Talk:Antonio Meucci

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project as a "full time member" and/or contribute to the discussion.

	Antonio Meucci is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Sorry for previus message, sandbox dont help in this case. Rewrite:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The resolution stated that MEUCCI did a permanent electronic telephone communication in 1860. Bell patented the telephone 16 years later. Meucci was too poor to pay for the patent. This should be written Pierpaolo.Dondio

The movie citations is quite ridicolous.. imagine it in an encyclopedia.. very sad.

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

To be honest, citation of Godfather and "Soprano" (any other movies?) are not serious in an article about an inventor... I removed it, anybody has a comment? We should mention that Basilio Catania found the historycal evidences about the attribution of the invention. From the web (need to find a better reference to confirm, then i'll put online): "Professor Basilio Catania, recipient of the 1988 Eurotelecom and 1991 Marconi Prizes, said the new truths about the invention's ownership are contained in the record of an 1887 trial ordered by the US Government (United States v Bell Telephone Company and Alexander Graham Bell) to strip Bell of his patents for fraud and misrepresentation."

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

There are many places called 'Clifton' in the United States. Which one did he live in? --Smack (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The one in Staten Island, NY. :) -Jen Moakler 22:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

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

Miky Dalton

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

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

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

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

1 Neutrality problems. Lack of citations...
2 Acoustic telephones in the 1840's and doubtful claims in the 1880s
3 The House of Representatives resolution
4 Recent removal of mention in the Simpsons
5 The "electronic" telephone in 1876?
6 Some suggestions.
7 Citations needed?
8 Italian or Italian-American?
9 Stick to what the resolution really says
10 Do we need the whole court ruling?
11 Intro Wording

[edit] Neutrality problems. Lack of citations...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither statement is referenced or otherwise supported.

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

Properly substantiated with adequate citations or not, this article is really exciting for me. I mean, I'm biased - you would be too if you're great great great uncle was credited often with inventing the telephone and otherwise with contributing significantly to its invention. I wish I knew this man - and, if he did truly make invaluable contributions to the telephone's invention, I wish my family had something (financially) to show for it, haha.

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

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

There's also the distinction between a laboratory proof-of-concept and a practical realization... to take another much-debated example, it is clear that Santos-Dumont flew a heavier-than-air craft successfully and very conspicuously in public, at a time when the Wright Brothers' flights had been observed only by a very small number of people. However, Santos-Dumont's craft was extremely finicky and unstable, and probably could only be flown by a man of extraordinary skill, while part of the Wrights' genius was that they understood both that the craft needed to be flyable by a person of ordinary skill and that there needed to be a way to learn to acquire that skill safely. By the time the Wrights were making big public demonstrations, their machine was a much more practical craft than Santos-Dumont's. Or so I've concluded from my occasional readings of popular books on the subject... very likely there are some French and Brazilians who have read different books and believe something different. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Idiot the airplane was invented by Santos Dumont. (Unsigned entry by 24.123.189.2)

Yeah, and the motion picture was invented by Friese-Greene, and the light bulb by Joseph Swann, and the first successful perpetual motion machine by Robert George Adams. I know. I know. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC) P. S. 24.123.189.2, you wouldn't, by any wild chance, happen to be French or Brazilian, would you? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Acoustic telephones in the 1840's and doubtful claims in the 1880s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The House of Representatives resolution

...says nothing about Meucci being "the true inventor of the telephone."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House for unanimous consent on the following motion, which has been discussed with all parties, regarding Alexander Graham Bell. I move:

This House affirms that Alexander Graham Bell of Brantford, Ontario and Baddeck, Nova Scotia is the inventor of the telephone.

The Speaker: Does the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

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

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

[edit] Recent removal of mention in the Simpsons

Re:

In the television series The Simpsons, the family visits a museum of inventors and a picture of Alexander Graham Bell is placed on top of a plaque reading "Inventor of the telephone" with a small picture of Antonio Meucci beside him with a plaque saying "You stole it from me." Graham Bell then replies "Read the patent, bitch."^{[citation needed]}

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

[edit] The "electronic" telephone in 1876?

"Bell patented the electronic telephone in 1876."

Le mot juste? I understand the point here: "telephone" in the sense of an electro-mechanical device that transmits speech by conduction of a varying electric signal over wires... as opposed to acoustic "telephones" like those used on shipboard that transmit sound over long distances by confining them to pipes, or string-and-tin-can "telephones." But it seems to me to be stretching the definition of "electronic"

"1. Of or relating to electrons. 2. Of, based on, operated by, or otherwise involving the controlled conduction of electrons or other charge carriers, especially in a vacuum, gas, or semiconducting material..." [1]

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Some suggestions.

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

[edit] Citations needed?

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

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

I agree with [User talk:83.71.107.7].

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

Oops!

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

[edit] Italian or Italian-American?

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

[edit] Stick to what the resolution really says

A user has requested comment on biography for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCbio list}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

The opening paragraph said

Meucci was recognized as the first inventor of the telephone by the United States House of Representatives, in House Resolution 269, dated 11 June, 2002, written and sponsored by Rep. Vito Fossella.

In fact, the resolution, does not say this. I've revised the opening paragraph so that it now simply quotes the actual words of the resolution, allowing readers to interpret it as they will:

In 2002 the U. S. House of Representatives passed a bill stating that "the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged."

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

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

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

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

dpbsmith is correct in saying that the resolution doesn't say that Meucci invented the telephone. However, it does clearly indicate that of Bell and Meucci, Meucci clearly had it first. There is no other legitimate way to read "Whereas if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell". So, the resolution can be cited as a statement that Meucci made a telephone before Bell, though it isn't conclusive evidence that the House of Reps felt he was the first inventor (though it is clearly a persuasive argument.) LedRush (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Do we need the whole court ruling?

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

[edit] Intro Wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.