Jump to content

Talk:911 (emergency telephone number)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hyphenation in article title

Why are all these numbers hyphenated, in the article? Dysprosia 04:58, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Number articles without hyphens are years, not phone numbers. 66.245.9.63 19:04, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
9-1-1 is hyphenated to prevent people from pronouncing it 9-11, but I *still* don't have a reference; whoever said we need one is correct. Still checking, sir...
--Baylink 02:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

difficulty of establishing location of caller calling 9-1-1 from VoIP

I understand that, due to the global nature of the Internet, it is difficult to establish the physical location of someone calling 9-1-1 with VoIP. However, many ads and websites know pretty exactly where I am, apparently from my IP address. Try yourself: Find your location according to your IP Wouldn't that be a (partial) solution to the problem?--Soylentyellow 15:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well.. It is not impossible. The internet service providers keep databases over, which IP's are used by their costumers. The problem is more to let the 9-1-1 central access these databases. It requires some pretty technical installations. For instance the page you link to is letting me know I am in Copenhagen and displaying a coordinate. But it does not specify, which floor I live on - or which side on the floor I sit in. With this info the paramedics could arrive at the coordinate and have no idea where to look. So the solution will require the ISP's databases to be completely updated with exact adress to each IP currently in use. But what if two (or three or more) apartments share an connection and only have one external IP?
So it's a bit more complicated than that you see :) --|EPO| 18:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I know with my VOIP service I am required to keep an E911 address on file with them. If 911 is dialed from my phone this address will be provided. I don't know how many providers use this method, but it seems like a decent solution. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.40.115.147 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Calls to India

The article says that "sometimes calls to India will end up at the emergency dispatch office". I don't get it. Is there any real event that can be use to prove this?
Without outside line prefix: 011 + 91 + ...
With prefix "9": 9 + 011 + 91 + ...
In both cases, the dialing sequence includes "011" and the "011" has clearly indicates that the call is to India, not to emergency services. Joshua Chiew 13:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

FBI Phone List

I added informationa about the FBI's phone directory. I work for my local 911 center. That's how we get phone numbers for other agencies quickly. I didn't include references. Don't know that there are any. I know it's there, though, cause I use it all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.113.19.8 (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It would appear this may be considered "original research." Any thoughts? 38.100.34.2 18:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
My agency has access to NCIC/NLETS, but we've never heard of this phone directory until you posted it. I guess my question is "how/where do we get it?" Thanks. Equinox137 10:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you get it. I work for an agency in Utah. In our BCI system, you type TQ or TQM in the transaction code box and it'll pull it up. You can find the agency's ORI and phone number through it. It's been very helpful for us. I would suggest contact your state's BCI service and ask them about it. Again, it's called the Orion file.


Good call. I was able to find a source for it. Thanks.

assessment

Needs references most of all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGGH (talk • contribs) 11:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dialing patterns

The Dialing patterns sections contains a number of unlikely situations.

So even dialing an international prefix like 0-1-1- would get you 9-0-1-1 but as soon as the hotel guest hits "0" it rings the front desk or PBX operator.

As soon as the hotel guest hits "9", he indicates that he wants to call an outside line, so there's no reason that it will ring the front desk or PBX operator.

Another possible problem is that the international phone code for India is "91", and sometimes calls meant for India end up at the local emergency dispatch office.

As I noted above, it is really not a problem if the "0-1-1" international dialing prefix is dialed. --Joshua Chiew 23:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I put some of those in there, and they're not as unlikely as you think; motel PBX programmers, among other people, really do have to think about that stuff...
--Baylink 05:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I work in a 911 center. We get several of those a day in our county. All of those situations are not only likely, but occur all the time. It doesn't make any sense to me, either. I'm not sure why or how people do it, but they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.113.19.8 (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

People can make some pretty thoughtless mistakes. Please understand when I use the word "people" I don't mean to give the impression that I myself am above making thoughtless mistakes, everybody makes them. One relatively harmless blunder is locking one's keys in the car. Other thoughtless mistakes are not exactly harmless; Such as resting a thin-walled styrofoam cup full of scalding hot coffee between one's thighs while driving, or forgetting to feed your fish. To the above 9-1-1 operator, in high school I witnessed a 9-1-1 misdial intended for India. I was at a friends house when a relative of his happened to be attempting to make a call home to India. Whoever wrote the number down assumed the reader knew to dial 011 before dialing the country code 91 and the rest of the number which in this case started with a 1. He was still dialing numbers when my friend and I heard the operator's voice, my friend then grabbed the phone and explained the mistake. I can imagine a technician setting a PBX to a 91 dial out, or still another person trying to reach India and forgetting the 011. People will always make mistakes like that, if the emergency number was 6-1-1 the operators there would get just as many people trying to reach Australia whose country code is 61. Anynobody 06:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
There can be unforseen problems in almost any situation. Several years ago, my place of employment was experiencing skyrocketing long distance charges along with difficulty in charging calls to the correct department or project because many people were making long distance calls from extensions other than their own.
The solution was to assign a five-digit code to every employee and to every project. You press in the code, then 9-1-area code and 7-digit number. However, we made an unsettling discovery that the system would not accept 9-9-1-1. The equipment had no problem with the first 9; it just mean "outside call." However, the second nine and the first one caused the system to assume someone was making an unauthorized long distance call, and promptly switched to the ATB tone. This came out when we had a minor emergency, but my boss quickly realized what was happening and dialed her long distance code, then 9-9-1-1. I also got through, but only because I remembered the old seven-digit emergency number.
I don't know how they did it, but eventually our system was programmed to accept 9-9-1-1.

RDV 25-March-07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.33.34 (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

911/311 and other "new" service codes

Meaning no disrespect, but most of you are showing your (young) ages. ALL n11 codes were reserved for "special services" in the 1920's. In addition to 611, 411, and 211 which have already been mentioned, there was a variety of uses for some of the other codes. I know it's hard to believe, but there was once a time in history when you had to place all long distance calls through an operator, and you sometimes had to hang up and wait to be called back when the connection finally went through.

n11 service codes have NOT been chosen so that they don't conflict with area codes; in fact, the exact opposite is true. Area codes didn't even exist when n11 were designated for "special services," and area codes had to be designed so that they didn't conflict with the already-existing special service codes.

It also should be remembered that initially most dial telephone numbers consisted of an exchange name and four or five digits. You dialed the first two or three letters of the name, then the numbers. (PENnsylvania-3481 or PEnnsylvania6-3481). There are no letters assigned to the "1" hole on a telephone dial, so a n11 code could not be used as an exchange code or name.

RDV, 2March2007

See A History of Engineering and Science in the Bell System: The Early Years 1875 - 1925. M.D. Fagin, Editor. Bell Telephone Laboratories, 1975 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.27.190.53 (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I should mention that I also added a section to the main article describing how emergency calls were handled in the pre-dial telephone era, and how that changed when people got dial phones.

RDV, 20March2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC) (talk)

The functions of the central

One thing the article doesn't explain is if the 9-1-1 central only receives calls and send out an alarm - or they also commnicate with the dispatched units (fire, police, EMS) after an alarm have been sent out.

In Denmark the 1-1-2 central receives the emergency call and sends out an alarm to an operation control centre operated by the emergency service(s) needed. All communication afterwards is between the vehicles and their control centre. If any questions about the alarm the control centre may call up the 1-1-2 central which sent out the alarm.

