Talk:Operation Yellowhammer

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Yellowhammer article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

European Union Low‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kent Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Kent tasks:

Here are some Kent related tasks you can do:

Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category.
Edit the Top and High importance articles.
Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury
Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council
NPOV: K College
Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles
Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent
Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society
Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles

Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion.

Query about splitting/combining/deleting the content of this page

This page on the UK government's Operation Yellowhammer deals with the UK's preparations for a no-deal exit from the EU.

Q. Should there be a separate page doing the same for the EU's corresponding work? (If there is such a page already it is not yet linked herefrom and I did not find it in a search.)

Q. Or should there be a comprehensive page on, say, "Preparations for the UK to leave the EU without a deal" which set out work done by the EU, the UK and commercial organisations separately, as known?

Q. Or should all such info be deleted from Wikipedia as describing an ongoing event or thought to be too subject to partisan editing?

Comments welcome.

Ablonus (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ablonus In the way things have rolled with hindsight your question should perhaps have been answered sooner. In the event there is some relevant content that falls on the margins outside the scope of Yellowhammer that is best developed elsewhere. I am tentatively developing content at Draft:Brexit_-_Scenario_following_no-deal_exit

Useful source?

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/news/brexit-staff-redeployments-revealed-ministers-prepare-trigger-operation-yellowhammer Zazpot (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No activated in run up to April 12 potential date

While it would be useful to say Operation Yellowhammer was not activiated in the run up to April 12th because everyone was reasonably certain there would be a further extension I am not sure that can be sourced .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Embarrassing statement

‘’However, the Sunday Times, according to The Observer,’’ it would be better to quote the Sunday Times here. Broichmore (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

docs won't be released since they would 'concern people'

[1] Putting this here in case anyone finds it useful for the article. I won't add it myself since I don't understand this stuff really. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UK Government has published a partially redacted document

[2] -- titled: HMG Reasonable Worst Case Planning Assumptions. Dated 2 August 2019.

This is a result of MP Dominic Grieve's Special Humble Address in Parliament on Monday, which requested from the government to publish the Operation YellowHammer documents by 11pm Wednesday. Isofarro (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Yellowhammer is an anagram of Orwell Mayhem. There is no way that is a random accident.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

to be notable for the article we would need some citation that showed it was not an accident. Sirfurboy (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Triggering

An IP editor has just updated with ref to a BBC article saying that Yellowhammer has been triggered. This looks POV to me, but it is properly sourced so will wait for some consensus. Government saying they are triggering the plan appears to be meaningless. The plan is triggered by the event of a No Deal. Up until then it is presumably just under active preparation. I don't think this article should say it is triggered. At best it should say the government are saying they are triggering it. Thoughts? Sirfurboy (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: we go by what the reliable sources say, we don't apply our own interpretation or understanding. The cited BBC source says it has been triggered, what do other RSes say? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at sources, they all seem to go back to a quote from Michael Gove: “It means that we are triggering Operation Yellowhammer. It means that we are preparing to ensure that if no extension is granted – and we cannot guarantee that an extension will be granted – that we have done everything possible in order to prepare to leave without a deal.” The practical upshot of this was he held an "emergency" cabinet meeting to discuss plans on Sunday. The Guardian is one of many sources to say this primarily looks like a political move to pile pressure on parliament. Various sources put "triggered" in quotes. The fact of the matter is that Michael Gove did convene an emergency meeting. Questions of whether there was any emergency to actually discuss are POV, but a meeting was called. Yet "trigger" is Michael Gove's word and is not really what happened. Also the meeting was on Sunday, not Monday. Thus I propose a change of wording to:

"On Monday 21st October 2019, The Cabinet Office announced it had initiated an emergency Operation Yellowhammer Cabinet meeting on Sunday 20th 2019, because it said there was no guarantee the EU would grant an extension"

Is this appropriate? We can use the same source or another one that makes it clear, such as: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/20/gove-triggers-no-deal-brexit-contingency-plans-operation-yellowhammer (similar can be found in the Telegraph and various others) Sirfurboy (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should report only that HMG says that they are triggering it. We have no evidence of anything practical actually happening. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal (concerning Operation Kingfisher (Brexit) and Operation Black Swan (Brexit))

MERGED

There is a sole comment affirming the merger and no comment that objects the merger. - 2001:4453:5D0:1400:7C38:145F:DD00:402 (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe that both of the pages (Operation Kingfisher (Brexit) and Operation Black Swan (Brexit)) do not meet WP:GNG and I don't expect any new material that would otherwise support a separate expansion of these articles because the event that is connected to these topics (Brexit) already happened. - 49.147.253.47 (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. I agree that Kingfisher and Black Swan are not sufficiently notable for articles, and cannot be expanded. I was less sure this was the correct merge target, but on balance I am satisfied it is. Yellowhammer could have a section about the the other plans and that would be the appropriate place to merge. Yellowhammer is independently notable because of the events surrounding its release, so I don't think it should be renamed or merged elsewhere. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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