Talk:Antonio Meucci/Archive 1

Meucci's U.S. home
There are many places called 'Clifton' in the United States. Which one did he live in? --Smack (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The one in Staten Island, NY. :) -User:Jenmoa 22:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Parliament of Canada and Bell
There are no news on the net about the Parliament of Canada and Bell. This is only a piece of stupid nationalism, localism or campanilism.

Miky Dalton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.20.243 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong. I have restored your deletions and added the appropriate citations. --phh 09:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Other inventions
What about his other inventions? Thought the telephone was very probably the best known, Meucci spent a whole lifetime inventing things that also deserve mention. Leszek 01:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality problems. Lack of citations...
Meucci's contribution to the development of the telephone is a matter of considerable controversy and debate. This article acknowledges the controversy, barely, but all of the claims made on Meucci's behalf are presented as matters of simple fact.

Not only is the article elliptical and unclear on that Meucci really did (was the "telephone" it says he built in his house an electric telephone as we understand it, or merely a speaking tube? What does a form of telephone mean?), it is vague and contradictory on how he is regarded.

One sentence says that "In all the world, he is recognized as the inventor of the telephone."

Another says that "For more than a century, everywhere but in Italy, Alexander Graham Bell has been considered the inventor of the telephone."

Neither statement is referenced or otherwise supported.

Because of the degree of controversy and the issues of national pride and politics involved here, great care needs to be taken in the handling of this subject. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Properly substantiated with adequate citations or not, this article is really exciting for me. I mean, I'm biased - you would be too if you're great great great uncle was credited often with inventing the telephone and otherwise with contributing significantly to its invention.  I wish I knew this man - and, if he did truly make invaluable contributions to the telephone's invention, I wish my family had something (financially) to show for it, haha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.110.44 (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We must distinguish between "Many people believe that Anthony Meucci deserves credit for the development of the telephone," which is a fact, with "Anthony Meucci invented the telephone," which is not. I'm not an expert, but it bothers me is that so much of the material that could prove Meucci's claims (drawings, models, etc.) seem to have been mysteriously lost. Meucci advocates have, to my way of thinking, much too great a tendency to hint at conspiratorial explanations for this lack of evidence. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Success has a thousand fathers" is illustrated by this claim. Legislation does not establish scientific truth. Every important invention has a myriad of claimants who spring forward after a later inventor proves the practicality, sometimes inspired by earlier failures. They may even have friends, family, descendants, or fellow nationals who claim so and so really invented such and such, based on unverifiable claims, or they may be tools of patent infringers seeking to void a patent. If Meucci is known to have used a speaking tube for communication over short distances, this may be the device he used in the 1840's. There is no contemporary drawing, no contemporary working model. Without these, Gray and Bell must be given credit for electric transmission of recognizable articulate speech by a continuously varying current, rather than earlier make-and-break transmitters, string telephones, mechanical voice boxes in automata, and speaking tubes.Edison 18:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There's also the distinction between a laboratory proof-of-concept and a practical realization... to take another much-debated example, it is clear that Santos-Dumont flew a heavier-than-air craft successfully and very conspicuously in public, at a time when the Wright Brothers' flights had been observed only by a very small number of people. However, Santos-Dumont's craft was extremely finicky and unstable, and probably could only be flown by a man of extraordinary skill, while part of the Wrights' genius was that they understood both that the craft needed to be flyable by a person of ordinary skill and that there needed to be a way to learn to acquire that skill safely. By the time the Wrights were making big public demonstrations, their machine was a much more practical craft than Santos-Dumont's. Or so I've concluded from my occasional readings of popular books on the subject... very likely there are some French and Brazilians who have read different books and believe something different. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Idiot the airplane was invented by Santos Dumont. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.189.2 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What an ignorant comment. The Wright Borthers invented the airplane. In 1903, three years before Dumont.Walterego (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and the motion picture was invented by Friese-Greene, and the light bulb by Joseph Swann, and the first successful perpetual motion machine by Robert George Adams. I know. I know. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC) P. S. 24.123.189.2, you wouldn't, by any wild chance, happen to be French or Brazilian, would you? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

'''Almost all my changes of yesterday were deleted!!! What happened??? I provided every quotation as possible''' --S vecchiato 09:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I contest the sentence: "It is idle to contend that an inventor having such conceptions could at that time have been the inventor of the Bell telephone. " I cannot find the source, and am led to think that this is evaluation coming from a Wiki user. Then I am going to cancel the above-cited sentence.--82.58.228.209 13:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I contest the sentence : "Contrary to the implications in Resolution 269, the U.S. courts looked into Antonio Meucci’s claims extensively and were very unequivocal in their findings." written in the historical debate, since according to Basilio Catania's finding, Alexander Graham Bell was actually condemned for fraud and misrepresentation by a US court in 1887. Then I am going to cancel the above-cited sentence. --S vecchiato 07:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Acoustic telephones in the 1840's and doubtful claims in the 1880s
Documents created during Meuccis lifetime are more credible than those created in the 21st century like some of the references, in determining what he did or did not invent. The 1849 phone had no electromagnet and no carbon or other microphonic transmitter, per the reference cited to the Scientific American of 1885, wherein Meucci makes his claims. The 1849 phone in Figs 1 and 2 of the Sci Am article is clearly just an acoustic telephone, 2 "pasteboard cones" connected by a wire, with a copper paddle inside the cone to touch the tongue, and largely irrelevant to the history of the telephone. The 1852 phone in Figs 3 and 4 is a pair of tin cans connected by a wire, with a copper paddle inside to touch the tongue. There is copper wire wrapped around the can, but it is shorted out by the copper paddle, so again it is an acoustic telephone. The acoustic telephone needs no electricity: just take 2 tin cans or 2 paper cups, connect them with a string or wire, stretch it between distant points, using pulleys to go around corners, and you can communicate very well over surprising distances. That Meucci's phone in the 1840-s thru 1860's worked with a slack wire is just his sayso, as is the claim that it worked at all, absent other verifiable contemporary sources.It would have still worked with insulating thread as well as with wire so it is not an electric telephone. There is a reference to Meucci telling a newspaper repoerter mentioned in one of the references. The original article and a good translation would add pro-Meucci evidence.

The reference in the article http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/meucci.html says that the 1849 phone worked by “the "electrophonic" effect. A description and references should be added for that term, which is not part of electric telephone history or development. Electrophonic sound was a term coined in 1937 for people hearing sounds when a meteorite passed over, which should not have been heard per the physical principles of sound (http://inamidst.com/notes/electrophonic). People can hear sound from vibrations conducted through the teeth or bones, as Thomas Edison did, or when large electrostatic fields are present near the ear (http://homepages.tesco.net/~John.Dawes2/extract.htm )

The reference http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/meucci.html also says "The phenomenon, later known as physiophony, employs nerve responses to applied currents of very specific nature. As the neural mechanism in the body employs impulses of infinitesimal strengths, so Meucci had accidentally introduced similar "conformant" currents. These conformant currents contained auditory signals: sounds. The strange method of "hearing through the body" bypassed the ears completely and resounded throughout the delicate tissues of the contact point. In this case, it was the delicate tissues of the mouth."

“Physiophony” a term which on Google refers back only to Meucci proponents: the idea that if audio frequency voltages are applied to the body (the mouth in his case) that the recipient hears sound. Clearly that played no role whatsoever in the development of the phone as it was invented in the late 19th century and as it continues today, and I haven’t seen any reference to where the phenomenon exists or can be demonstrated outside the claims of Meucci proponents. They should create a Wikipedia article to cite the verifiable sources for “physiophony’.

The most parsimonious explanation for the Meucci 1849-1852 phones working is mechanical vibration.

Many supposed telephone inventors were brought forward during the 1880s patent litigation between the Bell companies, with the Berliner patent for "loose contact" and the Western Union, with the Edison carbon transmitter patent. All the supposed inventors, who were found and coached by the opponents lawyers, had family to swear to how well their phones worked, and brought in models amazingly similar to the Bell/Berliner or Edison inventions. The burden was on them to prove priority by more than their say so. It was very easy to build a model and claim it was decades old, and it is easy to replicate the inventions of Berliner, Bell, and Edison and claim one invented them decades before. There were scores of rival claimants, whose testimony filled 150 volumes. Where are the Meucci phone patents, and the public demonstrations?. If Meucci invented something, the burden was on him to patent it, to write about it publicly, and to demonstrate it. He spent $20 for a caveat. Meucci's caveat is so vague it could be anything, per the Scientific American 1885 article. For another $20 ( the amount Scientific American publishers charged to file a patent in the 1880's)he could have obtained a patent and we would not be having this discussion. He did find enough money to patent all the following of his inventions before Bell filed for the telephone patent: 1859 - US Patent No. 22,739 - candle mold 1860 - US Patent No. 30,180 - candle mold 1862 - US Patent No. 36,192 - lamp burner 1862 - US Patent No. 36,419 - improvement in treating kerosene 1863 - US Patent No. 38,714 - improvement in preparing hydrocarbon liquid 1864 - US Patent No. 44,735 - improved process for removing mineral, gummy, and resinous substances from vegetables 1865 - US Patent No. 46,607 - improved method of making wicks 1865 - US Patent No. 47,068 - improved process for removing mineral, gummy, and resinous substances from vegetables 1866 - US Patent No. 53,165 - improved process for making paper-pulp from wood 1872 - US Patent No. 122,478 - improved method of manufacturing effervescent drinks from fruits 1873 - US Patent No. 142,071 - improvement in sauces for food 1875 - US Patent No. 168,273 - method of testing milk 1876 - US Patent No. 183,062 - hygrometer

It strains credulity that he had a functioning telephone with improvements from 1849 on and never took out a patent on it, but he did patent these other things (per http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl_Antonio_Meucci.htm )

Claiming that his wife sold his models to the junk man and a fire burned his notes is right up there with “the dog ate my homework.’ Ditto for claims in some Meucci sites that Bell saw his models. Where is the verifiable source?

