Talk:Alexander Graham Bell: Difference between revisions

Copyright Infringment

--Trode 21:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The contents of this page might be a copyright infringement, see http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Telegraph/00000018.htm and http://www.globusz.com/copyright.html

Besides, the prose is unbearable: To hear the immortal words of Shakespeare uttered by the small inanimate voice which had been given to the world must indeed have been a rare delight to the ardent soul of the great electrician. Ugh. Steven G. Johnson.

I have completely rewritten the sections on the photophone and the metal detector, which were copyvios from the above extlinks. Lupo 12:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In fact, there is a huge copyvio from this extlink in the history, see this diff from October 7, 2002! How much of that original text is still in the current article? Lupo 13:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, it's not a copyvio. It comes from the book Heroes of the Telegraph by John Munro, available at Project Gutenberg: [1]. Lupo 14:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alexandra Graham Bell

I've found this graphy on the internet, is it a correct one? If so, we should add this variant somewhere at the beginning of the document and create redicrection page for "Alexandra". Migouste 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

alexander graham bell end more like lol

some debate

Wouldn't it be fair to strip this guy the title "inventor"? Honestly, the guy, on top of acquiring a patent in a dishonest way have lead to most of humanity being brainwashed that he invented the telephone. [2] wkm

No, it would not be fair. Even ignoring the telephone, Bell's many other discoveries, patents, and creations easily make him one of the greatest inventors of all time. While many people have challenged his telephone patent, no one has ever been able to overturn it. If you have astonishing new evidence that can overturn this decision after a hundred years of controversy, you would be better filing your own counter-claim. I will offer one suggestion; legal cases are rarely decided by one litigant calling the other "brainwashed".

As for Mr. Reis, he can join the long line of people claiming to have invented the telephone before Bell. It is entirely likely he did invent "a" telephone before Bell, but when most people speak of "the" telephone, "the" airplane, "the" automobile, or "the" light bulb, they mean the design which was eventually a commercial success and not the many earlier attempts which were not. The design for the telephone that became a commercial success was Bell's, not Reis', Gray's, Meucci's, or anyone else's.

User:Corvus 01:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's a strong case for a "race to the patent office" with Bell's application arriving a mere two hours earlier than Grey's. Not to mention the fact that in later life, the clerk in charge of receiving the patents revealed he'd actually sold part of Grey's design to Bell's lawyers, thus giving the Scottish inventor a major breakthrough (vibration though a liquid medium.) Grey took his case as far as the supreme court but was unsuccessful and he died relatively unrecognized in 1901 while Bell went on to become the father of the telephone and died a very rich man. I'd like to see this added but it makes more sense to be on the telephone page rather than here, as well as the fact a large number of Bell zealots that would dispute it.User:gosunkugi 13:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See Elisha Gray and Alexander Bell Controversy. Greensburger 17:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In 1887, he also invented the mico-phone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.204.219 (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Alexander_Graham_Bell article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Alexander_Graham_Bell}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

alexander graham bell end more like lol

Metal detector as forerunner of MRI

While i do not want to remove any of the luster of Bell's achievements, the connection between his invention of the metal detector and the invention of the MRI scanner seems to be very tenuous. Yes, they rely on a similar physical principle. But is that relevant to this article? Did the inventor of the MRI credit Bell with inspiring him? Is there a citation for that little factoid? -Willmcw 02:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I agree - I came to the talk page because this sounded pretty dubious to me, and I see you have the same concerns. Even the similarity of the physical principle is pretty tenuous - OK it's all to do with changes in electromagnetic fields but that's about it IIRC. It's been a couple of months since you brought this up, so I'll check back here in a week or two; if no-one comes up with anything firm on the subject then I'm going to remove any mention of MRI from this part of the article. Gypsum Fantastic 23:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Philadelphia Exhibition of 1884?

This article:

Meucci's experimental apparatus was exhibited at the Philadelphia Exhibition of 1884 ...

List of world's fairs

• 1865 - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - Great Central Fair for the US Sanitary Commission (1865)
• 1876 - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - Centennial Exposition
• 1884 - New Orleans, Louisiana - World Cotton Centennial (1884) (New Orleans Universal Expositon and World's Fair), (World's Industrial and Cotton Centennial Exhibition), (New Orleans Centennial)
• 1884 - Melbourne, Australia - Victorian International Exhibition 1884 of Wine, Fruit, Grain & other products of the soil of Australasia with machinery, plant and tools employed
• 1884 - Edinburgh, Scotland - International Forestry Exhibition (1884)
• 1884 - Saint Louis, Missouri - Saint Louis Exposition (1884)
• 1884 - Turin, Italy - Esposizione generale italiana (1884)
• 1899 - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - National Export Exposition (1899)

Telephone

[Bell's telephone] was exhibited at the Centennial Exhibition, Philadelphia, in 1876 ...

Someone please do some fact checking. -- Toytoy 11:00, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Read the congressional resolution. It is clear that Meucci's device worked, had been demonstrated to do so, and that ALexander G. Bell had stolen the device. This is now indisputable. SO any reference to Bell having invented the phone is false.

"H. Res. 269—Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives to honor the life and achievements of 19th Century Italian-American inventor Antonio Meucci, and his work in the invention of the telephone (Fossella) Order of Business: The resolution is scheduled to be considered on Tuesday, June 11, 2002, under a motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution.

Summary: H.Res. 269 has 11 findings about an Italian immigrant to New York, Antonio Meucci, who, rather than Alexander Graham Bell, may have been the first inventor of the telephone. The findings state that:

• Meucci invented something he later called the “teletrofono,” involving electronic communications, which he set up inside his house, demonstrated in 1860, and had a description of it published in New York's Italian language newspaper;
• Because Meucci could not afford the patent application process, he settled for a caveat, a one year renewable notice of an impending patent, which was first filed on December 28, 1871;
• Meucci later learned that the Western Unionaffiliate laboratory reportedly lost his working models, and Meucci, who at this point was living on public assistance, was unable to renew the caveat after 1874, which would have cost $10;
• In March 1877, Alexander Graham Bell, who conducted experiments in the same laboratory where Meucci's materials had been stored, was granted a patent and was thereafter credited with inventing the telephone;
• Whereas on January 13, 1887, the Government of the United States moved to annul the patent issued to Bell on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, a case that the Supreme Court found viable and remanded for trial;
• Meucci died in October 1889, the Bell patent expired in January 1893, and the case was discontinued as moot without ever reaching the underlying issue of the true inventor of the telephone entitled to the patent;"

And states that the House is resolved:

"That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged."

Cost to Taxpayers: There is no cost to this resolution.

Does the Bill Create New Federal Programs or Rules?: No"

--This anonymous comment by User:64.174.88.3. -- NormanEinstein 14:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 2 July 2005 09:15 (UTC)>

To say that the U.S. Congress is an important organization would be to understate things, but since when are they the definitive authority on history?

</Jun-Dai>

[[Proving that Meucci invented the phone years before Bell in no way proves that Bell stole Meucci's invention. Independent reïnventions happen all the time, and Bell repeatedly exhibited brilliance. We can honor Meucci without bashing Bell. —Gamahucheur 11:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)]]

This may be a misuse of this page, but what does the sentence about proving "Gored Torso" wrong mean?

It was probably a bit of vandalism. I removed the reference to Gored Torso yesterday. --NormanEinstein July 5, 2005 19:16 (UTC)

Meucci's "invention" of the telephone may have been endorsed by congress, but legislative bodies do not rate very high in the dispute of scientific issues. Congressmen wanted votes of Italian-Americans. The Meucci telephone claims were promoted for decades by the same man who got Columbus Day recognized as a national holiday. In the trials of the 1880's Meucci was brought forward by promoters who sought to break the Bell patent. Drawbaugh, Dolbear, and dozens of other "inventors" also testified. The court heard them all and ruled against them. Meucci's early telephone was apparently a string telephone operating on non-electrical principles. The Reis telephone of the 1860's was not a practical device for commercial use, but Silvanus Thompson published a book in the 1880s with testimony by noted scientists that they had heard it transmit articulate speech in the 1860's. Bell's electromagnetic phone was ok as a receiver, but too weak for transmission to any distance. The transmitter evolved from the Reis device to the Berlinner "loose metallic contact" device, the Edison carbon transmitter, with improvements by Hughes (the"microphone") Blake, and White among others into the device used through most of the 20th century. Work by Meucci did not contribute to this sequence of development.Edison 15:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Revisionists often have one thing in common...

