Jump to content

Talk:Search and rescue

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

I've

[edit]

I've deleted "Go away Burns!!!" from the "Search Phases" heading. It seems to have no relevance whatsoever.

SAR PPs

[edit]

Can we add a section about the Federal Aviation Regulation allowing private pilots to participate in SAR operations at the reimbursement of the government? Swatjester 23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness search and rescue=

[edit]

It appears the intent is for "Wilderness search and rescue" in the introduction to link the the Subsection "Wilderness search and rescue" in the United States section. However, I couldn't figure out how to link to a sub section either. DriveBy27 02:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US bias

[edit]

The article is very US-centric. Editors from other countries, PLEASE step in! Una Smith 01:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Territory of Australia

[edit]

I'm pretty sure the NTES (Northern Territory Emergency Services) operate in the NT, and not the AusSAR.

Helicopter

[edit]

This article has countless links to helicopter yet none of them are clickable, whassup with that? TheBlazikenMaster 10:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked the first caption and text instances of helicopter in the article. How is that? - Ahunt 12:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

This article has many whole sections, particularly dealing with national SAR, that have no references at all. These have been paragraph tagged for some time, but few refs have been added as a result. I have managed to hunt down some refs for some sections, but most still are unreferenced. I have added section unref tags to show editors where refs are needed and also to alert readers that the sections are unreferenced and therefore totally unreliable. Editors should note that unreferenced information can be challenged and deleted at any time, so if you are adding text without refs it may be gone quickly. In short refs are required for all information in Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAR in Germany/DGzRS

[edit]

There were severe errors in this section. The article supposes that the German Navy is also generally responsible for SAR services which is wrong. The Navy provides only air support and has an own section of Sea King helicopters for this purpose stationed in Kiel. And there is no such thing as an independent "German Coast Guard", it is simply a coordination center for a several independent civil services. 136.172.253.11 (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norway

[edit]

This article has to be improved as the official Norwegian SAR service is not described. The link below gives information about how the service is organized.

http://www.hovedredningssentralen.no/english/index.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.43.63.150 (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superstition Search and Rescue

[edit]

User:Gurroz just added a link to Superstition Search and Rescue to this article. This is a redlink, meaning that the article does not yet exist. If it were created what would this article be about? - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay in doing some research I think I found an answer to that question. Now someone just has to write the article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers to the Rescue

[edit]

Is this an appropriate inclusion within the broad definition of "Search and Rescue"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.96.254 (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article describes it as: "a humanitarian organization aiming to assist and rescue raft refugees emigrating from Cuba". Due to its political context it is a bit different from other SAR organizations, but it seems to fit the basic definitions of SAR and since it is only a single link in this article without a bunch of text, I don't see a problem with it being here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to spin off some new articles ?

[edit]

Some of the country sections (e.g. Canada and US) are rather large. Would anybody object to moving the details to new articles and replacing the sections by a few paragraphs (without the lists full of redlinks) ? DexDor (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That can be done to Search and rescue in Canada, Search and rescue in the United States, etc, as long as a Template:Main is used in this article to send readers to the new one. - Ahunt (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea but the whole article is a bit of a mess, it is mainly lists of organisations and very little explantion, it may be better just to delete all the "SAR by nation" section as it is unbalanced and tells us little about SAR. But I dont have a problem with seperate national overviews, dont really need main links (for all 125 potential countries that could be Search and rescue in Foo) a cat may better. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just deleting the whole "SAR by nation" section would be a bit drastic - it does contain lots of cited info. Perhaps moving the section to a Search and rescue by nation article or Search and rescue worldwide - like Firefighting worldwide is the answer. DexDor (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that SAR by country should be spun off in to individual articles where sufficient notability exists. This radically improved a number of similar articles including Emergency medical services and police car by getting rid of huge lists of information and splitting by country (like Emergency medical services in the United States and Police vehicles in the United Kingdom) whilst avoiding throwing away notable and verifiable materials. This is in line with the Wikipedia daughter article policy and some of the daughter articles are now good in their own right. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 06:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've split off most of the USA section - perhaps someone with more knowledge about it could check that I've left the most important bits in this article. DexDor (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a couple of small tweaks, but otherwise it looks just fine to me. Thanks for doing that. - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Available

[edit]

RAF seaside rescue

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/glossary/combat-search-and-rescue.html
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Search and rescue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 01:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Search and rescue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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 00:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref was broken, so I fixed it with another version from a later Archive.org copy. - Ahunt (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Search and rescue. 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) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drone SAR

[edit]

I would like to see about adding our S.W.A.R.M. Drone SAR unit to this Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dronerangerpro (talk • contribs) 16:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be covered in a reliable secondary source that it is somehow noteworthy of a mention. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed separate article on sea rescue

[edit]

I propose that content on rescue at sea should be split into a separate page called either sea rescue or maritime search and rescue, drawing from other pages. Although the summary on this page would be unchanged, a lot of content in the rest of the article would move over. The reason is that sea rescue is a broad topic that deserves an article on its own, just like cave rescue and mountain rescue. Existing articles on lifeboat (rescue), air-sea rescue and coastguard are too specific to provide an international overview on the subject.

