Talk:Operation Yellow Ribbon

Comparing 9/11 with present
Please note that the airport in Montreal was Montréal-Dorval International Airport, not "Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport" when 9/11 happened. Also, please note that the customs agency was Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, not "Canada Border Services Agency." Jean Chrétien was the prime minister of Canada, not Stephen Harper. This article, as well as the links must reflect what it was when 9/11 happened, even though the links may redirect. -- SNIyer12


 * How many times do I have to mention that both the article and the links must reflect 9/11? Users are changing it. I want this article, as well as the links to reflect what it was when 9/11 happened, even though the links may redirect. -- SNIyer12, 02:32, November 28, 2005 (UTC)

-because it is your own policy, not wikipedia policy. Text uses name at the time, but wikipedia policy is that links should go DIRECTLY to article, not redirect --JimWae 03:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do NOT put information that Dorval International Airport is now Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport. That happened in 2004. This article must reflect 9/11. SNIyer12, 02:01, January 23, 2006 (UTC)

Restructure
As a restructuring of the article, how does this sound?

The operation
 * Situation Centre (SitCen)
 * This would include most of the information in the first few paragraphs of the current Operation section.


 * Atlantic flights
 * Most of the information in the present Atlantic Flights section.


 * Pacific flights
 * Most of the information in the present Pacific Flights section.


 * Military involvement
 * Most of the information in the present Incidents Involving the Military section.


 * Reaction
 * Most of the information in the present Release of News section.

Aftermath
 * Totals
 * Most of the information in the present Totals section.


 * Consequences for Canada
 * Most of the information in the present Response and Honours section.

A different name for that last one would be better, but I don't really like "Response and Honours." Other sections were renamed or reordered to make the article easier to follow. Once that is done, the two biggest issues remaining is to just fix up the unity and coherence of the article's contents (the information is there, it just needs to be reworded in some places), and to find some sources for a lot of this information. Ben Babcock 20:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it sounds pretty good. Several sources I have include coverage of 9/11 by both CBC and Global, September 12, 2001 edition of The National Post, and annual reports of airports involved in the operation. Also, please do not change the link or name for Montréal-Dorval International Airport. It was that when 9/11 happened. The same also goes for both Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and the prime minister being Jean Chrétien. We want this article to reflect what it was when 9/11 happened. -- SNIyer12, 13:05, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, please note that pilots were also asked to avoid Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport. It is a major airport in Central Canada. Transport Canada and NavCanada had asked pilots to avoid Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal as a security measure. -- SNIyer12, 19:55, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I'll be restructing the article also. I had to do so, so that NavCanada's role in the operation could also be included. It is listed here. Info about their role can come from that link. Also, please note that Transport Canada activating its SitCen is not part of the operation, that, as well as NavCanada's role are part of the deployment of emergency measures. -- SNIyer12, 14:56 5 Jul, 2005 (UTC)


 * Good, the article is really comprehensive now. I had to rewrite the NavCanada section, however, because I found that the section itself was taken verbatim from the source you provided.  Doing so without quotes is plagiarism.  I reworded the section to paraphrase the content.  Other than that, I think the article is almost finished (as in, ready to become a closed issue, you can continue working on it as you see fit of course). Ben Babcock 6 July 2005 05:37 (UTC)

NavCanada
You might want to create an article about NavCanada. I would like to have the page to link with NavCanada. -- SNIyer12 6 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)
 * It does have a page, at it's proper name: NAV CANADA. I have set up NavCanada as a redirect. Ben Babcock 8 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)

Pacific flights section
Ben, How come you haven't worked on the Pacific flights section? I would like to know because I may have to work on it. -- SNIyer12 15 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

I saw recently that an anonymous user (207.61.25.34) added that a handful of trans-Pacific flights were diverted further inland to Calgary. That user must understand that there were also trans-Atlantic flights, mostly bound for destinations on the U.S. west coast, that were diverted to Calgary, the CBC reported. The user must also understand what both Peter Gregg, communications chief for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA), which runs Lester B. Pearson International Airport said in a news conference, and DeNeen Brown of The Washington Post reported: Planes landed all over Canada, depending where they were coming from, how much fuel they had, and the nearest airport for diversion. SNIyer12 16:24 26 July 2005 (UTC).