But how does it work in the US ? --|EPO| 13:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It varies by area and local legislation. Some places have all 911 calls come to the local county/parish, others the city/municipality, and some outsource to other counties if they do not have enough of a population to support a 911 center; some even transfer the call depending on the type of emergency or outsource it entirely. I will note that some agencies are small enough that the 911 operator also holds the role of the police or EMS dispatcher - i.e. you would take the call, then dispatch the officer or ambulance yourself. -- Kuroji 13:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
One of the problems in implementing 911 service is that almost every metropolitan area in the USA is a conglomeration of cities, suburbs, unincorporated residential areas, unicorporated rural areas, and frequently more than one county. All this means that there are several police departments, several fire departments, several hospitals, and several ambulance services, some of which may be privately operated, and some of which may be publicly operated.
In the region where I live (Portland, Oregon) there was a great deal of interdepartmental and intergovernmental rivalry and jealousy. However, problems were slowly worked out; after years of legal wrangling most of the unincorporated residential areas were absorbed by either Portland or Gresham, which is the nearest suburb to the east. In this process, at least one fire department was absorbed by Portland, and Portland Police began patrolling soon-to-be annexed areas.
It was eventually agreed that all law enforcement and fire departments would be dispatched at the county level, and that there would be a single seven-digit number for all emergencies (760-6911), replacing at least a half-dozen existing numbers. The private ambulance companies were NOT happy about this, insisting that customers should have the right to choose whichever ambulance company they wanted. This of course completely ignores the fact that the average citizen in a medical emergency in unlikely to remember which ambulance company is nearest. However, the ambulance companies were eventually brought into line. It is interesting to note that dialing 503-760-6911 (the old Portland Police number) or 503-232-2111 (the old Portland Fire Department number) will still connect you to the 911 dispatch center.
At the same time all this was happening, most of the old electromechanical telephone switching equipment was being replaced with electronic equipment which could be easily programmed to accept 911. Finally everything was ready, and 911 service was cut over. I wish I could say that everything went well from then on, but the system had quite a few procedural and technical hurdles to overcome. Still, the confusion and problems were less than the previous situation where it was easy to call the wrong emergency number.
RDV 20March2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.102.33.34 (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

9-1-1 Use

There may be some dispute as when to call 911 or how to report a crime. There is a vote on my userpage debating the issue. --Defender 911 23:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I noticed a lot of users added a number of other emergency numbers in the section International emergency numbers and numbers in other countries. While I think that giving 9-9-9 and 1-1-2 as examples (the two most common ones) is OK, but the rest less common numbers should not be included. A link to Emergency telephone number is pretty enough. --Joshua Chiew 23:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling across jurisdictions

I'm troubled by my opinion that something needs to be in this section, but I can't reference it per se: How does someone without access to the various law enforcement databases reach the PSAP in a distant area? This is something I have faced personally, but, as a communications engineer, I solved it from general experience. This experience is less what I'd call "original research", and more what patents call "obvious to one skilled in the art."

As one real-world example, I had a call from a friend, drifting in and out of unconsciousness, 3000 miles away in western Canada while I was in the eastern US. Luckily, I had multiple phone lines, and was able to call the municipal library to try to get a direct number into the PSAP. With this long-distance number, I three-way-conferenced my call, and stayed on the line until the paramedics picked up. The library isn't the only possible source, but I was able to find its number more easily than that of the town operator, and I thought a reference librarian might be more resourceful than a telephone operator.

I could, I suppose, publish this somewhere and reference it, but I feel it is useful information. Suggestions?

Hcberkowitz 20:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

misc

See also: Talk:9-1-1 Emergency Telephone Number Day

When the 9-1-1 system was originally introduced, it was advertised as the "nine-eleven" service. This cause some problems when people looked for the "eleven" key on their telephones. Therefore all references to the telephone number 9-1-1' are now always made as nine-one-one, never as nine-eleven.

That sounds a bit implausable. Wouldn't this be an urbal legend? Zocky 10:48 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Could be. Couldn't find it on snopes, so I mailed them about it. I'll say if I get a response. Martin

I have worked for a 911 center for 9 years, and that is what we are always taught. It does have the air of urban legend, but some of the textbook materials does include that rationale.--Nh911guy 12:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

When I was the Library of Congress representative to the Federal Telecommunications Standards Committee, 1976-1979, the "eleven" problem was mentioned by the Federal Communications Commission and National Communications System staff. Hcberkowitz 19:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OH NO!, somebody added:

  • In the United Kingdom the emergency number in 999 and in most of the European Union, it's 112.

I have changed this to

For Other Countries Emergency telephone numbers see:

and put the following note at the top of the page to stop anyone else being too helpful and duplicating articles (AGAIN).

Important Note: This page deals only with Emergency telephone number 9-1-1, not other emergency telephone numbers.

I prefered it as it was. Some duplication of info between articles is not a bad thing, and when talking about the problem of US media use of 9-1-1 in other countries then a couple of examples is not the end of the world. It also took up less space than your list plus note.
  • Additional topics still to be covered:
  • mention telephony as essential service, priority accorded to public safety services telephone lines and the non-priority accorded by Telcos in handling 911 calls just like any other telephone call.
Generally speaking, 911 calls are routed to trunk lines, which then route the call to the appropriate 911 PSAP. These are dedicated trunks which carry no other traffic. Depending on the network, the transition takes as little as 1/10th of a second.--Nh911guy 13:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning GETS and WPS prioritization for designated emergency service _workers_, which prioritizes above 911?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hcberkowitz (talk • contribs) 19:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

  • Telephone network treatment of 911 calls, particularly distinguishing disconnected and abandoned emergency calls from silent emergency calls, and how such silent calls are handled by emergency services.
The differentiation is different depending on the system. On the system I work on, a call that is disconnected before reaching the PSAP is called an abandoned call. The position receiving the call gets a "double beep" to indicate the caller hung up. Hang up calls are those that are hung up after connecting with the PSAP. A silent call is one with no verbal response from the caller, though there may be background noise. How these calls are handled differs by jurisdiction and whether the call is landline or wireless. Landline calls are generally called back to determine if there is an emergency. Wireless calls usually are not, unless the call taker has reason to suspect there is a problem. The reason for this is the volume of wireless calls vs. landline, and the higher rate of abandoned/hang up calls from wireless phones. Landline abandoned/hang up/silent calls usually get a police response. Some systems have TTY capability, and will attempt to make contact with a silent call in this manner.--Nh911guy 13:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The above should be here, not on the article...

Is "universal emergency number" a mistake? This is only the number for north America. Isn't 112 the world wide number? CGS 14:15, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC).

Bump. I can't find any references to this that weren't (1) in the US or Canada (2) Wikipedia clones. Removing text for now.

9-1-1 Abuse

Why is there nothing in this article about how some people abuse 9-1-1. 216.201.33.20 10:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good point. There's plenty of room on the page, what do you know about it? Jump on in. ~ Otterpops 15:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

911 required on land lines?

In the U.S., FCC rules require every telephone that can physically access the network to be able to dial 911, regardless of any reason that normal service may have been disconnected (including non-payment). On wired (land line) phones, this usually is accomplished by a "soft" dial tone, which sounds normal, but will only allow emergency calls. Often, an unused and unpublished phone number will be issued to the line so that it will work properly.

