text:
Talk:Photographic film

First sheet film
I'm not really sure who made the first sheet film. The Kodak no 1 camera was in 1888 is notable, but that was probably not the first sheet film? -- Egil 08:56 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

Taking picture on a paper negative is as old as Fox Talbot in fact Eastman invented the rollfilm : several pictures on a film. The no 1 and other early Kodak were reloaded in the factory the paper tape allowing the user to load his camera came later. -- Ericd 13:11 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

Is it really useful to have a list of all the films available on the market? -- Ericd 00:50, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Film formats
Could anyone describe the difference of film formats (135, 120, 110.... ect.) Someone (including me) may be interested why they are called by such numbers. Thanks..... investorjoe 19:42 Oct 19 2004 (UTC)

That's a really good idea, actually... I'll write up another section, and move the "list of films" to a separate article while I'm at it. Neckro 08:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It turns out that the topic was already covered at Film format. I included some links to common film cartridges, however, and also moved the film list. While I was at it, I revised much of the article. neckro 23:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gelatin in film
"Photographic film is a sheet of plastic (polyester, celluloid (nitrocellulose) or cellulose acetate) coated with an emulsion containing light-sensitive silver halide salts (bonded by gelatin)"

Many vegeterians refuse to use photographic film for this reason. Why can't photographic film use synthetic gelatin?

because it doesn't exists... :( --Henriquevicente 03:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Roll film
Invention commonly credited to Eastman, it was actually invented by David H. Houston in 1881. (Now if I could just recall the source...) Trekphiler 18:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Notable films
I created this section to collect a few films that are known for particular characteristics or history. I've listed Kodachrome for its long life, and Velvia because it just rocks. I've also listed Kodak Tmax p3200 and Ilford Delta 3200 as two similar films that can be pushed to very high EI ratings.

I'd like to fill the list out some more. I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions? Perhaps the most (widely) sold film or something. Was there any film that was instantly recognizable? e.g "I knew that photo was taken with X as soon as I saw it". I've only heard that said about Velvia so far. Any suggestions? Imroy 21:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Imroy; I edited your info in this section. the info you provided is incorrect. Maco is not a film manufature but a distributor. the "maco IR" film has been discontinued for some time. granted, a notible film type and i changed the info again to reflect this. The info in WIKI should be correct.
 * rob, Colorado. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.229.153.126 (talk)

 * I did not write the item on Maco/Rollei film. I simply started the section and someone else added those other films. Now, I have some problems with your edits to this section. You've split the Maco/Aura and Rollei IR films but removed the part about them being essentially the last two remaining infrared films available, which is what made them notable. If Rollei IR is now the last IR film left, then it's even more notable and this should be stated. And you've added Efke, which might be notable. I've edited the Efke article, so I know at least a little about it. But what exactly is supposed to be "notable" about it? Is it just the old formula? You need to elaborate a little more. This is an encyclopaedia, you need to explain your statements. --Imroy 07:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Solaris
Is Solaris really a company? From what's available on the internet it looks like Solaris is just a product line of Ferrania (which is already listed in the Companies that manufacture photographic film section). Can some with actual knowledge confirm that Solaris is also a company? Thanks. Csabo 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Digital VS Film
I think there should be somewhere in the article about how it compares with digital photography and how some have switched over.. or why some have switched over. Knuckles sonic8 17:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Does Photography cover what you were suggesting? I would think that's the more appropriate place to have such information. BTW, I've switched back to film (admittedly after only using two point-and-shoot digitals) and I'm probably not the only one to have done so. --Imroy 18:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * DIGITAL has nothing to do with film! "DIGITAL IMAGING" IS NOT PHOTOGRAPHY. Digital imaging has no place in a film article. -- Rob, Colorado

 * I agree that comparison among digital and film technologies is needed.
 * I came here to know how grain density in film photography compares with pixels in digital image.
 * There are however other interesting comparisons, optical density in film vs. different kinds of digital sensors.
 * I see yet that film is still superior to digital photography (writing with light). But film is a luxury not affordable for those who only want a make a record of which friends were in a party or taking "selfies". Even for those who like to take artistic pictures, film is becoming more expensive, as the main interest in the majority of people does not reside in artistic ends.
 * I disagree with Rob, because Digital Imaging is, whether one likes it or not, a way to capture light in a digital media which can be projected or printed. It has its origins inf film photography, I hope that Rob agree with me in NOT calling film photography: analog photography, because there is no analogy in the process, it is a direct writing in film by the light, which is developed, one see what the light wrote on the film. Analog is not exactly an opposite of digital, In a fanatic vision one may say that film photography is also digital, because the image is formed in a countable set of crystals.
 * Rob, I would like to convince you to support a section comparing with digital imaging if you prefer that term, because many people could learn in that section, why film photography has a much more better quality, than the electronic counterpart. Although newer and very very expensive DSLR cameras may take very impressive pictures which compete with film cameras.

 * You kids will never understand. It's not that film has some intangible quality that is hard to achieve digitally, it's that film has the potential to record, for a few dollars, what would cost thousands of dollars to capture digitally. But you have to know what you want, and how to make it happen. In ancient times we spent YEARS learning the characteristics of various film stocks, and of the chemicals used to develop them, all so that we could instantaneously capture in the camera what we needed to create the images we wanted. And I have yet to see any digital image that can compete for resolution with 35mm Kodachrome 25 exposed by a master, or the insane amount of data contained in a Polaroid 55 negative. I used to shoot entire closets full of clothes on a single 55, and the weave of the fabrics was plainly visible UNDER A MICROSCOPE. But you have to know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Film camera article
Why was Film Camera merged into this article, vis-a-vis Digital camera? I am not a photography expert or even an enthusiast, but I must say I prefer film. Leaving all that aside, however, is Film Camera no longer considered notable enough even to have its own article?

What really wierded me out was a comment on another talk page where someone said "they still make 35mm film. hell, they EVEN still sell 35mm CAMERAS". As if the product were completely obsolete, and evidence that you can find almost anything online! So I went on Wikipedia to learn about the history of film cameras and their current availability, only to find... no page dedicated to the subject.

There's no point in being directed to 35 mm film if Nikon, Canon etc. have decided to stop making film cameras, and this info is buried on the relevant Wikipedia pages! Not to mention the fact that the article on film cameras redirects here and that the main page for 35 mm references camera film only in passing. You have to click on an orphaned subpage, 125 film which is the only page that has extensive info on film cameras in one place. Having info like this would help reassure me that my old Nikon is still serviceable.

Could someone with extensive film expertise Be Bold and remedy this? See Film Camera. The fact that Digital camera exists is an argument for the notability of what seems like a pretty broad topic (yes, I know, WP:EXISTS. --berr 216.15.63.67 (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

 * It has been a redirect since it was created in 2005; if you think a separate article is in order, create one, or make a split proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversal
The statement is made "Black-and-white reversal film exists, but is uncommon." It is/was a common motion picture format (ex. Kodak Tri-X and Plus-X who share confusingly similar names to their still camera negative counterparts.) I'll find some links to back this up, but the statement is confusing and false. Should it be removed or just a parenthetical exception added with a reference? The latter sounds messy, and the former sounds preferable to me, since the statement isn't necessarily an important one to make. (Is it really important that B&W reversal stills film is/was uncommon?) Micahmedia (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Film Production Companies
This list seems to be incomplete and out of order: Fotokemika Efke ceased production in 2012 (no official statement that I am aware of, only third party statements) Kentmere was acquired by Harmann/Ilford in 2007 but is still a separate production line and AFAIK still a separate company as well. Should it be mentioned? Filmotec (ex-ORWO) is missing. They are still in production. Inoviscoat makes film for Fotoimpex sold under the ADOX brand. Slavich (Borisoglebskaya Sloboda, Russia) is AFAIK still in production. For many of these I didn't find any official statements as sources. Can someone with deeper insight sort it out? --NonesensE (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Did my best to update the list. Xo-whiplock (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems like Foma in the Czech Republic are also still producing film. See http://www.foma.cz/en/homepage 193.69.193.14 (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

History of Color may be Misleading
The section called Color makes this statement:

"By the 1970s color film predominated and the use of black-and-white film was increasingly confined to low-light and "art" photography and other niche applications."

This seems misleading. Large Hollywood features were switching over to color in the late forties. Unconquered 1947, Easter Parade 1948, Samson and Delilah 1949 were top grossers in color. The top ten American box office films of the fifties were all in color. Mainstream films in BW were rare in the Sixties, at least in the US. And this is not limited to the US. For example film industry in India moved to color during the sixties. Already in 1960 Mughal-e Azam was in color.

Maybe the above statement could be phrased better.

