Talk:Amateur radio/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archived talk. Post new Talk at the parent site: Talk:Amateur_radio

Origin of term Ham?

Why do they call it ham radio? Why ham? Someone should explain that. KirbyMeister 23:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How's this?

== Etymology of "Ham Radio" ==

The origin of the term "ham" is unclear,

A popular urban legend attributing it to Harvard students (including Albert Hyman, inventor of an early pacemaker 1) is debunked in this article by the Harvard Wireless club

The ARRL's explanation attributes it to being a term from telegraphy for an incompetent operator

A few other theories here

Hobart 16:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to the Pejorative page, Ham was originally a perjorative term. But beyond that I know not. Anonymous 00:17, 17 Dec 2005 (AEDST)

That's very misleading as the origin of the word ham has been lost. You can't say it was originally expressing contempt or disapproval. It may have, but we really don't know. There have been many legends as to the meaning of the word and it's origin all of which have been debunked. HAM may just be a shortened form of the word AMATEUR itself. I don't know, and in my investigations no one else does either. Does anyone have a real source on any of this? I am not convinced by the ARRL that it evolved out of G. M. Dodge's definition. Anonym1ty 16:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just for fun... According to CQ India, "HAM stands for The first letter of 3 pioneers in the field of Radio communication viz., Hertz Armstrong and Marconi". Maybe sometime we can write a whole article on the legends surrounding the term. Anonym1ty 17:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Etymology_of_ham_radio Anonym1ty 18:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Amateur Radio in Popular Culture

Most of the discussion that purely involved movies, etc, was moved to Talk:Amateur radio in popular culture

Where can we find Amateur Radio in popular culture today? Well we all know ad nauseum that we can find it in TV and movies. We can also find it in Music. Such as RUSH's song YYZ and a Group called "The Ham Band".

What might be more interesting is something about how and why these little bits of ham radio end up in our popular culture. Minor references are all around us if we happen to see or hear them. I have seen episodes of Jeopardy where i could faintly hear morse code in the background sound track.

When on the 2005 QCWA convention I listend to Chip, K7JA discuss how he ended up on the Tonight show sending morse code against some text messengers - In this case the interesting point here is that many of the staff at the Tonight Show are hams.

What about some of the experts brought into your local news broadcasts? Many times there is something related to Amateur Radio and you will find HAMs on TV or (BC) Radio talking about something.

Other hobbies too... Remote Control planes, cars, boats etc. seem to be very popular and a place where people are exposed to Amateur Radio. Same thing for model rocketry, SWL and Weather aficionados. Computer Networking is an other place you see regular people being exposed to amateur radio.

Where have you found Amateur Radio?

Anonym1ty 22:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I do believe Amateur Radio is essentially a grouping of 40,000 different hobbies with a common thread. I think that because of the scope of ham radio, a larger article is warranted. That being said, some of the aspects of Amateur radio in this article, should be farmed out to articles in their own right. We can then keep to an overview of Amateur Radio in this article and include the appropriate links. I will take a look at the new article...Anonym1ty 14:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

All true. I've already tripped across some other articles (via Category:Amateur radio and want to make sure they are properly represented here. I think that's the right track - 30,000-foot (about 9144 m) view here, separate articles for the details. Let us know when you're done!!  :-) --N5UWY/9 - plaws 00:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I don't know if I can tell you when *I* will be done. This will be a collaborative effort of many of us to complete successfully I think. We'll all just have to take little bites.. report here on which section went where... then we can check up on the work and keep each other honest :) I have actually made pages on my clubs that were once listed here... But i haven't included a link in this section as it is not appropriate, but should we start a club page, then I will put it there. But I think we are getting a good working outline of how we want to present this stuff, I wouldn't mind hearing from any others, if someone has a good idea let us know so we can all try to work towards the same end! As for the Amateur radio in popular culture I am still trying to formulate the best way to put in my tid-bits. Anonym1ty 19:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

My Two Cents

Quite noticeably the entire article is very POV, but is that a big deal on wikipedia because this is a hobby? Furthermore, something should be said about the telecommunication industry's and the ham's main problem: Broadband over Power Lines which creates massive interference in the ham bands.Theloniouszen 11:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely on the POV situation. Despite the up-beat tone of this article, there is a great deal of technological stagnation in amateur radio, and in many areas highly sought-after bands are grossly underutilized. In fact, ignoring a few refinements here and there, amateur radio does not seem to have evolved much since about 1978. (Compare packet radio to Wi-Fi to get a sense of what I mean. And yes, I am a licensed amateur myself.)

