Talk:Alexander Graham Bell/Archive 2

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 * 57 Listing of prior 'Talk' subjects now archived * 58 AGB Association needs access rights to editing some sections * 59 Bell's philosophical and religious views * 60 Where was the telephone invented, in the US or Canada? * 61 Excessive vandalism and intro paragraph change * 62 Citizenship and MOS:BIO * 63 Bell known as the inventor of the telephone * 64 About Meucci and Bell.... * 65 Citizenship revisited * 66 Bell was an eugenist * 67 Alexandre Dumas was dead in 1880 * 68 "Disproportionate national imagery" * 69 Removing/Blocking images because of national origin * 70 Formal Mediation * 71 GWillhickers False Accusations * 72 Formal Mediation Request Contents [hide]
 * Thanks, that is helpful. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC).

Archives
The last topics have now been archived. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

Bell's status at National Geographic
According to a biography written about Alexander Graham Bell by Charlotte Gray, Bell was not a founding member of the National Geographic Society publication but rather it’s saviour. Bell was pushed into service reluctantly through the urging of his wife Mabel when her father, Bell’s father-in-law, Gardiner Greene Hubbard, fell ill. Bell agreed to become the President only if he had free reign. He initiated the changes of including graphic photographs and examining different cultures of the world. He made the magazine the monumental publication it is today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esparonzadelevaga (talk • contribs) 16:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Honor" (spelling usage)
If you say he was from Scotland why did you spell honour like honor?? :/ Ianp321 (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick answer: the article was started in American English, and should be maintained that way.  Bell emigrated from the U.K. when he was 23 and lost his British citizenship in 1882, living the greater part of his life in North America.  HarryZilber (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

i know how he would of spelt it.....Ianp321 (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not germane, the spellings of both words are acceptable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Honor is not a North American spelling, it is an American spelling, Canadians spell it honour.


 * I don't care which spelling we adopt, but it should at least be internally consistent. At present it is not. --John (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have unified spelling to US spelling (as much as I could, can't guarantee I caught everything). This is the spelling first used on the article (see spelling of "fiber" on the page creation) and how it should remain consistent with according to guidelines. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Quiz time: did Bell own one share, or ten shares of the Bell Telephone Company?
Numerous reference sources have stated that Bell gave all but 10 shares that he owned of the Bell Telephone Company to Mabel Hubbard Bell as his wedding gift to her (example: "Invention in America", by Russell Bourne, 1996. Quote: "Rather than keeping the money for himself or for his laboratory endeavors, Bell gave all but ten of his shares to his wife ..."); however I can previously recall seeing some references that said he had given all except a single share to her.

This document, a letter residing in the Library Of Congress, from AT&T President Frederick Fish to Bell in 1905 seeking the return of 'a single share of stock' so that it could be exchanged for a new stock issue (after Bell Telephone was bought out by AT&T), clearly states that Bell owned only a single share at that point of time. So if Bell had previously owned ten shares, had he sold off nine of them prior to 1905? Sounds unlikely -perhaps he had only kept a single share for himself when he made the wedding present to Mabel.

As an amusing side note to the above letter, see this follow-up letter from Fish to Bell which referenced a number of documents and cheques given to Bell, generated by the share exchange. At the bottom of pg. 2 you'll see that Mr. Fish had also enclosed a personal cheque to Bell due to an accounting error stated in Fish's first letter two weeks earlier, the result being that Bell received cheques in the total of $119 from AT&T for his dividends, plus a personal cheque of $75 from Fish so that Bell wouldn't be annoyed with him! Its fair to say that Fish likely held him in high regard.

Comments on the one share versus ten shares? HarryZilber (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When Alec Bell married Mabel, he owned 1,497 shares of the Bell Telephone Company (founded July 9, 1877) of which he gave 1,487 shares to Mabel and kept 10 shares for himself. That he kept ten shares is reported in Robert Bruce's book, page 233 and in Charlotte Gray's book, page 163, and in Pizer's book, page 10.  But this was ten shares of the "Bell Telephone Company" not "American Bell Telephone Company".  The original company had a short life and Alec mentioned "the ashes of the Bell Telephone Company" in a letter to his wife in January 1879 (Charlotte Gray, page 194).  A few weeks later, on February 17, 1879, the Bell Telephone Company merged with a sister company, the New England Telephone & Telegraph Company, to form the National Bell Telephone Company.  Shares were allocated to Alec and Mabel in proportion to their shares of Bell Telephone Company (Pizer, page 264), but the number of shares depended on the total issued.  Likewise Alec received one share of American Bell Telephone Company stock in proportion to his percentage shares of National Bell Telephone Company stock, and the number of shares depended on the total number issued.


 * Hence there seems to be NO conflict between the ten shares of Bell Telephone Company and the one share of American Bell Telephone Company.


 * However, biographers differ on the number of shares allocated to Alec before he gave all but ten shares to his wife. The books by Bruce (page 233) "all but ten of his 1507 shares" and Gray (page 163) "all but 10 of his 1,507 shares" agree that the total number was 1,507 shares to Alec.  But Pizer (page 124) says "Alexander Graham Bell - 1,497 shares" (the same number as Sanders) as part of the total 5000 shares, and that is consistent with the Bell Telephone Company article which cites Pizer.  So it appears that one of the biographers added the 10 to 1,497 instead of subtracting it, and the other author copied the mistake.   Greensburger (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Death
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he died of complications from diabetes? As opposed to merely saying "he died of diabetes", since the disease itself isn't what kills you. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Updated. Efficacious (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.34.182.125, 24 September 2010
{edit semi-protected}

Please change "at 15 Day Street" to at  "15 Dey Street." AT&T former headquarters is at 15 Dey St (really Broadway) in lower Manhattan. It's a Thompson-Reuters facility today. Look it up. No Day St. In lower Manhattan. Dey street is one block long between Church and Broadway in lower Manhattan.

99.34.182.125 (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ thank you for noticing ....done as per In One Man's Life - Being Chapters from the Personal and Business Career of ...By Albert Bigelow Paine page 261 and Appletons' dictionary of New York and its vicinity By D. Appleton and Company page 232 .....Moxy (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 129.237.86.50, 28 September 2010
In the "The race to the patent office" section please include a link to the biography page for Elisha Gray.

129.237.86.50 (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.129.140.137, 1 November 2010
Please change the name "Elisa" to "Elsie" as that is how the name is listed in two other places on the same page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.140.137 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks, Stickee (talk)  01:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Truth
Comment by 151.71.95.172 moved to the end to be in chrono sequence. Greensburger (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Emperor of Brazil Pedro II and Bell
Although Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil is very briefly mentioned as an 'influential visitor' to the 1876 Philadelphia Exposition (World's Fair) which Bell did not even want to attend but which brought worldwide attention and acceptance to his newly invented telephone, Dom Pedro actually played a highly significant role, and his chance encounter with Bell at the exhibition deserves a lengthier description in the article.

A significant number of serendipitous and fortuitous events prior to the 1876 exhibition led Bell to be able to obtain his master patent of the telephone, and then to the Bell Telephone Company being able to survive Western Union's onslaught and legal challenges. If Bell hadn't made a key error translating Helmholtz's German treatise, if both his brothers hadn't died, if he hadn't fallen in love with Mabel Hubbard, if Bell's first patent application hadn't been ignored in London in 1875, if he hadn't caught the train to Philadelphia at the very last moment  –the ifs, ifs, ifs and ifs go on for about half a kilometer, anyone of which would have left him without his master patent and the Bell Telephone Company in the dustbins of history.

