Wikipedia

Talk:NORAD/Archive 2

< Talk:NORAD
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Garuda28 in topic Requested move 19 May 2022
Archive 1 Archive 2

A few words on policy

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've just spent quite a bit of time tidying and formatting this talk page so the threads are a little easier to follow and looking over the article and its history. I'd like to say a few words now to new or returning editors, particularly Mr. Jackson, who feel that this article doesn't deal accurately with the incidents of 9/ll/2001.

Do you think you've uncovered evidence that conclusively shows that the US government was involved in a conspiracy to demolish the World Trade Center? Have you found documents conclusively proving that elements within our government have systematically covered up the truth about what happened on that fateful day?

Congratulations. You're a brilliant investigator. But nobody cares. Now beat it.

If you've really got the goods on what actually happened on 9-11 you'll have to take those goods elsewhere and get them them accepted by multiple, independent, reliable sources before they get on Wikipedia. That's not what we do. That's not how an encyclopedia works. An encyclopedia doesn't lead; it follows. If you've got information that's being kept from the public and has to be exposed, you'll have to find some other way to expose it. We don't do that sort of thing. We're an encyclopedia, not an investigator of political intrigue. Sorry. Toddle-oo. Here's your hat. What's your hurry?

You see, Wikipedia has certain policies like WP:RS, WP:V, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV that determine what gets in our articles and what doesn't and keep us doing what we came here to do.

So it really doesn't matter how conclusively you have worked out with geometric logic that someone had a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox and thats what happened to the strawberries, no one here really wants to hear about it. You're making people tired. You're wasting everyone's time. You're not serving any useful purpose. Your edits will be reverted on sight without discussion. You can't win. You can't break even. You can't get attention.

Bye now. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well put Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Concur! - BilCat (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Dean Jackson, you have been banned for disruptive behavior in opushing your interpretations, not for the intepretations themselves. I can't take you to Arbitration until you've appealed your ban and been restored as an editor in good standing, meaning you've admitted your errors and promised not to do them again. Sorry, and Good bye! - BilCat (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Archives

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Where is the Archive? I clicked on the Archive icon and no archive. Please restore a link to the archive.74.96.4.124 (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Try clicking on the blue "1" after the word "Archives". Please do do not add to/refactor the archives. Your other comments have been removed, as you are a banned user,and not allowed to participate without being re-approved as a user first. You have over 2 years of redundant/repetitive comments in the archives - that should suffice to cover your views. - BilCat (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Dean Jackson, you're a banned user - you have no standing to file complaints against me or anyone else on WP. WP does not exist for you to propogate your own ideas and interpretations. - BilCat (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted Wikipedia and they will be investigating why you refuse to correct the deliberately false material in the September 11, 2001 section.

That you continue to let stand conspiracy theories about 9/11 be propagated and refuse to include the assessment of The 9/11 Commission Report's documentation on NORAD means you are deliberately trying to misinform the reader.

I have also informed Wiki of my repeated attempts to engage you on this matter, the only result being that you delete my entreaties. This is a breach of Wiki policy, for you never once attempted arbitration. You merely deleted my entreaties.74.96.13.139 (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


BilCat,

imagine that? being banned for telling the truth on NORAD. And since that banning I found out that The 9/11 Commission Report too agrees that NORAD watched all aircraft within America airspace:

"NORAD would receive tracking information for the hijacked aircraft either from joint use radar or from the relevant FAA air traffic control facility. Every attempt would be made to have the hijacked aircraft squawk 7500 to help NORAD track it."

"F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center."

"Controllers at NEADS located an unknown primary radar track [Flight 77], but "it kind of faded" over Washington. The time was 9:38.The Pentagon had been struck by American 77 at 9:37:46.The Langley fighters were about 150 miles away."

"NEADS first received a call about United 93 from the military liaison at Cleveland Center at 10:07. Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed [at 10:03], Cleveland passed to NEADS the aircraft's last known latitude and longitude. NEADS was never able to locate United 93 on radar because it was already in the ground."

"NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it."

BilCat, now that you know that I was right all along about NORAD, why don't you do the ethical thing and make an effort to have my banned status cancelled. As you can see, my earlier prose (before I stumbled upon the 9/11 Commission Report's passages on NORAD) wasn't Vandalism after all. It was fact, which I tried to tell you.

