Talk:Invention of the telephone

Still a lot of work to be done
I've tried to organize this page a little better, but there's still a lot of work to be done, particularly in the "Controversy" section. I just don't have the time right now.--Osprey39 03:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There's really nothing that needs to be done other than revert all of the changes made by on the 17th, which can only be described as breathtakingly inaccurate. (Among other things, Western Union was a bitter competitor of Bell's during the 19th century, which backed Elisha Gray's claims of invention--they were the last company in the entire world that would be interested in helping Bell "organize a world business." And the notion that "in the USA, Bell is today widely recognized as a thief" would surely come as a great surprise to anyone who actually lives in the United States.) I've reverted Mr. 82's changes, which should take care of the problems with the article. --phh 09:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good.--Osprey39 09:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Meucci &amp; Sidetone
The remarks on Meucci's uspposed invention of an anti-sidetone circuit were at best highly misleading. Meucci avoided sidetone by having tone separate circuits, not by inventing a sidetone-cancelling circuit. —12.72.74.86 08:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Par condicio
OK, but just for "par condicio." We should complete the part about Meucci s life and his numerous inventions. From 1833 to 1850 Meucci invented over 30 different models of telephone!!! --Jack 19:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Although Meucci did receive patents for other inventions, these were not for the electromagnetic telephone. The subject of this article: "Invention of the telephone" is limited to the electromagnetic telephone and not any device for speaking at a distance such a through a pipe or string. Where is there any pre-1875 evidence that Meucci ever invented even one electromagnetic telephone? There is none. Greensburger (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Greensburger, read carefully and then add it to the wikipedia page, please. Electromagnetic Telephone by Antonio Meucci http://unmfdu12.blogspot.it/2012/09/electromagnetic-telephone-by-antonio.html http://www.icehouse.net/john1/mucci.html Karanko (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Cribbed
Much of this article is cribbed from Munro, "Heroes of the Telegraph" (public domain). There's a reference, but it could be made more obvious.--Kbk 16:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Intercom
Found by accident. Sold for $6. Never set anything down. Bell created it, stole the ideas of Elisha Gray and developed the phone. Regards of the Italian-American lobby, Meucci's invention was at best an intercom, and there were no signs that he would have developed it. Londo06 17:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian Inventor?
i found a little note in my mind, remembering myself that there was a russian aristocrate who tried to present the telephone to the russian czar anywhere around 1850, but was laughed at and suspected to cheat when he presented his work. maybe someone can lighten my mind and confirm/deny my thoughts? (sry my english, i know this sentences are twisted but i think you'll understand :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Article contains POV
Besides being "cribbed" from another source which is a charitable way of saying "copied," the article is a piece of revisionist propaganda with inaccurate information. For example, the sentence stating Meucci "was recognized by US Congress on 11th June 2002 as the true inventor" was nothing of the sort. The wholly spurious legislation introduced by a decidely biased representative did not come close to establishing this claim. All that was established was that Meucci did some preliminary work on a telephone. His "tin can on a string" invention was nowhere near a true telephone and the sad history of the Meucci claims have long since been repudiated, even in his lifetime. For a hoot,read about the genesis of the bill and you will get a feeling for the duplicitous nature of the proceedings. The claim that Bell stole the telephone from Elisha Gray continues the "conspiracy" nonsense that is so prevalent with non-historians. FWIWBzuk 19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

This article is biased. Wikipedia should state facts as they are... Bell invented the telephone and that's a fact. Meucci tempted several times, but never succeded at the level that Bell did. If Meucci invented the telephone, then we should credit Nazi scientists for inventing the computer... that's exactly my point, prototype doesn't mean it's invented by the creator or designer of the prototype.--99.248.9.66 (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "the telephone". Instead there was a series of devices that almost worked and in retrospect deserve recognition as pioneer efforts, followed by devices that worked but were not commercially practical, followed by commercially practical devices that had a lot of problems, followed by super successful products that became widely used. The problem is where do you draw the line. If you put the bar just below super successful, then Edison invented the telephone because prior to the carbon transmitter that Edison or one of his workers invented, telephone transmission across a large city was impractical. That would be setting the bar too high. If you lower the bar to include clear speech transmission over a mile long wire using electromagnetic devices, then the inventions of both Bell and Gray would qualify, but Meucci would be excluded. If you lower the bar to include Meucci, you would also have to include Reis and other pioneers. Meucci was not a crackpot as can be seen in his other patented inventions. So accusing his invention as a non-electrical "tin can on a string" is excessive. But to claim that Meucci had the basics of a Bell-like electromagnetic telephone, requires more evidence. The drawings that support his claims did not accompany his caveat and were reconstructed years later based on witness recollections. I have not seen a photo copy of his original caveat which may have been destroyed. Supporters of Meucci have a credibility problem and no amount of legislation can change that fact. To be fair to the memory of Meucci, he deserves respect along with Reis as a telephone pioneer, but not as THE inventor. Greensburger (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Recently, on the basis of this article, the Alexander Graham Bell article was again revised drastically to exclude Bell as the inventor of the telephone. This long-standing debate is fine on discussion pages and forums but does not represent the authoritative viewpoint of scientific and historic communities. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

