Talk:National Defense Authorization Act

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)