Talk:Bell & Howell

NPOV and missing citations in consumer products section
I've found a number of statements in the Consumer products section that appear to fail the test of neutral point of view as well as potential original research (or at least uncited assertions), and seem to have been in this article for quite some time. To wit:


 * "...offer a number of consumer products "licensed" under the..." uses quotations that could be inferred to be somehow illegitimate, or at least questionable. At the very least, makes the licensing seem less factual.
 * "...is clearly a "cash-grab" by the company, as even their Licensing page indicates..." is phrased in a non-neutral manner, unsupported by citations.
 * "In fact, the majority of the Bell & Howell consumer products that are for sale "on TV" are distributed by Emson USA - a "TV-only" sales organization not unlike Guthy-Renker or K-Tel" contains more non-neutral phrasing, unsupported by citations.
 * "This most likely won't affect Bell & Howell's core business in the future..." appears to be a statement of opinion -- a unsubstantiated projection of the future.

I've considered merely deleting these phrases, but there may be merit in researching and cleaning up the content, as I understand that B&H does license its trademark, and is a noteworthy fact. If there is controversy, then describing that in an NPOV manner could also be beneficial.

pbryan (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree as to last paragraph, above. Would like more info on licensing of the Bell + Howell brand name for the multitude of categories for the diverse range of products including lighting and security, personal care, tools, pest control, auto accessories, luggage, etc., specially as to who are the actual manufacturers since consumers probably confuse the good will of the brand versus whether the manufacturer is reputable. Also, the History references "BHH, LLC" but does not connect this or identify what this is - is it a typo or what? Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Bell & Howell Eights not before 1935
The camera mentioned introduced in 1934 was for 16-mm. film in Kodak 50-ft. cartridges. The first Filmo 8 appeared a year later. Yet it were correct to state that Bell & Howell offered their first Filmo 8 projector in 1934. --Filmtechniker (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bell & Howell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070503094440/http://www.copweb.be/Zapruder%20Camera.htm to http://www.copweb.be/Zapruder%20Camera.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this a reliable academic publisher?
While working on Temple of Vesta, I've come across the following, added by a student editor a couple of years back, The editor is either misrepresenting their source, or the source is misrepresenting the subject. Either way, the editor seems to be long gone; and so, perhaps, is the publisher. Nearest available paper copy (I'm in the UK) is in a library in Denmark. It's described as a Thesis/Dissertation.

Does anyone know of this branch of Bell & Howell?

Haploidavey (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You're probably looking for Bell & Howell Information and Learning, which became ProQuest. SailingInABathTub 🛁 22:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow... that was quick. Thanks. Haploidavey (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)