Jump to content

Talk:Alexander Graham Bell/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Bell, eugenics and the Italian Wikipedia

A number of personal websites, as well as the Italian Wikipedia article for Bell, show here, infer or state directly that Bell advocated sterilization of deaf individuals. A half hour search on Google, Google Books and Google Scholar as well as library databases was somewhat, but probably not fully revealing.

A number of personal writings push the view that Bell was no friend of the deaf and actively waged a war of cultural genocide against them. One thesis on a University of Miami scholarly website, "Communication and Culture: Implications for Hispanic Mothers with Deaf Children", by Alliete Rodriguez Alfano, bluntly states (without an inline reference source, but possibly derived from: Nance, W. E. (2003). "The genetics of deafness". Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 9, pp. 109-119.):

"Nance traced the negative attitudes of the Deaf towards the medical model of deafness to Alexander Graham Bell’s involvement in the Eugenics movement, whose goals were purportedly to create an improved race. Bell promoted sterilization of the Deaf and the outlawing of marriage between Deaf individuals,"

...as well as:

"Bell’s self-proclaimed mission was to halt intermarriage among the deaf in order to curb the number of genetic cases of deafness in the United States." [certainly verifiable in multiple sources -Z]

However the former statement is clearly contradicted by Van Cleve in "Disability or Difference", where he, or at least Greenwald states:

"Brian Greenwald revisits the story of Alexander Graham Bell, who has become somewhat of a pariah amongst Deaf people, because of his advocacy of oral (i.e., non–sign language) education. Bell himself was married to a deaf woman, and feared the emergence of a “deaf variety of the human race.” For him, promoting oralism was a better option than sterilization and marriage bans to achieve the eugenic goal of reducing the incidence of hereditary deafness. Greenwald thus reclaims Bell as a protector of deaf

people against American negative eugenics."
Ref: Tom Shakespeare (reviewer). "Disability or difference? Genetics, Disability, and Deafness" (book review) by John Vickrey Van Cleve, ed., Gallaudet University Press, 2004, ISBN 1563683075.

As well, in "Ethical Issues in Genetics Related to Hearing loss", by Ruth S. Marin and Kathleen S. Amos in the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association bulletin The ASHA Leader, February 28, 2006, wrote:

"By the 1880s, the idea that deafness could be inherited was more widely accepted, even though there was still no scientific understanding of the principles of human heredity".....

...and:

"'Positive eugenicists', such as Alexander Graham Bell, believed that oralism, elimination of deaf schools, and deaf/hearing marriages were appropriate measures to curb the growth of the deaf population. "

Bell received critical treatment from PBS, in their episode Through Deaf Eyes: Signing, Alexander Graham Bell and the NAD. On their website they write:

"...[Bell] became an early supporter of the eugenics movement to improve human breeding. Bell did not go so far as to advocate social controls on reproduction, as many eugenicists did. He did, however, decry the immigration into the United States of what he termed “undesirable ethnical elements,” calling for legislation to prevent their entry in order to encourage the “evolution of a higher and nobler type of man in America.” His views on immigration, deaf education, and eugenics overlapped and intertwined. He described sign language as “essentially a foreign language” and argued that “in an English speaking country like the United States, the English language, and the English language alone, should be used as the means of communication and instruction at least in schools supported at public expense,”

as well:

"In 1884, Bell published a paper “Upon the Formation of a Deaf Variety of the Human Race,” in which he warned of a “great calamity” facing the nation: deaf people were forming clubs, socializing with one another and, consequently, marrying other deaf people. The creation of a “deaf race” that yearly would grow larger and more insular was underway. Bell noted that “a special language adapted for the use of such a race” already was in existence, “a language as different from English as French or German or Russian.” Some eugenicists called for legislation outlawing intermarriage by deaf people, but Bell rejected such a ban as impractical. Instead he proposed the following steps: “(1) Determine the causes that promote intermarriages among the deaf and dumb; and (2) remove them. The causes he sought to remove were sign language, deaf teachers, and residential schools. His solution was the creation of special day schools taught by hearing teachers who would enforce a ban on sign language."

Bell's highly politically incorrect scientific paper, titled: "Upon the Formation of a Deaf Variety of the Human Race", was certainly taken as an insult to the deaf and its community. Bell became a sort of voodoo pin-cushion doll to the deaf community, by heaping anger and using him as a convenient proxy for an often uncaring society which labelled the non-hearing community both "deaf and dumb".

While looking into some of these aspects, Google led to the reference of a salient US Supreme Court legal case which may bear upon the deaf community's view that Bell was an advocate of sterilization in order to decrease their ranks. In "Cursed by Eugenics", Time Magazine, Jan. 11, 1999, Paul Gray wrote:

"Eugenics was not just gassy theories. Impressed by the pseudo science, many U.S. states enacted laws requiring the sterilization of those held in custody who were deemed to suffer from hereditary defects. In 1927 the U.S. Supreme Court heard an appeal of Virginia's decision in Buck v. Bell to sterilize Carrie Buck, an institutionalized 17-year-old whom the state had decreed a "moral imbecile," the daughter of a "feebleminded" mother and the mother herself of a daughter who was found to be, at age seven months,

subnormal in intelligence."

