Talk:List of Serbian inventions and discoveries/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removal of content

I noticed mass reverts on Serbian inventions. I have issues with this. #1 issue is that Constantine was an Illyrian from the territory of present Serbia. This makes him an ethnic relative of the natives of Serbia. Serbians Are Serbian by name but descendants of ages of balkan people. If you look at any other lists for countries you will notice the same pattern. Contributors who are not from the present day modern country name. #2 Vinča culture is equal to the Chinese list depicting their ancient culture or the Italian list discussing Etrucan contributions or the Pakistan list talking about the Indus valley civilization from 10000 years ago. #3 the vampire is a cultural contribution, ones of the like found in all nations lists. Some nations even have sections entirely to cultural contributions. This is very inconsistent

1. 4 I noticed you removed nonalinged movement which is a political movement and political movements are most definitely included in other countries lists

Please, provide wp:reliable sources that say Edict of Milan, Non-Aligned Movement or "Inspiration for 007" are Serbian invention or discovery. I'm waiting to see that. WP:Verifiability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. On the other hand, WP:other stuff exists is not. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, why did you remove my addition of the {{Inventions}} template? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Edict of Milan was initiated by Constantine who i just discussed is Illyrian. If you look at genetic study of Serbs they are mainly i2 which was formed in the Balkan 30 000 years ago. Non aligned movement was initiated by Tito and political movements have been allowed so far And I'm sorry I removed the template I didn't notice. I'll put it back

• What your are making is an WP:Original research which is not allowed. Do you have any reliable source that proves that those are Serbian inventions? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

All of the items are sourced. Like I said these are contributions from people of the present day territory of Serbia during all periods of history. That is how other lists work too such as Pakistan discussing Indus valley contributions. On the article for Constantine it states he was Illyrian from present day Niš. On the genetic study of Serbians you can see the genetic history and how the Serbians are slavicized Illyrian/Thracians. All of these items comply with the information and patterns currently on Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I-M438 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs (First paragraph)

Ok, so you obviously do not have any source that refer to those as Serbian inventions. I'm going to revert the list. Please, do not add things to the list if you don't have reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The sources are already included in the list. I don't understand what you want from me? You want a source that says Constantine was a serb even though he lived before the migration of slavs? The vinča items have sources attached to them. Again I'm not sure what more you want me to give you if sources are there stating that the Vinča culture did what is said. You're acting as though all the people who existed before the migration of Serbs vanished and were eradicated.. every one of those items were sourced or comply fully with the article.

The title of this page is "List of Serbian discoveries and inventions". I want you to show reliable sources that refer to those as "Serbian discoveries and inventions". Is that too hard to understand? You use this source to prove that miniskirt is Serbian invention, but it doesn't say it is Serbian invention. You are doing WP:ORIGINALSYN which is not allowed. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The vinča was not called Serbian just like Indus valley was not called Pakistan and Persia was not called Iran but on the list for both of those countries it includes Indus and Persian contributions

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_Iran https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pakistani_inventions_and_discoveries https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions "Inventions which originated in what is now China during the Neolithic age and prehistoricBronze Age are listed in alphabetical order below."

We are not discussing Pakistan or Iran. We are discussing this article and we are discussing the lack of reliable sources. Please, revert your edit. Edit warring to restore unsourced material is not what you should be doing. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

So only Serbia is not allowed to include Neolithic inventions ? Interesting You want me to give you a source that states miniskirt is Serbian but you won't accept miniskirt is vinča even though every other country can have prehistoric inventions. You want me to find you a source that says Constantine is a serb when he was Illyrian which was the old name for the people of that territory

I have come up with a number of sources like you asked only to have a user revert me with the excuse of a bull* assumption of me being a "duck".

Inclusion criteria

It is hard to make any progress with these lists and categories until we can agree some criteria for what should be included here. There is some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology#National invention categories. Please join in. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Dogfight

Regarding the edit war over the "dogfight" section, these are sourced points from our dogfight article:

• The "first" dogfight was the incident between two Americans during the Mexican Revolution, though the pilots intentionally missed.
• The first known incidence of a gun being used in aerial combat was the incident described by the IP, but the IP has the facts wrong: an Austro-Hungarian pilot fired a hand-held pistol at a Serbian, who was unarmed.
• The first aircraft equipped with forward-firing machine guns were developed independently by the French and Dutch.