... they want to re-write history so that THEIR country is the center of the universe with all the discoveries and inventions.

Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. End of story.

The reason that the USA has been the world leader in all areas is simply that the world's most educated nations sent millions of their most talented inventors, artists, businessmen, politicians, soldiers, etc. to the USA during the immigration booms in the 1800's and 1900's. They passed on their talents and knowledge to their children and the result is a smarter and more talented USA.

Meucci was no less American than Bell. Meucci invented the telephone, Bell invented the telephone, Gray invented the telephone, and a few other people might have invented the telephone. —Gamahucheur 11:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bell was not American. His achievements are attributed to Scotland: where he was born, raised, educated, where his parents came from. Do America not have enough innovators? Why the need to lay claim to anyone who sets foot on American soil? His being in America while he worked on the telephone is irrelevant.

Gaining citizenship is the done thing. It is beneficial for the person to become a citizen. That does not mean that he considered himself American. It is the person, their heritage that dictates their nationality and to which nationality their achievments belong. Geography means little. Maybe David Hume stepped foot on American soil at one time. Would you like to have him, too? You keep your innovators and us Scots will keep ours. Clydey 13:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. End of story.

Just like Morse invented electric telegraph?LoL And this is not revisionism, but a constant searching a true. Sea diver 00:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason that the USA has been the world leader in all areas is simply that the world's most educated nations sent millions of their most talented inventors, artists, businessmen, politicians, soldiers, etc. to the USA during the immigration booms in the 1800's and 1900's.

Excuse me, but this myth about American superiority in all areas has nothing to do with reality. Otherwise, the first artificial satellite could be american-made.Sea diver 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

First chancellor of Curry College

Bell was Curry College's (formerly known as School of Elocution) first chancellor and this should be noted. However I do not have dates to correspond. Maybe someone could search through www.curry.edu as they note that he was the first chancellor. - JedOs 17:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

alexander graham bell?

any ideas why we always call him by his full name?

We want to respect him. That's why we call him by full name!11:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, consider how often respected people are called by just one name — eg “Lincoln” — and despised people by three names — eg “John Wilkes Booth”, “Lee Harvey Oswald”, “John Wayne Gacy”. —Gamahucheur 11:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it started during his lifetime to avoid confusion with his father Alexander Melville Bell. The father was once the more famous of the two.

Age?

Does anyone know When Alexander Graham Bell died??

I believe it was in 1922. --Rachellala 23:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)--

Of course! Didn't you read?

And when was he born? 1847, right? NOT 1647 as said here? Seems to be fixed, now. Thanks.

Family?

Im doin a report on Alexander Graham Bell For School and i need to know Who is Alexander's Family (Names and Relation) Please Respond.thank you from astrid

Eugenics and Racialism

Any quotes and statements by Bell on this?!

id be surprised since he isnt even prejudice against children. when children were asking him questions and an adult tried to get them to stop "pestering" him he said we must never overlook the word of a child. because a child looks at the world with an uncluttered mine. hes a good guy. id be really surprised if he were racist!

• Everyone is racist depending on who is defining the term and how they are defining it. Given the time in which he lived and his race and social class, it would be surprising if Bell were not racist by current liberal standards. That said, he was probably farther out in the eugenics field than most people of the time (though not necessarily/primarily for racial reasons).

• There is already a quote by him in the article Qaz

Telephone POV debate

I'm not certain, but this seems rather out of place and angry:

"However, Meucci was the first to invent the telephone, and this was how Bell got the idea. Bell invented his own telephone, and then went down to the patent office, and bribed the officials there to destroy the records of Meucci's inventor-of-the-telephone status (Meucci was too poor to secure a patent). Bell then secured his own patent. Meucci was understsandably furious, and took Bell to court. However, he was too poor to hire a legal team, and his health was declining, and thus he lost the court case. However, credit where it is due, because Graham refined the telephone, and had a lot to do with it's development."

Is this accepted as truth, or should it be fixed to get rid of the excuses? By fixed, I mean removed.

From the article Telephone:

• Credit for inventing the electric telephone remains in dispute. As with other great inventions such as radio, television, light bulb, and computer, there were several inventors who did pioneer experimental work on voice transmission over a wire and improved on each other's ideas. Antonio Meucci, Johann Philipp Reis, Elisha Gray, Alexander Graham Bell, and Thomas Edison, among others, have all been credited with pioneer work on the telephone.

There are several people credited with the Invention of the telephone, at least one Italian and one German man, to my knowledge. Unfortunately, most will favor their own fellow-man/compatriot instead of searching for the truth. There must be a reason, why some people like to claim that some inventions have been made by one person alone (while science is a community effort), and others like to counterclaim these "inventors". I'd like to have more neutrality in this article, which includes to mention (early!) that Bell is not the only one credited with this invention. We have an "Alexander-Graham Bell-Street" in Bonn, Germany which is subtitled with "Patent for invention of the telephone" which is the one thing sure - he got the patent. Think about patents today and think about what's it worth... --80.136.124.34 (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC) PS: Feel free to re-layout my contribution according to accepted standards regarding structure but keep the text intact

Odd citizenship sentence and inclusion on CD

Just a note: Alexander Graham bell never became a Canadian Citizen, even though the article says so.

(Canadian Citizenship did not exist in it's current form until 1, January, 1947 therefore anyone living in Canada before that time could be argued not to be Canadian. Until 1947 Canadians were subjects of the crown, the same as any British person then and now.)

I vote this article not be included on the CD until this article can be corrected in relation to the who-invented-first debate. Patents aside, perhaps a work-around would be to claim he is the inventor of "the telephone" that we know of today as other users have pointed out, rather then have modern history be rewritten by a Florida senator's potentially bias opinion in 2002.

Second I don't know why this paragraph needs to be in large bold text before the topic: *He was a naturalized citizen of the United States. I vote remove it or place it more appropriately. It seems like vandalism? --Trode 21:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Diatribe on Citizenship

Is citizenship restricted to legal documentation? Was George Washington ever an American? Did he become an American only with the signing of the Declaration of Independence? Or, did he only become an American when acknowledged by the British crown? May I suggest that Alexander Graham Bell was a world citizen whose start was in Scotland and England, interim in Canada and the United States, and finish in Canada. A citizen of Scotland and England (British, if you need it), of course, a citizen of Canada, of course, a citizen of the United States, of course. Those who have trouble with exploring an expanded concept of citizenship probably also hold that to travel on an adventurous trip means to go to the nearest grocery store. -- Free4It 18:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Meucci & Reis & Bell & Bourseul and the Pride of Nations

Since I am working mainly on the Antonio Meucci page, I was wondering where to quote William J. Wallace ruling. "Bell telephone company obtained reason in the trial "The U.S. Government Versus Antonio Meucci" by a sentence on July 19^th1887 by judge William J. Wallace, according to whom Meucci had realised a mechanical and not an electrical telephone. According to Wallace's ruling, "The experiments and invention of one Antonio Meucci, relating to the transmission of speech by an electrical apparatus, for which invention a caveat was filed in the United States patent‑office, December 28, 1871, renewed in December, 1882, and again in December, 1883, do not contain any such elements of an electric speaking telephone as would give the same priority over or interfere with the said Bell patent[...]The application does not describe any of the elements, of an electric speaking telephone. Its opening statement refutes the possibility that Meucci understood the principle of that invention. [...] 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^th, 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"."" --S vecchiato 14:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Put that information into the Meucci article. His claim to the telephone was merely one of hundreds over the years, all dismissed in court cases. FWIW Bzuk 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC).