Sukkoth 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Entirely inappropriate edits
User:Xo-whiplock edits have removed the lede section and replaced it with a personal reflection on the current state of photographic film in 2015 and entirely unencyclopedic content…”Branding is fundamental. Branding is basic. Branding is essential. Building brands builds incredible value for companies and corporations."'' What on earth is that about? Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Theroadislong is using personal bias against film to base his choices of removing entire paragraphs without first discussing the problem he has with the page with me first. Now he is telling me why he deleted my intro giving the current state of film and its future. This pargargraph replaced the one that stated film is dead and obsolete and superseded by digital. If you seek to turn this into a digial vs film war on wiki, I suggest you think again. I removed the lies and un-cited remarks about film by digital haters of film, and replaced them with cited information that present facts about the current state of film. The branding is in relation to products made with photographic film need to be branded for consumers and companies to build value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xo-whiplock (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If the section "Currently (2015)" is to be included at all it needs to be at the end of the article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Got it, and thank you for bearing with me in my noob state. Appreciate the help and direction.  I just want to update the page to reflect that film is not deserving of the kind of treatment is has received by the sweeping changes to photography in the last decade, and is still a viable medium for many photographers, which is increasing in numbers again.  You can see from the talk above this, that there was some problems during this time, and many were looking to "kill film" through remarks and bias.  Thankfully I believe that time has passed and film is re-establishing itself in the movie making world and the photographic world.  It won't be like a tidal wave as it was with digital, but a slow steady revival.  Why should "Currently (2015)" be moved to the end?  Is it inappropriate to place just before "History"?  What's the logic in putting it at the end?  I'd like it to be seen before one reads "History."  Also, the outside links in my lists, how to make those right?  I've read the template article on citations and can only manage the web links?Xo-whiplock (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I see the "Currently (2015)" section is still poorly placed at the beginning of the article. Nearly every article tends to start with the beginnings of the technology, not a treatise on its resurgence. I agree with Theroadislong's constructive comments, and while Xo-whiplock's edits were well-meaning, I think they interfere with the value of the article and the flow of the usual Wikipedia format. The rationale in placing the History section first is to describe the technology and its origins, and then proceed in a linear timeline to the present, not start at the present and work backwards, like some Benjamin Button. While the "Currently (2015)" section may have been well intentioned, the references do not support the text. The Calgary Herald article you cite is grossly incorrect, referring to "ambertypes" (not "ambrotypes") and "wet plates" as 1970's technology, when these were 19th century developments. The date of the development of digital photography is incorrect, and the first sentence of the paragraph that film was the only form of photography prior to digital is factually wrong. The information of "lomography" is based solely on their advertising website, and does not support the statements made concerning its professional use. Please consider the comments here and above constructively. We are intending to improve the readability, accuracy and usability of the article. N0TABENE (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Corrected external links and checked spelling
I hope this is done correctly now. I simply typed out the list and added a citation to the end, so external links show up in references now, instead of in the article. I checked the spelling and looks good to me. The grammar is something that looks good to me as well. I removed the header tags for fixing external links and spelling and grammar. If still not right, let me know where and what and how to fix it, or if you are skilled better, please help by fixing it instead of simply putting tags on the page. Thanks. ;)Xo-whiplock (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 * There is a difference between WP:External links and a footnoted citations, which is why there are two separate templates. It is not helpful to move External Links to unspecified references. Also, consider the quality of the reference - many of the references you added in good-faith are merely personal blogs, opinion pieces and commercial promotional sites. N0TABENE (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Put in a request for the page to be reviewed and ranked accordingly. I'll request a "peer review" after the findings of the ranking review. Xo-whiplock (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In the process of looking up citations for sections without any
I am in the process of finding citations to support each section tagged with the citations needed tag. Xo-whiplock (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Please consider the quality of the added references - consider using recognized academic or reference textbooks, in lieu of opinions, commercial advertising or unreferenced web sources. Thanks. N0TABENE (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Gallery Section
The gallery of images following the lede makes no sense. There are no captions accompanying the file images, they seem to be a random mix of positive and negative photo images and diagrams with no explanation or link to the text. Suggest moving unreferenced images to the end of the article, and providing in-line descriptions of the relevant diagrams referring to the layers of film and the H&D curve. N0TABENE (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I give up
You all have at it. I removed the "Currently (2015)" as the cites I used are not up to Wikipedia standards. I removed the "gallery" as the added images are unwelcome (I could have move to bottom and added text, but since they are wikimedia, you just click on them and see the info on them. I could have use them as icons and said, hey here's a famous color image, or a look at a negative, etc... truth is, this page is rife with stuff taken from other sources and not cited as it belonging to other writers.  The idea that there is a standard that wikipedia is after and say that my original efforts with inferior web page links does not measure up is too much.  Later...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xo-whiplock (talk • contribs) 00:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW, what's to say the un-cited text should remain??? Shouldn't this article be completely removed of all statements without citations??? Also, if web links don't belong in citations when all there is, is a web link, what book or current academic source will have anything that's not 10 years old??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xo-whiplock (talk • contribs) 03:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Back to fix things right
Removed everything that was not cited and/or copyrighted material.Xo-whiplock (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Removed lists that were deemed a "directory" and did not belong on Wikipedia.Xo-whiplock (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Shall we begin then to write the introduction using citations and then on to the history with citations? Yes, I think that's where to begin now.Xo-whiplock (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Had to undo a reversion of my edits. I wish people would read the talk page before doing things like that.Xo-whiplock (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Xo-whiplock I read your comments; it is not appropriate to delete an entire article. It would be more useful to replace or edit sections rather than deleting the entire contents. I was in the process of citing sources and improving text of individual sections when you removed most of the contents of the article, not just sections you had added. Ergo, I reverted your edit which essentially deleted the article. Xo-whiplock Wikipedia is a collaborative effort Ownership of content N0TABENE (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC

Very well and good, but the majority of the context of this wiki article is taken from a copyrighted work here: http://sdmuhcc.net/elearning/aridata_web/how/f/film/film.htm (2002)Copyrighted material can not remain in a Wiki.Xo-whiplock (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the plan now is to start over. Nothing should be written or undone (text placed back in the article) without a citation. Copy the old article to your sandbox and work on it there. Add cited work when it is finished.Xo-whiplock (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The copyrighted article forms the basis of this Wiki, and others have copied and pasted parts of other wiki pages to build this page. Never, has anyone ever put citations to any of their comments or edits. The whole article is untrustwothy and needs a complete re-write from scratch and with citations (mandatory) if it is to be Encyclopedia worthy.Xo-whiplock (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 * There is a correct way to reference a web source. See using the Web Citation template. The reference you cited contains general information. Copyrighted text material can be used if properly cited. It is inappropriate to again delete the article. This is a pattern of disruptive editing. You statement "the plan now is to start over" indicates you do not understand that this is not your personal article. I am asking you to review the Policies and guidelines, Ownership of content and Disruptive editing. N0TABENE (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Your supposed copyright site, http://sdmuhcc.net/elearning/aridata_web/how/f/film/film.htm, looks to me as if it was copied from http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/film.htm. None of this article appears to be violating the HowStuffWorks copyright. Stop insisting that copyright is a reason for your ridiculously huge removals, eviscerating the article and leaving nonsense in its place. Binksternet (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Very well. I'll not remove the text that does not have citations. I'll add the "challenge" to each and every line that does not have a citation and note that a challenged sentence can be removed at the discretion of any editor that sees fit to do so. At some point, this article will be made up to date and accurate with citations. The history and evolution of this article (I reviews the entire history from start up to the current state, and simply because it has been here without citations for so long, does not make it right to keep statements that do not have citations. How can anyone find and add citations to what's already been written?  Better to start over and allow editors to find and add information from sources that can be cited.Xo-whiplock (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 * You appear to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you continue down this road you will be blocked.
 * Any legitimate concern about this article, any legitimate wish to see it improved, would start out as actual improvements, for instance the rewriting of particular sections, cited to published sources. Instead, you have a savaged the article with swaths of deletions, and you are now promising to keep tearing it down without adding anything intelligible. That, too, will lead to your getting blocked for disruption. Binksternet (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Binksternet. Xo-whiplock, adding "citation needed" to every sentence in the article is again, simply disruptive. You would be more helpful to find the appropriate valid references or redraft sections, such as I did with the DX coding section, rather than the disruptive approach you have decided to take. N.B. Xo-whiplock a Disruptive Editing Warning has been filed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0TABENE (talk • contribs) 07:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You all should read this: WP:DISRUPTSIGNS Note the part about citations needing to be part of your edits, and appearing to be helping when all you are doing is being disruptive. Nobody was editing this page or doing anything about the lack of citations until I came along. Then when I started to work on fixing the page, I get "disruptive editing" thrown at me by those who are being disruptive. How can any of you say you are working for the good of Wikipedia when you never add a single citation to an article? All you do is run people off.Xo-whiplock (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Notes Section
I moved two footnotes from the Reference section and created a new Notes section. However, I am at a loss to find a reference for either comment. All search engine references to Edward's Isochromatic Plates seem to point back to a version of this Wikipedia article on other websites. If anyone is aware of the original source, I'd be grateful if you'd add the reference. IMO, neither comment is very important and doesn't add to the understanding of the topic - e.g. the first note comparing the amount of film to the area of Wales, and I think the article would be improved by deleting the two comments if there are no objections. Thanks. N0TABENE (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Theroadislong (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Appropriate scope of history section
For several years, the "History" section of this article has led off with a paragraph informing uninitiated readers that there was photography long before the introduction of film. It simply notes the three most commonly mentioned carrier media: the daguerreotype's silver surface, the paper negative and the glass plate. As this article is about photographic film in particular, not photography in general, it seems desirable to limit its general history of pre-film processes to an extremely summary overview such as that, while providing readers whose curiosity has been aroused with links to the Daguerreotype, Calotype and Photographic plate articles, along with the broad History of photography article link provided by the "See also" located immediately above.

