![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
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)
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)
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. <ref>https://armedservices.house.gov/ndaa/history-ndaa</ref>
this info should be edited somewhere on the first paragraph.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Firestorm31 (
talk •
contribs)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
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)
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)
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. <ref>https://armedservices.house.gov/ndaa/history-ndaa</ref>
this info should be edited somewhere on the first paragraph.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Firestorm31 (
talk •
contribs)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
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)