text:
Phrenic nerve

The phrenic nerve is a mixed motor/sensory nerve that originates from the C3-C5 spinal nerves in the neck. The nerve is important for breathing because it provides exclusive motor control of the diaphragm, the primary muscle of respiration. In humans, the right and left phrenic nerves are primarily supplied by the C4 spinal nerve, but there is also a contribution from the C3 and C5 spinal nerves. From its origin in the neck, the nerve travels downward into the chest to pass between the heart and lungs towards the diaphragm.

In addition to motor fibers, the phrenic nerve contains sensory fibers, which receive input from the central tendon of the diaphragm and the mediastinal pleura, as well as some sympathetic nerve fibers. Although the nerve receives contributions from nerve roots of the cervical plexus and the brachial plexus, it is usually considered separate from either plexus.

The name of the nerve comes from Ancient Greek phren 'diaphragm'.

Structure
The phrenic nerve originates in the phrenic motor nucleus in the ventral horn of the cervical spinal cord. It descends obliquely with the internal jugular vein across the anterior scalene, deep to the prevertebral layer of deep cervical fascia and the transverse cervical and suprascapular arteries. On the left, the phrenic nerve crosses anterior to the first part of the subclavian artery. On the right, it lies on the anterior scalene muscle and crosses anterior to the 2nd part of the subclavian artery. On both sides, the phrenic nerve usually runs posterior to the subclavian vein as it enters the thorax where it runs anterior to the root of the lung and between the fibrous pericardium and mediastinal parietal pleura.
 * The right phrenic nerve passes over the brachiocephalic artery, posterior to the subclavian vein, and then crosses the root of the right lung anteriorly and then leaves the thorax by passing through the vena cava hiatus opening in the diaphragm at the level of T8. The right phrenic nerve passes over the right atrium.
 * The left phrenic nerve passes over the pericardium of the left ventricle and pierces the diaphragm separately.

The pericardiacophrenic arteries and veins travel with their respective phrenic nerves.

The phrenic nerve can be marked by a line connecting these two points:
 * 1) 1st point can be labelled 3.5 cm at the level of the thyroid cartilage from the midsagittal plane.
 * 2) 2nd point is at the medial end of the clavicle.

Variation
As with most nerves in the neck, multiple anatomic variants have been described. Notably, there may be variability in the course of the phrenic nerve in the retro-clavicular region such that the nerve courses anterior to the subclavian vein, rather than its typical position posterior to the vein (between the subclavian vein and artery). This variant may predispose the phrenic nerve to injury during subclavian vascular cannulation.

In addition, an accessory phrenic nerve is commonly identified, present in up to 75% of a cadaveric study.

In canines, the phrenic nerve arises from C5-C7 with occasional small contributions from C4. In the cat, horse, ox, and small ruminant the phrenic nerve arises variably from C4-C7.

Function
Both of these nerves supply motor fibers to the diaphragm and sensory fibers to the fibrous pericardium, mediastinal pleura, and diaphragmatic peritoneum.

Some sources describe the right phrenic nerve as innervating the gallbladder, other sources make no such mention. The right phrenic nerve may also supply the capsule of the liver.

Clinical significance
Pain arising from structures supplied by the phrenic nerve is often "referred" to other somatic regions served by spinal nerves C3-C5. For example, a subphrenic abscess beneath the right diaphragm might cause a patient to feel pain in the right shoulder.

Irritation of the phrenic nerve (or the tissues it supplies) leads to the hiccup reflex. A hiccup is a spasmodic contraction of the diaphragm, which pulls air against the closed folds of the larynx.

The phrenic nerve must be identified during thoracic surgery and preserved. To confirm the identity of the phrenic nerve, a doctor may gently manipulate it to elicit a dartle (diaphragmatic startle) response. The right phrenic nerve may be crushed by the vena cava clamp during liver transplantation. Severing the phrenic nerve, or a phrenectomy, will paralyse that half of the diaphragm. Bilateral diaphragmatic paralysis or BDP can also be caused by spinal cord injury, motor neuron disease, infection, pneumonia, sarcoidosis, multiple sclerosis, polyneuropathy, myopathy and amyotrophy, cardiac surgery, lung transplantation, or mediastinal tumors. Diaphragm paralysis is best demonstrated by sonography. Breathing will be made more difficult but will continue provided the other nerve is intact.

The phrenic nerve arises from the neck (C3-C5) and innervates the diaphragm, which is much lower. Hence, patients suffering spinal cord injuries below the neck are still able to breathe effectively, despite any paralysis of the lower limbs.

Brachial plexus injuries can cause paralysis in various regions in the arm, forearm, and hand depending on the severed nerves. The resulting palsy has been clinically treated using the phrenic nerve as a donor for neurotization of the musculocutaneous nerve and the median nerve. This treatment has a high success rate (84.6%) in partial to full restoration of the innervation to the damaged nerve. Furthermore, this procedure has resulted in restored function to nerves in the brachial plexus with minimal impact to respiratory function of the phrenic nerve. The instances where pulmonary vital capacity is reduced have typically been a result of use of the right phrenic as the donor for the neurotization whereas use of left phrenic nerve has not been significantly linked to reduced pulmonary vital capacity.

title: Phrenic nerve


text:
L.F. Wade International Airport

L.F. Wade International Airport, formerly named Bermuda International Airport, is the sole airport serving the British overseas territory of Bermuda in the north Atlantic Ocean. It is located in the parish of St. George's and is 6 NM northeast of Bermuda's capital, Hamilton. In 2016, the airport handled 402,925 passengers, up 5.6% from 2006. It has one passenger terminal, one cargo terminal, eight aircraft stands and can support all aircraft sizes up to and including the Airbus A380. Currently, nine passenger or cargo airlines operate seasonal or year-round scheduled services from the Azores, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The airport covers 536 acres (217 ha) of land and contains one runway.

History
The airfield was constructed during World War II for use as Kindley Field, a joint US Army Air Forces (USAAF)/Royal Air Force (RAF) base. The RAF forces in Bermuda were withdrawn at the end of the War. The local RAF Commander, however, stayed on, on loan to the Bermuda Government. He converted the RAF facilities into the Civil Air Terminal, operated by the local government. When the pre-war airport, a flying boat facility on Darrell's Island, closed in 1948, Bermuda's air routes were taken over by land planes operating through the airfield.

By then it was operated by the United States Air Force, as Kindley Air Force Base. In 1970, the field was transferred to the United States Navy, which operated it as US Naval Air Station, Bermuda until 1995. The US Navy terminated its 99-year lease and transferred the field to the Bermuda Government. It now operates the airport as part of the Ministry of Tourism & Transport.

The US Navy was not required to meet international civil air standards, despite the operation of civil airlines to the base. The Bermuda Government, however, was required to meet these standards very quickly on assuming control, and at some expense. This involved changes to the airfield lighting, erecting new fences, levelling anything over a certain height and within a certain distance of the runway (including the former base commander's residence, and the hill it stood on), and other changes.

The airport is at the west of St. David's Island, and to the south of Ferry Reach. This places it in the East End of the archipelago, several miles from the capital, Hamilton.

The airfield was built between 1941 and 1943 by levelling Long Bird Island and several smaller islands and filling in the waterways with reclaimed land between them and St. David's Island. This created a landmass contiguous with St. David's. The airfield is typically described as being in, or on, St. David's. The field originally had three runways, but only the longest is still in use. One of the others, most of which is on a narrow peninsula jutting into Castle Harbour, has been blocked by munitions bunkers that were built at the harbour end.

Additional bunkers are on the west side of the peninsula, which the US Navy had referred to as the Weapons Pier. Airport workers, today, refer to it as The Finger. The other former runway is today a taxiway to connect aprons one and two to the active runway, and the taxiway which parallels it. This was last used as a runway in 1978. It has its own former taxiway paralleling it, which now serves as a dispersal area for visiting aircraft.

On 16 April 2007 the airport was renamed as "L.F. Wade International Airport" in honour of L. Frederick Wade, a former leader of the incumbent governing party (the Progressive Labour Party) when it was in opposition. The name was criticised by the opposition United Bermuda Party for being politically biased.

On 16 March 2017, the Government of Bermuda signed an agreement with the Canadian Commercial Corporation, granting Skyport a 30-year concession to manage and operate the airport.

In December 2020, a new terminal was completed, replacing the previous one.

Current operations
In 2017, the airport handled almost five hundred thousand passengers. Airline flight arrivals and departures usually peak June – August summer season. It has received high marks in passenger satisfaction surveys, placing first among North American airports in the "Under 15 million passengers" category in 2003 and fourth worldwide in its size category, according to the global airport monitor report that year. Cited were courtesy of staff, security, and check-in facilities.

The former NATO hangar built in the early 1990s is now used for the airport's growing corporate jet traffic. Because of Bermuda's considerable distance from the nearest land mass, the airport's use by General Aviation aircraft is limited to jets and long-range turboprops. Only jet fuel is available.

The airport offers US Customs and Immigration preclearance, which means US-bound passengers clear Customs in Bermuda; flights arriving in the US from Bermuda are thus treated as domestic flights.

Air traffic control service is provided by CI2 Aviation under contract to Bermuda Skyport Corporation. The control tower is located on the north side of the airport (not to be confused with the old tower located at the terminal building) and provides service for most of the day and night. Approach, departure and en route traffic control in the surrounding Oceanic Sector is provided by New York Air Route Traffic Control Center (ZNY), under an agreement between the US Government's Federal Aviation Administration and the United Kingdom. The BDA tower controller and ZNY center controller are always in close contact. Remote radio transmitters and air traffic radar coverage at the airport also link Bermuda and New York Center.

A modern Doppler Weather radar with a 150 mi range was built by the DAO in 2005. Navaids at the airport, such as the Instrument Landing System (ILS) and VOR (VHF omnidirectional range), are owned by Skyport but maintained by CI2 Aviation.