Another editor recently expanded that paragraph with mention of the Niépce heliograph and some photochemical detail (unclear but apparently very erroneous) about the daguerreotype image, additions which I reverted, resulting in a dispute which has thus far generated heat but very little light. I contend that the addition of such specifics is undesirable in that context and invitingly opens the door to the piling on of other processes and other detail by other editors, transforming what is now an easily grasped introductory statement into yet another mini-history of early photographic processes, of which there are arguably too many in Wikipedia already. Apart from my concrete objection to the scrambled daguerreotype information in the currently reverted addition, the dispute appears to boil down to a matter of conflicting opinion and judgment. Input from other interested editors might be helpful in resolving it and would be appreciated. AVarchaeologist (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Why?  Why place roll films above glass plate?  Both are now technically obsolete, yet still in use amongst those particularly interested in the process. If anything, this position has shifted over the life of WP as any film near-disappears in favour of digital. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 * @AVarchaeologist As you well know, I am the editor you are referring to, and you fail to note that I rationally responded to your concerns, including your claims that erroneous material was included, all without you providing single a reference source for any material you added. You seem to be attempting to take ownership of this article, again providing nothing more than your unsupported speculations and opinions. The information provided on daguerreotypes was neither scrambled nor erroneous and were duly referenced. Your reversion was due solely to your objection that you wrote the section years ago, and to quote you, you are "the world's expert on what the [section] was intended to say". As I pointed out, Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort, and your ad hominem attacks and disparaging remarks about content you feel does not suit your personal view of an article is unhelpful. The purpose of the historical section was to contrast the modalities that led up to the development of film, which include predecessor processes. The fact that you do not have access to standard reference texts in the field should not deter other editors from citing sources. N0TABENE (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 * @N0TABENE Your irate and wide-ranging response to the critique of your edit that I posted on your talk page made it clear enough that nothing constructive was likely to come from continuing that exchange. You have also made it quite clear that you disapprove of me and my editing in general, and you yourself said "This discussion belongs on the Photographic Film talk page ...", so here is an RFC to solicit the presumably more detached perceptions of other editors. However, as you are apparently intent on continuing in a similar accusatory vein in this public forum, you oblige me to reply to the above in detail in defense of my honor and reputation.

 * 1. "... your claims that erroneous material was included ..."; "The information provided on daguerreotypes was neither scrambled nor erroneous and [was] duly referenced. Your reversion was due solely to your objection that you wrote the section [sic] years ago ...":

 * The reversion was amply justified by your description of daguerreotype image formation, if that is indeed what it was intended to be: "The light-sensitive chemicals were exposed directly to light and were chemically transformed into visible images, which in the case of daguerreotypes, is as a result of deposition of insoluble silver halide salts formed on the surface of a silver-plated copper sheet" (your addition to the pre-existing text in italics), which certainly is erroneous, as any relevant reference book of substance, including your cited 4th (2007) edition of the Focal Encyclopedia if carefully read (see page 67), should confirm. The daguerreotype image consists of microscopic blobs ("image particles") of metallic silver, amalgamated with mercury if mercurial development was used and also with gold if gilding was used. If any silver halides or trapped halogens remain after processing, they are simply unwanted residue. See the x-ray analysis in this highly respectable specialized source  for confirmation by modern technology. I checked the first few pages of your open-ended ("page 28 et seq.") cit via Google Books and could find nothing to explain your reporting. However, the generally laudable Mr. Osterman does occasionally go astray, as in this  spectacularly wrong definition of "virtual image", which adorns page 121 of the same edition of the FE and was duly copied to the George Eastman House site (where, the last time I looked, it was still around to misinform inquiring minds despite the note I sent the GEH several years ago pointing out the error), so just possibly it is actually something in the FE which is to blame. If you did not mean to describe the formation of the image, then I contend that your statement, with its "insoluble" silver halides, is so scrambled and inscrutable as to constitute a non-constructive addition, quite apart from the question of whether or not it is appropriate to delve into any technical detail in that paragraph.

 * 2. "... all without you providing [a single] reference source for any material you added ...":

 * I believe the only material I added any time recently is the 1839 date of the introduction of the daguerreotype, which I realized was missing and is obviously essential to establish the chronological framework. Like the fact that a silver surface, paper and glass were photographic media used in the camera before there was film, it is a datum found in all standard histories of photography, not contentious or controversial "material likely to be challenged" and positively requiring a citation per WP:CITE. However, the Focal Encyclopedia citation you supplied for your own purposes serves nicely to support what is there now, so I took care to preserve it.

 * 3. "You seem to be attempting to take ownership of this article ...":

 * Not asserting ownership, just trying to do some occasional upkeep on the parts I have worked on and evidently improved (as judged by the test of time and the tacit approval of the knowledgeable editors regularly watching), always glad when I see some change clearly for the better since I last looked in.

 * 4. "... again providing nothing more than your unsupported speculations and opinions.":

 * If you mean my speculations about what sorts of readers will be perusing the article, and my opinions about how best to present the information to them, I plead guilty as charged. If you mean something else, you will have to be specific.

 * 5. "... to quote you, you are 'the world's expert on what the [section] was intended to say'.":

 * You are seriously misreporting the source. To quote myself accurately, and in context: "The revert-involved paragraph [N.B., paragraph] was mostly written by me in the course of an overhaul and considerable expansion of the history section several years ago. That does not give me any ownership of it, of course, but it does make me the world's foremost authority on what it was designed to accomplish ...". Chide me for emphasizing the obvious if you like, but not, as on your talk page, for "chest-beating". Anyone who contributes a bit of text they composed is, naturally, the world's foremost authority on what it was designed to accomplish. Their purpose might be accorded the courtesy of some consideration, at the least a hearing.

 * 6. "As I pointed out, Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort ...":

 * Constructive collaboration is one of the pleasures of life, but being lectured about the basic principles of Wikipedia, as done at some length in your talk page reply, is not. I started editing five years ago and familiarized myself with the essentials then, so unless there have been significant changes recently ...

 * 7. "... your ad hominem attacks ...":

 * Where are those? I "attacked" an edit, not an editor. From my perspective, it is your departures from the specific and excursions into the general (e.g., on your talk page, "... your 'contributions' are more akin to personal opinions ...") that risk trespassing into ad hominem territory.

 * 8. "... and disparaging remarks about content you feel does not suit your personal view of an article is unhelpful.":

 * Apparent meaning: criticizing something I disapprove of is wrong, and I should stop doing it.

 * 9. "The purpose of the historical section was to contrast the modalities that led up to the development of film, which include predecessor processes.":

 * Using words like "modalities" makes me wince a bit, but there is not much to disagree with in that statement. The question is how to present the material so as to benefit the greatest number of readers to the greatest degree. Too many articles unnecessarily start tossing math or chemistry or other technical matter at the reader early on, inevitably causing some eyes to glaze over and skip down to another section or bail out entirely. This being the year 2015, the average reader of an article entitled "Photographic film" is likely to be very unfamiliar with the subject and in need of introductory overviews written in non-technical terms if their interest is to be stimulated and their attention held. There is room enough later on to go into the sorts of technical details which less casual readers may appreciate and which those already familiar with the basics may have come seeking.

 * 10. "The fact that you do not have access to standard reference texts in the field should not deter other editors from citing sources.":

 * If by the first part of that you mean to imply that I have not read standard reference texts, you are mistaken. I first stuck my nose into Newhall and Gernsheim and the Focal Encyclopedia in 1966 and have consulted and compared dozens of other print sources since. However, you are quite correct if you simply mean that I do not currently have access to them, except as available in snippets or chunks via Google Books. Physiological limitations have ended my days of making expeditions into the musty sub-basements of university libraries, or even the substantial local public library, and other considerations prevent me from ordering up a private library from Amazon. Happily, there is enough available online that I am enabled to confirm or refresh my recollection of details, although typically not from a single clean source in a form suitable for citation in a Wikipedia article. When I add something very obscure and not likely to be found in standard reference books, I usually supply some kind of a cit for it, and if it is something that goes against conventional wisdom, or contradicts an existing sourced statement, I certainly do.

