Talk:Global Guardian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

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)

[edit] Merge tag

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)