Talk:Timeline of United States inventions and discoveries/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Huh, Aeroplane?

It's Air Plane & i'm changing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.212.31 (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The GUI was introduced to the public in 1981 not 1988

The date of the GUI is wrong. 1988 was long after the release of the Xerox Star, the Macintosh and Windows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.42 (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

iPod was not totally designed by an Englishman

I'm not certain but from what I've read and Englishman named Jonathan Ive, who's currently heads a top position at Apple, was the man who was mostly responsible for designing it. In many interviews, some on YouTube, he's even been credited as the man responsible for designing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.10.117 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The iPod is an AMERICAN brand of portable digital devices which was also invented by two other American hardware engineers, named Tony Fadell and Michael Dhuey. Apple Inc is an American computer electronics company, it's not British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.15.20 (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are two quotes from the Wikipedia pages on the biographies of Tony Fadell and Michael Dhuey.....

"Tony Fadell started working for Apple from February 2001 as a contractor designing the iPod and planning Apple's audio product strategy"

"Michael Dhuey was also one of the two hardware engineers (with Tony Fadell) who developed the hardware for the original iPod in 2001, particularly the battery."

Questions

The Metzenbaum scissors were invented by an American named Myron Firth Metzenbaum but I can't seem to find the year in which it was invented. Does anyone know?

How about including abstract American inventions such as rock and roll, jazz, blues, hip hop, rap, techno, etc.?

If you can pinpoint the actual dates and who invented the msuci genres, then it would be logical. Yet doing such is difficult since music evolves over time.

Considering that the discovery of Pluto is an American discovery not an invention shouldn't this page be modified and renamed to "List of United States inventions and discoveries"?

It seems reasonable for such given that there exists a page for both English and Scottish inventions and discoveries. Stratocracy (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well thankfully this is not the English and Scottish Inventions and Discoveries page. This list pertains to the United States only and exclusively. There is no page entitled as "List of United States Discoveries". Hence, Discovery of Pluto must remain on this page.

I think you may have misinterpreted my post.

I apologize if I'm wrong but what I meant was considering that there exists the pages "English inventions and discoveries" and also "Scottish inventions and discoveries" why not modify the current page so that it becomes "List of United States inventions and discoveries"? It seems more reasonable considering that the discovery of Pluto is not an invention but a discovery. Stratocracy (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How do we go about this this then? It would be a good idea, yet there is no editing link for the title of the web page. Do you know how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.15.20 (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, aren't there people capable of renaming pages who can be contacted? I don't know whom to consult about it. Stratocracy (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Either you or me should e-mail Wikipedia and request that the page be renamed to "List of United States inventions and discoveries"

I'll do that if you don't mind. Stratocracy (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be great! Hey, if you could... talk to me in my "my talk" page. I'll give you my e-mail address and we can keep up communication. I have some good ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.15.20 (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been moved now. Stratocracy (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You are awesome! Now how do we add pictures to the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoganate79 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To add pictures go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia#Pictures

In addition, if you need any assistance in regards to editing do visit Help:Contents Stratocracy (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have worked very hard for the past month to clean this page up. It needed work and is finally starting to look good and comprehensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoganate79 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

New Look

Personally, I like the new look to this page. It needed some color and the pictures have fully made it come to life. They're not too big in size since they're comparable to photo sizes on other pages I have seen. I like the chronological listing format by date because it shows how far our nation has evolved and matured over time, beginning with the 18th century to the 21st century. And naturally, the United States inventions page is going to be a very long list because we have had prolific inventors, discoverers, and scientists throughout our history. USA is the most technologically advanced country in the world today, which this page proves without a doubt. If we went with a format like "Canadian inventions", I am afraid that we wouldn't be able to incorporate photos as this page has so beautifully done. It would be too much work to change the format anyways. The Canadian inventions and English inventions pages look boring and do not provide the viewer any sense of engagement. USA page blows their boring and uncompelling pages away by far.

There are a few things that need to be done though. Somebody has to start backing up this list with credible and cited references. From the list, most to my knowledge are in fact, American inventions. But some could possibly be disputed, although highly doubtful. The information on this page looks to be accurate and right, but now it just needs to be defended.

If anything, the best inventions pages on Wikipedia by far are...

Chinese inventions, List of Indian inventions, and List of United States inventions and discoveries since all three of these pages are organized and include colored photographs to engage the viewer. --Yoganate79 (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking for more additions to the list?

For those who have the time to add more US inventions and discoveries, the following articles contain information on US, as well as non-US, Nobel Prize laureates and what some of them have discovered and/or invented:

• List of Nobel Laureates in Physics
• List of Nobel Laureates in Chemistry
• List of Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine
• List of Nobel Laureates in Economics

Should the following be added?

Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia, MySpace, YouTube, Facebook, Amazon.com and Twitter are some of the most popular websites worldwide yet I'm not certain if they are worthy of being added. 69.42.10.117 (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they should be. If the Monopoly board game is acceptable then the above should be.