 * Wikipedia's introductory guidelines reassured me that I was welcomed to contribute in whatever form and to whatever degree I was able, and that there would be other people, proficient in the aspects that taxed my capabilities, who would eventually be around to tidy up irregularities and take up any slack. I was informed that, although it was a requirement that any information added could be cited to a reliable source, actual citations were mandatory only in the case of "material likely to be challenged". I do not derive some sort of fiendish pleasure from making work for editors who specialize in upgrading articles by improving their sourcing; I respect and appreciate them for taking on that laborious task. Perhaps you could at least show a little less contempt for citation-impaired editors whose efforts are confined to making articles more informative, factually correct and comprehensible. There are articles bristling with citations, all done strictly by the book, which are built from innocently but insidiously misreported or flawed sources (it seems all sources for historical information in this field have at least one demonstrable error) and are propagating misinformation. Notwithstanding the fundamental importance of citing reliable sources, it is, ultimately, the reliability of an article's contents which is of supreme importance. As I believe Jimmy Wales once remarked, "No information is better than wrong information." AVarchaeologist (talk) 15:46, 5

December 2015 (UTC)

Resolution of Agfa 10E56 holographic film
While the citation added (Applied Optical Measurements, edited by Markus Lehner, Dieter Mewes) mentions Agfa 10E75 and 10E56 holographic films, it does not mention the resolution of the films nor the comparative to CCD sensors. Since the technical discussion of the particular film was tagged as unsourced several months ago, and there has been no verifiable citation, this content should be be deleted unless a verifiable source for that information is provided. NotaBene 鹰百利 Talk 18:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The density equation
Whence did you take the density equation: $$D = 1 - (1-k)^l$$ ? Since $$l$$ cannot be negative, density is limited to $$(0,1)$$, which is wrong because it is defined on the interval $$[0, +\infty)$$.

The linear part of the H&D curve yields: $$D = k \log l + a = \log l^k + a $$. This should be the correct model.

Ant 222 (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Lith film
What's missing here are the graphic films which were used in lithographic layouting. Incidentally, this used to be a huge market.

They had high resolution but only rendered black and white and no grey tones. Maikel (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Photographic film


text:
Talk:Pirate radio

Clean-up
The heading of this section was broken. -- 79.238.168.220 (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

NO ONE CARE NEW MOON IS BETTERNEW MOON These links were removed from the main article under their own duplicate mirror heading and they need to be refiled under the proper categories and not lumped under the main section which is more in the form of an overview and directory. Fragilethreads 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Pirate Cat Radio (San Francisco & Los Angeles)
 * Wicked Radio (Edgerton and Door County simulcast on shoutcast)
 * LUNk Radio (Lincoln, NE)
 * Radio Free Canton
 * Free Radio Santa Cruz
 * Free Radio San Diego
 * Free Radio Folsom (CA)
 * Radio Alice
 * Radionuclear (Ottawa, Ontario. Canada. Shut down on FM by Industry Canada, now shoutcasting online)
 * Rádio de Tróia (Florianópolis - Brazil)
 * Rádio Muda (Campinas - Brazil)
 * Iron Action Radio Nyack's Pirate Radio
 * Free Radio Olympia
 * Extensive history of Brooklyn Pirate Radio stations WHOT, WFAT, and WCPR
 * Blazin 94.9
 * Blast Radio
 * Pirate Radio 69 (Ungdomshuset, Copenhagen)

FM Transmiter
I have an FM transmitter and use it to play my songs in my stereo, I play them uncensored, id this illegal?? The signal doesnt go very far, but maybe a neighbor could pick it up.. Realg187 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as you aren't pointing it at a service dish or something, your cool. If the neighbors notice, prank them. Prank them hard.
 * In some countries FM transmitters below a certain power level do not require require a broadcasting licence. In recent years many consumer devices have appeared on the market which exploit this fact and allow listeners to play music from devices such as portable MP3 players over nearby FM radios. Typically such devices only operate over a range of a few metres. 82.132.220.222 (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Border Blasters
The border blasters article states that they aren't considered pirate radio because they are/were licensed in the country they were located in. Here, it says otherwise, listing them as "Pirate Radio in North America". Which is accurate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs) 15:03, April 2, 2006 (UTC)

 * It depends. Some border blasters were fully licenced (e.g. Radio Luxembourg), Some were unlicenced (e.g. Irish border pirates) A lot of the Mexican border blasters were theoretically licenced but operated at far high power levels than specified in their licences.

Needed for this article: history of pirate radio, notable stations, effects of pirate radio (eg UK's Radio Caroline led to the creation of the BBC's Radio 1). More than just "how to set up your own" ... -- Tarquin 19:38 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

As noted in my recent revision, Radio Caroline was not the first pirate radio station. Ship-based pirates had been around since at leat 1958, and they probably got the idea from the Voice of America's ship-based station of the 1950s, and a gambling ship off California may also have operated the world's first pirate station in the 1930s. There's a lot of history here, from the shooting of a pirate radio boss in 1966, the jamming of Radio Nordsee by the British Government in 1970 and its 1972 bombing by another station, the sinking of Radio Caroline in 1980 and the brief pirate renaissance of the 1980s...

It's a hell of a lot of material. I'd write the article myself if I could find out where I put the damn reference books. --Lee M

This page would benefit from description of legal aspects radio piracy. So far it is merely a Radio Pirate How-To. -- Przepla

I'm removing the how-to and placing it here. Several people seem to have made modifications here without doing so, so I'm a little worried that the consensus is that it ought to be there until the article is ready to be perfected. However, it really isn't encyclopedic, and if we want to learn from it, we can do so here. User:Monk who wrote this only made two contributions: this and the user page (which shows that this person is involved in pirate radio).

removed from the article: This reference will deal with FM Pirate Radio in the US. The basics of pirate radio are simple.

Buy a transmitter (Broadcast Warehouse is one of the best but there are dozens of manufacurers all over the world). We favor the TX150 from Broadcast Warehouse. It's small in size, large in capabilities, professionally built and, although fairly expensive at around US$2500, will give you from 20 to 150 watts of pro level broadcasting wattage.

Deterine how powerful you want to be. The higher the wattage rating on the transmitter, the farther your signal is likely to go. Most pirate radio operators run under 100 watts of power and average around 20-40 watts.

Setting up a station with anything more than 200 watts is difficult due mostly to the cost of equipment. Over 200 watts requires that you start using more specialized and expensive equipment such as CP type antennas that handle higher than 200 watt ratings.

Get an antenna. You can build your own 'J-Pole type antenna from about US$5 of copper pipe from the local hardware store (search J-Pole in google for many designs and plans) or you can buy one. The Comet 5/8 wave antenna is one of the most popular, costs around $100 and has a power (wattage handling) rating of up to 200 watts.

Get your antenna as high as possible. Height=distance for your signal.

Hide your antenna. Trees are great places for antennas. Use camo paint to create a flat finish that matches the envrionment (green for trees, brown for branches, light blue/gray if it's out in the open with sky behind it etc.). The FCC will eventually find it, but make it hard for them. And if you're in an apartment environment, the more difficult it is to find the antenna, the less likely they'll be able to figure out which apartment it's in.

Use 50ohm cable (50 ft. lengths are available at RadioShack for about US$35) to connect your transmitter to your antenna.

Find a frequency that's 'clean'. Clean means that, while driving around in your car, you get pretty much nothing but static on that station in the area you plan to broadcast in. In the USA, there is no quicker way to get a visit from the FCC (the agency that polices our radio waves, among other things) than to step on other 'licensed' stations' signals. Be a good citizen and don't interfere with your neighbors.

Get a cheap mixer. Behringer makes excellent mixers from US$49-$200 that work beautifully for pirate radio. This mixer, with two XLR (a type of pro connector you can get at any pro music store) cables connects directly to the transmitter (in this case the TX150) and will be where all your audio sources converge. Your DJ's will control this mixer to create their shows so make sure you get one big enough (8-12 'inputs') to handle several audio sources.

Get a good mic. A cheap mic sounds cheap- there are many very good mics available now for under $100. The MXL 990 is a great mic that works well with the Behringer mixers. Shure SM57 mices are a great standard that have been around for decades and are tough and sound great.

Get a CD player, or better yet, a pro level daul CD Player. American DJ makes a good one for $199 that works beautifully, however any CD player will work. Same for any audio source you may have from tape to computer. All will go directly into the mixer, along with your mic(s), all controlled by the DJ to create their show.

Get a pre-paid cellular phone. These are untraceable and work well as studio lines. You can also get a nice cellular phone patch cable from Radio Shack for US$20 that allows you to put callers on air.

Get an email address at one of the free services such as Yahoo or Hotmail.

Dealing with the FCC: This is a section onto itself, but surprisingly, you'll find that the FCC is actually a fairly powerless agency if you're determined to stay on the air. They have approx. 400 field agents in the US. These agents are required to police all areas that the FCC are responsible for. This includes cellular, POTS, Cable, and all RF type activity (including things like garage door openers). They're busy. The only time they'll come for you is if someone complains. Usually it's a local radio station, and most often one from Clear Channel (the largest radio station owner in the US) which is known for agressively complaining to the FCC about local pirate stations.

