Talk:Philo Farnsworth

Untitled

Please add new discussion topics as sections as the bottom

Old discussion

Has Wikipedia decided on any standardized way of presenting GPS (Global Positioning System) Coordinates? Now that they are becoming more important for Automobile navigation systems and soon they will be popping up for personal navigation using Cell phones and hand held computers there will be a tremendous demand for these numbers so that anytime you are looking for some location you will know instantly how far away it is and in which direction. Not to mention many new applications using your computer to generate personalized maps based upon your interests. FredRys ----

I have a question: the cathode ray tube article says it was invented by Karl Ferdinand Braun. This seems like an inconsistency with what is in this article. Could an explanation be included in the article as to how Braun figures in with Farnsworth? --Gary D 03:32, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quote from this interview with Evan Schwartz, who has written a book about Farnsworth: "The idea of electronic television came to him while plowing a potato field on his family's farm in Idaho. ... Just think of it: the potato field led to the couch potato." -- Jim Regan 17:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The story about Farnsworth's plowed furrow inspiration for straight-line raster scan of images is interesting enough to be quoted in this Wikipedia article. Quicksilver 22:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In response to the question: While Farnsworth and others are credited in creating the first televisions, they did not invent the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT). It was, as you mentioned, Braun who invented it. When cathode ray tubes were first invented (discovered?), there was no practical use for them. Like many complex devices, the inventors of the television used a previously existing device and modified it in such a way that it had a practical use.

I'm not sure how to best go about explaining this in the article... or where to put that bit of information. Perhaps it belongs in the television article. A simplified diagram of the inner workings of a TV may be helpful. Or perhaps a comment that the CRT invented by Braun is not exactly the same as the ones used in TVs today.--Farmerjoe 19:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Need more detail about the end of Farnsworth's life. Could start by condensing the following paragraph from Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor down to a few sentences:

"Farnsworth then moved to Brigham Young University and tried to hire on most of his original lab from ITT into a new company. The company started operations in 1968, but after failing to secure several million dollars in seed capital, by 1970 they had burned through all of Farnsworth's savings. The IRS seized their assets in February 1971, and in March Farnsworth suffered a bout of pneumonia and died."

I haven't gone through the biographical manual o' style yet to see if there are standard-ish headings for biographical sketches -- but I guess I'll add this to my to-do-eventually list unless someone else wants to tackle it...? --dvgrn 06:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Bravo for an article on Farnsworth! Most histories are written by RCA. You don't mention the controversy over whether Zvorikin stole the design. Comment? Trekphiler 16:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Zworykin, Farnsworth, and camera tubes

The Farnsworth Image Dissector and Zworykin's Iconoscope were both camera tubes. But they were quite different. The Image Dissector only used the photons that hit where the beam was scanning, so it integrated over one "pixel time", not a frame time. But the Image Dissector had a photomultiplier stage, so it got as many electrons as it could out of the few photons it detected.

The Iconoscope integrated over a frame time, using capacitance on the imaging plate, but didn't have a photomultiplier stage. Both devices had very poor light sensitivity.

The Emitron was developed independently at EMI under Isaac Schoenberg and used the same principle of storing the charge. The Book "Here's Looking at You: Story of British Television, 1908-39" has an account by two of Schoenberg's team - Tedham and Magee of how they defied orderes and made an experimental tube after normal working hours which succeeded in producing a recognisable picture. The same book indicates that RCA and EMI agreed a patent exchange, with RCA treating EMI on equal terms

reference ; Here's Looking at You: Story of British Television, 1908-39 Author Bruce Norman.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0563201029/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller= [ [User:Rowan Langley|Rowan Langley]] (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

When RCA finally acquired the rights to both approaches, (long legal story) RCA Labs developed the image orthicon tube. This was about what you'd expect from a corporate lab. It had both an integrating imageing plate, like the iconoscope, and a photomultiplier, like the image dissector. It was complicated, very expensive, and took about six different power supplies to drive. But it finally yielded a television camera with reasonable light sensitivity.