That boldface sentence "He was a naturalized citizen of the United States" mentioned by user Trode was weird indeed. How did it get in the intro? Bell was not American when he got the telephone patent, his major claim to fame. He was a Scot who emigrated to Canada. Maybe clarify this, or delete this rather irrelevant sentence. Had he been an American, maybe US congress would not have later declared Meucci as the inventor of the telephone. Politicians of Bell's former home Canada promptly issued a contrarian resolution. Alas, the pride of nations!

In any case, the intro is rather misleading. It says: "Today, Bell is still widely considered to be the foremost inventor of the telephone, although this matter has become controversial, with a number of people claiming that Antonio Meucci was the real inventor". This seems to suggest that Meucci's priority is a minority's view, which it is not. Those interested in the history of the telephone know that Antonio Meucci (1857) came first, Philipp Reis (1860) second, and Alexander Graham Bell (1876) third at best (and let us not forget Charles Bourseul who possibly had the first telephone design but no prototype). Sure, Bell eventually was the one who made the money, and maybe the Bell PR department eventually became influential enough to make many believe that Bell was first, at least in North America, but for a Wikipedia article it should not be important what the masses thought at some point in time - there was a time when many thought the world is flat.

I suggest to rewrite the intro as follows: Today, Bell is widely considered as one of the foremost developers of the telephone, together with Antonio Meucci, inventor of the first telephone prototype, and Philipp Reis. Physicists 19:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Baloney! FWIW Bzuk 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC).

Meucci resolution

The text of that resolution, available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:./temp/~c107O5FX5L:: , does not claim Meucci invented the telephone. Rather, it says "the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged." Samer 15:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And it's a piece of political theatre that is absolutely worthless. FWIW Bzuk 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC).

Meucci invented the telephone

"His work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged". IMHO it is clear. Try studying Meucci s life. In Italy he invented a model of telephone in 1834 (Bell didn't exist). In 1847 Meucci was 39 years old and had over 25 years of experience in mechanics, chemistry and physics. Meucci’s 1st electric transmission of the human voice took place in Cuba in 1849, when Graham Bell was only 2 years old. Meucci demonstrated his electric telephone in NY, USA in 1854, when Bell was 7 years old. And so on. So the paragraph is right: "the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged". IMO you should study his life. Jack 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Alexander Graham Bell

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 18:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have an authoritative source that can confirm this statement?

"On the day that Alexander Graham Bell was buried the entire US telephone system was shut down for 1 minute in tribute." -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

More Appropriate and Accurate Introduction to Bell

Is there anyone who doubts that Bell's contributions as a collective body of work is outstanding ? Then why is the adjective outstanding continually being challenged (read dropped)? The introduction states correctly where he was born, so why not bookend it, by including, where he died ? An introduction with a concluding statement that he emigrated to the United States leaves the misleading impression that the U.S. was his final stop. Clarifying that he returned to Canada is not only historically accurate, it leaves no false impression and bookends where he was born. The intro should read something, on the order, like: Alexander Graham Bell ( March 3, 1847 – August 2, 1922 ) was an outstanding scientist, inventor, and innovator. Born and brought up in Scotland, he emigrated to Canada in 1870, and the following year, to the United States. Returning to Canada, he died at his private estate on Cape Breton island, Nova Scotia, in 1922, at age 75. Curiouscdngeorge 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Because where and when someone died is not key information about a person, unlike where they were brought up, educated and began their career, which is absolutely fundamental information in establishing a biography. There have been edit wars going on ever since this article was started trying to claim Bell for various countries. This is just another attempt to boost the case of Canada, over his other two identities. Drop it. --Mais oui! 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Where the man finished his life is hardly irrelevant in a biographical piece, which this is. If it was an article on the telephone, fine, but not when it is an article on the man and his life. Unless you'd like to re-write history and suggest he's still alive and kicking out there somewhere, the end of his live is relevant information.

Sign your posts!!

No: not in the introduction, which is only for key, defining information. Where someone died is just a detail, for inclusion in the main body of the biography. --Mais oui! 05:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, don't think I will. Do what you must. If you're only putting in "key" and "defining" information, what possible difference can it make that he was born in Scotland? By the way, "drop it"? Real masterful defence of your position there, sparky.

If you point blank refuse to sign posts they will be immediately removed. You are simply wasting the time of serious editors who have to go round adding the "unsigned" template.

On the substantive point: he was not simply "born" in Scotland: he was brought up, educated and began his career there: it is key to our understanding of the person, because Scotland formed him. He did not emigrate until he was an adult. --Mais oui! 06:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The article's introduction concludes Bell emigrated to the United States. That interprets to a reader that he stayed there, after leaving Canada. Since that is not the case, leaving the intro, as is, becomes a distortion of the truth [just another attempt to boost the United States?]. Introducing where Bell came from leads to concluding where he ended. Adding it is not boosting Canada; it is stating the truth. Deleting it wont change that reality, it just misguides the reader [a cautiousness I would have thought superceded American editorial wishful thinking]. --Curiouscdngeorge 22:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Waste of time, Curious. Mais oui's got himself an agenda. Not to mention a pov problem. 142.166.239.167 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully the format of Wikipedia incorporates this Discussion Page. It's the last bastian of reason within Wiki. Truths get exposure, despite those editors whose raison d'être is to whitewash articles with their own pet-theory personal falsehoods. The integrity of many an articles' contents is in the hands of inexperienced (read weak and immature) editors, which accounts for the jello-like foundation of their decisions. Fortunately, the intelligent program designers of this wonderful encyclopedia have provided a discussion page, as if to provide a life-raft for anyone choosing to voice the truth, despite an engulphing sea of editorial quicksand, in the article, itself. --Curiouscdngeorge 22:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's got to be the most eloquent critique of this glorified blog that I've ever heard! 153.2.246.33 05:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. My experience is that you never quite get past the shock sparked by realizing certain editors take hold of this young encyclopedia, as if it were their own personal wiki. --Curiouscdngeorge 00:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro Suggestion and Small Rant

Why is Bell's nationality even subject to debate? The man was born, bred and educated in Scotland. Would Canada and the USA be so eager to claim him had he been an infamous mass murderer? Where he moved to as an adult is irrelevant. It's shameful that countries with loose ties to Bell lay claim to both he and the telephone. Saying that the telephone is an American invention is as accurate as saying that America achieved a clean sweep of medals at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996. It matters not where the achievement takes place. It is the 'who', not the 'where' that counts. And as far as Canada's claim to Bell is concerned, it is laughable that the site of one's death should take precedence over their place of birth. The page should state, first and foremost, that "Alexander Graham Bell was a Scottish inventor" and go from there, stating where he moved, died etc. Allowing his nationality remain ambiguous is pandering to the glory hunters. Ambiguty, no matter how it manifests, should be avoided wherever possible.Clydey 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, then, he was born, bred, and educated in Scotland. Upon reaching adulthood, he fled Scotland, never to return. That fairly unambiguous.153.2.247.30 03:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Nationality is not some vague issue like degree of fame or greatness. It is black and white and easily verifiable. He was born and raised in Scotland, thus obviously he was Scottish at one time. He also became an American citizen, so it's undeniable that he was an American as well. Which country (of Scotland, Canada and the US) were most influential in his inventiveness? Well, they all seemed to have played a role. THat's for the historians to hash out, but his nationality isn't an area of ambiguity.Penser 10:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)penser

He was not simply "Scottish at one time". Many people become citizens of different countries. Canada and America lay claim to him because he is one of history's great innovators. He was born in Scotland, his parents were Scottish, he was raised and educated in Scotland. His page currently reads: "Scottish born American". *That* is offensive in the extreme. Even the most optimistic of Americans should cringe at that line. He was a Scotsman who became a citizen of the United States. I cannot edit the article as I'm not an established member. I hope someone with an ounce of common sense edits that opening line, however. Clydey 17:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hint: becoming a US citizen makes you an American. Really. That's how it works over here. We're not like you Europeans where someone can still be considered a "foreigner" after their family has lived in the country for three generations. He was born a Scot and became an American. I'm sorry if you find the truth "offensive", but an American by choice is still an American. You certainly have more justification on your side than the Canadians, though -- at least Bell was born and raised in Scotland. The fact that he had a retirement home in Canada doesn't enter into it, any more than buying a retirement condo in Cancun would make me a "Mexican". The only thing that could've made Bell a "Canadian" would've been renouncing his U.S. citizenship and reverting to a subject of the British Crown, just as the only thing that would make me a Mexican is to acquire Mexican citizenship. The United States at that time (and I believe, the UK as well) did not allow dual citizenship. Becoming a citizen required that you renounce ALL allegiance to any foreign government. That was explicitly in the oath. So... either Bell didn't consider *himself* a Scot (much less a "Canadian") or he was a perjurer. Take your pick.