The FCC wants one thing: Compliance. If you turn off your transmitter, they will go away. The first visit will result in a warning. DO NOT GIVE THEM YOUR NAME. Without a name, you can't be fined. If you get a warning, move the station location- the next visit will most likely result in another warning if it's at a new location. They can fine you (up to US$11,000 per 'violation'..which they don't define, and up to 1 year in prison). In reality, the prison sentance is a farce. They have never successfully prosecuted someone into prison. Every state in US has thrown out attempts at prison sentences. They also have no way to enforce their fines without the help of other agencies. An FCC field agent is an engineer, not a cop. He or she has no ability to enter your studio without a warrant (which they must obtain from a Federal or local judge). They can't arrest you. They can't do much of anything on their own so the first visit to a new location will ALWAYS result in a warning only. They may ask to look at your equipment. DO NOT LET THEM IN. They will claim they have a right to inspect your equipment. THEY DO NOT. Only if you are licensed do you have to let them inspect your equipment (and then only if you want to keep your license).

They aren't bad guys, really, just in a no-win situation. Be polite with them, but DO NOT let them in without a warrant, and DO NOT give them your name.

I'm not certain how relavent to this article this line is:
 * The movie Pump Up the Volume has as its hero a high-schooler who does pirate radio broadcasts.

It doesn't seem to me that it's important to mention here. That's like mentioning the movie "Hacker" in the hacking article, or "The Craft" in the witchcraft article. MB 14:11, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry I know a lot about French pirate radios and not much about other. At least there's something in the article now. I think an Italian wikipedian could add some interresting material. Ericd 22:59, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

BBC and Pirate Radio
"In the 1960's in the UK, the term referred to theft: the unlicensed broadcasters were seen by some to be 'stealing' audience from the state monopoly broadcaster, the BBC. Naturally, not all audiences were happy to be regarded as the BBC's property!"
 * Does this line sound pretty sketchy to anybody else? TastyCakes 17:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Merger with Pirate Radio
There's a new article at Pirate Radio that seems to want merger with this one.

Also --- is it true that François Mitterrand was arrested for running a pirate radio station? Smerdis of Tlön 15:36, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes it's absolutely true. Mitterrand and the french socialist party (PS) supported the creation of private radio while Giscard d'Estaing was opposed. They stagged a broadcast from the PS office. Obviously they did it on purpose to be arrested. Private radio became legal in 1981 after the election of Mitterrand. Ericd 18:25, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Is illegal broadcasting really a crime, or is it something else? This article was added to the crime category, but crime is not mentioned in the article. I'd add something myself, but I don't know what to write.Tim Ivorson 08:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I suspect this may be something that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the basic question is, is this something you can be arrested for or sent to jail for? There was a radio pirate in Bloomington, Indiana that did go to jail briefly about ten years ago.  Smerdis of Tlön 13:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Intra-article comment on offshore radio moved here
"a full article on the history of offshore pirate radio would be useful." Moved by A-giau 05:15, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor text
"The story of British pirate radio began in France almost at the birth of broadcasting in the United Kingdom. In 1924, both UK electrial companies and USA subsidiary electrical companies trading in Britain, were thrust together to form a single broadcasting monopoly. It was originally called the British Broadcasting Company and later renamed the British Broadcasting Corporation in 1927 and it was the only station to be awarded a British Broadcasting Licence. The only means of providing competion to the BBC was by establishing commercial radio stations in countries from which signals could be beamed into the UK.

One of the first of these stations was Radio Normandie in France. It soon became part of a large network of such stations both in France and in other countries.

The most famous of these continental transmitters was Radio Luxembourg in the adjoining Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

All of these stations were very popular in Britain and their demise only came about due to invasion of their host countries by Nazi Germany during World War II.

Prior to becoming Prime Minister, Winston Churchill used one of the stations in France after being prevented from speaking over the BBC to the electorate of the UK. By 1938 a poll showed that 80% of British listeners were tuned to these stations on Sundays when John Reith, General Manager of the BBC, favored heavy doses of religious programming instead of the light entertainment provided by the "Continental Stations" as their were called by listeners. The British Government and the BBC branded them as "pirates" stealing the British audience.

After WWII only Radio Luxembourg managed to come back on the air with commercial radio for the UK. The British Government did its best to close the station down again by branding it a "pirate" once more. At that time all British listeners had to buy a wireless license to listen to the radio and the conditions of that license made it an offense for British listeners to tune their sets to stations which were not authorized to be heard by the British General Post Office, which at the time regulated all broadcasting in Britain"

I am saving this text by an anonymous contributor that was reverted. I don't think it's vadalism. While not of encyclopedic quality (It's hard to read that Luxemburg was "French"). I think it opens new horizons as it introduce the concept that we call "radios périphèriques" in French (maybe "peripheral radios" ?). This a radio that is broadcasting in a country were it's legal to acountry were it isn't because of monopoly or censorship. Is the difference pure semantics or not ? In France it's obvious that some peripheral radios where coined as "pirate" by the French governement while other where "peripheral". This went as far to the creation of SOFIRAD a state-owned company that buyed most of the stock of "peripheral radios". It's worth to notice that the situation in France parallels the situation the UK, while some small countries hosted peripheral radio just like they played the card of being "tax paradises". Ericd 20:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Additions and Modifications to Pirate Radio
Just a friendly note before I start anew: I have already contributed a lot of new material to the Pirate Radio entry. Unfortunately on one of my earlier additions before I logged on, my intentions seem to have been misinterpreted and this led to a mini-reversion saga. I then posted here and gained advice from Tεxτurε who suggested that before I begin anew that it might be a good idea to give advance notice and this is what I am doing. As a footnote I have first hand hand knowledge of this subject and my works have been previously published, the last one being a book: "Media Moments" by Dr. Eric Gilder of Sibiu University, Romania. I previously worked with Dr. Gilder and others in a project involving the late Don Pierson of Eastland, Texas who was the creator of the most famous British offshore stations. My background is in research, broadcasting and journalism. If anyone has any questions about what I am mainly adding, I will be happy to respond. There are some minor existing corrections that I will also make such as the note that John Peel worked for Radio Caroline, when in fact he worked for Wonderful Radio London. MPLX 03:07, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Footnote to the comments about French Pirate RadIo
In my notes about modifications to the topic of Pirate Radio, I forgot to add that I was the author of the annonymous posting reproduced above in the section on France. A question was raised by Eric as to why Radio Luxembourg was included in the section on France? The answer is that at the time it was the only logical place for it to be placed with a cross-reference to Radio Normandie in France.

However, I agree with Eric that it should not be there and upon looking at this topic and the way it has been stitched together, it would make more sense to establish an overview followed by a country by country entry, where laws and circumstances have varied. To that end I will disassemble the long list of radio ships and structures that I added and separate them under various countries and add additional notes in adjoing paragraphs. I will not remove content contributed by other writers.

A question has been asked about whether a station licensed by one country can be considered a "pirate" in another country? Radio Luxembourg is a prime example. The answer is that the word "pirate radio" was a political term of convenience since the word "pirate" suggests a venture not sanctioned by any sovereign power. To that same end the words "outlaw" and "freebooter" have also been used. The more friendly terms for sea based radio are "offshore radio" and "free radio". However, the latter term has a totally different meaning in the United States with the advent of pay television and radio. This is another reason why the topic should be broken up into a country by country listing following an overview.

I have other additions that I want to make to this subject concerning aborted but quite famous ventures and at least two more external encyclopedic links. I also intend to link this material to entries (if such an entry does not already exist) to the history of the record industry and music licensing. Both of these subjects I know reasonably well having previously researched them and written about them.

As before, any questions I will do my best to answer. MPLX 03:29, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Expansion of the section on Origins of the term "Pirate Radio"
I have today expanded the section dealing with the origins of the term "Pirate Radio". This further expansion was a modification of my original expansion to the original text.

Because of the legal and linguistic differences concerning an understanding of the term "Pirate Radio" and in partial answer to questions concerning the grafting of early British broadcasting history under the listing for "France"; I will be adding a further section dealing with the Continent of Europe as a whole. This is where pre-WWII British "Pirate Radio" stations will be listed. (At present no such list exists for that era.)

I will also be breaking up the long and unrelated list of stations and placing them under the various national headings.

In the case of Israel, all of the offshore stations were in fact anchored within Israeli territorial waters and semi-tolerated by the Israeli government. This was in contrast to the British offshore stations which attempted to remain outside of British territorial waters.

Some stations which had an impact on society but never made it on to the air, will also be listed. Two examples are stations intended to broadcast from offshore in support of the uprising in Tiananmen Square, China. There are other examples in other countries.

These additions will appear on a time permitting basis as soon as possible. Any comments or suggestions are welcomed. MPLX/MH 23:51, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I made 3 minor corrections to my text which included changing the word "river" to "Rio", closing quotation marks after "Pay TV" and adding to a word. MPLX/MH 00:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Major update and expansion of the article
I sort of stumbled into this project, because that is what it is - a major project (I had no idea of the hours that it would consume!) The problem is that unless the reader has an overview of the entire subject it can be interpreted according to existing local or national knowledge, which will give an entirely false and incorrect impression.