I'm not motivated to start an edit war over this but I do think Wikipedia deserves a more illuminating treatment of the subject.

Simon 19:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you think Amateur Radio has stagnated, you've got your eyes closed. Software Defined Radio is being experimented with by hams, and that's pretty bleeding edge. Hams still hold the lead in satelite experimentation. Those are just two areas. --ssd 04:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair points, but my perception is that only a tiny portion of the amateur radio community is involved in the "bleeding edge" experimentation you describe (which is significant because it is a revolutionary shift from the hobby's earlier days). Nowadays, few amateurs seem aware of advances in radio technology until it becomes an object of mass production by Kenwood, Yaesu, et al. This is not an indictment of these operators; at the same it does not constitute "a unique research and development environment", the actions of a few exceptional individuals notwithstanding. I believe a more balanced article would reflect this.

To make the article more NPOV, I would suggest it detail both the nature of the pressures on amateur radio from industry and, as fairly as possible, the extent to which industry's claims are valid. This can then be countered with a description of the research and community service currently being performed by amateur radio operators, plus an assessment of the participation in these activities by the amateur community at large. The reader can be left to decide which group has a greater claim to spectrum allocations.

Simon 06:13, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LowFER

Can LowFER be described as special form of amateur radio?

-- swirsky lowFERs are unlicenced, but they're almost always Hams....

Unlicensed in the US, maybe, but not necessarily in other countries. --Plaws 20:48, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

Amateur radio clubs

Do people really think that this article is going to end up listing every regional, local, and specialty radio club in the world???

On that score, even a listing all the world's national associations really ought to be moved to a separate "List of..." page, if we need it at all. Think about how many countries there are in the world...

While we're at it, what happened to the Wikipedia policy of trying to internal-link, before jumping readers straight to external links? I know there's an RSGB stub because I created it for this purpose - whose idea was it to revert all national associations to external links and cut out all the (potential) Wiki pages?

And what are all those find a club near you links about?! This is an encyclopedia, not a "find-a-club" service.

Sorry to rant, but whoever's gone-to-town on this page is not following Wikipedia style or guidelines and it's going to be SO MUCH work to sort it all out. It might be better just to delete all the link-spam and undifferentiated listing that makes up most of this section, and then rebuild what's really needed, in an encyclopedic style, over the course of a few weeks or months. --Nigelj 22:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC), MJ0AQJ

I totally agree, and I just removed the whole section. National ham radio organisations might be put back in, but minor clubs should be on a "List of ..." page, if at all. External links outside of the "External links and references" section is also a bad idea. arj 13:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly - that's why I tried organizing them as I did back in June. Once organized, it's easier to identify what doesn't belong! How about this: List national societies that have Wikipedia articles. I also detest the ever-lengthening movie list - another candidate for deleltion or at least made into a new article. --Plaws 18:24, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

But we are now stuck with an article which doesn't help when someone wants to find out how to become a ham. I do think looking in wikipedia, someone just might actually expect to find that in this article. Granted, zillions of clubs are not helpful, and linking within Wikipedia should be done, but I do think we need a very generic list of major organization is essential.I also agree that any links should go to wikipedia articles on such organizations. I can't see why we would not have listings of the ARRL, RAC, RSGB, DARC and WIA at the very least. Where to draw the line? I don't know! I'd rather have too many than none! Currently, though your heart was in the right place, the removal of all club and organizations arbitrarily was more harmful than helpful. --Anonym1ty 19:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that it was harmful, excactly, but I do think the national societies should be put back, but only those that have a Wikipedia article. And to make room, we can get rid of the silly movie listings! -- N5UWY/9 Plaws 16:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well perhaps a differnt way of presenting information altogther. The Movie listing was neat... for a while but has become overgrown. I don't think movies are entirely the right way to present what should be more a section on "Amateur Radio in Popular Culture" section which could not only include SOME movies or TV shows but other ways the public comes in contact with Ham radio. It should definately not be presented as a list. Perhaps a writeup with one or two examples, more of an article on how Amateur Radio can be found throughout popular culture rather than a list of places to find it. As for the clubs section, Renaming it organizations and resources or something may be in order. I would also like to see the external links section cleaned up a lot, it's a mess too. --Anonym1ty 16:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

What does one do with amateur radio?

