Talk:Alexander Graham Bell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What about

Scottish-born naturalized American who spent a significant part of his earler and later life in Canada?"

Copyright Infringment

--Trode 21:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The contents of this page might be a copyright infringement, see http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Telegraph/00000018.htm and http://www.globusz.com/copyright.html

Besides, the prose is unbearable: To hear the immortal words of Shakespeare uttered by the small inanimate voice which had been given to the world must indeed have been a rare delight to the ardent soul of the great electrician. Ugh. Steven G. Johnson.

I have completely rewritten the sections on the photophone and the metal detector, which were copyvios from the above extlinks. Lupo 12:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In fact, there is a huge copyvio from this extlink in the history, see this diff from October 7, 2002! How much of that original text is still in the current article? Lupo 13:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, it's not a copyvio. It comes from the book Heroes of the Telegraph by John Munro, available at Project Gutenberg: [2]. Lupo 14:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alexandra Graham Bell

I've found this graphy on the internet, is it a correct one? If so, we should add this variant somewhere at the beginning of the document and create redicrection page for "Alexandra". Migouste 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

alexander graham bell end more like lol

some debate

Wouldn't it be fair to strip this guy the title "inventor"? Honestly, the guy, on top of acquiring a patent in a dishonest way have lead to most of humanity being brainwashed that he invented the telephone. [3]

No, it would not be fair. Even ignoring the telephone, Bell's many other discoveries, patents, and creations easily make him one of the greatest inventors of all time. While many people have challenged his telephone patent, no one has ever been able to overturn it. If you have astonishing new evidence that can overturn this decision after a hundred years of controversy, you would be better filing your own counter-claim. I will offer one suggestion; legal cases are rarely decided by one litigant calling the other "brainwashed".

As for Mr. Reis, he can join the long line of people claiming to have invented the telephone before Bell. It is entirely likely he did invent "a" telephone before Bell, but when most people speak of "the" telephone, "the" airplane, "the" automobile, or "the" light bulb, they mean the design which was eventually a commercial success and not the many earlier attempts which were not. The design for the telephone that became a commercial success was Bell's, not Reis', Gray's, Meucci's, or anyone else's.

User:Corvus 01:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The invention of the telephone is an "Engineering Invention" NOT a "Commercial Invention". Meucci is the one who did it.

12:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a strong case for a "race to the patent office" with Bell's application arriving a mere two hours earlier than Grey's. Not to mention the fact that in later life, the clerk in charge of receiving the patents revealed he'd actually sold part of Grey's design to Bell's lawyers, thus giving the Scottish inventor a major breakthrough (vibration though a liquid medium.) Grey took his case as far as the supreme court but was unsuccessful and he died relatively unrecognized in 1901 while Bell went on to become the father of the telephone and died a very rich man. I'd like to see this added but it makes more sense to be on the telephone page rather than here, as well as the fact a large number of Bell zealots that would dispute it.User:gosunkugi 13:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See Elisha Gray and Alexander Bell Controversy. Greensburger 17:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In 1887, he also invented the mico-phone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.204.219 (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

alexander graham bell end more like lol

Metal detector as forerunner of MRI

While i do not want to remove any of the luster of Bell's achievements, the connection between his invention of the metal detector and the invention of the MRI scanner seems to be very tenuous. Yes, they rely on a similar physical principle. But is that relevant to this article? Did the inventor of the MRI credit Bell with inspiring him? Is there a citation for that little factoid? -Willmcw 02:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I agree - I came to the talk page because this sounded pretty dubious to me, and I see you have the same concerns. Even the similarity of the physical principle is pretty tenuous - OK it's all to do with changes in electromagnetic fields but that's about it IIRC. It's been a couple of months since you brought this up, so I'll check back here in a week or two; if no-one comes up with anything firm on the subject then I'm going to remove any mention of MRI from this part of the article. Gypsum Fantastic 23:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

alexander graham bell end more like lol repeatedly exhibited brilliance. We can honor Meucci without bashing Bell. —Gamahucheur 11:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)'

Revisionists often have one thing in common...

... they want to re-write history so that THEIR country is the center of the universe with all the discoveries and inventions.

Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. End of story.

The reason that the USA has been the world leader in all areas is simply that the world's most educated nations sent millions of their most talented inventors, artists, businessmen, politicians, soldiers, etc. to the USA during the immigration booms in the 1800's and 1900's. They passed on their talents and knowledge to their children and the result is a smarter and more talented USA.

Meucci was no less American than Bell. Meucci invented the telephone, Bell invented the telephone, Gray invented the telephone, and a few other people might have invented the telephone. —Gamahucheur 11:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bell was not American. His achievements are attributed to Scotland: where he was born, raised, educated, where his parents came from. Do America not have enough innovators? Why the need to lay claim to anyone who sets foot on American soil? His being in America while he worked on the telephone is irrelevant.

Gaining citizenship is the done thing. It is beneficial for the person to become a citizen. That does not mean that he considered himself American. It is the person, their heritage that dictates their nationality and to which nationality their achievments belong. Geography means little. Maybe David Hume stepped foot on American soil at one time. Would you like to have him, too? You keep your innovators and us Scots will keep ours. Clydey 13:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. End of story.

Just like Morse invented electric telegraph?LoL And this is not revisionism, but a constant searching a true. Sea diver 00:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason that the USA has been the world leader in all areas is simply that the world's most educated nations sent millions of their most talented inventors, artists, businessmen, politicians, soldiers, etc. to the USA during the immigration booms in the 1800's and 1900's.

Excuse me, but this myth about American superiority in all areas has nothing to do with reality. Otherwise, the first artificial satellite could be american-made.Sea diver 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this myth about American superiority in all areas has nothing to do with reality. Otherwise, the first artificial satellite could be american-made.Sea diver 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC) - that is how Americans think. On the other hand, no nation has sent her "most talented inventors" (and so on) into the USA. The contrary is true: they have sent the human trash, the criminals, the poor and the lunatics. Proof is seen every day ... --141.91.129.4 (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

First chancellor of Curry College

Bell was Curry College's (formerly known as School of Elocution) first chancellor and this should be noted. However I do not have dates to correspond. Maybe someone could search through www.curry.edu as they note that he was the first chancellor. - JedOs 17:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

alexander graham bell?

any ideas why we always call him by his full name?

We want to respect him. That's why we call him by full name!11:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, consider how often respected people are called by just one name — eg “Lincoln” — and despised people by three names — eg “John Wilkes Booth”, “Lee Harvey Oswald”, “John Wayne Gacy”. —Gamahucheur 11:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it started during his lifetime to avoid confusion with his father Alexander Melville Bell. The father was once the more famous of the two.

Age?

Does anyone know When Alexander Graham Bell died??

I believe it was in 1922. --Rachellala 23:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)--

Of course! Didn't you read?

And when was he born? 1847, right? NOT 1647 as said here? Seems to be fixed, now. Thanks.

Family?

Im doin a report on Alexander Graham Bell For School and i need to know Who is Alexander's Family (Names and Relation) Please Respond.thank you from i think i not rell sure

Eugenics and Racialism

Any quotes and statements by Bell on this?!

id be surprised since he isnt even prejudice against children. when children were asking him questions and an adult tried to get them to stop "pestering" him he said we must never overlook the word of a child. because a child looks at the world with an uncluttered mine. hes a good guy. id be really surprised if he were racist!

• Everyone is racist depending on who is defining the term and how they are defining it. Given the time in which he lived and his race and social class, it would be surprising if Bell were not racist by current liberal standards. That said, he was probably farther out in the eugenics field than most people of the time (though not necessarily/primarily for racial reasons).

• There is already a quote by him in the article Qaz

Anyone know bells parents name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz1996 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Telephone POV debate

I'm not certain, but this seems rather out of place and angry:

"However, Meucci was the first to invent the telephone, and this was how Bell got the idea. Bell invented his own telephone, and then went down to the patent office, and bribed the officials there to destroy the records of Meucci's inventor-of-the-telephone status (Meucci was too poor to secure a patent). Bell then secured his own patent. Meucci was understsandably furious, and took Bell to court. However, he was too poor to hire a legal team, and his health was declining, and thus he lost the court case. However, credit where it is due, because Graham refined the telephone, and had a lot to do with it's development."

Is this accepted as truth, or should it be fixed to get rid of the excuses? By fixed, I mean removed.

From the article Telephone:

• Credit for inventing the electric telephone remains in dispute. As with other great inventions such as radio, television, light bulb, and computer, there were several inventors who did pioneer experimental work on voice transmission over a wire and improved on each other's ideas. Antonio Meucci, Johann Philipp Reis, Elisha Gray, Alexander Graham Bell, and Thomas Edison, among others, have all been credited with pioneer work on the telephone.

There are several people credited with the Invention of the telephone, at least one Italian and one German man, to my knowledge. Unfortunately, most will favor their own fellow-man/compatriot instead of searching for the truth. There must be a reason, why some people like to claim that some inventions have been made by one person alone (while science is a community effort), and others like to counterclaim these "inventors". I'd like to have more neutrality in this article, which includes to mention (early!) that Bell is not the only one credited with this invention. We have an "Alexander-Graham Bell-Street" in Bonn, Germany which is subtitled with "Patent for invention of the telephone" which is the one thing sure - he got the patent. Think about patents today and think about what's it worth... --80.136.124.34 (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC) PS: Feel free to re-layout my contribution according to accepted standards regarding structure but keep the text intact

Odd citizenship sentence and inclusion on CD

Just a note: Alexander Graham bell never became a Canadian Citizen, even though the article says so.

(Canadian Citizenship did not exist in it's current form until 1, January, 1947 therefore anyone living in Canada before that time could be argued not to be Canadian. Until 1947 Canadians were subjects of the crown, the same as any British person then and now.)

I vote this article not be included on the CD until this article can be corrected in relation to the who-invented-first debate. Patents aside, perhaps a work-around would be to claim he is the inventor of "the telephone" that we know of today as other users have pointed out, rather then have modern history be rewritten by a Florida senator's potentially bias opinion in 2002.

Second I don't know why this paragraph needs to be in large bold text before the topic: *He was a naturalized citizen of the United States. I vote remove it or place it more appropriately. It seems like vandalism? --Trode 21:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Diatribe on Citizenship

Is citizenship restricted to legal documentation? Was George Washington ever an American? Did he become an American only with the signing of the Declaration of Independence? Or, did he only become an American when acknowledged by the British crown? May I suggest that Alexander Graham Bell was a world citizen whose start was in Scotland and England, interim in Canada and the United States, and finish in Canada. A citizen of Scotland and England (British, if you need it), of course, a citizen of Canada, of course, a citizen of the United States, of course. Those who have trouble with exploring an expanded concept of citizenship probably also hold that to travel on an adventurous trip means to go to the nearest grocery store. -- Free4It 18:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Meucci & Reis & Bell & Bourseul and the Pride of Nations

• The "Telephon" of Philipp Reis by Basilio Catania
• "Bell 'did not invent telephone'" - BBC News article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.127.38 (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Since I am working mainly on the Antonio Meucci page, I was wondering where to quote William J. Wallace ruling. "Bell telephone company obtained reason in the trial "The U.S. Government Versus Antonio Meucci" by a sentence on July 19^th1887 by judge William J. Wallace, according to whom Meucci had realised a mechanical and not an electrical telephone. According to Wallace's ruling, "The experiments and invention of one Antonio Meucci, relating to the transmission of speech by an electrical apparatus, for which invention a caveat was filed in the United States patent‑office, December 28, 1871, renewed in December, 1882, and again in December, 1883, do not contain any such elements of an electric speaking telephone as would give the same priority over or interfere with the said Bell patent[...]The application does not describe any of the elements, of an electric speaking telephone. Its opening statement refutes the possibility that Meucci understood the principle of that invention. [...] His speaking telegraph would never have been offered to the public as an invention if he had not been led by his necessities to trade on the credulity of his friends; that he intended to induce the three persons of small means and little business experience, who became his associates under the agreement of December 12^th, 1871, to invest in an invention which he would not office to men like Ryder and Craig; and that this was done in the hope of obtaining such loans and assistance from them as he would temporarily require"."" --S vecchiato 14:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Put that information into the Meucci article. His claim to the telephone was merely one of hundreds over the years, all dismissed in court cases. FWIW Bzuk 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC).

That boldface sentence "He was a naturalized citizen of the United States" mentioned by user Trode was weird indeed. How did it get in the intro? Bell was not American when he got the telephone patent, his major claim to fame. He was a Scot who emigrated to Canada. Maybe clarify this, or delete this rather irrelevant sentence. Had he been an American, maybe US congress would not have later declared Meucci as the inventor of the telephone. Politicians of Bell's former home Canada promptly issued a contrarian resolution. Alas, the pride of nations!

In any case, the intro is rather misleading. It says: "Today, Bell is still widely considered to be the foremost inventor of the telephone, although this matter has become controversial, with a number of people claiming that Antonio Meucci was the real inventor". This seems to suggest that Meucci's priority is a minority's view, which it is not. Those interested in the history of the telephone know that Antonio Meucci (1857) came first, Philipp Reis (1860) second, and Alexander Graham Bell (1876) third at best (and let us not forget Charles Bourseul who possibly had the first telephone design but no prototype). Sure, Bell eventually was the one who made the money, and maybe the Bell PR department eventually became influential enough to make many believe that Bell was first, at least in North America, but for a Wikipedia article it should not be important what the masses thought at some point in time - there was a time when many thought the world is flat.

Right! The timeline article is already giving the true series; in 1860 Johann Philipp Reis produced a device which could transmit musical notes, and even a lisping sentence or two. The famous first sentence spoken on it should be given here, long before Bell: was "Das Pferd frisst keinen Gurkensalat" (the horse doesn't eat cucumber salad). And I miss the information, that Bell used directly the material of Meucci and refused to give them back to Meucci! So, he adorned himself partly with borrowed plumes ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.127.38 (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to rewrite the intro as follows: Today, Bell is widely considered as one of the foremost developers of the telephone, together with Antonio Meucci, inventor of the first telephone prototype, and Philipp Reis. Physicists 19:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Baloney! FWIW Bzuk 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC).

Meucci resolution

The text of that resolution, available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:./temp/~c107O5FX5L:: , does not claim Meucci invented the telephone. Rather, it says "the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged." Samer 15:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And it's a piece of political theatre that is absolutely worthless. FWIW Bzuk 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC).

Meucci invented the telephone

"His work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged". IMHO it is clear. Try studying Meucci s life. In Italy he invented a model of telephone in 1834 (Bell didn't exist). In 1847 Meucci was 39 years old and had over 25 years of experience in mechanics, chemistry and physics. Meucci’s 1st electric transmission of the human voice took place in Cuba in 1849, when Graham Bell was only 2 years old. Meucci demonstrated his electric telephone in NY, USA in 1854, when Bell was 7 years old. And so on. So the paragraph is right: "the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged". IMO you should study his life. Jack 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Meucci is now an official inventor of the telephone in act of US congress, Bell was strip of that claim. It could be said that Bell is in mold of Bill Gates , still a significant figure in the industry but not the inventor - generally a good business opportunist. ( nick sokolov melb, aust 18 Sep 2008) ( note - no one can claim as stated bellow - "greatest inventors of all time"...please chose words carefully! end discussion. 58.165.18.193 (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no one person who was "the inventor" of the telephone. The meaning of "telephone" changed over the years from the cumulative efforts of hundreds of engineers. The telephone that was commercially practical during the first half of the 20th century was invented by Edison and people who worked for Edison, not Bell, not Meucci. Meucci was a telephone pioneer and deserves credit for that, along with Bourseul, Reis, Gray, Berliner, Blake, etc. How Meucci's apparatus worked is not clear because his patent caveat is not on Meucci web sites. I have not seen his caveat and therefore cannot know what Meucci did and did not do. Greensburger (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Alexander Graham Bell

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 18:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have an authoritative source that can confirm this statement?

"On the day that Alexander Graham Bell was buried the entire US telephone system was shut down for 1 minute in tribute." -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the footnotes, its on Pg. 41 of: Dunn, Andrew. Alexander Graham Bell (Pioneers of Science series). East Sussex, UK: Wayland (Publishers) Limited, 1990. ISBN 1-8521-958-0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryzilber (talk • contribs) 15:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, as noted in Alexander Graham Bell honors and tributes,

• Upon Bell's death, during his burial, "....every phone on the continent of North America was silenced in honor of the man who had given to mankind the means for direct communication at a distance" Harry Zilber (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

More Appropriate and Accurate Introduction to Bell

Is there anyone who doubts that Bell's contributions as a collective body of work is outstanding ? Then why is the adjective outstanding continually being challenged (read dropped)? The introduction states correctly where he was born, so why not bookend it, by including, where he died ? An introduction with a concluding statement that he emigrated to the United States leaves the misleading impression that the U.S. was his final stop. Clarifying that he returned to Canada is not only historically accurate, it leaves no false impression and bookends where he was born. The intro should read something, on the order, like: Alexander Graham Bell ( March 3, 1847 – August 2, 1922 ) was an outstanding scientist, inventor, and innovator. Born and brought up in Scotland, he emigrated to Canada in 1870, and the following year, to the United States. Returning to Canada, he died at his private estate on Cape Breton island, Nova Scotia, in 1922, at age 75. Curiouscdngeorge 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Because where and when someone died is not key information about a person, unlike where they were brought up, educated and began their career, which is absolutely fundamental information in establishing a biography. There have been edit wars going on ever since this article was started trying to claim Bell for various countries. This is just another attempt to boost the case of Canada, over his other two identities. Drop it. --Mais oui! 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Where the man finished his life is hardly irrelevant in a biographical piece, which this is. If it was an article on the telephone, fine, but not when it is an article on the man and his life. Unless you'd like to re-write history and suggest he's still alive and kicking out there somewhere, the end of his live is relevant information.

Sign your posts!!

No: not in the introduction, which is only for key, defining information. Where someone died is just a detail, for inclusion in the main body of the biography. --Mais oui! 05:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, don't think I will. Do what you must. If you're only putting in "key" and "defining" information, what possible difference can it make that he was born in Scotland? By the way, "drop it"? Real masterful defence of your position there, sparky.

If you point blank refuse to sign posts they will be immediately removed. You are simply wasting the time of serious editors who have to go round adding the "unsigned" template.

On the substantive point: he was not simply "born" in Scotland: he was brought up, educated and began his career there: it is key to our understanding of the person, because Scotland formed him. He did not emigrate until he was an adult. --Mais oui! 06:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The article's introduction concludes Bell emigrated to the United States. That interprets to a reader that he stayed there, after leaving Canada. Since that is not the case, leaving the intro, as is, becomes a distortion of the truth [just another attempt to boost the United States?]. Introducing where Bell came from leads to concluding where he ended. Adding it is not boosting Canada; it is stating the truth. Deleting it wont change that reality, it just misguides the reader [a cautiousness I would have thought superceded American editorial wishful thinking]. --Curiouscdngeorge 22:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Waste of time, Curious. Mais oui's got himself an agenda. Not to mention a pov problem. 142.166.239.167 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully the format of Wikipedia incorporates this Discussion Page. It's the last bastian of reason within Wiki. Truths get exposure, despite those editors whose raison d'être is to whitewash articles with their own pet-theory personal falsehoods. The integrity of many an articles' contents is in the hands of inexperienced (read weak and immature) editors, which accounts for the jello-like foundation of their decisions. Fortunately, the intelligent program designers of this wonderful encyclopedia have provided a discussion page, as if to provide a life-raft for anyone choosing to voice the truth, despite an engulphing sea of editorial quicksand, in the article, itself. --Curiouscdngeorge 22:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's got to be the most eloquent critique of this glorified blog that I've ever heard! 153.2.246.33 05:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. My experience is that you never quite get past the shock sparked by realizing certain editors take hold of this young encyclopedia, as if it were their own personal wiki. --Curiouscdngeorge 00:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro Suggestion and Small Rant

Why is Bell's nationality even subject to debate? The man was born, bred and educated in Scotland. Would Canada and the USA be so eager to claim him had he been an infamous mass murderer? Where he moved to as an adult is irrelevant. It's shameful that countries with loose ties to Bell lay claim to both he and the telephone. Saying that the telephone is an American invention is as accurate as saying that America achieved a clean sweep of medals at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996. It matters not where the achievement takes place. It is the 'who', not the 'where' that counts. And as far as Canada's claim to Bell is concerned, it is laughable that the site of one's death should take precedence over their place of birth. The page should state, first and foremost, that "Alexander Graham Bell was a Scottish inventor" and go from there, stating where he moved, died etc. Allowing his nationality remain ambiguous is pandering to the glory hunters. Ambiguty, no matter how it manifests, should be avoided wherever possible.Clydey 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, then, he was born, bred, and educated in Scotland. Upon reaching adulthood, he fled Scotland, never to return. That fairly unambiguous.153.2.247.30 03:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Nationality is not some vague issue like degree of fame or greatness. It is black and white and easily verifiable. He was born and raised in Scotland, thus obviously he was Scottish at one time. He also became an American citizen, so it's undeniable that he was an American as well. Which country (of Scotland, Canada and the US) were most influential in his inventiveness? Well, they all seemed to have played a role. THat's for the historians to hash out, but his nationality isn't an area of ambiguity.Penser 10:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)penser

He was not simply "Scottish at one time". Many people become citizens of different countries. Canada and America lay claim to him because he is one of history's great innovators. He was born in Scotland, his parents were Scottish, he was raised and educated in Scotland. His page currently reads: "Scottish born American". *That* is offensive in the extreme. Even the most optimistic of Americans should cringe at that line. He was a Scotsman who became a citizen of the United States. I cannot edit the article as I'm not an established member. I hope someone with an ounce of common sense edits that opening line, however. Clydey 17:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hint: becoming a US citizen makes you an American. Really. That's how it works over here. We're not like you Europeans where someone can still be considered a "foreigner" after their family has lived in the country for three generations. He was born a Scot and became an American. I'm sorry if you find the truth "offensive", but an American by choice is still an American. You certainly have more justification on your side than the Canadians, though -- at least Bell was born and raised in Scotland. The fact that he had a retirement home in Canada doesn't enter into it, any more than buying a retirement condo in Cancun would make me a "Mexican". The only thing that could've made Bell a "Canadian" would've been renouncing his U.S. citizenship and reverting to a subject of the British Crown, just as the only thing that would make me a Mexican is to acquire Mexican citizenship. The United States at that time (and I believe, the UK as well) did not allow dual citizenship. Becoming a citizen required that you renounce ALL allegiance to any foreign government. That was explicitly in the oath. So... either Bell didn't consider *himself* a Scot (much less a "Canadian") or he was a perjurer. Take your pick.

For the hard of seeing, I will once again repeat what has already been said: the oath of citizenship is not, I repeat, not federal law. And Bell's family had not lived in the United States for 3 generations. His family were Scottish, as was Bell. Signing a piece of paper does not change one's ethnicity, nor does it matter one jot unless the person says it does. Do you think that every American immigrant took out citizenship because they "felt" American?

Citizenship is a matter of convenience. It affords people certain rights that they otherwise would not have. That sounds quite handy for someone who carried out his work in America, wouldn't you say? And let us not forget that citizenship was a necessity in order to comply with US patent laws.

I can't believe you have the gall to say, "You certainly have more justification on your side than the Canadians." We have more justification than America, too, and by quite some distance. You have a piece of paper that was in fact not only a major convenience, but a necessity. We have his parents, his birth, his education, his ancestry. So if you plan on weighing each side of the argument, get ready to feel ever so slightly embarrassed.

There's no argument here. He was born and raised in Scotland and so is correctly identified in the lead paragraph as Scottish. That he became an American citizen doesn't stop him from being Scottish. I could renounce my British citizenship and become an American citizen but that wouldn't stop me from being English. If he'd left Scotland at the age of 3 this would perhaps be open to debate, but since he left at the age of 23 it really isn't. The USA and Canada can quite rightly claim his citizenship, but not his nationality. Shinigami27 10:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Having read through all the arguments pertaining to Bell's nationality, I've decided to call a halt to changing the American-English spellings to UK-ish until a consensus has been arrived at. It seems eminently clear to me that despite any subsequent citizenship or allegiance to America, Bell was born a Scot, and spent his formative years and early adult life in Scotland. The person he became was the result of those years, and IMHO no pieces of paper signed or oaths sworn can change that he was intrinsically Scottish. If I emigrated to the US and swore allegiance, I would not become an American, but an Americanised Englishman. I would have new loyalties but would still be the person I was when I left the UK.

Anyone got any thoughts on how this issue can be resolved? --Red Sunset 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Mario Andretti is written as an Italian-born American racing car driver. Arnold Schwarzennegger is written as an Austrian-born American bodybuilder and actor. what do they and Bell all have in common? they were all foreign-born Naturalized Americans.