An example of this is found in the opening explanation as to what "pirate radio" is and what it is not. The opener belongs under a US interpretation but not under a universal interpretation.

I posted earlier that it was my intention to reclassify the entries according to geographical areas and that is what I am now about to do.

Having already put hours of research into this reshuffle and add-ons, I will admit that it is not yet complete and therefore I will be constantly adding to it over the next 48 hours.

If you spot typos or something that is obviously amiss please fix them (my eyes are getting crossed!), but if you wonder why there are gaps or where something has gone that you think should be there, just wait 48 hours and then take a critical look. This will give me time to build this page.

I tightened up some paragraphs due to the increasing length of this topic. The only other way I know to deal with the length issue, is to break up the entire section on listings under pages devoted to that geographical areas that are linked to the main topic and leave it to provide an overall view. The listings are intended to be more specific.

With that out of the way I will commence reconstruction with a lot of additional material MPLX/MH 03:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Problem of length with solution
I am in the process of uploading new and revised text that I have already written off line. I am also making minor edits on line as I do so. (Please see history of this page to see what I mean.)

However, I have now run into the warning sign that shows that I am reaching the limit for the page. Therefore what I will do is compile a new list of links by continent or by area that can be posted on other pages.

Because I have already added new text under ASIA with a section for China, it means that the existing linked text on Taiwan will be moved to the new page.

The same applies to Europe when it comes to the existing text for France, although Europe may end up being sub-divided on two pages depending on length.

I am making these notes to let others know what I am doing. By the way, I am not changing anything in the original text that was not written by me in the sections about France or Taiwan, they will be reproduced "as is".

Due to the hour where I am I may have to resume these additional tasks tomorrow (September 30), but just in case anyone is nervous about unfinished work, this project will be completed within 24 hours from the time of this posting. MPLX/MH 04:52, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Crimes?"
Pirate radio, as noted, is far from being universally recognized as a crime. Does it truly belong in that category?

 * Well the problem is that someone started the thread as "Pirate Radio" which is a statement that there is something called "Pirate Radio". So the question is, what is it? Well it does seem to belong to the category of crime, but because crimes vary from country to country, so does the criminal interpretation of this subject. What is a crime in one country may not be a crime in another. I noted different contributions by different writers who all had their own take on the subject.

 * The people with very fixed ideas about what it means are usually the amateur radio enthusiasts (and I am not knocking them!) The amateur radio people resent the intrusion of unlicensed hobby broadcasters who sometimes create havoc on their bands like hackers on the Internet.

 * However, the term "Pirate Radio" has now become so ingrained that governments use to describe criminal activity, while at the same time (as in the recent case of BBC Pirate Radio Essex), licensing a station that calls itself a "pirate" to capture the flavor of an illegal activity while being perfectly legal. A few years ago Scott Shannon was associated with a similar format in the USA. So I think that we are stuck with the term.

 * What is obvious now is that it has to be considered within the context of its application and the best way to do that is on a country by country basis where customs and laws vary considerably. Not only that but I ran into the problem of running out of space! So I don't think that there is much choice but to break the subject up while leaving the original entry as an overview with its own cross-referenced index to the other entries. That is what I intend to embark upon just as soon as I have posted this! MPLX/MH 19:17, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sub-Pages now created
The reason for this comment is that for some reason this discussion page was linked to one of the intermediate editions of the Pirate Radio page, probably because the last comment was attached to the intermediate page so that the reader could not return to the article that they came from. Therefore since this comment is attached to the latest edition I am hoping that it will self-correct this problem. MPLX/MH 15:52, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sub-Pages now created
Unfortunately this comment page is linked to an intermediate edition of the feature on Pirate radio because there seems to be two pages of the same name. One is "Pirate Radio" and the other is "Pirate radio". I am hoping that the edition of this updated comment will fix the problem. MPLX/MH 15:58, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PAGE REVERTED BECAUSE OF VANDALISM
I have now reverted the page to reflect the last contribution from another person to this omnibus site. The previous reversion as vandalism was to a page that I had constantly updated by the addition of new material. Radio Caroline is linked from this page on the UK section (see Pirate Radio in Europe and scan down to United Kingdom) and Radio Caroline is also covered on its own page under the article title of Radio Caroline. John Peel merits his own page and the original listing on this page before I updated it was incorrect. Peel did not work for Radio Caroline but for Wonderful Radio London where he hosted the overnight show that became famous. There are many new links both from and returning to this page and they will be lost if a reverts are performed on this omnibus guide. It should be noted that the comment that "the term pirate radio ... was coined by uk" as an excuse to revert is also incorrect. MPLX/MH 00:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Micro Radio?
Anybody interested in starting a new page on microradio or Mbanna Kantako (already a stub) or Human Rights Radio Network? Should I make it a subsection of this article? ParkingStones 18:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What exactly is "Micro Radio"? Is it unlicensed very low power transmissions by hobby broadcasters in the USA? If it is then it should go in on the sub-article that deals with Pirate Radio in North America. If on the other hand it merits its own article then it should be linked to Pirate Radio in North America in the same way that Radio Newyork International is (which has its own article) or Radio Caroline or others on the European sub-articles. So if it is a US topic best to write your comments on the Talk page there and begin by explaining what you mean by the term. This Talk page is not topic specific. MPLX/MH 20:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I took a look at Mbanna Kantako, this is a about a very local anarchy movement in one neighborhood with a lot of self-serving promotion attached to it. As for this guy starting anything - I don't think so. Pirate radio has flourished on land at all power levels since the birth of broadcasting itself. Please see my comments on that Talk page under your own, MPLX/MH 20:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have modified my further comments because you modified your own while I was replying. I have removed my comment and your own to the Talk page of the article in question - otherwise none of this is going to make any sense at all. MPLX/MH

 * The term "micro radio" came into use in the 1990's/2000's in North America to describe a type of pirate (or sometimes clandestine) type station. But with the partial legislation of LPFM broadcasting it has come to be applied to some types of legal station as well. To muddy the waters further some REALLY "micro" stations have always been able to claim legality under the FCC "Part 15" regulations (or equivalents in other countries). In short not all pirate stations are "micropower" and not all "microwpower" stations are pirates. 90.208.194.177 (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Headings should not be links
Namely, the headings linking to articles on pirate radio by area. Ben Finn 12:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Seton Hall Pirate Radio
I think it would be a nice idea to add into Trivia (or perhaps Cultural References) that Seton Halls' WSOU radio station refers to itself as "Seton Hall Pirate Radio". (See the image in the article; the Seton Hall mascot is the pirate.) --Ihmhi 20:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Audience
The references provided show that Radio Luxembough was aimed at Britain, and not the British Isles. The primary source of the official Radio Luxembourg website states ''1933: March 15th marks the official, on-air launch of Radio Luxembourg. As a European pioneer, the company broadcasts a unique combination of programmes in several languages using the same long wave frequency to Luxembourg, Germany, Great Britain, France and later the Netherlands and Italy. The station rapidly becomes the most popular European commercial radio station.''. It is obvious too from the fact that the advertising carried by Radio Luxembourg was produced by London ad agencies targetting the UK. --HighKing (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The other reference says different, and you should not be edit warring, you agreed not to in order to get unblocked early. EmpireForever (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and another example of WP:SYNTH. The reference does *not* state that the signals were beamed at the British Isles.  Also, trying to insinuate that one revert, with a reference and a posting to this Talk page and to the other editors Talk page is an edit-war is probably taking the concept of edit-war too far.  On the other hand, blank reverting with no reasoning other than "the other reference says different" would probably be a lot closer to being counted as edit-warring.  The block-period is over too.  --HighKing (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The other reference does not say different, and it does not state that the signals were aimed at the British Isles. The only reference produced "History of International Broadcasting" (limited preview on Google books) says that there were 2 million listeners in the British Isles (and even then it's pretty clear that the term is used to mean UK).  You cannot chose to ignore the primary reference here which makes it clear that Radio Luxembourg was targetted at Great Britain.  There are *no* references that say that the signals were beamed at the British Isles.  And if there were any lingering doubts, further on in the same book, it consistently uses the term Britain and refers to the BBC (not to RTE, the Irish broadcaster).  Finally, on page 46 it states "1933 - From May onwards, Radio Luxembourg broadcasts 7 days a week; Mondays to Italy, Tuesdays Belgium, Wednesday the citizens of Luxembourg, Friday and Saturday for France, and Sundays reserved for British listeners (deliberately coinciding with with the BBC Sundays of religious programmes)."  This makes it abundantly clear that the transmissions were aimed at the UK.  --HighKing (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The signals may or may not have been "beamed" in the technical sense at The British Isles/UK/Great Britain/whateveryerhavinyerself (although in later years they used an aerial system with a small degree of directivity) but the bulk of the listenership to their English language programming (They also had services in German, French and other languages) was (for obvious reasons) in Great Britain nevertheless these programmes enjoyed a following from places as far apart as Ireland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, even parts of Western Russia. 90.208.194.177 (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Radio free europe
Would something like radio free Europe count as pirate radio? Obviously, these broadcast weren't legal in the Soviet-backed nations they broadcasted to.

