# Talk:Vintage amateur radio

For prior discussions please see: /Archive 1

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 13, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: This article is well written and has little or no punctuation, usage, or mispellings.
2. Factually accurate?: Working in a radio station myself, I have found no inaccuracy's in reading ths article.
3. Broad in coverage?: This article is broad in coverage, and covers all important aspects of the subject.
4. Neutral point of view?: This article passes in this category.
5. Article stability? This article passes in this category.
6. Images?: This article has numerous images to support the subject.
  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. Happy Editing, Dustitalk 18:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


### Vintage amateur radio
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 Result: Keep Concerns have been addressed and mostly fall outside the criteria AIRcorn (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed contents that appear to be original research as well as cited references that aren't quite what we call reliable sources in Wikipedia standard such as self published materials from enthusiasts, such as contributed materials posted on QSL.net and home made YouTube video used as a reference. I have also looked at the way it looked when it was assessed in 2008 and I didn't think the article quite satisfied the requirement #2 " Verifiable with no original research". Specifically the parts: "all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged..."
"it contains no original research" The assessor wrote "2. Factually accurate?: Working in a radio station myself, I have found no inaccuracy's in reading ths article." Checking to see if the article looks factually correct to what the assessor knows doesn't satisfy the requirements that contents are directly supported by reliable sources. so I think the assessment for #2 wasn't done using the correct criteria. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment - : I took a quick peek at Google books. I see that a number of much higher quality sources are available since the article was first written. I'm not familiar with the GA reassessment process. Would it be worthwhile to make these improvements now, or would you prefer the GA status be revoked first and then the article resubmitted later? Never mind, I found the answer at WP:GAR (..."Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it."). I'll work on getting the issues you have noted fixed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@LuckyLouie:, I'm merely asking that the article be reassessed using the correct criteria, because the comment provided by the reviewer in 2008 for item 2 "Factually accurate?: Working in a radio station myself, I have found no inaccuracy's in reading ths article." indicates that this item was passed based on reviewer's appeal to their personal experience, which is not consistent with the evaluation guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
That's a perfectly reasonable concern. Both myself and GA reviewer User:Dusti were relative newbies back in 2008. I have no problem with reassessment. In any case, the sources certainly needed review and improvement, which I have been happy to do. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Re the citation to VIR History, this specific page has been named as recommended reading by the amateur radio journal QST at least twice [1] [2]. The author's work in general vintage radio history was also recommended by QST here. In other words, “an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications”, as described in WP:SPS. What do other editors think? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for hunting down those recommendations. Those recommendations are enough for me to consider the FAQ a reliable source. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the same applies to amwindow.org, it has been listed by QST as a recommended resource [3]. The citation to it is used only to refer to a published list of frequencies, so WP:OR isn't an issue. I disagree with some of the WP:SPS tags that were quite recently placed in the article. In general, amateur radio organizations (.org's) such as the Military Radio Collectors Group, Vintage & Military Amateur Radio Society, etc. are reliable sources for information about themselves and their members, which includes interest in specific types of radio collecting, operating practices in use by them, and various organized events and activities they participate in. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mark viking:, the problem with the FAQ is that it's a self-published research by one guy based on contents from public posts by the general public on the rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors newsgroup BBS. It says: "Created and maintained by Nick England K4NYW." Has Nick England had his work related to the field of amateur radio reliably published according to Wikipedia definition? Graywalls (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
It is the fact that the FAQ has been recommended by other experts as a good resource that makes it reliable. Such expert recommendations are a kind of informal peer-review, and the fact that are multiple recommendations gives some confidence that it is widely seen as a source of good information. More generally, I agree with LuckyLouie that for basic, uncontroversial facts, referencing with primary sources is OK if there are no better sources out there. WP:RS isn't a suicide pact where we must delete all the sources that don't meet the highest standards; it is a guide pointing us to use the highest quality sources available and to judge the source relative to the assertion it cites. If the Military Radio Collectors Group asserts it has an interest in collecting military radios, without evidence to the contrary, I am going to believe them. If that primary source is the best available for that assertion, I think it is OK for the purposes of verifying that basic fact. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 12:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Good analysis. Various issues have been raised in the process of making ongoing improvements to the article. IMO, some have been helpful, some have not. But in the end, it's WP:CONSENSUS that'll decide what actions are best. So I hope to see some wider community input in the future. I’ll be offline for the holidays, but back to work on this next week. Best Regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