Key to the U.S. public's acceptance of the telephone as a legitimate appliance for business and personal use was Bell's chance encounter of Pedro II with whom he had a developing friendship, at the world's fair. Bell and his invention were being derided by some of the review panel members, and both he and his invention were moments away from being dismissed as irrelevant by the tired judges and press media when Pedro, who was lagging behind the other exhibition judges, came upon and recognized his friend from Boston whom he had first met several months earlier while visiting schools for the deaf in that city. Pedro's very lively amazement at Bell's invention caught the attention of the other judges, and was pivotal in their awarding Bell his two gold medals, and in the media headlining his invention around the world in the following days. That Bell and Pedro II became friends is not well known and merits further description in the article. Below is a discussion of documentation on that friendship copied from a user talk page.

 Previous discussion: 


 * Hi, Harry. Are you sure that Pedro II and Bell were friends? Is that what the source said? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Lecen: I only quoted one source for brevity. There was an initial visit  several months earlier by Dom Pedro to the school for the deaf that Bell operated in Boston, where Bell espoused his philosophy of aural instruction for young deaf children. Upon seeing Bell at the Philadelphia World Fair, Dom Pedro (one of the exhibition's judges) exclaimed to Bell (who had made a completely unplanned visit to the fair):  "What are you doing here?!!".  Dom Pedro's excitement at hearing the invention 'speak' in English and Portuguese in front of a large media crowd was pivotal to the acceptance of the telephone, earning it a gold medal at the fair.  His reactions to Bell and the awards he granted to him, including a contract for the purchase of 100 telephones, are cited in several independent sources, and I'm quite positive that further letters between them can be cited or located at the Library of Congress in the Bell Family Collection.  Best: HarryZilber (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that episode is very well known. But did you read the sentence? It is mentioning intelectuals who became actually friends of Pedro II. There were many others, such as Bell, whom he met but who relationship never evolved to a friendship. I plan to mention their relationship in Apogee of Pedro II of Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Much of the LOC's Bell Family Papers remains undigitized and thus unviewable except in person in Washington. However there are other supporting references, including:
 * Horace Coon, American Tel & Tel: The Story of a Great Monopoly, Ayer Publishing, 1971, p.24, ISBN 0836956915, ISBN 9780836956917. Quote: ""On a hot Sunday afternoon, June 25th, Sir William Thompson (later Lord Kelvin) and many other distinguished guests inspected the exhibits. Few paid much attention to Bell, tinkering with his crude instruments. At last the party approached his booth. Among them was Dom Pedro de Alcantara, the Emperor of Brazil. He had met Bell a few weeks previously in Boston and spoke to him as an old friend."
 * Stephanie Sammartino McPherson & Tad Butler. Alexander Graham Bell, Lerner Publications, 2007, p.28, ISBN 0822576066, ISBN 9780822576068. Quote: "Dom Pedro had met Alec at a school for the deaf in Boston. When the emperor greeted Alec, the judges took note. They wanted to see what the emperor's friend had invented."
 * Fernando Henrique Cardoso. The Accidental President of Brazil: A Memoir, PublicAffairs, 2007, p.11, ISBN 158648429X, ISBN 9781586484293. Quote: "The centerpiece of the emperor's trip was the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia. There, Dom Pedro II sought out a young, relatively obscure teacher at the School of the Deaf named Alexander Graham Bell, with whom he had exchanged letters."
 * Edgar C. Wheeler. They Laughed at Him, But He Gave Us the Telephone, Popular Science, Bonnier Corporation, February 1926, Vol. 108, No. 2, p. 21, ISSN 0161-7370. Quote: "But just then there happened an amazing thing. Into the room walked Dom Pedro, the Emperor, followed by his retinue. With arms outstretched he strode straight to the young inventor. "Professor Bell", he exclaimed, "I am delighted to see you!""
 * Huurdeman, Anton A. The Worldwide History of Telecommunications, Wiley-IEEE, 2003, pg.164, ISBN 0471205052. Quote: "....it was around seven o'clock when the 50-person delegation of judges, scientists, reporters and other officials arrived at the Department of Education. Tired and hungry, they hardly looked at the telephone, made some jokes at Bell's expense, and wanted to leave the exhibition quickly when suddenly, Dom Pedro II, Emperor of Brazil from 1840 to 1889, with his wife Empress Theresa and a bevy of courtiers, entered the room. Dom Pedro recognized Bell and exclaimed "Professor Bell, I am delighted to see you again!" The judges at once forgot their tiredness and wondered who this young inventor was who was a friend of an emperor. Dom Pedro had once visited Bell's class of deaf-mutes at Boston University and initiated the first Brazilian school for deaf-mutes in Rio de Janeiro.".... ....The judges stayed the next three hours with Bell. Bell's telephone became the star of the centennial...."

If need be, I can add these cites to the [Pedro II] article until more correspondence between the two can be located. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC); plus additional cite: HarryZilber (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There was no need for that many sources. But thank you very much! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments/suggestions? HarryZilber (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

He never had Canadian citizenship
So is it safe to label him as "Scottish-American" in the introduction? How can it be justified to label him as a Canadian? Especially in the many Canadian-related categories that he's listed in?. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 04:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the intro invisible note, this is the consensus agreement that was struck after many editors and admins were involved in resolving long-standing debates about nationality. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did, and it says to initiate discussion on the talk page if there are objections. I am objecting — Bell was never a Canadian citizen, so the categories listing him as a "Canadian [X]", at the least, should be removed. I also think that labeling him "Scottish–American" in the introduction should be considered. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 10:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite the intervention of a single editor, this discussion had engendered a fair amount of controversy and with all due respect, I acknowledge the decision made by consensus. If anything, Bell had made statements in his lifetime that he did not accept the prejorative of "Scottish-American" and that when he took out American citizenship, he fully accepted that he was solely an US citizen. That alone brings up the contentious issue of Scottish origin, and that was fully developed in the "invisible." Unless you can support your arguments with anything other than a personal belief, then, the matter is already resolved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC).
 * I am willing to concede the "Scottish–American" descriptor, which was merely a suggestion, but my main concern is about the "Canadian" categories. I understand there has been great controversy surrounding the indication of his nationality in the opening paragraph, but certainly the Canadian categories do not belong; he was never a Canadian citizen. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 13:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That much of his work was completed in Canada, first in Ontario at his family home and later in Nova Scotia where he spent the later part of his life, has given him a status of "adopted." In a number of sources regarding his Baddeck years, the community explicitly stated that Bell and his wife were honourary citizens. Regardless, the reasoning behind Bell being recognized as a "Canadian" scientist relates predominately from a Parliamentary decree in the Canadian House of Commons that recognized the role he played as a scientist working in Canada, as well as numerous statements in his lifetime made by Bell, that acknowledged his early work on telephones, initial experimentation in Brantford, Ontario and the accumulation of nearly 200 inventions and patents that were directly connected to his laboratory at Beinn Bhreagh. The interpretative centre at the National Park site that is near his ancestral home in Nova Scotia has an extensive collection of his research notes and even his models. The remains of the record-setting hydrofoil is also found there. Although part of the work in aeronautics was completed in New York, a great deal of the experimentation including Canada's first powered flight took place at Lac Baddeck. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Weren't people in Canada British subjects until 1947? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.112.152 (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Bzuk (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Invention dispute
Bell did not invent telephone, US rules

Rory Carroll in Rome The Guardian,	 Monday 17 June 2002 11.14 BST Article history Italy hailed the redress of a historic injustice yesterday after the US Congress recognised an impoverished Florentine immigrant as the inventor of the telephone rather than Alexander Graham Bell. Historians and Italian-Americans won their battle to persuade Washington to recognise a little-known mechanical genius, Antonio Meucci, as a father of modern communications, 113 years after his death.

