Talk:American Radio Relay League

message: I can't find a reference on this at the moment, but wasn't the organization originally called the Amateur Radio Relay League and later changed to "American...", perhaps sometime in the 50s? If so, then this statement ("he had already decided...") isn't strictly true, and anyway the name change should be mentioned at some point in the article. I'll take a look around for support when I get a chance, but does anyone have something on hand? 73/Ninly (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is no.  FLAHAM (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The cover of the inaugural issue of QST, December, 1915, says it is a "An Amateur Wireless Magazine DE The American Radio Relay League".--Kharker (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: DeSoto's book also states that the name "American Radio Relay League" goes back to before the formal organization founding.  It had occurred to Maxim as early as March 1914.  See page 40, e.g.  RadiomanPA (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "He had already decided on the name"? 

message: This is not an NPOV section.  Should at least say "sometimes criticized" rather than "often criticized".  If you say "often", you need to back it up statistically.  The discussion should be balanced: there is some criticism, but there is widespread support, too.  Criticisms should be referenced.  (Saying you heard it on 80 M SSB doesn't count!) And so forth.  --Albany45 (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with the changes you made, to a point. The Zero Bias editorial, even though debunking "what critics say", is actually a good source for "what critics have said" about the League. However I would avoid adding rebuttal material of your own choosing as you did here. Any statements "answering" critics should originate with the League. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right.  I removed my gratuitous (but apt!) editorial opinion.  I wish someone would get appropriate responses from ARRL (or other) sources.--Albany45 (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I propose merging Elser-Mathes Cup into American Radio Relay League as it is an article about an award the League has won. It is an orphan article and unlikely to have any notariety other than its connection to the ARRL, but is most certainly notable. Markvs88 (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - An "article" consisting of only two sentences clearly doesn't deserve a separate existence. Roger (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Agree as above. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Agree - speedy merge that article; this one is obvious. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Agree - with all above --Albany45 (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: 


What's this doing here? Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk:Elser-Mathes Cup 

message: Individual club officer positions have no notability outside the club itself; suggest that these various long descritions be summarized and included, perhaps in an "organization" section here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's more separate articles of non notable ARRL cabinet positions: Official Observer Coordinator, Section emergency coordinator, Section traffic manager. At least put them all in one article, if not merge them all here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a start. If any of the club's internal organization could be referenced to external reliable sources, it might make an article by itself, but doesn't seem to be generally notable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merges (2012)

message: How do I tell a new neighbor, a ham operator, that his transmissions are coming through on our TVs?  How can he fix this problem?  I do not want to confront him with this problem because he is the type of personality that gets "physical" rather easily.  Tell me what he needs and I will send him an anonoymous note. 50.43.150.187 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The F.C.C. has decided that the interference actually lies within the receiver-in your case, your T.V. sets.  I would recommend a high-pass filter on each set.  That should block any H.F. signals from getting through, although if the interfering signals are above the H.F. band (VHF or UHF), the high-pass filter wouldn't do much.  I once had a 5,000-watt A.M. broadcast station come through the phone lines (in Spanish, no less) but the end result was the the telephone line was acting as a receiver.  There should be a sticker on the back of each set saying that that set must A. Not cause interference and B. Accept interference which may cause undesired operation.  The latter is what's h ki8p-09  vbappening.  The ham has no obligation to fix a problem that isn't his.  Now, if it can be proven that the amateur is transmitting above the allowed legal limit (in the United States, this is 1.5kW peak envelope power), then that warrants a complaint to the regulatory agency in question. Hope this helps, but this isn't really the place for such discussion.  Try www.qrz.com.Stereorock (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Also try Wikipedia:Reference desk. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transmitter Interferrence 

message: Should there be an article about the ARRL Handbook?  Or at least mention it here? Gah4 (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  book