Talk:Daniel Dingel

Confusing and unbalanced

The article in its current form victimizes Dingel despite the fact that he admittedly embezzeled over 300.000$. Additionally the "Mechanism" section suggests that Dingel 'invented' electrolysis, which wouldn't be notable at all. Perhaps someone with more insight can gather a few facts on the situation. Otherwise I suggest the article be deleted. 94.217.241.78 (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"International Patent" Dubious

Regarding the dubiousness of the phrase "International Patent", I undersand what you mean, Edcolins. But the phrase "International Patent" was, indeed, used in the source article, albeit not in a direct quote. I think a distinction has to be made between whether he did in fact apply for an international patent (dubious, as you pointed out), and whether he claimed he would apply for an international patent - a fact asserted by the article. Perhaps the article should be rephrased to better reflect that, but that would require careful thought because we must also be careful that the article remain neutral. Dingel, after all, is currently taking this matter up in the courts.

My fear is that perhaps Mr. Dingel actually said he wants to file an international patent application, and the author (Alarilla) of the source article simply interpreted that as him wanting get an international patent. I did not understand the distinction until you pointed it out, and I doubt the typical journalist would, either. In that case, it would be the source article that is dubious.

Personally, what I've read so far does indeed convince me (and this is opinion, of course, based on limited information so I would never say it in the main article space) that the invention is... (how should I phrase it?) at the very least of questionable provenance. If so, the dubiousness of the larger claim (asserted by a whole section of this entry) places Dingel's claim of wanting to get an international patent in a whole different light, doesn't it? But again, that's up to the courts to decide, and it is up to us to rephrase the article in a way that prevents confusion (regarding the existence of "international patents")while maintaining the neutrality of the article regarding the... validity... veracity... whatever... of Dingel's claim to have invented a car that runs on water. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this... -- Alternativity (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying. That discussion was in response to an edit from Edcolins dated 21:31, 24 January 2009‎ which reads "international patents do not exist, only international patent applications do." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Dingel&oldid=266185498 )Also, on a personal note...reading the article two years later, I am no longer as confident as I was that it conforms to NPOV. So I wish to go on the record here and invite anyone with more insight to try and make the article more balanced. I'm afraid I'm limited by my lack of legal and technical expertise on this matter, not to mention my limited understanding of the internal workings of the Philippine Government at the time that I wrote it. Help in making this article more neutral would be most welcome indeed. - Alternativity (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Dingel. 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/20081226045539/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20081220-179008/Inventor-82-gets-20-years-for-estafa to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20081220-179008/Inventor-82-gets-20-years-for-estafa

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)