Dean Jackson

Washington, DC74.96.13.139 (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Motto

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The NORAD motto is missing from the article, unless another is known, Deter. Detect. Defend. should be added (found in banner) http://www.norad.mil/Home.html 96.51.23.117 (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The following quote under the caption Post-September 11, 2001 attacks has been shown by The 9/11 Commission Report to be false:

"After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NORAD mission evolved to include monitoring of all aircraft flying in the interior of the United States.[5]"

The 9/11 Commission Report says about NORAD's monitoring capabilities over the United States before and on September 11, 2001:

"NORAD would receive tracking information for the hijacked aircraft either from joint use radar or from the relevant FAA air traffic control facility. Every attempt would be made to have the hijacked aircraft squawk 7500 to help NORAD track it."1

"F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center."2

"Controllers at NEADS located an unknown primary radar track [Flight 77], but "it kind of faded" over Washington. The time was 9:38.The Pentagon had been struck by American 77 at 9:37:46.The Langley fighters were about 150 miles away."3

"NEADS first received a call about United 93 from the military liaison at Cleveland Center at 10:07. Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed [at 10:03], Cleveland passed to NEADS the aircraft's last known latitude and longitude. NEADS was never able to locate United 93 on radar because it was already in the ground."4

"NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it."

1. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/911Report.pdf, Page 18. 2. Ibid, Page 20. 3. Ibid, Page 27. 4. Ibid, Page 30. 5. Ibid, Page 28.

Since the Wikipedia editors of this page are obstructive in correcting this page's errors on NORAD's correct air sovereignty mission on September 11, 2001, I'm requesting that a reader of this page kindly update the page with the data provided by The 9/11 Commission Report.173.73.129.172 (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Gross errors in fact

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am a member of NORAD and USNORTHCOM public affairs. I do not have permissions to edit this page, but encourage the administrators to visit NORAD's official web site, www.norad.mil to correct these errors in fact. The North American Aerospace Defense Command is a bi-national command between Canada and the United States. Its missions include: Aerospace Warning, Aerospace Control, and Maritime Warning; “Air Sovereignty” is not a mission and “Defense” is not a mission. Cheyenne Mountain Complex belongs to Air Force Space Command, not NORAD though NORAD and USNORTHCOM are tenant units there and have an alternate command center in the mountain. But the mountain is NOT the main technical facility for NORAD, which has its permanent command center co-located with USNORTHCOM in Building #2 on Peterson AFB. The fact that 21st Space Wing is the owning unit of Peterson AFB and its facilities is irrelevant to this discussion. NORAD or USNORTHCOM are not in the Air Force Chain of command on Peterson AFB. 21st Space Wing manages the installation only but does not have a command relationship with NORAD. Please read the NORAD Fact Sheets located at www.norad.mil to correct these errors and add much more useful information about the command. Mhumphreys 2000 (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your input. As far as WP is concerned, anyone can edit the article -- including you. I understand, though, that your superiors at NORAD might have issues with that.
I've commented out the material you copypasted to this talk page from http://www.norad.mil/about/index.html. It wasn't displayed here because you inserted that URL bracketed between two <ref> tags and without a </ref> tag, which was a usage error for that tag. The lack of a closing </ref> tag caused the material not to be displayed. I would encourage the deletion of the material which I have commented out.
As I have time, I'll try to take a look at the article in light of your comments (I'm too busy at the moment). I encourage other editors to do the same -- perhaps someone else will take a look at this before I get back to it.
I'm not sure twhether or not I would agree with your stated concerns. You say, "“Defense” is not a mission.", cal page says "... with the missions of ..., aerospace control, ...", and "Aerospace control includes ensuring air sovereignty and air defense of the airspace of Canada and the United States."
Anyhow, I'll try to take a look at it when I have more time. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Errors in Canadian NORAD region section

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

441 and 416 Sqn don't exist anymore, they were amalgamated into 409 Sqn a little while back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.155.40 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

History

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The directorate was established 1961, but NORAD was operational 1958 - why one before the other? NORAD was not an "effect of the cold war"! A better description must be possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to suggest "The Ground Truth" by John Farmer as a possible source with reliable history of NORAD for the section designated "Post Cold War" period. This is a crucial period for American History given the significant cuts the agency underwent, in part contributing to the difficulties the US military had responding to "9/11". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.194.56 (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Alainblondin, 26 September 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please replace the following part of the Organization: “The Cheyenne Mountain Directorate serves as a central collection and coordination facility for a worldwide system of sensors designed to provide NORAD with an accurate picture of any aerospace threat.” This is inaccurate. As of May 12th 2008, the Cheyenne Mountain Directorate ceased to exist, the mountain facility has since been serving as the NORAD and USNORTHCOM Alternate Command Center. In addition, since May 2006 the Command Center, now located at Peterson Air Force Base, has also been tracking maritime threats. Recommended replacement text: “The Commander of NORAD and U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) maintains his headquarters and command center at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The NORAD and USNORTHCOM Command Center serves as a central collection and coordination facility for a worldwide system of sensors designed to provide the commander and the leadership of Canada and the U.S. with an accurate picture of any aerospace or maritime threat[1].” Source: http://www.norad.mil/about/index.html. Alainblondin (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  Done -- DQ (t) (e) 05:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