216.57.220.87 (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I haven't ever heard of them, I assume that they were legal in the country they brodcasted from. However, if you include them, you would also have to include West German TV and Radio stations (before the re-unifications) as they broadcasted to the east as well. WEst Germany had transmitters along the border and in WEst Berlin, so they could cover almost all of East Germany (with the exception of some valleys in SAxony). Of course it was illegal in the East to receive WEstern TV, but people watched it anyway. -- 79.238.168.220 (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Radio Free Europe are not considered to be a pirate station for two reasons. Firstly its is/was (if anything) more of a Clandestine station as its aims were political and Secondly it operated legally from transmitters in West Germany and Portugal (and later from transmitters within the target countries themselves). "Border blaster" stations (e.g. radio Luxembourg) which are licensed in their countries of origin are generally not considered pirates although occasionally they are incorrectly referred to as such. 90.208.194.177 (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Etymology
Does anyone have a reference for the etymology? I thought that the term had derived from the fact that stations were based offshore, and the term then spread to more generic copyright infringement. 129.234.186.2 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In popular cutlure: american graffiti
As far as i remember a character Wolfman Jack in American Graffiti runs a pirate rock-n-roll radiostation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya-42 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Radio First Termer?
This is mentioned on four separate occasions in links. Is it really that notable? 86.143.50.243 (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Probably could cut it down to 1 link, but the subject is notable, and a g-book search turns up many mentions in histories of the Vietnam war. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Solidarity Radio Broadcasts in Poland
This article would benefit from an addition of a section about the Solidarity Radio broadcasts in Poland during the 1980s. At this point, I added only a hyperlink to an external page (in Polish) of the Solidarity Underground Radio Association, a group of people who used to prepare and broadcast those clandestine Radio Solidarność programs. MarcinZmudzki (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Pirate Radio Movie
I recall that one time when I was at the movies, they showed a trailer about a movie that involved a pirate radio station broadcasting from a ship. I don't recall what the movie was called and I would like to watch it. I also feel that it might make sense to mention the movie in this article. -- 79.238.168.220 (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I just found out that the movie is just called "Pirate Radio". -- 79.238.168.220 (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also referred to "The boat that rocked" -- 79.238.168.220 (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Studio Pirates?
I removed this section after a poor quality edit because it has no reliable sourcing (and I could find none) for the concept of "Studio Pirates" and just seems to be strung together anecdotal stories. Needs some proof this even exists under that name. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

First Offshore Pirate ?
The article states: In Europe, Denmark had the first known radio station in the world to broadcast commercial radio from a vessel in international waters without permission from the authorities in the country that it broadcast to (Denmark in this case). The station was named Radio Mercur and began transmission on August 2, 1958. In the Danish newspapers it was soon called a "pirate radio".

What about RXKR (broadcast to California 1933) or the "Daily Mail" broadcasts to the UK in the 1920's ? These preceded the Danish station by several decades ! 2.219.145.226 (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

 * The "Daily Mail broadcasts" were not actual broadcasts. It was a publicity exercise involving a ship fitted with powerful loudspeakers which anchored off seaside towns playing music and for some reason was not treated as a nuisance by the authorities. The original intention may have been to operate an actual broadcasting station but the people involved lacked the technical competence. 2A00:23C4:CAB:7900:5888:FECB:2F4B:F747 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Clandestine Radio merits separate article
The term clandestine radio redirects to the pirate radio article but they are not really the same thing although are sometimes confused. Clandestine stations are established for primarily political reasons either illegally within the target country or (sometimes legally) in a friendly neighboring state (although in the latter instance such stations may still attempt to give the impression that they are located within the target state). Pirate radio stations are generally established either as commercial enterprises (albeit illegal) or by enthusiasts for particular forms of (usually musical) programming who feel such programming is neglected by official stations. Programming on pirate radio tends to be either apolitical (other than perhaps advocating some form of liberalization in broadcast regulation and/or licensing policies) in nature or political motivations are only secondary and incidental. While there are a small number of stations (e.g. the Voice of Peace which fall into a grey area the majority of unauthorized broadcasters can be clearly categorized as either "pirate" or "clandestine". 90.208.194.177 (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, they don't fit the definition of "unlicensed" since they may be legally operating. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

My edit explained.

 * Pirate radio is illegal or unregulated radio transmission for entertainment or political purposes.

Radio - pirate or legal - is not radio transmission.

 * for entertainment or political purposes

This is no criterion.

 * While pirate just refers to the illegal nature of the broadcasts, there have also been notable pirate offshore radio transmissions.

There are several links to offshore radio in this article, in the "see also" section too.

 * ''Pirate radio generally describes the unlicensed broadcast

Repeated definition

 * of FM radio, AM radio, or short wave signals over a wide range

This refers to any radio, legal too, and is explained in radio station 85.193.237.204 (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: PODCASTS, RADIOPHONICS, AND SOUND ART
— Assignment last updated by I.e.jamie (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Pirate radio


text:
Talk:Montesquieu

Slavery
I'm not going to edit the article to remove misleading material. The section present now deals with slavery is a flat misstatement, although through clever manipulation the quotes partly hold up. Yes, he wrote those words about Negro slavery.

 * To put them in context, that part of his book starts with a statement that Slavery, properly so called, is the establishment of a right which gives to one man such a power over another as renders him absolute master of his life and fortune. The state of slavery is in its own nature bad. In later arguments he gives his reasoning against the legitimacy of black slavery. He first list some stated reasons, then refutes them. The quotes given are from the list of reasons. This list is prefixed by his statement that; Were I to vindicate our right to make slaves of the negroes, these should be my arguments:  The revisionists have conveniently ignored this.

 * If any Wikipedian objects to the brief summary statement I've left in the article, go to my talk page, and we'll work on an article tied to this one. Something like 'Montesquie controversies'. As far as I can find, this particular abuse of quotations started with Eduardo Galeano, a political writer from Uruguay. The material referred to here can seen in article history for the primary article as the January, 2004 versions.

 * Thanks, Lou I 12:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Climate Theory
LouI, it would be nice if you could elaborate on Montesquieu's climate theory. Which I think deserves its own article. This theory has been ridiculed, and you removed my entries on that particular thing, making formulations that seem to say that "he really didn't mean that, he was just being patriotic". I'm putting parts of it back in, though I do agree on your view that his stance on slavery has been incorrectly portrayed. Harvester 10:20, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Harvester, C de M had a number of interesting, and a few peculiar views. I won't object to re-inserting climate since it is accurate, but it would be nicer if we had summaries of some topics to which he applied more time and effort. Religion, civil compared to criminal law, the role of aristocracy, commerce, money, etc. that he devoted more time and reason to. You might consider creating a paragraph on agriculture and its relation to the law. Thanks for fixing my typos :-), Lou I 14:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree we need more detailed info on Montesquieu's political views. However the climate theory was very important in the history of ideas and caused a very long-lasting debate among intellectuals at the time, so it really needs elaboration, too... Harvester 12:14, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism of late
This article for some reason has been the target of unusual vandalism, essentially, different IP based users inserting difficult to detect false information. As such, any new information that is suspect will be reverted unless it is backed up with sources. Indeed, the most recent vandalism has him traveling throughout all of Europe in a single year .. which seems unlikely in a time when the horse was the fastest mode of transportation and winter travel was not common. --Stbalbach 03:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, someone just got it--funny, I was randomly reading about vandalism on Wikipedia while taking a break from studying the philosophers. I don't dare change it myself, but if someone could be so kind and remove the idiots handy-work I'd be so grateful. CF —Preceding unsigned comment added by RainForest1767 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC) The trip throughout Europe took three years according to the German version

Needs more information
Montesquieu was a huge Enlightenment thinker, and remains one of the most influential thinkers in all of history. I would think that there could be more said about him in this article: namely, it needs more on his Spirit of Laws.
 * Um, so write it! That's how things get done around here. Akradecki 00:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
The reasons for move copied from the entry on the WP:RM page: "Montesquieu" is the most common name --Francis Schonken 08:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~

 * Support --Francis Schonken 08:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- there seems to be a general belief that, for proper names, the full proper name is (usually) more appropriate. See the discussion page at "William the Conquerer". By convention bibliography articles use the full name. --Stbalbach 17:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose according to Stbalbach's reasoning, although mention should be made in the article's introduction that he is commonly referred to as Montesquieu. Olessi 18:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Support It is quite frequent to use less than the full name for French noblemen; even Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette is incomplete. Montesquieu is the primary usage, and the usual English form. Minimising use of redirects is a good thing. Septentrionalis 03:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose with that logic, we should rename Winston Churchill to Churchill, or Charles de Gaulle as de Gaulle. Does that make any sense? not really... Gryffindor  23:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support because people type in Montesquieu to find this page. --DemonHog 04:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Montesquieu now redirects here. It used to, but someone made a mistake. Fixed. -- Stbalbach 04:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. -- Stefán Ingi 23:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I've removed the template. Category:Requested moves has a big enough backlog without dead requests. Bishonen | talk 00:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Under the heading "Political views" (I think I would capitalize the "V" in "views" for stylistic reasons), in the second paragraph is written-- "While he endorsed the idea that a woman could run a government, he held that she could not be                          effective as the head of a family."