This article needs to be revised to include the theory that Bell stole his invention from Gray, as documented in The Telephone Gambit. AaronSw (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He stole the invention? Bzuk (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Yes, apparently as of january 2008 we now have firm evidence that Bell's telephone didn't work, but after he got a look at Gray's working version, he scrapped his entire design and instead copied directly from Gray, and then was able to patent and steal the most lucrative patent ever issued. The article really needs to be fully revised in light of this new information, but I just don't have the time right now, due to school constraints.  See the telephone gambit for details. &mdash; Eric Herboso 06:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. Gray's lawyer or someone in his Washington DC office leaked the liquid transmitter idea to Bell's lawyer while Bell was still in Boston. Bell's lawyer then added the liquid transmitter and variable resistance claim to Bell's draft application. After a clerk rewrote the draft, Bell's lawyer took Bell's patent application to the patent office. When Bell arrived in Washington DC, his lawyer told Bell that the liquid transmitter idea was in both Bell's and Gray's filings and that created an interference. Bell visited the examiner and told him that he (Bell) had the idea first and showed the examiner an earlier application that used mercury as the liquid (which would not work in a telephone). The examiner then approved Bell's application and Bell's patent was issued. After it was published and Gray abandoned his caveat, Bell asked the examiner to show Gray's caveat to Bell. The examiner then showed Gray's drawings to Bell and said it used acidulated water. Bell went home and tried an acid/water transmitter and it worked. As "The Telephone Gambit" reports, Bell's lab notes show a liquid transmitter being used "face down" exactly as Gray showed in his caveat. But this was after Bell's patent had been published. Bell did not know any of this before his patent application was filed in the patent office, so Bell did not steal anything and charges of fraud were rejected by the courts.

Bell did not "scrap his entire design" and develop Gray's water transmitter. A water transmitter is impractical for a commercial telephone and Bell knew it. The importance of Bell's test of the water transmitter was it provided "proof of concept" that clear speech could be transmitted electrically. It was a scientific experiment, not development of a commercial product. Prior to that he had only an unproven theory. Bell and Watson then returned to improving the electromagnetic transmitter. When Bell demonstrated his telephone at the Centennial Exhibition in June 1876, he used his improved electromagnetic transmitter that transmitted clear speech. He did not steal Gray's invention. Greensburger (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2008 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.27.177.240 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The dispute is not disputed
I have removed the disputed tags because there is no dispute that the true "inventor" of the telephone is in dispute. Everyone agrees that there is a dispute and this article gives the various arguments pro and con for each of the claimants. Each side has a POV of course, as with all disputes, but the article itself is not in dispute and is not the personal POV of its authors. Rather the article reports on a pre-existing and well documented dispute. Greensburger (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of Meucci's invention
Near the end of this section it is stated that a certain Bill Carroll asked Meucci to produce a telephone for "scuba divers". Since Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) was developed during WW II by Dr. Christian Lambertsen it would seem that this quote may need further investigation before it is allowed to remain in the article.Gtward513 (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. It may mean snorkel, but in the mean time I've removed the quote (which really must be a paraphrase, if it's not a complete hoax). Superm401 - Talk 14:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Tone of writing
Please remember that this is an encyclopedia. Some of the article reads like it's instead a fond reminiscence, such as "The surprise created among the public at large by this unexpected communication will be readily remembered." Superm401 - Talk 08:30, 13 April 2008

Dates
Philip Reiss invented this telephone in 1863, but this is not the year it was tested by STC, since then AT&T didn't already exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.54.152 (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed 1863 to "prior to 1947" because the year of the STC test is not given in the cited reference. Greensburger (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Meucci dates
The article states, "An early version of the telephone was invented around 1860 by Antonio Meucci who called it teletrofono (telectrophone).

The first American demonstration of Meucci's invention took place in Staten Island, New York in 1854."

This chronology makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipangle (talk • contribs) 15:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bell the Con-Artist and Thief
Alexander Graham Bell is quite possibly, the greatest liar and theif in history. Not only did he NOT invent the telephone, but from the looks of it, this article written by Wiki users are revisionists since they are in utter denial that Antonio Meucci is the only valid inventor of the telephone.

Its just more proof that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for accurate information. I'll stick with Encarta. --Yoganate79 (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If John abandons valuable property and Mary notices that it has been abandoned and takes it home with her, Mary is not a thief, because John already gave up all rights to it. Meucci abandoned his patent caveat without publishing it, which made the invention available for anybody else to take. Greensburger (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Simplified article version (suitable for a children's encyclopedia)
Below is a simplified article I edited several weeks ago, provided here for reference only. It provides credit to several others besides Bell, and briefly discusses other aspects such as conception; with much of the writing being based on this article (Invention of the Telephone) as well as the 'Alexander Graham Bell' article. Non-rhetorical comments are welcome at the bottom.....


 * Alexander Graham Bell, a Scottish-born inventor, scientist, philanthropist and teacher of the deaf is the person most widely credited as the inventor of the electric telephone. On March 7th 1876 he became the first to receive a patent for this device, and at that time resided in Salem, Massachusetts.


 * Alexander Graham Bell conceived of the telephone at his summer home in Brantford, Ontario and physically created his first phone in Boston, Massachusetts (where, he said, it was 'born'). This was a result of his research into improving the telegraph system. Bell was experimenting into improving the telegraph system so that multiple messages could be sent at the same time (his theory of the 'harmonic telegraph' was based on the principle that several messages could be sent simultaneously along the same wire if the different telegraph signals each had a different pitch). However at the same time he began working on the novel idea that speech could be transmitted electronically, as he accidentally discovered that the sound of a spring being twanged could be heard over his harmonic telegraph system. Almost a year later in March 1876 Bell uttered the first famous words into the device to his assistant in the next room: "Mr. Watson, come here -I want to see you".


 * A young black man, Lewis Lattimer, was employed as a draughtsman by the patent law firm that Alexander Graham Bell used, and contributed to Bell's patent drawings. Lattimer become a successful inventor in his own right.