The airport was a United States government NASA Space Shuttle launch abort site. It was only able to be used during low and mid inclination launches.

The airport is also active in affairs of the Airports Council International (ACI), hosting the industry organisation's Legal Affairs Committee annual meeting in 2005. In 2006, ACI selected the airport to host its World Assembly, which was held in Bermuda in November 2010, attended by hundreds of delegates representing airports worldwide. The airport's current general manager is Aaron Adderley.

A small portion of the south-east corner of the airport was transformed in the 1990s into Bermuda Motorsports Park.

Since March 2017, Bermuda Skyport Corporation Limited has managed and operated L.F. Wade International. The 30-year airport concession includes construction of a new passenger terminal, which was completed in 2020.

Airport agencies

 * Bermuda Skyport Corporation Limited, the airport concessions company
 * Bermuda Airport Authority
 * The Bermuda Civil Aviation Authority (BCAA), responsible for aircraft registration, safety regulation, and accident investigation
 * Bermuda Immigration
 * HM Revenue and Customs
 * US Customs and Border Protection, pre-clears passengers on most flights to the US
 * Airport Rescue Firefighting (ARFF), operated by Bermuda Fire Service from 2007
 * Bermuda Fire Service, wast-end station sits astride perimeter, and provides support to ARFF
 * Airport Security Police, enforces airside regulations and security under contract to the DAO
 * Bermuda Police Service, enforces landside parking and traffic regulations, and holds arrested persons
 * Bermuda Weather Service, operated by Serco under contract to the DAO

Accidents and incidents

 * On 6 December 1952, a Cubana de Aviación DC-4 crashed after taking off from the airport, killing 37 passengers out of 41 passengers and crew.
 * On 27 October 1962, a U.S. Air Force Boeing RB-47 Stratojet crashed on takeoff, killing all four crew members on board.
 * On 29 June 1964, a USAF Boeing KC-97 Stratofreighter collided with a USAF Douglas C-54 Skymaster 4.1 miles S of Bermuda during a photography mission to support the Gemimi program for NASA. All 10 occupants on the KC-97 perished as well as all seven occupants on the C-54 Skymaster.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: L.F. Wade International Airport


text:
Dorsal scapular nerve

The dorsal scapular nerve is a branch of the brachial plexus, usually derived from the ventral ramus of cervical nerve C5. It provides motor innervation to the rhomboid major muscle, rhomboid minor muscle, and levator scapulae muscle.

Dorsal scapular nerve syndrome can cause a winged scapula, with pain and limited motion.

Origin
The dorsal scapular nerve arises from the brachial plexus, usually from the plexus root (anterior (ventral) ramus) of cervical nerve C5.

Course and relations
Once the nerve leaves C5 it commonly pierces the middle scalene muscle. It continues deep to levator scapulae muscle and the rhomboids (minor superior to major).

The nerve is accompanied by dorsal scapular artery.

Function
The dorsal scapular nerve provides motor innervation to the two rhomboid muscles, and the levator scapulae muscle.

Clinical significance
Injury to the dorsal scapular nerve is usually apparent on inspection when the scapula on the injured side is located farther from the midline than the uninjured scapula. The patient would be unable to pull their shoulder back, as when standing at attention. Isolated dorsal scapular nerve injury is uncommon, but case reports usually involve injury to the scalene muscles.

The dorsal scapular nerve is typically not anaesthetised during a supraclavicular nerve block. This can cause pain after some surgeries.

Dorsal scapular nerve syndrome
Dorsal scapular nerve syndrome can be caused by nerve compression syndrome. A winged scapula is the most common symptom. Shoulder pain may occur. It causes weakness in rhomboid major muscle, rhomboid minor muscle, and levator scapulae muscle. The range of motion of the shoulder may be limited. Treatment is usually conservative.

title: Dorsal scapular nerve


text:
User:TheLocalChurch

Introduction
Thank you for visiting my Wikipedia User page! My purpose is to present information on Witness Lee and his churches. Please be warned that I am posting this particular page from my interpretation of a strongly Evangelical Christian perspective. For a more NPOV, please visit another website.

What is meant by "local church"?
The term 'local church' is typically used in Evangelical circles to refer to bodies of Christian believers organized near each other, or at the "local" level. Typically the term is used loosely within the church growth movement or in opposition to large ecclesiastical structures.

However, the term "Local Church" is often used to refer to the movement begun by Witness Lee, which migrated in the United States. Within the movement, it is known generally as "The Lord's Recovery," despite Witness Lee's insistence that the movement never name itself.

As Witness Lee never claimed the name "Local Church" for his own movement, and since the name was applied by those outside the movement, the term "local church" cannot be considered a trademark or trade name of any organization and remains in the public domain. This was decided in The Church in Houston v. Jim Moran, Light of Truth Ministries, in which "the Panel concludes that Complainant has not met its burden of establishing that it has rights in the mark "The Local Church." The mark is not registered, and therefore enjoys no presumption of validity under United States law."

Given the controversy surrounding the movement, and the nature of Wikipedia, it is highly recommended that readers research for themselves, and critically understand the issues involved, before finally coming to conclusions. A careful consideration of all sides of the dispute is necessary for a solid conclusion to be reached.

What is NPOV with respect to the Local Church?
NPOV is difficult to achieve in this case, because much common ground between various positions has been lost. It is my hope that in the pages of Wikipedia, this middle ground can be regained by the site's philosophy of NPOV. As I see it, there are two major POV's involved, without much in the middle or on the fringes:

 * Local Church POV, which I also refer to as the "insider's POV" or "supportive"

 * Evangelical POV, which I also refer to as "critical"

The goal is to forge a NPOV that considers both sides of the controversy, that, as DJ Clayworth puts it in Talk:Local churches, does not canonize or demonize the movement. This is difficult to achieve, and I believe much of the problem stems from a victim mentality on the part of Local church members.

Article Contributions
The following are articles I initially contributed to:

 * Local churches (see also Talk:Local churches)
 * Watchman Nee
 * Witness Lee
 * Living Stream Ministry

Other related pages of interest:

 * Ground of locality

Why are you Posting Anonymously?
Wikipedia was designed from the beginning with Open Source values in mind. Early on, the decision was made to allow anonymous authors to edit and update Wikipedia as they saw fit. This can be done even without registering a User ID, or one can register a User ID and remain anonymous. Because this is a fundamental design in the way Wikipedia is supported, it is not a valid criteria for critiquing articles.

Unfortunately, the Local Church Movement has a very controversial history, including many schisms, public criticism, and litigation with Christians. This has made it very difficult to critique the movement without fear of reprisal from Living Stream Ministries by way of legal action. This use of civil courts is specifically taught against by Paul in I Corinthians 6; however, the Local Church Movement disregards these teachings in matters of public criticism, justifying the legal actions with a questionable and weak scriptural argument. As such, for my own protection, it is necessary to use the anonymity of Wikipedia - for better or worse.

The use of the moniker "TheLocalChurch" was a decision based upon Jim Moran's use of "thelocalchurch.org". The user name was available for anyone to register, and the term is not trademarked. Those who were familiar with Jim's use of domain and the difficulties he ran into will appreciate this. The details of the WIPO decision can be found online here:

 * The Church in Houston v. Jim Moran, Light of Truth Ministries

What are your credentials?
It should be clear that if I retain anonymity, credentials are useless as they cannot be verified. It is strange that members of the Local Church Movement request research credentials, when it is clear that neither Watchman Nee or Witness Lee have either college or seminary training themselves. That said, it is sufficient that I am an Evangelical Christian researcher, with some seminary-level training.

At a research level, I have access to a number of source materials published by Living Stream Ministries as authored by Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, or others. I have had a few years of contact with current and former members of the Local Church Movement, and cherish the friendships I have been granted to make in this time.

Disagreements
Understandably, disagreements about the materials presented in various Wikipedia entries on the Local Church Movement have come to the surface from time to time. I encourage individuals to discuss these issues with me directly at my own talk page:

 * User talk:TheLocalChurch

There is a belief among members of the Local Church Movement that criticism of the movement is the result of jealousy, ulterior motives, hatred and persecution of the true Christians, or that criticism stems only from the materials of a handful of individuals written in the 1970s who allegedly had a "chip on their shoulder". Personally, I see this as victim mentality on the part of members of the movement, who in turn have developed a persecution complex and feel that any writings critical of them must necessarily stem from something other than legitimate criticism. The tendency is to draw extreme conclusions, along the lines of what one would find on the extremely POV website Contending for the Faith.

Resources Online
Some of the resources available online are listed here. By no means is this meant to be an exhaustive listing of resources for any particular POV.

Local Church Perspectives

 * The Lord's Recovery - A History of the Lord's Recovery, as written by those inside the movement. Of particular interest is The Present Recovery which covers the recent history from an insider POV. The information here, despite the POV problems, can be used to determine the veracity of my work on the article Local Church Movement.

 * Contending for the Faith - Responses to critiques, information regarding cases involving the The God-Men and The Mindbenders, and current litigation involving Harvest House Publishers. Specifically, one should note the arguments for the alleged scriptural basis for the current litigation.

 * Living Stream Ministry Online Publications - A significant collection of Living Stream Ministry publications online. This will allow individuals to check quotes in various works and determine if they are indeed correctly cited - something I would encourage as an exercise for the reader.

Evangelical Perspectives
Some Evangelical Christian websites which are critical of the movement can be found online here:

 * The Berean's on "Church of Recovery"
 * "Local Church" Information Site by Daniel Azuma
 * Apologetics Index: The Local Church by Anton Hein

Information Regarding Lee v. Duddy

 * Lee v. Duddy - A thorough POV treatment, with a copy of the statement of the decision. There is significant speculation on the motives of the Spiritual Counterfeits Project on a number of issues, etc. which are particularly POV and in my opinion not germane to the issue at hand.