#### frequencies popular with....
@LuckyLouie:, As tagged as verification failure in Special:Diff/928132458. The cited reference failed to support the claim. I also investigated page 275 as mentioned in an edit summary. The two channels did appear, within a large list in an appendix, but fails to support the main point which is the claim that those two are popular with glow bugs. It would be like saying popular residential streets are 5th and 9th avenues and referencing a long list of streets that have houses on it. Even rephrasing it "there are occupied houses on 5th and 9th avenue" wouldn't cut it as a justification to include purportedly popular streets for affluent people which doesn't have reliable sources. This is just an example of one of many verification failures in the article. Some have been corrected, and more may be revealed down the road. Graywalls (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC). If a reliable source could be locatedt that picks out 3560 and 3579 from the table, I believe that would show some significance and justify inclusion. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding this, but doesn't "with glow bugs" indicate that channels used, specifically, people using vacuum tube type amateur radios instead of home made radios in general? "Graywalls (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, glowbugs = low power (QRP) morse code transmitters that are home built using vacuum tubes. OK, I see your point that, although the frequencies in the appendix apply to both solid state and vacuum tube QRP transmitters, it cannot be interpreted as specifically applying to only vacuum tube transmitters. BTW, frequencies are referred to as frequencies rather than 'channels' in amateur radio. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
set aside for discussion: 
"Arland notes that calling frequencies for QRP contacts include 3560 kHz and also 3579 kHz, which corresponds with the Colorburst frequency of crystals typically found in older color TV sets.

As noted, I offered the copyedited sentence above, to serve a literal interpretation of the cited source. Saying certain frequencies used by aficionados "include X, Y, and Z" rather than characterize them as "popular" is a good solution. I recall using the word "popular" in the original text 11 years ago because it was used in a number of the existing sources at the time. So it's fine with me if "popular" is replaced with more appropriate phrasing suggested above. Regarding the Aland citations relationship to glowbugs, I think after reading substantial portions of Arland's book, it's clear Arland's overarching context includes home-built QRP transmitters, aka glowbugs, which are literally low power (QRP) home built ham radio CW transmitters. As for the colorburst crystal frequency, it is parenthetically noted in the Arland source as Colorburst "xtal", which is an abbreviation for crystal. You can learn more about colorburst crystals at Colorburst#Crystals. @Graywalls, if you are the sole editor doing the WP:GAR community assessment, I'm happy to work with you to correct any errors and fix problems. I ask that you WP:AGF please, rather than assume an expectation of revealing future verification failures. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
It was not intended to direct that they're attributed to you or non assumption of good faith by anyone. I was commenting that unaddressed unverified original research may come up as I compare sources and things they're supporting. I am not the sole editor doing the evaluation. This is a community assessment. As for including two channels picked out from a table, I feel it would be undue without something showing the significance or relevance of those two to merit that inclusion. Why the two that were previously said to be popular without attribution but not some other random two? Graywalls (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I can't locate the source I had verifying those two frequencies were suggested for glowbug contacts, so let's take them out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