I don't really like the section name "What does one do with amateur radio?" I don't like it because it is a question and also because it is cumbersome and akward sounding. I brought it up here because I thought it might be better to have some others' suggestions rather than to just start chaning everything. My suggestion is it may be better as "Avocation, Pursuit & Practices" (or something).

I also feel the section is too big and too detailed. perhaps we should cut down the individual sub sections to a brief description of each with links to related article, much the was as was done with Amateur Radio in Popular Culture.

Your thoughts? Anonym1ty 23:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

So change it.  :-) Previously, it was Use and available activities, so as far as I was concerned, the new one was an improvement!

As far as thinning out the article as a whole, again, go for it! It's about 1/3 longer than the Wikipedia recommended length of 32 kb (see Wikipedia:article size). I started to weed out the table of allocations, but couldn't decide what to name it. --N5UWY/9 - plaws 02:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

International Operation

I see that the International Operation has been greatly expanded. To me, it's far beyond what an encyclopedia ought to be and more of, well, a rule book extract. No matter. It's time (IMHO) to move this into it's own file as had been done with the band plans, pop culture references, etc. Any suggestion for an article name? --N5UWY/9 - plaws 21:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I didn't even notice this in the Talk page before I just moved it. I had been thinking of doing it since October. It is now in Amateur radio international operation -- Anonym1ty 19:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Fabulous! A few more radical wordectomies and we'll start to get this thing in shape. Thanks. --N5UWY/9 - plaws 19:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

We should probably do this with just about everything in the article. Once we whack it all up into little pieces, then we just have to make sure it flows well when reading what's left over in the main article. I was thinking about an article on Amateur radio licensing or something to cover the topics of Amateur radio requirements, responsibilities and how to become a ham. I'm kind of thinking it over because I suspect we could use 3 sections of the main article to make one new article. -- Anonym1ty 20:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Amateur Radio Direction Finding

I've been working on the Amateur Radio Direction Finding article, and would really appreciate peer review and feedback from others with amateur radio expertise. --Kharker 00:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Does everything an encyclopedia is supposed to, IMHO. I'd never heard of ROCA or Fox Oring before. I look forward to your editorial help on Amateur radio --N5UWY/9 - plaws 20:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Television interference

I have recently started a page on the subject of TVI (Television interference), I am a HAM (licensed since 1992) but I would value the input of other hams on this page. I have already described the causes and cures for the most common forms of TV trouble.

Category:Radio modulation modes

I just zapped the whole list of modulation modes. None of those were particularly special, and the most frequently used modulations were not even listed. I made sure that all of them are now in Category:Radio modulation modes, which is already a subcat of Category:Amateur radio. --ssd 15:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Too US Centric

My one criticism of the article is that it is a too US centric. Mind if I do a bit of editing? Gerry Lynch 13:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC) (G0RTN/GI0RTN)

It's a great idea. Be bold. Flawiki 13:33, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've put a limited geographical scope sign up, and I hope to take it down later today. 73 all. Gerry Lynch 18:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You know how it goes - it reflects whoever does the editing. Fire away! --Plaws 22:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC) N5UWY/9

If'n you have more to say, Gerry, go for it. Thank you for your edits. (also in agreement with 5uwy). de n2wx / Flawiki 01:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the notice. Much better now. Thanks to all of you. Gerry Lynch 22:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow - great job Gerry Lynch! What's your call? -- N5UWY/9 Plaws 21:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

G0RTN (Goodfer Nuthin Road To Nowhere), GI0RTN when I'm back home. Gerry Lynch 23:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

