Talk:Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical & Biological Defense Programs

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical & Biological Defense Programs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120713191824/http://www.defense.gov/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=232 to http://www.defense.gov/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=232
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330215731/http://www.acq.osd.mil:80/ncbdp/nm/nmhistory.html to http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nmhistory.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical & Biological Defense Programs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160203181915/http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/organization.htm to http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/organization.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nmhistory.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721034250/http://osdhistory.defense.gov/docs/DOD%20Key%20Officials%201947-2004.pdf to http://osdhistory.defense.gov/docs/DOD%20Key%20Officials%201947-2004.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

"Essay on personal feelings" Tag
Our article now has a tag reading: "This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style."

I went over the article to find and correct grammatical, spelling and syntactical issues. The article could be condensed, in my opinion - but I didn't get the impression that "This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic". It's more that the article is written in bureaucrat-ese.

Of course, the acquisition, custodial care, maintenance and demilitarization of chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological weapons, and monitoring their foreign use and proliferation are technical and bureaucratic issues. The article may be as close to encyclopedic as it's going to get, but I'll try condensing it to more accessible prose.

But let me restate: I don't get the sense that the previous editor(s) were pushing an personal agenda in this article. It was a good exercise in moving information from government documents to an encyclopedia. It just needs a little work. I'm removing this tag because in my judgment, it's there in error. loupgarous (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Rework of Article and Request for Comments - Do We Need New Articles for The Deputy Secretaries?
With gratitude to the previous editors for a great job of research, I've reworked the article to be more readable. This isn't an indictment of your work by any means, but putting it in a form which is more like the encyclopedic format used in the rest of wikipedia. I couldn't have done this without the work previous editors did to discover and present the facts we have in this version of our article.

This version of the article also lacks the "essay-like" tag. With due respect to the editor who placed it there, I didn't see anything like a personal essay in the previous version of the article. It presented pretty much the same information this version does, and in neither case was or is there anything like an essay written from a personal perspective.

I solicit suggestions for changes, and would like to thank everyone for the work they've put in - we have an article which does a reasonably good job of explaining what this official's office does.

There's one remaining possible concern, but we need to talk about it: the three deputy secretaries of defense who report to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs may require their own articles, but this ought to be a consensus-driven decision. Comments? loupgarous (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)