Talk:Telephone

Prior discussions that are currently archived

The following is a listing of prior discussions for this article that are currently archived (accessible via the Archives 1 link found at the top of this page). Please copy and paste relevant issues as needed from the archives onto this page to avoid endless loops of prior discussions. HarryZilber (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• 1 Russian telephones
• 2 Split page?
• 3 Alexander Graham Bell -centrism
• 4 Chinese telephones
• 5 Antonio Meucci recognized as official inventor of telephone
• 6 Antonio Meucci
• 7 Alexander Graham Bell
• 8 January 2006,
• 9 Thief and Liar
• 10 Terri Pall vs. George H. Sweigert for credit for invention of cordless phone.
• 11 Etymology
• 12 overdue cleanup
• 13 Revert Linkspam???
• 14 Echo
• 15 Photo request
• 16 #Request for clarification
• 17 Redirect
• 18 Handset/headset jack? =
• 19 Is there a calling/communication by telephone article?
• 20 Sharing telephone lines
• 21 contradiction timewarp
• 22 Micky Mouse phones
• 23 Salutation
• 24 sorry
• 25 Edison's telephone patents
• 26 History
• 27 Vandalism?
• 28 Power
• 29 Two "See also" sections
• 30 External Links
• 31 What's a handset?
• 32 2, 3 or 4 elementary elements?
• 33 Chopping out history
• 34 Early commercial instruments
• 35 Civil War
• 36 Courtesy phones
• 37 How a Telephone Works
• 38 Inside the telephone
• 39 Forensically Victorious ?
• 40 Images? too much?
• 41 how o generate phone sounds?
• 42 History
• 43 Trivia section
• 44 *Telephone newspaper
• 45 why is there no mention of granville t. woods ?
• 46 Requested move
• 47 Modern Day phone
• 48 "Basic principle" needs work
• 49 Induction coil
• 50 Uhh
• 51 Pulse dial
• 52 Inside the telephone
• 53 is this article semi-protected?
• 54 Philipp Reiss

(55) Unprotecting the page?

Is there a chance the page could be unprotected? I have a few things I wanted to correct (mostly grammar) such as "or the central office (CO) ) are typically". --Zor (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(56) Meucci was the inventor, not Bell - or was it Reis? or Bourseul? or Gray? Maybe Edison?

Original inventor of telecommunication and telephone was Professor Jagdish Chandra Basu from BHARAT (INDIA).

Prove it with pre-1875 evidence from a reliable source. Greensburger (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The very word "priority" cheats all but one person of credit.-. For great inventions are always the gift of many people, not just one.

Meucci was the inventor, not Bell. This fact has even been recognized by the US Congress [by 81.32.234.155]

Prove it. All of the published evidence were reconstructions in the 1880s by lawyers for use in trials. Show us evidence prior to 1775. Meucci filed a caveat in December of 1871 describing his invention. This caveat is transcribed in the article Antonio Meucci. Nowhere does his caveat mention devices for converting sound to electrical waves and electrical waves to sound. There is no mention of an electromagnet, even though morse telegraphs use electromagnets. There is no mention of coils of wire or permanent magnets or magnetism. Nowhere does he mention a battery or other source of electrical power. There is no mention of a diaphragm. Meucci did not describe an electromagnetic telephone in his caveat. Greensburger (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"This fact has even been recognized by the US Congress [by 81.32.234.155]". Absolutely wrong, as has been pointed out in numerous past discussions (please read them in archived discussion #5 and in several discussions on the Talk:Alexander Graham Bell webpage) —the U.S. Congress did no such thing. Read the exact wording of the congressional resolution, and criticisms of it, in Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell. HarryZilber (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys please do check this "http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1098.htm"

Ask who really invented the telephone, and you may get the name of a German, Philipp Reis, not Alexander Graham Bell. The common wisdom is that Reis's telephone was only marginal, while Bell's phone really worked

Reis was a 26-year-old science teacher when he began work on the telephone in 1860. His essential idea came from a paper by a French investigator named Bourseul. In 1854 In 1854 Bourseul had explained how to transmit speech electrically. He wrote:

Speak against one diaphragm and let each vibration "make or break" the electric contact. The electric pulsations thereby produced will set the other diaphragm working, and [it then reproduces] the transmitted sound.

Only one part of Bourseul's idea was shaky. To send sound, the first diaphragm shouldn't make or break contact. It should vary the flow of electricity to the second diaphragm continuously. Reis used Bourseul's term, "make or break," but his diaphragm actually drove a thin rod to varying depths in an electric coil. He didn't make and or break the current. He varied it continuously.