The important note here is that the Bell mentioned in the article is obviously not Alexander Graham Bell, who died in 1922 and had no involvement whatever in this legal case, but the legal reference may be the genesis of the idea that Bell sought to sterilize deaf community members, which from my examination does not appear to have been the case. Unfortunately the Italian Wikipedia has implied it, where they wrote in his biography article:

"In aggiunta alla loro sterilizzazione, Bell voleva vietare che ai sordi insegnassero insegnanti sordi; egli lavorò anche per rendere fuori legge il matrimonio fra sordi e fu un ardente sostenitore dell'oralismo sul manualismo."

...which Google Translate converts to English as:

"In addition to their sterilization, Bell wished to prohibit deaf teachers teach deaf, he also worked to make outlawed marriage between deaf and was an ardent supporter dell' oralismo on manualismo [oralism over manualism -Z]."

As for lengthy biographies, Bruce skirts around this discussion on pp. 417-421, and Gray makes virtually no mention of it at all. From my short examination I can find no credible evidence to support the wording and inference in the Italian Wikipedia related to sterilization of the deaf. As there are several deaf editors who follow this webpage it would be good to hear from them before making adjustments to the Italian article. In fairness to the editors of the Italian Wikipedia, our own English bio section on eugenics appears to be smearing Bell by associating him to the lunatics and racists of the pre-Second World War eugenics movement, so that wording will be closely examined as well. As well, the Italian Wikipedia article treats Bell more or less fairly when they discuss one of his rivals, Antonio Meucci. Can we hear from deaf editors on the above points, bearing in mind that anything discussed needs to be backed up with references to reliable, credible sources. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the lack of countervailing comments, adjustments to the Italian article will be made. HarryZilber (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Much of this material has relevance to the English article's section on eugenics. Can interested editors prepare a draft for new material to be included there? HarryZilber (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Why Meucci was the real inventor of the telephone

This document substantiates the belief that Bell copied Meucci's invention. It is difficult to give to Bell the paternity of the invention.

http://www.chezbasilio.org/immagini/meucci-bell.pdf --Magnagr (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Uncited myth should be removed or cited

This story is not cited in the article, and is of dubious veracity:

Bell and his partners, Hubbard and Sanders, offered to sell the patent outright to Western Union for $100,000. The president of Western Union balked, countering that the telephone was nothing but a toy. Two years later, he told colleagues that if he could get the patent for $25 million he would consider it a bargain.

This blog post takes the story apart: http://blog.historyofphonephreaking.org/2011/01/the-greatest-bad-business-decision-quotation-that-never-was.html

I don't know if the blog is right or not, but wiki needs to find a reliable source for the story if it's going to stay in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C08C:A6F0:21C:B3FF:FEC3:2572 (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014

The place he taught "Somerset College" changed to "Somerset College of Arts and Technology". Bell was long gone when the former was founded (1980s). 2601:D:BF80:8F3:B4A4:CF15:B0D0:D533 (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I have removed the link to Somerset College - as Bell did not go to teach in Australia. As for Somerset College of Arts and Technology our article states this was started as "Somerset College of Art" in Taunton, not "Somerset College" in Bath, so I have not linked this, as they appear to be different institutions. - Arjayay (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Mistreatment

In several schools, children were mistreated, for example by having their hands tied behind their backs so they could not communicate by signing—the only language they knew—in an attempt to force them to attempt oral communication.

Is this related to AGB in particular? Otherwise it looks like aspersion by insinuation, or an intrusion of material that is more legitimately at home in another article into this one. Or maybe a re-phrasing would do the trick. 178.38.119.187 (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Citing of Middle Name Myth

Under the Early Life section, Link 14 is neither historically accurate nor cited properly as the evidence does not exist. The fact of Alexander Graham Bell not having a middle name like his older siblings do, which was originally cited from a Franklin Institute page, proved to be faulty and untrue, then taken down. I would like further information on the source that Jennifer Groundwater used when publishing Alexander Graham Bell: The Spirit of Invention in regards to Link 15 as it is particular relevant to people of the Graham family heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.50.115.145 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject, but have marked the link as a dead link. Hopefully, this will cause others with more knowledge to continue this debate. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


I have re-added the link to the appropriate page. It was moved, not taken down. As for your argument, I have no idea, but the source is now there. Vyselink (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Peacock words

This article is marred by the unnecessary and frequent appearance of peacock words. The appearance of "eminent" in the very first sentence is really not good writing. A bunch of unnecessary "famous" and a few "notably"s should also be edited out. 200.83.101.199 (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Also the subject is frequently and inappropriately referred to by his first name. See WP:LASTNAME. 200.83.101.199 (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I have done the WP:LASTNAME request. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. There are also about 20 occurrences of "Alec" and "Aleck". Any thoughts on peacock words? 200.83.101.199 (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2014

In the Aeronautics section of this article is a phrase that reads: "Lieutenant Thomas Selfridge, an official observer from the U.S. Federal government and the only person in the army who believed aviation was the future;" This seems like hyperbole rather than fact -- the beliefs of every single man in the army on this subject are not documented (or if by some chance they were, a citation would be nice). Suggest softening it to make it more believable , e.g., "... and one of the rare men in the army who believed aviation was the future", or "... one of the few in the army who believed ..." or "an army visionary who believed that aviation was the future." Ahah!moment (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Biblioworm 01:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Further work is required on this section as Lieutenant Thomas Selfridge's first mention in the section only includes his last name. First mention should always be the full name and subsequent use can then be reduced to surname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.158.71 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Antonio Meucci, True Inventor of the Telephone

The real inventor of the telephone was Antonio Meucci.

Between 1850 and 1862, Meucci developed at least 30 diferent models of the telephone, although he did not protect his inventions with a patent. However, in 1871, he obtained a patent caveat stating his intent to patent what he called a teletrophone. He gave or sold some of his devices to the Vice-President of Western Union Telegraphs, and in 1876, he discovered that Bell had been credited with the invention and granted a patent. In 1887, the court annulled Bell's patent, but since Meucci’s caveat was by then expired, he was never given credit for his invention. On June, 11, 2002, the United States Congress acknowledged Italian immigrant Antonio Meucci as the true inventor of the telephone.

Bell, inventor of the Telephone ? The biggest joke of history. --2.33.180.71 (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Alexander Graham Bell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2015

164.104.47.188 (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: there is no request here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Alexander Graham Bell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alexander Graham Bell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2016

Alexander Graham Bell is not credited for patenting the first telephone. Antonio Meucci is that. SimoBarIT (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The article doesn't say "first telephone" by itself, it says "first practical telephone". See Invention of the telephone Cannolis (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Bell was not an original founder of the National Geographic Society

Another editor on the National Geographic Society page mentioned that 34 founders' names were listed when in fact there were only 33 such persons. Sure enough ... because Bell was also listed. And the Alexander Graham Bell article also said he was a founder, in the lede. (The citation provided for that comment led to a broken web page.) Actually Bell was not an original founder and I have revised that.

This citation (NGS article about each of the founders) does not include Graham Bell. http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/tag/national-geographic-founders/

From an NGS publication: Though he wasn’t one of the original 33 founders, Bell had a major influence on the Society. The magazine was a very serious publication, tailored to the elite and scientists. Its early editions were “very straightforward and without ornamentation like you would have found in a popular magazine,” according to Hunter. .... When Hubbard died in 1897, Bell was elected the new Society president. Bell wanted to make the magazine more accessible for members to read with less abstruse academic language. His solution to better communicate science and discoveries was through “pictures, and plenty of them.” http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2011/05/26/ngs-celebrates-23rd-founders-day/

My research indicates that Bell was probably one of the first 165 charter members of the Society; this might be why some articles suggest that he was a founder. But there is not much information as to who the 165 original members of the Society were. This is the best I could find, but it's not a strong citation. In any event, the NGS publications confirm Bell was not one of the 33 founders. While he was an original member (one of 165 listed in Vol.1 #1), son-in-law to the Founder (Gardiner Green Hubbard), and an interested scientific mind, he did not organize the Society. Hubbard and five others signed the invitation sent out in Jan 1888 to attend the founding meeting. Of the 33 who attended, Bell was not one of them. (see the Jan 1988 issue) http://www.jbcarey.net/Aaacd9Revised/Millennium/HTML/FAQs% 20ETC/FAQs.htm Peter K Burian (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. There is a painting of the 33 founders in 1888 at the Cosmos Club; these are the people in the painting and they do not include Bell:

1 Charles J. Bell, banker 2 Israel C. Russell, geologist 3 Commodore George W. Melville, USN 4 Frank Baker, anatomist 5 W.B. Powell, educator 6 Brig. Gen. A. W. Greeley, USA, polar explorer 7 Grove Karl Gilbert, geologist and future Society president 8 John Wesley Powell, geologist, explorer of the Colorado River 9 Gardiner Green Hubbard, lawyer and first President of the Society , who helped finance the telephone experiments of Alexander Graham Bell 10 Henry Gannett, geographer and future Society president 11 William H. Dall, naturalist 12 Edward E. Hayden, meteorologist 13 Herbert G. Ogden, topographer 14 Arthur P. Davis, engineer 15 Gilbert Thompson, topographer 16 Marcus Baker, cartographer 17 George Kennan, author, explorer of Arctic Siberia 18 James Howard Gore, educator 19 O. H. Tittmann, geodesist and future Society president 20 Henry W. Henshaw, naturalist 21 George Brown Goode, naturalist 22 Cleveland Abbe, meteorologist 23 Comdr. John R. Bartlett, USN 24 Henry Mitchell, engineer 25 Robert Muldrow II, geologist 26 Comdr. Winfield S. Schley, USN 27 Capt. C. E. Dutton, USA 28 W. D. Johnson, topographer 29 James C. Welling, educator 30 C. Hart Merriam, Chief, U.S Biological Survey 31 Capt. Rogers Birnie, Jr., USA 32 A. H. Thompson, geographer 33 Samuel S. Gannett, geographer

Painting by Stanley Meltzoff https://www.cosmosclub.org/web/journals/1998/wentzel.html Peter K Burian (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Many web sites claim that Bell was a founder so now I rely only on ngs.com publications for accuracy. I suspect that many web sites got the erroneous info about Bell from the previous Wikipedia content. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Template for 'Back to content'

Greetings, {{Back to content}} template was added for webpage accessibility example. At Template:Back to contents I noticed this template is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 13#Template:Back to contents. Wondering if keeping the template would be useful for accessibility purposes? Please send your responses about this to the above deletion discussion link. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  19:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Bell not inventor of telephone

Antonio Meucci's invention pre-dates Bell's patent by many years. In an attempt to address the incorrectly granted patent to Bell, Congress acted as follows (refer to Wikipedia article on Antonio Meucci):

2002 congressional resolution[edit]

In 2002, on the initiative of U.S. Representative Vito Fossella (R-NY), in cooperation with an Italian-American deputation, the U.S. House of Representatives passed United States HRes. 269 on Antonio Meucci stating "that the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged." Within its preamble it 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."[60][61] The resolution's sponsor described it as "a message that rings loud and clear recognizing the true inventor of the telephone, Antonio Meucci."[62]

In 2002 some news articles reported: "the resolution said his "telettrofono", demonstrated in New York in 1860, made him the inventor of the telephone in the place of Bell, who took out a patent 16 years later."[3][26]

A similar resolution was introduced to the U.S. Senate but no vote was held on the resolution.[63] [64] [65]

Despite the House of Representatives resolution, its interpretation as supporting Meucci's claim as the inventor of the telephone remains disputed.[66][42][67]

The Government of Canada responded ten days later by unanimously passing a parliamentary motion stating that Alexander Graham Bell was the inventor of the telephone.[68][69]

Others,[who?] believe House Resolution 269 redressed a historic injustice, and the Italian newspaper La Repubblica hailed the vote to recognise Meucci as a belated comeuppance for Bell.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.253.12 (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there some reason you copied this from Antonio Meucci? Are you suggesting a change to the article? Sundayclose (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alexander Graham Bell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Birth_date not right

How his birthday is listed isn't using the wikitext method that shows age kind of thing.

It makes my API pull funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.6.164.251 (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander Graham Bell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2017

Please remove "Margaret Ottaway" from the top of the "Canada" section, or explain what it's doing there. It looks like an actress' name, like you'd put in The Story of Alexander Graham Bell, such as "Bell meets his sister-in-law Caroline (Margaret Ottaway) in the next scene" to indicate that Ottaway was playing the character of Caroline. 208.95.51.115 (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Why do I need to establish consensus for removing meaningless words? 208.95.51.115 (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The names in parentheses are the rest of the sister-in-law's name, not a separate person. The requested edit would remove information identifying the sister-in-law, leaving her as simply "Caroline".  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  17:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me understand. But why couldn't you have "explain[ed] what it's doing there" by removing the parentheses in the first place? 208.95.51.115 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

NPOV Issues regarding deafness, Inaccuracies

A lot of the comments about Alexander Graham Bell's views of deaf people are biased and grossly inaccurate. They frequently attribute other people's ideas to Alexander Graham Bell by association.

In particular, I this sentence should be deleted:

"In several schools, children were mistreated, including having their hands tied behind their backs so they could not communicate by signing—the only language they knew—in an attempt to force them to attempt oral communication."

This sentence is sourced from this book:

https://books.google.com/books?id=oZaNAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=alexander%20graham%20bell&f=false

Which does not corroborate that statement at all. My guess is that somebody, some time in history, tied a kid's hands behind his back, and now this editor is trying to blame that on Alexander Graham Bell. I can find no proof, however, that Bell himself actually did this.

It's in the book that is cited prior to the sentence. I moved the citation so that it covers the entire paragraph. Sundayclose (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not in either of the paragraph's two sources. Perhaps you can direct us to a specific source, with a specific page number. But even if you do this, will it be a source that directly links the practice to Bell? If it doesn't, then there is a reasonable question as to why it is being mentioned in an article about Bell. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@NewYorkActuary: You are right. I stand corrected. I was thinking of Understanding Deaf Culture. More importantly, you are right that it doesn't belong in Bell's article. There's a similar comment in History of deaf education in the United States. But to respond to the OP's comments, it wasn't an isolated incident; it occurred frequently, although that has nothing to do with Bell that I know of. I assume no one minds if I self-revert. Sundayclose (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2017

I think U guys Are Great 50.67.28.210 (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. ChamithN (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2017

His wife's date of birth (on sidebar) is 1857 not 1877 Tatimblin (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The sidebar is showing the year of the marriage, not the year of the wife's birth. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alexander Graham Bell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:People associated with electricity

Suggest adding Category:People associated with electricity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.226.49.228 (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Why? NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The Entire Article Is Written Like Weasel Words

I don't know how to use a talk page correctly, but I need to point out that the entire article on Alexander Graham Bell is written like weasel words. Sentences are written very descriptively with unnecessary words and portrays small facts as being just as important as larger facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.185.62 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2017

Hello, Wikipedia. I recently read Graham Moore's Last Days of Night (9780812988901, Random House, 2016) and updated the J.P. Morgan wikipedia page, since Morgan is one of the characters in the book. Alexander Graham Bell is also a character in that book, featured in Chapter 56: "At the Foot of Beinn Bhreagh." Elaine Ginman (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alexander Graham Bell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2017

birth–1922    British Joomri (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. ChamithN (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Confusion About Bell's Birthplace Address

The article is very specific about Bell's birthplace, and it almost seems to be correct. It's difficult to cite as no other online source I can find is quite so specific. However, by blowing up a screenshot from Google Streep Maps, I can clearly see that the address is currently not correct. The actual address is currently 14 South Charlotte Street. The engraved stone is to the left of the door numbered "14". I refuse to make changes without any evidence that the address hasn't been changed at some point, or further citation from elsewhere. — sugarfish (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I can find a number of sources that list both 14 and 16. For instance here and here. The first of these seems to suggest the 14 & 16 are the same location, so it could be the building has been modified/merged or been re-numbered since Bell's birth. It appears to be 14 now, and the South Charlotte Street ends there at Charlotte Square, so there is no 16. In the light of a lack of a clear source on the matter, and decision on which of the sources should be used, I'm going to remove the street number for now. It may be re-added in due course. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Dubious Quote?

"In 1915, he characterized his status as: "I am not one of those hyphenated Americans who claim allegiance to two countries."[127]"

This is attributed to "Bell: Alexander Graham Bell and the Conquest of Solitude" p. 90, but from the Google Books version of that, no such quote on appears on the page, nor is the general matter of his naturalization being discussed. Maybe the attribution page is typo'd? 2600:1700:6E1:8FB8:88E7:8808:4E6A:3472 (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Bell cannot be considered American anymore than he is Canadian

His dreaming place (ontario) and home (nova scotia) were both in canada. he referred to canadians as 'his countrymen' on numerous occasions. Albert Einstein also became American citizen LATER in life but Albert Einstein is not called 'American' in his introductory paragraph. this could be seen as a formality. Graham Bell has ties to Canada that go beyond just formality. To this day tourists still come to Canada to find out more about Alexander Graham Bell's life. That is a fact. It is preposterous that some wikipedians suddenly consider him to be American. They are using the same sources referring to Graham Bell that were used 10 years ago when hijacking an article was not tolerated. Furthermore there is no consensus regarding his American identity. far from it. Was Alexander Graham Bell American? Trump's speech sparks confusion [1] there you go - triple citizenship and no consensus. Grmike (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)grmike

"Consensus" is in reference to discussion here, among editors. You may have a point, but please reach consensus here first before changing something that has involved a great deal of discussion by others previously. Do not just keep editing to get what you want before then. This will only get you blocked for edit warring. If you look at the archives of this talk page you'll see that this issue has been gone over repeatedly over the years. It is therefore an issue that is not going to be resolved by one editor unilaterally changing the article to suit their own viewpoint. That only results in more edit warring.
Also; SHOUTING in edit summaries does not make your case stronger. It just makes you look unreasonable and aggressive. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
When was the decision made ? please be specific instead of referring to outdated talk pages, pages long. if later in life citizenship is all that matters then why isn't Albert Einstein called 'american' ? this is a hotly debated issue that has not been resolved by any means.Grmike (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike
'by one editor' - but one editor is all it took to change it to American. It seems as though the only users at risk of getting blocked for making changes are ones with lower stature and less familiarity with moderators and the like.Grmike (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike
@Grmike: You have some misconceptions about how Wikipedia works. There is no such thing as an "outdated talk page". Consensus can change, but it does not expire with the passage of time. If a consensus is reached, it remains the consensus unless or until it is changed. Secondly, the previous consensus was not determined by "one editor". I'm not arguing for or against your idea, but if you want to change consensus, you can't do that alone. Do it the acceptable way, discuss here and wait to see if there are other opinions that support your suggested change. Sundayclose (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure when the decision was made. These things happen over the years, involving many editors, not one. It's usually based on the facts, which won't have changed, and consensus interpretation of them. It also usually involved some compromise. Has anything changed that it should be reconsidered? What compromise are you suggesting?
There are no users of "lower stature". The same rules apply to all. Wilkipedia simply has a preference for the status quo. If you want to change something you need to present a good case, especially when past history suggests it's a topic that people differ on. Unfortunately your approach so far has been combative and that is not a good way to gain consensus.
What works in one article is not necessarily going to work in another. Einstein's life followed a different course.
As I see it there are a number of facts in play. It's just a matter of giving them balance;
  • Bell was born in Scotland as a British citizen.
  • He lived a fair proportion of his life in Canada, which he regarded as home, but at a time when it was common place for people to retain their British nationality.
  • He later became an American citizen.
Are there any sources that show how Bell regarded himself? He may have thought himself thoroughly Canadian, or he might have been horrified at the idea, retaining his British/Scottish identity. He may have been fully committed to becoming an American, or he may have simply seen it as a paper exercise in order to better his business ventures. What do the sources indicate? If they can be identified it would be an end to the debate. Wikipedia cares far more for what reliable sources, and the subject themselves, say than for editors' opinions and preferences
--Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Bell was indeed an American citizen — but not when the phone was invented as Trump suggested. And yes Bell spent summers with his family at an estate known as Beinn Bhreagh in Nova Scotia were as a Canadian he paid taxes like every other registered Canadian beginning during WW1 till he died. One of those things that Americans love to claim.--Moxy 🍁 04:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Alexander Graham Bell was not a 'Scottish born American' he retained his British citizenship from birth until death, to imply he was purely American by the time of his death is not only misleading but factually incorrect. He was a Scottish-American or British American. However due to the technicalities of his several residencies and technically citizenship, the most straight forward and accurate phrasing would probably simply be 'was a Scottish born...' just as Albert Einstein is simply referred to as a 'German born...' Grosseteste (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Dual nationality would be an interesting and relevant detail. Do you have any sources to back it up? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Should this be a "note" or a "citation"?

Why is ""Selfridge Aerodrome Sails Steadily for 319 feet (97 m)." The Washington Post May 13, 1908." listed under "Notes"? Shouldn't it be considered a "citation"? 47.139.45.205 (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is terrible and inaccurate

This is written very unprofessionally and has a lot of useless, and innacurate information, for example:

  • "In return, Ben's father John Herdman gave both boys the run of a small workshop in which to "invent".[19] "

Why is invent in quotation marks? What is with the wording in this sentence? This is very poor grammar and sentence structure. I suggest a rework of this page, as right now it is lacking information. More examples of this can be found here:

  • "how to instruct deaf-mutes (as they were then known)"

"(as they were then known)" is completely redundant, there are these little "notes" scattered across the page and are extremely irritating. And plus, people who are deaf-mute are still known as "deaf-mutes", there has not been a change of terms. Some more examples:

Bell was also deeply affected by his mother's gradual deafness (she began to lose her hearing when he was 12)

Again with these notes scattered in parenthesis, just write something in rather than adding a note. It is very unprofessional, this article is terrible:

  • "Bell wrote a report on his work and sent it to philologist Alexander Ellis, a colleague of his father (who would later be portrayed as Professor Henry Higgins in Pygmalion).[32]"
  • "(who would later be portrayed as Professor Henry Higgins in Pygmalion)"

Why is this needed? This is not related to Bell at all. You are making a mockery of his works and inventions by bloating this article with useless, and unnecessary information.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2020

WP:HONORIFIC. Please change "stay with the Reverend Thomas Henderson" to "stay with Thomas Henderson" 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:F171:A8CC:E0CC:C45 (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, in the last sentence of the lede, please either remove the comma after "sterilization" or add a "he" before "served" 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:F171:A8CC:E0CC:C45 (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

And another thing. Citation #158 has a [citation needed] template inside it. Since the citation is a full citation, it doesn't need any improvement, so please remove the citation-needed template. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:F171:A8CC:E0CC:C45 (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done,  Done, and  Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request: Eugenics

Discussion of Bell's association with Eugenics is appropriate, but this article oversteps in the last two sentences "Organizations such as these advocated passing laws (with success in some states) that established the compulsory sterilization of people deemed to be, as Bell called them, a "defective variety of the human race". By the late 1930s, about half the states in the U.S. had eugenics laws, and California's compulsory sterilization law was used as a model for that of Nazi Germany.[citation needed][168]"

1) First, what is meant by "Organizations such as these"? That is a broad brush. Did or did not the specific organization advocate such a policy (with a reference)

2) Bell died in 1922, so it is a far leap to connect him up with Sterilization in California and Nazi Germany a decade after his death. Unless a source can be cited showing a direct correlation to Bell than we have nothing here but an editorial comment.

The important points made in the last two sentences belong in a germane article, here it is a misleading tangent. Otherwise, out of academic integrity, you would have to amend the article of every person and organization who espoused eugenics and make the same editorial comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncosgrov (talk • contribs) 16:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair points. I've removed this for the following reasons, as raised above.
- What organisations "such as these" achieved is tangential and largely irrelevant. The article should limit itself to what the organisations that Bell was specifically involved with achieved.
- Extrapolating to Nazi Germany is way out of the scope of the article. Unless we have a source that connects Bell directly to the Nazis?
--Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ncosgro and Escape Orbit: What is needed is a source that confirms the statement: "he was the chairman of the board of scientific advisers to the Eugenics Record Office". This source confirms it; I'm sure there are others. The article for that organization has a sourced statement that it advocated for forced sterilization. Sundayclose (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

-- I apologize that I'm not super familiar with source editing formatting, but here are responses to the above discussion as well as semi-protected edit requests: Sources for Bell's status as chairman for the ERO board and honorary president of the 2nd International Eugenics Congress: Eugenics Record Office, board of directors and functions, ca. 1910, Harry H. Laughlin papers, Truman State University; and Charles B. Davenport et al., ed., Eugenics, Genetics, and the Family, vol. I: Scientific Papers of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, held at the American Museum of Natural History, New York, September 22-28, 1921 (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Company, 1923).

I don't have time at the moment to write out a properly cited explanation, but the "organizations such as these" likely refers to the fact that the Eugenics Record Office was not allowed to directly lobby politicians due to the wishes of its parent institution, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, but other prominent board members such as Harry Laughlin and Charles Davenport found ways to work around this by acting independently or establishing other organizations such as the Eugenics Research Association, which included many of the same members as the ERO but was able to be more overtly political. Laughlin in particular, who was superintendent of the ERO alongside Bell, wrote a model sterilization law that was upheld in Buck v. Bell and was used as a template for the Nazi sterilization laws. I would add that while California carried out most of the sterilizations conducted in the US, the Nazi law is more directly based on Laughlin's model law, which is most clearly reflected in the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.G. Bushman (talk • contribs) 22:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Heredity and Genetics

As noted by a prior editor, Bell's relationship to early 20th century eugenics has been in dispute. In an effort to clarity and provide accurate citations regarding Bell's involvement with the study of heredity and genetics, I have renamed the section previously titled "Eugenics" and provided details and citations to better reflect the historical facts. Swickouski (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Add Cultural Depiction Request

Please add that Bell is depicted in the artwork Our Nation's 200th Birthday, The Telephone's 100th Birthday (1976) by Stanley Meltzoff for Bell System https://www.jklmuseum.com/tag/stanley-meltzoff/ 47.152.71.253 (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I quickly looked at most (if not all) images. The only thing I saw that related to Bell were a couple of images of his descendants standing next to a Bell cardboard cutout. Unless I missed something really important, this request is probably more appropriate for Talk:Telephone. Sundayclose (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021

In the "Telephone" section, please change "Meucci sued and was nearing victory" to "Meucci sued and the litigation was nearing resolution". It isn't for Wikipedia to decide the case, and the citation doesn't address the suit at all. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The cited source actually does talk about the suit - our article actually is a copy/paste of it: "| Meucci sued and was nearing victory - the supreme court agreed to hear the case and fraud charges were initiated against Bell - when the Florentine died in 1889. The legal action died with him." I'm in favor of some rewording, but whatever we come up with has to follow the spirit of the source Cannolis (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
It needs to be reworded because at present it's just a blatant copyright violation of that article. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I've just removed it. If anyone wants to rewrite it in their own words please go ahead. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021

Add Alexander Graham Bell's history with the eugenics movement. Under "Work with the deaf" change "To achieve complete assimilation in society, Bell encouraged speech therapy and lip reading as well as sign language." and add his history as an oralist such as his participation in the Second International Congress on Education of the Deaf which banned sign language from public education and his 1994 paper warning deaf people not to breed and encouraging the removal of causes that may increase the "deaf race" such as sign language and deaf teachers.

Sources: https://www.pbs.org/weta/throughdeafeyes/deaflife/bell_nad.html https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/understanding-deafness-not-everyone-wants-to-be-fixed/278527/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_International_Congress_on_Education_of_the_Deaf Greenwald, Brian H. “The Real ‘Toll’ of A. G. Bell: Lessons about Eugenics.” Sign Language Studies, vol. 9, no. 3, Gallaudet University Press, 2009, pp. 258–65, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26190555. Moonlightu (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

2002 Ruling

There must be a section added regarding the 2002 ruling by US Congress regarding Antonio Meucci. It is vitally important to this article. Note, this is the account of the above IP, "edit requests" can only go so far, and edits must be made forthright for somethings such as these.Takestwotooto2 (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Takestwotooto2: Read the article. The 2002 action by the U.S. House of Representatives (not the entire Congress) is already discussed in the article. It wasn't a "ruling" that had the force of law. It was a resolution that simply stated Meucci's contribution should be acknowledged. Thanks for clarifying that your registered account was done by the IP. Note that you should no longer edit while logged out. Sundayclose (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I have read the article, it's mentioned once when it deserves more credence in my opinion, there's even books on the subject which call Bell every name under the sun for his "theft" - I do not wish to add these, though they show that it is deserving more of a single sentence.Takestwotooto2 (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@Takestwotooto2: If your goal is the expand the information into a separate section, the issue of WP:WEIGHT applies. That would require a consensus here. My personal opinion is that it is sufficient as it is. A non-binding resolution by one house of Congress doesn't require a separate section. The details about the competition between Bell and Meucci is already discussed, both in the "Competition" section, as well as the separate linked article The Telephone Cases. Sundayclose (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Surely there must be something more mentioned in the lede then, if the lede is to reflect the article, and you deem the article at present to be sufficient, then the lede should reflect the sections contained, and some mentioned should be made in it.Takestwotooto2 (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@Takestwotooto2: I oppose adding the House of Representatives' resolution to the lead because of limitations on what is included in the lead. The resolution isn't notable enough for the lead, although the patent challenges may be. You certainly can suggest an addition to the lead about the patent challenges (there were several) and see if there is support here. If you do that, I suggest that it should be very, very brief. Sundayclose (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your feedback, I will work on something and present it here.Takestwotooto2 (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Change:

Bell was a British subject throughout his early life in Scotland and later in Canada until 1882 when he became a naturalized citizen of the United States. In 1915, he characterized his status as: "I am not one of those hyphenated Americans who claim allegiance to two countries."[139] Despite this declaration, Bell has been proudly claimed as a "native son" by all three countries he resided in: the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.[140]


To

Bell was a British subject his entire life. He became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1882, holding both British and American citizenship until his death. Bell has been proudly claimed as a "native son" by all three countries he resided in: the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.[140]

Reason: He did indeed hold his British citizenship till death, and "In 1915, he characterized his status as: "I am not one of those hyphenated Americans who claim allegiance to two countries."[127]"

This is attributed to "Bell: Alexander Graham Bell and the Conquest of Solitude" p. 90, but from the Google Books version of that, no such quote on appears on the page, nor is the general matter of his naturalization being discussed.

The citation fails verification. 80.0.69.127 (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It appears from this source that "Prior to 1870, British subjects could not divest themselves of their nationality in any circumstances. However [under the British Naturalisation Act of 1870], in addition to introducing provision for renunciation of British subject status, the Naturalization Act 1870 provided that British subjects would be deemed to have lost that status automatically if they voluntarily naturalized in a foreign country." So perhaps AGB didn't have the option of being legally hyphenated. Starple (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Without a verified source stating that he lost his citizenship it cannot be stated he did so in the article, not to mention the quote attributed to him is no where to be found in the cited source. I think the change needs to happen given it fails verifiability.80.0.69.127 (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The evidence we have at present (the British Naturalisation Act of 1870) says that he must have lost his citizenship. I think the burden shifts to those saying he retained it to provide evidence that counters that evidence. Starple (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine, how do we address the fact the quote doesn't exist in the citation at all? It fails verifiability, so even IF the burden shifts to prove he retained it, the quote itself should be removed per WP policy. If a citation fails verifiability, the corresponding content must be removed, or a "citation needed" added. Which should it be?80.0.69.127 (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