In addition, the US Patent Office grants patents to anything new regardless of whether it's an innovation or an improvement.

If someone objects to the following please respond because I'm open to all opinions. Hackyakstack (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely add it. The US Patent Office doesn't distinguish the difference between an invention, improvement or innovation. Stratocracy (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We are not the US patent office. They have I believe several million inventions listed. Also they are not really inventions, I'm sure you could create a page called United States popular web sites. Rich Farmbrough, 11:15 31 January 2009 (UTC).

Somebody needs to add eBay to the list then. It ranks as one of the more popular destinations. --Yoganate79 (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Need dates

Does anyone know when Brill-Zinsser disease was described by Nathan Brill and Hans Zinsser? Stratocracy (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

American Music Genres

Everybody knows that rock and roll, jazz, swing, pop, blues, and rap music were invented by Americans. So would these be considered "inventions" or are they just "developments" and "movements" of music history? --Yoganate79 (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that they're classified as movements. 192.235.8.2 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

US Inventions before the US existed?

What is the rationale for having inventions from before July 4, 1776 in the article? It seems quite odd to me, so am I missing something? Dendlai (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is no more less odd than inventions added to the Chinese inventions page before the People's Republic of China came into existence in 1949. Hence, if that were the case, then China can only add inventions to their list from the year 1949 and onwards.

Likewise, prolific inventors such as Bejamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were and became American citizens after independence was declared.

--Yoganate79 (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference. China existed before the PRC. America (the continent and the colonies) existed before the US. This page is about US inventions. So just as it would be wrong to attribute Pre-PRC Chinese inventions to the PRC on a page on Inventions by the PRC, so it is wrong to attribute pre-US American inventions to the US. That the inventors LATER became US citizens doesn't make what they did before US inventions. Dendlai (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If that were the case, then why did prolific inventors such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson (pre-independence) choose to become American citizens then?

As a matter of fact, almost everty invention on the Indian inventions page must be deleted since in fact, India did not become an independent nation until 1947. All inventions before 1867 thus must be deleted from the Canadian inventions Page then. Do you see the logic here?

It doesn't really matter if the United States existed before 1776, since the colonials were Americans. Likewise, inventions dating before 1776 would not fall onto any other list appropriately except for this inventions page. --Yoganate79 (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

They chose to become US citizen when the US came to exist. they weren't before. And India existed before independence. As did America. The colonies and the continent. Which is NOT the same as the US. Inventions before 1776 would not necessarily have to fall anywhere, it would depend on the citizenship of the inventor at the time of invention. Dendlai (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

India did not exist as a nation before 1947. However, they still thought of themselves as Indians just as people living in North America thought of themselves as Americans ever since they arrived in the early 17th century.

Inventions sich as the lightning rod, armonica, etc. are generally classified as American inventions on other web sites. They would not be appropriate anywhere else.

This nation is the most technologically advanced in the world and has achieved far more than any other country can dream of. --Yoganate79 (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving this to List of American inventions and discoveries as you just did creates a whole lot of new problems, since it'd mean including inventions from Canada, Mexico, brazil etc... And your last sentence is pretty pointless soapboxing, and makes me question your dedication to making this list NPOV. Dendlai (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Canada already has their list.... Canadian inventions

And as for Mexico, the last time I checked, they refer to themselves as Mexicans. Which might I add, they've done absolutely or created nothing in the past 300 years.

My dedication? I've certainly done more than you have. Might I add, I am the author of the majority of citations on this entire list. And what's your excuse? --Yoganate79 (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And as you may note, America is a disambiguition page. If it is used to refer to the US, then it means after 1776. If it is not meant to refer to the US, it refers to rather more than the US. Simple logic: Before 1776, "America" never refered to the US, since the US didn't exist, and it refered to an area which is quite a bit larger than the US. Your comment about Mexicans further makes me think your dedication to WP:NPOV is lacking. You seem intent on claiming pre-US inventions as US inventions. Find reliable sources that attribute them to the US, then. Dendlai (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The nationality of the United States is in fact, American. It is not United Statesians, North Americans, or Pan-Americans. And as I said, people who lived in Colonial America refered to themselves as Americans. Having an organied government means very little of significance since the white man has dwelled in North America for 15,000 or oso odd years ever since they came during the last Ice Age. --Yoganate79 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Citizens of the US are commonly called Americans, yes. What is your point? And "white people" means what? And 15,000 years in North America (Which includes Canada and Mexico)? So what? If you go that route, then America doesn't mean the US, but North America. If the colonialists refered to themselves as American is besides any point, it most assuredly did NOT mean what it sometimes does today; "Citizen of the US". Dendlai (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Canadians do not refer to themselves as Americans. Never. Neither do Mexicans. Before the United States existed. It was called the "United Colonies of America" and certainly, all colonials refered to themselves as Americans--- just as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Banneker had done. Every web page online refers to Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin as "American inventors." Take a look here.... http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/