I was in Winnipeg at the time and I saw with my own eyes jets from Korea land, the biggest ones. Winnipeg International Airport does have the ability to take the very biggest airplanes. It has one runway long enough and we did take in the big aircraft incoming from the Pacific. Winnipeg also has a maintenance base that takes in every kind of airplane for full overhauls from all around the world. The story is incorrect when it says that pacific inbound planes could only land in Vancouver due to the runway. It may have been an issue of fuel because Winnipeg is in the centre of the continent but it was not runways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjorklund21 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Closed issue
Ben, I'm going to make this article a closed issue. I just had to add some of the information concerning the security at the airports, like the RCMP conducting security inspections of the aircraft. SNIyer12 17:08 26 July 2005 (UTC).

Additional additions
There were other additions I have added since it was a closed issue for the Cleanup Taskforce, like the interview with Chrétien by CNN, the scenes on the planes when the news was broken, and passengers saying that they're glad to be safe, and airports receiving telephone calls during the diversion of flights. SNIyer12 17:44 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Where flights landed in Canada
Please do NOT mention in the Pacific flights section that there were trans-Pacific flights that landed in Calgary and Edmonton. There were trans-Atlantic flights that landed at both airports.

I've mentioned this before, users MUST understand what both Peter Gregg, communications chief for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA), which runs Lester B. Pearson International Airport said in a news conference, and DeNeen Brown of The Washington Post reported: It's not how many flights an airport received, nor was it where the planes landed. It depended on several factors: where it was coming from, how much fuel it had, and the nearest airport for diversion. NAV CANADA also said the same thing. It is also in the article. SNIyer12 15:10 11 February 2006 (UTC).


 * SNIyer12, I'm not sure I understand your request. Previous to your deletion, the article said:  However, a limited number of trans-Pacific flights flew inland to land at Calgary, Edmonton and Whitehorse. Other flights which were still further out over the ocean at the time were diverted to Anchorage, Alaska, and other airports along the North Pacific route, such as Osaka in Japan.  Is that fact incorrect?


 * Also, why have you archived all the comments in the talk page? Discussions leading up to the current revision are useful for those new to the article (like myself), and the talk page was not very long at all.


 * Just curious. Thanks!  --Ds13 17:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ds13, I ordered that deletion because there were trans-Atlantic flights that landed at both Calgary and Edmonton. This article is about what happened in Canada, in terms of flight diversions. You also have to understand that planes landed all over Canada, depending where they were coming from and how much fuel they had. -- SNIyer12, 01:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Military conflict infobox
I have removed Infobox Military Conflict from this article as an irrelevance. How does this article describe a "military conflict"? Also, listing "Combatants: Canada" is silly: there weren't any "combatants". If anyone objects, please discuss it here before putting it back. --RFBailey 18:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LesterBPearsonInternationalAirportSecurity911.jpg
Image:LesterBPearsonInternationalAirportSecurity911.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Flights coming from South America
Any idea what happened to flights coming from South America, did they stop in Mexico, Bahamas?? 206.104.165.162 (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Also did many people perhaps rent a car and drive back to the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.122.171 (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Introduction
The description of "potentially destructive air traffic ...where their destructive potential could be better contained and neutralized" is extremely bizarre. These aircraft were not "potentially destructive", nor was their potential to be "contained and neutralized". Paranoia!

It is truly sad
Demonstrative of the rigidity and patent irrationality of some individual who considers himself or herself to be "contributing" substantively to the project is the recent edit constituted by the removal of a section containing the content of a letter from the U.S. President to the Canadian Prime Minister on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of 9/11. This letter directly spoke to the topic and subject matter of this article; and, there is no article to which the content of the President's letter could possibly be relevant other than the general article on Canada-U.S. bilateral international relations. That point made, the article to which the content of the President's letter is most relevant is this one.

The motivation for the deletion of the section containing the text of the President's letter to the Prime Minister on this occasion and on this subject matter, objectively reasonably, could only have been one of an attempted and irrational vindication of an individual who was more interested in exercising their power of the edit and their own sadly misguided "righteousness" in being able to wield that power, to the extent that they refuse to even recognize the benefits of the extent and diversity comprised in the collectivity of all the individuals who contribute to the project--one who lives in their own little world, attempting essentially to be the sole editor and contributor determining the form and substance of this article (and probably all the articles the form and content of which this person affects) and not supporting the shared goal of maximization of the erudition of this and any article, instead seeking to showcase and grandstand a perverted personal agenda that has neither relevance to, nor avers any benefit of, the project.

