Talk:Telecommunications

Barker code

I've removed this recent addition from the article;

In the early 1950's digital transmissions were of great interest eg for space telemetry, radar, encryption and for computer technology. Like analog communication, data transmissions also suffered from noise causing the data to get out of sync. Various attempts were made to resolve the issue using digital codes. In 1953 RH Barker published a paper demonstrating how to synchronise the data in transmissions. It is known world wide as Barker code. The process is “Group Synchronisation of Binary Digital Systems” When used in data transmissions the receiver can read the data error free. The application at the time was of great interest and is now used in many digital applications mentioned in this article.

References

Barker codes have very little to do with noise immunity, although agreed noise might cause loss of sync in framed data. The main purpose of Barker codes is to achieve synchronisation in the first place and avoid false synchronisation with a sequence of data bits. Neither of these is a noise issue. For noise immunity per se minimum distance codes like Hamming codes are much more relevant. There are other ways to achieve synchronisation other than framing such as Manchester code, and in asynchronous communication synchronisation is not an issue at all. In short, even if this para was corrected, I think it is getting too far down into the weeds for an overview article. SpinningSpark 14:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment- Agreed that there are more efficient ways to achieve synchronisation since Barker code was discovered. An great deal of work has been done over the decades to find and use alternatives, however in many digital applications it is still used. Barker code forms part of the evolution of telecommunications in digital format and as such ought to be mentioned in this article. It is difficult to see under the present headings where it should be inserted. Perhaps adding something to the paragraphs on 'Wireless communications' or 'Digital media' might be more appropriate in which case my references to noise can be omitted. Please reconsider and let me know if you still don't agree. Windswept (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  This definitely doesn't belong in the analog v. digital section. Barker code does not represent an advantage of digital over analog. If it is really an important "part of the evolution of telecommunications" then it belongs in the history section. But frankly, I think there are many more important advances in digital telecoms than this that are not currently in the article. For instance, the automated asynchronous sending of digital data began in the telegraph era, for which the Baudot code was the key advance, along with automated punched tape readers. Our article currently has digital telecommunications starting in the semiconductor era. Certainly that gave a great boost to it, but not only did it not start in the semiconductor era, it predates the thermionic valve era; it actually starts in the relay era. So if you have a source saying that Barker code was an important advance for telecommunications I'll support it going in the history section. Otherwise I'm not convinced. SpinningSpark 18:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"Beacons and pigeons" sub-section

We're defining telecommunications as being electromagnetic communication. I don't think pigeons can be described as electromagnetic by any stretch of the imagination. It can't even be counted as tele- if we mean by that remote communication without physical transfer of the medium. Beacons might be counted being as they use visible light but it's a bit of a stretch. If we want to talk about early forms of communication, we should first of all make it clear that these are not telecommunications as defined, and secondly we should include the much more common communication service of mounted messengers. The section is misnamed in any case as it talks about far more than fires and pigeons. SpinningSpark 13:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say remove this section except that it really is interesting.

Mounted messengers = pony express? I loved reading stories based on that as a child.

How about Pheidippides running from Marathon to Athens to say “the Persians are coming”? Ngriffeth (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Telecommunications

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Huge amounts of uncited material fail GA criterion 2b) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2006. there looks to be significant unsourced material in the article that has to be addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Braun and Reis

So why cant I add one line each about their work for the radio and telephone? BauhausFan89 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Because you keep spamming/pushing them across articles out of context with the same unreliable sources. Reis has actual been added back in context. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

thank you for that. but it was never out of context, always in the paragraphs where it was about the radio and the telephone. Braun SHARED the nobel prize for his work on the radio. doesnt that deserve a mention? simple put. and Reis deserves one in the section about the telephone as someone Edison called the first inventor of the telephone. Im talking about a line each. is that not ok? BauhausFan89 (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia article content is not based on "add our guy". Its based on reliable sourcing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

again. I added reliable sources. so just explain to me why I cant add Braun, who shared the nobel prize for RADIO telegraphy and Reis, who named the telephone. can you? BauhausFan89 (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

You added sources, but they are not reliable re: "contributed significantly to the development of radio" is sourced to a blog and a book that is not about the history of radio (and does not make that claim). This article summarizes other article content, usually the lead, re: the lead of Telephone (and we currently go further than that lead). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

ok, so I will link the nobel prize site regarding Braun with ""in recognition of their contributions to the development of wireless telegraphy"". is that source good enough? BauhausFan89 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The section is not about "who won a Nobel prize" and continuing to try to reinstate edits over and over again[1][2] is considered disruptive. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

ehhhhh. what? its about contributions to the Radio. and Braun "just" WON a Nobel Price for his contributions. so its disruptive to block a short line about Braun. there is just no argument against putting Braun in. or do you have any? BauhausFan89 (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

No, its short history of radio, not "who won what". Continuing WP:ICANTHEARYOU is also disruptive. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Braun in the intro for his shared nobel prize, Hertz for laying the groundwork for telecommunications and Braun and Hertz in the part about the radio. for their contributions.

1. Equal Recognition for the Nobel Prize in Physics (1909):

Guglielmo Marconi is rightly mentioned in the lead for his pioneering work in wireless telegraphy and for being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1909. However, Ferdinand Braun shared that Nobel Prize jointly with Marconi. Omitting Braun from the lead not only misrepresents the historical record, but also distorts the collaborative nature of early wireless communication breakthroughs. Braun’s contributions to improving the range and reliability of wireless transmission — especially through the invention of the crystal detector and directional antennas — were essential to making Marconi’s transatlantic experiments successful.

“Articles must represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.”