 * When Talk Isn't Cheap and Speech Isn't Free: The Abuse of Libel Law - The Spiritual Counterfeits Project Newsletter, which includes their final thoughts on the trial. Again, a POV treatment, this time from the other side.

Information Regarding The Mindbenders

 * The Mindbenders by Jack Sparks - A POV treatment of the controversy surrounding The Mindbenders and its eventual retraction by Thomas Nelson Publishers. In 1980, four separate lawsuits were filed against Thomas Nelson in Anaheim, Dallas, Atlanta, and Cleveland, for a total of $37 million. When Thomas Nelson's liability insurance was near exhaustion, Thomas Nelson opted to settle out of court and issued a retraction as part of the settlement, which appeared in several newspapers. This retraction does not comment on alleged errors in the book; neither does it apologize for its content. Further, the retraction was issued by Thomas Nelson, whereas Jack Sparks did not issue any retraction.

Information Regarding the Current Case with Harvest House Publishers

 * Defamation Action regarding Harvest House Publishers' Book written by John Ankerberg and John Weldon - A POV discussion of the current litigation involving Harvest House Publishers from the Local Church perspective.

 * Harvest House Corporate Statement on the Local Church/Living Stream Ministry Lawsuit - A brief POV statement about the lawsuit regarding the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (henceforth ECNR).

 * Harvest House Frequently asked questions regarding the lawsuit - POV page that addresses a number of questions that have been asked of Harvest House regarding the litigation.

 * Response to Harvest House Corporate Statement - A POV response to Harvest House's comments.

 * Harvest House Publishers and Authors Address Newest Allegations from The Local Church and Living Stream Ministry - The most recent response by Harvest House. Again, POV. (This statement has only been out a couple days, but I expect Living Stream Ministry will likely put out a response shortly.)

Content Concerns
By design, Wikipedia invites anonymous users to edit, maintain, and modify pages. To this end, I have worked to contribute a few small articles to Wikipedia - however those articles have been seen as controversial, despite a lack of evidence that my articles were not actually NPOV. Most of the changes and updates have only been limited to minor updates and corrections (see the history of the Local Church Movement article for an example).

This said, there have been concerns about the factual content of my submissions, which I would like to address here.

History of Local Church Movement Article
In late June of 2003, I submitted my initial posts and edits of the Local Church Movement. Shortly after this, a number of interesting events transpired, prompting me to hold off on personally editing or updating the article in any way until the issues were resolved. Since my original posting, I have thus made no updates to the Local Church Movement article. The first events included multiple blankings of the material presented, which were faithfully reverted by Wikipedia users. On September 11, 2003, one of Wikipedia's users posted this notice at the head of the article (spelling and grammar errors left as written):

 * Dear readers,
 * Dear readers,

 * Note: The information on this page is biased. For more accurate information, please do some research yourself since much of the information below are based on writings of Jim Moran's opinion(therefore it is not experienced personally by one of the Wiki's contributors).

 * Pro: www.lsm.org, www.christianwebsites.org

 * Against: Sites by Jim Moran, Daniel Azuma, etc

 * Please do not remove this announcement!

It is interesting that the same individual who blanked the article also posted this accusation of bias. Can someone both blank an article and be considered to be writing a NPOV? It is interesting to observe that the "Pro" website URLs are listed, while the "Against" are not. Similarly, the phrase "is not experienced personally by one of the Wiki's contributors" was pure speculation at the time this was written. How would he know if I had personally been involved with the movement? What difference would it make to the veracity of the article?

At this point in time, the article was titled Local Church, but has been renamed several times by various Wikipedia users to Local Church Movement and the current Local churches. A number of edits occur, many of which in my opinion are simply bizarre :) Some useful information was contributed, however, when an update was made with respect to issues surrounding the cases of Lee v. Duddy and the publication of The Mindbenders.

DJ Clayworth made this observation in Talk:Local churches: "It should be possible to write a sensible article about this movement without either canonising or demonising it." (sic) Indeed, I don't believe that the article as originally posted was demonizing, but apparently a simple article can be interpreted in some very different ways. Clearly, achieving NPOV is difficult due to the tendency, in DJ Clayworth's words, to canonize the movement. Thus, the reason for the observation made on this page about the difficulty of achieving NPOV.

Finally, on March 7, 2004, Wikipedia Sysop Bryan Derksen removed the notices regarding POV dispute. I felt now that I could comfortably post to Talk:Local churches my concerns, and thus I did.

This, however, did not end the controversy around the article. Nathan Cheng began a number of updates and rewrites on March 28, 2004 which implied that the article was "spun". I'm not sure how it could be considered spun at this point seeing as how it had been picked over so much, but perhaps the comments in the article history will shed some light on what was happening:

 * 08:35, 28 Mar 2004 . . Nathan w cheng (wrong person!) - Nathan objected to Witness Lee being named as the founder of the movement rather than Watchman Nee. This is clearly a POV update. This is not unlike the claims that the the history of the Lord's Recovery includes a large number of historical movements. This would be like Baptists arguing that Anabaptists did not begin the denomination.

 * 08:37, 28 Mar 2004 . . Nathan w cheng (those within EMPHATICALLY use lowercase, implying the fact that we EMPHATICALLY believe that the recovery began with the Apostle John in the first century, and was majorly advanced by Luther) (sic) - The update is not particularly POV, but the edit comment clearly is.

 * 08:39, 28 Mar 2004 . . Nathan w cheng (we use lowercase) - A strictly POV comment, but one I can understand.

 * 10:31, 28 Mar 2004 . . Nathan w cheng (this page spun hard by someone who doesn't like the local churches; i've done my best to unspin; especially bad was the implication that single men and women live together)

 * Firstly, I don't believe that the normal thinking human would read the article and get the impression that single men and woman live together, but perhaps a rewording would be in order :) Many others have edited the page before now and apparently Nathan is the first to take objection to this statement.

 * Who is this someone who doesn't like the Local churches? If he means me, how does he know something he can't really know? This is pure speculation. Another concern, to say "this page spun hard by someone who doesn't like the local churches" begs the question, in what way is the page "spun hard"? I think this is confusing the Critical POV with NPOV, and Nathan is substituting his own POV.

 * For instance, consider the update: "With thousands of Christians beginning to leave denominations to meet as the local churches in their respective cities, some denominational leaders became concerned." Christians leaving? Denominational leaders? These are POV statements that insiders make about people who are critical of the movement. It implies that "denominational leaders" were primarily involved, implying an ecclesiastical concern, rather than concern from the average lay person. Also implied is the often mistaken belief that criticism of the Local churches arose because people saw their flocks leaving their churches and their income sources drying up. Could it instead be that Evangelicals were concerned because the theological teachings of the Local churches were sufficiently off the mark as to warrant speaking their concern about the movement?

At this point, I think the fear that NPOV would be lost in the article has been realized. Perhaps this can change in the future. Wikipedia is certainly nothing if not dynamic!

Nathan Cheng's Objections
Nathan Cheng misinterpreted the statement on my user page "whenever possible, corrections can be made in a manner that best reflects the views of all parties" to be an invitation to edit this page. In light of this, I have rephrased the Introduction to be more clear. The edits Nathan made were reverted by RickK as per Wikipedia guidelines. Nathan followed up by acknowledging the Wikipedia policy and by making some suggestions in My User Talk page as well as updates to Talk:Local_churches. Based upon his editing pattern, he had some valid concerns that I'd like to address here.

To detail some of Nathan's objections regarding this page:

 * Nathan felt that more history was necessary in the Introduction of my page. I do not believe this is necessary as this would only be redundant information in Wikipedia, unless of course it was necessary to explain particular POV concerns in the interest of achieving NPOV.

 * The use of language "Given the controversy" in relation to the movement, Nathan suggested "Given the history of libel against". I do not believe this is a valid NPOV rephrase:

 * Critical Wording: "Given the litigious nature of". Clearly a POV rendering, and one I opted to avoid, except in cases where specifically relating my own personal concerns.
 * Supportive Wording: "Given the history of libel against". I believe this is also a POV rendering of the statement. Implies everyone who is critical of the movement is guilty of libel, which is simply not the case.
 * NPOV Wording: "Given the controversy". A more neutral wording, because there has certainly been controversy: Evangelical Christians are concerned, and members of the movement believe they are being libeled. If this isn't a neutral use of the term "controversy", I'm not sure what is.

 * Another suggestion was that my comments regarding the phrase 'local church' not being a registered trademark be removed. I can understand his concern, however a quick Google search on the term 'local church' will reveal that it has significant use beyond that of Witness Lee or Living Stream Ministry. Aside from this, the World Intellectual Property Organization already ruled that the term 'local church' is not trademarked:

 * The Church in Houston v. Jim Moran, Light of Truth Ministries

 * To quote: "Here, the Panel concludes that Complainant has not met its burden of establishing that it has rights in the mark "The Local Church." The mark is not registered, and therefore enjoys no presumption of validity under United States law."

 * Nathan felt I did not include enough direct links to the specifics of the litigation in Lee v. Duddy and the subsequent retraction and apology, the retraction put forth by Thomas Nelson Publishers, the current litigation involving Harvest House Publishers, and the arguments for the alleged scriptural basis for the use of the court system in these matters. This is a legitimate concern, however the website Contending for the Faith is linked on this page already for those who are willing to dig deeper into this issue. Seeing as how the website has been through a significant number of updates recently, it is better to refer people to the front webpage rather than "deep link" the site.

 * Is this a NPOV update? I would argue no, because this presents arguments from one particular side of the matter, neglecting other perspectives. For instance, it neglects the observations of the Spiritual Counterfeits Project in the wake of the court decisions. There is no consideration of public statements made by Harvest House in regard to its current suit. It makes little comment about the issues surrounding the retraction of The Mindbenders. How can an article present one side of a dispute and be considered NPOV? It cannot.