New Section: Vintage Radio

Hello to all. I today have added a section under "What can you do" entitled Vintage Radio. Included are two famous hams who directly contribute to the body of the text by virtue of their participation in this facet of the hobby. I envision a reader seeing the "celebrity" nature and imagining they could actually talk with these people, hence their inclusion. I also have uploaded an image of an AM Special Event Station, but am not yet sure I've formatted the page version (at 300px) and the thumbnail that is supposed to get you to the fullsizer. Editing help appreciated if that didn't turn out. If there is a revision that cuts down the size of this overall entry (as discussed here), I would be glad to re-write an introductory paragraph and link it to a more comprehensive version elsewhere. Drop me a line or post it. Tnx es 73 --Paul/WA3VJB 27 Dec 2005

Vintage Radio should be made into an article of it's own. Right now it's just more of a smattering of too much detail on a very specific aspect of Amateur radio. It really shouldn't be so fully detailed as it is within the main Amateur radio article. However, it does have some good information, and could verywell be a good start to a new article. Anonym1ty 23:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

General criticisms

I've been mostly contributing to ham radio-related articles other than this main one. As I'm reading through this atricle, there are a lot of things that should be fixed:

• It's too long for an encyclopedic article. done: 25KB
• There's too much detail that should properly be spread out into other articles. For instance, instead of trying to cover USA-Canada reciprocal licensing agreements in the main amateur radio article, why not have an article about amateur radio licenses that covers those sorts of things? done
• Directly quoting FCC regulations in the lead section of the article is bad form. For one thing, it's US-centric, and for another, it's a level of detail way beyond what the lead section should cover. fixed
• Why is there a "How to Become a Ham" section at all? That seems very promotional and not at all encyclopedic. Coverage of topics like examinations, requirements, etc. should probably be spun off into an article on the amateur radio operator or the amateur radio license. fixed
• "What does one do with amateur radio?" is too casual and also sounds promotional. fixed
• The Past, Present, and Future section is very speculative and doesn't actually address the history of amateur radio at all. A brief description of the history of amateur radio is something that should be included in the main amateur radio article. Some of what is in amateur radio innovations and technology would be appropriate in a history section. fixed
• We need an article on amateur radio satellites. OSCAR and AMSAT already exist, but could use more work, or have a general article on both topics
• There are too many external links of dubious relationship to the main article. For example, a link to the DX Zone web site should properly belong on an article about DXing. fixed
• There are no references or citations. Okay, still have work to do here. Andrewjuren 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd start working on some of these myself, but it's such a daunting task... hi. --Kharker 02:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You know what they say... Be Bold! I can work on this over my Christmas break along with a few other articles I have in mind... see what that produces. Does anyone have any objections? --Martin Osterman 12:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Too long?? Ha! You should have seen it when it still had the band-plans, a list of every movie and TV show that could ever convceivably be twisted to have something to do with ham radio, links to every club in every country in the entire world!!

Seriously, be bold. Hack and slash. I have. The External links section is the most egregious offence, but there are others. I like your idea of starting another article on amateur radio licenses - I look forward to reading it when you're done!! :-)

Some sections, like the one on contesting, can be shortened, IMHO, since there is a whole article on the subject. --N5UWY/9 - plaws 19:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I admit it: I whacked the advertising External Links section. Tired of looking at it. Tired of fixing it every few weeks. User:Mirror Vax whacked most of the categories because, near as I can tell, he likes to do that. I'm going to put them back. --N5UWY/9 - plaws 02:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And ... I took a good whack at the See also section. Feels so good. --N5UWY/9 - plaws 02:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Some suggestions...

Governance and amateur radio societies

should be moved from the beginning of the article. Amateur Radio should be well defined before detailing how its beurocracy works.

How to become a Ham

should be changed to a section on Amateur radio licensing, it needs to cover why there is licensing and what its purpose is and a GENERAL overview of how to become licensed that is useful to anyone around the world. Morse Code requirement subsection would be better in the History section

Privileges of the Amateur

Should be covered under Amateur radio licensing

What does one do with amateur radio?

Should be removed - not the content mind you, but the grouping of the content. This shouldn't be a subsection at all, it is the main article.

Emergency and public service communications

needs to be its own article

DXing, QSL cards and awards

Shorten this please! There is already an article on QSL cards. DXing could be seperated from this too... the rest should be included in the main article on Contesting

Contesting

Do we really need any more than a single paragraph on this and a link to the main article?