The claim that Serbians "invented" dogfighting is just plain wrong. Don't add it back. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Vinča culture

What about the source stating Serbians are genetic relatives to the old European cultures ? Please enlighten me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8388:1807:7200:288c:ebc2:398e:7ea5 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for restoring this section (courtesy ping Vanjagenije) initiated by a sockpuppet, but I think the point needs to be addressed and resolved once and for all. I did take a look at the IP's source ([1]) versus the IP's claim that modern Serbians are genetically descended from the Vinča culture, and by extension that innovations of the Vinča people can be claimed as Serbian. tl;dr: it's all nonsense.

First, the source doesn't say modern Serbians are descended from Vinča. The study analyzes the genetic makeup of and migration (I don't know if that's the right term) between Neolithic cultures in southeastern Europe (Romania specifically) and says almost nothing about how these cultures influence the genetic makeup of modern European populations. It also says very little about Vinča specifically. And this is important: it says nothing about cultural heritage.

The IP's claim that Vinča innovations should be grouped with the list of much later Serbian discoveries seems based entirely on the fact that the Vinča culture was physically co-located with modern Serbia, but co-location is a bad indicator of cultural continuity, especially in Europe. There's no evidence that the Vinča culture evolved into modern Serbian culture; quite the opposite: scholars generally agree that Vinča simply declined, prior to the migrations of proto-Indo-Europeans from which most modern European cultures descend. Besides, there's nearly 6000 years between the abandonment of the Vinča site and the first Slavic cultures. Vinča innovations are no more Serbian than they are Greek or Roman, or Russian or Chinese or Australian, for that matter.

If there's good sourcing (I'm not sure about that) then Vinča innovations are important to list somewhere, probably in a separate list of prehistoric European inventions, but not here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Genetic relationships are irrelevant. We have an article on the History of the Serbs which clearly states it started in the early Middle Ages. That's where this list should start. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Tesla laundry list

Cleaned up this this laundry list of "Tesla Inventions", for multiple reasons: they were not an invention, the sourcing was very poor, they were nether an invention or discovery of Tesla, source does not state it is a Tesla invention, linked article does not state it was a Tesla invention. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Factual accuracy - not all are inventions or discoveries

eg Apollo, "Research into the action of neutrons on the heavy elements.", "early plastics", pioneer or pioneering work, etc. I also question the inclusion of various types of computers - at what point is that different from various models of cars? Quantom discord seems to have had several inventors but this list suggests only one. Robot locomotion isn't an invention. And Karst? Somoene invented a rock? "A number of geographic theories" is far too vague for inclusion. Specific "theories" are needed. Ditto "various tools" and "research into". Doug Weller talk 18:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. You have a point about karst, but it notable for the region and future work in the area. I belive that you could help us improve the article with additional info and refs. :) Sadko (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I can smell a familiar old smell here (I'm sure some people remember what and who I'm talking about). Now, first of all, the list should not include non-notable things that do not have their own article. This applies to stand-alone lists on Wikipedia in general. The list should not list primarily people instead of discoveries either. This is a list of discoveries, not discoverers. The list should not include unsourced, WP:NPOV-violating claims either. And please let's not try the same old "of Serbian descent" tricks again.

So I removed red links, items with no links to articles, items that did not list discoveries but discoverers, and unsourced claims. If you still feel some of the listed discoveries are not discoveries, feel free to remove them, too.

Generally, I think these "List of national discoveries" articles should not exist on Wikipedia at all. People who remember what I'm talking about probably understand why.—J. M. (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no "trick" at play (?!), it just happens that a number of Serb scientists and inventors worked and are working abroad. What are you going on about? There is no need to get upset about something of this sort. On the other hand, I have not seen such a page rampage on other standalone lists in question. I think that it's better to include certain info. (article or not) if it is notable enough. Sadko (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Then you've missed a lot, including the numerous sockpuppets making fraudulent claims in this article. I agree only discoveries or inventions with articles belong here, we need evidence that they are notable and that's the best way. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree about the 'descent' issue - if we did that for the US the only people listed would be Native Americans. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the Serbs are working abroad—if they're Serbs, they're Serbs. This "descent" trick has been tried numerous times before, for example to list an American born in America, with an American father of Bulgarian origin and an Irish/French mother, as a Bulgarian inventor. Which is ridiculous. It's just a desperate trick to include as much nationalist content as possible in these lists. And it's just one of many dishonest, manipulative tricks used in these articles. They simply attract fanatic, nationalist editors and notorious sock puppets who do not care about the factual accuracy or about the Wikipedia rules, they only care about promoting their region at all costs. And that's also why I think these articles should not exist, as it's very difficult to protect them (without using full protection).—J. M. (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)