Talk:Mobile phone/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Changes to the article

Can I ask that anyone who wants to suggest a change to the article does the edit directly themselves in the article itself? There is a strange culture on this article which doesn't appear anywhere else on wikipedia that I know of. People seem to leave edit requests here rather than just changing the article. See WP:Bold for more information in case you're not sure of what the wikipedia policy is regarding editing articles yourself.ChrisUK (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is currently semi-protected, which probably explains some of it. In general, though, yeah being bold is best. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I think it's a matter of respect toward the original writer to request changes here rather than make them directly. William (Bill) Bean (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Been a while since I made an edit, but there was an example under "usage" of phones which effectively boiled down to "Sex Predators use them to contact kids". It's not a typical usage of the mobile phone, and if anything should be listed as a controversy, not as an example of how phones are used, as it lends a sense of legitimacy to this sort of behavior --Sonicandfffan (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Colony collapse disorder

In reference to this edit: some people claim that mobile phones are linked to Colony collapse disorder; obviously if we cover this then the actual research should be cited and it should not be presented as an established fact until the finding is replicated, but should this article mention this at all? Until there is some indication that the relevant scientific community is considering this hypothesis seriously (a couple studies, a review, and a few articles in the popsci press, say), I think that it is undue weight to cover the idea here. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

mobile phone

A mobile phone (also called mobile, cellphone or handphone)[1] is an electronic device used for mobile telecommunications over a cellular network of base stations known as cell sites. Mobile phones differ from cordless telephones, which only offer telephone service within limited range through a single base station attached to a fixed line, for example within a home or an office. Low-end mobile phones are often referred to as feature phones, whereas high-end mobile phones that offer more advanced computing ability are referred to as smartphones.

www.nokia.co.in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.109.57 (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

SIM cards

Someone with more rights than I could make some corrections to statements about SIM cards. The handset features section states that all cell phones have "a SIM card which allows the phone user access to the particular mobile phone operator that they have a subscription with." The SIM card section also states that mobile phones require a SIM card to function. These statements are true only of all GSM phones. CDMA phones do not have SIM cards. The SIM card section after stating that all phones require a SIM card revises the previous statement with some talk about "those cell phones that do not use a SIM Card." This wording is likely confusing in particular for CDMA users. Ennustaja (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Made a basic pass, but the article could probably use a more thorough run-through. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

699 94 23

982  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.110.46 (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC) 

Lightwiththebox.com always brings many surprises to customers. This time, lifhtwiththebox publishes one type of new Lenovo LePhone.

This is really a delicate phone with some unexpected surprises. It believes this phone will attract you. Its success is its details; there is no any button on its face at all. Moreover, its crescent speaker shows its excellence. It adopts magnet data cable interface.

This STAR G5 phone supports various applications. You can enjoy a great many hot fashion applications like MSN, Gmail, Google Maps, Google Talk, Facebook, Google Translate and so on. Without carrying a notebook, you can use them it conveniently. It can be said it is your portable PC.

http://www.lightwiththebox.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherry good (talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Israel does not prohibit the usage of cellular phone in the car by speaker, the information is incorrect

Here is a copy of the law stating this: http://www.al-a.co.il/%D7%A0%D7%94%D7%99%D7%92%D7%94_%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%93%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A8_%D7%91%D7%98%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%A1%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%99_%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%90_%D7%93%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacknight12321 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel does not prohibit the usage of cellular phone in the car by speaker, the information is incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacknight12321 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My company has an R&D facility in Israel and I asked them to weigh in on this issue. Currently, the law is that you are not allowed to speak on the phone if you are holding it. Hands free is allowed i.e. bluetooth headset or speaker(not while being held). They are looking to find a reference for this law in English. --Powermatassistant (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC) We are the <a href=" http://www.soooogo.com">china wholesale store </a>.we have <a href=" http://www.soooogo.com/iphone-4g-3g-s-accessories-wholesale-6.html"> iphone 4G accessories </a>and <a href=" http://www.soooogo.com/iphone-4g-3g-s-accessories-wholesale-6.html"> iphone 3G accessories </a> <a href=" http://www.soooogo.com/ipod-ipad-accessories-wholesale-7.html"> ipad accessories </a>. <a href=" http://www.soooogo.com/ipod-ipad-accessories-wholesale-7.html"> ipod accessories </a>, <a href=" http://www.soooogo.com/security-products-wholesale-8.html"> security products </a> ,<a href=" http://www.soooogo.com/car-accessories-wholesale-9.htmll"> car accessories </a>If you want to know , Please visit http://www.soooogo.com. Here has a lot of about<a href=" http://www.soooogo.com/">cheap accessories for sale</a>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherry good (talk • contribs) 03:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Statistical discrepancy - "4.6 billion cell phone contracts"

That statistic sounds as invalid as the claim by the NFL that 4 billion people watch the superbowl (unless there are people next to their wildfires with battery-powered TVs trying to catch the game). Let's see: EU has about 1/2 billion citizens and US has 1/3 billion while China has 1 billion. Let's assume half those citizens own a cellphone (which is probably optimistic) to give us 1.8/2 == 0.9 billion contracts.

Now where do you suppose those other 3.7 billion cellphone users reside? I don't think wikipedia should be citing numbers that make zero logical sense (i.e. dubious). ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Contract doesn't mean unique user. Amazon's Kindle uses a cellular modem. Many business users have multiple cellular devices. Home security systems often include them. — ceejayoz ^talk 22:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Dangers of Mobile Phone

If someone has information, he must place a sub-article regarding health dangers of cell phones citing reliable health sources. Bhaur (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There already is a section on mobile phone and health with a sub article - see section 6 ChrisUK (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Restrictions seems to deal with this. Since the entire content of that section (6) deals with alleged health-hazards would it not be better to rename the sub-title to reflect that? William (Bill) Bean (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

BRICI countries

A new section appeared about growth in BRICI countries. I moved it to the society section which talks about usage across the world which is where this topic should belong. I also deleted the sentence about what might happen in 2015 for obvious reasons. In my opinion the content at the moment is twaddle, but I'll leave it to others to see if they can salvage it. If nothing has happened with it in a few days I'll delete. ChrisUK (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check this suggestion which I chose to post at the 'Car phone' article, but which...