This really belongs in Video camera tube. --Nagle 18:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There are several good books on Farnsworth's invention of electronic television. It is very clear that Zworykin visited Farnsworth's lab under false pretenses, copied his image dissector at RCA, and said he wished he had invented it. Farnsworth's breakthrough was all his own, and the guys at RCA did everything they could to strip him of the rights and honor due for that. Anyone who wants to contradict that here would well to read one or more of these histories first. Dicklyon 05:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Boris Rosing's CRT display electromechanical?

There seems to be some confusion (mine mostly) about who first used a purly electronic (as opposed to electromechanical) device to display a televison image. If Boris Rosing is to displace Farnsworth as the "Father of Electronic Television" it would need to be shown that he displayed an image on a television screen using a purely electronic method (e.g. a CRT). It is known that Rosing displayed an image on a CRT screen prior to Farnsworth doing so and that he had the idea of CRT prior to Farnsworth. The question is WAS ROSING CRT IMAGE DISPLAY PURELY ELECTRONIC? It has been suggested that the answer is no (thereby invalidating his claim). I know for a fact that the CAMERA he used was mechanical, but we're not talking about cameras are we, we're talking about displaying the image. If we disregard the camera equipment used and look solely at the way an image is being displayed wouldn't that make Rosing the first person to display an image on a screen using purely electronic methods (e.g. CRT) ??? I'm not an engineer but the idea of a crt display being electromechanical seems odd to me, surely it wasn't was it? I understand that there were methods of displaying an image electromechanically by using a spinning disk or drum but if CRT is being used that must be electronic right?? ADVICE PLEASE!!!!

ADVICE: A Television system is composed of both the camera and the display. Without both, the "system" does not work at all. There is no dispute that Rosing's system used an electromechanical camera, although there is some lack of clarity about how his display worked... In any case, the display relied on the mechanical nature of the camera, and thus the display relied on electromechanical components.

Inventor?

Philo is only regarded as the inventor of TV in America. The rest of the world still recognises John Logie Baird as Television's father. Baird had a working model on display long before Farnsworth.

Rest of the world?? Parochially-minded scotsmen, maybe.

The most nations support there own inventors. That only shows how stupid it is to speak of one "father" of television. Many inventors were involed in the same way. In Germany neither Farnworth nor Baird are seen as "THE inventor" but as some of the many fathers of television. There are some fields in science which have an most important person, but this is definitly not true for television. The fathers of television are: de: Chronologie des Fernsehens

Parochially-minded scotsmen? Or anyone who pays attention to the timeline. Baird's system allowed him to capture a lot of 'firsts' for television. Farnsworth's invention was undoubtedly the better model, but came along after Baird had made significant achievements with his system.

The truth is much more interesting and complex than can be captured by a single 'father of television'; just for the record here, John Logie Baird is generally ackowledged to have made the first working television, and Phito T. Farnsworth the first working all-electronic television. Someone else (probably DIECKMANN, M., "The Problem of TeleVision - A Partial Solution", Scientific American. Supplement, 68, n. 1751, 24 July 1909, pp.61-62) had the first raster CRT display long before either, but lacked an electronic TV pickup tube, which was Farnsworth's invention.

I believe this position on Baird's achievement as it pertains to this article on Farnsworth is somewhat over-reactive. Any clear reading of the very text in this article will immediately see that many others who had set the way earlier for different aspects of the overall invention, including Baird, are mentioned near the beginning of the article. But this article is not about them; it is about Farnsworth's contribution - a key one - to the birth of public television - in a form practical and efficient in the world, parts of which are still in use today.

However, for the sake of clarity, the line "That year, Farnsworth transmitted the first live human images using his television system, including a three and a half-inch image of his wife Pem with her eyes closed because of the blinding light required." should be changed to "That year, Farnsworth transmitted HIS first live human images using his television system, including a three and a half-inch image of his wife Pem with her eyes closed because of the blinding light required." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.107.22 (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Therefore, as the article is on Farnsworth's very real and practical contribution as it relates to the final product in use, it makes one wonder the motivation behind the person who 'jumped out of Mode re the article being on Farnsworth' and suddenly entered some displaced point that a Japanese invented electronic television before Farnsworth! Surely, a statement that the Japanese man was first belongs in the article itself that is about him.

