Talk:National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

message: Please review the guideline on external links for use in article. All links must conform to WP:RS Relevant section  is as follows:
Links normally to be avoided
* Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. 
The links do not conform with the guideline or the policy on WP:RS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to the extent the article is saying something like "bloggers stated XYZ (citation)" then it is completely appropriate to use a blog as a citation - though not an external link perhaps. If the article were saying "XYZ (citation)." Then I agree they would be inappropriate. Debivort 17:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The handful of blogs that noted the Directive provide some measure of commentary on the Directive, which strangely is lacking in all mainstream media save the Boston Globe. Badagnani 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A lack of commentary on the EO does not mean we can WP:IAR when it comes to documenting it. Perhaps the lack of commentary could lead one to the conclusion that the subjects notability is questionable. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: The dispute seems to center around three things:
1. The inclusion of Michel Chossudovsky as a commenter on the EO
* Chossudovsky aside from being a bit of a nutjob, Chossudovsky's discipline is economics, not American law. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Michel Chossudovsky might be an acceptable source if he were identified, not as an economics professor which is indeed irrelevant, but as a political activist and author. It appears that he has published at least one book that is relevant to the topic. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia bio of him is poorly sourced and it is difficult to make a further evaluation based on the article alone. --Marvin Diode 06:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Chossudovsky's article is self published, so its a violation of WP:RS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it possible that Chossudovsky's credentials for being a RS might be revisited knowing that, according to members of Congress, martial law was threatened then instituted because of an economic crisis? Self-pub by an economic expert does meet RS on economic topics, as this one now seems to be applied. I'm not convinced, but I'm interested in hearing more. 216.160.156.195 (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: ::::::: Telepolis is the online magazin of the heise-Verlag, one of Germanys largest publishing companies. E.g. the (printed) computer magazin c't has a run of over 350000 sold issues (every other week). All Telepolis articles are written by paid staff. I wonder why you refer to Telepolis as "blog" and "unreliable source". Rod Powers 2007-08-05T15:30MEST
:::::::: For one, I cannot open the link. Even if I could open it, I cannot read it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please dont think that anyone is patronizing you, but every article had to rely on a WP:RS when material of a potentialy controversial matter is included. Reliable sources no not include weblogs, self published sites, or sources whose publisher pr authorship cannot be determined. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I dont agree, as some (not many) of the sources used for the moon landing hoax can be found in reliable sources. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "moon landing didn't happen" is a phenomemon that exists despite the fact that it can be proven that it happened. Such as is the case here. I agree that blogs are not reliable sources, but in this case, the controversy stems directly from the dozens of comparisons being made on the blogosphere and several smaller news outlets as indicated by the sources added to the article. Removing that information looks like Wikipedia is trying to hide something for some interpreted agenda. That's called censorship. —scarecroe 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  TDC: The fact that those reliable sources exist is the very reason that Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations is an article. More over, that article is linked in the "See also" section of Apollo program - which is pretty analogous to what is being attempted here. That said - it is still an open question to me if the given references are appropriately reliable or not. Debivort 23:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have gone through them, and none of them meet the criteria. Provied one that does and the information might included. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: German article from July 24, 2007

message: The directive specifies that, following such an emergency, an "Enduring Constitutional Government," comprising "a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government," coordinated by the President of the United States, will take the place of the nation's regular government, presumably without the oversight of Congress[1].
The directive makes no mention of replacing the regular government. In fact, ECG is explicitly defined as an effort to mantain the regular constitutional government during exceptional catastrophes, respecting the separation of powers. The article construes ECG as some sinister machination of Bush's, but it is a concept that had been introduced as far back as 1990 and reaffirmed in several presidential directives, the latest of which was Clinton's "Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations". http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-67.htm
The only difference is that, while the text of the preceding directives on ECG has never been available, Bush's directive is for the first time partially unclassified. How dictatorial!
The directive further stipulates that, in the case of such an emergency, the new position of "National Continuity Coordinator" would be filled by the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (this position is currently held by Frances Townsend).
No, the position of National Continuity Coordinator will not be filled "in the case of such an emergency". It is not an emergency position. The NCC has already been designated, and as the directive requires of him, he should currently be working to coordinate the development of plans of how executive agencies shall deal with catastrophic emergencies (think Hurricane Katrina), so they don't find themselves running around randomly like a beheaded turkey (again, think Hurricane Katrina). The deadline for completing the plan is August 9 (90 days after the directive was issued), so it should be about done by now.
It is unclear how the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive will reconcile with the National Emergencies Act, a U.S. federal law passed in 1976, which gives Congress oversight over presidential emergency powers during such emergencies. The National Emergencies Act is not mentioned in the text of the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.
It is, however, mentioned that:
(21) This directive:
(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;
Please note that I'm not a Republican; heck, I'm not even American. I'm just a reader who's appalled at the divergence between WP's current treatment of this article's subject and the primary source. But hey, at least you rehashed Corsi's self-published rants. That's gotta count for something. --87.12.200.123 19:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your best recourse is to go ahead and change the article, citing reliable sources in your revisions. Debivort 22:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then change it and don't forget to cite your sources. --Matt D (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is hogwash 

message: This external link about a "coup d'etat" is unreliable and should be removed.  Speaking of which, to all of the people who think there is going to be martial law, a coup, etc., the time frame in which this would happen is running out.  Bush is only president for another year -- in exactly which month of 2008 do you think he's going to "declare martial law"? Tulane97 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep the discussion limited to improving the article. I tried looking up William H White to see if he was a notable commentator, but it wasn't clear who the author of that site is. Could be removed in my opinion. de Bivort 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We're sorry, conspiracy theorists, but time's up. Answer to Tulane97's question is October, reports Rep. Burgess (R-TX) as forewarned by Rep. Sherman (D-CA).  What this means, couldn't tell ya, but it looks like the wingnuts were right. Tulane97, is there a final jeopardy question? ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTA.org 

message: Why did the City of Kansas City, Missouri just blank a link? Badagnani (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The person using a computer at the City of Kansas City probably thought the source wasn't reliable, if I were to guess. It seems to have been re-added anyway. -kotra (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking of link 

message: I want to go for make some a little of struggling to our life to be some common sense to ourselves  Masterhamza (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  go out 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. 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/20111105205813/http://www.marjoriecohn.com/2007/05/unitary-king-george.html to http://www.marjoriecohn.com/2007/05/unitary-king-george.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080108061019/http://www.fbiic.gov/executiveorders.htm to http://www.fbiic.gov/executiveorders.htm
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) 07:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Perhaps a section mentioning fictional depictions relevant. Some depictions have referred to a "National Constitutional Continuity Coordinator" as opposed to a "National Continuity Coordinator." There is Science fiction novel Directive 51 (novel), the web game NationStates, and the Science Fiction series, Black Tide Rising, by John Ringo. Halconen (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture