Talk:List of Italian inventions and discoveries

Introduction modifies

I think this new intro is more clear.

The following is a list and timeline of innovations as well as inventions and discoveries that involves Italians, meaning by definition a native or inhabitant of Italy or a person of Italian descent,[1] including people -living in the Italic peninsula or abroad- or in predecessor states in the history prior to the formation of the Italian state. This list covers innovation and invention in the mechanical, electronic, and industrial fields, as well as medicine, military devices and theory, artistic and scientific discovery and innovation, and ideas in philosophy, religion and ethics.

Remaining lines of the introduction have to be changed according to new intro statements. Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Addressing concerns

I am really grateful for the recent constructive contribution on the page; please note:

• My introduction had originally been modeled on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_inventions_and_discoveries, which was later found to be incompatible with Wikipedia criteria. See my personal talk page. The current version has been modeled on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Dutch_inventions_and_discoveries and therefore does not violate "objectiveness". If the expression "the source of important inventions and innovations" is to be considered original research, then the introduction can be changed with "Italy is considered the birthplace of Western civilization[sources]. Italian inventions and innovations cover the fields of(...)".
• because in the past this page was targeted by "vandalic rigorous censorship", that is, received a strong contribution in the demolition and deletion of entries, and because it has been marked as an unreliable page, my focus has been on providing reliable sources so that this page could with time reach the level of other similar pages. It is essential for every new statement to be copyright-checked and sourced.
• please do mark the page as "in use" during heavy editing so I will not risk of interfering
• I am still unsure about these entries: confetti, music school, giorgi system, di pietro air engine, radiator, afterburner, Italian school of swordsmanship, fisarmonica (leonardo da vinci e Mariano Dallapè). All these entries shall not be restored without many sources to back them.

--TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you know?

According to some pages about inventions and discoveries, if someone was born in the geographical region defining the present-day country then his/her inventions can be listed on the page of that country, for example: Giovanni Luppis on the Croatian page. Well, did you know that Archimedes was born in present-day Italy? I could, with the same reasoning, list his achievements on the page about Italian inventions and discoveries. Don't worry, it's just a mental experiment: I am not that disrespectful.--TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Marconi

Did not invent the Telephone and this has been debunked numerous times. He built a device yes, but it was not the electromagnetic phone that Alexander's was. Marconi also claimed his device did many things that came out to be inaccurate when the device was actually put to the test which is why he did not get the patent for it. This needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:C92F:D438:5CE:65AA (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Italians Claim That Antonio Meucci Invented the telephone,not Marconi. Are you claiming that the article is factually inaccurate because of this? Nowhere in the article I claim that Marconi invented the telephone. This is insanity!!! stop wasting my time with this stuff!!! There is a congressional resolution that should have settled this argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_HRes._269_on_Antonio_Meucci

Removal of dubious entries

I have done some copyediting. In particular:

• Removed as probably non-Italian or not inventions: Coffee maker (French, according to the article

, Confetti (use of paper instead of sweets is a British invention), Cologne (the city is hardly an "invention", perfumes are Babylonian in origin), Eau de Cologne, Acqua di Colonia or simply "Cologne" is a unique perfume unlike other perfumes. As such it is a new product and a new invention.

Fabian strategy (attrition warfare is mentioned earlier by Sun Tzu, for example) Fabian Strategy is not attrition warfare. Who was sun Tzu? What Battle did he fight? What did he conquer? What year was he born? and in what year did he die? Did he really exist? Or is he just a legend? Quintus Fabius Maximus "Cunctator" is a real military commander. He measured himself against Hannibal one of the greatest generals of all time. Who was the opponent of Sun Tzu? did he win against third rate generals? if you commanded an Army, whose lessons would you trust for advice? where does Sun Tzu mention attrition warfare? provide that passage here!!

, Mole-Richardson (a company), Monte Cervino Battalion (a troop formation, not an invention), Jacuzzi (the company was founded by Italian immigrants, but no indication that the whirlpool bathtubs were an Italian invention), naphtha (no indication of Italian influence, word itself is a Persian loanword), Radio direction finder (first patent by an American seven years before the first Italian gets mentioned), Slow Food (not an invention), Sphygmomanometer (invented by a German, improved by an Italian - not an Italian invention), Sprezzatura (mode of conduct, not an invention), Torpedo (invented by a Croatian and an Englishman in Croatia for the Austrian Navy),

• Removed as duplication: Aerial warfare as duplicate of airstrikes, Glasses as duplicate of eyeglasses, Invention of radio as duplicate of radio, Fax as duplicate of the more specific Pantelegraph,
• Various other dubious candidates received {{fact}} tags,
• For several others I added short descriptions, including the inventor and/or the date.

The list still needs more sources and more explanation for the remaining entries. Thermometer, for example, should probably point to the Galileo thermometer. Huon (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the entries I mentioned above get creeping back in, without addressing the points I made. In particular:

• The Fabian Strategy is back, and no, it's still not a guerrilla strategy, and the Chinese still knew of attrition warfare long before Fabius Maximus Cunctator.
• Cologne, the German city, is back... with a description indicating that what's meant is the perfume - just this particular type of perfume while other brands were known millennia earlier. Not really much of an invention.
• The Jacuzzi is back, despite probably being invented by a natural-born American. Italian ancestry does not make this an Italian invention.

There are also some new dubious entries:

• Radiator (heating): The entry admits that the inventor was a "Polish/Russian Engineer" (actually he was born in Prussia, though it's nowadays within Poland). As with the Jacuzzi, Italian descent does not make this an Italian invention.

YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN HUON. according to JUS SANGUINIS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis) which is how Italians determine who is Italian or not, it does not matter how many generations you have been removed from Italy, or where you were born; if you can prove Italian descent by blood, you are Italian (read the section under Italy). Being born on Italian soil does not confer automatically Italian citizenship, only blood confers it. You could be born on the Moon and still be an Italian citizen.

• Vermouth: Duplicate from the separate food&drink list.
• Vespa: While the Vespa is clearly Italian, motor scooters in general are not, and they were known for decades before the Vespa was designed.

Finally, there are some entries which I consider dubious in principle:

• Roman law: The invention of codified law dates back to Hammurabi. While the Roman version is (obviously) Italian and became widely influential, it's more of an organic development, not an invention.
• Alpini: They were an outgrowth of the more general development of Jäger light infantry, and the idea of raising troops in mountainous territory for use in that territory is much older (possibly Roman, which ironically would still make it Italian, but we'd need a source). There was not much inventing going on when the Alpini were created. In particular, the Austro-Hungarian Tiroler Kaiserjäger filled exactly the same role as the Alpini, but they are an outgrowth of units raised in the early 1800s.

Wikipedia article states that the Tiroler Kaiserjagers were started in 1895, thus after the Alpini. before that there were just Jagers, which are light infantry and not specifically designed for mountain warfare.

• Italian school of swordsmanship: Again an organic development, partly an outgrowth of the older German school of swordsmanship. Not really an invention.
• Roman aqueduct: Clearly Italian, but predated by non-Roman aqueducts built millennia earlier.

I will remove all of the above. Huon (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have once again removed a couple of dubious entries, namely:

• Jacuzzi and Radiator (heating): The inventors were not Italians. Having Italian parents or grandparents does not make them so. See above.

YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN HUON. according to JUS SANGUINIS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis) which is how Italians determine who is Italian or not, it does not matter how many generations you have been removed from Italy, if you can prove Italian descent by blood, you are Italian (read the section under Italy). In this case YOU are arbitrarily deciding who is Italian and who is not, based on the place of birth. Being born on Italian soil does not confer automatically Italian citizenship. A person born on the Moon with an Italian grandfather would get citizenship and one born in Rome of foreign parents would not.

Many people here seem to argue that Inventions prior to the creation of the State of Italy in 1860 are not "Italian" because the modern state of Italy did not exist before then. But as you can see civilization has existed in Italy since 3,300 years ago, has risen from an Etruscan origin and has continued uninterrupted, and if you scratch the surface you can find the Etruscan matrix that permeates it.

Italian Civilization is Etruscan civilization and it follows the blood rule since its start 3,300 years ago. Rome started out as a city ruled by Etruscan elites (check out how many of the seven kings were Etruscans and how many of the early consuls of the republic were Etruscans and you will get the idea). Rome was run by Etruscan blood. Modern Italian is the dialect of Florence (capital of Tuscany-land of the etruscans) and the Renaissance started in Tuscany, and was run by Etruscan blood. Northern Italians are Etruscans by blood [1]. There has been no interruption, no break in these 3,300 years, it was all driven by one civilization. Like it or not, Etruscan culture and civilization is the light that has driven western civilization for more than 3,000 years. Given that modern day Etruscans are now aging and are sharply decreasing in numbers due to low birth rate, Etruscan blood will disappear from the face of the earth in about 25 years (2040).

• Vespa, Roman law, Roman aqueduct and Italian school of swordsmanship: See above.
• Compass, canal and clock are all later than Chinese accomplishments, though in some cases the Chinese weren't even the first ones.
• Forks seem to have originated with the ancient Greeks. Pre-1100 examples are shown in our own article.
• Calcio Fiorentino: I doubt the rules to a game count as "invention" as these lists usually regard such things.

Ok, Huon: then go here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_innovations_and_discoveries and annoy the people that wrote this list and ask them to remove the 30 or so sport they have listed.

• The "convertible couch" entry was unsourced
• Latin alphabet: Similar to Roman law, this is an organic development, not an invention.
• Prints: I have no idea what Domenico Campagnola is supposed to have invented, but it's unsourced and not mentioned in either his article or the old master print article. The technique of making prints seems to have originated in Byzantine Egypt anyway.

Please do not re-add these entries without providing a rationale. Huon (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet more dubious entries removed:

• Afterburner: For all I can tell, what Campini built was a motorjet, which had been first described by a Frenchman and patented in 1917, more than a decade before Campini's plane was designed.
• Bassoon: According to that article, it's probably a French invention of the early 18th century. The dulcian on which it was based might be an Italian invention, but I could find no source to that effect.

Huon: since you are too lazy to do proper research, I did it and I put the references in the text of the article proving that the Bassoon was invented by Hyeronimus Bassano of Bassano del Grappa Italy

• Bicycle: With all due respect to da Vinci, I doubt he built a working model; our article instead credits Baron Karl von Drais with inventing the first forerunner of the bicycle.
• Bobbin: According to the Leonardo da Vinci article, what he invented was not the bobbin itself, but rather an "automated bobbin winder". I doubt that winder is significant enough for this list.
• Double winged lever corkscrew: Apparently patented first by H.S. Heeley, who was granted British patent No. 6006 on April 23, 1888. See here, for example. Getting the first American patent is not much of an invention.
• Electric motor: First fully functional examples built in the 1820s by a Hungarian.
• Electrophorus: While Volta improved and popularized the device, it was invented by a Swede.
• Energy Catalyzer: I'd like to see independent verification that this device actually works the way it's supposed to. As long as the scientific consensus says it can't work as advertised, we should not list it.
• Hydraulic motor: No source, and all I could find is that Agostino Ramelli depicted one, not that he invented it.
• Runic alphabet: While the runic alphabet was was based on Old Italic scripts, those were themselves derivations of the Greek alphabet. See also my explanation for the Latin alphabet.
• Seawalls were first built in England in 1623, predating Venice by more than a century.

• Seaplane: Calderara's plane was built in 1911, but French seaplanes flew in 1910.

Calderara's plane was a new model because the helix was in front, not behind the plane (biplano ad elica trattiva)like in the french models. It was a significant innovation. In the 1920s to 1930s italian seaplanes beat all existing speed records. In addition why would the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics bother to have a page on Mario calderara if his work was unimportant? (https://www.aiaa.org/SecondaryTwoColumn.aspx?id=15191). Do proper research Huon.

• Stock exchange: No indication that the van der Bourse family was Italian. For all I can tell "della Borsa" is just the literal translation of their name into Italian. THE "DELLA BORSA" family was a venetian family of merchants who moved to Bruges

• Steam turbine: While Giovanni Branca did describe a steam turbine, his device is not much of an improvement over the aeolipile described in the first century AD. There are also steam turbines described by an inventor in 16th century Ottoman Egypt.

I have also re-removed some entries that crept back in without addressing my previous concerns, namely the Latin alphabet, Roman aqueducts, Roman law and the torpedo. Furthermore, I have my doubts about the "advances in mathematics" and "contributions to music" section; for example, only one of the "mathematical" advances was actually mathematical. For now I renamed that section to "medical", which seems to describe most of the entries but not all. It mostly looks like an unsorted mess. While some of the entries might make valuable additions to the list, I would suggest using the talk page to propose entries, not the article proper. I am also rather unhappy about the low rate of entries added by Altes2009 that are worth keeping; every single entry must be checked, and I believe only three (possibly four, if there was a source for Leonardo's bicycle) of the last batch added to the list were without severe problems.

About the Torpedo. Giovan Battista Luppis The "Croatian" that invented the torpedo was ethnic Italian. Istria and Dalmatia where colonies of the republic of Venice for centuries and italian minorities inhabited those areas, even when it was under Austrian Rule. One is Italian if at least one of the parents is Italian, according to "Ius Sanguinis" (The right of the blood), such is the definition of an "Italian". Monte cervino Battalion is a troop formation but it is also the first (and only) formation of mountain paratrooper in the world. As such it is an invention, cause such a troop formation does not exist anywhere else.

Thank you for finally engaging in a discussion on the talk page. It would significantly help readability if you didn't interpose your text between mine but instead added it at the end; also, please sign your talk page edits with four tildes (~~~~) to produce a date stamp.

On the Fabian Strategy, our article says: "The Fabian strategy is a military strategy where pitched battles and frontal assaults are avoided in favor of wearing down an opponent through a war of attrition and indirection." Though it's obviously named for Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator, similar stratagems are described in Sun Tzu's The art of war, and no matter whether Sun Tsu really existed, the book predates the Roman dictator by about 200 years.

Regarding the Eau de Cologne (which, at the time when I first wrote that entry, still linked to the German city) and similar such entries: New perfumes are "invented" rather often; what exactly makes the Eau de Cologne so much of an invention that it should be listed here?

Regarding the seaplane, we apparently agree that it was not invented by Calderara; what exactly did he invent? And are his improvements to seaplanes really significant enough for this list?

And are there reliable sources calling Luppis the torpedo inventor an Italian? There's no doubt he was an Austrian citizen (and Austrian naval officer, fighting against Venice at one point), had been born in the Illyrian Provinces which at that time belonged to France but had been Austrian for centuries. For all I can tell, Luppis' family had once originated in Italy, but had gone native to the extent of slavicizing their name at one time. The Libro d'Oro lists his extended family as "della Dalmazia" and explicitly calls several others of their scions "Croatian". And I doubt Ius Sanguinis is applicable here; if we seriously tried that, half the world's population might have to be termed "Italian" for having a Roman legionnary somewhere in their ancestry.

In a similar vein, the connection of stock exchanges to a "della borsa" family seems at best disputed, see for example here. Besides, it's still a step from "named after the della Borsa family" to "the della Borsa invented it".

Finally, I would be grateful if you didn't just blanket revert my edits; you re-introduced bad capitalization, the wrong link for Cervetti and Bini's electroconvulsive therapy, and similar problems. You also re-introduced quite a few entries I removed without either addressing my concerns or providing a source. Huon (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

On re-checking, the edit summary of "some of these entries had references" is simply untrue - not a single one of the entries that were reverted had a reference. I have reverted some of Altes2009' changes, and I have done so in several steps, with the less controversial ones (such as simple copyediting) done first. Please do not revert all of them, and if you revert them, please explain your reasoning.

Besides the copyediting, I have removed those dubious entries for which no source was given: Afterburner, bassoon, bicycle, hydraulic motor, sea walls, seaplane, steam turbine, stock exchange and the torpedo. For quite a few of those I have given prior instances above; someone else invented them. For the others, I couldn't find good references that the supposed inventor did invent that object, or, in the case of the stock exchange and the torpedo, that the inventor is Italian.

In a third step, I have removed some entries which had sources but which were still inappropriate: The lever corkscrew (where a British patent predates the US patent, see above), the bobbin (where the reference showed that what Leonardo invented was not a bobbin but an automated bobbin winder; and while undoubtedly useful and an Italian invention, I still doubt it's significant enough for this list), the electric motor (no matter what Pacinotti invented - Jedlic and Sturgeon built electric motors before he did), the electrophorus (where the source given by Altes2009 says: "Volta, when building the electrophorus, knew about similar devices described by Johan Carl Wilcke and Franz Ulrich Theodosius Aepinus several years earlier", p. 75), and the energy catalyzer (for a device violating the known laws of physics we should use better sources than even a patent application; if Rossi's device is shown to work, we can re-add it as soon as we have peer-reviewed articles on the effect).

Finally, I re-removed some "Roman" entries: the Latin alphabet, Roman aqueducts, Roman law, and the Runic alphabet. The aqueducts were preceded by the Assyrian aqueducts at Nineveh, and the others are not true inventions, but rather organic developments from earlier, non-Roman (non-Italian) predecessors: The alphabets are ultimately based on the Greek alphabet (which is itself a development of yet earlier precursors), while the first codified law dates back to Hammurabi, and Roman law was no more special than Babylonian or Greek law, though (due to the empire) more influential on later legal developments. Huon (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I screwed that up and missed the electrophorus. Gone in an extra step. Huon (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If Luppis were not Italian, why would he have a place in the "Libro D'Oro" of Italian Nobility? and why would is first name be Giovanni Biagio, both Italian Names? The surnames of the veneto region and of Friuli often end in a consonant, Luppis is a Venetian Name, from Istria. the story of the torped is told here, In Italian (this is a refernce given at the bottom of the libro d'oro page you posted: http://www.edit.hr/lavoce/2007/inpiu/storia070303.pdf

Also read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Luppis the original name of the torpedo was "salvacoste". he even gave the torped an italian name.

ANTONIO PACINOTTI (Pisa, 1841-1912)

Some references: http://www.ragione.taa.it/giunta/enel/ferraris.htm

http://www.galileimirandola.it/motore/Introduzione.htm

http://www.ioa.com/~micron/002-Electricity.htlm

Pacinotti invented the ring-armature electric motor. His article "in Nuovo Cimento of May 3, 1865, announced that in 1863 he produced a dynamo [electricity generating motor] with a ring wound armature that could produce electricity and also run [in reverse fashion] as a motor." More precisely, his "electro-magnetic little machine" (as he called it) was a ring structured (direct-electricity) heavy duty motor; in 1873, it was discovered that the same machine generates electricity when the motor is fed by any force (water fall or other). In other words, you can use the electricity fed motor to do mechanical work, or you may start with mechanical work to feed the motor and thereby generate electricity.

Meanwhile, a dynamo was patented in 1866 by the German W. von Siemens -- which gave Germany the edge on heavy-duty electricity generators. The Pacinotti "ring" motor was the dynamo patented and commercialized by the Belgian Z. T. Gramme in 1871.

The Energy Catalizer of Rossi: he did obtain an Italian patent for it, not just a patent application.

Fabian Strategy: Sun Tzu might have written a few sentences about it. Quintus Fabius Maximus applied it in a real war, against Hannibal, one of the Greatest Generals in history. Sun Tzu is a dwarf. Fabius is a giant.

Sun Tzu: "Hence, though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force, in the end it must be captured by the larger force" Luckily Hermann Balck did not take Sun Tzu's advice and although encircled many times by vastly superior Russian Forces, he always managed to break through.

Sun Tzu: "The five elements (water, fire, wood, metal, earth) are not always equally predominant; the four seasons make way for each other in turn. There are short days and long; the moon has its periods of waning and waxing" would this be his enunciation of the principles of attrition warfare?

Huon...I suggest you read the Art of war: there is absolutely NO freaking mention of guerrilla warfare or attrition warfare!!!! http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html

Regarding Luppis: He's in the Libro d'Oro because it's not just a book of Italian, but of Mediterranean nobility. "Luppis" is the italicized version of a Slavic name which was itself a slavicized version of "Lupis", which is, for all I can tell, the name of Luppis' 13th century ancestors who were indeed Italian noblemen and Imperial officials in Ragusa. But that was more than 500 years before Luppis' birth. Do you know of any source that actually says Luppis himself was Italian?

Regarding Pacinotti, I don't care what he did in 1863 when Ányos Jedlik and William Sturgeon had already built electric motors in 1827 and 1832, respectively. See the electric motor article. So Pacinotti may have built improved electric motors, but he did not invent them. His dynamos seem to have been much more influential in the history of electrical engineering than his motors, and while he did not actually invent dynamos either, I'd suggest keeping that entry, but removing the "motor" one.

Regarding the Energy Catalyzer: There have also been patents granted for perpetual motion machines. That's not much of an indication that the "invention" actually works. As I said, for something violating the known laws of physics, I'd like to see some sources in peer-reviewed scientific journals. If it works, we will just have to wait a little until such sources become available. If it turns out not to work, we will be saved the embarrasment of having added a fraud to this list.

I am not quite sure what you want to say about the Fabian strategy. It has little in common with guerrilla warfare. Fabius' troops were still regular Roman legionnaries fighting within their regular units, not guerrillas, though Fabius did prefer skirmishes to full-scale battles (see for example Livy, Book XXII, ch. 12). (As a further ironic aside, the guerrilla warfare article cites reliable sources which say Sun Tzu inspired guerrilla warfare.) For a source which directly mentions Sun Tzu's importance to the history of the Fabian strategy (though of course not to Fabius or much of European thought on the subject), see for example this Master thesis, which incidentally also mentions that Sun Tzu had quite a successful career as a general for the King of Wu.

Please provide a rationale why the electrophorus should remain on this list when your very own source says that Volta knew of similar earlier devices. Huon (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

October 2012: Jacuzzi, forks, aqueducts

Altes2009 finally provided rationales for some of his unsourced additions. In order to keep them apart from my own comments, I'll copy them here:

• Jacuzzi: Since the seven Jacuzzi brothers immigrated from Pordenone, Friuli, Italy to the United States, your comments are pointless, Huon! You are too eager to delete!!
• Fork: Your own article says the fork was developed withing the roman empire.
• Roman aqueduct, concernig earlier aqueducts elsewhere: But those acqueduct went short distances Only!!

I'm unconvinced. My replies:

• The Jacuzzi brothers were indeed born in Italy. But they didn't invent the Jacuzzi; one of their grandsons did. He was a natural-born American. The article's claim that the brothers invented the Jacuzzi is just plain wrong.
• Forks didn't originate in the Roman Empire. Forks as servinng tools date back to Ancient Egypt. Forks for dining only started to appear in the noble courts of the Middle East and the Byzantine Empire in about the 7th century and became common among wealthy families of the regions by the 10th century. Our article on forks even mentions bone forks found in graves of the Qijia culture, which would put them in the early second millennium BCE.
• The qanat in Gondabar is an aqueduct both 2,700 years old and 45 km long. That in Zarch is even older and 71 km long. While the Romans built longer aqueducts in total, that still does not make aqueducts a Roman invention; in fact, it seems they heavily used the qanat style they probably learned in the Near East. To describe 71 km as "much shorter" than "up to 50 km" is, again, just plain wrong.

For these reasons I've once again removed those entries. As an aside, I'd like to ask Altes2009 to please read WP:TALK. You shouldn't remove others' comments from talk pages, and you should keep your own comments distinguishable from others, preferably by indenting them and by signing them (four tildes, ~~~~, will automatically generate a signature). Huon (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Rename?

Maybe this should be renamed to List of Italian inventions and discoveries? Or alternatively, discoveries like atherosclerosis should be removed.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Regards. In Ratio Veritas (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

Does anyone know something about "Encyclopedia invented by Domenico Bandini in the 15th Century"? It makes reference for "A. T. Hankey (1957). "Domenico di Bandino of Arezzo (?1335-1418)". Italian Studies 12: 110–128."

As far as I know, the earliest recorded encyclopedic work is the Naturalis Historia of Pliny the Elder, written in the 1st century AD. Regards In Ratio Veritas (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

The inventions attributed in this page have some real factual accuracy problems. The parent articles do not list them as being invented by an Italian. Tried cleaning up from the top but Airpower is not described as a doctrine first formulated by Giulio Douhet, aerial reconnaissance dates back to the French Revolution, this list states the the Leonardo da Vinci bicycle design was a fake, and Italians did not "invent" cloning[2]. The list needs to be purged down to actual Italian inventions. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Nah, there are no problems with this page. It is clear that on a lot of inventions there is a dispute, we should only work better on this page and see if there is something to be corrected or added or deleted. User Talk: Barjimoa — Preceding undated comment added 08:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nether opinions or seriously contested assertions should be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice, such as adding an invention to a list claiming it is a specific national invention (Policy shortcut: WP:YESPOV). So yeah, there is a problem. Lists are for listing articles, in this case the parent article should probably make this assertion with very reliable sources, otherwise the assertion should not be made here at all. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There arent opinions in this page. Maybe there are contested assertions but what should we do? Eliminate for example the telephone both from canadian inventions and from Italian inventions? Maybe we can eliminate the fact that this page has problems with factual accuracy and write at the beginning of the page that a lot of inventions are disputed like every invention in the world. There are Analysts thinking that Italians invented this thing for sure and others who think that american or Germans did. You say that the problem is the Parent article but if u go to the parent article of the Telephone you can see that there is written about Meucci indicated by some analysts as the inventor. Of course Bell is mainly indicated, but it is not sure for all the analysts and maybe neither for the majority of them that Bell invented it, so if we write here that Meucci invented a telephone it is not wrong in my view cause it would be wrong also write that Bell invented it. I know it is weird but why we should penalize Italian inventions beacuse they are disputed? So we should eliminate all the inventions here from the other pages of the other countries too cause a lot of analysts think they were invented by Italians or by the people who lived in Italy before Italians. So on all the pages of Inventions there is a problem with factual accuracy with this logic.

And however only You decided to write "this page has some issues". You had no consensus on this talk page to do that, i guess. User Talk: Barjimoa.

To take the last point first "consensus" exists at WP:YESPOV, you can't make up your own guidelines or policy based on other stuff you see in Wikipedia (and other editors seem to be noticing the ptoblem BTW [3]). I revert back original lead because the new lead is for the article "List of things claimed to be Italian inventions" - which is an article that could be created, but it is not this article, per its title. So, no, you would not include an invention in this article if it is disputed, this is "List of Italian inventions". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The 'factual accuracy' tag should stay until uncited invention claims are referenced or removed. A quick check turned up several unreferenced entries that contradict references found in the relevant article, the invention of the pneumatic tire for example. If the relevant article supports a claim, the reference can just be taken from that article. Once all entries are referenced, the next step would be to look at cases where reliable references show a dispute, or support multiple claims.Dialectric (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, i give up. I dont want to start an edit war with you and now you are majority XD. What i can say is that its not necessary you need to find the sources for everything, cause they can be written in the Parent articles. However i hope that on wikipedia you and the other editors will use the same policy also for the other National inventions. So if you want to eliminate for example something disputed between Italy and Guatemala you will eliminate that invention for both or indicate as claimed invention for both. Thank you and sorry for my english.User: Barjimoa

I fully agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr and Dialectric. This list has something of a fan club that will claim anything and everything to be invented by Italians, even if their own sources flat-out contradict them. The latest example is the portolan chart: Of the given sources, one says, quote: "Historians have not been able to pin down the exact origin of the portolan chart", while explaining that "the earliest portalan charts are divided into two brances, the Italian and Catalan". The other source says: "The first description of a nautical chart is by Ramon Llull, [...] a Majorcan Franciscan" - so if we follow one source, the origin is unknown; if we follow the other, we have to credit Spain. Huon (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I fully disagree with you User Huon. Funny enough how you play with the statements out of context freely just to look like you have a point. You want to seem impartial and finish being totally biased. Why don´t you show here for everyone all the mentions related to Italy found in the sources? Do not try to be funny again and put it all here. If you had time to do the opposite you must have time to do it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.42.221.135 (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I'm not seeing an unambiguous claim of Italian origin in those sources. The oldest extant portolan chart is Italian - that doesn't make them an Italian invention. Huon (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Peacock wording

It's pretty obvious from the phrasing used in this list that it has a biased, promotional tone. The "very successful trainer jet", "One of the most advanced jet trainers", "innovative family of ground to air missiles". It goes on and on. These are opinions, not facts. Facts would be something verifiable with a citation, not a lot of fluff. WP:PEACOCK spells it out clearly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The PUSH'y-ness of additions to this page is obvious and has been noted before. Also variations on models/types are not "inventions". The airplane is an invention, an Aermacchi MB-326 is a model. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree; generally there should be consensus among high quality sources that "X is an Italian invention", and the source should actually say words to that effect. I don't oppose an article that takes a broad view and includes all sorts of technology developments related to Italy, but the article should be moved to "Timeline of Italian invention" and redefined appropriately. Many editors treat these List of inventions articles like that anyway, including all sorts of things that aren't strictly inventions or strictly Italian. The solution there is to make sure the reader understands that's what the list is, not purport to be something else. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

I propose that we remove all entries that are not strictly inventions, such as aircraft model variations, entries that are disputed inventions, entries that do not show mainstream secondary sources, and entries that are not clearly stated as "Italian" inventions in their parent article. They could all be put back once the WP:BURDEN is satisfied. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. Huon (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Some doubts

Stating who invented what is quite a hellish task. Relying only on the dates printed on patents is reductive as in many cases the invention had already been "unofficially" developed by others previously. I would prefer to talk about contributions rather than paternity of inventions, so we shouldn't have an italian, french or russian invention section on wikipedia but an italian, french or russian etc, etc contribution section over the development of inventions.

What I don't really like in this article is mixing "pure" inventions with the contributions on other fields such as math or medicine and so on. Avogadro constant as well as tensor calculus are not inventions but scientific discoveries, so having put them in the list make them appear as the only italian add to science. Similarly, the scientific discoveries section should be erased as it seems that the only contributions Italy has given to the science are those one summarized in the list, which is ridiculous. Culinary, military or scientific discoveries and advances should have their own articles and not confused with proper inventions... Magnagr (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

There is clear consensus on this talk page to remove all of the dubious entries so no problem proceeding forthwith. The additions all seem to be the work of one editor who does seem to have chimed in on the last three topics on this page. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

OK! then go here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_innovations_and_discoveries and annoy the people that wrote this list and ask them to remove all their entries about military stuff and miscellaneous entries. If they can do it, why can't I?Altes2009 (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

BEFORE YOU ERASE ANYTHING PLEASE REVIEW THE INFORMATION ON THESE SITES AND BOOKS ABOUT ITALIAN INVENTIONS

http://www.codiceedizioni.it/files/2011/10/Marchis_estratto_sito.pdf

http://www.archivioflaviobeninati.com/2011/10/elenco-delle-invenzioni/

http://www.imss.fi.it/milleanni/cronologia/indice.html

There is No consensus! I object to you removing anything. please review these sites and books before you do anything. I think your views are very biased.

http://www.codiceedizioni.it/files/2011/10/Marchis_estratto_sito.pdf

http://www.archivioflaviobeninati.com/2011/10/elenco-delle-invenzioni/

http://www.imss.fi.it/milleanni/cronologia/indice.html

FYI: I am contacting the Italian Government so that our cultural heritage can be defended. The ministry of the Interior of Italy published a full collection of all italian inventions two years ago, and that should be an authoritative teston the subject. I suggest you review it before making any arbitrary changes to this page.

also consult this http://www.focus.it/tecnologia/innovazione/100-grandi-idee-made-in-italy

More stuff for you to consult

consult this as well before making any changes

http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2015/03/13/foto/le_invenzioni_degli_italiani-109117850/1/#1

http://www.corriere.it/tecnologia/cards/13-invenzioni-italiane-che-ci-hanno-cambiato-vita-o-faranno/anni-60-olivetti-programma-101-1964_principale.shtml

http://www.notizie.it/le-invenzioni-italiane-piu-importanti-della-storia-462071/

http://gds.it/2015/03/14/dal-pianoforte-al-cono-gelato-le-30-grandi-invenzioni-made-in-italy-foto_326585/

http://www.italplanet.it/interna.asp?sez=90&info=2099

http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/quelle-grandi-invenzioni-che-hanno-fatto-l-italia.html

http://www.lultimaribattuta.it/12811_le-invenzioni-moderne-sono-italiane-ma-nessuno-lo-sa

more material to review for the critics

http://6mrk9.blogspot.com/2011/11/le-piu-grandi-invenzioni-italiane.html

http://www.utelio.it/invenzioni.php

Also review this Book

Italian Inventions, Books LLC, 326 pages, ISBN-13: 978-1157068167,

and this site: http://www.italiansrus.com/resources/inventions.htm

then go here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_innovations_and_discoveries and annoy the people that wrote this list and ask them to remove the 30 or so sports and the numerous military innovations and miscellaneous stuff that they have added which are not "inventions" by your definition. If they can List them why can't I?.

Italians Claim That Antonio Meucci Invented the telephone,not Marconi. Are you claiming that the article is factually inaccurate because of this? Nowhere in the article I claim that Marconi invented the telephone. This is insanity!!! stop wasting my time with this stuff!!! There is a congressional resolution that should have settled this argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_HRes._269_on_Antonio_Meucci

To answer the criticism about the radio direction finder by Huon. the wikipedia article on Radio direction finder states that:

A key improvement in the RDF concept was introduced by Ettore Bellini and Alessandro Tosi in 1909 (U.S. Patent 943,960). Their system used two such antennas, typically triangular loops, arranged at right angles. The signals from the antennas were sent into coils wrapped around a wooden frame about the size of a pop can, where the signals were re-created in the area between the coils. A separate loop antenna located in this area could then be used to hunt for the direction, without moving the main antennas. This made RDF so much more practical that it was soon being used for navigation on a wide scale, often as the first form of aerial navigation available, with ground stations homing in on the aircraft's radio set. Bellini-Tosi direction finders were widespread from the 1920s into the 1950s.

So there is the key reference: U.S. Patent 943,960

If you just checked stuff, you would see that the claims on the list are in fact substantiated!!!!

AND WERE IS THE "CONSENSUS" YOU TALK ABOUT? ANY CRITICISMS OF HUON OR FOUNTAINS OF BRYWN MAWR by me or anyone else is just blatantly ignored.

UNDER DURESS I REMOVED MOST OF THE MILITARY INNOVATIONS I HAD ADDED I THINK IT IS EXTREMELY UNFAIR THAT THE LISTS OF OTHER COUNTRIES (FOR EXAMPLE BRITAIN) ARE ALLOWED TO LIST SIMILAR INNOVATIONS WHILE THE ITALIAN LIST CANNOT

I DID NOT REMOVE THOSE THAT I THOUGHT WERE CLEARLY INNOVATIVE COMPARED TO OTHER CONTEMPORANEOUS EQUIPMENT

Editing per Wikipedia policy/guidelines

Following Wikipedia policy and guidelines makes cleanup and development of this article pretty clear.

• If something is an invention then it is notable, and therefore will have a Wikipedia article (or should have one).
• If something is an invention then its Wikipedia article will state (with reliable references) who invented it.

So if it is an invention with a Wikipedia article and the article states its an "Italian" invention it goes on this list. Entries on this list that fails either of those criteria should be removed. Redlinks do not belong on this list per Wikipedia:Write the article first. This list should have NO references, it should be clearly referenced and stated in the item's article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I urged the Italian Ministry of Culture to look at the Wikipedia page. My suggestion to the Ministry is that they create webpages about Italian Inventions in English, Spanish, German, French, Portuguese, Russian, Japanese, Hindi and Arabic to divulge Italian Innovations and Inventions. A compilation of Italian Inventions had been published 2 years ago by the Ministry and I hope they will accept my suggestion and create a permanent site maintained by such Ministry INDEPENDENTLY of wikipedia. Altes2009 03:23, 17 September 2015

Creating a national website somewhere has nothing to do with the question at hand. This is a talk page on improving the Wikipedia project, not a soapbox. Do you have any suggestions for this project? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup of list: There were many entries that failed the above criteria, were dubiously worded or were simple wrong:

• many entree's parent page listed other inventors, multiple inventors, or disputed inventors
• some inventions had no article
• things may be in Leonardo da Vinci's sketch book but that does not mean he invented them
• Mario Capecchi was not "Italian", (actually there were several entries where people had Italian names but were not Italian)
• The The Maltese Falcon (yacht) turned out to be a boat
• various people who first recorded the existence of something are not the inventors
• some inventors turned out to be Italian-American or just plain American
• some were invented somewhere else by a team of inventors - one who was Italian
• improvements are not inventions
• There were also deceptive easter-egg pipes such as "Thermometer"
• Typewriter does not have a firm atribution.

Unreferenced invention entries that did not state the claim on its parent page were also removed (again the claim and the reference should be at the parent article). Removed "Scientific discoveries and advances in medicine", these are not inventions by definition. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

re: *Mario Capecchi not "Italian" ..... This is funny, because the leading Italian newsaper said he was Italian http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_ottobre_08/nobel_capecchi.shtml he was born in Italy from an Italian Father (jus sanguinis) and from an Italian-born American Mother. For the first 9 years of his life he spoke only Italian and German. Kind of like Napoleon who spoke Italian better than French....Maybe we should ask him if he is Italian or not?

re: The The Maltese Falcon (yacht) turned out to be a boat..... But with a unique sail system, not found on any other boat. Altes2009 01:58, 7 October 2015‎

re: Mario Capecchi and this edit are examples of something invented somewhere else by a team of inventors - one who is Italian-American. Both fall way below being strictly "Italian". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

About the supposed "team" effort of Hoff, Mazor and Faggin. Here is a video of the three inventors together at an event of the museum of Computer History. Hoff and Mazor were responsible for the "achitecture" but Faggin is the one that actually built it and made it work. Although Intel had the architecture, no actual work to build the chip was done, until Faggin himself did it. As stated in the video he had no help whatsoever and did all the work himself

[4]

Hoff and Mazor tell little stories about their idea. But when Faggin gets up at 26:00 he goes into the actual technical details of how the processor was built and how he used Silicon Gate technology (which Faggin invented, by the way) to make it work. In typical Etruscan style he gives all the technical details and at the end he concludes "by the way those are my initials over there FF" which is Etruscan for "I made the darn thing". He also clearly states that he did all the practical work absolutely by himself as Intel did not give him any engineer or technician to help him build the thing. All Hoff and Mazor contributed was the idea for the architecture but I doubt Hoff and Mazor could build the thing by themselves, since they did not do any actual work and did not build anything until Faggin came on board. They cannot even explain it without Faggin. Altes2009 05:24, 8 October 2015‎

Sorry but you keep missing the point, Wikipedia does not maintain POV forks - if the Intel 4004 is an "Italian invention" it should be stated reliably in some form at that article in order to be listed here. And again, an invention created at an American company by an Italian American does not meet the base premise of this list re: inventions made by "people that lived in the geographical region of Italy or were made by Italians". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's make this simple: acquiring US citizenship does not mean renouncing Italian citizenship. Faggin is Italian AND American, not Italian-American. He is still Italian. Got it?

Let's make this even simpler: What reliable published sources call an Italian invention is an Italian invention. Do you know of any sources calling this particular invention "Italian"? Huon (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Galileo Telescope

An user deleted this entry claiming Galileo Galilei "just used one" (check history), but it is well known historical fact the italian scientist built a new telescope from scratch just from descriptions of the simple telescopes created in Netherlands. During his life he built various telescopes under commissions, enhancing design and tecniques and keepimg the best for himself and his space researches. The only two original Galileo telescopes that survived are actually in Museo Galileiano in Firenze. There are so many books and sites describing Galileo type of Telescope that I think it is no even necessary provide links. I just ask entry being recognized valid and kept safe from deletion. -- Preceding unsigned comment by Raffaele Megabyte, 03:09, 8 October 2016‎

Telescopes were not Galileo's invention. By "Galileo Telescope" I assume "Galilean Telescopes" (positive objective and negative eyepiece) - these are not conclusively proven to be invented by Galileo (the dutch may have used that design as well), they just have that name. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Per the introduction of the page, innovations and objects innovated can be included too. This is the case of galileo's telescope. Yes, not galilean in the strict sense, but galileo's one. The source I provided stated that his telescope had greatly improved characteristics compared to Dutch spyglasses. I am not the type of person to engage in edit wars, but please provide a true rationale for your removal or I will revert it.

TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The entry was wrong (increasing magnification did not make it a " "galilean" instrument"). The linked article did not state in any way, shape, or form that this was an Italian invention. The entry was written as original thought, based on a source that did not contain that thought (See WP:OR). The items on this list have to match the title List of Italian inventions and discoveries, that is unambiguously clear from the article title and you can't have a fudgey lead in to cover untrue statements (see WP:SAL, WP:LSC). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• quote from the source: Immediately fascinated by the new device, he dedicated himself to making it more powerful, with such success that in late 1609 and early 1610 he managed to increase its power of magnification from the original two or three times to twenty or thirty times. Thanks to the skill he acquired in fabricating lenses and combining them appropriately, the telescope (from the Greek tele = "at a distance" and skopeo = "I observe") lost its original Dutch connotation and became, to all effects, a "Galilean" instrument.
• This was my synthesis: Although magnifying spyglasses of Dutch origin were already known, Galilei enhanced the magnification of the lenses from 2x-3x to 20x-30x, thus [Thanks to the skill he acquired in fabricating lenses and combining them appropriately] the telescope became a "galilean" instrument.
• The fudge-y lead in to cover untrue statements was taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_inventions_and_discoveries. In order to reach objectiveness I have added (partially innovated) next to entries that could be disputed, this can be added to Galilean telescope too. TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"This was my synthesis" Wikipedia articles do not contain synthesis, see WP:SYNTHESIS. The linked article is Galilean telescope, Galileo did not invent that and its a design, it has noting to do with how much it magnifies. The German inventions article is a timeline, which you can do, delete all this and rewrite it as a timeline, you just can't have a definitive title and lead we have now and follow it with opinions stated as fact. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• What wikipedia says about synthesis: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source
• material was not combined from multiple sources
• material was taken from the passage quoted
• please, outline the opinion in my writing
• synthesis is necessary for writing short item descriptions
• rules are guidelines
• definition of innovation: Innovation, for its part, can refer to something new or to a change made to an existing product, idea, or field. One might say that the first telephone was an invention, the first cellular telephone either an invention or an innovation, and the first smartphone an innovation.
• if you want you can change the title in List of Italian inventions, innovations and discoveries"TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A: is the article, B: is you - combined to C: = the Galilean telescope is Galileo's invention (claim not found in source). The inventor of the Galilean telescope is unknown, the linked Wiki article does not state an inventor. It really doesn't get any clearer than that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Canzone Napoletana

I reissued Canzone Napoletana deleted by user Fountains of Bryn Mawr as it is not simply a music style but it is vital part of development of western music as we know it today. For example song Michelemmà (1600 ca.) is studied in Conservatories of Music as the first historic example of song with characteristics common to any modern song structure as we know it today, with significant differencies between medieval or renaissance music songs. Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The article on Canzone Napoletana doesn't say anything of that kind. I would like to see some reliable sources before we claim that all modern music originated in Naples. Huon (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Just following up - this article is a Stand Alone List (WP:SAL) that links article that all have the qualifying attribute. This is not the place to make claims something is an "invention" - that should be clearly stated (with references) at the linked article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You misinterpred my words. Modern music was not invented in Naples but neapolitan music is one of pillars of italian music, and italian music is a pillar for western music. Michelemmà is just first sing recognized as testimony of modern example of a sing as we know today. I just listen of it in a TV documentary so I can not proof it directly. I am waiting for friends of friends in Conservatory of Music to provide me titles of books that could prove it, but it is a long and uncertain path with searches made by third parties. Please don't quote article Canzone Napoletana as a reference "it doesen't say anything of it". Wikipedia is unfortunately very poor encyclopedia made of various contributes of any kind of people of different capabilities and knowledge and its reports only things that are being written in it. It lacks of dozens vital informations. But in the end sure it is better Wikipedia exists with all its goods and its defects. Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to provide a reliable source for those claims. The burden of evidence is on you. Huon (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Italian inventions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121118121135/http://www.fi.edu/learn/case-files/tesla/motor.html to http://www.fi.edu/learn/case-files/tesla/motor.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Italian contribution to Western Civilization

numerous European cities were founded by people from Italy: London Colchester (oldest city in Britain) Basel Lyon Trier oldest city in Germany Augsburg Zurich Salzsburg Worm Mainz Bonn Koblenz Wiesbaden Utrecht Leiden Cologne Leicester York Southampton Chester Manchester Vienna Stuttgart Frankfurt am Main Heidelberg Passau Leeds Linz Edinburgh Glasgow Regensburg Lausanne Geneva Detroit Altes2009 05:59, 4 August 2017

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Italian inventions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151113072925/http://www.msichicago.org/scrapbook/scrapbook_exhibits/leonardo/models/01_model.html to https://www.msichicago.org/scrapbook/scrapbook_exhibits/leonardo/models/01_model.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr and Vaselineeeeeeee: Ask for permission to modify "issue template"

I would like to modify "multiple issues" from the page removing the factual accuracy note because is outdated: debates are not continuing, since October many sources have been added.

About disputed entries: 1-if they are sourced, either you debate the source (which would be a questionable stratagem) or... that's it. 2-if they are still not provided with reliable sources, I will promptly provide those or delete the challenged entry altogether: I prefer a trusted page with fewer entries than more entries but marked as unreliable.

For the disputed content, please report that content in the talk page and refrain from censoring it. If it is indeed flawed, I am going to remove it. Content that should not be listed but is factually accurate does not represent factual inaccuracy (quite obviously); instead, given that all these kind of lists are original research (they put together things in a original way), stating that something factually accurate shouldn't be added constitutes original research too. --TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Please note: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. - I think that is pretty clear and it is Wikipedia policy. It is not a two step or three step process. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Mansfield

Harvey Mansfield disputes the idea of Machiavelli as the founder of political science, as opposed to the founder of political philosophy (Machiavelli's Virtue, 1998) (Machiavelli's New modes and orders, pg 321), and the essay linked does not make that claim anywhere either. Also, citing treccani is the equivalent of citing Wikipedia, we do not know who wrote the entry. As relying on it to support a claim is problematic (WP:DUE), I removed the source. If you disagree, I won't mind if you revert and explain here. SurpriseandConquer (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I take your point. I was looking for a source reporting the fact that Machiavelli was considered father/founder of modern political science. You could have made a literal citation out of Mansfield source in this regard. According to what you wrote here, the fact that he individually preferred the definition of founder of political philosophy would have made the source misused if I had claimed "Mansfield recognises Machiavelli as founder of political science", which was not the case. Anyway, a constructive approach would consist of changing 'father of political science' with 'founder of political philosophy' , and quoting a more appropriate source from him, since it appears you are quite knowledable about this author. New sources might be added in future for my original claim. P.S: I need confirmation from an experienced editor that relying on Treccani is problematic. Half of the italian Wikipedia relies on it.TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Factual accuracy and adherence to WP:SAL / WP:LSC

The title and lead definition in this list gives us some obvious selection criteria:

• List items must be inventions or discoveries
• Listed inventions or discoveries must be notable (a "blue link" article in Wikipedia)
• Linked Wikipedia article must explicitly state the invention or discovery is "Italian" (Wikipedia does not support POV forks). Extra sources could be added but the parent article has them (or should have them).

Adding ((disputed)) tag since there are many entries that do not meet this criteria. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Any specific entries you mind sharing so they can be looked at? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend being bold yourself and removing the ones you clearly find do not meet this criteria to avoid the banner, or if there are aren't a whole lot, then just tag them with an inline tag. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"A" arch is iffy, already deleted Atomic Bomb, working my way down, seeing too many dubious ones and it looks like the basic definition of this article is being disputed, so it needs a tag. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"too many", then just name them. I am willing to have a constructive behaviour, but with your modus operandi is very difficult. You need to outline the Facts you dispute. We can just work together and change from alphabetical order to timeline, even though this has nothing to do with factual accuracy. What is an invention, innovation or discovery isn't bound by the order of listing the items.TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

My modus operandi is Wikipedia. Lists make claims, and you have to back that up following Wikipedia policy, they run afoul of putting unsupportable claims in WP:WIKIVOICE. Timelines don't make claims, they just give you the order in which someone adds to knowledge. It seems most editors have seen the problems with nationalistic lists such as this, and have converted them to timelines. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Programma 101

This machine is continually POVPUSHED by SPAs/IPs as the first desktop computer. Can't make that claim because its highly debatable: it doesn't meet the definition at desktop computer (a PC), consensus of editors is that it is not, websites on the subject say its not, even the source being put forward says its debatable re "Usually this machine is called "programmable calculator" instead of "computer" because its program instructions represent basic operations of a calculator, they address "registers" instead of "bytes" or "words" of memory and there is no alphabetic capability, but the concept of "stored program" that uses allows us to consider this machine a true computer." WP:YESPOV simply does not allow us to make that claim. It could be one of the first electronic programmable calculators, so listing it as that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Is oldcalculatormuseum.com a RS? —DIYeditor (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Question would be, are any of them? curtamania.com is a blog. It would be up to whether any of these sites are authoritative and have the scope of knowledge to know what they are talking about. oldcalculatormuseum.com seems to fit that. I have not found that having a ".org" or ".edu" after a name, or being the website for a institution or major publication, means their website is RS, their content tends to be anonymous, unreferenced, and seems to be generated by the "kids" putting up the website. If you want something a step up there is https://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/computers/ - "printing programmable calculator". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Contradictory lead definition

The lead sentence in this list was followed by a contradictory second sentence re: Lead sentence defines members as "Italians" (who are "distinguished from ethnic Italians in general or from people of Italian descent") and second sentence redefines it as "person of Italian descent". List leads should be unambiguous in their inclusion criteria so I edited the lead to match the lead sentence per MOS:FIRST "first sentence should give a concise definition" . Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Disrupted claims

rv Pizza, Pasta, Shaved ice, Cotton candy additions per linked articles, origins disputed so can not be claimed as anyone's invention per WP:YESPOV. Submarine sandwich / Italian-American is not an Italian invention. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)