 * This said, I have reworked the organization of the Resources Online (see above) because I do believe that it would be helpful to put the perspectives side by side for the benefit of readers.

 * Nathan objected to my comment that I have access to publications of Living Stream Ministry by pointing out a website in which many of Witness Lee's books can be read online. To this, I can only say thanks! :) My page here is limited and does not contain an exhaustive list of all the websites and publications of Living Stream Ministry - certainly this would be a full time job in itself! Nathan is both free and encouraged to include such links on the current pages relating to the Local Church Movement.

Following this, Nathan Cheng discussed his concerns further on Talk:Local_churches. Several points to be discussed:

 * Nathan disputes my NPOV. He is certainly welcome to do so! :) This page discusses my concerns about what a NPOV is in regard to the Local Church Movement, and anyone may interact with the material I present here.

 * Specifically, Nathan states "it is clear from the user's own statements that his/her position is not neutral on this matter and that he/she is not capable of separating personal grievances from objective description." Whether or not I am personally neutral on the topic is irrelevant: Many Wikipedia articles are written by individuals who are not neutral, but themselves write the article in NPOV. This is one of the strengths of Wikipedia, because individuals who take a particular interest in certain articles tend to write them, and others can make fair updates to those articles as needed. As far as "personal grievances" are concerned, what personal grievances would those be? This is pure speculation :) I think Nathan believes I have hidden motives other than those stated on this page, and I also believe he is entitled to his opinion.

 * Is Nathan himself portraying NPOV in his arguments? I do not believe so. Nathan's website presents his workplace contributions with Living Stream Ministry from 1992 through 1999, and his work with Recovery Version Bible Distributors from 1999 to present. His POV is strongly from an insider perspective, and his suggested NPOV updates reflect this.

 * Nathan states that there have been "only three legal actions in their entire existence". Is this actually the case? I will give Nathan the benefit of the doubt in making this error. In addition to Lee v. Duddy, the suits regarding The Mindbenders, and the current litigation with Harvest House Publishers, let me suggest two more specific cases:

 * Moody Press, Moody Bible Institute, and George Sweeting: As a result of a brief critique in the July/August 1979 issue of Moody Monthly, the church filed a $4.8 million lawsuit in Orange County, California against Moody Press, Moody Bible Institute, and the Moody Monthly editor-in-chief George Sweeting. The suit was filed in the Orange County California Superior Court, #33-63-92, on June 13, 1980, to be settled later out of court with no retraction by Moody Monthly, though Moody Monthly did remove references to Witness Lee in future reprints of the article.

 * The Church in Houston v. Jim Moran, Light of Truth Ministries: The Church in Houston, represented by Thompson & Knight, disputed Jim Moran's ownership of the domain "thelocalchurch.org", claiming that the phrase 'The Local Church' was in some way a trademark of The Church in Houston or Living Stream Ministry. The details can be found online at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) website under Case No. D2001-0683.

 * But this aside, does the number of cases make a difference as to the actual history? Three is still three too many. A small $50k suit in the case of either SCP or Harvest House would have been more than sufficient to accomplish the purpose of merely halting publication of the works. A symbolic victory is more important than the amount of money involved. Is the page and a quarter in the 730+ page ECNR made almost exclusively of quotations really worth the Living Stream Ministry and 97 congregations filing suit, for a total to the tune of $136 million dollars? Is such legal overkill really necessary? Is it really Christian?

 * I submit then that despite Nathan's claim to the contrary, Living Stream Ministry does engage in litigious excess, and that this fact should be openly and honestly discussed.

 * Nathan informally disputes the use of my moniker "TheLocalChurch". Since he brings up some legitimate concerns, I have expanded my discussion of my use of the name (see above) to include information about Jim Moran's use of "thelocalchurch.org" and the subsequent WIPO decision. Those familiar with Jim's old website and the issues he faced will appreciate this. I do not believe that the use of this moniker is some form of "subtle slander" of the movement. If I used a different moniker with the same justification for remaining anonymous, would he not make the same claim?

 * Nathan speculates about my motives and my identity. Is this really germane to the discussion? :) The reasons for my anonymity are made clear on this web page, and Wikipedia made the decision, from the beginning, to support such anonymity on its site - for better or worse. However, the section titled "Why are you hiding behind Anonymity?" might be construed as an invitation to speculate about my identity, so I have rephrased it to read "Why are you Posting Anonymously?". What of my motives? My motives are likewise made clear in the introduction. Are there "hidden motives" for my posting this material? Again, Nathan can only speculate. I must ask, then, what is so hard about interacting with the data I actually post?

 * Likewise, comparisons with "TheMethodist" are irrelevant to the questions regarding the factual content of Wikipedia articles. Have I been "re-editing" pages to conform them to another POV? Hardly :) A simple review of the article histories will demonstrate this claim to be false. For several months during the time in which the article was under dispute, User:TheLocalChurch made no revisions or comments at all in Wikipedia, waiting to see what the user community's analysis of the dispute would be. Even when the article's POV notices were removed by Wikipedia Sysop Bryan Derksen, I did not make any updates to the article. Indeed, other than the initial edits, I have not edited the article at all. Instead, we have seen user after user using fine toothed combs until the article was bald or was no longer purely NPOV. I think this tells Wikipedia users something about the people who are supposedly NPOV'ing the article! :)

Finally, Nathan felt that the article Living Stream Ministries was incorrectly titled, and thus needed to be redirected to Living Stream Ministry. Additionally, he felt the statement "Living Stream Ministries is the publishing arm and ministry station headquarters of the Local Church" needed to be removed, as well as references to the publication of the Recovery Version of the Bible. The edit comment he left was "factual information only, please", but in what way was any of the information in the article not factual? Additionally, Nathan added reference to Living Stream Ministry's membership in the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association, which indeed it is, albeit not without concern. Mere membership in ECPA is not the same as a blanket Evangelical endorsement.

All of this said, I hold no personal animosity toward Nathan Cheng and applaud his willingness to work within the guidelines of Wikipedia and interact with the materials presented here. The simple fact is that the wounds that exist between the Local Church and the Evangelical community need to be healed, and this can only happen when there is honest and open dialogue on issues that exist between us. A mere brushing aside of these issues, or a white-washing of the problems, will never replace the need for mutual understanding. I wish him well in his endeavors :)

title: User:TheLocalChurch


text:
Eagle Rock Reservation

Eagle Rock Reservation is a 408.33-acre (165.25 ha) forest reserve and recreational park in the First Watchung Mountain of New Jersey (U.S.), located in the communities of West Orange, Montclair, and Verona. The land is owned and administered by the Essex County Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs.

The reservation is named after the Eagle Rock, a bare rock looking down from the mountain, which marks the boundary between the towns of Montclair and West Orange, New Jersey. The Lenape Trail passes through the reservation. There are many streams that flow throughout the reservation. The forests are home to abundant wildlife, including deer and occasionally bears.

Also located on the grounds of the reservation is a restaurant and special event location called Highlawn Pavilion. The building was once a casino, in the old sense of the word meaning country house, which had various functions through the years, including as a place for refreshments.

9/11 memorial
After the September 11 terrorist attacks, residents of nearby communities gathered to view the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Because of this, on October 20, 2002, Essex County Executive James W. Treffinger, along with many local residents and dignitaries, dedicated a section of the reservation, which overlooks the Manhattan skyline, to a memorial built in honor of those killed during the attacks. The names of all who perished at the World Trade Center or on the two planes that crashed into the twin towers are permanently inscribed in a marble memorial.

title: Eagle Rock Reservation


text:
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan

Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935), also known as the Hot Oil case, was a case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that the Franklin Roosevelt administration's prohibition of interstate and foreign trade in petroleum goods produced in excess of state quotas, the "hot oil" orders adopted under the 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), was unconstitutional.

The ruling was the first of several that overturned key elements of the administration's New Deal legislative program. The relevant section 9(c) of the NIRA was found to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, as it permitted presidential interdiction of trade without defining criteria for the application of the proposed restriction.

The finding thus differed from later rulings that argued that federal government action affecting intrastate production breached the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In Panama v. Ryan, the Court found that Congress had violated the nondelegation doctrine by vesting the President with legislative powers without clear guidelines and by giving the President enormous and unchecked powers. The omission of congressional guidance on state petroleum production ceilings occasioned the adverse ruling because it allowed the executive to assume the role of the legislature.

Justice Cardozo dissented and claimed that the guidelines had been sufficient.

title: Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan


text:
User talk:Montrealais/Talk archive 2

 * Talk archive 1
 * Talk archive 3
 * Talk archive 4
 * Talk archive 5
 * Talk archive 6

Gay marriage, cats
Hi M, first all been meaning to say - LOVE THE CAT! I grew up on a farm full of moggies, including one that was so bossy she attacked a cow! (The entire herd as a result were so terrified of her they'd run away if she came within 100 yards! You haven't laughed until you've cried your eyes out at the sight of twenty terrified cows, tails in the air, running 'like the hammers of hell' - as we Irish say - away from one tiny cat, who is sitting in the centre of the field, lording it over all and sundry, with a smirk that says 'I'm the boss and don't you forget it. Though she was best buddies with the dog, whom she 'brought' to see her various families of kittens! He became their surrogate father and plaything, lying in the middle of the farmyard with four kittens sliding down his back, playing with his ears, trying to bite his nose, or clinging onto his tail or onto his back while he slowly waddled around the farm yard, as their mother watched in amusement!)

