Talk:Defense Information Systems Agency

message: I'm all for America, but this article feels like its trying to recruit me. I'd be more forgiving if the IP address of the primary author:  209.22.99.34, didn't actually work at the DOD Network Information Center in Ohio. Get back to work dude. Its not "our nation," its the United States, articles are supposed to be written for an international audience. Chrisofgenesis (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2008 
I understand your point of view. But DISA is a U.S. Agency. correct? Isn't it a bit silly to say that an article written about one agency that belongs to one government should somehow have an international flavor? That's like saying an article about Niagara Falls is supposed to mention and explore all other waterfalls in the world. It's unnecessary. (That's why we have hyperlinks dude!) That said you are correct when you say that the author's writing is a bit pro-DISA. But that's a different issue and it can be addressed with minor editing. -- GovStuff 12:49, 06 April 2009.
(UTC)
:Yes, but if I, in the United States, go to read about the Russian FSB, I'm doing so from a point of research OUTSIDE the country.  I wouldn't expect the article to say "The FSB's task is to protect our citizens from internal and external threats".  I would expect to see "The FSB's task is to protect the citizens of Russia from internal and external threats."  The article may not need "international flavor" but it does need to be "not assume that all readers are from a single country".  While the DISA may be a bit of an obscure U.S. agency, I wouldn't expect an article written about the FBI or CIA to be so U.S.-readers-only, so why should this one?  And the writing isn't "a bit pro-DISA", it's a freakin' press release!  174.47.84.201 (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Prior content in this  duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Diannaa (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: I don't have time to do this, but somebody should cite this article, and the linked talk by DISA's vice director: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/technology/artificial-intelligence-for-the-next-war.html Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY Times article 

message: 1. Subject: first stage response to mobilization.
2. Provocation scenario: two forces jointly strike inside a country.
3. Response scenario: military approve to moves five six hundred thousand troops to areas of conflicts to prevent boarder attack and further incursions.
4. Result: force mobilizes.
5. Likely composition of force: available manpower is 300,000, distributed between army, navy, airforce and air defence. Police and security forces consisting of 2,000 troops would be assign to defend a conflict zone and the president. Additional conscript would be culled from workforce within the first three days of mobilization. Total additional force of 100,000 men between the ages of 15-49 would be fielded within two weeks. Inadeqately trained, the conscripts would probaly suffer casualties of 40-45% within the next two weeks. Were the attack zone will would be betting on the fact that war in the region tend to be brief.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milcom7062 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defence projection