Just as the case with India. Their nation with the form of an organizaed government did not exist prior to 1947. Yet they referred to themselves as Indians. --Yoganate79 (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We are not talking about what "American" or "America" usually refers to NOW, but in a historical context (before 1776). It was then not synonymous with "What became the USA". "United Colonies of America" didn't come into existance until 1774 if I remember right, either. And didn't refer to most states that now make up the US. "Inventions and discoveries on the land that is now covered by the USA" would make sense if you want to be safe but anyway: A better solution is to move this back to "US Inventions and Discoveries", and then put the pre-1776 inventions in a separate category, something like "Pre-US inventions by inventors who became US citizens when the US declared independence" (less clumsily put). That'd clear any disambiguition, and make sense. Dendlai (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. But here is the thing. Inventions such as the Armonica, and the Lightning rod can;t really be catagorized onto another page such as English inventions since neither was it invented in England nor was it invented in time period when the United States began. Hence, most scholars catagorize Ben Franklin as an American inventor (assuming him as a U.S. citizen which he was).

Honestly, what I would like to see but I doubt if Canadians would go for it is to see a Wiki page called List of North American inventions and discoveries

So if we revert the page back to the old name, how do you think the tabs should be entitled? --Yoganate79 (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See Also section

Firstly, I'd like to thank whoever organized the article into what it is now. It's more organized and unique than it was in the beginning. Furthermore, I'd like to thank whoever contributed to the article as I have learned about plenty of inventions that I never knew were invented by US citizens such as the Internet, radiocarbon dating, plutonium and Wikipedia itself.

So, back to the topic. I noticed that the articles listed in the See Also section are organized by title length and not by something else more prominent such as by alphabetical order. I honestly think that organization by alphabetical order would be preferable considering that it would appear more professional.

It's not much of a concern but rather a suggestion. 192.235.8.2 (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally believe that it would appear more professional if the list was organized by alphabetical order rather than title length. Organizing the list by title length seems quite random. Stratocracy (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletions Needed?

I've been looking through the list and it appears that a few of the discoveries mentioned are were not discovered entirely by US citizens, for example:

• 2002 - Laomedeia, Halimede, Sao: discovered by American Matthew J. Holman and Canadians John J. Kavelaars and Dan Milisavljevic.

If they were to be listed they'd need to be considered US-Canadian discoveries.

I propose that those mentioned above be deleted immediately. Any objections? If none are listed by Thursday then I'll proceed. Stratocracy (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Stratocracy, I have some leads on discoveries which you might want to check out and add to your growing list....

Pentothal, discovered by Ernest Volwiler and Donalee Tabern

Neuroelectric systems, invented by Daniel DiLorenzo

I hope this info helps you... --Yoganate79 (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm have a lot of trouble trying to find the exact year in which sodium pentathol was discovered because apparently every website mentioning the discoveries only states that it was discovered in the 1930s. Despite this I'll continue searching for the exact year. Stratocracy (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Section headings

Why the arbitrary historical divisions? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the pre-Independence and up to 1800 as the first section then by decade or 25 year period thereafter? – ukexpat (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

[copying answer from my talk page] The reason why Timeline of United States inventions and discoveries was purposely sub-headed into historical time periods was because the page in its inception had gotten a lot of criticism for placing inventions prior to 1776 (pre-independence) as "United States" inventions when in fact, the United States did not exist before 1776. The page had been sub-headed by century, yet it was misleading since some of the inventions listed in the 18th century were not developed when the U.S. came about. Hence to satisfy the nay sayers, it was changed a long time ago to highlight the fact that inventions before 1776 were from the "Colonial Period" and not when the "United States" existed. --Yoganate79 (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So why would my suggestion not work? Have the first section as "Pre-Independence to 1800", then by decades or similar thereafter? The current divisions seem arbitrary to me, by date makes much more sense. – ukexpat (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea, contingent upon that these factors are taken into consideration....

1.) All inventions prior to the year 1776 are emphasized to the fact that they were invented by the American people, yet before the United States existed. This has to be done in order to appease those who have criticized these inventions in the past. Otherwise, people will be up in arms.

2.) The sub-heading has to be manageable so that the edit sections have low bytes. Meaning, the longer the sections, the longer it takes to upload new inventions, discoveries, and information.

3.) Consult with Stratocracy. He is a big contributor to this page and any big change shouldn't be done without his prior consultation.

If the sub-headers are changed again. This is only my opinion of how it should possibly be.