Bell faced the same problem when he began work on his telephone a decade later. First, he used a diaphragm-driven needle, entering a water/acid solution, to create a continuously variable resistance and a smoothly varying electrical current. Bell got that idea from another American inventor, Elisha Gray. [by Ss123321ss]

Reis used a rod in an electric coil as a receiver, not a transmitter. Reis' transmitter (microphone) was a diaphragm-driven needle pressing on an electric contact at varying pressures.

When Bell tested Elisha Gray's water transmitter invention using a needle in water/acid solution, Bell was testing Gray's invention not developing a product. Bell never used the water transmitter idea again. Inventors often test each other's inventions. That is quite different than making and selling products containing such inventions. Greensburger (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Idiots, bell stole Meuccis patent, therefore he is no more than a common thief. Meucci was the true inventor of the telephone. My reference is the BBC television show Qi season 1 episode 11, time code: 25 min 10 sec - 25 min 47 sec. [by 85.226.5.137]

Meucci never applied for a patent for the telephone and therefore there was no patent for Bell to steal. Meucci's caveat does not describe an electromagnetic telephone and most importantly Meucci abandoned his caveat. He therefore gave up any rights he may have had to any non-electromagnetic telephone invention. If you abandon your TV by putting it out for the garbage collector and John puts it in his truck and takes it to his home, he did not steal the TV - you gave it to him or anybody who happens to drive by. But since Meucci's caveat shows he did not invent the electromagnetic telephone, the issue of stealing something Meucci did not invent is moot. Greensburger (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

87.14.212.150 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Sorry if I make mistake in using this Wikipedia tools, it's my first time. I want to underline the inutily of this discussion about the technical nature of Bell phone or Meucci phone or Reis'one since there is the definitive sentence of House of Representative US in June 11, 2002 where it is recognized 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." The resolution's sponsor described it as "a message that rings loud and clear recognizing the true inventor of the telephone, Antonio Meucci."

« H. Res. 269

In the House of Representatives, U.S., June 11, 2002. Whereas Antonio Meucci, the great Italian inventor, had a career that was both extraordinary and tragic; Whereas, upon immigrating to New York, Meucci continued to work with ceaseless vigor on a project he had begun in Havana, Cuba, an invention he later called the 'teletrofono', involving electronic communications; Whereas Meucci set up a rudimentary communications link in his Staten Island home that connected the basement with the first floor, and later, when his wife began to suffer from crippling arthritis, he created a permanent link between his lab and his wife's second floor bedroom; Whereas, having exhausted most of his life's savings in pursuing his work, Meucci was unable to commercialize his invention, though he demonstrated his invention in 1860 and had a description of it published in New York's Italian language newspaper; Whereas Meucci never learned English well enough to navigate the complex American business community; Whereas Meucci was unable to raise sufficient funds to pay his way through the patent application process, and thus had to settle for a caveat, a one year renewable notice of an impending patent, which was first filed on December 28, 1871; Whereas Meucci later learned that the Western Union affiliate 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; Whereas in March 1876, 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; Whereas 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 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 Now, therefore, be it 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. Attest: Clerk. » I think that this sentence should be at least cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.212.150 (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for my bad english. One month ago I saw on television a reporter asked the American people on the street "who was Antonio Meucci?", someone said italian cook, another stylist, actor ecc. I'm Italian and I'm tired of listening this story. I don't know if Bell stole the invention, but is shure that Meucci was the true inventor of the telephone. why still not clear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.132.142.20 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We have to go by what we know and can verify. We know that Bell was granted the patent. Any speculation about what might have happened *if* Meucci had the funds, or how much of his work was or was not used by Bell, is original research and synthesis, which we're not allowed to have in articles. Arakunem^Talk 02:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence from the congressional Resolution: "If Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell." is misleading. If Meucci had paid the $10 to renew his caveat after 1874, no patent could have issued to Bell in March 1876. Instead, the examiner would have suspended Bell's application and given Meucci 3 months to file a patent application based on his caveat and provide additional evidence that Meucci had either built his invention using the "undulatory current" feature, or had witnessed writings describing such a feature before Bell. If Meucci's claims still conflicted with Bell's claims and Meucci could prove that he had the "undulatory current" feature before Bell (although lacking in the caveat), then the examiner would have suggested to Bell how to narrow his claims to not read on Meucci's invention. This would be easy for Bell to do by adding the word "magnetic" to his claims 1, 3, and 5. Since Meucci's device as described in his caveat was not electromagnetic, Bell would have been granted a patent every bit as good as the patent Bell did get. So the whole issue of Meucci's caveat is moot. Bell had the electromagnetic telephone before Meucci. Greensburger (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(57) Incorrect voltage