Further, why does this article not have means in place for direct editing?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.102.138 (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"[W]hy does this article not have means in place for direct editing??" If you are referring to the "Protection Template", it's because the article has been the victim of repeated destructive edits, especially by unregistered users.

And please, remember to sign your posts by typing four "tildes" ("~"). Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The position in England and other matters

Baird is generally regarded as the inventor of "television" in the whole of the UK, by the general public that is. However the general public makes little or no distinction between electromechanical television and purely electronic television. I am happy mostly happy with the changes that have been made to the page to show a more rounded (less US-centric) representation of the "facts". It should be noted that I am an Englishman promoting the inclusion of Rosing (a non-Englishman) and therefore my intentions are not clouded by national pride. It should also be noted that I have nothing against the USA (in this instance) or Farnsworth but simply fear that a US-led internet can cause a US bias in the recording of history. Finally I think that it may add some clarity if we were to define one person as the inventor of the "electronic television camera" and another as the inventor of the "electronic television set". By "set" I mean a piece of equipment that can display a television signal. If we did this then maybe Farnsworth would hold the first title (inventor of the electronic television camera) and Rosing would hold the second (inventor of the electronic television set). Together both men could be regarded as the inventors of electronic television. Some would argue that a television set is only a television set if it can receive a signal which has been broadcast in some manner, such people may perfer to call Rosing the inventor of the Cathode Ray Tube Display ("monitor").

>> Philo's wife, Elma Gardner "Pem" Farnsworth, died on April 27, 2006, at the age of 98. Farnsworth always gave his wife equal credit with himself for creating television, saying "my wife and I started this TV." It was Elma who fought for decades to assure Farnsworth's place in history after his death in 1971

Apparently she died on May 2nd. Please follow this link:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12596707/

The obituary was written on May 2. It clearly states she died the previous Thursday (April 27).

What US-led Internet would that be? There is no such thing, just that this happens to be a US-based website, so expect some ignorance (Such as the claim of Farnsworth as TV's inventor) Morganson691 (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Franklin Institute demonstrations, 1934

Although Farnsworth and others had worked on components of an all-electronic television system earlier, and had publicly demonstrated components of it, the Franklin Institute demonstrations were indeed the world's first public demonstration of a television system with all-electronic components at both the transmitting and receiving ends. See Television: An International History of the Formative Years, by R. W. Burns, pp. 370-376.

I welcome being corrected that there was an earlier demonstration, but please give place, date, and a source to verify this. — Walloon 03:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so it's public you're relying on. OK, but I think we should put in something about when he first had it working and demonstrated in private, too. Does your source have the dates? Dicklyon 03:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You were the one who said there was an earlier private demonstration of an all-electronic system (transmitter and receiver). I am not aware of any such private demonstration. See above where I wrote, "I welcome being corrected that there was an earlier demonstration, but please give place, date, and a source to verify this." — Walloon 04:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I can dig it up from the various Farnsworth biographies; it was at his Green Street lab in San Francisco, probably years before he went to Philadelphia for a public demo. Are you saying that Television: An International History of the Formative Years doesn't say when Farnsworth first showed his system working? I'd be surprised. Dicklyon 05:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's one: the demonstration of the "$" image to his banker investors was done in August 1928. That's according to The Boy who Invented Television by Paul Schatzkin. Dicklyon 05:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Same book says first demonstrated 1927, first film chain (this is, input from movie film) 1929, 1930 a steady stream of visitors to his lab to see his demo, and "when he arrived at the Green Street loft on April 14 (1930), Zworykin was shown a clear, sharp picture with more than 300 scan lines per frame." That's the day Z said "This is a beautiful instrument. I wish I had invented it myself." Same story is in The Last Lone Inventor and other histories and biographies that have looked at Farnsworth's contributions. Dicklyon 05:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And the NY Times of Sept. 4 1928 head "No revolving disk, receiver to retail at $100 or less. Cigar smoke plainly visible with man smoking." (quoted in item 1453 of Early Television: a bibliographic guide to 1940 by George Shiers). That's probably the first demo to public media involving a moving human subject. Dicklyon 05:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A different account of the same event in Abrahamson's book:

Zworykin was given a demonstration of the entire system in operation. While he was pleased with the performance of the dissector tube [in the camera], he was not at all impressed with Farnsworth's magnetically focused receiving tube. Because it used a long, magnetic coil (a "thick lens") wrapped along the entire length of the tube, it could display only small (two and a half inch), dim pictures. Farnworth had no better luck with it than any of the other top scientists anywhere in the world.

What Zworykin called "a beautiful instrument" was Farnsworth's image dissector, not the receiver. The disparity between these two accounts shows why it's important to look at the first public demonstrations of inventions, where disinterested parties can give their own evaluation. — Walloon 05:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was the image dissector. And looking at and comparing public demos is fine, too. But the key breakthrough that television had been looking for for decades was the device the Farnsworth invented, that Zworykin admired and copied. Dicklyon 05:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the statement that he was "not impressed" and that Farnsworth "had no more luck..." could have only come from Zworykin himself, who was a major part of the RCA campaign to rewrite the history of television. So such statements should be carefully weighed and discounted appropriately, yes? Dicklyon 06:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Debating Farnsworth's Position in the Invention of Television

I removed about a paragraph's worth of "here's-why-I-don't-think-someone-else-deserves-credit-for-iventing-television" arguments, not because some of the points were invalid, but because they aren't anymore relevant to the Farnsworth article than they are to the Rosing article, or the Baird article, or the the Zworykin article, ad nauseum. Frankly, that's not only boring and repetitive, it just doesn't belong here (or in any of those articles either). Someone should start a seperate "WhyIBitchAboutWhoDeservesCreditForInventingTheTelevision" Article and you can all hash it out there. The statements removed not only maligned silly Americans for being simple-minded about this, but implied that *only* Americans could believe that Farnsworth should be held up as an inventor of television, and claimed that all "international historians" disagreed. None of this is verifiable fact (and is quite silly), despite the attempt to cite sources with opinions which uphold various others as television's inventor (duh. the article already admits as much).

People, this is an article about Philo Farnsworth. It's fine to mention that there is some controversy about his place in history and link to some common spot where the reader can find out more about that controversy, but to devote more ink to all the other contributors to the invention of television than to Farnsworth *in this article* is not only absurd, it's INTRACTABLY BORING.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Renauldo64 (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't go so far as to call it intractably boring, but I agree it's out of place. Thanks for removing it. Dicklyon 05:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Precisely the point I made above, querying why on earth the out-of-place comment STILL RETAINED WITHIN THE ARTICLE ITSELF was made by someone that a Japanese had invented all-electronic television!! The article is on Farnsworth. The placement of that statement is rude and out of context. - an Australian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.102.138 (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to ask about the line regarding Albert Rose that has been slipped into the article right after the mention of Philo's patent fight getting settled and RCA being free to display at the World's Fair because of it. Seems out of place. Frankly, I've never even heard of the guy before on all my research on both Philo and Zworykin, and his Wiki entry is really small and the reference (currently #38) for him mentions neither scientist--but it gives HIM full credit for the Image Orthicon, when it was at best an RCA adaption of a Farnsworth invention. In any case, I don't believe his entry belongs in this article at all. I'd remove it myself, but I've gotten in trouble in the past over such things, so I thought I'd just bring it up. Playerpage 16:24, 25 November 2010