As to why Canadians claim them as their own i do not know. Need any more proof that Bell is an American, or at least a Scottish-born American? by the way, Microsoft Encarta, peer edited and all has Bell down as simply an American inventor. [[4]]. Cheers, 99.238.12.117 (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not like you Europeans where someone can still be considered a "foreigner" after their family has lived in the country for three generations. - nonsense and proof of the fact that Americans do not know anything about foreign countries and /or cultures. About 90 % of the Americans have never seen foreign countries as a tourist. The think about foreign countries only as bomb targets. Fact. End of story. --141.91.129.4 (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

YOU PICKED THAT 90% FIGURE OUT OF THE AIR. FACT THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR. FACT THE ABOVE PROVES THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AMERICA AND AMERICANS. FACT IT PROVES YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN TO AMERICA. FACT TYPICAL EUROPEAN IGNORANCE. FACT

The other side of Bell

I was asked in one of my class to write some positive and negative things about Alexander Graham Bell. The positives, ofcourse, are everywhere; however, I cannot find one credible source that describes some of the downside of Bell. Everybody has their own little quirks, right? The ordeal with Meucci is, from my understanding, still unclear, therefore I will not include that as a "credible" source. Kengi ikazuchi 18:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Kengi

Western Union or American District Telegraph Co?

The following paragraph was added to the "Competitors" section on Muecci:

More than 100 years later, documents would surface which proved a conspiracy between Bell Company and American District Telegraph Co. of New York. In their agreement, Bell had agreed to pay them 20 percent of the profits from commercialization of "his invention" for a period of 17 years. As a result, Grant conveniently "lost" all trace of Meucci's working prototype and documentation, contracting with Bell shortly thereafter.

What documents? The referenced Muecci web site and major biographies by Charlotte Gray and Robert Bruce say the 20% was paid to Western Union. Not American District Telegraph Co. of New York. Was that owned by Western Union? If so that should be made more clear. Greensburger 01:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Disgrace

It is a disgrace that America not only try to claim Alexander Graham Bell, but they also try to claim his father, a man who never even applied for citizenship. I have googled Bell's father and he is often described as an American, quite inexplicably, with his Scottish roots little more than a footnote.

He was born in Scotland and spent the vast majority of his life there. The latter part of his life was spent in America and from that Americans have deduced that he was American. Is no man beyond their grasp? Alexander Graham Bell himself did little more than apply for citizenship to comply with patent laws.

Everything about Bell was Scottish, from his upbringing and education to his ancestry. He invented the telephone before he was a US citizen, yet Americans are not only taught that he was American, but that it was an American invention. It has gotten beyond a joke. A person's heritage is everything. Living in America does not suitably dilute someone's bloodline to the point where they become American. Sandman15 19:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature."

So Bell was lying when he signed that? By the way, what is it with you Europeans and your "bloodlines", anyway? And yet you're all convinced that we Americans are "racist". Heh.

Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who has taken that oath renounced any affiliation, in their own mind, with their country of birth?

If they're not perjurers, yes. So you're claiming that Bell was, in fact, a perjurer?

You don't think people will make certain concessions so as to be afforded certain rights that they otherwise would not have?

If they have no sense of honor whatsoever, perhaps.

Either you are extremely naive, sir, or you are clutching at straws.

Some of us take our sworn word seriously. Are you asserting that Bell didn't?

"The Oath of Citizenship is not a federal law".

And at no point have I asserted that American's are racist. It has nothing to do with racism. It is just a fact that Alexander Graham Bell was Scottish. Signing a piece of paper does not magically change that fact. It is in one's best interest to become a citizen. It affords the individual certain rights. Not only that, but citizenship was necessary for Bell to comply with US patent laws. But hey, if you want to be ultra pedantic, you do realise that Bell was not a US citizen when he invented the telephone, right?

What is your explanation for the countless webpages that claim Alexander Melville Bell as American? He did not become a citizen. It is a clear demonstration that, regardless of whether someone has gained citizenship, the United States will lay claim to anyone remotely noteworthy if they have so much as vacationed there.

I don't know. I've never seen such a page (much less "countless" ones). In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a page about him at all. Perhaps you should go argue about it on one of those "countless" pages, since it appears to be completely irrelevant to this page. Perhaps you'd also care to give us a link to a page that claims someone was an US citizen on the basis of a vacation while you're at it. It is a FACT that Bell renounced his UK citizenship UNDER OATH, whether you like it or not. Sorry.

He did not renounce his citizenship, as it is not federal law. There are many proud Brits who hold or have held dual citizenship. If you become a citizen of one country, you do not lose citizenship to another. It's almost beyond belief that I have to actually explain this. It is just a fact that Bell had to apply for citizenship to comply with patent laws. People gain certain rights if they are citizens. It's telling that Bell applied for citizenship not long after he began his stay in America. What's more likely? He felt American after such a short time or he needed citizenship?

The reason why I'm not on those "countless other pages" is because I can't edit them. As far as someone becoming an American on the basis of a vacation, I'd like you to explain to me how living in America for an extended period of times makes someone American. Please, tell me in what possibly way Alexander melville Bell was American, as most pages claim. It is no more absurd that someone being labelled American because of a holiday. Technically it is the same.

Oh, and just in case you didn't get it the first two times: "The Oath of Citizenship is not federal law". Sandman15 12:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Film biographies about Bell

Besides the 1939 film with Don Ameche as Bell, and the 1995 animated cartoon film about Bell, and the 2005 Arts & Entertainment biography of Bell, what was the title and year of the silent film biography about Bell, probably from the 1920's? Greensburger 13:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

references vs further reading

I have moved the references not tied to specific facts to "further reading". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary- explanation already given, I had used these references in formulating the article; they were not ""further reading". FWIW Bzuk 02:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC).

Now that the references tie to specific facts, I have reformatted them to standard inline citations, and removed the unformatted versions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Again not necessary to change formats. Full edits are perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia. FWIWBzuk 16:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC).

There is no consensus on preferable citation format at this time. I prefere {{cite xxx}} templates personally and have trouble understanding why someone would go to the trouble to remove such clean formatting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the templates were instituted early on to help Wikipedia editors who did not have a background in cataloging. However, there are editors that do have experience in creating catalog and bibliographical entries and these editors have provided "clean" edits that read exactly like the templates (and in some cases, read even better because there are slight variances from template to template). (FWIW, I am a former librarian with a 33 year+ background in reference cataloging)Bzuk 01:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC).

Here is an example of the "cite" template formatting that was reversed: [[5]] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard, look at the dates, you now have two different date formats, that's why sometimes the templates don't work. FWIW Bzuk 20:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC).

I have formatted all the references from the New York Times in the same manner. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, thanks for your contributions. I do not see the need for the amount of detail in the notes, however, if you feel it is necessary... FWIW Bzuk 12:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC).

Biographical standard

For some time now, I have observed that "crafting" of this article into one POV soapbox or another. The casual reader who comes across this article may get the impression that Bell's work was tied up in battles with patent challengers. That is an important issue but in reading five authoritative biographies on Bell, the overall impact of these patent fights was negligible when dealt with in the context of telling the story of a remarkable doctor, inventor and scientist. Yet at one point, that aspect was approximately one third of the article. Other controversial elements of his life story such as eugenics warrants a part of a chapter in biographies but here there is undue weight placed on these issues, making the article read more like a polemic against Bell rather that a balanced, academically written and substantiated work. For example, until recently, there was scant mention of Bell's contribution to aeronautical research. I am about to undertake a series of rewrites to establish more of the life and times and achievements of Bell. I invite comments and suggestions prior to, during and post editing. FWIW Bzuk 13:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC).

I agree that more should be said about Bell's accomplishments and less about Meucci who is more to be pitied than praised. But the article must also reflect the fact that Bell stood in the shadow of the telephone industry and telephone companies founded in Bell's name by Gardener Hubbard. The telephone patent matters are essential to understand the problems Bell faced and how the court decisions determined Bell's fortune and fame. If Hubbard's lawyers had not obtained US patent 174,465 for the variable resistance feature and if it had not been upheld by the courts, the Bell companies would have been crushed by Western Union. If Edison had not been obligated to sell his carbon microphone patents to Western Union which decided to sell them to Bell, Edison could have founded a telephone company that would have crushed the Bell companies. If Emile Berliner had not come along with a me-too patent for the carbon microphone that the Bell company bought, to temporarily neutralize Edison's patents owned by Western Union, we never would have heard of Bell. The Bell companies came very close to bankruptcy and Bell said so "the ashes of the Bell Telephone Company" in his letter to his wife (see AGB and the Passion for Invention, by Charlotte Gray, pages 193-194) and should be quoted in this article on Bell. Greensburger 17:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your appraisal, however, there seems to be very complete articles on the telephone including the various patent disputes. In writing a biographical article, there should be mention of all the significant events of a person's life, but in reading the present biography, there has been an effort to redress history and although there may be cogent reasons for including the information, it is a matter of weighting the information that is disproportional to a remarkable life. If Bell had only been involved in the invention of the telephone then this type of emphasis would be appropriate but there is so much more to his work than a single invention. FWIW Bzuk 20:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC).

GA comment

The article is currently nominated at WP:GAC and before the article is reviewed by another editor, the citation needed tags need to be addressed. Additionally, the neutrality tag needs to be corrected or the article will be quick-failed. --Nehrams2020 22:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not yet ready for a GA submission as I have been undertaking a rewrite that will take another two weeks to complete. FWIW Bzuk 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC). There is an admin now working on the article to give it a {{sprotect}} protection against an ongoing series of anon attacks that has hampered the revisions that are being undertaken in the article. For now  GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. has been issued, with a prospective two-three weeks to completion of final revisions. FWIW Bzuk 00:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC).

I have removed this article from the GA nominations list, based on stability issues. This action is not explicitly a 'fail', so I am not adding the article history template. Rather, I consider that the nomination has been withdrawn. The {{sprotect}} arrangement has just expired today, and already I see an anonymous comments reverted, twice, after about 5 hours of unprotection. This is going to take a bit longer to determine if it meets the stability requirement of the GA criteria.

Some other issues I see right away with the article are two 'citation needed' tags that must be addressed, a general lack of organizational structure (lots of sections and subsections, that seem to be scattered about), and a lot of external links. It might help to review WP:EL for help on pruning the links a bit. Some of the reference citation formatting can be improved a bit; there's quite a few inline citations where there is considerable text quoted from the article in the citation itself, which is generally unnecessary and unorthodox. All that should be listed in reference citations is the author, title, publication, date of publication, date of URL retrieval, etc (the pertinent data required to locate the source, either online, or in a library). Adding quotes really bogs down the references section, and adds unnecessary bytes to the article.

Anyway, to reiterate, this is not an explicit failure of the article, although several comments were made suggesting avenues of improvement. Please renominate the article once the issues have been addressed and the article is stable. Dr. Cash 04:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and I agree that stability is an area that will be difficult to sustain with this article. As for some of the other aspects of the critique, an unusual notes section has been adapted due to the controversial nature of the subject and the constant attempts to introduce POV statements needed to be addressed. I do not agree about the organizational structure being an issue since compared to the original form that this article took, a biographical style was adapted. I would happy to continue this discourse in order to establish a more effective style. FWIW Bzuk 13:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC).

Last words

I'm uncomfortable with the "last words" part of the "death" section, as it is based on a site called www.anecdotage.com, which doesn't look too reliable. I attempted to reword it to at least reduce the level of certainty that this event occured, but as Bzuk correctly points out, that results in a weasely passage. Anyone object to just cutting this anecdote out? Or any more authoritative reference to it, at least? Sounds like one of those unverifiable things that is best left out, to me. --barneca (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, I will find a more authoritative reference. Thanks for the work you have done so far. Bzuk 13:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

Sure, no rush, my finger isn't hovering over the delete button or anything. You see my point tho, right? --barneca (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, and as I had come across the Internet note and inserted it myself, it was used because the section was "deathly?!" and needed some additional details. I am looking up some new reference sources because it sounds right but you never know about anecdotes like that, they sometimes sound too good to be true, and... FWIW Bzuk 13:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

Found it, Bruce 1973, p. 491- an entire page devoted to his last moments. The final scene was even more poignant than the original quote. Mabel held his fingers and continued to feel a twitch even in death's passing. I don't think I'll mention that. FWIW Bzuk 13:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

Oops, sorry. I messed up Barneca's edit, after he/she messed up my edit, after I reverted Beinn Bhreagh, Nova Scotia and Bras d'Or Lake. Greensburger 13:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No kidding?! Maybe read first, edit later. FWIW Bzuk 13:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

No worries, Greensburger. Wish I had a nickel for every time I've reverted to the wrong version. --barneca (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In Robert Bruce's bio of Bell, the death scene in the paperback edition is on page 491 (not 401). The last words on that page are "closed about him forever". Greensburger 14:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it was likely my typo. I will correct the page reference. Bzuk 14:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

"Where 1973 came from, I don't know" by Bzuk.

Bruce's manuscript was copyrighted in 1973. See the top of the copyright page. The first edition was published in 1990. The paperback edition is the one I have and was also published in 1990. Each edition gets a different ISBN number and a different publication date. However, there may be multiple printings and the dates stay the same. The book I have was from the second printing (2 at the bottom of the copyright page). Greensburger 18:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

For consistency, it is easiest to stay with one version throughout. The cataloging rule is to cite the most recent or newest edition (often that is due to errata and other changes that are frequently incorporated in subsequent editions, many times without notification). I have a 1993 edition on library loan at this point, but I would be comfortable in using your 1990 edition for all tracings. FWIW [:º Bzuk 22:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

Canadian?

Do the canadians claim him for he died there? Or the americans for he lived there? or the scots for he was born there?

I think he is canadian because his body is still at rest there today —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asovse (talk • contribs) 17:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the earlier question, the answer is "yes." FWIW Bzuk 18:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC).

I'm not so sure Robert Bruce's bio of Bell is the be all and end all. The quote attributed to Bell regarding his nationality is dubious. Has Bruce sourced the quote? A quick google search reveals that there is only one place to find that quote: Robert Bruce's book. It looks a touch dubious to me. 77.102.8.117 01:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? FWIW Bzuk 01:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

The quote: "I am not one of those hyphenated Americans...". Did Robert Bruce, the author, source the quote? It must have come from somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.8.117 (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The quote is attributed to Bell's private papers, October 16, 1915. FWIW Bzuk 12:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

I still don't see any hint of that quote online. I know that it's in the book that was referenced, but wouldn't such a definitive quote be at least somewhere online? A quote attributed to Bell in which he states conclusively that he is American would not be so obscure. I'm not keen on the reference. Is there a more solid reference online? 77.102.8.117 08:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You are insisting on an internet reference over a published one- get serious. BTW, Andy, get a userid if you want to be considered a legitimate researcher. Bzuk 11:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC).

I have a userid. I just haven't signed in. Could you be more elitist? Whether I sign in or not is irrelevant. It wouldn't change the point I'm making. The reference might be published, but as far as I'm concerned it is unreliable by virtue of the fact that the quote appears to be completely untraceable.

Why is the quote so obscure? Scotland, Canada and the United States have been battling over Bell's national identity for a long time. I think the quote would have surfaced before now. Do me a favour and curb that snotty attitude, Bzuk. I raised a legitimate point. I am not saying that the Internet is more reliable. In fact, it's a great deal less reliable. It's so vast, however, that such a quote would at the very least be alluded to somewhere other than wikipedia. 77.102.8.117 13:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Boy are you short tempered and off-base. As to the use of reference sources, the guidelines point to WP:RS which identifies peer-reviewed scholarly works considered the most authoritative with specialized books by recognized experts in the field, generalized books following with periodicals and finally, web-based information sources as accepted resources. Read the comments over with a different viewpoint and see where is the snottyness? BTW, the quote is attributed to Bell's private papers. FWIW, sorry for being short with you but the question was answered previously and my last response was intended to be jocular- I'll have to remember to put in emoticons next time. [:¬∆ Bzuk 13:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC).

I am not short tempered. Asking me to get a userid so as to be taken seriously is snotty. You'll no doubt tell me that you were well meaning, but you were being condescending. Insisting that I am not a legitimate researcher because I didn't sign in is, again, snotty. I'm not disputing that published works in general carry more weight, but I still find it odd that the quote is nowhere to be found in the biggest source of information at our disposal. Such a declaration, at least to my mind, would not be so obscure.

And stop taking thinly veiled swipes at me. The point I am raising is not as a result of my own bias. If it was, I wouldn't be quite so reasonable. I am simply curious as to whether the quote has surfaced anywhere on the web? If you could answer me without implying that I have an agenda I would appreciate it. It's not much to ask. 77.102.8.117 13:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Who knows why an obscure passage in a letter is not on the Internet? I cannot seem to convince you of my emotional state of mind, and since you've taken this to a personal level, I have no interest in this kind of discourse. Email me if you want to continue chatting. FWIW {:¬} Bzuk 13:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC).

I didn't take it to a personal level, Bzuk. You consistently took shots at me, whether it be because I didn't sign in or because you think I'm pushing an agenda. All I asked was for you to cut it out and show a little respect. I didn't barge in here asking for the quote to be removed. I made an enquiry and you got defensive. Is it asking a lot for you to not imply that I'm POV pushing? 77.102.8.117 14:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your last reponse after I had written the one above, so apologies if I seemed confrontational. It was me that asked the question previously. I'm back asking again because I have been trying to verify the quote since then and haven't found it anywhere. To save me getting the Bruce book, is he more specific than "Bell's private papers"?

Seriously, and not so seriously; the quote is attributed to Bell's private papers, October 16, 1915. I believe that the material is stored in Washington and although it is likely that only limited access is available to the voluminous collection of letters and documents stored in the Smithsonian and National Geographic headquarters. Bell was an inveterate hoarder and at his death, a huge collection of material was stored and only little by little was it sifted through. Coincidentally, his habit of keeping all his correspondences was mainly responsible for the many successful legal defenses of the telephone patent as he had an established authorship "chain" that was dated and recorded in his letters to his fiancé and his family. Andy, not to diminish any anon's contributions but I know that the first thing that happens in protecting an article is to limit anon's access, so it is useful to use your userid for that purpose alone. Nevertheless, the letter that is alluded to in the papers is not widely available to researchers but Bell's biographers certainly would have come across any pertinent material. FWIW [:¬∆ (See smily face- not angry face... Jest kiddn'Bzuk 14:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC).)

Fair enough. That's all I wanted to know. I would normally use my userid for edits, unless of course I forget to sign in. Out of curiosity, why do you keep calling me Andy? 77.102.8.117 14:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, see: [6] and the first name on the page was "Andy" so I assumed it was the name of the person who had the talk page. Using a name is just a means of personalizing an exchange so it isn't just two strangers talking. Me Bill, you Jane? FWIW Bzuk 14:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC).

Call me James or Jim. Jane is a tad too feminine for my liking :) 77.102.8.117 14:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

James, Jim, Jimmie, Jimmy, Jimminie, Jimbo... nice talk' at 'ya. Catch you later. [:¬∆ Bzuk 15:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC).

Interwiki link reverting

A question to Bzuk - having been keeping an eye on some of the vandalism here for a few days, I'm curious as to why you're reverting bot additions of interwiki links. Is there a reason for it? After the last bot addition, I had a quick scan, and couldn't see a problem with the addition. Cheers. Carre 12:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not see the reason for the BOT's addition although I do not normally revert this type of edit, and typically revert back to the last "clean" version to eliminate any inadvertent vandalism. FWIW Bzuk 12:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC).

Fair enough - was just curious. Incidentally, popups are a useful tool for seeing what changes have been made without having to do a full diff; can just hover mouse over the diff link in contributions/watchlist and you get the changes. Cheers. Carre 14:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahoyhoy

I think there ought to be a sentence about Bell's "ahoyhoy" greeting here. See here if you don't know what I'm talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.166.79 (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Pernicious anaemia

I guess that Bell would have been ill for some time (perhaps years) as his pernicious anemia insidiously became worse prior to his death. Are there any records of gradual failing health? Snowman 21:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, his deteriortion in his final years was extensively covered in many biographies. It was very evident to the family that Alexander Graham Bell was in failing health but he typically did not want to let up on his experiments and took very poor care of himself, despite many entreaties by his wife. FWIW, nice to see you and Red taking an interest in this biography; it certainly can use the help even from the standpoint of vandal patrol alone. Bzuk 02:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

Still at work Snowman? This is probably not the best place to post this comment, but having read through all the arguments pertaining to Bell's nationality, I've decided to call a halt to changing the American-English spellings to UK-ish until a consensus has been arrived at. It seems eminently clear to me that despite any subsequent citizenship or allegiance to America, Bell was born a Scot, and spent his formative years and early adult life in Scotland. The person he became was the result of those years, and IMHO no pieces of paper signed or oaths sworn can change that he was intrinsically Scottish. If I emigrated to the US and swore allegiance, I would not become an American, but an Americanised Englishman. I would have new loyalties but would still be the person I was when I left the UK.

Any thoughts on how this issue can be resolved? --Red Sunset 21:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I arrived here as my son has a (Scottish) school project to complete based on a famous Scot.

I am not sure about counts of hits on this page in particular, but the US:UK ratio of readers of the en.wiki in general is about 80:20. Snowman 22:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That may be so, but not relevant to the issue. Having four times the number of US readers as those in the UK doesn't mean that he was four times as likely to be American. It needs to be sorted out, and not just for agreement of the spelling format which depends on the subject's nationality first and foremost. --Red Sunset 22:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

On what evidence is it concluded that he had pernicious anaemia? Pernicious anaemia is insidious, so the article seems incomplete, I feel, that this death suddenly appears without any prior mention of malaise. Snowman 22:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a few mentions of his failing health in the "Family tragedy" section, but no reference to Pernicious anaemia. --Red Sunset 23:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If you read through the edit history, this is a work in progress which I have had to suspend due to another Wiki issue that has to be resolved. I will certainly get to work on it again but feel free to make a submission on this topic. There is quite an extensive account of Bell's final years which were spent at Beinn Bhreagh. As to the spelling, UK-like grammar has been predominate since the article was created and remains in place. FWIW Bzuk 23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

I have read the "Family tragedy" section now; it starts in 1865 when Bell was 18 and it says he was exhausted in the (fall) autumn and winter. This does not help to clarify his health nearer the time of his death at age 75. If he had Addisonian pernicious anaemia (named after Thomas Addison) he would not be able to absorb B12 from his gut although he had B12 in his diet. It is possible for vegetarians to develop dietary vit B12 deficiency, as B12 is mainly present in meat. Snowman 23:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Cause of death

So far I've seen heart attack, diabetes, and now Pernicious Anaemia. Is there a definite cause of death?24.63.212.8 01:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)User:24.218.139.157

Charlotte Gray's biography of Bell "Reluctant Genius" pages 414, 418-419 says "Alec had been diagnosed with diabetes in 1915." [seven years before his death] "... wiggling his toes, even though he had lost sensation in them. None of his family realized that the loss of sensation was an indication that he had pernicious anemia... The local doctor from Baddeck confirmed that the diabetes had now affected Alec's liver." [Diabetes can also cause nerve damage and loss of sensation.] Greensburger 16:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, from a medical point of view, it just doesn't fit - diabetes does not cause significant liver damage per se, and is definitely unrelated to pernicious anaemia. As for loss of sensation and nerve damage, they're the same thing in this case (an instance of diabetic neuropathy), but that doesn't kill. Can anyone find a clearer reference? --Nehwyn (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to have given evidence that pernicious anemia was connected to Bell's death, so I've changed it to diabetes, which seems to be the commonly accepted cause. Those citing diabetes as the cause include: http://www.sciencetech.technomuses.ca/english/about/hallfame/u_i03_e.cfm http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O119-BellAlexanderGraham.html http://www.science.ca/scientists/scientistprofile.php?pID=120 http://www.biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=7894 and also Robert V. Bruce's biography Bell: Alexander Graham Bell and the Conquest of Solitude Chignecto (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The cause of death is listed as "Diabetes" in the detail at the end of the article, while the summary at the top still lists "Pernicious Anaemia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.103.1 (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the inconsistency to say the cause of death was diabetes and mentioned pernicious anemia as an additional disease that Bell had. Greensburger (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

US Form

Why isn't this article in US Form, such as honor instead of honour? 1. Bell lived in the US most of his life. 2. Wikipedia is a mainly US encyclopedia. 3. US Form is less letters. 4. It looks better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.116.178 (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he lived in Canada more than he lived in the United States and previously he spent his early life and formative years in Scotland and the United Kingdom. For those reasons, and that UK spelling conventions are acceptable in Wikipedia underlie the reasons for the choice of spelling. Pardon me for snickering at your other three points, surely you are not serious? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

Please don't feed the trolls, people. (That was regarding reasons 2 to 4.) --Nehwyn (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is all too much :-) I've especially liked reading this particular discussion section.... 'controversial' articles can sometimes generate highly amusing comments from people. Regardless, my main point is that I am surprised that no one's caught on to the initial poster's grammatical mistake in point (3). Letters are quantifiable, hence it's "fewer", and not "less"! :)

But yes, jolly good show. Keep up the discussion :-) Worcester Squire (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a mainly US encyclopedia - an encyclopedia for the illiterate? LOL ... go away. -141.91.129.4 (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Material from Eugenics article.