I've never heard of this. I'm in Illinois, and dead lines (at least cancelled ones) are really dead here-- no dial tone or power at all. I'm familiar with phones in both Ameritech/SBC and GTE/Verizon ILEC territories. Someone needs to check this paragraph; I suspect that, at best, it might be a law in a few states. Cell phones, on the other hand, always seem to work here, and are required to connect to 911 regardless of the subscription status of the phone. --Closeapple 07:02, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I personally encountered a GTE/Verizon line that was telling incoming callers that the number was disconnected, but had a dial tone and would respond to every non-emergency outgoing call with a recorded message to call a Verizon collections number. Strangely enough, it wouldn't allow that Verizon number to be dialed either. I didn't dare to call 911 to see if it would work, but I assume it would. I had no way of telling whether the number was changed or just artificially blocked with a permanent-disconnect message. --Closeapple 17:51:37, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

As an employee of a large telephone company, let me clarify. What the law requires is that if you have a landline hooked up to the network, and then service is suspended (for instance, due to non-payment) but not disconected (ie: when you move out and cancel the line) then a 9-1-1 call must be accepted and routed to the local 9-1-1 dispatch center. If a phone line has been disco'd (either you call and cancel it or they cancel it due to non-payment) then it will not call out at all.
If Closeapple had dialed 9-1-1 it would have worked. I'm no wiki expert, but someone should work that info into the article, as there is a persistant rumor that dead landlines will accept 9-1-1 calls. They wont, they're dead.JamesBenjamin 01:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that it would be easier and better to say something like "Many television shows and movies have made fun of the number, often having a character ask for the number for 9-1-1, such as in the Simpsons, Home Improvement, [etc]." That just seems better than listing off many examples. --MPD T / C 03:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • How bout this, I'm removing the whole idiotic thing per Wp:trivia

Here is the removed section in case anyone wants to add anything relevant into appropriate parts of the article:

9-1-1 in popular culture

* The number's close association with emergencies has led to 911 being used as shorthand for emergency in text messages sent to pagers and mobile phones—however, this is often used to tag situations which do not have the life-safety implications that an actual call to 911 implies. * The hip hop group Public Enemy released a song that was scathingly critical of the 9-1-1 service entitled “911 Is A Joke” on their 1990 album Fear of a Black Planet. The song highlighted the poor performance of the 9-1-1 service in predominantly black neighborhoods. * The Cyndi Lauper album True Colors contains a track entitled “911.” * In an episode of The Simpsons, Homer picks up the phone and says, "Operator, give me the number for 9-1-1!" (As one will see, this is not an isolated incident.) He also receives the "true" emergency phone number of 9-1-2 when he joins the Stonecutters. * In another episode of The Simpsons, police chief Clancy Wiggum apparently receives a 9-1-1 call at his home during the town lottery, to which he responds, "No, you got the wrong number. This is nine-one....two." * From 1989 to 1996 CBS aired Rescue 911, a television show which featured host William Shatner and dramatic recreations of actual emergencies and the corresponding response of 9-1-1. * In the “Crazy For You” episode of Home Improvement, Tim Allen's Tim Taylor calls the operator and says "Operator - what's the number for 911?" He then tells the operator to "slow down" as he writes it down. * In the movie The Santa Clause, also with Tim Allen; upon hearing the noise on his roof, Allen's Scott Calvin asks his son if he knows how to dial 9-1-1 to which the son replies, "yeah, 9-1-1." * On the 1992 "Earthquake!" episode of Saved By The Bell, a character is told to call 911. The character promptly asks, "What's the number?" A similar scene also occurred in Ed, Edd n Eddy. * In the 1994 film adaptation of Little Rascals, two kids in the gang consider calling the fire department to put out a fire, but decide otherwise when they realize neither of them knows the number for 911. In the scene, the fire department is actually across the street from the pay phone they were using. One of the kids asks someone "What is the number for 911?" * In the Disney animated movie Hercules, Hercules rescues two children from a cave-in in a gorge (which was actually a staged calamity to lure Hercules into danger), and one of the children can be heard saying; "Someone call IX I I", which are the Roman numerals for 9-1-1. * The American TV show Reno 9-1-1! Features Lt. Jim Dangle and the escapades of the Reno Sheriff's department on the Comedy Central Channel.

13.8.125.11 16:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Forgot to Log in Tony P 16:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dashes

If no one uses the dashes, but they are needed in the article title, then they should appear in the article title but not in the body of the article. -- Evertype·✆ 10:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

9=5678394+367346+676989845+iu57894 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.23.115 (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Content removed from lead

I've removed the following reasons to not call 911: flat tires, thefts that occurred in the past, noise complaints, suspicious people, etc.[1]. First, the source given doesn't support any of these assertions. Second, in some jurisdictions noise complaints and thefts are supposed to be reported to 911. Third, "suspicious people" is sometimes a good reason to call 911. The source promotes a "better safe than sorry" philosophy particularly as a message for children. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

911 in Winnipeg

According to the Winnipeg Police History[1] the emergency number originally instituted in 1959 was actually 999. Should the article be edited to include this, or would it make more sense to remove this reference altogether, since it makes more sense on the emergency number page than the 911 page. Joe Canadian86 (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

October 2008 Assessment

A few small issues:

Apparent self-contradiction

"As a result, while widely announced as a national emergency telephone number, by 2008, coverage of the service was still not complete, and about 4 percent of the United States did not have 9-1-1 service.[11]" but the very next sentence says, "In over 98% of locations in the United States and Canada, dialing "911" from any telephone will link the caller to an emergency dispatch center." Since the U.S. is so much larger than Canada, it seems unlikely that even 100% coverage in Canada would make up for the 4% missing in the U.S. Also, that paragraph goes on to say that 96% of the U.S. has E911 coverage, which could only be true (compared to the first sentence) if basically no one in the U.S. has plain 911 coverage.

Style
  • The word "you" should pretty much never appear in a Wikipedia article. We do not address the reader directly.
  • Some of the sections seem just a bit verbose. An effort at a plain copyedit, particularly with an eye towards removing extraneous or unimportant details, might not be a bad idea. (For example, does the reader really need to know the exact dates of various announcements in the history?)
References needed
  • Wireless telephones
  • Dialing patterns

Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

Was the terrorist plan to sabotage the WTC inspired by the 911 emergency code? or coincidence? --SuperDude 23:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Everything that I have heard is that it was simply a coincidence. But I don't think anyone (outside al-Qaeda anyway) knows for sure. Rt66lt 03:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone know anyone inside al-Qaeda? C'mon, don't be shy.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

With the passage of all the conspiracy theories as in Farenheit 911 and In Plane Site one ought not preclude that the psychological warfare aspect of choosing "911" came from local U.S. conspirators, not from al-Queda, as such would serve their ends of reinforcing the "fear emergency and trembling" along with the thousands of repetitions of the towers tumbling shown throughout the years. talk) 12:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's ever been the slightest hint that al-qaeda had 9-1-1 on their minds when they planned the attack. This is just typical American creativity, connecting unrelated dots. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't merge this

This shouldn't be merged with the article emergency telephone number, because this article deals with the history etc. of 911, and has nothing to do with emergency telephone numbers in general. I have removed the merge template tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heebiejeebieclub (talk • contribs) 13:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

November 2008 assessment

Things have improved some. I removed the remaining instances of "you" and made a few other corrections (notably, that they're federal laws, not Federal ones). It might be worth searching to see whether informal contractions like didn't still exist. This article is in an acceptable range for B class, but it will not reach GA without a thorough copyedit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:9-1-1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the good article criteria and has too many issues, and has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include but are not limited to:

  • Too much unreferenced information
  • The lead is too short and needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD
  • Too much of "History" is unreferenced
  • "History" should be broken up into several sections to help organize it
  • Bold text should not be used in the article's body per WP:MOS
  • "Dialing patterns" has no references
  • References must include at least publishers per WP:CITE/ES

Once these issues have been resolved, please feel free to renominate it. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I propose to add a link to the "See also" section of this article that points to an article I've just created: Next Generation 9-1-1. I'll wait a couple of days before doing so - please comment. I'm still working on that article, and would appreciate comments and suggestions on the article itself. NextGen911 (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

no thatz not true thats fake and dumb and stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.83.218 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Eleven" key

Why has no phone an "eleven" key? --84.61.13.35 11:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Good question! They ought to have it, like "00" key found in few calculators, but alas, then you shoud have a key for every "NN" combination from "00" to "99". By the way it doesn't take much effort to hit the "one" key twice.