...could also have ended up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Car_phone#There_is_a_serious_omission_in_this_article_-_seen_from_my_viewpoint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.160.176 (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Should have coverage of waste and recycling

Article needs a little coverage of environmental impact, waste cell phones, re-use and recycling efforts. Zodon (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.204.55.212, 4 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

117.204.55.212 (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sai9920, 14 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Sai9920 (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Celestra (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Change all remaining instances of "cell phone" to "mobile phone"

{{edit semi-protected}} I counted 10 instances of "cell phone" excluding those in links, references, the one at the top and any that specifically referred to the cellularity of the network. 86.5.223.186 (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The terms are synonymous in the context of this article. If there is an individual case where a mobile phone is being discussed which is not "an electronic device used for full duplex two-way radio telecommunications over a cellular network of base stations known as cell sites", and the term cell phone was mistakenly used, please point it out. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Coca Cola power?

The article claims "Mobile phone manufacturers have been experimenting with alternative power sources, including solar cells and Coca Cola."

I can see a gimmick demonstration of a coke powered phone, but I can't believe that it is being seriously investigated as a power source. The statement is referenced, but the web filter I am behind won't let me check it out. Can someone check to see what the source has to say about it and remove if needed? 69.129.65.62 (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I inserted that source, and I am shocked to hear that any web filter filters a normal newspaper site. In fact, all you need to do is go on google and search for something like nokia cola powered cell phone and you will get these results: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Of course, it is just a concept phone, but it had been experimented. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 05:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Norway

The first Cell phones were developed in Løkken (a place in Norway) not Sweden! the firm later sold the patent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvit0st (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nathan Stubblefield

Nathan Stubblefield should be mentioned in the history section. 91.182.235.144 (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jbb7588, 1 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The "Health Effects" section of this article should be revised to cover the newest research. Therefore, directly after the sentence that says "The World Health Organization, based upon the majority view of scientific and medical communities, has stated that cancer is unlikely to be caused by cellular phones or their base stations and that reviews have found no convincing evidence for other health effects."

please add the following information:

"However, recent research has found an association between cell phone use and certain kinds of brain and salivary gland tumors. Lennart Hardell and other authors of a 2009 meta-analysis of 11 studies from peer-reviewed journals concluded that cell phone usage for at least ten years “approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same ("ipsilateral") side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use.” (Source: Khurana VG, Teo C, Kundi M, Hardell L, Carlberg M (2009) Cell phones and brain tumors: A review including the long-term epidemiologic data. Surgical Neurology 72(3): 205-214.)

Nonetheless, it could take years before conclusions can be made regarding the association between cell phone usage and cancer, as cancers typically take 10 to 20 years to develop. Further, studies to date have often had shortcomings or flawed designs, such as poor definitions of regular cell phone use and insufficient study duration (Source: “Can Cell Phones Harm Our Health.” National Research Center for Women and Families. Nov. 2010.)

For instance, Interphone studies define “regular cell phone use” as once or more a week for at least six months. (Source: Cardis E, Deltour I, Vrijheid M, Combalot E, Moissonnier M, Tardy H, et al (2010 May 17). Brain tumor risk in relation to mobile phone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 39(1): 675-694.) Also, some studies may have underestimated the cancer risk of non-ionizing radio frequency radiation because subjects in control groups used cordless phones, which appear to carry a similar health risk as cell phones (Source: Hardell L, Carlberg M. (2009) Mobile phones, cordless phones and the risk of brain tumours. International Journal of Oncology.35(1):5-17.)"

Jbb7588 (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that this needs a little more formatting and trimming to be included. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 23:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Partly done: I've gone ahead and added the first paragraph. I'm not comfortable with the other two, though, because I'm unclear whether the statements made are Jbb's interpretations of the studies, or are the conclusions of the studies themselves. Also, they appear to possibly be referring to primary studies, which we generally want to avoid, especially for medical subjects (see WP:MEDRS). I don't have access to journals of that type, so I can't check the originals. You may want to ask on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine to take a look at this if you still think it should be added; they may be able to comment more clearly and certainly on whether or not that info meets the (slightly higher than normal) standards for reliability for medical topics. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Handphone

Handphone should be removed, it's not used in any official English dialect. The source is from Bali, which doesn't have an officially recognized dialect. What non native English speakers call English items shouldn't matter. The fact Koreans call male underwear "panties" doesn't mean I should put that in the English encyclopedia in the underwear section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.85.121.208 (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Misplacement of Cycling

Shouldn't this line:

A recently published study has reviewed the incidence of mobile phone use while cycling and its effects on behaviour and safety.

be under the "Use While Driving" section rather than the "School" section. It seems very out of place. I would edit it, but I don't have an account right now.

137.216.86.196 (talk) Oliver 12/5/2010 —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Article was created by a Swedish editor so unless they teach American English in Sweden, this is going nowhere Marcus Qwertyus 23:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Mobile phone → Cell phone

• Per WP:common name. Cell phone: 3,340,000, mobile phone: 292,000 --Marcus Qwertyus 23:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Here in England they are always called mobile phones and not cell phones. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Korean name "Hand phone"

Korean calls the cellphone haendeupon (핸드폰), literally "hand phone". If this name should be listed in this article, it should be listed in "Names" or some other section. However I don't think the necessity of listing such a foreign name in this article. So I removed the name from the lead. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm..; Korean official name of "Mobile phone" or "Cell phone" is not "Hand phone"(핸드폰), official name is "Hyu-dae jeon-hwa"(휴대 전화; literal translation: portable phone) And this name(Hand phone) is widely used in Asia (South Korea, China, South-East Asia..) Also, it is similar situations, "Football" or "earphone", "headphone". Unofficial English is also "English", isn't it? Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a names section is an OK idea. Just deleting the sourced material, subverting my attempt to help end the edit war, is not. Dicklyon (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've re-added it to the lead as handphone is the accepted term used by the Singaporeans (see Singtel FAQ or the Straits Times) and Singapore's main language is English.

