Jump to content

Talk:Global Guardian

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

I took some of these links from an article, 'Execution of the September 11, 2001 attacks' by User:Ghost of Jefferson. The article itself, I think, lacks focus and is currently considered for deletion. However, I thought the links on Vigilant Guardian deserved preserving. By the way, that article also alludes to two further interesting exercises which may have taken place that day: 'Global Guardian', mentioned in an Omaha World Herald, article mirrored, and 'Northern Vigilance', mentioned in an a Toronto Star article, mirrored here. As I say, both are very interesting, but I know nothing of these publications, these are only single sources, and are only mirrors of these sources. Pending harder information, I thought I'd make a note here in the Talk page in case anyone was interested. - Crosbie

"What some consider to be 9//1 conspiracy theories is an example of "weasel words". If wikipedia classifies them as conspiracy theories (which does not prima facie make a claim to their being false) the "some consider" is unnecessary and against policy. - 216.207.246.230 01:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tag

[edit]

You are missing the point here. Just because the exercise is related somehow to 9/11, doesn't mean the entire article should become a redirect to United States military exercises scheduled for September 11, 2001. As a major, annual exercise, it deserves its own article. You can link to the other article, you can mention Global Guardian in the other article, you can mention whatever connection to 9/11 there is in this aticle. But the point is, it needs to be maintained as a seperate article also. As far as the WPMILHIST, I am one of the assistant coordinators; I don't think you will find any difference in opinion there either.--Nobunaga24 05:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I'm not sure if I'll have a time for that, if you would kindly share the location where I may suggest for this to be done with some sort of priority? Thanks. Lovelight 05:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think actually right now, it covers it pretty well - most of the article seems to be about a 9/11 connection. As far as being bumped up on the priority list, most members edit articles they have an interest in. You might want to ask someone on the aviation task force, or even join that group. Air Force stuff is not my forte.--Nobunaga24 05:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you got me;), since your observations are in line with my own.., so do you think that it would be prudent to leave that tag after all? I'll certainly strive to look into all this, but there is so much to do… Lovelight 05:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tag isn't necessary. You can expand both articles, but there is more to Global Guardian than a 9/11 connection. Just as the 9/11 attacks were the defining event for the World Tade Center, there is still a seperate article on the towers, and one on the attacks.--Nobunaga24 05:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, thanks for sharing your thoughts, I hope someone will pick this up, if not, I'll go to the Top Guns… and hear their take on all this. Cheers. Lovelight 05:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands this article should probably be merged, the bulk of the content is related to 9/11 although that content could do with slimming down. It's pretty verbose and doesn't need all the quotations, just a precis.
the issues about exercise and real world overlap should be discussed in the appropiate article and this isn't it.
Given the current level of information about the exercise itself I'd support a merge, however if information can be found from something reliable, and tbh globalsecurity.org is not, such as when the first one was, frequency, scenarios used etc then it might justify growing into more than a stub.
ALR 12:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please clarify

[edit]

I am new to this article, please help. I quote:

The actual information about the war games on september 11th may be different from the 911 commision's report.

Could someone please define: The actual information? Which, what, where, in what respect?
Thx. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a contentless statement. The user who added that also destroyed the article formatting. I reverted the whole lot back to February when these changes were made. - Crosbiesmith 20:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War over 9/11 alternative theories

[edit]

Looks like Arthur Rubin wins his edit war for the day, as the 3RR rule intervenes. But since the Global Guardian program figures highly into 9/11 alternative theories -- indeed, since it is the cornerstone of the very most high-profile theories -- it should be mentioned in the article here or at least linked as a related topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.81.74 (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The part of the article that is relevant to 9/11 is and should be only in United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001, or split off into a separate article on the 2001 instance of Global Guardian. I added the appropriate (not 9/11 alternative theories) #See also to that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global Guardian. 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) 02:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Global Guardian. 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) 14:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_Guardian&oldid=1211868572"