Classes
Who wrote classes ? The powers should be separated. Why among classes ? Ericd 20:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Two things: The use of Trias Politica is problematic, since the article suggests that it is principally the society which is separated, and not the powers. M. never actually wrote down the word "separation of powers", he spoke of equilibrium of powers, etcetera.

Enlightenment?
Which Enlightenment? He certainly doesn't seem to be from the French Enlightenment. Is he a member of the Anglo-Irish Enlightenment? Something has gone wrong with the first paragraph! i have no idea how to fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.69.116 (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Latrigue or Lartigue
It needs a reliable source. google seems to think it's the latter. Tedickey (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Google Books also. Seems a no-brainer for change unless someone can evidence a fundamental historic error (in which case both spellings might be included, but not otherwise, IMO). RashersTierney (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The text in this topic was added w/o a cite by Madman91 in April 9, 2006. Looks like it needs a reliable source (and most of those are the latter ;-) Tedickey (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Watching as History is being written in the eye of those writing it.

Hey, let's reword "true, source-able" statement, to fit the way we want it to read.

How about, just citing the source as Montesquieu said it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Including specific pointer to slavery section of quotations
Currently, the final paragraph of the Political Views section reads:

Like many of his generation, Montesquieu held a number of views that might today be judged controversial. While he endorsed the idea that a woman could head a government, he held that she could not be effective as the head of a family. He firmly accepted the role of a hereditary aristocracy and the value of primogeniture. His views have also been abused by modern revisionists; for instance, even though Montesquieu was ahead of his time as an ardent opponent of slavery, he has been quoted out of context in attempts to show he supported it. However, in The Spirit of the Laws he writes "The state of Slavery in its own nature is bad" [2] In the same work, however, he said "If I had to defend the right we had of making Negroes slaves, here is what I would say...Those concerned are black from head to toe, and they have such flat noses that it is almost impossible to feel sorry for them (Part 3, Chapter 5, "The Spirit of the Laws")."

This looks like the work of two different people, and as it currently stands is confusing (and has too many howevers). At any rate, I just read it for the first time, and it confused (and surprised) me.

Looking through the article history, it appears this has been a source of ongoing dispute, and any edits made by one "camp" are likely to be swiftly reverted or redone by the opposing camp.

Hence as a proposed solution: since Wikiquote now includes a full excerpt of the relevant section (De l'Esprit des Lois XV Ch. 5), how about simply including a link to that instead, so users can read what he wrote and decide for themselves?

Something very much like:

Montesquieu was somewhat ahead of his time in advocating the abolition of slavery in The Spirit of the Laws. As part of his advocacy he presented a satirical hypothetical list of arguments for slavery, which has been open to contextomy. However, like many of his generation, Montesquieu also held a number of views that might today be judged controversial. While he endorsed the idea that a woman could head a government, he held that she could not be effective as the head of a family. He also firmly accepted the role of a hereditary aristocracy and the value of primogeniture.

This should remove confusion, easily allow users to read more on the subject should they wish, and have the bonus effect of reducing the proportion of the page devoted to the subject, which currently distracts from his main political ideas discussed in the two paragraphs preceding.

--paxman (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Including specific pointer to slavery section of quotations
Montesquieu was somewhat ahead of his time in advocating the abolition of slavery in The Spirit of the Laws. Unfortunately, this statement belies the true nature of the contention. While Montesquieu certainly abdicated slavery reform in some quotes, he also allowed for circumstances under which slavery was acceptable (see Spirit of the Laws, Book XV, Ch 7). Montesquieu has surely been the subject of misquotation, but to state that he advocated 100% abolition of slavery would require some form of reference and completely ignoring at least one full passage in the Spirit of the Laws.

In the spirit of compromise I suggest the following revision:

Montesquieu was somewhat ahead of his time in advocating major reform of slavery in The Spirit of the Laws.

Abclemons (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair cop. Thankfully this now seems to have been put to bed. I'm still mildly troubled by the focus given to it both here and especially on Wikiquote over the considerably more significant elements of Montesquieu's political theory (like the principles upon which the entire modern western model of government rests) but the way to address that I think would be to expand the paragraphs preceding.

paxman (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Political Philosophy - Trias Politica
In the section on the Trias Politica a grand mistake is being made. When it speaks of the 3 classes in French society the quote names this as 'Trias Politica', but the latter is a completely different concept than the 3 different 'Estats' or Estates. I am not as advanced in this subject to want to change it myself but I hope someone can and will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmltbessems (talk • contribs) 15:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Montesquieu discovered Cabernet Sauvignon
I'm not sure if this is notable enough for the story, or if it is true, but I just stumbled across a site that said Montesquieu was the first to indentify the Cabernet Sauvignon grape, so I thought I'd put that out there on this talk page. The link is http://www.montesquieu.com/index.php/about/baron-de-montesquieu Draykyle (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This winery ad surely isn't a reliable source (I think it was once in the article but was removed), but it states that M is 'credited by many' with the discovery so you may be able to discover a better source. Enjoy your research! Wikiain (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2016
I would like to help wikipedia

Ocolin (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Your spirit is appreciated, but please read up on how edit request worked.  JW  Noctis talk to me 02:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2016
I invented montesquieu i'm his father

Spacechimp1 (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. — JJMC89  (T·C) 06:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016
He wrote in private because hos works were forbidden. 164.104.168.86 (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. — Andy W. ( talk ) 23:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2017
Feliciared123 (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)so i have to do this for civics class
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. —   IVORK  Discuss 14:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2018
I will try to add more information to make it have more information. EddieTheGod (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:
 * You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
 * You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
 * You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.

 * Thanks, ‑‑ El Hef  ( Meep? ) 21:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2018
Please change "His anonymously published The Spirit of the Laws in 1748, which was received well in both Great Britain and the American colonies, influencing the Founding Fathers in drafting the United States Constitution."

TO

"He anonymously published The Spirit of the Laws in 1748, which was received well in both Great Britain and the American colonies, influencing the Founding Fathers in drafting the United States Constitution.

OR

"His anonymously published The Spirit of the Laws in 1748, which was received well in both Great Britain and the American colonies, influenced the Founding Fathers in drafting the United States Constitution."

Because the current sentence seems grammatically incorrect. Balogunubani (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

 * ✅, good catch! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

"In our time" podcast 2018
The BBC made this podcast in 2018, good background info, but I can't edit. Link is - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b5qnfx Cheers,78.19.202.205 (talk) 09:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2019
Reason: Currently, the biography fails to mention a key phase of Montesquieu's life, his travel in Europe.

Edit suggestion: Insert, between "He achieved literary success with the publication of his 1721 Persian Letters, a satire representing society as seen through the eyes of two imaginary Persian visitors to Paris and Europe, cleverly criticizing the absurdities of contemporary French society." and "He next published Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline (1734), considered by some scholars, among his three best known books, as a transition from The Persian Letters to his master work." the following line, regarding his travel in Europe, an important episode in his life which has been omitted in this biography:

"Montesquieu embarked on a grand tour of Europe, especially Italy and England, during which he kept a journal. His reflections on geography, laws and customs during his travels became the primary sources for his major works on political philosophy upon his return to France."

Sources for this addition: (1) Shackleton, Robert. Montesquieu: A Critical Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. p. 91 (2) Hansong Li (2018) The space of the sea in Montesquieu's political thought, Global Intellectual History, DOI: 10.1080/23801883.2018.1527184 140.247.128.133 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 * ✅ as requested, with minor citation style modifications. --Nemoschool (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Title is forbidden "great britain" definition is wrong. Just should be "britain"
why are the rules arbitrary and there have why alternative rules apply to some? great definitaion is a title not name of the a thing than should change as just name objectivelly but biased and proponent as it is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xorgery (talk • contribs) 12:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See Great Britain for an explanation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, please do not change other editors' wording on talk pages, even if that wording is outside general article guidelines. There are exceptions. See WP:TPO. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

How does all this nonsense happened
I love this 5opic 197.188.149.226 (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

His remains
The last sentence in the biographical section reads as follows: "He was buried in the Église Saint-Sulpice, Paris, and the Revolution obliterated all trace of his remains."

What does that mean? Was his corpse dug up and defiled for some reason? Frunobulax (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2023
i just wanted to say that the link of the english translation of the temple of Gnidus by Montesquieu takes you through a whole rabbit hole to get to the actual book. It may dicourage some non tech-savvy readers so I suggest changing the link directly to the archive file: http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924027361546. That is all Konstantinos Oikonomopoulos (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Criticism
Criticism is a very important heading in every philosopher’s biography, but hardly it could be found! 119.157.34.42 (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2023
Typo in biography section ("somoe") 78.150.30.149 (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  14:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Montesquieu