From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The real story about the invention of the telephone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's amazing to see how partial is the introduction of this article when compared to the much more reatistic one in [1] to not say about the article about Meucci [2] which also clearly states that "he is credited with the invention of the telephone". The proliferation of different articles stating different views on the same topic is one of the weak (strong?) points of Wikipedia. Anyhow the disturbing phrases are the ones like "Meucci was one of 600 claimants to the invention" which is not compatible with the history of this case. It's out of doubt and demonstrated (also by still existing prototypes) that Meucci invented his "teletrophone" in 1849-1865, many years before Graham Bell patent in 1876 so it's also not correct to talk about "contemporaneous inventions". The only meaningful debate is the technical one: the "teletrophone" was quite primitive compared to actual commercial telephone, so it is a matter of opinions to define it a "telephone" or not. In any case both opinions are worth to be mentioned so the best "rational" way of introducing this invention is the one in [3]. --Dinofaralli (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Despite the obvious homerism in the above comment... - these are your words, Bzuk. I do not think that emphasizing linguistical mistakes would bring any good to the discussion. Dino and I are not English mothertongue speakers, so if our wording is less than perfect, I think we are justified. If you had to speak a foreign language yourself, you would face similiar hitches (proof is that you misspelled more than once Meucci's name, and it was one single word!). I'm collecting authoritative material for providing some qualified attribution. It's a long and complex task, and you know that. But let me start just giving you an answer about what you wrote, I will subsequently provide more accurate corroboration. You said that Meucci's invention never was patented and he could not even demonstrate how his mechanism worked. Moreover, you quote the courts judgements as a proof of real evidence - they're just a proof of juridical evidence and this makes a huge difference (reality is not always what judges claim it to be).If you peruse Microsoft Encarta's encyclopaedia - so I'm not speaking about an Italian source - you would learn that Meucci in 1871 filed a patent caveat no. 3355 about his "sound telegraph" and that he gave a public demonstration of his invention on Staten Island. It's written here[4]. So, IMHO, what you stated is simply not true. Best regards, Kyle082 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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