I note that there's an inline request for talk page comment when adding to this section. Today's addition was prepared to answer a {{fact}} request on the Eugenics page. At this stage in Bell's career his interest was less controversial, and I'm adding it here also with some confidence. It is cited. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship debate renewed

Would interested editors please take a look at the first/lead paragraph that identifies Alexander Graham Bell's origins and nationality. A question of how to phrase or write this paragraph has been raised. All input is welcomed. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

The current wording seems a bit complicated. However, it also appears to be the result of significant discussion. I suggest discussion if anyone wants to change it. That said, it does appear to be accurate to describe him as a Scottish-born American, with further explanation as is currently in the article. (And for disclosure purposes, I'm Canadian.) The article has now been the subject of a bold change and a reversion, now it's time for the discussion part. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and although i is also Canajan, the wording is a peculiar amalgam of all the various claims that were made. Alex's Scottish birthplace and early formative years spent in Scotland are noted, while the family and Alex settled in Canada and he would go on to spend most of his life there, he became a U.S. citizen in 1882. I think a more carefully worded introduction is in order but it may acerbate jingoism and nationalist demands from one country or another. C'est la vie (whoops, introduced another country's claims...) LOL {:¬∆ Bzuk (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

There is a simple solution to this problem that I highly recommend we adopt: remove any mention of nationality from the intro. What is important is Bell's work and contributions to the world. Where he was born, lived and vacationed is not. Bell deserves and article on the wiki because he invented the telephone, not because he was born in Scotland or had a cottage in Baddeck. Maury (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Maury, using that precept, I have a version here that predated the present lead paragraphs:

Alexander Graham Bell (3 March 1847 - 2 August 1922) was an eminent scientist, inventor and innovator. Alexander Graham Bell is most often associated with the invention of the telephone. Called "the father of the deaf", his father, grandfather and brother had all been associated with work on elocution and speech, and both his mother and wife were deaf, profoundly influencing Bell's life's work. His research on hearing and speech further led him to experiment with hearing devices that eventually culminated in the invention of the telephone.

Bell was awarded the first U.S. patent for the invention of the telephone in 1876. Although other inventors had claimed the honour, the Bell patent remained in effect. In later life, Bell considered his most famous invention was an intrusion on his real work and refused to have a telephone in his study.Many other inventions marked Bell's later life including groundbreaking work in hydrofoils and aeronautics. In 1888, Alexander Graham Bell was one of the founding members of the National Geographic Society. Upon Bell's death, all telephones throughout the United States stilled their ringing for a silent minute in tribute to the man whose yearning to communicate made them possible. FWIW, the other descriptions of Bell's birth, formative years, immigration and citizenship can be dealt with in other appropriate sections. Bzuk (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

Excellent! However, I'd posit that the whole patent thing could be removed to the body as well. I'd also like to expand a few of his later works, such as...

Alexander Graham Bell (3 March 1847 - 2 August 1922) was an eminent scientist, inventor and innovator. Alexander Graham Bell is most often associated with the invention of the telephone. Called "the father of the deaf", his father, grandfather and brother had all been associated with work on elocution and speech, and both his mother and wife were deaf, profoundly influencing Bell's life's work. His research on hearing and speech further led him to experiment with hearing devices that eventually culminated in the invention of the telephone. Bell considered his most famous invention was an intrusion on his real work and refused to have a telephone in his study. Upon Bell's death, all telephones throughout the United States stilled their ringing for a silent minute in tribute to the man whose yearning to communicate made them possible.

Bell's later life is marked with experiments in a variety of areas, most notably aerodynamics. He invented a new type of kite construction and built several very large kites based on this design. He later turned to aircraft design, inventing the aileron, which is a feature of almost every fixed-wing aircraft today. He also helped build several complete aircraft, making the first public demonstration of flight in 1908, and the first flight in the British Empire in 1909. He also worked in the field of hydrofoils, culminating in a design that held the water speed record for ten years. In 1888, Alexander Graham Bell was one of the founding members of the National Geographic Society.

Maury (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I guess it's the first flight outside the Isles, Cody was sep 1908. Maury (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The framing of the statement on Bell's invention of the telephone was in reaction to some of the earlier contentions that Antonio Meucci had a prior claim. Some of these discussions had labeled Bell as an imposter/thief?! BTW, I like the first paragraph, the second still needs a bit of wordsmithing, but is a good "change for the better." A slight take on the second paragraph follows:

Bell's later life was marked by experiments in a wide variety of interests, most notably aerodynamics. Creating the Aerial Experiment Association, he experimented with a new type of geodesic construction and built several very large kites based on this design. Later turning to aircraft design, Bell was instrumental in the development of the A.E.A. Silver Dart which flew in 1908 and his invention of the aileron, a feature of almost every fixed-wing aircraft today, was noteworthy. Bell also worked in the field of hydrofoils, culminating in a design that held the water speed record for ten years. In 1888, Alexander Graham Bell was one of the founding members of the National Geographic Society.

Again, only a twinkling around with words. FWIW, Bzuk (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

(undent) I say go! Maury (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Name

The name "Alec" has been used extensively in this article. This is not usually done in Wikipedia biographies. I began changing most (not all) of the uses to "Bell" in accordance with the MoS. Bzuk has been reverting me. We are at cross purposes here. Bzuk, could you please explain your rationale. Sunray (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to be contrary, but the question of his name is one of major importance and why this article is not written in the standard journalism 101 style. He was born Alexander Bell but at the age of 11, maneuvered his father into accepting a new name, acquiring Graham as his middle name. He was always "Aleck" at an early age within the family but often "Alexander" to his father. He turned to signing his name as "A.E.G." as a young man and reverted to this name convention most times later in correspondence. When he married, his wife insisted that there be a formal name change to "Alec" which became the name he carried when with family and friends. The article was written with these chronological periods identified partly by his name choice. I know it's a pain, but do read the entire article with this in mind. I do think that some of the standard journalism choices of "last" name can be incorporated as long as the his peculiar choices in names comes out. FWIW, Bzuk (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

This is interesting and should certainly be reflected in the article (which I think it was, and remained even after my changes). But surely his last name was always Bell. If so, there's no particular reason to depart from the MoS style, except to reflect the importance of his name change to him when he was young. Sunray (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, as a lad growing up in Scotland, he would have been addressed as "Bell" by his teachers and his peers. This would no doubt have led to all sorts of "ding dong" jokes, which may have contributed to his sensitivity to names. Still and all, I think that the encyclopedia in its neutral way should still refer to him, in the main, as "Bell." Sunray (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Be reassured, this will be altered. I just recently have had to rewrite major portions of the article including the lead paragraphs and the early years section. Someone had "snipped" the whole Canada section out which is being reintegrated. That's why I will go over the article little by little and try to catch all the inconsistencies. The name changes were a minor issue in the rewriting of large portions of text. FWIW, there is no MoS style regarding editorial choices, those are still the prerogative of the writer/editor and based on consensus-building when contentious issues arise. I wouldn't even consider this an issue at all, merely a product of an article that has been besieged so many times that it needs a fresh "take." Bzuk (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

It is good that you are taking a hard look at the article. When I was reading it through recently, it seemed overly long and sometimes tedious with detail. I agree that the MoS is a guideline and that editorial decisions are made by consensus. Glad that you are on this. Sunray (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sun, if I may call you that, son, this article has been an "anvil and hammer" job; you should take a look at its peculiar edit history. Just for a laugh, pull up its original edit and you will see where this taffy-pull has been going. {:¬∆) Bzuk (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

Outdent] I have just changed one "Alec" to "Aleck" for consistency, and after consulting the Canadian Dictionary of National Biography, but only then noted User:Bzuk's point about the name changing at different periods of his life. However, with due deference to a steadfast editor of this page, I still believe that this is too subtle a difference to overcome the "consistency" argument. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you have it right, He was "Aleck" until Mabel insisted on a change, after marriage. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC).

Claims and counter-claims

The article is again under attack by "he didn't invent the telephone" advocates. The opening and lead paragraphs have been written with a careful appraissal of the historical and scientific basis for Bell's role in the development and invention of the telephone and have been vetted by numerous editors and admins. Any discussion about the controversy behind claimants to the telephone should direct their attention and energies to Invention of the telephone. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

So you are saying the contradiction tag is correct then? Macgruder (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

Clear contradiction with "Inventor of the telephone" article. Given the controversy, the opening paragraph should not read as if it's a truth that Bell is the inventor of the telephone. Factually, he was the first to be granted the patent in the U.S. (the second to apply for said patent) Macgruder (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The article to which you refer is chock full of POV including the statement which I challenged. There is a place to discuss the claims and counterclaims of the invention of the telephone and taking it to that page is appropriate. The Bell article is a biographical article and although the telephone is an essential part of the story, it is only one aspect of a long and illustrious life in science. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

I don't see what "only one aspect of a long and illustrious life in science" has to do with the issue in question. Simply stating that an article is chock full of POV is not really helpful. It's equally unhelpful to suggest that I change that article to match your POV. If you wish you can put the contradiction tag on the other article or I'll put it here. It's up to you. Macgruder (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Already taken care of, and there is a difference between the two articles that must be highly apparant even to the casual reader. The Bell article is heavily documented and is extremely carefully written with the input of many editors, so I don't "get" the my POV statement. Check out the edit histories of both articles to see the difference. BTW, the latest "flap" came about when an IP came upon the Invention article and attempted to revise the Bell article to Meucci's claims. Incidentally I have read extensively about Bell and his life and have noted that Meucci's lawsuits were "tossed" out of court as the weakest of the claimants that challenged the Bell patent. If that is the basis of contesting the Bell article's tone, then perhaps, read the edit history of this discussion page and the article discussion page to see how the article and its numerous editors have dealt with the issue of "telephone invention" and the countless developers of the concept and technology behind the telephone. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

Now the dubious "collusion" theory is being reintroduced. Despite referenced sources, if there is no authoritative and supportable statement, then it is best not to introduce it. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

I understand that. However, what is clear is that 'grant of patent in U.S.' does not necessarily equal 'invention of'. Frankly, I don't care who invented the phone. The fact of the matter is that the invention is under dispute, and it would be better to allude to that here without detracting from AGB's life etc. For example, this article from the Guardian talks about the patent controversy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,738675,00.html

I see POV from both sides in this discussion. Given the fact that there is a dispute (look up Telephone in an Italian Encyclopedia), then Wikipedia should report this fact. This is the nature of POV. We are not here to find the truth of the matter when it's unknown but to report both sides. Macgruder (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bell did not just apply for a U.S. patent but sought patents worldwide. The Bell invention was the basis of all early telphones; his work on the device and the scientific principles that underlined his research is well documented. Bell himself saw the telephone as one invention among many other interests. Yes, there is controversy over "Who" invented it and there are earlier machines that date back to "speaking tubes" in prehistoric China that first were used as communication devices, however, the modern telephone can be traced back through Bell's pioneering efforts that took into effect other's research, most notably in the field of hearing and acoustics. To make a claim that Meucci invented the telephone rather than Bell is already in the article. Meucci may have not had the resources to actively pursue a strong legal defence but nevertheless, his claim was dismissed in a lawsuit directed against Bell and his backers. However, there were many other claimants that had much stronger cases such as Gray that ultimately resigned themselves to accepting Bell's patent as legitimate and the basis for all future development stemmed from Bell's machines with constant improvements from other sources. BTW, once Bell invented the contraption, he continued to tinker away on a variant that was used for detecting metals. He was an consummate scientist who went on to establish groundbreaking research in other field including hydrofoils and aeronautics. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

Yes, yes. I'm aware how wonderful Bell was - irrelevant to the discussion as it is. This, however, reads as original research i.e: synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. There is one fact here, and that is the invention is disputed. Given that the inventor is disputed, then Wikipedia reports that. End of story. (I thought that Meucci died before the case came to court or was that a different case). Cheers Macgruder (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be revised to include the theory that Bell stole his invention from Gray, as documented in The Telephone Gambit. AaronSw (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Theories and suppositions can be left to the other articles dealing with the invention of the telephone, this is essentially a biographical article on Alexander Graham Bell. Bzuk (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC).

Honours and tributes

Although a list of honors and tributes to Bell is appropriate, there are hundreds of them and they detract from this biographical sketch of Bell and his accomplishments. There should not be further dilution of Bell's story by listing all the streets and avenues and boulevards named "Alexander Graham Bell Street", etc. There should be a short list (less than a dozen lines) of the main honors in which Bell participated. The others should be split off into a subordinate article. Greensburger (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, the list is waaaaay too long and could go on forever. Revert it back to the original format and put all the other additional listings into a separate article. This will also tend to discourage the usual troll attacks and cruft entries that will invariably appear. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC).

Alexander Graham Bell was born 3rd March 1847 but unfortunately died 2nd August (aged 75).He went to the university of Edinburgh and the university of Toronto .He was married to Mabel Hubbard and they got married in 1877 .He had two sons who died in infancy and had two daughters. Alexander ,a scotsman living in America ,invented the Telephone on 7th March(4 days after his birthday)1876.By 10th March his apparatus was so good that the first complete sentence transmitted "Watson ,come here ; i want to talk to you " was distinctly heard by his assistant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.163.54 (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Factual errors in references to Meucci

The article refers esclusively to the acoustic phone of Meucci. In 1856 Meucci constructed the first electromagnetic telephone, see invention of the telephone. Meucci had developed a series of electric telephones before Bell as noted in the Scientific American Supplement No. 520, December 19, 1885. About the court case: "Despite a public statement by the then Secretary of State that "there exists sufficient proof to give priority to Meucci in the invention of the telephone," and despite the fact that the United States initiated prosecution for fraud against Bell's patent, the trial was postponed from year to year until, in 1896, the case was dropped."

Probably, the actual "invention" of the telephone as commercial product is the great legacy of Bell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunablu77 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not complete way of presenting the facts- please update the summary

On this article, and especially in the first part (summary) is not clear that A. Meucci is the real inventor of the telephone and not a simple "competitor" as it is stated later on in the article.

In the summary it should be added:

"On June 15th, 2002, the US Congress officially recognized after extensive research, that the italian inventor Antonio Meucci is to be credited for the invention of the telephone, and not Alexander G. Bell"-

Sources: [7] [8] [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urmad55 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This article accurately details the Meucci claim and not only did the U.S. Congress not make the above statement, the passage of the resolution was not without controversy itself. See the sources you have given. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC).

Please fix

The beginning of the article is vandalized. Please fix it... I should log into my admin account and do it, but... 140.247.40.85 (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Family Life"

In the "Family Life" section, Alexander Graham Bell is referred to using various names, which becomes confusing:
"On 11 July 1877, a few days after the Bell Telephone Company began, Bell married Mabel Hubbard (1857–1923) at the Hubbard estate in Cambridge, and shortly after, embarked on a year-long honeymoon in Europe. During the Bells' European honeymoon, Alec brought a handmade model of his telephone with him, making it a "working holiday." Although the courtship had begun years earlier, Alexander waited until he was financially secure before marrying. Although the telephone appeared to be an "instant" success, it was not initially a profitable venture and Bell's main sources of income were from lectures until after 1897"
Is it just me, or is this an annoying writing habit? Perhaps the writer should give Bell a name, and stick to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.125.250 (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read further there is a reason for the use of his name in various forms, until his marriage he had gone by "Aleck" and later his wife asked him to change his name. The later use of "Bell" is the standard journalistic style. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC).

"Bell" is ambiguous in paragraphs that refer to other family members. Biographer Charlotte Gray refers to him as "Alec". Greensburger (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right, and I think we have had this conversation before and where an identification had to be made, depending on the time period involved, "Aleck" or "Alec" was the fall-back appellation. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC).

Bzuk - you say: "The later use of "Bell" is the standard journalistic style". I am aware of this, and I had also read further. My point still stands: the naming of Bell throughout the article - even after reading about Bell's various name changes through his life - seems somewhat arbitrary and confusing. Cheers

Hot or Not?

Saucy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.15.38 (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is receiving heavy traffic

Can we please put the heavy traffic notice somewhere on the page since it's getting traffic from Google? Kashakak (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources for atricle numbering 40 and up

have a line across them, I guess it souldn't be there...

Thank you wiki people out there, you are doing a great job.

DK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.134.130 (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Father of the Deaf"

No... no matter what kind of citation... Alexander Graham Bell is not CONSIDERED as Father of the Deaf.

Deaf community does not highly regard him.

He is the strongest proponent of Oralism. Many people know him as an inventor of the telephone, but in a reality, he is very involved with deaf education. Therefore, his involvement was not well regarded.

Lastly, Alexander Graham Bell is NOT the Father of the Deaf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.81.187 (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Credited with the invention?

Bell was credited with the invention of the telephone?? I think it's far more relevant to start off explaining that he was the first to PATENT this invention. That's the only thing that can be historically proved. IMHO, it is not encyclopaedic to state to whom the credit was given in the first words of the article -Wikipedians should first expose facts (Bell's patent is a fact, I agree) and just secondarily disclose credits, opinions, convictions. Antonio Meucci was recognized by US Congress on June 11th, 2002 for his pioneer work on the telephone - so even a potentially biased viewpoint claimed things went this way (what if Italian Parliament had claimed Meucci's paternity, wouldn't you think they would be prejudiced? But in this case it's the US Congress speaking!!) BTW, even Reiss and Gray's role is important. I propose to write: Bell was the first to patent... etc. Kyle082 (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This argument has been advanced before and it is part of the discussion strings found in the archives of this talk page. Meucci was one of 600 claimants to the invention. Read the Resolution carefully to see what it actually says and who proposed it. Bzuk (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

Facts and claims: my response I'm not speaking just about Meucci - even though I do not think his role can be compared to the one of the other 600 claimants. I'm just proposing an edit, and I explained why I'd like this page to be edited. I repeat, my proposal is to start the article writing: Bell was the first to patent the invention of the telephone and not Bell was credited with the invention. Shortly, that's because I think that facts should be preposed to claims in an encyclopaedia. Kyle082 (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraphs have been written and rewritten considerably over the last year and have been vetted by admins and other knowledgeable editors. Nothing prevents you from setting the case forward. So far your explanation is not sufficient for a change to your proposed wording. Provide some attribution for corroboration. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

Well, I'll try to provide it as soon as I can. For now, I just want to emphasize that Wikipedia itself offers a more impartial viewpoint in other articles. For example here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Bell) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_the_telephone). Kyle082 (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are wishing to provide a revisionist history, be prepared, a number of authorities will be required and get ready to become an expert because reliable, authoritative research and reference sources will be required. Judging by the number of edits you have made to date, that prospect may be somewhat daunting. Good luck. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

Of course I am speaking about reliable and authoritative research. However, I can't understand how this relates to my number of edits or about the fact that this would be daunting work (btw i'm a very proficient editor in my local wikipedia). It seems to me that you want to discourage me from working so much, but, since I believe in Wikilove, I must be definitely wrong. I'll try to do my best, that's all. I just wanted to say my two cents, at least in this page, hoping that the quest for real knowledge of cultivated editors would delve into the matter even more and bring to something more neutral, like it did in the other wikipedia pages about this subject. If it won't, I played my little part by adding these lines here and I'm content with this. By the way, I do not think this would be "revisionism", just rewording a sentence by replaicing a claim (Bell was credited with...) with a fact (Bell was the first to patent the invention)in an encyclopaedia. Good luck to you and best regards. Kyle082 (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's revisionist but if you have a valid way to present this, go ahead. Sorry for presenting the basic facts of what is required, but you have no past history on this site or in this article, so pardon my scepticism about your scholarly attributes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

It's fine :) I think I can do my part - my only limit is that my mothertongue is not English, but I'll try to provide, if I can, what is needed. Greetings. Kyle082 (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing to see how partial is the introduction of this article when compared to the much more reatistic one in [10] to not say about the article about Meucci [11] which also clearly states that "he is credited with the invention of the telephone". The proliferation of different articles stating different views on the same topic is one of the weak (strong?) points of Wikipedia. Anyhow the disturbing phrases are the ones like "Meucci was one of 600 claimants to the invention" which is not compatible with the history of this case. It's out of doubt and demonstrated (also by still existing prototypes) that Meucci invented his "teletrophone" in 1849-1865, many years before Graham Bell patent in 1876 so it's also not correct to talk about "contemporaneous inventions". The only meaningful debate is the technical one: the "teletrophone" was quite primitive compared to actual commercial telephone, so it is a matter of opinions to define it a "telephone" or not. In any case both opinions are worth to be mentioned so the best "rational" way of introducing this invention is the one in [12]. --Dinofaralli (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite the obvious homerism in the above comment, the debate over the invention is best placed in the article "Invention of the telephone" which introduces all the various theories, many of which smack of conspiracy theories. The article about Alexander Graham Bell is a biographical piece and the story of the telephone while rightfully is an important aspect of his life's work, is only one of many inventions that he worked on, some of which, including the metal detector, hydrofoils and aerial machines, are just as important. Meeuci is a curiosity, his invention was never patented nor could it ever be, it was a mechanical device that had all the elements of a "tin can-on-a-string" which was entirely derivative and never would be able to receive a patent. Other inventors along with Bell, were working on the means of telecommunication; however, of the 600 challengers, none were recognized by the courts as having a meaningful claim. Meeuci's litigation was summarily dismissed as fraudulent as it was litigated not by Meucci but by other parties and his woeful appearance in the court sealed his fate. He could not demonstrate nor even explain how his mechanism worked. The 2002 U.S. Congress Resolution is a blatant attempt by a single congressman to reinstate the claim and it was again rejected. The resolution does not qualify Meucci's priority and merely states that his work be recognized. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Despite the obvious homerism in the above comment... - these are your words, Bzuk. I do not think that emphasizing linguistical mistakes would bring any good to the discussion. Dino and I are not English mothertongue speakers, so if our wording is less than perfect, I think we are justified. If you had to speak a foreign language yourself, you would face similiar hitches (proof is that you misspelled more than once Meucci's name, and it was one single word!). I'm collecting authoritative material for providing some qualified attribution. It's a long and complex task, and you know that. But let me start just giving you an answer about what you wrote, I will subsequently provide more accurate corroboration. You said that Meucci's invention never was patented and he could not even demonstrate how his mechanism worked. Moreover, you quote the courts judgements as a proof of real evidence - they're just a proof of juridical evidence and this makes a huge difference (reality is not always what judges claim it to be).If you peruse Microsoft Encarta's encyclopaedia - so I'm not speaking about an Italian source - you would learn that Meucci in 1871 filed a patent caveat no. 3355 about his "sound telegraph" and that he gave a public demonstration of his invention on Staten Island. It's written here[13]. So, IMHO, what you stated is simply not true. Best regards, Kyle082 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Homerism is simply that- fighting for the home side. FWiW, the opening statement merely states that many (scientists, researchers, historians) have credited Bell with the discovery/invention of the telephone. If you want to fight the fight over the Meucci claim, go back to the original court documents and read them, the case was thrown out with the summary judgement that it was a baseless claim. His invention was never able to be patented; it was a derivative work that had its origins hundreds of years back in China. No authoritative research supports the Meucci claim. Meucci has an article devoted to him and his claim, is that not enough? Bzuk (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that no authorative research supports Meucci's claim, Microsoft Encarta has surely based its article (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701713625/meucci_antonio.html) on something more than mere opinions, otherwise it wouldn't report at first that Meucci is an Italian American inventor, often credited as the creator of the telephone. For these reasons, I think it's not NPOV to state that Bell was credited with this invention without immediately adding or hinting at the fact that there may be something controversial about that (even though Meucci is quoted through the Bell's article, that occurs many lines later and he is somewhat ridiculed and associated with a throng of more illegitimate claimants!) I repeat, I'll try to provide what is needed, if I am able to do it. Thanks for your attention and sorry for misunderstaing your word "homerism" - I had read another definition of it on the Net :-) Kyle082 (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Other inventors have much more of a unique claim to work on telecommunication devices than Meucci. He is treated in contemporary history with much more prestige and acclaim than his very minor contribution deserves. Read about Reiss and Gray, yet none of these inventors could establish legitimate claims. Meucci's court documents are a matter of record, and his inability to demonstrate priority was immediately evident. His case was actually brought forward by other parties wishing to challenge the Bell patent. Meucci is an interesting "what-if" for conspiracy theorists but when you delve farther, it is more a sad case of delusion and bitterness for a prolific if unschooled inventor who really thought he might have invented the telephone. His string invention was not only crude but would not be in any way comparable to other work on electromagnetic devices taking place in Germany and the United States. FWiW, there is no real claim by any other inventors either in the past or now that holds up. Bzuk (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Meucci created a rudimentary telephone (the telectrophone) in 1854 (source: Microsoft Encarta). This device did be able to transmit sound over distance and Meucci publicly demonstrated his invention. Maybe it was not as advanced as the Bell's prototype, but the latter came after several years, so Bell could profit from his contemporaries' studies. Reis' telephone dates back to 1860 but it could only transmit vowels or simple sounds, and not complex consonants, so it was less efficient than Meucci's one AND more recent. Gray's patent was filed in 1875 - again, later than Meucci's public demonstration and later than his patent caveat no. 3355 of 1871. So, for matters of earliness in time and functionality, I do not feel it's fair to compare Reiss and Gray's discoveries to Meucci's work. But, even if we make this hazardous comparison, I assume that likening the Italian inventor's work to the one of the other 600 claimants, without mentioning what he really did and when when he did it, it's almost blasphemy. And these absurd claims are exposed in this article of Wikipedia who mocks Meucci's works, treating him like one out of 599 potential swindlers. Be it clear: 1. I do not want to belittle Bell's work, for sure it was of paramount importance, 2. I am not speaking about a conspiration against Meucci - just highlighting that he had to sell his projects and studies for curing his ill wife. 3. I just think that in this article Meucci is scorned and disparaged. Kyle082 (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article about Antonio Meucci, regardless of what you believe is his contribution to the invention of the telephone. Find the Antonio Meucci article and Invention of the telephone which appear to be the places to argue his rightful place in history. Bzuk (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