Before 1776 After 1776 1800 1810 1820 1830... etc, etc, etc until it reaches 2000

We previously did it by century... 1800, 1900, and 2000 and the sections were next to impossible since uploading information took a ridiculous amount of time. They were just too long and impractical in that format. --Yoganate79 (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Inventions & discoveries that need years

From now on I will be compiling a list of inventions and discoveries that were invented/found by Americans but need the exact years of the discovery or invention. If anyone can assist me please do so by posting the needed year(s) with an link. In addition, feel free to add if you have any. Stratocracy (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Active protection system
• Allen's test
• Brain fingerprinting
• Cardiotocograph
• Computational linguistics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gubuduzu (talk • contribs) 03:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Constraint-induced movement therapy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratocracy (talk • contribs) 00:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Cot analysis
• Dichroic glass
• Dryvax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratocracy (talk • contribs) 08:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Dual-tone multi-frequency —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khakistani (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Fitch-style calculus
• Hybrid sulfur cycle
• Ignitron
• Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
• Neohesperidin dihydrochalcone
• Nephelometer: invented by Theodore William Richards
• Night vision
• Positron emission tomography
• Prolotherapy
• Shore durometer
• Spindt tip
• Teleidoscope
• Weather radar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.10.117 (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Stratocracy,

I am doing some research on your list. I will keep you posted and informed when I get some stuff available.

In the meantime, I have something for you to put up.

Blood Bank, invented by Dr. Charles Drew in the year 1941 I believe.

Also, Richard Lewison was very instrumental in the field of meatology as well.

Here is a reference for you to use in a citation. http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bldrew.htm

--Yoganate79 (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

a problem with the images

it appears that whenever i visit the article page it takes a really really long time for everything to download.it seems that the really high resolution images are causing problems with loading the page for me. can someone possibly subsitute lower resolution images in place of some of the high resolution images for those who have slower internet connection speeds? Gubuduzu (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

All of the images on Wikipedia are high resolution regardless. And I doubt if they can or could be substituted with any other pictures because the majority of the photos on Wikipedia are not free domain. They have to be legal. And that's just silly. Changing pictures just because one person, you cannot see them. In that case, we might as well just delete every photo on every Wiki page since only you have a slow internet connection. --Yoganate79 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Changing the pictures isn't going to help you anymore than it will help anybody else with a slow internet connection. The loading time for all photos are the same on every other Wiki page. Besides,its not the pictures which slow down the page loading up. It is the size of the page itself since there is too much information on here. Some of these inventions, for instance DEET (a bug spray) and "Courier type face" are not inventions. Too many stuff on here with too little substance. --74.33.13.121 (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not Inventions

Okay, who ever is adding such things as DEET, Courier type face, YouTube, Google, and Wikipedia is getting too carried away. For example, these web pages listed are not "inventions", they are "developments" of the evolution of the internet and the W.W.W. And I am sure no doubt that DEET wasn't and will not be the first and last bug spray. Courier typeface? It wasn't the first type face.

Also, the .357 Magnum. This is not an invention nor was it the first revolver. The Magnum is a development of a previous invention. Honestly, who ever keeps expanding this list is getting quite desperate and this page is becoming silly.

The sources are excellent and credible, but some of the content is inappropriate. --74.33.13.121 (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree even though I'm responsible for such. I sometimes allow my 10-year-old cousin to use my account to add any entries and he went a overboard apparently. It seems that I'll have to teach him to use better discretion if he ever intends on using my account again to add entries.

In addition, I'd like to delete the diseases and scientific effect entries. No one really knows what Hailey-Hailey disease, Cogan syndrome, Kirkendall effect, etc are anyway and they're not really that significant.

I'd like such entries to be removed ASAP but I also want to get other people's opinions.

Before, any deletions occur a list of deletion candidates should be compiled first.

Anyone else agree? Stratocracy (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose that the following entries face deletion due to having little relevance (if anyone has any objections please mention why such shouldn't be deleted):

• 1872 Discovery of causalgia
• 1872 Discovery of Huntington's disease
• 1878 Discovery of erythromelalgia
• 1880 Discovery of the Hall effect
• 1885 Discovery of salmonella
• 1888 Discovery of the Munroe effect
• 1888 Discovery of Dercum's disease
• 1906 Discovery of the Lyman series
• 1907 Discovery of the Ramsay Hunt syndromes
• 1907 Discovery of Whipple's disease
• 1912 Discovery of Sever's disease
• 1920 Discovery of the Miller effect
• 1921 Discovery of Dandy-Walker syndrome
• 1922 Discovery of Stevens-Johnson syndrome
• 1924 Discovery of Libman-Sacks endocarditis
• 1931 Discovery of Canavan disease
• 1932 Discovery of Cushing's syndrome
• 1934 .357 Magnum
• 1937 Discovery of McCune-Albright syndrome
• 1938 Discovery of Jarcho-Levin syndrome
• 1939 Discovery of Hailey-Hailey disease
• 1944 Discovery of Cogan syndrome
• 1946 Discovery of Potter's syndrome
• 1948 Discovery of the Kirkendall effect
• 1948 Discovery of the Stebbins-Whitford effect
• 1951 Discovery of Churg-Strauss syndrome
• 1951 Discovery of Gardner's syndrome
• 1952 Discovery of Farber disease
• 1954 Discovery of Bloom syndrome
• 1955 Courier typeface
• 1955 Discovery of Cronkhite-Canada syndrome
• 1955 Discovery of Conn syndrome
• 1956 Discovery of Castleman disease
• 1959 Discovery of Prinzmetal's angina
• 1960 Discovery of Shy-Drager syndrome
• 1963 Discovery of Noonan syndrome
• 1964 Discovery of Lesch-Nyhan syndrome
• 1965 Discovery of the Hayflick limit
• 1968 Discovery of Kennedy disease
• 1969 Discovery of Sly syndrome
• 1973 Discovery of asymptotic freedom
• 1973 Discovery of fetal alcohol syndrome
• 1975 Discovery of Antley-Bixler syndrome
• 1975 Discovery of Susac's syndrome
• 1976 Discovery of Berdon syndrome
• 1986 Discovery of Smith-Magenis syndrome
• 1994 Amazon.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratocracy (talk • contribs) 00:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• 1998 Google
• 2001 Wikipedia
• 2004 Facebook
• 2005 YouTube
• 2006 Twitter