Many do have twelve keys, with the additional "#" and "*" symbols. In international telecommunications standards, # is called "octothorpe". The dual-tone multifrequency encoding of the keypad allows for 16 codes. You will see these on US and NATO military codes, with teh extra four marked FO, F, I, and U for Flash Override, Flash, Immediate, and Urgent priority. Those priority levels are enabled on a line-by-line basis; Private Smith in the mess hall cannot do a Flash Override call. For that matter, there are higher priorities not on phones, one called CRITIC/ECP for critical intelligence or for nuclear combat orders, and two higher ones for internetwork and network control. The whole issue of precedence may well be worth its own entry if there isn't one; I must check (once I figure out how to create an article) Hcberkowitz 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

- The standard fourth column on Autovon phones had FO (Flash Override), F (Flash), I (Immediate) and P (Priority). In the very early days of automatic dialing (early part of the 20th century), there were actually some systems which had an eleventh position on the rotary dial and which was used for reaching an operator, before dialing zero became the standard. - PBC1966 (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Montgomery County 9-1-1

This article seems a superflous split from 9-1-1. I propose it is merged in to this parent article. Fæ (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This will be a page specifically devoted to the 9-1-1 operation in Montgomery County, PA with statistics, demographics, and pictures. DPSWiki (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't Merge for another reason

911 is only the emergency number in some countries. This page should remain independant in order to distinguish 911 from other emergancy numers from elsewhere, like 999 in the UK.

-DUDE! You spelled EMERGENCY wrong!- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.219.49 (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Article Image

In the body of the article, there is an image labelled "Typical Work Station". Admittedly, I've only worked for law enforcement agencies in California and Arizona, and I started in the late 1990s, but in every agency I've worked for, had friends at, or done sit-a-longs in, that image would represent a museum piece. It would be a "typical" work station from the 1980s, not a current one. Both when I was a calltaker and as a dispatcher our consoles are more streamlined (to my eyes, the radio in that image is huge and boxy, at least 5 times the size of what I'm used to). Since I have limited experience with Comm Centers in the Midwest or on the East Coast, I'm asking: is that "typical" elsewhere in the country, or should the image be labelled differently or even removed? Onesweettart (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

So...that means...

If I'm in trouble I can dial 911 from any cell phone, even one without service, as long as the battery is charged? And help will come?
I heard a rumor that this was true, but I didn't know whether to believe it.
~ Otterpops 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You can dial from any cell phone, even if the phone subscription is disconnected. However, the phone must have service (in other words, it needs to be near a cell tower). Remember, you will need to tell the dispatcher exactly where you are. Unlike landlines, cell phones do not give your exact location. Brianga (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Not exact location. But it is not very complicated to trace the phone wihtin a small radius - this I saw during a visit on a Danish 112 central. Via the masts it is possible to trace which cell the phone is in. With this information the computer systems will draw a circle on the screen pointing out your location with a few meters accuracy. It is also these masts that (in Denmark) will ensure your call will be directed to the nearest 112 central. --|EPO| da: 13:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Triangulation can result in an area of 5 square miles to search in many parts of the United States. Many Phase 1 phones (those that don't give co-ordinates) are still in use here, Mason County, Washington, USA. It is a real problem in this county as we are large with few towers, making triangulation not feasible. Also, when a cell phone with Phase 2, one that has GPS co-ordinates transmitted, is no longer activated, while it can successfully dial 911, the co-ordinates usually do not come through. I am the IT staff for our center and we have received calls from inactive phase 2 phones, but have never received GPS co-ordinates from an inactive phone. Also, even on active phase 2 phones, we have to rely on the phone provider to transmit the data. Often the dispatchers have to manually re-query the telco several times before the data actually comes through. Which further delays help being routed. ddupont, 11:20 May 16, 2011 (GMT -8). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.103.193 (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Old analog cell phones will not work at all... the analog cell towers were shut off in 2008 66.87.2.58 (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

what's the #'s for 911

in rural areas the # for 9-1-1 was once 2000

922 also works for 911. I dont know why but it does.

These would be entirely local issues depending upon how local switching equipment has been configured. Easily remembered numbers (such as 2000) might have been assigned for emergency use in some places, but there was never any sort of national standard. 46.208.153.121 (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

When 9-1-1 became common?

One point I think that needs to be addressed, and I would do it except for the fact that I just do not know, is when 9-1-1 became common. I'm fairly certain that Atlanta didn't get 911 until at least after 1980, Houston did not get 911 until the mid-80s and I know that parts of Oklahoma did not get 911 until the mid to late 80s. I think that a discussion about the spread of 911 is essential here. Are there any small towns that actually still lack 911? Just some thoughts I feel should be addressed for anyone knowledgeable in the subject. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree - With the passage of time we seem to be getting more and more people who don't realize that the 911 emergency number did not roll-out everywhere over a short space of time, but in fact over many years. There were still at least two or three rural counties in Georgia which didn't have 911 service into the 1990's, for example. 87.112.142.201 (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Emergency vs. Non-emergency Use

From article:

The use of this number is reserved for true emergency circumstances only. Use of 9-1-1 under non-emergency circumstances may result in a criminal charge.

This is very much dependent upon your jurisdiction. Where I live, 911 is the preferred method to contact a dispatcher, emergency or otherwise. If nobody objects, I will change the article text accordingly to indicate that in SOME areas it may be a crime to use 911 service for non-emergency calls. BirdbrainedPhoenix 04:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, finally got around to doing this. BirdbrainedPhoenix 14:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This is edited by someone else but if you prank call 911, you can face prison and a huge fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.56.101 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Misdialing

People dialing 9-1-1 by mistake is a major problem in and around Raleigh, North Carolina. I hope my addition is acceptable. There may be other types of misdialing that belong in the section.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Broadcasting calls

It was nowhere near complete, but I did a lot of work adding information on efforts to stop actual calls from being broadcast. The explanation in the edit summary was that the information is available elsewhere. Anyone thinking it can be conveniently found under laws of individual states is likely sadly mistaken.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Balance

So much Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.23.159 (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Sources

I just finished a 14-page term paper on the Enhanced 9-1-1 Systems for my Principles of Telephony class and wanted to share my sources. I did not want to take it upon myself and make changes without consulting others first. I am not familiar with the rules about how references are handled but I felt that they were were worth sharing. Some are from people who are active in 9-1-1 dispatch and others are very recent articles (found one on the same day it was published). All links were visited between 2013-07-15 to 2013-07-22.

