Talk:Amateur Radio Emergency Service

message: Why is 911 communications issues mentioned in the opening? Did amateur radio operators help during this event? --202.142.52.230 (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Why don't you write something about ARES in Canada?  I would have, but I don't know much about ARES in Canada. Ryan 00:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  it lok like includes Canadian information and MOU's now.  The organizartions are pretty much identical since RAC used to be part of ARRL when ARES in Cnada was set up. GCW50 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

message: I'm knocking this back down to Mid importance.  ARES is an organization that operates in only two countries of the world.--Kharker (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Re the Memoranda section--technically, these agreements are established between the mentioned organizations and the ARRL--not ARES. It might be worth clarifying.  Also, oughtn't this section be referred to as "Memoranda of Understanding" instead of "Memorandums of Understanding"?  The Red Cross agreement is technically a "Statement of Understanding" but I believe the League still references it as one of the Memoranda so I guess it's not worth debating.
----
--PhilTemples (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memoranda of Understanding 

message: Well the whole concept of Wikipedia is providing information. I have been doing this for some time and have found ways to help build up this encyclopedia.
Having said that, there seems to be an issue here. It's one that goes against the idea of building Wikipedia. It revolves around including a link to the D-STAR article. That article contains a bit of properly sourced information on the operations of an ARES group as they helped during three strong consecutive storms in December 2007.
I can't figure out why an anonymous editor thinks that adding this link to the article isn't an improvement. I've tried engaging that person on their talk page and am now trying this. I'm up for discussion. Dawnseeker2000  00:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What's up with throwing the word "historical" around? The subheading there says that, but what does that even mean? What we're talking about is ARES activities. We're trying to add better and sourced content about these ARES operations to the article. I don't know what you consider "historical", but all ARES operations can be considered for inclusion here in the article. The criterion for inclusion here is if it's sourced, not if one person considers it "historical". Dawnseeker2000  22:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not of historical significance.  In my county ARES was activated in the last 48 hours twice.  Once for Severe Weather resulting in significant damage, and the second time due to a visit from the President of the United States.  I'm not linking to sources of those activations because frankly the historical significance of it is nonexistent.  The historical section should be limited to those of significance such as national disasters, or disasters which affected more then a small locale. 97.92.44.231 (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Building the web 

message: There's an anonymous editor that's been removing the link for a variety of irrational reasons. Several of those reasons were stated in edit summaries. One was " Not related to ARES, flaslights are a tool used by emcom - wannna include that too?" This is not true. D-RATS is an emcomm tool that is discussed in the (linked) article. The section of that article contains content that is directly related to ARES operations, and should be linked to from this article.
Another statement made by that editor that supports the removal of the link is " Not relevant to ARES.... its a mode used in amateur radio. Should we add CW, Slowscan, RTTY, p25, EME, and all the other modes as well?". This question is off the path a little bit because those other articles do not contain content that is related to ARES.
So I just feel like this person's actions are deconstructing the article unnecessarily. Dawnseeker2000  15:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a brochure that's hosted by Icom Incorporated that clearly states the relationship between D-STAR/D-RATS and the Amateur Radio Emergency Service. Dawnseeker2000  21:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Then mention them and stop fighting with me on this. You're spending so much energy fighting simply to fight when you could build the article. That D-STAR is proprietary means nothing here. The other editor mentioned that because he glanced over the D-STAR article. It is not a valid reason for excluding the mention of D-RATS in this article. Dawnseeker2000  22:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it is not a widely used tool (or even widely accepted tool) in the ARES community is relevant.  Its a minor insignificant technology, and if every article linked to articles that are this insignificant wikipedia would be unusable 97.92.44.231 (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

text: (Linked from WP:3O) -- I think this is probably an acceptable link for the page.  The assertion that it is used (at least occasionally) by the ARES community is supported by many WP:RS: P.5 here, this page as it is currently, as well as this page.  I also don't agree with the argument about having to link every obvious technology used by the "Radio Emergency Service", but I think links like Shortwave, Packet Radio, and Continuous Wave should' be linked, if not in the article then in a "See Also" section. jheiv talk contribs 01:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adding a link to DSTAR would be causing this article to have Undue weight as the amount of ARES teams who use DSTAR is minute compared to those who use other technologies such as FM Voice, CW, and HF. 97.92.44.231 (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Typically WP:UNDUE is used when discussing an article with two opposing viewpoints (e.g. climate change or abortion).  In this case, I understand what you are saying, but is this your opinion (see WP:NOR) or is this fact contained somewhere in a WP:RS? If it is a fact, then you could still say exactly that in the article, "while x,y,z are used more frequently, less common technologies are..." or something to that effect. jheiv talk contribs 01:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text:  What is absurd is your insistence to add an pretty much unused and unaccepted technology in Amateur Radio much less ARES.  While I agree we need to be as complete as possible, adding information that does not meet Undue weight rules just will make articles unreadable and useless. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Then feel free to to mention the application on the DSTAR page. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute about adding the [[D-STAR#D-RATS|D-RATS]] link 

message: This article seems to be full of Self Published Sources and should contain more Reliable Third Party Sources such as news media.
QST, QEX, ARRL presentations to congress, ARRL published books and all other media published by the ARRL are Self Published Sources in ARES context as the ARRL operates the ARES organization.
While self-published sources are sometimes acceptable, an article should never be significantly based on self-published sources as this one is. 97.92.44.231 (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added at least two independent sources. Lots of use for them yet. Dawnseeker2000  01:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self Published Sources