Anyway, enough of the dreaming of days gone by (and 'Furry', the ferocious feline), just want to pick you up on the point you made about the court judgment equating gay and straight 'common law' couples. I'm not sure I would agree that it won't make a difference. It may not have detailed practical benefits now but
 * It means that no rights can be given to non-marital heterosexual couples without being given automatically to gay couples too, whether that is in relation to property rights, morgages, inheritance, etc. In effect it means that instead of having to fight for non marital gay couples, the gay community has simply to fight for rights for non-marital couples, full stop, forming alliances with other non-marital couples lobby groups. Because whatever rights are given to straights must then be given to gay couples;
 * It is a critical opening, because having established the legitimacy of gay couples and getting a legal acknowledgement of their existence, it makes the task of getting rights, up to and including full marriage, easier. It may be only the bottom rung, but it one rung up the ladder from before, and once you've made that first step, who knows where it might end. Having acknowledged the existence and validity of gay relationships, it means the law cannot then pretend they don't exist in later struggles.

So endeth the sermon for today. BTW, I'm beginning to wonder, given the number of gay people I'm coming across on Wiki (including moi!) are there any straights on it at all. Or should we coin a new phrase: homopedia: (noun) free encyclopædia on the internet on which the majority of members are homosexual.

Gotta go and write something. Give my love to Ms. Moggy! (It is a Ms, is it?) JTD 05:36 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

IIRC Montrealais' cat is called Zazou. My female American longhair cat is called Mougie (Zazou and Mougie look a lot a like). Oh, and I'm gay too (but be very quiet about our little conspiracy taking over Wikipedia).Shhh! ;-) --mav

 * Heh. I was being slightly facetious; sounds like I was completely misinterpreted. The article originally said that we had gotten the right to "heterosexual common-law marriage". I meant that that wouldn't make a difference in the sense that I can already get a heterosexual common-law marriage any time I want ;) - what I want is a homosexual common-law marriage with rights equivalent to those of a heterosexual one. The difference is subtle but profound!

 * Anyway, not to put too fine a point on it, the sentence was simply poorly worded. I reworded it, making a semi-silly comment on what the unreworded sentence really meant. You're preaching to the converted... or perverted ;)
 * - Montréalais (who is looking forward to making an honest man out of the boyf ;)
 * p.s. Zazou is a boy cat.

Nice Photos!
Just want to pay you a compliment for the nice photos you took of Quebec City. They look quite professional! --Menchi 16:02 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, thank you very much! ^_^ Here is a list of some other photos I've contributed. - Montréalais

Quebec débâcle II
Please leave things as they are that clarifies to all people on the World Wide Web that it is PROVINCES. QUEBEC by itself is not a country and is part of the proper Canadian list. Thank you....Ron Davis

 * That has nothing to do with the title of the article. Considering that every page that deals with Quebec already says that it is a province of Canada, I think the reasons I gave for moving the page are sufficient, when applied to every province. I have to wonder if you would be stressing so much if I had begun with List of communities in Ontario. - Montréalais

Oh you brave person, 'tampering' with the lists of DW/Ron Davis. Rising bringing the wrath of that almighty ego down on you. Lock your doors and call an exorcist! JtdIrL 06:57 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * *puts on Bach's Toccata and Fugue for mood music* - Montréalais

Hah! That is EXACTLY what is playing on my eMac right now!!! JtdIrL 07:25 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

AIDS
Regarding AIDS: it's my impression that AIDS nowadays with the new drugs has pretty much turned into a severe chronic disease, not necessarily fatal. I just tried to locate statistics at CDC but couldn't find any; all I found was: the drugs "have greatly reduced the number of deaths due to AIDS" and "the drugs do not cure the disease". AxelBoldt 02:21 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

 * I have a vague unease with saying "AIDS isn't fatal." After all, people can live a relatively long time with other chronic diseases we regard as fatal, such as inoperable cancers and degenerative diseases, and potentially die of something else first. But that doesn't mean they're not fatal. To me, a non-fatal disease is one that can either be cured, or rarely-to-never kills the patient. But IANAD. - Montréalais

Talleyrand
Bonjour à Zazou (et vous)! I've left a comment and a question which may be of interest at Talk:Charles Maurice de Talleyrand - Someone else 07:34 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid I know nothing about it. - Montréalais

Harvey Milk
Just wanted to say good work on Harvey Milk. I've been meaning to write something about him for months now, but you've done a better job of it than I would have. --Camembert

 * My pleasure. - Montréalais

List of country name etymologies
Bonjour, I've noticed that you have added etymologies of Canadian provinces in List of country name etymologies. I don't think, we want to set the precedent of allowing the addition of non-sovereign states/provinces in this article. Off the top of my head, I can think of etymologies of 14 states in India. Imagine, if everyone were to add their states, where would it stop? Counties, districts, cities, towns, villages? :-) Gyan 07:00 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

 * Whatever, remove them if you want. - Montréalais

Protest photos
Over at Global protests against war on Iraq you asked in an editorial summary if any wikipedians took photos at F15 protests, well I posted some I took over at indymedia - my favorite photo is where a "Stop the war" poster became a "Stop W" poster. See also this collection of over 200 photos from 133 protests.

---

Handmaid's Tale
Re: Talk:The Handmaid's Tale. After you moved the paragraph to Talk, somebody else came along and moved it back to the article. My comment was concerning my reversion of his reversion. -- Zoe

Okay, sorry. - Montrealais

--

Administrator
You should express an interest to be an Admin on WikiEN-l so you can edit the Main Page yourself. :-) There is no reason why you shouldn't be one and I predict zero opposition to your request. The Admin/user ratio is way too low at the moment. --mav

---

Tube station sizes
Re size of tube stations: North Greenwich station "is large enough to contain 3,000 double-decker buses or an ocean liner the size of the Queen Mary within its walls" -- how does this compare with the other metro systems you were citing? Not a quibble, I'm genuinely interested, because if they're bigger they're really worth visiting. The Anome 21:54 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't know about volume but I have seen Pantitlán station in Mexico City as the largest metro station in the world. As for "most stylish in the world," I'm sure you can agree that that is up for dispute. ;) - Montréalais

Clerical titles, the cat (again)
God I love that kitty pic!!! Re our discussion on naming conventions for clerical titles, I've come across a few more clerical naming problems, including a stub I was going to add to wiki. I've put my opinions and a suggestion on the Naming Conventions (Names and titles) page. Have a look and see what you think. STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:45 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

See what I put on Zoe's page about Rachel. They are going to be so mad!!! STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:36 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Punctuation, choughs
I noticed the minor changes you made to chough, replacing some of the punctuation with numeric strings. I'm not a computer buff, so I just wondered what the reason was for this, since it doesn't seem to change the appearance. If it's something I ought to do, where do I find the codes? Merci jimfbleak 05:46 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

 * I didn't make those changes intentionally; it may be a software issue. In any case they seem to have taken place because "smart quotes" were used. Did you prepare your text in Word, by any chance? If so you should turn "smart quotes" off and use simple double " and single ' quotes, which work with everyone's machines. - Montréalais

Susan Aglukark
Re Susan Aglukark page: I don't know what I was thinking, inserting two external links and not including the stub text, eeesh, sorry! - Uyanga

Read my lips
Could you provide a citation for the "I Got Rid Of My Bush! Read My Lips - No To War!" quote over at nudity? I keep having to revert it back in after others remove it, thinking that even reporting it was used as a slogan is POV or something, and that'd be much easier to justify keeping it if I knew where it'd come from. -- John Owens 14:40 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

I happened to find a site that mentions part of the quote SchNEWS discusses it near the bottom of the page. It is not the full quote and attributes it to the "Opposition Society", of which I couldn't find any other mention of.

Alexander Wall Aug 30, 2005

Birds
Re Crow: I must admit that I hadn't realised that you had actually created Corvus. Nevertheless, I still think that this merging is appropriate. The Crow article has had a long and chequered history, going from species>genus>family and back to genus. Thanks to you and others, the situation has been rationalise with non-Corvus genus material moved to Corvidae and other corvid groups such as Jay and magpie. However, the consequence of this is that Crow deals with just the genus Corvus, and vice versa. I think you will agree that having two articles covering the same ground is not particularly efficient.

As a general rule, I've avoided articles under scientific names unless there is a clear purpose. Often at genus level there is not, so a redirect or no link is all that is needed. This can occur even at higher levels. Eg Nuthatch=genus Sitta=family Sittidae. There may be other comments on this from Tannin or Steve Nova, who have written several of the Crow articles, so I'm quite happy to go with the flow if I've got it wrong. jimfbleak 05:40 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Coming back to this later, I think that the confusion may have arisen because some Corvus species, such as the Rook and Jackdaw do not have Crow in the English name. However, this is an accident of history, and there is no logical reason to split the genus on the basis of English name. A similar situation occurs with Phalacrocorax, where species are called shags and some cormorants on a more or less random basis. In some cases the same species has both names. P. varius is called yellow-faced cormorant and pied shag. jimfbleak 06:50 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

A Jackdaw article will be found by a search on its name, or its genus (as crow or corvus, or indirectly through its family Corvidae.

 * Since writing the above, I've seen Phalacrocorax. Whilst I would accept that this is not quite the same as Cormorant, it is still largely repeating the information in that article. One problem is that there are another twenty or so cormorants to come, which means that either the genus article will not list them all, or the taxobox will become very large. I think that there is a conscious attempt by those of us writing bird articles to keep taxoboxes manageable in length, and also in width. The latter can be achieved by only giving scientific names in the box, and listing English and scientific in text, or, if you want to keep both putting  between English and Scientific. However, that will of course double the length of the table. I don't think I dare remerge this one! jimfbleak 05:55 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not way happy about the remerger of crow and Corvus; I still think they refer to different things. If I wanted to find out about crows, I wouldn't expect to find out about ravens and jackdaws at the same time (except for a mention that they were related to crows). I think asked to name black birds, most people would say "crow" and "raven" as a separate entry, rather than consider ravens a subset of crow in the same way that they're a subset of Corvus.

As for the problem of taxoboxes, I think it is important to have all the species listed in it; we want to be fairly authoritative about taxa. To trim it, how do you feel about P. auritus (giving P. auritus)?