Vintage Radio

This should be farmed out to another article. This is way too much detail for a general purose article on ham radio.

VHF, UHF and microwave weak-signal operation

Again, This is way too much detail for a general purose article on ham radio.

Portable Operations

A neat subject, but do we really need it in a GENERAL article about ham radio? could it be made into its own article merged with another?

Past, Present, and future

Amateur radio innovations and technology

These two can be merged and reworked into a history section which is actually needed.

Does any section with a link to another article need anything more than a single paragraph?

These are some suggestions only, I think we shouldn't remove any information, rather we should move it to more appropriate areas. Don't Delete, Make new articles!

-- Anonym1ty 23:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Major Changes and reorganization. Article size cut. New section History Created. Hoping someone might add a few historical things from places other than the US to it.

The Article is smaller now, it can be made smaller. I tried to address some of the many criticisms and hope others will follow my lead.

I did do a lot of cutting, I tried to preserve the intent, however I do not believe I am the only authority and would appreciate a peer review and revisions as needed. Anonym1ty 16:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we still need the advertisement tag on the article? I did a lot of cleaning in hopes of fixing many of the problems with this article. DO we still need the ADVERTISMENT / NPOV tag or can we get rid of it? After all the editing I just did I don't think I am in a postition to stand back and look at the article and and make that decision. I would appreciate someone looking at it and either removing it, or discussing some more problems here. Yes I know I suggested two splits, but that type of clean-up isn't the same as the advertisement tag or the NPOV.Anonym1ty 21:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV The article looks good, except "A good way to get started in amateur radio is to find a club in your area to answer your questions and provide information on getting licensed and then getting on the air. If you are in the U.S., you can find a club near you by going to the American Radio Relay League's Affiliated Club Search page."

This is quite clearly a direct advertisement, because encyclopedias very rarely tell "you" how to contact an organization and join a hobby. Perhaps rewording like "most people enter the hobby by contacting a local amateur radio club" would be more appropriate. Personally, I would like to move this whole section to its own article. Andrewjuren 22:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I just removed it altogether.I also tried making a vintage radio article... then just cleaning up the original section, when I was sone removing the advert links to outside sites and obvious gushing about a particular mode that was not appropriate for a general article with size contrains in an encyclopedia, well it turned into Round Table Discussion Groups Anonym1ty 00:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice cleanup. Did you create a new article on Vintage Radio? I think a little more change would be good, the speaker is not formal enough for an encyclopedia, in the Getting Started section. I have made that change. I think that we can now get rid of the NPOV notice. Andrewjuren 00:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not create a new Vintage Radio article. After cleaning it up it didn't make sense to, however I did write the original author in his talk page asking him to do so, as he requested here on the talk page should it be needed. Anonym1ty 23:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: Original Author contacted me, he will be making a Vintage radio article that stands on its own. Anonym1ty 19:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the Advertisement template to the talk page, as I think the article is now neutral enough not to require it. If there are no objections, I will remove the notice altogether in a week and archive all related talk. Andrewjuren 20:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Consistent terminology

The article would read better if we picked a term and stuck to it. Example: ham radio or amateur radio? Given the articles title, I'd say the latter should be used. Example: "amateur radio operator", "ham radio operator", "amateur", "ham", or "radio amateur". I believe the last is most common outside the USA. So? What's the concensus? -- N5UWY/9 - plaws 21:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Intro

This is a well written article, however, I do have one criticism. The introduction should be shortened. Generally the introduction/lead should give succint overview of the topic which is being discussed in the article. Specifics are usually relegated to the remainder of the article. However, the lead section is currently about seven paragraphs, while the Manual of Style recommends having three or fewer paragraphs. [Guide to writing better articles - lead section] Just a thought. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

See what you think now. I moved the stuff that was clearly license related to the appropriate section and redid some other stuff. I'll work on Amateur_radio#Exams.2C_licences_and_privileges when I get some time. I've been trying to get this article down to about 32k, but that's hard.  :-) --N5UWY/9 - plaws 02:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the opening section is much improved. Well done. --Kth 03:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Licensing Structures

Hello,

I suggest a more succinct discussion of licensing structure worldwide. For example, perhaps there could be a comparative table built along the following concept.

Class    US           UK     France   China     Japan   etc....