#### copy and paste from Wiki policies and guidelines to be referenced for discussion
Thanks, but we usually use links such as WP:RS and WP:SPS etc. rather than pasting the entire text of a guideline into discussions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. These extended quotes are gratuitous and unhelpfull. The particpants here are all well aware of the policies. A simple link suffices. Collapsed to reduce unnecessary clutter. Please stay on topic and suggest improvement to the article. --mikeu talk 06:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Levels_of_consensus - "7) Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. Passed 9 to 0 at 00:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)"
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."
I'll see if there's an existing broader consensus regarding the use of a self published FAQ website compiled by one individual based on posts of forum/BBS posts would be considered reliable if the website itself has been suggested as useful by expert as "informal peer review". 23:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. I don't know a whole lot about the subject, but am very familiar with the GAR process. It is quite rare to get an editor here willing to get an article up to scratch so it is good to see someone responding. As to self published and Primary sources they are allowed, they just have to be used carefully. It really depends on what they are referencing and how it is attributed. If it is slightly controversial, there is doubt to the authorship, they have no or limited expertise in the subject at hand or better sources are available then they should not be used. I am pretty hard on these sources when I do GA reviews, taking a view that if the only source is a poor one, then the information is probably not important enough to include. There are exceptions to everything, and some subjects do not have  a lot of sources to draw upon. I would think that this one would have enough reasonable sources.  GARs are slightly different to GANs in that there needs to be pretty clear reasons why an article fails thecriteria for a delist to happen. We generally only require sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons although likely to be challenged is very broad. Basically if the information it is citing is WP:BLUE then there is not as much concern on the quality of the source. AIRcorn (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@Aircorn: Thank you for commenting. The clear reason is that article was passed despite containing original research and failing verifiability, because the reviewer did not apply these criteria like they should have. Would you agree that their self-chosen criteria applied in 2008 was a major deviation from what should have been used? In reading through sources, checking numbers, I found quite a bit of data, such as channel/frequencies that are not found in sources or differ from sources as well as explanation and theories in prose not covered in sources, so that fails verifiability. It was also failing big time by having original research, Assertion of claim of majority scenario based on one guy's compilation from a BBS/forum posts is something that shouldn't be included in my personal opinion. The wrong criteria used was "2. Factually accurate?: Working in a radio station myself, I have found no inaccuracy's in reading ths article." is a huge deviation from the actual set of requirements that say "2. Verifiable with no original research:[3] it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[4] all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[5] it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism." Graywalls (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure you agree that the objective of GAR isn't to build a case for delisting an article and then defend that case — it's to fix the article. In that spirit, I invite you to join in the fixing process by adding citations to RS, or suggesting text modifications for purposes of improving the article quality. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


#### Additional sources available
I'll be integrating these and others as time allows. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Bring 'Em Back Alive!
QST August 1995, pp. 49-52
Restoring vintage ham gear is challenging and fun, but be sure you take proper safety precautions.
QST October 1995, p. 78
Refurbishing "Boat-Anchors"  :QST January 1997, pp. 35-38 :Bring vintage radios back to life.
Archive is here

The ARRL Handbook for Radio Communications, ARRL, 2014
p. 1.1.7 "Vintage Radio"
p. 26.35 "Repair and restoration of Vintage Equipment"
No archive, but I can email page images if needed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

More Glowbug Glamour
Dave Ingram
CQ Amateur Radio Magazine, November 2006 p. 60
PDF available

"Once there was an Ocean Hopper, when radios had names". Scott Freburg. CQ Amateur Radio Magazine, December 2003, p. 11, 12, 14, 15, 16.
PDF available.
@LuckyLouie:, are a lot of those QST articles that have author name, location and FCC registration numbers newsletters? Are they published as submitted by the membership? What is their editorial policy and where do they publish their editorial policy? They're used as a source an awful a lot and I would like to know where they stand in reliable sources criteria. Graywalls (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