This seems to be a similar thing in Malaysia (and they use Handphone too), and the Malaysians main language is probably also English (though Malay is also pretty big in Malaysia). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I found "handphone" in online English dictionaries.

• "Handphone: Collins English Dictionary". Dictionary.com. the usual SE Asian English term for mobile phone
• "handphone". Oxford Dictionaries. SE Asian, a mobile phone.

The word seems to be a SE Asian English. So how about changing the lead from "A mobile phone (also called mobile, cellular telephone, or cell phone) ..." to "A mobile phone (also called mobile, cellular telephone, or cell phone. In South East Asian English, handphone) ..."? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

But.. this name is widely used in China(official name: 手机; literal translation: Hand phone), South Korea(Hand phone - not official name, but widely used name.), if not official English. Thus, "A mobile phone (also called mobile, cellular telephone, or cell phone. In South East Asian English, handphone) ..." in my opinion. Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that English is not an official language in China or Korea. Shǒuchéng (手机) in China and haendeupon (핸드폰) in Korea are not English but mere transliterations of foreign words borrowed from a SE English word. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk)

The sources now cited make it clear that "hand phone" (and "handphone") are widely used in English-language sources in Asia. It doesn't really matter that English isn't the official language of these countries. Why leave out this term? Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

English actually is an official language in Singapore, and it is the de-facto most used one, English is also widely used in Malaysia. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it shouldn't be included, because learners of English (like myself) might read this article and might be led to think that "hand phone" was an acceptable term (which it isn't - just because someone says "I have a doubt" instead of "I have a question" doesn't mean that's correct English either). 217.81.129.113 (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather than remove it, why not clarify that's it's used primarily in Asia (where it is "correct")? Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the restriction "In South East Asian English" with above dictionary references. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If its used in Singapore that is correct English... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "correct English" means. "handphone" is a regional varieties of English, neither British English nor American English but "Southeast Asian English" as above two dictionaries and a book by Vincent Ooi indicated. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a confusion between two different issues here. The first is whether or not Handphone is a valid alternative term and the second issue is does the clarification of 'SE Asian english' need to be added to the opening sentence of the article. My view is that it is a valid term to use in the definition, however it is an unnecessary clarification to make in the text, particularly since it is so well referenced (a little over-referenced in my opinion but never mind). The clarification is not of primary importance to the reader in the context of the opening sentence.

As a comparison, including the clarification would mean we should also put something like (primarily in the states) after the alternative 'cell phone' and quite soon the opening paragraph would be utterly unreadable. Keep the lede text clean and have the debate on here about the correct references etc. ChrisUK (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your explanation "it is an unnecessary clarification to make in the text, particularly since it is so well referenced". How many readers do you think will consult the reference when they happen to read this article? It is a common practice in Wikipedia to clarify a national varieties of English spelling or word by adding a corresponding variety name in parenthesis. See Whisky, Manual labour, Apartment and Talk show. Please explain your rationale for insisting this specific clarification is unnecessary. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't call cell phone the mobile phones name only in US English, I fail to see why we should do something differently for handphone - especially when the term is used in other parts of Asia as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although I think it is unnecessary here, there does appear to be a precedent elsewhere on wikipedia. However all the examples you cite are where there are language differences, e.g. by appending (British English) or (American English) after each type of phrase. The edit I made was to remove a non linked phrase in parenthesis which looks ugly and is unnecessarily long winded for an introduction. I can't see a wikipedia article called South East Asian English or similar. Does the language have another name? If so, then I accept that that name can be inserted after handphone (and we should probably also stick (American English) after cell phone whilst we're at it.ChrisUK (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

How about a "Terminology" section somewhere? My favorite term is "cell phone", but I suppose the generic term is "mobile phone" ("mobile" for short). I just don't like to see the first sentence cluttered up with 4 synonyms - and 5 footnotes justifying them! I mean, is 'cellular telephone' so much different from 'cell phone'? I'm happy to get everyone's favorite term here, but I'd rather get the reader into the main point of the article a little faster. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead1 and ChrisUK develop the same faulty logic. If cell phone is American English, then it should be mentioned so, instead of removing Southeast Asian English. And if Southeast Asian English is not popular at all, then hand phone should be removed. If hand phone should be kept here, then mentioning of Southeast Asian English is mandatory because of NPOV. I agree with Uncle Ed per WP:LEAD#Separate section usage. There are other alternative names such as cellular phone, cell[5], cellphone[6] and handphone[7] and more. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Uncle Ed. Get rid of 'cellular telephone' because no-one actually uses that term. Keep handphone because that is a valid alternative and don't put in anything in parenthesis or in footnotes at all. Keep it clean and get the reader to the main point of the article as soon as possible. ChrisUK (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I moved 핸드폰 and other words down to a "Names" section. It's actually quite interesting what various English speakers call the device. Is mobile really short for "mobile phone"? Is cell phone short for cellular telephone?

If we're down with this, can we mention a bit more about the range of cell phones (or whatever they're called ;-) and maybe even the concept of "a cell"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is done quite yet - you've clipped way too much. I'm sure our american friends will want 'cell phone' back in (see archives for previous debates on this) and you've also over-ridden the consensus above that handphone is actually a valid alternative.ChrisUK (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks, from this side of the pond. I do all my talking on a "cell phone", since I'm an American. But as the bloke who turned our football article into an excruciatingly neutral description of "soccer" as "football" everywhere but the USA, I'm perfectly willing to give up cell phone ... unless you want to slip it into the lede like this:

• A mobile phone (or cell phone) is ...

Anyway, WP is not paper, so when you paste back the extra stuff I clipped, the marks won't show. Cheerio! --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

nice one:) you can have your cell phone if I can have my football.... Anyway, I think the article looks better now after this debateChrisUK (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Image removal

In 1905, phones were not so mobile.