1      Technician     ?        ?        ?         ?  

2      General        ?        ?        ?         ?  

3      Extra          ?        ?        ?         ? 

Then, on a separate page discuss the requirements for each class country (Andrewjuren) worldwide. With this change/addition, the existing page could be shortened to a table with details on a linked page.

To me, this sounds like a cool project for someone who knows the topic.

Split article

I think this would be a great way to reduce the size of this article (many agree that it has become too long). Unfortunately, I'm a Canadian Amateur and don't really know the US licensing scheme all that well, but I could certainly write an article on the Canadian system. Comments? Andrewjuren 22:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. In a seperate article, we could explore this subject in far better detail than in the main article on Amateur radio. I do think the general section on licensing that is currently in the main article is good and may only need minor changes, however it would be an impossible goal to try and include so much information in the main article on Amateur radio. If you want to start out the Article on Amateur radio licensing and enter the info for Canadian licensing, I will follow up on the info on Licensing in the United States. I think we should take care how we write this article with the assumption that once we have a few countries licensing requirements, the article will probably need to be split. We should write it in such a way to make splitting it up later a bit easier. We should start out with only one new article, this will help us keep a consistant look & feel accross several articles after we split them.

I think we'll still need a section on Amateur radio licensing in the main article, I don't want to remove too much info either, but of exactly how much should stay and how much should go, I'm unsure. Perhaps we should make the new article at first without removing anything from the main article and see what makes sense to put where.Anonym1ty 16:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Allocations and band plans

Now we need to flesh out the new article. Ideally, it would look at ITU allocations by region, then representative national allocations, and finally national society bandplans. --N5UWY/9 - plaws 21:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ham Radio in space

I would like to suggest mentioning that there exists several amateur radio satellites and that the ISS and Space Shuttle carry amateur radio tranceivers aboard. 146.6.205.149 21:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Roger Banks -- KE5AQD

FCC part 97

In the US, FCC part 97 is the primary source for rules and regulations. ARRL has a nice html formated version here. While this primarily pertains to the US and region 2, it does include the authorized frequency bands for all three regions.

I think this document deserves a mention somewhere prominent in this article. I would have linked it in the governance section, but I didn't see an appropriate place. It would be nice if similar documents for other regions could be found and listed. --ssd 13:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

simplex or half-duplex?

"Most of the modes noted above [FM, SSB, CW, RTTY] rely on the simplex communication mode, that is direct, radio-to-radio communication."

This is not strictly true. The modes are direct and half-duplex. The term "simplex" Simplex_communication is often misused in the radio amateur community. I have reworded this as:

"The modes noted above are typically used in direct, radio-to-radio communication."

Sound reasonable? Andrewjuren 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is written for everyone to become familiar with Amateur radio. Not for Amateur radio operators. It is important to make sure the article is written in such away anyone can understand the concepts included, not just someone who is familiar with the subject matter. GOOD JOB. keep it up. We need to keep revising this article until it makes sense to the reader who may not be familiar with ham radio. Anonym1ty 23:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The term Simplex is a long accepted usage. Calling it half duplex is not consistent with amateur practice. I would still call it simplex for that reason. Those of us who use digital communications protocols are comfortable talking about half-duplex links and simplex communications in different contexts. Kd4ttc 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What's with the Titanic?

There is a quote in the article that with the sinking of the Titanic it wa necessary to regulate radio. Why did a sinking ship beget radio regulation? I read the Titanic article. It seems that the disaster caused a change in radio regulations. Did amateur practice in particular change? Steve Kd4ttc 17:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of this, too. See CQ (call) and CQD. Andrewjuren 18:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Due to the complete lac of any international procedure regarding distress calls, In the US the Radio Act of 1912 was a direct response to the public outcry over the sinking of the RMS Titanic. The Radio Act of 1912 was also the first Establishment of government right to regulate airwaves. It also required all seafaring vessels to maintain 24-hour radio watch and keep in contact with nearby ships and coastal radio stations. And limited all private (read Amateur radio) stations to wavelengths of 200 meters or shorter (1500 kHz or higher). As far as SOS vs CQD. SOS was first adopted in 1905 by Germany, however there was no standard international use. CQD was introduced possibly in 1904 by Marconi. Britain did not adopt SOS, as a matter of fact they adopted T T T in 1914. So in the end the sinking of the RMS Titanic really was an impetus shaping Amateur radio into what it is today.