QST Magazine and CQ Amateur Radio Magazine are both print magazines. Here is an example of the editorial roster (left hand column) for QST. Here is an example for CQ Amateur Radio. As you can see, they are not newsletters, and circulation is not limited to members, or even to licensed radio amateurs. You can find these magazines in the periodicals section of your local library (If you are going to be working on other amateur radio articles for WP you might check them out, they're an excellent resource). When newsstands still existed, they were sold alongside Car and Driver, Golf Magazine, Popular Science, and similar hobbyist/enthusiast publications. The "FCC registration numbers" you see included with most individual author names are Call signs; it's no surprise that most subject matter expert writers in amateur radio are also licensed radio amateurs. And regarding The ARRL Handbook For Radio Communications, this book can also be found in your local library as well as on the shelf in the technical section of your local booksellers. All this is good news for us: the sources are WP:RS by Wikipedia standards, and we can use them to improve the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I was curious about articles, such as this one. [4] I thought it's a bit odd it lists the author's address. Are articles such as these actually checked by editorial boards or are these opinions of individual authors published word-for-word like communication or letter to editor? Graywalls (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
In some publications it is/was common to designate one or more "corresponding authors" that readers can direct questions to.[5] More recent QST issues just give name and call sign under the title with an email as the method of contact at the bottom, and it now omits the postal address.[6] That's a byline, QST has a separate section for letters to the editor. The kind of work that you are describing would be published in QEX which has a far looser editorial process in contrast to the more formal QST review, as described here]. "Occasionally, the QST Editor will forward an article to us for our possible use. The author is notified that although not accepted for QST, his or her article has been automatically submitted to QEX." --mikeu talk 00:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


#### Tags
In the process of reviewing the inline tags, I see a citation need tag was placed on the text: "A majority of "AM'ers" stations consist of vintage transmitters and receivers housed in separate cabinets. Some operators have even obtained old AM broadcast transmitters from radio stations that have upgraded their equipment". A citation was given here. By reading the entire article, which is about AM-operating hams using separate transmitters and receivers, this is not a controversial statement. Re the second sentence, the source says: "A retired broadcast transmitter often gets pushed to a dusty, dark back corner of the technical room at a radio station. Increasingly, ham radio operators are giving a second life to these graceful old beauties, donated or sold cheaply to hobbyists by stations with no further need". So I am not sure why the citation needed tag was applied. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

How about a direct quote here which you think supports the claim that a majority of "AM'ers stations" have transmitters and receivers in separate cabinets.? "For a ham-radio operator, practical and residential considerations limit the list of desirable broadcast transmitters to those using single-phase line voltage, designed for RF power output of 1 kilowatt or under, and which take up "only" a single cabinet’s worth of space" This suggests otherwise..? Graywalls (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
That particular sentence refers to the transmitter, which is a separate cabinet unto itself. The receiver is another component, separate from the transmitter. The article briefly discusses the types of receivers typically used by AM hams, which are also housed in their own cabinets. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Could you provide the specific quote that unambiguously say that without the need for any interpretation/analysis? Graywalls (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the word "cabinets" is confusing you. It really is a simple concept and a mundane fact that is uncontroversial. There is no interpretation needed, only reading and comprehension. The article cited is all about ham radio operators who restore vintage AM broadcast transmitters and repurpose them for use in amateur two-way communication. The transmitter is in a metal enclosure (or cabinet), the dark grey metal skin such as you can see here. It does not contain a receiver since it has been designed for one-way commercial broadcasting. So hams must use a separate receiver in conjunction with it in order to have two-way communications. The receiver is in its own cabinet or enclosure, sometimes metal, sometimes wood, depending on age.  We could change "A majority of AM operators..." to "Many AM operators...", if that would satisfy your concerns. But a citation to a sentence stating the glaringly obvious isn't required here. We know that good encyclopedic writing that avoids plagiarism requires rephrasing or summarizing a body of information in your own words and sentence structure, so lets stick with best practices when generating text. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
It is not a plagiarism for you to offer the RELEVANT quote, here in discussion to clarify the discussion. What is plagiarism is if you include close paraphrasing directly into the prone. I'm just asking you to quote a sentence or two here, because, what you claim as "mundane fact that is uncontroversial." was apparently not obvious to me. Someone made a comment fairly recently with something along the line of that's like sky is blue to those with specialized knowledge. Well, this is not an academic journal or a specialized encyclopedia for those in the field, so such assumption can not be made, as often made in patents and similar documents as you know from phrasing like "those familiar with the arts will readily understand". Your statement "does not contain a receiver since it has been designed for one-way commercial broadcasting." glaringly obvious to ANYONE, or is this an "obvious to those familiar with the arts"? Graywalls (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Your repeated 'citation needed tags' for WP:THESKYISBLUE stuff are tiresome, but I'll resolve this one with a new citation and some copy editing which adheres close to the word for word phrasing contained in the sources. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I contend that things in this article are not obvious like people have five fingers. Perhaps so to a circle of people involved in IEEE conferences, but this isn't a broadcast engineering journal wiki. Graywalls (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
If there is any potential for confusion about what a "cabinet" means in this context I would suggest linking to the more technical term equipment rack, which is also used in the reference cited above. A curious reader will discover how common these are for mounting electronic equipment such as telecommunication gear. A footnote for a trivial detail about the number of cabinets falls into the category of {{Excessive citations}}. --mikeu talk 23:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