- Montréalais

More trolls
You might want to double-check the diff of your last edit of this Talk: page, I think you accidentally pasted something in that you didn't mean to. -- John Owens 17:22 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Hear ye. Hear ye. The pain in the Ass formerly known as Adam/Bridget/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber is back to haunt wiki as Shino Baku. Oh joy. ÉÍREman 06:36 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Oy vey. - Montréalais

Go fuddle-duddle yourself
Are you leaving all the links for House of Commons for someone else to fix!? Mintguy

 * No, I am talking to my boyfriend. I presume I'm allowed to do that from time to time. - Montréalais

 * There are about fifty links to go. I'll take care of them when I get home from preparing my testimony for a Canadian House of Commons committee. I trust that's all right with you. - Montréalais

Birds II
responding to Crow etc. Double-crested cormorant|P.auritus seems a great solution. Have you read Tannin's comments in Talk: Crow, which at least seems to clarify why there is a problem. My own feeling is still that substantive articles under scientific names (ie not redirects) should be avoided if possible, since there is a high probability of them getting out of step if they list the same data, such as species lists. For example, Cormorant was started by Kingturtle with just US species, extended to a world list by me, and then amended again by me after consulting Tannin on Oz species. The crows (on any definitions) are not yet a complete list, and the same problem may occur here, as at least 4 people are writing crow articles. I don't know why this group is so popular when only one duck article has beeb written.jimfbleak 16:27 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid I don't understand what you are getting at. Can you clarify please? I still don't see the problem. - Montréalais

 * Sometimes scientific name entries add nothing and can just be redirects eg Sitta and nuthatch. Sometimes they are essential, such as Corvidae, Accipitridae and Anatidae. The problem comes in between. If the two entries duplicate information, they can become uncoupled by revisions, see Cormorant and Phalacrocorax.

 * As a scientist, to me Corvus, the Crow genus is a unit, even if not all the species have 'crow' in the name. I can understand why a linguist might have different viewpoint on this, but I find it difficult to agree. I did a family entry on thick-knees, where one species does not have thick-knee in the name, but it is on any scientific basis integral to the group.

 * I don't want an edit war on this. My objection is not to a Corvus entry as such, but to removing crows-without-crow-in-the-name from crow. There is also the practical problems, if you do a Corvus entry of keeping it in touch with this rapidly changing topic. There are a lot of corvids to come.

 * Finally, I liked the P. auritus solution to that particular problem.jimfbleak 19:52 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I'll defer to your authority. - Montréalais

-

sorry. I am not used to practices here ant

-

Editing the main page
FYI - There is a good set of guidelines on what to list in the Historical anniversaries section on the Main Page at Selected Articles on the Main Page. Specifically the entries must have at least one sentence in them that has a date linked that is on or around the current day of the year. This establishes context and tells the reader exactly why that entry was listed in the Historical anniversaries section. You also may not be aware of just how [[media:Maveric149-temp.gif|ugly that section makes the Main Page looks on higher resolution screens]] when the br tag is taken off the first line. Oh and as long as an entry is already linked in the current day page there is little reason to re-list it on the Main Page. I normally only list events that occurred on days previous to the current one in order to summarize the past events. Anyway - power to the wiki! --mav

-

Handmaid's Tale
Hello Montrealais,

On April 5, you moved a section called Analysis from the The Handmaid's Tale to the article's Talk page, on grounds of its 'unencyclopedic' nature. As I wrote that section, I can not rewrite it: I am not going to guess what you find unencyclopedic, nor am I going to rewrite something in the hope it appeases you.

I asked you and Zoe (as the parties that seemed to understand the section's unencyclopedicness) to rewrite it, but so far you have not done so. I don't know if you did not want to, or have forgotten to, or never got around to.

As I am sure you will agree, removing information from an article amounts to bookburning. It is the worst form of vandalism we know. I goes directly against Wikipedia's 'prime directive', the policy of Neutral Point Of Vision, which states that the only facts we have is the fact that something is an opinion, and that we need to present a balanced selection of opinions. Because of this, I feel really uncomfortable with leaving out a section that could have otherwise been critically rewritten and refined by all who saw it. After all, one of the premises of peer review, is that there is something there to review. That is why I am going to move the section back into the article in a few days, but if you want to rewrite it in the mean-time, please be my guest.

Thanks for your help, branko

 * "Bookburning"?! Don't be ridiculous. That paragraph is not NPOV because it presents an opinion without any qualifiers. That's not the way things work here.
 * I'm not prepared to further edit the paragraph because literary criticism is not my field of study. If a scholar has argued this point of view, you should introduce it with an attribution ("In the New York Review of Books, reviewer Adrienne Soandso argues that the book...") Otherwise it has no place in an encyclopedia. - Montréalais 15:02 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * My apologies, but I am not a native speaker of English, and my dictionaries seem to abandon me here. What is a 'qualifier'? branko

 * "To qualify" in this sense means to make less absolute. I gave an example of the sort of thing we use to do that (i.e. to take the thing down from being stated as fact to being an attributed opinion). The best, to repeat myself somewhat, is to attribute it to someone. - Montréalais

Canadian Alliance
Montrealais, some person at 149.99.16x.xxx is cutting large amounts of content from Stockwell Day and Canadian Alliance. I know you worked on these articles and I am wondering what you think of these edits. Personally I do not much approve of them. SimonP 02:51 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Can't say as I much approve of them either. The way to fix an article you don't approve of is not, as you've correctly adjudged, to cut out huge swaths of text. I'll keep my eye on them. - Montréalais

Gay articles at zh.wiki
Hi, I am a new comer here, and I found u at Queer wikipedians. I like your quotation at your main page. I am now working mainly on Chinese verision about gay-related articals. And I like to learn languages too. Hopefully we can be friends! :D --Gboy 04:03 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Hey, wonderful. I wish I could read Chinese... it would be great to see how the translations look! I had noticed the zh: link on Same-sex marriage in Canada. I see you are from China - what is the gay rights situation there? We get very little news. - Montréalais

 * Thank you! I found that there are so little information about gay in Chinese version that I am so shame of it. I am now planning to translate all the gay-related articles from English into Chinese.Gay can do things perfect too(much better sometimes) ! :D I am now looking for some info about crackdown on gay in any countries, I don't know if you have any? Thanks! It doesn't matter if you could read Chinese or not(if you could read Chinese, you would find out how bad my translation it would be :P) I believe the situation here in China is like the 'don't ask, don't say' policy in American Army: not agree, not against, not advocate(something like that, forgive my bad translation). You can ask me anything you wanna know, I will try to answer u all! Thanks again!:D --Gboy 08:12 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Socrates was a giant screaming queen
Earlier I noticed that you had a very strong opinion about Socrates and his sexual orientation. I did not then, nor do I now want to get into an argument about the matter. I hope however, that you will have the courtesy to check and edit (if merited) my article on Symposium, if you think his orientation is irrefutable. I personally have no opinion on the matter, but do think that both sides of the argument have historically had ulterior motives in placing him in one "camp" or the other. Personally I am heterosexual, but hardly adhere to any strictly defined norm of acceptable sexuality. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 05:51 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Montrealais/Talk archive 2


text:
Long thoracic nerve

The long thoracic nerve (also: external respiratory nerve of Bell or posterior thoracic nerve) is a branch of the brachial plexus derived from cervical nerves C5-C7 that innervates the serratus anterior muscle.

Origin
The long thoracic nerve arises from the anterior rami of cervical spinal nerves C5, C6, and C7. The root from C7 may occasionally be absent. The roots from C5 and C6 pierce through the scalenus medius, while the C7 root passes in front of the muscle.

Course and relations
The long thoracic nerve descends through the cervicoaxillary canal. It is posterior to the brachial plexus, and the axillary artery and vein. This takes it deep to the clavicle. It rests on the outer surface of the serratus anterior muscle. It extends along the side of the thorax to the lower border of the serratus anterior muscle, supplying fibres to each of the muscle's digitations.

Function
The long thoracic nerve innervates the serratus anterior muscle. It supplies filaments to each of its digitations (finger-like projections).

Clinical significance
Due to its long, relatively superficial course, the long thoracic nerve is susceptible to injury, either through direct trauma or stretch. Mechanisms of injury include:

 * nerve lesions.
 * various sports injuries, typically occurring from a blow to the ribs underneath an outstretched arm.
 * surgery for shoulder and thorax. Treating breast cancer with removal of axillary lymph nodes.
 * carrying weight, such as heavy bags, over the shoulder for a prolonged time.
 * Parsonage Turner Syndrome, an autoimmune disease.
 * trauma or infection.

Symptoms are often minimal – if symptomatic, a posterior shoulder or scapular burning type of pain may be reported. Some injuries, particularly lesions, can paralyse the serratus anterior muscle to produce a winged scapula. This is most prominent when the arm is lifted forward or when the patient pushes the outstretched arm against a wall. However, even winging may not be evident until the trapezius stretches enough to reveal an injury several weeks later.

title: Long thoracic nerve


text:
Calgary International Airport

Calgary International Airport, branded as YYC Calgary International Airport, is an international airport that serves the city of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. It is located approximately 17 km northeast of downtown and covers an area of 20.82 square kilometres (8.04 sq mi; 5,144 acres; 2,082 ha). With 18.5 million passengers in 2023 and 124,108 aircraft movements in 2021, Calgary International is the busiest airport in Alberta and the fourth-busiest in Canada by passenger traffic. This airport is served by the Calgary International Airport Emergency Response Service for aircraft rescue and firefighting protection. The region's petroleum and tourism industries (and its proximity to Banff National Park) have helped foster growth at the airport, which has nonstop flights to an array of destinations in North and Central America, Europe, and Asia. Calgary serves as the headquarters and primary hub for WestJet.