 * As with many other important technological devices, several people often worked on and independently created the same, or similar devices in the same general time period -an example being the modern navigational quadrant or sextant. While Bell was the first to receive a patent for the telephone, several others preceded his research and credit for inventing the electric telephone remains in dispute.


 * Despite the claims of those defending Alexander Graham Bell, its been suggested that both Antonio Meucci and then Elisha Gray successfully invented telephones in the United States before Alexander Graham Bell did in 1876. Some of the others who performed pioneering experimental work with electrical voice transmissions over wires included Thomas Edison, Innocenzo Manzetti, Charles Bourseul and Johann Philipp Reis.


 * Ironically in 2001 the United States Congress passed a 'resolution' stating that given all the facts of the patent disputes between Gray and Bell, under no terms could Alexander Graham Bell have been awarded the patent for the telephone by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 1876. However that Congressional resolution by itself served only as a declaration, and did not annul or modify the patent Bell received in 1876. The 2001 resolution was also subsequently followed by another legislative declaration upholding Bell's priority and his status as inventor of the telephone.


 * The person who first successfully 'patented' the telephone was indisputably Alexander Graham Bell, however given what we currently know, earlier inventors of 'telephone-like' devices may have been Meucci, or even others before him.


 * Interestingly, the commercialization of Alexander Graham Bell's telephone was actually performed by several independent businesses which eventually created the 'Bell System' (and later AT&T), to which 'Alec', as he preferred to be called, participated very little in. Alexander Graham Bell, who went on to become an eminent scientist, inventor and humanitarian, considered the telephone to be an intrusion into his real work and refused to have one in his study.


 * Further readings:


 * - Charlotte Gray, "RELUCTANT GENIUS: THE PASSIONATE LIFE AND INVENTIVE MIND OF ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL", HarperCollins/Phylilis Bruce, Toronto, 2006, ISBN: 0002006766, Dewey library code: 621.385092 Bell.


 * - Wikipedia.org: 'Alexander Graham Bell' and 'History of the Telephone'

-- HarryZilber (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a version of each article appropriate for children is a good idea, provided that you don't replace the grownup version with the children's version. Is there a separate children's Wikipedia for these kind of articles? What is appropriate depends on the age group and how technically aware they are. When I was 12 I had already taken telephones apart and learned from library books how to draw electrical schematics of a telephone, except for the sidetone coil. I had seen a movie about Bell and Watson, but I was not ready for controversies about investors and patents and lawyers and priority of inventors. I wanted electrical details and a simple hero story. Bell and Watson and forgetable others. Children of lawyers and business managers would no doubt want something different. Your version needs a lot of work. Greensburger (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Article far too partisan of Bell
The article is unbalanced, unfair and unable to draw an adequate description of the real events behind the invention of the telephone. The introduction itself, far from being generical and detached, states that Bell should be considered as the unique inventor of the telephone. The rest of the article follows this assumption. Meucci's priority on the telephone invention is by now consolidated among the experts (unfortunately not at popular level), trying to assert the contrary (even if in a lurking and tricky way) delegitimate and reduce the consistence of the article.--151.100.9.229 (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * All of the evidence I have seen in support of Meucci's priority were reconstructions by lawyers in the 1880s to present at trials. The 1885 Scientific American Supplement illustrations carry no weight because they were reconstructions.  Since Meucci filed a caveat prior to Bell's experiments, it should be a simple matter to cite a reference to the original caveat that would show exactly what Meucci did have and did not have.  I have read that his caveat did not have any drawings.  Do you know where we can see a photocopy of the original caveat and not somebody's comments or quotations from it? Greensburger (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no need of any political oriented resolution to state (pro or against) the truth. I would remember instead the two trials which took place during that years. You know already that the Bell people use to publicize Judge Wallace's decision issued in New York on 19 July 1887, which ruled in favor of Bell and against the Globe Telephone Company and Meucci for patent infringement. The records of this trial are available from several sources. In particular, the Deposition of Antonio Meucci is available in print in many public libraries, such as the New York Public Library and the Library of Congress. Therefore, anyone can read how the Bell lawyers defeated the Globe Company and Meucci. The Bell people, however, forget to say that, long before the Bell Company had sued the Globe Company and Meucci for patent infringement, the US Government had sued the Bell Company and Graham Bell for fraud, collusion and deception in their obtainment. Moreover, the US Government set out to prove that Meucci -- not Bell -- had discovered the electromagnetic telephone and that the German Philipp Reis had discovered the variable resistance transmitter, later called "microphone." In other words, whereas in New York the Bell Company claimed that Bell, not Meucci, was the inventor of the telephone, in Washington the Government claimed the opposite. On 31 August 1885, the US Solicitor General consented to petitions from several parties and authorized the US Attorney for Western Tennessee to institute a suit in the name of the Government to annul the Bell patents. On 9 September, a bill of complaint against the Bell Company and Graham Bell was filed. On 29 September, the Globe Company filed a petition with the Department of Justice, supporting the action of the Government and upholding Meucci's priority. On 9 October, the US Solicitor General suspended the proceedings, in order to allow the Secretary of the Interior, doing a preliminary investigation, to forward his recommendations to the Department of Justice. On 9 November, the Secretary commenced public hearings, during which he allowed all interested parties to express their views, with the aim of determining if there was ground for a government suit against Bell. The hearings ended on 14 November. Two months afterwards, the Secretary wrote to the Solicitor General recommending the institution of a suit against Graham Bell and the Bell Company, in the name and on behalf of the Government of the United States. He accompanied his letter with all reports, arguments and exhibits put ahead at the hearings.Now, while the Secretary was holding said hearings, the Bell Company filed its bill of complaint against the Globe Company and Meucci in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Wallace, who had already ruled four times in favor of Bell for patent infringement in other cases, presided over this court. It was, therefore, evident that the Bell move was more a maneuver to counteract the attack of the Government, than to sue the Globe Company for an (otherwise non-existent) infringement, as claimed in their bill. The Bell Company was confident to win quickly in New York, also to create a situation of "res adjudicata" in an eventual trial with the Government and to hamper the action in favor of Meucci in Washington. The Secretary negatively commented the Bell move in New York.