I respect but not share your opinion. Greetings :) Kyle082 (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisionist historians have boosted Meucci, but in the late 19th century telephone patent case he was pretty well discredited. He may have built a version of the "tin-can telephone" which worked over short distances by acoustic vibration. Resolutions say more about politics and getting votes from ethnic constituincies than about scholarship in the history of technology. Edison (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I just think that this page is a huge defeat for Wikipedia's neutrality, and that's very sad. If the status quo stays the same, I'm over with this thread, I won't debate anymore. Thanks to all for your attention. Kyle082 (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

More than being dismissed on Wikipedia and in contemporary analysis, Meucci has been given a disproportionate amount of attention but it is an interesting historical footnote nonetheless. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

NPOV does not mean that fringe claims are given a prominence here they do not get in the scholarly literature on the history of technology. Edison (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Edison's last comment forces me to specify what follows. In this article it's written: Over a period of 18 years, the Bell Telephone Company faced over 600 litigations from inventors claiming to have invented the telephone, never once losing a case. (...) One example of the legal action was by Italian inventor Antonio Meucci who claimed in 1834 to have created the first working model of a telephone in Italy. A really NPOV would be: One legal action was taken by Italian inventor Antonio Meucci who, some decades earlier, in 1834, created the telectrophone, a device able to transmit sound over short distance. He claimed it to be the first working model of the telephone, but lost his case....etc This way, I would even be more spurred to write an article about the telectrophone. Kyle082 (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate for the Meucci page, not this Bell page. Greensburger (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with you, Greensburger, because if you just say Meucci claimed to have created the first model of the telephone but he lost his case - and you assert such a thing just after you named 600 fictitious claimants, you let the readers understand that Meucci *just claimed* he had created something, but actually never did it. And that's not true because no one can deny that he built the telectrophone, be it or not the prototype of a telephone. So, if someone really wants to be NPOV, he should at least hint at the telectrophone, once and quickly. But if in this page you want to sweep under the carpet at all costs the noun "telectrophone", fearing it could tarnish Bell's credits, go on concealing fragments of truth on the false pretext of inappropriateness and backbiting a distinguished scientist (who, by the way, did many other things, beyond the telectrophone) Kyle082 (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

See Antonio Meucci for the relevant article to address these issues. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

Meucci is object of calumny HERE (on Bell's page), how could I address these issues THERE (on Meucci's page?) This is the discussion page as for what it's written here, and here I read abusing statements, not THERE. Greetings. Kyle082 (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Kyle, please provide us with a web address for all the words in Meucci's original caveat, not somebody's quotes from it, not a later reconstruction, but the original. I have read that Meucci's lawyer did not file a drawing with the caveat and published drawings that show a electromagnetic telephone attributed to Meucci were drawn years later for the trial, after Bell's patent had already been published. I have not seen a copy of the original caveat, only later reconstructions. If the caveat was destroyed, then all we have are reconstructions which are not credible. I still do not know what a teletrofono was. I have looked at Meucci's published patents for his other inventions and they are respectable. Meucci was not a crackpot as his detractors try to make him appear. I don't believe the tin cans and a string accusations. But Meucci has a credibility problem. The early published description in the Italian newspaper cannot be found because all copies were destroyed in a fire. If we cannot see the original caveat, then we don't really know what Meucci had or didn't have in 1871. Greensburger (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Greensburger, for your kind reply. I can try my best to search for what is needed but my possibilities are very limited and, personally, I am not sure about what happened of Meucci caveat, whether it was lost or whatever - I just don't know (but I know it was no. 3355 and it was filed on December 27, 1871 under the name "sound telegraph"). Professor Basilio Catania owns a lot of authentic and unique material about Meucci's works, projects, letters and so on, he wrote a book in Italian where he collected the results of his research and published his phone number on the Internet (it's written, in Italian, here: http://www.museocilea.it/index.php?id=526) Moreover, he is willing to send his book for free, except for postal charge, so I guess I can phone (!!) him and ask for elucidation, since he is the greatest connoisseur of Meucci's life. If you wish, you could see these links for learning more about technical aspects of Meucci's works: here (http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/meucci.html) and here (http://www.esanet.it/chez_basilio/havana1.htm) I know they're not what you asked me, but *maybe* you'll find something useful in them. Waiting for more accurate material, I would be pleased to investigate your opinion, Greensburger - do you think that Meucci was as important as the other 600 claimants of the invention of the telephone? You looked at his other patents! I've been repeating over and over that in this article Meucci seems like one of them! That's what I asked to be changed IN BELL'S PAGE! Best regards, Kyle082 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Back in the 1880's and 1890's Daniel Drawbaugh had much more credibiity than Meucci. He was discredited in the courts like Meucci. Meucci patented many inventions. If he had really invented a telephone, why wouldn't he have patented it as well? There are all sorts of excuses, like he did not have enough money, but he patented other less promising inventions around the same time. Edison (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Edison, I agree about some incertitude but we are speaking about the nineteenth century. History cannot be always proven, especially back in the olden days. Moreover, if I file a caveat and that caveat goes lost, it is not my fault, isn't it? However you named Daniel Drawbaugh, I could quote Innocenzo Manzetti. Kyle082 (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The websites specified above by Kyle do not give the text of Meucci's caveat of 1871 and do not show drawings witnessed prior to 1880. There is a picture of a wood model of an "electromagnetic instrument" claimed for 1857. But it was published in 1885. There is a drawing of two men talking/listening on electromagnetic telephones claimed for 1858, but the drawing was not filed with Meucci's caveat of 1871 and was not notarized until his avidavit of 9 Oct 1883. There was testimony at the Bell/Globe trial of 1885-1886 and some fifty affidavits between 1880 and 1885, but that was long after Bell's patent. Meucci's lab notebook has an entry dated 20 May 1862: "At the midpoint of the wire a strongly magnetized iron inside a coil... a good conductor of the sound". And an entry dated 17 August 1870 "I have obtained a distance of about one mile." But when were these enties witnessed? In Lemmi's affidavit of 1885, long after Bell's patent. Hence there appears to be no contemporary evidence of Meucci's teletrofono experiments witnessed in writing prior to Bell's patent, not even Meucci's caveat of 1871 which is presumed lost until somebody publishes it. Moreover, assuming that Meucci did obtain a distance of one mile for voice transmission, what is the electrical and mechanical structure of the invention in 1862 and 1870? The web sites do not tell us. None of this is sufficiently credible to make Meucci THE inventor of the telephone. Greensburger (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Greensburger, I had already told you that my links were not sufficient to prove anything. I never claimed Meucci was THE inventor of the telephone, I just think that in this article he is riduculed. Best regards, Kyle082 (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why we can't add the word "often" before credited. It is indisputable that many people credit others with the invention of the telephone, and that many people don't credit Bell. Also, I would appreciate it if people kept the discussion civil and refrained from the angry and condescending attitudes that seem prevelent here. LedRush (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia mirror

This edit intimates that the Wikipedia article is a "flawed...cut and paste" from here. May I just point out that the external site, a blog, was posted on 3 March 2008, whereas a cursory check of the history page here shows a complete and mature article long before then. Once again, I propose to remove the circular reference citing the mirror as a reliable source. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Hughey, for getting rid of the reference. Tried to find a replacement reliable source but failed. The information, that Bell "graduated from the University of Toronto" seems dubious and I'm inclined to mark it as such with a {{dubious}} tag, or even delete it altogether, subject to other editors' views. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

University of Toronto lists fifty-two alumni who are famous scientists, here. Bell is not among them. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither the Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online nor the ODNB mention study at, let alone graduation from, University of Toronto. I'm deleting this sentence. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Interpreting the text of the Congressional Resolution

The US Congressional Resolution says "if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell."

The only plausible interpretation of this statement is that if Meucci had paid the $10 fee, Bell couldn't have gotten the patent because it was filed later than Meucci's and bore too close a resemblence to Meucci's invention to be a separate patent. You can disagree with the sentiment (saying that Meucci could have paid the $10 if he thought it was valuable), but the intent of the resolution is clear. Because we know of the race to the patent office (and through other sources documented here) we know that Bell was not sitting on this invention for a length of time that would allow it to predate Meucci's.

All this adds up to a clear statement by the House: Meucci's claim to the invention of the phone is superior to Bell's. This is not an interpretation: it is the only interpretation. If someone would like to offer a plausible alternate interpretation, I am open to suggestions. If not, we should accept the plain meaning of the resolution and ensure that the article accurately reflects this.

I want to be clear with what I am arguing. I am not claiming that Meucci invented the phone. I am not claiming that Bell didn't invent the phone. I am only stating the obvious, that the US House Resolution is a clear statement that Meucci's claim was superior to Bell's.

This opinion can be countered with the opinion of the US courts, as it has been.

However, Wikipedia is not a place for opinions, slanted statements, or half truths. Let's present the contradictory indications objectively and let the readers decide what is they believe. As it stands, the article goes to great lengths to present a very slanted view of events. LedRush (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not again, this fallacious claim made through a campaign by a Republican congressman did not make a case for Meeuci nor did his earlier 1800s litigation. He was one of 600 claimants and his case was not proved then or ever. Take your theories to the Meeuci page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC).

Please, try and make an intelligent argument and not a biased statement. I don't believe you even read my entry. If you did, you would see that I my argument only pertains to what the resoulution says, not to whether it has merit.

If you want to omit any reference to the resolution, make an argument for it. But if you include a reference to the resolution, please do so honestly. Your position on the resolution's value is clear, but you cannot present a biased view of it just because of your own prejudices. Please, stop with your condescending attitude, and address the actual substance of the issue. LedRush (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Some clarification of meaning of text.

Perhaps I am stupid for blindly flying into a contentious article to clean up some text. I should have come to this board first. Also, I apoligize for my edits regarding the language below, I should have first asked for clarification as to its meaning. The text reads:

"Overwhelmingly, modern scholars do not recognize the claims that acoustic devices such as Meucci's had any bearing on the development of the telephone."

What is the purpose of the text? I took it to mean that Bell developed his telephone independently from Meucci (which I don't think anyone disputes). For that reason, I added the language that this is superfluous to any discussion of who made it first. Is that what the text is intended to say, or does it mean to say that Meucci's phone was not a "phone" as modern scholars define it? If that is the real meaning, I suggest it be clarified. If my original interpretation was correct, I suggest we change the language to clarify it. Finally, if it merely means that acoustic devices are different than "phones", I suggest that Meucci not be singled out in a way that implies modern scholars believe something they don't.

As it stands now, the text implies that almost all modern scholars believe Meucci did not play any role in the development of the phone, which is clearly incorrect. There is much disagreement about this. LedRush (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Introducing the Meucci argument again is argumentatiuve and disruptive. The lead section was written in consultation with admins and experienced editors and has been reflective of the work of Bell. Meucci was one of 600 competitors who lodged claims for previous work. His case was reviewed and dismissed and even today would have not received much attention as the basis of his device was found in earlier machines dating back to the Ancient Chinese. His was a mechanical "tin-can-on-a-string" device that never was used in his time or since as a successful communications device. He demonstrated a prototype, made efforts to have a patent but did not complete the process. Meucci's role as an early proponent of tele-communications devices is acknowledged by some sources but did not lead to the telephone as we know it today. The attempt to introduce the controversy that Bell is "often" known for the invention of the telepone is disingenuous; Alexander Graham Bell is credited with the invention of a telephone that was patented and became the ground-breaking device that laid the framework for the modern age of telecommunications. FWiW, if you wish to develop the Meeuci article further, see Antonio Meucci. Bzuk (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC).

Ignoring the facts of the world and the arguments of your peers is both biased and intellectually dishonest. I have made clear the basis for my proposed name change, and the facts are not disputed. Many people do not credit Bell with the invention of the phone. This is just a reality that you want to ignore. In addition to many scholars, the government of Italy and theh House of Representatives in the US both have made statements indicating that Meucci's claim have priority to Bell's. You may call their claims politically motivated (the latter clearly was) and unscientific (no one can argue that), but you shouldn't ignore the fact that many people do not credit Bell with the invention.

By the way, your repeated use of the claim that Meucci is only one of 600 claimants is not only false, it is disingenuous and cuts against your own argument. To my knowledge there were approximately 600 litigations associated with Bell's patent, of which Meucci was a part of at least 2. Of course, the veracity of the statement is superfluous to the discussion, you are just bringing it up as a way to insult anyone with different views than your own (you've been ncondescending and rude on this site for a long time). It doesn't matter how many claimants there were, there are two that have clearly garnered more attention than the others, and the discussion should acknowledge this. Finally, mentioning the number of people who've sued Bell over the patent shows that the Bell and his successors and assigns were quite successful in US courts, but it also shows that many people claimed the primacy of their inventions. Just as the House resolution only proves what the people in the House voted on, the US court decision only regards whose patent application was legally sufficient.

Your tendency to call people who differ with your opinion "conspiracy threorists", to point out your history of editing, to use condescending language and to misuse facts to buttress your biases are manifestations of your lack of intellectual honesty. However, I only hope to improve the quality of Wikipedia by making the article more accurate. Regardless of our views, many people (including the scholars, the House of reps of the US, and Italy) credit others with the invention of the phone. All these people may be wrong, as you persuasively argue, but that is irrelevent. We're not here to read Bzuk's biases, we're here to write neutral articles. LedRush (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of cases in "competitors" section.

Was the case that Meucci lost the one that was deemed viable by the Supreme Court and remanded? If so, we should state that. If not, perhaps we could include the fact that the Supreme Court found the case for fraud against Bell to be viable, but no decision was reached when the case became moot.

Also I believe the quote from the house resolution should be changed from the general statement acknowledging Meucci's work to "if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell." The language I quote is more relevant to the discussion.

If you're going to flame, please don't reply.LedRush (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelevant about whether Meucci had the money to pay for the patent application, he had no patent and his caveat had run out. Read the recent resolution, it makes no claim that the inventor had a prior invention, it merely recognizes his contribution to the development of a telephone. I agree that there is a large body of "circumstantial evidence" that has been cited by Meucci's supporters. Much of his contemporary work was only available in Italian and even his caveat has no supporting documentation although a later diagram was produced by the inventor that purported to explain his concepts further. Other inventors including Reiss and Gray also have a substantial and verifiable record of achievement that relates to the period and to the elements of a working device. Meucci's case was presented in three separate litigations on behalf of the U.S government as well as a group of investors and his lawyers were unable to establish a prima facie case before the original Bell patent ran out. With Meucci's death, the court cases were concluded. FWiW, the Meucci article is the appropriate place to describe the validity and importance of his work. This article is primarily a biography about Alexander Graham Bell. Bzuk (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC).

You again have attacked the validity of the resolution itself. I am not debating this. All I am saying is that it should be more honestly quoted. The quote I have proferred is more appropriate to the discussion in the article. If you don't believe so, please tell me why. Also, you ignored my question regarding the cases. Please reread my original questions and provide appropriate comments. Thanks.LedRush (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I see you did talk about the cases. The US resolution claims that the "on January 13, 1887, the Government of the United States moved to annul the patent issued to Bell on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, a case that the Supreme Court found viable and remanded for trial" and that when "Meucci died in October 1889, the Bell patent expired in January 1893, and the case was discontinued as moot without ever reaching the underlying issue of the true inventor of the telephone entitled to the patent". Is this or is this not true? If true, it should be better reflected in this article.

I do not want to bring the full argument to the Bell article, but there is a section on competitors and the section should treat the situation with more neutrality to obviously sensitive subjects.LedRush (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Meuuci had a legitimate claim but was unable to assert his priority in litigation due to a number of factors, some of which relate to his inability to communicate in English, his advanced years which was evidenced in his fraility and disorientation in court but it was the lack of documentation that could conclusively prove his case that was most damaging. The three cases in which he was involved were actually brought forward by other litigants who used Meucci as an "expert witness" as well as a co-litigant; Meucci himself was nearly destitute during this period. Some of the machinations even involved the setting up of dummy companies in his name. Bell's second patent had even run out by the time of the second trial and his lawyers were successful in arguing that a monopoly no longer existed which was the basis of nearly all the lawsuits that the Bell Company faced. During the final litigation, Meucci died, and the court had no recourse but to dismiss the final case. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC).

The last change you made to the article makes the language seem slightly more neutral. (and sorry for the citation revert...I couldn't get them to work for me) However, by omitting the fact that one case was not dropped on the merits (and because of the language before and after it), the article gives the impression that Bell won all cases on the merits. I suggest the following language (including the sentences currently before and after my proposed language):

Meucci lost his case due to lack of material evidence of his inventions; Meucci's working models were reportedly lost at the Western Union laboratory. "In another case involving Meucci, the US government moved to annul Bell's patent on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. Though the Supreme Court found the claim viable and remanded the issue for trial, Meucci's death and the expiration of Bell's patent made the case moot, and the case was never decided on the merits." Meucci's work, like many other inventors of the period, was based around earlier acoustic principles.

This is an accurate and neutral assessment of the history of the case. It doesn't give the impression that Meucci's claim was either frivolous (as the article now reads) or a clear winner. Additionally, the sentences at the end of the paragraph make strong statements against Meucci's claims, which my addition can partially mollify with neutral fact-presentation.LedRush (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is more to do with the story of Antonio Meucci than it does with Bell. One of the main reasons for the Meucci claims having a difficult time to establish priority is that there were only "second-hand" accounts of his experiments and demonstrations. His caveat was a simple declaration of the principles of his invention. Only later in 1892 did Meucci produce a diagram that purported to detail the working model he had constructed earlier. The models themselves disappeared when his wife sold off his equipment and the only scale models produced in court were made on behalf of his legal team. The later models that have been constructed based on Meucci's notes showed a rather crude apparatus that some observers have brusquely characterized as more akin to a "tin-can-on-a-string." The cases in which Meucci acted as a material witness were not based on the initial government charges of "fraud" (which incidentally were dismissed in favor of the Bell defendants) but on grounds of "monopoly busting" that were politically motivated as the early Bell devices were prone to failure and the government was reacting to public discontent with the cavalier approach taken by the patent holders. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC).

Again, you are arguing the merits of the case and not that the case existed. The section, as written, has the tone that Meucci's claim was frivolous. Also, because I don't have access to the books cited, I cannot read what the text actually says (of course I know that this is my problem, but I say this to explain my confusion). The House Resolution states that the Supreme Court found that Meucci's claim was viable and remanded the case, which never completed. This article states that Bell company decisively won the case. Are these two different cases, or is one source just wrong?

On a side note, this section is a complete mess. It is confusing, it jumps around, it is defensive in tone, and it needs much rework. While I was writing this, some language was reworked to say that one trial ended open Meucci's death. The House Resolution indicates that that was the same trial that is above stated to end in a decisive Bell Co. victory. If they are different, that should be made clear.LedRush (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

While Meucci had a valid case, he lost the legal battle when he was unable to provide material evidence, and when his lawyers introduced the legal arguments of Bell being involved in "stealing" the Meucci invention, it became impossible to successfully argue the case. Bell had established a very comprehensive record of his experiments that predated the actual development of his apparatus. There were actually three cases in which Meucci was involved. The first being dismissed for lack of material evidence, the second was launched when the Bell Company sued the "dummy" corporation, "The Meucci Telephone Company" that had been set up by the Globe CO. and a syndicate as a challenge to the Bell patent. The third case was similarily launched by the syndicate in Meucci's name but the co-litigant was ill and unable to pursue the case succinctly; his evidence was presented in a rambling, nearly incoherent fashion that evidently was attributed to his failing health. Meucci was never able to learn English and this alone limited his litigation efforts. The case dragged out interminably as Bell's lawyers pursued an active defense, clearly treating Meucci as a weak and ineffective witness. On his death, the presiding judge dismissed the case as the syndicate had also lost its will to continue the fight against the superior legal team that the Bell Company had amassed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC).

Your recent changes help clarify that paragraph a bit, but still don't help with one of my questions. In the first paragraph of this section, the article states:

"On 13 January 1887, the United States Government moved to annul the patent issued to Bell on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The prosecuting attorney was the Hon. George M. Stearns under the direction of the Solicitor General George A. Jenks. The Bell company decisively won the landmark case."

However, the House Resolution states:

"Whereas on January 13, 1887, the Government of the United States moved to annul the patent issued to Bell on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, a case that the Supreme Court found viable and remanded for trial;

Whereas Meucci died in October 1889, the Bell patent expired in January 1893, and the case was discontinued as moot without ever reaching the underlying issue of the true inventor of the telephone entitled to the patent."

It is my understanding that the July 19, 1887 decision was regarding whether or not Meucci's claim had priority over Bell's, not whether Bell's patent should be annulled on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation. It is also my understanding that the January 13, 1887 case remanding the issues for trial was never completed (and therefore was not a decisive victory for Bell). The article should be clear of this confusion.LedRush (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Meucci was involved in three cases:

1. United States Government vs. The American Bell Telephone Co. and Alexander Graham Bell (US/Bell 1888)
2. The American Bell Telephone Co. et al. vs. The Globe Telephone Company, Antonio Meucci et al. (Bell/Globe 1885)
3. The American Bell Telephone Co. et al. vs. The Meucci Telephone Co., S. R. Beckwith et al. (Bell/MTC 1887)

The cases were all decided in the Bell Company's favor; one of them involved fraudulant claims by Bell but the reason for the government instituting its litigation was to break the Bell Company monopoly. Over the years, a misreading of the trial proceedings has led to a statement that the Supreme Court had decided in Meucci's favor. They did not, and the only mention of him is merely acknowledging his work as one of six inventors who had been noted as having experiments that predated Bell's patent. The Supreme Court of the United States, issued a judgment on March 19, 1888, that ruled in favor of Alexander Graham Bell with a 4-3 majority, the 3 dissenting judges being in favor of Daniel Drawbaugh. This decision had nothing to do with Antonio Meucci, since it only concerned the appeals of six cases, also known as "Telephone Cases" that were joined together by the Supreme Court, given their many similarities and which, thereafter, were known as the "Telephone Appeals." FWiW, the myth of the Supreme Court decision in favor of Meucci was originally found in a book that appeared at the turn of the 20th Century and has been forever regurgitated as "fact." Meucci in his lifetime never claimed victory nor could he establish his priority and the fact that he died during litigation is a canard, since the case had long since moved beyond his claims. Bzuk (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC) .

The following website has the supreme court decision in US v Bell regarding fraud and misrepresentation in which the decision of the lower court was reversed and remanded (meaning, Bell Co lost):

http://supreme.justia.com/us/128/315/case.html

Of course this just meant that the earlier dismissal was invalid and that the gov't had a valid claim. Several other sources say that this case was never decided on the merits. That is in clear conflict with the language of the article.

Please realize that I am not arguing the merits of the case or that Meucci was the inventor. However, the language in this section stating that:

"On 13 January 1887, the United States Government moved to annul the patent issued to Bell on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation... The Bell company decisively won the landmark case."

This is incorrect. You said above that none of the 3 cases involved claims of fraud by Bell...well this one clearly did (and the language in the article as it now stands also contradicts your statement).

Unless there is some proof that "United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U.S. 315 (1888)" was decided on the merits, the article must be changed. Also, unless the reprinting of the Supreme Court ruling on the internet is an elaborate hoax, the article must be changed with regards to Bell's "decisive victory". As I've stated before, this section of the article is important to retain, but it is confusing, biased, and disorganized. It needs serious work.LedRush (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the language used in delivering the judgment in the case of the United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U.S. 315 (1888): "The court below, after hearing argument, sustained the demurrers, and dismissed the bill." Meucci was only peripherally involved in the case and is only listed as one of the inventors. In law, to remand a case means "to send back (a case) to a lower court with instructions about further proceedings; it does not convey a judgment." FWiW, the case did involve the government's claim of fraud and misrepresentation but was dismissed. I have misstated the first trial's charges but the statement given in the article is correct and is cited properly. Bzuk (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC).

The case was dismissed, appealed, and the dismissal was overturned and remanded for trial. The trial was never completed. By stating that the court found decisively for Bell, the article is inaccurate.LedRush (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

He was a jew and an eugenicist

Such as Wright Brothers, Thomas Alva Edison,etc. Graham Bell was an eugenicist.He was in fact, the president of Second International Congress of eugenics in New York.The company that this jew founded, the AT&T also gave many money to Adolf Hitler.Beyond doubt, the telephone was invented by Antonny Meucci, an italian.And the absurd claim that pellagra was from genetic causes, also had the support from this eugenicist.This absurd claim sent to death more than one million childeren and blacks in all the world. Agre22 (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)agre22

pls stop that Nazi bit ;-) you will find nowhere in the English Wikipedia a single word about General Motors supplying the Wehrmacht with 80 percent of the 3-ton trucks; you'll find no word about the Bush clan dealing with the Nazis nearly to the end of WW II; maybe you'll miss some hints about IBM sucking up to the SS, delivering Hollerith machines - if they hadn't, a large number of jews had been saved.