For the hard of seeing, I will once again repeat what has already been said: the oath of citizenship is not, I repeat, not federal law. And Bell's family had not lived in the United States for 3 generations. His family were Scottish, as was Bell. Signing a piece of paper does not change one's ethnicity, nor does it matter one jot unless the person says it does. Do you think that every American immigrant took out citizenship because they "felt" American?

Citizenship is a matter of convenience. It affords people certain rights that they otherwise would not have. That sounds quite handy for someone who carried out his work in America, wouldn't you say? And let us not forget that citizenship was a necessity in order to comply with US patent laws.

I can't believe you have the gall to say, "You certainly have more justification on your side than the Canadians." We have more justification than America, too, and by quite some distance. You have a piece of paper that was in fact not only a major convenience, but a necessity. We have his parents, his birth, his education, his ancestry. So if you plan on weighing each side of the argument, get ready to feel ever so slightly embarrassed.

There's no argument here. He was born and raised in Scotland and so is correctly identified in the lead paragraph as Scottish. That he became an American citizen doesn't stop him from being Scottish. I could renounce my British citizenship and become an American citizen but that wouldn't stop me from being English. If he'd left Scotland at the age of 3 this would perhaps be open to debate, but since he left at the age of 23 it really isn't. The USA and Canada can quite rightly claim his citizenship, but not his nationality. Shinigami27 10:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Having read through all the arguments pertaining to Bell's nationality, I've decided to call a halt to changing the American-English spellings to UK-ish until a consensus has been arrived at. It seems eminently clear to me that despite any subsequent citizenship or allegiance to America, Bell was born a Scot, and spent his formative years and early adult life in Scotland. The person he became was the result of those years, and IMHO no pieces of paper signed or oaths sworn can change that he was intrinsically Scottish. If I emigrated to the US and swore allegiance, I would not become an American, but an Americanised Englishman. I would have new loyalties but would still be the person I was when I left the UK.

Anyone got any thoughts on how this issue can be resolved? --Red Sunset 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The other side of Bell

I was asked in one of my class to write some positive and negative things about Alexander Graham Bell. The positives, ofcourse, are everywhere; however, I cannot find one credible source that describes some of the downside of Bell. Everybody has their own little quirks, right? The ordeal with Meucci is, from my understanding, still unclear, therefore I will not include that as a "credible" source. Kengi ikazuchi 18:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Kengi

Western Union or American District Telegraph Co?

The following paragraph was added to the "Competitors" section on Muecci:

More than 100 years later, documents would surface which proved a conspiracy between Bell Company and American District Telegraph Co. of New York. In their agreement, Bell had agreed to pay them 20 percent of the profits from commercialization of "his invention" for a period of 17 years. As a result, Grant conveniently "lost" all trace of Meucci's working prototype and documentation, contracting with Bell shortly thereafter.

What documents? The referenced Muecci web site and major biographies by Charlotte Gray and Robert Bruce say the 20% was paid to Western Union. Not American District Telegraph Co. of New York. Was that owned by Western Union? If so that should be made more clear. Greensburger 01:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Disgrace

It is a disgrace that America not only try to claim Alexander Graham Bell, but they also try to claim his father, a man who never even applied for citizenship. I have googled Bell's father and he is often described as an American, quite inexplicably, with his Scottish roots little more than a footnote.

He was born in Scotland and spent the vast majority of his life there. The latter part of his life was spent in America and from that Americans have deduced that he was American. Is no man beyond their grasp? Alexander Graham Bell himself did little more than apply for citizenship to comply with patent laws.

Everything about Bell was Scottish, from his upbringing and education to his ancestry. He invented the telephone before he was a US citizen, yet Americans are not only taught that he was American, but that it was an American invention. It has gotten beyond a joke. A person's heritage is everything. Living in America does not suitably dilute someone's bloodline to the point where they become American. Sandman15 19:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature."

So Bell was lying when he signed that? By the way, what is it with you Europeans and your "bloodlines", anyway? And yet you're all convinced that we Americans are "racist". Heh.

Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who has taken that oath renounced any affiliation, in their own mind, with their country of birth?

If they're not perjurers, yes. So you're claiming that Bell was, in fact, a perjurer?

You don't think people will make certain concessions so as to be afforded certain rights that they otherwise would not have?

If they have no sense of honor whatsoever, perhaps.

Either you are extremely naive, sir, or you are clutching at straws.

Some of us take our sworn word seriously. Are you asserting that Bell didn't?

"The Oath of Citizenship is not a federal law".

And at no point have I asserted that American's are racist. It has nothing to do with racism. It is just a fact that Alexander Graham Bell was Scottish. Signing a piece of paper does not magically change that fact. It is in one's best interest to become a citizen. It affords the individual certain rights. Not only that, but citizenship was necessary for Bell to comply with US patent laws. But hey, if you want to be ultra pedantic, you do realise that Bell was not a US citizen when he invented the telephone, right?

What is your explanation for the countless webpages that claim Alexander Melville Bell as American? He did not become a citizen. It is a clear demonstration that, regardless of whether someone has gained citizenship, the United States will lay claim to anyone remotely noteworthy if they have so much as vacationed there.

I don't know. I've never seen such a page (much less "countless" ones). In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a page about him at all. Perhaps you should go argue about it on one of those "countless" pages, since it appears to be completely irrelevant to this page. Perhaps you'd also care to give us a link to a page that claims someone was an US citizen on the basis of a vacation while you're at it. It is a FACT that Bell renounced his UK citizenship UNDER OATH, whether you like it or not. Sorry.

He did not renounce his citizenship, as it is not federal law. There are many proud Brits who hold or have held dual citizenship. If you become a citizen of one country, you do not lose citizenship to another. It's almost beyond belief that I have to actually explain this. It is just a fact that Bell had to apply for citizenship to comply with patent laws. People gain certain rights if they are citizens. It's telling that Bell applied for citizenship not long after he began his stay in America. What's more likely? He felt American after such a short time or he needed citizenship?

The reason why I'm not on those "countless other pages" is because I can't edit them. As far as someone becoming an American on the basis of a vacation, I'd like you to explain to me how living in America for an extended period of times makes someone American. Please, tell me in what possibly way Alexander melville Bell was American, as most pages claim. It is no more absurd that someone being labelled American because of a holiday. Technically it is the same.

Oh, and just in case you didn't get it the first two times: "The Oath of Citizenship is not federal law". Sandman15 12:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Film biographies about Bell

Besides the 1939 film with Don Ameche as Bell, and the 1995 animated cartoon film about Bell, and the 2005 Arts & Entertainment biography of Bell, what was the title and year of the silent film biography about Bell, probably from the 1920's? Greensburger 13:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

references vs further reading

I have moved the references not tied to specific facts to "further reading". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary- explanation already given, I had used these references in formulating the article; they were not ""further reading". FWIW Bzuk 02:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC).

Now that the references tie to specific facts, I have reformatted them to standard inline citations, and removed the unformatted versions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Again not necessary to change formats. Full edits are perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia. FWIWBzuk 16:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC).