The most parsimonious explanation of the Meucci phones which look like the Bell and Edison phones is that they were made to do so in the 1880's. Edison 17:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert of telecommunication and relied on Basilio Catania's work, available on the net. However, through helping for this article I discovered how many pioneers of telephone were there at the very same time. The word "telephone" was used for everybody. Look at wikipedia articles about:
 * Emile Berliner


 * Charles Bourseul


 * Thomas Edison


 * Elisha Gray


 * Innocenzo Manzetti


 * Philipp Reis

What should the name "telephone" only be precluded to Meucci, if many scientists developed several models of telephones at the same time? --S vecchiato 21:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I answer to Edison you are quite right, I was also surprised in discovering the list of inventions Meucci got a US patent for. However there is information missing: US patent all costed the same amount of money? Have a look for example at this page: http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/index_feefaq.html --82.52.183.188 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Text of resolution, movies, Basilio Catania, and prize of Florence
I added the text of the reslution. Maybe it is too long, but very clear. I suggest maybe to erase something, but I think it is very interesting to understand life and work of Meucci...and what he really did Pierpolo Dondio.

To be honest, citation of Godfather and "Soprano" (any other movies?) are not serious in an article about an inventor... I removed it, anybody has a comment?

We should mention that Basilio Catania found the historycal evidences about the attribution of the invention. From the web (need to find a better reference to confirm, then i'll put online):

"Professor Basilio Catania, recipient of the 1988 Eurotelecom and 1991 Marconi Prizes, said the new truths about the invention's ownership are contained in the record of an 1887 trial ordered by the US Government (United States v Bell Telephone Company and Alexander Graham Bell) to strip Bell of his patents for fraud and misrepresentation."

and that the City of Florence, in Italy, eqach 18 April assigned an prize called "Antonio Meucci".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierpaol.Dondio (talk • contribs) 14:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The movie citations is quite ridicolous.. imagine it in an encyclopedia.. very sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.42.200 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The resolution stated that MEUCCI did a permanent electronic telephone communication in 1860. Bell patented the telephone 16 years later. Meucci was too poor to pay for the patent. This should be written Pierpaolo.Dondio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.42.200 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The House of Representatives resolution
...says nothing about Meucci being "the true inventor of the telephone."

It does not even say in so many words that he invented a telephone.

It says he worked on an invention, and it retails a long chain of circumstances which prevented Meucci from obtaining a patent on a telephone.

It says specifically that the courts never determined the underlying issue of the true inventor of the telephone from a legal standpoint. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know on what ground relies this sentence "The Parliament of Canada retaliated by passing a resolution recognizing Canadian immigrant Alexander Graham Bell as the "real inventor of the telephone." as the quotation coming after does not direct the use to a resolution ! User:S_Vecchiato 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Add a tag if it doesn't have one already. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just looked at it. It looks OK to me. For some reason the two URL's seem to refer to identical pages, but in any case if you search for the word "baddeck" you find this interchange:


 * Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House for unanimous consent on the following motion, which has been discussed with all parties, regarding Alexander Graham Bell. I move:
 * This House affirms that Alexander Graham Bell of Brantford, Ontario and Baddeck, Nova Scotia is the inventor of the telephone.
 * The Speaker: Does the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
 * Some hon. members: Agreed.
 * The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
 * Some hon. members: Agreed.
 * (Motion agreed to)


 * Assuming you think the page is legitimate, which I do, it seems to me to support the statement that on Friday, June 21, 2002, the Canadian Parliament passed a motion affirming that "This House affirms that Alexander Graham Bell of Brantford, Ontario and Baddeck, Nova Scotia is the inventor of the telephone." Obviously this wasn't a very seriously researched motion.
 * Dpbsmith (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is ok I found the passage and put on a link which redirects to the precise passage about AGB. Thank you. --S vecchiato 11:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[S_Vecchiato]

Movie citations
About the movie citations -- Whether or not they are a problem could be a question of how they are used. To use them to support the claim for Meucci's accomplishment would indeed be ridiculous. However, the version of the article in which I'm seeing them at the moment seems to be using them only to illustrate that Meucci's story has been a part of Italian-American lore for a while. Given that these references may occasionally be the impetus for a reader to visit the article to find out "the real deal," they seem worth including IN THE PROPER CONTEXT (i.e., as pop-culture or media references to this lesser-known story about the development of the telephone). So long as we don't cite them as proof of the facts of the story, merely of its popularity, I have no problem with it. Lawikitejana 13:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I separated the movie references into a popular culture section. It obviously didn't fit in the main discussion of his invention, so hopefully that clears things up.Highway99 02:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent removal of mention in the Simpsons
Re:
 * In the television series The Simpsons, the family visits a museum of inventors and a picture of Alexander Graham Bell is placed on top of a plaque reading "Inventor of the telephone" with a small picture of Antonio Meucci beside him with a plaque saying "You stole it from me." Graham Bell then replies "Read the patent, bitch."

I added the "citation needed" tag. The item was then recently removed by User:Profonix. I believe it should stay removed pending a good citation, because a query atTalk:The_Simpsons yielded on response: a website that mentions such a joke, but gives Elisha Gray, not Meucci, as the rival. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The "electronic" telephone in 1876?
"Bell patented the electronic telephone in 1876."

Le mot juste? I understand the point here: "telephone" in the sense of an electro-mechanical device that transmits speech by conduction of a varying electric signal over wires... as opposed to acoustic "telephones" like those used on shipboard that transmit sound over long distances by confining them to pipes, or string-and-tin-can "telephones." But it seems to me to be stretching the definition of "electronic"
 * "1. Of or relating to electrons. 2. Of, based on, operated by, or otherwise involving the controlled conduction of electrons or other charge carriers, especially in a vacuum, gas, or semiconducting material..."

In the 1960s, it was customary to draw a distinction between "electric" and "electronic," the latter involving the participation of active amplifying or rectifying devices such as vacuum tubes and transistors.

And I don't think the word "electronic" was coined until the development of vacuum tubes.

How about "electro-acoustical?" Dpbsmith (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert of telecommunication and relied on Basilio Catania's work, available on the net. However, through helping for this article I discovered how many pioneers of telephone were there at the very same time. The word "telephone" was used for everybody. Look at wikipedia articles about:

Emile Berliner Charles Bourseul Thomas Edison Elisha Gray Innocenzo Manzetti Philipp Reis

What should the name "telephone" only be precluded to Meucci, if many scientists developed several models of telephones at the same time?--82.52.183.188 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions.
I came here looking for information on Meucci, and take away the idea of an argument about who invented the telephone. The biographical notes are quite scant scant, so that main value ends up being the references to other writings on the internet. The long paragraph from the 1910 book by Casson is of no interest to me, and completely irrelevant to Meucci's biography. I see no mention of his friendship with Giuseppe Garibaldi, nor of his contribution to Garibaldi's struggle. The extent of his effort to help fellow Italians, both in the USA and in Italy, is not described, so that the reasons for his regard in Italian circles does not become clear. Seejyb 19:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed?
Why is the entire article marked with citations needed, in a big header across the top as if to warn reads what follows may not be true... and then the only individual items marked as citations needed are brief mentions in a TV show and a film? Its slightly unfair imo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.107.7 (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Because people complain if you tag every individual fact that needs a citation in an article that needs them almost everywhere. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with [User talk:83.71.107.7].

The current article says that Meucci was contracted in 1873 to make a telephone for scuba divers. SCUBA (An acronym for "Self-contained underwater breathing apparatus") was invented in the 1940s, and perfected in the 60s by Jacque Cousteau.

Oops!

