Talk:National security/Archive 1

Regarding the recent arbitrary reversion, talk through your issues here. 203.198.237.30 03:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a preliminary post while i gather my thoughts and sources.

I don't belive the two should be merged... the first thing that comes to mind is that national security is not limited to within a nations boders, while defense typically is; and second that security implies keeping something "out", while defense has no such connotations.

-Mit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitayai (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Nzzl, what does the last dot point mean(Really): "preserve a national culture unfamiliar with true dissent or antinationalism, especially in the most mainstream entertainment spaces"? Can you please edit for clarity? 203.198.237.30 08:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

hey bro. where you been? the non-complete sentence pattern in the other bullets is not easy to work with. hmm. perhaps you disagree that the "national culture" (a rough idea I'll admit) is indeed unfamiliar w/ true dissent or anti-nationalism? and the last part is worded a little retarded unless you'r already thinking like I do. - mainstream entertainment is one of the best places (if you were a pro-gov info-warrior) to preserve "pro-gov" thought- aka "patriotism" more/less. Where does public support for wars come from? I'll be back like tomorrow. we'll work something out. something like that 02:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

PS- can you getta name? I don't insist on a userpage w/ any content but name would be nice. I'm sure you'd prefer to blend into the sea of numbers. not that you do when one looks at the content of your edits. time to become neo, mr. anderson. step up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzzl (talk • contribs) 02:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nzzl, I think that the use of terms like "hawks" (etc) and "non-terrorist folk" are not appropriate here...but any haggling over such terminology has been overtaken by a reworking of certain paragraphs in light of your edits. 203.198.237.30 03:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

sounds good. ultrahawks should so be it's own article. check out G. William Domhoff's Who Rules America?. he talks about how the the upper social circles in government are mostly dominated by conservatives and ultraconservatives. I gott read that jaun again tho it is becoming dated. something like that 07:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

IGNORED on the name thing. to resist is to piss in the wind...something like that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzzl (talk • contribs) 07:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed this from the top, although it may in fact be true...

 	* curbing pollution to ensure edible food and clean water supply 
         and to decrease the potential for abrupt climate change

It seems to be a stretch of the meaning of the word "national security" as originally applied... I won't object if someone throws it back in, but it seems to require an example to justify its inclusion.. more so than the other examples at the top.. LordBrain 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This section is in urgent need of a total rewrite. The original editor clearly does not have English as his/her native language, the material is not of sufficient generality for the subject matter, and it is filled with unreferenced claims and the author's own points of view. I didn't delete the section because it makes good sense to have a "Concept" section here. I may be able to rewrite this someday, but it needs help today. — Aetheling 18:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at this article but it's only a start for someone else to play with. - Adrian Pingstone 21:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Just edited the section and changed the name of the heading and added content from other subsection. Citations are needed to back the claims made. Brz7 19:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I put the {{Inappropriate tone}} tag on this section because it reads like a lecture from an advocate or advocacy organization. Specifically, the questions posed to the reader about this are suggesting a POV and are unencyclopedic, despite the fact that I agree with them in principle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.146.225 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Decent enough article to start off with. I'm going to rework the opening hook a little bit but keep the essence of it intact. --Rev Prez 07:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted " since many of the sources of global insecurity today (such as terrorism and global warming) are immune to unilateral state military responses." from the section of Human Security, and have moved it to the previous section " Criticism of national security" , to go with other criticisms. Sannieauyeung (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)SannieauyeungSannieauyeung (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This page does not cite its sources. However, I can't tell where in the page to place the tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.122.196 (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Ditto: looking for citations, finding few. Internal/External security? Where's that from? etc. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.143.154 (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

this may need a little updating, but just look at the structure, the tone and the no redlinks. I think ppl don't know it used to be this good. and the rest of you aren't really focused on making it good. Ban-gher-ang (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the correct conceptual move would be to re-title this article "National Security of the United States." A parallel case is "Conservatism in the United States." There would then be a recognized body of knowledge and discourse that contributors could cite and describe. Unless anyone has strong objections to this I will edit this page accordingly. ~~Timoleon212~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timoleon212 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In this dif, a new user User:Iwanwilliams123 added a long section that had some content on feminist theories of national security based mostly on one source (a book, with no pages cited) and a section on the "hillary doctrine" (based on a single Atlantic article), with no edit note. I reverted in this dif, with edit note "not encyclopedic, mainstream discourse. prob. too much WP:WEIGHT. please bring to Talk as per WP:BRD". The next day, Iwanwilliams123 reverted in this dif, again with no edit note. I left a note on Iwanwilliams123's Talk page, in this dif and have opened this thread.

Iwanwilliams123, I have two main issues.

1. There is a concept called "weight" (see WP:WEIGHT) that we use in editing Wikipedia, that is a key part of one of the five pillars of WIkipedia, namely, that articles must have a "neutral point of view" - the whole pillar is here. As the section on "Due and undue weight" describes, a given article must give physical space to a given topic, that is correlated with the prevalence and importance of that topic in reliable sources that discuss the whole topic. One of the biggest issues with the content you added, is that it gives a lot of weight to feminist analysis in general, and to the Hillary Doctrine in particular, that is out of sync with the importance of this topic in an overall article on National security. I could see it potentially being a whole article in and of itself but in an article about the topic of National security overall, it needs to have appropriate weight.
2. More tricky, are notions of tone and encyclopedic content. The key policy document here is the 1st pillar, which describes what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. See WP:NOT. We strive to write in encyclopedic tone, and to reflect what mainstream, secondary sources say on a topic; we do not publish original thought, and we are not a soapbox for any single point of view. Much of the content that you added was essay-like, with sweeping generalizations that were not grounded in specific sources. Also, some of the content you added was off-topic and not focused on the subject of the article, national security.

In my edits today, I moved the content into the "elements" section and edited it down to give it appropriate WEIGHT, part of which involved removing essay-like content and off-topic content. Happy to discuss.Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)