All of this is in wikipedia, however it is spread over 7 (or more) different articles. Perhaps a little clarification is needed in each. Anonym1ty 19:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

30 MHz or 50 MHz for Morse code requirement question

I thought that Morse code was required to work frequencies below 50 MHz, but now I see references to bands below 30 MHz. I was looking through part 97 rules and couldn't find a definitive stament. Is there a difference between ITU and US rules on this? Kd4ttc 18:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That's because the 30MHz limit wasn't in American law, but international agreement. This had to do with treaties and the ITU, not the FCC. The limit was 30 MHz. The FCC never needed to codify it, rather the FCC license classes were made to comply with the international agreements (The creation of the Tech No-Code License). In the US it doesn't matter if it's below 50 or 30 MHz as there are no ham bands in that range. Now that limit does not apply due to any international agreements, effectively it exists in the United States as all ham licenses that allow for operation under 30 MHz currently require morse proficiency. Anonym1ty 17:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm making a minor edit re Morse and such. Steve Kd4ttc 18:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are we still introducing US-centric content into this article? If this level of detail needs to exist in the encyclopedia at all, it more properly belongs in an article about the amateur radio license --Kharker 23:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this info is appropriate in this article. It's good info, yes... but I think it's really beyond the scope of this article. We have to remember that too much information is a bad thing in one dose. As an encyclopedia, the idea is to give someone the general idea in any particular article, not for any one article to be a single authorataive source on the minutiae ad nauseum. This type of information may be appropriate in a different article, but not this one. This is a general article on Amateur radio. There is an article already on Amateur_radio_licensing_in_the_United_States which would be a far better place for this type of information. Anonym1ty 23:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There was a comment in the article already about morse code and operating below 30 MHz. The article talked about the ITU decision to drop the Morse requirement. I added that the US is in the middle of deciding. My comment was about the US status. I like the idea of having international flavor (especially since I am looking forward to getting on HF when the US goes no-code). When I was reading this article it is about amateur radio, but I don't get a sense that it speaks to an individual about how to become a ham. Do we need a series of articles about getting a ham license with details for each country? Steve Kd4ttc 02:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse what is going to be some thrashing about by myself while I get the hang of the organizational issues on amateur radio on Wikipedia. I just looked at the US licensing article. It will be interesting to see how we can get useful info on why one should want to be a ham and to give some guicance about where to go to do it, and have an encyclopedia article about the general issues. Actually, an interesting set of requirements. Kd4ttc 02:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There was some discussion on this matter several weeks ago, and I believe that the editors agreed that the article read far to much like an advertisment. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. We must remember that, unlike so many website about amateur radio, this is an encyclopedic article, not an ad. Andrewjuren 19:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Citations

A lot of the content here is based on information that can be found in the books listed in the Publications section. Ok, I've looked at other articles... I've read the style guides about citations in Wikipedia, and now I wish I hadn't. If I didn't I would have just done it rather than second guessing what might be the best way to do it. Apparently there is no one agreed on way of doing it for wikipedia. And it depends on a number of things relating to the style of the type of article and the type of source you are citing. I don't have a clue which way is the most appropriate way to do it in this article. What is the best way to cite the sources for this article? Anonym1ty 22:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest using the same citation system used by the Amateur Radio Direction Finding and Contesting articles, which both use m:Cite/Cite.php markup. This seems to be the format that is used in most of the articles that have been accepted recently as Wikipedia Featured Articles.--Kharker 19:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Where do the Amateur radio demographics come from? I have seen the US number and I think It comes from the FCC, I have also seen the Japanese number before, but I have no Idea where the rest of those numbers came from. Looking on the internet for some clue, the only thing I find are sites that are quoting this article. Where did we get those numbers? I believe that I have see at least the US and Japanese numbers are in the "Now You're Talking" book and maybe also the others. If that's true then I don't think it's as of 2004 either. But I am not sure and I can't find my copy right now. I know for certain the 3 million world wide number is in the "Ham Radio for Dummies" book, but I'm not sure if is echoed anywhere else as well. Anonym1ty 21:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Only stats I've seen: http://www.iaru.org/statsum00.html --N5UWY/9 - plaws 15:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Famous Hams

How 'bout a section on Famous Hams, like Barry Goldwater, King Hussein, and Robert Swirsky?