I also noticed this apparent anachronism, but it appears to be a mistranslation into the modern term and should probably have read "telephone for divers". I have corrected the error. 91.108.78.241 (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Italian patents
Since Italy was established Italy does not allow Patents for Public Interest products and technologies. And Antonio Meucci for consequence had to leave the Italian country because of this problem with the Italian Laws, not protecting but discriminating his research and commercial development. This is still happening today, in the current Italian Republic, and should be written clear. The UPICA Office of any Italian Chamber of Commerce may provide the Italian Patent form, and you can read the list of intellectual restrictions. Also the Italian Consulates may be asked concerning the Italian Patent form, so document yourself and verify your sources Benattiluca 12:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments on article quality
The whole of this article is in very poor English and is presented in an editorial "style". The biographical section has very little information on the actual life of Mr. Meucci. Would anybody scrapping it altogether and start anew, please ? Roligpolig 02:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I am a new Wiki User and surely do not know many things about wiki standards. However, I am quite disappointed by the choice of cancelling all the biographical notes about Antonio Meucci. I spent four days in collecting information about him and now see almost all my work cut. I would like to understand what exactly was wrong with it. If my poor English is a problem, why should one not correct it, instead of cancelling a whole page? Besides, I think that precisely the biographical notes could make more clear the controversy between Alexander G. Bell and other inventors like Meucci. --S vecchiato 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you've been so rudely treated here below. I'm afraid you'll find that if you breathe a word about the arrogance and hostility you'll be told to shut up, and the tag No personal attacks will be waved at you. So just concentrate on providing printed sources for as many statements as you can, using the easy formula. Good luck. --Wetman 20:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Florence Academy of Fine Arts
The Florence Academy of Fine Arts where Meucci studied chemistry, etc. is probably an error for the Università degli Studi. --Wetman 20:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian or Italian-American?
As he clearly was a permanent immigrant to the United States, spent his last four decades living on Staten Island, and did the bulk of his scientific work there, it seems appropriate that he be called Italian-American.68.111.71.197 (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact (without disputing his Italian 'nationality', as opposed to 'citizenship', which can be different), given that he was born in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany (Austrian Empire) and left before the creation of the new Kingdom of Italy, it would be interesting to know if he was ever an official citizen or subject of the new Italian state. What, indeed, did he consider himself to be? Bell did not, apparently, like the double-barrelled term 'Scots-American'. Ceartas 23:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Every citizen of former italian states acquired italian nationality from the 17 march of 1861 by law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.11.51.98 (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Location of his death
Exist some discordance from en.wiki and it.wiki. Meucci was died in Florence (en.wiki) or Staten Island (it.wiki)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.90.56 (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Exist some discordance from en.wiki and it.wiki Meucci was died in staten island, but from first line of biography i understand   florence. Please Insert: Ántonio Meucci (Florence, April 13, 1808 – STATEN ISLAND October 18, 1889) was an Italian-born[..] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.90.56 (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Stick to what the resolution really says
The opening paragraph said
 * Meucci was recognized as the first inventor of the telephone by the United States House of Representatives, in House Resolution 269, dated 11 June, 2002, written and sponsored by Rep. Vito Fossella.

In fact, the resolution, does not say this. I've revised the opening paragraph so that it now simply quotes the actual words of the resolution, allowing readers to interpret it as they will:
 * In 2002 the U. S. House of Representatives passed a bill stating that "the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged."

This is factually correct; the House did pass such a bill and that's what the bill said. I pushed the details (resolution number and sponsor) into a footnote, as they're not important enough for the lead paragraph.

It's my opinion that the resolution is very carefully worded to be a masterpiece of ambiguity. Clearly it could be read as implying that Meucci invented the telephone. But it does not actually say this anywhere.

I believe all that it is saying is that a) Meucci's achievements should be recognized--without saying exactly what those achievements were; b) that his work in trying to develop a telephone should be recognized--without actually saying whether or not that work actually succeeded.

But there's no point in trying to reword the words of the resolution in different ways and arguing about which rewording best captures the meaning of the resolution. We should just quote the actual words of the resolution, and let the reader interpret them. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * dpbsmith is correct in saying that the resolution doesn't say that Meucci invented the telephone. However, it does clearly indicate that of Bell and Meucci, Meucci clearly had it first.  There is no other legitimate way to read "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".  So, the resolution can be cited as a statement that Meucci made a telephone before Bell, though it isn't conclusive evidence that the House of Reps felt he was the first inventor (though it is clearly a persuasive argument.) LedRush (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's stick to quoting what the resolution actually says. Then we don't need to speculate on what it might or might not mean. "Clarifying its real importance" is expressing an opinion, and while it's within the range of interpretations a sane person might make, it's not a neutral point of view.


 * If you can find a reliable source that says "The U. S. House of Representatives passed a bill indicating that Meucci had a superior claim" you can put it in with a proper citation.


 * I don't believe the language about the caveat is at all equivalent as saying Meucci made a telephone before Bell. I think what it means is that if he'd paid the fine Bell could not have gotten his patent by default, and things would have been held up until the patent examiner made a decision; in effect Meucci's claim would have received a proper review. I don't know a thing about patent law, though.


 * If you think the language about the caveat is conclusive, then substitute that, i.e.


 * In 2002 the U. S. House of Representatives passed a bill stating that " if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell."


 * But don't put your own interpretation on the language if you can't support it by reference to a reliable source. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no other possible interpretation. The resolution says what it says, and it says that if Meucci had been able to pay the fee Bell couldn't have gotten a patent.  The ONLY reason this could be true is that Meucci had a superior claim.  If you can offer a plausible alternate explanation, please try.  Don't make disingenuous claims.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by LedRush (talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If there's no other possible interpretation of the words of the resolution, then what's wrong with using a quotation of those words from the resolution, as I suggested above? Why use some other wording instead? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we need the whole court ruling?
This adds unneccesary length the article and adds no value that one short sentence and a citation couldn't provide. LedRush (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro Wording
There has been debate over a preferred wording in the introduction. The original wording used includes a quote that summarizes the House of Representatives sentiment towards Meucci's contribution to the telephone; "In 2002 the U. S. House of Representatives passed House Resolution 269 stating that "the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged.""

The alternative wording, "In 2002 the U. S. House of Representatives passed a bill indicating that Meucci had a superior claim to the invention of the telephone than Alexander Graham Bell." has been proposed.

It is my understanding that a direct quote, when concise enough, is better to use than any other wording that attempts to summarize, especially when there is such a debate over the preferred wording. Furthermore, I think the original passage makes the resolution's overall will understood, and allows the reader to infer his/her own idea of what the resolution means when reading the extract. Opinions? Sicilianmandolin (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your summary isn't entirely accurate. The other quote also said "if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell."


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


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


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


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


 * Additionally, the intro should be cleaned up to mention the resolution only once. I believe it is important to introduce clear and concise (and 100%) statements in the intro followed by longer quotes and analysis in the body.LedRush (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone has reverted the intro language again, ignoring this discussion. I still haven't heard an argument of an alternative interpretation of the language.LedRush (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If the writers of the resolution had wanted to say "Meucci had a superior claim," they could said "Whereas Meucci had a superior claim." If they had wanted to say "Bell's patent bore a close resemblance to Meucci's caveat," they could have said "Whereas Bell's patent bore a close resemblance to Meucci's caveat." They said neither.


 * Why is there need for any "interpretation?" You say the language speaks for itself, so let's use the actual language. If the language is unambiguous, it needs no interpretation. If the language is ambiguous, it shouldn't be replaced by your interpretation.


 * Why do you insist on substituting different language that isn't in the resolution? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * By your logic, no one would ever use succint summaries of quotes...quotes would always be used. But to answer your question, I believe that the summary is better used in the intro and the quote in the body to add meat to the bones.


 * You have still have not offered an alternative interpretation to the wording of the resolution, though your answers are easily answered. Perhaps the House wanted to highlight Meucci's destitution.  Perhaps they wanted to highlight his unluckiness.  Perhaps they wanted to highlight deficiencies in the US patent process.  But this is all speculation...what we know is that there is no other way to interpret the resolution.


 * The language of the resolution, and selective quoting from it, has been used on other articles immediately before or after statements disparaging Meucci's claims. Especially in this article, it is important that the importance of the resolution to Meucci's legacy be known.


 * Please note, as I've said above, the resolution is only proof as to what the House believed at the time of the resolution, and that many people do credit Meucci's claims as superior to Bell's.LedRush (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've already told you my alternative interpretation: that the language of the resolution is ambiguous and capable of being read either way. I happen to think this is intentional, and that it's probably how they got the resolution passed. That's just my guesswork, but at least it gives one reason why clearer language wasn't used.


 * All that it clearly says that Antonio Meucci deserves to be recognized and that his claims did not get a fair hearing. It avoids stating specifically that he invented the telephone, and it avoids stating specifically that he had a better claim than Bell.


 * You infer these from the language, and you think your interpretation is the only possible one. But it's not, because I interpret it differently. We're not going to agree on this.


 * But I don't see that there's any need for us to agree on it. You haven't given any good reason for not just quoting what the resolution says, which is neutral and verifiable.Dpbsmith (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be making two claims now: (1) that there is a different interpretation of the Resolution; and (2) my reasons for stating the logical conclusion of the resolution are not valid. Let me tackle them one at a time:


 * (1) You have not stated alternative conslusions to the statement that I have quoted. You state only that the language is ambiguous.  What is the ambiguous part?  What is the alternative explanation?  No plausible theory that contradicts my summary can be logically inferred from the resolution.  If there is one, please present it.


 * (2) I believe that a concise, accurate summary of the meaning of the purpose should be stated right next to the meaning of the purpose. The article states that many people credit Meucci with the invention of the telephone.  One buttressing argument is that the House of Reps of the US believe that his claim is superior to Bell's (much like Italian encycolpedias and many scholars).  That does not make their opinion true, but it is informative to the discussion.  The resolution's meaning and importance should be concisely stated in the intro, and topics of the resolutions (including the quotes) can be tackled completely in the body of the article.


 * I am sorry if this seems harsh, but I don't see you attempting to address either of my arguments. Please explain both your arguments to my points, so that we can begin to have an actual discussion free of prejudice.LedRush (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, we could debate this forever. To cut to the chase, until you get more support for your own interpretation, or whatever you want to call it, the entry is going to remain the same. Period. If you want to include a section that deals with the interpretation of the resolution and utilizes appropriate sources, feel free. I'm in complete agreement with Dpbsmith's logic, and I also think it's a waste of time to draw this out any further, thence I might suggest you to call a vote. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, you could ignore my points forever. No one has offered any reasonable reading of the resolution which would make my language incorrect.  It doesn't need cites because it comes from the source...it is already cited!  You seem to imagine a world where only quotes are used and no one summarizes or distills information from them.  Of course this is a fantasy, and the vast majority of cites on wikipedia, in law journals, in books, and in academnic articles are not merely to point out where a quote came from, but are statements by the author which are supported in another source.  I don't know why we should adopt a "quote only" policy just for this sentence of this paragraph when none is needed in the rest of the article or anywhere else.