I removed an image in the article - one wherein two fellers are modeling two old school wall telephones, approximately circa 1905 - as some form of overlooked April Fools' joke. The caption: "In 1905, phones were not so mobile." is pretty much what sealed the impression of a joke.
The uploader reverted the removal, stating "It's not a joke; just some historical perspective."(¹) I find that to be deflective, inaccurate and misleading. The image consists of synthesis of two parts. First, the use of a telephone sales demonstration to draw a humorous conclusion that the two early 20th century fellows are attempting to use the phones as cell phones. Secondly, the caption itself reinforces the idea that the two are using the wall phones as mobile telephony. It's inaccurate and misleading, and using humor to create a joke that the initial source (the image) neither intended or inferred. Apparently, someone is confusing Wikipedia with Uncyclopedia. I've reverted it back out, redirecting the uploader to discussion here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a joke; it's just a light-hearted historical comparison of how much more mobile phones have become in 100 years. I just checked the logs and regret to admit that it was April 1 when I added it, but that's just a coincidence. The devices are called "model selective telephones", something to do with how they are addressed I think. The section on the "evolution" of mobile phones had such limited perspective that it seemed like something like this would be useful. Dicklyon (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think its worthy of inclusion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've put it back for now; if a consensus develops to remove it, we can take it out again. Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

For me the image is misleading. It's placed in the section called History so implies that this is an early mobile phone circa 1905 (which it clearly isn't). The other image in the history section is relevant to the text even if it a little boring. I don't have a problem per se with the humour but it must be placed in the relevant section. How about in the 'Comparison to similar systems' section? ChrisUK (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove - I just don't think that this image is really adding any real benefit to the article, and I just don't think that this picture has any relevance to the article. In regards to ChrisUK's reply, specifically about placing the image in 'Comparison to similar systems' in my opinion I don't find 1905 technology anywhere similar to mobile phone technology. I will concede that I did find the image humorous, if misplaced article wise. QuillOmega0 (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove- The image has no value to the history of mobile phones. Most people know that before wireless mobile phones, the telephone was wired and thus they should direct themselves to information about the Telephone. This article is about wireless telephony and the mobile phone in particular, thus we do not need the background information of what there was in place to use for communication before mobile phones. The picture is inappropriate and if anything, a picture of Martin Cooper, the inventor of the hand-held mobile phone in 1973, would be more appropriate.Yoganate79 (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

OK - I'm going to remove the image as there doesn't seem to be any good reason for including it and a strong view that it is misleading in this article. ChrisUK (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that was settled three weeks ago when it was re-captioned. Dicklyon (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove Can we re-open the debate then please? The caption fix was not a consensus, that was just immediately fixing the most blatantly misleading part, by implying that it was a picture of a 1905 mobile phone, which is ridiculous. And I do see a consensus to remove from the above comments (4 saying remove, 2 saying keep including the original contributor). My main reason for removing is that it does not illustrate or amplify any text in the history section, so is irrelevant here. The reason for inclusion given above is that it illustrates how mobile phones have become. However, the two men are carrying a fixed phone, not using it, so it is not illustrating anything. If you want to show how mobile phones have got easier to use, then include a picture of someone speaking on a brick phone. Better still, develop some article text about the style and trends in phones in the article itself and then choose an appropriate image to support that text.ChrisUK (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The image should certainly be removed, it has nothing to do with the article, especially when nothing in the article covers anything related to the image. - SudoGhost™ 21:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Carcinogenic hazard at the end of intro

Patently shouldn't be here; firstly because it's terrible writing to just tack this onto the end, secondly because it isn't true. It is not supported by the source. The source says that WHO now lists mobiles in THE SAME CARCINOGENIC CATEGORY as some other things like coffee, NOT in a category marked CARCINOGENIC. The category itself is simply 'possibly carcinogenic', meaning no link has been proven. --86.153.11.191 (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the most important facts in a long article, not just a random collection of recent edits. The sentence contains even contains the word possible, so it is not even a fact about mobile phones (if it were ever proven to be a fact, i would be the first person to add it back in to the lede). I'll remove and we can discuss on here if anyone thinks it's worthy of inclusion again.ChrisUK (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Health effects

"On 31st May 2011, the World Health Organization confirmed that mobile phone use represents a long-term health risk"

This is plainly incorrect - I've read the referenced article(s), WHO didn't confirm any risk, they just concluded it is possible the use of mobile phones might be dangerous and that further research is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haha01haha01 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Add this!

Add this, it's a importent case- "Template:News of the World phone hacking scandal"!82.18.199.36 (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC) {{News of the World phone hacking scandal}}

I don't agree that this is relevant to the article. It is not the mobile phones themselves that have been hacked, it is the networks that they run on. So it might be appropriate to place on other wikipedia pages, but not this one.ChrisUK (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But I think it was worth suggesting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The impact of mobile on fixed line telecomms

I am researching the economic effect of mobile telecomms on fixed (wireline) telecomms. The theory I am testing is that mobile technology is creative destruction of an existing service. That is the impact of mobile is to make the wireline service obsolete and eventually redundant. From an initial scan, and personal knowledge, the mobile phone started as an adjunct to the fixed network. It was more expensive, less reliable and cumbersome. At that time, the 1980's, the consumption pattern was business people who could justify the expense (or could afford the cudos that attached to mobile). Following price reductions, from the mid 1990's, the phone became a mass market product available to a wider consumer set. Further developments, camera, messaging, email and internet access, repositioned the device (smart phones by early this decade)meant that not only was it less costly but it was feature rich in a way that fixed network devices were not.

Does anyone know of any resecrch conducted on the subject?