So please stop abusing Graham Bell, the eugenicist. It is almost the only one important inventor of the US ... ;-)) --84.141.37.44 (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He's Scottish, not American. Deal with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.56.88 (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Competitors section revision

The competitors section is disjointed and doesn't flow very well using the same type of intro language twice. I propose the revision below. I have mostly just moved sentences around, but I have also changed one sentence near the end both to be less biased and to better reflect the citation (though I still don't think the citation is very good, I know deleting it will be an unpopular move).

Here it is:

As is sometimes common in scientific discoveries, simultaneous developments can occur, as evidenced by a number of inventors who were at work on the telephone. Over a period of 18 years, the Bell Telephone Company faced over 600 litigations posing legal challenges concerning the rights to the telephone, but none were successful in establishing priority over the original Bell patent. The Bell company lawyers successfully fought off a myriad of lawsuits generated initially around the challenges by Elisha Gray and Amos Dolbear. In personal correspondence to Bell, both Gray and Dolbear had acknowledged his prior work, which considerably weakened their later claims. Bell's laboratory notes and family letters were the key to establishing a long lineage to his experiments.

On 13 January 1887, the United States Government moved to annul the patent issued to Bell on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The Bell company decisively won the landmark case in the lower court, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case for a new trial. The trial was never decided on the merits as the death of Meucci and the prosecuting attorney, and the expiration of Bell's patent, made the case moot.

Italian inventor Antonio Meucci also claimed to have created the first working model of a telephone in Italy in 1834. In 1876, in the first of three cases in which he was involved, Meucci took Bell to court in order to establish his priority. Meucci lost this case due to lack of material evidence of his inventions. Meucci's working models were reportedly lost at the Western Union laboratory. Meucci's work, like many other inventors of the period, was based on earlier acoustic principles and despite evidence of earlier experiments, the final case involving Meucci was eventually dropped upon Meucci's death. However, due to the efforts of Congressman Vito Fossella, the U.S. House of Representatives on 11 June 2002 stated that Meucci's "work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged," even though this did not put an end to a still contentious issue. Most modern scholars do not recognize the claims that Bell's work on the telephone was influenced by Meucci's inventions.

The value of the Bell patent was acknowledged throughout the world, and when Bell had delayed the German patent application, the electrical firm of Siemens & Halske (S&H) managed to set up a rival manufacturer of Bell telephones under their own patent. The Siemens company produced near-identical copies of the Bell telephone without having to pay royalties. A series of agreements in other countries eventually consolidated a global telephone operation. The strain on Bell by his constant appearances in court, necessitated by the legal battles, eventually resulted in his resignation from the company. LedRush (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally, it's fine, but factually, Meucci was never a litigant, he was named in litigations by a syndicate and appeared as a material witness. The case that was never completed did not hinge on his invention being considered, it was about another inventor's claims. None of the cases in which Meucci appeared resulted in any substantiation of his claims. See this revision:

"On 13 January 1887, the United States Government moved to annul the patent issued to Bell on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The Bell company decisively won the landmark case in the lower court, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case for a new trial. The trial was never decided on the merits as the death of the prosecuting attorney and the expiration of Bell's patent, made the case moot."

"Italian inventor Antonio Meucci also claimed to have created the first working model of a telephone in Italy in 1834. In 1876, in the first of three cases in which he was involved, Meucci took the stand as a witness in the hopes of establishing his invention's priority. Meucci's evidence in this case was disputed due to lack of material evidence of his inventions as his working models were reportedly lost at the Western Union laboratory. Meucci's work, like many other inventors of the period, was based on earlier acoustic principles and despite evidence of earlier experiments, the final case involving Meucci was eventually dropped upon Meucci's death. However, due to the efforts of Congressman Vito Fossella, the U.S. House of Representatives on 11 June 2002 stated that Meucci's "work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged," even though this did not put an end to a still contentious issue. Most modern scholars do not recognize the claims that Bell's work on the telephone was influenced by Meucci's inventions.

Looks good to me...I see only two small changes...were there more?LedRush (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I still do want to give undue WP:Weight to Meucci who deserves his own article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC).

See revision on the article mainpage. Removing the section on the 600 other trials with a citation included is brought back. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC).

I just made a minor tweak to your revision, as it didn't address the double intro. I did leave in the cited language, I just moved it to the intro of the first paragraph to make the article flow better and avoid repeating similar information. Also, I don't have a problem with the length of the discussion of Meucci: 6 lines seems not a lot for something this important in the tale of Bell's life and the invention of the phone.LedRush (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bzuk, please don't change the article ignoring suggestions on the talk page. If you don't like our proposals, please offer another and tell us why. We aren't trying to destroy the article, we are trying to make if flow better.LedRush (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Again Meucci was only one claimant among many, and his role in three cases is all that occurred. His death does not figure in the government's case on monopoly rights which again you inserted although he was named in two other suits that were brought by the Bell company. FWiW, Meucci is a minor historical figure, Bell's life work transcends the telephone. Bell had no contact with Meucci save the one trial in which they both gave evidence but it is unclear whether they were ever in the courtroom at the same time. Most of the legal challenges were handled by lawyers and when Meucci took the stand, he had an interpreter which was a severe handicap to the examination of his evidence. Bzuk (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, your condescending attitude (and that you have been factually incorrect and borderline dishonest in the past (see discussion above about US case)) make it difficult to hold discussions with you. I think you are raging against the use of Meucci's death as a reason for canceling the US case. My above comment was about you reintroducing language that was agreed to be changed: the double introductions. Could you please address that issue politely?

While I was willing to let you delete Meucci before as a compromise, and I even agreed to let it be deleted (see above), you should realize that he was a witness in the trial and I have provided a citation that shows he was one of the reasons the trial was ended. Your unsupported claim that he wasn't involved in the decision is odd seeing as I had a cite for mine.

I would like to respectfully suggest that you become less defensive and more cooperative so that some of the bad writing on this article can be fixed, and a subject about which you obviously care about will have a higher quality article associated with it.LedRush (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Meucci was the subject of a Congressional resolution HR 269 but in the contemporary cases that involved Meuuci the courts were unequivocal in their findings. Meucci was a defendant in American Bell Telephone Co. v. Globe Telephone Co. and two others brought by the Bell Company. The judge was scathing in his criticism of Meucci's claims and his behavior, and concluded that Meucci was deliberately involved in attempts to defraud investors. The question of whether Bell was the true inventor of the telephone is perhaps the single most litigated fact in U.S. history, and the Bell patents were defended in some 600 cases. Bell never lost a case that went to a final trial. Findings of courts in New York, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Ohio, Maryland, and numerous others states bear that out. (See among others American Bell Telephone Co. v. Dolbear, 15 Fed. Rep. 448; American Bell Telephone Co. v. Spencer, 8 Fed. Rep. 509, and American Bell Telephone Co. v. Molecular Telephone, 32 Fed. Rep. 214.)

Despite the claims of Meucci's supporters, his actions had little or nothing to do with the court case in which it was alleged that Bell committed fraud in obtaining his patent. That action, known as the "Government case," led to one of the largest scandals of the Grover Cleveland administration. By 1885, eight years after Bell had patented the telephone, the only way to beat his patent was to allege it had been obtained by fraud. The US government joined with the Pan-Electric Telephone Company and several other would-be infringers and brought suit to try to have the patents annulled, Meucci was named as one of six inventors who may have had prior claims. Joseph Pulitzer's New York World revealed that millions of dollars worth of shares in Pan-Electric Telephone were owned by the US Attorney General Augustus Garland (whose office brought the case), another member of the Cleveland cabinet, two senators and a former member of Congress. The case against Bell ended when President Cleveland ordered Garland not to continue. Meucci was not even mentioned in the final deliberations. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC).

Bzuk, you didn't address one of my points. Can I assume you've accepted my arguments?LedRush (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Which point, that 600 cases were brought against the Bell Company, that the US Government initiated a case or that Meucci could not prove his claim of priority? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC).

I wanted to delete the repeated language in the competitor section to make it flow better. My edit (and your original proposal above) combined the info of the 600 cases that were all won and the fact that many inventors failed to challenge the patent into one sentence in the beginning. My edit included all original cites and info, but was just done to improve the writing. As it was/is, there's an intro about the patent never being beaten, and an example of two other inventors who lost cases. Then there was another sentence about the the bell co. never losing, followed by an example of one inventor not winning cases. My revision fixed that without changing any facts. You seemed to agree to the change above, but reverted my implementation.LedRush (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The passages on competitors establish the following:

1. Many inventors worked on similar or complimentary discoveries that led to challenges to the Bell patent.
2. The Bell Company fought many cases based on priority of claims to the invention of the telephone.
3. A landmark legal case against the US government was fought and won by the Bell company. It was dropped by the government.
4. Many litigants tried to establish claims on the telephone, a recent Congressional Resolution HR 269 has elevated the case for Antonio Meucci.
5. The competitors could not effectively challenge the Bell patents as the company had worldwide patent rights that ultimately established the Bell telephone as primary.

What improvement in writing are you talking about? FWiW, you tried to diminish the fact that the Bell Company was successfully waging a battle throughout 600 court cases, removing the mention of the cases. You added in that the death of Meucci was a contributing factor to the end of the "Government" case and the fact that Meucci is the main subject of an entire paragraph gives undue weight to his claims. The "motivation" behind U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. AMERICAN BELL TEL. CO., 159 U.S. 548 (1895) isn't mentioned because it is not germane, yet the assertion that fraud was an underlying element in the US case is left in which is the product of earlier rewrites and revisions that allowed the wording. This sentence "The trial was never decided on the merits as the death of the prosecuting attorney and the expiration of Bell's patent, made the case moot." is fraught with contention as it does not correspond to the contemporary accounts of the case. Bzuk (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC).

I am talking about the change I made in consolidating repeated statements. I am trying to assume goodwill, but you are either mistating what I did or lying. I did not delete the reference to 600 cases...I moved it to the first sentence of the competitor section. My edit said:

"As is sometimes common in scientific discoveries, simultaneous developments can occur, as evidenced by a number of inventors who were at work on the telephone.[68] Over a period of 18 years, the Bell Telephone Company faced over 600 litigations posing legal challenges concerning the rights to the telephone, but none were successful in establishing priority over the original Bell patent[69] [70] and the Bell Telephone Company never lost a case that had proceeded to a final trial stage.[69]"

Also, you removed the mention of Meucci's death which had been part of the article for a week. You tacitly accepted the language at that time when you deleted the citation (contrary to Wikipedia policy, btw, but that is another argument which I don't want to engage in now) but left in the sentence. As I said above, I didn't even want to fight about his inclusion because I was willing to compromise, but you keep using it as a pretext to talk about irrelevant topics.LedRush (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence: The trial was never decided on the merits as the death of the prosecuting attorney and the expiration of Bell's patent, made the case moot.

The sentence is sourced from congressional records and completely comports with the case history on the subject. Remember, you don't have to believe that a source is true, only that it is verifiable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability says that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."LedRush (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Meuuci did not figure in the final US "Government" case at all; his death was inconsequential and had no bearing on the case. The dissenting argument solely dealt with Dolbear's invention. The death of the US prosecutor did not end the trial, the government case was stopped by the government when allegations arose that a conflict of interest was involved. The Italian Historical Society is putting forward a case for Meucci and the Congressional Resolution reflects their arguments but the final resolution did not support anything other than an acknowledgment of Meucci's past experiments in developing his "teletrofono." He did not take the stand in the US government case, was only implicated in three litigations, one brought by a syndicate which set him up as the operator of a "dummy corporation" and two cases brought against the Meuuci Telephone Company by the Bell Company. The court proceedings in which Meucci was a participant led to decisions that were unequivocal and numerous references in Bruce, Gray, McLeod and Shulman detail the court appearances of Meuuci. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC).

Dolbear not Doolbar. Greensburger (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, fat fingered exercise on my part. Bzuk (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC).

Do you have any reference to support your position? Can we just delete the Meucci reference and call it a day (I'd prefer not to, but this bickering is tiring and prevents an improvement of the article as a whole)?LedRush (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, while it is hard to keep track of your arguments because you conflate issues and attack claims that we're not discussing, you should know that the gov't case did involve Meucci both as a witness (see the deposition) and as a part of the gov't theory of the case (he is mentioned twice in the court decision as someone the gov't claimed had priority over Bell). You are correct that we wasn't a litigant, but that doesn't mean he wasn't involved in the case. See http://www.esanet.it/chez_basilio/us_bell.htm . Before discounting it as propoganda, try reading it and looking up the sources. Also, please don't attack claims we're not talking about, it makes intelligent discussion near impossible.

Having said all that, I still don't object to deleting the reference to Meucci in that one sentence, assuming there is good faith editing in the section as a whole.LedRush (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides all the court documents, numerous references in authoritative works, see: [14]. Quoting: "Meucci was directly or indirectly involved in three suits, strictly interconnected one to the other: 1. United States Government vs. The American Bell Telephone Co. and Alexander Graham Bell (US/Bell) 2. The American Bell Telephone Co. et al. vs. The Globe Telephone Company, Antonio Meucci et al. (Bell/Globe) 3. The American Bell Telephone Co. et al. vs. The Meucci Telephone Co., S. R. Beckwith et al. (Bell/MTC)

The US/Bell trial began first and was aimed at canceling Bell's patents on the telephone. Antonio Meucci and Philipp Reis were indicated as precursors of Alexander Graham Bell.

The Bell/Globe trial was a sort of a countersuit started locally, in New York, NY, by the Bell Co., with the aim of disturbing the action of the US Government against the Bell Co. The Bell/MTC trial was started by the Bell Co. in New Jersey, later on, because, following the Government recommendation to proceed against the Bell Co. (14 January 1886), Meucci's supporters started building Meucci telephones and getting subscribers in Elizabeth, NJ.

The statement regarding his death (even including the words "thus became legally moot" which are repeated again in later resolutions), ending the trial against the Bell Company is attributed to Professor Basilio Catania who also figures significantly in the Congressional Resolution HR 269 (2002) which was an almost exact copy of the New York Resolution Res. No. 1566 (2000). At the passing of the 2002 resolution, Catania was proferred the honour of the recognition of his role as "Vindicator" of Antonio Meucci, as bestowed by the Order Sons of Italy in America. His statements have also been reflected in the Italian Historical Society's statement that "Despite a public statement by the then Secretary of State that 'there exists sufficient proof to give priority to Meucci in the invention of the telephone,' and despite the fact that the United States initiated prosecution for fraud against Bell's patent, the trial was postponed from year to year until, at the death of Meucci in 1896, the case was dropped." These statments have been conflated into the public record as fact. The simple fact was the new U.S. Attorney General, Joseph McKenna, on November 30, 1897 stopped the lawsuit between the Government and American Bell. FWiW, the trial was dealing with patents that had by that point no longer been owned by the Bell Telephone Company and the political storm over the government lawsuit had made it untenable to continue, considering that a new administration was now in place that did not want to go on with charges of interference being bandied about in the public press. Bzuk (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC).

We know that the sides consensually dropped the case, the issue is why. Anyway, now that you've conceded that Meucci was connected to the US v. Bell case, do you want to keep the reference to his death there?LedRush (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How he was connected was in being named as an inventor with a previous claim. The syndicate used his inventions to try to break the Bell Company "monopoly." He was not part of the further litigation and only Amos Dolbear is mentioned in the final deliberations, which were found in the dissenting opinion. That Meucci died before he could have his day in court argument is especially specious and does not make sense since he did not figure in the later trials, other than the two brought by the Bell Company which were decided before his death. It is a romantic and glamorous notion that a spurned inventor did not have his day in court but that was not the case. His testimony helped by an interpreter was not able to sway the presiding judges. He could not produce substantive background notes and his patent application was never made. The caveat he filed was expired and did not cover his invention in detail. A later set of drawings were produced that purported to show the operation of his device but were not part of the original caveat documentation. In court, Meucci was understandably unable to communicate fluently and relied on his assistant to translate. The comments by the judges were more in sympathy for the elderly inventor than the outright dismissal and castigation that he was a charlatan that the Bell lawyers continually charged. Some of the more telling later reports that other business partners provided included the information that Meucci had not revealed anything about his invention until much later. There are however, anecdotal accounts that a device had been built and tested. It is unfortunate that the evidence that would validate his claim was not available and all that is known is what Meucci later insisted was what his invention looked like. In an unfortunate turn of events, his infirm wife even sold his working models and lab equipment to help household finances. Meucci was said to try to recover his models but they were ultimately lost. The "working" models produced in court were actually made by others to try to illustrate his invention. Meucci never went back to the "teletrofono" and had concentrated on other inventions in his last years. He is a compelling historical figure but has only a marginal claim to being the inventor of the telephone. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC).

I am not sure how I am supposed to respond to your spirited, if irrelevant, attack on Meucci. Anyway, I am glad that you understand that Meucci was used as a witness and as a supporting theory of the government case, even if you feel the need to marginalize his case at every turn.LedRush (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Meucci played a major role in the first government trial but by the time the case was dropped, he was no longer being considered by the courts as a precursor, and only Amos Dolbear was mentioned in the final proceedings. That he had died earlier did not stop the case, it was brought to an end by the government withdrawing the case in 1897, years after Meucci's passing. FWiW, this is a biographical article and while Bell's role in the "Telephone Trials" was significant, it remains as only an incident in a long and storied life. Antonio Meucci has correspondingly also left a heritage of innovation and experimentation that is in the historical record, and deserves its own account. See Antonio Meucci. Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC).

Well, I have already said that you can delete the reference to Meucci in that sentence despite the fact that I have provided 2 sourses and a supreme court decision that mentions Meucci twice. This information deserves the brief attention that it gets because it was so desperately important to Bell as evidenced by the line: "The strain on Bell by his constant appearances in court, necessitated by the legal battles, eventually resulted in his resignation from the company."LedRush (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What HR 269 has done is treat the cases in which Meucci is a participant as if they were all one and the same. Basically the United States Government vs. The American Bell Telephone Co. and Alexander Graham Bell (US/Bell) was the only time that Meucci served as a material witness and the case revolved around prior claims and fraud that would have involved Bell conspiring to use other inventors' work (Meucci being one of six inventors cited). This case was decided in favour of Bell and the Bell Company so the statement that it was not decided on the merits is not supportable; it is not the language of the court nor is it included in the deliberations or summary of the trial proceedings. The case was dropped by the US government when a new administration's Attorney General, Joseph McKenna reviewed the case and decided against persuing the litigation. The fact that Meucci died before all the cases involving him and the Bell Company were completed did not deter the trials as they did not involve Meucci as a active participant. It was the Meucci Telephone Company not Meucci himself that were being sued. The Bell Company vigorously went after the two "dummy corporations" set up in Meucci's name. FWiW, Although Bell initially was a major element of the court cases and spent considerable time in preparing his documentation running into the hundreds of pages, his letters show a growing frustration with the constant return to court and especially with some of the tactics used by lawyers and witnesses on all sides. He was especially bitter about the comments that had been made by onetime friend, Elisha Gray and had even considered a counter suit for libel and slander. The letters still exist but it was evident that his anger passed and he never did go to trial.Bzuk (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC).

Bzuk said: "This case was decided in favour of Bell and the Bell Company so the statement that it was not decided on the merits is not supportable."

Not this again (I wish you could stay somewhat focused). Please see above. The case ruling was reversed and remanded for a new trial, and the new trial never happened. Both sides agreed to drop the case after many years. By definition, the case was not decided on the merits.LedRush (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The case was dropped by the US government due to political considerations. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC).

Well, if that were so, that would directly conflict with your above-stated position that it was decided on the merits. Anyway, the language now is cited and verifiable.LedRush (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That was not my statement, I continue to maintain that the decision to end the "Government Trial" had nothing to do with anything other than the government withdrawing due to a political controversy dealing with the former adminsistration. These words, "not decided on the merits" are directly connected to Catania and was quoted in later resolutions that were politically motivated. The Resolutions from New York and The Congress do not revert the actual judicial decisions. The actual resolution does not vindicate Meucci as the premiere inventor of the telephone. FWiW, The statement as stands is contentious and has been previously challenged as inaccurate. Bzuk (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC).

"Not decided on the merits" is the legal phrase for any trial which ends without a conclusion, and therefore the gov't would be free to re-try the case. The sentence is neutral, factual, and supported by citations which follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Please remember that the article is supposed to have a NPOV. BTW, why are you still talking about resolutions and stuff? Can't you just focus on one issue and discuss it? You jump around making odd claims and lashing out at perceived slights...it's quite difficult to discuss an issue if you won't stick to the point. Anyway, the case that reversed and remanded the case is cited, and no conclusion was ever reached. That means, by definition, the case was not decided on the merits. If you don't like the legal system or the language it employs, you can try to ask for reform.LedRush (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement as written makes it appear that Meucci was still involved which he was not, the trial had long since moved past his evidence and he was not considered in the final deliberations; the case was remanded and not continued because the government no longer felt it had a valid argument and could not proceed. If anything, it was the government's stand that was "not decided on the merits". Here is my revision:

"On 13 January 1887, the United States Government moved to annul the patent issued to Bell on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The Bell company decisively won the landmark case in the lower court, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case for a new trial.U.S. Attorney General, Joseph McKenna, eventually dropped the law suit on 30 November 1897 when allegations of political interference arose.

I have long said that you could delete the reference to Meucci (despite the fact that it probably belongs there). Please drop this red herring. You have no evidence of what was considered in the deliberations to end the trial, and your new language violates the NPOV rule at Wikipedia. Also, I don't see what your citations are adding to the discussion...they seem to support the existing language. Also, I don't think you understand US law (which is fine, I know that there are many cultures represented on Wikipedia, many of which do not use English as the first language). The entire case wasn't decided on the merits because there was never a final ruling...that means that neither the defense's nor the prosecution's arguments were vindicated. The phrase "not decided on the merits" is a legal one, and a neutral one, and there is no reason to delete it. LedRush (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph as written deals with the so-called "Government Trial" which began as United States v. American Bell Tel. Co., 32 F. 591, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2804, 1887 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 528 (C.C.D. Mass. 1887) and was decided in favour of the American Bell Company and Alexander Graham Bell. The lower court decision was reversed by United States v. American Bell Tel. Co., 128 U.S. 315, 9 S. Ct. 90, 32 L. Ed. 450, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2222, 1888 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 558 (1888) and remanded to Massachusetts where it appeared as United States v. American Bell Tel. Co., 65 F. 86, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 3115, 1894 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 701 (C.C.D. Mass. 1894) again decided in favour of the American Bell Company but the decision was reversed by American Bell Tel. Co. v. United States, 68 F. 542, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2892, 1895 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 412 (1st Cir. Mass. 1895) and finally affirmed by United States v. American Bell Tel. Co., 167 U.S. 224, 17 S. Ct. 809, 42 L. Ed. 144, 1897 U.S. LEXIS 2097, 1897 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 442 (1897). The case generated five separate trials and was featured in 334 citing decisions. After the final trial in 1897, the U.S. government withdrew from the case; it is spurious to contend that the trial was never completed, nor that the merits of the case were not resolved as the government case was finalized in 1897 and no further litigation continued. FWiW, the final ruling was unequivocal and stated "We see no error in the decision of the court of appeals, and its decree, dismissing the bill, is Affirmed." Bzuk (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

So now you have changed your argument again, and you are no longer stating that the gov't dropped the case because of corruption charges, but that they lost, right? If that is your new argument I will spend the time to read the cases and see what they say, though I wonder why you engaged in such protracted and scattered arguments if these cases say what you profess they do.LedRush (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The underlying reasons behind the government proceeding with the litigation was to challenge the monopoly of the Bell Telephone Company and to do that it had to establish that Alexander Graham Bell's patents were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. It failed to do that throughout a nine year period of trials. The reason why the government did not continue the fight after the 1897 ruling was primarily due to a change in the administration wherein the new Attorney-General had been confronted with allegations that the original case put forward was "tainted" by charges of conflict-of-interest. What also had occurred was that the Chief Prosecutor had died, leaving the prosecution team in disarray and that the two patents in question (No. 174,46 and dated March 7, 1876 and No. 186,787 dated January 30, 1877) by 1894 were no longer in effect. In the interim, the American Bell Telephone Company had subsequently continued to defend against the various other "Patent Trials" cases which eventually resulted in settlements or withdrawals of over 600 cases during a total of 18 years of prosecution. Antonio Meucci is named as one of six inventors who had prior claims to the invention of the telephone in the 1887 case. After his testimony in that proceeding, his name was dropped by the federal authorities in the remainder of the litigations, and in the final trial, only one other claimant is mentioned in the dissenting argument. In subsequent trials, Alexander Graham Bell also is not named as a defendant as the prosecution changed their indictments to only that of the American Bell Telephone Company. Where Meucci is involved is in two counter-claims that were initiated by the Bell Company directed against the Meucci Telephone Companies that had been set up by a syndicate. These trials also continued in conjunction with the "Government Trial" but it was these trials that were ended when the "dummy corporations" folded. FWiW, many observers have "lumped" the Meucci cases together but they actually were three separate trials. Bzuk (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC).

