorrect invention attributions. I have started a cleanup of "A" using your edit as a guide - removing what seem to be un-supportable attributes. Please note: these have to be notable people so pipes such as "||Total internal reflection fluorescence microscope|Daniel Axelrod"|| are not valid. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That is your 2nd mass revert and again on wrong assumptions. Filing a patent is explicitly not equal to an invention. If somebody did not invent the carburetor and thus can't file a patent for it, but does manage to file a patent for use of a carburetor on a stationary (stationary only) engine, then that does not make him an inventor. I am gonna have to undo your mass revert again and hope you will take this more seriously and actually look into the cases more carefully. This list is for notable inventors which means that you must be able to at least name one invention, not just patent filing and not just improving existing inventions, or building a new bomber etc. Let me add that your mass reverts of my many edits, while you know me and know I am not joking around here, is not only aggressive but also rude and not at all in the spirit of making WP better. If you keep mass reverting my work without giving specific rationale for each entry you revert then I will report that. DeVerm (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: I propose we WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Your mass reverts of dozens of edits seem to be a WP:3RR violation but I think you are an editor who wants to improve WP just like me. I therefor propose that instead of bringing this to a noticeboard, you list the entries you want to have back in the list here with rationale per entry and we discuss that. My rationale for each removed entry was already given with each edit. If there is any notable inventor that I deleted then it is by accident or because of information that I checked which was wrong. I then want to see that corrected just as much as you do. I hope that you chose the path of cooperation as well. DeVerm (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a "List of inventors". The title and the lead sentence "This is a list of notable inventors." (along with the editors note) gives us the scope of the article:

• Members have to be notable (Every entry in this list must have an article written in the English Wikipedia.... and everyone in Wikipedia is notable by Policy)

• Members have to be inventors (with reliable sources to support inclusion...)

• ----> I will add a third ----> Members have to be noted as an inventor in the article lead.

There is no need for a rationale per entry: whether someone is an "inventor" is defined by reliable secondary sources, not Wikipedia editors on a talk page. There is a basic definition in the Oxford Dictionary, people who file patents are by definition "inventors" (Patent Law Essentials: A Concise Guide, 4th Edition: A Concise Guide). There is no requirement the list members have some sort of "priority invention" in the title or lead of this list, and people who make improvements are inventors [2][3].

If you want a list where each person has a "named" priority invention next to their name then you need to start a List of inventions, but I think they did away with that.

So... for example, Harold P. Brown is identified as an "inventor" in the lead, cited as such in secondary sources and has cited inventions. No rational following the definition of this list was followed for removal[4]. I will be restoring such entries following WP:LSC. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy you choose this path of cooperation Fountains of Bryn Mawr, let's get this list under control. I do not agree that every inventor who has an article on Wikipedia is, for that reason, a notable inventor. They are a notable person or they would not have the article, but one can be notable for many things, not just for being an inventor. In the case of the Swedish lady, it is clear that she did not invent gunpowder as claimed in the list. She appears to have invented something related to the use of gunpowder and this is where the question comes up if this makes her a notable inventor or not. I have a hard time with that, so I let every list entry of which I found the claimed invention to be correct, no matter how trivial, stay in the list, i.e. I did not delete those (and there are many of those). This means that I would not have deleted the Swedish lady if her entry would have listed her invention. And from what I gather from you, I should even let it stand when there is no invention listed with the entry at all, as long as her article has a referenced invention in her name. I did not see such entries yet, but I agree with you and let those stay in the list when I encounter them as well.

Back to the Swedish lady: I deleted her entry because it said she invented gunpowder so it is an invalid entry. It is not up to me to fix it but up to the person who put that on the list, which, in this case must have been a funny version of vandalism. Every entry added must be valid or it gets removed, this is how it works. Funny vandalism is still vandalism and I decided to delete it but not bother with templates on the editors talk page.

Another example that we need to gain agreement on is the patent filing. There is mention in this talk page (from the editor that started this) that we can't add every person who has an patent filed on this list because there are too many. There re 500 patents filed daily or so he writes. Still, I would agree to include any inventor on basis of a registered patent -and here it comes- when they actually invented something. In the example of the carburetor, the man did not invent it. He was able to file a patent on a specific application for it, which is not an invention, surely you must see that application ≠ invention?! This is the reason that I deleted him from the list.

Then I want to come to the bulk of the deletions I made: they are just wrong entries, completely made up. For example entries existed for a new model of a car or a new model jet fighter or a a drum computer etc. Not the invention of the drum computer but just a model manufactured. Like "this guy he invented the 2012 Ford Taurus". I assume you agree that these must not come back. Also, there are many who are just wrong like invention of the siege tower etc. claimed to some King or Sultan or other figure that lived hundreds or thousands of years after it was invented. I would have let it stand when the article about the person actually had a reference to such invention but they did not.

This leaves me with your example of Harold P. Brown. You call my deletion invalid but it was not a mistake: I examined it and decided to delete it. It means we must find out if this is a notable inventor or not. When you can name one invention of him (just one, nobody even need to have ever heard of it) or even one that he co-invented with others, then I immediately agree. I could not find anything, so I deleted him. In his article is no reference given for him being an inventor either (and this is an inclusion must-have). If you find that in a book then why not add that reference to his article as an in-line citation with the claim of being an inventor so that it satisfies the rules for this list: no red links, only notable inventors with references. When you add the reference and put him back in the list then everything is right and you will not find me opposing that. Of-course the editor who originally added him to this list should have done that (I assume that was not you).