Michael_Murison@yahoo.co.uk 82.44.63.219 (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest merge

Mobile radio telephone is the same subject, and should be merged. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User Wtshymanski that Mobile radio telephone is the same subject, and should be merged with the article Mobile Phone Laurence0001 (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree they should be merged.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Started merge, some obvious redundancies removed. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pjungels, 13 September 2011

Since the page is semi-protected, I don't have access to edit it myself. The first sentence of the last paragraph of the introduction section states "...in 1973, using a handset weighing 2 kg." However, the reference article states "...by the time the engineers got done we ended up with two and a half pounds." Pjungels (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

done. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 October 2011

Please correct the market share values. The sum of the first row should result in 100% and not less. The author most likely copy&pasted the value for "others" directly from "others" from here http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1764714 without paying attention that he has to include also the values for Research In Motion, HTC, Motorola, Huawei Device and Sony Ericsson. Research4life (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Wtshymanski recently rewrote a section of the article (here [8]), claiming the new edit to be "less wordy". Wtshymanski is all too good at rewording other peoples contributions to match his requirements of how Wikipedia should read (and this is the subject of a recent RfC (here [[9]]). In spite of the administarative censure and a subsequent block for ignoring the censure, he continues unabated. In this case he changed the meaning of the wording to replaced to include an explicit and dubious claim for which no reference was provided. AFAICT there is no positive evidence that Dr Martin Cooper was positively involved with the first mobile phone hence the article's original claim that he is "... believed to be ...".

Would some kind soul revert the article to read correctly (unless, of course, a citation can be found supporting the new claim). 86.150.65.44 (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

See Martin Cooper (inventor). He wasn't a one-man-band, Edison-style inventor; a cell phone is the product of a team of researchers, not a "Eureka!" moment. "Portable mobile phone" is wordy; and in an article where we are obsessing about English usage, we should be careful not to be prolix. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Even you should know that you cannot use Wikipedia itself as a reference. I thought about your change and had to say I was not over happy, but let it go. Now there is a second editor querying the change, I feel happier reverting your change. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If this project has any utility at all, surely I can point at the biography of Cooper to illustrate a point on an *article talk page* (not as a reference in an article). I'm tryign to be very direct here as we've had miscommunications in the past. Never mind the ad-hominem attacks, look at that prose instead. If you need a citation for Cooper's existence and relevance to the cell phone, there's more than one in the Cooper article which could be pasted into this article if anyone was seriously interested in documenting this fact. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo has wrong tag line

The sign on the kiosk says Mumbai not Bangalore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.140.115.220 (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - price of the cheapest new phone

Generally inserting in first -invite- section price of the new mobile phone, would be great. For e.g. The cheapest new mobile phone cost now(as of 2012) about 17.70 $(example of source, I am not owner of any shop:).

If You known the initial price of the mobile phones would be great to add. Why it is so important - 1) to show the penetrations of the bottom pyramid by clear example, 2) to show the price compare with the lowest paid in other articles, like North Korea ~10$ per month, when the political decisions blocks the expanding market, 3) the technology increase not only in the adding the more "fireworks", but also lowering the cost of production, like in Ford Model T article.

 Not done. Wikipedia isn't really the place to do comparision shopping; at least in North America, many cellular plans offer so-called "free" phones, where the cost of providing the handset is distributed into the monthly fees paid by the consumer. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please also note that an edit request must be in the format of "Please replace <this> with <whatever>". If you are requesting something be included that is not in the article, then this is not an edit request (though the request can be raised on this talk page as a separate subject). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect from Home screen

Why does Home screen redirect here? I can think of many uses of the phrase—software, video games, ATMs, etc. When I think of a home screen for phones I specifically think of smartphones, so shouldn't Smartphone be the redirect target then? – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 07:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Usage in Schools - Need for Improvement

I believe the section "In Schools" should be revised and improved. First of all, it does not specify to which country those rules apply. Second, built-in cameras are not the only reason cellphones are banned from schools. According to the article below from The Daily Mail, "apart from the distracting effect of a mobile going off in a lesson, handsets can be used for cyber-bullying and accessing online pornography at school", in the UK. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142085/Ofsted-chief-gets-tough-classroom-discipline-schools-penalised-failing-tackle-disruption.html#ixzz1uScLBe3C Perhaps making a session for each country? In the UK for example, 3/4 of the respondents of the poll linked below believe mobile phones should be banned in schools. Maybe including that information will make the article more complete. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2012/may/10/mobile-phones-banned-schools Best regards, Zalunardo8 (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Raw Materials of a Cell Phone

I was wondering if somebody could post the Raw materials of a Cell Phone, that was the one thing that this page lacked, thanks

Article is U.S. centric

From the history of mobile phones one sees that the history of mobile phone in this article is very U.S. centric. The article even seems to claim that the first major networks were built in the U.S.

The first cellular network in the world was built in 1977 in Chicago and turned on in 1978. By the end of 1978 it had over 1300 customers. In 1979 a cellular network (the 1G generation) was launched in Japan by NTT. The initial launch network covered the full metropolitan area of Tokyo's over 20 million inhabitants with a cellular network of 23 base stations. Within five years, the NTT network had been expanded to cover the whole population of Japan and became the first nation-wide 1G network.

Analog Motorola DynaTAC 8000X Advanced Mobile Phone System mobile phone as of 1983

The next 1G network to launch was the Nordic Mobile Telephone (NMT) system in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden in 1981. NMT was the first mobile phone network to feature international roaming. The Swedish electrical engineer Östen Mäkitalo started work on this vision in 1966, and is considered to be the father of the NMT system, and by some the father of the cellular phone itself, since he and two colleagues hold a patent from 1971 on a cellular system with handover and roaming. MOBILES PHONES ARE COMMON COMMUNICATION GADGET DEVICE IN OUR DAILY LIFE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.147.157 (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

before cellular networks section

I think there is some good material in the section about life before cellular networks. However, I don't believe it belongs in this article which is specifically about the device not the network.

Environmental, and social effects

There are some sources, that say that you need tantalite to make mobile phones, and the mining of tantalite causes the death of mountain gorillas in Congo, and slavery, war, gang-rape and other "lovely" things. I think it would be important to write about it in this article. Sorry for my weak English. 1 2 3 Hello from Hungary :) Bokorember (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Tantalite article is the correct place to write about the environmental effects of mining. References to tantalite in this article should be limited to their functional use in the manufacturing process. ChrisUK (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

But how the people would get to know the connection between their objects and their impacts? The advertisements won't tell you about the connection of the extinction of the gorillas and your phone, but there is a connection. I think WP should show this connection, this would be the holistical way, this would be the interdisciplinarity- if I am not wrong. How could anybody make a responsible decision, if he doesn't know the consequences of his chose? Bokorember (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Bokorember added and I removed a section "Environmental effects", which said

The Tantalite metal is important to make mobile phones, and the mining of Tantalite causes the death of a big population of mountain gorillas in Democratic Republic of Congo, and slavery, war amongst the people. The electronic waste export from many European countries to Ghana improves environmental end health-damage risks.