The vote by the House of Representatives prompted joyous claims in Meucci's homeland that finally Bell had been outed as a perfidious Scot who found fortune and fame by stealing another man's work.

Calling the Italian's career extraordinary and tragic, the resolution said his "teletrofono", demonstrated in New York in 1860, made him the inventor of the telephone in the place of Bell, who had access to Meucci's materials and who took out a patent 16 years later.

"It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognised, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged," the resolution stated.

Bell's immortalisation in books and films has rankled with generations of Italians who know Meucci's story. Born in 1808, he studied design and mechanical engineering at the Academy of Fine Arts in Florence, and as a stage technician at the city's Teatro della Pergola developed a primitive system to help colleagues communicate.

In the 1830s he moved to Cuba and, while working on methods to treat illnesses with electric shocks, found that sounds could travel by electrical impulses through copper wire. Sensing potential, he moved to Staten Island, near New York City, in 1850 to develop the technology.

When Meucci's wife, Ester, became paralysed he rigged a system to link her bedroom with his neighbouring workshop and in 1860 held a public demonstration which was reported in New York's Italian-language press.

In between giving shelter to political exiles, Meucci struggled to find financial backing, failed to master English and was severely burned in an accident aboard a steamship.

Forced to make new prototype telephones after Ester sold his machines for $6 to a secondhand shop, his models became more sophisticated. An inductor formed around an iron core in the shape of a cylinder was a technique so sophisticated that it was used decades later for long-distance connections.

Meucci could not afford the $250 needed for a definitive patent for his "talking telegraph" so in 1871 filed a one-year renewable notice of an impending patent. Three years later he could not even afford the $10 to renew it.

He sent a model and technical details to the Western Union telegraph company but failed to win a meeting with executives. When he asked for his materials to be returned, in 1874, he was told they had been lost. Two years later Bell, who shared a laboratory with Meucci, filed a patent for a telephone, became a celebrity and made a lucrative deal with Western Union.

Meucci sued and was nearing victory - the supreme court agreed to hear the case and fraud charges were initiated against Bell - when the Florentine died in 1889. The legal action died with him.

Yesterday the newspaper La Repubblica welcomed the vote to recognise the Tuscan inventor as a belated comeuppance for Bell, a "cunning Scotsman" and "usurper" whose per- fidy built a communications empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almarcowhite (talk • contribs) 22:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Junk Science.
Bell didn't want deaf parents to have children because he thought that they would have deaf kids. 90% of deaf children are actually born to hearing parents. His eugenics was based on junk science. Source: http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/staticresources/health/healthyhearing/tools/pdf/CommOptionsChild.pdf

Please add to article. His eugenics should also be in the introduction. Not buried at the bottom with a small paragraph.

Savagedjeff (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Eugneics was only a minor area of interest to Bell; his beliefs were no different from those of others at the time. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Those others, as in who? Other eugenicists? Don't act like every man of his time was a Eugenicist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.126.203 (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

¿The Truth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Graham_Bell Alexander Graham Bell (March 3, 1847 – August 2, 1922) was an eminent scientist, inventor, engineer and innovator who is credited with inventing the first practical telephone.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Meucci Antonio Santi Giuseppe Meucci (Firenze, 13 aprile 1808 – Staten Island, 18 ottobre 1889) è stato un inventore italiano, celebre principalmente per l'invenzione del telefono.

... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.83.95.135 (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You should probably review the archives of this page to see how we came about with that wording. Syrthiss (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Meucci was one of several inventors who experimented with voice transmission over a wire, but never made a commercially practical telephone. Bell was the first to invent a practical telephone.  Greensburger (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Bell has been a long time regarded as the inventor of the telephone, although this topic has been discussed widely, with many authorities who claim that Antonio Meucci was the real inventor (in fact in June 2002 the parliament approved a U.S. document (Resolution 269) Meucci officially attributed to that credit for the invention of the telephone [1]). Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.71.95.172.


 * Meucci was not credited with the "first practical telephone". Greensburger (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The old canard of the Resolution 269 rearing its head again. If anyone ever reads the convoluted history of the congressman who spearheaded the bill and the actual resolution, it would stop the Meucci claims, once and for all. FWiW, many authorities- bunk! Bzuk (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What a funny conversation! There's only one inventor of the telephone (Antonio Meucci), if someone (Bell) copies an invention and then sells better than the inventor, he is not an inventor, but a usurper! We must write the truth, not historical false Giorgio Leone (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Giorgio, please reread the Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell article to understand what the U.S. House of Representatives HRes 269 resolution actually said. HarryZilber (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Antonio Meucci invencted telephone before Graham Bell; probably Bell stole the Meucci's plans. If you ask in Italy who invencted telephone, evryoine say : Meucci. If you ask it in the USA, everyone say: Bell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.55.244 (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This talk page is not a forum for discussing the issue outside of direct improvements to the article. I doubt you have any more insight into the relationship between Bell and Meucci than the rest of us, so the 'probably bell stole the Meucci's plans' is probably incorrect.  Since nobody has put forward any new sources, just general sabrerattling I suggest we close this discussion. Syrthiss (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This story is an archetype, unfortunately it continuously repeats itself with other actors, it is not the first nor the last ..... --Andriolo (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Antonio Meucci is the only and true inventor of the telephone as it has been finally recognized in 2002 by the US Congress, Bell was a fraud and usurper as he falsified Meucci's notes. Submitted February 20, 2011 by User:Elisabettaullmann

Elisabettaullmann: Before you place too much faith in the resolution created by U.S. Representative Vito Fossella, you should read his biography—he was arrested in 2008 and resigned in disgrace in 2009—and understand that he didn't pass a law, but convinced several like politicians to support his political rhetoric on HRes 269. His counterpart in the U.S. Senate also asked to pass a similar resolution there, and was soundly refused. If the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution tomorrow stating that Galileo was wrong, and that the Sun actually orbits the Earth, would that make it so? For an analysis of the document HRes 269, please read Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell. Thanks, HarryZilber (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC) The resolution was not only created but PASSED by the US Congress.
 * Read the resolution, find out who promulgated it and why and find out that it, in no way says what you think it does. The US Congress passes all sorts of resolutions that are non-consequential. FWiW, also read Meucci's very poor showing at the trials. Bzuk (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray: "is considered by some writers[1] to be the true inventor of the variable resistance telephone, despite losing out to Alexander Graham Bell for the telephone patent" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formicula (talk • contribs) 06:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The question of priority for the variable resistance feature of the telephone was raised by the Examiner before he approved Bell's patent application. He told Bell that his claim for the variable resistance feature read on Gray's caveat.  Bell pointed to a variable resistance device in Bell's previous application in which Bell described a cup or mercury, not water.  He had filed the mercury application at the patent office a year earlier on Feb 25, 1875, long before Elisha Gray described the water device.  In addition, Gray abandoned his caveat. Because Gray did not contest Bell's priority, the Examiner approved Bell's patent on March 3, 1876. Later that summer at the Centennial Exposition, Gray watched Bell demonstrate the electromagnetic telephone.  Gray had REinvented the variable resistance telephone, but Bell had written down the idea first. Greensburger (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

'Native' etc
Bell has been proudly claimed as a "native son" by all four countries he resided in: the United States, Canada, Scotland and the United Kingdom.

