Talk:Alexander Graham Bell

Listing of prior 'Talk' subjects now archived

The following is a list of subjects previously found on this page, but which have now been transferred into the archive (accessible via the Archives1 link on this page). Copy and paste older dialogs onto this page as required to avoid endless loops of prior discussions. Harry Zilber (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

   * 1 What about
   * 2 Copyright Infringment
   * 3 Alexandra Graham Bell
   * 4 some debate
   * 5 Metal detector as forerunner of MRI
   * 6 Revisionists often have one thing in common...
   * 7 First chancellor of Curry College
   * 8 alexander graham bell?
   * 9 Age?
   * 10 Family?
   * 11 Eugenics and Racialism
   * 12 Telephone POV debate
   * 13 Odd citizenship sentence and inclusion on CD
   * 14 Diatribe on Citizenship
   * 15 Meucci & Reis & Bell & Bourseul and the Pride of Nations
         o 15.1 Meucci resolution
   * 16 Meucci invented the telephone
   * 17 Cultural depictions of Alexander Graham Bell
   * 18 Does anyone have an authoritative source that can confirm this statement?
   * 19 More Appropriate and Accurate Introduction to Bell
   * 20 Intro Suggestion and Small Rant
   * 21 The other side of Bell
   * 22 Western Union or American District Telegraph Co?
   * 23 Disgrace
   * 24 Film biographies about Bell
   * 25 references vs further reading
   * 26 Biographical standard
   * 27 GA comment
   * 28 Last words
   * 29 Canadian?
   * 30 Interwiki link reverting
   * 31 Ahoyhoy
   * 32 Pernicious anaemia
   * 33 Cause of death
   * 34 US Form
   * 35 Material from Eugenics article.
   * 36 Citizenship debate renewed
   * 37 Name
   * 38 Claims and counter-claims
         o 38.1 Contradiction
   * 39 Honours and tributes
   * 40 Factual errors in references to Meucci
   * 41 Not complete way of presenting the facts- please update the summary
   * 42 Please fix
   * 43 "Family Life"
   * 44 Hot or Not?
   * 45 This page is receiving heavy traffic
   * 46 Sources for atricle numbering 40 and up
   * 47 "Father of the Deaf"
   * 48 Credited with the invention?
   * 49 Wikipedia mirror
   * 50 Interpreting the text of the Congressional Resolution
   * 51 Some clarification of meaning of text.
   * 52 Treatment of cases in "competitors" section.
   * 53 He was a jew and an eugenicist
   * 54 Competitors section revision
   * 55 Redirect "Alex Bell" here.
   * 56 Nationality in the lead  
         

Thanks, that is helpful. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:39, 8 March 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

"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: [[1]] 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