OK, so now it sounds like you've reversed course yet again, and you're arguing about the inclusion of Meucci's name in the sentence, something that I've said you could delete about 6 or 7 times already. By not staying on topic and by not writing with clear and concise points, you make it difficult to discuss anything, though I must commend your obvious passion for this subject.LedRush (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Read through the thread above carefully. The U.S. government's prosecuting attorney, Hon. George M. Stearns under the direction of the Solicitor General George A. Jenks launched the case as United States v. American Bell Tel. Co., and Alexander Graham Bell, 32 F. 591 in 1887. The United States Government moved to annul the patents issued to Bell on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, and therefore, "busting up" the monopoly established by the American Bell Telephone Company. The "Government Trial" introduced six claimants to priority over the original Bell patent including Antonio Meucci. His evidence was given in a disposition in 1886 and when the 1887 judicial decision initially favoured the defendants, his claims were not filed in further litigation. The trial was remanded to Massachussetts by the Supreme Court, and proceeded through three additional court cases till its resolution in 1897 in United States v. American Bell Tel. Co., 167 U.S. 224. The American Bell Telephone Company countersued the Globe Telephone Company's subsidiaries, namely the Meucci Telephone companies in two other litigations that were also decided in favour of the Bell company. If this is all that is being considered, the original edits will be restored. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC).

But, according to the cases you've cited, two of the original claims in the last suit were never decided. According to the sources, and according to claims that you've made, the gov't decided not to pursue this because the patents had expired and the prosecuting attorney died (and, according to uncited statements you've made, there were allegations of corruption on both sides). No revisions are necessary.LedRush (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

All the cases that involved Meucci were resolved. Your revisions are inaccurate and will be reverted. FWiW, check the many sources that were quoted; all judicial decisions were in favour of the Bell Company. The U.S. government dropped an untenable case, see Antonio Meucci if you wish to contest his role in the "Patent Cases." Bzuk (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC).

I don't know why you can't stick to a topic, but I thought we were talking about the US v. Bell case, which wasn't resolved. The lower court made a decision, which was reversed. On retrial, the lower court made a different decision, but because they found for the state, they only reached the merits on 2 of the 4 issues: the other ones were not necessary because they were moot based on the outcome of the first 2. The higher courts reversed the lower court's decision, leaving 2 open issues which were never resolved. Until you provide some proof that the existing citations are incorrect, the language should remain as written, which is the result of earlier consensus. I hope you can contain your high-handed approach to revisions and respond only on the open issues. LedRush (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. government case was concluded in 1897 with a decision in favour of the Bell company; further litigation ws suspended by the government. See: United States v. American Bell Tel. Co., 167 U.S. 224, 17 S. Ct. 809, 42 L. Ed. 144, 1897 U.S. LEXIS 2097, 1897 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 442 (1897). BTW, what consensus are you talking about, there are two editors with a content dispute. Bzuk (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC).

Please re-read the case and my last comment.LedRush (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I can re-state the same thing. The trial ended with a decision to dismiss the original U.S. government suit and the case was not persued further. FWiW, the reasons for the trial and its outcome are not clearly stated in the passage. Remember, this is an article on Bell and only his involvement is relevant. The entire Meuuci reference is in essence, superflous and belongs in the Antonio Meucci article. Bzuk (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

You seem obsessed with a topic we aren't discussing. Meucci is out and no longer mantioned. I have conceded the point more than half a dozen times. The case, however, was never decisively won for Bell...Bell won on some points while others remained open. Please try to stay on topic, use NPOV, and discuss the issues at hand with citations, not with unsupported declarations of how you're going to change the article.LedRush (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, you say "The trial ended with a decision to dismiss the original U.S. government suit and the case was not persued further"...that is an admission that the case could have been further pursued but for a decision by the gov't (though you had earlier said that the decision was mutual).LedRush (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

After a lengthy review by a legal library which completely validates the original text, this is the version that will continue. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC).

Declaring a victory and saying the discussion is over is against Wikipedia standards. Please try and keep an open mind and refrain from introducing POVs which aren't neutral and factually inconsistent revisions. For example, how can the Bell Co. decisively won the case if the case was still ongoing and was later dropped without a final decision having been rendered? The current language is neutral, factually correct, and the result of long discussions. Please respect the Wikipedia process.LedRush (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

after hours going over the court proceedings and filings, the original statement was exactly as I had written, The final decision was unequivical and stands as a landmark test case in US jurispuridence. Your language is entirely derived from a professor who was pushing for a House resolution and is not based on the actual trial results. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC).

Actually, my language comes from the decisions in court cases and commentary upon those. Your language is internally inconsistent, which you've failed to address.LedRush (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

BZUK, throughout this process, especially after my initial misstep into what I didn't know was such a volatile subject, I have tried to remain open to negotiation and compromise and have made repeated requests for some middle ground language. Our back and forth doesn't look to have an end in sight. Would you be willing to explore an alternative way to settle this dispute? My first choice would be to list out what is important for each of us to be in the article and then shoot drafts back and forth, but I would consider mediation as well. Let me know what you think...LedRush (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, develop the Meucci article as earlier proposed. I have checked and double-checked the last revision, had legal professionals undertake a lengthy document search and all points to this as being the correct assessment. FWiW, this remains a case of historical revisionism set out by Congressional Resolution HR 269. Nothing in the resolution contradicts the actual legal actions that were undertaken in the 19th and early 20th century. Bzuk (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC).

I have looked at the legal documents myself and they just don't say what you claim. I don't know why you brought up the resolution, as that's not even being discussed (however, when discussed it should be discussed for what it says and what it is and should not be edited for legal clarity). Please explain how the case could have been decisively won yet still been around to be dropped by the prosecutor.LedRush (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is not backed up by Gray, Mackay and Bruce. The statement that is introduced brings up the notion that Bell was not the legitimate inventor and that the trials were undecided in the merits of the Meucci case. That just simply is not true. Continual reversions to your POV will not change that. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC).

My view is supported by the legal decisions as discussed above. My language is factually correct and objective. The last trial was dropped (by your own admission) and not decided on the merits (a legal term). At most, this disputes whether there was a chance that Bell Co. could have lost on the fraud and misrepresentation charges regarding getting the patent. As always, legal disputes never resolve who the inventor was, only who was the owner of the patent. Your revision says that the cases were "decisively" won, yet the prosecuter still dropped a case at the end. That just doesn't make sense.LedRush (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the case was "decisively won" exact quote by Bruce, and remains as a legal precedent. The prosecutor dropped an unwinnable case that had been the previous administration's case. There were allegations of conflict-of-interest that precluded any other litigation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC).

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this concept seems very basic to me. If a case is dropped, it wasn't "won". The Bell Co. did lose and win some appeals, but there were still underlying claims outstanding. And you can point to sources, if you want, but I can point to other sources and the actual legal documents. Let's not try and find someone who agrees with whatever we are saying and quote them, but instead find something that makes logical sense, is accurate, and will make the article better.LedRush (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As already said, these statments are supported by references and a very thourough review by a legal library confirmed that they were accurate. Do not change the statement, but correct it if you can find an alternate version that preserves the original meaning. I will look at how this can be done but I am not changing it to a perspective that does not reflect the decisions made. FWiW, in reading your edit and mine, there is almost no difference except that you are still arguing the case that the decision was "decisive" although other researchers have supported that assertion. I have removed that one word as a sign of AGF. Bzuk (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC).

Well, your version doesn't support any decisions and was made unilaterally. I will try to incorporate your statements into the article.

BTW, you can't continue to hide behind a legal search that you've done. Please make an argument here.LedRush (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I used Bzuk's language as a basis but made some POV and accuracy alterations. I am still unhappy by saying the Bell Co. "won" a Supreme Court case (because the lower court decided for the gov't, it didn't look at a couple of the claims, leaving them undecided. The supreme court reversed that decision, leacing the gov't open to press the issue on the undecided claims. The gov't dropped the case rather than pursue it. Saying the Bell Co. "won" the fraud and misrepresentation case is misleading, as not all claims were decided in the Supreme Court (or anywhere else, for that matter) as the Supreme Court can only review decisions made (the lower court found for the gov't so it didn't make decisions on some claims). I've used standard legal language and plain English to try and make this clear. Though, as I said, I'd prefer the original language as it was more accurate and less misleading.LedRush (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the "string" here, it was my version that was altered and that had attribution. Check the statement and you will see that there is verified references sources. AGF. Bzuk (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC) FWIW, you've still tried to alter the statement to your POV that is not supported, at this point. However, this has carried opn long enough, now move along. Bzuk (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC).

I am sorry, but I am discussing facts discussed above (regarding supreme court decisions). Please don't insult me, but try and address my points. My language is not a POV, no matter how many times you say it. When issues aren't decided on the merits, but you pretend they are, that is inaccurate and a POV issue. Please read the supreme court decisions cited in the article.LedRush (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This has now veered into Tendentious editing, goodbye. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC).

You have repeatedly insulted me, condescended to me, and dismissed my sourced edits. You have spurned my attempts at mediation and compromise. I don't know what I can do other than to keep trying to make this article better in a civil manner.LedRush (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking over this dispute, I cannot understand the importance attributed to the Supreme Court decisions as somehow vindicating Bell. There are three decisions, and they are all procedural in nature. 128 U.S. 315 reverses a demurrer obtained by Bell, so that was a loss to Bell. 159 U.S. 548 was also a loss to Bell since the Supreme Court once again reversed a procedural victory Bell had obtained in the circuit court. 167 U.S. 224 is more complicated, since the Supreme Court considered the merits of the United States' claims and found them lacking, but that's dicta to the ultimate holding, which resulted in affirmance of the circuit court's decision to dismiss the bill. That's a procedural victory for Bell, but it affirms a decision won below. I've been an attorney for 10 years, and I don't see how anyone can call these decisions anything but a mixed bag for Bell, though they won the last decision. The real victories were won in the circuit courts. Thespomat (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect "Alex Bell" here.

I am of the opinion that Alex Bell should redirect here. I think this because Alex Bell the footballer isn't very well known, and most people typing Alex Bell into the search box will be looking for this page. Alex Bell could then be moved to Alex Bell (footballer) and a line could be added to this page saying: "For the South African football player, see Alex Bell (footballer) Alternativly, a similar line could be added to Alex Bell, directing people to this page.SCIAG (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC) No objections? Moving going ahead, I don't know how to redirect properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCIAG (talk • contribs) 13:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I created a page Alex Bell (footballer) which redirects to the Alex Bell page. I also created a page Alex Bell (disambiguation) which redirects to the Alexander Bell disambiguation page. Greensburger (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nationality in the lead

I see thta this has been gone over and over. Just leaving it out really doesn't seem like a solution. What is wrong with "Scottish-born American"? Lets put egos and nationalistic pride aside and get something into the lead sentence. The reader really deserves this info right up front as almost all bios do. I will make the first stab. Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, forget it :) --70.181.45.138 (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the cat tags for Canada. Although the debate has been well hashed out here, calling him a "canadian physicist" is clearly inaccurate, as the word-to-problem ratio approaches 1:1. BTW, if anyone has any doubts as to what Bell himself thought his nationality was, you can easily answer any questions you might have by taking a visit to the museum in Baddeck (hint, US). It's certainly a worthwhile diversion, and if you do it when the leaves are turning, spectacular as well. Maury (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

After he applied for citizenship in the United States, his letters indicate that he considered himself from that point on, a American. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

Which is what the museum notes as well. Interestingly, I heard "I thought he was Canadian" from two different people while I was there -- on a slow drizzly Wednesday afternoon! There's a really nice Gnome Omega there, low serial, but my shots didn't turn out. Maury (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am much mistaken he did not renounce his UK citizenship, just held a duel one. So he is not 'American'. Also, he invented the telephone before he applied for US citizenship and much of this page seems to be dedicated to that invention so we would not want to confuse anyone who is generally interested in finding stuff out about this Brit. 86.144.69.204 (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

An interesting question - would Bell have taken the US Oath of Citizenship? If so, he would have sworn "...I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...", which rules out dual citizenship, because in taking the oath he would have been renouncing his status as a British subject. If this was the process of obtaining citizenship at the time, then it means he was exclusively a US citizen. He might subsequently have qualified for a resumption, through naturalization, of his status as a British subject (or "Canadian citizen") by virtue of his long residence in Canada, but as far as I know there is no evidence that he took advantage his entitlement to request to be a British subject again. 156.34.35.149 (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why people have such trouble with the notion of citizenship. It is something easily researched and verified. AGB was an American citizen who had born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (there was no Scottish citizenship!), and who incidentally lived for a while in Canada (no Canadian citizenship either, as has been pointed out). Until the 1870s it was impossible for someone from Great Britain or Ireland to renounce British citizenship. This is why impressment of sailors had been such an issue leading to the War of 1812. Bell applied for American citizenship after 1877, and gained it in 1882. He thereby ceased to be a British subject--the notion of "dual citizenship" is a 20th century technicality that didn't exist then. Bell's family thenceforth, the Bells and the Grosvenors of the National Geographic Society, were all Americans and most of them have been ever since. Sallieparker (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

AGB Association needs access rights to editing some sections

Who is the administrator of this page? We are Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and we would like to have access to editing the main Alexander Graham Bell page. Thanks. AgbellAssocation (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please contribute to the article in any meaningful way. Other editors such as myself and some others will ensure that style, context and format are integrated within the text. FWiW, any contributor can make submissions to Wikipedia articles. no permission is required nor are there "caretakers" or "gatekeepers" of Wikipedia sites, there are merely interested editors, such as yourselves who would like to add to the public store of knowledge. Bzuk (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The page is currently protected from editing by anonymous editors and by newly registered users. As your user account was only created today you will have to wait until your account is auto confirmed which is 4 days. After that you should be able to edit the main page. In the meantime you can propose changes to the article text here and if appropriate the changes will be applied to the main article by established users. Keith D (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bell's philosophical and religious views

Interesting material on Bell's religiosity and worldly views are reported found in Bruce, p. 490. I've heard second-hand (but not yet seen) that later in life Bell defined himself as being 'Unitarian Agnostic' after he came across a brochure on Unitarianism. He never-the-less attended Presbyterian and occasionally Episcopalian services, I believe with Mabel. This info in discussion with staff at the Alexander Graham Bell Museum. From the general discussion it came across that Bell was very much a man of the sciences, who was sometimes dismayed by machinations of politics and the folly of men. It would be good to add a new subsection to Bell's article, in terms of Bell's humanity.

Would anyone have a citation for Bell's religion at birth? Harry Zilber (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Where was the telephone invented, in the US or Canada?

Previously, Yoganate79 had said: '.....The telephone was patented by the United States Patent and Trademark Office by a Scots-American. Canada has zero claim to Alexander Graham Bell or to the invention of the telephone.'

Hi Yoganate79: Truth, like life, usually turns out to be messier than we'd like to believe, often destroying biases absorbed from our grade school texts. Here's factual information on where the telephone was invented, in a quote from A.G. Bell:

"It was I who invented the telephone and it was invented wherever I happened to be at the time. Of this you may be sure, the telephone was invented in Canada. It was made in the United States. The first transmission of a human voice over a telephone wire, where the speaker and the listener were miles apart, was in Canada. The first transmission by wire in which the conversation was carried on reciprocally over the same line was in the United States." Source: Alexander Graham Bell, in a speech to the Canadian Club in Ottawa, March 27, 1909.

This quote is also confirmed by another, or other, biographies which referred to Bell's conception of the telephone at his Brantford, Ontario home. If you'd like to argue over where the phone was invented (not 'assembled'), you can start with Mr. Bell himself. Additionally, many Canadians can claim Bell as an honourary son, considering that he spent much of the last 35 years of his life in Canada and passed away at his estate in Baddeck, Nova Scotia.

Overall I feel its valid to say that Mr. Bell was both 'a man of the sciences' and a person of deep humanist beliefs, a fact often overlooked in technology oriented discussions. Its fair to say that much of the world is proud of both him and his achievements. --HarryZilber (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

When Bell says (playing to an audience of Canadians) that "...the telephone was invented in Canada. It was made in the United States." he is using the phrase "invented" to mean conceptualized. But the proof of an invention is when an inventor actually creates the thing by building it and testing its use. Prior to practical experimentation and demonstration, it is all theory. The first telephone, in Bell's own words, "was made in the United States." That is not mere assembly, it is creation. The idea of the telephone was apparently invented in Canada, but the idea of the telephone is not the issue. The relevant issue is where was a thing that you could actually talk to another guy on and hear him talk back, where was that first invented. For wikipedia to say that the first telephone was invented in Canada gives people the false impression that Bell built a prototype up in Canada and tested it out, that the famous first convo with Watson took place in Brantford, instead of where it actually happened, in Boston, where Bell's laboratory and coworkers were (and perhaps where he could also obtain info about what rival designs such as Gray's were like).Walterego (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Invented in Canada by a Scots-American. Even so, Alexander Graham Bell did not even invent the telephone. An Italian, Antonio Meucci invented it first in 1860. Likewise, Elisha Gray, another American had built a working telephone before Bell did. It is modern revisionists who whitewash history that make Bell the inventor of the telephone when we know in fact that he was not the first.

Regardless of his nationality. At least we here in America are not living in denial. The U.S. Congress passed a resolution in 2002 recognizing Meucci as the inventor. It's time that Scotland and the world do the same. --Yoganate79 (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bzuk....don't take the bait :) LedRush (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

DNFTT. Bzuk (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

For more information on the flawed 2002 U.S. House of Representatives resolution (HRes 269) that supposedly recognized Antonio Meucci as the inventor or the telephone (contrary to poor media reporting, it never did), see: Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell;

For more information on Meucci's 1871 patent caveat cited by many to support his priority for the invention of the telephone, see: Antonio Meucci -The caveat, plus the following subsection: Analysis of Meucci's Caveat. HarryZilber (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Invented in America by a Scots-American (with some influence perhaps by American Elisha Gray). Bell's nationality was first Scottish, then afterwards American. He stated in 1915 that he identified himself as simply American, and not a "hyphenated" American. The first use of a telephone took place in Boston on March 10, 1876, when the first speech transmitted by a telephone "Mr. Watson, come here, I want to see you." was uttered. As quoted above by HarryZ, this was what Bell himself acknowledged: "the first transmission by wire in which the conversation was carried on reciprocally over the same line was in the United States." Bell also said "The first transmission of a human voice over a telephone wire, where the speaker and the listener were miles apart, was in Canada." but this refers to a transmission 5 months after the famous Watson call in Boston, that transmission being the first long distance call from Brantford, ON to Paris, ON ten miles away on Aug 10, 1876. Obviously Bell told Canadian audiences that he had conceptualized the telephone during his intermittent periods of residence in Canada, but as a practical matter the invention of the telephone occurred in Boston. The bulk of Bell's work was obviously done in the laboratory in Boston, that's where all his colleagues and peers and assistants (like Watson were). That's where he had access to his business partners and patent lawyers. Think about it, you know what Bell would have needed to be in constant contact all year (instead of just summering in Brantford) with all those people in the US? A Telephone. Walterego (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Walterego: Bell was being literal, not pandering to an audience, when he stated that he'd invented the telephone in Canada. This is supported by:

1. the popular definition of 'invention: "An invention is a new configuration, device, or process." The 'configuration, device or process' does not have to be physically created to qualify as an invention. Further:
2. here's elaboration of the U.S.'s first patent act: "In 1793 the first Patent Act was modified, by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, to include a definition of a patent which persists till date, “any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter and any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.” Nothing is said of a physical, working model;
3. during the time period of Bell's initial creative work, the 1870s, U.S. patent law did not require a working model to be submitted with a patent application. The patent application essentially required a set of claims (a formal description of the invention) and drawings, plus a US$20 application fee, nothing more or less;
4. Bell's timeline, works and statements have been extensively documented and reviewed by many. Here's a plaque specifically referring to his invention of the telephone; with the wording: "....to mark the invention of the telephone at Brantford by Alexander Graham Bell in 1874."

   

   Historical plaque marking the invention of the telephone "... at Brantford by Alexander Graham Bell in 1874".

Regarding your remark: "for wikipedia to say that the first telephone was invented in Canada gives people the false impression that Bell built a prototype up in Canada...". Again, as noted above, a prototype or working model wasn't required to claim either an invention or a patent. Bell and Watson actually had their first telephone conversation with a working model a few days after Bell had received his master patent, which was some three months after his patent application had been filed.

To sum up: Bell's conceptualization of telephony on the banks of the Grand River in Ontario during the summer of 1874 'was' the invention that he later patented and still later built, all within the requirements and the framework of U.S. patent law. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

HZ, How do you know that the design that he conceptualized was the same design that he patented? It would seem that the design of the device that he built and demonstrated on March 10, 1876 must be very different from something thought up two years earlier. During most of the year he was south in the USA, so if he "invented" the telephone in summer 1874, and only assembled it in the USA, then why didn't he test out this device by fall 1874? Why the delay, particularly since he was in a race to be the first inventor of the telephone and was extremely driven to accomplish this? Surely what he first thought up in Canada that summer was not a successful design for a functioning telephone, since he did nearly two years of further work. Perhaps it was a prototype that didn't work until it was further improved, but to say he invented it in Canada in summer 1874 would mean that the design that was later patented/demonstrated was identical to his summer 1874 design. Are there sketches or diagrams that confirm this? Otherwise it can't be known for sure exactly what was conceptualized in Canada, and one can only verifiably say that the invention originates with the working model demonstrated and/or patented in the USA in 1876.Walterego (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again: as far as is known, the quote mentioned previously has never been shown false:

"It was I who invented the telephone and it was invented wherever I happened to be at the time. Of this you may be sure, the telephone was invented in Canada. It was made in the United States. The first transmission of a human voice over a telephone wire, where the speaker and the listener were miles apart, was in Canada. The first transmission by wire in which the conversation was carried on reciprocally over the same line was in the United States." Source: Alexander Graham Bell, in a speech to the Canadian Club in Ottawa, March 27, 1909.

That quote has been confirmed by biographies which referred to Bell's conception of the telephone at his Brantford, Ontario home. I can't think of any reason why Bell, who was proud of his American citizenship and was also buried next to a raised American flag on his Nova Scotia estate (in Canada), would have wanted to distort his facts.

If you find anything to prove his statements and biographies false, let us know. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism and intro paragraph change

Looking at the page history, a lot of effort and reverts are being devoted solely to undoing stupid vandalism from unregistered IP edits. The cost/benefit ratio has tipped over into the restrictions range, and it appears that permanent semi-protection is fully justified. Comments?

By the way, the statement in the intro paragraph on the phone system in the 'United States' being silenced for a minute during Bell's funeral is not wholly accurate, or at least its incomplete. The statement is accurately reflected in the last section of the page, Death, where it names 'North America' , reading: Upon Bell's death, during his funeral, "....every phone on the continent of North America was silenced in honor of the man who had given to mankind the means for direct communication at a distance".

Since the accurate fact is present in that last section, the inaccurate sentence should be removed from the intro paragraph (note that the accurate sentence also appears in Alexander Graham Bell honors and tributes. Comments?

--HarryZilber (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have changed my edit to reflect the reference source from Osborne, Harold S. " FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Quoted reference

Globe Telephone Company 1884 - Famous ATT Patent Fight © 1996 - 2007 Scripophily.com

More About BellPBS website, retrieved 2009-02-06;

Osborne, Harold S. (1943) Biographical Memoir of Alexander Graham Bell, pg. 18, Presented to The National Academy of Sciences Annual Meeting, 1943;

Gray 2006, p. 229.

Bruce 1990, p. 419.

Black 1997, p. 18. Quote: "He thought he could harness the new electronic technology by creating a machine with a transmitter and receiver that would send sounds telegraphically to help people hear."

MacLeod 1999, p. 19.

National Geographic magazine

Dunn 1990, p. 41.

Gray 2006, p. 229.

Bruce 1990, p. 419.

MacLeod 1999, p. 19.

Dunn 1990, p. 41.

National Geographic magazine

National Geographic magazine

MacLeod 1999, p. 19.

Groundwater 2005, p. 95.

Black 1997, p. 19.

Mackay 1997, p. 179.

United states V. American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S. 315 (1888)

Bruce 1990, pp. 271–272.

Resolution 269

Basilio Catania 2002 "The United States Government vs. Alexander Graham Bell. An important acknowledgment for Antonio Meucci" Bulletin of Science Technology Society. 2002; 22: pp. 426–442.

Antonio Meucci Note: Tomas Farley also writes that, "Nearly every scholar agrees that Bell and Watson were the first to transmit intelligible speech by electrical means. Others transmitted a sound or a click or a buzz but our boys [Bell and Watson] were the first to transmit speech one could understand."

Mackay 1997, p. 178.

Parker 1995, p. 23. Note: Many of the lawsuits became rancorous with Elisha Gray becoming particularly bitter over Bell's ascendancy in the telephone debate but Alec refused to launch counter actions for libel.