I have no wish to reopen the tedious and ill-natured nationality row, but the above sentence is atrocious! Firstly, a person is "native" only to the place of his or her birth. To the best of my knowledge, the country of Bell's birth is undisputed, therefore the claims of Canada and USA would be nonsense. They may, and probably do, claim him as an illustrious son, but "native" is simply untenable – and I strongly doubt that anyone who understands the term has ever claimed Bell to be a native Canadian or American.

Secondly, Scotland and the United Kingdom are not separate countries, any more than Vermont and the United States are. Scotland is a constituent part of the United Kingdom, and any native of Scotland would automatically be a native of the United Kingdom – just as any native of Vermont would be a native of the United States. Any claims by Scotland and UK would be mutual, and not contradictory, as implied here. Such a dispute would need to be between Scotland and England, and I am not aware of any English claim to Bell, so I am disinclined to believe that such a dispute exists.

As it stands, this sentence seems to me to add nothing to the article but two examples of ignorance, and would be better deleted. Grubstreet (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Grubstreet: you have presented interesting comments above which, however, are somewhat incorrect. First, where the article wrote:  "native son", it implied, by means of its punctuation marks, an emotional connection, not a legal one, hence the marks.  You can be assured there are many people in each of the three other countries who believe that Bell was born in their country, and are actually quite surprized when informed that he was not.  Which leads to the second point:  Scotland is a 'country', not a state or province.  It is not a wholly independent country, but a country nonetheless, residing within the larger state of the U.K., along with the three other countries that comprise it.   That is easily verifiable with Wikipedia, or with any other encyclopedia.  Best: HarryZilber (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A statement that someone was born in Scotland does not in any way run contrary to a statement that they were born in the UK, because they are not 'countries' in the same sense as each other, and so not mutually exclusive. Similarly a statement that someone was born in Vermont would not run contrary to a claim that they were born in the United States, because Vermont and USA are not 'states' in the same sense as each other. If you imagine a person born in Vermont who moved to Canada and then Israel, and imagine a Wikipedia entry which referred to "all four states he resided in: Israel, Canada, Vermont and USA," surely you would regard that statement as bizarre? You would say "Doesn't this writer know that Vermont is part of the United States?" would you not? No amount of someone arguing that "Wikipedia or any other any encyclopedia" can tell you that Vermont is a 'state' would convince you that the sentence was a good one.


 * The implication of the article, that there is some sort of competition between Scotland and the UK about which 'owns' Bell, simply doesn't make sense. They would be the same claim – yes, one more geographically specific than the other – but not claim and counter-claim as implied here. Just as there would be no competition between Vermont and USA – if someone 'belongs to' the former, then they automatically belong to the latter.


 * As for the argument that people believe that Bell was born in USA or Canada, why not say exactly that? Why get involved with wording that requires the reader to interpret what the writer may or may not have "implied by means of its punctuation marks"? Even your explanation infers two quite different meanings from it: on the one hand that it covers an emotional not factual relationship; on the other that, yes, people do believe that it is factually the case that Bell was born in USA or Canada. That's a hell of a lot to expect a reader to infer from one pair of quotation marks!


 * If the object of the sentence is to communicate the points made in your explanation (Bell is claimed as a cherished son by all of the countries he lived in – and indeed many people in Canada and USA are surprised when they discover that he was not born there), then why not say exactly that? It's about eight words longer than the current sentence, but much clearer. It avoids any need for the reader to guess the implications of the quotation marks, along with any difficulty regarding the technicalities of the composition of the United Kingdom. This, of course, supposes that the object of editing Wikipedia is greater clarity and accuracy, which I sometimes rather doubt. Grubstreet (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to change the statement accordingly but do note that there is a cite attached to it (I do not think that the phrase is a quote, however). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The acute differences between Scotland and England however, have been very clearly transmitted to claims of "ownership" over illustrious "native sons" including Bell. As to citizenship, Bell did wish to be considered an American by choice, although he was not able to legally renounce his former British status, and that would apply equally to his residence in Scotland, England and even Canada. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 206.172.0.205, 3 June 2011
The picture of "Bell speaking into a telephone" is not A G Bell, but an american actor who played Bell in a documentary. The picture is from that film.

Also, the Helmholtz book 'Sensations of Tone', was already available in French, since 1868, and Bell was able to work from that translation with his limited knowledge of French. He did not understand German, yet credited his knowledge of French for his success.

I am sorry, that I do not have the reference material for this, but I will obtain it.

Roy Motton Bell Canada

206.172.0.205 (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The file itself is hosted at wiki commons where on the talk page of that file you'll see that someone else already posted the "not Bell" information. Likely that the file was misidentified either at the source or by the editor who uploaded it. Brad (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Photograph of Bell is not really of Bell
To whom it may concern,

I'd make this change myself but it appears the page is protected :)

The photograph of Alexander Graham Bell here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1876_Bell_Speaking_into_Telephone.jpg is not really of Bell. The caption lists it as "Bell speaking into prototype model of the telephone", but it is really a still image of an actor in 1926 playing Alexander Graham Bell for a silent film.

The film itself can be viewed here: http://www.corp.att.com/history/other/watson.wmv which is linked to by here: http://www.corp.att.com/history under the link title "See a 1926 recreation of Alexander Graham Bell inventing the telephone." PearlSt82 (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing this out. I've looked at the film you link to and it confirms what you say, this is taken from a 1926 film that re-enacts Bell's "Watson, come here! I want to see you!" moment.  I've indicated this on the Commons image and either relabelled it or removed it from other parts of Wikipedia.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see the thread at commons. There are sources out there that identify the pic as Bell. Personally I don't think it's Bell because it doesn't look like him. If the pic really is from a 1926 film then it may violate copyright in which case it needs to be deleted or have the license changed. Brad (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Brad, the original source of the error is the H.M. Boettinger and Richard A. Steinberg, 1977 book which erroneously attributes the photograph as being Bell.PearlSt82 (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The picture of the actor playing Bell was on the cover of an Arts & Entertainment DVD titled "Alexander Graham Bell" released in 1996, ISBN 0-7670-8212-5. A film clip lasting several seconds from the 1926 silent film is included in the A&E biography. The cover picture of the actor is one frame from this silent film.

When playing the A&E DVD, skip to Chapter 3 "The telephone". At about 7 minutes 4 seconds into Chapter 3, the silent film clip begins showing two actors playing Bell and Watson. About 4 seconds later, the narrator Jack Perkins introduces the 1926 film clip by saying "As portrayed in this early film biography, he said 'Mr. Watson, come here, I want to see you.' "

About 7 minutes 48 seconds into Chapter 3 is the Bell actor speaking into a replica of an early telephone. This includes the frame that is mistakenly identified as Bell. A few seconds later, there is a closeup of a third actor holding a different replica telephone. He is wearing a bow-tie and has popping eyes.