Built in the late 1930s, the site has since grown to house: 71 gates at minimum (depending on airplane type), four runways and two terminal buildings with six concourses for passengers (Gates A1-6, A12-24, B31-40, C50-65, D70-79 and E80-97), warehouses for cargo handling, and other infrastructure. The Calgary Airport Authority operates the property while paying rent to the federal government. Close to the airport are the Deerfoot Trail and Stoney Trail freeways for transport into the city and surrounding area, and public transit also serves the airport.

Early history
The first airport to serve Calgary opened in 1914, in the neighbourhood of Bowness. It occupied one-square kilometre (1 sqkm) and consisted of a hut and a grass runway. The site is now the location of a community centre (The Landing) as well as Bowness High School and Bowglen Park.

Operations shifted to a new airport southwest of the city in 1928, named Old Banff Coach Road Airport (51.04881°N, -114.15272°W). However, issues with turbulence in the area prompted another airfield to be built the following year in the neighbourhood of Renfrew known as the Calgary Municipal Airport or Stanley Jones Airport. The local airline Renfew Air Service constructed the Rutledge Hangar at the Renfrew site (6th Street and Regal Crescent) in 1929, a lamella arch structure composed of Douglas Fir planks on a reinforced concrete base. The Renfew Air Service folded in November 1931 as a result of the Great Depression, and ownership of the Rutledge Hangar was taken over by the Edmonton Credit Corporation who subsequently lease the hangar to the City of Calgary. The RCAF used the airport in the 1940s. The Rutledge Hangar remains standing at the original Renfew site by Boys and Girls Club of Calgary and was designated an Alberta Provincial Historic Resource on May 5, 2003.

Present site and Second World War
As the City of Calgary grew to surround the Renfrew airport site the municipal government decided to relocate the airport to a new location. The city purchased an area of land north of Calgary in 1938 for about $31,000; and remains the site of Calgary's current airport. The city came to an agreement with Trans-Canada Air Lines to construct and lease a hangar on the site for $45,000, and the federal Department of Transportation financed the construction of three runways and other improvements, the first of which opened on September 25. The new Calgary airfield was named McCall Field after First World War ace and lifelong Calgarian Fred McCall.

As a result of Canada entering the Second World War, the federal government assumed control of McCall Field in 1940, re-purposing it as a fuel and maintenance stop for aircraft involved in the war effort and later stationing the No. 37 Service Flying Training School at the airfield from October 22, 1941 until its closure on March 10, 1944. McCall Field continued to operate regular passenger flights during the Second World War.

Following the end of the Second World War, the airport had been expanded to include additional hangars, four runways and other infrastructure. The City of Calgary resumed management of McCall Field in 1946, repurposed the a hangar as a passenger terminal, and convinced the federal government to extend the airports 4,125 ft east–west runway to 6,200 ft in October 1949 at an estimated cost of $750,000 the construction required a 5 foot excavation below grade to prevent frost heaving. At the time of completion, McCall Field's east–west runway was the third-longest runway in Alberta behind the Calgary Airport's north–south runway and the runway at CFB Namao.

1950s and 1960s, terminal expansion and jet age
The re-purposed military hangars did not meet the needs of the growing transportation needs of the city, and efforts were made by city officials to secure funding for a new passenger terminal. A new passenger terminal was constructed in 1956; its design originated in the 1950s as a thesis project by Provincial Institute of Technology and Art architecture student Ken Bond, who later formed the architectural firm Clayton, Bond and Mogridge, which was awarded the contract for designing the new terminal. The one-million dollar project featured an open public concourse, and ticketing offices for three airlines was dubbed one of the most modern air terminals in Canada when it opened on June 2, 1956. A lavish opening ceremony was attended by federal Transportation Minister George C. Marler, Lieutenant Governor of Alberta John J. Bowlen, and Mayor Donald Hugh Mackay, and a number of other dignitaries. The festivities included an air show featuring an Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck. Following construction of the new passenger terminal, McCall Field would see 110,984 passenger arrivals, 96,287 departures and nearly 1,000,000 lb of cargo through the airport in 1957.

In the 1960s Calgary City Council began lobbying the federal government to designate McCall Field as an "international airport", a status defined by the Department of Transportation. As a compromise on April 6, 1962, the federal government approved the naming the airport terminal Calgary International Airport from Calgary Municipal Airport. However, Mayor Harry Hays, local Aldermen and residents continued to refer to the airport in general as McCall Field. Calgary International Airport did not receive official "International" status from the federal government until 1969. The first non-stop transatlantic flights were scheduled by Canadian Pacific Airlines in 1961, connecting Calgary with Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, and more flights from Europe commenced the following year.

The jet age arrived shortly after the construction of Calgary's new passenger terminal. The terminal was not designed with jet aircraft in mind, and the airport's runways were not suitable for the larger and faster aircraft. In 1961 the airport replaced the diagonal runway with an 8,000 ft runway capable of handling modern jet aircraft. In 1963 the airport underwent a $4-million refurbishment which saw improved electronic landing aids, and the main north–south runway extended by 4,675 ft to its present length of 12,675 ft.

The City of Calgary was unable to afford the continued upgrades the Calgary Municipal Airport necessary to cope with the rising aircraft traffic. The city proceeded to sell the Calgary Municipal Airport to the federal government in 1966 for $2 million, and the Department of Transportation proceeded to refurbish the runways shortly afterwards.

1970s, terminal and hub status
The new passenger terminal constructed in 1956 proved to only temporarily meet the needs of the city, and was inadequate for expansion or facilitating jet aircraft servicing. Following the sale of the Calgary International Airport by the City of Calgary to the Government of Canada in 1966, plans were put in motion to build a new passenger terminal. The airport's sale came with a promise by Federal Transportation Minister Jack Pickersgill that the federal government would build a $20-million passenger terminal within five years; however, continued delays pushed completion of the terminal to 1977.

Construction began on the new passenger terminal in 1972, construction would be delayed due to re-designs to meet increased air traffic needs, causing the price of the new terminal to grow well beyond the original $20-million figure. Finally, on October 12, 1977, the new $130-million (equivalent to $-million in ), 600,000 sqft terminal was opened by Mayor Rod Sykes, Provincial Transportation Minister Hugh Horner, and Federal Transportation Minister Otto Lang two months before construction had completed. Sykes was able to leverage his friendship with Lord Mountbatten to convince British Airways to have one of the newly introduced Concorde land in Calgary on the day, and although the jet showed up a day late due to mechanical issues, it was still quite the coup for a city of less than half a million residents. Among other festivities for the opening event included flyovers by a Boeing 747, Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, and the Canadian Air Force Snowbirds. The 1977 passenger terminal remains the core of Calgary International Airport's domestic terminal to this day.

The Jumbo Jet age arrived in Calgary with the newly introduced Boeing 747 landing for the first time in 1973, with Wardair providing non-stop bi-weekly charter service from Calgary to London. Air Canada was not far behind, and began non-stop service to London using the 747 starting on June 27, 1974. In April 1974, Calgary International Airport hosted CP Air's flight testing for the Boeing 747 after airport firefighters went on strike at both Vancouver International Airport and Toronto Pearson Airport.

In 1974 the Government of Alberta acquired ownership of Pacific Western Airlines, Canada's third largest airline at the time and move the head office and hub to Calgary. The airline continued under provincial government ownership until 1983, and later merged with Canadian Pacific Air Lines to form Canadian Airlines. Canadian Airlines maintained Calgary as the hub and headquarters for the airline until it was acquired by Air Canada in 2001.

1990s reorganization and WestJet
In the early 1990s, the Government of Canada introduced the National Airports Policy which moved towards privatization, liberalization and economic deregulation of air transportation, which included the formation of a Local Airport Authority under the name Calgary Airport Authority in 1992 for the management, operation and development of the Calgary International Airport under lease from the federal government. The Calgary Airport Authority, incorporated in July 1990 is a non-share capital, not-for-profit corporation formed under the authority of Alberta's Regional Airports Authorities Act. The Calgary Airport Authority signed a long-term 60-year lease with an additional 20-year option, which was subsequently exercised in 2011.

In 1992, Calgary International Airport opened a new air traffic control tower at the southern end of Aero Drive. The control tower when completed was 44 m tall with 38 m2 of office room, and was designed with the knowledge that it would not provide the necessary line of sight to the expanded east airfield.

In February 1996, WestJet, which began as a low-cost carrier began operations with a base of operations at Calgary International, occupying an expanded area of the terminal. The airline's first flight, a Boeing 737 departed Calgary International on route to Vancouver International Airport on February 29, 1996.

Operation Yellow Ribbon
During the September 11, 2001 attacks 13 international flights destined for the United States were diverted to Calgary International Airport as part of Operation Yellow Ribbon. The operation was a joint effort between NAV Canada and Transport Canada in communication with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, which facilitated the grounding of potentially destructive air traffic.

2000s, runway and new terminal
The Calgary Airport Authority began analyzing the facility's air capacity in the late 1990s, and found the airport could reach its maximum capacity as early as 2006. The Airport Authority and NAV Canada made a number of changes to airport operations in the 2000s to improve the efficiency and capacity of the facility, but by 2008, with a number of changes made, NAV Canada reported the airfield would begin to exceed its practical capacity. The Calgary Airport Authority planned and under the "Airport Development Program", a major development program aimed at improving the capacity and quality of the airport, which included the construction of a new runway, air traffic control tower and passenger terminal.

On May 25, 2013, the new Air Traffic Control Tower opened at Calgary International Airport. The one-year, $25-million (equivalent to $-million) project came in advance of the airport's new runway, and at 91 m (300 ft), the tower was the tallest free-standing control tower in Canada. The airport's previous 50 m (165 ft) control tower was demolished in October 2014.