United states V. American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S. 315 (1888)

Bruce 1990, pp. 271–272.

Resolution 269

Basilio Catania 2002 "The United States Government vs. Alexander Graham Bell. An important acknowledgment for Antonio Meucci" Bulletin of Science Technology Society. 2002; 22: pp. 426–442.

Antonio Meucci Note: Tomas Farley also writes that, "Nearly every scholar agrees that Bell and Watson were the first to transmit intelligible speech by electrical means. Others transmitted a sound or a click or a buzz but our boys [Bell and Watson] were the first to transmit speech one could understand."

United states V. American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S. 315 (1888)

Globe Telephone Company 1884 - Famous ATT Patent Fight © 1996 - 2007 Scripophily.com

[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=159&invol=548 UNITED STATES v. AMERICAN BELL TEL. CO., 159 U.S. 548 (1895)

[1]

Congressional Record on Meucci Note: Meucci was not involved in the final trial.

Italian Historical Society

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/bellhtml/1880.html

"Biographical Memoir of Alexander Graham Bell." National Academy of Sciences Annual Meeting presentation, 1943, pp. 18–19.

Citizenship and MOS:BIO

It always amazes me how so many people argue about nationality just to make you all aware he was the MacMillan Clan of Scotland not Canada, America or British. As you all know every Scotsmen is proud of there roots so please leave it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AcidC4 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC) The opening paragraph should contain "...the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." This is a broad prescription, which doesn't really define the country or countries to be used for this article, but there should be something. See MOS:BIO#Opening paragraph for more. Prompted by a recent deletion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've not participated in previous discussions, but my impression from the commented note in the article is that there's no good way to define Bell's nationality concisely. This sort of thing is what WP:IAR was made for. Powers ^T 13:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the revision that was recently made introduced the one untenable aspect of Bell's citizenship in that he never was a Canadian citizen by birth, naturalization or other means. He was a British citizen by birth, became a naturalized American citizen in 1882 and referred to himself only as an American from that point on. There is some conjecture that despite his declaration, the British government did not recognize the revoking of citizenship and that he remained in effect a "dual citizen." Bell spent a great deal of time in Canada both in his early and later adult years but never did formally apply for Canadian citizenship status. The claims that Canada has made to describe Bell as a "native son" have some validity but are not recognized as a legal precedent. FWiW, I am Canajan myself and have made the pilgrimage to Bell's Canadian homes yet I recognize that his status as a Canadian is the least tangible of the three. Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC).

That would take us back to "American", then: he was a U.S. citizen when, in Wikipedia's specified definition, he "became notable".--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the interpretation of when AGB became notable, was it the invention of the telephone that marks his career?, then he is justifiably known as a "Scot" or is it when he becomes internationally known as a "Scottish-born American citizen" which allows for the dual nature of his citizenship. A case can be made for either but adding Canadian to the broth will not be as tasty. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC).

Actually Bell was not American when he became notable -Bell won major awards and became highly notable from 1876 onwards, as per this listing, while he was still a British (or Scottish) national. As mentioned above, Bell's case is highly atypical. He was British born in the country of Scotland, lived for a year or so in Ontario during a period when Canadian citizenship didn't exist, invented the telephone in Canada in 1874, built and patented it in the United States in 1876, further refined it in Canada for few years after that, maintained his British citizenship until 1882 when he became a devout American citizen in a period when the Bancroft Treaties automatically voided his UK citizenship, but then resided increasingly in Nova Scotia for the last 30+ years of his life, being buried there (under a headstone professing his U.S. citizenship). Wheww!

There's no adequate way to summarize those complexities within the framework of the introductory paragraph, and telling only one part of the story would do an injustice to the rest. Like the never-ending arguments over Alexander the Great's nationality, A.G. Bell is a case of 'success having many father's', all of whom are clamoring to be the proud birthparent. I propose that the above references to Bell's work, birthplace, nationality, citizenship and claims of adopted son status be described in a later paragraph dealing with his personal life and temperment, and how he also dealt with his fame which is also of interest. HarryZilber (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That proposal seems eminently logical and can allay some of the concerns over his so-called "nationality" or allegiance. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC).

Bell known as the inventor of the telephone

I changed that to "known_for = Inventor of the first commercially successful telephone" because I though this would be a narrower statement that we could all agree on. Greensburger (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

known_for = Inventor of the telephone -- This is an accurate fact based on several reliable reference works – please discuss on the Talk page prior to making any further changes -- HarryZilber (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Harryzilber that Bell deserves to be called the inventor of the telephone, a claim that was seldom disputed in the 20th century after the anti-Bell lawsuits stopped. But strictly speaking, it depends on how you define "telephone" and how you define "inventor".

If you define telephone broadly to mean an electrical device that transmits voice sounds over a wire and define inventor to mean the first person to describe that device in a surviving publication, then Innocenzo Manzetti was the first in 1844. If you narrowly define inventor to mean somebody who provably built and tested the invention, then Charles Bourseul was the first in 1854. If you narrowly define telephone to mean an electromagnetic device that can transmit and receive clearly understandable articulate vocal speech over wires for a thousand miles, then Thomas Edison with his carbon microphone was the first because Bell's invention was voice powered and could not transmit a thousand miles.

There was no one person who was "the inventor" of "the telephone", because the meaning of "telephone" changed over the years from the cumulative efforts of hundreds of engineers. The telephone that was commercially practical during the first half of the 20th century was invented by Edison and people who worked for Edison, not Bell, not Meucci. Meucci was a telephone pioneer and deserves credit for that, but not more credit than Manzetti, Bourseul, Reis, Gray, Berliner, Blake, etc. The only surviving pre-1875 evidence on how Meucci's device worked is his 1871 caveat which does not describe an electromagnetic device (no mention of magnets or coils). There is no credible pre-1875 evidence for any of the other electromagnetic devices claimed for Meucci in the 1880s.

Because Bell's telephone design was the first to be patented and commercially successful, Bell deserves to be called the inventor of the telephone. Greensburger (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, anything else is historical revisionism. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC).

There was no one person who was "the inventor" of "the telephone" and then....Bell deserves to be called the inventor of the telephone. STRANGE!!! --Magnagr (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

About Meucci and Bell....

"....Those who wished the implementation of telephony for financial gain, chose more controllable and less passionate individuals. Neither Meucci, Gray, nor Reis fit this category of choice. The Bell designs are obvious and direct copies of those long previously made by Meucci. The dubious manner in which the Bell patents were “handled and secured” speak more of “financial sleight of hand” than true inventive genius. The all too obvious manipulations behind the patent office desk are revealed in the historically pale claim that Bell secured his patent “15 minutes” before Gray applied for his caveat. Today it is not doubted whether perpetrators of such an arrogance would not go as far as to claim “15 years priority..."

Hearing through wires:The Phisiophony of Antonio Meucci by Gerry Vassilatos --Magnagr (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You say "The Bell designs are obvious and direct copies of those long previously made by Meucci." Ah, could you show us those designs "long previously made by Meucci"? The drawings that Muecci's lawyer made in the 1880s were not "previously" they were subsequent to Bell's patents. Likewise the lab notes back dated to "previously" but not witnessed until subsequent to Bell's patents. The only credible pre-1875 evidence from Meucci was his 1871 caveat that proves he did not have an electromagnetic telephone. Greensburger (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the path of Meucci's models has been traced by invetsigators: they kept on appearing and disappearing in connection with certain individuals at Western Union, who apparently could not figure out what the models were for or what those cups (the recievers) could do. In 1876, Alexander Braham Bell filed a patent. His father-in-law had induced him to join Western Union, where Meucci's models and notes were secretely preserved. I have learned from researchers on Black scientists, that a Black man was hired by Western Union to draw the diagrams which Bell would submit with the application for the patent of the telephone. (I do not know if Bell ever invented anything, but not even he himself drew the telephone diagrams -- which are easy to draw for anyone. I have seen copies of Meucci's diagrams and of Bell's assistantant's diagrams: they are practically identical. Western Union created the Bell Telephone Company for Bell, but Bell himself was removed three years later. The additional inventions which made a telephone network possible were made by people other than Bell. As Meucci said, his invention was stolen, and I think that Bell was the front-man for Western Union. Independent discoveries do occur, but the present circumstances, Western Union's possession of Meucci's work clearly indicate that no Western Union employee invented the telephone.)

The myth was created that Bell invented the telephone. Researchers have killed the myth. The US Congress resolution 269 on September 25, 2001, proclaimed Antonio Meucci as the inventor of the telephone. Still, nearly everybody in the world repeats the myth of Bell's invention--Magnagr (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You have likely not read items 50 and 51 in the archives, nor the Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell article which deals explicitly with the HRes 269 –which never said that Meucci invented the telephone, or that A.G. Bell didn't invent it. Read the resolution directly for yourself in that article, and then read all the supporting facts, not opinions. Another serious error you have repeated above is that Meucci deposited his models with 'Wester Union'. Absolutely false –he reportedly left his models with American District Telegraph (ADT), a completely separate company that Bell had zero involvement with, a mistaken inference also made in HRes 269. The article also points out that the Bell Telephone Company was a competitor to Western Union –Bell had no reason to help them in any way since they were trying to drive Bell Telephone out of business, as evidenced in the early Telephone Cases lawsuits. Please check your facts before repeating other people's major errors. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You are assuming that the affidavit of 1885 were faked and based on prior art by someone else, we should so claim that Lemmi (Meucci's lawyer in the process) is a forgotten genius since the supposed "fake" affidavit anticipated technical solutions not introduced in 1885 yet ( Bell's patent -1876). In affidavit skretches there is clearly the insertion midway along the long-distance line of an inductor (with either a horseshoe or bar iron core). In diagram "No. 4," the inductor is split into two parts, inserted at both ends of the line. In his notes, Meucci pointed out that, in this way, he could get rid of the battery, and that, by splitting the inductor, he obtained better results. This technique is known today as the "inductive loading" of long distance telephone lines, allowing to increase the distance and/or the quality of speech. The proof that Meucci came first, can be drawn from the following events, occurred many years after Meucci's discovery (or its notarization):

• In June-July, 1887, Oliver Heaviside and Alfred Vaschy predicted, on the basis of mathematical calculations, that telephone signals could be transmitted without distortion by increasing the line's self-induction.
• On 19 June 1900, M. I. Pupin obtained the first two patents for said technique. The Bell Telephone Co. acquired both patents and, later on, applied them in its lines.

I could remember you also the antisedtone effect always presented in 1885 affidavit and introduced by the Bell people in the 1900s, particularly by George A. Campbell, with his nine patents of 1918, many decades after Meucci's solution was shown in the drawing, and over thirty years after the same drawing was notarized.

I could remember you the skin effect already introduced by Meucci in his 1871 caveat. Meucci was first in said techniques, is proven by the following facts:

• Skin effect in telephone lines was neglected by all inventors till 1880, when it began to be investigated by David E. Hughes and Oliver Heaviside.
• Following their studies and the development of "hard drawn" copper, the Bell Telephone Co. decided to use copper in place of steel, beginning from the Boston-New York line, which was inaugurated on 27 March 1884.

I could remember you the call signaling. In his scheme of 1858, Meucci adopted a telegraphic call signaling, simply effected by a Morse key, attached to each end of the line, momentarily short-circuiting the local transmitter. In this way, strong pulses of current were sent along the line, and the distant receiver would emit intermittent ticks, much louder than the ordinary speech. In his caveat of 1871, Meucci gave a detailed description of his call signaling, consistent with this scheme. For what concerns the call signaling in the Bell system, we may first remark that no mention of it is found in the first Bell patent nor in Gray's caveat of 1876. Only a vague mention of a (not better specified) "call bell" is found in Bell's second patent of 1877. For several months after commercial telephone service was started, in 1877, the Bell subscribers resorted to either thumping the diaphragm or shouting into it, to call the other party. Less rudimentary call signaling was adopted in the years to follow, but Meucci must be credited for having identified the problem and offered an ingenious and inexpensive solution to it, many years before the Bell Co. -- 151.100.102.101 (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Show us the PRE-1875 evidence, witnessed BEFORE 1875, that Muecci had an electromagnetic device for converting sound waves into undulating electrical currents in a wire, and an electromagnetic device for converting said undulating currents into sound waves, complete with an electrical explanation of how they worked. Meucci's 1871 caveat has no such drawings or descriptions and Lemmi's drawings and lab notes were not witnessed PRE-1875. Show us the PRE-1875 evidence. You can't do it, and that is why you change the subject to call bells and inductive loading which are immaterial to the main issue of lack of evidence for a PRE-1875 electromagnetic telephone by Meucci. Greensburger (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

1. In 1872 Meucci took the description of his invention and a set of his telephone to Mr. Grant of the American District Telegraph Company to have it tested over the wires of that company.

2. Mr. Grant, most likely, turned the matter over to the Western Union electricians (Mr. Prescott and Frank L. Pope) as the logical men to pass on it, but neither of them understood or realized the practical value of the telephone and ignored the whole thing.

3. In 1875 both Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray were making experiments in the laboratory of the Western Union in New York, and while there Mr. Prescott or Mr. Pope, or both, may have mentioned Meucci's invention. What was unintelligible to either Mr. Prescott or Mr. Pope acquired immediate significance in the eyes of both Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray. At any rate, shortly after Bell made his experiments in the Western Union laboratory, between March and the end of May 1875, Bell made his famous "discovery" of June 2, 1875. Bell's and Gray's common knowledge of Meucci's invention would the explain the unusual coincidence of their applications at the United States Patent Office on the very same day, February 14, 1876, but only a couple of hours apart. That may explain also Mr. Grant's words to Mr. Bertolino about making $100,000, fifty thousand for him and fifty thousand for Meucci.

4. In 1877, after the Bell Telephone Company was organized, and its threat to the telegraph business became apparent, Mr. Frank L. Pope may have asked his brother, Henry W. Pope, superintendent of the American District Telegraph Company, to look for the instruments Meucci had brought over to the latter's company in 1872. The instruments were found and then tested on a private telegraph line which the two brothers installed between their homes near Elizabeth, N. J., as we have seen in the preceding chapter. Shortly after that the Western Union organized the American Speaking Telephone Company.

5. Under those circumstances, in order to damage the Bell case, the Western Union would have been compelled to reveal the Meucci background of the Bell patent and the Gray caveat. But by so doing it would have damaged its own case and both parties would have lost. The logical thing left to do was to reach a compromise.

Thus Meucci's charge that the Bell-Western Union agreement of 1879 was based on his invention becomes quite intelligible. What we fail to understand is why the Western Union did not hold out for a larger share. On this point, however, it has been said that even in 1879 the Western Union experts did not foresee the future development of the telephone. That makes sense.--Magnagr (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Magnagr: you're adept at copying text from who-dunits that use vague terms like 'may have' or 'most likely'. Here's what the author, Meucci researcher Giovanni Ermenegildo Schiavo, also stated in the preface to his bio on him:

"At any rate, the following facts should be made clear, once for all:

1. In 1871 Meucci was not granted a patent, but a caveat, a kind of provisional patent. Anybody could get a caveat, even if the invention was worthless.

2. Meucci's caveat does not describe any kind of a diaphragm--none whatever.

3. There is no United States Supreme Court decision either in favor or against Meucci, and the reference in the October Term of the 1888 U. S. Reports (or in any other volume), exists only in the imagination of some irresponsible people.

4. In the thousands of pages of manuscript and printed records dealing with Meucci consulted by me, there is no such description of the telephone as given in the Italian encyclopedia. Least of all, is there any reference to any substance "capable of inductive action" precisely defined. We have, of course, documentary evidence that Meucci constructed an electric telephone with material capable of inductive action, such as iron, as well as Meucci's description of the effect of the diaphragm on the magnet, but Meucci never used the precise scientific definition quoted in the Treccani article. Least of all in the caveat.

5. The various detailed articles on the Meucci telephone which appeared in the 1880's in American and British journals, such as the Telegraphic Journal and Electrical Review of London and the Electrical World of New York, with accurate drawings of the various instruments constructed by Meucci, have no legal value whatsoever.

6. The only court decision about Meucci's telephone in existence was rendered by Judge Wallace of the U. S. Circuit Court in 1887 in the case of the Bell Telephone Company against the Globe Telephone Co., Meucci et Al. That decision was against Meucci.

I have mentioned the above facts so as to clear the air of all the nonsense that has been written and is still being written about Meucci. As for the facts, the true facts, they will be found in the following pages (of his book: Schiavo, Giovanni Ermenegildo. Antonio Meucci, Inventor Of The Telephone. New York, Vigo Press, c1958. 288 p.)."

This takes us back to the earlier point made above –you have not offered any direct, reliable proof that Meucci invented electromagnetic phones prior to 1875, only the unsupported conjectures of Meucci authors. As stated on Meucci's Talk page: Wikipedia's mission is to document the world's knowledge based on reliable, verifiable, documented evidence. If an editor can not provide such documentation to support his/her contention that some person was first to invent something, then the best he or she can do is to state that so-and-so 'is claimed to have been the first to invent the telephone'. Merely reporting other unreliable sources that are unsupported in their documentation is a contravention of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The onus remains on individuals who contribute to an article to properly substantiate their claims. Wikipedia does not condone a reverse onus policy requiring others to disprove contentious facts. Again, as stated in Meucci Talk: "If you can show designs described in words and drawings by Meucci prior to 1875 and witnessed in writing prior to 1875 that prove that Meucci had an electromagnetic telephone prior to 1875, only then will that evidence warrant inclusion in his article." Best: HarryZilber (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the couple Harryzilber and Greensburger seems having conquered the monopoly (semiprotection helps a lot on limiting wiki vocation as the best opensource on intellectual confrontation) regarding everything concerning the invention of the telephone and its protagonists. I humbly suggest the above mentioned to use the tons of documentation expressing technical, legal, historical and even human perplexity on Bell's priority on Meucci (written by people with deeper knowledge than us on what a patent is) to recalibrate the degrading Meucci bio (english section) or to the reduce the amount of enphasis put on the certitude of Bell achievements (always in the english section). You have used many times statements from the historian Schiavo regarding Meucci and Bell dispute (always with the intent to discredit Meucci), well one of his affirmation concernig the 1887 trial which is often mentioned (see Meucci bio) is: "......unquestionably one of the most glaring miscarriages in the annals of American justice," as well as "one of the most dishonest legal decisions in the annals of America. It is not only dishonest, but also outrageously offensive...". That is to show you how easy is to pick up only the most convenient sentences from a book or generally a source and to create around them the "orientated bio" according to our wishes or purposes. It's easy to hide itself behind a patent stamp. I could list several examples (and also wikipedia is full of them)of inventions attributed to scientist even if the same invention had already patented or created by other years before. Other scientist, only because have became very fashionable, see their priority on others recognized just on the basis of their own memorials and without any kind of evidence or on the basis of dubious legal sentences. Who has reason? More than jumping on final sentences we should offer the widest overview on the facts giving room to the different voices in the most balanced way. Saluti --Magnagr (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the Antonio Meucci article, but the preponderance of evidence is that his inventions were part of the development of the telephone but in no way does that set priority over Alexander Graham Bell's work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC).

Citizenship revisited

It always amazes me how so many people argue about nationality just to make you all aware he was the MacMillan Clan of Scotland not Canada,America or British.

As you all know every Scotsmen is proud of there Clan roots so please leave it be or you will end up having the Clans on your back :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AcidC4 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Bell invented the Telephone in 1876 as a British Citizen, he did not become an American citizen until 1882 (dual citizenship not being in effect then is irrelevant). Referring to him simply as American because he died a US citizen is like referring to Einstein as American as he did.. thats how bizarre that is. In relation to the Telephone Britannica (American source) has Bell down as Scottish as well as American ... which is fairly balanced, although he invented the Telephone as a Brit, his nationality therefore in headline page should be Empty... or if you wanna detail it indepth... Alexander Graham Bell - British inventor of the Telephone.. died as an American citizen, same applies to Einstein. KerryO77 (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This topic has been done to death, but I feel I should point out a few facts about citizenship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Naturalization

"Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_citizenship_(United_States)

"The Oath of Citizenship is not a federal law."

Based on those facts, this article incorrectly states that Bell was a British subject until 1882. In fact, he never stopped being a British citizen. Similarly, why is Canada included in the paragraph on nationality? At no point did he become a Canadian citizen. Clydey (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Bell, at the time of his application of U.S. citizenship, did not have the option of retaining British citizenship. As indicated in the earlier lengthy discussions, three nations have made claims of Bell as a "citizen" although it is quite correct to note that, at no time, did Bell ever apply for Canadian citizenship, although he did spend much of his later life in Nova Scotia. FWiW, many sources have wrongly considered Bell a Canadian and he has been recognized somewhat spuriously as a "Canadian inventor", Canadian scientist"... Bzuk (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

Not that I doubt you, but could you link me to somewhere that confirms the above statement? That aside, the oath is not federal law. Therefore, he did not legally renounce British citizenship. Clydey (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• The arguments above are unlikely to change the Canadian claim to Bell, because prior to 1947, all Canadians were British subjects, with full British citizenship. Even had Bell been born in Canada (which of course he was not), he would not technically have been a Canadian citizen, as such a title did not exist (Canada being a colony of Britain). Thus, the Canadian claim is not based on any LEGAL argument relating to citizenship. Canada is, however, where Bell spent much of his life, and was laid to rest, and this is where the claim stems from.* 216.197.188.176 (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Canada was not a colony of Britain after 1867. At that point, it became a Dominion. As mentioned, Bell was not given the option of having dual status under the laws of the time. However, he only lived in the USA until after the many law suits were won. After this he moved to Nova Scotia where he lived until the end of his life. He seemed to feel that Nova Scotia was his home, although there was no such thing as Canadian citizenship until 1947 or 1948. As Lenin said, "People vote with their feet." ~~Nacken~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.87.239 (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Relating to above statements on US naturalization:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Naturalization

"Although naturalizing citizens are required to undertake an oath renouncing previous allegiances, the oath has never been enforced to require the actual termination of original citizenship." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clydey (talk

I left a comment on your talk page, mate. Clydey (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dual U.S. citizenship was possible only recently. Court cases that began to appear in 1939 and on, began to establish precedence and the last challenges in the 1980s provided for U.S. citizens to hold dual citizenship. See: Dual U.S. citizenship. I attended one of the first citizenship courts in Canada where an American citizen applied for and was granted Canadian citizenship without loosing his original U.S. citizenship status. It just happened to be a fellow teacher in a school division in which I was working. Since then, my daughter-in-law has applied for and has been granted dual U.S/Canadian citizenship. During Bell's lifetime, that provision was rarely if ever obtainable. The note in the above source states: " It indeed used to be the case in the US that you couldn't hold dual citizenship (except in certain cases if you had dual citizenship from birth or childhood, in which case some Supreme Court rulings -- Perkins v. Elg (1939), Mandoli v. Acheson (1952), and Kawakita v. U.S. (1952) -- permitted you to keep both). However, most of the laws forbidding dual citizenship were struck down by the US Supreme Court in two cases: a 1967 decision, Afroyim v. Rusk, as well as a second ruling in 1980, Vance v. Terrazas." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

The quote I posted above your comment states that renouncing one's citizenship was never enforced. Clydey (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Bell himself considered himself an American citizen, is the most pertinent factor. Perhaps a bit of rewriting is necessary, but my reading of the law was that a British citizen could not apply for U.S. citizenship status as the United States would deny that duality until 1980. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

If you are referring to the quote in the Bruce book, the legitimacy of that is debatable. Are you looking at the reference list? I suggest we leave the quote for a few days to see if the source can be identified. I looked very closely at the book's reference list and simply couldn't find it. If you can find it, fair enough.

As far as citizenship law goes, what I have read appears to be ambiguous. It is very inconsistent. For example, your quote suggests that duality was denied until 1980. The following quote suggests that dual citizenship has been possible since long before 1980:

"Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other," (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) (1952)."

Add to that the quote stating that renouncing one's citizenship was never enforced, and it's not easy to ascertain the truth of the matter. Clydey (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As you earlier stated, this topic has been done to death, but even though I speak from personal experience (a real Wiki no-no) dual U.S. citizenship was not possible till 1980 as I was a witness to the first dual U.S./Canadian citizenship court and quite a bit was made of that in the media (in the day, as people are wont to say nowadays). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

The issue is easy. The option was not available to him, and he considered himself American. See...it's easy!LedRush (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's all very well saying that, but the evidence contradicts your statement. I have quoted several passages refuting your position. And whether or not he considered himself American is, again, debatable. Clydey (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No the information on both fronts is quite conclusive. Taking quotes out of context to fit your agenda does no one any good. Bzuk has explained any possible "contradiction", but the short answer is that what you say is true now, but not when Bell was around. And I am unaware of any evidence which contradicts Bell's statements about his own citizenship. If you'd like to provide them, please do.LedRush (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In what way did I take quotes out of context? I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate on that. The following quote is explicit in its meaning:

"Although naturalizing citizens are required to undertake an oath renouncing previous allegiances, the oath has never been enforced to require the actual termination of original citizenship."

It says that the termination of one's citizenship has never been enforced. Unless there exists a definition of "never" that renders the above quote ambiguous, you shouldn't be accusing me of taking quotes out of context.