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratocracy (talk • contribs) 23:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Twitter (Development of the www) 2. YouTube (Development of the www) 3. Google (Development of the www) 4. Amazon.Com (Development of the www) 5. Facebook (Development of the www) 6. Wikipedia (Development of the www) 7. NASA X-43 (The Australians beat the U.S. in building and launching a scramjet) 8. Monopoly (Not the first board game) 9. Barbie Doll (Not the fitst doll) 10. Scrabble (Not the first board game) 11. SpaceShipOne (It was not the first commercial and space tourist craft) 12. Galileo spacecraft (Again, it was not the first satellite to explore another planet) 13. Teddy Bear (Not the first stuffed animal) 14. .357 Magnum (It wasn;t the first cartridge revolver)

--Yoganate79 (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Yoganate79.

I believe that the proposed entries in both Yoganate79's and my lists face deletion. Any objections? Stratocracy (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Go and delete them --Yoganate79 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll start deleting them now. Stratocracy (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I've deleted all the entries on both Yoganate79's list and my list. Are there any other potential deletion candidates? If anyone has any please list them.Stratocracy (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Too Long

This list really is getting ridiculous and who ever is adding to it is getting unreasonably desperate. What is with all of the chemical elements? Berkelium? Meson Quark? Californium? Discovery of Nex?

Half of this stuff isn;'t even remotely of significance let alone worth mentioning and if everything was listed of which America has invented, this page would be infinitely long. There has to be a line drawn at some point. --ToseyTwo (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when are chemical elements not worth mentioning? Subatomic particles are incredibly difficult to find and are integral for use in complex nuclear and particle physics.

I could see myself agreeing with you on the issue of mentioning planetary moons but otherwise I consider most everything else listed to have value. Stratocracy (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well at some point, I have to agree that yes, this list will become too long that the length and size will turn people off. The U.S. Patent Office has over 7.5 million inventions registered since 1790. Obviously, we cannot list all of them. So there should be some restraint where only the more important and better known inventions and discoveries should be added in the future. It's all about quality, not quantity. --Yoganate79 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to delete the planetary moon entries as they don't seem to bear much significance. Do you agree? Stratocracy (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I'd keep what is already on here. As it looks right now everything is fantastic. I am just saying though that in the future, America is going to invent a lot in the 21st century. And while we add those inventions, we can;'t keep adding every single invention from the past two and a half centuries. Otherwise, this page is going to be as thick as an Bible in web form.

The planetary discoveries are very important. I say keep everything as it is. But in the future, let's really think long and hard about whether the stuff we want to add is really important. --Yoganate79 (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps from now on we should create a section in the discussion page in which we post potential invention/discovery candidates beforehand and decide whether they should/should not be listed? Stratocracy (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to do that, then go for it. Obviously inventions and discoveries which are famous, popular, well known, and of scientific and technological importance should automatically be added. And if you find that stuff, then keep adding it to the page. All I am saying is that inevitably, this page is going to keep growing due to the 21st century creeping up upon us. However, choose wisely because before we know it, this page could end up having a thousand inventions on it.

This country has a lot ot be PROUD of, and this page proves it. --Yoganate79 (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Vaccines are developed not discovered

why are the vaccine entries called discoveries not inventions eventhough it should be the other way around/?

shouldn't the vaccines be called by their brand name and not just "HPV vaccine"? just calling them that seems odd and not really true because their could be other vaccines for the same illnesses and diseasese.. 192.235.8.2 (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The HPV vaccine by Dr. James Thompson was the very first and none came before it. Vaccinations are not just "invented." They are discovered through scientific research.

And as such, Dr. Jonas Salk's polio vaccine was deemed a "discovery" by the press in 1952. These people spend literally years finding a suitable treatment for these diseases and not just something they necessarily invent. They either come upon them by accident or by pure luck. --Yoganate79 (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Findings of Dinosaur Bones

In 1877, S.W. Williston discovered and unearthed the first complete set of Diplodocus fossils. Williston indentified and classified this species of dinosaur.

In 1877, Othniel Charles Marsh discovered and unearthed the first complete set of Brontosaurus fossils. Marsh indentified and classified this species of dinosaur.