#### Further progress/cleanup and improvement
OK, so while others agree that local/regional amateur radio organizations are reasonable sources for uncontroversial facts regarding their interests, activities, and practices, I've removed the text cited to these that listed AM frequencies in countries other than the USA. I believe these were gradually added to the article over the last ten years by well-meaning passersby, but IMO they’re not worth holding up ongoing progress in improving the article. Same goes for virhistory.com as an acceptable source for uncontroversial statements, but since we have many other sources supplying much the same material, I removed that citation rather than let it be a roadblock to the process of improving the article. I also did some copyediting to better conform to sources and reformatting to tidy up the text and citations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed two pictures since it was starting to look too cluttered. Graywalls (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


#### December 2019
Yet another questionable tag was placed on the article by Graywalls, this time in the lead: "time frame uncertain. 40 years old according to what source that was published in what year?". The fact that the entire article is about amateurs using radio equipment that is more than 40 years old is not "uncertain" by any stretch of the imagination. It's self evident to anyone who can read the article and the image captions of 1950s and 1960s gear contained in the article. The age range of the radio gear is explicitly stated in the article body ("Amateur radio equipment of past eras like the 1940s, 50s, and 60s...") and cited to a reliable source. I've added an additional source to make it crystal clear: CQ Amateur Radio Magazine, December 2003, page 14, Vol. 59, No. 12. Title: There Once Was an Ocean Hopper, When Radios Had Names. Author: Scott Freeberg. Quote: “Because of this interest, you can now hear many of the old classic radios on the air again. This is radio gear that is often 40 to 50 years old…” I don't get the impression this ongoing tagging has anything to do with article improvement. It appears to be a continued pattern of impeding, pettifogging, and asking for citations for obvious minor details. This type of behavior could be interpreted as an issue of WP:COMPETENCE or WP:DISRUPTION. If there are details you legitimately need clarification for, I suggest you bring them up on the Talk page, and I'll do my best to resolve them for you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

A minor tag like that isn't disruptive or too controversial. Generally we try to avoid things like "recently" or "xx years ago" because they're likely to become outdated per MOS:DATED. There are many articles that still have wording like "recently...." which was the latest at the time, but still sitting like that over ten years later and we'd like to avoid that. "xx years ago".... without point of reference should be avoided unless we're talking about history that's thousands of years ago. 40 to 50 years old... in 2003 would mean 56-66 years old now and after a few years it would be 60-70 years old You see the issue? Graywalls (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Persistently adding "minor tags" is what is disruptive. Your editing shows a consistant pattern of behaviour here and at other pages. That is controversial. We've watchlisted the article. You don't need to play games by plastering sticky notes warning readers about trivial details in the text and leaving messages for us in the edit summary. Please leave a list at talk of the items that you think need to be addressed and we'll take a look at it. --mikeu talk 23:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

RE:[7] Please see: Chicago 56-mc. Round Table, QST November 1935. Little has changed in the past century. --mikeu talk 06:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)