The 1926 silent film-clip frame of the actor playing Bell has left-right reversal and has a few vertical scratch marks, but is otherwise identical to the famous frame, with the same mottled wall covering in the background, that appears with cover art on the case of the A&E Biography DVD.

What was the name of the actor playing Bell? What was the title of the 1926 silent film? Greensburger (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of the actor's name or the title of the film, or if the entirety of the film is still extant. The AT&T Corporate Archives would definitely know more about the film than what is listed online.PearlSt82 (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a rather unexpected and surprizing development, with other possible ramifications. The image of Bell in the iconic photo which was pulled from a movie frame, also bears a strong resemblance to the figure engraved on the face of the Alexander Graham Bell Medal, awarded annually by the IEEE since 1976.  HarryZilber (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal uses Bell's actual face, not the photograph of the actor. See this photograph of Bell here: http://museumvictoria.com.au/pages/384/mn005790.jpgPearlSt82 (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * PearlSt82: thanks for pointing out the medal's source portrait. Returning to the original point of the movie frame photo that was used in a few articles, one suggestion would be, since the photo has achieved iconic status, is to ask the copyright owner to license the image under the dual CC3.0/GFDL license.  Once obtained the caption would note the use of the actor's image. An alternate resolution would be to find a very similar photo of Bell talking into one of his early phones.  Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nationality
Please stop trying to use sophistry to defend the denying of Bell's birth for reasons of mis-appropriation, he was born in the United Kingdom, which makes him British, Scotland was and is a part of the UK hence his nationality was British.Twobells (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you see this invisible note: The question of nationality is a contentious one in that Alexander Graham Bell has been variously claimed as Scottish, British, American and Canadian. Bell made a number of inventions as a British citizen, notably the telephone in 1876; however he did not become an American citizen until 1882. Therefore if nationality is to be described specifically ... Alexander Graham Bell—British inventor of the telephone, died as an American citizen in Canada. The wording in the lead paragraph was carefully crafted after input from many editors in order to accommodate the many diverse claims. It is recognized that in the last years of his life, Bell had American citizenship although he predominately lived in Canada at a summer residence. Please discuss any potentially divisive submissions prior to editing this section. A newer edit is presently being considered that will focus on his life's work and provide details on his nationality and citizenship in later sections. Please see the talk page to provide input on this change. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC).

Affection for Beinn Bhreagh
This edit casts doubt on the reliability of the quoted source, Jocelyn Bethune, and calls for another. Bethune is only a local historian, but Bell's affection for his retreat is also dealt with in the authoritative biography from Bruce (1990) pp 304 et sec. The material may surely be reinstated, with confidence. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the book, and rather than being a merely a local author, Bethune's work has appeared in numerous national periodicals, newspapers and having met her, I also know she is one of Parc Canada's leading heritage interpreters and her first book was the result of countless interviews in Baddeck and beyond. The book is written in a scholarly manner and includes index, bibliography and notes. FWiW, James MacKay's book details Bell's great interest in creating "the finest mansion" in Eastern Canada as the Halifax Chronicle termed the home that became part of the enlarged estate. (Mackay 1997, pp. 222–223.). Bzuk (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

Antonio Meucci
please note Antonio Meucci as the real Developer of the telephone, start to rewrite history in the correct way:

« H. Res. 269 In the House of Representatives, U.S., June 11, 2002. Whereas Antonio Meucci, the great Italian inventor, had a career that was both extraordinary and tragic; Whereas, upon immigrating to New York, Meucci continued to work with ceaseless vigor on a project he had begun in Havana, Cuba, an invention he later called the 'teletrofono', involving electronic communications; Whereas Meucci set up a rudimentary communications link in his Staten Island home that connected the basement with the first floor, and later, when his wife began to suffer from crippling arthritis, he created a permanent link between his lab and his wife's second floor bedroom; Whereas, having exhausted most of his life's savings in pursuing his work, Meucci was unable to commercialize his invention, though he demonstrated his invention in 1860 and had a description of it published in New York's Italian language newspaper; Whereas Meucci never learned English well enough to navigate the complex American business community; Whereas Meucci was unable to raise sufficient funds to pay his way through the patent application process, and thus had to settle for a caveat, a one year renewable notice of an impending patent, which was first filed on December 28, 1871; Whereas Meucci later learned that the Western Union affiliate laboratory reportedly lost his working models, and Meucci, who at this point was living on public assistance, was unable to renew the caveat after 1874; Whereas in March 1876, Alexander Graham Bell, who conducted experiments in the same laboratory where Meucci's materials had been stored, was granted a patent and was thereafter credited with inventing the telephone; 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; and Whereas if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged. Attest:

Clerk.[6] » — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.28.83.58 (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Read the past archives, and also find out more about this resolution. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC).


 * For a detailed review of HRes 269, see: Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell, where it's parsed and analysed in a bit of detail. HarryZilber (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The definitive claim for Meucci as inventor made in this edit was referenced merely to a newspaper report of "joyous claims in [Antonio Meucci]'s home land" following the Congress hearing of June 2002. From the other reference: "Several Italian encyclopaedias define Meucci as the inventor of the telephone". RV, again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. The inventor of the telephone is Philipp Reis. --131.220.136.195 (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see the Reis item below. HarryZilber (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 19 October 2011
Under the heading "Competitors", second paragraph, in the sentence

With a change in administration and charges of conflict of interest (on both sides) arising from the original trial, the US Attorney General dropped the law suit on November 30, 1897 leaving several issues undecided on the merits.[83]

The term "law suit" should be "lawsuit".

Note use of the term "lawsuit" in the first paragraph of this section. There should be consistency within the article.

68.111.254.93 (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Consistency within articles is good: thanks for noticing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Pilipp Reis
No word about Pilipp Reis? The first time Bell saw the Reis Telephone was in 1862 in Edinburgh together with his father and his brothers. In March 1875 he started working with the Reis Telephone at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. The Institute owned one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.240.246.105 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Although this is off-topic, readers and editors should remember that Reis'es 'make-and-break' telephone design worked so poorly that its transmissions were barely understood by recipients. The phone as created by Reis was unusable for normal commercial purposes. Reis failed to obtain a patent for his telephone, despite his numerous demonstrations in front of distinguished guests.


 * That Bell was shown a Reis telephone around 1873 at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington by its director has been well documented in multiple accounts and known for many decades. Many other people besides Bell had either examined Reis telephones or read its descriptions in Europe, North, Central and South America, but it did nothing for them as just copying the device just copied its non-functional results. It was an electromagnetic telephonic device on the road to a working telephone, but it was not a working electromagnetic telephone itself. HarryZilber (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Uncited family relation
RELATIVES (SURVIVING) Alexander Graham Bell is a late relative of Ceri Willoughby, originally of Pendine. Though it seems this honour does not bestow free line rental.


 * That's not too surprizing, since Bell resigned from the enterprise bearing his name about 1885. HarryZilber (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 April 2012
I am a highly studied in this area of time. i am a graduate from Harvard.