 * For example, the very intro we are discussing reads: "The judge concluded that Meucci was deliberately involved in attempts to defraud investors". Of course, the judge never says this.  The actual language of the ruling is below:


 * "The evidence leaves the impression that his speaking telegraph would never have been offered to the public as an invention if he had not been led by his necessities to trade on the credulity of his friends; that he intended to induce the three persons of small means and little business experience, who became his associates under the agreement of December 12, 1871, to invest in an invention which he would not office to men like Ryder and Craig; and that this was done in the hope of obtaining such loans and assistance from them as he would temporarily require."


 * When a statement is the logical conclusion of a cited source it is accepted practice to summarize it or state it concisely as done in this example. (I would argue that this example is not the best because the judge seems to hedge the sentiment by saying "the evidence leaves the impression", but that is for another discussion.)


 * It is clear that the people arguing against the use of non-quoted language are employing a double standard: allowing for its use anywhere but here.


 * Not at all. I'm not applying a double standard. I didn't write the sentence you quoted. I just haven't looked at this particular issue. If you think the sentence you quoted, "The judge concluded that Meucci was deliberately involved in attempts to defraud investors," is not accurate and neutral, then it needs to be discussed. For example, I'd support replacing that sentence with one saying "The judge said that Meucci was 'trad[ing] on the credulity of his friends.'"


 * And in fact, I just went ahead and made that replacement myself.


 * But you've ignored the force of my argument with a point I conceded was not the best example. If you'd like, I could go find many examples of situations where articles make a neutral statement based on a quote rather than use the quote.  Surely you don't deny that this is an accepted practice in law journals, scholarly articles and books, do you?LedRush (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In some cases (but surprisingly few) it's hard to find a really clear, concise statement in the original source. And in some cases, it's possible to make a concise summary statement that just about everyone agrees is accurate. What the House Resolution says about Meucci is not one of those cases.


 * I believe that I have proven that argument against the use of non-quoted materials doesn't hold water; that I have demonstrated that this language is considered ok when used to make disparaging remarks about Meucci in this very article. I have forwarded a widely accepted reason for using non-quoted language.  If you have intellectual integrity, please try and address my points.LedRush (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, non-neutral language, written by Wikipedia editors, is never OK. However, inconsistency is the nature of a Wiki, so you're always going to find problems. The existence of a non-neutral summary somewhere in the article is an argument for fixing that problem, not an argument for introducing a balancing non-neutral summary somewhere else.


 * Of course this is a straw-man. I am arguing for neutral language.  No one has made any argument that my language isn't neutral, only that it isn't a quote.  If you have any alternative interpretation of the quote, please present it or stop making disingenuous claims.LedRush (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm more than willing to discuss and replace any places where you think the article isn't neutral, and I'm a big fan of doing this by directly quoting original sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that it refusing to state the logical conclusion the quote isn't neutral; it is bias by omission. Anyway, you've still not made any arguments that my language isn't neutral (remember, statement aren't arguments) and you've largely ignored my argument regarding summaries of quotations by attacking an argument I didn't make (regarding the other quote). I appreciate your more moderate and respectful language, and if I carry over some harsh words from earlier disagreements with hostile wiki-editors, I apologize.  But I really would like responses regarding my two points above.LedRush (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't call me "disingenuous," that's verging on incivility; assume good faith.


 * On a subject as charged as this one is, it's almost inevitable that people are going to differ. And it's also almost inevitable that non-neutrality in both directions will keep creeping in and will need to be patiently discussed and removed.


 * "Bias by omission" is getting pretty subtle, since you say the resolution's statement is unambiguous.


 * To me, the sentence about the caveat just says "Meucci didn't get a fair shake, because he didn't have $10." You say I'm wrong about that, that it means "Meucci had a better claim." I can't possibly answer your argument by counter-argument, because I'm not a patent expert. And it wouldn't matter whether or not I could. In Wikipedia, nothing depends on the authority of the editors, because we don't know who they are, let alone what authority they have.


 * People are always defending their insertion of their personal interpretation by saying "This is obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject." But that's not the way Wikipedia works. If something is really obvious to people knowledgeable in a field, then the it is virtually certain that one of them will have said so, somewhere, in a verifiable source. If you want to explain or summarize or interpret the resolution's words, because the writers of the resolution did not express themselves clearly enough, then your job is to find a verifiable source that says so. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your efforts to keep the conversation civil, but you should look at the the history of our discussion to see who first brought incivility into it. Regardless, your point on manners is, of course, correct.


 * My interpretation of the resolution does not revolve around any specialized knowledge at all (again I wonder why you've misstated my claim or created a straw-man). My suggegsted insertion merely requires one to understand the use of language.  Ask yourself why, if Meucci, had $10, why would no patent have been given to Bell?  There is no interprestation of the language that can contradict a statement as I wrote it above.


 * Also, your insistance on the use of quotes over summaries baffles me. Even Sicialianmandolin conceded that summaries are ok when the original quote isn't concise enough.  You have ignored the fact that the practice is accepted both in acedmia and on Wikipedia.


 * Of course, a quick google search can prove either of my two assertions. I will focus on searching for the meaning of the House Resolution as you have specifically asked about that.  If you want to use a quote, you could say:


 * "Congress has sent a message that rings loud and clear recognizing the true inventor of the telephone, Antonio Meucci." (http://www.house.gov/fossella/Press/pr020611.htm)


 * "the United State House of Representatives declared that the telephone was invented by an Italian-American named Antonio Meucci" (http://hnn.us/articles/802.html)


 * "On September 25, 2001, the United States House of Representatives through Resolution 269, recognized Antonio Meucci as the inventor of the telephone." (http://www.eworldvu.com/general-interest/2008/3/5/a-tough-call-on-the-inventor-of-the-telephone.html)


 * These examples were just on the first page of a google search, and include a US government press release, George Mason University's History News Network, and eworldvu.com.


 * My language doesn't make as stong of a statement as these do (for fear of the Bell zealots) and only applies to the primacy of Meucci over Bell, not as the "true inventor". If you prefer quotations, I suggest using one of my three above (or any of the thousands of others that say substantially the same thing), but I still believe my language is more appropriate in this context.LedRush (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, your reading of the resolution is not in conflict with mine. Can you provide a reading in which Meucci's claim is not given priority to Bell's?LedRush (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The quotation from Fossella's press release is perfect, and I've added it. Fossella's opinion is certainly relevant. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruling against Antonio Meucci, Circuit Court, S. D. New York. July 19, 1887 and the trial
There are a couple of problems with this article regarding this trial:

1. This trial is mentioned 3 times.

2. The trial was not "Meucci's" but the government of the US

3. The ruling was cited here twice was reversed by the Supreme Court.

4. Ultimately, after a procedural victory for Bell on 2 of the 4 claims, the gov't dropped the case and it was never decided on the merits (in 1897?).

I propose a few changes:

1. mention the trial once (maybe with a brief mention in the intro).

2. Correctly attribute the participants.

3. Correctly reflect the outcomes of the cases (meaning, don't cite reversed decisions, don't imply things that didn't happen happened)

Any thoughts on this?LedRush (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

His death year - 1884 or 1889?
It is currently set at 1889, but the Meucci Museum says it was in 1884. The U.S. House of Representative claims it occurred in 1889. I think if any place were to have it right, it would the museum dedicated to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlyn Perez (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert of vandalism
I just reverted an edit where someone changed "newspaper" to "penis". I think this one is pretty clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.186.42 (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate facts removed (expensive of the patent as a reason for not obtaining it)
A falsehood resided within this article, which has also been seen in numerous other explanations as to why Meucci didn't apply for a full patent (as opposed to a 'patent caveat') before Bell obtained his full patent.

The article previously read (section: --The caveat--):
 * "On December 12, 1871 Meucci set up an agreement with Angelo Zilio Grandi (Secretary of the Italian Consulate in New York), Angelo Antonio Tremeschin (entrepreneur), Sereno G. P. Breguglia Tremeschin (businessman), in order to constitute the Telettrofono Company. The constitution was notarized by Angelo Bertolino, a Notary Public of New York. Their society funded him $20, whereas $250 was needed in order to pay for that sort of patent. Meucci then only had the money to pay for a caveat on December 28, 1871 at the U.S. Patent Office....." (emphasis is mine).

Meucci advocates have often implied that a full patent cost $250 at that time. I am unable to find any use of the phrase "the equivalent of $250 in current dollars"; by default those advocating for Meucci implied that the patent cost was $250 at that time, and that he was too impoverished to be able to pay that cost for several years prior to Bell's application in 1876.

FACTS AS PER THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE:
 * "In 1861, the fee for obtaining a patent was $35, of which $15 was to be paid at the time of application and $20 when the patent was granted. In 1922, the patent filing fee increased from $15 to $20."
 * Source: Patent and Trademark Office. "The Story of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office". Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office. Washington:IA-SuDocs, Rev. August 1988. iv, 50p. MC 89-8590. OCLC 19213162. SL 89-95-P. S/N 003-004-00640-4. $1.75. C 21.2:P 27/3/988  - - - - Note: the 1861 filing fee is listed on Pg. 11, and the 1922 filing fee is listed on Pg. 22.

