Talk:National Defense Authorization Act

Stub
This page is a stub according to Wikipedia's guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.83.93 (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
A note to contributors. Please REFERENCE all input! Unreferenced material will be taken down. Posts which have been removed can be recovered here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The23rd irishman (talk • contribs) 04:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification and tone
This page has been outfitted to be concise, clear, and informative.

Above and beyond this, the page also directs people to the actual text of the law, and cites every single allegation. The references are legitimate sources and relevant to the material they cite.

I would recommend locking the page for 2 weeks to prevent further tampering. By mid to late December the article can be updated to include changes in progress of the bill.

2012 Article
Shouldn't all of the recent, unformatted information be added to the 2012 article, instead of the NDA article itself? The NDA is a yearly act--the 2012 one is the one currently undergoing scrutiny. Nubzor (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The bill text doesn't really belong anywhere on Wikipedia. It should go on Wikisource, unless there are small portions that would be particularly appropriate to pull out and quote. The 2012 language certainly doesn't belong in this article, either way.
 * I reverted this article yesterday and saw that you did as well. Adding the bill text is a bit annoying, but worse is that the "see also" section keeps getting cut. That needs to stay, as this page is largely a disambiguation page and the links in the "see also" section are critical. It may even make sense to rewrite this page as a proper disambiguation page, I'm not sure. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Reverted the edits by the same unregistered IP again just now. Nubzor (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with all parties. I did not add bill text.  However, I refuse to not mention the current bill on this page.  It redirects individuals to the 2012 page, introduces the debate for the current year's bill, and refers individuals to view the bill's full text.  It accomplishes its goal in 5 lines, is not confusing, and is completely relevant.  What you remove of what I have added, will simply be restored.  GOOD DAY.
 * Most of the text you've added does not belong in any type of article. Stating the text can be read in a PDF? Great. Add it as an external link--not in the middle of the article. Providing a step-by-step how-to so people can check the bill's progress? Again, not something that belongs in an article. The article, without your changes, still mentions and directs those to the 2012 article. Your changes simply are unencyclopedic and unnecessary. Nubzor (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made myself perfectly clear. & if your intention is to treat a 21st century encyclopedia as one that does make readily available the actual text of a discussed bill, then I fret to think of the world you might have us live in.  As for relevancy?  The 2012 page is for an elaboration of the 2012 bill.  The NDAA page is designed to discuss the bill's relavancy to the government and its people, both in a past and present context.  To not discuss the current year's bill on a page for discussing a budget bill, will not be accepted.
 * Apparently you feel discussing the present year's bill is not appropriate. I however do, and so, as you sit around wasting government money reverting what I write, I too will revert what you remove.  Let me help you understand where we stand... www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-WXPS5UlJU
 * Well I would love to, but your link does not work. Second, how am I wasting money reverting what you write??? Third, always sign your comments with four tildes eg. Dan653 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As others have noted above, an article exists for the 2012 Act. It appears that your comments are best directed to the discussion page for that article.  Also, from your comments above, you may be under the impression that Wikipedia is somehow related to the US or some other government.  It is not.  Editors (including myself) are other people mostly like you. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * IF you would care to discuss SPECIFICALLY what is bias, incorrectly cited, or irrelevant to this page. I will hear what you have to say.  Until then, seeing as the search term "NDAA" brings readers to this page, I will continue to include present information regarding this BUDGET BILL.  This is the LAST TIME I will repeat this.  Abusing your power will yield you no ground.
 * Shouldn't the part about how it is "unconstitutional but not ruled on" be altered to say "critics claim it is unconstitutional" until a ruling is actually made? The way it is now, it presumes what the Supreme Court will rule, or presumes to know better than the supreme court, which can definitely be seen as biased, regardless of how obvious of a conclusion it may or may not be.76.213.69.207 (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Before seeing this, I already removed the unconstitutional part because it was unsourced. Unless someone can provide a reference, including the claim is pure WP:OR. If a reference is provided, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, it will need to read something like "According to Person X, the clause is unconstitutional."  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The bill explicitly states that U.S. citizens are exempt from military detainment and yet it's the first sentence. Read the bill. This is wikipedia, not an illiterate scaremonger blog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.241.187 (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently it is not that all that explicit. There are sources that say otherwise, and detail aspects of the debate. Most raise the concerns about detention of US citizens. I was surprised to see that the controversies associated with the recent version were not enumerated. Why aren’t they here, or a link to a page where they are discussed provided? I have valued Wikipedia for presenting many sides of issues. I was surprised that in this case no highlights of the associated issues were given and readers were presented with a huge bill to sift through, perhaps to make the information harder to find. IMHO, the bills should have been linked for verification purposes, but at least a brief overview of the issues presented as well.Smm201`0 (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just found the link to the issues. Good. At least that's there.Smm201`0 (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC) The article still needs to be developed regarding the general nature of the documents, etc. Smm201`0 (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Plan to remove most of the info
Unless someone can explain otherwise (I'm returning to the original concern of the last section), I'm going to remove almost all of the details about the 2012 bill. I've already removed the entire 1031 section, as that is only about the 2012 bill, contained far too much primary text, and had controversy not associated with the bill in general. There's a reason why we have multiple articles on this subject. This article should only be about the Act in general, not the specific current act. If that means that the article is just one sentence plus a bunch of links to the year-specific articles, that's fine--it basically makes this a dab page. So unless someone has sources that talk about this bill in general, or some rationale why this year's bill deserves so much space in the general article, I'll be cutting more out soon. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