Jonahjc (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. RA 0808  talkcontribs 18:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You removed an official resolution by the House of Representatives of the United States of America which specifically regards Alexander Graham Bell and the "patent race"! And all you have to say for this is that you are a Harvard graduate?? So what? Does that make whatever you say automatically true? I am a graduate from Bologna University, which has an even greater heritage than Harvard. And what I added was, I repeat, on the authority of Lower legislative Chamber of the government of the United States of America! I have always found Wikipedia controllers to be fair and knowledgeable. How did they ever happen to approve of someone so high-handed as you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alenux (talk • contribs) 20:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See United States HRes. 269 on Antonio Meucci; the convoluted history of this resolution is fully covered there. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

Article lead
At present, the lead of this article is only six sentences long. There is absolutely no way that it can provide an adequate summary of the article's key points. I assume that the reason that it fails to mention Bell's nationality is because of the remarkably stupid wars that people have over such things, but that's no excuse for omitting any detail on what Bell actually did during his life and reducing his work on the telephone to a single sentence. It needs significant expansion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Chris, the previous debates over the lead/lede were long and strenuous, with many nationalist-type arguments, (which country did he belong to, represent and was admired in?) (what type of scientist was he?) (he did/did not invent the telephone?) (his involvement in controversial theories of eugenics was enough to denigrate his contributions?) promoted to the extent that an admin was asked to come in and rewrite the lede to the present version which seemed to satisfy the editors who were then currently involved in the controversy. Recently, the contentious Antonio Santi Giuseppe Meucci controversy was again introduced. With the prospect of another editwar looming, the lede might be well-enough left alone, with the body of the text already covering the life and works of this historical personality adequately. FWiW, there is no provision for any editor not to undertake a revision of the lede, but "gird your loins" if you intend to take on that task! Bzuk (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

Allegorical Sources?
It would be interesting to know if there is any voracity to some historical allegory about Alexander Graham Bell, where old stories go that very roughly about the 1890s, some cold telegraph workers discovered when they drank Absinthe and other "rot got" drinks, back in the times when they advised mothers to give their children Coca-Cola in the days it contained Cocaine, to soothe them, that the telegraph workers noted that they could "hear" the telegraph equipment signals, without attaching the sounding equipment. Telegraph technicians noted these things, and it got passed upward to Alexander Graham Bell, who, with a deaf wife, worked towards assisting the deaf to hear, through chemical electromagnetic neural transduction. Molecular Spaces easily explored using modified Jacquard Looms, Hollerith Punch Card Control Programs, and Electromagnetic Relay Logic Systems common in later 1950's Pinball Machines and Games. But, quickly, monetary forces took hold, through Wall Street and Government, leading to accelerated applications for all, and through key people, leading to the discovery that Denatured Pasteurized Influenza Virus shells could be used to deliver molecular innoculations to help people think better through electromagnetic signals. But with the study of radioactive elements progressing, and even Carbon 14 exhaled by lab workers, some samples of Denatured Pasteurized Influenza shells could be struck with radiation that reactivates the virus through temporal interference patterns with nuclear radiation that is temporally dozens to thousands of years old. And by 1918, in a predistributed worldwide innoculation, ready for predistributed administration, leads to the day-synchronous Worldwide Influenza Epidemic, showing some instantaneous death data between New York, and London, in the days of slow transatlantic ship travel. And the upshot being the deaths of many key people in Government, worldwide, and the inability for relative children brought in to keep up with government, leading to The Roaring 1920s boom economy run by children, and the subsequent 1929 Great Depression stock market crash. And, this, leading to the simultaneous implementation among power channels, of Human Breeding Eugenics Programs, in both Germany and The United States of America, and including much burning of "dangerous" books and economic records. It is not hard to think about, given recent modern examples of British Government control of farms, leading to the Mad Cow Disease Outbreak, and destruction of half a million cattle units, due to the feedback effects of grinding up DNA and meat of cattle ancestors, to feed the ancestors to the children, in cattle raising. SET765732714171744236160170543253750ISCKORWDVISMOS-LoneRubberDragon 76.167.47.5 (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_Loom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_Chemistry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Cow_Disease 76.167.47.5 (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Please correct the link target from AT&T to AT&T. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Bzuk (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Citizenship
Alexander Bell did NOT have citizenship of Scotland. There is and was no such thing. He was a British subject - British citizenship was not introduced until 1983. This is an example of Scottish nationalist propaganda I'm afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.164.59 (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I've taken action. Scottish is a nationality, but certainly NOT a citizenship. It is simply a factual error, nothing more and nothing less. I now believe that it was added by an editor in good faith. Scottish citizenship will probably exist someday, but not right now - and certainly not during Bell's lifetime. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Citation for Zenas Fisk Wilber's sworn affidavit
This article hosted on Wikisource appears to be the necessary citation for the article's claim: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mr._Wilber_Confesses — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmpressPixie (talk • contribs) 13:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note the disclaimer in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

Citizenship
Alexander Bell did NOT have citizenship of Scotland. There is and was no such thing. He was a British subject - British citizenship was not introduced until 1983. This is an example of Scottish nationalist propaganda I'm afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.164.59 (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I've taken action. Scottish is a nationality, but certainly NOT a citizenship. It is simply a factual error, nothing more and nothing less. I now believe that it was added by an editor in good faith. Scottish citizenship will probably exist someday, but not right now - and certainly not during Bell's lifetime. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Citation for Zenas Fisk Wilber's sworn affidavit
This article hosted on Wikisource appears to be the necessary citation for the article's claim: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mr._Wilber_Confesses — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmpressPixie (talk • contribs) 13:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note the disclaimer in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

Citizenship
Alexander Bell did NOT have citizenship of Scotland. There is and was no such thing. He was a British subject - British citizenship was not introduced until 1983. This is an example of Scottish nationalist propaganda I'm afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.164.59 (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I've taken action. Scottish is a nationality, but certainly NOT a citizenship. It is simply a factual error, nothing more and nothing less. I now believe that it was added by an editor in good faith. Scottish citizenship will probably exist someday, but not right now - and certainly not during Bell's lifetime. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Citation for Zenas Fisk Wilber's sworn affidavit
This article hosted on Wikisource appears to be the necessary citation for the article's claim: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mr._Wilber_Confesses — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmpressPixie (talk • contribs) 13:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note the disclaimer in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

Citizenship
Alexander Bell did NOT have citizenship of Scotland. There is and was no such thing. He was a British subject - British citizenship was not introduced until 1983. This is an example of Scottish nationalist propaganda I'm afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.164.59 (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I've taken action. Scottish is a nationality, but certainly NOT a citizenship. It is simply a factual error, nothing more and nothing less. I now believe that it was added by an editor in good faith. Scottish citizenship will probably exist someday, but not right now - and certainly not during Bell's lifetime. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Citation for Zenas Fisk Wilber's sworn affidavit
This article hosted on Wikisource appears to be the necessary citation for the article's claim: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mr._Wilber_Confesses — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmpressPixie (talk • contribs) 13:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note the disclaimer in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

Citizenship
Alexander Bell did NOT have citizenship of Scotland. There is and was no such thing. He was a British subject - British citizenship was not introduced until 1983. This is an example of Scottish nationalist propaganda I'm afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.164.59 (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I've taken action. Scottish is a nationality, but certainly NOT a citizenship. It is simply a factual error, nothing more and nothing less. I now believe that it was added by an editor in good faith. Scottish citizenship will probably exist someday, but not right now - and certainly not during Bell's lifetime. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Citation for Zenas Fisk Wilber's sworn affidavit
This article hosted on Wikisource appears to be the necessary citation for the article's claim: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mr._Wilber_Confesses — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmpressPixie (talk • contribs) 13:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note the disclaimer in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