  • "FAQ." 9-1-1 Enable. n.d. Retrieved 2013-07-21.
    • (www1.911enable.com/resource-center/faq)
  • "Google Maps Update Useful For Dispatchers." Dispatch Magazine On-Line. 2013-07-18. Retrieved 2013-07-18.
    • (www.911dispatch.com/2013/07/18/google-maps-update-useful-for-dispatchers)
  • "311 Non-Emergency Systems." Dispatch Magazine On-Line. n.d. Retrieved 2013-07-18.
    • (www.911dispatch.com/info/311_page.html)
  • Davidson, Laurence Viele. Doyle, Timothy W. "Texas Sues Vonage After Crime Victim Unable to Call 911." The Washington Post. 2005-03-23. Retrieved 2013-07-15.
    • (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58598-2005Mar22.html)
  • Evans, Jon. "e911." VOIP-Info.org. 2013-02-18. Retrieved 2013-07-17.
    • (www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/e911)
  • "911 Wireless Services." Federal Communications Commission. n.d. Retrieved 2013-07-19.
    • (www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services)
  • "Tech Topic 2: Internet Protocol (IP) Based Interoperability." Federal Communications Commission. n.d. Retrieved 2013-07-19.
    • (transition.fcc.gov/pshs/techtopics/tech-ip-interop.html)
  • "PSAP Registry." Federal Communications Commission. n.d. Retrieved 2013-07-20.
    • (transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/911-services/enhanced911/psapregistry.html)
  • "Glossary of Terms and Definitions." Intrado Inc. n.d. Retrieved 2013-07-19.
    • (communications.intrado.com/assets/documents/IEN_Glossary.pdf)
  • Kirley, James. "It's a crime the way some people abuse 911 lines." Florida's Treasure Coast and Palm Beaches. 2010-08-01. Retrieved 2013-07-21.
    • (www.tcpalm.com/news/2010/aug/01/its-a-crime-the-way-some-people-abuse-911-lines)
  • Kelly, Heather. "911 text messaging service coming in 2014." CNN.com. 2012-12-07. Retrieved 2013-07-15.
    • (www.cnn.com/2012/12/07/tech/mobile/fcc-carriers-announce-text-to-911)
  • Layton, Julia. "How 9-1-1 Works." How Stuff Works. n.d. Retrieved 2013-07-20.
    • (people.howstuffworks.com/9-1-1.htm)
  • "Cell Phones and 9-1-1." National Emergency Number Association. n.d. Retrieved 2013-07-18.
    • (www.nena.org/?page=911Cellphones)
  • "NG9-1-1 Project." National Emergency Number Association. n.d. Retrieved 2013-07-18.
    • (www.nena.org/?NG911_Project)
  • "Appendix A 911 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms (Condensed from the National Emergency Number Association Master Glossary)." Northern Middlesex Council of Governments. 2011-12-31. Retrieved 2013-07-20.
    • (www.nmcog.org/RECC%20Appendix%20A%20Glossary%20of%20Terms.pdf)
  • "Texas Attorney General Abbott Takes Legal Action To Protect Internet Phone Customers." Office of the Attorney General. 2005-03-22. Retrieved 2013-07-20.
    • (www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=850)

Please let me know if any of these are helpful and if there is anything else I help out with Psychomaze (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"00" key

Why has no phone an "00" key? --84.61.31.108 10:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I don't know. Why is the sky blue? —QuicksilverT @ 21:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Why waste you your time on questions such as these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.138.71 (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Why WOULD a phone have a "00" key? 87.113.6.148 (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The number 9 autocompletes (or used to) to 911?

Several years ago I made an accidental 9-1-1 call. What happened is that the number I was calling began with a 9 (983 is an exchange prefix in southwest Michigan where I lived at the time). After dialing the 9, I stopped, trying to remember the rest of the number, and after a few seconds, I was automatically connected to 9-1-1. Needless to say I was surprised. It was a regular land line and I believe the provider at the time was Ameritech (this would have been around 1999 or 2000).

Does anybody have any information on this? Is a single 9 still automatically interpreted as a 9-1-1 call after a certain period of time with no further digits dialed? Is, or was it a nationwide policy, or maybe just a local quirk? I haven't been able to find any information on this, but if anybody can dig up a couple links, I'd be happy to add the information to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.209.113 (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost definitely a local quirk, either by accident or design. Or you dialed the 9, then accidentally flashed the hookswitch a couple of timesm which would be the equivalent of dialing 1-1. 46.208.153.121 (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Not sure the odds the OP will come back 8 years later, but according to the page for 999, certain phone systems were specifically designed to auto-dial either 999 or an operator if only one or two 9's were pressed. It's possible someone did something similar in the U.S. with 911 calls. 162.252.201.32 (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

911 in the UK and Ireland

I've heard that this works in the UK and Ireland, due to the large number of kids who thought 911 was the emergancy number, not 999. Does anyone know this? I don't want to try it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.148.1.142 (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


--No 911 will NOT work in the UK. 999 will work as will EuroZone emergency 112. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamorgan (talk • contribs) 00:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 911 does work in the UK. I just tried it, and got put through to the emergency services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.95.94 (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

--As a general rule, 911 does NOT work in the U.K. It is certainly not programmed into any BT switches, and in fact in at least a couple of places now there can be regular local numbers which start 911. It's possible that a PBX has been programmed to translate 911 into 999/112 on an outside line, and it's just possible that one or more of the cable carriers might translate as well. But overall, 911 will NOT work.

PBC1966 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

--Many worldwide systems are supporting 112, 911, 111, etc. and translating to the local emergency code, if the former numbers do not directly conflict with the numbering plan in use. Hcberkowitz 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dialing 911 on GSM mobile phones in Australia also puts you through to emergency services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohmohgoh (talk • contribs) 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have experience with this, but I would guess any telephone that can dial complete numbers could easily convert a number of common emergency numbers to the correct emergency number for the region. On an old-style landline, each button is communicated immediately to a nearby switching station, so you wouldn't want 9-1-1-*pause while looking at notes*-3-1-2 (a potentially valid local number in the UK) to end up dialing 999 by accident (although it's possible certain areas do this anyways). On something like a cell phone call though, the user explicitly presses the send button, so it's unlikely 9-1-1-*send* was anything but an emergency call. Phones sold in a particular region could easily be programmed to dial 999 when instructed to dial 911, 000, 111, etc., to aid foreigners who may have panicked in an emergency and forgotten the local number. Phones could also be programmed to dial a different emergency number by detecting what region they're in. But you're probably better off remembering the local number than relying on non-official gimmicks to work. 162.252.201.32 (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 9-1-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

source(s)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 9-1-1. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

History

Is all guy the verbiage describing the early 9/11 years of the phone people suck d***and borders mexican people how people made calls really gay necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.139.9.38 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the misleading claim that dial service was not widespread until the 1950's. Certainly many areas still had manual service at that time, but as that section read it was suggesting that dial service was not at all common either, which is simply not true. PBC1966 (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Reasons I learned that the digits "9-1-1" were chosen was not only because it was easy to remember and worked well with the system at the time, but for other reasons too. Indeed, "1-1-1" and "1-2-3" are also easy and would have worked well too with the telephone system, but these numbers would have caused many false alarms. So, the reasons might have had to do also with (1) time-to-dial and (2) avoiding accidental or inadvertent false-alarms. A793b4 (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

