Talk:Amateur radio licensing in the United States

message: The section is confusing. The information jumps around in date without specifying when it is talking about. Better dating of events would be helpful. Could be cleared up a bit. Anonym1ty 20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole thing needs a good and thorough cleaning.  I can see the fingerprints of the code whiners, too.  :-)  Going backwards, and ignoring the 2007-02-23 changes: 2000-04-15 - removal of 13 and 20 wpm Morse tests, shortening of written test regime (5 to 3); 1991-02-14 - Removal of Morse testing for Technician license, inadvertent creation of "Tech with HF", later Tech Plus; 1990-??-?? - Novice enhancement, addition of 10m SSB, vhf/uhf priv to Novice; 1987-03-21 - Tech test cut in half, part made into General test ("3B") (Same with Advanced/Extra?) -- plaws 22:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Novice Enhancement and "No-Code" Technicians

message: Am i incorrect for saying that there is no more morse code reqirement? if not this should be changed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.129.99 (talk • contribs).
:No, you're not incorrect...at least, not as of two weeks from today. A change would bea ppropriate. -- Jay Maynard 19:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Morse Code

message: I have reverted to the earlier edit which explained the license classes pre-Incentive Licensing.  Another user here blew it all away because of one line which was removed, which suggested that the Advanced Class existed prior to 1964.
My ARRL license manual from that era stated that there were 3 classes (Novice, General and Conditional), with an insert put in to explain (and promote) Technician, Advanced and Amateur Extra.  This was a question on the exam, too.  If anyone has any proof that Advanced predates Incentive Licensing, let's work it into the article instead of just blowing everything away. Critic-at-Arms 06:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OOPS!  The A, B, C classes weren't Novice to General/Conditional, they were General to Advanced.  Fixing the article now.  Critic-at-Arms 06:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There, now it looks right, and the Incentive Licensing stuff is fixed.  Critic-at-Arms 06:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone blew away a lot of MY other work because they remembered it wrong. Novice and Tech were introduced in the early 1950s, and Advanced was present (but not issued) since that era, as well. Before relying on faulty memory, why not refer to actual sources? How much time did you spend reading the QST discussion of the license changes from that era? (I did, more than I should, rather than actually doing the college work I should have been...) -- Jay Maynard 09:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-1964 license classes

message: All, I've attempted a significant repair and reorganization of the article in a sandbox. This article is very complex and difficult to work, mainly because there are few sources. I have focused on reorganizing and matching up the pieces that were already in the article.
Please review it here and comment on its talk page or here. I plan to merge it with the live article after 10 days (March 22nd). Thanks - Davandron | Talk 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks better than what we have now.  I did do a little formatting cleanup down in the refernces section.  One suggestion, if possible, when you are ready to bring the new text in, please merge it in a section at a time rather than a whole sale copy/paste of the entire article.  This will help provide some path through the edit history to see which sections morphed. --StuffOfInterest 11:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged a little later than I thought. Sorry I just merged the whole thing instead of piece by piece. The substantial re-write made it difficult to show what was kept. - Davandron | Talk 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant rewrite pending, please review the work in progress 

message: Just noticed this in the FCC's 99-412 (pg 6):
:Three of the six current amateur radio operator license classes, i.e., the Novice, Technician, and Amateur Extra Class, were established in 1951. (See Amendment of Part 12, Rules Governing Amateur Radio Service, Docket 9295, Report and Order, 42 FCC 198 (1951) (1951 License Structure Decision). At the same time, the Class A, B, and C operator licenses were converted to the Advanced, General, and Conditional Class operator licenses, respectively. After adoption of the 1951 License Structure Decision, the amateur service operator license classes, in ascending order of frequency privileges, were: Novice, Technician, Conditional or General, Advanced, and Amateur Extra Class.) 
I'm going to try an integrate some of it. - Davandron | Talk 19:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new history 

message: It was brought to my attention that some citation templates make the text difficult to maintain.  I agree to an extent, and would like the community to come to a consensus on what we should use for this article.  I am in favor of something that is simple and consistent.  What do you think we should use?  Feel free to throw out some suggestions. - Ryan 00:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: So far, none of our fellow Wikipedians has authored a SPANISH Language version of this page...as nearly 40 million people in the USA speak Spanish as their "first language" as of 2016, is a Spanish version of this page going to be realized for American "radioaficionados" any time soon?
The PIPE (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Spanish language in the United States|Spanish Language]] version of this page for [[Hispanophone]] Americans 

message: An issue with the graphic of the "historic" FCC Ham license currently shown on the article's heading comprises the age of the license certificate shown - currently, both a "Licensee ID number" and FCC "registration number", or "FRN", are ALSO printed on amateur radio licenses in the United States, yet have no representation in the article as yet - can this somehow be depicted, possibly based from a current Ham license, but with a "specimen-style" fictitious name/address/callsign/Licensee ID number and FCC "FRN" number of some sort? Then, at least, the "representation" for the article's heading would actually look like a typical Ham license, as the FCC sends them out top a licensee.
The PIPE (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of a current-style FCC Ham license to show both the "Licensee ID" and the "FRN" registration number format

message: "One of the first foreign born non-citizen Ham radio operator was Julio Ricardo Ahumada LU7BD - from Argentina. Up until 1968 it was illegal for a non-citizen to operate a ham radio."
This information is stuffed into an unrelated paragraph, where it clangs like a cowbell, and may not be germane anyway. (I mean the line about LU7BD, not the bit about non-citizen inclusion.) 
The first line makes no sense as written. Was Ahumada issued an American call? If so, why do we only have his Argentine call? Or was he just granted reciprocal privileges? And I'm fairly certain non-citizens had the right to operate in their own countries all along, though this addendum suggests that no ham radio existed outside the US - while giving us an example of an LU call. 
My inclination is to delete the reference to LU7BD (who was only "one of the first", not the first, and therefore not notable) and move the second line, rewritten to remove ambiguity, to a relevant and cited place in the article. But I've left off in case others have differing views. (I.e., blank it all, or flesh out a new paragraph about the non-citizen/reciprocal privilege issue. Non-US citizens are routinely issued American amateur radio operator licences today. That decision must have happened at a specific time and place, for specific reasons. Is this worth proper treatment?) Laodah 06:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Orphan fact - keep or blank?