Talk:Amateur Radio Emergency Service

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)

Article appears to be American only, ARES does exist in other countries as well, I know Canada uses the same acronym... Green1 05:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Assessment

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)

Memoranda of Understanding

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)

Building the web

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)

While the DRATS usage during thunderstorm damage may be historical to DSTAR, it is not historical to ARES. Its a small activation, and activations of this scale happen many times a week. Here in Michigan such activations happened early this morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.44.231 (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

To the fellow from Michigan

Well I'm not surprised by your use of the vandalism template. That was, like your removal of content from the ARES article, inappropriate.

There's two things that we're in disagreement about here. The first is the link to the D-STAR article. That article has content that is directly related to the ARES article and there is no valid reason that it shouldn't be linked. In fact, as the ARES article develops, there's a good chance that a discussion of modes used will begin to be included.

The other thing is the Indonesia earthquake item. Your statement that that location does not fall under the "jurisdiction" of ARES is a bit misguided. ARES does not have a limit on the areas covered. There was a source included in the text that I added on that particular event that was from a QST article. The discussion in that article was labeling the operations there that were being performed by amateur radio operators as ARES activity. All that's going on here is that those folks are using the ARES label, and that's fine. Verifiability is the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia and we certainly met that requirement with the source that I included. Dawnseeker2000 15:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems general consensus is that me removing the DRATS/DSTAR link was appropriate. See section 'Dawnseeker2000' for more details.

As ARES is only serving the area of USA and Canada the Indonesia's earthquake would better serve to be linked to Amateur_radio_emergency_communications 97.92.44.231 (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dispute about adding the D-RATS link

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)

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)

• D-RATS Brochure

• DSTAR is a proprietary and pretty much unused technology in emergency communications. Only one manufacturer supports DSTAR equipment, and it is not a widely accepted technology. FM Voice, HF Phone and CW technologies are more widely accepted and commonly used in ARES activations and I dont think FM Voice, HF Phone and CW should be linked to in this article because white it is something that ARES uses, it is still not relevant to the article. emcomm operators use a massive amount of tools which if we listed them all would make this article unreadable. Why should a technology that is rarely used and not widely accepted by linked to when other more commonly used, more widely available and more widely accepted are not? 97.92.44.231 (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

Zach, That's absurd. Wikipedia needs to be up to date and not having items mentioned like D-RATS and Winlink is doing a disservice to the readers. Dawnseeker2000 01:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

A mention of the application(s) would not constitute an undue weight violation. Dawnseeker2000 01:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Then feel free to to mention the application on the DSTAR page. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dawnseeker2000

I've reported this user for war editing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dawnseeker2000_reported_by_.5B.5BUser:97.92.44.231_.28talk.29_21:38.2C_8_June_2010_.28UTC.29.5D.5D_.28Result:_.29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.44.231 (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Article fully protected for 3 days

I have fully protected the article for 3 days to end the edit warring.

Dawnseeker2000, you need to explain why the protocol is relevant to ARES given its proprietary nature and very low US market penetration.

IP editor, you need to put a bit more effort into discussions here on the talk page.

Thank you both. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well this isn't about the D-STAR protocol. It's more about the D-RATS communication tool that is built on top of (and that depends on) the D-STAR protocol. A look at the D-RATS article, especially the D-RATS section, will show the link between that emergency communication software has with the Amateur Radio Emergency Service. It's being developed by an ARES member. That is essentially it.

I think I have shown how the two are related. Look at the brochure that's linked. The ip editor hasn't shown why the link shouldn't be present. Dawnseeker2000 22:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't that there's no sign of connection, I agree there is. I'm not sure that there's enough connection and significance to rate putting in a link. We need to have some evidence that the software and protocol are becoming a noticeably significant part of ARES operations to justify putting in an internal link to it.

Many thousands of articles might be related in some way where we could logically draw a connection and link; the links we put in place should be to especially notable and important connected ideas.

If the software is a tiny tiny part of ARES in the US, then there's not a good argument for linking.

All of this IMHO, of course.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree and just pointed out in above section 97.92.44.231 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We're constructing an article here and are looking to build content. There is this tool that relates to this emergency service. There are sources. [1] [2] I cannot understand why there is resistance to building the article. If someone were to start a section on methods of the ARES or how they go about their business, it would be lacking without a mention of D-STAR/D-RATS. I dunno, I'm a little confused about this. A person should not have to quarrel in order to build an article. I'm merely doing to this article what I did to the D-STAR article. Here's the before and after. That article improved a bit in terms of sources and quality content. Dawnseeker2000 22:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How would linking to a widely unused and unaccepted technology in ARES improve the content of this article? 97.92.44.231 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There are not many thousands of articles that are related in this way. Dawnseeker2000 22:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There very easily could be. DSTAR is not a significant technology to ARES 97.92.44.231 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

D-STAR/D-RATS is at the forefront of ARES ability. Dawnseeker2000 01:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

DSTAR is still just an emerging technology not widely used, accepted or produced. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There's also our policy on adding undue weight to minor topics.