With rotary dial phones, it took a short time to dial "1", but a long time to dial "9". Remember, we had to wait for the mechanism to return back to the resting position before we could get the next digit. The length of time-to-dial increased from "1" to "9", with "0" being the longest. [With digital phones, which became popular in the 1980s, it took the same about of time for any digit.] With rotary phones, for the emergency number, it may have been desired to have [some] short-time numbers so the mechanism would return more quickly and less time elapsed while dialling (remember, there is an emergency); and to have [at most] one long-time number (like "9") so that inadvertent or accidental dialling (by children, for example) would be more rare. A793b4 (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, "1-1-1" and "1-2-3" are both very easy to remember and have a relatively short-time to dial, but would have caused many false alarms. (How many of us as children dialled 1-2-3 while playing, for example.) A793b4 (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Zero (a long-time-digit) might not have been chosen as a digit, since it would have been confused with the normal operator, was associated with initiating long-distance-numbers, and it was at the end of the dial mechanism, so a child might pick that position for the next digit. [The reason you want some short time digits is to reduce the overall time to dial in an emergency. The reason for a long time digit is to avoid false-alarms.] A793b4 (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps these "reasons" were developed after "9-1-1" was chosen and established. I don't know and have no access to references. But it seems quite plausible that the technical people who chose the digits put more effort than was suggested by the article. A793b4 (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

911 or 9-1-1

Is there a hyphen button on American telephones? Please explain the difference between 911 and 9-1-1. If there is no difference, let's keep it simple, use 911. Why are the hyphens there? In the UK the emergency number is given as 999 not 9-9-9. I think Wikipedia readers need an explanation here. P0mbal (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

–ID Phone X4293KM "Condor C1+/+213790969428/DJEZZY.OTA/love Amricans Call 9-1-1"open Call 00+1911Emergencies,APA Problams Neuroscience Psychologists ClinicalTrials Tuosh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.45.99.216 (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Why the hyphens?

9-1-1 is not a number. 911 is. Can someone please explain if the hyphens get dialled (and how), and if not why is the code 9-1-1 indicated rather than the number 911? Compare with Wikipedia on the 999 emergency number. P0mbal (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Although consistency is an important goal, both titles here are permissible under out titling policies, and there is a clear absence of consensus for a change to the status quo. bd2412 T 03:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

9-1-1 → 911 (emergency telephone number) – per WP:CONSISTENCY with 108 (emergency telephone number), 112 (emergency telephone number), 119 (emergency telephone number), 999 (emergency telephone number) etc. Looking at Wikimedia commons [which by the way also uses the form '911 (emergency telephone number)' format] it is clear that usage on signage is mixed between the form 911 and 9-1-1 however if there is no clear WP:COMMONNAME then it seems more logical to be consistent across Wikipedia than have this one article as the exception. Furthermore, as has been noted many times on comments on this talk page, nobody types the hyphens in "9-1-1" on their phones when they make a call, they just type "911". Ebonelm (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. -- Dane talk 03:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure I guess Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
An example of 9-1-1
Now, I've watched a few American movies, and I've never heard anyone say: "Quick, called the emergency telephone number open bracket nine hundred and eleven close bracket", but I do hear them say "Quick, call nine-one-one". Also, 9/11 is pronounced "nine eleven", not "nine-one-one". The title you propose fails both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL. Laurdecl talk 23:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Really? How do you handle this article's parent article Emergency_telephone_number. 911 is a local spinout article. I'll give you the point on nine-eleven. That's a written confusion, not verbal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Should 2-1-1 be moved to Telephone number (2-1-1)? Laurdecl talk 03:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • "Should 2-1-1 be moved to Telephone number (2-1-1)? Laurdecl talk 03:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)"
    • Possibly, or something like that. It feels like it needs and extra word (abbreviated, or special, or information), and I think comma over parentheses would be preferred. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I am struggling to understand you. By your logic, Albert Einstein should be moved to Theoretical physicist (Albert Einstein). Laurdecl talk 23:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
        • The problem with 2-1-1 is that it is over abbreviated, it doesn't even contain words. Should it go to Two-one-one? This title really doesn't describe the topic. The topic is not really the number sequence, the article doesn't even contain discussion of the choice of the numbers. The same is not true Albert Einstein, which describes the topic of the person called "Albert Einstein". Identifying the 2-1-1 topic as a telephone number would be a big improvement, although the central nature of the topic is that it is a type of telephone number, and this is why "telephone number" belongs in the title-proper. Looking at https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/dial-211-essential-community-services for guidance (one should look at more before making a final decision), I might suggest Community services telephone number, 2-1-1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
          • I admire your audacity, but that move would never succeed. Laurdecl talk 06:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
            • The very early conventions for titling were overly-concerned about ease of wikilinking, at the expense of useful titles for the readers. For a long time, the conventions were unchallenged, and still many support old practices essentially because they are old. Recently the tide as turned, with quality of the product winning out over ease of wikilinking. "British White" -> "British White cattle" is a prime example. The old shorter title did not tell anyone what the content of the article is about, which is cows. "9-1-1" doesn't tell the reader of a list of titles that the article is about a telephone number. Audacious in opinion, but it is not nearly important enough for me to do bold moves or even RM nominations, but when the question arises this is what I say. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
              • A certain amount of knowledge of the subject area is required to recognise a title. Someone would only know that Albert Einstein is a biography of a physicist if they had heard of him before. Most people realise that 9-1-1 is about a telephone number. Those who work in the cattle industry would not need the title to have "cattle" in it to recognise the subject. There is a limit to how much we can dumb it down. Laurdecl talk 08:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
                • Indeed, but we are a long way short of that limit, and skirting on the edge of recognizability by the familiar and misrecognition by others. 9-1-1 is probably the world's most recognized numbers, 2-1-1, not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 9-1-1. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 9-1-1. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding large amounts of content removed from the article

As can be seen in the revision history, User:EEng deleted significant amounts of content from the article over a period of approximately 2 months, without consulting the community in any way, reducing the article size from 42,160 bytes to 29,571 bytes. While some of the removals might be justified, many removals were justified poorly or not at all: for example, in [2], the removed content was considered "unsourced overdetail" when a citation was present and there is clearly relevant content that (in my opinion) warrants inclusion.

Can someone review the removals and add back content that is suitable for the article? 24.127.87.137 (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Faulty map

I removed a highly faulty map from the article—take a look at that map's image talk page and it's clear to see that whoever created it didn't do their homework; it's full of errors. The removal was reflexively reverted without a word of rationale (no edit summary), which is not OK. I have re-removed the faulty map. Let's look forward to Thewolfchild explaining why wrong information should remain in the article, and otherwise engaging in productive discussion here on the talk page about it. Pogorrhœa (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow... where to begin?

