User:Fabrickator/Edits to Original North American area codes

Edits to Original North American area codes
The issue about the basis of assignment of low-latency area codes is speculative. The fact that there were regional centers, which tended to be in areas of high population cannot provide a definitive basis for what was in the minds of the people who made the actual assignments.

Let's clarify some things: The entirety of your support for the explanation you offer is your own speculaton. You selectively omitted the most contemporary document identified which addresses this issue, the Keevers 1970 memo. It seems that you're annoyed every time you hear the claim about area codes being assigned based on population, which explains why you have been trying to incorporate your objection into this article, in contradiction to to Wikipedia rules about verifiability. Please save us the trouble and remove the offending content yourself. Thank you. Fabrickator (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Those who suggest that assignment was based on population are not necessarily claiming that population was the sole basis for such assignments.
 * Thus, assignment based on population is not mutually exclusive with assignment of preferntial area codes to regional centers.
 * Implicitly related to population is traffic, at the then-current stage as well as any basis for forecasting future traffic levels.
 * To the extent that assignments would have been based on population, they would have been based on the total population of the area. Forecasts of future population/traffic could also explain assignments that otherwise seem anomalous.  thus, though Dallas ranked 22nd city in 1950 population, but adding in the population of Fort Worth moves it up to come in just after San Francisco.
 * Everything in the article is verifiable. The article states facts, including the click theory with references. Do you not want the click theory mentioned because it is speculative, per *your* explanation here. The article contains references that supports the claim. It also contains the Keevers memo, stating that it agrees with that theory. The POV and bias is entirely yours, provide some reliable contemporary references for whatever you want to change, but as I know the subject area objectively, there are NONE. I challenge you to provide reliable references, not anecdotal blogs and shit-chat decades later. The article presents both arguments. That is all anyone can ask for. Provide reliable references for your population ideas. The article also represents population aspects, but only where it matters, as traffic is indeed related to population. You have no argument and no references. kbrose (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You offer theories and/or evidence in support of your position, but I didn't see the conclusion that you reached in any of the sources provided. Did I miss it? Fabrickator (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. The article presents nothing but facts and references. The article does not pose a question (e.g. Is the click theory true or false?) to be answered, nor any conclusion. It presents the information in historical context that is relevant. Some kind of conclusion is obviously in your mind, but frankly it is not clear anymore what you are concluding. You seem to be an ardent fan of clicks, but have insisted on removing that conspiracy from the article, while the existence of it is even provided by a substantial article in The Atlantic. in the larger context, WP also has articles on Qanon, but this is not challenged on the grounds that the ideas are speculative, nonsense in fact.  This article lays out the design goals and technical environment according to original reports, For anyone who follows along it becomes clear that there are no indications of click theory ideas at the time, and it is proper to state this fact. This is not an intellectual inference or construction, but comes from preponderance of evidence and lack of technical basis and description of it. We do not need a paper with a statement that this was not a goal, just as we do not need a citation from Q that their assertions are nonsense. Falsities are never dispelled in advance, unless they are a credible alternative to consider. If clicks had been a credible idea, these engineers and scientists who developed complex models of traffic flow, routing, and switching, would have reflected on the idea,  just as they considered the choice of two- vs. three-digit area codes, or described in sometimes excruciating detail some of the routing decisions to be implemented, and the technical means still to be developed, even estimated the cost of implementation on state-basis. Of course population aspects are considered because that decides the number of central office an NPA needs, and the traffic routes needed for tributaries and backhaul. This was all studied in detail and frankly took years and years to complete across the nation, long after the first area codes had been ascertained. Even the Keevers memo does not provide strong support of 'clicks', and no reference to technical details or studies, only to mention that fast codes were assigned to some larger places, which is in fact in agreement with some of the Regional Center locations. This article also does not even critique the historical conflicts/inaccuracies of the memo, which are clear based on the references provided therein. I am not here to document my opinion about the volume of documentation. The article only presents a balance of information that lets the reader draw conclusions to question they may have pondered in private. Again, please provide contemporary references for your critique. FWIIW, I have not nearly exhausted my collection and knowledge of references on direct and related matters. kbrose (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)