I report what happened with some witnesses in (or connected with) the Bell vs. Globe trial: 1) The Secretary of the Globe Company, though being one of the defendants, testified for the Bell Company.

2) A potential witness for Meucci, Edward B. Grant, Vice President of the American District Telegraph Company, died suddenly of heart attack on 7 October 1884. Meucci had repeatedly asked him, from 1872 to 1874, to test his telephones on the company's lines and left with him documents and prototypes. Shortly before his death, Mr. Grant had told one Mr. Bertolino, a friend of Meucci, that he had found supporters for Meucci's invention. Moreover, his death propitiously occurred one day after the ex superintendent of the company had offered his services to the Bell Company. One month later he was hired by the Bell Company, and appointed Vice President and General Manager of their Missouri Branch. He then testified against Meucci, distorting the facts and calling Meucci "a crank."

3) Domenico Mariani, a witness for the Globe Company and a good friend of Meucci since 1846, testified that, about one month before his testimony, he was offered $10,000 (about $200,000 of today) to return to Italy.

4) Major Zenas Fisk Wilber, the Chief Examiner of the US Patent Office, who had examined both the Bell patents and Meucci's caveat, had released affidavits, between July and August 1885, alleging frauds in the grant of Bell patents.

5) Two Italians, Frederico Garlanda and John Citarotto, testified for the Bell Company that they owned a quite complete collection of L'Eco d'Italia, an Italian newspaper of New York, running from 1857 down to 1881. However, they stated that their collection lacked the issues from 1 December 1860 to the whole 1863. We must recall that Meucci's invention was reported as having been published in L'Eco d'Italia between the end of 1860 and the beginning of 1861. If retrieved, it would have rendered null the Bell patents. That precious issue of L'Eco d'Italia that lacked from said collection, now lacks from all main libraries in the United States, whereas the files in the Office of L'Eco d'Italia had been destroyed by a mysterious fire.

A comment by a witness about Judge Wallace's decision: ...unquestionably one of the most glaring miscarriages in the annals of American justice," as well as "one of the most dishonest legal decisions in the annals of America. It is not only dishonest, but also outrageously offensive.

The US vs. Bell trial

I just report the passages from the Chief Examiner of the Patent Office during the trial:

At the time, in December 1871, Antonio Meucci filed a caveat for "Sound Telegraphs," I was an assistant under Prof. B. S. Hedrick, principal examiner; hence the Meucci caveat came under my charge at that time. During 1876, the electrical department was under my charge as principal exam-iner, and I received the Bell application, which became U. S. Patent No. 174465 of March 7th, 1876, and the caveat of Elisha Gray. If this case had the usual course of suspension of the application been followed, Bell would never have received a patent, and had Mr. Meucci's caveat been renewed in 1875, no patent could have been issued to Bell".

from my experience in examining a vast number of electrical specifications, I have become familiar with the terms and nomenclature used and have found that the terms used by Reis and Meucci are expressed or meant by different later inventions under different names. I have noticed the "closed circuit" of Bell is the "continuous metallic conductor" of Meucci"

It must be kept in mind that these words came from the lips of a Chief Examiner of the Patent Office very skilled in the electrical art all effects and purposes, the lawsuit between the Government and American Bell was to be considered moot. The trial was thereupon discontinued without ever reaching the underlying issue of who had primacy to the telephone and entitlement to its patent(s). In conclusion, the case was not decided. Consequently, the Bell Company could not claim, from the outcome of this trial, that Antonio Meucci was not the inventor of the telephone, or that it was Bell. It could only exult by the astuteness of its lawyers, who were able to defer so long the decision of the case, until the question of the patent(s) became moot when they expired.

SCIENTIFIC PROOFS PRO MEUCCI

The two Meucci's experiments, both in Havana and Clifton, on the electrical transmission of the human voice, are basically substantiated by Meucci's own testimony at the Bell/Globe trial of 1885-1886 and by some fifty affidavits, sworn by various witnesses between 1880 and 1885.

In addition, his 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. Havana's experiments were briefly mentioned in a letter by Meucci, published by Il Commercio di Genova of 1 December 1865 and by "L'Eco d'Italia" of 21 October 1865 (both existing today).

Finally, a caveat (or preliminary patent) titled Sound Telegraph (*), setting forth the basic principles of Meucci's telephonic system, was filed with the US Patent Office on 28 December 1871, five years before the first Bell patent, and its validity was extended up to December 1874, by paying the corresponding fees.

In the following are described five of Meucci's achievements, that are of paramount importance to the telephone system, are presented, which unquestionably demonstrate Meucci's priority.