I don't know why that's in the Farnsworth article, but if you've never heard of Albert Rose you've got a long way to go understand much about television's history. Thanks for pointing out his skimpy article; maybe I'll work on it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Do whatever you want to the Rose article, but what are we going to do about the Farnsworth article? The fact is that the citation is out of place, the Image Orthicon was not developed until late 1939 and 1940 (after the World's Fair) and in that respect the whole claim is completely inaccurate. The Orthicon was developed in 1937, but that still doesn't have anything to do with Farnsworth--unless you count that its alarming compatibility with Farnsworth Technology is an indication of corporate espionage even at that stage. You don't need to be insulting. I merely pointed out that Albert Rose had never been a part of the Zworykin/Farnsworth narrative before in my experience (I'm Farnsworth's grand-nephew). Playerpage 23:44, 08 December 2010

Perhaps I misinterpreted where you said "I've never even heard of the guy before on all my research on both Philo and Zworykin." Anyway, if the article is not right, fix it, and site sources, and all will be better. Dicklyon (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's not that it's wrong, but that the statement "The World's Fair showcase was based upon the designs of RCA in-house engineer Albert Rose" seems like a distraction. Perhaps so. I'll take it out and see if anyone cares. Dicklyon (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to get rather defensive where Uncle Phil is concerned. playerpage (talk) 00:31, 09 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.196.254 (talk)

Léon Theremin is a new wrinkle in the debate of who was first. I just finished watching the documentary about him, by Steven M. Martin and in one of the interviews it was stated that multiple people were invited to Theremin's lab to watch a demonstration of COLOR TV on a 20 inch (approx) screen. The exact date was not given, but from the context I concluded it would have been mid-30s. So then I looked up the wikipedia article on Theremin and lo and behold, according to that article Theremin had developed a wireless television in 1925. Sounds like the Wright Brothers debate all over again, they weren't the first to fly either, they were just the first to survive long enough to commercialize it. He who brings it to market gets the brass ring. This is not to take away from the brilliance of Farnsworth, but perhaps points to the pointlessness of the "Who's First" debate. Old Codger 50.47.2.7 (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Changed television to electronic television

I changed this because he didn't invent the first 'television' as such. Please leave it like this.

Eagle Scout

Are there sources? Can somebody tell about Philo Farnsworth involvement in Scouting?-Phips (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

philo farnsoworth the inventer of the tv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.15.55 (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Farnsworth-Hirch Fusor and Polywell Fusion

The fusor developed by Farnsworth is the direct predecessor to the Polywell fusion project. There should be mention of this in the section about Farnsworth's work on his fusor. 66.100.225.104 (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Two Historical Notes

One of the first all-electronic video camera tubes was invented in France by Edvard-Gustav Schoultz in 1921. He filed the French patent FR-539-613 on August 23, 1921. The patent was accepted on April 5, 1922, and published on June 28, 1922. You can find a copy of the original document in the web page [[1]]

The Image Dissector was also invented in Germany by Max Diekmann and Rudolf Hell in 1925. They filed the German patent DE-450-187 on April 5, 1925. The patent was accepted on September 15, 1927, and published on October 3, 1927. You can find a copy of the original document in the web page [[2]]

--134.153.204.160 (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Of historical interest, but only minor relevance here. No evidence Farnsworth relied on these or any of the dozen or so proceeding application or patents for fully electronic imaging devices for his designs. Rico402 (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Farnsworth a mathematician?

To whom it may concern.

Do you have the Scientific American Magazine issue where they called Farnsworth one of the ten greatest mathematicians of his time?

The Scientific American web page [[3]] shows no results at all on Farnsworth. Moreover there is not mention in the web-page [[4]] about Farnsworth being a mathematician.

I am sorry that I do not trust the other reference [[5]], but Farnsworth has no papers published in any mathematical journal. The web page of the American Mathematical Society [[6]] shows no papers being published by Philo Farnsworth; so how can a 20th-century person be called a mathematician without publishing any paper on mathematics? Not even Albert Einstein is considered a mathematician because he published papers on theoretical physics but no on mathematics.

Thus you have to show the Scientific American Magazine issue where they called Farnsworth one of the ten greatest mathematicians of his time; otherwise I think that the web-page [[7]] is just pulling your leg. Check your references twice.

