Talk:Report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency

message: I rewrote this article for three reasons: The previous article failed to explain who wrote the report and why.  The previous article failed to mention that it was a report from 1973 (implying it was a current report).  The previous article implied that Bush was using this report to gain unconstitutional powers.  So, this is an encyclopedia.  If you can't say who wrote a report and why they wrote it, you don't need to write an article about the report.  The fact that it is a report from 1973 is rather important.  Failing to mention that is not a mistake - it is obviously a purposeful misdirection.  Finally, no Presdient can use a Senate Report to gain powers.  Congress has to grant powers to the President.  Just implying that a Senate report can grant Presidential powers shows that the original author knows absolutely nothing about the Consitution. --Kainaw (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Added "insufficient context" template. "For those unfamiliar with the subject matter", it's difficult to understand what this article is talking about. Please add more information to this article as necessary. -- 201.50.254.243 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "difficult to understand"?  I don't see any "subject matter" that requires familiarity in the article. --Kainaw (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How's this version now? 68.39.174.238 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more information to understand this topic 

message: I am quite concerned about the neutrality, or the lack thereof, in this article.  It seems to be written as an alarmist conspiracy-theory piece saying that the US is permanently under martial law and such.  Using boldfaced sections to state that the US .  Never mind that this entire article is about a 1973 Senate report, reporting on a 1970 declaration of Emergency, which was made obsolete by the 1976 National Emergencies Act which completely changed the legal status of a state of emergency from the one described in this report.
It seems like this article was written with the agenda of trying to use this reports staggering description of what a State of Emergency legally entails to imply that post-1976 states of emergency are just as dire.  A substantial rewrite to provide a more neutral and balanced perspective on this subject would be well advised.  --Wingsandsword (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Irrespective of content-related issues, formatting/MOS idiosyncracies with this article are considerable. I will chip away at these a little at a time. Please take it in good faith that I'm not childishly ignoring substantive work; I'm just coding away in a blissful Aspie/OCD lint-picking pre-bedtime wonderland, and substance is another review for another neurometabolic state.Julietdeltalima (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistic gnomery 

message: Please stop reverting the page. My update is fully cited for accuracy. I kept the earlier data intact and asked for  fact checking.
 Please reference my page to see the latest draft I would like to propose (Senate Report 93-549 heading). This is an attempt to stop the conflict between myself and the Anonymous editor. Please use specifics, and I will do my best to work with you to try and resolve this as quickly as possible. I will work with you, if you will work with me. This isn't personal. This is about preserving referenced data and to establish a complete Wiki page for the Senate Report. The points I will not be willing to remove are: 1. The opening paragraph, with the text "...with exception to the banking emergency of 1933, as explained below." 2. My proper quoting in the "Content" section. 3. The content directly under the heading "Trading With The Enemy Act, 1917 as Amended". -and all references and images, naturally. (Everything else is negotiable at this point). Brokor (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warring July 2015