There is no consensus on preferable citation format at this time. I prefere {{cite xxx}} templates personally and have trouble understanding why someone would go to the trouble to remove such clean formatting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the templates were instituted early on to help Wikipedia editors who did not have a background in cataloging. However, there are editors that do have experience in creating catalog and bibliographical entries and these editors have provided "clean" edits that read exactly like the templates (and in some cases, read even better because there are slight variances from template to template). (FWIW, I am a former librarian with a 33 year+ background in reference cataloging)Bzuk 01:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC).

Here is an example of the "cite" template formatting that was reversed: [[3]] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard, look at the dates, you now have two different date formats, that's why sometimes the templates don't work. FWIW Bzuk 20:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC).

I have formatted all the references from the New York Times in the same manner. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, thanks for your contributions. I do not see the need for the amount of detail in the notes, however, if you feel it is necessary... FWIW Bzuk 12:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC).

Biographical standard

For some time now, I have observed that "crafting" of this article into one POV soapbox or another. The casual reader who comes across this article may get the impression that Bell's work was tied up in battles with patent challengers. That is an important issue but in reading five authoritative biographies on Bell, the overall impact of these patent fights was negligible when dealt with in the context of telling the story of a remarkable doctor, inventor and scientist. Yet at one point, that aspect was approximately one third of the article. Other controversial elements of his life story such as eugenics warrants a part of a chapter in biographies but here there is undue weight placed on these issues, making the article read more like a polemic against Bell rather that a balanced, academically written and substantiated work. For example, until recently, there was scant mention of Bell's contribution to aeronautical research. I am about to undertake a series of rewrites to establish more of the life and times and achievements of Bell. I invite comments and suggestions prior to, during and post editing. FWIW Bzuk 13:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC).

I agree that more should be said about Bell's accomplishments and less about Meucci who is more to be pitied than praised. But the article must also reflect the fact that Bell stood in the shadow of the telephone industry and telephone companies founded in Bell's name by Gardener Hubbard. The telephone patent matters are essential to understand the problems Bell faced and how the court decisions determined Bell's fortune and fame. If Hubbard's lawyers had not obtained US patent 174,465 for the variable resistance feature and if it had not been upheld by the courts, the Bell companies would have been crushed by Western Union. If Edison had not been obligated to sell his carbon microphone patents to Western Union which decided to sell them to Bell, Edison could have founded a telephone company that would have crushed the Bell companies. If Emile Berliner had not come along with a me-too patent for the carbon microphone that the Bell company bought, to temporarily neutralize Edison's patents owned by Western Union, we never would have heard of Bell. The Bell companies came very close to bankruptcy and Bell said so "the ashes of the Bell Telephone Company" in his letter to his wife (see AGB and the Passion for Invention, by Charlotte Gray, pages 193-194) and should be quoted in this article on Bell. Greensburger 17:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your appraisal, however, there seems to be very complete articles on the telephone including the various patent disputes. In writing a biographical article, there should be mention of all the significant events of a person's life, but in reading the present biography, there has been an effort to redress history and although there may be cogent reasons for including the information, it is a matter of weighting the information that is disproportional to a remarkable life. If Bell had only been involved in the invention of the telephone then this type of emphasis would be appropriate but there is so much more to his work than a single invention. FWIW Bzuk 20:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC).

GA comment

The article is currently nominated at WP:GAC and before the article is reviewed by another editor, the citation needed tags need to be addressed. Additionally, the neutrality tag needs to be corrected or the article will be quick-failed. --Nehrams2020 22:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not yet ready for a GA submission as I have been undertaking a rewrite that will take another two weeks to complete. FWIW Bzuk 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC). There is an admin now working on the article to give it a {{sprotect}} protection against an ongoing series of anon attacks that has hampered the revisions that are being undertaken in the article. For now  GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. has been issued, with a prospective two-three weeks to completion of final revisions. FWIW Bzuk 00:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC).

I have removed this article from the GA nominations list, based on stability issues. This action is not explicitly a 'fail', so I am not adding the article history template. Rather, I consider that the nomination has been withdrawn. The {{sprotect}} arrangement has just expired today, and already I see an anonymous comments reverted, twice, after about 5 hours of unprotection. This is going to take a bit longer to determine if it meets the stability requirement of the GA criteria.

Some other issues I see right away with the article are two 'citation needed' tags that must be addressed, a general lack of organizational structure (lots of sections and subsections, that seem to be scattered about), and a lot of external links. It might help to review WP:EL for help on pruning the links a bit. Some of the reference citation formatting can be improved a bit; there's quite a few inline citations where there is considerable text quoted from the article in the citation itself, which is generally unnecessary and unorthodox. All that should be listed in reference citations is the author, title, publication, date of publication, date of URL retrieval, etc (the pertinent data required to locate the source, either online, or in a library). Adding quotes really bogs down the references section, and adds unnecessary bytes to the article.

Anyway, to reiterate, this is not an explicit failure of the article, although several comments were made suggesting avenues of improvement. Please renominate the article once the issues have been addressed and the article is stable. Dr. Cash 04:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and I agree that stability is an area that will be difficult to sustain with this article. As for some of the other aspects of the critique, an unusual notes section has been adapted due to the controversial nature of the subject and the constant attempts to introduce POV statements needed to be addressed. I do not agree about the organizational structure being an issue since compared to the original form that this article took, a biographical style was adapted. I would happy to continue this discourse in order to establish a more effective style. FWIW Bzuk 13:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC).

Last words

I'm uncomfortable with the "last words" part of the "death" section, as it is based on a site called www.anecdotage.com, which doesn't look too reliable. I attempted to reword it to at least reduce the level of certainty that this event occured, but as Bzuk correctly points out, that results in a weasely passage. Anyone object to just cutting this anecdote out? Or any more authoritative reference to it, at least? Sounds like one of those unverifiable things that is best left out, to me. --barneca (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, I will find a more authoritative reference. Thanks for the work you have done so far. Bzuk 13:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

Sure, no rush, my finger isn't hovering over the delete button or anything. You see my point tho, right? --barneca (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, and as I had come across the Internet note and inserted it myself, it was used because the section was "deathly?!" and needed some additional details. I am looking up some new reference sources because it sounds right but you never know about anecdotes like that, they sometimes sound too good to be true, and... FWIW Bzuk 13:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

Found it, Bruce 1973, p. 491- an entire page devoted to his last moments. The final scene was even more poignant than the original quote. Mabel held his fingers and continued to feel a twitch even in death's passing. I don't think I'll mention that. FWIW Bzuk 13:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

Oops, sorry. I messed up Barneca's edit, after he/she messed up my edit, after I reverted Beinn Bhreagh, Nova Scotia and Bras d'Or Lake. Greensburger 13:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No kidding?! Maybe read first, edit later. FWIW Bzuk 13:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

No worries, Greensburger. Wish I had a nickel for every time I've reverted to the wrong version. --barneca (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In Robert Bruce's bio of Bell, the death scene in the paperback edition is on page 491 (not 401). The last words on that page are "closed about him forever". Greensburger 14:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it was likely my typo. I will correct the page reference. Bzuk 14:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

"Where 1973 came from, I don't know" by Bzuk.

Bruce's manuscript was copyrighted in 1973. See the top of the copyright page. The first edition was published in 1990. The paperback edition is the one I have and was also published in 1990. Each edition gets a different ISBN number and a different publication date. However, there may be multiple printings and the dates stay the same. The book I have was from the second printing (2 at the bottom of the copyright page). Greensburger 18:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

For consistency, it is easiest to stay with one version throughout. The cataloging rule is to cite the most recent or newest edition (often that is due to errata and other changes that are frequently incorporated in subsequent editions, many times without notification). I have a 1993 edition on library loan at this point, but I would be comfortable in using your 1990 edition for all tracings. FWIW [:º Bzuk 22:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

Canadian?

Do the canadians claim him for he died there? Or the americans for he lived there? or the scots for he was born there?

I think he is canadian because his body is still at rest there today —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asovse (talk • contribs) 17:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the earlier question, the answer is "yes." FWIW Bzuk 18:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC).