1)Anti-sidetone circuit

Meucci began investigating topics related with the telephone "system" in 1858. A drawing describing the phaenomenous 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

Fromm a drawing 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. The insertion midway along the long-distance line of an inductor (with either a horseshoe or bar iron core). 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

In one of his scheme of 1858, Meucci adopted a telegraphic call signaling, simply effected by a Morse key, attached to each end of the line, momentarily short-circuiting the local transmitter. In this way, strong pulses of current were sent along the line, and the distant receiver would emit intermittent ticks, much louder than the ordinary speech. In his caveat of 1871, Meucci gave a detailed description of his call signaling, consistent with this scheme.

For what concerns the call signaling in the Bell system, we may first remark that no mention of it is found in the first Bell patent nor in Gray's caveat of 1876. Only a vague mention of a (not better specified) "call bell" is found in Bell's second patent of 1877. For several months after commercial telephone service was started, in 1877, the Bell subscribers resorted to either thumping the diaphragm or shouting into it, to call the other party. Less rudimentary call signaling was adopted in the years to follow, but Meucci must be credited for having identified the problem and offered an ingenious and inexpensive solution to it, many years before the Bell Co.

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.

I think that the wiki article "Invention of the telephone" should be completely rewritten.

Thanks to Mr Basilio Catania.--151.50.4.191 (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your lengthy comments are completely non-responsive. You requoted several quotations from Meucci's caveat of 1871, but the quotations are ambiguous without the context of the entire caveat and do not tell us exactly how Meucci's apparatus operated and whether each and every claim element in Bell's patent was anticipated by or obvious over the details in Meucci's caveat.  Only the caveat itself can tell us that, not vague testimony that Meucci's device transmitted sounds, not suspicions about a convenient fire, or witnesses with conflicts of interest, or biased judges, or bribed examiners, not improvements such as call bells, phone booths, inductive loading, or anti-sidetone, or anything else, other than the caveat itself.  Where is the caveat?  Show us the whole caveat!  Greensburger (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As a follow-up to Meucci advocate user:151.50.4.191: your lengthy description of the various events surrounding the 'Bell vs. Globe' and 'The Government Case' (where the U.S. Attorney General tried to invalidate Bell's patents) is a competent display of cherry-picked facts supporting your protagonist. It does not, of course, display the whole truth of the trials, since you have mainly provided the minutiae of the trials supporting your claims.


 * In regards to 'The Government Case' where the U.S. Attorney General tried to invalidate Bell's patents and thus allow the Pan-Electric Company to compete in the market, you have apparently neglected to mention that the Attorney General, Augustus Garland, plus several other government officials, were given or owned millions of dollars of stock in the Pan-Electric Company, and would have, pardon the phrase, 'made a killing' had they succeeded in overturning Bell's patents. This fact and others were documented in the English Wikipedia article: Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell -Critical views...., where it also noted that the U.S. Congress had itself later investigated the various trials and produced a printed report of 1,278 pages. That report did not lead to any charges of wrong-doing against Bell or the Bell Telephone Company. So, was that congressional report also a 'great miscarriage of justice'? If you believe it was, then perhaps there was a secret conspiracy involving dozens of members of the U.S. Congress and the various branches of the U.S. government..... but I personally wouldn't bet on it.


 * Like Greensburger, I too agree that Meucci's caveat should be copied and brought forward into this article for a detailed examination of what Mr. Meucci specified in 1871, to show exactly what he was proposing to invent, and how he was proposing to do so. That document should go some way to proving or disproving what exactly Meucci later claimed he invented. If you continue to insist that Meucci's device(s) was/were a functional electric telephone which pre-dated Bell's patent, you should certainly support your claim by presenting a copy of Meucci's caveat and avoid discussing documents and drawings that were created post-1876. --HarryZilber (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

History of science cannot be reduced to a print in a piece of paper otherwise 90% of the inventions would be fatherless. I remember you that the unfamous caveat was not regarded as pivotal in evaluating the priority of the invention even by the judges during the 1880's trials since it had already been expired at that time. Don't you trust Lemmi's affidavit? If it so why american judjes considered so substantial to accept it as a main evidence? Given the low fee received Meucci's Patent lawyer, Thomas Stetson, made a concise description and did not include drawings of the invention. As a consequence of the above the caveat only included description of the acoustic interface, the means for call signaling (not quoted in Bell's first telephone patent), the requirements for quietness of the environment, and the continuity of the line conductor. In addition, due to the lack of knowledge of the patent lawyer and Meucci's limited knowledge of English, the wording of the caveat was imperfect in some points. Meucci wrote a letter to his lawyer to try to correct some imprecision, but the lawyer did not take them wholly into consideration. Meucci's invention, however, is more clearly and completely described in his Laboratory Notebook. The full and detailed version of his descovery was presented by Lemmi in 1885 with the drawings and notes (not included in the caveat for the reasons described above) by Meucci. The Lemmi's affidavit shows innovations that were not known in 1885 (and not 1876!!!). What is your conclusion? The affidavit was a fake document? and if it so how Lemmi ( a lawyer) gathered these new ideas not conceived yet? All this assuming that the original caveat was not sufficient to assure Meucci the priority of the invention. At this point I remember you again the words of the Chief Examiner of the Patent Office: ''At the time, in December 1871, Antonio Meucci filed a caveat for "Sound Telegraphs," I was an assistant under Prof. B. S. Hedrick, principal examiner; hence the Meucci caveat came under my charge at that time.During 1876, the electrical department was under my charge as principal exam-iner, and I received the Bell application, which became U. S. Patent No. 174465 of March 7th, 1876, and the caveat of Elisha Gray. If this case had the usual course of suspension of the application been followed, Bell would never have received a patent, and had Mr. Meucci's caveat been renewed in 1875, no patent could have been issued to Bell".'' Was he a liar too? Do you think that the long history of Meucci and the telephone which is an adventure starting in the 1849, nearly 20 years before his caveat, would have  involved so many people, newspapers, patent offices, courts, different countries, biggest industrial companies, the obsessive attention of the pubblic opinion and eminent scientists and historian who devoted much of their career to study the case of this humble and penniless italian emigrant, only for his  "tin can on a string" invention as someone has declared in this discussion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.50.4.191 (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Irrespective of the side issues you keep raising, it appears by your description of the caveat that you have access to it, but at the same time you're unwilling to post a full copy so that you can remain its 'interpreter', allowing you to discuss points related to Meucci in your own manner as you choose. Such an approach is a non-scholarly one, since it permits distortions and omissions of evidence. At the very least, you appear to be hiding the evidence contained in the document so that you can present the facts of your choosing as you wish, which of coarse is unacceptable in a proper debate or in any courtroom.  Remember that since the fist patenting of a telephone occurred in the United States, we're required to respect the rules of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office between 1871 and 1876.