Observations and conclusions: If a patent caveat cost $10 in 1871, it would have cost only $5 more to file for (apply for) a full patent. As noted in the same article paragraph, his society had funded him with $20 prior to his caveat application. Meucci would not have been required to pay the remaining $20 for his patent until it had been awarded to him, at which time he would likely have had little trouble raising money from investors,  had (1) the U.S. Patent Office found his patent application viable and awarded him a patent, and (2) had he really invented a practical electric telephone , (since a working model was not required to be submitted with a patent application at that time).

Additionally, his protested poverty flies in the face of the facts that he was 'granted (full) patents in 1872, 1873, 1875, and 1876', which would have cost him $35 per patent, or at the very minimum $140, if he had received only one patent in each year.

Based on the above observations and conclusions of Meucci's funding and the true cost of filing for a 'full patent' application, I have removed the statement: "Meucci then only had the money to pay for a caveat on December 28, 1871 at the U.S. Patent Office", since it is unsupported and contrary to the factual evidence supplied by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, i.e.: it cost $15 to file for a full patent application between 1861 and 1922.

The similar article statement: "Up to 1874 Meucci had only enough money to renew his caveat while looking for funding for a true patent.", is also removed. --HarryZilber (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)--

Bell did not work in the Western Union laboratory prior to or subsequent to the telephone patent
Contrary to the confabulated statement contained in the preamble of HRes. 269, there's no evidence or reason to believe that A.G. Bell even visited, let alone "worked in" the Western Union laboratory where Meucci claimed his telephone models were kept. The American Bell Telephone Company and Western Union were competitors, not affiliates.

As noted in Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell:
 * "Paragraphs Nos. 7 & 8 [of the Congressional Resolution] implied that Bell had access to Meucci's works prior to patenting the telephone ("….Meucci later learned that the Western Union affiliate laboratory reportedly lost his working models", followed by: "Alexander Graham Bell, who conducted experiments in the same laboratory where Meucci’s materials had been stored was granted a patent…. with inventing the telephone"). (Source: "Grosvenor") The same inference in the resolution was also described by Rockman. (Source: "Rockman") Grosvenor noted that with Bell living and working in the Boston and Brantford areas, and with Meucci living and working in the Staten Island, New York area, there was no overlap where Bell would have had access to Meucci's works prior to Bell's patent application. Grosvenor also pointed out that in 1878, two years after Bell received his patent, the American Bell Telephone Comp., not Bell, was awarded a Western Electric laboratory as part of a patent infringement settlement with the Western Union Telegraph Company. Alexander Graham Bell never worked in that laboratory, and the timing of the transfer made it irrelevant in any event to Bell's patent application of February 1876. (Source: "Grosvenor") Additionally, the American Bell Telephone Company and Western Union were both competitors to each other and did not share facilities both prior to, and subsequent to the patent lawsuit settlement." --HarryZilber (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of 'electromagnetic' from telephone description in L'Eco d'Italia newspaper
The original introductory sentence in "The Trial" section read:
 * "Meucci's electromagnetic telephone was described in L'Eco d'Italia of New York at the beginning of 1861, though all issues of the 1861-1863 period are not available in the major libraries of the United States." (my emphasis)

Since, apparently, there is no copy of the specific L'Eco d'Italia edition in existence that can verify the claim of Meucci's supporters, the word 'electromagnetic' was removed. That Meucci had previously developed mechanical 'lover's' telephones isn't disputed -his claim to have created 'electromagnetic' telephones prior to Bell's patent is what's disputed. 'Electromagnetic' is unsupported by all pre-1876 evidence; hence the removal of that word from that sentence. --HarryZilber (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

When did he die?
Most wikipedia say he died in 1889, some say it was 1896. A google search antonio meucci 1889 results in 6800 hits, and antonio meucci 1896 in 5470 hits. Not a very definitive difference. The Garibaldi-Meucci Museum says it is 1889, the Italian Historical Society of America says it is 1896.

So which year did he die? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured it out. The New York Times had the answer, it's 1889. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Next time let an italian to write Meucci's bio
The nationalistic attitude ( let's admit it what else can be deduced from this article?) is declinated in many odd ways in wiki. Usually contestants defend its own counterpart leaving that others do the same with the opponent. It's quite tricky and not elegant that supporters of one side invade the other drawing bio with the purpose to discredit the image of the protagonist.....--193.136.94.200 (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Wikipedia's articles are not 'owned' or 'controlled' by any person or national group -kindly refer to its policies and guidelines. All people are welcome to contribute to any article in a meaningful way in order to provide citable, accurate information free of bias.  Further, all nationalities, groups, religions, etc.... are welcome to help build Wikipedia into an storehouse of cultural, scientific and historic knowledge following the codified rules the encyclopedia has established. That may sound idealistic, but I believe it works.  Best, HarryZilber (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately -as this bio demonstrate- not always work. It is not a problem of citable and accurate information but in the way how to use it. It is evident that the author of Meucci's bio in the english section wants to demonstrate that the real inventor of the telephone was Bell and not Meucci. Since I don't believe men and idealism match well togheter, I cinically (and maybbe ironically) suggest to leave, at least- if you want take it as a code of honour- that supporters of each side (and believe me Meucci has got many) could defend their "champion" without interference from the other side.--193.136.94.203 (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia editors are expected to take a neutral point of view and not be cheer leaders for their respective national heros. If each side takes a non-neutral POV, two wrongs do not make a right.  When I first learned of Meucci, I read his patents and concluded Meucci was a respectable inventor and not the crackpot his detractors implied.  I said at that time that I did not believe the "two cans and a piece of string" accusation against Meucci.  But I wanted to see the exact words in Meucci's caveat to see what he had and did not have prior to 1875.  When the caveat text was brought to my attention, I transcribed the caveat into the Meucci article.  That is not pro-Bell, nor is it anti-Meucci - it is simply reporting a historical document.  Likewise my analysis of his caveat does not take sides, it simply summarized what Meucci had and did not have in 1871.  It it clear from the caveat that in 1871 Meucci did not have an electromagnetic telephone or a diaphragm telephone that was later invented by Bell.  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.  Lab notes backdated to the 1870s and drawings recreated in the 1880s and witnessed in the 1880s are not credible contemporary evidence. Greensburger (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Substantiation of Meucci's claims to the priority of invention
Another editor yesterday contested Bell's priority to the invention of the telephone, citing 'facts' made in this article to support his/her view. I subsequently provided changes to this article's section Invention of the telephone, to clarify the contentions supporting Meucci's claims to priority are exactly that: "claims".

As reported directly above this section:
 * "....When [Meucci's 1871 caveat] text was brought to my attention, I transcribed [it] into the Meucci article.  That is not pro-Bell, nor is it anti-Meucci - it is simply reporting a historical document.  Likewise my analysis of his caveat does not take sides, it simply summarized what Meucci had and did not have in 1871.  It it clear from the caveat that in 1871 Meucci did not have an electromagnetic telephone or a diaphragm telephone that was later invented by Bell.  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.  Lab notes backdated to the 1870s and drawings recreated in the 1880s and witnessed in the 1880s are not credible contemporary evidence."

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 stories 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 above: "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) 19:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, none of what you wrote above makes any real difference.    Or deals with the actual problem that's going on here.


 * Because the simple bottom line is that to say that all Meucci did or all that he was "known" for was only "claiming" to invent the telephone is simply not accurate, and it is borderline WEASEL WORD-ish and is rank POV...


 * And I'm not even writing that Meucci was the first to invent the telephone (even though he was...), but simply per WP Policy that he was one of the first to PIONEER in the inventing of it, etc.


 * to say "all he did was claim to, and his ideas never helped anyone" which flies against MANY reference sources (why not look them up instead of conveniently ignoring them??) is POV and is what is against true WP policy...


 * it's blatant POV (not to mention inaccurate) to say that ALL Meucci did was "claim" it..., and nothing else.


 * Congress doesn't share that view. But acknowledges officially Meucci's role as NOT just "claiming" it, but actually working on it, as one of the fore-runners.


 * (Also, Bell shared a lab with Meucci, so don't claim that "Meucci's ideas didn't help others"...)


 * to say in the info box that all Meucci did was "claim" invention of the telephone, or that that's all he's really "known" for, is sloppy, inaccurate, biased, and incomplete.


 * That's called in logic "the fallacy of selective observation". Otherwise known as "cherry-picking the evidence to suit your own agenda."


 * Also, to say that "none of his ideas helped anyone" in the edit comment is also insane.  Because that's NOT the view of congress or of sound scholarship and actual history.


 * (Bell used the same lab that Meucci used...coincidink?)


 * There's enough evidence (and reference sources) to show that Meucci did not just "claim" to invent the telephone but at the very least had a hand in the pioneering of the invention, (patent "caveat" or not...) Again, also, if you look at articles like "History of Telephone" & external reference sources, there's enough "evidence" to show that he was a forerunner & not just "claimed" it. But at the very least was one of the pioneers. This has been established as more than just "opinion". Enough reference sources (external as well as internal) confirm this...Stop the edit warring on this. Thank you. Sweetpoet (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see the next edit to the lower section 'Rank bias and inaccurate POV.....' HarryZilber (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Meucci deserves more than this wikipedia article...
"....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) 17:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Rank bias and inaccurate POV against Meucci's contributions to invention of telephone by editors...
It's blatant POV (not to mention inaccurate) to say that ALL Meucci did was "claim" it..., and nothing else.