  1. Spreading discussions across not only multiple talk pages, but multiple sites, can not only be onerous, but it's also against WP's policies & guidelines (see WP:TALKFORK, WP:TPYES and WP:CANVASSING).
  2. That said, when you removed the image, your edit summary referred to the image's talk page on Commons, where you had posted comments about it. You had not posted anything here at the time.
  3. Therefore, when I reverted, I posted a reply to you on that talk page. (and I did leave an edit summary, it said; "see talk", which you obviously did).
  4. You knew full well that I had already posted a reason for my revert on the image's talk page at Commons, because you had already replied to it. (Did you forget?)
  5. Along with claiming that I hadn't left an edit summary, stating that I had "reverted without a word of rationale" was... disingenuous, to say the least. (And repeatedly referring to my revert as "reflexive" is kinda' rude).
  6. As for the image, even though you now claim it is "highly faulty" and "full of errors" (without offering a shred of support), at the time of my revert, the only issues you mentioned were Argentina, which, like some of the other countries, is simply grayed out as incomplete, (this is actually quite common for maps on WP) and Canada, which you complained "...is 911, not "911 and 112"", even though calls to 112 will get redirected to 911 in some parts of Canada. (see "homework":[2][3][4][5][6][7][8])
  7. Lastly, it seems you need go familiarize yourself with WP:BRD;
    •B - You Boldly remove the image,
    •R - I Revert your edit,
    •D - We Discuss the matter. However, you just went and reverted again, which is basically the first step in an edit war. The page should remain as is until the discussion has concluded and there is a consensus on how to proceed.
  8. I realize you're relatively new here, but please take some time to learn the project's policies & guidelines, as it makes life here a lot easier. Thanks, and have a nice day. - wolf 23:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
refs

References

  1. ^ http://kidshealth.org/parent/firstaid_safe/emergencies/911.html
  2. ^ http://archive.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/authorities-warn-against-dialing-112-for-emergencies-0h8vucj-194260201.html
  3. ^ https://www.cafconnection.ca/getmedia/9502828f-26be-407c-a9f5-49d4a80e7960/UK-Guide-EN.aspx
  4. ^ https://www.comparecellular.ca/compare-plans-in-british-columbia/rogers-roaming-rates-british-columbia/
  5. ^ https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:b4d14eda-1339-47aa-a8b5-fff1577e0019
  6. ^ http://www.westcoastsoaringclub.com/forumnew/viewtopic.php?t=8067&gclid=CjwKCAiAtej9BRAvEiwA0UAWXsM35atllhUsuCDWS6--BY8-QlHJxN2tOdHwgUKVhn5XzMly9xYeZRoClskQAvD_BwE
  7. ^ https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:92a575b2-f960-49a2-9240-784e416b3bd8
  8. ^ https://urgentcomm.com/2013/02/26/nena-ignore-social-media-hoax-dial-911-for-u-s-emergencies/
Alright, now that you've cracked the thorny mystery of where (oh where) to begin, and you've issued me an 8-point scolding, and I've given myself seventy-one lashings with a not-very-fresh eel (which I now hand over for your own use, as AGF applies to all of us) for what you perceive as my transgressions, let's begin the substantive conversation. Some mobile telephone service providers mapping 1-1-2 to 9-1-1 in some parts of Canada doesn't equate to anything official or reliable; if it can be properly documented it seems worth mentioning in the article, but it doesn't seem to me like it belongs in a map of (real, actual, official) emergency call numbers around the world. You seem to disagree...OK, that's why we're here. Can you explain why you think an unofficial practice that might or might not exist depending on where in Canada you are and whose network your phone connects to, qualifies for inclusion in an article and in a map about real, official practice?
You also seem to think Canada and Argentina being wrongly presented in the map isn't enough to make the map unworthy. There must be a Wikipedia policy you can point me to (kindly please?) where I can read up on the threshold of erroneous information content that you appear to be leaning on here. In the meantime, it's not just Canada and Argentina, it's also New Zealand; again I refer you to the file's talk page. So that's three countries' worth of wrong information being presented by what purports to be a map of emergency call numbers around the world. I think that makes the map wrong enough to leave out of the article. You apparently disagree; will you explain why? Please and thanks (and tea and biscuits). Pogorrhœa (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Psst! @Thewolfchild:, may I respectfully request the honor of your participation in this discussion? Pogorrhœa (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@EEng: but there is no issue with accuracy. It, like many, many maps of this type on WP may be incomplete, but the content is both correct and sourced. And "Pogorrhœa", you can keep your eel, I have no need of it here. - wolf 00:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what you meant by that last sentence. Accuracy questions aside, I repeat that maps like this are of little value anyway. But other than that I'm staying out of this. EEng 00:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild:, the inaccuracies in the map have been detailed here and on the map's image talk page. Nevertheless, you contend there are no inaccuracies, that the map is merely "incomplete". Why is that, please? It might be incomplete, but it's also presenting flatly incorrect information. The question at hand is whether that matters. I think it does. You apparently think it doesn't. Will you please explain your position on this, preferably using rationale based more in WP policy and less in simply gainsaying others? Thank you. Pogorrhœa (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Your issues with the image have "been detailed", and addressed. Wikipedia is not a "real, actual, official" representative for any entity, it's an encyclopaedia, which presents verifiable information in a neutral manner. You yourself don't even dispute that 112 will connect to 911 in some parts of Canada, you just don't seem to like that that fact is included on that map. And as for Argentina, I have no idea why you're so bent that that particular country's status is not included. It's not wrong, it's just not included. But that is true with dozens of other countries as well. As I said, the map is incomplete. If you're unhappy about that, then make a better one! But otherwise you need to learn to deal with it because, as I also already said, WP is FULL of incomplete maps and other similar images. The whole project is a work in progress. Now, I'm not going to keep going round and round in a circular debate about this with you. If you have something new to offer then fine, but please don't keep pinging me just because you feel like arguing. (And EEng, excuse the typo above, I missed a word.) - wolf 03:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:Let's try and keep the conversation to the content, with a more cooperative, less combative tone and less griping about what you consider to be my faults and shortcomings, please and thank you. Insisting you're exclusively and entirely correct doesn't strike me as a good fit with the spirit of Wikipedia, and it also contradicts your earlier position—first you insisted we must discuss it, and now you're insisting the discussion's over. I am genuinely sorry you are irritated at having discussions with editors you consider inferior, but the purpose here is to hash out the disagreement until it's resolved one way or another. Declaring the conversation is over because you say it's over doesn't strike me as an appropriate or productive consensus-building tactic; consensus doesn't require unanimity, and by the same token consensus cannot be unilaterally declared by one editor.

Now, we agree the map is incomplete; there's no quarrel there, so we have some common ground here. Where we disagree is (still) on whether this map should or shouldn't be in the article, given the erroneous information it presents. If we can't come to consensus on that question, let's look at it maybe through a different lens, as another contributor tried to do by reframing the question in terms of whether the image (bad info or no bad info) really adds much to the article; they quickly left the conversation when you shouted them down, which is a pity. May we please try and move the conversation in a more productive, inclusive direction? Pogorrhœa (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oy. Starts of with "Let's try and keep the conversation to the content, with a more cooperative, less combative tone...", then goes on and on (and on) with a hypocritical screed accusing me of "page ownership" (because I reverted your single edit... about an image?), "personal attacks", (show me one), "shouting other editors down" (seriously...?), followed by more invective, accusations and generally sarcastic snark, ending with "May we please try and move the conversation in a more productive, inclusive direction?"...(?!) You asked me to explain my revert, I did. You made erroneous accusations, I corrected them, (with evidence). You asked me to supply polices & guidelines, I cited numerous ones. You claimed the image was "full of errors", but you have not demonstrated that... at all. All you really have done is react, rather poorly, to being reverted. I've explained my edit. I responded to your comments here, despite how rude you've been. The one thing I did ask was that if you were going to insist on dragging this out any further, that you present something new. Something factual, supported and on topic. I really have no interest in your sneering insults and shabby behavior. - wolf 04:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
Good evening – I am Springnuts, a previously uninvolved editor. Thank you for requesting a 3O, and for refraining from edit warring whilst waiting: I commend all those involved.