 * Please also remember that in this venue we're discussing the Invention of the telephone, not the History of science, specifically as to how this article is written, i.e.: is it properly written according to the policies and guidelines within Wikipedia.org, such as N.P.O.V., citations and references of each point, etceteras....  You appear to want to argue the various 1878-1898 lawsuits again to obtain a better result on behalf of Meucci.  Unfortunately that falls outside of the scope and purpose of this discussion page -perhaps you should create new articles for each of the lawsuits you wish to document.  Ciao  --HarryZilber (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the text of Meucci's caveat to the Meucci article on July 31, 2009. See Antonio Meucci – The caveat. Greensburger (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Lede shortness
An editor this a.m. has tagged the lede as being too short ({Lead too short}), and admittedly given the complex history of the telephone's invention its two summary paragraphs would be better off being enhanced. Suggestions are sought on what new material (maximum of two more paragraphs) should supplement the lede to provide a better intro to the lay reader, keeping in mind that early telephony research was also conducted in Europe.

I'd suggest that at least a third paragraph be added on to the bottom of the lede, contrasting Bourseul's 'make-and-break' theory with Bell's variable resistance described-wave model. If Bourseul had not employed the fatal words 'make-and-break' in his writings and used a more general language, its entirely possible that others like Reis would not have gone down his path and might have invented a proper functioning telephone transmitter long before Bell. Thus a new third paragraph introducing that contrast between the methods might serve the lede well and allow readers to grasp the essential nature of the technological struggle to invent a functional telephone. Comments? HarryZilber (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I added ideas from Coe's book for both Bourseul and Reis to make it clear that although Bourseul's transmitter was a make-or-break device, Reis's device was not. Coe, on page 22, expanded on this by quoting Oliver Heaviside who said
 * "Variation of current with pressure. It seems established that Reis utilized the phenomenon in his transmitter, long erroneously supposed to work only by makes and breaks.  Indeed, presuming that he was at the first unacquainted with, and to be adjusting his transmitter very finely, it would have been difficult for him not to have noticed that the current passed continuously with every light contact, and the wonderful change produced thereby, a harsh, disagreeable tone being replaced by a soft and smooth one, would be unmistakable.  And, in fact, he did transmit speech in this way with unbroken current.  If Reis had but employed carbon contacts instead of metallic, there can be little doubt that the practical introduction of telephony would have been much accelerated."

It was very important for the Bell company that Reis' transmitter be made to seem like a make-or-break device, because they wanted the courts to interpret the Bell patents as claiming all transmitters that produced undulating currents. When the court did interpret the claims broadly, one claim was infringed by Edison's carbon transmitter because it produced undulating current. And another claim was infringed by Edison's transmitter because it controlled this current with variable resistance. It was the court upholding of these two claims that persuaded Western Union to make a deal with the Bell company. But this successful legal strategy 130 years ago should not blind us to Reis' role in history. For this reason, it would not be accurate in the lead/lede to link Reis' transmitter to Bourseul's transmitter as make-or-break devices.

As Heaviside said, carbon contacts would have worked much better than metallic contacts. Perhaps unknown to Reis, the metallic contacts did have carbon on them, carbon soot from wood- and coal-burning fireplaces and furnaces in Reis' town. It would have been difficult for the contacts not to have carbon on them. Greensburger (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed recent Meucci additions from the lede paragraph. They certainly do not belong in the lede because Meucci had zero influence on the subsequent development of the telephone. But to add this material to the section on Meucci would give too much weight to Meucci, especially in view of the fact that no pre-1875 evidence exists that Meucci had an electromagnetic telephone device or that he understood undulating currents in a wire or electromagnetic receivers or transmitters.

This is what Lewis Coe (The Telephone and its Several Inventors, pages 29-30) wrote about Meucci:
 * "One device claimed by Meucci was apparently nothing more than an acoustic telephone, the so-called 'tin can' telephone. Although Meucci managed to get his name in the history books, his proposals were not considered worthy of attention by the Bell Telephone Company, which had a policy of buying out or suing any potential telephone inventor... They were convinced that Meucci posed no threat to the Bell patent when they heard of his proposal that two persons could converse by sitting in insulated chairs and letting the electric current pass through their bodies! ... Meucci did not understand the basic principles of the telephone, either before or for several years after Bell invented it."   Greensburger (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

unfortunate discredit
What does this mean?


 * Bourseul's phrase "make and break the current" was unfortunate, because it discredited later work by Philipp Reis who successfully transmitted faint voice sounds with unbroken current.[3]

unfortunate from whose perspective? discredited in what sense?