As per ChrisUK's comment above, I believe it is not appropriate for this article. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree.

Paul Virilio: "The riddle of technology...is also the riddle of the accident. I'll explain. In classic Aristotelian philosophy, substance is necessary and the accident is relative and contingent. At the moment, there's an inversion: the accident is becoming necessary and substance relative and contingent. Every technology produces, provokes, programs a specific accident. For example: when they invented the railroad, what did they invent? An object that allowed you to go fast, which allowed you to progress -- a vision a la Jules Verne, positivism, evolutionism. But at the same time they invented the railway catastrophe....I believe that from now on, if we wish to continue with technology (and I don't think there will be a neolithic regression), we must think about both the substance and its accident -- substance being both the object and its accident. The negative side of technology and speed was censored."

The negative side of technology and speed was censored.

If we want a better world, if we want to survive, we must to change our thinking, we must to learn the connection between things. Our thinking has a cultural determination, that is nowadays infected with technophily, I think Wikipedia have to fight against it, because it is a dangerous ideology. Our thinking is too linear, it has to change to a more holistic mode. We like think, that we can buy clean products in clean shops from cute shopassistant, and it is the all story. The dying gorillas are far away, we don't see them, so that is not important. We are not responsible when we chose a product. I think Wikipedia shouldn't stop on this level. I think Wikipedia must to grow our horizont, I think the Wikipedia must show the connection the thing that are faw away from each other. Please write back that one short sentence, and the readers can make a decision its importance. Have you ever thought that your mobile phone has environmental correspondence? It is shocking fact, but Wikipedia can't hide this just for keeping us calm. If I understant you well. The lovely mobile advertisements will never say you that the gorillas are in danger beacause you buy a new mobile. Sorry for bothering but I see it different. But for make a compromise I think there is an article about the mobile recycling it is closer to this article, than the Tantalite. Bokorember (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bokorember, your concern is laudable, but we can't put every detail into the article - we need to have some structure. I've removed your reference to the Jane Goodall Institute because it simply didn't fit where you put it. (Neither the Jane Goodall article nor the Jane Goodall Institute article appears to mentions the scheme - you might consider adding it to the Institute article.) Also, it is one of many schemes, not necessarily any more notable than others.

However the environmental impact of mobile phones is a valid concern, and relevant to this article, so I've added as specific section (Mobile phone#Environmental impact) to the article, although it still needs more work. Remember that this section should focus on phones (including what goes into their manufacture), rather than specific effects on specific animals (eg mountain gorillas) of the mining of specific materials (that are used in all electronics, not just phones). Mitch Ames (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mitch Ames! Your solution is good enough for me. Thank You! I will try to expand the new section. Bokorember (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bokoremember - I think the best link for you to read on wikipedia policy is WP:NOTSOAPBOX. However strongly you believe in the topic, you have to be careful when making edits because wikipedia is not the place for furthering personal views. This also extends to talk pages. So you should be using the discussion page to talk about article issues only. It is not a place to push your own views onto others. ChrisUK (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Dear ChrisUK! Thank you for your suggestions. My English isn't so well, but in the future I'll try to argue without furthering my personal views so bad. Bokorember (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed a couple of references that were primarily about Columbite-tantalite and gorillas, and did not mention the fact which their placement implied the supported ("40-50% of the environmental impact of a mobile phone occurs during the manufacturing"). Bokoremember, please remember that Wikipedia - in particular this article - is not the place to publicise the plight of the gorillas. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What about environmental impact of production?

The "Environmental impact" section refers the reader to "Main article: Mobile phone recycling", but (as Bokorember originally pointed out) much of the environmental impact occurs during manufacturing (per my recently added sentence). That manufacturing impact is common to all electronics, not just mobile phones, so we should refer the reader to a suitable article - but I can't find one? Do we have an article on environmental impact of electronics manufacture? Perhaps we should, but I don't have the background knowledge to create one. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to have an article entitled Environmental impact of mobile phones but have a redirect back to this section while it's being developed. If it becomes overly long then we can split out later.ChrisUK (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've found a documentary film and homepage about the connection between war in Congo and mobile phone manufacturing. Mineral Conflict Unwatchable but I don't know how to fit - if ever- to this article. I think this is connecting to the Environmental_justice as well. Someone may could help to find the best form, and place to it. Thanks, Bokorember (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, there is an article about War & Cellphones, if somebody want to, and has better English, that mine, should write in somewhere: Our cell Phones, their war Bokorember (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Grammar mistakes!??

Oh my god I can't believe I actually see grammar mistakes on Wikipedia! Will anyone just bother to review the article(I'm too lazy).

If you could at least point out the mistake and/or quote the offending text here, I'm sure someone will fix it. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Should we mention "Freebie marketing"?

Should there be a section mentioning the common use of Freebie marketing with mobile phones? Ie phones are sold very cheaply, but locked into a specific carrier and/or plan, so the buyer pays for the phone via the call costs. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

NiMH

There are a number of advantages of lithium ion batteries of NiMH. However I question the relevance of us mentioning "Lithium ion batteries are also used, as they are lighter and do not have the Voltage depression due to long-term over-charging that nickel metal-hydride batteries do". It's not like it's a good idea to overcharge lithium ions cells. In fact, it's a far worse idea then with NiMH batteries! Charging lithium ion batteries is arguably simpler then NiMH batteries since the standard CC/CV can be fairly easily implemented in silicon and works well; whereas trying to work out when to cut off charging for NiMH batteries is rather complicated depending on the charge rate and other factors (delta V is a good method except it's easy to miss termination particularly at low charge rates). And then you have to work out how long and how much to trickle charge. So it's likely true that most overcharging problems come from poorly implemented chargers. I'm lazy to look in to the history, but my feeling is this came about because someone inserted the idea that lithium ion batteries don't suffer a memory effect, unlike NiMH batteries. Except despite some common myths the true memory effect is very limited with NiMH batteries, so someone probably changed it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Auto-focus or fixed-focus?