I'm not so sure Robert Bruce's bio of Bell is the be all and end all. The quote attributed to Bell regarding his nationality is dubious. Has Bruce sourced the quote? A quick google search reveals that there is only one place to find that quote: Robert Bruce's book. It looks a touch dubious to me. 77.102.8.117 01:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? FWIW Bzuk 01:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

The quote: "I am not one of those hyphenated Americans...". Did Robert Bruce, the author, source the quote? It must have come from somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.8.117 (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The quote is attributed to Bell's private papers, October 16, 1915. FWIW Bzuk 12:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

I still don't see any hint of that quote online. I know that it's in the book that was referenced, but wouldn't such a definitive quote be at least somewhere online? A quote attributed to Bell in which he states conclusively that he is American would not be so obscure. I'm not keen on the reference. Is there a more solid reference online? 77.102.8.117 08:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You are insisting on an internet reference over a published one- get serious. BTW, Andy, get a userid if you want to be considered a legitimate researcher. Bzuk 11:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC).

I have a userid. I just haven't signed in. Could you be more elitist? Whether I sign in or not is irrelevant. It wouldn't change the point I'm making. The reference might be published, but as far as I'm concerned it is unreliable by virtue of the fact that the quote appears to be completely untraceable.

Why is the quote so obscure? Scotland, Canada and the United States have been battling over Bell's national identity for a long time. I think the quote would have surfaced before now. Do me a favour and curb that snotty attitude, Bzuk. I raised a legitimate point. I am not saying that the Internet is more reliable. In fact, it's a great deal less reliable. It's so vast, however, that such a quote would at the very least be alluded to somewhere other than wikipedia. 77.102.8.117 13:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Boy are you short tempered and off-base. As to the use of reference sources, the guidelines point to WP:RS which identifies peer-reviewed scholarly works considered the most authoritative with specialized books by recognized experts in the field, generalized books following with periodicals and finally, web-based information sources as accepted resources. Read the comments over with a different viewpoint and see where is the snottyness? BTW, the quote is attributed to Bell's private papers. FWIW, sorry for being short with you but the question was answered previously and my last response was intended to be jocular- I'll have to remember to put in emoticons next time. [:¬∆ Bzuk 13:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC).

I am not short tempered. Asking me to get a userid so as to be taken seriously is snotty. You'll no doubt tell me that you were well meaning, but you were being condescending. Insisting that I am not a legitimate researcher because I didn't sign in is, again, snotty. I'm not disputing that published works in general carry more weight, but I still find it odd that the quote is nowhere to be found in the biggest source of information at our disposal. Such a declaration, at least to my mind, would not be so obscure.

And stop taking thinly veiled swipes at me. The point I am raising is not as a result of my own bias. If it was, I wouldn't be quite so reasonable. I am simply curious as to whether the quote has surfaced anywhere on the web? If you could answer me without implying that I have an agenda I would appreciate it. It's not much to ask. 77.102.8.117 13:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Who knows why an obscure passage in a letter is not on the Internet? I cannot seem to convince you of my emotional state of mind, and since you've taken this to a personal level, I have no interest in this kind of discourse. Email me if you want to continue chatting. FWIW {:¬} Bzuk 13:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC).

I didn't take it to a personal level, Bzuk. You consistently took shots at me, whether it be because I didn't sign in or because you think I'm pushing an agenda. All I asked was for you to cut it out and show a little respect. I didn't barge in here asking for the quote to be removed. I made an enquiry and you got defensive. Is it asking a lot for you to not imply that I'm POV pushing? 77.102.8.117 14:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your last reponse after I had written the one above, so apologies if I seemed confrontational. It was me that asked the question previously. I'm back asking again because I have been trying to verify the quote since then and haven't found it anywhere. To save me getting the Bruce book, is he more specific than "Bell's private papers"?

Seriously, and not so seriously; the quote is attributed to Bell's private papers, October 16, 1915. I believe that the material is stored in Washington and although it is likely that only limited access is available to the voluminous collection of letters and documents stored in the Smithsonian and National Geographic headquarters. Bell was an inveterate hoarder and at his death, a huge collection of material was stored and only little by little was it sifted through. Coincidentally, his habit of keeping all his correspondences was mainly responsible for the many successful legal defenses of the telephone patent as he had an established authorship "chain" that was dated and recorded in his letters to his fiancé and his family. Andy, not to diminish any anon's contributions but I know that the first thing that happens in protecting an article is to limit anon's access, so it is useful to use your userid for that purpose alone. Nevertheless, the letter that is alluded to in the papers is not widely available to researchers but Bell's biographers certainly would have come across any pertinent material. FWIW [:¬∆ (See smily face- not angry face... Jest kiddn'Bzuk 14:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC).)

Fair enough. That's all I wanted to know. I would normally use my userid for edits, unless of course I forget to sign in. Out of curiosity, why do you keep calling me Andy? 77.102.8.117 14:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, see: [4] and the first name on the page was "Andy" so I assumed it was the name of the person who had the talk page. Using a name is just a means of personalizing an exchange so it isn't just two strangers talking. Me Bill, you Jane? FWIW Bzuk 14:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC).

Call me James or Jim. Jane is a tad too feminine for my liking :) 77.102.8.117 14:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

James, Jim, Jimmie, Jimmy, Jimminie, Jimbo... nice talk' at 'ya. Catch you later. [:¬∆ Bzuk 15:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC).

Interwiki link reverting

A question to Bzuk - having been keeping an eye on some of the vandalism here for a few days, I'm curious as to why you're reverting bot additions of interwiki links. Is there a reason for it? After the last bot addition, I had a quick scan, and couldn't see a problem with the addition. Cheers. Carre 12:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not see the reason for the BOT's addition although I do not normally revert this type of edit, and typically revert back to the last "clean" version to eliminate any inadvertent vandalism. FWIW Bzuk 12:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC).

Fair enough - was just curious. Incidentally, popups are a useful tool for seeing what changes have been made without having to do a full diff; can just hover mouse over the diff link in contributions/watchlist and you get the changes. Cheers. Carre 14:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahoyhoy

I think there ought to be a sentence about Bell's "ahoyhoy" greeting here. See here if you don't know what I'm talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.166.79 (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Pernicious anaemia

I guess that Bell would have been ill for some time (perhaps years) as his pernicious anemia insidiously became worse prior to his death. Are there any records of gradual failing health? Snowman 21:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, his deteriortion in his final years was extensively covered in many biographies. It was very evident to the family that Alexander Graham Bell was in failing health but he typically did not want to let up on his experiments and took very poor care of himself, despite many entreaties by his wife. FWIW, nice to see you and Red taking an interest in this biography; it certainly can use the help even from the standpoint of vandal patrol alone. Bzuk 02:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

Still at work Snowman? This is probably not the best place to post this comment, but having read through all the arguments pertaining to Bell's nationality, I've decided to call a halt to changing the American-English spellings to UK-ish until a consensus has been arrived at. It seems eminently clear to me that despite any subsequent citizenship or allegiance to America, Bell was born a Scot, and spent his formative years and early adult life in Scotland. The person he became was the result of those years, and IMHO no pieces of paper signed or oaths sworn can change that he was intrinsically Scottish. If I emigrated to the US and swore allegiance, I would not become an American, but an Americanised Englishman. I would have new loyalties but would still be the person I was when I left the UK.

Any thoughts on how this issue can be resolved? --Red Sunset 21:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I arrived here as my son has a (Scottish) school project to complete based on a famous Scot.