It currently says (on the protected article page) that the ring signal voltage was "generally over 100 volts AC". That's wrong. It's 90 in North America and 60-90 volts in Europe (e.g. 90 in the UK and 60 in Germany). 95.88.145.118 (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I made the change you suggested. Greensburger (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(58) Unicode

I think that the unicode numbers for the symbols ℡(U+2121)☎(U+260E)☏(U+260F)✆(U+2706) should be included. I can't add them due to the lock, could someone add them for me? The Sanest Mad Hatter (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC) The Sanest Mad Hatter (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

[ed note: user:the sanest mad hatter inserted the the unicodes adjacent to the telephone symbols in the last line of the lede on 14 August 2009, and also struck out his discussion point above, to signify it is no longer an active item. The strikeout tags have been removed for legibility in order to continue the discussion, below.-HarryZilber (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) ]

While the telephone symbols themselves are significant and should remain in the article, they're not notable enough to be part of the lede, i.m.h.o. I propose to start a new subsection such as International identification symbols and move them there. Comments? -HarryZilber (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the current list of 4 symbols is enough for it's own section.The Sanest Mad Hatter (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed -four symbols and their codes are way too little! I should have suggested a section with broader scope, such as 'International identification and markings....' etc.... Perhaps it can be combined with telephone company logos, which would be tricky due to the copyright issues involved. -HarryZilber (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(59) IP Telephones

I'm a VoIP technician and IP telephones have more than just two main disadvantages. Other major disadvantages that I encounter regularly are 1) drop outs due to loss of Internet connectivity, 2) lower reliability due to greater complexity, 3) loss of connectivity even when the Internet connection is active due to a residential grade router not performing NAT properly, or otherwise blocking ports/not maintaining the VoIP connection even when the firewall is bypassed, 4) packet loss or packet delays (which causes discarded packets), which causes dropped or distorted audio (depending on the codec). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.67.199 (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that I am also a VOIP engineer, and have work as a telco technician as well. All of the limitations of VOIP service listed in this article apply equally to traditional service as well (note the suspicious mention of emergency service being powered by the phone companies "Battery" immediately after mentioning that VOIP systems fail without battery backup). I would also note that all of the problems listed for VOIP systems by the poster above are also experienced by telco customers. Using bad/worn cable and cheap phones on telco will cause service outages, call quality/reliability problems, and a host of other issues. The quality of service depends on the quality of the technical staff behind the service regardless of the technology. This article, unfortunately, borders on biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.34.137 (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(60) What is a telephone number to a telephone?

"Each telephone in the world has a unique identifying number called its telephone number." Someone tried to oversimplify telephone number addressing and produced an incorrect statement. While I do not know how several other countries handle it, US residential customers have some service endpoint (customer interconnect endpoint? customer network interface?) Obviously numbers are not paired with particular phone units as we can have multiple phone users over the same 2-way call... And this is not to take into consideration premises with multiple phone numbers at their network interface, multiple-pair lines (ex: T1). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.91.131 (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(61) Ringing current

Editor DAGwyn changed "90 volts AC to "pulses with about 90 volts amplitude", with the comment: "Current is not measured in volts! Also improved description of ringing pulses; "AC" was misleading."

This is not an amperes versus volts issue. It is common usage to refer to voltage of alternating current (abreviated VAC) as in "110 VAC" or "220 VAC". "Pulses" suggests asymmetric square waves which is misleading. Capacitors in the central exchange building and in the phones would shift any asymmetric pulses to alternate above and below zero just like ordinary symmetrical AC. Greensburger (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(62) Edit request from Renatoarmandola, 30 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the Telephone page, I think it would be appropriate to add, after the first paragraph of the History chapter, "Having said this, it is fair to add that in 2002 the U. S. House of Representatives passed a resolution recognizing Meucci's accomplishment and which stated 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." as stated in the Meucci Wikipedia page.