I will continue processing this list and will give good rationale in the edit comment for you to check on. I will show which category it is so you, and others following this, can immediately decide which ones to check me on. Really, I appreciate that when it makes the list better. DeVerm (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I now realize it is possible to have missed the edit warning for this list, so let me repeat it here: "No red links. Every entry in this list must have an article written in the English Wikipedia, with reliable sources to support inclusion, else it will be removed without warning." DeVerm (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This list lists "inventors": people (with Wikipedia articles) noted by reliable sources as inventors. They only have meet that WP:SALAT for inclusion in this list. I would tend towards the heavier side of that - some form of primary notability as an inventor (one of their listed occupations). So Anders Knutsson Ångström is borderline, probably delete, not noted as one of his occupations.

As for scope, you are reading in a requirement in the list lead definition that is not there, that they have notable inventions. That is not part of the list def (and there are many inventors who are pretty notable as such but absolute failures as far as their inventions go). If you think scope/lead definition is a problem or needs to be changed then open that discussion, please do not WP:POINTy remove everyone you think does not match what you think the lead/def should be.

So.... so far what we have is "People (with Wikipedia BIOs), noted by reliable sources there in to have had the occupation of "inventor". I have done a cleanup pass based on that and removed all hidden pipes pointing to non-BIO pages. Some like Hasan al-Rammah seem to have had an actual article posted on them but did not make the cut, article to short and/or did not pass WP:YESPOV. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: No, I am not deleting any entries based on me requiring notable inventions, no worries. The requirement for the list is that the inventor is notable, not the inventions. I take any invention, mentioned in their article or in the article of the invention, or both. I also take any contribution to an invention, regardless of how much or how little. What I do require is that they actually invented something. Your claim that anybody who files a patent is an inventor was proven wrong on a recent check I did where the supposed inventor had filed a patent for a country where the real inventor had failed to do so when he did file it elsewhere. The first one, the person who invented it and also filed a patent (which I don't require to be included because inventing is enough to be an inventor) is the inventor, while the second one is just a nasty clever guy who steals inventions and not an inventor at all; just a patent warrior.

By the way, I agree fully with your cleanup run. You even removed some who I decided to keep even though on marginal grounds. I saw many that were squirmed into the list like I have found, using pipes to mask missing links etc. DeVerm (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't know how we could ever pars inventor/patent warrior. That requires a bit to much OR for a Wikipedia edit: unless some RS clearly states that we don't do that research or put forward that opinion. "invented something" is already defined, reliable sources say they are an inventor, again we don't make OR judgements or render opinions on their inventions (unless a source does, feel free to provide it). Clearly there are many removed entries that are reliably referenced as inventors, the lists only requirement. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No it is not. When A invents something and patents it in England in the year A and then in the year A+1 B discovers it wasn't patented in the USA and grabs his chance, then A is inventor and B is not, regardless of how often people want to call B the inventor. DeVerm (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Lightbulb

Last I heard Canadian Henry Woodward invented the "commercially practical" lightbulb, but sold the patent to Thomas Edison. So should the actual inventor or the patent holder recieve credit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marshmello (talk • contribs) 12:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

It should be noted that this list credits Edison with inventing the first "commercially practical light bulb" not with inventing the light bulb, numerous claims exist for the latter. Davidbrookesland (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The list actually lists: "Joseph Swan (1828–1914), UK – Incandescent light bulb" as the inventor. It is true that Swan was the first to seal the filament in a vacuum sealed "bulb" which Edison copied. Swan's bulbs were used as 'firsts' in various domestic and public situations, but Edison's bulbs were longer lasting and a far greater commercial success. Swan's claim in this list stands, and so does Edison's. Davidbrookesland (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Samuel Colt and others

Samuel Colt (1814–1862), USA – Colt revolver and other entries seem to list someone as an inventor just because they made improvements to something that already existed. Surely if the 'invention' cannot be described in any other way than by using the 'inventor's' name, he has no right to be in this list? Did Christian Dior invent Dior petticoats? Davidbrookesland (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The requirement for this list is they have to be designated as an "inventor" by reliable sources. There is no other requirement. Wording that is misleading should be modified. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Linus Torvalds

Is Torvalds appropriate to put here? He didn't invent the concept of the kernel/operating system, he just created his own one. Dysprosia (talk) 08:09, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jet Engine

Hans von Ohain -- co-founder of the jet engine

Frank Whittle, (1907-1996) -- co-inventor of the jet engine

Actually, they only improved the jet engine, not invent it, so they should not be on this list. The jet engine was invented by Henri Coandă. Bogdan (talk) 22:19, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That depends largely on what you define as "jet engine", of course... Coanda's engine, while immensely innovative and unique, was not the direct ancestor of what most people today would think of as a "jet engine" in the way that Whittle's and Ohain's engines are... Rlandmann (talk) 02:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)