This choice on your part, whoever you are, is the product of your patently irrational mind--and I suggest to you that, on the basis of your conduct, and what necessarily must be, and what necessarily cannot be, the motivation for your conduct, you seek psychiatric and psychological counseling immediately, as the power you wielded in deleting the edit, and, even more importantly, in its implications for, and reflection in, your wider interpersonal and interactive existence, does not belong in the hands of an individual who is as disconnected from and unappreciative of the demands of reality as you obviously are. I pity you. Paul63243 (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In general, it's better not to include primary source documents in their entirety. There's another project, Wikisource, for that. Wikipedia is a collaborative project that demands we all assume good faith of each other. Condemning the first person to disagree with you as irrational and power-hungry is not the way to collaborate. Suggesting the editor needs psychiartic care who doesn't see the worth of your addition is unhelpful. Tom Harrison Talk 13:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The difference is you seem to see the "worth of my addition", but simply have a procedural issue. Reversing a relevant edit--for any reason, justified or not--is necessarily demonstrative of a lack of assumption of good faith. However, rules are not made to be broken, they're made to be prudently applied, which is why there are both legislatures and courts, in order to effectively govern. You're saying the material, although relevant, does not belong here for another, collateral, reason. Great. Sounds good. However, there's always some ostensibly reasonable "justification" for reversing a perfectly good-faith and relevant edit, isn't there?


 * I notice you have not obtained an actual image or transcript of the letter, and posted same on Wikisource and placed a link to it in this article, to highlight my profligate disregard for the rules of procedure here, and to advance the article and the project over my ignorant and flagrant obstruction of it in my contribution of the text of the letter to the wrong database. This is analogous to criticizing and disparaging the choice of endnotes over footnotes in a monograph. Academic freedom and advancement of the project ought to be the highest and least-abrogated rule here. Why is it that the highest and least-abrogated rule here is one of self-edification and personal righteousness--and covering it with a veneer of legitimacy constituted by some objectively-reasonable justification cited?


 * Based on what I have witnessed here, on multiple occasions, the likelihood has been demonstrated that if I went to Wikisource to post a transcript or image of the letter, some other editor there would have some other "objectively-reasonable justification" for disallowing it. I contributed the text of the letter; however, you knew and cited the rule--why have you not posted an actual image or transcript of the letter in the other database? Your (1) knowledge of the content of the letter; and, (2) knowledge of and citation of this rule, created a duty in you--a duty which you have breached.


 * You see, as a consequence of this, your citation of this rule--without applying it remedially, which you have not done, in simply reversing the contribution--has accomplished nothing other than to forestall the advancement of this article and, thereby, that of the project. That is, where the contribution is relevant, as it is here, and the fact of its contribution by me is unacceptable, it becomes incumbent upon you to do more than simply to delete my contribution in order to vindicate the rule. That is the difference between a prudent application of the rule and an elemental recognition of its content. Or, alternatively, the letter is (1) not that long; and (2) has a significance that may not extend much beyond the subject matter here or of that of the more general topic of Canada-U.S. binational international relations. Paul63243 (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

more pictures
If possible, could this article include pictures of all planes lined up in canadian airports? I know it's hard to get them but I saw some of them in the airliners.net database and I thought they would show the magnitude of the emergency.

thank you, 93.34.32.18 (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Yellow Ribbon. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015060815/http://canada.usembassy.gov/canada-us-relations/thank-you-canada:-remembering-9/11/9-september-2011:-president-obama-s-letter-to-canada-on-the-10th-anniversary-of-9/11.html to http://canada.usembassy.gov/canada-us-relations/thank-you-canada:-remembering-9/11/9-september-2011:-president-obama-s-letter-to-canada-on-the-10th-anniversary-of-9/11.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.asp?Language=en&Content=ContentDefinitionFiles%5CNewsroom%5CBackgrounders%5C911crisis.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

yellow ribbon name origin
can we include the meaning behind the name?68.150.74.106 (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)