As far as Bell's allegiance goes, do you have a copy of the Bruce book? The quote on Bell's allegiance is taken from that book, yet the book doesn't reference the quote. Clydey (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That quote is from Wikipedia?LedRush (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a sourced quote. Clydey (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It is sourced to a personal website. This does not even meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source, nonetheless one for a rational individual. I am not saying that it isn't true...perhaps it is. I am only saying that we haven't seen any good evidence of its veracity. The way you took quotes out of context that I was referring to was to take a quote saying that there was a long tradition of something while ignoring Bzuk's examples that indicate, yes, there was a long history, but that it didn't cover Bell's time or situation.LedRush (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not take that quote out of context. Also, you seem to be suggesting that a sourced quote is less reliable than Bzuk citing personal experience. Clydey (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggested no such thing. Also, the quote is not sourced by Wikipedia standards.LedRush (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That is preciely what you suggested when you attacked the evidence I provided and supported his. Clydey (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Time out- figuratively holding my hand's in a referee's "T" signal. I will look up the quote which I had contributed; therefore it is my onus to check its veracity. The book in question is not in my personal library but has been requested from the public library main branch in my domicile. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

Fair enough. If you manage to find the source, I'll hold my hands up. I couldn't find it in the reference list, though. On a related note, can we revise the line that suggests Bell took out Canadian citizenship? Clydey (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

To throw some more fuel into this bonfire, consider the following: if you were born in Canada or the United States or the UK, you are almost always also a Polish citizen if your parents or your grandparents were born in Poland, thus making you a dual American-Polish, or Canadian-Polish, or British-Polish citizen. You can, in fact, get your Polish passport in these circumstances by visiting a Polish consular office and presenting evidence of the same. It happens all the time.

Now this is speculation on my part related to previous statements such as: "...and I am unaware of any evidence which contradicts Bell's statements about his own citizenship". Yes, it seems to be clear that Bell regarded 'himself' as an American citizen, but unless he formally 'renounced his British citizenship' he may have actually been a 'de facto' dual British-American citizen. Does anyone have a citation for him formally renouncing his British citizenship? I wouldn't be surprized if he never got around to it. HarryZilber (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bell applied for American citizenship, and in 1882, that meant that he did revoke his British citizenship as dual U.S. citizenship was not allowed during this period. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this question from the other direction — namely, what Great Britain would have thought of Bell's status after his US naturalization — my understanding would be that British officials would have considered Bell to have lost his British nationality, per the terms of an 1870 agreement by the British government to abandon the traditional doctrine of "perpetual allegiance" (= once a subject, always a subject, whether you like it or not). This 1870 British policy change had, in turn, followed on the heels of an 1868 US law (the "Expatriation Act"), which condemned other countries' refusal to recognize US naturalization and the renunciation of prior allegiance entailed therein.

Under the terms of the Bancroft Treaties (of which I believe Great Britain's 1870 agreement was one of the first), each country agreed to consider a citizen or subject to have lost his nationality after naturalization in the other country — with the proviso that such a person could regain his old nationality (and lose his new nationality) by returning to and resettling in his old country. The Bancroft treaties were eventually terminated at the insistence of the US government, after some 1960's-era Supreme Court rulings made it clear that foreign naturalization could no longer result in automatic loss of US citizenship (as demanded by the treaties). But that was long after Bell was gone.

So, at the time Bell became a US citizen, and until his death, it would be my understanding that both the US and Great Britain would have considered him to have been a citizen only of the US, with no remaining ties of nationality or allegiance to Great Britain. Richwales (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bell refers to his status in a number of sources including Gray, 2006, p. 228, where the quote is Bell speaking to his wife: "you are a citizen because you can't help it – you were born one, but I chose to be one." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC).

What is the most hilarious and baffling of this entire citizenship claim is that every Canadian thinks that Alexander Grahm Bell was a Canadian, even to this day!

Bell himself stated from his own lips that he was an American, with the legal papers to further prove it. Even more humbling is the fact that Alexander Graham Bell's epitaph written on his tombstone explicitly says, "Citizen of the U.S.A."

There is nothing to misinterpret about Bell's citizenship. He was a Scottish born British subject who willingly became a citizen of the United States.

Bell had immigrated to Canada with his parents. However, he retained his citizenship as a British subject up until he became a citizen of the United States. He was never Canadian in any way, shape, or form.

The telephone was patented by the United States Patent and Trademark Office by a Scots-American. Canada has zero claim to Alexander Graham Bell or to the invention of the telephone. --Yoganate79 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the rant. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

So what is wrong with Scottish-born American? Mario Andretti is put down as an Italian-born American Carowinds (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(recopied from an insertion into the earlier part of the "string") Canada was not a colony of Britain after 1867. At that point, it became a Dominion. As mentioned, Bell was not given the option of having dual status under the laws of the time. However, he only lived in the USA until after the many law suits were won. After this he moved to Nova Scotia where he lived until the end of his life. He seemed to feel that Nova Scotia was his home, although there was no such thing as Canadian citizenship until 1947 or 1948. As Lenin said, "People vote with their feet." ~~Nacken~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.87.239 (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement above is not as clear-cut as it may seem. Bell maintained two residences throughout his later years with a Washington home as well as Beinn Bhreagh, on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia which essentially was his summer home in Canada. As the later years were absorbed by his experimentation with flight and hydrodynamics, Bell had a workshop/laboratory constructed at Beinn Bhreagh, and began to spend longer and longer periods of time in Canada. The first flight of the Silver Dart took place on February 23, 1909, at a time when the Bell family would have normally been resident in the United States, and it is evident that Mabel Bell organized a relief effort following the December 6, 1917 Halifax Explosion, indicating that the Bells now had lengthened their stay again that year. That the Bells were considered "citizens" of Cape Breton is wholly possible and certainly recorded in the records of the community in that manner. Consequently, the claims of a Canadian allegiance are not as far-fetched as first blush. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC).

Under Family Life reference should be made to the marriage of Marian Hubbard Bell to noted botanist David Grandison Fairchild in 1905. Papagolf1946 (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Bell was an eugenist

Alexander Graham Bell was a very famous eugenist. In this site: [[15]] you can read a Bell's article supporting eugenics , published in 1914. The article has as its title "How to improve the race."Agre22 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Alexander Graham was the inventor of the first telephone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.187.24 (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Correction: Alexander Graham Bell was the inventor of the first commercially successful telephone. Greensburger (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexandre Dumas was dead in 1880

In Legacy and honors, "In 1880, Bell received the Volta Prize with a purse of 50,000 francs (approximately US$10,000) for the invention of the telephone from the Académie française, representing the French government. Among the luminaries who judged were Victor Hugo and père Alexandre Dumas." Alexandre Dumas is listed as having died in 1870. Andargor (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly a mail-in vote, perhaps? ;-) HarryZilber (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"Disproportionate national imagery"

To User: gold coast surf

I have violated no NPOV rules. And the bulk of Wiki' articles contain "disproportionate national imagery"...esp history. All articles made with some bias. No one creates or contributes to an article about a subject they don't care about. Please show how inclusion of only two US images 'expresses' this bias to the extent you would have us believe. You have yet to do this. Only claims. Does inclusion of a painting of George Washington painted in America express bias on the G.W. page? There are SEVEN 'national' paintings of Washington there. Since this is "disproportionate national imagery" are these paintings in violation of WP:NPOV?? Perhaps we should replace some of these paintings with portraits of Washington that were painted in China, or Brazil, if you can find any. Using your yard stick, most Wiki' articles and/or images would have to be deleted. Also, please do not remove the neutrality ' dispute', tag again until issue is resolved. Removal a -clear- violation. Further, MOS page is quite large. Are you able to cite the exact violation of MOS you have also accused me of? -- GWillHickers (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

On what basis is the "neutrality" of the article in dispute? Slapping tags on articles without due use of the talk page, engaging in an edit war and using wikilawyering remarks is not productive. This article is the amalgam of many editors' contributions over a lengthy period of time and the natural filters were in place long ago. I had made the remark regarding "disproportionate" image sizes that had nothing to do with the origin of the imagery. The standard use of "thumb" sized images has long been established and having larger images from a commons template that is being deprecated was the issue. FWiW, the neutrality tag should be removed unless there is consensus for its use. Bzuk (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

On the question of the use of imagery, it is common practice to have similar or repetitive illustrations removed and having two stamps commemorating Bell is the pertinent query. FWiW, the first stamp image is best placed in the section on "honors" and tributes where another stamp already appears. Bzuk (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with Bzuk, its (two stamps) is a repetitive commemoration...which is where i called for balance and proportional representation to avoid breach of WP:NPOV. Secondly the commemorative stamp is relevant to the legacy/honors section which meets the image WP:MOS not where its placed. The choice of which of the two stamps to use is also a good point.

As is stated 'Alexander Graham Bell made a number of inventions as a British citizen notably the telephone in 1876', so i don't quite understand the user Gwillhickers comment.. (read it three times and still none the wiser). I'm also well aware the Scots (although British themselves) prefer to use the term Scottish inventor rather than British. In the legacy/honors section we have the statue in Canada, the stamp in the US... the banknotes from Scotland would nicely balance up the commemoration of the three nations, and maintain fair, proportional, NPOV standards.Gold coast surf (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok aside from the multiple pics, the second line in Wikipedia:Manual of Style reads; Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate. Remembrance with the postage stamp is in legacy and honours.Chryed (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC).

As is stated 'Alexander Graham Bell made a number of inventions as a British citizen notably the telephone in 1876', so i don't quite understand the user Gwillhickers comment.. (read it three times and still none the wiser). I'm also well aware the Scots (although British themselves) prefer to use the term Scottish inventor rather than British. In the legacy/honors section we have the statue in Canada, the stamp in the US... the banknotes from Scotland would nicely balance up the commemoration of the three nations, and maintain fair, proportional, NPOV standards.Gold coast surf (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To: gold coast surf:If you can provide the Scottland bank note and it compliments the schematic drawing of Bell's telephone as the image I included has, then I will consider removal a 'somewhat' fair request. Originally you came in with the idea of "disproportionate national imagery" and seemed to care not at all that the postage issue in dispute complimented Bell's schematic drawing of his telephone. -- Further, this whole idea of "disproportionate national imagery" is at best second to the idea of WHAT that imagery is and how it fits into the article. Again, if we were to apply your 'rule' most of the images in Wiki would have to go. Again, are the seven "national" paintings of George Washington on the G.W. page now to be considered "disproportionate"?? Or is the more important issue that these paintings, regardless of origin, add to that page? Your focus on "nationality" rather than image content seems to be a product of bias, which is what you accused me of for merely adding two images. Also, being a British citizen is a legal technicality regarding Bell's life and work in the United States. "National" image just as appropriate as Scotland's or Canada's, the likes of which you provided neither of, which seems to be understandable as you seem only concerned about 'nationality'. GWillHickers (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, retaining proportionality is one aspect, but its also the timeline and image relevance to the text. In the Einstein article for example..the imagery correlates with the words, the events, the timeline is insync. Thats standard MOS imagery. The stamps you have uploaded are excellent, and either one fits neatly into the commemoration section. In a section of first experiments, that should show some degree of imagery relative to that..his development etc. The Royal Bank of Scotland commemoration for his 150 year anniversary is a good one, it would be ideal to add to the commemoration section but its not THAT necessry as it looks ok.Gold coast surf (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Gold coast, would you please address these topics:

1. The two images isn't what most people would call 'disproportionate'. Four, five and six images, okay, then you might have an argument, that is, if they were all of the same theme.

2. Where is it written that an image of a postage stamp must be confined to honors and the like? Should paintings (another illustration) of famous people also be confined to the honors and legacy section?

3. "disproportionate national imagery". Should the seven paintings on the G.Washington page also be removed on the same grounds you have asserted? That is a dangerous axe you are carrying...it can cut both ways.

4. MOS: "Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate." -- Did not the disputed image tie right in AND compliment the image of Bell's schematic directly above it? That location was the most appropriate on the entire page.

I could accept the removal if someone produced a similar image from another country to offer instead. That would have been fair. No one has. I did not remove anyone else's image so I could include the one I offered. Yet, you want to remove it and put nothing else in it's place.

We all love Bell, all of our countries, the U.S.A., Canada, Britian/Scottland share in his legacy. I simply do not understand this attack. GWillHickers (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly two stamps is a repetitive commemoration as users have mentioned, also on a page such as this where an individual has a diverse identity...ie.born, raised, educated in Scotland (then England) where he made his first inventions, invented the telephone a British citizen, worked in both US and Canada..inwhich he adopted US citizenship in 1882 and spent a huge amount of the latter part of his life living in Canada, commemoration should be proportional/fair/balanced to meet NPOV, and within the relevant commemoration section that it relates, again as has been mentioned. Neutrality/proportionality avoids contentious disputes...as the tags on this article have done very well over the years. The honors and legacy section with its commemorative images has a Canadian statue, a US stamp.. (which is where i stated the 150th anniversary Scottish Banknote would compliment)...i've added an image of Bell receiving an honorary degree at Edinburgh in the relevant section. The first experiments section should have an image that relates to that..ie.the young Bell, developing..as the Einstein article does which shows him in his growth/development as a scientist...ie.timeline of events. The article does need more images of Bell in his development.Gold coast surf (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing/Blocking images because of national origin

To Gold coast surf, Your entire paragraph above assumes 'national origin' is what is necessary to maintain NPOV. A NPOV can be presented even if all images came from one source.

No one is preventing you from including images of any of Bell's inventions that were invented other than in the USA. Yet you wish to impose such on others and have based this only on 'national origin', hence bias. You could achieve your 'national origin balance' by including images of other origins, that is, if the origin, rather than the substance of the image, is most important to you, as you have repeatedly demonstrated on record it is.

Also, two stamps is not "repetitive" as they are different entirely. One an image of Bell, the other an image of the prototype. Already an image of a prototype? There are already images of Bell...no need for a Bell statue image. If we apply your 'rule' to one image we must apply it everywhere.

As for the users, this page is viewed an average of 4.5k times a day. The 'two' users that have sided with you cite MOS, which does NOT mean such an image must be confined to a specific section, only that the images 'relate', as the image I included indeed did. Did it not? It is an illustration like any other photo, drawing, painting, etc, none of which are confined to any specific section. This will make the third time this counter argument has been avoided.

Not including the stamp image and the statue, there are already four other images of Bell. Should we remove them until we are sure they all come from different countries? Or is the more important issue that we have a variety of different images of Bell? Your focus on the superficial aspect, the 'national origin' of the image, can only be motivated by national bias. When I included an image it was the telephone that was foremost in mind. Your focus was on 'national origin', hence, national bias, once again.

In light of these perspectives your argument for image removal is based on your personal opinion about NPOV, and assumes that the 'national origin' of an image is something that can violate NPOV. It does not, BECAUSE 'all' the images support, honor or highlight Bell -regardless- of 'national origin'. Again, all you have is a bias about 'national origin' of images and hence your NPOV argument is without any basis. You have presented nothing that says otherwise. Only claims.

You have been given the opportunity to justify your removal of contributions made by others. If you can not present any other argument other that your perceived NPOV violation, based only on 'national origin', and if you chose, once again, to avoided the MOS rebuttal, the image should in all fairness be restored, as again, no one is preventing you from including inventions made other than in the U.S.A and more importantly no one has violated NPOV. GWillHickers (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I differ with GWillHickers and i concur with others that the use of images should be equal in commemoration and in the right part of the article. I looked through the edit history of the article and GWillhickers has inserted images a number of times inappropriately. On one occasion placing a commemorative United states postage stamp of Bell directly below the infobox at the top. Edit dated 31 March. The user Harryzilber then correctly moved it to the legacy section where it belongs. No one else that i have seen has continuously inserted inappropriate images that go against wiki rules onto the page but GWillhickers. There is no concensus for inappropriate images being placed in the article so the tag should be removed.Andymcgrath (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

To Andymcgrath: -- I did a little edit history checking myself, all the way back to 2001 when the Bell page was created, and your name appears no where, so I can only assume that your visit here, at this 'particular' time, was solicited by Gold coast who has continuously offered nothing but a biased insistence that for every US image there must be one from another country, completely disregarding the idea that images should be weighed by their content, not by what country they happen to originate from. And yes, I was perhaps a little over zealous when I originally posted an image of Bell near the top of the page, and when Harryzilber moved it to legacy, there it remained. Gold coast did nothing of the sort -- he outright eliminated the image for what is now obviously national bias reasons. All you have concurred is that image origin is something that violates NPOV if there is not one from a different country on the same page, disregarding the idea that country origin doesn't express a view by it self, and also disregarding the idea that users are free to include such images from other countries. If I had said something like 'Bell was great 'because' he lived in America', THAT would be a NPOV issue. Nothing of the sort has been even implied. Further, you nor anyone can site a MOS rule that says that images of postage should be confined to honors and legacy. What MOS 'does' say is that "Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate". The image in question directly related to the place it was entered, next to a Bell schematic of his telephone. Postage images are an illustration just as paintings, drawings, photos and the like and are not automatically confined to any specific section. GWillHickers (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The only user i specifically quoted was Harryzilber, who on the 31st of March was forced to move a commemorative United states postage stamp that you planted directly under the infobox at the top of the page, to which he correctly moved it to the legacy, commemoration section where it belongs. One of the cornerstones of wiki is to avoid such bias. A commemoration image, in this case a centennial 1976 US postage stamp, belongs in the legacy, commemoration section which venerates the memory of, alongside the other nations to whom Bell identifies do. There is no consensus for inserting images against wiki rules.Andymcgrath (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

To Andyncgrath You are just repeating yourself and have not addressed the fact that there is no MOS rule that says images of postage must be confined to legacy...any more than a painting in someone's honor and memory must be confined there. Again, MOS clearly states -- "Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate" -- The image in dispute did exactly that, and it was removed, not relocated, by Gold coast not for its content, but because of its national origin. GWillHickers (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay GW, this is enough sniping and whining. This page is used to provide commentary directed to furthering the article. Any other issues are taken up in conflict resolution or on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents noticeboard. Now, let's get back to the business at hand, creating an encyclopaedia with a collaborative team of editors. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

To Bzuk -- Not sure how long you have been around but for years NPOV disputes were and still are often resolved on the subject's discussion page. Further, the note on the POV tag itself says -- QUOTE: "Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." -- And in case you haven't been following the thread, this issue is much more than just a dispute about one image. The image was outright removed, not relocated, not for its content, but simply because of its national origin. In other words Mr. 'gold coast surf' would have not removed it had the image come from Britian, Canada...all the while hiding behind NPOV, which is ridiculous because his actions were far from neutral. The image in dispute, along with ALL the images on the page support, honor or highlight Bell's life. This issue is far from over as I don't see even a hint of compromise coming from him. At this point the only reason I don't restore the image is because I don't want it associated with this 'national bias' issue that Gold coast initiated. I did not not start this issue. I do intend to resolve it. Blocking, removing images because of national origin should be an offense to anyone. I too would like to get on with the collaborative effort. How is this supposed to occur when we have parties who are guilty of bias while accusing others of it? GWillHickers (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The spurious headline Removing/Blocking images because of national origin was not there when i last posted in here, GWillhickers has subsequently put it up. I repeated myself GWillhickers as thats my view on the matter, from planting a commemorative United states postage stamp directly under the infobox at the top of the article which Harry Harryzilber correctly moved into the legacy and commemoration section where it belongs, you have inserted inappropriate images that go against wiki rules onto the page, and there is no consensus for doing so.Andymcgrath (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Formal Mediation

I have requested formal mediation in this dispute about blocking/removing images because of their national origin. Whether I agree with their decision or not, I will respect their decision and then bow out of the dispute. Not until. GWillHickers (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

GWillhickers False Accusations

As Bzuk has stated the user GWillhickers has to end this sniping against everyone and cease. Also GWillhickers needs to read the comments again because the user is repeatedly stating falsehoods and making false accusations simply because he hasn'tread the comments. He falsely claimed that if it was a Scotland or Canada image (and not a US) that i wouldn't have removed it had it been placed in the wrong section (he has also repeatedly put images out of place that other users have rectified). I shall copy and paste two sentences of my third comment,

Gwillhickers, retaining proportionality (to meet WP:NPOV) is one aspect, but its also the timeline and image relevance to the text (to meet WP:MOS). The Royal Bank of Scotland commemoration for his 150 year anniversary is a good one, it would be ideal to add to the commemoration section but its not THAT necessry as it looks ok.

If someone uploaded an image of the 1997 Royal Bank of Scotland Banknote that commemorates the 150th anniversary of the birth of Bell and placed it next to the section of his birth, i would remove it and place it in the commemoration section in legacy and honors (if the similar image wasn't already there).I have repeatedly stated commemoration section throughout if there was a commemorative Scotland image uploaded. I maintain neutrality whether its Scotland, US or Canada..that has been my argument from the start. This tirade against users has to end.Gold coast surf (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Formal Mediation Request

My request for formal mediation has been denied because one of the parties has refused to participate. Even if the request was accepted, the formal mediation people are back-logged, which I suppose doesn't surprise me as over the years I have witnessed one dispute after another. I was also told to try to resolve the issue on the discussion page. Now all you have to do is ignore me. I am going to remove the POV tag. GWillHickers (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The use of a POV tag in this case seems inappropriate to me so I'm glad to see it's been removed. Ultimately, you should not be edit warring to maintain your own pictures in the article. As the photographer, you have a very clear and obvious blatant Conflict of Interest. By all means, you're most welcome to upload and add your pictures and we're very grateful for your efforts, but addition of images is like any other article contributions and requires the consensus of other editors. If you add images and other editors then remove or move them, you shouldn't revert them but rather should take it to the talk page and discuss it. If others agree with you, they will restore the images for you and if they don't, it's indicative that there is no consensus for including the image in your desired manner. Please consider following the Conflict of Interest guideline and suggesting your image on the relevant article's talk pages but then leaving it up to the editors of the article to add the image how and where they feel appropriate. Frankly, looking at the history of this article, I think you're lucky you weren't blocked for edit warring. Not to say that no one else was at fault here - some of the comments and edit summaries I've seen from both sides have seemed unnecessarily inflammatory which only provoked the situation further but you're wanting to add your own images to articles and you need the a consensus to do this - you can't just force your own way against the wishes of the other editors. Adding your image once is perfectly acceptable but if it's rejected by other editors, you then need to go to the article's talk page and try to reach a consensus with the other editor(s) - if it's you arguing against everyone else, as would seem to be the case here, you either need to accept that consensus is against you in this instance or you need to try to reach a compromise, but continuing to re-do your edit and edit warring is not acceptable. Sarah 05:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sarah, I have long since accepted that consensus, removed the NPOV tag and bowed out some ten days before your appearance and message here. Also the image was not removed by an editor really, it was at the hand of someone who just appeared with no edit history here. Shortly thereafter, another 'editor' with no edit history here gave his support against including the image in dispute. Bzuk, the senior editor on the 'Bell page sided with the others but offered nothing convincing, in my opinion. Please bear in mind that it takes two to edit war but it only takes one to start one, and that occurred when the image was deleted by an 'editor' with no discussion, as was brought to his attention by Veteran II editor Keith D. Also, I too could have gone out and solicited support from like minded individuals, from among the thousands of US stamp collectors here at Wiki' but instead argued my points on their own merit. See note on your discussion page. As for the claim I have a "blatant conflict of interest" simply because I photographed the image, please note that no mention was made of the photographer when the images were included and besides, I just photographed it, the image itself is not my creation, so you might want to be careful before you assume any 'conflict' here. Also I have had images relocated (once here) on several occasions and had no issue. Again, the dispute began because there was an NPOV issue on the basis that there was one too many (two in all) stamp images of US origin -- which really ought not to be amazing as Bell spent his prime inventing years in the USA, was inspired and invented the telephone in the USA, and patented that phone in the USA. One and two (different) commemorations from the USA was and is not at all inappropriate. Had someone else included two similar images from Britain or Canada I would have embraced them the same, and when I included such images the issue of 'national origin' was the furthest thing from my mind. If there are other areas in the dispute you feel need reviewing also please feel free to correspond at any time. GWillHickers (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Enough already, you made your case, did not find consensus and are still arguing, throwing out spurious claims. Time to move on. FWiW, this entire discourse is not appropriate for a talk page devoted to furthering the article. Bzuk (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I stated my case as did the others, removed the NPOV tag of my own accord and bowed out. Yet when I return more than two weeks later I find a somewhat lengthy lecture directed at me, from another entity with zero edits and contributions to this page, also from Australia, as if I was the only one responsible for the dispute. I trust you also sent our friend Sarah a similar message, that the dispute here is over. In the interest of not having the dispute return, perhaps you as the senior editor and major contributor to the page (nice job btw) should opt to delete the dispute in its entirety. Anyone who feels they must reexamine anything can always go to edit history. If this is something you can or will not do, you will have to permit me to respond to any new developments that happen to emerge if I so choose. Reminder, NPOV tags say disputes are resolved on the discussion page. GWillHickers (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Alexander Graham Bell/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Good ,but leangthy.

Last edited at 23:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)