I am not sure about counts of hits on this page in particular, but the US:UK ratio of readers of the en.wiki in general is about 80:20. Snowman 22:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That may be so, but not relevant to the issue. Having four times the number of US readers as those in the UK doesn't mean that he was four times as likely to be American. It needs to be sorted out, and not just for agreement of the spelling format which depends on the subject's nationality first and foremost. --Red Sunset 22:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

On what evidence is it concluded that he had pernicious anaemia? Pernicious anaemia is insidious, so the article seems incomplete, I feel, that this death suddenly appears without any prior mention of malaise. Snowman 22:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a few mentions of his failing health in the "Family tragedy" section, but no reference to Pernicious anaemia. --Red Sunset 23:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If you read through the edit history, this is a work in progress which I have had to suspend due to another Wiki issue that has to be resolved. I will certainly get to work on it again but feel free to make a submission on this topic. There is quite an extensive account of Bell's final years which were spent at Beinn Bhreagh. As to the spelling, UK-like grammar has been predominate since the article was created and remains in place. FWIW Bzuk 23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

I have read the "Family tragedy" section now; it starts in 1865 when Bell was 18 and it says he was exhausted in the (fall) autumn and winter. This does not help to clarify his health nearer the time of his death at age 75. If he had Addisonian pernicious anaemia (named after Thomas Addison) he would not be able to absorb B12 from his gut although he had B12 in his diet. It is possible for vegetarians to develop dietary vit B12 deficiency, as B12 is mainly present in meat. Snowman 23:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Cause of death

So far I've seen heart attack, diabetes, and now Pernicious Anaemia. Is there a definite cause of death?24.63.212.8 01:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)User:24.218.139.157

Charlotte Gray's biography of Bell "Reluctant Genius" pages 414, 418-419 says "Alec had been diagnosed with diabetes in 1915." [seven years before his death] "... wiggling his toes, even though he had lost sensation in them. None of his family realized that the loss of sensation was an indication that he had pernicious anemia... The local doctor from Baddeck confirmed that the diabetes had now affected Alec's liver." [Diabetes can also cause nerve damage and loss of sensation.] Greensburger 16:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, from a medical point of view, it just doesn't fit - diabetes does not cause significant liver damage per se, and is definitely unrelated to pernicious anaemia. As for loss of sensation and nerve damage, they're the same thing in this case (an instance of diabetic neuropathy), but that doesn't kill. Can anyone find a clearer reference? --Nehwyn (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

US Form

Why isn't this article in US Form, such as honor instead of honour? 1. Bell lived in the US most of his life. 2. Wikipedia is a mainly US encyclopedia. 3. US Form is less letters. 4. It looks better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.116.178 (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he lived in Canada more than he lived in the United States and previously he spent his early life and formative years in Scotland and the United Kingdom. For those reasons, and that UK spelling conventions are acceptable in Wikipedia underlie the reasons for the choice of spelling. Pardon me for snickering at your other three points, surely you are not serious? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

Please don't feed the trolls, people. (That was regarding reasons 2 to 4.) --Nehwyn (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Material from Eugenics article.

I note that there's an inline request for talk page comment when adding to this section. Today's addition was prepared to answer a {{fact}} request on the Eugenics page. At this stage in Bell's career his interest was less controversial, and I'm adding it here also with some confidence. It is cited. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship debate renewed

Would interested editors please take a look at the first/lead paragraph that identifies Alexander Graham Bell's origins and nationality. A question of how to phrase or write this paragraph has been raised. All input is welcomed. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

The current wording seems a bit complicated. However, it also appears to be the result of significant discussion. I suggest discussion if anyone wants to change it. That said, it does appear to be accurate to describe him as a Scottish-born American, with further explanation as is currently in the article. (And for disclosure purposes, I'm Canadian.) The article has now been the subject of a bold change and a reversion, now it's time for the discussion part. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and although i is also Canajan, the wording is a peculiar amalgam of all the various claims that were made. Alex's Scottish birthplace and early formative years spent in Scotland are noted, while the family and Alex settled in Canada and he would go on to spend most of his life there, he became a U.S. citizen in 1882. I think a more carefully worded introduction is in order but it may acerbate jingoism and nationalist demands from one country or another. C'est la vie (whoops, introduced another country's claims...) LOL {:¬∆ Bzuk (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

There is a simple solution to this problem that I highly recommend we adopt: remove any mention of nationality from the intro. What is important is Bell's work and contributions to the world. Where he was born, lived and vacationed is not. Bell deserves and article on the wiki because he invented the telephone, not because he was born in Scotland or had a cottage in Baddeck. Maury (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Maury, using that precept, I have a version here that predated the present lead paragraphs:

Alexander Graham Bell (3 March 1847 - 2 August 1922) was an eminent scientist, inventor and innovator. Alexander Graham Bell is most often associated with the invention of the telephone. Called "the father of the deaf", his father, grandfather and brother had all been associated with work on elocution and speech, and both his mother and wife were deaf, profoundly influencing Bell's life's work. His research on hearing and speech further led him to experiment with hearing devices that eventually culminated in the invention of the telephone.

Bell was awarded the first U.S. patent for the invention of the telephone in 1876. Although other inventors had claimed the honour, the Bell patent remained in effect. In later life, Bell considered his most famous invention was an intrusion on his real work and refused to have a telephone in his study.Many other inventions marked Bell's later life including groundbreaking work in hydrofoils and aeronautics. In 1888, Alexander Graham Bell was one of the founding members of the National Geographic Society. Upon Bell's death, all telephones throughout the United States stilled their ringing for a silent minute in tribute to the man whose yearning to communicate made them possible. FWIW, the other descriptions of Bell's birth, formative years, immigration and citizenship can be dealt with in other appropriate sections. Bzuk (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

Excellent! However, I'd posit that the whole patent thing could be removed to the body as well. I'd also like to expand a few of his later works, such as...

Alexander Graham Bell (3 March 1847 - 2 August 1922) was an eminent scientist, inventor and innovator. Alexander Graham Bell is most often associated with the invention of the telephone. Called "the father of the deaf", his father, grandfather and brother had all been associated with work on elocution and speech, and both his mother and wife were deaf, profoundly influencing Bell's life's work. His research on hearing and speech further led him to experiment with hearing devices that eventually culminated in the invention of the telephone. Bell considered his most famous invention was an intrusion on his real work and refused to have a telephone in his study. Upon Bell's death, all telephones throughout the United States stilled their ringing for a silent minute in tribute to the man whose yearning to communicate made them possible.

Bell's later life is marked with experiments in a variety of areas, most notably aerodynamics. He invented a new type of kite construction and built several very large kites based on this design. He later turned to aircraft design, inventing the aileron, which is a feature of almost every fixed-wing aircraft today. He also helped build several complete aircraft, making the first public demonstration of flight in 1908, and the first flight in the British Empire in 1909. He also worked in the field of hydrofoils, culminating in a design that held the water speed record for ten years. In 1888, Alexander Graham Bell was one of the founding members of the National Geographic Society.

Maury (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I guess it's the first flight outside the Isles, Cody was sep 1908. Maury (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The framing of the statement on Bell's invention of the telephone was in reaction to some of the earlier contentions that Antonio Meucci had a prior claim. Some of these discussions had labeled Bell as an imposter/thief?! BTW, I like the first paragraph, the second still needs a bit of wordsmithing, but is a good "change for the better." A slight take on the second paragraph follows:

Bell's later life was marked by experiments in a wide variety of interests, most notably aerodynamics. Creating the Aerial Experiment Association, he experimented with a new type of geodesic construction and built several very large kites based on this design. Later turning to aircraft design, Bell was instrumental in the development of the A.E.A. Silver Dart which flew in 1908 and his invention of the aileron, a feature of almost every fixed-wing aircraft today, was noteworthy. Bell also worked in the field of hydrofoils, culminating in a design that held the water speed record for ten years. In 1888, Alexander Graham Bell was one of the founding members of the National Geographic Society.