Under Features the article says "Other features ... include ... autofocus ...", however I have my doubts as to whether any mobile phone has autofocus. I suspect that only have a fixed-focus lens. Can anyone produce a citation for a phone with autofocus? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this to Talk:Mobile phone features#Auto-focus or fixed-focus?, now that the text in question has moved to that article. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Major Trimming

I have moved a lot of the detailed content in the Phone Features section into the main article Mobile phone features. I did this because the section was quite disproportionate in size to the other sections. The detailed material should be able to be developed better in it's own artice and the reader of this one can now work through the key points of all sections more easily. ChrisUK (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 January 2012

 Done

"technique known multilateration" under "Tracking and Privacy" should read:

technique known as multilateration

Starchygrant (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

i want but some mobile phone cases on website. any people have good suggestions?

hello everyone:

i want but some mobile phone cases on website. any people have good suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enyatang (talk • contribs) 02:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The article should include this new study on cellphones

It shows to make people more selfish and anti-social

http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/20/is-your-cell-phone-making-you-a-jerk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.194.214 (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Addition of further reading, and one external link

I wanted to suggest some additions to "Further Reading", and also the addition of a link to a paper which my colleagues and I have written on mobile usage under "External Links".

The suggestions for "Further Reading" are: 1. Brodsky, I. (2008), The History of Wireless: How Creative Minds Produced Technology for the Masses, St. Louis, Missouri (USA): Telescope Books.

2. The Economist (2009), Mobile marvels: A special report on telecoms in emerging markets, September 26.

3. Harper, R. , Palen, L. and Taylor, A. (Eds.), Inside Text: Social, Cultural and Design Perspectives on SMS, Dodrecht, The Netherlands: Springer

4. Castells, M., Fernandez- Ardevol, M., Qiu, J.L. and Sey, A. (2007), Mobile Communication and Society: a Global Perspective, Cambridge (USA): MIT Press.

5. Caron, A.H. and Letizia C. (2007), Moving Cultures: Mobile Communication in Everyday Life, Montreal: Mcgill-Queen’s University Press.

The suggestion for external links is: 1. http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/sites/default/files/document/what_s_the_use.pdf

Ashishkulshreshtha (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

**** Addition to Health effects section of this article *****

This article should include the fact that mobile phones cause the maximum level of radiation during the low charge periods and when battery life diminishes to the maximum limit. People reading this article should know when to and not to use their mobile phones. I would appreciate it if this information was added to the health effects section of the article. I currently do not have any links supporting the fact but as soon as I get any I will post it here.

Aniruddha 3 9 27 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Great. But this is an encyclopedia. We need a reference by a trustworthy source supporting your claim. When you have, pls you can be as bold and immediately put your explanation in the article.--SvenAERTS (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The first hand-held mobile phone were made before Martin Cooper.

A couple of the first hand-held mobile phones were not included in this article.

1957. Russia (USSR), Leonid Kupriyanovich experimental radio phone LK-1, 3 kg weight, 20-30 km range of communication with base station. ("Radiotelefon" (Radio phone), Nauka i Zhizn, 8, 1957, p. 49; "Avtomatichekaya telefonnaya radiostanciya YuT" (Automatic phone radio station YuT) Yuny Technik, 7, 1957, p.43) 1958. Russia (USSR), experimental pocket radio phone, made by Leonid Kupriyanovich, 0,5 kg weight ("Karmanny radiotelefon" (Pocket radio phone), Nauka i Zhizn, 10, 1958, p.66, "Radiofon" (Radiophone) Technika-Molodezhi, 2, 1959, p. 18-19) 1967. Bulgaria, Pocket phone set (Pocket phones RAT-0,5 and ATRT-0,5 with base station RATZ-10). First basa stations were made for 6 subscriptions per station, later for 69 and 699 subscriptions per station. Manufactured for business purpose, used by power plant Sofiya-Vostok and other industrial objects till 80th. (Radio, 2, 1967, p. 57) 1972, Great Britain. Pye Telecommunications presented the experimental pocket phone on Communications Today, Tomorrow and the Future excibition in London, hotel Royal Lancaster.

All these phones made (and some even manufactured as mass production and purchased) before "the first hand-held mobile phone", "demonstrated by Dr Martin Cooper of Motorola in 1973". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izmerov (talk • contribs) 13:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Aren't these Mobile radio telephones instead of mobile phones? The difference between the two is that a mobile phone uses a cellular infrastructure based of many small cells that it passes between seamlessly, a mobile radio telephone is generally tide to a single transceiver without seamless transfer and back-end connection to the local PSTN. Shritwod (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Define "Mobile phone". In our Wikiefforts to blur the English language to include all dialects, we've lost precision. There were lots of "mobile phones" before the first "cellular phone" at least as early as 1946 in St.Louis - the "cellular" nature is more important than the "mobile" nature. Everyone from Marconi onward knew how important it was to communicate with a mobile radio station. "Mobile radio telephone" is a somewhat stuffy and bureaucratic term for something that transmits voice over radio; but not necessarily something that lets you interact with the local public switched telephone network. Cooper's gadget was cellular and worked with the PSTN. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