And the link in the referenced cited there is dead. Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the objected to sentence with the following: 'Bourseul's phrase "make and break the current" was inaccurately applied to later work by Philipp Reis who successfully transmitted faint voice sounds with unbroken current.[3]' This removes the POV words "unfortunate" and "discredited".  The cited reference: "Coe, pages 21-22" is to pages in Coe's book (see Further reading), not a dead link. Greensburger (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Your revision of the sentence clears up my confusion and addresses the problems.


 * My mistake on the dead link – for some reason I clicked on reference 13 not reference three, and reference 13 actually is a dead link.Ccrrccrr (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Photograph of Bell is not really of Bell
For readers who are surprised that the famous picture of a man speaking into an early telephone is now described as a silent movie actor and not Bell, I have repeated the following discussion from the Alexander Graham Bell article:

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

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

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

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

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

The 1926 silent film-clip frame of the actor playing Bell has left-right reversal and has a few vertical scratch marks, but is otherwise identical to the famous frame, with the same mottled wall covering in the background, that appears with cover art on the case of the A&E Biography DVD. Greensburger (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Meucci's priority or not
What would be vandalism if a resolution of the U.S. House of Representatives (the 269) claims the priority of invention of Meucci phone?? This should be a free encyclopedia of free but I think there is very little .... anyway I just put a picture of a person already mentioned in the article!--93.45.78.97 (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The resolution of the U.S. House of Representatives did not claim for Meucci priority of invention of the electromagnetic telephone, which is the subject of this article. The resolution stated the "achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged." Meucci's caveat described his "telettrofono" invention. But his caveat does not mention diaphragms, coils of wire, magnets, magnetism, conversion of voice sounds into undulating electrical currents, conversion of undulating electrical currents into voice sounds, or any of the essentials of the electro-magnetic telephone. Meucci deserves recognition for his work, along with Reis and the others who failed in their attempts to make a successful telephone. Greensburger (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What was Meucci's "telettrofono?
Quoting from Meucci's caveat:

The person "holds to his mouth an instrument analogous to a speaking trumpet, in which the word may easily be pronounced, and the sound concentrated upon the wire."... "a sound conductor" ... "continuous metallic conductors as a medium for sound."

The "effect may also be realized by a corresponding arrangement with a metallic tube"... or... "without the necessity for any hollow tube".

Meucci clearly describes his "telettrofono" as a speaking trumpet (also called a megaphone) that concentrates voice sound vibrations through a wire or through a metallic tube. This was nothing like Bell's electromagnet invention. Greensburger (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No patent could have been issued to Bell.
there are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear! carry "only" what is written in Resolution 269, evidently written by people intellectually and culturally inferior to you, but that is a different opinion ..... and I close here ..... if wikipedia is wrong is useless to waste time: 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.--93.45.124.67 (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * When patent Examiner Wilbur said that no patent could have been issued to Bell if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 maintenance fee, the Examiner was referring to the 3-month period during which Meucci or his lawyer could have presented pre-1875 witnessed documents that proved Meucci's invention was an electromagnetic device that converted sound waves to undulating currents in a wire and converted those undulating currents back to sound waves at a distance.


 * Since Meucci's invention, as described in his caveat, was not magnetic, the Examiner would have determined that Bell's invention was not anticipated by Meucci's invention, nomatter how early Meucci had it. Then the Examiner would have approved Bell's patent application.  This is exactly what the Examiner did when he suspended Bell's application for 3-months to give Elisha Gray (who really did have an electromagnetic telephone) an opportunity to prove priority.  But both Meucci and Gray abandoned their priority rights and Bell crossed the goal line without opposition.  None is so blind as those who do not read the pre-1877 witnessed and dated evidence. Greensburger (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

'''read the story ... let her meucci driven project, which curiously disappeared, the Amercan Telegraf Bell where he worked as a consultant!''' --93.47.130.243 (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Meucci supporters quote the sentence: "If Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell." That is true.  The sentence was said by patent Examiner Wilbur.  If Meucci had paid the maintenance fee, the Examiner would have suspended Bell's patent application for three months and no patent could have been issued to Bell until Bell proved that Bell's claims did not claim Meucci's invention.  No patent could have issued to Bell for Meucci's invention.  But Bell was not claiming Meucci's invention.  Bell claimed an electro-magnetic device and Meucci's caveat did not mention magnets or magnetism or electro-magnets.  Different inventions. Greensburger (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

'''read the Resolution 269 ... let her meucci driven project, which curiously disappeared, the Amercan Telegraf Bell where he worked as a consultant!'''--93.47.142.150 (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Read the Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell to see what the fine mess the U.S. House of Representatives made of HRes 269. Remember also that the U.S. Senate REFUSED to pass the same resolution, which meant that the U.S. House resolution did not become a law, but only a flawed piece of political rhetoric and propaganda created by a disgraced Representative who was forced to resign after his affairs and convictions. HarryZilber (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Why did Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone?
Mrs. Bell was deaf and Mr. Bell was always trying to help those who could not hear. The telephone was one of his attempts to create a device for the deaf, to assist their ability to hear.

Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone so that people can communicate with other people anywhere in world.

To facilitate verbal communication over long distances.

He invented the telephone because he is an inventor and he wanted to find a way how to communicate with other people apart from talking to them face-to-face.

Bell originally started looking into the telephone as a way to speak to the spirit world. As with many inventors and inventions of the age, there seemed to be a great belief in spirits and the need to communicate

with them so that items such as radio waves, telephones and televisions all started out as a means of communication with the other world.