Congress doesn't share that view. (Also, Bell shared a lab with Meucci, so don't claim that "Meucci's ideas didn't help others"...)

to say in the info box that all Meucci did was "claim" invention of the telephone, or that that's all he's really "known" for, is sloppy, inaccurate, biased, and incomplete.

That's called in logic "the fallacy of selective observation". Otherwise known as "cherry-picking the evidence to suit your own agenda."

There's enough evidence (and reference sources) to show that Meucci did not just "claim" to invent the telephone but at the very least had a hand in the pioneering of the invention, (patent "caveat" or not...)    Again, also, if you look at articles like "History of Telephone" & external reference sources, there's enough "evidence" to show that he was a forerunner & not just "claimed" it. But at the very least was one of the pioneers. This has been established as more than just "opinion". Enough reference sources (external as well as internal) confirm this...Stop the edit warring on this. Thank you. Sweetpoet (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Sweetpoet: Wikipedia doesn't allow me, or anyone else, to contribute edits that are unsupported with reliable sources (WP:RS).  That said, I'm willing to work with you on finding an acceptable description of what Meucci is 'known for' within the infobox field you keep changing without consensus.


 * The reason that your change: "Known for: Helping pioneer invention of the telephone", is unacceptable is related to Wikipedia's primary goal: all information, especially in contentious, disputed areas, has to be backed up with references to reliable sources supporting the statements or claims being made. If you can show reliable pre-1875 primary and secondary sources (i.e. newspaper articles, journals, legal documents, even archived personal letters) that describe Meucci working on 'electromagnetic' (not 'acoustic') telephones, then you would have legitimate supporting evidence to show that Meucci 'Helped pioneer the invention of the telephone'.  Please check carefully -your references have to be traceable to reliable pre-1875 materials, not materials created for trials in 1885 and later, when Globe Telephone and Pan-Electric were trying to nullify Bell's patents so they could take over the telecommunications marketplace, or present-day works that only state Meucci's priority as fact without detailing their sources.


 * If your beliefs that Meucci worked on electromagnetic phones prior to Bell are only based on what others have read or written on the above trials, you're making a contention based on unreliable sources, sources that were created AFTER Bell had patented the electromagnetic telephone (with a patent application in 1875, that was awarded in 1876).


 * Nowhere has it been claimed that Bell was the only person working on electromagnetic telephones. There are numerous descriptions of the works of Charles Bourseul, Elisha Gray, and most importantly Johann Reis, who for many years long before Bell was demonstrating his imperfect make-and-break electromagnetic telephones, all of whom are amply documented in newspapers, journals and legal documents. Unfortunately, nothing like that can be said for Antonio Meucci in terms of having pre-1875 reliable sources quoting electromagnetic telephones, least of all his telettrofono patent caveat, a copy of which has been posted to this article and which should be reviewed in detail.  Another mistake noted in your text above (and in the Congressional resolution) referred to Bell and Meucci having shared the same laboratory -an absolute falsehood: please refer to the detailed analysis within the Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell article.


 * I recommend you reread the copy of the Congressional resolution in the article very carefully, since it was a masterpiece of ambiguity. Nowhere in the resolution does it say that Bell did not invent the telephone, and nowhere in the article does it directly say that Meucci invented it.  It resolves, within its last paragraph: "...that the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged", without saying what his works were.  As others have pointed out correctly, you can infer by the statement that he invented the (electromagnetic) telephone, but it doesn't say that.  It was not worded to say "...that the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his invention of the telephone should be acknowledged ".  Remember also that the U.S. Senate refused to pass a similar resolution –the document was only resolved in the U.S. House of Representatives.  It had no legal status other than politicking rhetoric, and certainly didn't affect the Bell patents in any manner.


 * While there is no direct, reliable evidence that Meucci worked on electromagnetic phones prior to 1875 (the exact conclusion of the principal trial he lost), I suspect that his various references to pre-1875 telephone devices were actually based on his works on acoustic telephones (which is also what the same trial concluded). In that respect, it would then be fair to say for the article's infobox, that Meucci is:
 * "Known for: Pioneering of telephone-like devices", or
 * "Known for: Helping pioneer early telephones" (correct, since there's ample evidence he worked on electromagnetic phones after Bell's patents were issued).
 * But unless, and until, you can show reliable references to pre-1875 works that documented electromagnetic phones, this article in Wikipedia can't permit the inclusion of unsubstantiated assertions. Additionally, what you've also described above as 'rank bias', most others would probably call 'following Wikipedia's rules', i.m.h.o.


 * If either 'Pioneering of telephone-like devices', or 'Helping pioneer early telephones' is acceptable to you, then we can move on with this change and our other collective works. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There IS common ground in a sense, because I said very clearly that I'm NOT saying (although I may personally believe it, but that's not relevant), that "Meucci invented the telephone and was the very first to".  You don't see my putting that stuff on the article, do you?      I'm ONLY doing what Congress itself (which you called "ingenius") has done.   Stating that Meucci (which is somewhat verified already, otherwise why would Congress "acknowledge" or craft anything even saying it??) HELPED IN THE PIONEERING OF IT...or was one of the forerunners.   That's a CAREFULLY worded and "inferred" statement.   You notice, as to your "inferred" point.  No?


 * but this is the thing.    To say "known for CLAIMING invention of the telephone" is too loaded in its tone, and is border-line WEASEL word.  And that's NOT JUST what Meucci did.     He did NOT just solely "claim to invent the telephone" in his whole life !!!!!  He worked ARDUOUSLY for years on this stuff.


 * And look here what a BELL official himself admitted:
 * Brian Wood, curator of the Bell Homestead Museum in Brantford, was surprised to hear of the resolution.
 * "If this can be proven, then Meucci certainly deserves recognition as contributing to the realm of telephony," Wood said. "But I don't see it as a huge threat. There may be others all over the world who did similar things but didn't get patented or legally known."


 * He said that a bit grudgingly obviously, but look at the point.   MEUCCI SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED FOR WHAT?     HE DIDN'T SAY FOR "SIMPLY CLAIMING TO INVENT THE TELEPHONE".   (sighs)......but for his "contributing to the realm of telephony."


 * and see here what this reporter wrote in 2002:
 * 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.


 * (there seems to be a difference of view of whether Bell used the same lab that Meucci used.....you call it a "lie", but why should I believe you when you seem very biased against Meucci, and pro-Bell?)


 * check this out carefully:
 * 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.


 * Please, with all due respect...spare me this NONSENSE that "Meucci's ideas didn't help anyone", as the other editor arrogantly inaccurately wrote in his edit comment days ago.


 * And also your fixation on "pre-1875" this or that.    SOMETIMES FACTS COME TO LIGHT LATER ON...so your dogmatic thing on the "pre-1875" is just that.....DOGMATIC.     And not all that reasonable.   WP policy can sometimes be interpreted various ways.....my friend.   And if there's been new info and facts and evidence unveiled (whether certain biased parties want to ignore those facts "selective observation") then the neurotic fixation of "pre-1875" is not all that meaningful.


 * Also, again, Meucci was very poor, and simply didn't have the means to bring everything out in the open at the time. (Bell had more money, and that's just a fact.)    DIDN'T MEAN MEUCCI DIDN'T CREATE AND DO CERTAIN IMPORTANT AND REMARKABLE THINGS IN THIS MATTER.


 * anyway, again, the point is this:   saying that all Meucci is known for is simply "claiming to invent the telephone" reeks of bias and is just incomplete.     He WORKED on making a proto-type telephone apparatus that utilized electricity.    And there's real evidence to show and prove that.   Not just "opinion" or "supposition".    And more than just "claims".   Meucci was at the very least, objectively, caveat or not, a PIONEER in that whole thing.   Not just some clown who simply "claimed" it with no basis.    Thank you. Sweetpoet (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sweetpoet: I'm pleased to see that you're interested in improving the Meucci article and are willing to examine the issues with the edit change you made to the infobox, where you wrote: "Known for: Helping pioneer invention of the telephone", and which I challenged by reverting it back to: "Known for: Claiming invention of the telephone". I agree with your earlier comments that the previous phrase: 'Claiming invention of the telephone' has several negative connotations, especially for first-time lay readers unfamiliar with the history of the telecommunications, and should not be used.

Unfortunately there is significant heartburn with your choice of words: "Helping pioneer invention of the telephone" (meaning:  'Helping pioneer the invention of the electromagnetic telephone'), which directly implies that Meucci worked on electromagnetic telephones prior to Bell, which is completely unsupported by reliable documented evidence, irregardless of what some U.S. politicians decided to say in June 2001 –they were hardly authorities on the subject since they ignored their own Congressional investigation report and made several factual errors within the preamble of their resolution, as was documented in the Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell article. If you're going to try to support your arguments with political resolutions/motions in legislative bodies, then you have to observe all of the political resolutions, including the one I've cited above and which is printed in full within the Wikipedia article.

Your lengthy reply above unfortunately has several common errors widely distributed over the Internet related to the Bell-Meucci controversy. However, lets first agree on how to resolve our difference over the wording of the Infobox: we must both respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As you probably know, WP has three central and non-negotiable editorial policies, among them Verifiability (WP:Verify). To quote (emphasis is mine):
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
 * All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.
 * This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons.....
 * Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three."

