Talk:National Counterterrorism Center

Pentagon

The Pentagon should link to the Department of Defense not to the shape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=232108090821. 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, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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) 01:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on National Counterterrorism Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222192154/http://www.680news.com/news/world/article/13132--obama-says-al-qaida-affiliate-in-yemen-apparently-responsible-for-airliner-bombing-plot to http://www.680news.com/news/world/article/13132--obama-says-al-qaida-affiliate-in-yemen-apparently-responsible-for-airliner-bombing-plot
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051129180743/http://www.fbi.gov/page2/aug05/nctc082905.htm to http://www.fbi.gov/page2/aug05/nctc082905.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

References

It seems that this type of article about this type of subject should not have a bulk of its references come from media and non-peer reviewed material. It would be too easy to cite diluted material from an outlet that has an ulterior political agenda.Finkid221994 (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

organization

This is a very well written article with extensive detail on the agency. It is very helpful to have an article with separate sections for history and goals. This will make a good article for research and or paper writing. Some of the sources are vague, however there are multiple that are great for further research on the subject. Caileer (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC) This article did an extremely good job of staying on topic, leaving out any unnecessary information or information not directly related to the NCTC. All the information appears to be current and to me nothing appeared to be missing that should be included in the article.Awbritt (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Problems with the article

The article's sources are not scholarly. With the exception of the FBI as a credible source there are no other sources that are not newspapers. Newspapers can be credible, but they tend to blend bias arguments into their facts. There are plenty of agencies that work with the NCTC, and they should have more information to give to this source. As well, I would have liked to see the department's budget mentioned in this article. This allows for the readers to really get a grasp on what kinda work they do since the technical work is classified.Carlyabbott (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Information Quantity

There should be more information in this article based on the amount of references listed. The information is interesting there just seems to not be an abundance of it. This article is very informative and helpful in understanding what the NCTC goals are. Hammockdude1 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)