In 1877, Benjamin Mudge discovered and unearthed the first complete set of Allosaurus fossils. He later classified and named this species of dinosaur.

In 1877, Othniel Charles Marsh discovered and unearthed the first complete set of Stegosaurus fossils. He later classified and named this species of dinosaur.

In 1887, Othniel Charles Marsh discovered and unearthed the first complete set of Triceratop fossils. He later classified and named this species of dinosaur.

In 1902, Barnum Brown discovered and unearthed the first complete set of Tyrannosaurus rex fossils. In 1905, Henry Fairfield Osborn classified it as a species and named it T rex.

My question is, are these discoveries warrant enough to add to our list?

I would like to hear your opinion and your thoughts about this. --Yoganate79 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

discovering and identifying types dinosaurs seems worthy of being listed but discoveries of the fossils doesn't. fossils are found by pure luck not through hard scientific research like how chemical elements are found.

i think discoveries should only be listed if they were found through hard scientific research not by luck. abyone could probably find some fossils if they dug enough holes throughout the US but only a highly educated specialist could find a vaccine, identify a new type dinosuar/chemical element or discover a type of galaxy--something the average joe could never do.

so, basically i think that only the type of dinosaur is worthy of being mentioned due to the fact that it requires hard scientific research to identify and classify it,

i think the same iwth inventions. only inventions that required hard scientific research should be mentioned. Gubuduzu (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Gubuduzu. The discoveries of dinosaur genuses is very significant and worthy of being added but not the discoveries of their fossils because, frankly, anyone can discover fossils but it takes an intelligent scientist to identify them. So, just as Gubuduzu mentioned, identifying the dinosaur genuses requires plenty of scientific research which makes it worthy of being mentioned. Stratocracy (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. And I do agree. If we list every fossil discovery, then every plant and animal species discovered by Americans should be listed. Hence, it is impractical to do so.

The irony of this is that the discoveries which I listed above, they were all found by very famous paleontologists who not only found the first bones of these remains, but they also identified them and named them as a new species of pre-historic animals. Nevertheless, I don;t think they should be added after reading what you have written. --Yoganate79 (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually believe that the discoveries of those dinosaur genuses should be added but not the discoveries of the dinosaur fossils. Stratocracy (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then we should do it. However, I am wondering how we should write the short summary under the tags for each of them. Any thoughts? Maybe you should do it. --Yoganate79 (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they should be written as "Discovery of (dinosaur genus)". In the entry the discovery of the fossil can be mentioned although the discovery of the dinosaur genus should be the main aspect stressed. Stratocracy (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have got to thinking about this once again. Perhaps listing these dinosaurs is not warranted. These scientists only found the first fossils. Scholars knew that these species of dinosaurs existed before their bones were discovered and unearthed in the late 19th centuryt and early 20th century. So hence, nothing was really discovered except for finding the first fossilized remains. --Yoganate79 (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Bone marrow transplantation question

According the bone marrow transplantation article, Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, E Donnall Thomas is credited with creating the procedure and Robert Good is credited with conducted the first bone marrow transplantation.

Is it implying that Thomas's procedure failed? Should there be two articles mentioning their contribution or only one? How should the entry be written? Any clarification is welcomed. Stratocracy (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If E Donnall Thomas conceived the procedure, then start the entry with him as the inventor and with the date involved. Secondly, list Robert Good, if he is American, as the first person to perform a successful bone marrow transplant. --Yoganate79 (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Big Proposal

I have a proposition to make regarding this page. Since it has become undoubtedly too long to edit, read, and almost impossible to update due to the byte size, I am proposing that this page be split into two seperate pages.

1.) I propose that this current page remain exclusively as the invention page with the name "Timeline of United States inventions"

2.) I propose the creation of a new page entitled, "Timeline of United States discoveries and explorations"

Since there are more inventions than discoveries and explorations, the elimination of discoveries from this page will create a shorter page and become more user friendly. Links between this page and the new page will direct viewers between the two.

Secondly, a new page focusing only on United States discoveries and explorations will define exactly what constitutes an invention and what defines a discovery. The current format of this page is too ambiguous. We need to reach a definitive agreement on what is the definition of an invention and what constitutes a discovery.

And lastly, during the last few days, I have found some tremendous information on American discoveries and explorations which could validly be incoporated into a new page. Things such as dinosaur fossils, space explorations, Lewis and Clark, Daniel Boone, undersea explorations, etc.

Half the work would be done because the discoveries, as researched on this page, could be easily transferred to the new page.