• Could be interesting, but how many thousands of them are there? I bet half of the old school news anchors and DJ's are hams. A surprising number of movie stars are hams. A list could be very large. It might be more interesting to limit it to those famous hams (like Walter Cronkite and King Hussein) who contributed significantly to the hobby. --ssd 06:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• If it's long, put it on a second page -- perhaps add a bit of info such as what each person on the list contributed to the service. --Drakcap 09:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

  My point wasn't so much that the list would be long, as it is that it isn't worth mentioning every famous ham, just the ones who have contributed to the hobby in a notable way. --ssd 02:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Most of the people who have been in space have been hams, including the 1st person in space, Uri Gagarin.

Feargal Sharkey is a 1980s british pop star who is a HAM.

What is his call sign? What has he contributed to the hobby? Without an answer to the first, it is barely worth mentioning on the talk page. Without the second answer, it isn't worth mentioning in the article. --ssd 01:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not know his call sign but I knew some hams who used to chat to him on a regular basis, and his QTH was somewhere in London during the early 1990s. I think that it might be possible to find out who he is with the right web search.Cadmium 09:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The bigger question is "so what?" So what if someone famous was a ham? How does that add value to the article? I can name plenty of "famous hams" and their callsigns (Former King Hussein of Jordan, JY1; former US Senator Barry Goldwater, K7UGA), but what of it? Aside from being able to say "see, important people are hams, too!" what of it? --N5UWY/9 - plaws 16:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think famous hams are important, but your question "How does that add value to the article?" or more properly, "How does that add value to THIS article?" is a very good one. The answer simply is that is doesn't help this article one bit. If someone would like to start an article on famous hams, that would be far more appropriate than cramming all of that content in here. We also need to keep looking at what is already in here that ought to be farmed out to other articles. On the plus side, we have gotten some good articles out of turning sections into full blown articles. It allows us to fully describe things we could never do well enough in a single article. Anonym1ty 17:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

How about just a List of ... type page? --N5UWY/9 - plaws 21:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think a list of famous hams is only useful for purposes of promoting amateur radio; while this is a noble goal, it is one that this article has already been criticized for. I don't think a list of famous hams is appropriate for this article. A list of contributions of famous hams would be very appropriate. King Hussein did contribute significantly (he at least sponsored several satellites), but I am not really aware of his contributions. Walter Cronkite has also contributed significantly, mostly as a ham activist, making several promotional and training videos. Actually, even stuff like this might be better in a separate article. --ssd 19:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Amateur Radio Operators, with a redirect from List of famous hams? (There's now a Category:Amateur radio people.) -Will Beback 10:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A little promotion is not a bad thing. Seeing famous people participate is a great way to promote amateur radio. Wikipedia is helped if it is fun to read. A fun article on a hobby does contribute to the success of Wikipedia. I wouldn't want a glossed over piece of fluff, but there is a place to talk about amateur radio being fun. If a person comes away from this article thinking amateur radio would be a nice hobby to pick up and they got a realistic idea of the sort of fun one can have with amateur radio that is then good promotion. Wikepedia has become such a great source of often accurate information that it may be a place where people come to to find out how to become a ham. Kd4ttc 18:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, promotional information is explicitly against an official policy of Wikipedia. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not some sort of online promotional brochure pushing a particular point of view or agenda.--Kharker 18:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We have many lists of people, by ethnicity, occupation, hobby, crime, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, manner of death, etc. Those lists are not necessarily promoting anything in particular. The category automatically creates a listing, but an article-list has the advantages of being able to annotate entries and being able include people who don't have an article yet. Cheers, -Will Beback 19:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A famous hams list in this article is an EXTREMELY BAD IDEA. I truely understand the point of view you are coming from and yes it does have its merits, however the list would be a wild unruly monster of a mess to keep up. It would be far better to create a wikipedia article on each individual person and then add them to a category. Or Maybe... and I think it's a stretch, put it in the Amateur radio in popular culture article. Anonym1ty 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)