45 degrees s. 51 degrees north

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—208.57.131.112 (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your heading is supposed to mean, but I've emended the coordinates to correspond to the location of NORAD headquarters at Peterson AFB. Deor (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Cheyenne Mountain article discussion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see the Talk:Colorado Springs, Colorado#Cheyenne Mountain (related to Cheyenne Canon) posting about the different Cheyenne Mountain articles.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station / nuclear bunker

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've posted a question at Talk:Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station#Difference between this and Cheyenne Mountain nuclear bunker about the distinction between the Cheyenne Mountain nuclear bunker and the Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station. Any clarification or input there is much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Language

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Who wrote "ANR also maintains the readiness to conduct a continuum of aerospace control missions, which include daily air sovereignty in peacetime, contingency and/or deterrence in time of tension, and active air defense against manned and unmanned air-breathing atmospheric vehicles in times of crisis"? Is it from an official source? It certainly isn't normal English. No one refers to "maintaining the readiness to conduct a continuum" etc!Royalcourtier (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC:New article for 1979 false alarm?

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

The consensus is against separating the section about the 1979 NORAD false alarm incident into a separate article. Editors noted that the current article only discusses the incident in one sentence. Editors noted that there is no prejudice against discussing a split per WP:SPLIT when the article contains more substantial discussion of the incident. Cunard (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The 1979 NORAD false alarm incident led the US to the brink of an all-out nuclear war with the USSR. A similar incident also involving system error, but on the USSR side, was documented as this. Should we separate the section and place it into a separate article? Varxo (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Dont think a one sentence incident here is worthy of a stand-alone article, the soviet incident article has been padded out with guff and repetition to make it into an article so not really a good example. MilborneOne (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – see Stanislav_Petrov#See_also for a list of such incidents. Maproom (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect? - I agree it makes sense to discuss it in a single place, but if there's an obvious alternative title that someone might look for to find the Soviet example, make a redirect to the section on this page. – SJ + 23:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too small of an incident to make it into a good, standalone article. Cheers, FriyMan talk 06:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ask again when there is enough to produce a stand-alone article. The current entry is too small for that by far. JonRichfield (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Stated justification is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Is there any case to be made that a WP:SPLIT would be an improvement? ~Kvng (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on North American Aerospace Defense Command. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Error in "In Popular Culture"

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Under the section "In Popular Culture", the statement "The NORAD command center was depicted in the satirical film Dr. Strangelove..." is in error. The 'war room' depicted in Dr. Strangelove probably was intended to portray the National Military Command Center in the US Department of Defense's Pentagon building complex. Our article on that "war room" correctly identifies it as the one portrayed in Dr. Strangelove. I'm removing the false statement in this article. loupgarous (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on North American Aerospace Defense Command. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 19 May 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move. Garuda28 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

– Per MOS:ACROTITLE. "NORAD" was the original title of this page until 2004, when it was unilaterally moved to its present title. Similar to NASA or NATO. I believe NORAD is more recognizable than "North American Aerospace Defense Command." The system has been known as NORAD since 1958, longer than it has been known as the North American Aerospace Defense Command (prior to 1981, NORAD was known as the "North American Air Defense Command"). Schierbecker (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Support per NASA, NATO and commonname. - wolf 20:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. NORAD is far more recognizable to the public as compared to North American Aerospace Defense Command. —  dainomite   20:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  1. Support per nom, above Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • That the "A" stood for two different words can, and should, be noted in the opening of the lead. Both names fully spelled out should redirect to this page. Whichever version sources say that Canadians use, as a NORAD partner, can be noted in the article regardless of title. - wolf 05:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Apparently not, at least officially. Schierbecker (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. It's almost exclusively known by the acronym. -- Vaulter 23:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ http://www.norad.mil/about/index.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NORAD/Archive_2&oldid=1137032237"