If you refer to the Chinese pages, you will notice that they have three seperate and individual pages dedicated to Chinese inventions, Chinese discoveries, and Chinese explorations. I propose that the United States should follow suit. I would appreciate everybodys thoughts about this idea. --Yoganate79

I think splitting the article up into US inventions and US discoveries would be a brilliant idea but I don't understand the reason behind having US explorations included within the discoveries. I honestly think that the only entries listed in the discoveries article, as well as the inventions article, should be those that were invented/discovered through hard scientific research if I think what you mean by explorations. Stratocracy (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the first person to reach and explore the North Pole was an American, the first person to circumnavigate and set foot on the continent of Antarctica was American, the first person to set foot on the moon was American, the first person to discover and explore the wreckage of the RMS Titanic was American, the first person to discover the South Orkney Islands was American, the Lewis and Clark Expedition was exploration, Daniel Boone was the first to explore Kentucky, and Robert Gray was the first to explore and to settle Oregon. --Yoganate79 (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, never mind my last comment. I agree with the proposal and everything. Stratocracy (talk)

Back to this discussion, I've been thinking long and hard about this.

From what is currently on this page and other stuff out there not listed, there simply is not a sufficient amount of material relating to discoveries which constitutes creating a new page. A new page dedicated to United States discovieries would look rather embarassing since it would be very short. So I say let's nix this idea and keep the page as it is. --Yoganate79 (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is 417,000 bytes. It perhaps should be split up. Maybe split it by time? --124.182.139.56 (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That was done a few years ago and failed. All of those pages were merged into one page since they were all dealt with the same topic of U.S inventions. Splitting them up again, the same whiners and complainers on here will want all the pages splitted up merged once again. The Chinese invention page, the Indian page all have large byte sizes and none of their pages are split up. So why are you singling out just this page?

I've spent the last 3 months doing research for this page and citing when it has recently just been finished only to start helping others by working on alternative pages just because they have issues with the current format. So if you want to do it, by all means. But I won't help.

Another suggestion is to just nominate this page for deletion since everybody always has something to complain about it and not have any page dedicated to U.S inventions. --Yoganate79 (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Need date

Night vision device, invented by William Edward Spicer

The date of this invention is unknown, although it was invented in the 1940's during World War Two for the U.S. Army. So if anybody can find or knows a definitive date, please let me know or just go ahead and post the invention to the page. --Yoganate79 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Dayton inventions, opinions welcomed

The article List of Dayton inventions was recently nominated for deletion, and the result was "no consensus" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dayton inventions). Currently, the article has serious verifiability issues (see Talk:List of Dayton inventions). Anyone willing to comment on the article? Do we really want an article on this subject? Does it make sense? Opinions welcomed. Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I visited the page and made a comment. I believe that the page on List of Dayton inventions is unnecessary. The information added to it has no citations and no credibility to back it up. Likewise, it is not broad enough in scope, concentrating on one city in America. This page however, is broad since it covers all 50 states, 2 1/2 centuries, and a clear representation of over 8 million patents awarded to Americans since the first one was given in 1790. --Yoganate79 (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Nanotechnology

Was nanotechnology discovered by Richard Feynman? According to the wiki article, Nanotechnology, it seems to imply that he was the first to describe it but I'm not sure. If he was the first to describe it then it should be included as a discovery entry to the article. Gubuduzu (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Skimming through my hard cover collection of Encyclopedia Britannica, it says that Richard Feynman was the first to conceptualize and to develop what is known as Nanotechnology. I hope this helps. --Yoganate79 (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

description and topics box

someone should add a short and neutral description to the page above the table of contents just like the English inventions page has one.

i think somone should also add the article to the united states topics box at the bottom of the page.

ok Justintrouble (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A good suggestion, although it will have to be very short. If you did not already know, this page is the largest on Wikipedia by byte size. I think we should include some research revolving around U.S. patents into the introduction as it ties into the historical context of U.S. inventions. I will write something up in the next day or so and post into onto this discussion forum so everybody can see it and make alternations if necessary. --Yoganate79 (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I really like your description, Yoganate79 although I'd like to make a suggestion.

Just as Justintrouble suggested, perhaps it should be more neutral and in my opinion, modest. For example the sentence:

The American people are internationally known for their unlimited resources of cutting-edge innovation and ingenuity in the fields of biotechnology, medicine, aviation and aerospace, military hardware, computer science, green energy, and space exploration.

Perhaps it can be modified to:

The American people have contributed much to the fields of biotechnology, medicine, aviation and aerospace, military hardware, computer science, green energy, and space exploration.

Lastly, just as Justintrouble mentioned previously, the inventions article should probably be added somewhere in the United States topics box at the bottom of the page. Stratocracy (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. I never intended the introductory article to be final. But it is a fact, the United States does generate more innovation than most other countries in this world. It is obvious.

You are correct though. Everybody should have a say in its formation. As an editor, I am only putting my English degree to good use. Please make the changes necessary so that it remains neutral. --Yoganate79 (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

transistor

according to wikpedia mr. shockley was born to american parents in the uk but they came back and raised him as an american. therefore the transistor can be considered an american inventon.

even encylcopedia britnnica lists him as n american http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/541359/William-B-Shockley

he may been born in the uk but he was raisedd as an american lived as an american educated as an american and died as an american.

the entry should be reinstated. Zukabovich (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you absolutrly sure of this? I have been reading that Mr. Shockley is a British citizen and subject who immigrated to the United States, but never became a citizen.