Bell was a British subject throughout his early life in Scotland and later in Canada until 1882 when he became a naturalized citizen of the United States. In 1915, he characterized his status as: "I am not one of those hyphenated Americans who claim allegiance to two countries."[139] Despite this declaration, Bell has been proudly claimed as a "native son" by all three countries he resided in: the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.[140]


To

Bell was a British subject throughout his early life in Scotland and later in Canada until 1882 when he became a naturalized citizen of the United States. Bell has been proudly claimed as a "native son" by all three countries he resided in: the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.[140]

New edit proposal above given the quote fails verifiability.80.0.69.127 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


Also note, regarding your source on British subject status, it's wrong. He could well have kept his British subject status per pages 33-34 onwards. The bill is available here.[1] I'm afraid the burden shifts back to Wikipedia to prove that he lost it, as it wasn't guaranteed after all.80.0.69.127 (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

A couple of comments about some of the discussion above. Whatever Bell's citizenship status, Wikipedia needs reliable sources that directly refer to Bell's citizenship, not statutes. Please read WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". If the source does not address Bell's citizenship specifically, it is a synthesis and unacceptable on Wikipedia. Second point: the burden is not on Wikipedia as a whole for verification with reliable sources. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". So if a previous edit did not provide a reliable source, it can be challenged and removed. To restore that edit, or to make a different edit, the editor who restores or makes an edit must provide a reliable source. Finally, a formatting comment: It's not necessary to put white spaces after a comment; it unnecessarily lengthens a section and makes reading more difficult. Separate comments with appropriate indentation: read WP:INDENT. Sundayclose (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Awesome! Then let's leave the remaining text in place, until I can find something RSy and remove the quote that fails verifiability as I am "challenging" it while it should be removed.Takestwotooto2 (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@Takestwotooto2: Note that a source that is generally considered reliable is cited for the quotation. If you find a conflicting source, there must be a consensus on this talk page that determines whether one source is considered more reliable, or if the conflict between two sources should be explained in the article. You can't make that decision unilaterally. Sundayclose (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The quote does not exist in the cited source. It is irrelevant whether it is reliable, I do not need to find a conflicting source for something that does not exist. Ph 90 of the cited source does not include any quote of that nature.Takestwotooto2 (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@Takestwotooto2: If the quotation is absent or inaccurate, I think you are entitled to remove it or challenge it unless someone disagrees. Since the article is semiprotected, I can remove it on your behalf if you specifically request, with the understanding that it is based on your perspective on the source. If someone disagrees, I'll restore the quotation pending discussion here. If the information is accurately presented from the source but there isn't an exact quotation, my points still apply. If there are two conflicting sources about Bell's citizenship, that must be resolved by consensus here. And as I said, a source must directly address the issue of Bell's citizenship, not a statue. Sundayclose (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I would appreciate that! The quote isn't in the citation, and the cited page doesn't even discuss citizenship. I am fine with the removal of the quote alone, with the remaining text staying the same, I will do as you suggested, and if I can find a source that fits your criteria present it here.Takestwotooto2 (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Takestwotooto2: I just discovered that the quotation is, in fact, in the source, but I'm not sure of the page number: [2]. That makes the issue of the quotation a moot point. If someone can find that page number that would be helpful. Sundayclose (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Well that's sorted then indeed! Regardless, thanks for your feedback regarding the other point in question.Takestwotooto2 (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/imp_act_1881/na187033a34vc14256.pdf

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2022

At the end of the "family" section please add the following info:

BEGIN

Bell was agnostic but sympathized with Unitarian belief. He was engaged in spiritualism and attempted to contact his dead brothers. Questioning fake stage magic tricks of psychics and the human tendency of self-delusion, he struggled to use his acoustics knowledge to develop technical means to directly communicate with the spirit realm, to seek scientific truth. His experiments raised interest in spiritist groups, so e.g. "phone voyant" mediums claimed to hear ghost voices in the noises of early telephones (the ancestor of EVP). Later Edison challenged him who can first build a spirit phone.[3] [4] [5]

END

This is an important bit of history, not least because it was the origin of Electronic voice phenomenon research. In his era many scientists felt attracted to spiritualism, which was considered a progressive way of thinking. Bell's assistent Thomas A. Watson made seances as a psychic, and Edison was member of the Theosophical Society. 92.193.7.165 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

What is tuberculosis?

Tuberculosis is a bacterial infection caught from inhaling droplets in the air. It mainly affects the lungs, but can also affect any part of the body. Kittenpaws15 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

When was the document published ang updated?

I need this Asap. 223.25.24.41 (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by ANG? Kittenpaws15 (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

“Heredity and genetics” or Eugenics?

I am planning to change the name of the section “Heredity and genetics” to “Eugenics” as it’s the proper term for what Bell believed in, especially for deaf people Abdo2905 (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

George Brown

The reference to George Brown here links to the Ontario politician. These seems like it may have been an inadvertent/mistaken link. Is anyone aware one way or another if this is the case. If not in the next few days, I may delink. Kwkintegrator (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

Greetings. The article has several "citation needed" tags. The B-class criteria states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_Graham_Bell/Archive_3&oldid=1195581390"