Sources: ^ House Resolution 269, dated 11 June 2002, written and sponsored by Rep. Vito Fossella. ^ Antonio Meucci and the invention of the telephone, Mary Bellis

Renatoarmandola (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Meucci is already mentioned in the article. Including speculative claims by politicians of what might have happened seems like undue weight for this figure. Celestra (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Further rejection response: Sorry, but also a further 'no' to Renatoarmando. For more information on the flawed House Of Representatives resolution, please refer to the Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell article, which provides a number of details on the several errors in the document. The above request to revise the historical record of the telephone's development mirrors several previous failed attempts at discrediting or smearing Alexander Graham Bell, and elevating Meucci in priority to the invention of the electrical, not acoustical, telephone. Meucci's documented contributions to electrical telephony are all post-1874, which is exactly why he lost his legal challenge to Bell's patent. The suggester can also review the numerous discussions of priority on the Alexander Graham Bell talk page, as well as earlier discussions on this talk page as well. HarryZilber (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the real fact is that actually in Enghlish Wikipedia web page about telephone is still missing that in 2002 – Antonio Meucci is acknowledged as the first inventor of the telephone by the United States Congress. and I am really wondering why..... Cristiana, Rome, Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.32.226.5 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(63) Gender neutral pronouns

What is the preffered method for gender neutral pronouns? "his/her" just seems awkward. Would it be better to use "his or her", or to reword the sentence. (referring to SJH541's edit on 20:20, 25 July 2010).

The sentence in question is: "In order to initiate a telephone call, a conversation with another telephone, the user enters the other telephone's number into a numeric keypad on his/her phone."

Would "In order to initiate a telephone call, a conversation with another telephone, the user uses the telephone's numeric keypad to enter another's telephone number." be better The Sanest Mad Hatter (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(64) Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

(65) Number please

"All telephones have...a keypad (or in older phones a telephone dial) to enter the telephone number of the telephone being called." This would be news to Alexander Graham Bell, all the telephone subscribers before Almon Strowger's invention, and all those who thought they were using telephones before the Bell system finally adopted automatic telephony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.83.246 (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

That error is now fixed. Greensburger (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(66) Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Telephone → Phone — Per WP:common name. phone: 47,100, 2,480,000 telephone: 38,000, 1,830,000. I had to use Google news and Google scholar because anything over 100,000 search results makes Google books screw up.Marcus Qwertyus 07:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Popular usage is often reported over correctness, from Wikipedia:Search engine test#General biases. Sources like the New York Times frequently use both. I don't see the need to mess with this article, so based on nom's Google hits argument, I oppose the move. --Pnm (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is about the old-fashioned wirephone and uses the old-fashioned term for it. The abbreviated term "phone" is being taken over in popular usage by the modern mobile phone, which is not the subject of this article. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Telephone is the proper and encyclopedic name for the device. This does not rise to the level of WP:COMMONNAME (e.g. Caffeine vs. 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione) in my opinion. Phone is a colloquialism, as the DAB page even states, and I don't think anyone would think twice about what Telephone is referring to. Plus, I concur with all the arguments from the last time this was suggested (#46 in the list at the top of this page). Arakunem^Talk 14:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with the arguments against. Dgtsyb (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proper word is "telephone". "Phone" is slang. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Absolutely not! 'Phone is an abbreviation and article names should not be abbreviated.--Ykraps (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Colloquialism. This is an encyclopedia and encyclopedic terms rather than colloquialisms should be used for article titles. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

(67) Edit request from Fabienik, 3 January 2011 - 11.june.2002: Italian Meucci was recognized the true inventor of telephone by USA Congress Resolution 269

{{edit semi-protected}}

June 11, 2002, the United States Congress passes Resolution 269, recognizing Italian-American inventor Antonio Meucci as the true inventor of the telephone. (http://www.garibaldimeuccimuseum.org/congress.html)

Fabienik (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree with the request: refer to the Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell article which reviewed HRes 269 in detail, and discredited the notion that Bell didn't invent the electromagnetic telephone. HarryZilber (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree with the request, and I also disagree with the wording that was added yesterday for several reasons. First, the resolution states only: 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. That is not the same as "Paternity of the invention is attributed by U.S. Congress". The resolution was a "sense of the house" resolution that has no binding in any law. It is essentially an honorary resolution that says that Meucci did much pioneering work in the invention of the telephone, which the article already stated. Not to mention that is was only the House of Representatives that passed this, and not the Congress as a whole.