Dawnseeker2000, if you can demonstrate some adoption of DSTAR/DRATS by ARES groups then that would go a long ways towards justifying the link. Even if a source is a wiki or blog or web page that might not meet our reliable source criteria, it would at least give us a presumably factual basis on which to identify that the technology is relevant to ARES today.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Self Published Sources

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)

I added at least two independent sources. Lots of use for them yet. Dawnseeker2000 01:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Source that shows the use of D-RATS/D-STAR

Dawnseeker2000, if you can demonstrate some adoption of DSTAR/DRATS by ARES groups then that would go a long ways towards justifying the link. Even if a source is a wiki or blog or web page that might not meet our reliable source criteria, it would at least give us a presumably factual basis on which to identify that the technology is relevant to ARES today.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(I copied the request from it's original location to help keep the new discussion clear.)

Yes of course. I have added content to the D-STAR article using a variety of sources. One of them is this one. It's a QST article that is written by the developer of the software. It describes the use of D-STAR/D-RATS during the Great Coastal Gale of 2007, a series of storms that crippled the 911 systems here in the northwest. The article has described how government agencies in this region are investing in D-STAR equipment.

QST article on D-RATS

It should be pointed out that ARRL operated publications such as the QST article quoted above may not be a reliable source on this topic as Icom Incorporated not only purchases substantial advertising in their publications but is a sponsor of the organization itself. This can be verified by looking at the top right of the ARRL website[3]. Icom is the sole manufacturer of proprietary DSTAR equipment. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god. You didn't just say that. QST is absolutely a reliable source here. You have got to be kidding me. Why are you saying these things? It's unbelievable. Dude, I can't do this with you any more. You're not making any sense. Dawnseeker2000 02:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not mentioning this technology and other digital technologies like Winlink is making this article not up to date. Dawnseeker2000 18:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a list of ARES group web pages and other miscellaneous pages that can help show that D-STAR/D-RATS is being used. There's a good amount of information in these web pages that indicates ARES folks are training their users on D-STAR/D-RATS. There's details from Florida and Alabama. Dawnseeker2000 23:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Still does not meet requirments of admission due to undue weight. I quote:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.'.

ARES use of DSTAR/Drats is extremely limited and minor. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that you're misunderstanding more than a few of the guidelines here. Undue weight is not a principle that applies in this situation. I'm sorry you're confused Zach, but it's apparent that you'll try anything here. I really don't understand what battle it is that you're fighting. Dawnseeker2000 01:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong I quote: Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well look, D-STAR/D-RATS is a technology that's used in ARES. Just as the older modes that were developed last century. A section describing the development of methods used would be a good addition to the article. I know, I know. You'll be prepared for battle. That's what this is to you. For some reason it's like war to you.

Your efforts to fight me on this have been unreal. Labeling me a vandal?! It's all been quite unreasonable. Dawnseeker2000 01:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way. There is no other viewpoint here, so WP:UNDUE isn't a valid argument. It's only when I add the "Technology used" section to the article that you'll be able to bring up "undue", because we'll be talking about the types of modes used. Then D-STAR/D-RATS shouldn't be over-emphasized. That is how "undue weight" will apply. But we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Dawnseeker2000 01:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet again wrong. I quote these things from WP:UNDUE which apply.

• 'discussion of isolated events' - Use of DSTAR is an isolated event.
• 'Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.' - The use of DSTAR is done by a tiny minority and thus should not be represented here. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ehem. ARES groups using D-STAR around the country does not constitute isolated. What is it that you mean? You're so far off track here I'm having difficulty believing that you're really arguing these points. You don't seem to understand what vandalism means here on Wikipedia, so I dunno, I can't absorb your line of thinking. I think that you'll just about say or do anything to get your way here, including baseless ANI reports. Don't you see how you're grasping for straws here? To prevent me from talking about something that ARES groups use? Are you serious? Dawnseeker2000 02:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not grasping at straws, I'm quoting wikipedia policy to you. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think ZacharyLassiter is misconstruing Wikipedia policies. However, in the long run, it really doesn't much as Wikipedia generally seems to favor consensus over policies (e.g. WP:IAR) -- my suggestion would be to list/relist this at WP:3O and / or WP:RfC. I'll restate my opinion, however, that the technology should be mentioned, and if not in the article prose, in an external link. I found many (and listed a few here) links of ARES groups that adopted or held training events for D-RATS. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 16:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

With multiple editors involved, some of whom entered the discussion to give opinions after the dispute was listed at the Third Opinion project this dispute is no longer suitable for WP:3O; let me recommend an WP:RfC or a listing at WP:MEDCAB. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)