This is an odd situation for a number of reasons. I created a separate article on maritime search and rescue last October. Another user immediately proposed merging it with air-sea rescue. There was a 2-1 majority in favour of a merge and the discussion stalled. Later that month, I expanded the article and added a significant amount of referenced content. The article was quiet for a while until last month, when another user called consensus and replaced the article with a redirect. There was some content on that article that has been lost in the process, including an overview history of sea rescue and a section on international responsibility. I will probably move it to this article if an article on sea rescue is not reinstated.

I realise that this proposal could be seen as overturning a consensus and that this should never be taken lightly. But it was only a 2-1 majority, and the original complaints about the article (mainly that the article lacked sources) had been answered by the time the article was removed. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start a bigger conversation on this whole family of articles and come up with how to organize them and identify any gaps. At the top we have Search and Rescue and then cave rescue and mountain rescue,lifeboat (rescue), air-sea rescue, Search and rescue dog, Urban search and rescue, Combat search and rescue International Search and Rescue Advisory Group, Search and rescue in the United States and RAF Search and Rescue Force, plus everything in Category:Rescue. How do we organize all this? - Ahunt (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "search and rescue" is that it can encompass so many very different types of specialist rescue. It could be anywhere from far out to sea to high up a mountain to deep under the ground. I would favour condensing this article into an overview of the different types of search and rescue. The "By nation" sections could even go altogether. It would make more sense to have a page where you can compare how Australia and Canada organize and conduct urban search and rescue, than to have a disorganized section that tries to combine the duties of the Canadian military with the activities of Canadian local voluntary groups. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about removing the link to the maritime-sar-redirect to S&R in the mean time? That's just pointless. Y's sinc, --G-41614 (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we really need a SAR nav box to link all the articles. I am happy to make one up and put it in, but I think it might be helpful to indicate which articles could be merged or split first, or perhso the nav box should come first and adjusted as we go? - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at it, the more haphazard the way rescue topics seem to be. Is it time to merge rescue with search and rescue, even? Although if we did, it would be necessary to keep the page for disambiguation and perhaps to cover topics such as military SAR units. This is how I see the topic being best organised:

Anywikiuser (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is very haphazard, which I why I think we need to come up with some organization as a first step. - Ahunt (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here are my proposals: Have Rescue as the article on the overarching topic of methods of searching and rescuing. Rename this page to "Military search and rescue unit" and migrate any other content to the "rescue" article. Restore the "maritime search and rescue" article with the new name "sea rescue". Anywikiuser (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Low flying

[edit]

I had added Category:Low flying, but someone reverted me. My thinking was that search and rescue is an application that involves planes or helicopters flying at lower than normal heights. Is there a more specific article on aerial search and rescue that could be included in that category instead?--Srleffler (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. I'm a retired military SAR pilot and searchmaster. SAR does not involve any more low flying than any other type of aviation does and less than many types of flying, in fact most SAR is conducted at relatively high altitudes. Electrical searches are done at high altitudes and routine visual searches typically at 1000-2000 feet, which is a normal flight altitude for light aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks for your insight on this.--Srleffler (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SAR in France : Cross

[edit]

Hello. I can see in the english version of Wikipedia, that the Search And Rescue article ignores the main component of SAR in France (marine SAR), that is the CROSS organisation (Centres régionaux opérationnels de surveillance et de sauvetage ). This article refers only to the SNSM, a non-profit organisation specialised on the rescue operations by life-boats. So I propose : To create by traduction from french version an article on the CROSS system, referring to the french version. To update the links in this article to english sources each time it is possible. To use french links otherwise if the quality of the article requires to. To insert in the Search and Rescue article un abstract on the Cross system of about 12 lines and link it to the new article. To insert a link in the Rescue Coordination Centre article to the new article as well. Well that's all, fellows. Your advice is needed. Best regards. PS. English is NOT my mother tongue, so please I apologise for errors and possible misunderstanding. --Moinolitto (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note here. No problem, your written English is fine, quite understandable. One of us can always tune up your additions in English, if needed. Adding references in any language is fine, we can usually read them with machine translation. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SAR in northern Cyprus

[edit]
CLOSED
user blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user

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.