But a Mobile radio telephone is not the same as a Mobile radio - a radio telephone does let you interact with the PSTN at the back end, because that's what makes it a telephone. It is confusing (although I believe accurate) that a Mobile phone is actually a cellular mobile phone in our definition. US English also makes use of the world "cellphone" which is a lot clearer although not widely used in International English. Shritwod (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Although 'mobile radio telephone' strictly should refer to a any radio telephone system that is mobile (as opposed to tethered by cables), the English speaking world now recognises the term 'mobile phone' as one of those gadgets that nearly everone carries around that takes photographs; records video; serves as an electronic diary; plays computer games; checks your stocks and shares; accesses the internet; stores music files etc. etc. Oh yes, and apparently, you can make and receive phone calls as well. Non English speakers have decided to use the term 'cell phone' in lieu of the proper English and this is explained in the first sentence of the article. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for speaking on behalf of the entire English speaking world. The problem is that "mobile phones" not including the cellular concept were doomed to congestion, high cost and poor service. You could hold a walkie-talkie to your ear as early as 1937 or so, you could have called a manual mobile telephone operator for a phone patch and called that a hand-held mobile telephone, but it would never have become a popular interface to the public switched telephone network without the "cellular" part of the system. That's what allows frequency reuse multiple times in the same urban area, and makes enough channels available to support many times more subscribers than would have been possible with the "one tower per town" strategy of earlier systems. An encyclopedia should explain exactly *why* Cooper's system caught on and all the Soviet and Bell MTS things fell by the wayside. There's mobile phones and mobile *celular* phones...the difference is a factor of about 100,000 in popularity. This is why we have different names for things, and why every 4-legged animal with fur isn't called "doggie". --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the reasons why "cellphone" caught on was because in the US, there were functioning mobile phone systems well before the advent of cellular systems. By this logic, soon we'll just be calling them "phones" as some day most English speakers will have no idea that once phones were attached to the wall by a wire. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There were functioning mobile phone systems elsewhere as well. Nevertheless, by modern usage, mobile phone refers to the systems that operate with radio cells as everything else (walkie talkie type sets excepted) are obsolete. Despite your continued, sarcasm, there are countries in the world already where phones that operate over copper wire have all but nearly disappeared and nearly all phone calls are via mobile phones . Finland springs instantly to mind and Russia is not too far behind - Phone reception is available in even the most remote spots, at least in the West of Russia. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you might care to comprehend what what written before reverting to your characteristic sarcastic tone (you are still under notice and administrative action against you is but a request away). The article is written in British English and is clearly about what British English speakers know as a 'mobile phone' (and that's the title of the article). British English speaker do not use the term 'cellular phone'. I have however reworded the section to convey the meaning that was obvious to everyone else without refering to 'cellular phone', thus preserving the British English in the article. As already noted, the alternative term, cellular phone is explained at the head of the article for non British English speakers. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggest merge

Mobile radio telephone hs been recreated. It only discusses voice radio communciation systems that connect to the public switched telephone network and so is a duplicate in part of this article and History of mobile phones. It ought to be turned into a redirect to this article, and anythign non-redundant in the way of history included into the history article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Try doing it properly as you are under notice for excessive mergitis. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a personal attack at all but an entirely valid warning. There is an established procedure in place for the merging of articles (WP:M) which you have consistently ignored. As I know that you are only too well aware, this ended up as one of the main planks of the RfC against you ([10] for anyone who is interested). The outcome of this RfC is still valid and if you return to your old ways, administrative intervention will be requested.

Removal of other people's contributions to article talk pages is grounds for an immediate block (WP:BLANKING). I am sure that as someone who tries to stay just inside the rules (if not the spirit), you know this already. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose there's a couple of decades of history where there were VHF radio telephones that could connect to the PSTN (but pre-dating their use of UHF cellular radio). These are historically significant and worth their own article.

As to your recurrent mergeitis, then please at least follow the letter of policy for the relevant announcement tags, or you'll only end up at WP:ANI again. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose given the proposer's history of inappropriate merges where merge takes place despite clear opposition. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose because there's a clear break between the two technologies. The Mobile radio telephone is a distinct device from a mobile phone, although obviously they are related. Shritwod (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Finally a non-ad-hominem point, though I don't think the break is adequately explained as the articles are now. We have some unfortunately bad nomenclature here. A typical mobile phone in 2012 is a pocket size gadget that works on a cellular network, and everyone on the bus could be talking on tehm at the same time. A typical mobile phone in 1975 was a big box in the trunk of your Cadillac that connected to a handset in the cab; and if everyone at the country club needed to make a mobile call at the same time, only the first few would get out. The present state of the Wikipedia articles is taht tehy overlap heavily and don't clearly show the difference between cellular and no-cellular mobile telephones. There's even some vaugeness around "things that let you talk to PSTN subscribers" and "things that transmit voice over radio". --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • So if you agree that they're different, and "a big box in the trunk of your Cadillac" is just the sort of device we're talking about here, then why are you advocating a merger that will make this confusion worse? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
      • There's nothing in Mobile radio telephone that describes a curently operating system. How about any non-redundant contents of Mobile radio telephone get moved to History of mobile phones, and Mobile radio telephone becomes a redirect to Mobile phone? Two articles instead of three, and a demarcation based on historical vs. current systems. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• "There's nothing in Mobile radio telephone that describes a curently operating system."

A complete non-sequitur. No doubt we also have an article on buggy whip - where are you planning on merging that away to, as they're famously "not currently" manufactured?

Your edit summary here, "More of a refactoring and redirecting than a pure merge" is also deliberately deceitful (as is your regular editing practice). The vast majority of your edits are to delete articles, to merge articles where you can't manage to delete them, and to delete sections where you've failed to merge altogether. This is just what you're doing here. You've already (twice) blanked two sections. Your palliative "more of a refactoring than a merge" comment is a simple lie to confuse those admins clustering around your sticky mess at ANI and Special:Contributions/Wtshymanski and who don't have the time to read your real intention, as you spell it out on this page, that you intend to proceed with the merge anyway, despite the clear opposition of other editors here.

Editors are tired of your behaviour: your deceit, your mendacity, your utter disregard for any sense of community; both in your ignoring of consensus choices, and in your perpetual sniping at others.

WP would be better off without you. This was the clear outcome of your RFC, an opportunity for possible remedy that you managed to subvert by hiding away from it until the dust settled. However I would welcome such an RFC again, and serious discussion about a community ban of you. I don't want you here, and I believe that the RFC and similar forums indicate that we don't want you here either. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to your comment, I suggested an alternative to merging with this article. Trying to stick to the point, and using an analog is always dangerous here, but if we had Buggy whip (with a "History" section, perhaps) and History of the buggy whip and Whip (buggy), what would be the optimum number of articles to retain? Mergeophobia can be cured. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)