Secondly: So the US House passed a resolution acknowledging his work. So what? I'm an American, but putting that sentence as the lead-off in the History section comes across as very US-Centric and rather arrogant and presumptuous. I notice that the Canadian resolution is not mentioned. These may warrant a mention further down the page, but not where it is now. The History paragraph should be reverted back to the last version by Greensburger. Arakunem^Talk 14:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree per above. Dgtsyb (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Well, it's kind of already been done (see last 3 edits in the article). I've not reverted that as I'm hoping the 2 editors involved will come here to discuss once their timezone rolls around again. Arakunem^Talk 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(68) Radiotelephone

It's not clearly defined on the radiotelephone article - which isn't linked to from this main page - how a 'radiotelephone' is different from a mobile phone or two-way radio. Please could someone in the know clarify this?|Moemin05 (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Technical distinctions blurred as the technology evolved. "Radio telephone" originally meant a two-way radio with a telephone handset attached, but could not dial numbers. That changed when base stations began accepting dialed numbers. The word "mobile" in "mobile phone" originally meant in a mobile vehicle, but not a handheld phone. That changed after cellular telephone networks designed for phones in vehicles began accepting Motorola Dynatac calls. Greensburger (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(69) An important change to the wording is needed

Under the heading of "Detailed Operation" near the bottom There is a sentence that reads:

At the same time the DC voltage comming through the line drives a current ......

Voltages do not go "through" a line. Voltages are developed "across" a line. Only current can go through a line. Please change this line to read:

At the same time the DC voltage developed across the line generates a current .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badboydano (talk • contribs) 16:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(70) IP telephony

I was wondering whether analog to digital telephone conversions may be mentioned in this article section (IP telephony). A notable project is OpenUSBFXS, see also http://code.google.com/p/openusbfxs/

Some things I don't get on the project though:

• is the old telephone number kept (ie 00 33 51 123456 or something like that; 00 --> prefix, 33 --> country code, 51--> area code, last 6 numbers the actual phone number OR

does a entirely new (VOIP) telephoen number needs to be taken ?

• is the data tranferred via the old telephone line (POTS) or via a seperate internet access line (ie 56k, ISDN, ADSL or even cable, ...)

07:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.100.231 (talk)

(71) Edit request from Ascanio75, 2 October 2011

• On June 11 2002, the United State House of Representatives declared that the telephone was invented by Antonio Meucci, an Italian-American. The House declared that Alexander Graham Bell's patent for the telephone was based on "fraud and misrepresentation."

Ascanio75 (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The House of Rep. resolution about Meucci was based on fraud and misrepresentation. The accusation against Bell was rejected by the courts. The House Resolution is not a reliable source for the facts. For an analysis of the US House Resolution, see: Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell. Greensburger (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Marking as answered for discussion. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(72) Philipp Reis (2)

As already mentioned in the discussion archives it was Philipp Reis who actually invented the modern telephone - and who invented the very name of it. Thus it came from German to the other languages, not from English (recalling it was a Greek-based neologism). The article here doesn't even mention all this. MUST be corrected! 217.94.224.93 (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong article; this one is already long enough. Checked the linked Invention of the telephone article. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(73) Edit request from 29 October 2011

If Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Alexander G. Bell. So Meucci is the real inventor of the thelephone.

Ascanio75 (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: That may be true, but that is not what happened. Additionally, the article does explain that many people have been credited with the invention of the telephone, and this is documented in many reliable sources. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This quote is usually misunderstood. No patent could have issued to Bell during the 3-months suspension that the Examiner would have imposed to give Meucci time to prove that he was first to invent what Bell claimed. But then Meucci would fail to prove that his invention was what Bell claimed or Bell would have modified his claims slightly to not read on Meucci's caveat. Then Bell's patent would have been issued. Greensburger (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Like many italians I was sure that Meucci was the inventor. Not more. After reading the biography of Innocenzo Manzetti of Aosta (Italy) and his accomplishments, I think that he had the implemented the first working speaking telegraph. Call it telephone and the only difference would be the copyright on a word. The year, 1865, in which these idea was on the major newspapers, is earlier enough that both Bell and Meucci could have know about it. There is the "Le Petit journal" dated 1865/11/22 n.1026 ( http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k589123j.image.r=Manzetti.f3.langEN ) where, on the lower right we read: "Manzetti transmet directement la parole parle fil telegraphique ordinaire' avec un appareil plus simple que celui qui sert aujourd'hui pour les depeches desormais deux negociants pouront en quelques instants, traiter leurs affaires de Londres a Calcutta, s'informer reciproquement de leurs speculations, les proposer et les combiner." These words where on the news on 22 Novembre 1865, and could be the description of a modern telephone made by the one who never saw one before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.85.240.153 (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is biased and represents the history unfaithfully

The American Congress recognized Antonio Meucci as the first and only inventor of the telephone, and clarified that Graham Bell merely stole the invention through bribery, taking advantage of the fact that Meucci did not have the funds to file for and defend a patent.

The article fails to represent the above officially recognized facts and as such is biased and unfaithful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.32.30.67 (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Kindly provide the official citation. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)