Citizenship
Alexander Bell did NOT have citizenship of Scotland. There is and was no such thing. He was a British subject - British citizenship was not introduced until 1983. This is an example of Scottish nationalist propaganda I'm afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.164.59 (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I've taken action. Scottish is a nationality, but certainly NOT a citizenship. It is simply a factual error, nothing more and nothing less. I now believe that it was added by an editor in good faith. Scottish citizenship will probably exist someday, but not right now - and certainly not during Bell's lifetime. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Citation for Zenas Fisk Wilber's sworn affidavit
This article hosted on Wikisource appears to be the necessary citation for the article's claim: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mr._Wilber_Confesses — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmpressPixie (talk • contribs) 13:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note the disclaimer in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

Citizenship
Alexander Bell did NOT have citizenship of Scotland. There is and was no such thing. He was a British subject - British citizenship was not introduced until 1983. This is an example of Scottish nationalist propaganda I'm afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.164.59 (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I've taken action. Scottish is a nationality, but certainly NOT a citizenship. It is simply a factual error, nothing more and nothing less. I now believe that it was added by an editor in good faith. Scottish citizenship will probably exist someday, but not right now - and certainly not during Bell's lifetime. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Citation for Zenas Fisk Wilber's sworn affidavit
This article hosted on Wikisource appears to be the necessary citation for the article's claim: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mr._Wilber_Confesses — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmpressPixie (talk • contribs) 13:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note the disclaimer in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

Someone cornering the market on Bell research materials?
A note to those researching Bell: about three weeks ago there were more than a dozen copies of the excellent 1964 work  Bell and Baldwin: Their Development of Aerodromes and Hydrodromes at Baddeck, Nova Scotia on various Amazon websites  (U.S./Canada/U.K) (authored by John H. Parkin and published by the U of Toronto Press). Prices ranged from about $14 up to about $60, going by my memory, with about $35 being the average. Not being fussy about condition I successfully ordered the least expensive copy at about $14, only to later receive a note via Amazon that my order was being cancelled as the book was previously sold (implying that the web listing was not accurate at the time of my order). That was actually the first time such a cancellation has ever occurred to me. I next ordered another copy at about $20, and, you can probably guess: after the order was successfully placed it was again cancelled for the same reason. Going back to the Amazon listings in all three countries I noted that most of the copies of the book had disappeared. There now appears to be about 7 copies available (US/UK/Canada/France/Germany), the least expensive being $49.95. Whereas the U.S. Amazon site previously had about 8 copies, there is now only a single one.

That was all too much to be coincidence, imho. Has anyone noticed similar occurrences with other notable works on Bell? Have the Hunt Brothers started a new career in research? The academic Parkin's work is excellent, b.t.w., with several pull-out tables, excellent photos and is highly researched. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Bell's research work on ailerons and lateral control
On a slightly different topic, A.G. Bell had apparently been subscribing to the journal L'Aérophile, as several volumes going back to the late 19th century were scanned to the Internet Archives by the Smithsonian, provenanced to Bell according to their listings (for example, as can be seen here). Assuming that Bell received those copies during their years of publication then that would explain how the Aerial Experiment Association developed their aileron used on the White Wing, which several have asserted was invented by the AEA. In the aileron article I've previously noted: "The French journal L’Aérophile published illustrations of ailerons of Esnault-Peltérie’s glider in June 1905, and its ailerons were widely copied afterward" (with cites).

What makes the issue of the aileron's first use (as opposed to being first to patent the aileron, which was apparently done by Boulton in 1868, with wing warping patented by Count D'Esterno in 1964) so muddied is that I've seen complaints by Mabel in letters to A.G. complaining of Glen Curtiss profiting from the AEA's invention of the aileron, so it appears that she, at least, believed that the AEA invented ailerons, independent of Esnault-Peltérie, Boulton, etc... Apparently many were unaware of  Matthew Boulton's 1868 patent  (a copy of that patent would be highly illuminating -can anyone provide it to Wikimedia?). The Parkin's work, Bell and Baldwin, mentioned earlier above, has excellent material on Bell's research work on aileron's and lateral control with 'horizontal rudders', starting around pg. 64, and in other sections as well. Highly revealing is this paragraph on p. 65: "Despite the Wright patent of 22 May 1906 and the prior use of ailerons by Esnault-Peltérie in 1904 and by Blériot in 1907, the Aerial Experiment Association was granted a U.S. patent, "No. 1,011,106 Flying Machine--Bell, Baldwin, McCurdy, Curtiss, Selfridge," on 5 December 1911, of which certain claims covered the basic aileron" as follows: (2) In a flying machine... a pair of lateral balancing rudders, one on each side of the medial fore and aft line of the structure [..... etc....]. (3) ... means for simultaneously adjusting said rudders, the one to a positive and the other to a negative angle of incidence."

Any further info on Bell's research into the aileron would be appreciated. Comments? HarryZilber (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Work with the deaf
There was a citation needed in the work with the deaf section regarding the perception of A.G. Bell by the majority of those in the Deaf culture, so I supplied one. I have not added a citation before and if I did not do it correctly I would like to say here that the reference was from the following:

The Handbook of Social Justice in Education

William C Ayers, Therese Quinn, David Stovall

2009 pp. 194-195

Qaz (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, it looks OK for the text. I have added the book details in the Bibliography section here for fuller details of the entry. Keith D (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation No. 80
There is a problem with citation #80. It doesn't exist. The title of the article, the issue, and the date do not include the cited article. There is an article from the 1965 issue titled "The voice heard round the world" that includes Bell's offer to Western Union for $100,000 but nothing about the $25 million 2 years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.142.33 (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The dead link on AmericanHeritage.com was likely due to their webserver, which appears to be having some technical issues. Our WP article on Bell has now had its citation, as noted above, revised to bring up the article from the website Archive.org. The American Heritage article appears to have been published on their website on Tuesday, March 7, 2006, as noted at the top of the page. The offer of $25M is discussed in the article, and is now viewable. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Bell stole the work of Italian, Antonio Meucci
It has been recognised that Bell stole the work of Italian, Antonio Meucci, who was the actual inventor of the telephone. Why is this article still crediting Bell with its invention? Antonio Meucci died before a law suit was completed allowing Bell to get away with his morally corrupt behaviour. There is even a wikipedia page for Antonio Meucci referring to this issue. Toradellin (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Go back through the talk archives of this article to see the extensive discussion of this topic. Needless to say, it is entirely a fallacious and inaccurate to place any credence to the above statement. Refer to the article on Antonio Meucci to follow up if you have any credible information to add. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, totally INCORRECT to state theat bell invented the phone where it was Meucci Ref>:Paragraphs Nos. 7 & 8 implied that Bell had access to Meucci's works prior to patenting the telephone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.150.85 (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read the Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell article, where you'll see that the U.S. House of Representatives created a fictitious history of the invention of the telephone, and the contributions of both people in their motion. Just because some U.S. politicians slap each other on the back while they concoct a false story does not make it so, similar to the Vatican censuring Galileo for telling the truth that the Earth orbits the Sun. The House Representatives responsible for that piece of work should have been flogged with its criticism. 21:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Citizenship"
I gather that this topic has been controversial. However, the comment just above the start of the main text probably needs updating, as the proposed "newer edit" mentioned there seems to have dropped off this Talk page.