Please do not assert that we shouldn't be 'dogmatic' about following Wikipedia's fundamental policies, as there's no point in continuing this discussion if one party will not do so. If you can provide verification of your statement  from a reliable source  that Meucci worked on electromagnetic telephones prior to Bell, I and others would have no objection to your wording ('Helping pioneer invention of the telephone'). In other words: "If you can cite it, you can write it."

That said, the HRes 269 Congressional Resolution is not a reliable source, and was heavily criticized as such, notably by author Howard Rockman and Professor Basilio Catania. Other recent works on Meucci which do not provide sources for their 'facts' are also not reliable sources, and have been criticized for that as well.

Meucci was a highly notable Italian-American: an inventor, businessman and political supporter of Italian nationhood amongst other things. He is known for many of those facets of his life which are all well documented and on display at the Garibaldi-Meucci Museum, and there are ample ways of briefly describing his renown in the article's Infobox. However, writing that he is known for 'Pioneering the invention of the telephone' is not acceptable to this encyclopedia unless Wikipedia's policy requirements can be met.

Referring to his role in 'other' telephone inventions is acceptable to me as long as it doesn't imply invention of 'the' telephone, as was awarded to Bell on his master telephone patent. Being generic and generous to Meucci and saying: 'Known for: Inventor, innovator, business man, independence-supporter'  is also equally acceptable, as well as two other suggestions made earlier. Which one would be best to you, or do you have any other alternatives you can bring forward? Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, that's fine, bro. I'm glad you agree to some extent.   If something more neutral and fair can be put in there, that would be good.   By the way, I have to say though (lol) that in your other comment you said that Congress's wording was a work of "genius"....NOW you say that it's "not a reliable source."    (You have to see my point with that, Harry...)    But I do agree with you in a way.   Congress is about politics more than about facts.    LOL....    So it's fine.   I was just making the point that even though Congress may not be 100% reliable, it's not likely they would acknowledge Meucci with absolutely zero basis at all.     Congress WENT by other sources, that would be considered a bit more "reliable".


 * But anyway, my friend, if you can edit the info box with something a little more understandable and factual as well as "verifiable", then it's cool.   We have to believe, as I said, that Antonio did more than simply "claim" this or that, and nothing else his whole life.   The guy worked like a DOG on this stuff (partly because of his wife's paralysis, etc), for YEARS.    We can't overlook that.  I think Bell was brilliant too, by the way.    But Meucci did some important work as well.  Anyway, hopefully we'll find some good wording in the article.....peace out. Sweetpoet (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The mention of the Senate Resolution "dying"
Harry has made an edit calling for an detailed expression of the Meucci Resolution "dying" in the Senate. I believe that his presentation of the information is POV. His statement is:


 * However, some have disagreed with the House of Representatives resolution.[67][40][68] A similar resolution was introduced to the U.S. Senate. On September 10, 2003 the resolution, SRes 223, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary where it remained and died, unenacted.[

His language infers that the Senate did not pass the Resolution because it disagreed with the House. There is no evidence of this at all. All we know is that the Resolution did not get past the committee stage. Additionally, his language states that the resolution "died", which is a POV term and one unsupported by the citations. I feel that if this language is included, it should mirror NPOV in the actual citations.

Furthermore, I would argue that no mention of the Senate resolution need take place at all. This is a biographical article on Meucci, and it seems odd to me to list the things that didn't happen regarding him. The resolution could have been stalled in the Senate for any number of reasons, many of them not having to do with the merits of such resolution.

However, rather than delete the reference to the Senate completely, I thought I would compromise and leave it in there with NPOV language that is used in the actual citations. If Harry is intent on introducing his POV language, I will take the position that any mention of the senate resolution be removed as being non-notable and provind undue weight to a non-event.

For reference, the article now states:
 * A similar resolution was introduced to the U.S. Senate but no vote was held on the resolution.[67][68][69]
 * [New Paragraph] Some have disagreed with the House of Representatives resolution.[70][40][71]

LedRush (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Scientific evidences stating Meucci's priority on Bell
1) Anti-sidetone circuit

Meucci began investigating topics related with the telephone "system" in 1858, as shown by a drawing of the same year, reproduced below http://www.chezbasilio.it/immagini/corradi_drw.gif. This drawing formed the basis for Meucci's caveat of 1871, but, as Meucci's lawyer did not file it with the caveat, it was later notarized by Meucci himself in his affidavit of 9 October 1885.The drawing shows a two-way, simultaneous, telephone conversation, with a complete separation between the two directions of transmission (indicated by arrows). This contrivance is aimed to counteract the so-called "side-tone" effect, that is, the hearing of the echo of the speaker's own voice (as well as any background noise) in his own receiver. This layout is known today as a "four-wire circuit". With it, Meucci anticipated any other inventor, as proved by the following:

No mention of side-tone effects, nor measures to counteract it, are found in Bell's patents, nor in Gray's caveat, both of 1876. In the first Bell's subscriber lines, the four (initially, two) instruments were simply put in series on the same line. The first anti-sidetone (AST) circuits were 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 this drawing, and over thirty years after the same drawing was notarized.

2) Inductive loading

The drawing reproduced above http://www.chezbasilio.it/immagini/lemmi_drw.gif is taken from a note jotted down by Meucci in his Laboratory notebook on 27 September 1870, and reported in an affidavit by M. Lemmi of 28 September 1885, containing the English translation of said notebook (see also my paper on "Antenna"). It can be seen that diagrams "No. 2" and "No. 3" differ from "No. 1" in 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

3)Means to counteract the skin effect

Because of the increased bandwidth of the telephone with respect to the telegraph, telephone lines were subjected to increased attenuation, due to the so-called skin effect. In two notes of 1862 in his Laboratory notebook (notarized in Lemmi's affidavit of 1885), Meucci suggested to treat the surface of the (copper) conductor in various ways (basically with graphite) to increase its surface conductivity. Moreover, in his caveat of 1871, Meucci stated: “I believe it preferable to have the wire of larger area than that ordinarily employed in the electric telegraph.” Another note in his notebook, dated 17 August 1870, reads: “To be adopted, for having long distance, bundles of copper wire insulated with cotton or any other kind of wrapper; by this means I have obtained a distance of about one mile.” For this "bundle" of copper wires Meucci filed a US patent application "Wire for Electrical Purposes" on 2 July 1880.

That 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.

4) Call signaling

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.

5)Quietness of the environment

With early (electromagnetic) transmitters, received speech signals were quite feeble and noisy, therefore, quietness of environment was of paramount importance, especially for long-distance links. In his caveat of 1871, Meucci clearly stated: “When my sound telegraph is in operation, the parties should remain alone in their respective rooms, and every practicable precaution should be taken to have the surroundings perfectly quiet.” The need for a quiet environment was recognized by A. Graham Bell and his assistant, Thomas Watson, only in 1877, on the occasion of Bell's public demonstrations in New York, when the first rudimentary soundproof booth, devised by Watson, was utilized.

An impressive number of patents for soundproof booths were applied for, starting from 1883. Antonio Meucci should, however, be credited for having identified the problem and suggested adequate countermeasures, in 1871.Magnagr (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To be a patentable invention, a design must be new and be non-obvious to an ordinary engineer. In 1871 there was nothing new in "to call attention, the party at the other end of the line may be warned by an electric telegraph signal, or a series of them."


 * Likewise there was nothing new or non-obvious in having a quiet environment to hear the faint voice sounds through a talking tube or string telephone. Even if it had diaphragms, that would not be new because string telephones had them long before Meucci.    Replacing the string with a wire would be obvious to a "person of ordinary skill in the art".


 * To prove novelty, there must be credible records in ink with signatures of witnesses who signed prior to 1875 who did not have a financial interest in the invention. Backdated lab notes and drawings notarized in 1885 by Meucci or his lawyer are not credible evidence. Greensburger (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Antonio Meucci was the real inventor of the Telephone
The US Congress, according credit to the real inventor, declaring that the original telephone was invented by Antonio Meucci, a penniless Italian who did not speak a word of English and could not afford to patent his discovery. According to the U.S. Congress in Washington, Bell was a cunning opportunist who took all the credit for a more brilliant scientist’s work. The House of Representatives voted to recognise mechanical genius Antonio Meucci as the father of modern communications, following a protracted battle by historians and Italian Americans.

Between 1850 and 1862, Meucci developed at least 30 different models of the telephone, although he did not protect his inventions with a patent. However, in 1871, he obtained a patent caveat stating his intent to patent what he called a teletrophone. He gave or sold some of his devices to the Vice-President of Western Union Telegraphs, and in 1876, he discovered that Bell had been credited with the invention and granted a patent. In 1887, the court annulled Bell's patent, but since Meucci’s caveat was by then expired, he was never given credit for his invention. Meucci's role in the invention of the telephone was overlooked until the United States House of Representatives passed a Resolution on June 11, 2002, honoring Meucci's contributions and work.

The US Congress has recognised Antonio Meucci as the inventor of the telephone and not Alexander Graham Bell. Meucci developed his technology after discovering sounds could travel through copper wire in the 1830s but could not afford the $250 for a definitive patent for his "talking telegraph". He instead filed a one-year renewable notice of an impending patent but could not afford US$10 to renew it three years later. Meucci sent a model and details to the Western Union telegraph company before Mr Bell, who had shared a laboratory with his Italian counterpart, filed a patent for a telephone two years later. The Supreme Court had agreed to hear a case presented by Mr Meucci against Mr Bell, with fraud charges initiated against the American, but the action was stopped in 1889 when Meucci died. The United States Congress ? The redress of a historic injustice.