Add it if you want....

But what exactly defines a "British born" as he is claimed to be or for that matter, an American citizen? --Yoganate79 (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

he was born to american parents and thus he can obtain dual citizenship.

in the following YT vid he speaks with an american accent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWGVuoisDbI

he may have been born in the uk but he was raised as an american from the age of 3Zukabovich (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah go ahead and add it...

I had put it on the list yesterday and had seen that he had UK citizenship after I had put it on the list. So I took it off.

I'm sorry for reverting your entry as well.

However, in the paragraph, I would mention that he was an American citizen born to American parents so that there will not be confusion in the future for others on here. --Yoganate79 (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

no problems. i wouldn't blame you anyway. the issues of being foreign born to parents of different nationalities can raise lots of questions and be confusing. Zukabovich (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, William Shockley is in fact an American. I'm sorry! --Yoganate79 (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

no worries it's okay. as i've said things such as that can be confusing but everything's sorted out well now. Zukabovich (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Invention of the Fortune Cookie

After doing extensive research, it is quite evident that the fortune cookie is a modern invention attributed to America. Having said that, there are two conflicting claims.

Makoto Hagiwara, a Japanese-American from San Francisco claims to have invented the fortune cookie in 1907. In 1918, David Jung, a Chinese-American from Los Angeles claims to have invented the fortune cookie.

So, which person, if any, do we choose? Or should we even list the fortune cookie at all? --Yoganate79 (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

whoever invented it first should listed and thingsa aagjgajlka0932

the list looks really general enough to be open to any american invention Zukabovich (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 262sdga262363263

But which person.... Makoto Hagiwara or David Jung? --Yoganate79 (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete

I believe that this page should be deleted. People have suggested that the broad topic of U.S. inventions be broken up into smaller pages and scatter all of this information to multiple pages on Wikipedia. So I think this page should be deleted immediately and those who wish to create new pages should create them to their own liking and therefore, they can do all of the editing, research, and citations. I've nominated this page for deletion. Any objections? --Yoganate79 (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

why should it be deleted? the articles on the inventions of every country is as broad as this article is and therefore those article must be deleted and scattered everywhere if that were the case for this article. 15asdgasdg3165 62rmnzlsdf2ddl55 qoozooqoo

is it because of size? the size of this article can be reduced by organizing the inventions into categories with no descriptions just like the english, scottish, canadian german inventions articles are organized. i'd be willing to do that if its about size. Zukabovich (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC) agdasdga3832-236 wugguzzugga blik blik gwim gwam

Well since I have provided the majority of editing, researc,h and have added the most citations to this page in the last 3 months or so, perhaps I should just delete my contributions to this list in order to make it smaller. I don't anyone plagiarizing the stuff I have written. --Yoganate79 (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And I agree, creating a list like the scantilyand badly written English inventions would only degrade its format. China has a page with detailed information, so there shouldn't be an exception for the U.S. inventions --Yoganate79 (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

perhaps just shortening the inventions descriptions to just a sentence or two might reduce the size. i think every entry should remain but just reduce the descriptions to a sentence or two. Zukabovich (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why does India and China have detailed pages? --Yoganate79 (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm not really certain as to why you are suggesting the deletion. is it because others have claimed it's too big or something? if it is then its size can also be reduced by removing some images. Zukabovich (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Do what you want. I've spent the past three months and a great deal of my free time doing the majority of research, adding pictures, editing, and citations for this page. If you feel everything I've written needs deleted, then do so. I am finished with Wikipedia for good. Adios. --Yoganate79 (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm just trying to figure out why you suggested the deletion of the article.

if it's because of the size then i just added my suggestions.

i'm grateful for your contributions and believe that it should remain as it is but i'm just trying to understand some things. Zukabovich (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that this page really can't be split. And here is the reasoning. This is a timeline. And timelines establish historical continuity. And if broken up, that breaks up the purpose of this entore page. I think as this is a list of dated inventions, every invention isn't meant or intended to be read word for word. This is merely a reference for people to pick and choose what they want to learn more about as they continue to skim and progress farther down the page.

By the way, the references and the information is excellent on this page. Who ever has done the research, it is very impressive. I am from Germany and I had no idea that Americans have done and given so much for the world. I say keep this marvelous page as is. Danke. --Zeppher (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Great work

I don't think this page should be deleted at all. This article is incredible. I just added a US banner to the top. Has anyone thought of submitting this as a featured list candidate? Please consider, because this article is fantastic.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think this article is PERFECT and beautifully. Nothing should be changed to it. Who cares if it is long. This page was not meant to be read word for word, instead it is a page for quick reference as you skim down it. I had no idea that Americans have done and given so much to the world. I am impressed. Since I am German, I am going to help with German inventions after seeing this page.

China and USA have the two best inventions pages on Wikipedia for sure. --Zeppher (talk) 02:08, 30 March 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)