Significant cited content should not be cut without establishing a consensus to do so. Editors who wish to may discuss their proposals here and seek that consensus. Decisions should be made on the reliability of the cited sources, per WP:RS, and not on personal political opinion, per WP:NPOV. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said this to the other user, ill basically say what had been written there, in the page it clearly states "International Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG) is a UN organization that promotes the exchange of information between national urban search and rescue organizations. The duty to render assistance is covered by Article 98 of the UNCLOS.", UNCLOS is something neither Turkey nor the de facto Northern Cyprus have signed [1] (Turkey because it chooses not to. NC because it isn't even recognized to do so), that aside, UNCLOS is the law which in essence defines the law of the territorial sea.[2] [3] I have already stated that Turkey and Northern Cyprus have not signed so I wont go into that part any further. Having said that, the only legal and recognized authority that can conduct search and rescue operations within Cyprus and its FIR, are the Republic of Cyprus authorities themselves as also stated in the mission of the JRCC itself [4] "The mission of JRCC is to coordinate, control and direct the SAR operations, aiming the timely detection and rescue of persons in distress as a result of air or naval accidents, within its Search and Rescue Region of responsibility, which coincides with Nicosia FIR."
Whether Northern Cyprus has the capabilities to do search and rescue operations itself is irrelevant as it is not a legally recognized body (By Cyprus or the UN), nor is it a signatory of the UNCLOS agreement, thus, it should not be there. And yes, since youre putting Northern Cyprus into the Cyprus category, politics can be very much included, even without, with the same logic you applied there, youll see that even the taliban and to some extent isis, also has the capabilities to do search and rescue operations, I dont see them on the search and rescue page (And rightly so), adding de facto Northern Cyprus just opens up a whole new (And legal), can of beans and to be quite honest, as you are in essence, adding a separatist state to Cypriot Search and Rescue bodies. Manemjeff (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXI-6&chapter=21&Temp=mtdsg3&clang=_en
  2. ^ https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm
  3. ^ https://www.iucn.org/theme/marine-and-polar/our-work/international-ocean-governance/unclos
  4. ^ http://www.mod.gov.cy/mod/CJRCC.nsf/cjrcc01_en/cjrcc01_en?OpenDocument
You are wrong to say that, on Wikipedia, "Whether Northern Cyprus has the capabilities to do search and rescue operations itself is irrelevant as it is not a legally recognized body". Quite the opposite. This is an encyclopedia article not a legal document. What matters here is not legal niceties but giving due weight to verifiable facts from reliable sources - see for example our WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:RS policies. Yes I mean that, read our policies, don't try to bypass them or they will bypass you. Note in particular that "...in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". By all means add material about the international law bit, but don't cut valid content just because you don't like it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the participation here, but I think we can close this off as User:Manemjeff is a WP:sockpuppet of banned User:Cypriot Chauvinist, whose whole cause célèbre here was eliminating any mentions of North Cyprus and has also been blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cypriot Chauvinist for more information and espacially Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cypriot Chauvinist/Archive. I'll close this but leave it accessible in case a new pair of socks arrive. - Ahunt (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Editorial value judgements

[edit]

I have restored a couple of recently-cut citation tags and expanded them to explain why; terms such "most" and "often" are value judgements and we do not normally allow our editors to make such calls. While they appear to be correct, they are not necessarily so to the reader new to the subject. I think it would be better to either find suitable sources or to rephrase the content using more neutral words such as "may" or "can". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have altered them to use more neutral or at least use more "defensible" words. I don't think you will find a ref that supports these statements, other than perhaps using a large number of national examples to create a sort of "preponderance of evidence". I think these two general statements are acceptable now, uncited under WP:BLUESKY, but if refs are insisted upon then it would be best to just remove the two paragraphs as uncitable. - Ahunt (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and thank you for the edit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you thought that was helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory

[edit]

This article principally comprises lists of SAR organisations by country. Per WP:NOTADIRECTORY, does all this detail really belong here? Would it be better to summarise the main aspects of the activity and leave national details for national articles - either standalone articles such as Canada's or short sections in more general aviation articles for the smaller countries? A navbox could be templated for the terminally list-addicted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably a good way to go with this article, but on the caveat that the "see also" section should not end up as a list of links to every SAR organization that we have articles on, as it would dwarf the article and just duplicate what we have now. If that list is deemed needed then perhaps a SAR organizations nav box would be the way to go? - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Search_and_rescue&oldid=1222280987"