The United States Congress The most important responsibility of Congress is that of making the laws of the United States. Resolution 269 the US House of Representatives on 11 June 2002 stated that Meucci's "work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged."

The reconfirmation, are the articles of some prestigious newspapers : The Times, The Guardian , Corriere Della Sera among others. I'm not a nationalist but... then give to Caesar what is Caesar's. --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 10:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Question? An encyclopedia is based on reliable sources, or personal opinions ? I'm beginning to have my doubts. I hope common sense will prevail. These newspapers are a very good source. --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggest merge
Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell is over-long, over-detailed, and badly titled. Surely the story of the duelling vacuous legislative resolutions is better given here, rather than ina patchwork Frankenstein's monster of sewn-together direct quotations. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose - Based upon and due to current consensus at the Talk:Canadian_Parliamentary_Motion_on_Alexander_Graham_Bell page. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose Greensburger (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Any explanation would be useful. These aren't votes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes they are votes. All the evidence and explanations and arguments have been stated again and again, but that will not satisfy Meucci fans.  Attempts to dignify fringe beliefs by merger or by vandalizing "over-long, over-detailed" material will be reverted.  Greensburger (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Priority of invention of the electromagnetic telephone

 * "Meucci fans"
 * Meucci was the real inventor of the telephone. Italy issued a postage stamp to mark the official recognition of Meucci as the inventor of the telephone and President Ciampi honoured him at a ceremony at the telecommunication ministry, commenting that both the telephone and radio were invented by Italians. Click here  The rest is p-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a, there is the A-m-e-r-i-c-an r-e-s-o-l-u-t-i-on. Bye Bye Bell (opportunist).  Click here
 * Nicholas Negroponte, a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, flew over to attend the Rome celebrations. This topic is biased. Absolutely POV --2.33.180.22 (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately facts keep getting in the way of a good story, or rather a story some prefer to believe. Here are some (uncomfortable) facts:
 * The US Congress didn't pass a law declaring Meucci invented the telephone. To pass such a law both the House of Representatives and the US Senate have to approve the same legislation. The US Senate refused to do so;
 * The US House of Representatives did not pass a resolution declaring that Meucci invented the telephone. They passed a resolution which did two things: (a) it recognized Meucci's contributions to the invention of the telephone, and (b) it slandered A.G. Bell. Nowhere in their resolution did it say that Meucci actually invented the telephone. Check the ambiguous wording. But the slander against Bell was quite clear, which is why Canada passed its own legislative motion, unanimously, 10 days later supporting Bell;
 * The US Senate disagreed with the US House of Representatives and wisely refused to pass the same resolution. The Republican House Representative who originally proposed the resolution in the US House later resigned in disgrace;
 * Meucci never needed $250 to file a patent application since it cost only $15 at the time to do so. Further, he had received $20 from four financial supporters in 1871 in order to file a patent application, which he did not do. Poverty did not prevent him from filing patent applications for several other inventions between 1870 and 1876;
 * Bell never worked in Meucci's laboratory or had access to it. Bell never worked for Western Union; he became a competitor to Western Union. Meucci lived in Staten Island/New York, and Bell lived in Boston and Washington; Bell never saw any of Meucci's devices or drawings of them before the the legal trial, long after he had been awarded his patents;
 * No US court ever annulled Bell's patents. Not a single one. No fraud charges were ever initiated against Bell, not one. The Secretary who allowed charges to be brought against the American Bell Telephone Company himself owned millions of dollars in stocks in a would-be competitor to Bell. The US President later ordered the action halted after US newspapers printed the facts;
 * The Guardian and several other newspapers printed factually incorrect articles after the US House of Representatives passed its Meucci resolution, based on several misleading press releases issued earlier by the disgraced House Representative. The newspapers never actually checked the real wording of the House resolution;
 * The Times never said that Meucci invented the telephone. It printed an article ("Italy thinks it is the mother of invention") mocking the notion;
 * Italian and US politicians 'legislating' history does not in fact make it so, just as the Vatican jailing or censoring Galileo did not make the Sun revolve around the Earth. You can choose to believe that the Sun goes around the Earth, but you are only fooling yourself. Ditto for Meucci. HarryZilber (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

On the English wikipedia, you can say whatever... "The paper is patient ..." However, there are at least 50 sources (scientists, encyclopedias etc. etc.) who reported that Antonio Meucci was the real inventor of the telephone.

Some examples:


 * Wheen, Andrew. "Dot-Dash to Dot.com: How Modern Telecommunications Evolved from the Telegraph to the Internet." Springer, 2010. p. 45.
 * Cleveland, Cutler (Lead Author) ; Saundry, Peter (Topic Editor). "Meucci, Antonio. Encyclopedia of Earth", 2006.
 * "Inventors and Inventions." Marshall Cavendish, 2007. p. 84-5.
 * (Italian) Caretto, Ennio. Gli Usa ammettono: Meucci è l' inventore del telefono. Corriere della Sera, 2002.
 * "Los días cubanos de A. M. y el nacimiento de la telefonía", La Habana 1998.
 * Four «Firsts» in telephony, in ETT - European Transactions on telecommunications, X (1999), 6, pp. 681-687.
 * Bulletin of science, technology & society, XXII [2002], 6, pp. 426-442.
 * A. M.: telephone pioneer, in Bulletin of science, technology & society, XXI (2001), 1, pp. 55-76.
 * A. M.: how electrotherapy gave birth to telephony, in ETT - European Transactions on telecommunications, XIV (2003), 6, pp. 539-552
 * A. M.’s «Teletrofono». The true story behind the invention of the telephone, in Accenti. The Canadian Magazine with an Italian accent, I (2003), 3, pp. 16-28.
 * A. M., l’inventore del telefono, in Notiziario tecnico Telecom Italia, XII (2003), 1, pp. 109-117.

etc.

Meucci was the real inventor of the telephone. The rest is p-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a. Bye. --2.33.180.180 (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your mention of "50 sources (scientists, encyclopedias etc. etc.) who reported that Antonio Meucci was the real inventor of the telephone" is quite impressive. I'm sure that we can find many more than that.  However they are either not reliable sources, or they based their information and conclusions on unreliable sources, which is unprofessional. Shame on The Guardian for being suckered into the Meucci fallacy after the US House passed its resolution.   The reporter involved refused to discuss his research into the article, meaning that most likely, he only copied information from the Representative's press release issued shortly before the House vote. Let him state otherwise publicly.


 * People often believe nationalistic rhetoric, not an uncommon occurrence. But if you, or others, wrote up a thesis quoting the mistakes frequently portrayed about Meucci's telephone inventions (such as the false need for $250 to file a patent application), your supervisors would quickly fail you and demand corrections. It takes only a bit of effort to find the documents showing the the USPTO charged only $15 for such a patent application, and claims of Meucci's poverty obviously didn't stop him from obtaining several other patents and patent caveats during the same time period. Those are salient facts.


 * Again, fellow editor, you can choose to believe the earlier facts are " p-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a ", but merely believing in such Meucci philosophy doesn't make it true, nor does it make a resolution passed by politicians true. Wikipedia requires its articles to be fact-based in all its encyclopedias, and they must be referenced to reliable sources, not to lawyers trying to overturn patents in 1886 so they and their clients could get rich quickly. Unless your can show credible pre-1874 evidence of a real electromagnetic telephone (not an acoustic phone attached to a battery, and not drawings and affidavits filed in 1886), you have no basis to claim in this encyclopedia that Meucci invented the electromagnetic phone people have been using since 1876. Those are Wikipedia's rules, whether you like them or not. HarryZilber (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

''"I'm sure that we can find many more than that." "not reliable sources"''

Scientific journals, Encyclopedias and Corriere della Sera, the most reputable Italian newspaper are not reliable sources ? (...) There will be many other sources in the future. This argument is absolutely biased. In Italy, Antonio Meucci is the inventor of the telephone ... Bell is an unknown name. I discovered the existence of Bell, yesterday.

This would be right. Write that, in Italy, the official inventor of the Telephone is Antonio Meucci. Bye. --2.33.180.66 (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As previously written: ".... or they based their information and conclusions on unreliable sources ". Unfortunately your discussion points are going around in circles. While Mr. Meucci was a notable and worthy inventor, unfortunately he can't be credited, at least within Wikipedia, with the priority of invention of the electromagnetic telephone (the type in use since 1876). That doesn't take away any credit for his other accomplishments. Italy certainly owes him a debt for his assistance to Garibaldi.  But a lack of reliable pre-1874 root sources to back up his priority of invention claim means he can't be stated as the inventor of the electromagnetic telephone. That very reason was why he also lost his trials, which were both detailed and lengthy.


 * Your note above indicating that Meucci is the stated inventor of the telephone within Italy is not new -that point has been previously made several times in various articles, including one detailing the differences between regional editions of a digital encyclopedia, I believe from memory it was Microsoft Encarta. Its Italian edition said that Meucci had the priority of invention, while it stated in its English edition that Bell was the telephone's inventor. Microsoft editors undoubtedly wrote their encyclopedia products to capture the maximum market share possible, regardless of historical fact. In marketing, delivering unpopular news usually works against capturing the greatest market share, a fact related to the English maxim, "don't shoot the messenger". For your information, as well, the online Encyclopedia Britannica credits Bell as the telephone's inventor. What is known with certainty is that although Meucci sent drawings back to Italy seeking patent protection there he was never awarded with such, and that Bell was the first person to actually receive a patent for an electromagnetic telephone. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)