I reworded the note N 1 (cited under "Citizenship" in the Infobox) slightly as it used the term "Canadian national" in conflict with its own reference. The term "domicile" as defined in the later Immigration Act 1910 (s. 2(d)) would apply to Bell in 1870-71, so this seems like a better wording although legally perhaps anachronistic. (Note however that "Canadian domicile" as defined in that Act would not apply, as it took three years of "domicile" to acquire, but again this is anachronistic.)

Part of the problem here seems to be a lack of clarity about whether the term "Citizenship" is intended to be applied in its modern sense retrospectively, or as understood at the time, or in some looser way. At the time, neither British nor Canadian citizenship existed as a legal status of that name. Clearly the term citizen was understood with reference to (at least) Americans, but I don't know whether British subjects (whether in Britain, Canada or elsewhere) would have been described as citizens (in the context of their nationality) even informally. The term "national" again has a (later) legal definition but possibly a wider informal one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Colyer (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification on that. Its a bit of a difficult subject to digest when you haven't studied it. Like you, I wonder if in 1870 those living in Canada described themselves as being (de facto) Canadian nationals as well as being British subjects. HarryZilber (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Undue credit for having "glimpsed" the principle of magnetic recording?
It appears that the second paragraph under "Later inventions" drifts off into error with regard to the "basic principle" of magnetic recording and later magnetic media. With the caveat that I am recklessly relying only on ancient memories at present, I believe Bell's idea was to uniformly magnetize the entire surface of the recording medium so that it could be played back physically by a repelled stylus that did not actually make contact with the surface, a notion that also occurred to Edison. The object was to eliminate surface noise and wear by eliminating surface friction; the stylus still followed the physical undulations of the groove and playback was purely mechanical. The basic principle of magnetic recording, as implemented in the several devices mentioned, is to record a signal or data as areas of the medium with differing degrees or polarities of magnetization. Although such a recording might in theory be used to actuate mechanical playback, in practice it has only served to generate an electrical signal, which, even in the 1880s with no means of amplification, was sufficient to drive a standard high-impedance telephone receiver, as later demonstrated by Poulsen's Telegraphone. That is a very different "basic principle", one which was pioneered by Oberlin Smith around the same time. AVarchaeologist (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Update, having refreshed my memory with the relevant patent (US 341,287) and the research reported in "The Development of Sound Recording at the Volta Laboratory" by Raymond R. Wile, ARSC Journal, Vol. 21, No.2 (Fall 1990), pages 208-225. The patent, contrary to my recollection (confounding it with one of Edison's?), emphasizes electromagnetic playback through a telephone receiver, but as correctly remembered the magnetization of the recording, and/or the playback stylus, was general, not local. It would indeed have been revolutionary otherwise: at the time, scientific opinion was that local magnetization was impossible. Any magnetization was believed to rapidly diffuse throughout any single piece of metal, like water in a sponge, a misconception Poulsen later had great difficulty overcoming at the U.S. Patent Office.

However, it is important to note that the patent is in the sole name of Tainter, who contributed many excellent ideas of his own to the Volta Laboratory association.

Perhaps the upshot is that this level of detail about developments at Volta, in some of which A. G. Bell himself may have been only nominally involved, might best be put in the existing Volta Laboratory and Bureau article and omitted here. AVarchaeologist (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi AVarchaeologist, thanks for these insights into the technology, as well as your recent cleanup work on the Volta Labs article. I'd agree that detailed technical descriptions are better suited to the Volta page, with a contracted summary in this article. HarryZilber (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Bedsprings
Another mental red light is blinking, but again based only on reading done decades ago: as I recall, the metal detector Bell devised to locate the bullet lodged in Garfield was thwarted by the fact that Garfield was on an inner-spring mattress, then a novel product unknown to most people. The result was a lot of exasperation, head-scratching and lost time before it was realized that the mattress contained metal springs. The article currently refers to a "metal bed frame" and a bed "fitted with metal springs", which are inaccurate or at least misleading descriptions of the problem if my memory is correct. AVarchaeologist (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: The detail recalled above, gleaned circa the late 1970s from a perfectly respectable thick hardcover biography with footnotes and sources, is evidently just another of the many defective variants of this anecdote, which sometimes begins to seem kindred to the one about Washington and the cherry tree. There was no "inner-spring mattress" in the modern sense, although it could probably be correctly described as a protean box spring. Neither did Bell make a stupid or naive mistake, which seems to be the point that some tellings of the tale are covertly trying to make.

A lesson learned from painful experiences researching other techno-historical subjects: if accuracy matters, always check the primary sources yourself. The authors of nth-generation sources will sometimes be revealed to have patently neglected to do so, slavishly repeating erroneous conventional wisdom instead. Sometimes the reporting is just sloppy.

An extract from Bell's presumably definitive published account of the Garfield matter has now been added to the article.

BTW, reading Bell's prose, I am reminded why I came to admire and personally like the man while researching his photophone and sound-recording-related work long ago. I highly recommend his writings to anyone interested in him. They are quite informal by 19th century standards, and his unpretentious scientific enthusiasm is fresh and infectious. Unlike another contemporary inventor who needn't be named, he was plainly happy to ask advice from other scientists and inventors and to collaborate with them, and as far as I can see he was scrupulous in duly crediting their contributions in his publications. It is difficult to believe that the devotees of the various purported actual inventors of the telephone, eager to brand Bell a swindler and a thief who condemned their pet neglected genius to die in poverty, have ever bothered to acquaint themselves with Bell's character by reading the lucid traces of it that his written words have left for all to see. AVarchaeologist (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * AVarchaeologist, my personal views of Bell very largely coincide with yours. As well,  based on unrelated readings, I can attest that when Bell became wealthy, he also acted as a financial sponsor to at least one other scientist who was conducting experiments to determine the exact speed of light, something that  Bell had no pecuniary interest in, only a scientific one.  Those light speed experiments don't seem to appear in Bell's biographies. This article, however, competently writes: " Bell's work ranged "unfettered across the scientific landscape" and he often went to bed voraciously reading the Encyclopædia Britannica, scouring it for new areas of interest" HarryZilber (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 June 2013
Please change the "The family home was at 16 South Charlotte Street" to "The family home was at 14 South Charlotte Street" because that is the address the plaque is on

213.131.121.237 (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but unless you can provide references to reliable sources with that information ("14 South Charlotte Street"), Wikipedia can't oblige your request. Update to Edinburghers and Bell historians:  various Internet webpages refer to "16 South Charlotte Street" as Bell's birthplace.   Robert Bruce's bio, "Bell and the Conquest of Solitude" only mentions South Charlotte Street, without a house number, and that a year or two later the family moved across Charlotte Square to No. "13 Hope Street"  (ref. Chapter 2, p. 17).   Charlotte Gray's "Reluctant Genius" (Chapter 1, p. 6) appears to have authoritative information, reading: "Alec was born in a flat in 16 South Charlotte Street, but soon after his birth the family moved to... 13 Hope Street, and then, when he was six, to 13 South Charlotte Street" (a four story house).   As well, Edwin Grosvenour's "Alexander Graham Bell: The Life and Times of the Man....."  repeats most of Gray's information (p. 16).


 * While there may be a plaque at the entrance to No. 14, it doesn't necessarily mean that he was born or lived at that house number. Nevertheless, the existing Early Life section sentence  which reads "The family home was at 16 South Charlotte Street, and has a stone inscription, marking it as Alexander Graham Bell's birthplace." appears to be somewhat misleading and can use some tweaking.  Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)