— Wikipedia:NPOV

The current mention of Guglielmo Marconi in the lead section as a Nobel laureate and pioneer of radio, without reference to Ferdinand Braun, who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1909, violates the principle of proportionality under NPOV. Braun made foundational technical improvements (e.g., tuned circuits, directional antennas) that made long-distance radio practical. To omit him while including Marconi creates an imbalanced and biased historical account.

Hertz in the intro:

Heinrich Hertz’s experimental proof of electromagnetic waves in the late 1880s laid the scientific foundation for all wireless communications. Without Hertz, there would have been no Marconi or Braun. Electromagnetic wave theory, developed by Maxwell, remained theoretical until Hertz’s experiments validated it. This fundamental discovery transformed telecommunications from speculation to science. Therefore, excluding Hertz from the intro about telecommuncations diminishes the role of physics in the origin of it.

“All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source.”

— Wikipedia:Verifiability

Reliable sources (e.g., NobelPrize.org, IEEE, Britannica) explicitly name Braun as co-recipient of the 1909 Nobel Prize and credit Hertz with proving the existence of electromagnetic waves. Their roles are verifiable and well-documented. Excluding them from prominent sections of the article gives undue weight to Marconi and underrepresents others whose roles are just as significant and well-sourced.

In the "Radio" section, the narrative currently also just credits Marconi with the development and popularization of radio. While Marconi was a brilliant inventor and entrepreneur, Braun was the key engineer who resolved critical technical challenges. For instance: Braun invented the cathode-ray tube (also crucial in electronics and television). He significantly improved transmitter design, enabling practical long-distance communication. His development of tuned circuits made selective radio communication possible. Thus, omitting Braun from this section creates a misleading impression that Marconi’s work stood in isolation. Including Braun would reflect the collaborative, multidisciplinary nature of early radio development.

“Giving due weight means that articles should reflect the relative prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.”

— Wikipedia:Due_weight

In histories of telecommunications, Marconi, Braun, and Hertz are all prominently featured. IEEE, the Nobel Foundation, and major historical analyses present Braun as a co-equal figure in early radio, and Hertz as the scientific forerunner. Giving Marconi sole prominence in the lead and radio sections creates undue weight, contrary to policy. BauhausFan89 (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Please read the section directly above this one. Continuing WP:ICANTHEARYOU is disruptive.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

we didnt reach any consensus. you just revert well sourced edits of mine. so WP:ICANTHEARYOU isnt of any meaning here. given Wiki´s idea of consensus you should give proper arguments why my argumentation is not right or you should accept it. BauhausFan89 (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:ICANTHEARYOU is the problem here, please see your talk page for other editor's views. Coming here and starting an edit war every 4 months is also disruptive. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

what has my editor´s page to do with anything going on here? wikipedia is about discussion. we all can do it and shall do so. but you just revert sourced edits with false, frankly outragous claims like trying to argue that Ferdinand Braun sharing a nobel price for his work in the field of radio doesnt deserve a mention in the article about telecommuncation, when said article states the other winner of that award for the same type of contribution. BauhausFan89 (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

can we get other editors in here. Im tired of this. if others support that we let out Ferdidand Braun´s groundlaying work in the field of radio and telecommunications in the article about just that its ok. would be a shame for Wikipedia, but I would have done my part then. BauhausFan89 (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@BauhausFan89, Other editors have other things they'd rather do than engage with an apparently disruptive editor such as yourself. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy (WP:NPOV), all significant viewpoints and contributions must be represented fairly and proportionally. Braun, co-recipient of the 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in wireless telegraphy, made foundational contributions that directly impact telecommunications. Excluding him constitutes undue weight and violates WP:DUE, which requires balanced coverage of notable perspectives.

Additionally, WP:VERIFY and WP:RS require that verifiable and reliably sourced content be included. Braun’s role is well-documented in reputable sources, including historical scientific literature and Nobel archives. Removing such content without cause or citation violates these policies.

Moreover, WP:PRESERVE advises against removing verifiable content that improves the article’s breadth. Editors attempting to restore Braun’s mention are not being disruptive; they are adhering to WP:BOLD (Be bold), which encourages improvement of articles in good faith. Finally, labeling constructive edits as vandalism may violate WP:AGF (Assume good faith) and WP:CIVIL. BauhausFan89 (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

There is also WP:FALSEBALANCE. What you continually fail to provide is commonly accepted mainstream scholarship showing Braun and Marconi were hand in hand inventing radio. Mainstream scholarship does not share your POV at all and points out Braun was making later improvements, not inventing wireless, citing papers literally called "Improvements relating to the Transmission of Electric Telegraph Signals without Connecting Wires". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

thank you for arguing my point. I never claimed Braun invented the radio. he had a HUGE impact on its developement so and I want to show that as Hertz´s contribution to lay the groundworks. so can I do just that? the article mentions all the great people having their hand in developing all the mentioned inventions besides those 2. can I insert them as contributers? BauhausFan89 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The article is a summary, so there is a cutoff point . We don't push the historical narrative back to (the invention of the wheel?) just to shoehorn someone in. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

funny like you try to argue that naming the person sharing the nobel prize for wireless telegraphy is shoehorning some random person in when the article is about the radio and telecommuncations as a whole. naming Braun in the intro and in the radio section is common wiki ground. BauhausFan89 (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

so if there are no real arguments I will insert Braun´s contribution to the radio in the intro and the paragraph about it and will cite violation regarding removals without citing valid reasons. BauhausFan89 (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Please read your own words "I want to show" and your idea that this article "mentions all the great people". It has already been explained to you why you can't and it doesn't. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@BauhausFan89, you clearly don't have consensus to make these changes. If you do so, they will be reverted as disruptive. ~Kvng (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)