--148.247.186.142 (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that's pretty twisted. Here's what was really said and by whom: [8]. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the reference, that is quite a difference. But... would it not be better to say in the main article that: Donald Lippicott, the radio engineering and his patent attorney, called Farnsworth "one of the ten greatest mathematical wizards of the day," as it is cited in Popular Science? The point is that Elliott Arnold, the author of the article, does not say explicitly that Farnsworth is a mathematical wizard, instead he is only citing Lippicott's words.

Best wishes: --148.247.186.142 (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Title

Being in Philo's family, we have only ever referred to him as "Philo T. Farnsworth", and I have never heard anyone omit the middle initial. Consequently, I'm assuming that he is universally referred to as such. If this is true, the article title should reflect that, provided that there are no policies against it. Swfarnsworth (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Swfarnsworth, Family member, too. I know about the "T." issue. The thing is (and this is weird to me) while the family is either very formal and always calls him "Philo T. Farnsworth," or extremely casual and just uses "Uncle Phil," the scientific community and general public that I have run across have often dropped the "T." It is as if, in a way, they are more "familiar" with him than his own family. How that would translate to this article, I don't know. In case you are wondering, my relation to him is that he was my father's uncle. Playerpage (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

Hi, I just edited the last line of the opening paragraph. Someone had come through and done a drive-by and said that Farnsworth had never produced any of his own cameras or televisions commercially--clearly trying to dampen the impression anyone would get about the man if they were to casually look him up. This is ridiculous if you even go into the article a little bit. I changed the line to reflect the truth concerning the manufacturing company (Farnsworth Television and Radio Corporation) he began in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, in 1938. The factory for this company is mentioned being torn down at the end of the article--and I own one of their televisions--so I don't see how it can be argued Farnsworth never sold TVs to the public. You can argue whether he was successful, but that might be a subset of Renauldo64's "WhyIBitchAboutWhoDeservesCreditForInventingTheTelevision" article, above. Playerpage (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Have gone back through the edits to find where that extra line was added, and I find that all those extra paragraphs are new (as I kinda suspected, they felt new though it had been a while since I'd been back here) as well as that one line, having been added in an anonymous edit as of 13:52, 8 November 2011 by user 199.189.199.226 (talk). Just about all of the information is either redundant or inaccurate (ie: the corporation he started in 1929 wasn't the Farnsworth Television and Radio Corporation, and he wasn't ALWAYS there.), and none of it is sourced, so I am reverting the opening paragraphs back completely to the pre-November 8 status. I will work the rest into the other areas of the article, if appropriate. Playerpage (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 September 2013

Please remove the text " (inaccurately)" from the text "In fiction, Farnsworth appeared in the Futurama episode "All The Presidents' Heads" as an ancestor of Professor Farnsworth and Philip J. Fry. He was (inaccurately) referred to as having invented the television.", because it constitutes a gratuitous insertion of the writer's opinion into what is otherwise an accurate statement (if Farnsworth WAS, in fact, referred to as the inventor of television in that episode of Futurama). As to the validity of that opinion, while Farnsworth's status as the inventor of real television may be challenged by some, and hundreds of people were undoubtedly involved in both the successful and unsuccessful efforts towards its achievement, he stands head and shoulders above the rest - and most educated people who do not have some sort of nationalistic axe to grind would acknowledge him as the "inventor of television" if they had to pick one person. While it might not be strictly accurate to say he "invented the television", it is hardly "inaccurate" either; it was his system that everybody ended up using, after all. 71.60.217.129 (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done The inclusion of "(inaccurately)" there was unnecessary MOS:EDITORIALIZING. Whether it is generally considered true or not doesn't especially matter, because that isn't part of what is being discussed in that section. What is being reported there is simply what is in the Futurama episode. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 September 2013

The "Misquote" section mentions Philo's son Kent twice. For some reason, his name is italicized the second time, i.e. Kent's. Please unitalicize it. 2001:18E8:2:1020:A0B7:B544:704A:6325 (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The italics there seems to be used to emphasize who actually made the statement, which seems reasonable to me. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

really 15 years old when father died?

could he really been 15 when his father died?