NDAA FY 2014
Hi All! I wanted to let any interested editors know that I have created a page for the newest NDAA bill that is currently (Nov 2013) being debated in the Senate. It's the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I'd love to see other editors help improve the page. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

NDAA bill first year authorized
I noticed that the NDAA bill is a generic bill which is authorized every year. It does not mention when the 1st NDAA was passed. Had to look this up. 1st NDAA was passed on 1961; public law 87-53. this info should be edited somewhere on the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firestorm31 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks for the link! - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Defense Authorization Act. 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://archive.is/20140515201644/http://blogs.federaltimes.com/federal-times-blog/2014/05/15/here-are-11-things-you-probably-didnt-know-were-in-the-national-defense-authorization-act-of-2015/ to http://blogs.federaltimes.com/federal-times-blog/2014/05/15/here-are-11-things-you-probably-didnt-know-were-in-the-national-defense-authorization-act-of-2015/

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) 04:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

How to find source for a sentence in article?
This article says "In recent years each NDAA also includes provisions only peripherally related to the Defense Department, because unlike most other bills, the NDAA is sure to be considered and passed so legislators attach other bills to it." I checked the first three references cited in the article and none of them discuss this. How do I find where this is from? When I Google it, everything is just a copy of this article. Thanks for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixed arcana (talk • contribs) 16:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Somebody probably wrote that but didn't have a source or forgot to cite a source. According to the edit history, it is, I will ping them, maybe they can help. It's possible that it is wrong or inaccurate, but it sounds right. You can always google something like "national defense authorization act pork" and see if any good articles pop up. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought Wikipedia required citations for whatever is written in the article, not "it sounds right?" I Googled; my intention for joining was to add a citation. Fixed arcana talk — Preceding undated comment added 02:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , not everything requires a citation. We also have editors that come by and don't know our policies, and add material without citations that requires cleanup later. But you're basically correct. According to WP:CITE, anything likely to be challenged (such as this statement that you are challenging), and all quotations, require a citation. Feel free to add a citation, or feel free to delete the statement if you do a bunch of research and can't find any reliable sources that support it. The easiest way to add a citation is to edit the page, make sure you're using the "visual editor" not the "source editor", hit "cite" in the toolbar, go to the first tab, then paste a URL and hit "generate". Hope that helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * P.S. For this kind of article, think tank articles are also excellent sources. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What sort of research do you require me to do ("a bunch of research")? Is there a page that explains how much research to do and what type is necessary and how I prove it on Wikipedia to remove an unsourced statement, maybe with example edits? That isn't my understanding from what I read before I opened an account.
 * US think tanks can be problematic with American political articles and should be selected carefully with a solid knowledge of the type of think tank. They're not generally unbiased sources of information. --Fixed arcana (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , honestly if you think the statement is wrong, you can just delete it (and include an edit summary explaining why). It is unsourced so it is allowed to be removed since it is "contested".
 * Research typically involves googling for reliable sources, that WP:RSP list is helpful. I did an initial check, I spent about 10 minutes on it, I didn't find that exact statement, but I found enough about the connection between NDAA and pork (politics) that I hesitate to delete it. But I understand and am fine if you do.
 * Sources are allowed to have a bias. Our policies are basically to report on whatever reliable sources think (WP:NPOV). To be neutral, we report on each biased idea proportionally to the amount of coverage in reliable sources it receives (WP:WEIGHT). – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not add one of the sources you found that connect NDAA and political pork? I didn't find any that mentioned it in general, only specific years and specific content, and I don't want to synthesize this information for an encyclopedia article. Most think tanks are not publishing peer reviewed research literature, please reconsider using their policy statements as reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. A self-published narrow opinion to support a policy stance (not all think tanks work like this, but it's common) doesn't meet any of the requirements for Wikipedia reliable sources, and this isn't what the NPOV and WEIGHT articles you linked to (which are also on the newbie links) are talking about. Including the opinions of 10 different blog writers is not established the weight of various points of view; differing points of views in 2 textbooks and 5 peer reviewed journal articles or the different points of views as cited in a review of the literature would qualify. --Fixed arcana (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , you're right, think tanks were more controversial than I realized. I just found a long discussion about them here. You're right to not want to synthesize, that's covered by WP:SYNTH. Anyway this was a good chat about policy, hopefully I helped convey some of the main ideas. We're probably at the point where we should just start editing, and if we make any mistakes, other editors will jump in and correct things. I think I am going to delete the statement since we can't find a source for it, although feel free to add it back, or edit it, or whatever you judge best. Again, other editors can jump in and correct us if we mess anything up. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)