Again, only a twinkling around with words. FWIW, Bzuk (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

(undent) I say go! Maury (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Name

The name "Alec" has been used extensively in this article. This is not usually done in Wikipedia biographies. I began changing most (not all) of the uses to "Bell" in accordance with the MoS. Bzuk has been reverting me. We are at cross purposes here. Bzuk, could you please explain your rationale. Sunray (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to be contrary, but the question of his name is one of major importance and why this article is not written in the standard journalism 101 style. He was born Alexander Bell but at the age of 11, maneuvered his father into accepting a new name, acquiring Graham as his middle name. He was always "Aleck" at an early age within the family but often "Alexander" to his father. He turned to signing his name as "A.E.G." as a young man and reverted to this name convention most times later in correspondence. When he married, his wife insisted that there be a formal name change to "Alec" which became the name he carried when with family and friends. The article was written with these chronological periods identified partly by his name choice. I know it's a pain, but do read the entire article with this in mind. I do think that some of the standard journalism choices of "last" name can be incorporated as long as the his peculiar choices in names comes out. FWIW, Bzuk (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

This is interesting and should certainly be reflected in the article (which I think it was, and remained even after my changes). But surely his last name was always Bell. If so, there's no particular reason to depart from the MoS style, except to reflect the importance of his name change to him when he was young. Sunray (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, as a lad growing up in Scotland, he would have been addressed as "Bell" by his teachers and his peers. This would no doubt have led to all sorts of "ding dong" jokes, which may have contributed to his sensitivity to names. Still and all, I think that the encyclopedia in its neutral way should still refer to him, in the main, as "Bell." Sunray (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Be reassured, this will be altered. I just recently have had to rewrite major portions of the article including the lead paragraphs and the early years section. Someone had "snipped" the whole Canada section out which is being reintegrated. That's why I will go over the article little by little and try to catch all the inconsistencies. The name changes were a minor issue in the rewriting of large portions of text. FWIW, there is no MoS style regarding editorial choices, those are still the prerogative of the writer/editor and based on consensus-building when contentious issues arise. I wouldn't even consider this an issue at all, merely a product of an article that has been besieged so many times that it needs a fresh "take." Bzuk (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

It is good that you are taking a hard look at the article. When I was reading it through recently, it seemed overly long and sometimes tedious with detail. I agree that the MoS is a guideline and that editorial decisions are made by consensus. Glad that you are on this. Sunray (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sun, if I may call you that, son, this article has been an "anvil and hammer" job; you should take a look at its peculiar edit history. Just for a laugh, pull up its original edit and you will see where this taffy-pull has been going. {:¬∆) Bzuk (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

Claims and counter-claims

The article is again under attack by "he didn't invent the telephone" advocates. The opening and lead paragraphs have been written with a careful appraissal of the historical and scientific basis for Bell's role in the development and invention of the telephone and have been vetted by numerous editors and admins. Any discussion about the controversy behind claimants to the telephone should direct their attention and energies to Invention of the telephone. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

So you are saying the contradiction tag is correct then? Macgruder (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

Clear contradiction with "Inventor of the telephone" article. Given the controversy, the opening paragraph should not read as if it's a truth that Bell is the inventor of the telephone. Factually, he was the first to be granted the patent in the U.S. (the second to apply for said patent) Macgruder (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The article to which you refer is chock full of POV including the statement which I challenged. There is a place to discuss the claims and counterclaims of the invention of the telephone and taking it to that page is appropriate. The Bell article is a biographical article and although the telephone is an essential part of the story, it is only one aspect of a long and illustrious life in science. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

I don't see what "only one aspect of a long and illustrious life in science" has to do with the issue in question. Simply stating that an article is chock full of POV is not really helpful. It's equally unhelpful to suggest that I change that article to match your POV. If you wish you can put the contradiction tag on the other article or I'll put it here. It's up to you. Macgruder (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Already taken care of, and there is a difference between the two articles that must be highly apparant even to the casual reader. The Bell article is heavily documented and is extremely carefully written with the input of many editors, so I don't "get" the my POV statement. Check out the edit histories of both articles to see the difference. BTW, the latest "flap" came about when an IP came upon the Invention article and attempted to revise the Bell article to Meucci's claims. Incidentally I have read extensively about Bell and his life and have noted that Meucci's lawsuits were "tossed" out of court as the weakest of the claimants that challenged the Bell patent. If that is the basis of contesting the Bell article's tone, then perhaps, read the edit history of this discussion page and the article discussion page to see how the article and its numerous editors have dealt with the issue of "telephone invention" and the countless developers of the concept and technology behind the telephone. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

Now the dubious "collusion" theory is being reintroduced. Despite referenced sources, if there is no authoritative and supportable statement, then it is best not to introduce it. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

I understand that. However, what is clear is that 'grant of patent in U.S.' does not necessarily equal 'invention of'. Frankly, I don't care who invented the phone. The fact of the matter is that the invention is under dispute, and it would be better to allude to that here without detracting from AGB's life etc. For example, this article from the Guardian talks about the patent controversy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,738675,00.html

I see POV from both sides in this discussion. Given the fact that there is a dispute (look up Telephone in an Italian Encyclopedia), then Wikipedia should report this fact. This is the nature of POV. We are not here to find the truth of the matter when it's unknown but to report both sides. Macgruder (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bell did not just apply for a U.S. patent but sought patents worldwide. The Bell invention was the basis of all early telphones; his work on the device and the scientific principles that underlined his research is well documented. Bell himself saw the telephone as one invention among many other interests. Yes, there is controversy over "Who" invented it and there are earlier machines that date back to "speaking tubes" in prehistoric China that first were used as communication devices, however, the modern telephone can be traced back through Bell's pioneering efforts that took into effect other's research, most notably in the field of hearing and acoustics. To make a claim that Meucci invented the telephone rather than Bell is already in the article. Meucci may have not had the resources to actively pursue a strong legal defence but nevertheless, his claim was dismissed in a lawsuit directed against Bell and his backers. However, there were many other claimants that had much stronger cases such as Gray that ultimately resigned themselves to accepting Bell's patent as legitimate and the basis for all future development stemmed from Bell's machines with constant improvements from other sources. BTW, once Bell invented the contraption, he continued to tinker away on a variant that was used for detecting metals. He was an consummate scientist who went on to establish groundbreaking research in other field including hydrofoils and aeronautics. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

Yes, yes. I'm aware how wonderful Bell was - irrelevant to the discussion as it is. This, however, reads as original research i.e: synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. There is one fact here, and that is the invention is disputed. Given that the inventor is disputed, then Wikipedia reports that. End of story. (I thought that Meucci died before the case came to court or was that a different case). Cheers Macgruder (talk) 17:22, 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) 04:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Theories and suppositions can be left to the other articles dealing with the invention of the telephone, this is essentially a biographical article on Alexander Graham Bell. Bzuk (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC).

Honours and tributes

Although a list of honors and tributes to Bell is appropriate, there are hundreds of them and they detract from this biographical sketch of Bell and his accomplishments. There should not be further dilution of Bell's story by listing all the streets and avenues and boulevards named "Alexander Graham Bell Street", etc. There should be a short list (less than a dozen lines) of the main honors in which Bell participated. The others should be split off into a subordinate article. Greensburger (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, the list is waaaaay too long and could go on forever. Revert it back to the original format and put all the other additional listings into a separate article. This will also tend to discourage the usual troll attacks and cruft entries that will invariably appear. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC).

Alexander Graham Bell was born 3rd March 1847 but unfortunately died 2nd August (aged 75).He went to the university of Edinburgh and the university of Toronto .He was married to Mabel Hubbard and they got married in 1877 .He had two sons who died in infancy and had two daughters. Alexander ,a scotsman living in America ,invented the Telephone on 7th March(4 days after his birthday)1876.By 10th March his apparatus was so good that the first complete sentence transmitted "Watson ,come here ; i want to talk to you " was distinctly heard by his assistant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.163.54 (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Factual errors in references to Meucci

The article refers esclusively to the acoustic phone of Meucci. In 1856 Meucci constructed the first electromagnetic telephone, see invention of the telephone. Meucci had developed a series of electric telephones before Bell as noted in the Scientific American Supplement No. 520, December 19, 1885. About the court case: "Despite a public statement by the then Secretary of State that "there exists sufficient proof to give priority to Meucci in the invention of the telephone," and despite the fact that the United States initiated prosecution for fraud against Bell's patent, the trial was postponed from year to year until, in 1896, the case was dropped."

Probably, the actual "invention" of the telephone as commercial product is the great legacy of Bell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunablu77 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)