1) I am astonished at the depth of discussion over this image. Perhaps I have missed some cultural battle, of which this is a symptom. I point no fingers, but urge all editors to follow the policies in WP:ETIQ and WP:CIVIL.

2) Is the map “full of errors”? Well, no. But, New Zealand and Indonesia are apparently (as of now) incorrect. So it does have errors, and over time may no doubt develop more.

3) How about Canada and other places where 911/112 actually just redirect into the national emergency number. That doesn’t bother me. The map only says that 911/112 are implemented; it does in fact refer to the possibility that this may involve a redirection.

4) Argentina. It’s in grey which says nothing, so if 911 is indeed implemented, then it would helpfully be coloured in accordingly (but I note that the talk page notes it is for police emergencies only).

Suggestions

5) Use the caption to date the map and warn people that the information may be partial and/or out of date. It will also remove the felt obligation to ensure it is always 100% accurate and comprehensive.

6) Use the talk page to work through any tricky places where the answer to the question “Is 911/112 implemented?” is not obvious.

7) If the errors really annoy you, correct the map and upload and use the new version.

And finally ...

8) This is just my opinion. If you don’t like it, then that’s fine – it is only my opinion :)

Springnuts (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Springnuts (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That strikes me as a fine compromise, to leave the map in the article and annotate it in the caption as incomplete and potentially not entirely correct. Perhaps then someone with better mapmaking skills than mine will notice the caption and update the map, or replace it with a better one. @Thewolfchild:, what do you think? Acceptable? Pogorrhœa (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, sounds fine to me. - wolf 03:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Change made. Woot, consensus! (…but for how long; for! how! long?!) Pogorrhœa (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild the map is sorta incorrect. The emergency service number for the UK is 999. You can also use 112. So since Canada has both numbers that can be used so should the UK. Maybe you could use blue stripes with another color in the UK to show that one of the numbers is 112. Also instead of green you could use blue and yellow stripes to signify 112 and 911 respectively. WeaponizedRose (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the accuracy of the map is best discussed on the commons talk page where the map is held, rather than here. I think the map is probably good enough at the moment for a B-class article but this would need to be improved if the article quality was improved. The map could be improved with more research and the country implementation will change over time. I note the map talks about implementation of ITU Approved telephone numbers. Perhaps the caption needs to be clearer about what ITU Approved actually means. Potential there are other issues I can see just by looking at the introduction, but that is a matter of quality and the article is still only B-class. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of 9-1-1 (Philippines) into 9-1-1

Consensus to not merge. The discussion supports the view that the content of 9-1-1 (Philippines) is sufficiently distinct. (Non-admin closure) Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Better to have all the information about the same telephone number in one article. Aasim (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose merger: article 9-1-1 (Philippines) has sufficient reliable sources to stand on its own. It also contains information about its predecessor, 1-1-7. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merger: We don't have separate articles for 9-1-1 (USA), 9-1-1 (Canada), and 9-1-1 (Mexico); why should the Philippines get different treatment? The info and refs in the separate article can and should be merged into this one; that's what an article merger is. Pogorrhœa (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger: 9-1-1 (Philippines) has substantial content relating to the number's history to stand on its own. Almost the entire history section is composed of the number's history when it was still 117. Just because 9-1-1 for other countries don't exist (and like what Sky Harbor said, don't exist because they are nearly identical systems) doesn't mean that this article shouldn't either. The two 9-1-1 systems are completely different, and the Philippine system is massively different from the American one, which is the focus of this article. Chlod (say hi!) 13:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger I agree with the above statements, just because they share the same number does not mean it makes sense to merge into the same article. As it says on the top "This article is about the North American emergency telephone number." I think that statement makes the point pretty clearly. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger The article for 911 in the Philippines is big enough and ought to be notable enough to stand on its own. Besides they are different telephone numbers because they work in different ways. This is a country and telephone network specific article so it should not be merged across countries nor telephone networks unless they work in the same way and you do not have to discuss differences all the time. We do not need to achieve a global point of view in this article. For a global perspective, Wikipedia has an article called Emergency telephone number and that has a section for 911. In reality this article is just one sub-article of that overall master article. So merging these two articles implies both should be merged into Emergency telephone number. This article only should discuss 911 in the North American Numbering Plan, so if you merge in 9-1-1 (Philippines) it sets a precedent for merging in every other county that uses 911 and ultimately merging in every other article about the emergency number used in any other country too. As we already have that article and it is called Emergency telephone number, this merger is unnecessary. I would suggest one thinks of this article as being called 9-1-1 (North American emergency telephone number) and the other merging article being called 9-1-1 (Philippines emergency telephone number). If these were presented in the article Emergency telephone number as the sub-articles, one for each country, in the by Country section, then I would not mix the two articles up by merging them because that would be confusing. Instead, I would be wanting to separate them apart and turn each into a separate article because there is so much to write about each one. From a New Zealand perspective, the way 911 is treated in our telephone network means a caller hears a recorded message telling them to redial the call using 111. This was technically the same as dialling 999 in the UK, to the telephone network of the time as the same exchange (central office) equipment was used. The only problem was the New Zealand telephone dial had the numbers in the opposite order, so 9 became 1! Since we do not merge the articles about 111 and 999 or even 911 as they are in different countries and have significant histories and different operating protocols why merge North America and the Philippines? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

9-1-1 in Iraq?

Iraq is listed in the closing template as a 9-1-1 system implementer, but there's no discussion in the article. - knoodelhed (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Better explanation of how/why the number was chosen

Don't have a good source for this so I'm not adding it to the article, but it's worth discussing that step-by-step exchanges used special service codes of 11N, whereas crossbar exchanges (found mainly in large cities) used special service codes of N11. XB exchanges were designed to analyze three digits at a time and had their own debouncing circuit, so leading single pulses (1 digits) would get absorbed. The format for special service codes was chosen to avoid conflicts with exchanges (NNX) and area codes (N0X/N1X), which left N11 the only remaining option. RBOCs and independent local telephone companies used a variety of special-service codes, including 112/211 (for the long-distance operator, and later as an access prefix from SxS exchanges to a toll switch), 114/411 (for directory assistance) and 118/811 (for service) but these were not formally standardized. With the move to electronic switching, the old 11N format was retired; this was happening contemporaneously with the introduction of 911 as a national standard emergency number. 2001:470:1F06:CCB:0:0:0:2 (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Kitty Genovese

This paragraph is inconsistent with the sources cited "In 1964, an attack on a woman in New York City, Kitty Genovese, helped to greatly increase the urgency of the effort to create a central emergency number. Genovese had called for help; but no one had called the police. Some experts theorized that one source of reluctance to call police was due to the complexity of doing so; any calls to the police would go to a local precinct, and any response might depend on which individual sergeant or other ranking personnel might handle the call.[12][13][14][15][16]" A brief reading of the sources indicates that the police were called and that none of them say anything about experts theorizing about the complexity of calling the police. They all confirm that the Kitty Genovese case was a impetus for the adoption of 911, however, so im going to change the text to reflect this. I cant get to it today, but this note should act as a reminder and a call for comments, if anyone is interested. Bonewah (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:911_(emergency_telephone_number)/Archive_1&oldid=1217543189"