The Calgary Airport Authority initiated the Parallel Runway Project, a $620-million (equivalent to $-million) project to assess and construct a new runway, which led to the construction of the 14000 ft runway 17L/35R beginning in April 2011. Upon its completion on June 28, 2014, runway 17L/35R became the longest runway in Canada. During the construction of the runway, a $295-million (equivalent to $-million), 620 m, six-lane roadway tunnel was constructed underneath the runway to connect Barlow Trail to 36th Street N.E. and now, to the edge of the city at the major freeway of Stoney Trail, Calgary's "Ring Road." The decision for Calgary City Council on whether to construct the tunnel while the runway was being constructed, or wait until a later date was a major issue during the 2010 Calgary municipal election.

The Airport Authority addressed cargo capacity through the construction of a 30,000 sqft cargo facility in 2015 followed by a 100,000 sqft facility constructed in 2016.

The final stage of the Calgary Airport Authority's Airport Development Program was the construction of a new $1.6-billion (equivalent to $-billion) international terminal. Officially opened on October 31, 2016, the international terminal 186000 sqm facility added 24 new aircraft gates, North America's first call-to-gate passenger boarding system, CATSA Plus enhanced passenger screening system, moving walkways and electric concourse connection tram system. The international terminal was designed with several sustainable principles including 581 geothermal wells for heating and cooling, and an annual rainwater capture capacity of 800,000 L.

In October 2016, Transport Canada officially renamed Calgary International Airport to "YYC Calgary International Airport", affixing the "YYC" IATA code to the airport's name.

In 2020, after several months of travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the governments of Alberta and Canada announced a new program to enable certain travellers to enter Canada more easily. Canadian citizens and essential workers entering Canada at Calgary, as well as at the Sweetgrass–Coutts Border Crossing, can be tested for the virus and, if they test negative, will be allowed to quarantine for only 48 hours instead of the usual 14 days.

As far as plans for future construction to the airport, once Calgary Transit's Blue Line LRT expands further north along 60th Street N.E. connecting with Airport Trail, a new Transit Line is planned. Labeled to be the "Grey Line", its design is to connect from the Blue Line, and proceed west, under the new 17L/35R tunnel, have a station at the terminal, then to proceed past Deerfoot Trail along 96th Avenue, to Centre Street (where the Green Line LRT is to eventually align and connect with). Calgary currently has a very mediocre, if not poorly serviced method of public transit to its airport, and for an air passenger centre of such a large size and large annual passenger flow, it's poor in comparison with other cities with similar public transit systems such as Vancouver, Toronto, or Denver, USA. This construction is likely to be in the 20+ year distance however.

Passenger terminals
The Calgary International Airport houses two passenger terminals, one for domestic flights and the other for international flights.

The four-storey Domestic Terminal was originally opened in 1977 and has undergone a number of renovations in the decades following. The ground level of the terminal serves as the arrivals area with baggage claim and transportation facilities present. The second level of the terminal serves as the departures level and includes airport check-in, security and access to departure gates. The basement level of the airport contains utilities and tenant storage while the mezzanine level contains a food court, airline offices and the airport authority offices. The Domestic Terminal has four concourses: Concourses A1, A2, B, and C. All A, B and C gates are shared between domestic airlines such as Air Canada and Westjet (and their subsidiaries) predominantly, as well as Flair Airlines, Air North, Air Transat and Porter Airlines. Westjet primarily uses A gates, Air Canada flights primarily use C gates, and B gates are used by all airlines. Concourse A1 includes departure gates A1-A6 (used for WestJet regional non-jet flights); Concourse A2 includes gates A11-A24; Concourse B includes departure gates B31-B40; and Concourse C includes departure gates C50-C65.

The International Terminal was originally opened on October 31, 2016 and consists of five levels; utilities and baggage processing in the basement. Arrivals meet and greet areas, Canada Customs and relevant infrastructure on the ground level with departure check-in, security, US customs and the international departures concourse being located on the second floor. The third level contains the international departures concourse and finally, the mezzanine level contains the US departure lounges. The International Terminal includes gates 70 through 97 shared across two concourses: Concourse D for all flights to and from foreign countries except the US as well as domestic flights; and Concourse E for flights to and from the United States. For the International Terminal, passengers travelling to the United States clear customs and immigration prior to departure at the preclearance facility.

The Domestic Terminal is connected to the International Terminal by a 620-metre walkway corridor and path for the YYC Link Passengers Shuttles; twenty, ten-seat electric vehicles used to transport connecting passengers.

WestJet, headquartered in Calgary and for which Calgary is the hub, has criticized the design of the international terminal, which opened in 2016. The airline's CEO stated that the distance between the terminals was too long for connecting travellers and that YYC Link was insufficient to solve this problem. As a result, WestJet had to alter its schedules in order to allow additional time for passengers transiting through Calgary. The Calgary Airport Authority responded that it did not see issues with the connections process, although it said passengers would need some time to adjust to the new facilities.

Runways
Calgary International Airport consists of two north–south parallel runways with two intersecting runways. The parallel runways are 17R/35L (west) which is generally used for aircraft arriving and departing to the west, and 17L/35R (east) which is generally used for aircraft arriving and departing to the east. During the winter months in Calgary, cold arctic air will move in from the north which means aircraft will primarily depart and arrive on north-facing runways (35R and 35L), while the summer months with warm winds from the south, aircraft will primarily take-off and land on south-facing runways (17R and 17L). The diagonal runway 11/29 is generally used when crosswinds are present, which commonly occurs in the summer when westerly Chinooks roll into Calgary, or when extreme wind conditions prohibit the use of the parallel runways. The fourth and smallest runway, 08/26, is almost exclusively used by light aircraft and the general aviation sector.

Calgary International Airport's four runways are as follows. with the following dimensions:

 * Runway 08/26 is 6,200 × 150 ft
 * Runway 11/29 is 8,000 × 200 ft
 * Runway 17R/35L is 12,675 × 200 ft
 * Runway 17L/35R is 14,000 × 200 ft

The longest runway in Canada at the time of its 2014 opening, Runway 17L/35R was built to reduce congestion and better accommodate larger, heavier aircraft: the weight of such aircraft, combined with the low air density resulting from the airport's high elevation and temperatures during the summer, means that a longer runway is necessary for take-off. Runway 17L/35R is also layered with concrete, a material more durable than the asphalt that composes the airport's other three runways.

Cargo area
The airport has allotted an extensive amount of area for cargo operations, including over 3000000 sqft of warehouse space. Freight airlines such as Cargolux make regular trips to Europe, Asia, and other destinations. In 2017, the Calgary airport handled a total of 147,000 tonnes (144,678 tons) of cargo.

In 2011, Calgary International Airport received the Air Cargo World Award of Excellence for airports between 100,000 and 199,999 cargo tonnage, having the highest score for Canadian airports, and second highest for North-American airports.

Hotels
Calgary International Airport has two hotels located on site. The Calgary Airport Marriott In-Terminal Hotel is a 10-storey, 318 room hotel located in the international passenger terminal was opened On September 1, 2016. The Delta Hotels by Marriott Calgary Airport In-Terminal located across Airport Road from the domestic passenger terminal.

Other facilities
At 91 m, the airport's air traffic control tower was the tallest standalone control tower in Canada upon its opening in 2013; compared to the previous tower, it has space for more air traffic controllers and is situated closer to the centre of the airport, giving controllers better views of the airfield. Meanwhile, the headquarters of WestJet and its subsidiary WestJet Encore are located onsite.

Statistics
In 2019, YYC Calgary International Airport was again the fourth-busiest airport in Canada in terms of the total number of passengers served, which was almost 18 million. This was another record year in passenger volume, surpassing the previous record set in 2018 by 3.54%.

Of the total for 2019, travellers bound for domestic destinations constituted 69.7% of all passenger traffic, while people travelling to the United States amounted to 19.6%, remaining 10.7% was traffic to international destinations, excluding United States. YYC's cargo operations grew significantly with 155,820 tonnes of cargo moving through the airport, an increase of 6.7% over the previous year.

Passenger and cargo traffic
Calgary International Airport passenger and cargo volumes since 2010 are provided in the following table:

Ground transportation
Deerfoot Trail provides freeway access to the rest of the city. There is also a tunnel beneath Runway 17L/35R that links the east side of the airport site to the terminal buildings. Two parking garages and a rental-car facility are situated across from the terminals. Public transport options are also available at the airport: Buses operated by Calgary Transit link YYC Calgary International to downtown, a nearby station of the local CTrain light-rail network, and other parts of the city.

Notable accidents and incidents

 * On May 10, 1945, Royal Air Force No. 105 Squadron de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito B Mk IX (LR503) struck the control tower roof shortly after takeoff, shearing off the planes port wing, and crashed into the ground killing both crew members. The Mosquito, known as "F for Freddie" was a survivor of 213 operations over Europe, and crashed while performing a low level pass for spectators prior to flying to Red Deer and Lethbridge as part of cross country tour to garner support for 8th Victory Loan Drive.
 * On August 24, 1963, West Coast Airlines Flight 794, a Fairchild F-27 departing from Spokane International Airport to Calgary via Cranbrook made a crash-landing shortly before the runway. The probable cause of the accident was the pilot failed to maintain the approved minimum altitude on approach. There were no fatalities.
 * On March 22, 1984, Pacific Western Airlines Flight 501, a Boeing 737-200, aborted a take-off and exited the runway onto a taxiway after a component of the left engine broke off and hit the fuel stores in the wing, resulting in a fire that spread over the left and back portions of the plane. The flight attendants evacuated all passengers, while some suffered severe injuries, all the occupants survived.
 * On July 17, 1990, an Ecuadorian Air Force de Havilland Canada DHC-5 Buffalo (Registration HC-BFH) being ferried to Calgary from Quito, via Billings, had the nosegear collapse following touchdown on runway 28, igniting hydraulic fuel and resulting in the aircraft burning out. There were no fatalities.

title: Calgary International Airport