Previous communication technology was limited to the telegraph. The telegraph was inefficient because it relied on Morse Code to relay messages. Only a few trained professionals were taught Morse Code, and not everybody could translate with it. Whereas a telephone would allow people to speak directly to one another without a step in-between. Bell sought to solve this problem.

There is a report that says that Alexander Graham Bell invented the phone to help his few family members as they suffered from hearing problems. But at the same time his father in law did not agree with it. He said it was a toy, that no child would be interested in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad2756 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Expired references
The citations to the Italian Society of Electrotechnics (cites 13 and 14) lead to a 404'd page. Just thought I'd point that out. Neoman4426 (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Make that all the links to Italian Society of Electrotechnics, so add cites 8, 10, 12, and 15 to that list. Neoman4426 (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism
This article is a fine example of when people don't critically analyze article content. There was a paragraph of text plagiarized word for word from a book about Bell; this text has been in the article since 2004 and no one ever removed it until I did today. When reading articles, if you see a block of text which is written in much more poetic or romantic style which you'd expect to find in non-encyclopedic literature, it was probably plagiarized from non-encyclopedic literature. Some guy (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi SG: I've reinstated the material you removed from the article. Wikipedia is not a high school essay test or an original research assignment. WP specifically eschews WP:OR.  The text copied, Munro's Heros of the Telegraph of 1891 was in the public domain and its use within the article is completely permissible.  A simple 25 second Google check was all that was needed to disclose its provenance.  The passage's usage, flowery as it may be, was entirely appropriate to an article discussing the invention of an 18th century technology.  A citation has now been added, as required by the MOS, showing its origin.   Another example of copying text from p/d works was the 11th edition Encyclopedia Brittanica project, which ported huge amounts of the p/d work into multitudes of WP articles.


 * However it was the original editor who inserted the material who erred by not including a citation when the passage was added to the article. In future, please run a Google check first to check if a suspected piece of writing is still in copyright or in the public domain, prior to deleting. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As you've noted, simply taking a pargraph from a book and inserting it into a document without noting its source or clearly illustrating that it is quoted is against MOS, and still essentially plagiarism. I did in fact do my research; when I searched a sentence from the passage on Google, I got it on Google books as well, but instead of "Digitized by Google", it was watermarked "Copyrighted material" on each page, with links to sellers that sell that edition of the book, giving me the mistaken impression it was not in public domain. Regardless, you still have not formatted the text in a way which appropriately indicates it is taken verbatim from a book, so I will do so. Some guy (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is perhaps the worst Wiki Article : here is why
This article needs to be scrapped and started over by someone who is not in either the "Bell" or "Meucci" camp.

Almost every line is dripping with innuendo, bias, and completely insupportable claims.

It raises a point for Wikipedia, where sometimes public editing fails, and Wiki editors need to take over.

I am all for people trying to rescue the reputations and credit due to those "lost" by history, but most of the contributors to this article should be ashamed of themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.43.243 (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Its very easy to criticize other people's works, but largely meaningless. Its better to provide concrete examples of what you feel is incorrect and then propose changes. Drive-by sniping isn't helpful, unless you only want to burnish your reputation as a sniper. HarryZilber (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Could Meucci's caveat block Bell from being granted a patent?
See discussion above in the section "No patent could have been issued to Bell". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greensburger (talk • contribs) 04:25, 23 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Few images
I was wondering if better images of the prototype voice transmitters are available? The only good one is the one of the Bell transmitter at top, and that's a facsimile from a movie. Besides the postage stamp of Reis, none of the other players' inventions are shown. There were a lot of books on telephony published before 1923 that are now PD. Has anyone looked on Google Books? -- Chetvorno TALK 03:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Jackie Chan?
Why does it say that Jackie Chan had a hand in inventing the Telephone?189.163.54.31 (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Did Bell see Meucci's equipment?
Currently it says "In the 2002 congressional resolution, it was inaccurately noted that Bell worked in a laboratory in which Meucci's materials had been stored, and claimed that Bell must thus have had access to those materials." with no clear citation.

Now in The Nearly Men (Mike Green, 2007) this story was also mentioned, and I must say that that book does every attempt to argue both sides of the case, but still finds it very suspicious that Bell had visited the Western Union in NY laboratories, had then changed the course of his investigation, and that others who had seen the equipment there would later get high positions at Bell.

So - regardless of the rest of the story - when & where was this particular accusation against Bell disproven?Spiny Norman (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Invention of the telephone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120316155715/http://www.hunreal.com/known-hungarians/tivadar-puskas/ to http://www.hunreal.com/known-hungarians/tivadar-puskas/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

hello
he was the worst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.185.89 (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Invention of the telephone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100728042803/http://www.aei.it/ita/museo/mam_t1em.htm to http://www.aei.it/ita/museo/mam_t1em.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://hungarian-history.hu/mszh/epuskas.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008075539/http://www.mszh.hu/English/feltalalok/puskas.html to http://www.mszh.hu/English/feltalalok/puskas.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hunreal.com/known-hungarians/tivadar-puskas/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Invention of the telephone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/projects/bluetelephone/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061021234800/http://www.pacificsites.com/~brooke/TelPat.shtml to http://www.pacificsites.com/~brooke/TelPat.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Very little on Alexander Graham Bell
Regardless of who the true inventor was (I absolutely don't know enough to weigh in here), I found there to be remarkably little about the history of Bell's work, whether copied or not. At the time of writing he is mentioned by name just 3 times in the entire article. 2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:66 (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Invention of phone
Avinash Tiwari 223.180.178.205 (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)